617 réponses à ce sujet

[Darkhour]

I demand crate upon crate of useless items!!!! With a good item every blue moon, just enough to make you search useless crate after useless crate.

I demand that each upgrade gives you a 2% increase. I do NOT want to notice any difference!!!

What I loved most about ME1 was when you had sweet looking armor like Phantom for Garrus, but a horrid looking suit of big bird yellow explorer armor with better stats.  I recall having this guardian armor that looked like a space ninja suit, but then I got this armor that was bright orange and white... I loved choosing between pretty and ugly armor. Bring that back Bioware.

I demand that player action be superficial only. Damage inflicted should be decided by stats. So if a krogan with 70 agility is charging and I only have 10 accuracy on my shotgun, I shouldn't be able to hit him no matter how good my aim is.

You know, the stuff that defines a RPG.

[Homebound]

rpg senses say they r just getting rid of passive skills and adding the statboosst from them through levelups.

[Terror_K]

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.

The thing is Chris, what this says to me is that ME3 is going to make any role-playing mechanics even more one-dimensional and narrow than they were in ME2. One of the main issues with ME2 was that almost every single one of its RPG elements were combat-related, and we went away from having proper non-combat skills and abilities and basically just had a bunch of combat powers, making for an incredibly shallow system that only focused on one aspect of the gameplay: the combat.

Good, deep RPGs allow players to invest in non-combat, more passive skills that relate to other factors of the gameplay, usually allowing multiple ways to build a character and even deal with situations that don't necessarily have to involve combat, and/or simply helping players deal with non-combat situations, because a good RPG understands that combat is not the be-all-end-all focus of an RPG. What ME2 reduced it all down to was just "combat, combat, combat!" and everything else didn't only take a back seat, but pretty much didn't even take a seat at all. The focus was so narrow that you may as well not have even had an RPG progression system at all and turned it into a scrolling shoot-em up style "Buy Powers" system and it wouldn't have changed much. That's pretty much what it is, but in sheeps RPG clothing.

The comment being discussed here basically makes it sound like with ME3 it's a case of, "we've removed any and all RPG aspects that aren't related to combat entirely!" So those of us who actually wanted ME3 to be a richer RPG experience and bring back some of the non-combat skills and aspects are rather miffed at this, because that's not exactly the case. It just seems like ME3 is going to be another case of ME2: for every step forward there are at least two backwards.

Modifié par Terror_K, 05 mai 2011 - 10:35 .

[Schneidend]

AwesomeName wrote...

Indeed, that's exactly what it sounds like.  Which is bloody great - RPG elements that have a noticeable impact.

Some people are just SO determined to see something wrong when there isn't any...

Part of the problem is that people are assuming Bioware is talking about making stats only affect combat. There's no reason something can't be both a social ability and a combat boon. For instance, in 4th Edition D&D, the Charisma stat not only governs social grace, but it can also boost a character's Will defense, as their force of personality is strong enough to help them resist mental effects.

[TheRealIncarnal]

Does this mean that Paragon/Renegade is going to be meaningful in combat? I can't think of anything else in ME1 or ME2 that was a stat and didn't have a major impact in combat. Although, maybe they mean money, which would make sense as my Shepard is wealthy enough to murder people simply by pelting them with credit-chits.

[Haristo]

Ixalmaris wrote...

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

WRONG ! WRONG ! WRONG !

It simply says that there is no stupid stats changing on your overall speed, or a stat named ''Marketing'' or another like ''Lockpicking''. Since all this stuff in ME is related to the Para/Gade system.

Modifié par Haristo, 05 mai 2011 - 10:44 .

[Ahglock]

Schneidend wrote...

AwesomeName wrote...

Indeed, that's exactly what it sounds like.  Which is bloody great - RPG elements that have a noticeable impact.

Some people are just SO determined to see something wrong when there isn't any...

Part of the problem is that people are assuming Bioware is talking about making stats only affect combat. There's no reason something can't be both a social ability and a combat boon. For instance, in 4th Edition D&D, the Charisma stat not only governs social grace, but it can also boost a character's Will defense, as their force of personality is strong enough to help them resist mental effects.

While I see your point I hate 4th edition D&D so your point beceme invalid.    Okay the essentials line helped a bit for my style of RPGs.  Well honestly like ME each edition of D&D screwed up some things and was cool in others.  But yes, in 4e D&D a cool thing was your best of two stats had an effect on your defense in a certain area, so a high charisma helped your will defense a high intelligence or dexterity helped the reflex defense.  So improving in non-combat areas did not overly hamper your combat abiltiy, because you will always be getting into fights in most RPGs.  ME2 was on the right track in some ways IMO in that your negotiation paragade bonuses were tied into something else you would improve. 

[didymos1120]

Terror_K wrote...
 One of the main issues with ME2 was that almost every single one of its RPG elements were combat-related, and we went away from having proper non-combat skills and abilities and basically just had a bunch of combat powers, making for an incredibly shallow system that only focused on one aspect of the gameplay: the combat.

You say this like ME1 was vastly different.  Charm and Intimidate were the only two skills that didn't impact combat.

[antique_nova]

Jibbed34 wrote...

N7 Vanguard wrote...

that doesn't sound very rpg at all.

People like you are ridiculous, get a grip.

It's a game where you ASSUME THE ROLE of a character, and what Bioware means is that your upgrades/abilities will impact the game in more dramatic ways.

Stop jumping to conclusions and open your mind, I suggest you read it again. Properly.

I am reading it. Carefully, but i can't figure for the life of me what they mean by what they're saying. Specifically anyway.

[bald man in a boat]

didymos1120 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
 One of the main issues with ME2 was that almost every single one of its RPG elements were combat-related, and we went away from having proper non-combat skills and abilities and basically just had a bunch of combat powers, making for an incredibly shallow system that only focused on one aspect of the gameplay: the combat.

You say this like ME1 was vastly different.  Charm and Intimidate were the only two skills that didn't impact combat.

This. People seem to forget that combat is the major factor in advancing the story... and that ME1 skills trees where the your stats were only improved by 1 or 2% (Spectre Stats) were fairly useless until you poured a buttload of points into said skill.

So Bioware wants people to see the choices they make become immediately relevant. That is good. Outside of "Charm and Intimidate", which were not present in ME2. What were the skills that didn't affect combat gameplay? 

I'm starting to believe that "True RPG Fans" are just contrarian hipsters. Everything was better before. They're right. They're smarter. Mainstream is dumbed down. BLA BLA BLA. 

[CrispyFrog]

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.

Don't we all...

[Kusy]

Let's stop arguing about if this "change" is bad or good and think about what is this even suposed to be.

Let's look back on Mass Effect 1.

Pick a skill, let's say Decryption:
Decryption has 12 levels, just as most of the skills in Mass Effect 1:Level 1: you can use dectyption on easy targets, you lean sabotage.
Levels 2 to 4: Increases % dammage ammount of sabotage and some other powers.
Level 5: you can use decryption on medium targets, your sabotage skill gets buffed.
Levels 6 to 8: Increases % dammage ammount of sabotage and some other powers + unlocks the First Aid line.
Level 9: you can use decryption on hard targets, your sabotage skill gets buffed.
Levels 10 to 12: Increases % dammage ammount of sabotage and some other powers.

I don't see any "meaningless behind-the-scenes stat games" over here. I see a direct impact of every bar invested in the skill line - when the skill says that now the power will do % more dammage I can see it doing more dammage, when it says that now it will have a shorter recharge time - it does and I can feel that in combat as I can use it more often, when the radius is bigger I instantly see that I score more enemies with it, + with the story-side of the skill, I see that I can decrypt harder targets with each major bar in the skill line (level 1, 5 and 9). The only arguable part is the % - I agree, not many people bother to calculate stuff while playing a shooter. One more thing that indeed is quite meaningless is that throw's power is shown in newtons, I doubt anyone would ever check it, I doubt the game even actualy calculates it, it's just a way to show it's getting stronger.
There is no such thing as behind-the-scenes stats in ME1 system as it doesn't use statistics like STR, AGI or DEX. The only thing that might be confusing and seem meaningless are the constant % statistics and that half of your skills affects other skills in some degree.
Summing it up: Dunno how about you but in ME1 I felt that combat was shifted with each skill point invested somewhere, not dramaticaly but it did, more dammage, shorter recharges. It was confusing at times tho.

Next thing is Mass Effect 2:
Mass Effect 2 alredy got rid of story-side skills like Persuade and Intimidate skill and the opening/hacking skill that made it necesary to take certain companions with you and. Persuasion skills got simply incorporated into the Paragon / Renegade morality system so it's not like you get to pick whatever dialogue option you want, it actualy works THE EXACLY SAME WAY IT DID IN MASS EFFECT just without investing skills in it.

Here I'll pick Overload:
Overload has 4 ranks as every other power in Mass Effect 2:
Rank 1: shorter recharge, + radius, +dammage.
Rank 2: +dammage, now stunns synthetics.
Rank 3: +dammage, overheats enemy weapons (I just noticed how badly this doesn't make sense, it works as the weapons could be overheated like in ME1 while they can't since they use heat sinks now... good job in consistency again).
Rank 4: +massive dammage or +dammage and radius.

Now there are literaly nothing you could remotely call meaningless or behind-the-scenes, the only ones that has anything to do with % are the class specific powers like Tech Mastery, everything else is straight forward, the only way to make it clearer would be to display exact numbers of hit points above heads of the mooks you have to clear. Everything you do in the screen that some proudly call the "skill tree" has clear and direct impact on the powers you use in game. You unlock a power, you invest in the power, the power is more powerfull. Throw is still measured in newtons so I'm guessing that it wasn't confusing and meaningless enough for BioWare to get rid of it and simply write "throws enemies further", "throws enemies even further" and finaly "throws enemies far as fuck" (and just now I noticed that acording to this newton measuring Biotics were stronger in ME1 - without other skills boosting it Master Throw had power of 1250n while Heavy Throw from ME2 only reaches 1200n - funny).
Summing it up: I can't possibly imagine what could be called meaningless or back-stage here, simple as it comes.

And now the look into future... Mass Effect 3 is going to be rid of everything skill / stat related that doesn't directly and visibly affect the gameplay... sooo... what can that be? Seriously?

If we are going to remove ANYTHING that might not seem like it's affecting your Shepard going wild with a rifle, we should get rid or all the ranks and levels. The skill tree should be exacly that - a skill tree where you only unlock new skills without upgrading them or investing anything in them. Skills should be only used as a way to unlock newer skills... or the next ranks of every skill sholuld go along this like:

Overload:
Rank 1: Overloads enemy shields.
Rank 2: Rank 1 + overheat of weapons.
Rank 3: Rank 2 + Stunn enemies.
Rank 4: Rank 3 + Drops a jumbojet on the enemy's head.
So basicaly it would be exacly like Mass Effect 2 but without numbers.

Conclusion: Mass Effect 3 is going to aim at people who can't add 2 to 2 or BioWare or EA have a need to keep a constant flow of "information" on their game to keep the media interested in it and give people something to talk about as long as it's ME3 related so they are repeating the same idiotic and atractivly sounding information everywhere in interviews.



TL;DR: It's marketing talk about nothing.
PS: don't qoute this post.

Modifié par Mr.Kusy, 05 mai 2011 - 11:59 .

[bald man in a boat]

I think I know what the problem really is...

[didymos1120]

Mr.Kusy wrote...
PS: don't q[uo]te this post.

What? Why?

[Kusy]

I would edit my post to fix that Didymos... but then it would screw up the colloring and I would have to make it work again. And I don't want that.

[Chala]

For God's sake!
We haven't seen any gameplay yet and there's already people rending their garments....
Can we wait at least until E3 before doing this?

There is a huge posibility of seeing something more concrete than a text this time...

[theSteeeeeels]

bald man in a boat wrote...

I think I know what the problem really is...

i dont eat breakfast ?

[Commandant Bob]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

Funny as i play games, in this case Mass Effect, for the gameplay. Characters and story are a bonus.

Ah.  You might be better off with Call of Duty, then.  I hear the gameplay's really good.

Oh.  I went there.

hehehehe... nice one.
It seems to me all Bioware means is that they won't have any upgrades for +3% damage or a teeny percent chance at some critical hit nonsense.  They mean the upgrades or powers in the game will be significant in their effects. 
On the surface, this sounds good to me.
On a deeper level, it seems that, rather than dropping RPG elements to suit COD players, they are trying to inprove RPG elements in a way that makes then more likeable for COD players.  SInce I like these improvements too... everything is Hunky Dory.

It's a shame that so much of the fan base loves to hate things they dont know about.  I don't think they realize that their trolling won't make ME3 better; if anything it will teach Bioware that they can't please their fans and should stop trying.

[Walker White]

Another way to think about this statement is comparing DA:O, DA:2 with the ME series. All of the abilities in the DA games do different things. In ME and ME2, upgrading a skill just increased a damage value, or added a little bit of time. Didn't all of us on the forums say this was a bad thing? Wouldn't we much prefer a system were leveling up gave us powers with remarkably different effects?

[kalwren]

Merci357 wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Merci357 wrote...

For me, RPG is about playing a role, shaping a character and their story according to my choices. That's all I care about. For you, it's putting points in stats and rolling dices. The latter is the mindless part, isn't it?

I sort of agree with this, but I enjoy putzing around with how I fare in combat quite a bit.

However, I like it when my upgrades, mods, and skill investments actually do something more than +10% damage.  For example, choosing between squad incendiary and inferno ammo?  That's cool, since both bring a new mechanic to the table and tweak how battles unfold.

For an example of how player choice and skill trees can result in greater in-field changes without getting crazy with numbers, check out the research system in the SC2: Wings of Liberty campaign.

Don't get me wrong, I do like systems as complex as they can get - I'm currently replaying New Vegas in hardcore mode. But all those options about stats/skills/perks, all those considerations about weight of ammunition, getting sleep and water, they are ultimately worthless if the game itself isn't engaging. That's what I care about, a role I can assume, a story - and my ability to shape said story. That's what RPG is, for me. Everything else can be as rich or simple as you want it to be, it neither makes or breaks my experience. And since ME2 was rather light on the so called RPG elements, I enjoyed it immensely in spite or just because of this.

I dont think it helps circumventing peoples opinions with the "Yeah but what actually makes an RPG an RPG?" argument. It doesnt matter what features gamers deem RPG or not, what matters is that other readers understand what they are really asking for.

Personally I love all the detail of Fallout: NV hardcore mode. That level of depth is why I love most games that call themselves RPG's. Its why I was initially interested in Mass Effect to begin with, and all of BioWare's past games.

I honestly had a love  / hate relationship with ME2. While I still enjoyed the universe, and they improved a ton of things, especially the A.I. it did lack in the department that I was most looking forward to, and that is the classic CRPG stats, loot and inventory systems. Thats what I like from my CRPG's, along with the actual "role playing".

I dunno what to make of all the recent ME3 news, including this dev comment, but I do know this, I wont blindly go into a ME3 purchase this time, if it doesn’t provide the sort of RPG experience that has drawn me towards CRPG's in the past. 

Don’t get me wrong, I do love action games as well, but FPS's like Crysis 2, Halo and Borderlands do the shooting a lot better if that is the experience I want.

Modifié par kalwren, 06 mai 2011 - 12:46 .

[Walker White]

kalwren wrote...

While I still enjoyed the universe, and they improved a ton of things, especially the A.I. it did lack in the department that I was most looking forward to, and that is the classic CRPG stats, loot and inventory systems. Thats what I like from my CRPG's, along with the actual "role playing".

As we have commented on these boards several times, looting and inventory make no sense in a space opera game like the ME universe.  It is not worth the energy and resource expenditure to pull loot out of the gravity well.  Scan it and fab it on your desktop 3D printer.

[kalwren]

Walker White wrote...

kalwren wrote...

While I still enjoyed the universe, and they improved a ton of things, especially the A.I. it did lack in the department that I was most looking forward to, and that is the classic CRPG stats, loot and inventory systems. Thats what I like from my CRPG's, along with the actual "role playing".

As we have commented on these boards several times, looting and inventory make no sense in a space opera game like the ME universe.  It is not worth the energy and resource expenditure to pull loot out of the gravity well.  Scan it and fab it on your desktop 3D printer.

That may be your opinion and many others, but it is not mine. I prefer the experience that ME1 offered. 

[Walker White]

kalwren wrote...

Walker White wrote...

kalwren wrote...

While I still enjoyed the universe, and they improved a ton of things, especially the A.I. it did lack in the department that I was most looking forward to, and that is the classic CRPG stats, loot and inventory systems. Thats what I like from my CRPG's, along with the actual "role playing".

As we have commented on these boards several times, looting and inventory make no sense in a space opera game like the ME universe.  It is not worth the energy and resource expenditure to pull loot out of the gravity well.  Scan it and fab it on your desktop 3D printer.

That may be your opinion and many others, but it is not mine. I prefer the experience that ME1 offered. 

I am not stating an opinion on whether it is fun.  I am making a statement about the realism.  

We have 3D printers now, and already people are beginning to understand its implication on the value of objects. There will be no second hand market for mass produced items, like weapons and armor, as they can be fabricated cheaply and on demand.  At best, there will be some value in picking up a weapon on the battlefield, but tossing it away before you go to the shuttle (as it will cost fuel to transport it to the Normandy).  But we already know that will be a feature in ME3.

[Murmillos]

Walker White wrote...

kalwren wrote...

While I still enjoyed the universe, and they improved a ton of things, especially the A.I. it did lack in the department that I was most looking forward to, and that is the classic CRPG stats, loot and inventory systems. Thats what I like from my CRPG's, along with the actual "role playing".

As we have commented on these boards several times, looting and inventory make no sense in a space opera game like the ME universe.  It is not worth the energy and resource expenditure to pull loot out of the gravity well.  Scan it and fab it on your desktop 3D printer.

Some looting (be it scanning) would be preferable rather then the store shopping we got in ME2.  A little bit of loot never hurts (such as rare armor upgrades or weapon upgrades), as long as it doesn't break lore or the endless bag of holding that ME1 suffered.