402 réponses à ce sujet

[AngryFrozenWater]

javierabegazo wrote...

I've decided to make a new thread for this topic on the grounds first to clear up the misunderstanding and to give a clean slate to the topic.
The previous thread was this.

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

-Christina Norman, Lead Gameplay Designer of Mass Effect 3
Twitter / @Christina Norman: I was misrepresented in an ...

I feel bad about this. I have used that article several times to point out that ME3 was going in the wrong direction. I have PMed Christina Norman to apologize for this.

I am a fan of her. She appears to me like a cool nerd who loves her work and the game. So, I should have known better. She turning 180 degrees in the opposite direction should have been an indication that something was wrong with that article.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 09 mai 2011 - 03:58 .

[tonnactus]

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.

Its even so absurd that a soldier shepardt with a biotic bonus power also get the advantages of the biotic armor upgrades where in Mass Effect only biotics could use bioamps...

[Phaedon]

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:

Oh and Risen. They are not classic D&D style of WRPGs, therefore not traditional. What is your point exactly? You don't have an established character, in ME2, you create it. Hell, regardless of a genre, your argument makes no sense.

I think that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point, get serious.

Modifié par Phaedon, 09 mai 2011 - 06:36 .

[Phaedon]

Ahglock wrote...
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?  

Huh? Can you please explainw hat you mean?
Variations in combat skill are not acceptable if they are not done by the player. Same applies with out-of-combat. Whether the player practices or just assigns points.

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.  

So? I never suggested having RPG elements on shooting, if that's what you mean.
The player progresses as much as the role does.

SalsaDMA wrote...
Call me a hypocrite for bothering one more reply then [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/tongue.png[/smilie]

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... [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/uncertain.png[/smilie]


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'.

You need to calm down.

Traditional WRPGs have you create a character.

What is not traditional does not make something less of an RPG, but yes, being unable to create your role....

Yeah that's pretty bad for a...ROLE PLAYING game.

And your point is what exactly? ME1 does this. ME2 does it. How does it respond to my points in any way?
Or are you debating that you DON'T create your character in the ME games.

[Ahglock]

Phaedon wrote...


Huh? Can you please explainw hat you mean?
Variations in combat skill are not acceptable if they are not done by the player. Same applies with out-of-combat. Whether the player practices or just assigns points. 

Sorry if I was not clear.  So lets say we are making your commander shepard as oppsoed to X game where the character is made for you.  I don't see why the customization of me making my commander shepard should end at appearance, class, and assigning 51 points over 30 levels to a small range of combat powers.  I think the customization should also be extending to me assigning points into non-combat skills. 

Phaedon wrote...
So? I never suggested having RPG elements on shooting, if that's what you mean.
The player progresses as much as the role does.

RPG elements are in shooting to some degree, what weapons your class can use(how many you can carry in ME3), passive bonuses to damage from skills etc.  I think increasing things in that regard is a good thing, though not on the to hit side of things.  

But on the making a shepard as opposed to being given a shepard this is one area where he is a bit more predefined since we know he is at least a highly trained special forces operative.  So oddly on the predefined vs player defioned shepard front if anything there should be more room for customization outside of combat than inside.  They went the opposite route, there is virtualy nothing to change about your shepard outside of appearance outside of the fight, but quite a bit to change in the fight.  Not that I want them to remove this combat customization, but he is pretty heavily defined by bioware in that area given his possible backgrounds.

[Gatt9]

Phaedon wrote...
You need to calm down.

Traditional WRPGs have you create a character.

What is not traditional does not make something less of an RPG, but yes, being unable to create your role....

Yeah that's pretty bad for a...ROLE PLAYING game.

And your point is what exactly? ME1 does this. ME2 does it. How does it respond to my points in any way?
Or are you debating that you DON'T create your character in the ME games.

I'm guessing you didn't read my last post.  I'm not going to retype it,  you're very wrong here,  just go read my post.  What you think "WRPGs" are isn't at all correct.

And technically speaking,  you don't create your character,  most especially in ME2.  My Shepherd and the next guy's are almost exactly the same,  except if he uses an SMG.  My choices were meaningless,  my friend's 100% renegade ended indentical to how my 100% paragon did.

[Ahglock]

Gatt9 wrote...

Phaedon wrote...
You need to calm down.

Traditional WRPGs have you create a character.

What is not traditional does not make something less of an RPG, but yes, being unable to create your role....

Yeah that's pretty bad for a...ROLE PLAYING game.

And your point is what exactly? ME1 does this. ME2 does it. How does it respond to my points in any way?
Or are you debating that you DON'T create your character in the ME games.

I'm guessing you didn't read my last post.  I'm not going to retype it,  you're very wrong here,  just go read my post.  What you think "WRPGs" are isn't at all correct.

And technically speaking,  you don't create your character,  most especially in ME2.  My Shepherd and the next guy's are almost exactly the same,  except if he uses an SMG.  My choices were meaningless,  my friend's 100% renegade ended indentical to how my 100% paragon did.

hey now, one of you kept the station one of you blew it up. And there will be a few minor other story elements, did you save the facorty workers in zaeeds LM or let them die etc.  But yes shepard himself is basically the same outside of class choice.  Which does not seem to be much more of me making the character than me deciding what licenses to unlock in FF12.  The only real difference is I have a small variety of conversation options, and I have apearance choices.  

[bald man in a boat]

Who really cares what makes what a certain kind of RPG? Bioware's making the kind of RPG that they want to and this thread is pretty much derailed when it comes to actually discussing what actual RPG elements might be in ME3. It's now the official "What is a RPG?" thread.

There's not really any one answer to that question any more than there is to the meaning of life.

[Savber100]

Gatt9 wrote...

And technically speaking,  you don't create your character,  most especially in ME2.  My Shepherd and the next guy's are almost exactly the same,  except if he uses an SMG.  My choices were meaningless,  my friend's 100% renegade ended indentical to how my 100% paragon did.

...wait what?

Technically speaking, my Shepard looks nothing like yours unless you went with the default character. I agree with the semi-lack of weapon choices but at least there were still some variety.

And holy crap, you're telling me that keeping the Collector Base and destroying the Base is the EXACT same result? How would you know? ME3 hasn't come out yet.

[AlanC9]

Gatt9 wrote...
 My choices were meaningless,  my friend's 100% renegade ended indentical to how my 100% paragon did.

100% identical? Since when have you gone in for overblown rhetoric like that?

Modifié par AlanC9, 09 mai 2011 - 09:51 .

[tonnactus]

Terror_K wrote...

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.

Like i wrote: If Bioware want to learn and compete with the best shooters out there,they should do it right.The approach of Mass Effect 2 could be even an insult to experienced shooter players...

[Da Mecca]

tonnactus wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

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.

Like i wrote: If Bioware want to learn and compete with the best shooters out there,they should do it right.The approach of Mass Effect 2 could be even an insult to experienced shooter players...

That was also a big issue for me in ME2, as far down the shooter path they went, they were still lacking common elements that made pure shooters just funner to play.

Coming off Uncharted 2 and playing ME2  justmade that more obvious.

[ExtremeOne]

tonnactus wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

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.

Like i wrote: If Bioware want to learn and compete with the best shooters out there,they should do it right.The approach of Mass Effect 2 could be even an insult to experienced shooter players...

    




Mass Effect 2 had better shooting mechanics than ME 1. ME 2 was still sub part compared to Gears 2 and Call of Duty games . I am all for rpg but  they better make the shooting combat better  

[Ahglock]

ExtremeOne wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

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.

Like i wrote: If Bioware want to learn and compete with the best shooters out there,they should do it right.The approach of Mass Effect 2 could be even an insult to experienced shooter players...

    




Mass Effect 2 had better shooting mechanics than ME 1. ME 2 was still sub part compared to Gears 2 and Call of Duty games . I am all for rpg but  they better make the shooting combat better  

Hybrid shooter/rpgs need better shooting, but pure RPGs don't.  One of my favorite RPgs was the sega geneis shadowrun game.  Now part of my love is that I am a huge shadowrun fan, but still its shooting system was perfectly fine for a RPG.  You picked a target and then you pressed a button to shoot.  The game rolled dice to determine your level of success at shooting them.  It was an awesome game, and I'd love to see a 360/PS3 version of it.  You wouldn't need super shooting mechanics any more than the GTA games did.

[ExtremeOne]

Ahglock wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

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.

Like i wrote: If Bioware want to learn and compete with the best shooters out there,they should do it right.The approach of Mass Effect 2 could be even an insult to experienced shooter players...

    




Mass Effect 2 had better shooting mechanics than ME 1. ME 2 was still sub part compared to Gears 2 and Call of Duty games . I am all for rpg but  they better make the shooting combat better  

Hybrid shooter/rpgs need better shooting, but pure RPGs don't.  One of my favorite RPgs was the sega geneis shadowrun game.  Now part of my love is that I am a huge shadowrun fan, but still its shooting system was perfectly fine for a RPG.  You picked a target and then you pressed a button to shoot.  The game rolled dice to determine your level of success at shooting them.  It was an awesome game, and I'd love to see a 360/PS3 version of it.  You wouldn't need super shooting mechanics any more than the GTA games did.

     




I understand your point but Bioware made Mass Effect 1 with shooting in it . I am sorry they have to have a shooting mechanic in ME 3 that is on par with games like Gears 3 and Uncharted 3 . Its that simple . They can not have ****** poor shooting at all . The gun play was decent in ME 2 but the gun play in Gears 2 is superior. The RPG part of 3 better not mess up the combat part of 3 . Bioware got a pass on Mass Effect 1 but that was 2007 things are different now 

[Walker White]

ExtremeOne wrote...

I understand your point but Bioware made Mass Effect 1 with shooting in it . I am sorry they have to have a shooting mechanic in ME 3 that is on par with games like Gears 3 and Uncharted 3 . Its that simple . They can not have ****** poor shooting at all . The gun play was decent in ME 2 but the gun play in Gears 2 is superior. The RPG part of 3 better not mess up the combat part of 3 . Bioware got a pass on Mass Effect 1 but that was 2007 things are different now 

As long as they include tactical pausing for us older dudes, they can make the shooting as hardcore as they want.

[Gatt9]

Savber100 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

And technically speaking,  you don't create your character,  most especially in ME2.  My Shepherd and the next guy's are almost exactly the same,  except if he uses an SMG.  My choices were meaningless,  my friend's 100% renegade ended indentical to how my 100% paragon did.

...wait what?

Technically speaking, my Shepard looks nothing like yours unless you went with the default character. I agree with the semi-lack of weapon choices but at least there were still some variety.

And holy crap, you're telling me that keeping the Collector Base and destroying the Base is the EXACT same result? How would you know? ME3 hasn't come out yet.

Visual appearance as far as gameplay goes is largely irrelevant.

As far as your question goes,  yes,  I am telling you that.  Because as far as ME2 goes,  there's no difference at all.  The universe,  the gameworld,  is exactly the same at the end of ME2 regardless of which option you took.  Much like saving or damning the council in ME made no real difference.

From there,  we're onto the topic of "Pay another $60-$100 (After the mandatory DLC's EA loves) to see what difference it made".  I cannot count that,  that's a massive design flaw.  To charge me another X amount just to see if there's a difference isn't a good rationalization. 

100% identical? Since when have you gone in for overblown rhetoric like that?

I think that was a complement,  thank you?

But it wasn't rhetoric,  unfortunately,  there's no difference in our save games other than the meter.  Is it possible that there might be some divergence in the third game?  Sure.

But the third game isn't here,  and he and I have the exact same outcome from ME and ME2.  He damned the council,  I saved it,  and the game played exactly the same.  He gave the Illusive man the base,  I destroyed it,  and the game is exactly the same.  Grunt loves me as much as him,  Samara loves both of us too,  despite the fact that he's the kind of person she routinely kills,  the only real difference between our save is Jack talks to me and swears at him. 

There's just no difference.  So I hold to my statement,  the choices were completely meaningless.

[ExtremeOne]

Walker White wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...

I understand your point but Bioware made Mass Effect 1 with shooting in it . I am sorry they have to have a shooting mechanic in ME 3 that is on par with games like Gears 3 and Uncharted 3 . Its that simple . They can not have ****** poor shooting at all . The gun play was decent in ME 2 but the gun play in Gears 2 is superior. The RPG part of 3 better not mess up the combat part of 3 . Bioware got a pass on Mass Effect 1 but that was 2007 things are different now 

As long as they include tactical pausing for us older dudes, they can make the shooting as hardcore as they want.

   


I want that as well I use that on ME 2 . 

[Tony Gunslinger]

Gatt9 wrote...
But the third game isn't here,  and he and I have the exact same outcome from ME and ME2.  He damned the council,  I saved it,  and the game played exactly the same.  He gave the Illusive man the base,  I destroyed it,  and the game is exactly the same.  Grunt loves me as much as him,  Samara loves both of us too,  despite the fact that he's the kind of person she routinely kills,  the only real difference between our save is Jack talks to me and swears at him. 

There's just no difference.  So I hold to my statement, the choices were completely meaningless.

Here's a post by regarding gameplay outcomes from a technical point of view:

http://social.biowar...index/4829013/1

JockBuster wrote...

BASIC ways to play the game: does NOT include squad make up combinations for missions or assignments. 

ME1:
2 x Gender (Male/Female)
9 x Background (Earthborn, Spacer, Colonist, War Hero, Sole Survivor, Ruthless)
6 x class (Soldier, Sentinel, Vanguard, Infiltrator, Engineer, Adept)
3 x Love Interest (Kaidan/Ashley, Liara, none/celibate)
2 x Virmire Survivor (Kaidan or Ashley)
2 x Renegade/Paragon
2 x Council alive/dead (4 totally different ending possible)
= 2,592 BASIC ways to play


ME2:
2 x ME1 Import yes/no
2 x Anderson/Udina leads the Council
2 x Spectre reinstatement yes/no
2 x Gender (Male/Female)
9 x Background (Earthborn, Spacer, Colonist, War Hero, Sole Survivor, Ruthless)
6 x class (Soldier, Sentinel, Vanguard, Infiltrator, Engineer, Adept)
3 x Love Interest (Liara/Kaidan/Ashley loyal ME1, cheated/other, none/celibate)
2 x Renegade/Paragon
2 x Blow up the Base/Save the Base (I'm not sure how many different endings are possible)
= 10,368 BASIC ways to play (everyone lives) or 10,369 Shepard dies (the hardest to achieve and NOT importable to ME3) ALL deaths are final and that/those character(s) will NOT be in your ME3 game.
ME3:
Will be "VERRRRRY interesting," (Arte Johnson, Rowan & Martin's Laugh In)
Plus 1,000 variables from ME1 & ME2 (as per Casey Hudson) (NOT included the above calculations)

ME2
is for all 12 to survive, randomly loosing or killing selective
squadmates makes for over 10,000,000 possible importable combinations
for ME3. AHA! THE reason that BW wants ME3 to hit 10 millions copies
sold, "everyone gets a turn!" Grunt. All the best to the BW
team.

And for the record, endgame of KOTOR lets you side with either the Sith or Jedi, but by your standards, they both play out the same: you still fight Malak and the story doesn't let you die. In ME2, you can die. And the only difference between destroying/keeping the base and siding with Sith/Jedi is that KOTOR suppled two different cutscenes, because, you know, it's not a trilogy, so they gave you the moneyshot as the final payoff. ME2 doesn't get a cutscene of what happens when you keep the base because that's potentially in ME3.

By your definition, the endgame for other games like Fallout, Fable, etc are the same. You have to fight the same fight in the same place, only the dialogues are customized based on your previous decisions but it doesn't matter, because, by your definition, it doesn't matter. They played exactly the same.

[Gatt9]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

(Stuff that's getting into uber-quote territory,  so abbreviated for readability)

Thank you for that,  but it's really a bit misleading.

ME1:
2 x Gender (Male/Female)
9 x Background (Earthborn, Spacer, Colonist, War Hero, Sole Survivor, Ruthless)
6 x class (Soldier, Sentinel, Vanguard, Infiltrator, Engineer, Adept)
3 x Love Interest (Kaidan/Ashley, Liara, none/celibate)
2 x Virmire Survivor (Kaidan or Ashley)
2 x Renegade/Paragon
2 x Council alive/dead (4 totally different ending possible)
= 2,592 BASIC ways to play

-Gender has no meaning,  aside from who your love interest is,  and that's basically a couple lines of dialogue.  It's effectively meaningless,  I'll explain why shortly.

-Background has no meaning,  at no point does it affect the game in any way.  No matter which background you pick,  everything is identical.

-class has no meaning,  it has no impact on the way the game plays out.  It doesn't open new deviations,  it's just how you kill.  There's no point where the game takes your class into account other than killing something.

-Love Interest has no meaning.  It's a few lines of dialogue and a cutscene,  that has no impact on the events at all.  In fact,  it's so meaningless,  it doesn't even impact anything in ME2.

-Renegade/Paragon has no meaning.  No matter which path you follow,  the game ends the same way with one exception (The council).  The fact that in ME2, even that decision fails to do anything makes everything related to Renegade/Paragon completely irrelevant.  You get the same ending,  with the same begining in ME2,  with no difference in the universe,  other than a few random lines of dialogue that don't do anything.

So in essence,  there's perhaps 4 points of deviation,  and the *only* one that actually affects anything at all is Virmire,  so basically,  there's 2 ways to play the game.  Kill Ashley or kill Kaiden,  everything else is essentially throwaway without any impact at all.

2 x ME1 Import yes/no
2 x Anderson/Udina leads the Council
2 x Spectre reinstatement yes/no
2 x Gender (Male/Female)
9 x Background (Earthborn, Spacer, Colonist, War Hero, Sole Survivor, Ruthless)
6 x class (Soldier, Sentinel, Vanguard, Infiltrator, Engineer, Adept)
3 x Love Interest (Liara/Kaidan/Ashley loyal ME1, cheated/other, none/celibate)
2 x Renegade/Paragon
2 x Blow up the Base/Save the Base (I'm not sure how many different endings are possible)
= 10,368 BASIC ways to play (everyone lives) or 10,369 Shepard dies (the hardest to achieve and NOT importable to ME3) ALL deaths are final and that/those character(s) will NOT be in your ME3 game.

-The ME import is redundant.  The only change in ME2 from the decisions you made in ME is Kaiden/Ashley,  everything else is glossed over without any noticable effect whatsoever.  You could release the Rachni,  who nearly conquered the galaxy,  and you get 1 conversation and a random news broadcast out of it.  Kill the council,  you get an occasional line of dialogue and no noticable difference from saving it.  Heck,  I saved it and people still complained "Humans are ruining everything!".

-Spectre reinstatement does nothing.  I did it,  and absolutely nothing changed.  In fact,  it was so meaningless,  I got reinstated and then 5 minutes later told someone on the Citadel I was "A former Spectre".  It's completely meaningless.

-Gender as above.

-Background as above.

-class as above.

-Love Interest remains meaningless.  I romanced Liara in ME1,  was romancing Tali in ME2,  kissed Liara in front of Tali in ME2 and...Nothing.  That was it.  Completely throwaway.  So throwaway that I romanced Tali,  got one extra line of dialogue,  then I could potentially completely disregard the whole romance and go do one with Jack.  The game won't even commit to a LI,  you can sleep with someone,  then get the same dialogue "Do you want to see someone else?",  and just ignore that it even happened.

-Renegade/Paragon still does nothing in ME2,  there's still absolutely no divergence.  In fact,  it's so throwaway,  that I was 100% Paragon,  and kicked a man off a building while he was talking without him even being a threat and...nothing.  It seriously has no impact at all.

-I blew up the base,  my friend saved it,  and all we got were a couple lines of dialogue.  I guess I can concede the point that it's as much a deviation as Fallout's epilogue,  but all it really was,  was a few lines of dialogue.

So basically,  conceding the base as a difference,  there's 2 ways to play ME2.  Everything else is just very disposable,  it has no effect.

So really,  there's 2 difference for ME,  and debatably 2 differences for ME2. 

I'm on the fence about dead crew members,  because the game really railroads you into making sure they don't die,  you've pretty much gotta ignore everything leading up to the final missions to get people killed,  as they flat out tell you who is best at what. 

Edit:

Just for the record,  Fallout lets you talk the end boss into killing himself. 

The other difference is,  in those games,  when you make a choice,  it has an irrevocable definite impact.  You can't just go overwrite it later,  unlike ME2 where you can just disregard your choices and redo them later in more than a few instances.

In BG2,  or even DAO,  if I romanced X,  I couldn't romance Y.  In ME2,  I can just romance everyone.

In Fallout,  I could make decisions that would kill entire towns,  in Fallout 2,  those towns weren't there.  In ME I could choose to kill the council,  in ME2,  it didn't matter,  nothing's different.

Modifié par Gatt9, 10 mai 2011 - 03:08 .

[Aumata]

No stats are not the only thing that makes a role-playing game. It is a compliment of ones imagination, and the stats that compliment what you can't do in game. Basically they help paint a picture of who your character is, and what can your character do with in the limits set in the game. Did ME2 mess this up? Yes it did actually, the ridding of Charm, and Intimidate forces the player to play to the extreme. In ME1 you could either put points into it and be not as effective in combat, or place points in to be able to access awards that you more than likely couldn't take place in. The morality system in ME1 didn't do much for me as I tended to max out both skills, and get a max paragon, and renegade in a single playthrough. I can also understand of having to bring characters along with you to hack or lockpicket in to areas as it added risk and rewards to a give area. Also effected armor and shield of the Mako.

I really am hoping for the return of the Charm and Intimidate skills set, along with being able to bring peeps with Decryption and that other skill I forgotten. My memory is bad. Because at least I hope to solve on of my main issues which is the gimping of my teammates. My team shouldn't be gimped, and might have solved the balance issues with insanity as your teammates were just as competent. Also means that more skills variety. Especially tech, I am hoping for skills to disrupt foes, which is why I like the drone so much. Playing a infiltrator and I barely use any of the other tech skill except tactical cloak, and the occasional inferno blast on enemies that regenerate.

[Walker White]

Gatt9 wrote...

The other difference is,  in those games,  when you make a choice,  it has an irrevocable definite impact.  You can't just go overwrite it later,  unlike ME2 where you can just disregard your choices and redo them later in more than a few instances.

There was a fascinating GDC talk in 2009 by some of the leads at Bethesda.  The core message of the talk was "players say they want choices to matter, but they are liars."  

They were comparing some of the differences between Obsidian and Morrowind; extensive player testing and community feedback told them that they did not want player actions to close off quest lines unless absolutely necessary.  They saw a game where you can complete everything in a single playthrough as a plus and not a minus.

[Tony Gunslinger]

@Gatt9.

What exactly do you consider "meaningful"? If Shepard was female, she should have a completely different set of quests? By your definition, I can argue that gender-specific missions don't matter either because in the end she still has to face Saren / go through the Omega Relay the same way as the male Shep.

Even in DA:O, your background-specific guest in the beginning wouldn't matter because by your definition, you still have to go through the final battle and do same things as any other player. It didn't matter if you were an elf or a human or a dwarf. By your definition, it didn't matter. And you haven't even reponded much to my other examples.

At what point would a variation be 'meaningful' to you? That if Shepard was from Earth, he can go back home and open up an icecream shop, completely ignore the Omega Relay, raise a family, and live happily ever after? That's awesome for player freedom, but at the cost of awful editorial decision.

[theSteeeeeels]

well if u pick different backgrounds and all that happens is one line of "oh,youre from *****" then thats not meaningful. it should limit you to certain things and open up new things, e.g. if youre born on a foreign planet maybe a certain type of species will like you more and that could open up new options, whereas if you pick a different background these aliens wouldnt be nice to you and that would put limits on your character.

[theelementslayer]

Do people realize the limits of what programmers and games can make. Sure they can give you free choice, a la Fallout, and you can kill anyone you want, but in the end sometimes your left with a game that you cant finish cause you killed everyone.

Sure in Mass Effect they railroad you a bit, but they had to. ME2 had to lead into ME3. You needed to have some similar ending points, especially with the strong narrative that the Mass Effect Series have. So yes the main story is the same (but isnt every games) but the small parts, the sidequests, your place in teh galaxy, what you stand for, (geth vs quarians, solarians vs Krogans), This is what defined your character. This was your ROLE PLAYING in the game.

I can give you many games that have lots of skills and points and all that jazz and argue they are less RP then ME is.

Anyways done with incoherent rambling.