469 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...
Because other studios manage perfectly fine showing and telling alot earlier than this.

Someone should tell Skyrim that, then.



All I see is some conversation/travel options and some dude casting magic.

From what I hear, Skyrim isn't exactly the best example to pull out when talking roleplaying games, as they seem to be headed the same disastrous direction as every  other business suit corporation is going these days.
I believe they dumbed down character stats to the level of DA2 or worse in Skyrim, so.. please... don't start using that game when talking about rpg...

Well, then what about previous E3s? In past years did RPG presentations actually show off the RPG elements of the game?

[SalsaDMA]

Il Divo wrote...

LordNige wrote...

Given that most of the skills in ME1 were weapon/armour/hacking/Medigel/dialogue related with a few for biotics/tech skills it made sense to have a smaller stats list. The one thing that annoyed me about ME1 was that Shep could essentially reach the rank of commander without the necessary skills to fire a pistol or wear armour beyond light armour. As I said, ME2's shortened power list made sense, I welcome a slightly more detailed power list in ME3 though

Funnily enough, plot-wise the leveling systems might have worked better if they were done in reverse. At the start of ME1, Shepard is a special forces N7 soldier at the top of his game, so being unable to fire a gun (ME1's system) seems rather silly. On the other hand, at the start of ME2, Shepard has just returned to life after a 2 year hiatus. One could argue that Shepard should need to relevel all his weapon abilities due to being 'out of practice' so ME2's system is not applicable. Just a thought that came to mind.

Shepards lack of profiency with weapons at the start of ME1 wasn't a fault of the skill system itself. It was a fault of the designers not setting specific skills (depending on class) at higher levels from the start.

[Crackseed]

I'm more trying to figure out what "true" RPGs really means anymore. You'll have individuals like Salsa using this point repeatedly when if we look at the RPG genre, there's so many permutations and takes on "RPG" I don't really think it's a valid gripe anymore. I mean even the term Role Playing Game is ambiguous enough that I wish we as gamers wouldn't try to shoe-horn our games into these points. I won't touch the subject of DA2 because that's just a whole can of worms, but focusing on upcoming games like Skyrim or ME3. When did we stop playing roles in these games and exploring worlds where the STORY is the focus - our integration into the story, whether it gives us choices or guides us along a linear path. We are still playing these individuals, customizing them and able to shape the world around us. Whether or not said game has a huge deep skill tree or customizable weapons or carries the choices from game to game, is this not the genuine overall definition of an RPG? The stats, the inventory, the loot - they are all throwaway elements that can hinder or help the core concept but I genuinely wish we would get away from trying to label what makes a real RPG or not by all the extras that have emerged over the years.

[Crackseed]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

LordNige wrote...

Given that most of the skills in ME1 were weapon/armour/hacking/Medigel/dialogue related with a few for biotics/tech skills it made sense to have a smaller stats list. The one thing that annoyed me about ME1 was that Shep could essentially reach the rank of commander without the necessary skills to fire a pistol or wear armour beyond light armour. As I said, ME2's shortened power list made sense, I welcome a slightly more detailed power list in ME3 though

Funnily enough, plot-wise the leveling systems might have worked better if they were done in reverse. At the start of ME1, Shepard is a special forces N7 soldier at the top of his game, so being unable to fire a gun (ME1's system) seems rather silly. On the other hand, at the start of ME2, Shepard has just returned to life after a 2 year hiatus. One could argue that Shepard should need to relevel all his weapon abilities due to being 'out of practice' so ME2's system is not applicable. Just a thought that came to mind.

Shepards lack of profiency with weapons at the start of ME1 wasn't a fault of the skill system itself. It was a fault of the designers not setting specific skills (depending on class) at higher levels from the start.

Actually the real problem is trying to take a TPS/RPG hybrid and place a dice roll/accuracy increase per tick system onto it. No other notable TPG/FPS/RPG hybrid ever tried this, because frankly, it sucks and is not a fun system.

System Shock 2, Bioshock or Deux Ex - they all avoided that issue and while ME1 didn't, ME2 rectified that
oversight and then gets slammed for doing it even though it made the gameplay function so much better as a result [I'm just talking about the actual shooting at things and hitting them bit here mind you]

Modifié par crackseed, 16 juin 2011 - 06:22 .

[SalsaDMA]

crackseed wrote...

I'm more trying to figure out what "true" RPGs really means anymore. You'll have individuals like Salsa using this point repeatedly when if we look at the RPG genre, there's so many permutations and takes on "RPG" I don't really think it's a valid gripe anymore. I mean even the term Role Playing Game is ambiguous enough that I wish we as gamers wouldn't try to shoe-horn our games into these points. I won't touch the subject of DA2 because that's just a whole can of worms, but focusing on upcoming games like Skyrim or ME3. When did we stop playing roles in these games and exploring worlds where the STORY is the focus - our integration into the story, whether it gives us choices or guides us along a linear path. We are still playing these individuals, customizing them and able to shape the world around us. Whether or not said game has a huge deep skill tree or customizable weapons or carries the choices from game to game, is this not the genuine overall definition of an RPG? The stats, the inventory, the loot - they are all throwaway elements that can hinder or help the core concept but I genuinely wish we would get away from trying to label what makes a real RPG or not by all the extras that have emerged over the years.

I think the problem is really due to game developers having (and have had in large amounts) a wrong idea about what to do with the thing. I'm asuming it's because of games being driven by profitmaximizing now a days, instead of being driven by the desire to create "just that game".

Instead of embracing character stats as a means for the computer to take over the gamemasters responsibility of telling the player what he can do and cannot do, and creating scenarios that allow creative use of these, game designing seems more and more about pushing out stuff fast that focuses purely on a "tight" (or rather, as tight as the writers have time to make do) story. Throwing away anything that doesn't relate directly to the story that "should" be told, irregardless of the story that "could" be told.

I think one of the most clear signs of such, is when a game designer said that a stat like intelligence really didn't do anything in their game aside just mean "how many magic points do you got", so they decided to cut away the stat and just give a stat instead that was called "magic" because it was clearer and did the same thing in their game. A clear example of the stat loosing its purpose through neglect of care and attention, and rather than giving it the attention and care it requires to have a meaningfull implication on the game, it just gets cut and replaced with something that can flow easy along the "fast track" they need to keep on.

Game design from established companies is in shambles by now, I feel

[Crackseed]

A fair response Salsa and I think you are right that some companies have forgotten this, but I do not feel Bioware is one of them. I mean if you consider just letting our choices carry over between games - you'll see devs comment about how difficult that has been to accommodate, and while yes, it's not perfect [Conrad Verner bug anyone?] I still very much believe that as long as a company is making their game tell a good story and using what systems make sense, even if they may not be in the traditional RPG sense, it deserves the attention it gets.

I understand after having the stats and under the hood elements like ME1 brought, that jumping into ME2 and realizing "Crap, I can't even change half the stuff I used to!" does come as a shock and feel like suddenly stuff was removed just to cater to a larger market, but I always asked myself "Did it make sense to do this?" and most of the time I come away with yes versus a no. The few times I do say no I've certainly expressed my concerns and hopes for Bioware to take into account, but all in all I feel that they do listen to us. Which is where some of the amusing irony comes in - much of our grumbling about ME1 aspects is what necessitated so much of the changes in ME2. Again, they weren't perfect with every choice they made, but enough that I think I prefer them listening to us versus not. Well, within reason of course >.>

[Bnol]

crackseed wrote...
Actually the real problem is trying to take a TPS/RPG hybrid and place a dice roll/accuracy increase per tick system onto it. No other notable TPG/FPS/RPG hybrid ever tried this, because frankly, it sucks and is not a fun system.

System Shock 2, Bioshock or Deux Ex - they all avoided that issue and while ME1 didn't, ME2 rectified that
oversight and then gets slammed for doing it even though it made the gameplay function so much better as a result [I'm just talking about the actual shooting at things and hitting them bit here mind you]

Actually Deus Ex had it in terms of the speed at which your reticle would shrink after moving/firing etc.  I thought the way that Deus Ex did it was good because I felt that my character was increasing in weapon proficiency, but I also had the ability to offset slow reticle in the early game through playing better.  Also I found  their skill/nano-augmentations/weapon mods to be done well in terms of meaningful choice and customization without too much tedium of massive inventory and miniscule gain per point.  I think the ME3 is getting a bit closer in that regard, although at least at this point it doesn't look like you have quite the same freedom to accomplish your mission that you had in Deus Ex.  That doesn't mean to say I want ME3 to do this, but it has been done in the past at least to critical (if not popular) sucess.

[SalsaDMA]

Oh, I'm not saying that everything in ME1 was just fine and dandies. But there are ways to deal with issues that doesn't involve just cutting it out entirely.

To give one example, I always felt it was downright silly I could swap armor in ME1 onthe fly. While on the surface of a planet with a hostile atmosphere I could willynilly swap back and forth between different suits. They should have restricted suit swaps to taking place when you left the normandy in the airlocker.

In ME2, though, they just cut out this thing entirely. Squadmates were limited to their "suits of awesomeness" instead of stuff you could actually expect them to wear, and no real choices to choose between from with them

[AlanC9]

SalsaDMA wrote...
I think one of the most clear signs of such, is when a game designer said that a stat like intelligence really didn't do anything in their game aside just mean "how many magic points do you got", so they decided to cut away the stat and just give a stat instead that was called "magic" because it was clearer and did the same thing in their game. A clear example of the stat loosing its purpose through neglect of care and attention, and rather than giving it the attention and care it requires to have a meaningfull implication on the game, it just gets cut and replaced with something that can flow easy along the "fast track" they need to keep on.

Was Bio ever really into doing that sort of thing? NWN1 had special PC dialogue if your PC was stupid, but all the dialogue choices were still the same You'd ocasionally get flavor text for stats or skills, but I don't remember many real effects in any Bio game

[Crackseed]

Yeah, 100% back you on that Salsa and it's one of the things I believe ME2 did very wrong. Part of the awesome of the ME universe has always been your companions, so removing some of the ways to interact with them, even if it's basically just playing barbie with their gear [haha] was an unnecessary change. But for every bad change I felt there were plenty of good ones to help make up for it. Now with ME3 though, they can definitely wrap it all up in a much better package that gives us the best of both worlds.

@ Bnol - thank you for correcting me. I haven't played Deus Ex in years so I forgot about that particular fact. I just always remember aiming and hitting what I aimed at aside from having augments and skills to help with things like sniping, etc.

[Bnol]

SalsaDMA wrote...
Instead of embracing character stats as a means for the computer to take over the gamemasters responsibility of telling the player what he can do and cannot do, and creating scenarios that allow creative use of these, game designing seems more and more about pushing out stuff fast that focuses purely on a "tight" (or rather, as tight as the writers have time to make do) story. Throwing away anything that doesn't relate directly to the story that "should" be told, irregardless of the story that "could" be told.

I think one of the most clear signs of such, is when a game designer said that a stat like intelligence really didn't do anything in their game aside just mean "how many magic points do you got", so they decided to cut away the stat and just give a stat instead that was called "magic" because it was clearer and did the same thing in their game. A clear example of the stat loosing its purpose through neglect of care and attention, and rather than giving it the attention and care it requires to have a meaningfull implication on the game, it just gets cut and replaced with something that can flow easy along the "fast track" they need to keep on.

What you may like as a deep story with a deep background others might feel is just a slow story with useless information.  I mean do I really need to know that this character is Joe, son of Jack, grandson of John, brother of Jill, etc. etc. if I will never interact with, or that information will never impacts anything.  Further, that additional story is a great place for DLC, so that players that enjoy it can fund it.  I find it difficult to argue that ME doesn't have enough side quests, back story, and universe information.

I actually like getting rid of of intellect and charisma as a stat, and would like to have no Renegade/Paragon tracking.  I don't think it is interesting or immersive that just because I don't have stat X that I can't utilize certain options in dialogue.  I mean in a role-playing game I think you should just be restricted by your former choices instead of some point system, especially if those points take away from combat advancement.

[AlanC9]

Yeah, this is all subjective. I was very much in favor of ME2s approach to inventory. Unlike crackseed, I don't consider fiddling with inventory to be an interaction with the NPCs. It's just something gamey that I have to do if I want the party to be efficient.

[Il Divo]

AlanC9 wrote...

Yeah, this is all subjective. I was very much in favor of ME2s approach to inventory. Unlike crackseed, I don't consider fiddling with inventory to be an interaction with the NPCs. It's just something gamey that I have to do if I want the party to be efficient.

For me, it depends on the game. Dragon Age: Origins and KotOR were games where I did not mind spending a bit of time fiddling with an inventory. In many cases, I also found the 'best option' to be less clear-cut and customization could be pretty fun. On the other hand, inventory did not suit the style presented in Mass Effect. Having to break down omni-gel every few minutes was not to the game's benefit, imo. 

Modifié par Il Divo, 16 juin 2011 - 07:36 .

[twisty77]

I never really played an RPG's before I played the Mass Effect series, so I didn't have anything to compare it to. I will admit that the ME1 inventory system overwhelmed me the first few times I played the game(and that damn 150 items limit...). I never really had anything to compare it to, but I feel that ME2's RPG elements were very much scaled down compared to ME1(which obviously isn't just my opinion...)

That said, I can't wait for ME3 to flesh out what we had in ME2 and streamline what we had in ME1. Rather than huge lists of stuff to go through, it appears that we will just have a small option of items to go through per part of the weapon.

As for biotics, I'm definitely looking forward to the increased options that we will have per power, as was demonstrated during E3.

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

For me, it depends on the game. Dragon Age: Origins and KotOR were games where I did not mind spending a bit of time fiddling with an inventory. In many cases, I also found the 'best option' to be less clear-cut and customization could be pretty fun. On the other hand, inventory did not suit the style presented in Mass Effect. Having to break down omni-gel every few minutes was not to the game's benefit, imo. 

While that's true, ME 1's inventory:

1) Lacked any sort of stacking capability. 
2) Gave no option to decline to pick up objects you didn't want
3) Loot fell like rain from enemies.

So I don't know if inventory as such is "bad" for the Mass Effect universe.  But I can say I think it was handled badly.  Both KOTOR and DA had stackable inventory and  the ability to select what you wanted to loot and what to leave behind.  

[Ricinator]

@starmine76

you sir are a ******

[mykeme]

CoD has stats; you can't impress people with 'em anymore. You need really deep character interaction, penetrating the core of their personality, exposing a fragrant bouquet of psychological issues, with a healthy climax in the end. Bioware knows it's not an RPG if it don't have gay sex.

[Dave666]

Il Divo wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Yeah, this is all subjective. I was very much in favor of ME2s approach to inventory. Unlike crackseed, I don't consider fiddling with inventory to be an interaction with the NPCs. It's just something gamey that I have to do if I want the party to be efficient.

For me, it depends on the game. Dragon Age: Origins and KotOR were games where I did not mind spending a bit of time fiddling with an inventory. In many cases, I also found the 'best option' to be less clear-cut and customization could be pretty fun. On the other hand, inventory did not suit the style presented in Mass Effect. Having to break down omni-gel every few minutes was not to the game's benefit, imo. 

The thing that has always confounded the hell out of me is how the inventory system in ME:1 got past the testers.

There are two changes that could have very easilly been made and there wouldn't have been the complaints that there were.

1:) Remove the '150 item limit'.

2:) STACK items!!!!

Instead of seeing:
Onyx Armour-Light IV
Onyx Armour-Light IV
Onyx Armour-Light IV
Frictionless Materials IX
Frictionless Materials IX
Frictionless Materials IX
Frictionless Materials X
Frictionless Materials X
Frictionless Materials X
Frictionless Materials X
Frictionless Materials X

It could soooooooo easilly have been:

Onyx Armour-Light IV (3)
Frictionless Materials IX (3)
Frictionless Materials X (5)

Now you just get the items when they drop and if you find that you need Omnigel to hack that terminal you simply go to your inventory and convert those Armours and you're in business.  Its purely up to the player whether they want to do it now or in ten minutes or an hour.

Modifié par Dave666, 16 juin 2011 - 07:53 .

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

Yeah, this is all subjective. I was very much in favor of ME2s approach to inventory. Unlike crackseed, I don't consider fiddling with inventory to be an interaction with the NPCs. It's just something gamey that I have to do if I want the party to be efficient.

THe ME2 system, while much cleaner and more streamlined than ME1's system was, to me a lot more boring.  Not so much in the lack of choice in weapons as the lack of ability to mod them to suit the individual player.  KOTOR and DA both allowed it to some degree, KOTOR with mods and workbenches, DA with Sandal's "Enchantment!".  And yes, ME1 had mods too, though I think the ability to swap them out so easily was not a great choice to go with.  ME2, in comparison, simply had good-better-best linear upgrades.

Personally, I'm glad to see workbenches being introduced in ME3.  Looking forward to learning more about them.

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

While that's true, ME 1's inventory:

1) Lacked any sort of stacking capability. 
2) Gave no option to decline to pick up objects you didn't want
3) Loot fell like rain from enemies.

So I don't know if inventory as such is "bad" for the Mass Effect universe.  But I can say I think it was handled badly.  Both KOTOR and DA had stackable inventory and  the ability to select what you wanted to loot and what to leave behind.  

All true. But I think another issue here is that Mass Effect was a hybrid. KotOR/DA:O could get away with a much more 'slow' pace because they were turn-based RPGs. Stopping every few seconds to delete loot or check to make sure that your character is always using the highest rank armor became bothersome. And is also anathema to the faster pace typically employed in a tps. 

In a way, it's actually what ruined the Virmire sequence for me, which otherwise remained one of Bioware's best moments. Music, plot, action, etc, these were all fine....but the excessive number of items managed to ruin any proper pacing. 

Overall, I just think the 'less is more' approach is better for the Mass Effect universe. 

[The Spamming Troll]

you guys are arguing opinions and forgetting theres one simple fact here that needs to be adressed, ME3 needs more RPG elements, whatever they may be.

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

Overall, I just think the 'less is more' approach is better for the Mass Effect universe. 

That's why I think other "more traditional" rpg methods would actually have been better.  Less loot, the ability to go "Nah, everyone's got better' and leave it behind would be far better than taking a few minutes to omnigel a bunch of stuff.  Surely it wouldn't take much longer than to, say, gather thermal clips lying around on the battlefield:D

[Iakus]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

you guys are arguing opinions and forgetting theres one simple fact here that needs to be adressed, ME3 needs more RPG elements, whatever they may be.

And fortunately it looks like it is being addressed.  How much so remains to be seen, but the initial reveal looks promising.

[Il Divo]

Dave666 wrote...

Frictionless Materials X

It could soooooooo easilly have been:

Onyx Armour-Light IV (3)
Frictionless Materials IX (3)
Frictionless Materials X (5)

Now you just get the items when they drop and if you find that you need Omnigel to hack that terminal you simply go to your inventory and convert those Armours and you're in business.  Its purely up to the player whether they want to do it now or in ten minutes or an hour.

Great point. This gets into the bigger issue I had with the inventory; it became extremely difficult to simply check through my items when out on a mission. With so many different types and ranks of armor being thrown around, it became very easy to forget what I had collected over the course of the game. This meant that I had to start scrolling through the inventory screen more and more frequently, which as designed was not any way efficient. Weapon mods became more of a chore than a fun game mechanic. 

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

That's why I think other "more traditional" rpg methods would actually have been better.  Less loot, the ability to go "Nah, everyone's got better' and leave it behind would be far better than taking a few minutes to omnigel a bunch of stuff.  Surely it wouldn't take much longer than to, say, gather thermal clips lying around on the battlefield:D

I would have absolutely no problems with this. A cleaner interface would also be appreciated.