830 réponses à ce sujet

[tonnactus]

chester013 wrote...
hell now even do you think combat which has projectile weaponry at its core really could work as a traditional rpg?

Of course that work.All fallout games proofed that....
Its not like bioware invented the first mix of a rpg and a shooter.

[Il Divo]

tonnactus wrote...

Of course that work.All fallout games proofed that....
Its not like bioware invented the first mix of a rpg and a shooter.

You might want to have a word with the Fallout 1 and 2 fans. More than a few consider Fallout 3 and New Vegas to be nothing more than bastardizations.

Modifié par Il Divo, 09 mars 2011 - 10:55 .

[Vyse_Fina]

Lumikki wrote...

He means the major difference between role-playing and traditional RPG features as statical gameplay. You know
statical gameplay, trying to build optimized character, loot better items, kill enemies to get exp so you can level up and progress forward to get advances. Role-playing how ever, isn't statical gameplay, even if RPG can have it, so soem people just enjoy taking role of character. Like doign action, talking, making choises and living the story.

That has been the argument between RPG fans here. Some are more traditional RPG fans and some has more wider consept as what RPG is.

Too bad the Paragon/renegade system is kinda boken in ME2 as well. Why? Because you know you have to keep making decisions of one kind or otherwise you won't have enough renegade/paragon points to pick the answear you'd ike to pick.

Even without the new system in ME2 I really think developers should rethink the good/evil character development thing. Most of the time those lead to people doing stuff because the game ranks or rewards them in a certain way  instead of what they themselves would do.

In addition doing good all the time is just as easy as doing ill 99% of the time. You're never asked to give anything up to be good and if on the rare occasions you have to it's usually a joke. Look at the Quarian on Omega for  example. He needs to get some money to get off Omega. How much does he need? 1000 Credits! That is NOTHING. Everything he sells in his store costs more than that. Every single safe you find on a mission contains more than that. With odds like this nobody will ever think twice about helping this guy especially consdering that we might meet him again and he'll repay us 10 fold.

People also do not always react with gratitude when you do something nice. Some people are even pissed off by people who do good all the time (like "Archangel" on Omega. Shepard would have made just as many enemies). Others (especially on Omega) would ty to abuse nice people. Take the Asari on Illium during Samar's recruitment mission as an example here: She claimed to be a new member of the merc group she is with and that she never actually killed anyone. She just wants to go home. Now the only way to NOT let her go was a renegade interrupt at
some point but if you didn't take that she just took advantage of the player and then ran away. Later on you find a voice recording of her where she says how she enjoyed killing others.

If that is too drastic (allthough it really isn't especially in the darker locations of ME2) then at least have people not give the players rewards EVERY time they did something good. That means no more: "Oh you said something nice I haven't considered yet. Here, take these 5000 Credits as thanks" Very often doing good doesn't earn you a reward in real life either. Most of the time you earn a persons trust or a favour you could ask from them later.

Another reason why this is bad is because the Renegades are at a clear disadvantage here. Doing the Renegade
options already resulted in less missions in ME2 because people got killed in ME1 from renegade choices. It was sattisfying at the time perhaps but that's it. Paragons got exactly what they wanted, a reward on top of it and an extra mission in the sequel which maybe leads to even mroe content in ME3.

Shouldn't this be more like "Renegade = short term win/long term loss" while Paragons would be the opposite (short term loss/long term gain)? Yes, i am aware of the concept of feedback and that it should be instantaneous and whatnot. I study design myself and know the importance. In this one case I really think the mechanic is more damaging than helping. An important part of moral choices is that there often isn't a right answear to them. Getting a pad on the head each time you did something good ruins that.  Why was brainwashing the hertic Geth considered a Paragon option while killing them was renegade? Why was I refwarded Paragon points for Brainwashing them? Why coulldn't that be handeled like the N7 mission where you had to decide if you want to save a strategically important area from a missle or a small colony close to it? As far as I can remember there was no paragon or renegade option there (at least I was not aware of it). Just one or the other. Believe it or not, that was the one choice in the game I spent the most time thinking about. In the end I decided to let the colony get hit because of the inevitable  Reaperattack in ME3 allthough i played the rest of the game as paragon. In fact that one scene made me think about all these things in the first place.


Also: Who seriously picked neutral options more than a few times? Especially when there was a red/blue paragon/renegade option to go along with it? The moment you saw that, you KNEW picking the colored option will  result in a preferable outcome, picking the neutral ones will result in a bad one like Tali getting exiled. In those moments the freedom of choice is pretty much taken away from them players, because the outcome
is clear before you answear. On top of that people probably think "I should stick with the Good/bad option because I might need the points for similar situations later on"


Am I the only one who is seriously bothered by these things?

Modifié par Vyse_Fina, 09 mars 2011 - 11:31 .

[Vyse_Fina]

Oh cool, doublepost >_>

Modifié par Vyse_Fina, 09 mars 2011 - 11:28 .

[tonnactus]

Il Divo wrote...


You might want to have a word with the Fallout 1 and 2 fans. More than a few consider Fallout 3 and New Vegas to be nothing more than bastardizations.

The point of the post was what? Could a traditional rpg work together with "modern" weapons.The answer is yes.In all fallout games weapon skills influenced how much damage and accuracy a weapon had.

Modifié par tonnactus, 09 mars 2011 - 11:06 .

[tonnactus]

Vyse_Fina wrote...


Too bad the Paragon/renegade system is kinda boken in ME2 as well.

Of course.It restrict roleplaying in fact,where Mass Effect with charm and intimidate allowed it to mix up the behavior of shepardt without risking to loose the ability to influence "big choices"/conflicts.

[Il Divo]

tonnactus wrote...

The point of the post was what? Could a traditional rpg work together with "modern" weapons.The answer is yes.In all fallout games weapon skills influenced how much damage and accuracy a weapon had.

Try reading the poster you quoted again. Because developers put modern weapons and weapon skills together does not mean that it 'worked' for some. There are fans out there who would tell you that Fallout 3 is a terrible RPG, just as much some now say the same of Mass Effect 2.

[tonnactus]

Il Divo wrote...

. Because developers put modern weapons and weapon skills together does not mean that it 'worked' for some.

Fallout is a traditional rpg.Fallout has modern weapons.Weapon skills determine how you are with them.In and outside Vats. So what exactly didnt work in your opinion?

[RenownedRyan]

Mass Effect 2 won over 100 Game of the Year awards. Seems like the "stripped down" rpg style works better than the pointless wandering offered by "true" rpg's. Ooops! Did I just say that?

[Vyse_Fina]

RenownedRyan wrote...

Mass Effect 2 won over 100 Game of the Year awards. Seems like the "stripped down" rpg style works better
than the pointless wandering offered by "true" rpg's. Ooops! Did I just say that?

No that means it appealed to more people. The "classic" RPG style does obviously not appeal to as many people as fast paced shooters. otherwise we'd have a flood of good RPGs instead of first and third person shooters these days.

The reason why people complain now (especially here on the forum) is that Bioware used to be the very best source of these classic RPGs and many of the people registered in the Bioware forum are fans of said RPGs. The classic RPG features appeal to them way more than the new action oriented style. Since Bioware started to cater to a new audiance now, many of these people who stuck with Bioware since Balur's Gate feel betrayed.

Result: What you see here.



I understand that making games is a Buisness though and that Bioware therefor has to go with the more popular version and not the one that pleases less but therefor bigger fans. 
Hell, even if Bioware considered to please their old fans and therefor willingly chose to sell less copies of the game in favour of old mecahnics, then there'd still be EA now and I'm sure they couldn't care less about old fans and would overrule such a decision.


EDIT: God I hate it when the forum formats my text for me. Line Breaks everywhere.

Modifié par Vyse_Fina, 09 mars 2011 - 11:58 .

[tonnactus]

RenownedRyan wrote...

Mass Effect 2 won over 100 Game of the Year awards. Seems like the "stripped down" rpg style works better than the pointless

Pointless is the right word to describe 80 percent of Mass Effect 2. Even the mainstory with the collectors was of course pointless,because if even a not updated normandy could defeat a collector cruiser,the whole alliance fleet would face little challenge to prevent the space bugs to collect enough humans to build a human reaper.And they wanted to target earth,right?
The reapers are so sloppy to give their helpers such inferior tech...

[b09boy]

Just would like to state I largely agree with the OP. I'll probably get ME3 simply because it's the end of a trilogy and I think they'll be smart enough to go all out with it, but what they do with that game will largely determine my future interest in Bioware titles.

I won't go so far as to say Dragon Age 2 or Mass Effect 2 are bad titles, but they're just not titles for me. For starters, by this point I either like games which have a good, interesting narrative (a reason I like Modern Warfare but not MW2 or even the new Medal of Honor despite the many issues of all of the above) or gameplay I can simply sit back and enjoy (Super Mario Galaxy). Neither of Bioware's last two titles have had a very strong narrative. On the contrary, they've had very weak plots which have focused largely on sidequests. Unfortunately most sidequests are very repetitive even if the story has more substance to those of their predecessors - go here, take out hordes of enemies, complete quest. Meanwhile the developers have focused on improving the mechanics of combat, which in part they have. The shooter mechanics of ME2 were improved and DA2 was much more responsive. But then the encounters they gave us to use these improved mechanics on were so repetitive and generic.

Basically, Bioware is flirting around with hybrid genres which is fine except both sides of the hybrid end up mediocre compared to the competition. You can say that the games are greater than the sum of their whole, but simply put I'm losing interest. I would not have bought ME2 or DA2 had it not been for my love for the universes and narrative ME and DAO introduced me to and I'm not going to keep buying games based on what they accomplished two titles ago if I don't see some notable improvements in how Bioware creates games and conducts business. And ME3 certainly won't be a day one buy unless I hear of and see examples of notable changes to the game.

[shep82]

@Vyse_Fina your post is a bit long to quote but I disagree with all of it. I hated picking points for charm/intimidate in ME 1 much prefer the system in 2. I never do the Paragade thing I always in any game with a morality thing play evil, good in separate playthroughs. As far as the Garrus thing you mentioned ever consider that's because of what he went through? A Paragon can help him change his view on things. As far as the Omega thing well duh consider the environment. IMO ME 1 is a good game ME 2 is what ME should have been,

[The Spamming Troll]

shep82 wrote...

@Vyse_Fina your post is a bit long to quote but I disagree with all of it. I hated picking points for charm/intimidate in ME 1 much prefer the system in 2. I never do the Paragade thing I always in any game with a morality thing play evil, good in separate playthroughs.

the thing is your role playing a renegade and your role playing a paragon. some people wouldnt mind role playing how they wanted to as well. the only thing is ME2s morality becomes so scewed in late game you can only be one or the other, unless you want to miss out on doing what you wanted to do later in the game. its either paragon or renegade, or your screwed. to me, thats not a good thing in a so called RPG. you can have almost 100% in one of the morality meters and still not be able to charm/intim them. ME2s morality meter is nothing but broken.

i think its funny that most fans of ME2 are convinced theres more fans of ME2 then ME1. id say its about 50/50. if ME1 fans were such a minority, then why do you think theres such an uproard about biowares downfall?

also, everything terrorK says is spot on to how a ME1 fan feels right now. which is weird becasue  i always thought you were on the opposite fence as myself.

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 10 mars 2011 - 12:56 .

[Sorgrimos]

[quote]Il Divo wrote...
No,
you are telling me your opinions, and attempting to give them more
credibility by attaching the word 'facts' like some kind of shield.
Would you like me to start linking all your posts about how Mass Effect
2 had no memorable moments? Or about how the Citadel was Bioware's best
hub? Better yet, how about how Dragon Age 2 is going to flop and
Bioware is over? These are all opinions or unsupported conclusions.
 [/quote]

Yeah because those are mine and everyone elses main arguements in this topic. Especially after I have explained the actual faults to you, specifically, numerous times.If you are here to just troll dude don't post on this topic.
Please. You do not contribute besides trying to bring someone elses post down who doesn't have the same view as you or vice-versa. I shouldn't have even bothered responding to your first comment directed at me, whatever it
was.

[/quote]

No, actually. His points are quite valid in my eyes. As far as I understand and see, you're resorting to derailing a legitimate post, due to your inability to argue against it. Frankly, he brings up a good point. Your credibility as a poster is questionable, from what I've seen. You have no leverage by accusing him of trolling. If you feel someone's trolling, then don't respond to a post. Relatively simple to comprehend.

Modifié par Sorgrimos, 10 mars 2011 - 01:43 .

[Zulu_DFA]

tonnactus wrote...

even a not updated normandy could defeat a collector cruiser,the whole alliance fleet would face little challenge

The Alliance fleet lacks Garrus to calibrate their guns! It wouldn't have stood a chance!!!

[AdmiralCheez]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

The Alliance fleet lacks Garrus to calibrate their guns! It wouldn't have stood a chance!!!

Calibrations are key to defeating the Reapers!

Damn, son, you'd better Lazarus dat sh*t!

[Delduwath Mordion]

Sable Phoenix wrote...

(which will also apply to Mass Effect 3, with yet another single-year game development schedule)

Hmm, ME2 was released in January 2010 and ME3 will be released around holiday 2011. That makes it closer to two years than one.There's also the possibility that they started on ME3 while ME2 was still in production.

Baldur's Gate was released nov 30 1998 and the (IMHO) superior Baldur's Gate 2 was released on sep 24 2000. That is also shy of two years.

[Hathur]

Not hesitant at all.

The team that made Dragon 1 & 2 also made Baldur's Gate.

The team that made ME1 & ME2, made Kotor, MDK.

Completely different teams under 1 banner (Bioware). Since I liked the changes from ME1 to ME2, I have faith they will do fine with ME3.

Oh and DA2 is fine... sure some things I don't agree with, but it's still a very enjoyable game with great characters.

[Il Divo]

SpaceDesperado wrote...

Yeah because those are mine and everyone elses main arguements in this topic. Especially after I have explained the actual faults to you, specifically, numerous times.If you are here to just troll dude don't post on this topic.

What 'actual facts'? First off, arguments are not facts, and you've provided mostly assumptions rather than actual arguments. Your claims about 'actual faults' are still not facts, however much you'd like them to be. I've provided counter-arguments to almost all of your posts, yet these are still not facts. If that's all it takes for someone's opinion to be a fact, then we have a remarkable number of contradictions going on at the moment.

Please. You do not contribute besides trying to bring someone elses post down who doesn't have the same view as you or vice-versa.

You really don't get it, do you? I couldn't care less about how you feel about Mass Effect 2. I've been listening to all the arguments on these forums since the beginning. I don't spend my days 'bringing down' everyone who disagrees with me, there's no point to it. But if someone is going to come in here and dictate their words and opinions as something special, whether pro or con Mass Effect 2, I am going to call them out on it, as I have called you out. If your arguments against Mass Effect 2 are so effective as you claim, you should be able to rely on them, without all these claims of "shedding light".

I shouldn't have even bothered responding to your first comment directed at me, whatever it
was.

I believe it was directed at your statement that Mass Effect had more memorable moments than Mass Effect 2 (not a fact, but an opinion) and that Mass Effect was Bioware's best hub world, a sentiment I heavily disagree with.

[Gatt9]

@Il-Devo

Just like to point out that it didn't even take half a page from my last post before we get...

RenownedRyan wrote...

Mass Effect 2 won over 100 Game of the Year awards. Seems like the "stripped down" rpg style works better than the pointless wandering offered by "true" rpg's. Ooops! Did I just say that?

Seriously,  What's the point of even trying when you face this and others much worse most of the time here?  At this point,  I'm far more inclined to watch things fall apart than try to give Bioware feedback.

Try reading the poster you quoted again. Because developers put modern weapons and weapon skills together does not mean that it 'worked' for some. There are fans out there who would tell you that Fallout 3 is a terrible RPG, just as much some now say the same of Mass Effect 2.

I was a large part of that whole mess,  I don't think you're representing it fully though.

The majority of the issues were that...

-Bethseda chose the FPP/TPP,  not for a valid gameplay reason,  but because "That's the way we make games",  which was further inflammed when their art director publicly complained that Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 weren't being made FPP.  If you're got a valid game reason,  fine,  but blindly applying one style of development to everything is wrong.  I take Bioware to task on this now as well.  They're now blindly applying development styles because "It sells more units!" rather than it makes a better game.

-Bethseda completely disregarded the entire "Based in real world possible" weapons system of Fallout and just made the whole thing into some running gag,  a good bit of which is incredibly nonsensical.  Like combining a vacuum cleaner with a leaf blower to shoot teddy bears hard enough to kill someone.  It drastically changed the tone of the setting.

-It didn't help any when they added toilet-drinking,  which took a relatively serious setting and turned it into junior high school comedy.

-Further damaging the issue was the problem of how they presented it.  The E3 videos were all "Look how good our stuff blows up!",  brought very much into focus when one reporter tried to ask about RP elements and was interrupted by Todd going "But watch how this blows up!" (paraphrased).

-Bethseda labelled the game Fallout 3,  and very plainly told the existing fans they weren't wanted,  and that their play preferences were invalid.  That's going to get you some pretty harsh feelings.

-There was another issue with how they treated the fans.

-Gaming sites fanned the flames,  with Gamespy's infamous "I wish all Fallout fans would die" before anyone even knew if it was RT or TB.

Bethseda bought themselves alot of crap with the way they handled things,  Fallout 3 could've gone alot better if they'd established a dialogue rather than blatantly saying "Nah,  you're not wanted,  you're not valid".  That is a textbook example of how to shoot yourself in the foot.

Which is kinda ironic,  because it did actually end up as a textbook of sorts.  Someone wrote their Master's Thesis on the entire event.

Bioware's not doing a whole lot better here.  The message I'm getting from them is that I'm not valid anymore because I'm a fan of the work they've done for the last decade.  I'm getting is "Mass Effect 2 is as close to an RPG as we'll make anymore,  and if you want anything deeper than color coded dialogue,  inconsequential character creation,  and loot,  you're not valid."

[AlanC9]

Gatt9 wrote...
 I'm getting is "Mass Effect 2 is as close to an RPG as we'll make anymore,  and if you want anything deeper than color coded dialogue,  inconsequential character creation,  and loot,  you're not valid."

They're bringing back loot?

Or do you mean the loot is inconsequential?