378 réponses à ce sujet

[nhsk]

I'm not saying it is the best part, but I do really like meddling around with every little aspect of my character and those that follow me.

Heck I would be pleased if customizing armor for companions was completely optional. If armors for squad mates didn't come with any stats, just looks. Then people could either ignore it or put everyone in their favourite outfit (looks wise).

Modifié par nhsk, 28 juin 2011 - 08:10 .

[MrGone]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

nhsk wrote...
snip

ME1 was a lot easier than ME2....

Also, people consider a lot of older games to be "harder" because they were frustrating in terms of interface, balance, and pointless complexity.  Games now are certainly shorter and made to be beaten, but that doesn't necessarily make them "easier."  Looking for a magic button for hours due to respawning enemies, clumsy map function, and poorly designed UI is not hard, it's annoying.

I'm sick of these "dumbing down" threads.  What does that even mean?  Making a better interface?  Improved combat mechanics and controls?  All I care about is that the damn game is fun and well designed.  

Was reading first page . . . but had to respond to this.

Specifically "pointless complexity".

I'll sede that games were plenty frustrating due to general lack of knowledge on how to make things accessible, but to complain that they were "pointlessly" complex? What are you even referring to?

 Complexity has little to do with difficulty. If someone wants complexity, they can get it in a way that's hard to understand or easy. X-Wing for example had complexity that definitely made it harder. Ogre Battle was probably just as complex, but it wasn't what made that challenging.

I prefer complexity personally. I like there to be a lot of little systems for me to tinker with/analyze/understand.

"Games now are certainly shorter and made to be beaten, but that doesn't necessarily make them "easier." "

Actually yes, that is EXACTLY what it means. Older games tried to beat the player, as a result they were hard. Newer games try to let the player beat them as a result they are easier. If you break it along that axis . . . it's pretty obvious.


Also I'm sick and tired of people claiming that they don't want their games to be hard. Especially on a forum for wht is all things considered and ACTION GAME.

BULL CHEESE!

If a person didn't want a challenge at all, they'd go watch a movie. People play games to be challenged in one degree or another, it really is a part of the fun.

The thing is though, everyone has different tolerances and preferences on this scale. You may not want MUCH of a challenge, but you want SOME. Other people prefer more, and there will always be disagreement on this score, but to say that you want none is to either be naive or dense (perhaps willfully).

If you're really just looking for a non challenging interactive way to kill time - masturbate, don't play a game.

[Rockworm503]

What I have learned dumbing down is a phrase people use when they're not smart enough to see what it is exactly they don't like about something.
"its dumbing down because umm the shooting is better and more fun"

[Tamahome560]

Is this a joke thread? Cause it ain't funny....

[nhsk]

Rockworm503 wrote...

What I have learned dumbing down is a phrase people use when they're not smart enough to see what it is exactly they don't like about something.
"its dumbing down because umm the shooting is better and more fun"

Yes that is exactly it...*facepalm*

I do like the shooting part of ME2 better than ME1, but why should it come at the expense of being able to customize my teammates to the same effort I was able to in 1?

[littlezack]

I was under the impression that most games came with varying difficulties to facilitate those who want added challenge and those who do not.

Also, I have a different theory for why games were so much harder back in the 'good old days'. In earlier generations, games were, typically, quite short affairs. Not a hard and fast rule, but on the whole, if games like, say, Super Mario Bros. or Legend of Zelda or whatever were easy to beat, you could do so relatively quickly. Giving games like that a steep learning curve was a way of lengthening them.

These days, though, we can make a much longer game without having to make the player become a prowess.Games are, in general, longer than they were before - and it's genuine length. That's just the way the tech and times have evolved. Does that make gamers today lazy? Eh. Not really. Only if you believe that gaming is something that should be difficult by definition, which is a silly way of looking at it. Different people want different things from different games. Gaming is becoming a more casual thing - like it or not, more people play videogames these days. As the base broadens, companies will try to appeal to a large base in order to survive. It's simple economics.

The challenge is creating a game that caters to both new fans who just want to shoot crap and experience the story and not hone their skills to perfection, and people who want to become the best. I feel Mass Effect 1 and 2 do this well, with settings that provide challenge for those who want it.

And as someone pointed out, just because ME1 had lots of customization, didn't make it difficult. Typically, you just picked the equipment with the highest stats and equipped it. It wasn't some deep, thought provoking process. You went with the best, highest numbers you had until you stumbled across something with higher numbers, then you switched.

Modifié par littlezack, 28 juin 2011 - 08:44 .

[Rockworm503]

nhsk wrote...

Rockworm503 wrote...

What I have learned dumbing down is a phrase people use when they're not smart enough to see what it is exactly they don't like about something.
"its dumbing down because umm the shooting is better and more fun"

Yes that is exactly it...*facepalm*

I do like the shooting part of ME2 better than ME1, but why should it come at the expense of being able to customize my teammates to the same effort I was able to in 1?

Explain to me 99.9% useless loot in the entire game = customization?

Modifié par Rockworm503, 28 juin 2011 - 08:50 .

[nhsk]

Rockworm503 wrote...

Ignoring my inventory didn't sound like good RPG to me

Well, when people can whine about not having enough options in the romance category... Well, I can whine about this. Which to the nerd part of me, is a good deal of the game.

But let us agree to disagree, because I'm getting tired of the discussion and quite sadly I'm convinced people like you won, so I have to find other games.

[nhsk]

Rockworm503 wrote...

Explain to me 99.9% useless loot in the entire game = customization?

I liked being able to equip my team in the same looking armor, like it or not.

I ain't saying it was executed very well in ME1, but in ME2 it wasn't optimized, it was just gone.

[Massadonious1]

nhsk wrote...
 I have to find other games.

Or you could just organize your closet instead.

[Terror_K]

Rockworm503 wrote...

What I have learned dumbing down is a phrase people use when they're not smart enough to see what it is exactly they don't like about something.
"its dumbing down because umm the shooting is better and more fun"

You miss the point. Entirely and utterly.

Aside from the fact that whether the shooting is "better and more fun" is completely subjective and a point of view, ME2's main issues didn't stem from the fact that they improved the shooting, but because they oversimplified and/or culled almost everything else. If the shooting had just been improved and the inventory made just a tad less cumbersome than it was in ME1, things would have been fine. Instead they turned ME2 into "Fisher Price: My First RPG" and kicked most of the statistical RPG factors to the curb in favour of oversimplification so that today's modern gamer wouldn't have a chance in hell of getting confused or being cut off from "the action" for more than they wanted to.

If anything "dumbing down" is not the phrase that masks another more accurate term, but in fact "dumbing down" is the more accurate term that phrases such as "streamlined", "broadening the audience/appeal" and "more accessible" masks instead. Because almost any time a developer uses these terms I find myself disappointed with whatever game they're talking about when it comes out, and find that a once good series seems to have been wailed on by the "herp derp!" stick just so Joe Gamer isn't scratching his head and furrowing his brow.

[Rockworm503]

Don't we have games like Diablo and such that cator to the looters? If what your looking for is a game that gives you items then go play that honestly I didn't miss the Inventory in 2.

[Rockworm503]

Terror_K wrote...

Rockworm503 wrote...

What I have learned dumbing down is a phrase people use when they're not smart enough to see what it is exactly they don't like about something.
"its dumbing down because umm the shooting is better and more fun"

You miss the point. Entirely and utterly.

Aside from the fact that whether the shooting is "better and more fun" is completely subjective and a point of view, ME2's main issues didn't stem from the fact that they improved the shooting, but because they oversimplified and/or culled almost everything else. If the shooting had just been improved and the inventory made just a tad less cumbersome than it was in ME1, things would have been fine. Instead they turned ME2 into "Fisher Price: My First RPG" and kicked most of the statistical RPG factors to the curb in favour of oversimplification so that today's modern gamer wouldn't have a chance in hell of getting confused or being cut off from "the action" for more than they wanted to.

If anything "dumbing down" is not the phrase that masks another more accurate term, but in fact "dumbing down" is the more accurate term that phrases such as "streamlined", "broadening the audience/appeal" and "more accessible" masks instead. Because almost any time a developer uses these terms I find myself disappointed with whatever game they're talking about when it comes out, and find that a once good series seems to have been wailed on by the "herp derp!" stick just so Joe Gamer isn't scratching his head and furrowing his brow.

Thank you for proving me right "the way I play games is the smart way therefore you are stupid for disagreeing"

[Terror_K]

Rockworm503 wrote...

Thank you for proving me right "the way I play games is the smart way therefore you are stupid for disagreeing"

Thanks for proving me right: you just don't get it.

[littlezack]

I'd also like to point out, once again, that most games, even the tough ones, don't require you to be a genius. More often than not, difficulty comes from taking the time to get a game's mechanics down to a science. Not everybody wants to spend that time. That doesn't make them dumb.

[Shockwave81]

Designers can't win...

Gamers want their skills etc to 'mean something', now I'm no expert, but as far as I know, the ONLY way that this can be made into something 'tangible' in a gaming sense is to show those skills etc in effect. For example, an ability that picks up one enemy at an early level, is capable of picking up multiple enemies when it is upgraded. The main issue here is that the game will get easier as it goes on, perhaps with boss fights picking up the slack. End result: Gamers are disappointed that the challenge has been reduced dramatically by the end of the game.

To address this, the designers must either build enemy resistances parallel to (or in excess of) the improvements in the ability, or make the improvements so utterly and minutely incremental, that one can barely perceive the difference - it could even be a combination of both. End result: Gamers are left feeling like the upgrade process has been pointless and is unrewarding.

In order for these upgrades to mean something else, they probably need to be demonstrable both in and out of combat. For instance, an in-game cut-scene shows Shepard (or one of his crew), using an ability to attack an enemy squad - the effectiveness of the ability could potentially alter the direction of the story at that moment. BioWare touched on this with the SR2 upgrades in ME2, but I believe it could be taken a little further. Unfortunately multiple permutations are possible (and desirable) with this method, and again, gamers won't be happy if their chosen ability doesn't get center stage...

As for RPG elements, I don't know. I get to play as a variety of protagonists, and enjoy taking part in what I believe is a satisfying game universe - that's my definition of 'role-playing'. I don't need stat and inventory management to complete that experience, but as long as it's there to add some depth, I'll be fine with that.

I give up - I just want to play Mass Effect 3 and be done with these forums!! Although I'll probably be back to vent about or praise the final product as/when necessary.

Modifié par Shockwave81, 28 juin 2011 - 09:11 .

[Bnol]

Terror_K wrote...

Rockworm503 wrote...

What I have learned dumbing down is a phrase people use when they're not smart enough to see what it is exactly they don't like about something.
"its dumbing down because umm the shooting is better and more fun"

You miss the point. Entirely and utterly.

Aside from the fact that whether the shooting is "better and more fun" is completely subjective and a point of view, ME2's main issues didn't stem from the fact that they improved the shooting, but because they oversimplified and/or culled almost everything else. If the shooting had just been improved and the inventory made just a tad less cumbersome than it was in ME1, things would have been fine. Instead they turned ME2 into "Fisher Price: My First RPG" and kicked most of the statistical RPG factors to the curb in favour of oversimplification so that today's modern gamer wouldn't have a chance in hell of getting confused or being cut off from "the action" for more than they wanted to.

If anything "dumbing down" is not the phrase that masks another more accurate term, but in fact "dumbing down" is the more accurate term that phrases such as "streamlined", "broadening the audience/appeal" and "more accessible" masks instead. Because almost any time a developer uses these terms I find myself disappointed with whatever game they're talking about when it comes out, and find that a once good series seems to have been wailed on by the "herp derp!" stick just so Joe Gamer isn't scratching his head and furrowing his brow.

Not sure that you can argue that the shooting mechanics were not improved in ME2, sure you can argue the combat as a whole was worse, but the shooting and control of the character in that environment was improved.  I just don't see how the ME1 inventory system was hard or intellectual.  You look at the numbers and see that oh look this gun has higher damage or shots before overheat, lets pick this one.  Then you get the Spectre gear and vendor or omni-gel all the other weapons. 

Every weapon within a weapon-type played the same in ME1, with minimal difference other than the pure damage.  ME2 weapons actually had significant accuracy differences, ammo capacities, rate of fire, and damage differences.  You actually had some reason to choose different weapons, and to tailor your weapon loadout to your playstyle.  You also had a reason to utilize different weapons for different situations instead of just using the one gun you put skill points (and upgrades) into.  It terms of improving the inventory I think they attempted to improve it in ME2, but really failed in terms of the upgrade system being so linear.  This is something they are fixing in ME3 with the weapon modifications. 

I did miss the separate CDs of ME1 especially with my adept and vanguard, and think they could have had more of a balance between ME1 and ME2 skill use in terms of a short GCD and not a CD the length of the ability used.  This is especially true with the Soldier becoming a one-button class in ME2.  So I think a bit of complexity was lost there, but then again it put more emphasis on each GCD used.  I just don't buy that ME3 is just going to cater to the lowest denominator.

[exskeeny]

maybe the game isn't dumbing down, maybe we're all just getting cleverer.

[Gunderic]

Gatt9 wrote...

javierabegazo wrote...

gogman25 wrote...

Many people have suspected this and even though many fears have been laid to rest, I still remain skeptical.
For example, compare the combat trailer for Mass Effect 3 (Explosions, rock music, not really any dialogue, all action, no real interaction) to the Mass Effect 2 Launch Trailer (Epic space opera, endurance, determination, courage, love, romance).

Maybe it's just me but if these trailers are saying anything I think we've got Gears of War Commander Shepard edition.

L. O. L.


This is exactly what people said about ME2 pre launch.

They were right.

This is all that needs to be said, really.

[Gunderic]

nhsk wrote...

Rockworm503 wrote...

Explain to me 99.9% useless loot in the entire game = customization?

I liked being able to equip my team in the same looking armor, like it or not.

I ain't saying it was executed very well in ME1, but in ME2 it wasn't optimized, it was just gone.

Agreed. Apparently the supported school of thought here is to 'fix' features that aren't implemented properly by removing them, which is in perfect sync with what BioWare has been trying to accomplish as of late. :happy:

Modifié par Gunderic, 28 juin 2011 - 10:02 .

[Gunderic]

Rockworm503 wrote...

Don't we have games like Diablo and such that cator to the looters? If what your looking for is a game that gives you items then go play that honestly I didn't miss the Inventory in 2.

Well, kudos to BioWare, I guess. The day has come when, on the official forums of the very company that gave us Baldur's Gate/NWN/KOTOR, you are advised by fans to play Diablo for a heavier RPG experience.

Modifié par Gunderic, 28 juin 2011 - 10:12 .

[Massadonious1]

Or you could just play pen and paper games if your general idea of an "RPG" is arbitrary numbers and bloated inventory systems.

[Hydralisk]

gogman25 wrote...

squee365 wrote...

The launch trailer for ME2 was created 7 days before the game was out...ME2's E3 trailer was nothing but action and crappy rock music just like ME3's E3 trailer... E3 always leaves a bad taste in people's mouth. Its just the way things are. Wait till we see the launch trailer for ME3, it will probably go for the same aesthetic that ME2's did.

I hate when people get super worried over the same s*** thats been happening for so long now.

With the recent direction of Bioware I am worried, let's take a look.

SWTOR - Apparently it works alot like WoW, it's another WoW clone seemingly.
Dragon Age 2 - Nuff' said.
Mass Effect 2 - Quite a bit of dumbing down there.

WoW is still much more complexe then the majority of console game fyi. :innocent:

[Hydralisk]

13Dannyboy13 wrote...

Sadly that's the way many games are heading, these ADD kids with 5 minute attention spans needing their hand held through every single part of the game is ruining any hope of getting some real challenging games. Even little things become more noticeable, for example I remember playing ME1 where you would have to plan your character to maximize the points you got, and I really didn't mind sitting down for a few minutes figuring out how my character would look at level 60. ME2 was fun, but it had that dumbed down feel to it, much more shooter than rpg, the only decision about leveling was which skills to max first.
Same thing with Dragon Age, I still enjoy playing origins, planning a character, (or using a modded character for fun). The more I heard about DA2, the more worried I became, nevermind how fast it came out after origins, but the lack of choosing other races, a lot less skills, really, the same direction as ME2 took. I was quite disappointed with DA2, it looked nicer, but that's about it, if I wanted button mashing I'd play a hack and slash game, not to mention the feel of many corners being cut to rush it out. (Anyone else completely sick of the same dam dungeon/cave for 90% of the game?)
Overall games seem to be getting dumbed down to appeal to a broader market, I can understand that, but I find myself missing the old days when you actually had to think to finish a game, games that left you stuck trying to figure things out by yourself, there was a much greater sense of accomplishment when finishing those games. These days, I'm lucky to not get sick of a game before I'm finished it, there's really no challenge to most games, and way too much hand holding.

ADD doesn't mean you can't concentrate on anything, you just find it very hard to concentrate on things you find boring.

[Bnol]

Gunderic wrote...

nhsk wrote...

Rockworm503 wrote...

Explain to me 99.9% useless loot in the entire game = customization?

I liked being able to equip my team in the same looking armor, like it or not.

I ain't saying it was executed very well in ME1, but in ME2 it wasn't optimized, it was just gone.

Agreed. Apparently the supported school of thought here is to 'fix' features that aren't implemented properly by removing them, which is in perfect sync with what BioWare has been trying to accomplish as of late. :happy:

Well the choice is always where to spend development time.  Certainly you can fix features, or you can decide it isn't worth the payoff to do it and go another route.  They felt that the team dress-up wasn't worth the time.  I mean the inventory system did a lot of harm to the balance, the pace and the tedium of the game.  I mean with so much to adjust it makes sense that you just scrap it altogether and start anew.