3223 réponses à ce sujet

[Ianamus]

I see nothing wrong with the original statement. The Mass effect series has never had stats, and the inventory system in ME1 was dire, so it's removal was a positive feature. I would still like to see more diversity in combat options, but would like to see that done by explanding upon ME2's system rather than bringing back an inventory or suddenly adding stats.

I also don't get what the OP means by "Forget about stats and loot- more combat"- the whole point of stats is combat. And the main reason for inventory is equipping yourself for combat. Expanding the set of skills we have avaliable isn't saying "More combat" it's saying "better choices" and that's always a good thing.

Plus I don't really see why they would suddenly bring in stats and a new inventory anyway. Was them announcing that they won't really a surprise?

[sbvera13]

Adding to that- part of what stats do is LIMIT your choices. This is important in defining a role, because it forces you to approach situations the way your character would. Granted, this has never really applied to either ME game, but it's a big part of what links the character to the choice/consequence gameplay.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

sbvera13 wrote...

Adding to that- part of what stats do is LIMIT your choices. This is important in defining a role, because it forces you to approach situations the way your character would. Granted, this has never really applied to either ME game, but it's a big part of what links the character to the choice/consequence gameplay.

Unless you're playing a Bethesda game, of course.

[sbvera13]

An inventory lets you change tactics mid-mission. Otherwise you're stuck with what you've got, or you have to hope that the level designers saw fit to give you an oh-so-convenient weapons locker placed innocuously on that remote planet. In that sense, being able to carry a certain amount of stuff to swap to is a plus.

[danteliveson]

Shooters suck.

[the_one_54321]

Wildfire Darkstar wrote...
That's a fairly useless argument, though, because "good" is subjective to the point of being meaningless.

You think it's more subjective and meaningless than "RPG?" Really?

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

sbvera13 wrote...

An inventory lets you change tactics mid-mission. Otherwise you're stuck with what you've got, or you have to hope that the level designers saw fit to give you an oh-so-convenient weapons locker placed innocuously on that remote planet. In that sense, being able to carry a certain amount of stuff to swap to is a plus.

There are some people who would argue that's a negative though and would like to see it as another choice/consequence gameplay mechanic.

Ironically, despite the focus on phat loot, Dungeon Crawlers also emphasis this aspect of gameplay too. If you go in unprepared, well then, you're screwed.

I am not a huge fan of a bloated inventory or loot, but I understand why it's there from a practical perspective. What would be nice is if they had an encumberance mechanism for each type of item with backpacks to visually represent it as opposed to a global or unlimited encumberance. Either that or bring back the grid.

Still, it's not that practical.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 01 juillet 2011 - 11:57 .

[sbvera13]

mrcrusty wrote...
Unless you're playing a Bethesda game, of course.

Well, you're limited for the first 60 minutes or so

[ThePwener]

danteliveson wrote...

Shooters suck.

You suck.

[sbvera13]

mrcrusty wrote...


There are some people who would argue that's a negative though and would like to see it as another choice/consequence gameplay mechanic.

Ironically, despite the focus on phat loot, Dungeon Crawlers also emphasis this aspect of gameplay too. If you go in unprepared, well then, you're screwed.

I put forward Deus Ex as an example of this done right.  A simple grid inventory, for stashing weapons and tools.  Radioactive hallway? Hope you havea hazmat suit. Big robot? Hope you have that rocket launcher that takes up half your space.  There was a balance between being prepared and carrying all the guns you could ever want.  It worked well, imo.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

That's because Deus Ex actually threw a variety of unique situations at you. That doesn't fix the inherent suspension of disbelief issues with an inventory system, it merely makes it more practical through good design that provided varied and open gameplay. But I doubt Mass Effect will go in such a path as much as I'd love to see it happen.

But I can see why I didn't argue the point better in my previous post.

It's a negative because of the suspension of disbelief caused and that making it more realistic (can't carry random crap around) would better enforce a choice/consequence emphasis in gameplay.

I would agree to that argument to a point. While I wouldn't mind the current system, per-item type encumberance or a well thought out grid system would be preferrable.

I think it's an area that Dungeon Siege of all games, did quite well. The Pack Mule for extra space and a decent grid system that kept plenty of items, but not too many.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 02 juillet 2011 - 12:04 .

[Wildfire Darkstar]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Wildfire Darkstar wrote...
That's a fairly useless argument, though, because "good" is subjective to the point of being meaningless.

You think it's more subjective and meaningless than "RPG?" Really?

Yes, on the face of it. We can (and will) quibble over what constitutes an RPG, but at least there's a sense of, if not agreement, then at least camps of opinion. Whereas I could, personally, define a "good game", but it would likely be quite different from anyone else's definition of the same. It's basically impossible to debate something unless there is at least a shared recognition that the topic being discussed has some vaguely objective qualities.

In so far as "RPG" has lost its meaning as a genre definition, it's because of a deliberate dilutiion of the term. Someone (I forget who) said upthread that this is not a discussion that would have been having a decade ago, when the term was understood and accepted at least as much as any other genre label. For a variety of complicated reasons, there's been an attempt to shift the definition of RPG into something much broader and less descriptive, or (alternatively) to downgrade it from an actual genre in its own right to a loose association of conventions that can be applied to any game. Which is probably why RPGs are more frequently "hybridized" than any other genre out there nowadays.

[Ianamus]

Gatt9 wrote...

Stats are a method of defining your character,  his intrinsic abilities,  and seperating your abilities from his.  It's a Role,  based upon things you know absolutely nothing about.  Your Role does.  You cannot hack a wallsafe.  Your character might be able to,  his success should be based upon his abilities,  not your ability to play the same minigame 10,000 times.

But a "role" is also about putting yourself into someones shoes, about immersion- being the character. Having some background diceroll to determine whether I can open the safe or not is not the same as playing the mingame and feeling like I'm the one opening it. Obviously it's not really like that, but it's fun to feel like I'm the one acting- not some character i've 'told' to be good at hacking. If I wanted to watch other poeple open things I'd watch a movie or other non-interactive medium. 

Gatt9 wrote...

Further,  computers aren't "Simulating that chance" without stats,  without stats there's no chance.  You need the numbers in order to develop an equation based upon your particular Role's abilities.  ME2 has no chance,  either you can point a crosshair at it,  or you can't.  No independent failure. 

But I don't want to be independant of Shepard!. If I'm role-playing as shepard I esentially am Shepard. My failures are his. He should not fail if I don't. It's much more personal if he dies because I couldn't react fast enough, or took a risk that failed, rather than because his "willpower wasn't high enough".

Gatt9 wrote...

Your ME2 character cannot independently fail or succeed on anything unless you do.

Exactly. And thats the way it should be. This isn't a movie where I have no control of the outcome. If I'm playing as Shepard then I make the decisions and mistakes. The victories are mine and so are the failures, not his.

Gatt9 wrote...

What some people here put forth as a Role is just pretending,  as the game takes no notice.  Without the stats,  you get a Adventure game or a Shooter.

Stats define the Character,  the Character defines the Role,  the Role is fundamental in an RPG

Without it,  you're just pretending you're in a Role and the game couldn't care less.

This is just... I don't even understand what your on about. Role Playing is about shaping the story around your decisions, and acting the way you would in real situations. An the game does reflect this. Your choices decide who lives and who dies... and potentially, come ME3, the fate of the universe. If that's the game not caring what I'm choosing then what is?

As somebody who was introduced to Role Playing games long after Baulders gate, I honestly think that your peoples problem is that you want every game to be exactly like your nostalgic momories playing the game, when in reality genre's move forwards. I have tried playing those older RPG's, but as somebody who has only played more recent ones, I have to admit that compared to the standard of modern games, in many respects they are not very good.

Modifié par EJ107, 02 juillet 2011 - 12:15 .

[the_one_54321]

Wildfire Darkstar wrote...
Yes, on the face of it. We can (and will) quibble over what constitutes an RPG, but at least there's a sense of, if not agreement, then at least camps of opinion. Whereas I could, personally, define a "good game"

"Good game" is not genre blind. It has the same camps of opinions that you speak of.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

@EJ107:

What you're describing is self insertion into the game/narrative. You as a player living out the life of the character. That's actually something more closely associated with Adventure games, or Action Adventures nowadays not RPGs. The obvious upside to RPGs is the interaction with the story. Basically, if Assassin's Creed had choices, you'd be a happy camper, I'd imagine.

Which would be great, I'd also love to play that kind of game but an RPG it does not make. At least not on it's own.

RPGs are about playing a character. Obviously, this gets blurred in the case of hybrids, but RPGs work under a player initiates, character determines success mindset. You try to crack open the lock, but will only succeed if the character can. That is RPG.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 02 juillet 2011 - 12:22 .

[Il Divo]

Gatt9 wrote...

Without it,  you're just pretending you're in a Role and the game couldn't care less.  Look at ME2,  what sense does it make for a Paragon of Law to work with a Renegade Paragon?  None.

In an RPG,  like Baldur's Gate,  there would've been consequences.

In a TPS,  like ME2,  the game just pretends it's unimportant.

That's odd, because the majority of Bioware games do pretend this is unimportant, until the end game (if ever). It's almost as if those characters had no idea what my character was really about, until that point the developers decide "Hey, it's plot significant!".

Modifié par Il Divo, 02 juillet 2011 - 12:31 .

[Wildfire Darkstar]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Wildfire Darkstar wrote...
Yes, on the face of it. We can (and will) quibble over what constitutes an RPG, but at least there's a sense of, if not agreement, then at least camps of opinion. Whereas I could, personally, define a "good game"

"Good game" is not genre blind. It has the same camps of opinions that you speak of.

To nowhere near the same extent. For every one or two cogent arguments about how to define an RPG, there are a dozen or more arguments about what constitutes a good game. It's an ill-defined, subjective definition, and the fact that were even having this discussion proves it. Defining a genre is, while not entirely objective, at least not solely predicated on the individual eccentricities of the person making the case: I can define a genre of games in such a way that the ultimate defining characteristic is something other than "that which appeals to my particular tastes". 

I can also, getting down to the meat of it, argue why one particular definition of "RPG" is superior to another for a variety of reasons (citing precedent, uniqueness, etc.) which is something that can't be done when talking about whether or not something is "good." If I was to say that a "good" game is a game that allows me to take on the character of a 700 year old talking fish as he attempts to create the world's first fusion reactor you might think I was a bit peculiar, but you ultimately cannot argue that it's my opinion. If I was to argue that those same elements are essential characteristics of an RPG (or TPS, or whatever else), though, you most certainly could. The acceptance that a genre label has some objective meaning, even if we aren't in 100% agreement on the details, is what separates it from an entirely subjective opinion on quality.

[AlanC9]

Wildfire Darkstar wrote...
The second option (which is really what the ME series is doing) basically takes the role playing out of the equation and replaces it with something else. There's a reason why stats were introduced into wargaming (and later pen and paper RPGs like D&D) in the first place, and it wasn't just because it was too difficult to stage a sword fight at a kitchen table. It's because the point of role playing is the ability to take on the role of a character whose skills may not closely resemble the player's own. Just because the player wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in Hades of surviving a fight with an ogre, a dire wolf, or whatever doesn't mean that his character is similarly impaired. Stats are a way of quantify and giving some basic framework to a game so that it allows for players to assume the roles of a variety of different kinds of characters, effectively limited only by their patience and willingness to try.

Note that when a game doesn't use stats everyone becomes good at whatever the plot's got the PC doing. Even a bad FPS player is good enough for his PC to be an elite soldier. Similarly, anyone who plays DAO is a natural leader, because DAO doesn't implement a leadership skill (Coercion's not quite the same thing).

I suppose a really bad FPS player could have an incompetent PC, but AFAIK the bar's always set pretty low.

[Xaenn]

That's very true, Wildfire. Going to put my two cent's in though.

Simply put, I find there is many elements to an RPG, it's been long sense defined by 'role playing,' inventory, stats allocation, customization, immersion, depth, these are all very important part of an RPG, and they are all of equal importance to an RPG. When even one of the elements are missing, the game feels like it's mission soul, essence, lack of what it could of been.

I'm aware I'm in a minority, as I thought Mass-Effect 2 was fun, but a vast disappointment compared to the original. I do understand why people had some hatred for the inventory system in Mass-Effect, but that really only called for a simple fix of a filtering/sorting function then complete removal and wasn't that bad at all. I'm probably also in the minority that think inventory and stats are far from cumbersome no matter how poorly implemented, having to take time and calculate and decide which is more beneficial to my character and my play style or play style I wish to play is immensely fun to me, having to go through my inventory and select gear based of what I'm doing how to improve my character in the same way also adds huge fun factor, it allows choice, customization. If you're playing a space shooter, with aliens, shooting magic fireballs in dragon age, ectra, you obviously aren't worried about realism and just looking for something to complain about if you're talking about inventory size. And  If this is something you're actually worried about, it's an issue with you not the game, you are allowed to use your imagination to bridge the gaps in the game where they may not mention trivialities.

This is going to be hard to say without offending someone, but it's also been proven by studies and other such academic observations, ranging from students to university professors, that the newer generation are indefinitely becoming vastly more lazy and education and intelligence of most kids is down quite considerably. Probably from gaming, but the gaming industry is being directly effected by this, hence mainstreaming (dumbing down).

Mass-Effect 2 had a lot of bad moments for me, restriction of abilities on shields, barriers, armor, making abilities trivial and moot.  Having ammo has an abililty, removal of stat allocation on level.  Abilities being remove or seperated and made an option at the 4th upgrade to do one or the other instead of simply being both like they were.  Ammo clips, sniper enemies who don't miss, problems with 2 are endless.  Biggest issue with two though would be definitely getting 'stuck' on cover and dying, which to my understanding is going to be fixed in 3 so thumbs up on that.

Bioware although I imagine wants to branch out from making RPG's need to be making RPG's with other elements of other genre's not making action games with RPG elements, if they want to keep they're reputation up.  Normally I would try to hold these kind of comments out of my post as I don't generally like contraversy, but there is an inumerable amount of people who simply lost faith in the direction they keep chosing to go with their games.

Modifié par Xaenn, 02 juillet 2011 - 12:49 .

[AtreiyaN7]

*rolleyes* Sometimes it's just not worth it to actually respond. In any case, they've shown screenshots & footage from E3 showing how they've added some RPG mechanics back in with the leveling of powers, weapons, mods, etc. Ummm, if that's not good enough for you...bye?

[Ianamus]

mrcrusty wrote...

@EJ107:

What you're describing is self insertion into the game/narrative. You as a player living out the life of the character. That's actually something more closely associated with Adventure games, or Action Adventures nowadays not RPGs. The obvious upside to RPGs is the interaction with the story. Basically, if Assassin's Creed had choices, you'd be a happy camper, I'd imagine.

Which would be great, I'd also love to play that kind of game but an RPG it does not make. At least not on it's own.

RPGs are about playing a character. Obviously, this gets blurred in the case of hybrids, but RPGs work under a player initiates, character determines success mindset. You try to crack open the lock, but will only succeed if the character can. That is RPG.

Your right, I guess.

I would love those games if they had choices and character creation, but that is because that is what RPG means to me. I suppose it's not what it actually means (JRPG's usually have neither)- but it is what made me fall in love with the genre, and has been in every one I've played so far. Even if Mass Effect isn't by definition a role playing game, I would love it all the same. The game is the same no matter what labels you stick on it.

Modifié par EJ107, 02 juillet 2011 - 12:59 .

[xxSgt_Reed_24xx]

Kabanya101 wrote...

The armory with the whole weapons and armor was good in ME2 and very life like, but add more depth to it. I know they're doing that to weapons, but how about armor. Mods were used for armor as well as guns, so increase shield, storm speed, recharge rate would be great implements into armor customization. As well as different armor plates and coloring.

I agree with this.... the armor customization needs to be heavily expanded on in ME3. I really liked ME2's armor customization... but I thought there should be mods for the armor to change their stats... way more armor pieces than there were and the ability to change the colors of anything on the armors. Including those pesky armor lights that would only match your color scheme if you chose blue or black. 

[Xaenn]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

*rolleyes* Sometimes it's just not worth it to actually respond. In any case, they've shown screenshots & footage from E3 showing how they've added some RPG mechanics back in with the leveling of powers, weapons, mods, etc. Ummm, if that's not good enough for you...bye?

Not sure I understand this gesture or attitude, you're pretending your opinion some how carries so much weight, that it is correct and that it is a burden to repeat? Simple answer is exactly what Wilfire had said eariler, there will always be interpretation to what rpg genre is or means to them, so there is no actual definied genre or sub-genre for that matter.

I've been playing Bioware games sense they existed, I won't stop because of a few speed bumps, also regardless of Mass-Effects 3 qualitiy, it is the finale of the franchise how could one miss it? It's been fun ride (story wise) up to this point and I look forward to see how it ends.

I have seen what they're doing with the changes, I watch every chance I get all the new additions and changes they're making look good, I have higher hopes for 3 more then one or two. Sometimes you need to sacrafice you personal ego and interpretation, to progress and move on and enjoy a game for what it is, then what you want. I knew Mass-Effect was a hybrid (action-RPG) game, I defended it against tons of very angry RPG critics and will continue to do so in the future. 

Modifié par Xaenn, 02 juillet 2011 - 01:43 .

[ME-ParaShep]

danteliveson wrote...

Shooters suck.

I take it you didn't like Mass Effect 1 & 2's combat portions then.. which is pretty essential to the game itself.