402 réponses à ce sujet

[bald man in a boat]

Oh and bring back charm so I can talk the reapers into stopping.

[Someone With Mass]

javierabegazo wrote...
I like that being a paragon in ME2 can still lead to unexpected things, like punching Zaeed to get him to "fall in line" and I hope that they make more choices for Renegades that will make me more tempted to choose them for their practicality, not just simple thuggish qualities

It is nice to witness the unexpected, but I hope I can choose in greater detail what specific path I want to go down with my Paragon/Renegade, so Shepard's standards aren't bouncing all over the place.

[Da Mecca]

Nathan Redgrave wrote...

javierabegazo wrote...

I like that being a paragon in ME2 can still lead to unexpected things, like punching Zaeed to get him to "fall in line" and I hope that they make more choices for Renegades that will make me more tempted to choose them for their practicality, not just simple thuggish qualities

That side of the Renegade doesn't see a whole lot of love, I find. Not in-game, in-game it's fine, but when people try to make a point about the Renegade being evil, they'll show Renegade Shepard punching a news reporter in the face, ignoring the choice to pass up the Interrupt in favor of an Intimidate option where Shepard gets righteously indignant at the reporter's disrespect for those who sacrificed their lives in the battle with Sovereign--which is one of those moments where Renegade Shepard seems a lot more relatable and human than the typical "Shepard is an ****" montage video would suggest.

Thought that video is hilarious.

The best dialogue in the game is given to renegade Shepard.

[xentar]

So, before this hits page 20... Do new implications mean we are left with the bias-based persuasion again?

[Bostur]

javierabegazo wrote...

Bostur wrote...

Sad to see a thread with so much elaborate input being cut short by a tweet that says very little.

Oh well nothing to see here I suppose.

It would do better to have a thread with elaborate input to NOT operate off of a grevious mis-interpretation.


Seeing as Norman says there are more stats in ME3, what do we think these stats are?

I have no idea, she never said. I could make some guesswork but it seems pointless.

There is so much focus on stats in the few tidbits of information we got, but very little about how those stats are represented in the game world. The real purpose of stats is not to be stats, but to be a representation of something deeper. Most of the rumors I have seen seems to focus on the form of stats instead of the cool stuff they are supposed to represent. Like can we use the hacking skill to steal a Geth ship? I know that would be a spoiler but my point is that formal RPG features like stats and skills really mean nothing outside the world design. That is my main concern, that the world design will be shallow. Norman's constant focus on combat in her tweets seems to confirm that.

I'm sorry abour misrepresenting Norman, it's practically impossible not to with the limiting form of Twitter

[TheConfidenceMan]

Basically this quote sums up the exact problem I and many others have with the combat-first, combat-only direction Christina Norman decided to take Mass Effect 2 in:

"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."

So what about RPG progression having a more meaningful impact on non-combat interactions? Why does everyone at Bioware completely and utterly neglect this aspect? From Mass Effect 2 to Dragon Age 2 and now Mass Effect 3, not a single non-combat related skill to be found. Why is a soldier also an expert hacker and master of bypassing security systems? Why should my ability to manipulate someone through dialogue be based on my alignment and not a skill that can be developed?

The truth is that Christina Norman simply has it out for RPGs. Reading this third-party account of her GDC presentation sheds a lot of light on why Mass Effect 2 ended up the way it did, and why Mass Effect 3 will be little different, despite her claims otherwise

www.gamezenith.com/

"There is no way to elucidate this in words as you just had to be in the
room when she said this, but when she said this, there was a lot of
disgust, like she was exasperated that ME1 was so RPGish."

Modifié par TheConfidenceMan, 07 mai 2011 - 06:44 .

[Da Mecca]

Bostur wrote...

javierabegazo wrote...

Bostur wrote...

Sad to see a thread with so much elaborate input being cut short by a tweet that says very little.

Oh well nothing to see here I suppose.

It would do better to have a thread with elaborate input to NOT operate off of a grevious mis-interpretation.


Seeing as Norman says there are more stats in ME3, what do we think these stats are?

I have no idea, she never said. I could make some guesswork but it seems pointless.

There is so much focus on stats in the few tidbits of information we got, but very little about how those stats are represented in the game world. The real purpose of stats is not to be stats, but to be a representation of something deeper. Most of the rumors I have seen seems to focus on the form of stats instead of the cool stuff they are supposed to represent. Like can we use the hacking skill to steal a Geth ship? I know that would be a spoiler but my point is that formal RPG features like stats and skills really mean nothing outside the world design. That is my main concern, that the world design will be shallow. Norman's constant focus on combat in her tweets seems to confirm that.

I'm sorry abour misrepresenting Norman, it's practically impossible not to with the limiting form of Twitter

Well she is the lead combat designer.

[didymos1120]

TheConfidenceMan wrote...

So what about RPG progression having a more meaningful impact on non-combat interactions?

What were all the non-combat interactions based on skills in ME1? Let's see:

1. Opening loot containers for combat gear.
2. Hacking terminals for assigments (which nearly always involved combat and always involved more loot containers).
3. More dialogue options in conversation.


ETA: Oh, and of course, the hacking was completely optional for acquiring those assignments.  Just show up in that system and you automatically acquire it anyway.  In the end, all the terminal hacking was good for was a smidge more XP.

Modifié par didymos1120, 07 mai 2011 - 06:54 .

[javierabegazo]

TheConfidenceMan wrote...
The truth is that Christina Norman simply has it out for RPGs.

The problem is that arguments like this are always on one way streets. You seem to have this glory vision of ME1 and seem to neglect all the improvements ME2 did make, as well as all of the improvements in ME3 that we know of so far, such as Abilities having multiple evolution paths, and gun modding as a physical representation, or that classes in ME2 filled more of their intended roles and being more differentiated.


classic RPG elements doesn't always = Fun game


Playing Mass Effect 1 and looking down my sniper rifle scope with it bouncing all over the place isn't fun. The thing we need to focus on in discussion is what classic RPG elements are fun to have in a game where most of the combat revolves around gunplay?

[didymos1120]

xentar wrote...

So, before this hits page 20... Do new implications mean we are left with the bias-based persuasion again?

Uh, there's no way to tell because she doesn't address that side of gameplay at all.  It's not really her department.

[bald man in a boat]

javierabegazo wrote...

The problem is that arguments like this are always on one way streets. You seem to have this glory vision of ME1 and seem to neglect all the improvements ME2 did make, as well as all of the improvements in ME3 that we know of so far, such as Abilities having multiple evolution paths, and gun modding as a physical representation, or that classes in ME2 filled more of their intended roles and being more differentiated.


classic RPG elements doesn't always = Fun game


Playing Mass Effect 1 and looking down my sniper rifle scope with it bouncing all over the place isn't fun. The thing we need to focus on in discussion is what classic RPG elements are fun to have in a game where most of the combat revolves around gunplay?

[Fiery Phoenix]

Yeah, Christina's focus is in the combat department. She has nothing to do with dialogue mechanics.

Modifié par Fiery Phoenix, 07 mai 2011 - 06:54 .

[Bostur]

The glory things I remember about ME1 wasn't really looking down a sniper scope. It was the feeling of a vast world and setting, that had more potential than was realized in that game. Unfortunately instead of polishing that potential ME2 chose to abandon a lot of it, for making a better shooter game.

I had hoped ME3 would grab some of that potential from ME1, but it doesn't seem like this is a route BW likes to take anymore. Of course I'm guessing, thats all I can do..

[Digifi]

If they're allowing weapon modding it makes me wonder if the ammo mod skills will be removed and replaced. For instance, the bread and butter of a Vanguard was inferno ammo and maybe squad cryo. You could replace those two with charge modifying stats like evolving charge to time dilate for longer OR hit with more force OR to damage defenses like shields or armor.

I think you could easily give biotics new stats to penetrate defenses with biotic attacks, like being able to warp health/armor through shields, albeit at a reduced amount that scales as you put more points into the tree.

Oh, the most obvious thing for all classes is a skill tree for our specialized melee attacks!

I'm really curious to see what they decide to present at E3. It seems like mechanics would be the meat of the demonstrations since they claim they're trying to keep the spoilers light.

[Fiery Phoenix]

I agree 100%, Bostur. I felt exactly the same. The awesome sense of scale was simply lost in ME2.

[didymos1120]

I'm still baffled as to what all this skill-based RPG stuff we were supposedly doing in ME1 was. I mean, I don't really recall crafting Omni-Gel Poultices or whatever that when used in battle refilled the Dark Energy meter so Liara could cast another Singularity. I don't recall dumping points into Quarian Pickpocket so that Tali could steal Barla Von's credit chit. Where was all this hot, grognard-on-RPG action in Mass Effect 1?

Modifié par didymos1120, 07 mai 2011 - 07:02 .

[Murmillos]

bald man in a boat wrote...

What were the enriching RPG features from the first game? The ability to open a locked box?

Well, in a way, perhaps that may have been the problem with ME1. If you look at other western RPG games with stats/skills (such as Morrowind, Fallout), there are persuasion talents along with skills that enhance ones ability to talk to people.
Sure Charm / Intimidate was a nice idea in concept but didn't work as well people had expected a skill set to work.

But I do realize that many of these may not work in the realm of Shepard who started AS somebody, instead of most typical RPG games where you start off as a nothing building yourself toward something. (But then again, the aiming issue was ridiculous).

So I guess to answer your question, what most wanted wasn't enriching what was there (but because there wasn't much) but to improve or add what was there.

Modifié par Murmillos, 07 mai 2011 - 07:04 .

[Digifi]

A little off topic but in response to the scale: Maybe it was just me but I felt like LotSB, Arrival, and Overlord were more on the scale of ME1 while combining in the environmental richness from ME2. They did say they learned a lot from doing those and I think now that they're practiced we'll see more of that in ME3.

[javierabegazo]

Digifi wrote...

A little off topic but in response to the scale: Maybe it was just me but I felt like LotSB, Arrival, and Overlord were more on the scale of ME1 while combining in the environmental richness from ME2. They did say they learned a lot from doing those and I think now that they're practiced we'll see more of that in ME3.

Yeah, I'm very excited for ME3, having us go to these homeworlds I think will surely give us a great sense of scale, and it was said in GameInformer that battlefields will be larger, more diverse, and not just flat long corriders with obvious cover

[Nathan Redgrave]

TheConfidenceMan wrote...

The truth is that Christina Norman simply has it out for RPGs. Reading this third-party account of her GDC presentation sheds a lot of light on why Mass Effect 2 ended up the way it did, and why Mass Effect 3 will be little different, despite her claims otherwise

www.gamezenith.com/

"There is no way to elucidate this in words as you just had to be in the
room when she said this, but when she said this, there was a lot of
disgust, like she was exasperated that ME1 was so RPGish."

Or exasperated that most of the RPGishness just plain sucked, more likely.

[TheConfidenceMan]

javierabegazo wrote...

The problem is that arguments like this are always on one way streets. You seem to have this glory vision of ME1 and seem to neglect all the improvements ME2 did make, as well as all of the improvements in ME3 that we know of so far, such as Abilities having multiple evolution paths, and gun modding as a physical representation, or that classes in ME2 filled more of their intended roles and being more differentiated.


classic RPG elements doesn't always = Fun game


Playing Mass Effect 1 and looking down my sniper rifle scope with it bouncing all over the place isn't fun. The thing we need to focus on in discussion is what classic RPG elements are fun to have in a game where most of the combat revolves around gunplay?

ME2 did make several improvements, but what it improved on was overshadowed almost completely by what it removed. It's like, instead of removing a patch of weeds in the backyard and landscaping it nicely someone just dug out a huge hole to get the weeds out, but planetd a few flowers around the edge of the hole.

The point about classes filling more of their intended roles is simply not true at all. It's the opposite, in fact. It should be the role of a tech-oriented class to bypass systems, hack terminals, and such. Instead anyone can do it. The role of those classes and the companion characters who use those abilities is severely reduced in ME2 as everyone is nothing more than a slightly different type of fighter.

[Da Mecca]

Well see the problem is Shepard's specialization as a soldier, be engineer or adept, is never brought up by anyone in the game world.

That's a problem I've had since ME1, I would really like them to fix that. We should be able to use abilities to effect the environment and dialogue objects, like an engineer using neural shock on to neutralize a merc for information or an adept using biotics to pin someone to a table during an interrogation.

Now THAT would be adding RPG elements, regardless of statistics.

[MarchWaltz]

Da Mecca wrote...

Well see the problem is Shepard's specialization as a soldier, be engineer or adept, is never brought up by anyone in the game world.

That's a problem I've had since ME1, I would really like them to fix that. We should be able to use abilities to effect the environment and dialogue objects, like an engineer using neural shock on to neutralize a merc for information or an adept using biotics to pin someone to a table during an interrogation.

Now THAT would be adding RPG elements, regardless of statistics.

[Nohvarr]

TheConfidenceMan wrote...

The truth is that Christina Norman simply has it out for RPGs.

It makes complaining easier when you can villify a team or a particular individual. That way you can assume anything they do is meant as a personal affront against something you love. Thus when people, repeatedly, point out that ME 1 didn't have extensive non-combat related skills, and that ME 3 appears to be adding in more customization and branching abilites you can fall back on the teams/persons villainy as proof that what they are doing is wrong.

The point about classes filling more of their intended roles is simply not true at all. It's the opposite, in fact. It should be the role of a tech-oriented class to bypass systems, hack terminals, and such.

Case in point.

Engineers can now use Sentry guns, which makes them different from Soldiers. Adepts can now use their powers to yank shields away from enemies (would've been useful in LOTSB) which makes them different from Engineers but that's not enough. You want them to create some arbitray system that allows them to use these abilities outside comabt, which has never been a focus of the ME series. It's not something they want to do, and since it's their RPG they don't have to implement that type of system

Modifié par Nohvarr, 07 mai 2011 - 07:13 .

[Bostur]

Da Mecca wrote...

Well see the problem is Shepard's specialization as a soldier, be engineer or adept, is never brought up by anyone in the game world.

That's a problem I've had since ME1, I would really like them to fix that. We should be able to use abilities to effect the environment and dialogue objects, like an engineer using neural shock on to neutralize a merc for information or an adept using biotics to pin someone to a table during an interrogation.

Now THAT would be adding RPG elements, regardless of statistics.

I agree 100% on that. I'd love to see those numbers get some more life and context.

To be fair to ME2, the suicide mission actually did explore that a little bit.