469 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

MassEffect762 wrote...


I look at this way, stats, options, exploration and a compelling/addictive story make an RPG.

That's a very good distinction to make.

[Crackseed]

That it does MassEffect762 - if you don't mind me asking, what areas do you feel that ME2 improved upon or bested ME1 in? Just curious for the sake of conversation/debate here.

[Therefore_I_Am]

Wait who's saying that FO3 & New Vegas isn't an RPG? To me, that was one of the greatest mix of FPS/RPG I've ever seen. You choose your identity, and stats, and choose what to say. And the skills melded in well with the weapons they are based off of. It goes up there with deus ex.

Modifié par Therefore_I_Am, 17 juin 2011 - 12:37 .

[Dave666]

FlyingWalrus wrote...

Stats do not an RPG make.

For God's sake.

That rather depends upon your viewpoint.

For mysely I see stats as being vital, because they enforce Role-playing.

Is the character charasmatic enough and skilled enough to convince someone of a different point of view? 

Is the character agile enough to dodge that incoming blow or jump over that ditch?

Is the character strong enough to lift that beam thats blocking the way?

Is the character tough enough to survive that explosion?

Without stats to determine whether or not the character can succeed in a given situation then you're not playing the role of the character in the game.  You're playing as yourself with magical abilities.  Perfect example is ME:2 with regards to guns. Shepards ability with guns has absolutely nothing to do with Shepards abilities.  They are entirely dependant on the players skill.  You're not playing as Shepard, you're playing an Avatar of yourself relying on your abilities.

As I said, some people like this, some don't.

Modifié par Dave666, 17 juin 2011 - 12:40 .

[Torhagen]

There have been enough of those threads already
ME2 was stripped bare of the RPG that started with basic mechanics and went all the way to the predefined Story .
As far as is know the choice of destroying the Collector seems to be pointless.
Your choices from ME1 were toned down to a bunch of email and conversations with no influence.

For my part I will not buy ME3 unseen I want proof this time that actually brought back the RPG no more automatism and predefined actions not matter your actuall decisions

words means nothing the E3 trailer also showed nothing of the "we-brought-back-the-RPG"

[Gatt9]

FlyingWalrus wrote...

Stats do not an RPG make.

For God's sake.

They may not make a LARPs,  but they're absolutely necessary for an RPG,  as an RPG requires you to have a defined character.

[Crackseed]

Predefined decisions? Really? So keeping or destroying the base is predefined, as is...how you handled just about every loyalty mission's major choice at the end?

And I dunno, I felt like talking to some NPCs who I could have killed gave my decisions weight. Seeing Wrex alive and being able to interact with him again. Ashley having indignant anger at me being with Cerberus for now. Liara being forlorn and distant despite the lingering attraction we had from ME1. I felt like my choices mattered - more importantly, I remember that as the middle of the story, Bioware had to play safe with many decisions to keep the game workable so they could really branch out the larger choices from ME1 to culminate in ME3.

Sorry Tor, I heavily disagree - and I suppose that's why these threads keep popping up because people use their opinion as more of a "This is fact!" statement like you just did. BTW, what E3 trailer for any of the ME games showed RPG bits beyond action and convos? We always saw these details emerge in the months following and leading up to the game's release. I respect that you won't buy it w/o seeing these elements and that makes alot of sense, but writing it off just because you didn't see them in an E3 trailer when no ME E3 trailer prior really revealed these details seems a bit short-sighted. We also did get to see some of these returning elements in the live demo with Corey.

Modifié par crackseed, 17 juin 2011 - 12:56 .

[MassEffect762]

crackseed wrote...

That it does MassEffect762 - if you don't mind me asking, what areas do you feel that ME2 improved upon or bested ME1 in? Just curious for the sake of conversation/debate here.

That would take me some time to reflect/think on.

Off the top of my head what I personally thought was an improvement/imroved upon:

-The addition of Heavy weapons, I enjoyed the extra dynamic it added to game.

-Customizable Armor(for Sheps at least), it wasn't perfect(no squad, no insert mods) but the concept was solid.
The armors themselves could have had more impact/influence on the gameplay.(more distinction/depth/effect)

-Para/Rena Interrupts added value I believe.(timed reaction) Kinda wish more situations had ended through negotiation rather than violence.(more dialogue, more wheel options to end conflicts)

-Reactive targets/enemies seemed more noticable/improved.(i.e. shooting flamer's tank=explosion)


There's more I'm sure of it but these are the things that stand out for me.

[xxSgt_Reed_24xx]

Dave666 wrote...

FlyingWalrus wrote...

Stats do not an RPG make.

For God's sake.

That rather depends upon your viewpoint.

For mysely I see stats as being vital, because they enforce Role-playing.

Is the character charasmatic enough and skilled enough to convince someone of a different point of view? 

Is the character agile enough to dodge that incoming blow or jump over that ditch?

Is the character strong enough to lift that beam thats blocking the way?

Is the character tough enough to survive that explosion?

Without stats to determine whether or not the character can succeed in a given situation then you're not playing the role of the character in the game.  You're playing as yourself with magical abilities.  Perfect example is ME:2 with regards to guns. Shepards ability with guns has absolutely nothing to do with Shepards abilities.  They are entirely dependant on the players skill.  You're not playing as Shepard, you're playing an Avatar of yourself relying on your abilities.

As I said, some people like this, some don't.

Sorry, but (IMO of course) if it's going to be a RPG/Shooter game... then anything involving the shooting portion should be done as a shooter. How anyone can stand aiming at someone and then MISSING b/c some die roll said you missed or b/c you didn't put points into an accuracy stat is beyond me. 

[Dave666]

xxSgt_Reed_24xx wrote...

Dave666 wrote...

FlyingWalrus wrote...

Stats do not an RPG make.

For God's sake.

That rather depends upon your viewpoint.

For mysely I see stats as being vital, because they enforce Role-playing.

Is the character charasmatic enough and skilled enough to convince someone of a different point of view? 

Is the character agile enough to dodge that incoming blow or jump over that ditch?

Is the character strong enough to lift that beam thats blocking the way?

Is the character tough enough to survive that explosion?

Without stats to determine whether or not the character can succeed in a given situation then you're not playing the role of the character in the game.  You're playing as yourself with magical abilities.  Perfect example is ME:2 with regards to guns. Shepards ability with guns has absolutely nothing to do with Shepards abilities.  They are entirely dependant on the players skill.  You're not playing as Shepard, you're playing an Avatar of yourself relying on your abilities.

As I said, some people like this, some don't.

Sorry, but (IMO of course) if it's going to be a RPG/Shooter game... then anything involving the shooting portion should be done as a shooter. How anyone can stand aiming at someone and then MISSING b/c some die roll said you missed or b/c you didn't put points into an accuracy stat is beyond me. 

Which comes down to choices.  You chose not to invest points in a characters skills, so is it really surprising that the character you are playing lacks ability in the skills you neglected?

[Torhagen]

xxSgt_Reed_24xx wrote...

Sorry, but (IMO of course) if it's going to be a RPG/Shooter game... then anything involving the shooting portion should be done as a shooter. How anyone can stand aiming at someone and then MISSING b/c some die roll said you missed or b/c you didn't put points into an accuracy stat is beyond me. 

You are totally right considering the Shooter part since it is supposed to be an RPG as well you should have the choice if you start shooting or try to something else first if possible

[MassEffect762]

Dave666 wrote...

xxSgt_Reed_24xx wrote...

Dave666 wrote...

FlyingWalrus wrote...

Stats do not an RPG make.

For God's sake.

That rather depends upon your viewpoint.

For mysely I see stats as being vital, because they enforce Role-playing.

Is the character charasmatic enough and skilled enough to convince someone of a different point of view? 

Is the character agile enough to dodge that incoming blow or jump over that ditch?

Is the character strong enough to lift that beam thats blocking the way?

Is the character tough enough to survive that explosion?

Without stats to determine whether or not the character can succeed in a given situation then you're not playing the role of the character in the game.  You're playing as yourself with magical abilities.  Perfect example is ME:2 with regards to guns. Shepards ability with guns has absolutely nothing to do with Shepards abilities.  They are entirely dependant on the players skill.  You're not playing as Shepard, you're playing an Avatar of yourself relying on your abilities.

As I said, some people like this, some don't.

Sorry, but (IMO of course) if it's going to be a RPG/Shooter game... then anything involving the shooting portion should be done as a shooter. How anyone can stand aiming at someone and then MISSING b/c some die roll said you missed or b/c you didn't put points into an accuracy stat is beyond me. 

Which comes down to choices.  You chose not to invest points in a characters skills, so is it really surprising that the character you are playing lacks ability in the skills you neglected?

You're both making sense, thing is where did Bioware want to place the focus on ability.

ME1= Points(character training)
ME2= Player(individual skill)

I personally prefer 'points' but don't mind playing through my own skill. 

Modifié par MassEffect762, 17 juin 2011 - 01:12 .

[Torhagen]

crackseed wrote...
I respect that you won't buy it w/o seeing these elements and that
makes alot of sense, but writing it off just because you didn't see them
in an E3 trailer when no ME E3 trailer prior really revealed these
details seems a bit short-sighted. We also did get to see some of these
returning elements in the live demo with Corey.

i havent written it off you read a bit to much into that sentence. i was disapoitned however E3 was the perfect oppurtinity to show facts that matches the Lip service

[FlyingWalrus]

Dave666 wrote...

FlyingWalrus wrote...

Stats do not an RPG make.

For God's sake.

That rather depends upon your viewpoint.

For mysely I see stats as being vital, because they enforce Role-playing.

Is the character charasmatic enough and skilled enough to convince someone of a different point of view? 

Is the character agile enough to dodge that incoming blow or jump over that ditch?

Is the character strong enough to lift that beam thats blocking the way?

Is the character tough enough to survive that explosion?

Without stats to determine whether or not the character can succeed in a given situation then you're not playing the role of the character in the game.  You're playing as yourself with magical abilities.  Perfect example is ME:2 with regards to guns. Shepards ability with guns has absolutely nothing to do with Shepards abilities.  They are entirely dependant on the players skill.  You're not playing as Shepard, you're playing an Avatar of yourself relying on your abilities.

As I said, some people like this, some don't.

Stats existed before RPGs in wargames. What made these wargames an RPG was scaling them down to a personal level and adding the all-important roleplaying part to it. A statistical presence is necessary to a degree for the resolution of conflicts, but it need not be complex or long-winded and it is not the core of the game. What is far more important is the ability for a player to interact with and influence the milieu because that is what defines the game as an RPG, not its numerical engine. The fact that Shepard is not any more railroaded in terms of interaction with another character than he was in ME1 and that the P/R system remains intact (not to mention is drastically influenced by choosing a certain talent evolution), I'd say the roleplaying part of the game remains mostly intact. At least if you considered ME1 an RPG to begin with.

So now we're not debating RPGs. We're talking about what people like in an RPG. It is not dependent on my viewpoint on what makes an RPG. It is dependent on my viewpoint on what makes an RPG that I like.

[Dave666]

FlyingWalrus wrote...

Stats existed before RPGs in wargames. What made these wargames an RPG was scaling them down to a personal level and adding the all-important roleplaying part to it. A statistical presence is necessary to a degree for the resolution of conflicts, but it need not be complex or long-winded and it is not the core of the game. What is far more important is the ability for a player to interact with and influence the milieu because that is what defines the game as an RPG, not its numerical engine. The fact that Shepard is not any more railroaded in terms of interaction with another character than he was in ME1 and that the P/R system remains intact (not to mention is drastically influenced by choosing a certain talent evolution), I'd say the roleplaying part of the game remains mostly intact. At least if you considered ME1 an RPG to begin with.

So now we're not debating RPGs. We're talking about what people like in an RPG. It is not dependent on my viewpoint on what makes an RPG. It is dependent on my viewpoint on what makes an RPG that I like.

Which is the same for everybody and the reason why threads like this pop up repeatedly and invariably have page numbers in the double didgets. 

As I've said all along, its down to personal preferences and how we each define an RPG and what we want from it.  Some people just want to play the role of a character through dialog options, some want more than that.

For myself I'm from the old school of stats are vital because as I said they enforce the player to play the role of a character within certain boundaries.  Altering the stats alters the boundaries.  You can have a hyper intelligent but physically weak character, or a beef-cake thats about as bright as a clump of damp moss, or an extremely dextrous character and so on and there will be certain things that each set of boundaries will be capable of that those in other boundaries can't do.

[IndigoWolfe]

Dave666 wrote...

Which comes down to choices.  You chose not to invest points in a characters skills, so is it really surprising that the character you are playing lacks ability in the skills you neglected?

Why would a highly trained and experienced soldier not be a good shot?

Your argument has merit in a game where the character's background is a blank slate, but Shepard's is not.

Modifié par IndigoWolfe, 17 juin 2011 - 01:47 .

[Crackseed]

My apologies then Tor - your wording made it sound as such Sorry, didn't mean to put words in your mouth otherwise.

[Dave666]

IndigoWolfe wrote...

Dave666 wrote...

Which comes down to choices.  You chose not to invest points in a characters skills, so is it really surprising that the character you are playing lacks ability in the skills you neglected?

Why would a highly trained and experienced soldier not be a good shot?

Your argument has merit in a game where the character's background is a blank slate, but Shepard's is not.

That rather depends upon how one defines 'a highly trained and experienced soldier'.

Its possible to be a highly trained and experienced soldier who excells through natural ability at strategy and tactics but is only middling with weaponry for example.  Its also possible to be a highly trained and experience soldier who's only middling with strategy and tactics but through natural ability excells in a certain type of combat.  Both are highly trained and experienced.

In the same way that we wouldn't expect an Adept who's focussed a great deal on the tactical and strategic use of Biotics to disrupt an enemies movement on a battlefield to be the best Sniper that has ever lived also.  Yet such an Adept could very easilly be classed as a 'highly trained and experienced Soldier'.

I dare say that its far easier to increase ones skills with weaponry than it is to learn tactics and strategy and the ability to use the theory and apply it to real world scenarios.

Its the difference between knowledge and wisdom.  Knowledge is useless without the wisdom to know how to apply it.

In ME:1 Shepard was trained enough in each weapon type to be able to aim it and pull the trigger, (Sniper zoom notwithstanding, and I'll never understand why they decided that without advanced training you couldn't look through a scope).
Not saying that ME:1 got everything right, but for myself I feel that it was far closer to being right than what we got in ME:2.
Hence, personal preference.

[Aimi]

Dave666 wrote...

Its possible to be a highly trained and experienced soldier who excells through natural ability at strategy and tactics but is only middling with weaponry for example.  Its also possible to be a highly trained and experience soldier who's only middling with strategy and tactics but through natural ability excells in a certain type of combat.  Both are highly trained and experienced.

Yeah, see, this would be a decent argument, but you don't get to go to the War College until after you pass basic and AIT and advance in rank for a good decade or so, and if Shep was shooting anything like the way she is at the beginning of an ME1 new game, they'd have drummed her out long before she finished N7 training, much less War College attendance.  Marksmanship is a basic skill.

[Dave666]

daqs wrote...

Dave666 wrote...

Its possible to be a highly trained and experienced soldier who excells through natural ability at strategy and tactics but is only middling with weaponry for example.  Its also possible to be a highly trained and experience soldier who's only middling with strategy and tactics but through natural ability excells in a certain type of combat.  Both are highly trained and experienced.

Yeah, see, this would be a decent argument, but you don't get to go to the War College until after you pass basic and AIT and advance in rank for a good decade or so, and if Shep was shooting anything like the way she is at the beginning of an ME1 new game, they'd have drummed her out long before she finished N7 training, much less War College attendance.  Marksmanship is a basic skill.

To be fair, a large part of that is due to the crappy weapons that you start with.  Its a compounded effect. When you first start its with extremely inaccurate weapons and low stats working together to make it so that it feels like you couldn't hit the side of a barn.  By the time you've gained enough experience to spend some points in it you've also gotten much better equipment, but they happen at the same time so it feels like its all down to the stats.

Have you ever used the console commands to add in the HMW** X (Top level Spectre) weapons at level one?  I did once because I was curious about how much was due to stats and how much was due to weapons and I can tell you that at level one with good gear even without spending a single point my accuracy increaded ten-fold.

Modifié par Dave666, 17 juin 2011 - 03:06 .

[Aimi]

Dave666 wrote...

To be fair, a large part of that is due to the crappy weapons that you start with.  Its a compounded effect. When you first start its with extremely inaccurate weapons and low stats working together to make it so that it feels like you couldn't hit the side of a barn.  By the time you've gained enough experience to spend some points in it you've also gotten much better equipment, but they happen at the same time so it feels like its all down to the stats.

Have you ever used the console commands to add in the HMW** X (Top level Spectre) weapons at level one?  I did once because I was curious about how much was due to stats and how much  was due to weapons and I can tell you that at level one with good gear even without spending a single point my accuracy increaded ten-fold.

The fact that an operative in what is supposedly the top level of Alliance commandos isn't even provided the best weapons from the Alliance manufacturers at Aldrin Labs (let alone the best weapons from decent manufacturers like Rosenkov or Armax) is a separate, yet somewhat related issue. 

Modifié par daqs, 17 juin 2011 - 03:05 .

[Bluko]

In Exile wrote...

All of which is 100% irrelevant to the plot of the game. Moreso than Stark Trek with a fresh coat of paint, Mass Effect is about stoping the reapers. In ME1, this means stopping Saren. In ME2, this means stopping the collectors. And in ME3, this will mean stopping the reapers themselves.

Everything is incidental to that.

Oh great another "story is all that matters". Look it's a game. There's an emphasis on story, but Mass Effect is more then an interactive movie. If Bioware really only cared about story they wouldn't include all this other stuff such as player combat. That could all be explained via narrative or done via cutscenes. Is that what you want?

I suppose creating your own Shepard is incidental, what class you choose is incidental, what weapon you choose is incidental, etc. So why do you want to play this game exactly?

There's plenty of other games out there with "good story". And arguably better ones then Mass Effect. What's so great about ME2's actual story anyways? You gather a team, you stop the Collectors. The characters are great, but what's so special about the actual story itself? That humans are being melted into a robot? Yeah that's real deep given there's like no exposition on it, nor much reason for it existing in the first place other then the player's sake.

Ever play Heavy Rain? (I know it's a PS3 exclusive so probably most here can't.) That game is entirely about story and dialogue choices. It also has several endings. Seriously some of you guys here should try it, cause honestly you'd probably like it way more as a game then Mass Effect I think.

If you want to get into game design, any zot spent on open-world exploration costs me story and quests. So it absolutely hurts my experience. More generally, though, none of this has anything to do with whether or not ME is about exploration, which was my point.

How does having exploration cost you story and quests exactly? Are you trying to say that if there are some non-linear levels the story will be ruined? And why can't exploration be a part of quests? Especially side quests of all things. It worked just fine with ME1. (You may not have liked the implementation, but just because it wasn't perfect doesn't mean it couldn't have been made into something enjoyable.)

You also seem to be missing the point that you still had to "explore" to some degree to find the N7 Missions in ME2. Exploration is a part of the game series. Is it integral to the plot? No. Are the guns, skill trees, etc. integral to the plot? No. Just because it's not an integral part of the plot doesn't mean it doesn't belong in the game This isn't a damn movie. It's a game.

Basically the impression I'm getting is that you want there to be no exploration because you don't enjoy it. Isn't that a bit selfish? I'm not saying there shouldn't be linear levels or side missions. What I'm saying is there should be both linear missions and ones that feature more open environments.

And hey if you truly hate the open environment side missions you can skip them. That's why they're side missions, because if you don't want to waste time doing them you don't have to. If you just want to focus on completing the main storyline go right ahead. If there were 1 or 2 side missions in ME3 where I could drive the Mako or some sort of vehicle around, would that truly be so bad?

[The Spamming Troll]

all those that appose dave666,

im a moron, as you know, and ive never fired a firearm before, but im fairly confident it wouldnt take me more then 30 minutes to understand how to use a rifle or a shotgun, id think pistols would even be the toughest weapon to learn to use, but all im saying is it doesnt matter what shepard was or wasnt. he can learn to use a rifle as soon as he picks one up from the dead merc he just killed. its only unfortunate to a game that "soldiers" in an RPG game have to start somewhere, and the easiest place to start is the bottom.

when ME3 rolls around i really hope im not waiting till ME3s version of the collector ship(or later) in order to get a decent weapon. im fairly convinced my adept will feel enough gimping.

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 17 juin 2011 - 03:36 .

[Bluko]

xxSgt_Reed_24xx wrote...

Sorry, but (IMO of course) if it's going to be a RPG/Shooter game... then anything involving the shooting portion should be done as a shooter. How anyone can stand aiming at someone and then MISSING b/c some die roll said you missed or b/c you didn't put points into an accuracy stat is beyond me. 

Well yes it's bad to have stats determine things like accuracy I suppose. Or things that essentially involve player intiative such as aiming. (Even though games like CoD have abilities that let you aim faster, etc.)

But is it really so bad to have stats or items which effect damage or say headshot damage? (Something which ME2 still maintains and the Visor magically gifts Shepard the ability to make people's heads explode easier.)

The RPG stuff is still there, it's just noticeably less. In some cases this is good as ME1 had it's fair share of balance problems . On the other hand it's bad, because it greatly diminishes the ways you can shape Shepard. You still have all the tools for the job, but you do have less tools. Some people liked it, others didn't like find half their old wrenches were missing even if they rarely used them.

Hopefully ME3 will make the abilities, gear, etc. a bit more expansive as in ME2 it did feel to me like things were noticeably made simpler for those who struggled with everything in the first game. I sort of understand, but honestly ME1 wasn't that complicated or difficult of a game. Unless you can't be bothered to read stuff in a game.
(Although I wager the problem was always due to a lack of proper in-depth tutorials.)

Modifié par Bluko, 17 juin 2011 - 03:58 .

[BeefoTheBold]

Bluko wrote...

xxSgt_Reed_24xx wrote...

Sorry, but (IMO of course) if it's going to be a RPG/Shooter game... then anything involving the shooting portion should be done as a shooter. How anyone can stand aiming at someone and then MISSING b/c some die roll said you missed or b/c you didn't put points into an accuracy stat is beyond me. 

Well yes it's bad to have stats determine thing like proficiency and accuracy. Or things that essentially involve player intiative such as aiming. (Even though games like CoD have abilities that let you aim faster, etc.)

But is it really so bad to have stats or items which effect damage or say headshot damage? (Something which ME2 still maintains and the Kuwasi Visor magically gifts Shepard the ability to make people's heads explode easier.)

The RPG stuff is still there, it's just noticeably less. In some cases this is good as ME1 had it's fair share of balance problems . On the other hand it's bad, because it greatly diminishes the ways you can shape Shepard. You still have all the tools for the job, but you do have less tools. Some people liked it, others didn't.

Hopefully ME3 will make the abilities, gear, etc. a bit more expansive as in ME2 it did feel to me like things were noticeably made simpler for those who struggled with everything in the first game. I sort of understand, but honestly ME1 wasn't that complicated or difficult of a game. Unless you can't be beothered to read stuff in a game.
(Although I wager the problem was always due to a lack of proper in-depth tutorials.)

I agree with this approach. 

By having the shooting portion 100% player skill effected it diminishes the role of playing a specifically more military character class. A soldier, for instance, would know exactly where the best place to shoot would be on each and every species he's likely to come in contact with, so having a soldier do more damage with his weapons based on some sort of stat behind the scenes would enhance the believability attached to different character roles.

The point behind certain things being stat controlled is to emphasize the real differences in strengths and weaknesses for not only your Shepard, but your squad as well. One of the things that I liked about ME1 is that certain characters just plain sucked at using certain weapons. You COULD have them try and use a particular weapon, but it made it more realistic that they were familiar with fewer weapons than other more combat oriented classes because they had spent their time training in other things.