402 réponses à ce sujet

[NotEvenAmused]

javierabegazo wrote...

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. 

I used to adore Bioware. Every game they have made from Baldur's Gate through DA:O was both a day 1 purchase and immensely enjoyed (with the exception of the Sonic game, which I never played). Equally enjoyed were Black Isle games, and the two companies worked so much together they still become confused in people's minds.

I remember the conversations I had with game writers and devs on the Bioware forums when Kotor first came out, and I was immensely pleased with the back and forth, the honesty about where they drew some of their inspiration from for conversations in the game.

But you know what? I'm disgusted with them now because of how far they dipped in the past 2 years. And it's pretty glaringly bad. To go so far as blatantly lying about game features (auto-attack is on console DA2, we "promise!"...oh wait, at midnight on launch day, we'll retract that after locking every post on the subject, thanks for the pre-purchases) from what they used to be is both shocking and depressing. Very depressing.

And yeah, I have no belief in their integrity anymore. I used to. I used to trust eveyrthing they said and did, rather unquestioningly. Foolish, perhaps, but it never actually turned out to be wrong, so maybe it was just well-placed trust.

But now, the company that gave us Baldur's Gate instead gives us 14 Day 1 DLC's, but "forgets" to mention that they left a feature of basic functionality out of a game. And the endless lies and BS around DA2 have really really soured me to the company. 

I fully believe that pressure from the suits up top (yes I'm looking at EA) has led to a severe lack of integrity/respectability within Bioware. Pressure to pump out higher quantity than quality.

So why do I still post? Because when something you loved is being torn down in favor of commercialism, you should stand up and say it's wrong. And what's happening to this company IS wrong. If everyone who posts here just says it's all sunshine and cupcakes, then nothing ever changes. If everyone meekly sits down and says "ZOMG I LUVS ALL YOU DO <3<3" then there is no pressure on the company to change.

Trust is hard to earn and easy to lose. Don't blame the messenger when the company begins to hemohrrage it.

Modifié par NotEvenAmused, 09 mai 2011 - 02:29 .

[bald man in a boat]

Maybe you should b!tch about DA2 in the the appropriate forum.

[Walker White]

Someone With Mass wrote...

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

DA2's problem is that it really needed the "hardcore RPG" fanbase to do well (though it still looks like it will be a profitable return on investment, given the reduced development time -- which is the vast majority of development costs).  The ME series has always been a hybrid, and it is not clear that it needs the RPG market to survive.  

Which I think is a good thing; I like the ME series because it is so refreshing different from the horrid and tedious mechanics that have plagued cRPGs for decades.

[Lunatic LK47]

Walker White wrote...


Which I think is a good thing; I like the ME series because it is so refreshing different from the horrid and tedious mechanics that have plagued cRPGs for decades.

This, and this is coming from someone who was introduced to BioWare from KOTOR 1.

[Epic777]

rabidhanar wrote...

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.

rabidhana....
In theory that was all good, in praticallity the player is forced. The further the player walks down the light/dark side the less the powers cost and this is big. Casting heal as a sith was woefully inefficient, in the end force drain(dark side power) was always the better option. That doesn't even count combat and stat bonuses that going fully down one path brings. Playing grey could be done but was heavily discouraged it essentially forces the player. 
I was just speaking about vanilla weapons(i.e no mods) but since you mentioned it. In the end what weapons were you modding? Spectre VII and X weapons because they were so far superior. Because weapon moding were unrestricted you were always modding the same weapons(spectre weapons), good or bad? You decide. 

[Murmillos]

The need for stats depends if you are playing any open type role where you can be anything (Morrowind), and less needed if you are playing a limited predetermined role (ME), Shepard the N7 Alliance Solider.

The point of a stat layout is so you can, as the player, determine what type of player you are attempting to role play as. How strong, agile, smart, charming, healthy, lucky and so forth your character is. Its just more then what your class is and what talents you bring to the field, but just how you effective you are able to utilize those talents and skills.

A silver tongued weak fighting Rogue with poor armor is not going to be an ideal choice on a open battle field, but would be an asset in a bar or store to gain info or better deals. But its up to the player to set up those roles and play with them. With out stats, there is no measurement of poor-good-excellent skills.

Yes stats may not work well within ME as Shepard is a designed character, but that isn't to say any measure of player based stats would never work.

Stats doesn't have to bog the gameplay down, if done right can help shape and direct the role they play.

Modifié par Murmillos, 09 mai 2011 - 03:17 .

[AlanC9]

Murmillos, all I'm getting from that is that adding stats wouldn't ruin ME. I still don't see any good reason to add them.

As opposed to restoring a skill for persuasion, which would fix the biggest flaw in ME2's design. (For once I agree with Terror_K on something)

[AlanC9]

NotEvenAmused wrote...
 To go so far as blatantly lying about game features (auto-attack is on console DA2, we "promise!"...oh wait, at midnight on launch day, we'll retract that after locking every post on the subject, thanks for the pre-purchases) from what they used to be is both shocking and depressing. Very depressing. 

And yeah, I have no belief in their integrity anymore. I used to. I used to trust eveyrthing they said and did, rather unquestioningly. Foolish, perhaps, but it never actually turned out to be wrong, so maybe it was just well-placed trust.

The foolish thing is overrating their competence. You really think that was a nefarious plan and not mere stupidity?

I'm always amazed at how conspiracy theorists have such faith in organizations.

[Chromie]

Combat log gimme one!

[Terror_K]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

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"?

No. Consequences for your actions should be determined by outcomes that happen within the game, not by a statistical measurement. If you're nasty to a bunch of people and then come across them again later the game should reflect it in how they react to you, and not read a meter behind the scenes that judges your overall morality. Your deeds should be reflected by consequences, not the nature of them. The exception to this is if you put in some kind of infamy system whereby NPCs react to your overall moral leaning, but ME2 doesn't do this at all in the game itself. So your statement of you liking it when people respond to your overall morality is moot, because they really don't.

Charisma (or similar variants of it) isn't an "abstract metagame mechanic" if it's done right. It's like any other stat in an RPG: it determines the ability for your character to do something or not. It makes sense for a charismatic character to be, well... charismatic compared to one that isn't, just like it makes sense that a strong character can wield a large sword better than a weak one. Your ability to be charismatic should be determined by how charismatic you are as person, not by how many times you've been charismatic in the past.

Epic777 wrote...

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 problem was that the stats had no more meaning than ones in something like Doom or Quake, whereby the stats are only present in the background because it needs to be programmed into the game how much damage these weapons do, how fast they fire, how much ammo they hold, etc. ME2 is no different from that when it comes to its weapons.

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.

Exactly. The stats weren't varied or balanced well enough, and in most cases when you found a better weapon than the one you were using it was better across the board, or if not the gains made in the other two stats made the small decrease in the remaining one a no-brainer. The weapons needed to be more balanced and better thought out so that changing a weapon was a tougher choice and the player had to actually weigh up whether it was better to go for the one that did more damage, or the one that didn't heat up as much.
 

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.

KotOR didn't just have it so that the result self-fed back into the ability to perform the action though. Your ability to make lightside or darkside choices was either governed by nothing, by persuasion, by force powers you had, or by the level of the stat that determined the subject of dialogue choice. The game didn't present you with dialogue options and then say, "you can't force-choke this person because your dark side score isn't high enough" like ME2 says, "you can't kill this person because you haven't stabbed 25 babies yet, you've only done 22."

Yes, the strength of your powers were affected by your alignment and the degree of it, but your dialogue choices weren't. In KotOr even if I had made 50 alignment choices that were all darkside, I could still make any light side dialogue choice afterwards. The only restriction would be (if one was even in place) whether my persuasion and/or the appropriate stat was, which is the way it should be. My ability to make a choice is determined by my ability to persuade and my knowledge on the subject, which is how it should be.

NotEvenAmused wrote...

javierabegazo wrote...

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. 

I used to adore Bioware. Every game they have made from Baldur's Gate through DA:O was both a day 1 purchase and immensely enjoyed (with the exception of the Sonic game, which I never played). Equally enjoyed were Black Isle games, and the two companies worked so much together they still become confused in people's minds.

I remember the conversations I had with game writers and devs on the Bioware forums when Kotor first came out, and I was immensely pleased with the back and forth, the honesty about where they drew some of their inspiration from for conversations in the game.

But you know what? I'm disgusted with them now because of how far they dipped in the past 2 years. And it's pretty glaringly bad. To go so far as blatantly lying about game features (auto-attack is on console DA2, we "promise!"...oh wait, at midnight on launch day, we'll retract that after locking every post on the subject, thanks for the pre-purchases) from what they used to be is both shocking and depressing. Very depressing.

And yeah, I have no belief in their integrity anymore. I used to. I used to trust eveyrthing they said and did, rather unquestioningly. Foolish, perhaps, but it never actually turned out to be wrong, so maybe it was just well-placed trust.

But now, the company that gave us Baldur's Gate instead gives us 14 Day 1 DLC's, but "forgets" to mention that they left a feature of basic functionality out of a game. And the endless lies and BS around DA2 have really really soured me to the company. 

I fully believe that pressure from the suits up top (yes I'm looking at EA) has led to a severe lack of integrity/respectability within Bioware. Pressure to pump out higher quantity than quality.

So why do I still post? Because when something you loved is being torn down in favor of commercialism, you should stand up and say it's wrong. And what's happening to this company IS wrong. If everyone who posts here just says it's all sunshine and cupcakes, then nothing ever changes. If everyone meekly sits down and says "ZOMG I LUVS ALL YOU DO <3<3" then there is no pressure on the company to change.

Trust is hard to earn and easy to lose. Don't blame the messenger when the company begins to hemohrrage it.

^ This, pretty much. Nothing will change if you just shrug, accept it and move on. That's all you'll be doing all your life if that's the case.

Modifié par Terror_K, 09 mai 2011 - 06:14 .

[CroGamer002]

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:

No.

European RPG's tends to combine them and set up a character but not too much since you can role play with that character to be either a douche or kind and impact plot.

Deus Ex as well.

Modifié par Mesina2, 09 mai 2011 - 06:16 .

[Ahglock]

Murmillos wrote...

The need for stats depends if you are playing any open type role where you can be anything (Morrowind), and less needed if you are playing a limited predetermined role (ME), Shepard the N7 Alliance Solider.

The point of a stat layout is so you can, as the player, determine what type of player you are attempting to role play as. How strong, agile, smart, charming, healthy, lucky and so forth your character is. Its just more then what your class is and what talents you bring to the field, but just how you effective you are able to utilize those talents and skills.

A silver tongued weak fighting Rogue with poor armor is not going to be an ideal choice on a open battle field, but would be an asset in a bar or store to gain info or better deals. But its up to the player to set up those roles and play with them. With out stats, there is no measurement of poor-good-excellent skills.

Yes stats may not work well within ME as Shepard is a designed character, but that isn't to say any measure of player based stats would never work.

Stats doesn't have to bog the gameplay down, if done right can help shape and direct the role they play.

okay lets say I accept that shepard is predefined.  Then why do I pick a class, why do I decide where to put my 51 points.  Is he predefined or not?  About the only thing that is predefined is he is from 1 of 3 backgrounds, 1 of 3 service records, his/her last name is Shepard, and he is a N7 operative.  Why he is a N7 operative is not defined, though you would expect some basic skills in fighting. at the least.  Is he persuasive, no that isn't defined, is he a hacker well until ME2 that was not defined, his appearance isn't defined, the gender isn't defined, his attitude towards aliens isn't defined, his general disposition isn't defined etc.  

So why is there this rush to say it is fine and dandy to cut all of these stats because he is "defined"?  Very little is actually defined.

[Epic777]

 
The problem was that the stats had no more meaning than ones in something like Doom or Quake, whereby the stats are only present in the background because it needs to be programmed into the game how much damage these weapons do, how fast they fire, how much ammo they hold, etc. ME2 is no different from that when it comes to its weapons.

 

Terror, I tell you every weapon in ME2 has a stat(s). Again, stats are not mystical, they are(usually) numerical or visual representations of the skill/item they represent. The stats for all the weapons + armors + upgrades + powers are there in ME2. The weapon stats are hidden under a descriptive blurb but they are there. I am not sure what you are trying to say here, to say that the weapons are not different in ME2 is saying the sky in red -easily disproven. Look here are the stats for two every different shotguns in ME2. And also every FPS from quake to halo has stats for their weapons, except the player doesn't see them. 

M-27 Scimitar
Type: Shotgun
Location: Illium
Accuracy: Low
Recoil: Moderate
Fire Mode: Semi-Automatic
Fire Rate: 100 RPM
Reload Time: 1.5 s
Damage StatsBase Damage: 20.34 (162.7)
Damage Multipliers Armor: x1.0Shields: x1.5Barriers: x1.5
Ammunition Stats
Shots Per Clip: 8
Maximum Spare Ammo Capacity Default: 16
Armor Pack: 17
Upgraded: 32Both: 33
Ammo Pickup Amount: 3 - 13

M-300 Claymore
Type: Shotgun
Location: Collector Cruiser
Accuracy: LowRecoil: High
Fire Mode: Single-Shot
Fire Rate: Low
Reload Time: 1.5 s
Damage Stats
Base Damage: 50.1 (400.8)
Damage Multipliers Armor: x1.25Shields: x1.25Barriers: x1.25
Ammunition Stats
Shots Per Clip: 1
Maximum Spare Ammo Capacity Default: 10
Armor Pack: 11
Upgraded: 20Both: 21A
mmo Pickup Amount: 4 - 7

Modifié par Epic777, 09 mai 2011 - 07:58 .

[Gatt9]

Phaedon wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

If this thread makes something clear,its that a lot of posters her dont know the difference between adventures and rpgs.

Oh and for the record, point and click adventures are conventional adventures.
LA Noire is still an adventure, just in case you will want to complain about that in the future.,

He's right,  and you actually just proved his point.

Not all Adventure games are of the point & click variety.  Tomb Raider and Uncharted are both examples of Action-adventure,  so is Oblivion. 

Oh well, I thought that the first two letters of the acronym make it kinda obvious. Apparently I was wrong. 

The last letter of that acronym is important,  which makes it completely different from straight Roleplaying,  as I covered in your other thread.

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

With all due respect,  not even close.

Starting ~30 years ago,  AD&D introduced the Dragonlance series of game modules,  which featured...predesigned characters.

AD&D is the godfather of *all* RPGs.  AD&D was the first RPG,  it set the standards.  Every single RPG and cRPG are related to it.  This is because they either use it's system as a point of mimicry,  or as a point of avoidance,  where the developers decide to do everything differently from AD&D's core systems.  Regardless of which path they take,  whoever is making it was influenced by AD&D in some way.  Every one shares common fundamental mechanics.

So the very begining of RPGs,  which started in the west,  embraced predefined characters,  and that setting was so well loved it lasted 30 years and spawned well over 100 novels.

From there,  a number of the most prized wRPGs have featured pre-established characters,  once again starting almost at the very begining with Ultima 4.

Ultima 4 (The Avatar)
Fallout (The vault dweller)
Planescape (The unnamed one)
KotOR (The Jedi)
Baldur's Gate (The Bhallspawn)

The JRPG/WRPG thing is actually a myth,  started in the last few years as western studios started implementing choice in dialogue while Japanese ones retained Nintendo's mechanics of non-interactive dialogue and flashy over-the-top combat.  Truth is,  "JRPGs" defining characteristic is linearity and non-interactive dialogue,  that's about it. 

The Gaming Press is responsible for that error,  probably because it was easier to call it "JRPG" than "SNES style" as I doubt they want to deal with angry marketing departments.

So why is there this rush to say it is fine and dandy to cut all of these stats because he is "defined"?  Very little is actually defined.

I would venture it's because there's a bunch of people who don't like RPGs.

Honestly,  in no other Genre's forums will you find a ton of people demanding mechanics be removed and gameplay mimic that of other Genre's except with RPGs.

The more I read,  the more I suspect,  the problem is that people want good stories in their games,  and no other genre bothers to implement a good story.  Almost every FPS/TPS is going to give you some half-baked story about why you're going to go kill everyone,  and send you down a very linear path shooting everything that moves.  I suspect people want some story in their games,  and since RPGs are characterized by stories,  a bunch of people who favor those genres want the RPG's stories,  but want the other genre's gameplay.

It's the only thing that makes sense.  Which is a huge sign that the other genre's have a big problem,  it shows people are seriously disatisfied with the other genres,  and the implications of that are pretty serious.

Of course,  then there's the LARPers...But I'm not even getting started on that one...

[Terror_K]

Epic777 wrote...

 
The problem was that the stats had no more meaning than ones in something like Doom or Quake, whereby the stats are only present in the background because it needs to be programmed into the game how much damage these weapons do, how fast they fire, how much ammo they hold, etc. ME2 is no different from that when it comes to its weapons.

 

Terror, I tell you every weapon in ME2 has a stat(s). Again, stats are not mystical, they are(usually) numerical or visual representations of the skill/item they represent. The stats for all the weapons + armors + upgrades + powers are there in ME2. The weapon stats are hidden under a descriptive blurb but they are there. I am not sure what you are trying to say here, to say that the weapons are not different in ME2 is saying the sky in red -easily disproven. Look here are the stats for two every different shotguns in ME2. And also every FPS from quake to halo has stats for their weapons, except the player doesn't see them. 

They're not real stats if they're not visible to the player in the game. As you say in your last sentence, every FPS has this for their weapons, but as you say at the very end the player doesn't see them. You list those two weapons in your post, but that information is presented nowhere to the player in the game itself while playing.

They're not stats as part of an RPG game system when they're completely cut out of the equation for the player; all they are are the statistical numerical value that determines the various factors of the guns for the purposes of making the gun function in the game from a programming standpoint. If you're going to accept that as a proper RPG stats simply because its a numerical value that determines a factor of the game, then technically every game out there has stats. Any game with a Score has stats, because by your logic they earn statistical points by (for example) killing an enemy with alters the score appropriately depending on how much killing that enemy is worth.

They aren't stats... not as far as being RPG mechanics go. Not if they're completely hidden from the player in the game. And a blurb of text isn't enough. Players should be able to look at the numbers on one weapon and then look at those on another in the game. When all you've got is a vague blurb saying, "this is great against armour, but crap against shields" or something to that effect it doesn't accurately portray the true nature of two weapons comparatively, just like hiding the numbers from the player doesn't either. The only real way a player can really determine how good a weapon is vs. another in ME2 is to use both and see which "feels" better, which is by and large a shooter mechanic, not an RPG one.

And to top it all of, many modern day shooters do a better job of showing the stats on weapons so that players can compare them than ME2 does. When it comes to weapon customisation and information, Call of Duty outdoes ME2 in every sense, and it's not even an RPG.

Modifié par Terror_K, 09 mai 2011 - 08:19 .

[Dave666]

Gatt9 wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

If this thread makes something clear,its that a lot of posters her dont know the difference between adventures and rpgs.

Oh and for the record, point and click adventures are conventional adventures.
LA Noire is still an adventure, just in case you will want to complain about that in the future.,

He's right,  and you actually just proved his point.

Not all Adventure games are of the point & click variety.  Tomb Raider and Uncharted are both examples of Action-adventure,  so is Oblivion. 

Oh well, I thought that the first two letters of the acronym make it kinda obvious. Apparently I was wrong. 

The last letter of that acronym is important,  which makes it completely different from straight Roleplaying,  as I covered in your other thread.

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

With all due respect,  not even close.

Starting ~30 years ago,  AD&D introduced the Dragonlance series of game modules,  which featured...predesigned characters.

AD&D is the godfather of *all* RPGs.  AD&D was the first RPG,  it set the standards.  Every single RPG and cRPG are related to it.  This is because they either use it's system as a point of mimicry,  or as a point of avoidance,  where the developers decide to do everything differently from AD&D's core systems.  Regardless of which path they take,  whoever is making it was influenced by AD&D in some way.  Every one shares common fundamental mechanics.

So the very begining of RPGs,  which started in the west,  embraced predefined characters,  and that setting was so well loved it lasted 30 years and spawned well over 100 novels.

From there,  a number of the most prized wRPGs have featured pre-established characters,  once again starting almost at the very begining with Ultima 4.

Ultima 4 (The Avatar)
Fallout (The vault dweller)
Planescape (The unnamed one)
KotOR (The Jedi)
Baldur's Gate (The Bhallspawn)

The JRPG/WRPG thing is actually a myth,  started in the last few years as western studios started implementing choice in dialogue while Japanese ones retained Nintendo's mechanics of non-interactive dialogue and flashy over-the-top combat.  Truth is,  "JRPGs" defining characteristic is linearity and non-interactive dialogue,  that's about it. 

The Gaming Press is responsible for that error,  probably because it was easier to call it "JRPG" than "SNES style" as I doubt they want to deal with angry marketing departments.

So why is there this rush to say it is fine and dandy to cut all of these stats because he is "defined"?  Very little is actually defined.

I would venture it's because there's a bunch of people who don't like RPGs.

Honestly,  in no other Genre's forums will you find a ton of people demanding mechanics be removed and gameplay mimic that of other Genre's except with RPGs.

The more I read,  the more I suspect,  the problem is that people want good stories in their games,  and no other genre bothers to implement a good story.  Almost every FPS/TPS is going to give you some half-baked story about why you're going to go kill everyone,  and send you down a very linear path shooting everything that moves.  I suspect people want some story in their games,  and since RPGs are characterized by stories,  a bunch of people who favor those genres want the RPG's stories,  but want the other genre's gameplay.

It's the only thing that makes sense.  Which is a huge sign that the other genre's have a big problem,  it shows people are seriously disatisfied with the other genres,  and the implications of that are pretty serious.

Of course,  then there's the LARPers...But I'm not even getting started on that one...

Awesome post! Hats off to you!

[Obro]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Walker White wrote...


Which I think is a good thing; I like the ME series because it is so refreshing different from the horrid and tedious mechanics that have plagued cRPGs for decades.

This, and this is coming from someone who was introduced to BioWare from KOTOR 1.

ALL THE WAY SINCE KOTOR 1??? WOW

Btw are you trying to tell me that kotor1 had horrid and tedious mechanics that have plagued cRPGs for decades? Because if you are...then you are simply wrong.Kotor1 (when it comes to mechanics is probably the best of the old and new.


ALSO back ot:

Wouldn't it be good if every character in the main party would have something specific to him? Think KOTOR2 special feats that only one character can have. Something that would make that specific individual better at something than the average bunch.

Modifié par Obro, 09 mai 2011 - 09:55 .

[Lunatic LK47]

Obro wrote...

ALL THE WAY SINCE KOTOR 1??? WOW

Btw are you trying to tell me that kotor1 had horrid and tedious mechanics that have plagued cRPGs for decades? Because if you are...then you are simply wrong.Kotor1 (when it comes to mechanics is probably the best of the old and new.

Uh, KOTOR assumed that the player knew everything about Dungeons and Dragons, and I am one of those poor schmucks that never was exposed to such games.  Hell, I never heard of Dungeons and Dragons until High School, but never had any interest whatsoever. As it was, I had to consult guides on Gamefaqs just to know what skills to avoid like the plague (like avoiding duel-wielding weapons or dual-bladed lightsabers because my accuracy will always be crap regardless of having "Master Training," or my personal favorite "Bosses will be immune to Critical Hits so don't bother investing"), and ended up sticking with the Scout/Sentinel just because

A. Sentinels are immune to all types of Paralyzing attacks. No point in having all of that extra damage output as a Consular or Jedi Guardian if I'm going to get constantly paralyzed by Fear Attacks and Critical Hits which will screw me over in one-on-one fights.

B. Unless I "bought the right skills," Consular is screwed with half of the Force Powers, especially with boss battles (i.e. Force Wave doesn't stun bosses/Force powers that kill mooks only do 15% against bosses.). Soldier/Jedi Guardians are one-man Rambos that suck in the skill departments.

C. I could get at least most of the content with optimal results without being gimped in other areas (i.e. Constant success in Persuasion/Maxing out HK-47/Hacking computers come into mind).

[Icinix]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Obro wrote...

ALL THE WAY SINCE KOTOR 1??? WOW

Btw are you trying to tell me that kotor1 had horrid and tedious mechanics that have plagued cRPGs for decades? Because if you are...then you are simply wrong.Kotor1 (when it comes to mechanics is probably the best of the old and new.

Uh, KOTOR assumed that the player knew everything about Dungeons and Dragons, and I am one of those poor schmucks that never was exposed to such games.  Hell, I never heard of Dungeons and Dragons until High School, but never had any interest whatsoever. As it was, I had to consult guides on Gamefaqs just to know what skills to avoid like the plague (like avoiding duel-wielding weapons or dual-bladed lightsabers because my accuracy will always be crap regardless of having "Master Training," or my personal favorite "Bosses will be immune to Critical Hits so don't bother investing"), and ended up sticking with the Scout/Sentinel just because

A. Sentinels are immune to all types of Paralyzing attacks. No point in having all of that extra damage output as a Consular or Jedi Guardian if I'm going to get constantly paralyzed by Fear Attacks and Critical Hits which will screw me over in one-on-one fights.

B. Unless I "bought the right skills," Consular is screwed with half of the Force Powers, especially with boss battles (i.e. Force Wave doesn't stun bosses/Force powers that kill mooks only do 15% against bosses.). Soldier/Jedi Guardians are one-man Rambos that suck in the skill departments.

C. I could get at least most of the content with optimal results without being gimped in other areas (i.e. Constant success in Persuasion/Maxing out HK-47/Hacking computers come into mind).

I knew nothing about Dungeons and Dragons.

I had never really played RPG' much. (Flight sims, shooters, RTS were the games stealing my life)

KOTOR was the first RPG I played.

I picked it up in no time and loved every second of it. Played it multiple times found new things and so on and so fourth. Kicked arse in it too.

At the time a lot of my friends got into it too, they were the same as me. I know it's not much of an argument, but for everyone I know, KOTOR was a cheesecake to get into and was nowhere near as difficult as you are making it out too be.

Edit: Also come to think of it, I've never really spent any time speccing out and doing all that stuff you've mentioned in any RPG I've ever played...

Modifié par Icinix, 09 mai 2011 - 10:39 .

[Ahriman]

Icinix wrote...
I knew nothing about Dungeons and Dragons.

I had never really played RPG' much. (Flight sims, shooters, RTS were the games stealing my life)

KOTOR was the first RPG I played.

I picked it up in no time and loved every second of it. Played it multiple times found new things and so on and so fourth. Kicked arse in it too.

At the time a lot of my friends got into it too, they were the same as me. I know it's not much of an argument, but for everyone I know, KOTOR was a cheesecake to get into and was nowhere near as difficult as you are making it out too be.

Edit: Also come to think of it, I've never really spent any time speccing out and doing all that stuff you've mentioned in any RPG I've ever played...

Same story. When I saw that combat log for the first time my thought was "d20? What? I should go.". Still I had no problems with character 'builds' [heck, I did everything intuitively] and fights were difficult only when they supposed to be like that. So what I'm trying to tell, most of rpgs are easy if you spend five minuts on reading descriptions of skills. Nothing tedious or extraordinary [well, I don't speak about ME1's inventory, it's just junk fountain]

[Lunatic LK47]

Icinix wrote...


I had never really played RPG' much. (Flight sims, shooters, RTS were the games stealing my life)

I played three shooters at most, less than several RTS games, a couple Adventure games, four Mega Man games, five Mortal Kombatsand at most, 9 JRPGs completed (a majority of them being sequels)

KOTOR was the first RPG I played.

KOTOR was my first Western RPG.

I picked it up in no time and loved every second of it. Played it multiple times found new things and so on and so fourth. Kicked arse in it too.

Started out with Soldier, but regretted it by the time I was done with Tatooine. That was when I started consulting the guides and permanently stuck with the Scout/Sentinel

Also come to think of it, I've never really spent any time speccing out and doing all that stuff you've mentioned in any RPG I've ever played...

Anything to get the edge in battle. I only went by what is considered Useful (i.e. Master Flurry, Master Conditioning, Master Dueling came to mind for example.). Always ended up playing Light Side, since Dark Side was little more than a tame version of Grand Theft Auto, minus the ship-jacking.

[Nohvarr]

Mesina2 wrote...

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:

No.

European RPG's tends to combine them and set up a character but not too much since you can role play with that character to be either a douche or kind and impact plot.

Deus Ex as well.

This is how it works in Mass Effect

Casey Hudson: All right, PC, I’m going to run a sci-fi campaign for the group and I need you to make a party leader.

PC: (nods) All right…

Hudson: Now all the world details you need to know are in this (places a thick binder on the table). But what I need you to do is make sure that this person is a highly capable and loyal Alliance Marine with years of combat experience on the front lines in the thick of fighting. This person needs to be able to consistently command people under fire as well.

PC: (Leaning back and thinking) all right so this character is in excellent physical shape, and would be skilled with most standard weapons.

Casey: (smiling) Every Marine is rifle trained. (The two chuckle sharing an old joke)

PC: (smiling) so this Marine would have to be persuasive since leading people isn’t just about rank but you’re ability to convince the people under your command that you’re doing the right thing. (Hmmms to themselves mulling the basics of the character over). Going to have to be fairly intelligent too…and the career path is going to determine certain things as well.

Thus were the basic stats taken care of for Commander Shepard. In ME your physical stats were determined by the characters background. The military isn’t going to send you out on combat missions if you’re half blind and struggling to carry your pack, so allowing people to make a character with subpar strength wouldn’t make sense. Same goes for the rest of your stats. You are not just good, you’re excellent, an artist on the battlefield. Bioware essentially gave you earth 616 version Captain America (Which looks like a good movie by the way) physical stats. Then said you can customize his powers/abilities/skills, modify weapons and armor pick armor. Further more Bioware said that you can play your character anywhere between Dirty Harry or Captain Picard.

A JRPG gives you a characters whose attitudes you are unable to define and won’t allow you to influence the story (except for games like Persona 4).

Squenix: “We have a story to tell” and they’re not about to let the player ruin it by going off the rails.

Modifié par Nohvarr, 09 mai 2011 - 11:11 .

[Da Mecca]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Obro wrote...

ALL THE WAY SINCE KOTOR 1??? WOW

Btw are you trying to tell me that kotor1 had horrid and tedious mechanics that have plagued cRPGs for decades? Because if you are...then you are simply wrong.Kotor1 (when it comes to mechanics is probably the best of the old and new.

Uh, KOTOR assumed that the player knew everything about Dungeons and Dragons, and I am one of those poor schmucks that never was exposed to such games.  Hell, I never heard of Dungeons and Dragons until High School, but never had any interest whatsoever. As it was, I had to consult guides on Gamefaqs just to know what skills to avoid like the plague (like avoiding duel-wielding weapons or dual-bladed lightsabers because my accuracy will always be crap regardless of having "Master Training," or my personal favorite "Bosses will be immune to Critical Hits so don't bother investing"), and ended up sticking with the Scout/Sentinel just because

A. Sentinels are immune to all types of Paralyzing attacks. No point in having all of that extra damage output as a Consular or Jedi Guardian if I'm going to get constantly paralyzed by Fear Attacks and Critical Hits which will screw me over in one-on-one fights.

B. Unless I "bought the right skills," Consular is screwed with half of the Force Powers, especially with boss battles (i.e. Force Wave doesn't stun bosses/Force powers that kill mooks only do 15% against bosses.). Soldier/Jedi Guardians are one-man Rambos that suck in the skill departments.

C. I could get at least most of the content with optimal results without being gimped in other areas (i.e. Constant success in Persuasion/Maxing out HK-47/Hacking computers come into mind).

I had ual wielding and made out just fine.

I never understood people who have to play a game "right".

Just have fun

[SalsaDMA]

Da Mecca wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Obro wrote...

ALL THE WAY SINCE KOTOR 1??? WOW

Btw are you trying to tell me that kotor1 had horrid and tedious mechanics that have plagued cRPGs for decades? Because if you are...then you are simply wrong.Kotor1 (when it comes to mechanics is probably the best of the old and new.

Uh, KOTOR assumed that the player knew everything about Dungeons and Dragons, and I am one of those poor schmucks that never was exposed to such games.  Hell, I never heard of Dungeons and Dragons until High School, but never had any interest whatsoever. As it was, I had to consult guides on Gamefaqs just to know what skills to avoid like the plague (like avoiding duel-wielding weapons or dual-bladed lightsabers because my accuracy will always be crap regardless of having "Master Training," or my personal favorite "Bosses will be immune to Critical Hits so don't bother investing"), and ended up sticking with the Scout/Sentinel just because

A. Sentinels are immune to all types of Paralyzing attacks. No point in having all of that extra damage output as a Consular or Jedi Guardian if I'm going to get constantly paralyzed by Fear Attacks and Critical Hits which will screw me over in one-on-one fights.

B. Unless I "bought the right skills," Consular is screwed with half of the Force Powers, especially with boss battles (i.e. Force Wave doesn't stun bosses/Force powers that kill mooks only do 15% against bosses.). Soldier/Jedi Guardians are one-man Rambos that suck in the skill departments.

C. I could get at least most of the content with optimal results without being gimped in other areas (i.e. Constant success in Persuasion/Maxing out HK-47/Hacking computers come into mind).

I had ual wielding and made out just fine.

I never understood people who have to play a game "right".

Just have fun

Same. I used a soldier-guardian that specialized in dualwielding melee weapons / light sabers while wearing armor (specialized in force powers that weren't affected by armor)...

Game ended up pretty easy in that build I felt. Heck, the final battle I wasn't even paying attention and the boss was allowed to drain over half the 'batteries' before I figured it might be faster if I shut down his batteries before killing him all the time...

[Obro]

Da Mecca wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Obro wrote...

ALL THE WAY SINCE KOTOR 1??? WOW

Btw are you trying to tell me that kotor1 had horrid and tedious mechanics that have plagued cRPGs for decades? Because if you are...then you are simply wrong.Kotor1 (when it comes to mechanics is probably the best of the old and new.

Uh, KOTOR assumed that the player knew everything about Dungeons and Dragons, and I am one of those poor schmucks that never was exposed to such games.  Hell, I never heard of Dungeons and Dragons until High School, but never had any interest whatsoever. As it was, I had to consult guides on Gamefaqs just to know what skills to avoid like the plague (like avoiding duel-wielding weapons or dual-bladed lightsabers because my accuracy will always be crap regardless of having "Master Training," or my personal favorite "Bosses will be immune to Critical Hits so don't bother investing"), and ended up sticking with the Scout/Sentinel just because

A. Sentinels are immune to all types of Paralyzing attacks. No point in having all of that extra damage output as a Consular or Jedi Guardian if I'm going to get constantly paralyzed by Fear Attacks and Critical Hits which will screw me over in one-on-one fights.

B. Unless I "bought the right skills," Consular is screwed with half of the Force Powers, especially with boss battles (i.e. Force Wave doesn't stun bosses/Force powers that kill mooks only do 15% against bosses.). Soldier/Jedi Guardians are one-man Rambos that suck in the skill departments.

C. I could get at least most of the content with optimal results without being gimped in other areas (i.e. Constant success in Persuasion/Maxing out HK-47/Hacking computers come into mind).

I had ual wielding and made out just fine.

I never understood people who have to play a game "right".

Just have fun

same here bro a stealth based dual wielding light sabers with bunch of skills. And I honestly had no problem and I have never ever before played something with stats. I just read what they do and then decide what character and I going to play and I go with it. What I miss doing I do with another character in the next playthrought.