402 réponses à ce sujet

[Walker White]

Murmillos wrote...

Here is a humble suggestion related to an "old school" RPG point allocation system; you know, your intelligence, dexterity, charm & charisma.

Why do we have to continue to be bound to a collection of stats that us old schoolers weren't even happy with in the 80s?  Somedays I feel as if all the RPG lessons we learned in the 80s and early 90s were forgotten.

[Obro]

bald man in a boat wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

BW: RPG elements will be enrichened, but not in the ME1 style. Also, weapon customization!

Community: Yay!

BW: No meaningless non-combat stats for ME3!

Community: whoa wtf bw omg dumb down much

BW: Umm. you want meaningless  stats?

C: Umm, yes. RPGs are not about rping L O L. We want complex stats that have no effect at all.

BW: What.

C: Also, you said non-combat! omfg

BW: Err, but neither of the games have real non-combat stats.

C: Omg damage contr0l much, boiware?

BW: What did I do to deserve this community...

This. People forget you're not supposed to go full retard.

probably the stupidest thing I read today.

What makes a good RPG great is the little things. Weapon customization =/= RPG. I can customize my guns in Crysis and Call of Duty and nobody is calling them RPG games.

And as for " RPGs are not about rping L O L" ....ME is hardly actual role playing since everyone is just playing Shepard the same way everyone is playing Gordon Freeman. You don't play your character you're playing Shepard and Shepard is talking the way he talks not the way you would talk. Hell you don't even know what is he going to say because of the glorious conversation wheel. At least in Half Life you get immersion.

[Murmillos]

Walker White wrote...

Murmillos wrote...

Here is a humble suggestion related to an "old school" RPG point allocation system; you know, your intelligence, dexterity, charm & charisma.

Why do we have to continue to be bound to a collection of stats that us old schoolers weren't even happy with in the 80s?  Somedays I feel as if all the RPG lessons we learned in the 80s and early 90s were forgotten.

Not all of us "old schollers" were dissatisfied with them. Maybe those of you who stayed strictly adhered to the D&D rule set of the time with zero creativity stayed unhappy. But within our group of players; if something just didn't seem right, make sense or was just flat out silly or frustrating, we change it - and trust me, even the simple changes made a world of difference. Somedays I think we had more fun making up new rules; then playing the damn game - but that was us.


25 min after edit:
I also want to state my base skill system is intended not be a hindrance to a player; not a "Sorry, you don't have enough points - try again later" system. A such, those not looking to RPG will never be miffed that the new weapon they got can't be equipped until they level up 2 more times & put 5 more points into a particular stat (as in example DA2 - which isn't a bad thing to those particular games, but just doesn't fit the feel and direction of the ME series) or they can't perform or unlock a particular object because on last level up, they forgot to allocate enough points into hacking or such (which doesn't exist currently, but as a feed back to those who want such a system).
Thus, each skill increases or provides a positive bonus to an already exceptional character.
If a system did exist, you would see bragging rights in how they completed Insanity as an "100% Average Shepard".

Modifié par Murmillos, 08 mai 2011 - 07:12 .

[SalsaDMA]

Nathan Redgrave wrote...

Forcing you to take up one slot in your already limited party specifically for the purpose of being able to unlock item containers limits your options with regard to combat.

Tough. That's what choices are about, in case you hadn't noticed.

It's regarded as an issue because the games are shooters with tacked on rpg elements, rather than rpgs with tacked on shooter elements. If noncombat activities and combat activities were regarded as equally important, the problem you are having with having to make a choice is irrelevant.

That aside, how on earth can you even talk about having to make choices as if it was a bad thing? I thought the whole supposed concept of the series was about choices?

[SalsaDMA]

Murmillos wrote...

Walker White wrote...

Murmillos wrote...

Here is a humble suggestion related to an "old school" RPG point allocation system; you know, your intelligence, dexterity, charm & charisma.

Why do we have to continue to be bound to a collection of stats that us old schoolers weren't even happy with in the 80s?  Somedays I feel as if all the RPG lessons we learned in the 80s and early 90s were forgotten.

Not all of us "old schollers" were dissatisfied with them. Maybe those of you who stayed strictly adhered to the D&D rule set of the time with zero creativity stayed unhappy. But within our group of players; if something just didn't seem right, make sense or was just flat out silly or frustrating, we change it - and trust me, even the simple changes made a world of difference. Somedays I think we had more fun making up new rules; then playing the damn game - but that was us.

I agree with Murmillos

[fchopin]

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 will believe this when i see it. No proof no money from me.

[cachx]

Nathan Redgrave wrote...
Forcing you to take up one slot in your already limited party specifically for the purpose of being able to unlock item containers limits your options with regard to combat.

Not necessarily, to make a ME example look at Kasumi, Tali and Legion. All three of them can fill the "hacker" role, but have different combat styles. I still understand that some player dislike to have some choices "forced" on them, though...

My favorite approach was always "multiple solutions for one problem" but I have a hard time imagining it with a squad based game in the scope of ME.

Walker White wrote...

Murmillos wrote...

Here
is a humble suggestion related to an "old school" RPG point allocation
system; you know, your intelligence, dexterity, charm & charisma.

Why
do we have to continue to be bound to a collection of stats that us old
schoolers weren't even happy with in the 80s?  Somedays I feel as if
all the RPG lessons we learned in the 80s and early 90s were forgotten.

have to agree with Walker here. Why stay in the Dark Ages, fellas?

[SalsaDMA]

cachx wrote...

Nathan Redgrave wrote...
Forcing you to take up one slot in your already limited party specifically for the purpose of being able to unlock item containers limits your options with regard to combat.

Not necessarily, to make a ME example look at Kasumi, Tali and Legion. All three of them can fill the "hacker" role, but have different combat styles. I still understand that some player dislike to have some choices "forced" on them, though...

My favorite approach was always "multiple solutions for one problem" but I have a hard time imagining it with a squad based game in the scope of ME.

Walker White wrote...

Murmillos wrote...

Here
is a humble suggestion related to an "old school" RPG point allocation
system; you know, your intelligence, dexterity, charm & charisma.

Why
do we have to continue to be bound to a collection of stats that us old
schoolers weren't even happy with in the 80s?  Somedays I feel as if
all the RPG lessons we learned in the 80s and early 90s were forgotten.

have to agree with Walker here. Why stay in the Dark Ages, fellas?

Dark ages? I find that comment funny, considering the 'dark ages' of rpg is statless interactive storytelling...

Stats are there to help people visualize how their character is, behaves, what it can do and maybe even how it looks. The problem isn't stats. The problem is wrong usage of stats, or, even worse, negliegence of stats.

Take a stat like intelligence. Let us asume a generic definition of the stat that means that the value of a characters inteligence determines its ability to deal with information, reasoning/deductions, logic and possibly ability to grasp complex patterns. These are arguably things that would have an impact on what kind of stuff a character would say when having conversations. Yet how many games do you see actually incorporate this into their dialogues, so the player can feel the roleplaying effect this stat has on his ability to communicate?

Not alot

[Chaos Gate]

cachx wrote...

have to agree with Walker here. Why stay in the Dark Ages, fellas?

Because BioWare's idea of a modern RPG is Dragon Age 2.

[Phaedon]

But we are in the dark ages, Salsa.

So many RPGs are coming out with less story and more stats. RPGs haven't changed much for decades, the community is the one with the most elitists (just check RPG Codex), RPGs aren't selling well at all, and the only future for RPGs seems to lie in hybrids like ME3 and Deus Ex.

[tonnactus]

Bozorgmehr wrote...
 In ME2 there are only a few different weapons, but most have specific strengths and weaknesses without rendering the other weapons obsolete.

??
Who use the temptest or any other smg after they got the locust?
There are still top of the end weapons that made all other obsolete.Ask how many people actually use the avenger,vindicator or geth pulse rifle the whole game unless they want to gimp theirself because they like the look.

[Phaedon]

Obro wrote...
probably the stupidest thing I read today.

What makes a good RPG great is the little things. Weapon customization =/= RPG. I can customize my guns in Crysis and Call of Duty and nobody is calling them RPG games.

You forgot the "also" part.

And as for " RPGs are not about rping L O L" ....ME is hardly actual role playing since everyone is just playing Shepard the same way everyone is playing Gordon Freeman. You don't play your character you're playing Shepard and Shepard is talking the way he talks not the way you would talk. Hell you don't even know what is he going to say because of the glorious conversation wheel. At least in Half Life you get immersion.

There are so many things wrong with this part.

I have already found three.

[Phaedon]

tonnactus wrote...

Bozorgmehr wrote...
 In ME2 there are only a few different weapons, but most have specific strengths and weaknesses without rendering the other weapons obsolete.

??
Who use the temptest or any other smg after they got the locust?
There are still top of the end weapons that made all other obsolete.Ask how many people actually use the avenger,vindicator or geth pulse rifle the whole game unless they want to gimp theirself because they like the look.

The Locust is not in Vanilla ME2.

[tonnactus]

Someone With Mass wrote...

I think rifling through junk loot is so pointless and a waste of time. .

The obvious solution for that would be removing "autoloot" and not the whole inventory alltogether.

Modifié par tonnactus, 08 mai 2011 - 07:40 .

[darknoon5]

tonnactus wrote...

Bozorgmehr wrote...
 In ME2 there are only a few different weapons, but most have specific strengths and weaknesses without rendering the other weapons obsolete.

??
Who use the temptest or any other smg after they got the locust?
There are still top of the end weapons that made all other obsolete.Ask how many people actually use the avenger,vindicator or geth pulse rifle the whole game unless they want to gimp theirself because they like the look.

Actually, the tempest is useful for CQC. I use it on my sentinel opposed to the locust. (and as Phaedon says, it isn't vanilla.)

Also, for classes that take sniper training and don't have access to the widow, whether you take the viper or mantis as your main sniper depends on your playstle.
Oh, and scimitar opposed to, let's say, claymore, also depends on your playstyle. As does predator vs Carnifx. Predator is a better defence stripper but less damage, pretty useless on shields.


Just to give a few examples. Now give me a few examples in ME1 when you actually had to chose between weapons based on your playstyle-oh wait, there weren't any.

Modifié par darknoon5, 08 mai 2011 - 07:44 .

[MDT1]

tonnactus wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

I think rifling through junk loot is so pointless and a waste of time. .

The obvious solution for that would be removing "autoloot" and not the whole inventory alltogether.

So you have to brows through it after each kill? Then I prefere the ME1 system.

[tonnactus]

Waage25 wrote...

Hehe Bioware is in full Damage control mode.

They did the same thing for DA2 and we all know what a bad game that was.

Well, Dragon Age 2,despite all of its faults,at least has "rich" options to build a character.The warrior class alone has more skills to choose from then all classes in Mass Effect 2 combined.
And all classes get enchantements(ammo "powers") for free instead of having to invest points in it.

[Bozorgmehr]

tonnactus wrote...

??
Who use the temptest or any other smg after they got the locust?
There are still top of the end weapons that made all other obsolete.Ask how many people actually use the avenger,vindicator or geth pulse rifle the whole game unless they want to gimp theirself because they like the look.

Locust, GPS and Mattock are bonus dlc weapons, which were meant to break the balance.

[CroGamer002]

tonnactus wrote...

Bozorgmehr wrote...
 In ME2 there are only a few different weapons, but most have specific strengths and weaknesses without rendering the other weapons obsolete.

??
Who use the temptest or any other smg after they got the locust?
There are still top of the end weapons that made all other obsolete.Ask how many people actually use the avenger,vindicator or geth pulse rifle the whole game unless they want to gimp theirself because they like the look.

A) Locust is NOT in ME2 vanilla
Tempest is GREAT for CQC
C) I use Avenger, Vindicator and especially GPR a lot and I hate Mattock which is also not in ME2 vanilla

[tonnactus]

Phaedon wrote...

The Locust is not in Vanilla ME2.

And? It still makes all other smgs obsolete.Other then that,those without the dlc would just use the temptest,except they arent able to burst fire...

[Phaedon]

tonnactus wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

The Locust is not in Vanilla ME2.

And? It still makes all other smgs obsolete.Other then that,those without the dlc would just use the temptest,except they arent able to burst fire...

Your point is incorrect.
There are no weapons that render each other obsolete in ME2. At least the version that you buy in stores.

[Chaos Gate]

Phaedon wrote...

But we are in the dark ages, Salsa.

So many RPGs are coming out with less story and more stats. RPGs haven't changed much for decades, the community is the one with the most elitists (just check RPG Codex), RPGs aren't selling well at all, and the only future for RPGs seems to lie in hybrids like ME3 and Deus Ex.

What fabrication.

Less story and more stats? No evolution over the past few decades? Really? Did you ever play Knightmare, Eye of the Beholder, Ultima, Balder's Gate, Planescape: Torment, The Witcher, Borderlands or KotOR? I won't be surprised if you say you haven't.

As for not selling well...I dunno, but I recall Dragon Age: Origins selling very well. Sales garnered from that game alone don't seem to point to a doom and gloom future that is only populated by hybrids.

And who's the elitist here? People wanting RPGs to remain a consistent flavour and, more importantly, not lose their soul, or gatecrashers like you who want to change everything to suit their tastes?

Modifié par Chaos Gate, 08 mai 2011 - 07:52 .

[tonnactus]

darknoon5 wrote...
Actually, the tempest is useful for CQC.

If i want that,i take shotguns instead,who became available not long after the temptest.

Also, for classes that take sniper training and don't have access to the widow, whether you take the viper or mantis as your main sniper depends on your playstle.

The viper is clearly superior:


So no one,unless he/she want to gimp himself,take the mantis instead.

[CroGamer002]

Phaedon wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

The Locust is not in Vanilla ME2.

And? It still makes all other smgs obsolete.Other then that,those without the dlc would just use the temptest,except they arent able to burst fire...

Your point is incorrect.
There are no weapons that render each other obsolete in ME2. At least the version that you buy in stores.

Well all pistols suck in ME2 vanilla and thank God for Phalanx. Also that very first SMG.

Other then that, all guns are great and only Mattock makes other AR's obsolete but that's because that gun is overpowered and needs to be balanced in ME3.

Modifié par Mesina2, 08 mai 2011 - 08:04 .

[darknoon5]

Chaos Gate wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

But we are in the dark ages, Salsa.

So many RPGs are coming out with less story and more stats. RPGs haven't changed much for decades, the community is the one with the most elitists (just check RPG Codex), RPGs aren't selling well at all, and the only future for RPGs seems to lie in hybrids like ME3 and Deus Ex.

And who's the elitist here? People wanting RPGs to remain a consistent flavour and, more importantly, not lose their soul, or gatecrashers like you who want to change everything to suit their tastes?

See, talking of losing your soul is very elitist.
Also, if RPG's had always remained with a "consitent flavour," our characters wouldn't even be rendered on screen. Change happens. Not always for the better, but I think most of the changes in ME2 were, indeed, for the better.