469 réponses à ce sujet

[Shirosaki17]

PST RPG elements > ME3 RPG elements

THE END

[Massadonious1]

Yes, an old game clearly designed as an RPG has more RPG elements than a game that was always intended to be a hybrid.

The end, indeed.

[Dracotamer]

My vote is out till I see the companion armor system.

[AdmiralCheez]

Okay, so I just watched the post-E3 livestream thingie, and dude.

I mean, oh my god.

Dem stats.

All over the screen.

And the weapon workbench. Had stat bars. ON THE SCREEN.

My inner nerd is squeeing with delight.

GUYS, I AM GOING TO CUSTOMIZE THE SH*T OUT OF EVERYTHING AND NO ONE CAN STOP ME. EVEN IF SQUADDIES DON'T HAVE CUSTOMIZABLE ARMOR I WILL DEAL WITH IT BECAUSE I AM HAPPY.

[rt604]

For me the biggest difference between Mass Effect 1 versus Mass Effect 2 that I miss is the passive combat bonuses, both offensive and defensive, especially for the soldier class. Story wise and dialogue wise I didn't have to big of an issue with it, though for some reason I didn't like the Hammerhead as much as the Mako.

[CroGamer002]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Okay, so I just watched the post-E3 livestream thingie, and dude.

I mean, oh my god.

Dem stats.

All over the screen.

And the weapon workbench. Had stat bars. ON THE SCREEN.

My inner nerd is squeeing with delight.

GUYS, I AM GOING TO CUSTOMIZE THE SH*T OUT OF EVERYTHING AND NO ONE CAN STOP ME. EVEN IF SQUADDIES DON'T HAVE CUSTOMIZABLE ARMOR I WILL DEAL WITH IT BECAUSE I AM HAPPY.

You'll make a pink Mattock with purple camo, am I right?

[AdmiralCheez]

Mesina2 wrote...

You'll make a pink Mattock with purple camo, am I right?

No.

But I'm going to mod the hell out of my infiltrator and her weapons so she plays like a vanguard that can turn invisible.

I'll save the pink for my actual vanguard.  He could rock the bubblegum look.

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 15 juin 2011 - 07:12 .

[Ylhaym]

KaidanWilliamsShepard wrote...

I just went to that link that shows the supposed "Added RPG Elements", and well, i saw none. I am seriously starting to think that people are only thinking its RPG elements will be as strong as Mass Effect 1's, because the stat menu is blue again, instead of orange...wow...just wow.

http://imageshack.us...10608at125.jpg/

Here, you look, and you tell me what RPG come backs or additions you see.

RPG additions? let's see...
You can actually choose what direction you want your power to evolve to. Better than how ME1 handles "stats".
And the Workbench, weapon customization done better than ME1.

If you think RPG Elements is all about inventory, then yes you are correct. I don't see any RPG Elements there.

 

[CroGamer002]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

You'll make a pink Mattock with purple camo, am I right?

No.

But I'm going to mod the hell out of my infiltrator and her weapons so she plays like a vanguard that can turn invisible.

I'll save the pink for my actual vanguard.  He could rock the bubblegum look.

You don't need mods for that.

[AdmiralCheez]

Mesina2 wrote...

You don't need mods for that.

Yes, but with the options presented in ME3, I can do it better.

[AlanC9]

KaidanWilliamsShepard wrote...
You are somewhat correct there, however...They shouldnt have removed, the Mako, the inventory, the stats (silly hyperbole deleted) in the process of making it "full hybrid".

Why not?

Modifié par AlanC9, 15 juin 2011 - 07:30 .

[RoninOmega]

Mesina2 wrote...

RideUrLightning wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

Loot. Was never gone in ME2 to begin with.

All I can say to that is LOL

So me hacking bank accounts and safes for money is not consider looting?

You can't HONESTLY be satisfied with that, morallly, it's incorrect, that's just being cheap.

Point is, it's so little, to many people it's almost nonexistant, I don't even consider that loot.  Perhaps you should understand that before arguing any further.

Modifié par RoninOmega, 15 juin 2011 - 07:30 .

[AlanC9]

RoninOmega wrote...
Point is, it's so little, to many people it's almost nonexistant, I don't even consider that loot.  Perhaps you should understand that before arguing any further.

So hacking bank accounts really is not looting, then.

[RoninOmega]

AlanC9 wrote...

RoninOmega wrote...
Point is, it's so little, to many people it's almost nonexistant, I don't even consider that loot.  Perhaps you should understand that before arguing any further.

So hacking bank accounts really is not looting, then.

Would you rather hack just bank accounts and call it that, or would you rather be able to loot a variety of items and weapons from your opponents, yes with the addition of hacking bank accounts...

Stop pulling the damn definition thing, it doesn't add anything to this conversation, we're judging it based on quality, not of whether it's still considered loot, jeeze that gets annoying.

Modifié par RoninOmega, 15 juin 2011 - 08:23 .

[Grim37]

We all seem to have different opinions as to what makes an RPG an RPG, that's fine and to be expected. I would judge ME as it's own personal RPG style, and shouldn't be compared too much to other "true" RPG games, whatever that means. to you guys personally. So here's my 2 cents..

I don't get how people can say that ME1 had superior RPG elements to ME2. The way I see it, the RPG elements of ME are the choices you make, and this is what makes the game great for me. All the items and skills are just tools to conquer your enemies.

Loot: Nothing to do with RPG elements, only gameplay. ME2 > ME1. Don't get me wrong, I love to tinker with items.. I'm glad ME3 won't bring back the messy inventory system from ME1, it's in fact a pointless time sink and an annoyance to have hundreds of items you'll never use. You keep the best, throw away the rest.

Skills: ME1 > ME2, since you had more skills, but too many levels of progression. ME2 tried to combine skill and equipment bonuses, with some success. I expect ME3 to do it better, and it looks promising!

Exploration: ME1 type exploration was annoying and a false sense of freedom. Planet scanning in ME2 was boring, but in reality you didn't NEED to spend much time scanning to have enough resources. ME2 was more to the point, avoiding the pointless driving around.

Choices and dialog: No big difference, except that ME2 has interrupts, which is better! Yes, I'm saying it, ME2 is _more_ RPG in this aspect than ME1 :3

Story and consequences: ME1 has the better story and more important choices. ME2 isn't far behind in the amount of choices and the gravity of them, but still very much character building. What I miss in the ME trilogy is reactions/loyalty from team members by the decisions you make.

Someone mentioned that the ME2 choices will become evident in ME3, and I agree or at least I hope so. Perhaps even more than ME1 choices since it will affect how you will win against the reapers. Which party members survived, and hopefully they will have some kind of reaction to how you've solved problems in the previous two games.

What makes Mass Effect excellent, is that your choices actually matter! Very few games are able to give you this experience, expecially in a Sci-Fi setting!

[sp0ck 06]

Gatt9 wrote...

-Noncombat skills
-Healing,  which is now a generic "Wait a couple seconds and you'll heal fully like any other shooter"
-Being able to make decisions,  in ME I could save the Rachni,  someone else could kill it,  and get a different result.  In ME2,  everyone's the same,  gets the same things,  same outcomes,  no matter their path,  with one exception (Samara/Daughter).
-Stores with something in them.
-Rewards for quests that mattered
-The ability to actually progress based upon what you did in the game,  rather than flat awards,  that were clearly designed to give the most rewards to the main missions,  such that even if you did side missions you were pretty much no different from the next guy.
-Actual gear worth having.

-Noncombat skills
    In ME1 you have Charm and Intimidate, two non combat skills that do the same thing, open up a few more conversation options.  While I liked how this was handled in the first one better, in ME2 you have the same ways of opening conversation options, plus interrupts.  Is this really such a massive feature difference?  The game is about story, characters, and action.  I don't need to work on Shep's alchemy skills or mercantile.

-Healing,  which is now a generic "Wait a couple seconds and you'll heal fully like any other shooter"
     So having a health bar and pressing Y when it gets low is suddenly a deep, genre defining feature of RPGs?  Regenerating health allows for better encounter design and frees up a button on an already starved controller.  Plus, you can still heal in ME2 so...?

-Being able to make decisions,  in ME I could save the Rachni,  someone else could kill it,  and get a different result.  In ME2,  everyone's the same,  gets the same things,  same outcomes,  no matter their path,  with one exception (Samara/Daughter).
   This is a blatantly false statement.  There are just as many decisions of this nature in ME2, if not more.  Every loyalty mission can be completed numerous ways resulting in different outcomes.  The geth decision is arguably more impactful than the rachni, as well the the genophage cure choice.  

-Stores with something in them.
   Space hamster.  At least it changes something visible, unlike the generic weapons and upgrades of ME1

-Rewards for quests that mattered
   Huh?  What ME1 quest had "rewards"?  ME series isn't about quest rewards like WoW.  Completing the quests is a reward unto itself.

-The ability to actually progress based upon what you did in the game,  rather than flat awards,  that were clearly designed to give the most rewards to the main missions,  such that even if you did side missions you were pretty much no different from the next guy.
   I don't even know what this means.

-Actual gear worth having.
   Sure, ME1 had a lot more gear.  But it was all the same.  ME2 you have less weapons but each one is distinct and unique.  You can play through the whole game with the Avenger if you like, or if you prefer the Vindicator, use that.  You don't just mindlessly replace your weapons with identical gear with a slight increase in stats.


ME2 wasn't perfect.  But I get frustrated when people hold up ME1 as this shining example of a great RPG.  ME1 had a fantastic story, great atmosphere and soundtrack, and some cool vistas.  But in terms of actual gameplay, its the same as ME2, only clunky and not as polished.  Why did ME2 attrat more shooter fans?  Not because it was "lol CoD crap," because it actually had fun shooter combat, unlike ME1's broken, imbalanced combat.

Besides, ME3 looks like its really combining the best of the 2 games, so I don't know what everyone is so worried about.

[Lumikki]

Gatt9 wrote...

-Noncombat skills
-Healing,  which is now a generic "Wait a couple seconds and you'll heal fully like any other shooter"
-Being able to make decisions,  in ME I could save the Rachni,  someone else could kill it,  and get a different result.  In ME2,  everyone's the same,  gets the same things,  same outcomes,  no matter their path,  with one exception (Samara/Daughter).
-Stores with something in them.
-Rewards for quests that mattered
-The ability to actually progress based upon what you did in the game,  rather than flat awards,  that were clearly designed to give the most rewards to the main missions,  such that even if you did side missions you were pretty much no different from the next guy.
-Actual gear worth having.

Non combat skills. I agree, it would nice to have few of them. How ever, it's hard to have them in ME type of game so that they works good if game doesn't have enough non combat gameplay. How ever, like I sayed it would be nice to have.

Healing, I don't think so. How ever, if game would have injuries, some doctor based gameplay could be nice. Little like the style "The Seed" mmorpg did have. How ever, magical healing of health bar, this isn't some magic based classic fantasy game.

Able to make decission, has been there allready in hole ME series.  Your ME2 part comment  is childish whining. I do agree with having more meaningful choises, but as this is last ME serie game, I also think it's also equal important finish all the open choises.

Store, I agree. Stores need more items in them. World should be based more to buy what you need than player been junk yard collector as trying to find items from corpses. I don't say player can't find something interesting too, because player should. But base should be in stores.

I disagree the reward part. This isn't some child game where we give candy everytime we do something right. I suppport more like rewards are story related, where they help as to do what we need.

Gear worth of having. Depense what you mean by this. If you mean what I think, then answer is hell no. Meaning yes we need gears what give us different kind of gameplay feelings. Like weapon what feels different than other weapon or modify armor with different kind bonuses. How ever, have the uber gear style gameplay, where player is trying to get better and better gear to become from rat to God. No thanks for that kind of gear gameplay.

Modifié par Lumikki, 15 juin 2011 - 03:32 .

[In Exile]

Bluko wrote..
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.

No. Not even a little bit. This isn't Star Wars Trek. 

ETA:

Epic sci-fi fail on my part.

(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 wants to compete with Bestheda at all. They make games that are essentially the opposite.

Modifié par In Exile, 15 juin 2011 - 03:59 .

[Lumikki]

In Exile wrote...

Bluko wrote..
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.

No. Not even a little bit. This isn't Star Wars.

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 think one think what Bioware doesn't seem to get is that players want to see different things (wonders). Like some alien world what they have never seen, what actually look like it's out of human world consept. Why aliens so often in scifi lives and be like humans? If I would go Hanar world, I would expect it be nothing like humans have. Too much of Biowares "cool" thinking is about special effects and animation. When they should actually start think like scifi, as world and place design.

Modifié par Lumikki, 15 juin 2011 - 04:05 .

[In Exile]

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.

[Beerfish]

Shirosaki17 wrote...

PST RPG elements > ME3 RPG elements

THE END

You mean in ME3 we can only be male?  Have to be one character, with one look and no customization?  And have one of three classes to play?  Have grinding levels and fetch it quests?  And end up at the same place at the end of the game no matter what but with a decent game ending choice?

I'm as big of a fan of PST as anyone but strictly looking at it from all rpg angles it had a lot of limitations.  It's one of my top games of all time and it's story is stellar but I think people take for granted some of the good RPG qualities we have with newer games, much improved party interation, banter and how companions relate to the player to name a few.

Modifié par Beerfish, 15 juin 2011 - 04:03 .

[AlanC9]

RoninOmega wrote...

Would you rather hack just bank accounts and call it that, or would you rather be able to loot a variety of items and weapons from your opponents, yes with the addition of hacking bank accounts...

As I said upthread, in ME i'd rather do neither. The idea of Shepard needing credits to do his job is idiotic, and interferes with my role-playing. Granted, CRPGs don't necessarily have anything to do with role-playing  -- that one's for you, Gatt9 --- but that's what I like to do in them

Stop pulling the damn definition thing, it doesn't add anything to this conversation, we're judging it based on quality, not of whether it's still considered loot, jeeze that gets annoying.

You're the one who repied to a post abut the definition of loot, silly. If you don't want to play definition games, don't play them.

[Notanything]

KaidanWilliamsShepard wrote...

I just went to that link that shows the supposed "Added RPG Elements", and well, i saw none. I am seriously starting to think that people are only thinking its RPG elements will be as strong as Mass Effect 1's, because the stat menu is blue again, instead of orange...wow...just wow.

http://imageshack.us...10608at125.jpg/

Here, you look, and you tell me what RPG come backs or additions you see.

While it is my policy to not be swayed by trailers, and pictures like other people fall victim to, the general pictures of the apparent RPG elements are questionable to the extent that I have to ask..  "Is that it?"  More so than "Those are not RPG elements".  I dislike that basically it's a skill tree that's only been doubled in size, the customization returning is a welcome improvement, but I cannot say the menu interface suddenly makes the game a better RPG either.

But these questions do not make me doubt the game's genre, to an extent.  Ultimately, though I do worry about certain things, I do not doubt Bioware will create a competent game, but a game with a fair mix of two genres?  I'm not sure.

Modifié par Notanything, 15 juin 2011 - 04:39 .