3223 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

AlanC9 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
If one wishes to role play in such a manner that the character has physical abilities that are quantifiably different than the self, then stats are strictly necessary.

Sure, but those stats don't have to be variable. If the game only accepts certain kinds of PC then the system can simply assume stats. In DAO you're always playing a leader of men (and dwarves and elves and qunari). In ME you're always playing a leader and an expert physical combatant.

I'm neither of these things IRL, but in the games I play one.

I agree. But in a game where you are not allowed to change anything, there woudn't be much incentive to play. This applies both to narrative choices and equipment and stat progression dependant on the game's focus.

[Phaedon]

the_one_54321 wrote...

If one wishes to role play in such a manner that the character has physical abilities that are quantifiably different than the self, then stats are strictly necessary.

Yes and no.

No, because every human has the capability of creating a hero in their mind and creating a basic picture about them. Here you go: A dashing knight who took the nobility from his father, who, along with the rest of his family tortured and eventually murdered. Ruthless and manipulative, he will do everything to hide the facts behind the gruesome murder and achieve his own shady goals. While he is not particularly strong, he is incredibly skilled at using his sword.

See, I thought of him in a few seconds. I am sure that I could roleplay as him. He doesn't need to be described by stats, theoretically.

Yes, because when I meet another player and duel against him, the debate as to who is stronger may be complicated and I can at any point, god-mod, since there are no stat requirements to check if I can do these actions.

So, yes, some stats are necessary. it would be great to reach a point that we wouldn't need any stats, but that's rather unlikely.

But it's not as if the stats make the "game". A character, like a living being, evolves around the game's narrative, their own narrative, as well as the tough choices they'll face.

[Xaenn]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Xaenn wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
If the goal here is, as In Exile puts it, to minimise the UI's reliance upon the player's reflexes, then stats and equipment are the means left to the player to modify his character's performance.

The problem is that letting you point the gun was a deal breaker before anything else was even taken into account. Giving us a detailed and sensical loot and stats system would only make it a more interactive TPS. And making character stats dictate accuracy for weapons would just break what little progress they managed to make.

This unfortunally is an opinion, you consider it to be progress, others may consider it be moving back in progression. Just because you like something or agree with a dev doesn't make it positive progression.

When you originally try to base one mechanical function to a historically contradictory mechanical function, the only definitive direction of progress is to subsuquently unlink them or replace one with something that is not historically contradictory.

Telling the player "you must point the gun" and then making accuracy based on character stats is historically completely contradictory. And moreso, it is even objectively less effective or efficient than tradition target RPG selection.

You can point and gun and still miss, although I understand your point being that if you miss by your own hand you're doing it yourself, not stat driven.  I suppose you could conclude that the stats are attributed more to the concept of recoil and range. I don't see it overly contradicting either, as its asking you to point the gun, it's not saying it's going to hit or kill him.  Most people seem to fill in gasps or make assumptions no?

[sevach]

Just a personal opinion and background on the subject.

I've felt that ME2 moved away a bit from the RPG aspect of the game.
They took out loot and equip screen and they gave you a linear upgrade path.
They simplified the level up/talent screen (this one worked better honestly).
And they moved the gameplay more towards continuous non-stop action vs more dialog (they've also took control of the PC quite a bit), more exploration and investigation.

Of those changes, the only one that really bothers me is making the missions totally non-stop action and, taking it further, with no connection to one another or progression to the main plot.
ME 1 had a better feel of, i'm getting closer to my goal, i've learned something about my enemy, there's something fishy about this place, and even, i have to jump through hoops to get what i want.

ME2 had a very direct to the point feel to it, just shoot everyone in sight until the end of the level, and that limits roleplay opportunities imo. I hope ME3 is very different in this aspect.

With that said, the new upgrade screen will be most welcome, the one on ME1 was terrible (too many useless items, too much money, always end up the game with the same weapons, not enough differentiation between the hundreds of wepons of the same class, to sum-up loads of micromanagement for too small rewards), and the ME2 one was too simple, and completely linear, they simply can't do worst in this department, anything will be an improvement.

Modifié par sevach, 18 juillet 2011 - 08:21 .

[the_one_54321]

Xaenn wrote...
You can point and gun and still miss, although I understand your point being that if you miss by your own hand you're doing it yourself, not stat driven.  I suppose you could conclude that the stats are attributed more to the concept of recoil and range. I don't see it overly contradicting either, as its asking you to point the gun, it's not saying it's going to hit or kill him.  Most people seem to fill in gasps or make assumptions no?

Shooters have already mastered the process of giving individual weapon types accuracy and range statistics. They've done so quite well for years now, actually. Otherwise, if the assumption is that the character dictates character performance, then do not tell me to point the gun. If you tell me to point the gun, then use my accuracy.

[Xaenn]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Xaenn wrote...
You can point and gun and still miss, although I understand your point being that if you miss by your own hand you're doing it yourself, not stat driven.  I suppose you could conclude that the stats are attributed more to the concept of recoil and range. I don't see it overly contradicting either, as its asking you to point the gun, it's not saying it's going to hit or kill him.  Most people seem to fill in gasps or make assumptions no?

Shooters have already mastered the process of giving individual weapon types accuracy and range statistics. They've done so quite well for years now, actually. Otherwise, if the assumption is that the character dictates character performance, then do not tell me to point the gun. If you tell me to point the gun, then use my accuracy.

Thats preference and assumptions though. Not that I disagree with you.  But it's not contradicting.  People just shouldn't make assumptions, especially when it is hybrid RPG.  Considering this game is a shooter as well though, I can see Mass-Effect series not requiring stats for aiming. I suppose the issue is that some people want stats to influence everything, where as in a hybrid that isn't necessary.

Modifié par Xaenn, 18 juillet 2011 - 08:28 .

[the_one_54321]

It's historically contradictory.
"Hybrid shooter/RPG" translates to "lousy counter-intuitive mechanics."

[Phaedon]

sevach wrote...

Just a personal opinion and background on the subject.

I've felt that ME2 moved away a bit from the RPG aspect of the game.
They took out loot and equip screen and they gave you a linear upgrade path.
They simplified the level up/talent screen (this one worked better honestly).
And they moved the gameplay more towards continuous non-stop action vs more dialog (they've also took control of the PC quite a bit), more exploration and investigation.

Loot is definitely still there. Minerals, armour parts, research, credits, weapons.
Linear Upgrade Path? I don't think that you would say that with a different UI. It works just like the levelling, you can only "fill it up" if you have enough points.

Of those changes, the only one that really bothers me is making the missions totally non-stop action and, taking it further, with no connection to one another or progression to the main plot.
ME 1 had a better feel of, i'm getting closer to my goal, i've learned something about my enemy, there's something fishy about this place, and even, i have to jump through hoops to get what i want.

ME2 had a very direct to the point feel to it, just shoot everyone in sight until the end of the level, and that limits roleplay opportunities imo. I hope ME3 is very differnent in this aspect.

With that said, the new upgrade screen will be most welcome, the one on ME1 was terrible (too many useless items, too much money, always end up the game with the same weapons, not enough differentiation between the hundreds of wepons of the same class, to sum-up loads of micromanagement for too small rewards), and the ME2 one was too simple, and completely linear, they simply can't do worst in this department, anything will be an improvement.

Multiple missions in ME2 offered only a bit of action and a lot of talking. And I liked those, I didn't see many of them in ME1, however. The main plot?

But collecting your squadmats were part of the main plot.

[Xaenn]

Phaedon wrote...
Multiple missions in ME2 offered only a bit of action and a lot of talking. And I liked those, I didn't see many of them in ME1, however. The main plot?

I believe they had it in their side-quests, it end up just poping up on your screen as text for you to read then be interactive conversation.

Modifié par Xaenn, 18 juillet 2011 - 08:31 .

[Phaedon]

Xaenn wrote...

Phaedon wrote...
Multiple missions in ME2 offered only a bit of action and a lot of talking. And I liked those, I didn't see many of them in ME1, however. The main plot?

I believe they had it in their side-quests, it end up just poping up on your screen as text for you to read then be interactive conversation.

I was referring mostly to things like Jacob's and Samara's LM. As to those "pop-ups" I am pretty sure that they were replaced by mini-cutscenes in ME2. Maybe for the best, maybe not.

[Someone With Mass]

Phaedon wrote...
Multiple missions in ME2 offered only a bit of action and a lot of talking. And I liked those, I didn't see many of them in ME1, however. The main plot?

But collecting your squadmats were part of the main plot.

Hell, some side missions in ME2 didn't have any fighting at all. 

Like the Normandy Crash Site, when you're fixing that colony's shield, performing the nice balancing act on the crashed ship to get to its black box or whatever and the likes.

[Phaedon]

Yeah, those were fun, made an interesting change.

Modifié par Phaedon, 18 juillet 2011 - 08:38 .

[Xaenn]

Phaedon wrote...

Xaenn wrote...

Phaedon wrote...
Multiple missions in ME2 offered only a bit of action and a lot of talking. And I liked those, I didn't see many of them in ME1, however. The main plot?

I believe they had it in their side-quests, it end up just poping up on your screen as text for you to read then be interactive conversation.

I was referring mostly to things like Jacob's and Samara's LM. As to those "pop-ups" I am pretty sure that they were replaced by mini-cutscenes in ME2. Maybe for the best, maybe not.

It is what it is I suppose, you like it or you don't.  Probably isn't a 'right' way to do it. I like both games for their own reasons. I believe if Mass-Effect 2 style came out first and switched to Mass-Effects I imagine I would probably feel negative more towards it. I enjoyed both games ultimately, to what degree? Does it really matter to anyone else? Not likely.

Modifié par Xaenn, 18 juillet 2011 - 08:38 .

[Phaedon]

Each game's artistic style and certain gameplay elements fitted very well, but exclusively to the game that they were applied.

I love both games, no regrets.

Heh, imagine ME1 having a much more improved shooting system. It would make the changes in ME2 and 3 look minor.

[Veex]

the_one_54321 wrote...

It's historically contradictory.
"Hybrid shooter/RPG" translates to "lousy counter-intuitive mechanics."

Which kind of ties us back into the language issue. Has the historical meaning of RPG changed? I completely agree that trying to merge the two systems can be counter-intuitive, like stat based accuracy with player controlled aiming, for example. However, if you're able to create a more fluid mesh of mechanics, like modification to existing weapons and armor which compliment the combat mechanics, then you've got a pretty intuitive system, no?

I don't think hybridization is counter-intuitivie unless the implementation is done poorly. Neither Mass Effect or Mass Effect 2 have achieved that sweet spot quite yet in my opinion, but I think that spot exists.

[Phaedon]

Should one of the common definitions of RPG remain exactly the same since the 70s, then I'd say that that's a bad thing.

[Someone With Mass]

Phaedon wrote...

Should one of the common definitions of RPG remain exactly the same since the 70s, then I'd say that that's a bad thing.

The time before DOSBox...Ew...

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

The problem is that letting you point the gun was a deal breaker before anything else was even taken into account.

As long as the stat-driven aiming is there then I don't think the game is actually letting you point the gun.

the_one_54321 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Language wants to be free.

Language want's to be a tool for communication and not confusion.

Language doesn't want to be anything.  Language doesn't have preferences.

Definitions simply are.  They don't ever go away.

Phaedon wrote...

Is The Sims 3 an RPG?

Yes.  Absolutely.

Just not a very good one.

AlanC9 wrote...

In DAO you're always playing a leader of men (and dwarves and elves and qunari).

Not always true.  Something both DAO and DA2 do well, I think, is allow you to play a character who doesn't actively lead people.

It's routinely possible to defer to others in both games.

the_one_54321 wrote...

Telling the player "you must point the gun" and then making accuracy based on character stats is historically completely contradictory. And moreso, it is even objectively less effective or efficient than tradition target RPG selection.

What if they'd documented it differently?  Would that change your opinion?

If ME called it target selection rather than aiming, and explicitly told you that the TPS interface was just there to make target selection a more fluid experience with less need to frequent pausing (but the pausing is still there for players who enjoy it), that would be very similar to BioWare's marketing for DA2.  ME would still be the same game - nothing about the gameplay experience would change - but the developers' would then have an explicit intent which differs from your present interpretation of what they've done.

You see, the stat-driven aining in ME, I think, necessarily eliminates player aiming as a mechanic.  I ghave never seen the player's ME combat input as anything other than a sort of analog target selection, because that's what's required by the underlying mechancs.  How it looks never mattered.  What it is matters.

This is why I like ME's combat system so much.  It's a new and creative presentation for a combat mechanic I already liked.  That's the sort of improvement I want to see in CRPGs.

Phaedon wrote...

Should one of the common definitions of RPG remain exactly the same since the 70s, then I'd say that that's a bad thing.

The primary design objective of a CRPG is the same now as it was then: to reproduce tabletop RPG gameplay without the need for other people.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
If ME called it target selection rather than aiming, and explicitly told you that the TPS interface was just there to make target selection a more fluid experience with less need to frequent pausing (but the pausing is still there for players who enjoy it), that would be very similar to BioWare's marketing for DA2.

Then I'd tell them it's a crap target selection system.

[Phaedon]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The primary design objective of a CRPG is the same now as it was then: to reproduce tabletop RPG gameplay without the need for other people.

JRPGs.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Then I'd tell them it's a crap target selection system.

I'll agree that it could use some tweaking (I think FO3's VATS system was much better), but I applaud them for having tried something new WITHOUT removing the underlying stat-driven mechanics.

Then with ME2 they just threw away everything they'd done right in ME.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Phaedon wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The primary design objective of a CRPG is the same now as it was then: to reproduce tabletop RPG gameplay without the need for other people.

JRPGs.

What are you saying?

Are you saying the JRPGs do that?  If you are, I strongly disagree.  JRPGs offer little of no control over the PC's personality, and that is the area in tabletop games where the player has the greatest freedom.

Or are you saying that JRPGs do not do that, and thus my definition cannot describe RPGs generally?  To that I would say simply that JRPGs are not and have never been RPGs.

[Phaedon]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
What are you saying?

Are you saying the JRPGs do that?  If you are, I strongly disagree.  JRPGs offer little of no control over the PC's personality, and that is the area in tabletop games where the player has the greatest freedom.

Or are you saying that JRPGs do not do that, and thus my definition cannot describe RPGs generally?  To that I would say simply that JRPGs are not and have never been RPGs.

And thus, the definition given by an "authority" can dismiss a few hundred games as non- RPGs, although they claim to be. Definitions vary.

Nobody set us or Wizards of the Coast as grand overseers of the RPG genre.

Modifié par Phaedon, 18 juillet 2011 - 09:50 .

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Then with ME2 they just threw away everything they'd done right in ME.

(bold added)
You're doing it again. You can't interchagne "right" and "better" with "more like an RPG."

Sylivius wrote...
Are you saying the JRPGs do that? If you are, I strongly disagree. JRPGs offer little of no control over the PC's personality, and that is the area in tabletop games where the player has the greatest freedom.

Alternatively, "little" is enough for definition, and/or tabletop RPGs never actually required you to create a personality for the character.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 18 juillet 2011 - 09:44 .

[EternalPink]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Then I'd tell them it's a crap target selection system.

I'll agree that it could use some tweaking (I think FO3's VATS system was much better), but I applaud them for having tried something new WITHOUT removing the underlying stat-driven mechanics.

Then with ME2 they just threw away everything they'd done right in ME.

wow this thread still going.

I personnally found the VATS system to be pathetic since all you need to do is run close to a enemy, hit the V key, head shot in VATS dead enemy. So with Fallout 3 i did most of the combat in twitch with a assualt rifle to keep it interesting.

I found ME2 to be superior to ME1 in every way (okay planet scanning/mako driving is a close tie on the dislike side but otherwise...) since they took out what at end game was pointless irritations.

At lvl 50 what was the point of looting anymore? what was the point in selling stuff when you have 99999999 credits? What was the point in gelling stuff anymore? since by then you've got shed loads of the stuff and most likely 3 or 4 characters with maxed decrypt/electronics.

Yes when you only had 3 guns and 2 mods and 2 suits of armor the inventory management/modding was interesting, when you've got everything and all your doing is constantly checking squaddies to see if a mod is better then it gets old in my opinion.

Modifié par EternalPink, 18 juillet 2011 - 09:51 .