402 réponses à ce sujet

[Phaedon]

Chaos Gate wrote...
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?

Are we talking about souls or mechanics here?

Because if I remember correctly, some of you wanted Icewind Dale copy/pasted, with a new story. Consistent flavour? Do you mean stay the same during the years? Yeah, that's in the very definition of elitism.

Just check last year's sales. RPGs scored around 5%.

You know what I want?
Stats replaced by player control, more roleplaying, and for RPGs to be able to compete with the rest of the market.
Every RPG "fanatic" I have spoken to with here, is against removing dialogue stats and RPG stats not controlling shooter elements.

If you think that RPGs are not about roleplaying and player control, but stats and simulated combat, then I will thank you for publically showing the problem with the RPG fan base.

Modifié par Phaedon, 08 mai 2011 - 08:01 .

[darknoon5]

tonnactus wrote...

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.

1) Er, what about for the first half of the game before the collector ship? Also, what if I take sniper training, as I did in that playthrough? Is it not a good choice to have  CQC option?

The viper is superior, yes, but depending on your playstyle it isn't. If you're not good enough to get consistent headshots/aren't that accurate at rapid fire, mantis is better.

Finally, you ignored my point on the shotguns.

[Ahglock]

Nathan Redgrave wrote...

Ahglock wrote...

I never understood why that was a bad idea.  I mean sure, maybe not to the mission over level of need.  But in squad based games aren't you supposed to be looking at your squads abilities and picking the right squad member for the job.

In the English language, aren't you supposed to end a question with a question mark.

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. Given that combat is the part that matters the most (it's the only part you have to worry about actually winning), anything that limits your ability to mix up your combat tactics is going to frustrate people. In ME2, at the very least I wouldn't have to worry about it; my decisions on who my squadmates were would be entirely focused on who most aptly complimented my own combat abilities at any given time.

Technically it was a rehotrical quesiton which can be ended in a quesion mark or exclamation point.  But the main point is only moronic tools correct grammar on the internet.  You have no idea who you are trying to insult, they may be native spekaers, they may not.  They may have learning disabilites, they might not care that much about correcting their internet forums grammar etc.  

Unless it stops you from finishing the mission no choice is forced, there are choices with consequences.  

[tonnactus]

Phaedon wrote...

Your point is incorrect.

Its completly correct. If someone wants to use a powerfull automatic rifle,the revenant is the weapon to choose.Its better then all other rifles of its kind,like the avenger,the geth pulse rilfe and the collector rilfe.Thus its render them obsolete,plain and simple.
I for sure wouldnt list all examples,this one is enough.

[CroGamer002]

tonnactus wrote...

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.

You don't have a lot of ammo with shotgun until middle of game so here goes Tempest.

Also Tempest is best for squadmates since they have 100% accuracy no matter the range and that SMG has highest damage.

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.

And what if a player doesn't know how to use semi-automatic sniper rifle?

[Ahglock]

Phaedon wrote...


If you think that RPGs are not about roleplaying and player control, but stats and simulated combat, then I will thank you for publically showing the problem with the RPG fan base.

I do not think the argument is reallt that the game should not be about stats.  But in a role playing game the stats are defining the role that you are going to play.  

[tonnactus]

Chaos Gate wrote...


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.

Its bull**** anyway.Oblivion and Fallout games have far higher sales then both Mass Effect games.
Even Fable has higher sales then Mass Effect 2.

[Phaedon]

Ahglock wrote...

Phaedon wrote...


If you think that RPGs are not about roleplaying and player control, but stats and simulated combat, then I will thank you for publically showing the problem with the RPG fan base.

I do not think the argument is reallt that the game should not be about stats.  But in a role playing game the stats are defining the role that you are going to play.  

The stats are the ones defining the protagonist? Not the player? You see, that, exactly is the problem.

Stats limit you. They may give you the impression of creating a character, but in reality, they don't. As you progress the game, the more specific the limits are. You can either be a paragon or a renegade, but not a paragon who absolutely hates thieves. That's not roleplaying, that's an established character.

[Phaedon]

tonnactus wrote...

Chaos Gate wrote...


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.

Its bull**** anyway.Oblivion and Fallout games have far higher sales then both Mass Effect games.
Even Fable has higher sales then Mass Effect 2.

Fallout 3 is a hybrid, Oblivion is not a traditional RPG (saying that it is a RPG/FP"S" hybrid wouldn't be incorrect), and Fable alone won't save the RPG genre.

Modifié par Phaedon, 08 mai 2011 - 08:09 .

[cachx]

tonnactus wrote...

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.

Who cares about playstyles and personal preferences? It's all on min/maxing your numbers.

STOP HAVING FUN, GUYS ! [+]

[tonnactus]

darknoon5 wrote...

) Er, what about for the first half of the game before the collector ship?

There players dont have the temptest too.

Also, what if I take sniper training, as I did in that playthrough? Is it not a good choice to have  CQC option?

If i want CQC,i take a shotgun as my bonus weapon,not a sniper rifle.Plain and simple.

The viper is superior, yes,

Good that this is clear now. Even with being bad at headshots,the huge ammo it has dont led this become to a problem anyway compared with then 10 shots the mantis have.

[The Spamming Troll]

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.

who cares if its vanilla or not. ME2 has evolved with its DLCs and updates. is planet scanning still dreadfull becasue of vanilla ME2?

[Chaos Gate]

Phaedon wrote...

Chaos Gate wrote...
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?

Are we talking about souls or mechanics here?

Because if I remember correctly, some of you wanted Icewind Dale copy/pasted, with a new story. Consistent flavour? Do you mean stay the same during the years? Yeah, that's in the very definition of elitism.

Just check last year's sales. RPGs scored around 5%.

You know what I want?
Stats replaced by player control, more roleplaying, and for RPGs to be able to compete with the rest of the market.
Every RPG "fanatic" I have spoken to with here, is against removing dialogue stats and RPG stats not controlling shooter elements.

If you think that RPGs are not about roleplaying and player control, but stats and simulated combat, then I will thank you for publically showing the problem with the RPG fan base.

Nice job insulting an entire community. Now there's elitism if I've ever seen it.

RPGs are competing with the rest of the market. If they weren't, RPGs would be long dead and buried by now in our ruthless consumer society, and we wouldn't be wetting our pants over releases like Fallout 3, The Witcher 2 and Skyrim.

I think RPGs should be about playing a role, a good story and choices, but still accompanied by things like stats and inventory. Because if you take away those latter, more technical elements, then the game genre slids straight into another genre, or at least, perilously close to it. Case in point - ME2, which resembled Gears of War too much for my liking. And this coming from a Gears fan.

Speaking of souls, I hated Icewind Dale. The game had no soul.

[Ahglock]

Phaedon wrote...

Ahglock wrote...

Phaedon wrote...


If you think that RPGs are not about roleplaying and player control, but stats and simulated combat, then I will thank you for publically showing the problem with the RPG fan base.

I do not think the argument is reallt that the game should not be about stats.  But in a role playing game the stats are defining the role that you are going to play.  

The stats are the ones defining the protagonist? Not the player? You see, that, exactly is the problem.

Stats limit you. They may give you the impression of creating a character, but in reality, they don't. As you progress the game, the more specific the limits are. You can either be a paragon or a renegade, but not a paragon who absolutely hates thieves. That's not roleplaying, that's an established character.

More stats don't limit you in any way more than picking the class "limits" you, or putting points into drone and ignoring ai hacking limits you.  Stats that make you persuasive define how persuasive you are, which is less limiting than the system where there is no stats and every character is idenitcal in that regard.  There are good and bad ways to handle the various situations of games with stats or not having stats.  But in situations that will be common enough stats free you more than not having stats does.  With stats you have the option to be good, bad, average in certain areas.  Without stats Shepard is always good, unless it is dancing.  I see more freedom in the option to be bad.  

[darknoon5]

tonnactus wrote...

darknoon5 wrote...

) Er, what about for the first half of the game before the collector ship?

There players dont have the temptest too.

Also, what if I take sniper training, as I did in that playthrough? Is it not a good choice to have  CQC option?

If i want CQC,i take a shotgun as my bonus weapon,not a sniper rifle.Plain and simple.

The viper is superior, yes,

Good that this is clear now. Even with being bad at headshots,the huge ammo it has dont led this become to a problem anyway compared with then 10 shots the mantis have.

A) If I recruit Tali first, I have a good few missions without shotgun. And are you saying ranged combat has no use? Why can't I enjoy both? How can I enjoy both when I can only chose one out of three specialized weapons? Answer-use the tempest.

You seem to be missing the point. NOT EVERYBODY IS YOU! People have different playstyles and preferences.

C) Taken out of context. You ignored my point on how different people would be more adept with Mantis.

D) Still haven't seen a rebuttal for my shotgun/pistol analysis.

E) Still seen no examples of choice based on merits beyond the super weapons in ME1. But I expect you to ignore this point, you just quote things out of context to (fail at) proving your points.

[SalsaDMA]

Phaedon wrote...

Just check last year's sales. RPGs scored around 5%.

And space action flight sims prob scored lower. (Hint for those not getting the point: How many space action flight sims got released last year to impact the total sales figure for that game genre?)

You don't think there happen to be correlation between the massive amount of non-rpgs being spewed out compared to rpgs and the number you mentioned? After all, if 95% of all games being spit out from publishers are non-rpgs, I consider 5% of games sold being rpgs as being a pretty decent number...

[Chaos Gate]

Phaedon wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

Chaos Gate wrote...


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.

Its bull**** anyway.Oblivion and Fallout games have far higher sales then both Mass Effect games.
Even Fable has higher sales then Mass Effect 2.

Fallout 3 is a hybrid, Oblivion is not a traditional RPG (saying that it is a RPG/FP"S" hybrid wouldn't be incorrect), and Fable alone won't save the RPG genre.

Why is Oblivion not a traditional RPG? Because it is first person? That's abit elitist, don't you think? An altered viewpoint doesn't make Oblivion less of an RPG. Same with Fallout. Both are way more closer to what an RPG ought to be than what Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age 2 are.

Modifié par Chaos Gate, 08 mai 2011 - 08:21 .

[tonnactus]

Phaedon wrote...

Fallout 3 is a hybrid,

Just because it has weapons in it? Stat based accuracy(far more weight then in the first Mass Effect game),attributes,perks(essential),the need to repair weapons and armor...
And vats.Sure,this is a game a shooter player would choose to try out another genre...

Oblivion is not a traditional RPG (saying that it is a RPG/FP"S" hybrid wouldn't be incorrect)

So what is a "traditional" rpg then? And what makes them traditional?

[Phaedon]

Chaos Gate wrote...
Nice job insulting an entire community. Now there's elitism if I've ever seen it.

What?

RPGs are competing with the rest of the market. If they weren't, RPGs would be long dead and buried by now in our ruthless consumer society, and we wouldn't be wetting our pants over releases like Fallout 3, The Witcher 2 and Skyrim.

Yes, thank you for proving my point, only 2 big RPG releases this year. RPGs are not a popular genre any more, you know it to be true.

I think RPGs should be about playing a role, a good story and choices, but still accompanied by things like stats and inventory. Because if you take away those latter, more technical elements, then the game genre slids straight into another genre, or at least, perilously close to it. Case in point - ME2, which resembled Gears of War too much for my liking. And this coming from a Gears fan.

Speaking of souls, I hated Icewind Dale. The game had no soul.

Are you basically saying that what defines RPGs are stats? Thank you. You proved my point.

[tonnactus]

cachx wrote...


Who cares about playstyles and personal preferences?

Well,if its about "playstyle": Thats what weapon/ammo mods were for in the first game.A rifle that never overheats,or one that did this fast,but did more damage.

Or one that could be used for effective crowd control(explosive ammo)
So its already existed in the first game

[tonnactus]

SalsaDMA wrote...
 5% of games sold being rpgs as being a pretty decent number...

World of Warcraft is a rpg too,by the way...

[darknoon5]

tonnactus wrote...

cachx wrote...


Who cares about playstyles and personal preferences?

Well,if its about "playstyle": Thats what weapon/ammo mods were for in the first game.A rifle that never overheats,or one that did this fast,but did more damage.

Or one that could be used for effective crowd control(explosive ammo)
So its already existed in the first game

Err, what.

So basically weapons didn't matter, despite the hundreds of them, just mods? Deep RPG features there.

[darknoon5]

tonnactus wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...
5% of games sold being rpgs as being a pretty decent number...{smilie}

World of Warcraft is a rpg too,by the way...

MMORPG. Different thing.

[CroGamer002]

tonnactus wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...
 5% of games sold being rpgs as being a pretty decent number...

World of Warcraft is a rpg too,by the way...

That's an MMO and it was released 6 years ago.

[Phaedon]

tonnactus
So what is a "traditional" rpg then? And what makes them traditional?

For me? Role playing.
Oblivion has "shooting". Or at least direct control of your character. I am not saying that it's a bad RPG, it's not a traditional one. Traditional WRPGs are the BG type of games. That doesn't make them better RPGs, they are just the majority and therefore traditional/conventional.

Chaos Gate wrote...
Why is Oblivion not a traditional RPG? Because it is first person? That's abit elitist, don't you think?

It's not traditional because it uses elements that the rest of RPGs don't.

An altered viewpoint doesn't make Oblivion less of an RPG.

It's obviously more than a viewpoint...

Same with Fallout. Both are way more closer to what an RPG ought to be than what Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age 2 are.

Ummm...in FO3, you shoot.
Therefore, it's a shooter hybrid? And by shooting I mean full control of your character, not KOTOR style shooting.

The DA2 argument is pure BS.
Even if you think that it's an H&S, and there is nothing to support it, people who support statistical progression have labelled these games as RPGs.

Modifié par Phaedon, 08 mai 2011 - 08:34 .