3223 réponses à ce sujet

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

I think in terms of Mass Effect 1's handling of stats, inventory and the like, that's really a case of poor implementation as opposed to being a bad concept altogether.

[Terror_K]

sbvera13 wrote...

Agreed 10x.  Boredom kills a game for me far more quickly then inconvenience.

Exactly. ME1 may have cumbersome mechanics that try your patience, but whenever I start a new game I almost always find myself playing right through from start to finish within a week or two, never going to another game between sessions. With ME2 I always find myself getting bored with the game part the way in and find myself struggling to finish a playthrough, often dipping into other games now and then instead, because every playthrough just feels the same to me.

The only playthroughs in ME2 I've got through the whole game without interruption were the first time I ever played it and the time I took my main canon Shepard through after Kasumi first came out. The only times I didn't go through the original all in one go was with my completely neutral Shepard who had no charm or intimidate because his decisions ended up being so bland, and the time my old graphics card blew up on me early this year (and as soon as it was replaced one of the first things I played was ME1 whereby I finished that Shepard).

[AlanC9]

Terror_K wrote...
What you say is all very well and has a good deal of logic to it, but aside from the often ignored fact that the ME1 way of doing things is not the only way of doing things, I honestly can't see how anybody can find a system whereby you have such a small amount of items that are in the same place every playthrough and can't be tweaked or upgraded beyond a linear, on-the-rails, autopilot research/upgrade system to be satisfying, let alone good or even acceptable.

For me, it's because I don't find interacting with such a system to be interesting in the first place.

Anyway, whether you understand others' tastes isn't really relevant to anything, is it?

[sbvera13]

Terror_K wrote...

Exactly. ME1 may have cumbersome mechanics that try your patience, but whenever I start a new game I almost always find myself playing right through from start to finish within a week or two, never going to another game between sessions. With ME2 I always find myself getting bored with the game part the way in and find myself struggling to finish a playthrough, often dipping into other games now and then instead, because every playthrough just feels the same to me.

The only playthroughs in ME2 I've got through the whole game without interruption were the first time I ever played it and the time I took my main canon Shepard through after Kasumi first came out. The only times I didn't go through the original all in one go was with my completely neutral Shepard who had no charm or intimidate because his decisions ended up being so bland, and the time my old graphics card blew up on me early this year (and as soon as it was replaced one of the first things I played was ME1 whereby I finished that Shepard).

Great minds think alike.  The first time I played ME1, I dove straingt into another playthrough and did it in about 6 hours (just the minimums, obviously) just so I could see the cinematics and hear the dialogue again.  I still have my very first Shep save game- flawed decisions, incompleted assignments and imperfect facial choices and all.  It's MY Shep.  She's close to my heart.  Was the first one I important into ME2 and will be the first one into ME3.   I listened to my squads advice, evaluated the options, and made the best decisions I could... but the council still died.  It had to be done though, what with Sovereign about to anhillihate galactic civilization, it was no time to risk resources.  That decisions hangs like a weight over everything she's tried to do since.

Never, ever before did I have a game draw me in like that.  ME1 played like a game, but you experienced it like a movie.  It was glorious.  I wish I could play it for the first time again.

[Massadonious1]

mrcrusty wrote...

I think in terms of Mass Effect 1's handling of stats, inventory and the like, that's really a case of poor implementation as opposed to being a bad concept altogether.

Probably, but in terms of something like an inventory, unless there was an actual use for one (like a crafting system) then I think the end result of all future games would of been the same.

I'm fine with stripping something when leaving something similar in would of only been less of an inconvience instead of an actual improvement.

Modifié par Massadonious1, 01 juillet 2011 - 04:27 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

sbvera13 wrote...

Great minds think alike.  The first time I played ME1, I dove straingt into another playthrough and did it in about 6 hours (just the minimums, obviously) just so I could see the cinematics and hear the dialogue again.  I still have my very first Shep save game- flawed decisions, incompleted assignments and imperfect facial choices and all.  It's MY Shep.  She's close to my heart.  Was the first one I important into ME2 and will be the first one into ME3.   I listened to my squads advice, evaluated the options, and made the best decisions I could... but the council still died.  It had to be done though, what with Sovereign about to anhillihate galactic civilization, it was no time to risk resources.  That decisions hangs like a weight over everything she's tried to do since.

Never, ever before did I have a game draw me in like that.  ME1 played like a game, but you experienced it like a movie.  It was glorious.  I wish I could play it for the first time again.

I think I felt that way about KotOR the first time I played it.

Massadonious1 wrote...

Probably, but in terms of something like an inventory, unless there was an actual use for one (like a crafting system) then I think the end result of all future games would of been the same.

I'm fine with stripping something when leaving something similar in would of only been less of an inconvience instead of an actual improvement.

To a point, I agree. But I think the way they're approaching Mass Effect 3 shows that stripping it like in Mass Effect 2 was un-necessary.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 01 juillet 2011 - 04:33 .

[sbvera13]

Kotor was almost as good, but the hard and obvious Light/Dark side choices pulled me out of the character. The R/P of ME1 was much closer to polite/rude rather then good/evil, so it flowed much better for me. Still sank many, many fulfilling hours into Kotor and TSL though.

[Terror_K]

AlanC9 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
What you say is all very well and has a good deal of logic to it, but aside from the often ignored fact that the ME1 way of doing things is not the only way of doing things, I honestly can't see how anybody can find a system whereby you have such a small amount of items that are in the same place every playthrough and can't be tweaked or upgraded beyond a linear, on-the-rails, autopilot research/upgrade system to be satisfying, let alone good or even acceptable.

For me, it's because I don't find interacting with such a system to be interesting in the first place.

Anyway, whether you understand others' tastes isn't really relevant to anything, is it?

Sounds to me like you don't really want to be playing RPGs at all then, and would simply prefer something like an Adventure game, interactive movie, or story-driven action game instead. And if that's the case, what you're essentially asking of ME3 is for it to be something that it was not originally intended to be.

[Mann42]

Terror_K wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
What you say is all very well and has a good deal of logic to it, but aside from the often ignored fact that the ME1 way of doing things is not the only way of doing things, I honestly can't see how anybody can find a system whereby you have such a small amount of items that are in the same place every playthrough and can't be tweaked or upgraded beyond a linear, on-the-rails, autopilot research/upgrade system to be satisfying, let alone good or even acceptable.

For me, it's because I don't find interacting with such a system to be interesting in the first place.

Anyway, whether you understand others' tastes isn't really relevant to anything, is it?

Sounds to me like you don't really want to be playing RPGs at all then, and would simply prefer something like an Adventure game, interactive movie, or story-driven action game instead. And if that's the case, what you're essentially asking of ME3 is for it to be something that it was not originally intended to be.

Actually, some of us just want to play Mass Effect 3. The one that Casey Hudson is talking about. The game being talked about in the OP. That's why I'm here on Bioware's site. Because they're making the game, and I Iove what they've done with Mass Effect 1, the direction they went in Mass Effect 2, and what they're apparently doing in Mass Effect 3. 

A bunch of people on this site, including yourself, seem to want to play a different game. And that's cool, but many of us aren't asking for anything other than for Bioware to make the game they want to. You're the one that seems to think they're going to make something else.

What you think they intended doesn't matter. What matters is what they do and say, and they certainly aren't making the game you want. 

Modifié par nexworks, 01 juillet 2011 - 04:44 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

I think there should be some interaction with the system, particularly in character creation but at the end of the day, you'd want your character to interact with the game world, whether that be through the narrative, exploration, diverse gameplay elements, combat, etc.

Interaction with the system only becomes important if it affects the gameplay. For example, why have stats if it doesn't change anything about the character?

What older RPGs did was integrate the character system so well that it defines how the characters interact with the gameworld.

Depending on the way your character interacts with the game world, they progress through the narratives differently and become more proficient at different things. This is where choice/consequence and character progression comes in.

Now, equipment customisation and the whole loot concept does fall into that, but it only becomes important if it has a tangible affect on gameplay. In Mass Effect 1's case, it didn't, not really. So you were left with too much work without a real reward for doing so. Interacting with the system, but not seeing it affect the gameplay.

It feels like time wasted, as opposed to time well spent. Hence, tedium.

Of course, you get the inverse case like in Diablo where the looting and equipment management aspect was essentially a primary gameplay element. That's not all that enjoyable (to me), either. Puts too much focus on metagaming and equipment, whereas the primary focus ought to be on character. IMO.

Now, Mass Effect 3 seems to be hitting a decent balance in this area. Heavy customisation with noticeable impacts on gameplay, without forcing players to rely on grinding or metagaming.

<Insert a New Vegas did this aspect decently as well comment>

Modifié par mrcrusty, 01 juillet 2011 - 04:54 .

[Gunderic]

Terror_K wrote...

Sometimes it kind of feels like that episode of The Simpsons where they went to Australia and Marge was asking the bartender for coffee, but he kept acting like she was asking for beer, no matter how much she indicated otherwise:

ME: I want more RPG elements.
DEV: So richer story, characters and narrative, with real choices and consequences.
ME: Well, yeah. But what I meant was more statistical stuff and better customisation. I mean the actual mechanics and ruleset of the roleplaying system, etc.
DEV: So richer story, characters and narrative, with real choices and consequences.
ME: No. Statistical, mechanical stuff.
DEV: Story, choices and consequences.
ME: Stats.
DEV: Narrative.
ME: S. T...
DEV: N. A...

Great analogy. 

[sbvera13]

Salarian Games Salesmen: "They don't make roleplaying games like the used to. These days, it's all 'big choices' and 'visceral combat.' I miss those old games, where you had to remember to drink water, and it took 5 hours real time to fly somewhere!"

Modifié par sbvera13, 01 juillet 2011 - 04:52 .

[Darth_Ravor]

Role Playing is not about loot and stats, that has absolutely nothing to do with it at all. RP games are games that have unique stories that can be manipulated by the player so that there can be a different story for each player. So all you people who are mad at BW are haters.

[The Spamming Troll]

sbvera13 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Exactly. ME1 may have cumbersome mechanics that try your patience, but whenever I start a new game I almost always find myself playing right through from start to finish within a week or two, never going to another game between sessions. With ME2 I always find myself getting bored with the game part the way in and find myself struggling to finish a playthrough, often dipping into other games now and then instead, because every playthrough just feels the same to me.

The only playthroughs in ME2 I've got through the whole game without interruption were the first time I ever played it and the time I took my main canon Shepard through after Kasumi first came out. The only times I didn't go through the original all in one go was with my completely neutral Shepard who had no charm or intimidate because his decisions ended up being so bland, and the time my old graphics card blew up on me early this year (and as soon as it was replaced one of the first things I played was ME1 whereby I finished that Shepard).

Great minds think alike.  The first time I played ME1, I dove straingt into another playthrough and did it in about 6 hours (just the minimums, obviously) just so I could see the cinematics and hear the dialogue again.  I still have my very first Shep save game- flawed decisions, incompleted assignments and imperfect facial choices and all.  It's MY Shep.  She's close to my heart.  Was the first one I important into ME2 and will be the first one into ME3.   I listened to my squads advice, evaluated the options, and made the best decisions I could... but the council still died.  It had to be done though, what with Sovereign about to anhillihate galactic civilization, it was no time to risk resources.  That decisions hangs like a weight over everything she's tried to do since.

Never, ever before did I have a game draw me in like that.  ME1 played like a game, but you experienced it like a movie.  It was glorious.  I wish I could play it for the first time again.

sometimes its easy to get into so many arguments in this forum because of the huge direction change bioware took with the series. everyone has their own impression of what ME should be and theres angles in every direction. i really couldnt put ME1 on a higher pedestal. literally, the best possible experience i could have imagined having in a video game.

its safe to say ME1 was one of my most favorite lifetime expreiences. but more importantly, ME2 was one of the most disappointing things in my life. and im not saying thats because im pathectic and all i have are video games. im a pretty kick ass dude. how can i really compare a video game, to having loved and lost, and life and death? its weird but its definitely not a lie.

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 01 juillet 2011 - 04:56 .

[Morroian]

Terror_K wrote...

Let's also not forget a certain other recent BioWare RPG where during the development fans were constantly on at the devs about them not liking the way it went RPG-wise when it came to hardcore, statistical RPG elements, only for the devs to constantly go, "this is better for the game, your concerns are unfounded, this is still going to be a strong RPG and waaaay better than the original" and then when the game finally released fans went, "we were right the first time! This sucks!" and BioWare had to admit after a couple of months that they done fudged up.

You all know the game I mean.

What? DA2 which still had statistical rpg elements?

Gatt9 wrote...

Bioware can do what they want.  They did with Dragon Age 2,  and it did incredibly well.  Err,  wait,  it barely sold 1 million units and they had to give away another game just to get people to buy it,  after slashing the price heavily.

You're understating its sales but anyway.......... If your point is it didn't do so well because of the elements it changed from DAO explain the success of ME2.

Modifié par Morroian, 01 juillet 2011 - 05:07 .

[Reciever80]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

Was The Matrix a bad action movie because it didn't have a car chase scene, a "staple" of the genre?

There was one in Matrix Reloaded

/trying to be an ass

I think there should definitely be numerical stats for the loot and items, however I don't think it should go to the extent that ME1 did. Or at least let me mass remove certain items from my inventory. I think I saw someone say that in ME1 you had to sort through a mountain of crap just to get to one good object. It has to flow a lot better....best way to do that I suppose is to either get item filters, or allow mass-deletion of objects. That way I don't have to confirm each deletion individually..when I have over 100 weapon mods to go through.

[dreman9999]

Terror_K wrote...

Garrison2009 wrote...

I still honestly don't understand when role playing went from actually playing as a character in a fictional world (pretending you were in someone else shoes) to, for all intended purposes, statistics management (rearranging stats and sorting through hundreds of useless items in your inventory to find one that has a better Dexterity bonus or something)...

It's actually more the other way around when it comes to cRPGs. 10 years ago there would have been no real argument as to what an RPG was on gaming forums, as games knew what they were. It's only because of the increased focus on actual roleplaying as well as story, narrative, characters and choices & consequences with more recent titles from about the KotOR-era onwards that the issue has become confused, because overall the focus of a cRPG has shifted away from stats and more towards the actual roleplaying itself and the narrative. Many of the early cRPGs barely had a story, or at least nothing great that you could truly shape: it was all fairly linear and mostly a bunch of generic quests. It was the statistical stuff that was the focus and what mattered, because that's what was dynamic about the gameplay and determined success.

It's not really a bad shift in focus, but I do feel it's gone a bit far, and we're starting to leave behind too much of the old elements and are really just becoming a stone's throw away from merely being left with games that aren't truly RPGs any more but things like interactive movies or a story-driven action games (ala Heavy Rain and the Assassin's Creed titles respectively). I think the likes of KotOR and DAO pretty much nailed the right balance personally: both were good blends of classic RPG and modern RPG (KotOR was in many ways one of the major bridges in fact).

I blame Deabilo. That darn devilish Action rpg made most people addicted to loot.

[AlanC9]

Terror_K wrote...
Sounds to me like you don't really want to be playing RPGs at all then, and would simply prefer something like an Adventure game, interactive movie, or story-driven action game instead. And if that's the case, what you're essentially asking of ME3 is for it to be something that it was not originally intended to be.

It's more accurate to say that whether or not a game is a traditional CRPG is irrelevant to me. As a couple of posters have said, CRPGs went in the wrong direction, keeping mostly the bad parts of PnP RPGs. If CRPGs had descended from, say, Champions rather than D&D, the genre conventions would probably suit me much better.

And I really do mean irrelevant; I'm only hostile to traditional CRPG features when they don't fit the plot and setting. In  a Fallout game I'd want loot, shops, etc., because that's what the situation's about.

Would I prefer a different genre? Hard to say. RPGs generally deliver more of what I like in games than games of other genres. But if Bio wanted to make Grim Fandango with choices and consequences, I'd be all for it. Haven't been able to play Heavy Rain or L.A. Noire yet.

As for what ME3 was intended to be.... depends on the intent, doesn't it? I don't believe in stats and loot as being good in themselves, and neither, it seems, does Bioware.

[sbvera13]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

sometimes its easy to get into so many arguments in this forum because of the huge direction change bioware took with the series. everyone has their own impression of what ME should be and theres angles in every direction. i really couldnt put ME1 on a higher pedestal. literally, the best possible experience i could have imagined having in a video game.

its safe to say ME1 was one of my most favorite lifetime expreiences. but more importantly, ME2 was one of the most disappointing things in my life. and im not saying thats because im pathectic and all i have are video games. im a pretty kick ass dude. how can i really compare a video game, to having loved and lost, and life and death? its weird but its definitely not a lie.

I get you on that, and you shouldn't be embarrassed.  Just because gaming is a new creative medium, does not make it  meaningless or "just for kids" one.  I study theatre and creative fiction, so not only are my artistic standards high (and ME1 met them, as an aside) but I'm fully aware of the impact that great fiction can have on someone.  Shakespeare, Mark Twain, Frank Herbert are revered icons in our culture... and all they did was put a few words down.  That it's merely a play, or a book, or a video game means nothing when the art is well written, well presented, and impacts the audience.

ME1 shows what levels of art gaming is capable of.  ME2 shows how easy it is to lose that spark and sink into mere business.

[In Exile]

Terror_K wrote...
Exactly. ME1 may have cumbersome mechanics that try your patience, but whenever I start a new game I almost always find myself playing right through from start to finish within a week or two, never going to another game between sessions.

You think the barren worlds are fun (or at least a positive via your sense of immersion). That you can tolerate that, IMO, means you need to get medals. Stat.

With ME2 I always find myself getting bored with the game part the way in and find myself struggling to finish a playthrough, often dipping into other games now and then instead, because every playthrough just feels the same to me.

This is a serious question: why do you feel the gameplay in ME2 is the same, but not the Mako in ME1?

Terror_K wrote...
Sounds to me like you don't really want to
be playing RPGs at all then, and would simply prefer something like an
Adventure game, interactive movie, or story-driven action game instead.
And if that's the case, what you're essentially asking of ME3 is for it
to be something that it was not originally intended to be.

Though it might make tears of blood run from your eyes, not everyone can agree on what an RPG is.

I think a miminalist inventory with no room for any items beyond the ones that can be physically carried is the core of a proper RPG because it means a hard choice between what you can use. That's ignoring how illogcal it is to have a variance of loot as RPGs demand in the first place, because items typically do not differ on power scales like that.

People want ME3 to be exactly what it was intended to be: a shooter RPG, i.e. the combat gameplay is exclusively shooter (and shooter done right) but all other gameplay elements are RPG elements (done right).

The issues all come down to "done right".

I think the most important thing is plot reactivity, and this is what ME1 started off with. You made choices. The world acteded differently when you did (just try and do the missions in a different order!). The crew interact with each other at least a little better (you had them all in the same place at least once a mission). These are RPG elements.

[Giantdeathrobot]

 The problem with ME1's handling of stats, even beyond the tedious aspect of it described earlier, is that it made no sense at all in the story. Shepard is already a celebrated soldier, best in the Alliance Navy, Specter candidate, yadda yadda. Yet he (and even millenia-old badass Wrex) start at level 1 with the crappiest gear in the galaxy (and who manufactures series of items with exactly 10 level of performance with minor variety between them anyway?). Admitedly they also do in ME2, but the gap in numbers between levels is far less noticeable (and Shepard has the excuse of having, ya know, died), and the gear you get is above-average issue, with all the upgrades being top-of-the-line stuff.

Not only that, but the upgrades weren't even satisfying. I got a new assault rifle that does 2% more damage, yay! ooohh, I upgraded my Throw to unleash 5% more Newtons!... Compared to ME2, where getting the Vindicator means a substantial change in gameplay from the Avenger (or the Viper to the Mantis, ect), where upgrading powers gave something meaningful (slowdown on Charge, less damage taken on Adrenaline Rush, Assault Armor knocking down the opposition, ect.) and didn't just feel like your numbers needed to keep up with the enemy's numbers in order to keep playing (oh how I hate that, and how are games so damn guilty of this sometimes, pretty much made me quit Borderlands altogether). If you are going to put such elements, they must have a semblence of coherence into the story and be meaningful. The best example, imo, is the Fallout series, where you start with little health and wield little more than peashooters, yet end the game with enough toughness to shrug off mini-nukes, wearing nigh-impenetrable powered armor and brandishing weapons that can penetrate a tank in one shot. It works because of the ''nobody-to-nightmare'' structure each game has, while ME doesn't have that structure, you already are super space captain Shepard.

The end result was imo horribly clunky and just didn't fit the game (imagine Captain Kirk fiddling through the equipment of his latest victim... er foes, and turning all of it into goo in a fit of rage because none of it is 1% more accurate than his current armament? I don't, completely not in character). For all it's lack of customization and tendency to ''shooter-ize'' things too much, ME2 was to me much closer to what the series should be in terms of gameplay.

Also, since it has pretty much been proven that ME3 will feature more customization and a better character development system than both previous game's combined, on top of more gameplay variety (come over here, stealth gameplay with silent executions, I want you!) I have few worries remaining (they mostly concern the story). I will admit that caution from the folks here is pretty understandable because of DA2, but it's not the same team.

[sbvera13]

In Exile wrote...

You think the barren worlds are fun (or at least a positive via your sense of immersion). That you can tolerate that, IMO, means you need to get medals. Stat.

This is a serious question: why do you feel the gameplay in ME2 is the same, but not the Mako in ME1?

You didn't ask me specifically, but I'll offer my answer.  The short of it: it was small enough to not matter.

The long of it: on repeated playthroughs, I simply don't do the planet exploring.  There's no reason to, and a quick trip from the drop point to x building for an assignment is harmless. In the major plot missions, the terrain and hostile encounters are designed with Mako gameplay in mind, and are actually enjoyable for the short time they last.  If they were longer, of course, it would have been tedious, but driving around Feros or Therun blasting things for a few minutes is fun.

People want ME3 to be exactly what it was intended to be: a shooter RPG, i.e. the combat gameplay is exclusively shooter (and shooter done right) but all other gameplay elements are RPG elements (done right).

The issues all come down to "done right".

I agree.

Modifié par sbvera13, 01 juillet 2011 - 05:12 .

[littlezack]

Of course barren worlds are fun. Why, one of my favorite pasttimes is to get into a dune buggy and drive for hours in an empty desert, devoid of all life and signs of civilizations, bumping around and faffing about. Sometimes I even stumble on rusty old cans...of which I have dozens of already, mind you.

Fun! I mean, it's boring as all get out, but the immersion is just amazing.

Modifié par littlezack, 01 juillet 2011 - 05:12 .

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...
That's ignoring how illogcal it is to have a variance of loot as RPGs demand in the first place, because items typically do not differ on power scales like that. 

I think the problem's with progression, not the loot itself. In original Traveller, the local law and tech levels determine what you can actually use for the current adventure; you're much better off having SMG skill than Battle Dress, since you're going to get more chances to use it.. And then there's Torg, where you can only use whatever works under the local axioms. And so forth.

[Bostur]

Garrison2009 wrote...

I still honestly don't understand when role playing went from actually playing as a character in a fictional world (pretending you were in someone else shoes) to, for all intended purposes, statistics management (rearranging stats and sorting through hundreds of useless items in your inventory to find one that has a better Dexterity bonus or something)...

That happened sometimes in the 1980's when game developers imagined it could be fun to use RPG mechanics in a video game. By definition it isn't possible to roleplay solo, but the mechanics used by popular RPGs like AD&D made for interesting computer games. So a genre was born using roleplaying game mechanics in sort of an adventure game, but without the roleplaying obviously.

When people talk about roleplaying in a computer game, its more like a game of imagination, filling in the blanks. This is very much the same thing that happens when we read a book, watch a movie or listen to a piece of music. But I'll admit that some computer games give that activity another angle.

MMO's are an interesting development in this case, because they are multiplayer games. And because of the multplayer element roleplaying is now an option on the computer. And some MMOs do have strong roleplaying communities. Neverwinter Nights also tried to investigate the roleplaying potential in a video game, by making the engine multi-player capable and moddable.