617 réponses à ce sujet

[Kusy]

If were at it, honestly... both ME were medicore if I would have to judge them as shooters. I want to play a shooter, I play Bad Company 2. Mass Effect is story.

[Walker White]

Murmillos wrote...


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.

Scanning works.  I am all for that.  But scanning does not need an elaborate centralized inventory.

[marshalleck]

So after what I am assuming is 7 pages of whining, did anyone ever figure out what non-combat stats we had in either ME1 or 2?

[mx3ze]

Ahhh crap, another meaningless QQing thread.. QQ moarrrrrrr

[didymos1120]

marshalleck wrote...

So after what I am assuming is 7 pages of whining, did anyone ever figure out what non-combat stats we had in either ME1 or 2?

Only Charm and Intimidate in ME1.  Many seem strangely reluctant to acknowledge this though.

[Kusy]

marshalleck wrote...

So after what I am assuming is 7 pages of whining, did anyone ever figure out what non-combat stats we had in either ME1 or 2?

Six pages... and if you would at least read the previous one, you could see that it was already mentioned that there are none to begin with.

[didymos1120]

Murmillos wrote...


Some looting (be it scanning) would be preferable rather then the store shopping we got in ME2. 

Um, what do you think all those upgrades you scanned were?

[marshalleck]

Mr.Kusy wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

So after what I am assuming is 7 pages of whining, did anyone ever figure out what non-combat stats we had in either ME1 or 2?

Six pages... and if you would at least read the previous one, you could see that it was already mentioned that there are none to begin with.

I don't need to be told there are none, because I already knew that. Which makes "focus" on stats that effect combat really strange to me. What else would they focus on? 

Much can be said of the Mass Effect series, but one thing it's not is a game for diplomacy. Shepard is a marine and you're always railroaded into combat. I mean it's not like this is Fallout New vegas where you can beat the game without firing a single shot. Seems disingenuous to me for people to get all uppity about this in the third game. 

Modifié par marshalleck, 06 mai 2011 - 01:14 .

[marshalleck]

didymos1120 wrote...

Murmillos wrote...


Some looting (be it scanning) would be preferable rather then the store shopping we got in ME2. 

Um, what do you think all those upgrades you scanned were?

"Forgettable" is a word that comes to mind.

[Marta Rio]

marshalleck wrote...

So after what I am assuming is 7 pages of whining, did anyone ever figure out what non-combat stats we had in either ME1 or 2?

ME1: Charm, intimidate.
ME2: Charm/intimidate are folded into Paragon/Renegade.

Also, these weren't on the talent screen, but there were some stats in ME1 regarding one's technical proficiency - which related to repairing probes/bypassing locks.  But these were removed in ME2.

So I'm not even sure what Bioware's talking about - since they already removed all the "meaningless non-combat stats" for ME2, there're no more non-combat stats to remove.  It's not like we have things like sneak, lockpick, barter, etc.

[didymos1120]

marshalleck wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Murmillos wrote...


Some looting (be it scanning) would be preferable rather then the store shopping we got in ME2. 

Um, what do you think all those upgrades you scanned were?

"Forgettable" is a word that comes to mind.

So was almost all of that crap I got in ME1.  

[marshalleck]

Marta Rio wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

So after what I am assuming is 7 pages of whining, did anyone ever figure out what non-combat stats we had in either ME1 or 2?

ME1: Charm, intimidate.
ME2: Charm/intimidate are folded into Paragon/Renegade.

Also, these weren't on the talent screen, but there were some stats in ME1 regarding one's technical proficiency - which related to repairing probes/bypassing locks.  But these were removed in ME2.

So I'm not even sure what Bioware's talking about - since they already removed all the "meaningless non-combat stats" for ME2, there're no more non-combat stats to remove.  It's not like we have things like sneak, lockpick, barter, etc.

Yes, precisely. I'm going to have to chalk this one up to dev/marketing speech until I see the character page and new skill paths in action. 

Modifié par marshalleck, 06 mai 2011 - 01:22 .

[marshalleck]

didymos1120 wrote...
So was almost all of that crap I got in ME1.  

You've managed to forget? Lucky you. I still sometimes startle awake at night in a cold sweat from nightmares of having to omni-gel pages upon pages of inventory. 

Modifié par marshalleck, 06 mai 2011 - 01:23 .

[kalwren]

Walker White wrote...

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.

Why do people keep throwing “it doesn’t fit the universe” statements into the mix? 

Its kind of irrelevant, since this is fiction. Anything can be, has been and will be retrofitted to suit the games current design. Explanations will come packaged along with such additions, removals and alterations.



In response to nobody in particular - Ultimately this perpetual argument comes to down to simplicity versus complexity. Some of us want old-school CRPG stats, levelling, loot and inventory. Others prefer a more passive , hands-off simplified approach. 
There is nothing wrong with either of them. Both suit the fiction and game-play balance when well designed. 
What I think is a waste of time, is bringing up irrelevant excuses for why something should / shouldn’t be a certain way.

Lets just be open and honest...

*My opinion* I want the complexity back, because that’s what I like from my CRPG's.

I'm not trolling, or trying to annoy anybody, its just what I want to see return because for the most part I enjoyed those aspects from the original game and expected to see them return in ME2, which didn’t really happen, so in ME3 I would really like to see something done to rectify that.

Modifié par kalwren, 06 mai 2011 - 01:39 .

[MGIII]

I'm game.

[Nashiktal]

Commandant Bob wrote...

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.

I agree with this analysis.

Besides most of the "ropleplaying" mechanics in ME1 was never that fun to me, at least gameplay wise. Pages of useless inventory that was either sold to meaningless credits or omnigel, carbon copy weapons that never had any variation, (except the geth pulse rifle... barely) leveling up was not only a long process but each level didn't feel different from each other, needing a tech expert to open lockers for said useless guns and credits, carbon copy armors... (Except for the sweet colossus armor..)

I like what ME2 TRIED to do. The weapon system was better, the armor system was better, combat felt MUCH better. All it sounds like is that they are trying to improve that. Now instead of having a skill that levels up at the end of a line... You can now have multiple evolutions on a single power... Now they are giving us more armor and weapons to buy, now they are giving us MODS back for weapons to further increase customization.

I don't get it. Everything sounds better. Am I missing something here?

[Terror_K]

marshalleck wrote...

So after what I am assuming is 7 pages of whining, did anyone ever figure out what non-combat stats we had in either ME1 or 2?

Aside from Charm/Intimidate none on a purely non-combat level, but at least in ME1 there were skills that had passive, non-combat aspects to them, which one would sometimes even take and create a build for more than they would for the combat aspects.

[bald man in a boat]

Terror_K wrote...

Aside from Charm/Intimidate none on a purely non-combat level, but at least in ME1 there were skills that had passive, non-combat aspects to them, which one would sometimes even take and create a build for more than they would for the combat aspects.

Like what? 

[didymos1120]

bald man in a boat wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Aside from Charm/Intimidate none on a purely non-combat level, but at least in ME1 there were skills that had passive, non-combat aspects to them, which one would sometimes even take and create a build for more than they would for the combat aspects.

Like what? 

The ability to open MOAR crates!

[Gatt9]

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.

Mr. Priestly,  I'm going to do my best to describe the problem,  and why Bioware's *really* on the wrong track.

In an RPG,  a character is defined by a series of attributes,  and depending on the system,  a series of skills that may or may not have their own stats.  These attributes and stats define the character,  has abilities within the world,  and how he interacts with the world.

Now I'm not going to bother with a PnP example,  I'll use a CRPG,  one you are likely pretty intimately familiar with.  Fallout.  In Fallout your character is defined by a series of visible attributes,  visible skills with stats,  and invisible stats(Reputation).  Your character's attributes directly impact the way the game plays,  if you have a low intelligence,  you speak like the village idiot,  and you cannot have conversations regarding complex topics.  If you have a high intelligence,  you can.

Further,  if you have a high Science skill,  you open more conversational paths,  high repair skill opens other paths.  Etc.  Your attributes and skills have a direct impact on combat and non-combat situations in myriad ways.

Bioware has removed Attributes,  so an idiot can talk quantum physics.  Bioware has condenced the attributes into minor skills,  like Charm,  removing many of them in favor of player skill instead of the Character the player is supposed to be playing.

So it's no small wonder that you suddenly discovered that Charm really doesn't serve any purpose,  you've removed everything that is supposed to be directly connected to it and distilled it into a "Can you pick this one line of dialogue",  which is the exact same function "Paragon" performs.  Had Charm remained a mechanic that affected people's "Liking" you,  the conflict and redundancy never would have arisen.  You've removed most of the purpose from the attributes,  and then you discovered the little bits you left have no purpose.

In looking at it from a narrow perspective,  it might appear to be a positive path,  but once you look at the system as a whole,  and look at everything that was possible and now is not,  it becomes apparent that the system Bioware is using is actually fundamentally flawed. 

In 1998(99?),  Fallout offered more features,  more customization,  more player driven interaction than Bioware offers in 2011 were their latest works.  Why is that?  It's because you've distilled out all of the RPG systems in favor of Player based ones.

Why is this a problem?  You've ceased making RPGs.  The players no longer take on a Role,  the person on screen is an Avatar for the player,  with it's success or failures wholely dependent on the Player's personal abilities.  That's not an RPG,  in the case of Mass Effect,  it's a Shooter with a story.  Now there's nothing wrong with that,  and it's something the Shooter genre desperately needs,  but there's a massive conflict with what you're claiming.

I understand Bioware wants to create a Player driven narrative,  and that systems such as Charm serve no function as they currently exist.  The problem is,  in an RPG,  the narrative is supposed to relate directly to the Character you've created,  and by pushing the game to become a full-on Shooter,  there's no Character.  Look at ME2,  what about any given character in ME2 defines who Shepherd is?

Nothing,  it's a handfull of combat related powers.  I cannot create an incredibly persuasive but combat-inept Character,  I can't create a combat-powerhouse that can't talk his way out of anything,  I can't create a thieving madman,  or an egghead.  All I can do is get combat-related bonuses with my own personal skill being far more important than anything in the character sheet.  I'm just as persuasive,  just as good at hacking and lockpicking as the next guy,  no matter what kind of character he "Created".

That's what the problem is Chris,  you're offering us far less than way we had over a decade ago,  and in the end,  my Character is really no different than every other person on this thread's character.  Which is exactly what I'm taking that quote to mean,  with no non-combat skills,  when ME3 releases,  all that will matter is my personal skill,  and my Shepherd will be no different from everyone elses.

I know what's coming,  the market hasn't changed.  ME2 is Gears of War with a slightly more interactive story,  RPGs haven't changed,  they're still what they were,  RPGs.  Labelling a Shooter an RPG doesn't mean RPGs have changed,  it just means that someone thinks Shooters will sell.

Seriously,  Bioware needs to be honest,  if you want to be a Shooter studio now,  just say it,  just label the games Shooters.  Don't continue to claim to be an RPG studio,  put Shooters in the box,  claim Shooters are now RPGs.  You won't get nearly the fuss about making the game combat oriented if you just drop the pretenses that you're making RPGs.

[AdamNW]

Nyoka wrote...

Do they consider paragon and renegade points as meaningless?

I've read several times here people didn't like having a sniper rifle stat for instance. If you have an actual crosshair, you control directly where the bullet goes, so there would be no need for dice rolls. Is that sort of thing what they're talking about?

The second thing was the impression I got.

I really doubt BW would remove a major game element in the third installment of a trilogy.

Modifié par AdamNW, 06 mai 2011 - 02:12 .

[Kaedan94]

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'm going to have  to agree with others that by your definition, any game where you play as a character (like Master Chief in Halo) would be a RPG... that that just isn't the case.  Though I do agree that RPGs aren't all about stats and rolling dice. 

As long as they have character advancement beyond equipment (abilities and improving those abilities)  it can still qualify as an RPG... though that line get's very thin when you consider games like Devil May Cry and Bayonetta.  The genre lines are being blurred... depending on how much they mix "shooter" with "RPG". 

[marshalleck]

Excellent post, Gatt9.

[bald man in a boat]

didymos1120 wrote...

The ability to open MOAR crates!

LOL. That was some pretty meaningless sh!t. 

[Sentox6]

Saphara wrote...
Fine, and i'll appologise for horrible wording and the apparant "lost in translation" moment, but dont you blasted dare say ive never played something in my life

Or what, you'll come to my house and kill my cat? I offhandedly made a joke about your statement sounding like something a person who hasn't played JRPGs would say. I didn't murder your parents and dance on their graves.

Just saying, perhaps you should consider what's actually worth getting riled up about. Is having played a game genre that vital to your self-worth that you feel the need to defend it so aggressively? To a random guy on the internet, no less?

Modifié par Sentox6, 06 mai 2011 - 02:31 .