171 réponses à ce sujet

[Father_Jerusalem]

fchopin wrote...

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.

You know what my favorite pen and paper RPG of all time is? Vampire: The Masquerade. 

You know how much xp you got from killing enemies in that game? None at all.

Go ahead and tell me that that game was "simplified" or "not a real RPG", go ahead. 

XP per kill is outdated and stupid - clinging to it as a staple of "RPGness" doesn't show you as a purist or an elitist, it shows you as a dinosaur who refuses to change when the envrionment changes around you. XP per kill is a BAD system. It PUNISHES you for not being a genocidal maniac - why would a Paragon Shepard run around slaughtering everything that moves for their tasty tasty xp candy? Why would any but the most demented Renegade Shepard do that?

Seriously, "The galaxy is burning but OMG THERE'S A RED DOT ON MY MAP 213810 MILES OUT OF THE WAY! MUST GO KILL!" Really? 

Really?

[solmyr-fr]

DA2 *is* XP per kill with display at each combat end. So it's okay for me ^^.

I think nearly everyone is agree to say that the mission complete screen was not really good.

Bioware explored 3 possibilities, each of them is related to the time between each XP award and when you can level up.
- frequent XP during game (like in BG / ME1 / DA:O ... displayed at each action : kill, quest end, codex ...)
- occasional XP during game (DA2 : group kills X + quest end and codex)
- no XP during game (like ME2, only during mission complete)

The DA2 approach is a quite good mid-term.

[Notanything]

solmyr-fr wrote...

DA2 *is* XP per kill with display at each combat end. So it's okay for me ^^.

I think nearly everyone is agree to say that the mission complete screen was not really good.

Bioware explored 3 possibilities, each of them is related to the time between each XP award and when you can level up.
- frequent XP during game (like in BG / ME1 / DA:O ... displayed at each action : kill, quest end, codex ...)
- occasional XP during game (DA2 : group kills X + quest end and codex)
- no XP during game (like ME2, only during mission complete)

The DA2 approach is a quite good mid-term.

I would settle to that approach.

[solmyr-fr]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...
You know how much xp you got from killing enemies in that game? None at all.

Go ahead and tell me that that game was "simplified" or "not a real RPG", go ahead. 

No, not at all , there are some GREAT GREAT RPG without XP but with leveling-up like the TES series.
XP for XP is stupid ... I'm not a XP maniac but a leveling-up maniac... I like to gain level frequently in a RPG so I disliked the ME2 system.

Father_Jerusalem wrote...
XP per kill is outdated and stupid - clinging to it as a staple of "RPGness" doesn't show you as a purist or an elitist, it shows you as a dinosaur who refuses to change when the envrionment changes around you. XP per kill is a BAD system.

Very clever argument, go tell older people they're stupid because they re older... For me, It's not being purist or because I want to respect convention. A convention is good or bad, outdated or not ... only if it don't make you fell the fun... And it's depend on people... a lot of people still like leveling up... You're not one of them but don't insult other because they do not think like you.

 It PUNISHES you for not being a genocidal maniac -

 
Again, there is a lot of other ways than killing to gain XP and level up more frequently 

why would a Paragon Shepard run around slaughtering everything that moves for their tasty tasty xp candy? Why would any but the most demented Renegade Shepard do that?

 
Because the one who can fell the fun and enjoy the game is not Shepard. Big news, it's you ! You can kill villains and video games and enjoy it and be against capital punishment or killing people IRL. I always play paragon and I kill all enemies in every map on ME and I didn't see the contradiction.

Modifié par solmyr-fr, 08 juin 2011 - 10:48 .

[Father_Jerusalem]

solmyr-fr wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...
You know how much xp you got from killing enemies in that game? None at all.

Go ahead and tell me that that game was "simplified" or "not a real RPG", go ahead. 

No, not at all , there are some GREAT GREAT RPG without XP but with leveling-up like the TES series.
XP for XP is stupid ... I'm not a XP maniac but a leveling-up maniac... I like to gain level frequently in a RPG so I disliked the ME2 system.

Father_Jerusalem wrote...
XP per kill is outdated and stupid - clinging to it as a staple of "RPGness" doesn't show you as a purist or an elitist, it shows you as a dinosaur who refuses to change when the envrionment changes around you. XP per kill is a BAD system.

Very clever argument, go tell older people they're stupid because they re older... For me, It's not being purist or because I want to respect convention. A convention is good or bad, outdated or not ... only if it don't make you fell the fun... And it's depend on people... a lot of people still like leveling up... You're not one of them but don't insult other because they do not think like you.

 It PUNISHES you for not being a genocidal maniac -

 
Again, there is a lot of other ways than killing to gain XP and level up more frequently 

why would a Paragon Shepard run around slaughtering everything that moves for their tasty tasty xp candy? Why would any but the most demented Renegade Shepard do that?

 
Because the one who can fell the fun and enjoy the game is not Shepard. Big news, it's you ! You can kill villains and video games and enjoy it and be against capital punishment or killing people IRL. I always play paragon and I kill all enemies in every map on ME and I didn't see the contradiction.

Well first off, I'm older too so that whole argument you made is kind of... not really valid. I remember playing D&D and BG and IWD and Rifts and a TON of other RPGs, and the one thing they all had in common, the one thing that I ALWAYS disliked, was xp for kills. I like to level up, when I get that little level up icon I feel like I've accomplished something - but you can add XP to side-objectives that you do during the level to get the same feeling. 

Like in the Earth demo they have, kill kill kill.. find the Mattock, boom 500 xp awarded. Finish the level, boom 1000 xp awarded. It feels like you've still accomplished something without feeling forced to kill everything that's moving.

And yes, *I* can feel the fun and enjoy killing every bad guy on a map - but my Adept Paragon Shepard, for example, prefers to think her way out of situations, using violence only as a last resort. My Xenophobic Renegade Soldier Shepard will kill every alien that's holding a gun, but even he will try to avoid hurting other humans, or enemies that aren't making threatening movements. That's because when I'm playing them, I'm playing THEM - That is the main conceit of a "Role Playing Game", that I take on their roles, in which case xp per kill is just flat wrong and makes no sense whatsoever.

[rt604]

Well, I like XP after killing things because you can level up during a mission and then have access to higher level abilities during that mission, as opposed to waiting until the mission is over, which some people have stated. Also, I don't feel that experience points popping up after kills makes the experience less immersive, I guess it's from the days of playing turn based rpg's. Anyhow, I'm one of those players that likes to kill everything (Thresher Maws in ME1), but running around unlocking security crates was alright but not fun at all.

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

Grinding sucks.  It doesn't add real length to a game.  It's just filler, and it's a serious pain in the butt.

[Banzboy]

Omega-202 wrote...

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.  

Don't misunderstand, i don't mean only exp is from killing enemies, it should also be from missions and side missions. I like to feel more in control of how i grow as a character. If i want to be all powerful? Then i seek as much enemies to kill and do as much side missions. That sense of accomplishment is a rewarding feeling.

I don't feel rewarded for killing each random dude, i feel rewarded because i know that each of those random dudes will contribute to my level as a whole. 

I guess it's just the difference between people who grew up playing RPG/MMORPG and modern RPG's?

[Gatt9]

It's lazy design, People get better incrementally, not suddenly at some awe-inspiring epiphany every 30 minutes. They're just using that as an excuse to not have to worry about level ranges, rather just plan a predictable path so everyone is at the exact same point all the time.

Guess that pretty much guarantees a return of the "Mission Complete!" screen...joy...

[ronintoadin]

Gatt9 wrote...

It's lazy design, People get better incrementally, not suddenly at some awe-inspiring epiphany every 30 minutes. They're just using that as an excuse to not have to worry about level ranges, rather just plan a predictable path so everyone is at the exact same point all the time.

Guess that pretty much guarantees a return of the "Mission Complete!" screen...joy...

or they just wan't to roleplay without level grinding or metagaming heck in ME1 in insanity in order for an engineer to stand a chance you must level he/she up to level 50 minimum and all your doing is basically going to randomly generated planets doing generic missions and searching for every nook and cranny for someone you didn't kill or stuff you didn't loot seriously you wan't this back?

[AlanC9]

solmyr-fr wrote...
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.

I can certainly consider it archaic -- PnP games started abandoning that mechanism back around 1978 or so.
I agree that saying kill XP doesn't work anymore isn't correct. It never worked .

[solmyr-fr]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...
I like to level up, when I get that little level up icon I feel like I've accomplished something - but you can add XP to side-objectives that you do during the level to get the same feeling. 

So we agree to say that killing for XP is not a good thing but doing things (progress in active (main or side) quest or discor things in codex) and getting XP just after it is good ?

Father_Jerusalem wrote...
my Adept Paragon Shepard .... My Xenophobic Renegade Soldier Shepard will kill every alien that's holding a gun. That's because when I'm playing them, I'm playing THEM - That is the main conceit of a "Role Playing Game", that I take on their roles, in which case xp per kill is just flat wrong and makes no sense whatsoever.

I do not see Computer RPG as "you must play this king of character and keep it that we because that's how the character is". I always play them (especially Bioware RPG with a lot of choices in them) and make decisions in them as I would do in real life (that's why I play Paragon ^^ and I cannot play renegade, it's too hard ). I'm probably wrong ... but there is no wrong, there is no "good" way of playing a video game, we're talking about entertainment and the fun you feel when playing this kind of game which is different for two players.

Mmmm, it's a little off topic but never mind...

For those who prefer no XP per kill, do you also prefer frequent XP gains (and level up) with quests progression or slow (like in ME2) ?

[Kabanya101]

Everybody likes the XP gain in DA2, though that was dumb, because its the same thing as XP per kill, just after a fight. And the fight scenes were so dumb, you couldn't use any stealth, it was always, "here's a bunch of enemies, kill them, enemies fall from mid air, kill these enemies, XP earned."

There's no single kills, or a chance for stealth, in ME3 there's a little stealth involved, like that in the one gameplay video, where he comes up from behind cover and stabs the guy and moves on. That just completely blew the DA2 system out of the water. Cause there's no fight, only one kill. That would be XP for individual kills, SO to all the mature people out there

[Schneidend]

I don't care how XP is rewarded, as long as there is a way to get more of it. I don't want to proceed on a set path of advancement. "Okay, you're at this particular mission of the game, so you can finally access power X."

[Sidney]

solmyr-fr wrote...
For those who prefer no XP per kill, do you also prefer frequent XP gains (and level up) with quests progression or slow (like in ME2) ?

I do like leveling up to feel like it means something if I do have to do it and ME1 leveling up was mostly a yawner because you got such tiny incremenents better. In that vein I preferred ME2's leveling because each jump was "bigger" but something like DAO where each level up got you a new and distinct power that was useful was also fine.

[Cosmar]

I would have liked XP per kill. I felt like some of the side missions in ME2 were a waste because, after all the shooting and work, many of them barely gave any reward at all. So quite often I just never did some of those missions after the first or second time because I didn't feel like I accomplished much.

[Admoniter]

Good exp per kill is a flawed method unless ofcourse we are talking about elite enemies or bosses in which case I can deal with its inclusion. However, the ME2 exp system with its everybody is equal/a winner mentality is not much better.

[Sidney]

Admoniter wrote...

Good exp per kill is a flawed method unless ofcourse we are talking about elite enemies or bosses in which case I can deal with its inclusion. However, the ME2 exp system with its everybody is equal/a winner mentality is not much better.

It isn't everyone is a winner (well it is since you can't fail missions but that is true in all Bioware games) but you did what was asked of you?

In the military I was tasked with taking a hill. That was the mission. If I did it by maneuver and the enemy fled the hill w/o me firing a shot I took the hill, if I used brute force to clear the hill I took the hill. In the end that was the only thing anyone cared about other than my own losses whihc don't count in something like ME. XP per kill is a grinders approach to think. WoW or Diablo where there is no story should love it but in a game with a story and mission structure beyond local genocide the mission based XP is the way to go.

[In Exile]

solmyr-fr wrote...

DA2 *is* XP per kill with display at each combat end. So it's okay for me ^^.

I think nearly everyone is agree to say that the mission complete screen was not really good.

Bioware explored 3 possibilities, each of them is related to the time between each XP award and when you can level up.
- frequent XP during game (like in BG / ME1 / DA:O ... displayed at each action : kill, quest end, codex ...)
- occasional XP during game (DA2 : group kills X + quest end and codex)
- no XP during game (like ME2, only during mission complete)

The DA2 approach is a quite good mid-term.

Well, all XP is during the game. And XP acquisition is still faster/slower for some (depending on how fast you hit objectives). 

That said - it sounds like what you really want is frequent XP; your objection, fundamentally, is that you're getting enough reward pellets. I can't really argue with that, other than to say I disagree with it as a design principle.

[In Exile]

Gatt9 wrote...

It's lazy design, People get better incrementally, not suddenly at some awe-inspiring epiphany every 30 minutes.

Google insight learning and problem solving. Insight operates exclusively on an S-curve, i.e. it is dichotomous and discontinous. You have long periods of "not getting it" and then a dramatic "i get it!" moment, and then you can always solve the problem right.

Do more research the next time you want to appeal to basic neurology.

Modifié par In Exile, 09 juin 2011 - 02:56 .

[Kasai666]

Am I the only one who likes grinding in games? In FFX, one of the parts I enjoyed the most was running around the save points, fighting, healing and then going back to fighting. I like grinding, I find it fun,

Back to the point. The idea of XP per kill is ok in my book. I liked ME1's leveling up as opposed to ME2.

[In Exile]

solmyr-fr wrote...
For those who prefer no XP per kill, do you also prefer frequent XP gains (and level up) with quests progression or slow (like in ME2) ?

Neither. I prefer it to be logically scaled to the quest. If the quest takes a long time to complete and has multiple objecties on a grand scale, it should give lots of XP. If it doesn't take a long time, then it should have less XP but happen more frequently.

It's leveling up that's the reward (IMO) not the XP. 

[Heather Cline]

I want xp per kill back. It gives incentive to explore, kill more and play the game more. In ME2, I felt I was getting gyped for XP by only getting it per completed mission.

[Occulo]

Omega-202 wrote...

It leads to metagaming and grinding, two things completely contradictory to the BioWare motto of "story first".

Taking away XP per kill was one of their best decisions for ME2. It made it so that there were other options to completing encounters. Vanguards could charge past groups of enemies. Infiltrators could stealth past certain parts. You didn't have to worry about enemies who got stuck in the geometry but weren't crucial to progressing.

This. Remember all the geth colossi you'd see in Mass Effect 1? For me they were a really big pain, with the biggest reason not being the difficulty in taking them with or without the Mako, but that I felt compelled to take them down. It felt like if I didn't, the rest of the game would be much more difficult for me. And that is why Liara was left hanging in a barrier for fifteen or so unnecessary minutes.

[Sidney]

Heather Cline wrote...

I want xp per kill back. It gives incentive to explore, kill more and play the game more.

Again, grinding. The only incentive to kill more is to get more XP. Your character has no motive for doing it.

If the game wants me to explore more, give me a reason to go to location X other than there are targets to kill there. It remains one of my biggest gripes with something like Oblivion. There's a ton of stuff in the world to kill but not a really good reason to be out there killing it.