469 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

LPPrince wrote...
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.

What annoyed me about DA2's loot was the incoherence of the system. In ME2 everyone works more-or-less the same way; Shepard uses individual pieces to tune his defense loadout, but he upgrades the same as everyone else. In DA2 Hawke runs on traditional inventory, but the companions only halfway do. So you end up with gear that no one can wear.

Modifié par AlanC9, 14 juin 2011 - 08:23 .

[Ylhaym]

Wizz wrote...

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.

I do agree with what you pointed out. While in my opinion ME2s Armor Customization is better than ME1s, it has its own flaws. The "stat" changes vanilla ME2s armor parts give aren't enough. If they could implement the armor customization of ME2 well in ME3, then... 

[AlanC9]

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...
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.

So we can discuss what is and isn't a good loot system without actually getting to the genre issue?

[AlanC9]

Wizz wrote...
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.

I think this is a misconception of how ME2 works. The armor parts in ME2 aren't how you upgrade. Choosing between different armor pieces in ME2 is the equivalent of choosing between different armors of the same tier in ME1.

Modifié par AlanC9, 14 juin 2011 - 08:30 .

[Bluko]

onelifecrisis wrote...

Bluko wrote...

<snip>

Good post. I agree that the ME games are shooters with RPG elements, but that's semantics. More importantly, I disagree with your opinion of ME1's "choice".

I felt that the choices in ME1 were fake. Fake dialogue choices abound, for example, but what really irked me was the inventory. Reams and reams of equipment, and never a choice. There was always one item that was better than all the rest in every way; never something that had pros and cons to weigh.

Well most of the dialogue choices are always going to be "fake" on some level. Does it really matter which dialogue option you choose if the outcome in the end is the same?

I didn't say ME1's choices were better, just that there were a lot more. To you perhaps there were only certain stats or items worth using. Honestly I find whether or not to use to certain gun mods or armor mods fairly substantial and often times the difference between success and failure at times, especially on a higher difficulty. Also again some people assumed higher Shield HP was always better. High Shield HP is good, but if you dismissed Damage Protection as being useful that'd be your loss. Same goes for weapong like accuracy, etc.

True by the end game you'd probably just have everyone using Spectre Gear since it was superior to everything else. But until you got to the end (and most RPGs always have some uber weapon/armor) I found myself rather frequently deciding what things to use in favor of what. It may have been a bit time consuming at times (interface was just painfully slow), but to me it added a layer of depth to the game. Some people like deep swimming pools so they can dive, some just want to swim across the surface. Personally I don't see why a deep swimming pool is bad unless you can't swim on the surface.


Also don't get the wrong idea. I'm not saying Inventory and Loot are the superior end all, be all. As I said customization is what truly matters. How that it is done matters little to me as long as it's there. ME2's one real customization was in armor, and I do actually like that system better. I have no complaint with the skill trees in ME2 either. The gun lists were pretty short and you were limited to even what ammo powers you could use. Heck unless you buy all the DLC you basically have 2 guns to choose from in each catergory and that's it. You basically choose what weapon to use and then maybe use your class ammo power. While I appreciate the weapons are unique I do not find the weapon system to be anymore in-depth then ME1. In fact I just find it extremely limiting.

[SalsaDMA]

starmine76 wrote...

ME1 felt like a game that desperately wanted to be fresh, new and exciting, but could only go so far because it was built on the fundementals of old-school Roleplaying. 

Considering I never get that vibe from the first game, I'd have to rake down your comment as purely a subjective opinion.

The vibe I got from the first game was an epic story that enthralled me in the same way that the good sci-fi tv series did.

ME2 totally abandoned that mood, which I was saddened by. Sure, some of the actual game mechanics in combat were better, but their disregard for what I felt was the thematically superior element of the game compared to other games (the heavy sci-fi series feeling) was really a downer.

From the looks of it, ME3 continues this trend.

To make an anology: I felt like ME1 was like the movies "Alien" and "Aliens". ME2 was "Alien 3". I beg the powers that be, that ME3 won't turn into "Alien: Ressurection" which was just.... urgh....

[GreenDragon37]

SalsaDMA wrote...

starmine76 wrote...

ME1 felt like a game that desperately wanted to be fresh, new and exciting, but could only go so far because it was built on the fundementals of old-school Roleplaying. 

Considering I never get that vibe from the first game, I'd have to rake down your comment as purely a subjective opinion.

The vibe I got from the first game was an epic story that enthralled me in the same way that the good sci-fi tv series did.

ME2 totally abandoned that mood, which I was saddened by. Sure, some of the actual game mechanics in combat were better, but their disregard for what I felt was the thematically superior element of the game compared to other games (the heavy sci-fi series feeling) was really a downer.

From the looks of it, ME3 continues this trend.

To make an anology: I felt like ME1 was like the movies "Alien" and "Aliens". ME2 was "Alien 3". I beg the powers that be, that ME3 won't turn into "Alien: Ressurection" which was just.... urgh....

I agree with you. ME1's story and atmosphere just felt better to me than vanilla ME2's. And I loved the Alien series reference. I doubt it will be like Alien Ressurection.

[Arrow70]

SalsaDMA wrote...

starmine76 wrote...

ME1 felt like a game that desperately wanted to be fresh, new and exciting, but could only go so far because it was built on the fundementals of old-school Roleplaying. 

Considering I never get that vibe from the first game, I'd have to rake down your comment as purely a subjective opinion.

The vibe I got from the first game was an epic story that enthralled me in the same way that the good sci-fi tv series did.

ME2 totally abandoned that mood, which I was saddened by. Sure, some of the actual game mechanics in combat were better, but their disregard for what I felt was the thematically superior element of the game compared to other games (the heavy sci-fi series feeling) was really a downer.

From the looks of it, ME3 continues this trend.

To make an anology: I felt like ME1 was like the movies "Alien" and "Aliens". ME2 was "Alien 3". I beg the powers that be, that ME3 won't turn into "Alien: Ressurection" which was just.... urgh....

The hypocrisy of this statement is ridiculous you called someone out for posting a subjunctive opinion and posted one of your own

[Bluko]

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).

There's always been a schism between the "roleplayers" and the "number guys". This has always been the case. Some people think it's important that their character rest 8 hours a game day, others could care less whether their character ever takes a nap.

Story is a trivial argument in the aspect of RPG. Any game, stratgey, shooter, etc. can have a good story if you make one for it. You don't need to play RPGs to experience good stories (though yes, RPGs tend to be better.) RPGs however do not mean good stories. Many many RPGs have lousy stories and settings.

RPGs are about choices. It's about choosing what hallway to go down, which potion to drink, which person to save/kill, which weapon to use, which class to be. Dialogue choices are great and certainly an important aspect of most RPGs. But they are just one aspect. If all your game has is dialogue choices is it really an RPG?

I like dialogue choices, but a game needs to be more then a conversation emulator if you want me to consider it an RPG. ME2 is ultimately less of an RPG, because IMO there are less choices to be made. Does this mean it's bad? Not necessarily because some of the choices are more meaningful.

How about this?

Good RPGs are about meaningful choices.

[Whatever42]

Bluko wrote...

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).

There's always been a schism between the "roleplayers" and the "number guys". This has always been the case. Some people think it's important that their character rest 8 hours a game day, others could care less whether their character ever takes a nap.

Story is a trivial argument in the aspect of RPG. Any game, stratgey, shooter, etc. can have a good story if you make one for it. You don't need to play RPGs to experience good stories (though yes, RPGs tend to be better.) RPGs however do not mean good stories. Many many RPGs have lousy stories and settings.

RPGs are about choices. It's about choosing what hallway to go down, which potion to drink, which person to save/kill, which weapon to use, which class to be. Dialogue choices are great and certainly an important aspect of most RPGs. But they are just one aspect. If all your game has is dialogue choices is it really an RPG?

I like dialogue choices, but a game needs to be more then a conversation emulator if you want me to consider it an RPG. ME2 is ultimately less of an RPG, because IMO there are less choices to be made. Does this mean it's bad? Not necessarily because some of the choices are more meaningful.

How about this?

Good RPGs are about meaningful choices.

Im ME2 you can decide who lives and who dies. You can decide which planet you go to and which you skip. You can decide to keep or destroy a genophage cure or a Collector base. There are dozens of deep, meaningful choices.  Having dozens of suits of armor when only one is clearly superious is not a meaningful choice. Picking to take the left hallway or the right hallway to the same destination is not a meaningful choice.

I would also argue that too much choice weakens the story. Fallout 3 and Morrowind (two of my favorite game) have a lot of choice. However, because they have so much choice, the story and conclusion are that much weaker. I wouldn't say they are worse RPGs but its a tradeoff.

[PsychoWARD23]

Yep. ME1's RPG elements were okay, but executed rather poorly.

ME3's look great.


And to the poster above me, skipping side quest aren't "real choices"

Modifié par PsychoWARD23, 14 juin 2011 - 09:18 .

[KillTheLastRomantic]

Granted I havn't been following the game that closely, but all I've seen so far is combat. What new 'RPG' elements are being implemented?

[Bluko]

AlanC9 wrote...

Bluko wrote...
However the biggest offense to me about Mass Effect 2 is the general lack of freedom and customization. The hallmarks of good WRPGs. Something Bioware really seems to be struggling with lately. 

I'm not sure I'd go with "struggling with" there. How about "uninterested in"?

I dunno a lot of people complained about copy and paste in ME1's environments or simply how boring and bleak they were. I believe this is also an issue with DA2.

I'd say Bioware struggles a lot when trying to create environments to explore.

Look I like cinematic dialogue and a good story, but if the rest of the game is rubbish it's not going to help a whole lot. You need to create good environments, not nececessarily free-roam, but it is highly important they be immersive nonetheless. Also customization is highly important. If it wasn't why let someone create their own Shepard or choose their background? It does matter.

If Bioware continues to take away freedom and customization there won't be much of a game left to play and there certainly won't be much choice to be made. Of course if all you want is a cinematic story I suppose it's not really much of an issue. Although personally I'll opt to rent a movie or two instead.

[kregano]

Progressive_Stupidity1 wrote...

Granted I havn't been following the game that closely, but all I've seen so far is combat. What new 'RPG' elements are being implemented?

Better weapon customization and deeper skill trees.

Here are some screencaps.

[Bluko]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

I would also argue that too much choice weakens the story. Fallout 3 and Morrowind (two of my favorite game) have a lot of choice. However, because they have so much choice, the story and conclusion are that much weaker. I wouldn't say they are worse RPGs but its a tradeoff.

True true.

Namely my concern for ME3 is limited exploration at this point. Although we haven't exactly seen much in the way of customization either, besides a breif look at the workbench and character skill trees.

ME3 to me still looks like it will have less RPG elements then say ME1, but that doesn't matter to me so long as those few RPG elements are implemented well. And by that I mean more then swapping color palettes for example, and you know actually having some impact in the game.

[Kai Hohiro]

Bluko wrote...
True true.

Namely my concern for ME3 is limited exploration at this point. Although we haven't exactly seen much in the way of customization either, besides a breif look at the workbench and character skill trees.

ME3 to me still looks like it will have less RPG elements then say ME1, but that doesn't matter to me so long as those few RPG elements are implemented well. And by that I mean more then swapping color palettes for example, and you know actually having some impact in the game.

I'm not really seeing where you're coming from.
If we're talking about character and equipment customization in terms of RPG elements ME3 is already better than ME1. You have a fair number of things to customize that are meaningful vs a ton of crap that had little meaning at all.

Exploration wise ME1 had little in that regard too, unless driving around boring and empty landscapes fits your bill of "exploration".
The ME series never really seemed much about exploration, that's really more Bethesda's forte.

Modifié par Kai Hohiro, 14 juin 2011 - 09:40 .

[Bluko]

Kai Hohiro wrote...

Exploration wise ME1 had little in that regard too, unless driving around boring and empty landscapes fits your bill of "exploration".

The ME series never really seemed much about exploration, that's really more Bethesda's forte.

I'm just a little angry that they abandoned the idea completely. I would would have like to have seen them make better planet environments to explore and not just confine us to shooting galleries.

I'd say exploration is a pretty big deal. Isn't half the point of Mass Effect running into weird aliens and landing on different worlds? I mean if exploration is so unimportant why not just remain on Earth the entire time? I'm pretty sure exploration is an important part of Mass Effect. I would like to see Bioware live up to it just a little more.

(And the Bethesda's games do very well because they do include exploration. If Bioware wants to compete with them at all it'd be in their best interest to make their environments a bit more expansive. Omega is cool, but it's also incredibly small.)

[LPPrince]

AlanC9 wrote...

LPPrince wrote...
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.

What annoyed me about DA2's loot was the incoherence of the system. In ME2 everyone works more-or-less the same way; Shepard uses individual pieces to tune his defense loadout, but he upgrades the same as everyone else. In DA2 Hawke runs on traditional inventory, but the companions only halfway do. So you end up with gear that no one can wear.

That. ME1's and ME2's systems at least were coherent. Just that in my opinion, ME2's "inventory system"(I stress the quotes) was way too simplistic for my tastes and left a lot of room for improvement.

ME1's was big enough, just that it lacked the refining qualities necessary to make it work better(like the 150 item limit).

Insta-omni gelling would've been nice if it was an option we could choose to have on.

Modifié par LPPrince, 14 juin 2011 - 10:03 .

[Kai Hohiro]

Bluko wrote...
I'm just a little angry that they abandoned the idea completely. I would would have like to have seen them make better planet environments to explore and not just confine us to shooting galleries.

I'd say exploration is a pretty big deal. Isn't half the point of Mass Effect running into weird aliens and landing on different worlds? I mean if exploration is so unimportant why not just remain on Earth the entire time? I'm pretty sure exploration is an important part of Mass Effect. I would like to see Bioware live up to it just a little more.

(And the Bethesda's games do very well because they do include exploration. If Bioware wants to compete with them at all it'd be in their best interest to make their environments a bit more expansive. Omega is cool, but it's also incredibly small.)

I don't think Bioware has massive exploration in mind in any of their games. And guess what the Bethesda fans are saying on their forum? They say Bethesda needs to include some proper story to compete in any way with Bioware. But you know what, but companies simply have their own design philosophies. 
Want freeform exploration and sandbox? Bethesda that way. Want action packed and epic story lines? Then you are where you should be.

And no it isnt and never was half the point to explore random planets and what not in ME. This isn't Star Trek, it's a war.
Like I said not a single ME game had any good exploration mechanics, so I don't know where people get the idea from ME3 should suddenly have them or that the ME series has somehow lost them.

Modifié par Kai Hohiro, 14 juin 2011 - 10:05 .

[Kai Hohiro]

KaidanWilliamsShepard wrote...
I am sorry, that when i pay for an RPG, made by an RPG video game company, i expect an RPG.
Mass Effect 1 was far superior to the sequel, and most definitely the third.

Well I guess you enjoy stat driven combat?
That's fair, whatever floats people's boats, but haven't you already made up your mind then that ME3 wont be your kind of game?

[JKoopman]

Does ME3 have more RPG elements than ME2? Yes, I suppose, in that 1 is a greater number than 0 but that's not really anything to write home about. More RPG elements than ME1 though? Don't be ridiculous. I think the balance goes something like this.

RPG|---------------[ME1]-----|-----[ME3]-----[ME2]----|Shooter