469 réponses à ce sujet

[FlyingWalrus]

Again.

Stats =/= RPG

Player involvement in determining the direction the game goes, aka roleplaying = RPG

An RPG doesn't need reams of stats and skills to be considered an RPG. Get out of this mire of a mindset.

[the_one_54321]

FlyingWalrus wrote...
An RPG doesn't need reams of stats and skills to be considered an RPG. Get out of this mire of a mindset.

There's all kinds of reasons why what you said is wrong. But it doesn't matter because marketing has completely destroyed any kind of standard definition for RPG. Every year it means whatever marketing happens to want it to mean that year. And I don't just mean EA or BioWare. The entire gaming industry has done this.

[Lumikki]

the_one_54321 wrote...

FlyingWalrus wrote...
An RPG doesn't need reams of stats and skills to be considered an RPG. Get out of this mire of a mindset.

There's all kinds of reasons why what you said is wrong. But it doesn't matter because marketing has completely destroyed any kind of standard definition for RPG. Every year it means whatever marketing happens to want it to mean that year. And I don't just mean EA or BioWare. The entire gaming industry has done this.

Actually it's not marketing what has destroyed defination of RPG, it's people who have played RPG's, who has done it. Meaning people have played RPG's for different reasons and they learn to love different aspects what RPG can offer. What cause that defination how they see RPG is based how they want to see RPG and have experience RPG, in they own perspective. Meaning if you value sertain stuff in RPG more than other, then that RPG feature has higher value for you self and it comes more dominat in your own defination of what RPG is. How ever, people don't value same stuff with same weight.

If we define RPG then one element comes allways first, because without it, there is no RPG.

1. Roleplaying

What elements and features comes after that as part of RPG is question and can be debated, but the first isn't.

Modifié par Lumikki, 15 juin 2011 - 11:40 .

[JKoopman]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Charm/Intimidate also had a passive effect on the cost of shop items and how much money you received from selling them. In addition, there was also Electronics (bypass doors, +shields, +repair), Decryption (hack containters, +tech damage), Fitness (+health), First Aid (+health restoration), Medicine (-medi-gel cooldown), and Basic/Tactical/Combat Armor (+armor, access to different armor tiers). Does ME2 have ANY talent that doesn't directly pertain to an offensive ability?

Yes, many of those talents in ME1 also had bonus combat abilities included with them at lvls 1, 5 and 9, but they were predominantly passive stat bonuses. Along came ME2 and it basically trimmed away all the passive bonuses and supporting stuff and distilled it down to nothing but the combat abilities.

Yes, ME1 had a bunch of passive skills (which are all directly related to combat, btw).  ME2 ditched most of them.  But why is that such a bad thing?  Placing a skill point into Fitness to increase health by +5% is not some deep feature which requires strategic thought.  How is that any different from researching a Heavy Skin Weave upgrade?  Having a skill tree with a bunch of passive skills that you dump points into does not mean ME1 was more "intelligent" than 2.  In addition, having your hacking skills derived from a passive skill was neither fun nor realistic.  Tali is this Quarian tech genius but she can't hack a wall safe because I haven't dumped enough points into her Decryption?

No, not directly related to combat. Pertaining to combat, maybe. But comparable to ME2 where everything is a directly offensive combat ability? No. The closest thing to a non-direct combat talent in ME2 is the Infiltrator's Tactical Cloak...

You could make an attempt at playing a support role in ME1 - however clunky it might've been - by putting all your points into First Aid, Medicine, Damping, etc, hanging back and letting your squadmates do most of the fighting while you threw out buffs and debuffs. Rather than improving on this in ME2, (as was so often the case) they got rid of it and made everything directly combat-oriented with things like Medicine/First Aid being relegated to automatic health regeneration, Electronics/Decryption being sidelined with non-exclusive minigames and Persuasion tied into the Paragon/Renegade meter (eg: automatic background stats outside of player control).

To put it simply, you can't customize Shepard or your squadmates to anywhere near the degree that you could in ME1, and I don't see how you can argue this point.

sp0ck 06 wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

"Having a health bar and pressing Y when it gets low" is a gross simplification bordering on dishonesty. The finite amount of medi-gel that the player could carry meant that you had to be careful about every encounter. Get sloppy and lose too much health? Now you have to weigh the options and consider whether to use one of your medi-gels to bring your health up to full for the next encounter - potentially running the risk of not having enough if a particularly difficult enemy is faced later on - or conserving your medi-gel and hoping that your health is sufficient for the next battle.

ME2's regenerating health means that you can basically blunder and bludgeon your way through every encounter and, as long as you take cover from time to time for a few seconds, you never have to bother with tactics. And, no matter how badly you perform in each individual encounter, your health will always be full for the next. It's brainless and requiress no strategy or forethought whatsoever.

I would argue the inclusion of Heavy Weapons fulfills a similar purpose to what you describe as medi gel usage in the first game.  Save it for a tough boss, or blow it on the big pack of enemies you just can't seem to get past?  I .  I find it amusing you say describe ME2 combat as "brainless" when I dont ever recall running out of medi gel in ME1 due its absurdly broken and easy combat mechanics.  Try playing ME2 on insanity and "blunder" you way through.  Good luck.

Similar mechanic? Yes. Similar purpose? No. There's hardly a point in the entire game where you're required to use heavy weapons, therefor their use is entirely optional to the player. The only penalty for being too agressive and over-using your heavy weapons is... not having those fun heavy weapons to play around with. The penalty for playing too agressive and over-using your medi-gel in ME1 is a game over screen and reloading from your last save. It's kind of hard to avoid taking damage unless you, ya know... play tactically and plan ahead, which is the whole point.

sp0ck 06 wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Really? So your counter to armors, armor mods, weapons, weapon mods, grenade mods, neural implants, omni-tools and licenses is... the Space Hamster? The thing that you buy, click on once to see what it does and then never bother so much as looking at again and that has no effect or impact on your character(s) whatsoever?

Thats right, I'd rather just have some collectables than an endless torrent of useless armor weapons and mods I already have 10 copies off in a horrible inventory interface.

sp0ck 06 wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

How often did you really feel like your character's equipment was improving and changing in ME2? Really, stop and think about that and give an honest answer. Yeah, there were only 8 different weapon models (with I don't really know how many different skins for each) but you could visibly see that one weapon was better than another and almost constantly felt like your arsenal was improving and evolving as the game progressed even if the model in Shepard's hands looked the same. In addition, there were 26 different armor styles across 3 different types (Light, Medium, Heavy) with 10 tiers apiece, and a whole plethora of weapon mods, armor mods, grenade mods, neural implants and omni-tools that left your character's equipment constantly evolving even if it wasn't visible.

It was improving every time I researched an upgrade for it.  ME2 should have shipped with more weapons, true, but once you got top tier weapons and armor in ME1 you never needed anything else anyways.  The Spectre AR handled and felt exactly like the one you started the game with, except the little bars in the menu had higher numbers next to them.  Tier I-X of armor was the same.

See previous link.

For my part, I can't say I ever notice any difference whatsoever with any of the "upgrades" available in ME2 nor were the effects of purchasing them as visible to the player as, say, equiping a new weapon on a character or putting on a different suit of armor or slotting a weapon mod which completely changed the weapon firing effect. And the fact that they applied to ALL characters instead of just one, as was mentioned by an earlier poster, meant that you never really had to think about who would benefit most and customize accordingly. There was no sacrifice; no thought. It was just a boring, simplified, linear progression path.

sp0ck 06 wrote...

I never said ME2 was perfect, I explicitly stated otherwise.  I said I feel the need to defend it against UNJUSTIFIED criticism.

So, basically, any criticism that you don't agree with is "unjustified"? That seems awfully arrogant.

Modifié par JKoopman, 15 juin 2011 - 11:43 .

[the_one_54321]

Lumikki wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

FlyingWalrus wrote...
An RPG doesn't need reams of stats and skills to be considered an RPG. Get out of this mire of a mindset.

There's all kinds of reasons why what you said is wrong. But it doesn't matter because marketing has completely destroyed any kind of standard definition for RPG. Every year it means whatever marketing happens to want it to mean that year. And I don't just mean EA or BioWare. The entire gaming industry has done this.

Actually it's not marketing what has destroyed defination of RPG, it's people who have played RPG's, who has done it. Meaning people have played RPG's for different reasons and they learn to love different aspects what RPG can offer. What cause that defination how they see RPG is based how they want to see RPG and have experience RPG, in they own perspective. Meaning if you value sertain stuff in RPG more than other, then that RPG feature has higher value for you self and it comes more dominat in your own defination of what RPG is. How ever, people don't value same stuff with same weight.

If we define RPG then one element comes allways first, because without it, there is no RPG.

1. Roleplaying

What elements and features comes after that as part of RPG is question and can be debated, but the first isn't.

Ask five different people what "roleplaying" is and see what happens.

[FlyingWalrus]

the_one_54321 wrote...

FlyingWalrus wrote...
An RPG doesn't need reams of stats and skills to be considered an RPG. Get out of this mire of a mindset.

There's all kinds of reasons why what you said is wrong. But it doesn't matter because marketing has completely destroyed any kind of standard definition for RPG. Every year it means whatever marketing happens to want it to mean that year. And I don't just mean EA or BioWare. The entire gaming industry has done this.

Nah. I know I'm right and no made-up reasons you can come up with will prove otherwise.

Bottom line is that as long as a game allows a player to have some involvement in the story and allows him or her to have a malleable and progressive presence within the world, it's an RPG. Old school D&D was very basic and only had a few stats to rely on for combat resolution. Stunts, actions, etc. were all determined through roleplay. The lack of stats and skills clearly does not make D&D 1e any less of an RPG than its last incarnation, 3.5, which is the most complex in the game's history. They are merely two different experiences which in turn attract different people, but both are RPGs.

ME2 and ME1 respectively are like this. In terms of character progression, ME2 is simpler than ME1. However, it allows you to do more to shape your character's personality and impact than in the last game, which could only end one way: beat Sovereign, save the Citadel. In ME2, you had power over the survival of your very squadmates, plus there was the vital endgame decision whose impact is yet to be seen in ME3, though I do believe it will be major.

It's okay to dislike ME2's system. It's not okay to say uneducated crap like "It's not an RPGEEEEE"

[Bluko]

In Exile wrote...

Lumikki wrote...
You joking? I think Mass Effect serie is very close to Star Wars in it's base consept as universe. Little different style and enemies, but in general they both are universes where player travels in worlds where live multible alien races.

I failed pretty badly. ME is really a lot like Star Wars. But not like Star Trek.

Shepard isn't going out to explore new worlds and meet new civilizations.

What you're claiming here is horrendously wrong. Humanity has only been part of the galactic community for some 25 years. We haven't even lived a single century with them yet. I'd say these alien civilizations are pretty new to us. You're also ignoring that 99% of the galaxy hasn't even been explored yet. There are billions of stars, millions of systems, millions of planets.

That aside even if you think Shepard is just a gun-toting Marine blasting bad guys and aliens, Shepard still interacts with aliens a lot. Shepard still goes to pretty distant to and relatively unexplored worlds. How is Shepard not an explorer? Maybe it isn't Shepard job to chart worlds per say, but I'd still say Shepard is an explorer.

Mass Effect Trailer

Exploration is a key part of the series. Don't say it's not, because it is. If you weren't meant to explore the galaxy the whole game could just have been set on Earth instead.

Look I'm not asking for a return of 85 degree slopes to traverse with the Mako. (Though I would like to see the Mako return or some kind of combat vehicle for a limited number of missions.) All I'm really asking for is some open environments to explore on foot or otherwise. I don't want to be confined to narrow pathways again the entire game. And this has been a pretty big complaint amongst a lot of people regardless how much they like or dislike ME2.

If you like linear and straightforward missions, they'll still be there. All some of us are asking for is a little freedom once and awhile to stretch our legs in the game's setting. Is really that atrocious to have some open-ended levels that can be tackled in a number of different ways? Is it really the end of the world instead of going A, B, C for objectives/missions you can go C, A, B sometimes? Or does it actually make the game just that more interesting? That it isn't just a linear experience. That you can choose a little more as to how you want to do things.

Modifié par Bluko, 16 juin 2011 - 12:12 .

[Bluko]

Dangit double post.

Modifié par Bluko, 16 juin 2011 - 12:11 .

[the_one_54321]

FlyingWalrus wrote...
Old school D&D was very basic and only had a few stats to rely on for combat resolution. Stunts, actions, etc. were all determined through roleplay. The lack of stats and skills clearly does not make D&D 1e any less of an RPG than its last incarnation, 3.5, which is the most complex in the game's history.

Translation:
"They both have stats and story elements in varying degrees, but I think the story elements are more important than the stats so that's all there is to it. You can't prove this isn't true."

[FlyingWalrus]

the_one_54321 wrote...

FlyingWalrus wrote...
Old school D&D was very basic and only had a few stats to rely on for combat resolution. Stunts, actions, etc. were all determined through roleplay. The lack of stats and skills clearly does not make D&D 1e any less of an RPG than its last incarnation, 3.5, which is the most complex in the game's history.

Translation:
"They both have stats and story elements in varying degrees, but I think the story elements are more important than the stats so that's all there is to it. You can't prove this isn't true."

The story is always more important. This is why DMs usually handwave certain rules if a player comes up with an unusual, amusing, or creative solution to a problem or situation. Of course, this kind of flexibility isn't possible in a limited medium like computer games. However, it is possible to give a player freedom of determination. Especially in dialogue. Interrupts were a huge step forward for the series and one of the few things in ME2 that almost all fans will agree was a good thing. And that is so because it gives players more determination over their character's personality.

[the_one_54321]

FlyingWalrus wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

FlyingWalrus wrote...
Old school D&D was very basic and only had a few stats to rely on for combat resolution. Stunts, actions, etc. were all determined through roleplay. The lack of stats and skills clearly does not make D&D 1e any less of an RPG than its last incarnation, 3.5, which is the most complex in the game's history.

Translation:
"They both have stats and story elements in varying degrees, but I think the story elements are more important than the stats so that's all there is to it. You can't prove this isn't true."

The story is always more important. This is why DMs usually handwave certain rules if a player comes up with an unusual, amusing, or creative solution to a problem or situation. Of course, this kind of flexibility isn't possible in a limited medium like computer games. However, it is possible to give a player freedom of determination. Especially in dialogue. Interrupts were a huge step forward for the series and one of the few things in ME2 that almost all fans will agree was a good thing. And that is so because it gives players more determination over their character's personality.

So what you're saying now is that the statistics need to dictate gameplay in CRPGs?

I say roleplaying is replacing yourslef with the character. And there are a million diferent ways to interpret "replacing yourself with your character" as you'll figure out if you just ask every forum member what s/he thinks it means.

[Tony Gunslinger]

Gatt9 wrote...

Most of those statements are largely true,  whether you personally care for them or not.  ME2 is not a real RPG,  it lacks a Character,  Shepherd has no intrinsic qualities of his own. 

Revan has no intrinsic qualities of his own either.

It is dumbed down,  there's no inventory,  no loot,  no details on weapons and their damage output or any of their qualties,  armor does nothing,  health regenerates automatically,  no punishment for acting out of character*,  it's very basic. 

I think your definition of RPG is superficial. What you're talking about is mechanics, and these mechanics exist on other games that are not RPGs.

It is very similiar in form and function to a GoW clone,  that's how the combat plays out,  and it's not very good at it.  I'd actually term it as Whack-a-Mole,  because all I did for the entire game was (Hide,  wait for enemy to hit it's pause in firing,  put crosshairs 1" above where they were crouching,  pull trigger when they popped up).

You're still using this argument after I've showed you that all you're doing is playing on an easy level with an easy class, and you dismiss the actual mechanics of the game because the game ALLOWS you to do that on the easy difficulties?

Some people complain about the lack of freedom, but when freedom is there, they don't realize it and complain about the lack of direction. That's basically what you're doing.

People do robotically chant that,  they continually insist it's a better game and a better RPG,  without dealing with any of the arguement. 

Uh, we are dealing with the arguments. You just don't want to hear it or respond to them.

All you'll get in response is "You're (Old, outdated,  archaic) and you don't deserve to play games anymore!" followed by about 2 paragraphs of regurgitating buzzwords marketing PR has thrown out (Evolvoed,  Revolutionary,  Immersive). 

As far as I can tell, you've been using buzzwords and rhetoric more so than anyone else.

Modifié par Tony Gunslinger, 16 juin 2011 - 12:32 .

[Tony Gunslinger]

JKoopman wrote...

I classify Section 8: Prejudice as an RPG since you play the role of a space marine and it allows you some limited customization of stats and weapons. Since I have more fun playing Section 8: Prejudice than I do playing Baldur's Gate, I hereby dub Section 8: Prejudice to be a better RPG than Baldur's Gate.

See how silly and subjective that is?

Let me show you it's done:

"Having limited ammo caters to the dumb shooter crowd is a gross simplification bordering on dishonesty. The finite amount of ammo that the player could carry meant that you had to be careful about every encounter. Get sloppy and use too much sniper rounds? Now you have to weigh the options and consider whether to use you Widow to bring take out opponents from a distance before the next encounter - potentially running the risk of not having enough if a particularly difficult enemy is faced later on - or conserving your ammo and hoping that your SMG is sufficient for the next battle.

ME1's regenerating ammo means that you can basically blunder and bludgeon your way through every encounter and, as long as you take cover from time to time for a few seconds, you never have to bother with tactics. And, no matter how badly you perform in each individual encounter, your amoo will always be full for the next. It's brainless and requiress no strategy or forethought whatsoever."

How often did you really feel like your character's equipment was improving and changing in ME2? Really, stop and think about that and give an honest answer. Yeah, there were only 8 different weapon models (with I don't really know how many different skins for each) but you could visibly see that one weapon was better than another and almost constantly felt like your arsenal was improving and evolving as the game progressed even if the model in Shepard's hands looked the same. In addition, there were 26 different armor styles across 3 different types (Light, Medium, Heavy) with 10 tiers apiece, and a whole plethora of weapon mods, armor mods, grenade mods, neural implants and omni-tools that left your character's equipment constantly evolving even if it wasn't visible.

That's the skinner box approach to game design. It's probably the cheapest and oldest trick in the gaming industry. There's nothing deep about that at all, anyone (like you, for instance) can come up with such a system. All you're doing is set up the core gameplay, then granulize them into components and scatter them on all over the game for the player to grind and assemble themselves. It's there to artificially lengthen gameplay and make it seem complex when the core gameplay itself is actually pretty one-dimensional. If the gameplay can't sustain itself without inventory, then it's a shallow gameplay.

And BTW, inventory and customization does not make an RPG, you should know that after playing WoW.

You could make an attempt at playing a support role in ME1 - however clunky it might've been - by putting all your points into First Aid, Medicine, Damping, etc, hanging back and letting your squadmates do most of the fighting while you threw out buffs and debuffs. Rather than improving on this in ME2, (as was so often the case) they got rid of it and made everything directly combat-oriented with things like Medicine/First Aid being relegated to automatic health regeneration, Electronics/Decryption being sidelined with non-exclusive minigames and Persuasion tied into the Paragon/Renegade meter (eg: automatic background stats outside of player control).

To put it simply, you can't customize Shepard or your squadmates to anywhere near the degree that you could in ME1, and I don't see how you can argue this point.

All ME1 classes get all the same powers maxed by endgame, every player gets the same abilities and pretty much play the same as everyone else. Please list how many build variations there are in ME1.

Now go look at the strategy section, read the sticky, and count how many build variations there are in ME2.

In ME2, yeah the weapons are more "unique". But unique so often means that you find the one weapon that suits your style and then never equip or change anything else ever again. I tended to prefer the Carnifex to the Predator, for example. So, as soon as I'd acquire the Carnifex on Mordin's recruitment mission, I'd equip it on all my characters and there it would remain until the end of the game. Likewise for SMGs. The Locust was far superior to every other SMG in ME2, so as soon as I'd acquire it on Kasumi's loyalty mission, I'd equip it on all my characters with an SMG slot and there it would remain, etc, etc. The same goes for armor.

Read the SMG thread in my sig.

As soon as I'd acquired the armor piece that I prefered, I'd equip it and never see my armor locker again. ME2 felt static in that regard. Yeah, each piece was more visually unique, but there was no feeling of progression or evolution.

You're all over the place. In the previous paragraph you're saying the Locust is so much better than all the rest of the SMGs, and if it's true, then by your definition it's progression/evolution (look, a buzzword). No offense, but you and a couple of others I've read so far are the worst offenders of Confirmation Bias.

[FlyingWalrus]

the_one_54321 wrote...

FlyingWalrus wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

FlyingWalrus wrote...
Old school D&D was very basic and only had a few stats to rely on for combat resolution. Stunts, actions, etc. were all determined through roleplay. The lack of stats and skills clearly does not make D&D 1e any less of an RPG than its last incarnation, 3.5, which is the most complex in the game's history.

Translation:
"They both have stats and story elements in varying degrees, but I think the story elements are more important than the stats so that's all there is to it. You can't prove this isn't true."

The story is always more important. This is why DMs usually handwave certain rules if a player comes up with an unusual, amusing, or creative solution to a problem or situation. Of course, this kind of flexibility isn't possible in a limited medium like computer games. However, it is possible to give a player freedom of determination. Especially in dialogue. Interrupts were a huge step forward for the series and one of the few things in ME2 that almost all fans will agree was a good thing. And that is so because it gives players more determination over their character's personality.

So what you're saying now is that the statistics need to dictate gameplay in CRPGs?

That is absolutely not at all what I said. Statistics do exist, as the original RPG came out of a wargame, but they are never to be more important than the story, nor should the be getting in the way. This is what made an RPG different from a wargame. I personally enjoy having a nice set of stats, but if a game can remain fun with few of them then who am I to get ragey over it? ME2 may be RPG-lite in terms of statistics, but it is one of the most involving character experiences you can find today.

I say roleplaying is replacing yourslef with the character. And there
are a million diferent ways to interpret "replacing yourself with your
character" as you'll figure out if you just ask every forum member what
s/he thinks it means.

Roleplaying is acting out an interaction with someone else as an assumed persona. Or something else, as these single-player games would have it. This is why MMORPGs are not really RPGs at all—they are stat-driven dungeon crawls and hack and slashers.

Modifié par FlyingWalrus, 16 juin 2011 - 12:45 .

[azerSheppard]

FlyingWalrus wrote...
The story is always more important. This is why DMs usually handwave certain rules if a player comes up with an unusual, amusing, or creative solution to a problem or situation. Of course, this kind of flexibility isn't possible in a limited medium like computer games. However, it is possible to give a player freedom of determination. Especially in dialogue. Interrupts were a huge step forward for the series and one of the few things in ME2 that almost all fans will agree was a good thing. And that is so because it gives players more determination over their character's personality.

Real RPG is P&P only. Freedom to do almost anything, anyway you like xd
I do believe that eventhough ME2 was streamlined, it was a far superior RPG experience than ME1. The fact that there is no better weapon class, or better weapon model in general is what made it great, some took the claymore some took the eviscirator, the GPS or the scimitar. That is what good RPG features are all about. 

About giving you the illusion of freedom, free to chose you weapon, based on your playstyle. There is no such thing in me1, we all know pistols are statistically the best weapons in the game. Sniper rifles are worthless unless it's spectre gear. And all you strive for in the game is to get the money to buy that one spectre X pistol.... what a shame.

[The Spamming Troll]

i infamous 2 a role playing game???

[JKoopman]

FlyingWalrus wrote...

ME2 and ME1 respectively are like this. In terms of character progression, ME2 is simpler than ME1. However, it allows you to do more to shape your character's personality and impact than in the last game, which could only end one way: beat Sovereign, save the Citadel. In ME2, you had power over the survival of your very squadmates, plus there was the vital endgame decision whose impact is yet to be seen in ME3, though I do believe it will be major.

*cough* Wrex *cough* Kaian/Ashley *cough*

Also, how is whether or not to save the Council, sacrifice the Council but reform it after or abandon the Council and create a human-dominated galactic government less "vital" an endgame decision than whether or not to blow up a space station? Because we know that the decision amounted to less than nothing? Be prepared for the exact same thing to happen with the Collector base...

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

Let me show you it's done:

"Having limited ammo caters to the dumb shooter crowd is a gross simplification bordering on dishonesty. The finite amount of ammo that the player could carry meant that you had to be careful about every encounter. Get sloppy and use too much sniper rounds? Now you have to weigh the options and consider whether to use you Widow to bring take out opponents from a distance before the next encounter - potentially running the risk of not having enough if a particularly difficult enemy is faced later on - or conserving your ammo and hoping that your SMG is sufficient for the next battle.

ME1's regenerating ammo means that you can basically blunder and bludgeon your way through every encounter and, as long as you take cover from time to time for a few seconds, you never have to bother with tactics. And, no matter how badly you perform in each individual encounter, your amoo will always be full for the next. It's brainless and requiress no strategy or forethought whatsoever."

Oh, but I thought that ammo was so plentiful in ME2 that only an absolute moron ever ran out and no one who played sensibly ever had to worry about it? Isn't that the excuse that ME2 apologists (yourself included) use in every discussion about thermal clips? And I also thought that ME1 was "too hard" and "frustrating" when those nasty enemies hit you with Sabotage and left you helpless for those crucial 60 seconds? Again, another common complaint I hear from the ME2 crowd about how thermal clips are such an improvement over heatsinks.

To borrow your own phrase, you seem to be "all over the place" in this regard, using whatever position best suits your argument at any given time.

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

That's the skinner box approach to game design. It's probably the cheapest and oldest trick in the gaming industry. There's nothing deep about that at all, anyone (like you, for instance) can come up with such a system. All you're doing is set up the core gameplay, then granulize them into components and scatter them on all over the game for the player to grind and assemble themselves. It's there to artificially lengthen gameplay and make it seem complex when the core gameplay itself is actually pretty one-dimensional. If the gameplay can't sustain itself without inventory, then it's a shallow gameplay.

And ME2's approach is inherently better because...?

Having a clever label for it does nothing to refute the argument.

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

All ME1 classes get all the same powers maxed by endgame, every player gets the same abilities and pretty much play the same as everyone else. Please list how many build variations there are in ME1.

I'm assuming that by "endgame" you mean level 60 NewGame+? Most players finished their first runthrough around Lvl 45, and I can tell you that I only had a handful of maxed out talents at that point and had to be very selective about what I put points into. In light of that, I think saying that every class in ME1 had the same abilities endgame is more than a little disingenuous. How many variations of Lvl 30 Adepts are there really in ME2? Oh, that's right. One person can have a small AoE version of a power while another has more damage. It's like a totally different class!

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

You're all over the place. In the previous paragraph you're saying the Locust is so much better than all the rest of the SMGs, and if it's true, then by your definition it's progression/evolution (look, a buzzword). No offense, but you and a couple of others I've read so far are the worst offenders of Confirmation Bias.

How does it show "progression" to receive the best weapon in the first 5% of the game and not equip anything else for the remaining 95%?

And please, don't go slinging words like bias around when you're guilty of plenty yourself.

Modifié par JKoopman, 16 juin 2011 - 01:50 .

[Lumikki]

JKoopman wrote...

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

That's the skinner box approach to game design. It's probably the cheapest and oldest trick in the gaming industry. There's nothing deep about that at all, anyone (like you, for instance) can come up with such a system. All you're doing is set up the core gameplay, then granulize them into components and scatter them on all over the game for the player to grind and assemble themselves. It's there to artificially lengthen gameplay and make it seem complex when the core gameplay itself is actually pretty one-dimensional. If the gameplay can't sustain itself without inventory, then it's a shallow gameplay.

And ME2's approach is inherently better because...?

Because it doesn't focus on items, but actual playing role in story. When items become gameplay it self, then player is conserating in metagaming. You know min max playing, not actual roleplaying role in story. ME2's problem wasn't the design, but excecution was little too limited (simplifyed).

Modifié par Lumikki, 16 juin 2011 - 01:53 .

[JKoopman]

Lumikki wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

That's the skinner box approach to game design. It's probably the cheapest and oldest trick in the gaming industry. There's nothing deep about that at all, anyone (like you, for instance) can come up with such a system. All you're doing is set up the core gameplay, then granulize them into components and scatter them on all over the game for the player to grind and assemble themselves. It's there to artificially lengthen gameplay and make it seem complex when the core gameplay itself is actually pretty one-dimensional. If the gameplay can't sustain itself without inventory, then it's a shallow gameplay.

And ME2's approach is inherently better because...?

Because it doesn't focus on items, but actual playing role in story. When items become gameplay it self, then player is conserating in metagaming. You know min max playing, not actual roleplaying role in story.

How did items and inventory supercede Shepard's role in the story in ME1...?

[Lumikki]

JKoopman wrote...

How did items and inventory supercede Shepard's role in the story in ME1...?

It did break the impression of roleplaying role of character in story every time I had to manage inventory, because so much junk item related gameplay.

Modifié par Lumikki, 16 juin 2011 - 01:57 .

[JKoopman]

Lumikki wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

How did items and inventory supercede Shepard's role in the story in ME1...?

It did break the impression of roleplaying role of character in story every time I had to manage inventory, because so much junk item related gameplay.

Did items and inventory get in the way of roleplaying in games like Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, KOTOR or Jade Empire?

If not, then would you accept that ME1's execution of inventory management was lacking and that items and inventory don't inherently conflict with roleplaying?

[Lumikki]

JKoopman wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

How did items and inventory supercede Shepard's role in the story in ME1...?

It did break the impression of roleplaying role of character in story every time I had to manage inventory, because so much junk item related gameplay.

Did items and inventory get in the way of roleplaying in games like Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, KOTOR or Jade Empire?

Yes, except maybe Jade Empire in you list.

If not, then would you accept that ME1's execution of inventory management was lacking and that items and inventory don't inherently conflict with roleplaying?

Yes, Items isn't conflict with roleplaying, it's the way how they are handled that is problem, has allways been in most RPG's.

How ever, consider also that impression can be broken more easy when there is high impression value. Example nethack, there isn't much impresion done by game, so it's all in players head. More visual/sound enviroment the game creates for player, more it lose impression when it's broken by managements.

Modifié par Lumikki, 16 juin 2011 - 02:22 .

[KainrycKarr]

Some of you, I won't list names, but some, REALLY need a life and/or hobbies.

[FlyingWalrus]

JKoopman wrote...

*cough* Wrex *cough* Kaian/Ashley *cough*

Also, how is whether or not to save the Council, sacrifice the Council but reform it after or abandon the Council and create a human-dominated galactic government less "vital" an endgame decision than whether or not to blow up a space station? Because we know that the decision amounted to less than nothing? Be prepared for the exact same thing to happen with the Collector base...

Well, I was mainly highlighting decisions that change the outcome of the entire adventure, so I didn't mention the council decision. You could destroy the base and defy your employer or not. Somehow, I think leaving a hive of inherently bastard technology in the hands of someone ruthless doesn't strike me as a decision that wouldn't affect things drastically. But perhaps you are right there.

Also, Kaiden/Ashley and Wrex lapsed my mind slightly. Perhaps that is because I never choose Kaidan and never put Wrex down. Even then, you couldn't get just anyone killed. That was the gimmick with ME2. I think it could've been done better, but the fact that it's still there is one up from before. Also, you couldn't choose to bring both of your soldiers home in ME1, so that's sort of taking the choice out of the players' hands. But I can understand why they did this. It heightens the drama and the sense of personal loss... if you're attached to the characters, anyway.

[AlanC9]

azerSheppard wrote...
Real RPG is P&P only. Freedom to do almost anything, anyway you like xd

Except that the GM does have a say in what you can actually get away with, of course.