3223 réponses à ce sujet

[JKoopman]

Nyoka wrote...

Inventory should be implemented if it makes sense with the story, not simply because it's what a certain genre should have for its own sake. For instance it's logical for the lone wanderer in Fallout 3 to have an inventory: you're in a waste land trying to survive and you have to use whatever is available to eat, improvise weapons, etc.

Now about ME, Shepard could take useful items such as mods, credits, resources, heavy weapon ammo, even merc "underground" weapons the Alliance doesn't use, like the Carnifex. But why would Shepard pick up some blue suns armor, given she and her squad already have their own armor? Why would she pick a weapon she already has? There's an armory in the Normandy, she doesn't need to repair the gun or anything.

Shepard is a high ranking military officer with sponsors and official providers, I don't understand why she would behave like the lone wanderer.

Then it seems like your complaint is about Shepard collecting redundant weapons and armor, not against an inventory system as a whole. Again, you seem to be looking at is as "This is how ME1 did inventory and loot and it made little sense, therefor inventory and loot in Mass Effect makes little sense." You yourself have admitted that things like weapon upgrades, weapon and armor mods, ammunition types, credits, resources and perhaps even things like omni-tool and implant modifictions and upgrades would make perfect sense for Shepard to salvage from downed enemies. Obviously loot and an inventory could work in the context of the Mass Effect universe.

And yes, in a Role-Playing Game, things like loot, inventory, stats, etc are somewhat important. All games have some aspect of role-playing to them. For example, in Doom you play the role of a space marine fighting demons on Mars, and in Super Mario Bros you play the role of an Italian plumber in a magical land trying to rescue his love interest from an evil monster. If it's immersive, it's role-playing. When it comes to the RPG genre, what defines it and differentiates it from "role-playing" in other genres is a certain set of expected mechanics, of which inventory, loot, stats, etc are a part. Without them, what do you really have aside from an action game with a branching story (which has been done before in action games)? Would you call a game a Shooter if it had no guns in it? So why would you call a game an RPG if it has no inventory, loot or stats?

Modifié par JKoopman, 17 juillet 2011 - 03:08 .

[PnXMarcin1PL]

olymind1 wrote...

in ME2 the citadell felt like an office building instead of a giantic space station, even omega felt larger.

when finished me2 i went back to anderson, maybe now he has something to say about the reapers or the council, if i got proof about them, but nothing.

after ME1 there was a huge expectation about the sequel: the reapers are real, and they are coming, we have to prepare, and in ME2 there was nothing about that, like a side story or ME1.5 or an expansion. like an anime with fillers, which almost have nothing in common with the main storyline.

at least nothing we could make sense of it right now.

Would you want to fight Reapers with Collectors helping them and other bull**** going on between other species in the galaxy ? i just want simple anwser, yes or no

Modifié par PnXMarcin1PL, 17 juillet 2011 - 03:12 .

[Someone With Mass]

ME2 and the small parts of what we've seen of ME3 have already made the inventory in ME1 obsolete by replacing it with a more accessible and manageable version, so I don't see the point in bringing loot back in the same form as it was in ME1.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 17 juillet 2011 - 03:12 .

[DPSSOC]

One thing I missed in DA2 and ME2 were non-combat stats/skills. I mean part of what made ME1 interesting to me was that Shep couldn't do everything, it greatly helped with immersion that my Sheps with absolutely no tech skills couldn't hack terminals or open locks. I liked that the game acknowledged that persuasion/intimidation is a learned skill coloured by your personality and reputation not a direct product of it. Now I'm not advocating a return to real old school D&D where you had skills for everything except scratching yourself, but lock picking, hacking, persuasion, etc. abilities with non-combat application that still contribute to gameplay would be nice.

[Lumikki]

JKoopman wrote...

Obviously loot and an inventory could work in the context of the Mass Effect universe.

It's there allready in all Mass Effect games, just little different forms and quantities.

So why would you call a game an RPG if it has no inventory, loot or stats?

Because role-playing isn't about stats, inventories or loot, they are TOOL's for role-playing and can be design many different ways to provide same functionality.

Modifié par Lumikki, 17 juillet 2011 - 04:18 .

[uv23]

I'd love to see a classic grid inventory system. I've always found them to be the most satisfying and realistic, and I give giant kudos to Eidos for implementing it in the new Deus Ex.

[EternalPink]

Lumikki wrote...

It's not about taught how to role-play, but game is design to be role-played. If player doesn't know how to role-play then it's fine, it doesn't matter. But should we design game just based fun and not role-playing, then hole genre as Role-Playing Game (RPG) is lost. It's like someone can't drive car so we should design car game where is no car driving, because some people can't drive cars?

There are methods and businesses that teach you how to drive a car which is why most adults can drive cars, although from my personal experience my friends who didn't learn to drive always beat me in car driving games whether its on a console or in a arcade with a steering wheel and motion simulator so from my experience having the pre-knowledge (how to drive a car in real life) is actually a handicap especially when realism is reduced so that gear changes are done for you or you can smash into a wall and keep on driving.

So they've taken the fun part of driving and ignored/removed the unfun part, car driving games aren't my thing but one of my friends absolutely loves blur and has told me its very popular, after watching him play it i can say that it has almost nothing in common with driving in real life other than the vehicles have 4 wheels and look like cars.

If the player doesn't know how to role play where can they learn to do this? again for the sake of arguement i'm pretending its a learnable skill rather than what i believe which is that its an act of imagination.

If the game is designed to be role played yet there are no ways for new gamers to learn this pre-knowledge of "how to role play" then yes i'd say the genre is dead but I don't believe role playing is an abstract part of the game that runs alongside game play or combat, they combine together to give you the gaming experience.

[Someone With Mass]

If they want to give back the non-combat tech skills, that's fine, but don't make them pointless by giving the squadmates the exact same skills.

I never had to worry about tech locks in ME1, because I always had Tali and/or Liara with me. Not to mention the omni-gel.

Heh, I didn't even know what the UI for the mini-games looked like until my third playthrough of ME1, because I just used omni-gel on everything.

[In Exile]

JKoopman wrote...
Most people arguing in favor of ME1's systems aren't advocating for a return to them axactly as they were. We want (and wanted) them fixed. Instead, BioWare just gutted them and left us feeling like we were playing a generic action game with a Choose Your Own Adventure slant.

There's no way to fix ME1 without deleting it and starting from scratch. You can't polish a turd into something else. 

[Lumikki]

EternalPink wrote...

If the player doesn't know how to role play where can they learn to do this? again for the sake of arguement i'm pretending its a learnable skill rather than what i believe which is that its an act of imagination.

If the game is designed to be role played yet there are no ways for new gamers to learn this pre-knowledge of "how to role play" then yes i'd say the genre is dead but I don't believe role playing is an abstract part of the game that runs alongside game play or combat, they combine together to give you the gaming experience.

First everyone knows how to role-play, even children. But how good you are in role-playing, is other question. Also it can also be learned, same way actors learn they profession.

Yes, RPG's are bigger experience than just role-playing. My point has been that role-playing is the main point of RPG's. Also other point has been that role-playing can be arrived many ways in RPG's, not just some pre-define mechanical structure. 

[In Exile]

Lumikki wrote...
Example TPS combat is direct acting, so no need for characters stats, because it's players own skill related. Little like some movie actor is acting role. It's still role-playing, because role-playing is taking role of character as be in character. Some people say, if you do it your self, it's not role-playing, but it requires character stats to do it. They are wrong. It's like when movie actor is him self or acting the role. It's still same person, but the difference is playing the role.  

You do have character stats in a TPS.

What do you think defines movement speed, or accuracy, or how fast bullets kill, or how long you can live?

All of these are essentially stats, in the RPG sense; they're just all under the hood, and the UI requires active input for the player to work. 

What people really mean when they say character stats is a visible and accesible pool that they can change over time, and a UI that is as independent from reflex as possible. 

[olymind1]

PnXMarcin1PL wrote...

olymind1 wrote...

in ME2 the citadell felt like an office building instead of a giantic space station, even omega felt larger.

when finished me2 i went back to anderson, maybe now he has something to say about the reapers or the council, if i got proof about them, but nothing.

after ME1 there was a huge expectation about the sequel: the reapers are real, and they are coming, we have to prepare, and in ME2 there was nothing about that, like a side story or ME1.5 or an expansion. like an anime with fillers, which almost have nothing in common with the main storyline.

at least nothing we could make sense of it right now.

Would you want to fight Reapers with Collectors helping them and other bull**** going on between other species in the galaxy ? i just want simple anwser, yes or no

simple answer: NO

IIRC in ME1 there were no reference to the collectors whatsoever so in ME2 they were just an expansion to the story, for the sake of has to be something new. alright i get that the Mass Effect universe is a big one, or could be, so they expanded it.

BUT if BioWare would decided to continue ME1 storyline in ME2 with the reaper-thread, they could wrote an amazing story around the "basics" which was already laid out, there was already a lot of intresting spiecies, technology, and enough conflict, they could use them if they wanted.

[Lumikki]

In Exile wrote...

You do have character stats in a TPS.

What do you think defines movement speed, or accuracy, or how fast bullets kill, or how long you can live?

All of these are essentially stats, in the RPG sense; they're just all under the hood, and the UI requires active input for the player to work. 

What people really mean when they say character stats is a visible and accesible pool that they can change over time, and a UI that is as independent from reflex as possible. 

Weapon stats aren't same as character stats. Itmes can have they own stats like character can too. Character stats are something what change with character progression, like character powers. Yep, we mean those visible stats like you sayed..

Modifié par Lumikki, 17 juillet 2011 - 03:33 .

[In Exile]

Lumikki wrote...
Weapon stats aren't same as character stats. Character stats are something what change with character progression, like character powers. Yep, we mean those visible stats like you sayed..

Do you think people would say a D&D module at level 1 that lacks XP to level up to level 2 is not an RPG?

That's what all non-RPG video-games are like (except for sports games). 

[Lumikki]

In Exile wrote...

Lumikki wrote...
Weapon stats aren't same as character stats. Character stats are something what change with character progression, like character powers. Yep, we mean those visible stats like you sayed..

Do you think people would say a D&D module at level 1 that lacks XP to level up to level 2 is not an RPG?

That's what all non-RPG video-games are like (except for sports games).

Sorry, I don't understand what you say.

[AlanC9]

JKoopman wrote...
ME1's inventory and Mako sequences may have been done poorly, but that hardly makes inventory, loot and exploration "pointless crap" in an RPG.

Absolutely. That didn't make the features pointless crap -- they would have been pointless crap even if done well.

More seriously, the ME1 implementation isn't really relevant when discussing the features a game should have and why it should have them.

And yes, in a Role-Playing Game, things like loot, inventory, stats, etc are somewhat important. All games have some aspect of role-playing to them. For example, in Doom you play the role of a space marine fighting demons on Mars, and in Super Mario Bros you play the role of an Italian plumber in a magical land trying to rescue his love interest from an evil monster. If it's immersive, it's role-playing. When it comes to the RPG genre, what defines it and differentiates it from "role-playing" in other genres is a certain set of expected mechanics, of which inventory, loot, stats, etc are a part. Without them, what do you really have aside from an action game with a branching story (which has been done before in action games)? Would you call a game a Shooter if it had no guns in it? So why would you call a game an RPG if it has no inventory, loot or stats?

This seems to be an argument that RPG genre traditions should be included ... just because they're making an RPG. Kind of circular, no? It's OK to want those things just because you like them, but exactly what force is this argument supposed to have for someone who doesn't already want those things himself?

I've played RPGs without loot, RPGs without stats, and RPGs without leveling; I don't think I've ever seen an RPG without at least one of these features, but you certainly don't need all of them.

Note that an ME1 player on NG+ with a maxed character is already playing a game without loot, stats, and levelling.

[AlanC9]

Lumikki wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Lumikki wrote...
Weapon stats aren't same as character stats. Character stats are something what change with character progression, like character powers. Yep, we mean those visible stats like you sayed..

Do you think people would say a D&D module at level 1 that lacks XP to level up to level 2 is not an RPG?

That's what all non-RPG video-games are like (except for sports games).

Sorry, I don't understand what you say.

That in the short term in a D&D game there is no character progression. Does the game stop being an RPG for that time?

[EternalPink]

Lumikki wrote...

In Exile wrote...

You do have character stats in a TPS.

What do you think defines movement speed, or accuracy, or how fast bullets kill, or how long you can live?

All of these are essentially stats, in the RPG sense; they're just all under the hood, and the UI requires active input for the player to work. 

What people really mean when they say character stats is a visible and accesible pool that they can change over time, and a UI that is as independent from reflex as possible. 

Weapon stats aren't same as character stats. Itmes can have they own stats like character can too. Character stats are something what change with character progression, like character powers. Yep, we mean those visible stats like you sayed..

A group of friends i have do vampire role play, they have character sheets but they do not use dice or anything like that, they decided they would each decide on a character trait for there vampire and since we all know vampires are meant to be very hard to kill and very strong the person that picked strength as there character trait (so among a group who already have super human strength he is noticabley stronger than them) can be known for being strong without adding a numerical value to his strength.

But because they've chosen not use numerical values its not role play?

[Lumikki]

AlanC9 wrote...

That in the short term in a D&D game there is no character progression. Does the game stop being an RPG for that time?

You can still role-play even without character progression. Still not sure what's the point?
Is it needed for RPG, it isn't. Is character progression usually content in RPG's, yes they are.
It's more statical gameplay goal than role-playing related. Of course many role-playing game stories, player character does "grow" up, so character progression does serve it's purpose there, even in role-playing perspective.

Modifié par Lumikki, 17 juillet 2011 - 03:47 .

[In Exile]

Lumikki wrote...
You can still role-play even without character progression. Still not sure what's the point?

In terms of stats, a TPS and an RPG with no lv ups are identical on the stats side. 

It's the UI that differs at that point.

Is it needed for RPG, it isn't. Is character progression usually content in RPG's, yes they are.
It's more gameplay goal than role-playing related. Of course many role-playing stories, player character does "grow" up, so character progression does serve it's purpose there, even in role-playing perspective.

But in some characters don't grow (e.g. DA:O, and arguably ME1-ME2) and still there are stats.

[Lumikki]

In Exile wrote...

Lumikki wrote...
You can still role-play even without character progression. Still not sure what's the point?

In terms of stats, a TPS and an RPG with no lv ups are identical on the stats side. 

It's the UI that differs at that point.

Is it needed for RPG, it isn't. Is character progression usually content in RPG's, yes they are.
It's more gameplay goal than role-playing related. Of course many role-playing stories, player character does "grow" up, so character progression does serve it's purpose there, even in role-playing perspective.

But in some characters don't grow (e.g. DA:O, and arguably ME1-ME2) and still there are stats.

Okey, now I get the point.

Yeah, ME serie does't need strong character progression at all, because way Shepards story is. Basicly hole point of character progression is just to give RPG's players some content what they use to have. It's statical gameplay content, but it also provides some customation as define character.

[SalsaDMA]

PnXMarcin1PL wrote...

olymind1 wrote...

in ME2 the citadell felt like an office building instead of a giantic space station, even omega felt larger.

when finished me2 i went back to anderson, maybe now he has something to say about the reapers or the council, if i got proof about them, but nothing.

after ME1 there was a huge expectation about the sequel: the reapers are real, and they are coming, we have to prepare, and in ME2 there was nothing about that, like a side story or ME1.5 or an expansion. like an anime with fillers, which almost have nothing in common with the main storyline.

at least nothing we could make sense of it right now.

Would you want to fight Reapers with Collectors helping them and other bull**** going on between other species in the galaxy ? i just want simple anwser, yes or no

Considered the collecters 'fleet' consisted of a single ship that could get blown up by an oversized frigate, I wouldn't really feel intimidated by the collectors as an addition to the reapers in an open fight.

The collectors relied wholly on being able to pick off straggling colonies while nobody else was around or keeping an eye out on the colony.

[Sidney]

In the end demands for loot, character progression and other things really limit the genre.

Example, take a game that takes place over the course of a single "event. I use movies like the Big Sleep as an example, 1940's America so there are no magic items and magic weapons no magic armor. What at that point is the point of looting? You can't carry 20 guns and there's no healing potions so what inventory management do you do? The movie takes place over several days not months so does the kind of character progression we see in most games makes no sense.

By so many definitions you lose the ability to set characters into different sorts of stories both temporally but also in terms of realism.

[Sidney]

SalsaDMA wrote...
Considered the collecters 'fleet' consisted of a single ship that could get blown up by an oversized frigate, I wouldn't really feel intimidated by the collectors as an addition to the reapers in an open fight.

The collectors relied wholly on being able to pick off straggling colonies while nobody else was around or keeping an eye out on the colony.

The Collectors had bigger plans obviously (the human reaper) and you have to figure (I hope) that the effect of breaking the collectors was important because their role as precursers to the invasion was playing a major role otherwise why would they be doing anything.

In the end, and I made this comparison before, the Collectors are to the Reapers what Saurumon was to Sauron.