171 réponses à ce sujet

[solmyr-fr]

ME is based on storytelling ... but also on action.
Take the example of Borderlands (FPS/H&S) which I consider to be a great game (ok ok, it's a H&S-RPG not a story-RPG). In one of the DLC there was no XP per killed (because of enemies waves) and it removed a lot of fun in the game. I do not see why getting XP is bad for immersion or for the fun.

TheCrakFox wrote
I didn't like having xp constantly popping up in ME1, the less intrusive pop-ups the better.

But ok, let's say it's too intrusive to have a popup ... let's remove the popup, keep XP per kill and display the total XP in the Shepard profile. Would you agree with that TheCrakFox ?

Kabanya101 wrote...

And morons, there are other ways to level up besides killing everything, such as opening containers, finding codex entries, so all you cry babies about "to be a high level you have to kill everything," not true, its the main way, but not the only way.

I already said that I'm ok not to have XP per kill but a lot of side quests and codex XP, i'm not a moron ^^.

Modifié par solmyr-fr, 08 juin 2011 - 08:59 .

[Kabanya101]

Bozorgmehr wrote...

Kabanya101 wrote...

XP per kill is SO nice, then I wouldn't have to wait till after the mission to level up, and I wouldn't have to go onto a planet to level everyone up by switching them in and out. And you don't get **** on for experience. In ME1, a simple side quest could level you up or give a nice chunk like almost a thousand. In ME2, doing a side quest nets you three maybe four hundred experience.

A thousand points in ME1 meant nothing if you need 50,000 points to gain a level. In ME2 you need 1000 XP to gain a level (regardless your current level) - side questing in ME2 is more rewarding than in ME1.

You do realize I am way underestimating for ME1 with only a thousand XP. Just from codex entries alone, you could net 800-700 XP. Having certain achievements would make individual kills nearly 700-900, sometimes a 1000 for geth destroyers. But even those seem low, and I'm doing this off of a two-three year absence of playing ME1. Yeah you needed way more experience, but you earned ten times the amount of that in ME2.

[In Exile]

Sidney wrote...
Accepting that leveling up is a unrealistic mechanism the XP per mission and leveling up not in the middle of a fioght makes a lot more sense. At least I can imagine there was some "training" period or something that doesn't make my charatcre suddenly learn an unrelated skill because he shoots a Geth.

It made perfect sense that killing Krogan 5342 would teach Shepard to be more persuasive and get a shop discount.

[AlanC9]

Kabanya101 wrote...

.... and I wouldn't have to go onto a planet to level everyone up by switching them in and out.

You don't have to do that anyway. Until they're in your party it doesn't matter if they're levelled or not, does it?

And you don't get **** on for experience. In ME1, a simple side quest could level you up or give a nice chunk like almost a thousand. In ME2, doing a side quest nets you three maybe four hundred experience.

How much experience is given out has absolutely nothing to do with how that amount of experience is given out. You really shouldn't go around calling other people morons if you're not going to think about your own posts.

Modifié par AlanC9, 08 juin 2011 - 08:59 .

[In Exile]

solmyr-fr wrote...
Take the example of Borderlands (FPS/H&S) which I consider to be a great game (ok ok, it's a H&S-RPG not a story-RPG). In one of the DLC there was no XP per killed (because of enemies waves) and it removed a lot of fun in the game. I do not see why getting XP is bad for immersion or for the fun.

It encourages killing. If you're not murdering everything that breathes, you lose out on XP. So it becomes crucial to murder everything that could be murdered to get XP, unless for whatever reason you want to underpower yourself. 

As for why XP per kill is bad for immersion... when was the last time a street fight taught you physics?

[Icinix]

Yeah, throw my hat into the ring for bonus xp for bonus / secondary objectives. What I would also like to see is bonus xp for hidden objectives, or things that fall outside the scope of the normal mission. Using a bit of intelligence and seeing an opportunity to do something that might help the greater war effort.

[Jaron Oberyn]

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

Sooo if they had XP/Kill in ME2... that would've royally messed with getting Kenson out without getting into proper combat.

I'd love for there to be more options for people to take a more stealthy/non combat route through some missions if they want and still get rewarded for doing so successfully, thus I indeed support the move ME2 made in removing the grindfest which was 'Kill everything on foot if you want to be the highest level'.

This is completely off topic, but your avatar looks like Jack Bauer. Just sayin'.

-Polite

[DropTech]

I like the hybrid system that Fallout uses. Small amounts of XP per kill scaled to the game setting dificulty and the enemy level and bigger ammounts of XP per mission completed also scaled. You can still level up at a decent pace sneaking everywhere and not killing a lot of enemies but if you want to be a homicidal maniac and shoot everything in sight you get extra XP.

[Ahglock]

In Exile wrote...

Sidney wrote...
Accepting that leveling up is a unrealistic mechanism the XP per mission and leveling up not in the middle of a fioght makes a lot more sense. At least I can imagine there was some "training" period or something that doesn't make my charatcre suddenly learn an unrelated skill because he shoots a Geth.

It made perfect sense that killing Krogan 5342 would teach Shepard to be more persuasive and get a shop discount.

It makes just as much sense as mission complete and now you are more persuasive.  About the only systems tied loosly to logic are the Elder Scroll like ones where using a skill improves that skill.   Every system promotes some type of game play and hinders another.  Trying to get the system to fit the game style is the trick.

 I think ME2's system would have fit ME1 better than it fit ME2.  Me1 at least gave nods to alternate methods to finish missions, ME2 not really.  Yeah depending on how agressive you play it would effect how many people you killed but that is about it for variable routes outside a couple small side points like the looters on the mordin RM.  Hopefully ME3 will put in things like stealth routes to finish a mission, talking things out as an option, indirect attacks etc.

[solmyr-fr]

it's not *only* about having XP per kill, but having XP a lot more frequently (not every 2 hour like in ME2). It can be by codex, side quests... In fact I'm more fighting against the ME2 style of "slow XP earning by 1000points" every mission than criticizing the remove of XP per kill.

I want the possibility to get more XP than the player who only focus on the current main objective on his minimap because I would have seen more things in the game than him. You'll answer me that learning or seeing more of the game is a reward in itself... but XP would be fine too.

Modifié par solmyr-fr, 08 juin 2011 - 09:14 .

[Banzboy]

I like getting exp per kill, it reminds me that i'm still playing an rpg (you hear that? not just a goddam shooter). I didn't like the exp or reward system in me2 where they had like a mission ending screen with the IM. That thing just reminded me that i'm playing a bunch of levels, it didn't help me feel immersed in the game.

[AlanC9]

Banzboy wrote...

I like getting exp per kill, it reminds me that i'm still playing an rpg (you hear that? not just a goddam shooter). I.

And here we have the problem. Folks who have internalized the silly conventions of CRPGs are simply not reachable by arguments about role-playing.

[mr_luga]

xp per kill is pretty frustrating. Since it forces me to search out every enemy and kill them to get the most XP. My OCD makes that very frustrating .P

[Walker White]

Even the pen-and-paper RPGs have abandoned this mechanic. Just say no to XP per kill.

[GreaseMunkeh]

Too bad. I just hope that on the flip side, they stop the banal spamming of enemies.

Its a cheap way of adding difficulty, and when its not rewarded by XP per kill, the tedium just skyrockets.

ME1 got a little boring at times because of some minor enemy spam, but at least it paid dividends.

In ME2 it was just torture, of the most boring and annoying kind.

So yeah, if XP by mission is kept, I hope the balancing of combat in missions is better this time than it was in ME2.

[Omega-202]

Banzboy wrote...

I like getting exp per kill, it reminds me that i'm still playing an rpg (you hear that? not just a goddam shooter). I didn't like the exp or reward system in me2 where they had like a mission ending screen with the IM. That thing just reminded me that i'm playing a bunch of levels, it didn't help me feel immersed in the game.

Because the only way for an RPG to be designed is by having XP rewarded for killing random characters....

RPG's are not defined by some holy decree.  There is no infallible set of rules by which you have to categorize something as an RPG.  And even in the loose definition of RPGs, XP/kill is not an absolute given.  

Was the "Mission Complete" screen a good design choice?  No.  It WAS immersion breaking.  Was the XP/Mission system in anyway inexorably tied to this bad decision?  NO.  Don't hate an objectively superior system just because it was implemented poorly.  

And in general, to those who are discussing the "rewarding feeling" of getting XP/kill: Why?  Why should you feel "rewarded" for killing some random mook?  That enemy you killed didn't matter.  They're a nameless goon.  You shouldn't feel as if you'd accomplished something.  The mission should be the rewarding part.  

[ronintoadin]

xp per mission is better I dislike meta gaming and grinding to reach level 60 in ME1

[fchopin]

Another point taken from the game, i can see the rpg elements Bioware are talking about are just imaginary.

[Massadonious1]

RPG elements that even pen and paper RPG's don't use any more.

Clearly you should have a talk with them as well.

[Omega-202]

fchopin wrote...

Another point taken from the game, i can see the rpg elements Bioware are talking about are just imaginary.

Tradition for the sake of tradition would leave us all in the dark ages.  You get rid of old mentalities that don't work and you develop new strategies that work better.  

XP/Kill is an objectively inferior system.  If you're only keeping it so that its "more RPG-ish" then you're being blockheaded.  

[solmyr-fr]

Omega-202 wrote...
And in general, to those who are discussing the "rewarding feeling" of getting XP/kill: Why?  Why should you feel "rewarded" for killing some random mook?  That enemy you killed didn't matter.  They're a nameless goon.  You shouldn't feel as if you'd accomplished something.  The mission should be the rewarding part.  

I should really change the name of the topic to "XP reward system" which is more general. 

My main "complaint" was more "I don't have the feeling to be rewarded enough even if I tried to do everything /explore everywhere ... because a lambda player who just go from main objective to main objective is rewarded the same." 

I agree that Xp per kill leads to huge problem (class gameplay balance for example) but again it's not the only way to make the distinction between two players.

In a lot of RPG, Baldur' Gate for instance, exploring and go everywhere was not only good for XP : you'll find powerfull items (Carsomyr  ) ... that was not the case in ME2.  You gained a lot of XP with side quest, learning spells, lockpicking ... so not only by killing ennemies.

[fchopin]

Omega-202 wrote...

fchopin wrote...

Another point taken from the game, i can see the rpg elements Bioware are talking about are just imaginary.

Tradition for the sake of tradition would leave us all in the dark ages.  You get rid of old mentalities that don't work and you develop new strategies that work better.  

XP/Kill is an objectively inferior system.  If you're only keeping it so that its "more RPG-ish" then you're being blockheaded.  

Maybe you should know the difference between simplification so developers do less work from imagining that you get immersion.
 
To have immersion you need to work for something not just killing spawning enemies that appear from who knows where.

[Notanything]

Strangely enough, I think I was grinding more in Mass Effect 2 simply because all the missions gave fixed experience, it didn't matter on their "difficulty". That was rather annoying to me. I'm surprised, I never would have thought experience per kill would be so intrusive to people's play style. I always thought of it more like a game mechanic than simply a task at hand, unless it was a game that didn't scale enemies on your level. But Mass Effect 2 did scale enemies, so gaining levels as you went along wouldn't have hurt you so bad, your enemies would end up being par with you after all.

Having leveled up during the mission through kill experience just gives me more incentive to use all my abilities in harmony rather than having to resort to "PEW PEW" all the time because my abilities were pathetic, or ineffective due to a low level. It's not like the game is impossible regardless, a low level run is entirely possible.

[solmyr-fr]

fchopin wrote... 
To have immersion you need to work for something not just killing spawning enemies that appear from who knows where.

So ME1 or BG (which are a lot based on story as all Bioware games) gave you this impression ?  No they were great and the XP system was (I think) not too intrusive. Those who don't give a damn about XP or being a munchkin  just don't look at the XP progress bar.  It's not because you have XP in a game that you can say the whole game is about gaining more XP... It can attract some players but must not be consider as archaic, or as a bad idea that "doesn't work anymore" because it's not true.

[Cathey]

I prefer the exp to be awarded like DA2 but I don't want that mission complete screen from ME2 back.