402 réponses à ce sujet

[Phaedon]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

@Salsa If a player has already been established, then that's a JRPG, not a WRPG.

Wtf?

That's your response?

Established characters means it's an entire different genre of games???

I can't believe I even got suckered into debating with you when you start throwing around random stuff like that...

I see now this is pointless. I guess I should be thankfull in some way to show me so clearly how pointless debating rpgs with you is

Consider me out of this waste of time

Uh, it's an WRPG. You are making your role, not playing one that is already made for you.
At least that's what happens to an extend in both games.

[Ahglock]

AlanC9 wrote...

Ahglock wrote...
But, without a skill I think you are more shallow in conversation though.  I think ME1 and 2 did conversations wrong with greying out optiions, but skills in themselves I don't have a problem with.  I think it makes for a deeper character if you have the option to choose any conversation line, but your characters skill in convincing others determines the impact.  Pick your favorite orator, have me read one of his speaches and have him/her read the same speach, who do you think will be more persuasive?  It isn't just the words that make a person persuasive, but how they are said.  Stats help you define that level of success.  No stats, and it is a win or lose button every time in the same conversation.  To me that is more limiting, what if I want my shepard to know what to say, but suck at saying it?  You can't really do that without stats.  

Implementing this right would require two different VOs for Shepard when you pick a persuade option -- one where he has the skill he needs, and the other where he does not. I can see why Bio didn't go that route.

Yeah I had thought about that.  And except for just ignoring it, I did not really have an option.  It is maybe one of the reasons I prefer non-voiced RPGs when it comes to conversation options.  

[tonnactus]

Phaedon wrote...

@Salsa If a player has already been established, then that's a JRPG, not a WRPG.

So the Witcher is a JRPG now....
:happy:

[Epic777]

~delete~

Modifié par Epic777, 08 mai 2011 - 09:08 .

[Da Mecca]

tonnactus wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

@Salsa If a player has already been established, then that's a JRPG, not a WRPG.

So the Witcher is a JRPG now....
:happy:

Apparently so is Mass Effect.

[Ahglock]

Phaedon wrote...


Uh, it's an WRPG. You are making your role, not playing one that is already made for you.
At least that's what happens to an extend in both games.

Yeah but the extent to which it is carried is to some degree the point of discussion.  Sure you are playing Shepard and that comes with some things, he is a special forces operative etc.  But we accept that he can be a soldier, or a adept, or an engineer etc.  If he is an adept he only starts knowing how to use a pistol and SMG, a soldier he knows how to use all guns except SMG's.  Why are variations in combat skill easy to accept, but not variations in skill out of combat?  

If anything given his known background his combat skills seem more liekly to be inflexible than his non-combat skills. I kind of wished if your backgorund had given you access to certain skills.  Like maybe spacer shepard grew up having to keep low end crap running under difficult solutions and is trained in basic reapir or electronics, while collonist shepard  had to deal with illness and is trained in first aid, and Terran shepard grew up surrounded by people and picked up a gift for gab.  Hell they don't even have to be skills you put point sinto, modifiers upon shepards basic make up would add a lot of depth to me.  Like + or - 25% in certain non-combat skill sets.  Call them quirks or feats or something.  

Modifié par Ahglock, 08 mai 2011 - 09:18 .

[cachx]

tonnactus wrote...

cachx wrote...
Who cares about playstyles and personal preferences?

Well,if its about "playstyle": Thats what weapon/ammo mods were for in the first game.A rifle that never overheats,or one that did this fast,but did more damage.
Or one that could be used for effective crowd control(explosive ammo)
So its already existed in the first game

I thought this was an argument about ME2's guns on their own merits. Why the sudden backpedal to ME1 vs. ME2? That stuff is still as annoying as it was a year ago. Better to run to that cover instead of admitting you were wrong, I guess.

Look at the comments on the video you posted, first words from the author: "It really depends on how you like to play". And if you ask me, the test wasn't even that clean anyway (squadmates alive, dependant on player aiming and shooting skill, using only one class skill...).

Of course some weapons have a clear advantage on firepower, but it's not clear cut, I know a lot of vanguards that don't like the Claymore or soldiers that like to stick to the Mattock, for example.

tonnactus wrote...

Phaedon wrote...
@Salsa If a player has already been established, then that's a JRPG, not a WRPG.

So the Witcher is a JRPG now....
[smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/happy.png[/smilie]

It depends, if the plot is completely railroaded, and you can't make choices or change the behaviour/lines/personality of the lead char, then it may as well be one .

[SalsaDMA]

Phaedon wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

@Salsa If a player has already been established, then that's a JRPG, not a WRPG.

Wtf?

That's your response?

Established characters means it's an entire different genre of games???

I can't believe I even got suckered into debating with you when you start throwing around random stuff like that...

I see now this is pointless. I guess I should be thankfull in some way to show me so clearly how pointless debating rpgs with you is

Consider me out of this waste of time

Uh, it's an WRPG. You are making your role, not playing one that is already made for you.
At least that's what happens to an extend in both games.

Call me a hypocrite for bothering one more reply then

How can I say this as gentle as possible? You are wrong.

Playing an established character or not have nothing to do with JRPG or WRPG. Have you ever attended roleplaying cons? It is very common for rpg scenarios to be played at those where players play in a specific story the gamemaster prepared, and are playing, wait for it.... wait for it.... just a tad longer.... established characters (gasp!) the gamemaster created prior to the event. Players are handed sheets of paper telling them info about their characters like stats, background and quirks.

Now PLEASE don't tell me you are going to try and claim that pen and paper rpgs are split up in WRPGS and JRPGS, as those are strictly terms used for variations of CRPGS and thus are meaningless in the relation of wether you are playing an established character or not.

And while we are at it, let's not forget that the debate originated with Mass Effect, a game that by your claim just above would be classified as a JRPG.... Cause you are playing the role of the established character Commander Shepard, a human N7 specialist that is handpicked as a candidate to be humanitys first Spectre.

Surely you should see there is something wrong with you trying to claim that ME is a JRPG...


the kicking point, though, for why I considered it pointless to continue the debate, was that you disregarded all the points that showed you were in error without as much as a comment, but just threw a random out of the blue line across the board in an effort to try and ignore that roleplaying means 'playing the role of your character', and not 'you playing as you'.

Modifié par SalsaDMA, 08 mai 2011 - 09:24 .

[cachx]

SalsaDMA wrote...
And while we are at it, let's not forget that the debate originated with Mass Effect, a game that by your claim just above would be classified as a JRPG.... Cause you are playing the role of the established character Commander Shepard, a human N7 specialist that is handpicked as a candidate to be humanitys first Spectre.

But you can be Renegade Shep, Paragon Shep, Neutro Shep or a combination of them. Spike haired emo-kid remains spike-haired emo kid forever (unless plot requires, not prompted by player action).

Of course, I realize there are exceptions to this...

[Tony Gunslinger]

Hey guys, just want to post this so we can talk about RPG elements:


PLAYER'S TASKS IN ME1 AFTER EACH MISSION

1) Conversations with squad members x 6 times
2) Conversations with crew (Chakwas, Joker)
2) Manage armor x 7 characters = 7 times
3) Manage armor upgrades x 2 slots x 7 = 14 times
4) Manage weapons x 7 characters x 4 weapons = 28 times
5) Manage weapon upgrades x 3 slots x 7 characters x 4 weapons = 84 times
6) Manage omnitools for Shepard / Kaiden / Garrus / Tali / Liara = 5 times
7) Manage bioamps for Shpard / Kaiden / Liara / Wrex = 4 times
8) Manage grenade upgrades x 1 time
9) Shop / reload for random loot
10) Sell unwanted items for money
11) Convert unwanted items into omnigel
12) Manage skill points x 7 characters


PLAYER'S TASKS IN ME2 AFTER EACH MISSION

1) Conversations with squad members x 10 (Kasumi and Zaeed excluded)
2) Conversations with crew (Joker, Ken/Gabby, Kelly, Chakwas, Gardner, EDI)
3) Manage skill points x 11 characters
4) Check for upgrades status
5) Check for emails
6) Check for squad member status / swap outfits x 10 (excluding DLC)
7) Research available upgrades
8) Manage squad member weapons, 10 squad characters x 2 weapon slots
9) Manage weapons for Shepard (4 max weapon slots + 1 Heavy Weapon)
10) Manage armor pieces and casual outfit for Shepard
11) Probe planets

I like to hear your thoughts on what tasks above are considered too tedious or too simplified, tasks that you like to be simplified or expanded, and new tasks that have not been mentioned.

[Murmillos]

^Tony,

I wouldn't say I did EACH of those things after each mission. In some cases I would only level somebody up if I take them on a mission with me. In the case of Ashly (yes, I'm a hater) she would only reach level 4 - ever, in any game, except for one in which I used to unlock her squad bonus.

I didn't really check weapons, upgrade all that much, it just didn't matter to me. I wasn't that anal about needing to update / upgrade / inspect every squad member (even myself) after every mission. Hell, I'd omnigel everything right away, only upgrading the loot every 4-5 levels.

The game was much better that way.


Heck, I don't even do half the things you do in ME2.. do you really check each members loot/weapons/status/skill points after each mission? I only worry about the 2 I plan on taking with me at the time I take them.

Modifié par Murmillos, 08 mai 2011 - 11:06 .

[Minister of Sound]

Nohvarr wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I recall a situation in ME1 on Noveria where you could hack a computer and kill a bunch of Rachni in a tube, or failing it, have to manually kill them yourself.

That kinda thing could be implemented more often relatively easily, I imagine.

They already did that in ME 2, you could hack a mech to make it attack mercs in one mission.

That felt like more of a bonus, rather than an alternate route.

The thing about non-combat skills in ME1 is that it made my party members feel more useful. I appreciated that I could have the squad take care of esoteric things like healing, repairing and hacking. Having a squad that had various different skills outside of combat made me more that I had an elite squad of specialists with me and more like in a sci-fi movie.

[Terror_K]

Phaedon wrote...

Exactly, while I support stats in things that the player can't control (in that case, their restrictive role is good, as it is the only way to achieve the proper result), in things that the player can control, such as dialogue, they are nothingn but limits. Your character is significantly more shallow, and the facets that you can add to their personality are few to none.

RPGs need limits. What they can't do defines a character as much as the skills and abilities they have and what they can. ME2 suffers from a lack of stats determining things which results in Shepard being a master of all trades with nothing limiting them when it should be.

In most RPGs restrictions on dialogue are related to how much knowledge they have on certain areas and how persuasive they are. The reason this fails in ME2 isn't because the concept of stats-determined dialogue itself is wrong, but because ME2 fudges it up with it's stupid self-feeding paragon and renegade meter.

In the first game you had proper stats determining it, which reflected how Charming or Indimidating you were, and it was a variation on things like DAO having your strength and cunning delegate these factors. Mass Effect doesn't go into the depth of things like base stats (i.e. Strength, Intelligence, etc.) that determine knowledge or specific knowledge-based skills (it doesn't even use your class to determine this, such as an Engineer having tech-based knowledge or an Adept knowing about biotics), so it just had two skills that you could pump stats into to make your Shepard more persuasive in that manner, and thus define them.

ME2's system is horribly broken because it doesn't really have any stats behind it, and is self-dependent and self-feeding (i.e. the result is what determines the strength). Because of this the ability is not determined by how charming or how intimidating Shepard is at all, but instead by how many babies he/she has kissed or stabbed. It's a stupid system that breaks the game, screws up and limits roleplaying, forces players into choosing one path over the other and just doesn't work at all. The fact is, the game would work better if once again there were stats and skills determining this.

[Lvl20DM]

I think it would be a mistake, though, to implement charm/intimidate as they were in ME1. In games as combat focused as the ME games, having an ability that only impacts non-combat (and thus takes away from combat skills) is a bad idea. In a game where combat is less important (or where a good charm will actually help you complete the game differently and bypass fights) this system is okay.

In ME2, at least, you raised your paragon/renegade along with some essential combat stats. While I liked this, I did think that the "class" power in ME2 was probably too good. I'm guessing most players max that one out. The fact that you were forced to engage in dialogue a certain way in order to get some responses is problematic, as well. This could be solved by a) removing that function of the paragon/renegade system - those points could instead give group bonuses (+x% hit points for paragon score, +x% damage for renegade scores, etc.) or partition off a set of non-combat skills. The second option would have a set of skills like Hacking, Charm, and Intimidate.

[Tony Gunslinger]

Murmillos wrote...

^Tony,

I wouldn't say I did EACH of those things after each mission. In some cases I would only level somebody up if I take them on a mission with me. In the case of Ashly (yes, I'm a hater) she would only reach level 4 - ever, in any game, except for one in which I used to unlock her squad bonus.

I didn't really check weapons, upgrade all that much, it just didn't matter to me. I wasn't that anal about needing to update / upgrade / inspect every squad member (even myself) after every mission. Hell, I'd omnigel everything right away, only upgrading the loot every 4-5 levels.

The game was much better that way.


Heck, I don't even do half the things you do in ME2.. do you really check each members loot/weapons/status/skill points after each mission? I only worry about the 2 I plan on taking with me at the time I take them.

I think the average player would not check weapon upgrades 84 times, but the option to do so is there. But at the same time, you wouldn't know if it's important of not until you've done those tasks. So the question is, if doing that task didn't matter that you, why should that task be there, why can't it be simplified? People say scanning planets is tedious and you might as well let EDI do it. Is the task of manually scanning planets as compelling an experience as swapping out upgrades potentially 84 times?

I really want to know what people think of this.

@Terror_K,

I like the fact that how many babies I've killed or kiss determines how people respond to what I say. Shouldn't my decisions have a dynamic effect to other decisions in the same playthrough, or is it better to separate the relationship between choice and consequence, and have consequences ruled by an abstract metagame mechanic called "Charisma"?

[Chaos Gate]

Phaedon wrote...

Chaos Gate wrote...
Nice job insulting an entire community. Now there's elitism if I've ever seen it.

What?

RPGs are competing with the rest of the market. If they weren't, RPGs would be long dead and buried by now in our ruthless consumer society, and we wouldn't be wetting our pants over releases like Fallout 3, The Witcher 2 and Skyrim.

Yes, thank you for proving my point, only 2 big RPG releases this year. RPGs are not a popular genre any more, you know it to be true.

I think RPGs should be about playing a role, a good story and choices, but still accompanied by things like stats and inventory. Because if you take away those latter, more technical elements, then the game genre slids straight into another genre, or at least, perilously close to it. Case in point - ME2, which resembled Gears of War too much for my liking. And this coming from a Gears fan.

Speaking of souls, I hated Icewind Dale. The game had no soul.

Are you basically saying that what defines RPGs are stats? Thank you. You proved my point.

You haven't proven anything.

RPGs are a combination of many things - some of those elements are things like stats and inventory. Thing is, lots of genre types now incorporate the other elements - choice, playing a role, and so on. And so, an RPG wihout its technical elements gets dangerously close to simply becoming another type of game. Mass Effect 2 is the perfect example of this - it's as close to a simple third person shooter as you can get.

I also agree wholeheartedly with the poster who pointed out that you are mixing up adventure games with RPGs. There are some similarities between them, but there are also core differences.

Furthermore, RPGs don't get released that often not because they are unpopular, but because they take longer to make, due to their depth and longer than usual playtime. 

Seriously d00d, you argue with unsubstantiated opinion. It's no wonder you've got so many people flummoxed!

[Epic777]

Terror_K wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

Exactly, while I support stats in things that the player can't control (in that case, their restrictive role is good, as it is the only way to achieve the proper result), in things that the player can control, such as dialogue, they are nothingn but limits. Your character is significantly more shallow, and the facets that you can add to their personality are few to none.

RPGs need limits. What they can't do defines a character as much as the skills and abilities they have and what they can. ME2 suffers from a lack of stats determining things which results in Shepard being a master of all trades with nothing limiting them when it should be.

In most RPGs restrictions on dialogue are related to how much knowledge they have on certain areas and how persuasive they are. The reason this fails in ME2 isn't because the concept of stats-determined dialogue itself is wrong, but because ME2 fudges it up with it's stupid self-feeding paragon and renegade meter.

In the first game you had proper stats determining it, which reflected how Charming or Indimidating you were, and it was a variation on things like DAO having your strength and cunning delegate these factors. Mass Effect doesn't go into the depth of things like base stats (i.e. Strength, Intelligence, etc.) that determine knowledge or specific knowledge-based skills (it doesn't even use your class to determine this, such as an Engineer having tech-based knowledge or an Adept knowing about biotics), so it just had two skills that you could pump stats into to make your Shepard more persuasive in that manner, and thus define them.

ME2's system is horribly broken because it doesn't really have any stats behind it, and is self-dependent and self-feeding (i.e. the result is what determines the strength). Because of this the ability is not determined by how charming or how intimidating Shepard is at all, but instead by how many babies he/she has kissed or stabbed. It's a stupid system that breaks the game, screws up and limits roleplaying, forces players into choosing one path over the other and just doesn't work at all. The fact is, the game would work better if once again there were stats and skills determining this.

Does every weapon in ME2 have the same behavior? No. A M-27 Scimitar has a high rate of fire, low damage, high clip count. The M-300 Claymore has a low rate of fire, high damage and low clip count. For ME2 to not have stats it would mean the both shotguns behaved exactly the same. There is NOTHING mystical about RPG stats, all they are a representation of the variables of their item or skill. Now ME2 always has stats except the players don't get to see them, they are just described. I agree the player needs a better representation of the stats, be than numbers of graphical.

The common complaint is ME1 had so many weapons, all the weapons stats drowned the player. Thats a LIE. The biggest problem was there was not enough variation in the stats. Shotgun A-6 did not seem to do much different than Shotgun A-7. Both shoguns seem to overheat at the same pace, did the same damage etc.
 
Bioware forcing you into either morality is not different from your average RPG. KOTOR I/II are prime examples. Now a player could try and play neutral, however limits the game that choice. Going fully darkside or fully lightside nexts the player bonuses. The strength of your powers were directly linked to being good or bad.

[NotEvenAmused]

I remember this same bull**** when DA2 came out. They spent months and months saying that "Everything's okay!!! NO REALLY!!! We didn't mean what we said we meant something else!" And then everyone' fears about DA2 turned out to be 100% accurate.

I have zero faith in Bioware at this point. They blew all the trust they had with that pile of **** that was DA2. I'll believe all their hype and BS when the game's released and a few weeks' worth of reviews have gone by .

I'll chalk this up as one more very troubling thing that they're undoubtedly lying about.

[Tony Gunslinger]

Epic777 wrote...
There is NOTHING mystical about RPG stats, all they are a representation of the variables of their item or skill.

Yes, stats are by definition a representation of some type of quality or phenomenon, and they are used in RPGs because RPGs for the longest time need a respresentative system due to technology constraints. You can't simulate the 100 or so muscles in your warrior's body lifting an axe and smashing it against a 3-inch iron steel armor and calculate how many stress fractures it produces, so you use concepts like Strength and Dex to represent variables, and roll a dice for the complicated physics behind hitting a guy with an axe. But Mass Effect has guns, and in this day and age, we can simulate the real physics involved in gunplay (or close enough), so therefore you don't need to represent "accuracy" and when you can simulate the factors that determine if your shot hit or missed. Really, the only barrier left to break is the picture plane, and game/movie makers really want to have you literally lift a 200-pound axe in your living room (or at least trick you into believing you did). But that's another debate for another 20 years or so.

It makes me think of the move Existenz: (note that Jude Law and Jennifer Jason Leigh are simulaneously playing the game and metagaming at the same time)

And I understand the appeal of being able to quantify everything in a chart and looking at any situation from an isometric god-like point of view, free from real-world restraints like time. I just don't think Mass Effect is going in that direction. In any case, stats themselves do not neccessarily make a game an RPG to begin with, they're just another system.

[bald man in a boat]

LOL. What is RPG... Really? Again?

Fail.

[Tony Gunslinger]

Role-playing game is the holy grail of all games. It makes a player forget about their real lives and become another person living another life that is more fantastic. But until we invent the holodeck, we'll just have to settle with our computers.

[rabidhanar]

Epic...
As to the weapons. There were these things called weapon mods that worked better than certain weapons having certain stats. If I want a burst rifle, high explosive rounds work. Want a rifle with slower ROF? Add some cryo rounds into it. Want large clip? Add frictionless materials. This allowed the PLAYER to decide the type of combat they enjoyed, they could just mod their favorite weapon with the proper mods. If ME2 used mods, I as a player could change my revenent, for example, into a slower ROF weapon that still keeps it's large ammo size. Or I could increase the ROF while lowering the damage to create a literal rain of bullets.

As to the morality situation.. In the games that you list, a player is not forced to choose a path to continue. KOTOR could get every dialogue option available regardless of alignment. Nothing had a perquisite bar to increase. All the alignment did was give a bonus for choosing a certain alignment. Less force points required for using the same alignment such as heal for a light side character. Yet any Jedi/Sith could learn heal, same with force lightning.

[javierabegazo]

NotEvenAmused wrote...

I remember this same bull**** when DA2 came out. They spent months and months saying that "Everything's okay!!! NO REALLY!!! We didn't mean what we said we meant something else!" And then everyone' fears about DA2 turned out to be 100% accurate.

I have zero faith in Bioware at this point. They blew all the trust they had with that pile of **** that was DA2. I'll believe all their hype and BS when the game's released and a few weeks' worth of reviews have gone by .

I'll chalk this up as one more very troubling thing that they're undoubtedly lying about.

I'm always amused at posters like you who are so disatisfied with everything about BioWare, and yet you still spend your free time perusing the forums for a game company you obviously believes has no integrity. 

[bald man in a boat]

^ You must be very amused right now Javi. My favourites keep complaining and keep adding registered games to their profile at the same time.

[Someone With Mass]

STOP COMPARING DA2 TO ME3! The only thing they have in common is that they were both made by BioWare.

The only thing you're doing when you're making aforementioned comparison is proving how ignorant you are about how BioWare's making their games.