617 réponses à ce sujet

[bald man in a boat]

^ Five minutes til that gets taken out of context....

[upsettingshorts]

bald man in a boat wrote...

^ Five minutes til that gets taken out of context....

Consering how the whole "CoD audience" thing has turned into an out-and-out misleading meme at this point, I wouldn't be surprised.

[bald man in a boat]

 Indeed. 

[Someone With Mass]

"Linear shooting hallways and chest high walls"

Oh yeah, because ME1 had none of those, right?

Stop trying to make ME1 look better than it is.
And not having to deal with the hacking points to hack a vault and such? I fail to see how that's bad, but I'm sure some whiner out there is going to try and convince me that it was somehow a part of this "deep" RPG that ME1 was.

"Main missions involve finding random people you don't know"

Again, ME1 had these missions too.

And I fail to see how Illos+Vigil is somehow an argument of any kind.

In short: People are getting butthurt over the most trivial things they believe makes the experience itself better.

[cachx]

cachx wrote...

I was misrepresented in an article recently, which made it sound like I wanted to remove RPG elements and stats from combat. What I actually said was, I wanted RPG progression to have a more meaningful impact on combat, but that was misrepresented as "cutting rpg stats" we actually have more stats in me3 that affect combat, and the overall impact of rpg progress on combat is greater. Anyway sorry for the longish tweet but I just wanted ot clear that up, and a few people were asking me what was up!

A recent series of tweets by Christina Norman.
http://twitter.com/t...885574451142657

Quoting myself, just because people tend to ignore the lasts posts in a page.

It seems to me that people are determined to not like whatever RPG element ME3 brings to the table. So whatever we get at the end is going to be "not enough".

[kalwren]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...
I think what you and the detractors are really talking about are two issues:
1) A subculture unable or unwilling to adapt to the changing medium
For people who are concerned about 1) all you're doing is shoving an ideology into our faces and it's obstruct any real constructive discussion about how to make a specific game better, RPG or not. You're blinded by "RPG-ness" that you can't see what the game is actually doing, and have been doing that since the first one came out. "Dumbed down" is a rhetoric, one that you can conveniently apply to anything, and closes off any path to the truth.

The ideal of CRPG isn’t changing, only the gameplay in this game itself is changing, from one flavour to another.
We already have lots of the new flavour in games like CoD and Halo. Some of us just like the original flavour more because its different, and more unique. The expression “Genre fatigue” comes to mind.

Our feedback is for the developers ears, its not to try and change anybody elses opinion.

We are quite aware of the change in flavour, and that’s why we're providing feedback on the developer forums. The more folks that share this similar opinion and post their feelings, the more likely we are to be heard. Throwing up resistance isn’t going to change that because it does not subtract the vote.

Agree to disagree is what the naysayers should be saying. 

2) And the denial that you are not good at playing games where tactical decisions need to be made with fast reflexes
For people who are concerned about 2) all you're doing is blaming outside circumstances instead if addressing your own issues. You can't shoot straight or you can't react fast enough with the right powers and change your strategy, and you want to substitute that with a set of mechanics that makes it easier for you. Now that's called dumbing down. If you're playing a fighting game, you know that the skill required to beat it is hand-eye coordinationa and pattern recognition. If you suck at it, you accept that you don't have those skills. If you're playing a turn-based strategy game, you know it requires decisions that trades off short- and long-term success. If you suck at it, you accept that you don't have the patience or mental state to get into it. Both of these games makes it obvious what is required to win. In ME2, you're required to have to both set of skills, and this confuses you, and because there are not many games like it, you lack a context to fall back on (ie, I suck at shooting games, I suck at thinking games), so your frustration is misplaced.

Some gamers will be bad, others will be great. We could all post our Xbox live and PSN achievement / trophy profiles to prove a point, but its irrelevant to the discussion, because in the end of the day, people like what they like. They could be the best FPS player on the web, but still prefer CRPG's, or racers, or beat-em ups. 

Whenever you talk about the lack of "RPG elements", you're generalizing a huge set of game mechanics that may or not make feel like you're "role-playing." For me, being able to customize how Shepard looks, his background, making decisions that affect outcomes of narratives, character building that affects how I perform in combat, makes me feel like I am definitely role-playing. It doesn't matter what game mechanics being used to achieve it. But for people like you, you need the game to hand-hold you and re-affirm that you're in "RPG genre" by using recognizable and conventional mechanisms like loot and stats.

Its not about holding on to so called antiquated conventions, its about simplicity versus complexity, and that is all.
The same way some shooters are more immersive and challenging than others and require a deeper level of skill and understanding. So can it be true of CRPG's. Its just different game-play mechanics. I'm lucky in that I enjoy a very broad selection of different game-play mechanics. I have recently over the past few years acquired a taste for CRPG's and primarily Hybrid RPG / Shooters, I really love the subtlety and fine tuning in character development and progression, experimenting with different builds and equipment so on and so forth, but also the action so the game isnt just all one flavour. And the more options the more I can experiment. Basically the more complex the systems are, the more enjoyment I get out of the experience. 

Modifié par kalwren, 07 mai 2011 - 04:31 .

[Da Mecca]

Everybody's getting butthurt, over this ME1 fans and ME2 fans alike.

Fact is, those games are over and done with.

ME3 has the potential to be greater than both, I suggest we focus our attention on it.

[Apollo Starflare]

cachx wrote...

I was misrepresented in an article recently, which made it sound like I wanted to remove RPG elements and stats from combat. What I actually said was, I wanted RPG progression to have a more meaningful impact on combat, but that was misrepresented as "cutting rpg stats" we actually have more stats in me3 that affect combat, and the overall impact of rpg progress on combat is greater. Anyway sorry for the longish tweet but I just wanted ot clear that up, and a few people were asking me what was up!

A recent series of tweets by Christina Norman.
http://twitter.com/t...885574451142657

Quoting for emphasis. Christina is awesome. More RPG in ME3. End of.

[bald man in a boat]

kalwren, there's nothing wrong giving feedback. However when that feedback is composed of quality material such "dumbed down" and "mindless" a problem arises. Blatant refusal to accept anything outside of one's mindset is also unwelcome. There are plenty of people out there who find sifting through loot and putting points into a skill tree to be mindless and stupid.

[Wulfram]

Someone With Mass wrote...

"Linear shooting hallways and chest high walls"

Oh yeah, because ME1 had none of those, right?

I'm sure there were considerably less chest high walls at least.  ME2 seemed to go a bit crazy with those.

[bald man in a boat]

Apollo Starflare wrote...

cachx wrote...

I was misrepresented in an article recently, which made it sound like I wanted to remove RPG elements and stats from combat. What I actually said was, I wanted RPG progression to have a more meaningful impact on combat, but that was misrepresented as "cutting rpg stats" we actually have more stats in me3 that affect combat, and the overall impact of rpg progress on combat is greater. Anyway sorry for the longish tweet but I just wanted ot clear that up, and a few people were asking me what was up!

A recent series of tweets by Christina Norman.
http://twitter.com/t...885574451142657

Quoting for emphasis. Christina is awesome. More RPG in ME3. End of.

[upsettingshorts]

ME1 had just as many chest-high walls, but the repeated areas/assets were so blatant that it only seemed like there were less of them.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 mai 2011 - 04:33 .

[Nathan Redgrave]

Wulfram wrote...

I'm sure there were considerably less chest high walls at least.  ME2 seemed to go a bit crazy with those.

There were nearly as many chesthigh walls, but they tended to be integrated slightly better with the environments. Moreover, cover was less important to the combat (not in a good way--this is part of the "headless chicken syndrome" I've been bringing up so much lately, how everyone, including your own squadmates, spend a ludicrous amount of time running around with no discernible rhyme or reason, forcing you to rely more on chokepoints to control your enemies' movement (the safest strategy in any three-room prefab is to stay firmly put in the entrance room and let the enemies come to you).

The main-quest environments are actually quite a bit less crate-heavy than most of ME2, but the stock-copy-pasted-ness of all of the sidequests kind of negates that.

As a point, it's not so much the "chest-high walls" thing that's a problem, either in ME2 or in other shooters... it's the obvious stock-cover objects.

 

[Da Mecca]

Wulfram wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

"Linear shooting hallways and chest high walls"

Oh yeah, because ME1 had none of those, right?

I'm sure there were considerably less chest high walls at least.  ME2 seemed to go a bit crazy with those.

Thw wide open areas just took your mind off them.

ME2's lack of them made you notice the cramped places a lot more.

[Ahglock]

Apollo Starflare wrote...

cachx wrote...

I was misrepresented in an article recently, which made it sound like I wanted to remove RPG elements and stats from combat. What I actually said was, I wanted RPG progression to have a more meaningful impact on combat, but that was misrepresented as "cutting rpg stats" we actually have more stats in me3 that affect combat, and the overall impact of rpg progress on combat is greater. Anyway sorry for the longish tweet but I just wanted ot clear that up, and a few people were asking me what was up!

A recent series of tweets by Christina Norman.
http://twitter.com/t...885574451142657

Quoting for emphasis. Christina is awesome. More RPG in ME3. End of.

Improving the combat stats is a great thing, like how cryo ammo is worthless to take at anyhting other than 1 point or squad, hey great fix that.  I don't think that will have much of an effect on this thread though.  The reason being the primary **** of this thread has nothing to do with combat stats.  It is the other RPG elements that have nothing to do with combat stats that many people miss.  

[Nohvarr]

And what stats would those be, because aside from Charm, all stats dealt with combat in some fashion?

Modifié par Nohvarr, 07 mai 2011 - 04:55 .

[Ahglock]

Nohvarr wrote...

And what stats would those be, because aside from Charm, all stats dealt with combat in some fashion?

There is a difference in dealing with combat in some fashion and being totally exclusive to combat.  

[Nohvarr]

Then provide an example.

[TheConfidenceMan]

electronics and decryption.

[bald man in a boat]

Electronics-> Overload

Decryption-> Sabotage

Both combat related. Next?

Modifié par bald man in a boat, 07 mai 2011 - 05:15 .

[Nohvarr]

Electronics - increases shield capacity and allows for repair of mako, both heavily involved in combat. Also unlocks Oberload, which is a combat ability

Decryption - Unlocks sabotage and increases techmine damage. Both related to combat

Yes, they also allowed you to 'manipulate' certain objects, but that was simply folded into it's combat abilities. Since both still required the playing of a mini-game, why bother putting an arbitray limitation in front of a mini-game?

edit: in truth, ME's skills have always been designed to deal with the combat. That is nothing new.

Modifié par Nohvarr, 07 mai 2011 - 05:18 .

[Da Mecca]

Why not just take out the mini game then?

[TheConfidenceMan]

bald man in a boat wrote...

Electronics-> Overload

Decryption-> Sabotage

Both combat related. Next?

He wanted examples of abilites that were not exclusively related to combat. Those are two.

[Nathan Redgrave]

Ahglock wrote...

Improving the combat stats is a great thing, like how cryo ammo is worthless to take at anyhting other than 1 point or squad, hey great fix that.  I don't think that will have much of an effect on this thread though.  The reason being the primary **** of this thread has nothing to do with combat stats.  It is the other RPG elements that have nothing to do with combat stats that many people miss.  

Which amount to a separate Charm/Intimidate stat (which is a good point, that was definitely better) and Decryption/Electronics, which didn't even operate solely as non-combat stats, but served multiple purposes. The actual non-combat stats attached to them were simply annoying, one involving the tedious Mako repair mechanic (and once you're down to the point of taking actual damage rather than shield damage, you're basically screwed anyway, as the Mako's physical armor is quite pathetic) and the other involving hacking and bypassing, which serves only to "encourage" you to always have a squadmate with points invested in both skills, limiting your choice in squadmates. When decryption and electronics were removed, nothing of value was lost, and that's God's honest truth.

[TheConfidenceMan]

Nathan Redgrave wrote...

Which amount to a separate Charm/Intimidate stat (which is a good point, that was definitely better) and Decryption/Electronics, which didn't even operate solely as non-combat stats, but served multiple purposes. The actual non-combat stats attached to them were simply annoying, one involving the tedious Mako repair mechanic (and once you're down to the point of taking actual damage rather than shield damage, you're basically screwed anyway, as the Mako's physical armor is quite pathetic) and the other involving hacking and bypassing, which serves only to "encourage" you to always have a squadmate with points invested in both skills, limiting your choice in squadmates. When decryption and electronics were removed, nothing of value was lost, and that's God's honest truth.

That's nonsense. You were never limited in your choices. If you didn't want to invest in the skills yourself or take someone with you that was skilled in bypass or electronics in favor of a better combat-oriented character then that was your choice. It was a tradeoff, as it should be.