251 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lumikki wrote...

Yes and No.

You are right that stats are there to simulate someone else abilities. How ever that's not really fully true.
You have intelligent, wisdom or any other mind bases stat, how you make you self smarter or dummer based you characters intelligent?

Dumber is easy.  Smarter is a problem.  Though not much of a problem, as intelligence (or even charisma) checks can be used to gather information.

There's sometimes an implicit acceptance of dualism in RPGs - that the mind and body are somehow separate.  The player constructs the mind as he sees fit, while the body is governed by statistics.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Dannyboy9876 wrote...

Well, it's quite simple.

It's a game.

Apparently it's a nonsensical game.

[Dannyboy9876]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Dannyboy9876 wrote...

Well, it's quite simple.

It's a game.

Apparently it's a nonsensical game.

In your opinion, yes.

[Lumikki]

Ahglock wrote...

Intelligence can't cover everything sure.  Like what plans you come up for your actions.  But intelligence is simulated through how your actions pan out, like your chemistry skill might be better because your intelligence is 18.  In RPGS the only thing not simulated is the player decision process.  That is the how RPGs work.  Now sure, hybrids are different.

Are you sure that there is rule somewhere that in RPG nothing else can't be left for players abilities that decission making?

I'm my self think more in direction, like only think left for sure to players abilities are those what can not be simulated by game. How ever, when player can do something behave of character and it could also be simulated by game, then it's judgement call.

Then it comes to situation Mass Effect serie, what kind of game Mass Effect is?

It has "shooter" based combat what's primary point is players manual  aiming. That's why it's not stat based or should not be. If  game would be traditional RPG game, then stat based solution would be better, but not in ME case.

Modifié par Lumikki, 10 juin 2011 - 05:12 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Dannyboy9876 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Dannyboy9876 wrote...

Well, it's quite simple.

It's a game.

Apparently it's a nonsensical game.

In your opinion, yes.

My opinion has nothing to do with it.  By your own assertion, Shepard is an elite soldier who should be able to use weapons accurately.  But depending on the player, that's not necessarily true.

So, for no sensical reason at all, Shepard's skill with a weapon can be coherent with the world and then not be coherent with the world, despite nothing in the world having changed.

That's demonstrably nonsensical.  Opinion has nothing to do with it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lumikki wrote...

Then it comes to situation Mass Effect serie, what kind of game Mass Effect is?

It has "shooter" based combat what's primary point is players manual  aiming. That's why it's not stat based or should not be. If this could be traditional RPG game, then stat based solution would be better, but not in ME case.

Except, the first Mass Effect game did exactly that.

There have been two ME games so far, and they've split evenly between the two systems.  How can you possibly say that the "Mass Effect series" favours one over the other?

[Dannyboy9876]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Dannyboy9876 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Dannyboy9876 wrote...

Well, it's quite simple.

It's a game.

Apparently it's a nonsensical game.

In your opinion, yes.

My opinion has nothing to do with it.  By your own assertion, Shepard is an elite soldier who should be able to use weapons accurately.  But depending on the player, that's not necessarily true.

So, for no sensical reason at all, Shepard's skill with a weapon can be coherent with the world and then not be coherent with the world, despite nothing in the world having changed.

That's demonstrably nonsensical.  Opinion has nothing to do with it.

They are just bad at the game. Stats saying how accurate Shep is won't make the player more accurate or better at the game either.

[FluffyScarf]

Didn't M1 simply tighten the 'cone' where you could hit when you become more proficient with a weapon? You still had to aim at the target to hit. If you were at point blank range, you'd hit anyway even if you had no points put into that weapon.

Modifié par FluffyScarf, 10 juin 2011 - 05:17 .

[Dannyboy9876]

Stat-Based shooting won't make a player better. If they can't aim properly with ME2 Shep's perfect accuracy, what makes you think they'll do any better with stat based accuracy?

[ArcanistLibram]

No. The pistol is the only weapon I use in Mass Effect because it's the only one that has any accuracy at low levels and putting skill points into weapons that I plan on using only much later always feels like a waste.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Dannyboy9876 wrote...

They are just bad at the game.

Inside the game, the player doesn't exist.  Why, from an in-game perspective - from Shepard's perspective - is Shepard sometimes good at shooting things and sometimes not good a shooting things?

You yourself have already pointed out that Shepard should ALWAYS be good at shooting things, so how does it make any sense at all when she is not?

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 10 juin 2011 - 05:19 .

[Lumikki]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Then it comes to situation Mass Effect serie, what kind of game Mass Effect is?

It has "shooter" based combat what's primary point is players manual  aiming. That's why it's not stat based or should not be. If this could be traditional RPG game, then stat based solution would be better, but not in ME case.

Except, the first Mass Effect game did exactly that.

There have been two ME games so far, and they've split evenly between the two systems.  How can you possibly say that the "Mass Effect series" favours one over the other?

True, but that was not because it was suppose to be that way in ME1, it's was that way because Biowares lack of skill make "good" "shooter" combat at the time. In my opinion, Bioware did not get what's the main point of shooter side, they had done too long just RPG's.

You can do what you want, you will see ME3 will have player based aiming, other ways they would **** up it again and they aren't stupid enough to do that. So, I'm not trying to change your mind, I just say why it's so and not the way you want.

Modifié par Lumikki, 10 juin 2011 - 05:25 .

[Dannyboy9876]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Dannyboy9876 wrote...

They are just bad at the game.

Inside the game, the player doesn't exist.  Why, from an in-game perspective - from Shepard's perspective - is Shepard sometimes good at shooting things and sometimes not good a shooting things?

You yourself have already pointed out that Shepard should ALWAYS be good at shooting things, so how does it make any sense at all when she is not?

Whatever. This is the case on ALL games.

Solid Snake shoud be an expert at sneaking, except he gets caught numerous times, depending on the skill of the player.

Call of Duty games feature soldiers, that may or may not be good soldiers, depending on the skill of the player.

WWE games should have the player winning most of the matches with the most impressive moves, but this will change, depending on the skill of the player.

Batman is smart as hell, but in Arkham Asylum, someone stupid would play the game improperly, or not like Batman would, depending on the skill of the player.

I think you get it. 

EVERY SINGLE GAME is depending on the player controlling it. If you are going to argue about it in Mass Effect, a lot of other games are feeling ignored.

[Bozorgmehr]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Inside the game, the player doesn't exist.  Why, from an in-game perspective - from Shepard's perspective - is Shepard sometimes good at shooting things and sometimes not good a shooting things?

You yourself have already pointed out that Shepard should ALWAYS be good at shooting things, so how does it make any sense at all when she is not?

In-game you are Shepard, you have full control over his/her actions. Your skill, to move, position, use cover, fire weapons and use powers etc, plays a big part in how well you perform in combat. I like that, and I prefer such a system over simulation. What's next? The option to tell your Kinect: "Shepard, kill the lot!" - and Shep will automatically move around, get cover when needed, shoots, uses melee and powers til all enemies are death, and have stats determine how well and/or fast Shep clears a level?

Shepard is an elite soldier who feels comfortable with all weapons (including some who're supposedly too heavy for humans to wield); the player's aim (=Shep's aim in-game) determines how much damage you can inflict over time. The stats are related to the weapons you use - and those stats can be tweaked with weapon mods in ME3. This should please both stat-lovers and shooter fans.

[Tigerman123]

There are skills in Me2 which increase your accuracy in practice. The combat classes, ie vanguards, infiltrators and soldiers get a pretty substantial (and upgradable) time dilation effect with their skill sets, which make missing almost impossible.

It's also perfectly possible to beat the game with just tech and biotic abilities as a caster class, which don't require aiming.

[Sylvius the Mad]

FluffyScarf wrote...

Didn't M1 simply tighten the 'cone' where you could hit when you become more proficient with a weapon? You still had to aim at the target to hit. If you were at point blank range, you'd hit anyway even if you had no points put into that weapon.

The circle was just target selection.  You'd place the circle over the target, and then you'd fire the weapon.  If the target filled the entire circle, then you were guaranteed to hit it (so naturally it was easier to hit things at close range).

And because you could aim while paused, there was no requirement for player skill at all, just like ME2.

Dannyboy9876 wrote...

Stat-Based shooting won't make a player better. If they can't aim properly with ME2 Shep's perfect accuracy, what makes you think they'll do any better with stat based accuracy?

Nothing at all.  You're right that stat-based shooting doesn't make the player better, but ME2's lack of stat-based shooting makes Shepard a perfect shot all of the time.  As long as the player places the targetting reticle over the target (and since he can aim while paused, there's no player skill required to do this), Shepard will shoot accurately.

But that's inconsistently applied.  We can't actually trigger the weapon while paused, so there is some uncertainty built into the system, and we can't aim using the scope while paused, so Shepard's supposedly perfect accuracy only applies some of the time.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Bozorgmehr wrote...

In-game you are Shepard, you have full control over his/her actions. Your skill, to move, position, use cover, fire weapons and use powers etc, plays a big part in how well you perform in combat. I like that, and I prefer such a system over simulation. What's next? The option to tell your Kinect: "Shepard, kill the lot!" - and Shep will automatically move around, get cover when needed, shoots, uses melee and powers til all enemies are death, and have stats determine how well and/or fast Shep clears a level?

If you'll recall, Splinter Cell did that exact thing with the Mark and Execute command, and it was a great feature.

The original Dungeon Siege effectively used that for their entire combat system.  All you had to do was get your party into the room and they'd use their skills to kill the enemies.  You could interfere if you wanted, but that wasn't required by the game.

Shepard is an elite soldier who feels comfortable with all weapons (including some who're supposedly too heavy for humans to wield); the player's aim (=Shep's aim in-game) determines how much damage you can inflict over time. The stats are related to the weapons you use - and those stats can be tweaked with weapon mods in ME3. This should please both stat-lovers and shooter fans.

As long as they keep the ability to aim while paused, that should be fine.  But I'd like them to add the ability to use the scope when paused, or trigger the weapons while paused.

This is what Fallout 3 did with the VATS system.  You can let shooter fans play the game like a shooter, or let RPG fans play the game like an RPG.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Tigerman123 wrote...

There are skills in Me2 which increase your accuracy in practice. The combat classes, ie vanguards, infiltrators and soldiers get a pretty substantial (and upgradable) time dilation effect with their skill sets, which make missing almost impossible.

Did they disable the time dilation on the final boss fight?  I was an Infiltrator with a sniper rifle (because they wouldn't let my preferred classes - Engineer and Adept - use the sniper rifle, even though they had in ME1), and I didn't find that time dilated at all against that giant robot.

[Lumikki]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

You can let shooter fans play the game like a shooter, or let RPG fans play the game like an RPG.

You do know that there is also other differences between RPG and Shooter combat than just aiming?

[Dannyboy9876]

My point was ignored, so....

Dannyboy9876 wrote...
This is the case on ALL games.

Solid Snake shoud be an expert at sneaking, except he gets caught numerous times, depending on the skill of the player.

Call of Duty games feature soldiers, that may or may not be good soldiers, depending on the skill of the player.

WWE games should have the player winning most of the matches with the most impressive moves, but this will change, depending on the skill of the player.

Batman is smart as hell, but in Arkham Asylum, someone stupid would play the game improperly, or not like Batman would, depending on the skill of the player.

I think you get it. 

EVERY SINGLE GAME is depending on the player controlling it. If you are going to argue about it in Mass Effect, a lot of other games are feeling ignored.

[wizardryforever]

I think the difference here is that in most RPGs, you aren't directly controlling where your character swings his sword or shoots his gun.  Most of the time you simply give orders and your character carries out those orders to the best of his abilities.  In that case, it makes perfect sense for accuracy to be determined by character skill and not player skill, since the player is not directly involved in the combat.  Take for instance Dragon Age.  You can tell Alistair to attack that genlock, but you don't tell him where to place his sword strikes yourself.  He does that.

Now in Mass Effect, you the player are controlling Shepard's attacks.  Who he attacks, where he places his shots, if he takes cover, etc, are all governed by you the player.  It logically follows then, that if you suck at actually being in the character's shoes instead of passively giving orders, then your character is going to suck as well.  You may not like it, but it makes perfect sense in context.  Also, shouldn't this be more immersive, since you are directly controlling the character's actions?  In this case, shooter mechanics actually make the RPG part better, IMO.

I don't think any kind of accuracy stat should come back for Shepard, because it frustrates those of us who are actually good at the game to miss because of some arbitrary number.  It handicaps those who are good at the game without really doing anything for those who suck at the game (they'll still suck at it even if accuracy stats are included).  Bringing everyone down to the same level of mediocrity just seems spiteful. 

That said, accuracy stats are still in ME2.  Except now, they are properties of the weapons themselves, and not Shepard's skill.  So Shepard can be very accurate with the Vindicator, but not the Avenger or the Revenant, at least not without adjusting his tactics.  But that all comes down to you the player making that choice, Shepard won't do that on his own.

[Bozorgmehr]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

As long as they keep the ability to aim while paused, that should be fine.  But I'd like them to add the ability to use the scope when paused, or trigger the weapons while paused.

This is what Fallout 3 did with the VATS system.  You can let shooter fans play the game like a shooter, or let RPG fans play the game like an RPG.

FO3 isn't a power-based rpg-shooter (if you call FO3's horrible shooter-mechanics a shooter that is) - ME has powers AND weapons. Powers are stat based and can be improved by leveling up - weapons require aiming. The RPG fans can either pick classes who have powers which assist with aiming & shooting (Soldier, Infiltrator, Vanguard), or they can select classes who have powerful abilities which can be used to kill enemies (Adept, Sentinel, Engineer).

If I want to throw dice, I go to the casino - no VATS in Mass Effect games please.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lumikki wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

You can let shooter fans play the game like a shooter, or let RPG fans play the game like an RPG.

You do know that there is also other differences between RPG and Shooter combat than just aiming?

Right now I'm talking about this difference.

Having the player's skill at something where the character's skill is plot-relevant determine the character's success at doing that thing violates the coherence of the setting.  No roleplayer should tolerate that.

Regardless of what else I think ME should do to be more RPG-ish, I think it should do this.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Dannyboy9876 wrote...

My point was ignored, so....

Because your point wasn't relevant.  I didn't think argumentum ad popularum warranted a response.

[Sylvius the Mad]

wizardryforever wrote...

I think the difference here is that in most RPGs, you aren't directly controlling where your character swings his sword or shoots his gun.  Most of the time you simply give orders and your character carries out those orders to the best of his abilities.  In that case, it makes perfect sense for accuracy to be determined by character skill and not player skill, since the player is not directly involved in the combat.  Take for instance Dragon Age.  You can tell Alistair to attack that genlock, but you don't tell him where to place his sword strikes yourself.  He does that.

Now in Mass Effect, you the player are controlling Shepard's attacks.  Who he attacks, where he places his shots, if he takes cover, etc, are all governed by you the player.  It logically follows then, that if you suck at actually being in the character's shoes instead of passively giving orders, then your character is going to suck as well.  You may not like it, but it makes perfect sense in context.  Also, shouldn't this be more immersive, since you are directly controlling the character's actions?  In this case, shooter mechanics actually make the RPG part better, IMO.

Why are you assuming that RPG combat needs to be abstract, or arms-length?  If ME combat were stat-driven, it could still offer the player that same level of fine control.  It just wouldn't require player skill to input those instructions.

I really don't care about immersiveness.  Immersion is my job, not the game's job.

I don't think any kind of accuracy stat should come back for Shepard, because it frustrates those of us who are actually good at the game to miss because of some arbitrary number.

Again, you're presupposing the outcome.  If the game were stat-driven, being good at it would be all about decision-making, not aiming.  your supposed skill at aiming would cease to be relevant, and thus you could no longer claim that it makes you "good at the game".

It handicaps those who are good at the game without really doing anything for those who suck at the game (they'll still suck at it even if accuracy stats are included).  Bringing everyone down to the same level of mediocrity just seems spiteful.

I would agree, and I'm not asking for that.

That said, accuracy stats are still in ME2.  Except now, they are properties of the weapons themselves, and not Shepard's skill.  So Shepard can be very accurate with the Vindicator, but not the Avenger or the Revenant, at least not without adjusting his tactics.  But that all comes down to you the player making that choice, Shepard won't do that on his own.

But he can also be very inaccurate with the Vindicator, regardless of his tactics, if the player is inaccurate.  That's the problem.