402 réponses à ce sujet

[Someone With Mass]

javierabegazo wrote...
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

We'll even be able to climb up ladders.:P

[TheConfidenceMan]

Nohvarr wrote...

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.

It has also been repeatedly pointed out that they could have been better and should have been improved on in ME2, along with everything else, rather than streamlined out in favor of focusing more on the shooter experience.

[Nathan Redgrave]

TheConfidenceMan wrote...

Nohvarr wrote...

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.

It has also been repeatedly pointed out that they could have been better and should have been improved on in ME2, along with everything else, rather than streamlined out in favor of focusing more on the shooter experience.

Still doesn't justify the "lawl she has it out for us" stance, which is silliness to the nth power.

[Nohvarr]

TheConfidenceMan wrote...

Nohvarr wrote...

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.

It has also been repeatedly pointed out that they could have been better and should have been improved on in ME2, along with everything else, rather than streamlined out in favor of focusing more on the shooter experience.

The teams decided that focusing on Non-combat skills was a waste of time and energy and didn't fit with the type of hybrid TPS/RPG game they wanted to create. You may not like it, but the type of RPG you wanted them to make, isn't the direction they wanted to go. If you don't like it, fine, there are games I don't like but recognize are well done. You, however, have chosen to villify the team in general and Lady Norman in particular because they dared to remove some things from the game you hold sacred.

Modifié par Nohvarr, 07 mai 2011 - 07:22 .

[Digifi]

I think that since they knew they had a 3rd game to make and they knew some changes had to be made to realize their vision for the game they decided to make a radical change and see what happened. They got feedback that there are some things fans would like to see, like part level weapon modding, deeper skill trees, etc and so they're adding them back in ME3. I don't see the maliciousness that others do in that regard. In any art medium the best thing sometimes is to blow everything up and see what falls out in order to progress...either that or we can go old school RPG and add encumbrance...mmmm encumbrance, hours of fun....

[AlanC9]

TheConfidenceMan wrote...
Why is a soldier also an expert hacker and master of bypassing security systems?

That one's easy. Either you

1: Give everyone the skill, or

2: Force the party to include someone with the skill, or

3: Make sure that security systems never actually protect anything important.

I suppose there's a fourth option -- letting players simply fail missions, but that one ain't happening.

Option #1 is what ME2 did. I get why you don't like it, but are the other options better? Option #3 is what most RPGs do, and what ME1 did. The main problem with it is that it's stupid -- why aren't the important things behind locks the way the unimportant ones are?

That leaves option 2. Note that this not only restricts who you bring in the party, but how you level them (assuming the game has a skill point system rather than just a general character level for the ability). While this sort of restriction makes good role-playing sense, it takes away a lot of freedom from the player.

I still like option 2 the best; in general, I think RPGs typically give the player too much freedom. I find option 1 second-best, though, and option3 hands-down the worst. Obviously, your preference order may vary.

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

That's the same presentation we've seen her PowerPoint slides from, right?

[IllusiveShepard]

didymos1120 wrote...

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?

 

[Da Mecca]

In a lot of ways I feel ME2 was a test drive for ME3.

You can tell that in a lot of the DLCs as well.

Such as the reintroduction of hidden loading and vehicle segments.

All gauges to see what they could do for ME3.

[javierabegazo]

Wonderful post AlanC9

[AlanC9]

javierabegazo wrote...
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?

And in a situation where Shepard should start the game with the best technology the Alliance and/or Cerberus can get their hands on. (Yes, I'm still crusading against having shops in ME.)

[javierabegazo]

AlanC9 wrote...

javierabegazo wrote...
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?

And in a situation where Shepard should start the game with the best technology the Alliance and/or Cerberus can get their hands on. (Yes, I'm still crusading against having shops in ME.)

Something I always wanted was the inclusion of the actual Weapons Manufacterers and doing quests involving them to get experimental tech

[didymos1120]

AlanC9 wrote...
(Yes, I'm still crusading against having shops in ME.)

Well, unfortunately for you, Casey Hudson already confirmed they've expanded the scope of shops in ME3.

[Walker White]

 I was going to say something, but AlanC9 took my post.  Look, I have never seen a cRPG that did any non-combat gameplay well other than dialogue.  And none of us are complaining about BioWare dialogue.

Heck, even the pen-and-paper RPGs did not handle non-combat situations well until the advent of skills systems.  I would argue that we still do not know how to model a proper skill system.

[TheConfidenceMan]

AlanC9 wrote...

TheConfidenceMan wrote...
Why is a soldier also an expert hacker and master of bypassing security systems?

That one's easy. Either you

1: Give everyone the skill, or

2: Force the party to include someone with the skill, or

3: Make sure that security systems never actually protect anything important.

I suppose there's a fourth option -- letting players simply fail missions, but that one ain't happening.

Option #1 is what ME2 did. I get why you don't like it, but are the other options better? Option #3 is what most RPGs do, and what ME1 did. The main problem with it is that it's stupid -- why aren't the important things behind locks the way the unimportant ones are?

That leaves option 2. Note that this not only restricts who you bring in the party, but how you level them (assuming the game has a skill point system rather than just a general character level for the ability). While this sort of restriction makes good role-playing sense, it takes away a lot of freedom from the player.

I still like option 2 the best; in general, I think RPGs typically give the player too much freedom. I find option 1 second-best, though, and option3 hands-down the worst. Obviously, your preference order may vary.

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

That's the same presentation we've seen her PowerPoint slides from, right?

Re #3 - Depends on what you consider "important". Getting all possible loot is important to some. Access to bonus experience, bonus equipment, etc... It shouldn't be necessary to complete a mission, obviously, but provide other ways of achieving results. The Archangel mission where you can hack the targeting system of the mech is a good example of something you could miss out on if you don't have a tech character with you. 

[upsettingshorts]

Walker White wrote...

 I was going to say something, but AlanC9 took my post.  Look, I have never seen a cRPG that did any non-combat gameplay well other than dialogue.  And none of us are complaining about BioWare dialogue.

Deus Ex 1.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 mai 2011 - 07:36 .

[Bostur]

AlanC9 wrote...

TheConfidenceMan wrote...
Why is a soldier also an expert hacker and master of bypassing security systems?

That one's easy. Either you

1: Give everyone the skill, or

2: Force the party to include someone with the skill, or

3: Make sure that security systems never actually protect anything important.

I suppose there's a fourth option -- letting players simply fail missions, but that one ain't happening.

Option #1 is what ME2 did. I get why you don't like it, but are the other options better? Option #3 is what most RPGs do, and what ME1 did. The main problem with it is that it's stupid -- why aren't the important things behind locks the way the unimportant ones are?

That leaves option 2. Note that this not only restricts who you bring in the party, but how you level them (assuming the game has a skill point system rather than just a general character level for the ability). While this sort of restriction makes good role-playing sense, it takes away a lot of freedom from the player.

I still like option 2 the best; in general, I think RPGs typically give the player too much freedom. I find option 1 second-best, though, and option3 hands-down the worst. Obviously, your preference order may vary.

That's the same presentation we've seen her PowerPoint slides from, right?

There is another option, which was used a lot by System Shock 2, Deus Ex and lately Alpha Protocol. That option is to have several valid ways to overcome an obstacle.
Being good at hacking might mean that you don't have to blow up the door and alert every guard in the process. If you're not good at hacking hopefully you will shoot straight enough that alerting all the guards won't be an issue. This is just one example, there are many ways to make those multiple option scenarios. Fallout 1-3 also used this a lot since there is only one character with many different potential builds, so its essential in those games.

Maybe its a variation of your number 3 option. Security systems guard something important, but not something vital to story progression. There is some room for distinction there.

[Walker White]

AlanC9 wrote...

 (Yes, I'm still crusading against having shops in ME.)

I am for this, but you know that this would reduce the loot factor even more.  Money would be worthless, and the only type of loot would be scans and upgrades.  Oh, the howls of pain that would be heard on these boards.

[Walker White]

Bostur wrote...

There is another option, which was used a lot by System Shock 2, Deus Ex and lately Alpha Protocol. That option is to have several valid ways to overcome an obstacle.

That is very expensive from a content-generation perspective.  Unless this is core gameplay, it is not clear it is worth it.

[Nohvarr]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Walker White wrote...

 I was going to say something, but AlanC9 took my post.  Look, I have never seen a cRPG that did any non-combat gameplay well other than dialogue.  And none of us are complaining about BioWare dialogue.

Deus Ex 1.

Great game, not the best combat engine, same with vampire bloodlines. I'd almost call those Adventure/RPG's over Action/RPG. The ME series is an Action/RPG.

There is another option, which was used a lot by System Shock 2, Deus Ex and lately Alpha Protocol. That option is to have several valid ways to overcome an obstacle.

System Shock 2 is really remembered more for it's chilling story, creepy atmosphere and Shodan than for it's gameplay/RPG system. Deus Ex I already covered and Alpha Protocol....barely worked and tanked, not the best argument for that system.

Modifié par Nohvarr, 07 mai 2011 - 07:42 .

[upsettingshorts]

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

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

[Bostur]

Walker White wrote...

Bostur wrote...

There is another option, which was used a lot by System Shock 2, Deus Ex and lately Alpha Protocol. That option is to have several valid ways to overcome an obstacle.

That is very expensive from a content-generation perspective.  Unless this is core gameplay, it is not clear it is worth it.

Games have done this since the 80s with much lower budgets. Wasteland comes to mind:
http://en.wikipedia....nd_(video_game)

Its not necessary to make a branching storyline for it.

[Nohvarr]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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

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

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

[upsettingshorts]

Yep, the problem in both cases is that they are isolated examples. I'm not sure they ought to be so infrequent. Both of those options were welcome. The problem with the ME2 example is that unless you failed the hacking attempt, it seemed like child's play and there was no good reason not to do it. It wasn't so much a "side option" as something to mark on the checklist.

[Digifi]

One of the problems I see in the argument of "If you can't hack then you can blow the door and just shoot the enemies that show up" is that you have to make the hacking route equally as necessary for the hacker. What I mean here is that the hacker avoids combat not as a choice but as an intrinsic mechanic and motivation for hacking. In other words, they're weaker in combat to "balance" the classes (and not just in surface HP/shields, they just aren't as effective, period).

[PnXMarcin1PL]

more RPG elements

ok seriously, i trust Bioware about ME3. I hope they make ME3 best of all.