617 réponses à ce sujet

[PlumPaul93]

Kind've a vague comment eh? Anyone know for a fact what they mean or is the 21 pages of this pure speculation?

[bald man in a boat]

Terror you're a coward. And a coward on the internet at that. You belittle people and act like you're better and smarter than everybody else. You just do it in a chickensh!t way that keeps you out of trouble, so when you are met with rebuttal you can throw your hands in the air and say "What did I do?" You're the kid on the school yard who acts like a smartas* and then hides behind the yard duty teacher when somebody comes after them.

Man up or try sitting on a shorter horse.

[Nathan Redgrave]

Phaelducan wrote...

I imagine the mechanics in ME3 have similar "behind the scenes" dice rolls which are just plain outdated and pointless. There is no Armor class, there is no Thac0. You move your own combat reticle and shoot things yourself. That was the same in ME1. As such, an accuracy "stat" would be wasted in any shooter RPG these days, as you simple don't have to rely on the software to calculate your precision for you.

If it's following the ME2 model like they say it is, weapons will functionally have different power and accuracy advantages that are less stat-based more more just about how the weapon works in relation to how you use it (i.e. the Locust SMG is more accurate at long range than other SMGs, the laser-aim on the Phalanx and its stopping power make it a great handgun and the easiest to fire precision shots with but the low ammo count can be a detriment, etc.).

[didymos1120]

PlumPaul82393 wrote...

Kind've a vague comment eh?

Yep.

Anyone know for a fact what they mean or is the 21 pages of this pure speculation?

No and pretty much.  That another pointless and fruitless round of "What is an RPG?"

[bald man in a boat]

didymos1120 wrote...

PlumPaul82393 wrote...

Kind've a vague comment eh?

Yep.

Anyone know for a fact what they mean or is the 21 pages of this pure speculation?

No and pretty much.  That another pointless and fruitless round of "What is an RPG?"

This.

[Nathan Redgrave]

Terror_K wrote...

Again, I've already admitted several times that from a purely combat point of view, ME2's variant is superior and it was actually a good thing to change shooting from stat-based to skill-based. However, as I've said several times also, that was no reason for many of the other RPG elements to go the way of the dodo or be so simplified and automated. Making the combat skill-based, improving AI and cover mechanics, etc. did improve the combat because these were things directly related to it. Removing customisation and choice, automating upgrades, culling the available skills and narrowing their focus, etc. had next to nothing to do with combat directly, and so in no way did their removal improve it.

...Right, agreed. So why is this coming up so strongly in an ME3 thread, which is moving up in the world from that? These are the very reasons that ME3 looks so promising right now, but half the forum is all "BAW IT'S NOT ME1." Which was never the point with ME2's problems in the first place!

Beyond that, ME2's combat is very simplistic,

More complex than ME1's, though, which is kind of sad, really.

and I personally feel the answer is that ME1 was never really trying to be as much a TPS as ME2, was more different and original and had an undefinable X-factor that ME2 lacks that made it much more of an experience and more than the sum of its parts.

Originality is only good when it's actually good. A game doesn't magically become better because the idea is more unique, it has to be well-designed and well-implemented. Otherwise what it becomes is "wasted potential."

[Phaelducan]

Nathan Redgrave wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

I imagine the mechanics in ME3 have similar "behind the scenes" dice rolls which are just plain outdated and pointless. There is no Armor class, there is no Thac0. You move your own combat reticle and shoot things yourself. That was the same in ME1. As such, an accuracy "stat" would be wasted in any shooter RPG these days, as you simple don't have to rely on the software to calculate your precision for you.

If it's following the ME2 model like they say it is, weapons will functionally have different power and accuracy advantages that are less stat-based more more just about how the weapon works in relation to how you use it (i.e. the Locust SMG is more accurate at long range than other SMGs, the laser-aim on the Phalanx and its stopping power make it a great handgun and the easiest to fire precision shots with but the low ammo count can be a detriment, etc.).

In playing ME2, it is pretty easy not to miss your target. Range is more of a factor (in that it's a factor at all) then accuracy is. The SMG ranges affect how far away you can waste someone, but the "accuracy" per se is completely up to the player. Things like a laser sight or a scope affect the player's ability to target manually, but it's not a dice roll. In no way in ME2 do you "hit" your target cleanly yet it registers as a miss due to a hidden mechanic. That's what I was getting at.

[lazuli]

Terror_K wrote...
Beyond that, ME2's combat is very simplistic, and to be honest beyond its cinematic presentation and writing I really don't get how ME2 was so lauded. The RPG factors are too weak to make it a good RPG, and the TPS factors are too basic and simple to really make it a good TPS.

Its TPS elements are not weak.  It succeeds because it synthesizes two genres well.  That seems to be your problem- that you can't wrap your head around a melding of the two.

Terror_K wrote...
In some ways ME1 may have been a bit like a boring tech manual, but it's better than ME2's children's pop-up book approach, IMO.

If you're wondering why people respond negatively to your posts, it's this right here.  Whether or not you're aware of it, you have a tendency to employ a highly condescending tone in your posts.  You're making it sound as if enjoyment of ME2 hinges on one's willingness to accept a childish product.  In the same regard, this language implies that to enjoy ME1 requires higher order thinking.  It's utterly hipster.  You could own the trend and add some thick-rimmed glasses onto your redheaded avatar.

[PlumPaul93]

didymos1120 wrote...

PlumPaul82393 wrote...

Kind've a vague comment eh?

Yep.

Anyone know for a fact what they mean or is the 21 pages of this pure speculation?

No and pretty much.  That another pointless and fruitless round of "What is an RPG?"

Excellent

[Murmillos]

lazuli wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

an entire skill tree for each vcharacter with multiple paths of progression where you can dump multiple points in each skill when you unlock them doesn't count?

This debate is pointless when you start making up bollock statements like that.

My point was that tons of passive abilities with proc chances hardly seem to have the same depth as different active abilities, each with unique effects.  In Borderlands, a lot of your abilities are left to chance.

I guess I put more value on active abilities than passive traits.

Borderlands isn't an RPG per say, but it does incorporate a very strictly focused (and very well done) loot/skill based RPG system; as they had 4 archetypes, each with one unique skill along with a lot of passive skills which improve the ability and intended play style of your archetype character. Also, the weapons/shield/class mod was a very classic RPG mechanic too - but again, only within the loot system.

ME could have used a easily used a borderland style class mod system. Different Omni tools that increase certain powers differently or provided special bonus, biotic amps for biotic users (faster cool downs or stronger power.. etc, bonus to Warp or Throw/Pull). Not sure what would "work" for the Solider like types, but they would have an item which increased intended like skills for them too.

Borderland fails the true RPG role as the role for all 4 was identical and you couldn't shape/change the outcome of the story. No matter what you did or didn't do, it didn't change the outcome of the story. You couldn't recruit, make friends, make enemies. The story was just a story to get you, as the player, to play.

[Terror_K]

bald man in a boat wrote...

Terror you're a coward. And a coward on the internet at that. You belittle people and act like you're better and smarter than everybody else. You just do it in a chickensh!t way that keeps you out of trouble, so when you are met with rebuttal you can throw your hands in the air and say "What did I do?" You're the kid on the school yard who acts like a smartas* and then hides behind the yard duty teacher when somebody comes after them.

Man up or try sitting on a shorter horse.

All I do is attack the points and issues... not the person/people directly. Something you could learn. From my experience here usually the direct insulter is somebody who just tries to rile up those who disagree with them with petty shots because they're incapable of actually discussing the points at hand in an intelligent and civilised manner.

And no... pointing that out is not an insult, just in case you try calling my a "hypocrite" or something to that effect.

[thompsonaf]

Also I agree with Terror_K.

Mass Effect 1 had better visuals, story, plot pacing, combat, and customization than Mass Effect 2.

So nyeah.

Modifié par thompsonaf, 07 mai 2011 - 02:46 .

[Nathan Redgrave]

Phaelducan wrote...

Change happens, it's only our own stubborn refusal to accept it that leads to frustration. ME2 is a great game.

The first point is a good one. The second is not. Not only is "great" a highly subjective thing, but even on its own merits ME2 tends to be somewhat overrated. What I will grant is that ME2 is definitely a good game. Whether it's deserving of every praise heaped upon it is another matter entirely.

Fine, and you never will. Arguing about it wastes everyone's time. It WAS lauded, and by a ton of people (hence 96 on metacritic).

I've seen plenty of games both over-rated and under-rated on Metacritic. I can't say this is a particularly strong argument no matter which direction you're trying to swing.

[bald man in a boat]

Oh Kenneth, throwing around phrases like "dumbed down" "morons" "children's book" isn't directly insulting? It's intelligent and civil? Not petty in any way?

Something smells a little hypocritical.

Modifié par bald man in a boat, 07 mai 2011 - 02:51 .

[Someone With Mass]

Why is everyone assuming that Mass Effect was intended to be this game with rich RPG elements, when BioWare intended it to be a shooter with certain RPG mechanics?

Everyone's expecting so much things of Mass Effect, which it will never be, because BioWare never planned on it.

[Someone With Mass]

ME1? Better combat than ME2?

Right...

[darknoon5]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Why is everyone assuming that Mass Effect was intended to be this game with rich RPG elements, when BioWare intended it to be a shooter with certain RPG mechanics?

Everyone's expecting so much things of Mass Effect, which it will never be, because BioWare never planned on it.

Exactly. 100% this.

Mass Effect 1 doesn't even have attributes. It's not a hardcore RPG. It was always meant to be a fusion between the part of RPG's elements that enrich the personal feel of the story and give a variety of gameplay (not saying that games such as Baldurs gate or Kotor with more RPG's are worse games, just different) and shooter-based combat. Mass effect has always been an Action-RPG.

Modifié par darknoon5, 07 mai 2011 - 02:51 .

[RaenImrahl]

Cool it, Bald Man. Most people are capable of taking an opposing viewpoint without calling the other "coward" or a "dinkhole". If you aren't, then go away, or you'll be made to go away.

Everyone here should keep the conversation civil and avoid all the hyperbolic adjectives.

Thanks....

[Nathan Redgrave]

thompsonaf wrote...

Mass Effect 1 had better visuals
*snip*
than Mass Effect 2.

No, no, a thousand times no. This is one point I'll never agree with. Better environments? Arguably, with ME2's let's-scatter-crates-everywhere-and-hope-nobody-notices-how-stock-it-all-is syndrome, but better visuals? No. Mass Effect 2's visuals are infinitely better on the whole, right down to the lack of mutant eyelids and the more effective use of camera angles. Graphically, it's superior.

[Phaelducan]

You criticize my point for being subjective, then call ME2 overrated (also subjective).

I utilize a frequently cited industry tool for rating products (not just games). If, for example, 100k people rate a product as 90% or higher, and only 2K rate it 89% or lower, that gives a general level of acceptance from the target demographic.

In this case, you are trying to tell me that anything based on public opinion can't be used as a framework to discuss approval. I dispute that as false.

[RaenImrahl]

bald man in a boat wrote...

Oh Kenneth, throwing around phrases like "dumbed down" "morons" "children's book" isn't directly insulting? It's intelligent and civil? Not petty in any way?

Something smells a little hypocritical.

Discuss the topic and stop baiting people. 

[PnXMarcin1PL]

Since when ME1 has got better combat than ME2 ?
Combat in ME1 is riddiculously odd. I don't say ME1 is bad game, because I enjoy both ME and ME2. I've noticed a plague of haters here on forums. They've been raging here for a week now. With one guy leading (some ppl may know who I mean).

Modifié par PnXMarcin1PL, 07 mai 2011 - 02:55 .

[bald man in a boat]

Whatever. It's not baiting, it's calling him out on his BS. Maybe you should tell him to cool it.

[Talogrungi]

Hmm, so they say that they're improving the RPG and Shooter aspects of ME3..

And people are complaining about this? .. really?

[Terror_K]

Nathan Redgrave wrote...

...Right, agreed. So why is this coming up so strongly in an ME3 thread, which is moving up in the world from that? These are the very reasons that ME3 looks so promising right now, but half the forum is all "BAW IT'S NOT ME1." Which was never the point with ME2's problems in the first place!

Because some of us already feel ME2 either removed, pushed into the background or overautomated almost everything non-combat too much as it was, and the comment(s) in question seem to suggest that this is going to be even more prevalent in ME3. It seems like everything is going to be even more shoehorned into a purely combat focused set of skills and that there will be even less aspects in control of the player, when what many of us want is to have some of that control back and have some skills that aren't only about combat in a direct sense. Much of ME2 was so automated and pushed into the background that it may as well not be there at all. Now it sounds like BioWare's response to that is, "well we'll just get rid of it then" when it should be, "let's put the control back into the hands of the player again."

Originality is only good when it's actually good. A game doesn't magically become better because the idea is more unique, it has to be well-designed and well-implemented. Otherwise what it becomes is "wasted potential."

That's a point of view. I do agree that not everything has to be fresh and different and has to reinvent the wheel, so long as it's functional, but that said despite ME1 being rather clumsy I found it different and interesting. But then I wasn't looking for pure TPS combat in it at all. ME2 just felt like a poor man's Gears of War or Army of Two when it came to combat. It did an adequate job and was less cumbersome, but it didn't really do anything special, and I feel it was too isolated from the RPG side of things (admittedly though, ME1 was too tied to it).

lazuli wrote...

Its TPS elements are not weak.  It succeeds because it synthesizes two genres well.  That seems to be your problem- that you can't wrap your head around a melding of the two.

I can. Deus Ex mixed Shooter and RPG gameplay excellently. I'd even say Alpha Protocol did a better job than ME2 did, even if it was let down in other areas. The TPS elements in ME2 are competent... nothing more. They simply "do the job" and that's about it. Gears of War has great TPS elements, and really knows how to use the mechanics to their full potential. As somebody else stated earlier in this thread, if Mass Effect is going to use TPS combat, it should at least do it well.

If you're wondering why people respond negatively to your posts, it's this right here.  Whether or not you're aware of it, you have a tendency to employ a highly condescending tone in your posts.  You're making it sound as if enjoyment of ME2 hinges on one's willingness to accept a childish product.  In the same regard, this language implies that to enjoy ME1 requires higher order thinking.  It's utterly hipster.  You could own the trend and add some thick-rimmed glasses onto your redheaded avatar.

I think you misunderstand where the criticism is directed. It's not directed at players, it's directed at BioWare. Making the game more accessible is one thing, but making it insultingly hand-holdingly basic is another thing entirely. Just like with any element in a game, be it RPG or TPS or something else entirely, one can take it too far and make it too strong. The game treated me like I hadn't even heard of an RPG, let alone played one. It crossed the line between "helpful" and "condescending" really. The massive interfaces, the giant pop-ups, the mission complete screens, the constant prompts and over-explaining, etc. not only took me out of the game but made me feel like I was being jammed in a high-chair and being spoon fed. The game was like a constant tutorial from the start that never ended. Again, BioWare didn't need to take things so far with their presentation, just like they didn't need to take things so far with their RPG culling as a whole.

Modifié par Terror_K, 07 mai 2011 - 03:00 .