617 réponses à ce sujet

[Nathan Redgrave]

Combat in DA2 didn't suffer because of a drop in complexity, it suffered because of the enemies. Constant swarms of mooks, that sort of thing. The actual gameplay attached to it wasn't the problem, it was the way they approached enemy arrangement that brought it down.

Modifié par Nathan Redgrave, 06 mai 2011 - 10:41 .

[Someone With Mass]

shep82 wrote...

*sigh* ths is getting old. The devs ave said they are not dumbing it down they are tweaking it to make it better for everyone. Sad thing is they will never make everyone happy.

I think that's because most people wants Mass Effect 3 to be something BioWare isn't even trying to achieve.

[Nathan Redgrave]

Skyweir wrote...

The point is, and as always been, that the combat potential of Shepard, Spectre and N7 agent, must be absed on the abilites of SHEPARD! Not the player. 

The player cannot use biotics. Why is the biotic ability of Shepard the character based on "stats" (though stats hidden from us, a very non-RPG thing to do), but her shooting abilities are based on the "skills" of the player?

The damage and duration of biotic/tech powers is enhanced by you skill tree level-ups, yes. It's still up to the player to deploy them effectively, even moreso with the way you can fire powers off around corners and the like. It's no different than how your damage output is determined by the gun you're using, but how it's up to you to use the gun effectively.

Using stats is superior to not using stats for the simple reason that it will allow Shepard to do, or not do, things which the player cannot.

Really? Because to me it just looks like it's making it so that Shepard's accuracy is worse than mine.

Modifié par Nathan Redgrave, 06 mai 2011 - 10:46 .

[Nathan Redgrave]

kalwren wrote...
. 
And what happened to the RPG aspects in ME2? They were improved... “stream-lined” for shooter fans.
It could potentially be the same this time around too, since they haven’t specifically come out and said, “yes ME3 will indeed have more complex RPG systems just like the original game.”
Instead their wording in this thread "No meaningless non-combat stats" says Bioware is hinting towards the contrary.

I'll see your citation and raise you a Game Informer excerpt:

RETURN OF THE RPG

Some fans of the original Mass Effect complained that the second entry strayed from its RPG roots, focusing too much on the action. While Mass Effect 3 is embracing the action-oriented approach to combat from Mass Effect 2, the team acknowledges that work needs to be done to recapture the series' role-playing spark. To accomplush this, BioWare isn't reverting to old iterations of Mass Effects design; instead, the studio is adding greater depth and customization to the current model.


^ This was what we got at the very beginning of the ME3 info-dump. But y'all are so paranoid about your sainted RPG-liness that you'd rather latch onto apocalyptic interpretations of vague statements like that "meaningless non-combat stats" thingamajig.

[kalwren]

EDIT: ^ We arent asking for a better current system though. 

We asking for something closer to the old. 

++++++++++++++++++

Moderator Edit:
Two things, I want to put here.

1) A very wonderful and insightful post by Scimal
that articulates why this is a great thing to happen for the evolution of RPG's as a whole

:wizard:http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/103/index/7306591/8#7311891

Erm hold on a second. Why are certain peoples views good enough to get edited into the OP, yet equally constructive but opposing posts like Gatt9's are not? 

Modifié par kalwren, 06 mai 2011 - 11:25 .

[didymos1120]

kalwren wrote...

Erm hold on a second. Why are certain peoples views good enough to get edited into the OP, yet equally constructive but opposing posts like Gatt9's are not? 

Maybe because that edit happened 16 hours ago? 

[TwistedComplex]

Oh no guys...

A 3rd person shooter...

THAT INVOLVES SHOOTING!! ALERT THE NAVY!!

[kalwren]

didymos1120 wrote...

kalwren wrote...

Erm hold on a second. Why are certain peoples views good enough to get edited into the OP, yet equally constructive but opposing posts like Gatt9's are not? 

Maybe because that edit happened 16 hours ago?  

Gatt9's full post came earlier didnt it?

Its no big deal I guess.

Modifié par kalwren, 06 mai 2011 - 11:29 .

[Terror_K]

ianmcdonald wrote...

Savber100 wrote...

So what's the lesson learned?

Bioware is moving on and creating different games.

Different games does not equate bad games just because the game is not to your tastes. Different games does not mean it' "HOORRIBLETH AND APPLETH TO RETURD CONSOLETH GAMERS!"


Don't define Bioware by a single genre --> RPG just as you don't define Valve by a single genre ---> FPS even though they have tend to focus around that genre.

Bioware wants to go appeal beyond the frat boy sitting in the basement to the more common gamer.

Exactly. Who says Bioware games have to adhere to a strict formula? Could you imagine how boring their games would get?

Fine. Then they should do so with a new IP instead of starting off their series as an RPG (ME1 and DAO) and then twisting them into shallow action games (ME2 and DA2).

Why do you think I enjoy and have no issues with Jade Empire, despite the fact it's a more action-oriented and less statistically RPG game than either ME2 or DA2? The answer: because it started off that way from the beginning, and wasn't preceded by a much deeper, more hardcore RPG in the series.

ME1 and DAO set the tones for their respective games, and then the sequels come along and just "herp derp!" everything. If BioWare really feel they need to tap the modern, mainstream audience then they should do it with something new.

[didymos1120]

kalwren wrote...

Gatt9's full post came earlier didnt it?

Its no big deal I guess.

Yeah, actually, you're right.  I was getting my threads mixed up. 


ETA: I'd suggest you PM Javier if you want an answer.  I do think that he shouldn't be favoring one side if he's going to be editing people's posts and there are well-written counterpoints already present. That's not really what mod powers are for. 

Modifié par didymos1120, 06 mai 2011 - 11:41 .

[Nathan Redgrave]

kalwren wrote...

EDIT: ^ We arent asking for a better current system though.
We asking for something closer to the old. 

Speak for yourself. I think the old system was terrible, I just think ME2 went too far to "fix" ME1's problems. And I'm not the only one who thinks that. ME3's proposition of a happy middle-ground between the two--with added depth to the shooter gameplay as well--is a welcome avenue for the series as far as my particular school of thought goes.

[The Spamming Troll]

Nathan Redgrave wrote...

kalwren wrote...
. 
And what happened to the RPG aspects in ME2? They were improved... “stream-lined” for shooter fans.
It could potentially be the same this time around too, since they haven’t specifically come out and said, “yes ME3 will indeed have more complex RPG systems just like the original game.”
Instead their wording in this thread "No meaningless non-combat stats" says Bioware is hinting towards the contrary.

I'll see your citation and raise you a Game Informer excerpt:

RETURN OF THE RPG

Some fans of the original Mass Effect complained that the second entry strayed from its RPG roots, focusing too much on the action. While Mass Effect 3 is embracing the action-oriented approach to combat from Mass Effect 2, the team acknowledges that work needs to be done to recapture the series' role-playing spark. To accomplush this, BioWare isn't reverting to old iterations of Mass Effects design; instead, the studio is adding greater depth and customization to the current model.


^ This was what we got at the very beginning of the ME3 info-dump. But y'all are so paranoid about your sainted RPG-liness that you'd rather latch onto apocalyptic interpretations of vague statements like that "meaningless non-combat stats" thingamajig.

i see that as ME3 is going to be ME2 with weapon mods and enemies with rocket boots. boo.

why are they removing the mass effect, from mass effect?

[Nathan Redgrave]

Terror_K wrote...

Fine. Then they should do so with a new IP instead of starting off their series as an RPG (ME1 and DAO) and then twisting them into shallow action games (ME2 and DA2).

For the record, I don't see what's so terribly different about either of those games when compared to their originals that it necessitates an entirely new IP. ME2 even moreso; the game was at least one-third shooter from the off.

[Nathan Redgrave]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

i see that as ME3 is going to be ME2 with weapon mods and enemies with rocket boots. boo.

why are they removing the mass effect, from mass effect?

But Ser Troll, the mass effect is still there. Kinetic barriers, mass relays, biotics, mass effect drives, it's all still there. 

[TwistedComplex]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

So ME3 will be even further streamlined into just an action click fest.

Oooohhh is that what you do in TPS games?

Point and click?

Thank's for clarifying

[Da Mecca]

Really the only RPG-ness I want to return is weapon customization(Got it!) and exploration(might be in)


And of course better armor customization and possible squad armor customization.

Then we're gold.

[TwistedComplex]

TheConfidenceMan wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

So directly saying that were enriching the role-playing mechanics and making stats meaningful in combat somehow also means we're making them worse?

I do not understand people sometimes.

Well let's see, I would've hoped that Bioware's idea of "rich" role-playing mechanics would mean non-combat oriented statistics informing gameplay that allows for multiple (combat/non-combat) solutions to problems and enhanced roles of characters outside of combat (crafting, hacking). That's how it's been in your previous RPGs, at least up until recently. 

But clearly I'm the foolish one for assuming "richer RPG elements" means anything more to Bioware than evolving powers multiple times.

Name one Bioware game where out-of-combat skills didn't only act as bonuses

[didymos1120]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

i see that as ME3 is going to be ME2 with weapon mods and enemies with rocket boots. boo.

why are they removing the mass effect, from mass effect?

Wait, so adding weapon mods to ME3, which was a feature lost from ME1, is removing ME from ME?  What?

As to rocket boots: whatever.  That's a classic SF element, so I don't see how adding it to a series which revels in classic SF elements is an issue.

[tonnactus]

Ixalmaris wrote...

Bye bye ME3. You are becomming a mindless shooter with maybe some weapon profiencies and no RPG.

Dont insult shooters swith no need.At least in most recent shooters weapons stats are displayed,like accuracy,rate of fire and damage.Mass Effect 2 not even had that.
And a lot of shooters offer far much freedom for armor and and weapon upgrades then Mass Effect 2 did.

Modifié par tonnactus, 07 mai 2011 - 01:14 .

[Da Mecca]

TwistedComplex wrote...

TheConfidenceMan wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

So directly saying that were enriching the role-playing mechanics and making stats meaningful in combat somehow also means we're making them worse?

I do not understand people sometimes.

Well let's see, I would've hoped that Bioware's idea of "rich" role-playing mechanics would mean non-combat oriented statistics informing gameplay that allows for multiple (combat/non-combat) solutions to problems and enhanced roles of characters outside of combat (crafting, hacking). That's how it's been in your previous RPGs, at least up until recently. 

But clearly I'm the foolish one for assuming "richer RPG elements" means anything more to Bioware than evolving powers multiple times.

Name one Bioware game where out-of-combat skills didn't only act as bonuses

DA:O?

[RailTracer]

Will we be able to open doors with omnie gel again?

[kalwren]

tonnactus wrote...

Ixalmaris wrote...

Bye bye ME3. You are becomming a mindless shooter with maybe some weapon profiencies and no RPG.

Dont insult shooter with no need.At least in most recent shooters weapons stats are displayed,like accuracy,rate of fire and damage.Mass Effect 2 not even had that.
And a lot of shooters offer far much freedom for armor and and weapon upgrades then Mass Effect 2 did.

Crysis 2 had more options. 

[theSteeeeeels]

Gatt9 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Nozybidaj wrote...
You can call your banana an orange all you want.  I can still look at it and know it is really a banana.

The thing is, banana has an accepted definition. RPG doesn't.

Also @scimal

An RPG does have an accepted definition.  Any RPG system you can name has a number of identical qualities,  your character is defined,  your character undergoes some form of progression,  the game possesses mechanics to handle your character's qualities and reacts to them.

You character is defined,  through a series of stats.  Wether it's SIWDCC or Sanity or something else,  your character has some defining characteristics that constrain his abilities within his world.  Further,  your character has some form of class.  Whether it's AD&D's system,  or use based system,  or background based system,  your character has some form of basic template for skills he can do well,  and those he cannot.

Your character will progress,  whether it's positive path such as D&D's levels and loot,  or a use based system with ever-increasing skills,  or a negative path such as declining sanity due to encounters.  Every system has some form of progression that facilitates the end game.

The game will recognize and react to your character's qualities,  whether it's D&D's alignment/class system,  or a background that limits your character's options in game such as detective/tourist. 

This is the foundation upon which all RPGs are generated.  Every RPG will possess these qualities in some form.  To take on a Role,  the Role must first be defined and the resulting constraints identified.

This is in contrast to something that is oft-mistaken for an RPG,  LARPs,  they are not the same.  A LARPs has a minimally defined character,  the character has no intrinsic qualities,  he is not superhumanly strong,  or incredibly fast,  because those qualities are determined by the LARPser's personal abilities.  There's no progression,  the person is the same on day 1 as he is on day 1000.  There are qualities which the character is held to,  but the way the game reacts is generally undefined and ad-libed,  a character who turns from good to evil could suffer or not suffer on a whim,  as there's no defined rules system,  just that which is basically made up by whoever is participating.

ME2 is not an RPG.  Shepherd is undefined,  his strength,  intelligence,  dexterity,  and all other qualities are identical in every instance.  He doesn't progress,  there's nothing at the end of the game he cannot deal with at level 1,  it just might take a little more ammunition.  His background is completely irrelevant,  there is never a single point where his background does anything at all,  it's something selected and then completely forgotten.  In fact,  it comes up just once in the first 10 minutes of the game,  does nothing,  and then is never seen again.

Nor does the game react to his qualities in any way.  I was a 100% paragon,  kicked a guy off of a building randomly in the middle of a conversation without him even drawing a weapon,  and...nothing.  No one blinked an eye.  I didn't lose any status,  nothing.  The game proceeds without any change.

ME2's not an RPG.  This is the *exact* same response I would expect if I were playing any given Adventure game,  any given FPS/TPS.  In an RPG,  I would've suffered some penalty,  my comrades wouldn't have looked at me the same,  nor would people I met.  The world would've responded.

Contrast that to Fallout,  if I had gone around killing people without reason,  I eventually end up being hunted.  The game reacts to my choices.  If I've never developed certain skills,  I can't get certain events or IIRC even certain companions. 

As far as the rest of what Scimal brought up,  as I said,  Paragon/Renegade doesn't define your character at all,  there's no consequence for any option chosen,  and TBH,  all it does is occasionally give you one other line of dialogue.  A 100% paragon can murder someone in could blood without the world taking notice.  Nor do the loyalty missions define a Shepherd,  everyone did them,  everyone walked out of them with the same result with one possible exception,  romances aren't defining either,  you can romance Tali then go talk to Jack and tell her you're going to break it off with Tali on a whim.  It's completely uncommited.

As far as your Shepherd being different than mine,  no he isn't.  You're assigning him qualities which the game does not recognize in any way, shape, or form.  It's all internalized,  you could essentially do the same thing with Super Mario and get the same result,  the game progresses without noticing or caring.  Which is why you need to define a character,  so that the game recognizes what you're doing and react to it.  A RPG system would react to a 100% paragon murdering someone in cold blood,  ME2 does not.

Don't misunderstand,  Role-playing is perfectly fine,  but there's a massive difference between Role-playing and a Role Playing Game.  RPing is essentially an undefined Role you take on and hold yourself to of your own free will,  a RPG defines the character and holds you to that Role.

You could decide your character's an idiot,  then get to a point where the only way to get the best weapon in the game is to have a conversation about quantum physics,  and just let yourself break your role just this once,  because who's going to know and it'll be so much fun!

An RPG won't let you do that.  If your character's an idiot,  you're going to have to play out your Role without that weapon,  or come up with some alternate means of getting it,  such as killing for it,  which could then intrude upon your character's defined personality.

In ME2's case,  I shouldn't have an option to murder someone in cold blood,  or if I do,  I should suffer penalties for it.  If I'm 100% renegade,  and I comfort someone,  I should be perceived as going soft and suffer consequences.  ME2 lets me just do whatever whenever.

well said!!

[tonnactus]

kalwren wrote...


Crysis 2 had more options. 

Yes,i refer to shooters like crysis.If bioware really want to compete with the best shooters,they should do it right at least.

[Nathan Redgrave]

The question isn't whether "RPG" has a set definition, the question is whether that definition matters, and how much it matters if it even does.

No game in any series should ever be tied to that sort of definition--it hinders development. That said, a series should always maintain some semblance of its initial focus or spirit. Going too wildly off-track is asking for a trainwreck, after all.