378 réponses à ce sujet

[Terror_K]

People keep saying that RPG inventories "aren't complicated/complex" and "don't take a genius" to understand and use, but we're not the ones you should be telling this. You should be telling the gamers out there that act like they are, not those of us that know they aren't but like them and lament them having to go because they're treated like rocket science and are putting off these gamers.

It's like whenever it's stated that "it's unfair, arrogant and elitist to call shooter players dumb/stupid/ignorant, etc." when the fact of the matter is that despite the truth to said statements that is really is perhaps unfair, arrogant and elitist to make such claims, such statements are fairly commonplace for a reason and the stereotype exists for a reason too. Not all Star Trek fans are nerds, but that doesn't automatically mean that none of them are or that they're even rare. Similarly not all big shooter fans are shallow morons who only like over-the-top mindless violence and want their games as simple as possible, but that also doesn't mean there are none that are or that they're rare.

Simply put: no, many of these factors aren't really that complex or deep all the time, and weren't necessarily in ME1. But that doesn't mean that there weren't a bunch of gamers out there who find they are and are put off by them because they prefer their games simple. The reason they're perceived as such isn't because they necessarily are but because they're seen as such by a large portion of the very audience BioWare seem to want to bring into the fray. They've said so themselves many times over the past couple of years or so: that they want to branch out and start appealing to people who normally wouldn't touch RPGs.

As a final statement, I'd like to state that I don't believe that all gamers who don't like these RPG factors and are put off by them are dumb necessarily. Perhaps they just prefer simplicity in their games and just want things kept simple. Perhaps they just don't find them fun when gaming. But this basic attitude of an overall distaste for RPG elements and complexity is putting across the notion that because they want things simpler, they think simpler and are simpler. It's not necessarily true, but sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. I can honestly say that as somebody who works in a games store that the average type of person who buys a CoD, Gears or Halo title is often rather different of that from somebody who buys an RPG or strategy game, but there is still a good mix overall.

In either case, I don't see why all games these days have to try and meet this same perfect middle-ground to appeal to as many as possible. What happened to "different strokes for different folks?"

Modifié par Terror_K, 28 juin 2011 - 01:13 .

[Massadonious1]

Undertone wrote...
removing something doesn't equal to fixing it. 

It is when it would of been pretty much the same. Any inventory system without an crafting component is pretty much identical. Collect items. Sell/trash items. Use items with bigger stats. Rinse. Repeat.

Modifié par Massadonious1, 28 juin 2011 - 01:12 .

[Lumikki]

Undertone wrote...

Sure gameplay and graphics are important but the most important substance of a game are it's story and characters.

I disagree. Most important than anyting is that all aspect of game is well done. if any of the aspect is lacking, it will hurt the total impression of the game.

[Someone With Mass]

Undertone wrote...
I've argued my points countless times only to get the same responce - "too complex, redundant, glad it's taken out" or something of that regard. As I said to the previous guy - removing something doesn't equal to fixing it.

They made the inventory obsolete in ME2 and are working on a much better replacement in ME3. I don't see where the problem is. 

But if you want me to judge the whole game because of the lack of some inventory system that quite frankly was just a waste of everyone's time in the first game, since there was nothing good nor complicated about it, then fine.

[Il Divo]

Undertone wrote...

I've argued my points countless times only to get the same responce - "too complex, redundant, glad it's taken out" or something of that regard. As I said to the previous guy - removing something doesn't equal to fixing it.

If the "feature" is bad enough, removing it is a perfectly viable option of fixing the game, especially if the feature doesn't add anything extra to the experience. 

[Terror_K]

Il Divo wrote...

Undertone wrote...

I've argued my points countless times only to get the same responce - "too complex, redundant, glad it's taken out" or something of that regard. As I said to the previous guy - removing something doesn't equal to fixing it.

If the "feature" is bad enough, removing it is a perfectly viable option of fixing the game, especially if the feature doesn't add anything extra to the experience. 

That's a matter of opinion though. For every person who says, "glad it's gone, it added nothing for me" there's at least another person who says, "where did X go?! I missed it and loved it, and felt it really added to the experience."

[Whatever42]

Terror_K wrote...

It's like whenever it's stated that "it's unfair, arrogant and elitist to call shooter players dumb/stupid/ignorant, etc." when the fact of the matter is that despite the truth to said statements that is really is perhaps unfair, arrogant and elitist to make such claims, such statements are fairly commonplace for a reason and the stereotype exists for a reason too.

What you seem to be missing is that the people you're debating are RPG fans, not shooter fans. I've played CRPG games since the goldbox series. I've played BG, BG2, Fallout, Fallout 2, NWN, Torment, KotoR, Morrowind, Obilivion, Witcher, Witcher 2, DAO, and so many others that I can't possibly remember them all. And I'm no different than most of the other people that you dismiss as shooter players.

Exclusive shooter players do not play this game - at least not many - probably because of the lack of multiplayer and competitive play. 

I do understand that you don't appreciate the RPG/shooter hybrid as Bioware as made it. And I won't call you inflexible, faux-elitist dinasaur if you don't try to call us all shooters.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 28 juin 2011 - 01:17 .

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

In either case, I don't see why all games these days have to try and meet this same perfect middle-ground to appeal to as many as possible. What happened to "different strokes for different folks?"

Answer to this is simple, why there is so many comedy based TV-series and hardly any horror TV-series?

Modifié par Lumikki, 28 juin 2011 - 02:35 .

[Massadonious1]

Gunderic wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

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

no u.

I bow to your superior wit.

And yes, I realize the irony, and no, it's not the same.

Modifié par Massadonious1, 28 juin 2011 - 01:24 .

[Undertone]

Il Divo wrote...

Undertone wrote...

I've argued my points countless times only to get the same responce - "too complex, redundant, glad it's taken out" or something of that regard. As I said to the previous guy - removing something doesn't equal to fixing it.

If the "feature" is bad enough, removing it is a perfectly viable option of fixing the game, especially if the feature doesn't add anything extra to the experience. 

Since a bunch of you gave me the same/similar comment I'll reply to all of you with this one.

The inventory promoted exploration (ops another thing taken out of ME1) and going out of your way or out of the main story to look and maybe find something cool hidden somewhere. Provided choice what to give your squad and what equipment to use. Had merchants, going through different items, searching for weapon treaties on the planets and so on.

The only thing bad about it was that you had to remove items you don't need one by one or you didn't have an option to immediately destroy items below a certain class without you bothering. That's it.

In ME2 there's no such thing as exploration and no such thing as inventory. Go to Omega buy everything from the trade guy and he doesn't sell anything new. What's the point of ever returning to Omega again? Yada yada, I can keep going on about but honestly I think I'm wasting my breath.

As for the Mako, same thing - with very few adjustments it would have been fixed.

Honestly it's the same crap as ME3 being the best place for new players to start. Really? You said the same thing about ME2 and I lol-ed back then but now I lol-ed even harder.

Modifié par Undertone, 28 juin 2011 - 01:26 .

[Undertone]

I always find it really weird how people think are so awesome and funny when they insert pictures instead of actual reply.

[Massadonious1]

Undertone wrote...
The inventory promoted exploration 

It promotes about as much exploration as the lottery promotes making money.

[Gunderic]

Rockworm503 wrote...

Gunderic wrote...

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.

No one has yet explained to me how pointless loot management = a good RPG.  I never said Diablo was a better RPG experience I was just referring to the fact that if you honestly think that grabbing lewtz is what you want out of it than its probably right up your ally.
Don't twist my words around.  It seems anything anyone says is an excuse to badmouth Bioware to you.

Equipping and customizing your character is a key aspect of roleplaying games. It is not the single main reason for which I'd have any desire to play Mass Effect 3; were it so, I'd have already picked up one of many dungeon crawlers to spend my time with, as you suggested -- that is exactly the opposite of what I want from a BioWare game, and I've seen no one make the claim that they want Mass Effect 3 to be anything close to as repetitive as a dungeon crawler (though admittedly, I've missed a good chunk of the replies here ) -- in fact, BioWare games have more than enough 'filler' encounters as it is -- or that "pointless loot management" would fairy-zap an unremarkable game into a "good RPG", but again, I might've missed something. I believe some measure of looting equipment is an important core feature of roleplaying games to have.


If you truly wish to argue why we should keep roleplaying elements that were there at the start of a hybrid genre series to begin with because "they're not the main attraction" or "the game won't totally collapse without them", well, then the reason behind such 'outrage' from the "Angry CRPG nerds" who always complain about games getting "dumbed down" should be made pretty self-evident, if you'd reflect on this line of reasoning for a moment.

Modifié par Gunderic, 28 juin 2011 - 01:34 .

[littlezack]

In ME2 there's no such thing as exploration and no such thing as inventory. Go to Omega buy everything from the trade guy and he doesn't sell anything new. What's the point of ever returning to Omega again? Yada yada, I can keep going on about but honestly I think I'm wasting my breath.



There wasn't any exploring in ME1, honestly. You landed on a planet, found the things on the map that were mapped, check them out and then went back up. That's not really 'exploring'....heck, there was nothing to explore. Each planet you could land on was, basically the same thing. Sure, you could drive around the enviroments all you like, but you wouldn't find anything of real interest, if you found anything at all. It was just barren terrain.

Modifié par littlezack, 28 juin 2011 - 01:36 .

[Undertone]

Massadonious1 wrote...

Undertone wrote...
The inventory promoted exploration 

It promotes about as much exploration as the lottery promotes making money.

Uhm what?

Arcian wrote...

Undertone wrote...

I always
find it really weird how people think are so awesome and funny when they
insert pictures instead of actual reply.

Hello, you must be new here. Welcome to the Internet!

And that contradicts my point how?

Modifié par Undertone, 28 juin 2011 - 01:36 .

[Phaedon]

Terror_K wrote...
It's like whenever it's stated that "it's unfair, arrogant and elitist to call shooter players dumb/stupid/ignorant, etc." when the fact of the matter is that despite the truth to said statements that is really is perhaps unfair, arrogant and elitist to make such claims, such statements are fairly commonplace for a reason and the stereotype exists for a reason too

"Stereotypes exist for a reason."

It's nothing sort of sad and disturbing to see a person capable of producing a full sentence to claim that openly in the 21st century.

"X social group are stereotypically considered as criminals, so a lot of them must be!"

Stereotypes exist because of elitists/racists/people with discriminatory attitude. To claim that one has a high chance of being dumb because of being a part of a group (that is. guess what, different than another group), or that the group itself is dumb based on a stereotype is dumb, stupid and ignorant.

Modifié par Phaedon, 28 juin 2011 - 01:37 .

[Someone With Mass]

No exploration in ME2? Then what do you call the side missions with the crashed ships or the Prothean beacons?

Or is exploration = driving aimlessly on the same generic deserted planet in the Mako for fifteen minutes to find stuff marked out on the map that you don't really need beyond the XP you get for finding them?

Exploration = The action of traveling in or through an unfamiliar area in order to learn about it.

So ME2 had quite a lot of exploration once you think about it.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 28 juin 2011 - 01:43 .

[Undertone]

Phaedon wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
It's like whenever it's stated that "it's unfair, arrogant and elitist to call shooter players dumb/stupid/ignorant, etc." when the fact of the matter is that despite the truth to said statements that is really is perhaps unfair, arrogant and elitist to make such claims, such statements are fairly commonplace for a reason and the stereotype exists for a reason too

"Stereotypes exist for a reason."

It's nothing sort of sad and disturbing to see a person capable of producing a full sentence to claim that openly in the 21st century.

"X social group are stereotypically considered as criminals, so a lot of them must be!"

Stereotypes exist because of elitists/racists/people with discriminatory attitude. To claim that one has a high chance of being dumb because of being a part of a group (that is. guess what, different than another group), or that the group itself is dumb based on a stereotype is dumb, stupid and ignorant.

People act so high and mighty. Everyone has stereotypes, you have stereotypes. So please cut the act and don't pretend you don't.

[jtsherrard]

gogman25 wrote...

Captain_Obvious wrote...

gogman25 wrote...

I never insulted anyone nor did I intend to, simply put the features are being simplified for a wider audience. If people were dumb for playing shooters... well... what game series are we discussing?
No, im not opposed to a game being 'simple', im opposed to a game being stripped of complexity in an attempt to gain more sales and failing.

Then why didn't you write "over-simplified to appeal to a wider audience" instead of "dumbing down"?  Or "why the lack of complexity in the trailer"? 

Because dumbing down is a well known phrase amongst gamers, and asking why the lack of complexity would be pointless as the answer to that is obvious.

Wouldnt that mean, you are dumbing down your words to further allow people to understand you so you can draw more attention to your point? Isnt that the same thing that they do at these E3 showings when they want to help people understand how cool their game is by using showing us the universal sign of awesome, explosions and rock music? In my opinion which isnt probably worth much to you, they showed us plenty at E3 to convey that it looks good and can only get better. Theres still about 8 months left until its on shelves, play the game or not, theres plenty of games that can challenge your mind to the extent you are seemingly hoping for. I hear Sudoku is fun.

Modifié par jtsherrard, 28 juin 2011 - 01:39 .

[Terror_K]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

What you seem to be missing is that the people you're debating are RPG fans, not shooter fans. I've played CRPG games since the goldbox series. I've played BG, BG2, Fallout, Fallout 2, NWN, Torment, KotoR, Morrowind, Obilivion, Witcher, Witcher 2, DAO, and so many others that I can't possibly remember them all. And I'm no different than most of the other people that you dismiss as shooter players.

I think you've taken what I've said the wrong way. I'm not talking so much about the people here on the forums as I am about the entire gaming public as a whole and the way BioWare are going about designing their games lately. The fact is that because this is the official ME and BioWare forums there are far more hardcore fans and far more RPG fans here than there would be in general. This place is skewed towards that somewhat.

Exclusive shooter players do not play this game - at least not many - probably because of the lack of multiplayer and competitive play.

I'm not so sure. I'm not sure how I can put this without offending somebody or coming across as a bit of a dick... but... let me just say to put it as vaguely and indirectly as possible, that the BioWare forums aren't quite the same as they used to be. Compared to, say, the old forums. And that this was only something I noticed around the time of E3 that was hyping up ME2 and going on about the shooter elements, combat, etc.

All in all I don't think the Mass Effect fanbase is quite as tight and similarly-minded as it once was. BioWare branched out more with ME2 and it's brought in more fans as a result. And these fans are not ones that really share my personal opinions of the games or gaming in general.

I do understand that you don't appreciate the RPG/shooter hybrid as Bioware as made it. And I won't call you inflexible, faux-elitist dinasaur if you don't try to call us all shooters.

I appreciated it fine with ME1, for the most part. ME2 I just felt went too far. ME3 looks like a better balance from what I've seen, although I'm still sceptical on quite a few aspects. It certainly looks better than ME2 was for RPG elements, even if it's likely not going to be quite as close to ME1 as I'd like. In either case, I don't think everybody who disagrees with me is "a shooter" by any means. I reserve my judgement not for the act of disagreeing with me, but the way that it's done. There are plenty of people here I respect and even admire who almost never agree with me because they are clearly intelligent, mature people. They usually confuse the hell out of me admittedly, but that doesn't change the aforementioned fact.

[Undertone]

Someone With Mass wrote...

No exploration in ME2? Then what do you call the side missions with the crashed ships or the Prothean beacons?

Or is exploration = driving aimlessly on the same generic deserted planet in the Mako for fifteen minutes to find stuff marked out on the map that you don't really need beyond the XP you get for finding them?

Exploration = The action of traveling in or through an unfamiliar area in order to learn about it.

So ME2 had quite of exploration once you think about it.

I don't think you and I have the same concept of exploration in mind. I don't cound loading another generic level and walking through it for few mins as exploration.

[Massadonious1]

Undertone wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

Undertone wrote...
The inventory promoted exploration 

It promotes about as much exploration as the lottery promotes making money.

Uhm what?

Not every container/locker was a winner in terms of an upgrade. Most of it was Snowblind Rounds IX or something else you already had 9 of.

Same goes for lottery tickets. I could win $500, but I'm more than likely going to walk away with bupkis.

[Phaedon]

I won't even go start picking apart every single argument in this thread.

I think that the topic itself is not worthy of being anything that looked down upon.

I just have this to say:
ME2 had loot and it did have an inventory.

What it didn't have was randomized loot: Guns, upgrades, research, minerals, armour parts etc.

And it also didn't have a centralized inventory:
Weapon Selection component ------> Weapon Selection Screen
Upgrades -----> Lab Terminal
??? -----> Other Upgrades
Squad Armour micromanagement -----> ???