469 réponses à ce sujet

[Kai Hohiro]

It's sad to see how many self proclaimed "hardcore RPGers" definition of RPGs these days amounts to World of Warcraft and that the things that define their game and characters are a just bunch of arbitrary numbers.

The hardcore RPGers of my time were invested in story, dialogue and heroic actions, where stats and random die rolls were secondary(or even less than that).

Modifié par Kai Hohiro, 14 juin 2011 - 05:57 .

[Sailears]

Honestly from the look of the demo there seems to be so much more ability for customisation than either of the two previous games; this is a non-issue, and not worth worrying about.
Gameplay, combat and RPG elements will be fine.

[More importantly is how deep and clever the twists and turns of the main story occur, and the style in which it is done - in your face hollywood action, or captivating retro sci-fi with pastel hues.]

[AlanC9]

Kai Hohiro wrote...

It's sad to see how many self proclaimed "hardcore RPGers" definition of RPGs these days amounts to World of Warcraft and that the things that define their game and characters are a just bunch of arbitrary numbers.

The hardcore RPGers of my time were invested in story, dialogue and heroic actions, where stats and random die rolls were secondary(or even less than that).

Don't blame WoW too much. A lot of CRPGers have always liked this sort of thing. I've always thought it's because CRPGs took too much from AD&D, which is a pretty weak system. But I can hardly fault those early designers for taking their cues from the least common denominator of RP gaming.

Modifié par AlanC9, 14 juin 2011 - 06:30 .

[shinobi602]

Kai Hohiro wrote...

It's sad to see how many self proclaimed "hardcore RPGers" definition of RPGs these days amounts to World of Warcraft and that the things that define their game and characters are a just bunch of arbitrary numbers.

The hardcore RPGers of my time were invested in story, dialogue and heroic actions, where stats and random die rolls were secondary(or even less than that).

This.

[Heimdall]

Kai Hohiro wrote...

It's sad to see how many self proclaimed "hardcore RPGers" definition of RPGs these days amounts to World of Warcraft and that the things that define their game and characters are a just bunch of arbitrary numbers.

The hardcore RPGers of my time were invested in story, dialogue and heroic actions, where stats and random die rolls were secondary(or even less than that).

  A Milion times this ^

[Phaedon]

Powgow wrote...

ME2 had resources, not loot.

Loot is more fun and exciting, its feel like "oooh, i hope there is somethin cool in that box". YES! A big ass gun, that is slightly better then my previous.

Or, aaah this new gun shoots faster, but does less damage, mmmmmmmm, what would be the tactical advantage? Maybe i'll just sell it when it scrap.

And so forth, But no ME2 has no loot.

I am struggling to choose if this post is sarcastic or not.

[marshalleck]

"Whaaa, I hate numbers!"

Stats are there because a computer can't make qualitative judgements on the fly like a human DM can. Deal with it.

Modifié par marshalleck, 14 juin 2011 - 06:45 .

[CroGamer002]

Powgow wrote...

ME2 had resources, not loot.

Loot is more fun and exciting, its feel like "oooh, i hope there is somethin cool in that box". YES! A big ass gun, that is slightly better then my previous.

Or, aaah this new gun shoots faster, but does less damage, mmmmmmmm, what would be the tactical advantage? Maybe i'll just sell it when it scrap.

And so forth, But no ME2 has no loot.

You LOOTED resources.

In other words, it's a loot.

[Powgow]

Phaedon wrote...

Powgow wrote...

ME2 had resources, not loot.

Loot is more fun and exciting, its feel like "oooh, i hope there is somethin cool in that box". YES! A big ass gun, that is slightly better then my previous.

Or, aaah this new gun shoots faster, but does less damage, mmmmmmmm, what would be the tactical advantage? Maybe i'll just sell it when it scrap.

And so forth, But no ME2 has no loot.

I am struggling to choose if this post is sarcastic or not.

Nah, i just like writing that way. But if there is loot, that should make it exciting

[LPPrince]

AlanC9 wrote...

LPPrince wrote...
I feel that loot isn't really loot unless there's an inventory system for it to go into.

ME1 definitely needed a better inventory, but it ended up getting scrapped entirely rather than being improved upon/fixed/remade.

ME2, no real inventory. So I personally don't consider anything we picked up to be true loot.

Loot to me is armor, weapons, mods, such and such that can be sold, traded, etc etc.

In ME2, while we did pick things up, it didn't feel like loot to me since we couldn't sell a damn thing we had for credits we desperately needed.

Armor was bought in stores, not found, so not loot there.

I actually agree with this definition of "loot." ME2 has equipment, but not loot.

The difference, I guess, is that LPPrince is for having loot and I'm against having loot.

That's interesting. I find it quite intriguing that you agree with that definition of loot yet in a polarizing view of mine, are against having it.

Modifié par LPPrince, 14 juin 2011 - 06:47 .

[Phaedon]

marshalleck wrote...

"Whaaa, I hate numbers!"

Stats are there because a computer can't make qualitative judgements on the fly like a human DM can. Deal with it.

Simulation games in that case, are the best RPGs, followed by shooters.

[CroGamer002]

Powgow wrote...

Nah, i just like writing that way. But if there is loot, that should make it exciting

How is ME1 loot exciting?

It's just annoying.

[marshalleck]

Phaedon wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

"Whaaa, I hate numbers!"

Stats are there because a computer can't make qualitative judgements on the fly like a human DM can. Deal with it.

Simulation games in that case, are the best RPGs, followed by shooters.

The difference between a shooter like ME2 and a traditional CRPG is that at least the CRPG allows some player input to the numbers being crunched. Don't fool yourself; just because you see few numbers in ME2's GUI it doesn't mean they aren't there under the hood. And in this regard ME3 so far is looking like a vast improvement over its immediate predecessor. I'm sure auto-leveling will still be an option for those who can't handle it.

Modifié par marshalleck, 14 juin 2011 - 06:54 .

[Apollo Starflare]

ME1's RPG elements are definitely looked back non with rose tinted glasses by some around here if you ask me. With that said I would have to wait until ME3 is actually out before I say it has better mechanics than the first game.

[AlanC9]

LPPrince wrote...
That's interesting. I find it quite intriguing that you agree with that definition of loot yet in a polarizing view of mine, are against having it.

I should say that I'm against it in ME. I don't believe it fits the storyline or setting. For my taste, ME2 still has too much loot -- the shops and credits should not exist. Pets and ship models aside, Cerberus should have bought all that stuff before reviving Shepard.

In other settings and with other storylines, I'd be more-or-less neutral about loot. But in general, my favorite PnP systems have been the ones where loot is peripheral. Or even nonexistent, like Champions.

I'm not saying I'm immune to the little dopamine hit you get from opening up a corpse, mind. But the experience just doesn't hold up for me. I never got past Diablo's demo, for instance.

[Ylhaym]

From what we have already seen, i think the RPG Elements in ME3 Bio revealed is better compared to the first 2 ME games...

In my opinion, weapon customization in ME3 is better than ME1...
We have guns that functions differently than other guns of the same type and we have gun mods.
In ME1, Avenger I with Frictionless Material and Sledgehammer Rounds works the same as HMWA X with the same upgrade... The only difference is HMWA X is the better gun. So its not really a choice. The only choice you have in terms of weapons in ME1 was mods. Unless you challenge yourself by using a weaker gun.
In ME3, we have guns that functions differently and we have different mods to choose from on top of the weapon choice.

In terms of Character "stats"... ME3 gives us more choices on power upgrade compared to the 1.0 to 1.25 ME1 gave us...

The only thing im waiting for is info about Armor Customization...
I do hope its like ME2s style.
Armor Customization of ME2 for me is better than ME1s (At least for Shepard)

Mesina2 wrote...

Powgow wrote...

Nah, i just like writing that way. But if there is loot, that should make it exciting

How is ME1 loot exciting?

It's just annoying.

I do agree with this, at least around 90% of what you looted in ME1 was garbage.
Some of those becomes Omni-Gel, the rest will be sold to Stores...

Once you have the best gear, max creds and max Omni-Gel, ME1s Inventory and Looting system becomes more annoying.

edit: my english is poor 

Modifié par Ylhaym, 14 juin 2011 - 07:21 .

[Ahriman]

Ylhaym wrote...
The only thing im waiting for is info about Armor Customization...
I do hope its like ME2s style.
Armor Customization of ME2 for me is better than ME1s (At least for Shepard)

Agree, it looks more deep and personal. But when it comes to action, I realize that those changes are mostly cosmetic. Seriously, when my shield gets down for a second it's difficult [at least for me] to notice those +5% to shields or +10% to health.

Modifié par Wizz, 14 juin 2011 - 07:37 .

[LPPrince]

AlanC9 wrote...

LPPrince wrote...
That's interesting. I find it quite intriguing that you agree with that definition of loot yet in a polarizing view of mine, are against having it.

I should say that I'm against it in ME. I don't believe it fits the storyline or setting. For my taste, ME2 still has too much loot -- the shops and credits should not exist. Pets and ship models aside, Cerberus should have bought all that stuff before reviving Shepard.

In other settings and with other storylines, I'd be more-or-less neutral about loot. But in general, my favorite PnP systems have been the ones where loot is peripheral. Or even nonexistent, like Champions.

I'm not saying I'm immune to the little dopamine hit you get from opening up a corpse, mind. But the experience just doesn't hold up for me. I never got past Diablo's demo, for instance.

Hmm. I prefer loot like you see in ME and DAO. I felt DA2's loot sucked because you didn't get much of anything and half the stuff you got was a junk item.

In ME2....well, you know.

[Veex]

I'm a fan of the way ME2 handled loot simply because a traditional "backpack" style inventory seemed a little awkward thematically. Having weapon loadout lockers that you could visit on the Normandy to customize your companion's equipment was essentially null and void when you'd wind up doing it mid-mission anyway. I enjoy the fact that they've taken a cue from their own setting and tailored their loot loadout to fit that setting.

On the topic of the OP, weapon and armor customization was really the only element I wanted back from the original as I think the combat is vastly better and the story, while not as coherent as the original, was still quite strong. Liking the look of things thus far.

[Whatever42]

Personally, I dislike the way most games handle loot. Looting corpses of coppers, boots, and gold teeth is boring. Frankly, the whole loot and sell to buy something marginally more useful is just a dull mini-game.

I think if we're going to discuss what is an RPG or a superiour RPG, that we need to first define high level principles of what defines and RPG, completely independent of the mechanics used to implement that principle. Then we can list the principles and list what a particular game does to meet that goal.

If we define an RPG on precise mechanics then we've narrowed the genre down to such a small niche that we preclude any kind of innovation.

[Il Divo]

Kai Hohiro wrote...

The hardcore RPGers of my time were invested in story, dialogue and heroic actions, where stats and random die rolls were secondary(or even less than that).

This is definitely my favorite aspect of the RPG.

[Phaedon]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Personally, I dislike the way most games handle loot. Looting corpses of coppers, boots, and gold teeth is boring. Frankly, the whole loot and sell to buy something marginally more useful is just a dull mini-game.

I think if we're going to discuss what is an RPG or a superiour RPG, that we need to first define high level principles of what defines and RPG, completely independent of the mechanics used to implement that principle. Then we can list the principles and list what a particular game does to meet that goal.

If we define an RPG on precise mechanics then we've narrowed the genre down to such a small niche that we preclude any kind of innovation.

Which is why we should not compare which one is the best RPG in the first place.

And shouldn't say what a game should do based on the genre that we place it under. Games are about experiences, not 50-year old definitions of genres, which innovative games tend to break.

Modifié par Phaedon, 14 juin 2011 - 07:54 .

[Mr. MannlyMan]

Apollo Starflare wrote...

ME1's RPG elements are definitely looked back on with rose tinted glasses by some around here if you ask me. With that said I would have to wait until ME3 is actually out before I say it has better mechanics than the first game.

I doubt that's the case; it's just that people wished ME2 had actually featured a better inventory system (ie. more interesting, rewarding loot in an active inventory) as a follow up to ME1's, but instead of articulating this plainly, they make the mistake of praising ME1's inventory and criticizing ME2's.

The truth is, ME1's inventory was bad; ME2's worked the way it was supposed to (and well, I might add), but it was so limited that you didn't have much to compare (except for the armor pieces, which are a step in the right direction imo). ME2's "inventory" was a lot like CoD's; you earn a new type of gun, and that gun becomes a selectable weapon in your loadout. 

[CroGamer002]

Modifié par Mesina2, 14 juin 2011 - 07:59 .

[Mr. MannlyMan]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

I think if we're going to discuss what is an RPG or a superiour RPG, that we need to first define high level principles of what defines and RPG, completely independent of the mechanics used to implement that principle. Then we can list the principles and list what a particular game does to meet that goal.

If we define an RPG on precise mechanics then we've narrowed the genre down to such a small niche that we preclude any kind of innovation.

Just organize every known principle of every genre under Primary, Secondary and Supplemental categories. Re-organize according to importance for any given genre.

I see no reason why RPGs or FPSs need to "own" defining principles of their genres. If an RPG has the exact same primary traits as an FPS, then it could clearly be defined as an FPS. Secondary and Supplemental traits, however, could be organized however you want.

Just a preliminary idea. Arguing about what defines an RPG isn't appropriate for this board, though.