402 réponses à ce sujet

[marshalleck]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Da Mecca wrote...

Yes but as you can see, people were hoping they would build upon the skills use outside of combat more.

That's really all there is to it.

Christina doesn't really do much outside of combat, so it'd kinda be like asking Patrick Weekes (one of the dialogue writers) how they're rebalancing biotic powers.

Which is a very telling quote considering she's the lead gameplay designer. 

[kalwren]

javierabegazo wrote...

I do NOT want this. at least not in Mass Effect 3. The mass effect trilogy was never concieved as, nor eventually made to be a cRPG by any means at all. The fact that DAO has all of that and Mass Effect doesn't is one of the reasons why I've done 12+ playthroughs in ME2, and only 3 in DAO.

TBH I’m not one for categorising games into specific genres. I think it pigeon holes them and doesn’t truly describe the experience to its fullest extent. But the talk of abilities, classes, skills, loot, companions, dialogue trees, exploration, deep meaningful character progression and player choices in the first ME previews is what got me interested. And that’s pretty much what we got.

Some people throw around RPG / Shooter hybrid, and that’s fine, since my other favourite games include Fallout 3, VTM Bloodlines, SS2 and Deus Ex, which are also often described as hybrids. My point is that all of those games had the type of CRPG things I mentioned in my previous post in them, to some extent or another. As does ME1, albeit labelled and / or implemented differently. In many cases they weren’t as fun or well implemented as they could have been, hence some of the huge wish-list threads we saw before the forum move. But I don’t think most fans were complaining and wanted their removal, infact I think most gamers were very impressed, and were asking for subtle improvements to be made, so that they worked as well as they do in some of those other games I just mentioned.

However multiple paths through levels is certainly something that I want

If you are saying you want larger explorable environments then I agree. But most shooters these days feature multiple paths through levels, even A to B, linearly scripted shooters like Gears of War squeezes some of that in to its shooting game-play.
But that’s not what I’m talking about. I'm talking about more diverse play styles, with perhaps even a few that don’t even share the common theme of combat.

Well what do you think about AI hacking, Dominate, or Area Pull, or Area Overload, or Singularity or Stasis, were those not enough?

I think many of the classes (playstyles) tend to equate to just a different form of causing damage. They dont really feel different enough sometimes. I mean sure those are all cool abilites, particularly when combined with other abilities. But I’m talking about character building / skills in which we can specialise our team members in certain areas, rather than some form of meta-damage dealer. I guess you could say I was asking for an even greater difference between each class, that also applies outside of combat. Baiscally instead of only taking the best combat characters with you, you have an incentive to take characters that might not be so great at combat.

Just because players don't want to spend an hour before each battle making sure I've calculated my "survivability %" doesn't mean they don't want to customize their ability set.

And that’s why devs should also include casual difficulty settings, so that those types of players can go into pretty much any battle without having to spend lots of time tweaking. But for those of us that want that challenge and detail, it should be there, otherwise we probably just aren’t going to enjoy it as much as the devs would like us to.

Alternatively, go the other way and put it in a hardcore mode like Fallout New Vegas does. 

Don't be disapointed if you don't see armor distribution in ME3 then, because there's probably a 80% chance that we won't see it at all. The downside to no armor distribution is obvious, less player customization.

The up side to armor distribution is something that a lot of players take for granted, and that's individual animations per character, and having them be more of their own person rather than you getting to play dress-up.

It will still be missed. 

Modifié par kalwren, 08 mai 2011 - 01:16 .

[Devos]

Article says "No meaningless stats"

Quoted as "No meaningless non-combat stats"

[Da Mecca]

marshalleck wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Da Mecca wrote...

Yes but as you can see, people were hoping they would build upon the skills use outside of combat more.

That's really all there is to it.

Christina doesn't really do much outside of combat, so it'd kinda be like asking Patrick Weekes (one of the dialogue writers) how they're rebalancing biotic powers.

Which is a very telling quote considering she's the lead gameplay designer. 

I thought her title was combat design or whatever.

[javierabegazo]

Says "Gameplay Designer" on her twitter account, and last time I checked, she was the Lead Designer again for ME3

[didymos1120]

javierabegazo wrote...

Says "Gameplay Designer" on her twitter account, and last time I checked, she was the Lead Designer again for ME3

Her title is really kind of irrelevant.  Compare the ME1 credits to the ME2 credits: going by that alone, apparently ME1 didn't have any gameplay, since no one had that in their title.

[Da Mecca]

True.

[Klimax]

didymos1120 wrote...

javierabegazo wrote...

Says "Gameplay Designer" on her twitter account, and last time I checked, she was the Lead Designer again for ME3

Her title is really kind of irrelevant.  Compare the ME1 credits to the ME2 credits: going by that alone, apparently ME1 didn't have any gameplay, since no one had that in their title.

Doesn't follow nor does it make sense.

Somebody has to design, but it doesn't mean there must be somebody for just gameplay - that can be often redistributed between various position. Heavly dependent on team/company and its leaders.

And title denotes what person is responisble for,so it is not meaningless:
Lead Programmer doesn't design gameplay or levels nor guides it - he might have some input but is not his responsibility,
Same goes for Game Designer resot of positions.

As for your comparsion - there is no guarantee that they will keep same positions/name of them. Even same team can have reorganisation -> doesn't render title meaningless

[SilentNukee]

Good to know. I had no idea the lead designer was female...That is awesome.

Modifié par SilentNukee, 08 mai 2011 - 06:13 .

[didymos1120]

Klimax wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

javierabegazo wrote...

Says "Gameplay Designer" on her twitter account, and last time I checked, she was the Lead Designer again for ME3

Her title is really kind of irrelevant.  Compare the ME1 credits to the ME2 credits: going by that alone, apparently ME1 didn't have any gameplay, since no one had that in their title.

Doesn't follow nor does it make sense.
*snip*

Here's your mistake: you thought I literally meant that.  Rather, my point was, titles don't tell you as much as you'd think.  You can't just look at a given title and instantly map that to their precise responsibilities, or somehow extract from them what the design philosophy of a game is. The mere fact that they're so variable and non-standardized ought to be enough to make that plain.

ETA:  Also, I never said "meaningless".  I said "irrelevant".  They are not the same.

Modifié par didymos1120, 08 mai 2011 - 06:23 .

[didymos1120]

SilentNukee wrote...

Good to know. I had no idea the lead designer was female...That is awesome.

The Lead Designer isn't.  His name is Preston Watamaniuk.  Christina Norman is up there, but she still works for him.

[The Fan]

 Good finally people will stop spazzing. Bioware is listening.

[Admoniter]

Am I the only one that misses leveling up improving the abilities in question but other additional stats. Like how pouring points into decryption not only improved sabotage and bypassing, but also increased the damage of tech mines. Or how fitness beyond upgrading adrenaline rush also improved your damage. Granted this didn't occur with all talent the biotic ones foe example lacked additional buffs, but regardless. It was something I enjoyed that was missing in ME2, and I hope that it is relevant enough in combat so that it isn't swept under the rug a second time.

[Burdokva]

Same old, same old story. "RPG elements will be better"... expect next preview article to feature even more combat and zero news on RPG elements. Followed by "we're working on it"...

[Terror_K]

TheConfidenceMan wrote...

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?

Thank you! This is exactly what I thought too as soon as I read her rebuttal. Once again she emphasises combat throughout her statement, but doesn't once mention stats beyond combat. Again, it just makes it sound like everything is narrowly focused on combat and combat alone in ME3, and all this does is seem to confirm that more. I have no idea why so many are either breathing sighs of relief or going, "See! See! You were wrong!" when her statement has only made me fear ME3 is overtly combat-focused even more than before.

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."

I have to agree, at least partially. Nothing against her personally, but ever since that presentation I've felt that she isn't really the right person to be in charge of Gameplay Design. I just don't like her mindset, opinions on RPG elements and overall way of going about things. Her statement/comment regarding the inventory along the lines of, "the simplest option is the best one, and what's simpler than no inventory at all!" is a classic case of this.

Again, it's nothing personal. I'm sure she's a really nice person, but I just don't think she's suited to her role given her methods and opinions personally.

[SalsaDMA]

Don't be disapointed if you don't see armor distribution in ME3 then, because there's probably a 80% chance that we won't see it at all. The downside to no armor distribution is obvious, less player customization.

The up side to armor distribution is something that a lot of players take for granted, and that's individual animations per character, and having them be more of their own person rather than you getting to play dress-up.

Eh... Individual animations needs less customization? What on earth are you talking about?

It's perfectly possible to animate characters on their frames/skeletons, and then have the armours as an overlay, following the frame/skeleton. It's been done to death already like this by most games using swappable armours, so it's hardly rocket science to do so.

Heck, you can even argue that if you add armour specific animations to character specific animations, then you actually get more animation variations possible per character in a 'dress-up' game.

If anything, I feel making your claim about crippling animations is a poor excuse for tying that part into future DLCs just to be able to milk the consumers for new looks.

We're not in 2d sprite country anymore, nor have been for quite a while.

[Dracotamer]

Thanks for clearing that up.

[Bozorgmehr]

Terror_K wrote...

I have to agree, at least partially. Nothing against her personally, but ever since that presentation I've felt that she isn't really the right person to be in charge of Gameplay Design. I just don't like her mindset, opinions on RPG elements and overall way of going about things. Her statement/comment regarding the inventory along the lines of, "the simplest option is the best one, and what's simpler than no inventory at all!" is a classic case of this.

Depends how you look at it. In most 'RPG' games with an inventory, you have hundreds of items to loot and carry around, but there are always only a very select few worth your while. To me all those worthless items are a waste of time and space and it's good thing to dump all the junk and only keep the stuff that's useful.

In ME1 you've got many weapons, but at the end of the day your choice was between using top notch spectre gear or junk - not much of a choice imo. In ME2 there are only a few different weapons, but most have specific strengths and weaknesses without rendering the other weapons obsolete.

Having 5 (roughly) equal options >>>>>>> having a 100+ weapons to chose from with one that makes all the others look like crap. Options should mean something and affect gameplay, simply adding junk only gives the illusion of choice and it's the worst and the simplest option.

[Terror_K]

Bozorgmehr wrote...

Depends how you look at it. In most 'RPG' games with an inventory, you have hundreds of items to loot and carry around, but there are always only a very select few worth your while. To me all those worthless items are a waste of time and space and it's good thing to dump all the junk and only keep the stuff that's useful.

It definitely does depend how you look at it. While you see worthless items as a waste of time, I find them the factor that makes the better stuff worthwhile. I feel junk is necessary if one is going to have a proper inventory system. When all the items are special, none of them are. ME2's method was just too damn linear and shallow: there was only a handful of items, and they were in the same location every time and too next to no effort to get. After playing through just once any players could just know where the weapon they wanted was, go and get it the next time around and thus make the rest of the inventory completely meaningless. That's just as bad (if not worse) than the issues Master Spectre Gear brought in ME1.

To sum it up, ME1 went too far one way and had poor balancing, too much junk and a clumsy system, while ME2 went too far the other with a plain, limited and linear system that left no room for randomisation, discovery or any real choice.

[Techlology]

Man, and it was fun reading about people spazzing out because they can't put arbitrary points into meaningless stats that had close to no effect on the actual gameplay.

Bioware should make a stat for Shepard called "Just put points in the stat more points go in" and give it no upper cap.

Modifié par Techlology, 08 mai 2011 - 09:59 .

[Nohvarr]

Terror_K wrote...

 I feel junk is necessary if one is going to have a proper inventory system. When all the items are special, none of them are.

I disagree, I find a system where all weapons have specific strengths and weakness to be a lot better than just wading through junk until the weapon with the better stats rolls around. On my last Soldier run through I spent more time considering my weapon loadout than I ever did in ME 1. Inthe ME 1 I just looked for the gun with the best stats and was done. In ME 2 I spent a lot of time figuring out which weapons complimented my playstyle. I eventually decided that the Widow sniper rifle, Mattock AR, and  Carnifx hand cannon worked the best for me.

[Lunatic LK47]

Nohvarr wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

 I feel junk is necessary if one is going to have a proper inventory system. When all the items are special, none of them are.

I disagree, I find a system where all weapons have specific strengths and weakness to be a lot better than just wading through junk until the weapon with the better stats rolls around. On my last Soldier run through I spent more time considering my weapon loadout than I ever did in ME 1. Inthe ME 1 I just looked for the gun with the best stats and was done. In ME 2 I spent a lot of time figuring out which weapons complimented my playstyle. I eventually decided that the Widow sniper rifle, Mattock AR, and  Carnifx hand cannon worked the best for me.

More or less my experience as well. I actually dread playing through ME1's New Game+ just because of how badly designed the inventory was (not to mention going over the item limit when you know, the party members' equipped armor, weapons, and omni-tools/biotic ampsis dumped back into the regular inventory slots, filling that 150 item limit), and had Pinnacle Station to thank for outfitting my entire squad with Spectre weapons. Still ended up being filled to the brim with Omni-Gel and Credits. ME2, I ended up picking weapons that fit my playstyle in the form of the Revenant and the Viper, and the mileage may vary from player to player.

[Terror_K]

Again, why does the only alternative to ME2's way of doing things seem to be ME1's way of doing things in some peoples' eyes? Isn't there the possibility of a third way that is neither of them?

[Someone With Mass]

I think rifling through junk loot is so pointless and a waste of time. Especially when I already have the best stuff in the game to use. I'm not using weapons that fits my preference, but more those that have slightly better stats than everything else in my inventory. I prefer ME2's system, where everything can be used in different ways, and not become obsolete the second I find something new.

ME3 seems to expand on that with weapon mods, branching power/skill trees and more parts and upgrades to buy in the stores, which is a good thing in my book.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 08 mai 2011 - 11:12 .

[SalsaDMA]

Nohvarr wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

 I feel junk is necessary if one is going to have a proper inventory system. When all the items are special, none of them are.

I disagree, I find a system where all weapons have specific strengths and weakness to be a lot better than just wading through junk until the weapon with the better stats rolls around. On my last Soldier run through I spent more time considering my weapon loadout than I ever did in ME 1. Inthe ME 1 I just looked for the gun with the best stats and was done. In ME 2 I spent a lot of time figuring out which weapons complimented my playstyle. I eventually decided that the Widow sniper rifle, Mattock AR, and  Carnifx hand cannon worked the best for me.

While agree that junkloot can be overdone, as horribly illustrated by the almost sarcastic handling of it in DA2, I disagree that there were alot of considerations in ME2.

I spent very little time considering weapon loadouts. Either it was a matter of simply giving everyone the latest weapon I had found, or just issue them with the DLC weapons after I got those. The Geth rifle was the only difference in that it didn't really fit a purpose in my squads, thus I never used it.

The only weapons I spent a minimal of time actually considering with, were the heavy weapons. And even there it ended up with me just lugging around the Collector Beam Rifle and almost never using it, to conserve ammo. Only using it for specific boss fights for its armor penetration and ease of precision application.

So in short, I used just as few different weapons in ME2 as I did in ME1 as far as equipping them, goes. The difference between the 2 games being that ammo system and shield/armor capabilities in ME2 made me swap weapons depending on scenario, where in ME1 it was just AR spammage for everything, even if I only had 1 point in it on for example my engineer. Only my Infiltrator used another weapon (the sniper rifle) and that was mostly because I WANTED to try and use the sniper rifle as I felt it was thematic, not because it was effective compared to AR spamfire.

Neither ME1 or ME2 did the equipment thing proper, in my opinion. ME1 were flawed in the amount of junk we got burdened with, and ME2 was too limiting in the amount of options, and the differences in options were superficial in most cases anyway.

A proper system would have several different weapons with different strengths/effects/applications of usage, and we would be able to get proper briefings about the missions we were undertaking (Spectres ARE supposed to be about recon, right?) so we could get an idea about what specifics of weapons we would feel might be most suited for each particular mission given the scenario it takes place in as well as prior events and characters specializations/strengths.

Neither game really plays proper into that alley.