120 réponses à ce sujet

[kregano]

Lumikki wrote...
Now what ME3 will bringing, that you can also mod every weapon too, little like you use to in ME1, but not as much.

You can change weapon color and the aesthetics, so in fact it's more than what ME1 had in terms of gun customization.

[Gatt9]

Aedolon wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

Because it's impossible to sacrifice combat skills in favor of a focus on noncombat skills? You cannot make a mediocre soldier who excells at diplomacy in ME2.

Yes you can. Just make a mediocre soldier and pick the right dialogue options.

I belong to the school that thinks diplomacy should be provided by the player, not the character sheet. You are free to disagree.

I'm afraid I will have to disagree.  An RPG is about the Character who's Role you are playing,  which is completely seperate from you.  RPG's aren't about self-insertion,  they're about taking on a Role that can,  and usually is,  completely at odds with who you are.

Gatt9 wrote...

Soldiers aren't trained in the use of every single weapon type. It is not at all unrealistic to believe that Shepherd wouldn't know how to use shotguns or sniper rifles, especially since you generally have to qualify before they give you a sniper rifle in most militaries, it's kinda pointless to train you with it if you suck at shooting.

Now, that's just not true.

I'm just a conscript (reconnaissance), and I've been trained with pistols, submachine guns, assault rifles, sniper rifles, machine guns, AA machine guns, recoilless rifles, knives, grenades and various kinds of AP and AV mines and improvised explosives. I missed shotguns because I was ill at the time.

Shepard is N7 operative. That's special forces combined with the highest available training.

I'm pretty sure Shepard should be pretty good with any weapon available.

Which military are you in?  I'm going to guess Canadian,  and since I know that Canada's is regarded as the best trained military in the world I won't call shennagins here.

That said,  I'm also getting the impression from your post that trained may mean "Brief introduction to",  which is decidely different from being able to effectively handle those weapons in a combat situation,  versus rigorous training.  I can shoot pistols,  rifles,  assault rifles,  SMG's, and sniper rifles...on a firing range.  But a pistol and an SMG is about the only ones I could effectively use in combat,  I'd be far less effective with the rest,  even though I know how to shoot them.

Special Forces doesn't inherently imply that they're godlike wielders of all weapons.  There are many different flavors of SF,  more than a few of which aren't sharpshooters.  Given the high degree of computer integration today,  you'd have to be certifiably insane not to have computer guys who can hack anything,  but can't shoot for crap in your special forces.  It's a fast way to make your entire division irrelevant,  because seriously,  who cares how well trained your special forces are when all it takes is 20 year old encryption and a couple minor doors to stop them?

[In Exile]

Gatt9 wrote..

I'm afraid I will have to disagree.  An RPG is about the Character who's Role you are playing,  which is completely seperate from you.  RPG's aren't about self-insertion,  they're about taking on a Role that can,  and usually is,  completely at odds with who you are.

Are you opposed to turn-based combat where the player makes tactical decisions instead of pressing a "simulate encounter" button?

If create a character who I want to RP as a tactica genius, but I personally suck at tactics, there is no RPG system (PnP or cRPG) that will allow me to eschew combat and have it auto-solved in the most optimal way. At best, I might get perks, feats, talents that gve me bonuses to combat abilities based on my RP background, but RPGs are wargames when it comes to combat.

Why is navigating dialogue different than navigating combat?

Character skill should be represented in the options you get (in dialogue, this means new text options, in combat it means abilities). Beyond that, it should be up to the player.

I might be a charismatic person in RL, but that just means I might have more things to say. It doesn't mean I can auto-win debates.

[AlanC9]

Gatt9 wrote...
Special Forces doesn't inherently imply that they're godlike wielders of all weapons.  There are many different flavors of SF,  more than a few of which aren't sharpshooters.  Given the high degree of computer integration today,  you'd have to be certifiably insane not to have computer guys who can hack anything,  but can't shoot for crap in your special forces.  

Huh? Who says the hackers would have to be in the Special Forces themselves? You'd just cross-attach them to the SF unit from EW or wherever the hell they are in the organization.

[Sirsmirkalot]

Forget about the RPG elements for a second, the blue hud is back!

[LemurFromTheId]

Gatt9 wrote...

Aedolon wrote...

I belong to the school that thinks diplomacy should be provided by the player, not the character sheet. You are free to disagree.

I'm afraid I will have to disagree. An RPG is about the Character who's Role you are playing, which is completely seperate from you. RPG's aren't about self-insertion, they're about taking on a Role that can, and usually is, completely at odds with who you are.

I've played a lot of RPGs, including P&P, yet I've never played a character that's completely at odds with who I am. I can't do it. That's not me. I've never played an evil character in Bioware's RPGs and neither have I played a true renegade in Mass Effect. I just can't put myself into that position. Some people can, I can't.

I think my stance on diplomacy comes largely from P&P RPGs. In those games it's pretty crazy if you can't do something because your character doesn't comprehend something that's perfectly obvious to you. Within our group, practical problem-solving and diplomacy was the player's, not the character's, responsibility.

Gatt9 wrote...

Which military are you in? I'm going to guess Canadian, and since I know that Canada's is regarded as the best trained military in the world I won't call shennagins here.

Finnish. It's not the best in the world.

Gatt9 wrote...

That said, I'm also getting the impression from your post that trained may mean "Brief introduction to", which is decidely different from being able to effectively handle those weapons in a combat situation, versus rigorous training. I can shoot pistols, rifles, assault rifles, SMG's, and sniper rifles...on a firing range. But a pistol and an SMG is about the only ones I could effectively use in combat, I'd be far less effective with the rest, even though I know how to shoot them.

Yes, "brief introduction" is exactly what it largely was, didn't mean to imply anything other. One year, reserve officer's program. The point is that even someone like me learns to use all the basic tools available. It'd be something else for an N7 operative with weapons specialization.

Gatt9 wrote...

Special Forces doesn't inherently imply that they're godlike wielders of all weapons. There are many different flavors of SF, more than a few of which aren't sharpshooters. Given the high degree of computer integration today, you'd have to be certifiably insane not to have computer guys who can hack anything, but can't shoot for crap in your special forces. It's a fast way to make your entire division irrelevant, because seriously, who cares how well trained your special forces are when all it takes is 20 year old encryption and a couple minor doors to stop them?

In Finnish special forces (again, not the best in the world), reconnaissance and sissi troops every team member learns to use every weapon the team uses, even when they all have their own specialization. During my time I was told this is common practise all around the world, though I can't confirm that.

Also, let's not forget that Shepard's not just any soldier, but probably the most elite N7 operative in the galaxy. Shepard should probably be able to use the sights on a sniper rifle from the beginning when playing as a pure soldier.

[Jaron Oberyn]

Sirsmirkalot wrote...

Forget about the RPG elements for a second, the blue hud is back!

I'm with you there. ;)That's the original Mass Effect theme, it's what made the first one so good! Well part of it... I couldn't really stand that cerberus orange in ME2. 


-Polite

[FlyingWalrus]

Aedolon wrote...

Finnish. It's not the best in the world.

I've got two words for you:

Simo Hayha.

That said, there is not a single member of any special forces regiment in any military in any nation in the world that cannot use several weapons and their own two hands with extreme combat proficiency. Specializations like marksmanship, communications and hacking are secondary and often handled by other specialists who are not necessarily in the special forces themselves.

[AlanC9]

Aedolon wrote...
I think my stance on diplomacy comes largely from P&P RPGs. In those games it's pretty crazy if you can't do something because your character doesn't comprehend something that's perfectly obvious to you. Within our group, practical problem-solving and diplomacy was the player's, not the character's, responsibility.

Well, it can be done in a system that's organized around it. I'm thinking of games like GURPS or Hero System where psychological limits are part of character design. You don't tend to see a lot of stupid PCs in those systems, but you'll often get various types of irrationality.

But I guess that's not really the same thing -- it's not that the character doesn't see the solution, it's that he refuses to utilize that solution.

[CannonO]

Sirsmirkalot wrote...

Forget about the RPG elements for a second, the blue hud is back!

I am at ease for a moment. :happy:

[Mr. MannlyMan]

Sirsmirkalot wrote...

Forget about the RPG elements for a second, the blue hud is back!

Bask in it's warm, glowing, warming glow!

[MrFob]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Sirsmirkalot wrote...

Forget about the RPG elements for a second, the blue hud is back!

I'm with you there. ;)That's the original Mass Effect theme, it's what made the first one so good! Well part of it... I couldn't really stand that cerberus orange in ME2. 


-Polite

Wholeheartedly agree!!!
Blue hud FTW!

On topic: While from a numerical point of view the RPG elements got reduced in ME2, I thought the classes played much more uniquely and the powers that we had were well balanced (which from a gameplay perspective is the most important aspect IMO).
There were issues with the skill point system (+ the level cap) and the cooldown in ME2 but I hope they get addressed.
I thought the main part where ME2 got reduced to a disappointing degree was the inventory and the customisation options for armour weapons and squad mates.
At least in terms of weapons BW seems to do something about it but it will be interesting to see what we can expect in regard to armour and squad mates.
Just my 2 cents right there.

[rt604]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

Well hopefully RT you're using the Upgrades on said weapons which DO provide a noticeable increase in damage dealing and you COULD use the same weapon from beginning to end, but in reality the beginning weapons get upgraded pretty swiftly, although you may find you like the way a certain weapon handles more than others.

Which is just fine with me. Because for the life of me I just do not like the Revenant or the Claymore... despite they're high rate of fire and damage dealing capabilities

I do upgrade, and I love using the Revenant.  I like having to kill at least two or three targets without having to take cover and reload.  Especially with the right power combinations, I may be able to take out half a dozen personnel in the blink of an eye in insanity, as long as my shields and health can hold up for more than 2 seconds.  I like to play soldier class as a tank that just shreds the enemy. A spectre carries the fire power of a platoon and in ME1 with my soldier I felt like a tank even on insanity, which was pretty awesome playing through the game.

[fchopin]

If Bioware want my money they will have to add more rpg elements.

Giving me hundreds of dlc's free incentive to preorder will have no influence.

My money is yours all you have to do is whistle.

[Lumikki]

Gatt9 wrote...

Special Forces doesn't inherently imply that they're godlike wielders of all weapons.

I would not be so sure about it. The requirement what you need to pass to even get in Special Force type of training is extreme high. So, they aren't just some gifted people in one area, they are gifted in many areas, they are best of the best. Point been, just to be good at something, doesn't mean you even get in in SF.

Sure, inside the SF training they can also specialize to something, but that doesn't mean they aren't better than most of us even those other areas.

Point been you could be best sniper in hole world, but that doesn't mean you can even get inside SF training.

Modifié par Lumikki, 21 juin 2011 - 12:31 .

[KenKenpachi]

AlanC9 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...
Special Forces doesn't inherently imply that they're godlike wielders of all weapons.  There are many different flavors of SF,  more than a few of which aren't sharpshooters.  Given the high degree of computer integration today,  you'd have to be certifiably insane not to have computer guys who can hack anything,  but can't shoot for crap in your special forces.  

Huh? Who says the hackers would have to be in the Special Forces themselves? You'd just cross-attach them to the SF unit from EW or wherever the hell they are in the organization.

Pft thats what high explosives are for, they make all of your problems go away.  And no hackers or tech support roles are rarely if ever in combat postings, So far the only major military with a credable "hacker force" is China. And they tend to stay in a Special Police Building. In the US Predator operators tend to be litterally dozens if not 100's of miles away. In fact computer technology while heavily in use is not as wide spread or intergrated as you would expect.

Most orders for instance still come by radio exchange and paper. The Military overall globally either lacks the technological know how, or the wisdom to keep few things on the internet, or at least system that can be reached by it. Given the wide arrary of ECM and jamming technologies as well as hackers. And most systems tend to work off of secure comm singles. In effect short of pay orders and other administrative functions short of the common **** up, very few things of signifficance is on such.

Think of the recent raid of the Bin Laden compound the US SEALs captured and brought the computer back, where weeks have been spent going over it by tech experts. In fact most military and terrorist orginizations don't put **** of value on a computer short of what you can't find on the net or in someones face book, as security demands well **** like thats not taken likely. You will never hack the US DoD and find a file path to launch our nukes for instance. And most military installations count on pissed off guards with automatic weapons rather than hitech locks to keep things in place. For instance the local national guard armory which has considerable stock piles of small arms and supplies has no electronic systems at all guarding it, so much as several deadbolt locks, and a couple of armed men.

Besides if hackers were needed which they arn't in that reguard as well...short of civil use the net doesn't have that big of an impact (yes yes yes global net trade is about 500 billion. Thing is global offline trade is in the dozens of tirillions) that if you needed one, you can just use a wireless interface port, and via satalite transmission allow a remote hack. Thing is Militaries across the globe that are worth mentioning have ways of shutting it down, or would have a kill switch in place anyways. Plus given most Generals globally are rather oldmen, short of in weapons guidance systems they are generally not for a wired force. For example while the M1A2 MBT may be able to share battle with the CP or other M1's this system is not reachable by a hacker. Plus the tank can be cut off from the singles.

The Way ME's warfare is handled isn't anything like current forces, and the best analog would be the 16th century with ships giving a broadside. In fact shepards means of ducking is a good way to get killed. But its a game and has more in line with a movie, where a swav 100 pound asian chick can fire a gun half her weight with one hand and hack a computer systems. It doesn't happen period. And most of the women who do make it into combat roles, look more like the marine chick from Aliens.


Anyways on topic, it seems the RPG features are coming back in a decent way. Short of ME'1's still but hey thats fine with me.

[SalsaDMA]

javierabegazo wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Chewin3 wrote...

Damn the one who says there's no RPG elements in ME3.

Additions to the combat engine does not equal rpg elements.

Damn me as much as you like, cause I don't believe in the "damnation" thing anyway.

So an increase in character ability customization does not equal RPG Elements?

When the customization ability is purely in how the character fights, then no. Such a thing could as easily be classified a tactical squad game element, a stratege game element, a shooter element and so on.

It's like claiming the ability to choose between different car setups in a driving game (ie. "car customizatino") is a "rpg element", which I hopefully think we can agree it isn't.

[SalsaDMA]

Gatt9 wrote...

Aedolon wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

Soldiers aren't trained in the use of every single weapon type. It is not at all unrealistic to believe that Shepherd wouldn't know how to use shotguns or sniper rifles, especially since you generally have to qualify before they give you a sniper rifle in most militaries, it's kinda pointless to train you with it if you suck at shooting.

Now, that's just not true.

I'm just a conscript (reconnaissance), and I've been trained with pistols, submachine guns, assault rifles, sniper rifles, machine guns, AA machine guns, recoilless rifles, knives, grenades and various kinds of AP and AV mines and improvised explosives. I missed shotguns because I was ill at the time.

Shepard is N7 operative. That's special forces combined with the highest available training.

I'm pretty sure Shepard should be pretty good with any weapon available.

Which military are you in?  I'm going to guess Canadian,  and since I know that Canada's is regarded as the best trained military in the world I won't call shennagins here.

That said,  I'm also getting the impression from your post that trained may mean "Brief introduction to",  which is decidely different from being able to effectively handle those weapons in a combat situation,  versus rigorous training.  I can shoot pistols,  rifles,  assault rifles,  SMG's, and sniper rifles...on a firing range.  But a pistol and an SMG is about the only ones I could effectively use in combat,  I'd be far less effective with the rest,  even though I know how to shoot them.

Special Forces doesn't inherently imply that they're godlike wielders of all weapons.  There are many different flavors of SF,  more than a few of which aren't sharpshooters.  Given the high degree of computer integration today,  you'd have to be certifiably insane not to have computer guys who can hack anything,  but can't shoot for crap in your special forces.  It's a fast way to make your entire division irrelevant,  because seriously,  who cares how well trained your special forces are when all it takes is 20 year old encryption and a couple minor doors to stop them?

I just want to my 2 cents here.

In my training as armored infantry I learned to use an assault rifle and a disposable anti-armor launcher.
Aside learning assault rifle, however, I was introduced to LMG, SMG, Pistol and re-usable anti-armor launchers.

There's a vast difference between the weapons I got introduced to, and the ones I got trained in, and even there the training I received in Assault Rifle far outweighed the training I received in the disposable anti-armor launcher.
The weapons I got introduced to, I tried firing with at a firing range, and maybe carrying them around on some of our tours.
The ones I learned to use, though, I got used to fire more at the firing range, I learned to disamble the crap and re-asemble it, in order to fix simple jams or malfunctions, and got the sights and settings of my assigned weapon custom-fitted to my build in order to maximize effectiveness.

Me picking up my own AR or one of my colleagues would certainly produce quite a different capability than if/when I picked up the LMG or one of the other weapons. And that's even considered that as a "Rifle" in my group I was supposed to swap in on any of the heavy weapons if one of the guys using those got incapitated.

[SalsaDMA]

AlanC9 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...
Special Forces doesn't inherently imply that they're godlike wielders of all weapons.  There are many different flavors of SF,  more than a few of which aren't sharpshooters.  Given the high degree of computer integration today,  you'd have to be certifiably insane not to have computer guys who can hack anything,  but can't shoot for crap in your special forces.  

Huh? Who says the hackers would have to be in the Special Forces themselves? You'd just cross-attach them to the SF unit from EW or wherever the hell they are in the organization.

Shepard is N7, irregardless wether he is an engineer (hacker), adept, or whatever.

[Bozorgmehr]

SalsaDMA wrote...

When the customization ability is purely in how the character fights, then no. Such a thing could as easily be classified a tactical squad game element, a stratege game element, a shooter element and so on.

It's like claiming the ability to choose between different car setups in a driving game (ie. "car customizatino") is a "rpg element", which I hopefully think we can agree it isn't.

Can you explain what 'rpg' means? What options / features make a rpg (and which don't)?

Most people label stuff that allows them to customize characters to be 'rpg ish' - I'm playing Shogun Total War 2 atm, and the devs added skill-trees to characters, which allows the players to 'level up' spies, assassins, generals etc and pick specific skills/bonuses so players can customize em the way they want to. Every single review calls that feature an rpg-element - just saying

[Siven80]

So we've all seen the recent pics of some companions and their armor. Casey Hudson has recently tweeted a response to those pics too:

Casey Hudson
Also lots of questions about
Ashley. We've only showed her in a jacket outfit & its CE variant.
She will also have full armor and helmet.

Ok this is a wild guess, but is it possible that the companions may have a light, medium and heavy armor options as part of the increased RPG elements?

We've seen Ashely in light armor (Which i like) and Casey says she will also have full armor. Kaiden is shown in medium or possibly heavy armor yet his class is typically lightly armoured.

Could be a good option, each armor class having a bonus to some area of combat and abilities, alongside the visual change.

Thoughts?

Modifié par Siven80, 05 juillet 2011 - 07:26 .