3223 réponses à ce sujet

[Xaenn]

EternalPink wrote...

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.

I find myself to be the very opposite, original I found it to be more immersive, intense and entertaining all around.  Mass-Effect 2 was all about wall hugging, I win button, about as exciting as watching paint dry.  Although I did find the controls to be more smoothe in the second, the combat it self was incredibly diluted and uninteresting.

Original you had potentially unlimited clip, followed by you have much more defensive abilities, allowing for long term close quater combat, then you had abililties that could CC people, if you execute all the abilities of you and your team, made for a much more intense experience.  Best part abilities werent negated by shields, armor and barriers. Obviously this is just me.

Modifié par Xaenn, 18 juillet 2011 - 10:06 .

[vader da slayer]

the problem with shooter mechanics in an rpg is that the user needs to be the determinate of accuracy and not stats. before you go off on me let me explain.

in a traditional fantasy RPG (swords, dragons etc) you target an enemy and then whether you hit them or not is usually based on a hit rating stat or a stat that affects your ability to hit them. with a gun (or bow and arrow) its HIGHLY FRUSTRATING (see morrowind, litterally one of the only 2 things I didn't like in morrowind) to be aiming right at something at less than 100 feet with them standing still and you someone miss.

the above reason is why a lot of mp rpgs (such as mmo's) will use the target a person then hit the auto-attack button (usually only for melee and classes that use ranged weapons) for ranged physical dmg and probably would need to be done if the ME IP ever entered the MMO or any kind of non twitch based shooter adversarial game mode.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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

"Required" and "permitted" are not synonymous.

[Sylvius the Mad]

EternalPink wrote...

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.

That's a balance problem, not a mechanical problem.

Yes, you can make the game more challenging by handcapping yourself.  Good job.

[Sylvius the Mad]

vader da slayer wrote...

the problem with shooter mechanics in an rpg is that the user needs to be the determinate of accuracy and not stats.

I would agree that in a shooter, the player needs to be the determinate of accuracy.

Therefore, any game wherein the player is not the determinate of accuracy cannot be a shooter.

Modus tollens.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Alternatively, "little" is enough for definition, and/or tabletop RPGs never actually required you to create a personality for the character.

"Required" and "permitted" are not synonymous.

There is no indication that being permitted to develop a personality is required in order to qualify as role playing.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

vader da slayer wrote...
the problem with shooter mechanics in an rpg is that the user needs to be the determinate of accuracy and not stats.

I would agree that in a shooter, the player needs to be the determinate of accuracy.

Therefore, any game wherein the player is not the determinate of accuracy cannot be a shooter.

Modus tollens.

Arguably, such a shooter could simply be a poor example, much the way The Sims could be an example of a poor RPG.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 18 juillet 2011 - 10:22 .

[EternalPink]

vader da slayer wrote...

the problem with shooter mechanics in an rpg is that the user needs to be the determinate of accuracy and not stats. before you go off on me let me explain.

in a traditional fantasy RPG (swords, dragons etc) you target an enemy and then whether you hit them or not is usually based on a hit rating stat or a stat that affects your ability to hit them. with a gun (or bow and arrow) its HIGHLY FRUSTRATING (see morrowind, litterally one of the only 2 things I didn't like in morrowind) to be aiming right at something at less than 100 feet with them standing still and you someone miss.

the above reason is why a lot of mp rpgs (such as mmo's) will use the target a person then hit the auto-attack button (usually only for melee and classes that use ranged weapons) for ranged physical dmg and probably would need to be done if the ME IP ever entered the MMO or any kind of non twitch based shooter adversarial game mode.

The problem with having to hit rolls and so on is that at low level you have characters that according to there back story have trained for years to get to where they are, so then when they can't use a certain weapon due to stat restriction or they miss something they should easily hit (most games involve killing low level stuff at the beginning so how can a warrior thats trained for years manage to miss hitting a rat with a sword?)

And then when you get to high level due to soft caps/hard caps and min/maxing you end up in a sitation where you will never miss, DA:O had this when you were fighting darkspawn at the end and for me my elf warden was 1 shotting them with a sword.

Slightly off topic but i absolutely loved how BG2 dealt with the min/maxers, everybody remember the brain sucking illithds? those ones that could hit you and do -5 intelligence which stacked until you were at 0 intelligence and dead.

Still makes me chuckle remembering all the min/max warriors that had int at 3 whining about that

[Giantdeathrobot]

 ''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.''

Say what? VATS was horrible, it was basically a cheat code even without the god-mode damage reduction that New Vegas removed. It was not emulating turn-based at all, it just gave you a ''oh **** I might have to actually aim! time to clear the entire room with almost no regards for my character's skills!'' button.

Also, Fallout's stat model was perfect (best ruleset ever in my opinion) for an isometric game, but systems such as it completely fall down in third-person or first-person mode. The thing is, isometric perspective allows a certain suspension of disbelief as to character skill vs player skill; in Fallout, if I target a Raider and the game says I have a 70% chance to hit, it's pretty clear that character skill is involved. I don't aim, I don't see the bullet, I just choose the target and hope the random number god smiles upon my fate. In first or third-person, however, I do more than selecting the target. I see the bullet (to an extent). I aim the gun. Yet, if my skill is not up to par, my bullets either do close to no damage (Fallout 3 and NV) or miss (Mass Effect was sooo bad about this, I am (or incarnate, whatever) a trained soldier, the elite of the elite, but unless the game says so I can't hit the broad side of a Reaper with an assault rifle). It feels extremely arbitrary because an illusion of player skill is given, while in reality it's character skill that does most of the work; it's much harder to believe my character miss if I made him/her line up a perfect shot for ten seconds than if I just see him/her point the gun and shoot. Borderlands was better about it, since it was explicit that character skill and gear played a huge part, but they still made player skill relevent with critical hit locations. Still, such hybrid systems are full of flaws. I prefer a nicely done shooter (ME2, albeit the cover system could have been less whack-a-moleish) to an half-assed hybrid system that brings neither the skill and tactical requirement of a shooter nor the satisfaction of a good character build and progression (ME1, whose character progression system was simplistic and added nothing of worth; gee, I use Assault Rifles, let's put points in Assault Rifle! Genius! ME3's perk selection system looks far better to me already).

Bioware didn't throw away anything, not in the shooting department at least. Having firefights that look plausible and take my skill into account is loads better than having to pump everybody full of lead for 30 seconds at point-blank range until they finally die.

[konfeta]

I would agree that in a shooter, the player needs to be the determinate of accuracy.

Therefore, any game wherein the player is not the determinate of accuracy cannot be a shooter.

Modus tollens.

You have a very strange definition for player determined accuracy. Could you elucidate it?

[tonnactus]

SpiffySquee wrote...


What is necessary for role play is the ability to choose how your character acts, what their personality is, how they treat other people, and if and how they grow over the course of the story. Take out every inventory and stat in mass effect and this is still possible.

If you think so...

By this definition,every hack and slay,shooter and adventure could be roleplaying games,as long as there are dialog choices...

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Alternatively, "little" is enough for definition, and/or tabletop RPGs never actually required you to create a personality for the character.

"Required" and "permitted" are not synonymous.

There is no indication that being permitted to develop a personality is required in order to qualify is role playing.

Yes, there is.

You can't make decisions for your character without knowing his personality.

You cannot know his personality wholly without having created it yourself.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Arguably, such a shooter could simply be a poor example, much the way The Sims could be an example of a poor RPG.

I think it's a necessary condition.  If you take ay pure shooter, and remove from it the player controlled accuracy, doesn't it just become an adventure game?

[Sylvius the Mad]

tonnactus wrote...

By this definition,every hack and slay,shooter and adventure could be roleplaying games,as long as there are dialog choices...

Arguably true, though I insist ME and ME2 would both fail to meet this standard because the dialogue choices are hidden from the player.  The player does not choose Shepard's words or actions in ME, because they are hidden behing the obfuscatory paraphrases.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Arguably, such a shooter could simply be a poor example, much the way The Sims could be an example of a poor RPG.

I think it's a necessary condition. If you take ay pure shooter, and remove from it the player controlled accuracy, doesn't it just become an adventure game?

What it becomes is a very badly designed shooter.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
You can't make decisions for your character without knowing his personality.

Untrue. There is no requisite that you must be the one making the decisions.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 18 juillet 2011 - 10:37 .

[tonnactus]

Merci357 wrote...


Is it that different in a game with loot?

Could be.Not everyone used power armor in fallout.And in games like oblivion,enchanting gives huge options to make even ordinary weapons and armor powerfull,so deadric armor wasnt necessary if someone prefer another look.

Kotor 2 with its upgrade options for robes and weapons also offers a lot options.(vibro blades/blasters could be as powerfull as swords)

As an example - what else to use besides Starfang in DA:O as a 2H warrior, if you don't deliberately downgrade to a lesser weapon?

There were a lot of god mauls in the game who also had better armor penetration.

But in term of making you character unique, I guess anyone - beyond the
pure casual player -  will figure out what is best for class X or
situation Y, and will wear the very same items, regardless.

Far more people are "casual" players then "pros". A lot players just go by the look.

Modifié par tonnactus, 18 juillet 2011 - 10:43 .

[Phaedon]

tonnactus wrote...
By this definition,every hack and slay,shooter and adventure could be roleplaying games,as long as there are dialog choices...

You should check the Wikipedia page on Diablo, I was surprised myself.

Also, adventure? No.

Modifié par Phaedon, 18 juillet 2011 - 10:52 .

[the_one_54321]

Luc0s wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Arguably, such a shooter could simply be a poor example, much the way The Sims could be an example of a poor RPG.

I think it's a necessary condition.  If you take ay pure shooter, and remove from it the player controlled accuracy, doesn't it just become an adventure game?

Have you, or any of you guys who complain about Mass Effect's accuracy's stat ever played a modern First-Person Shooter? Or even a Third-Person Shooter? I think not.

Call of Duty has weapon-based accuracy. A snipe-rifle in Call of Duty is pixel-precise accurate, but an SMG certainly isn't. Your accuracy is also influenced by your movement (if you walk you shoot less accurate, if you stand still you shoot reasonably accurate, if you crouch you shoot really accurate).
This means that with an SMG you can still miss the enemy even when you stand still, crouch and point the gun exactly at your enemy's head. That's because the SMG just isn't an accurate gun to begin with.
The player can see how accurate a gun shoots depending on how big the crossair is. You see a little cross scaling up or down showing how accurate you can shoot with that weapon at that moment.

Nice job missing where I talked about all that stuff on the last page.

[EternalPink]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Arguably, such a shooter could simply be a poor example, much the way The Sims could be an example of a poor RPG.

I think it's a necessary condition.  If you take ay pure shooter, and remove from it the player controlled accuracy, doesn't it just become an adventure game?

Have you, or any of you guys who complain about Mass Effect's accuracy's stat ever played a modern First-Person Shooter? Or even a Third-Person Shooter? I think not.

Call of Duty has weapon-based accuracy. A snipe-rifle in Call of Duty is pixel-precise accurate, but an SMG certainly isn't. Your accuracy is also influenced by your movement (if you walk you shoot less accurate, if you stand still you shoot reasonably accurate, if you crouch you shoot really accurate).
This means that with an SMG you can still miss the enemy even when you stand still, crouch and point the gun exactly at your enemy's head. That's because the SMG just isn't an accurate gun to begin with.
The player can see how accurate a gun shoots depending on how big the crossair is. You see a little cross scaling up or down showing how accurate you can shoot with that weapon at that moment.

Nice job missing where I talked about all that stuff on the last page.

Silly question but why bother pointing out that someone has mis-understood you with no attempt to actually make your point understood?

If they missed it the first time, even if they do go back and read again they are most likely to still miss it.

[whywhywhywhy]

Wow didn't realize this thread was still going, insane. I can't go back and read all that.

Phaedon wrote...

Here's a little game that I am sure you
will find pretty interesting,

Does The Sims 3 have stats? Yes it
does.

Does The Sims 3 have an inventory? Yes, it has a "party
inventory" and you can often "equip" items from it.

Does The Sims
3 have statistical progression? Yes, you intentionally pick actions
that raise your stats.

Does the stats in The Sims 3 have an
effect on your character? Yes, for example having a high fitness skill
makes it more likely that people will find you attractive and it will
make you win in fights, if your opponents skill is too low.

Does
The Sims 3 differentiate character from player? Yes.

Does The
Sims 3 allow you to create a character? Yes, one that you customize and
select his or her personality.

Does The Sims 3 have loot? Yes,
you can steal stuff and search people's trash.




Is The
Sims 3 an RPG?

Sims is a sandbox style life simulator

Modifié par whywhywhywhy, 18 juillet 2011 - 11:42 .

[Gatt9]

EternalPink wrote...

The problem with having to hit rolls and so on is that at low level you have characters that according to there back story have trained for years to get to where they are, so then when they can't use a certain weapon due to stat restriction or they miss something they should easily hit (most games involve killing low level stuff at the beginning so how can a warrior thats trained for years manage to miss hitting a rat with a sword?)

1.  Actually,  that's a problem with the backstory,  in a *very* few RPGs.  Most RPGs,  the backstory is that you're not such a great warrior.  The problem is entirely the backstory,  if you're going to present someone as skilled,  then you should be starting them at level 5.

2.  A Rat isn't going to hold still for you to hit it with a sword.  This is a ready example of why stat-based gameplay is necessary,  because you obviously have never tried to hit a Rat with a sword if you think it's that simple.

And then when you get to high level due to soft caps/hard caps and min/maxing you end up in a sitation where you will never miss, DA:O had this when you were fighting darkspawn at the end and for me my elf warden was 1 shotting them with a sword.

Now you've got a problem with the designer of the specific game(Module,  whatever you'd like to call it),  not the system.  Because the difficulty is supposed to scale relative to your abilities and maintain an even balance at equivalent creature levels to your own.

Designers failing isn't a problem with the system.  It's a problem with the designers.

Slightly off topic but i absolutely loved how BG2 dealt with the min/maxers, everybody remember the brain sucking illithds? those ones that could hit you and do -5 intelligence which stacked until you were at 0 intelligence and dead.

Still makes me chuckle remembering all the min/max warriors that had int at 3 whining about that

Those were mucnhkins,  not the min/maxers.  Min/maxers try to minimize their liabilities and maximize their assets,  they knew not to gimp their IQ.  Munchkins try to super-max their primary skill at the cost of completely disregarding weakness,  and pretty commonly fall prey to creatures that aim for their weakness.

tonnactus wrote...
By this definition,every hack and slay,shooter and adventure could be roleplaying games,as long as there are dialog choices...

You should check the Wikipedia page on Diablo, I was surprised myself.

Also, adventure? No.

He's right,  and dialogue still doesn't make something an RPG.  Wing Commander 3.  Wing Commander 4.  Crusader.  Monkey Island series,  The Longest Journey,  Mysterious Island,  I think even Panzer General offered you choices.

Seriously,  Dialogue does not,  and never has,  defined an RPG.  Any game can have it.  Many games have had it. 

You may also want to avoid the Wikipedia page on Diablo for anything serious,  it's a hot bed of edit-war.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Untrue. There is no requisite that you must be the one making the decisions.

How could you possibly be said to be playing the role if you're not the one making the decisions?  What exactly is the gameplay?  What is the player's job in this game you're describing if it's not roleplaying?