3223 réponses à ce sujet

[Dangerfoot]

ME-ParaShep wrote...

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

Maybe they liked the Mako portions of the- BAHAHAHAHAA

I'm sorry I couldn't keep a straight face.

Modifié par Dangerfoot, 02 juillet 2011 - 02:40 .

[Destroy Raiden_]

I like being rewarded with loot I hate going off the beaten path and finding an empty room! If I'm going to really explore I want my exploring to find things unique weapons, armor, and guns that can only be obtained via looking off the game's well traveled pathways. So I loved that in ME and hated how 2 only gave me money and a scarce amount of tech that I couldn't use right off I had to upgrade my stuff with it. I'd rather get an cool gun not sold in stores because I took the time to find that hidden downed plane in some forest or get great armor because I raided merc base Y that was not a sidequest or main quest fetch I showed up busted this guy's door down because I wanted to.

[AlanC9]

I suppose loot and exploration do go hand in hand, yeah.

[Gravbh]

I think ME3 (and 2's) direction is fine. Even ME1 was billed as a shooter/rpg hybrid. 2 greatly improved the actual shooter part. 3 will hopefully strike the perfect balance for the hybrid.

The DA2 criticisms aren't really valid for Mass Effect imo. DA:O was a love letter to old school rpg design. There was nothing hybrid about it. The about-face to nearly an action-rpg was a massive change, whereas ME-ME2 refined an already unique hybrid.

[XyleJKH]

Wow... Someone call bungies wambulance

[XyleJKH]

Double post sorry.

Modifié par XyleJKH, 02 juillet 2011 - 04:17 .

[JayhartRIC]

You do realize there was no unique items in ME1, right? Whatever you find will instantly get replaced when you kill the next enemy anyway.

[AlanC9]

The Mako wasn't terrible. Pity most of what you got to do with it was worthless.

[Gatt9]

AlanC9 wrote...

I suppose loot and exploration do go hand in hand, yeah.

Loot serves a larger purpose than people give it credit for.

Loot provides short term goals,  and short term rewards to the player for actions,  usually with a direct relationship to the challenge they overcame in order to obtain the loot.

Most quests themselves are largely uninteresting,  a good example would be the batarian on Omega that wanted to challenge it's current leader,  how interesting is jumping to another system and back?  How interesting would it have been if you received an item for it?  It provides a modicum of motivation to do otherwise uninspired quests,  which ME2 is quite honestly largely filled with.  Outside of the main missions and loyalty missions,  the side quests are largely horrible.  Adding in loot,  to give a reward for slogging through something completely pointless and often bland would've gone a long way towards fixing it.

Now,  I know it's possible to have a item-less RPG and have it function just fine,  but it's detrimental.  With each reward level you remove,  you remove alot of the "Carrot" to keep people playing,  and put an increased focus on the remaining systems to perform.

Once again,  I'll use ME2 as an example.  ME2 removed loot,  and TBH removed experience and leveling.  Experience was generally pointless because it was handed out in such a way that doing everything gave you maybe a level or two more than the other guy,  and the levels were largely pointless because you fought the exact same things at Level 1 that you'd fight at Level 30.  Straight down to most missions ending with a big robot.  So your character didn't really improve,  because he wasn't killing anything at level 30 that he couldn't kill at level 1.

This drove the focus of the game to it's other mechanics.  Without the reward systems in place,  the game had to deliver it's reward and motivations through the remaining systems and mechanics,  which meant in ME2 that it had to do it via Story and Combat.

Which became a breaking point for me.

Since all there was to the game was story and combat,  the absolutely repetitive and uninspired corridor runs that played out exactly the same became very unappealing.  There wasn't any reward in it for me,  because the AI was 1996 predictable and brain dead.

The story was just as bad.  From Shepherd "Forgetting" that he was reinstated,  to the fedex and hide-n-seek sidequests,  to the glaring inconsistencies regarding my moral status and what my character would actually say. 

Since I was forced to focus only on combat and story,  the major shortcomings in both systems became glaring.  I'd probably have been more forgiving if more reward systems existed,  like Loot.

Loot serves many purposes,  both in terms or rewards,  and in terms of taking some of the focus from other systems so their shortcomings become less glaring.

Modifié par Gatt9, 02 juillet 2011 - 06:53 .

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

Gatt9 wrote...
Loot serves many purposes,  both in terms or rewards,  and in terms of taking some of the focus from other systems so their shortcomings become less glaring.

Haha so the Borderlands method then. The loot system alone in that game is worth the price of admission, and you barely even notice the recycled environments and enemies.

Honestly, though, I'd prefer if ME3 could just stand on its own feet.

[AlanC9]

Gatt9 wrote...
Loot serves a larger purpose than people give it credit for.

Loot provides short term goals,  and short term rewards to the player for actions,  usually with a direct relationship to the challenge they overcame in order to obtain the loot.

This sounds like you like loot because it provides you with pellets of rat chow to keep you running the maze. Actually, I'm kinda burned out on the rat chow metaphor, so let's just call them dopamine hits instead.

Most quests themselves are largely uninteresting,  a good example would be the batarian on Omega that wanted to challenge it's current leader,  how interesting is jumping to another system and back?  How interesting would it have been if you received an item for it?  It provides a modicum of motivation to do otherwise uninspired quests,  which ME2 is quite honestly largely filled with.  Outside of the main missions and loyalty missions,  the side quests are largely horrible.  Adding in loot,  to give a reward for slogging through something completely pointless and often bland would've gone a long way towards fixing it.

Now,  I know it's possible to have a item-less RPG and have it function just fine,  but it's detrimental.  With each reward level you remove,  you remove alot of the "Carrot" to keep people playing,  and put an increased focus on the remaining systems to perform.

Ye gods -- you actually did mean that. (Are you deliberately trying to discredit the RPG genre?)

My only response is that this simply isn't what keeps me playing an RPG  a game. If a sidequest is worth doing for some RP reason then I'll take it, and completing that goal is its own reward. And if it isn't worth doing on those terms, then I don't take that sidequest. 

Of course, in some settings acquiring wealth and equipment can be an RP reason too. But not ME, unless I want to engage in a lot of doublethink.

Put another way, I found Diablo to be an utterly worthless game. Or rather, the little of it that I could bring myself to play was worthless.

Modifié par AlanC9, 02 juillet 2011 - 07:58 .

[Terror_K]

I don't think an RPG necessarily needs loot, but there has to be something better than a small handful of items in the same place in every playthrough, offering no real surprises, randomness or discovery whatsoever (beyond the first time that is). ME2's system was just so... tedious and unrewarding, and completely lacking in anything remotely interesting. The lack of any decent customisation and linear research/upgrade system that had no tradeoffs and allowed you to too easily max everything didn't help either.

I'm not saying a lot of loot is the answer, but what's the alternative? At least with loot there's that random diceroll factor. It's not predictable and the same every time. I suppose those who don't care about items much at all don't care, but some of us do.

Somebody on Twitter also needs to ask Casey Hudson if biotic amps and/or omni-tools are returning in some manner.

Modifié par Terror_K, 02 juillet 2011 - 07:36 .

[ME-ParaShep]

Dangerfoot wrote...

ME-ParaShep wrote...

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

Maybe they liked the Mako portions of the- BAHAHAHAHAA

I'm sorry I couldn't keep a straight face.

When I read Mako, I couldn't keep a straight face too. This was my face in action ----> ........:happy:....

Seriously, Mako gameplay was.. SOMETHING. I wonder what kind of vehicle antics will happen in ME 3

[AlanC9]

Terror_K wrote...

I don't think an RPG necessarily needs loot, but there has to be something better than a small handful of items in the same place in every playthrough, offering no real surprises, randomness or discovery whatsoever (beyond the first time that is). ME2's system was just so... tedious and unrewarding, and completely lacking in anything remotely interesting. The lack of any decent customisation and linear research/upgrade system that had no tradeoffs and allowed you to too easily max everything didn't help either.

I'm not saying a lot of loot is the answer, but what's the alternative? At least with loot there's that random diceroll factor. It's not predictable and the same every time. I suppose those who don't care about items much at all don't care, but some of us do.

You sem to place a good deal of importance on loot  randomness. A lot of loot-heavy games have no or little randomness; ME1 is an extreme outlier among Bioware games in having worthwhile stuff drop randomly.

[Dangerfoot]

KaidanWilliamsShepard wrote...

Dangerfoot wrote...

ME-ParaShep wrote...

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

Maybe they liked the Mako portions of the- BAHAHAHAHAA

I'm sorry I couldn't keep a straight face.

The Mako was awesome, and a hell of alot more fun than the linear hallways in Mass Effect 2.

I hate painted hallway level design as much as the next guy, but I'd rather play a whole game of that than a whole game of the Mako.

But then again I'm not a fan of vehicle mechanics in general.

[whywhywhywhy]

Garrison2009 wrote...

Perhaps the reason Mass Effect 2 truly did so well is because some of us (Who truly enjoyed the first one and fell in love not only with the characters but also with the world that was created in this series) actually simply wanted to see how the story would progress without really caring about the gameplay or mechanics. Now if they had changed Mass Effect 2 into a puzzle game or something... yeah, that would've set me off. But as it is, they didnt change it soooo drastically that I couldnt play it. I greatly enjoyed ME2 for the basic reason that it continued Shepard's story, not because they pushed the combat or lessened the RPG expereience or anything like that... Simply because I wanted to see what happened next in this universe I've come to enjoy playing in. I am glad to say I've already preordered ME3 and am looking forward to seeing the next installment of the series.

So what your saying is you were a fan of the first game so you bought the second ?  Yeah, that's what I said too, that's why people buy sequels.  I'm in a agreement about that, but I disagree that gameplay and mechanics don't count as part of the experience.  If it doesn't matter to you that's cool but I'd say you only got part of what made me1 so great.

Also by your account you don't need to play the game if gameplay and mechanics aren't necessary you can go buy the books, you get a lot more story.

[Terror_K]

AlanC9 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

I don't think an RPG necessarily needs loot, but there has to be something better than a small handful of items in the same place in every playthrough, offering no real surprises, randomness or discovery whatsoever (beyond the first time that is). ME2's system was just so... tedious and unrewarding, and completely lacking in anything remotely interesting. The lack of any decent customisation and linear research/upgrade system that had no tradeoffs and allowed you to too easily max everything didn't help either.

I'm not saying a lot of loot is the answer, but what's the alternative? At least with loot there's that random diceroll factor. It's not predictable and the same every time. I suppose those who don't care about items much at all don't care, but some of us do.

You sem to place a good deal of importance on loot  randomness. A lot of loot-heavy games have no or little randomness; ME1 is an extreme outlier among Bioware games in having worthwhile stuff drop randomly.

Most RPGs or loot heavy games I've played have a mix: a good amount of set items in set places, and also some random stuff as well. Other games don't necessarily have as much random gear, but there's so much of it and the game is large enough that you can't as easily memorise where everything is, and often only remember the best items or the earliest good/decent ones. I like randomness because it makes things different and interesting and adds an element of the unexpected.

It's not necessary, but I feel that making items interesting and different in some manner is needed. Perhaps the modding making a return will add some spice to ME3 that was absent from ME2, but I'm not sure if that alone will be enough. ME2 might not have been so bad if shop items and some of the less plot/location crucial items were at least randomised somewhat (the shops also seemed rather pathetic when they had so few items and ran dry so quickly. I don't think I've seen another game with quite a shop system as utterly anaemic as ME2's ones.).

As I said, I don't feel loot is necessarily the answer in all cases. I can understand it when people say that they feel loot doesn't terribly suit Mass Effect as it is, at least with the main trilogy involving Shepard anyway. I even agree with them to an extent, moreso with the statement itself than with what it does to and for gameplay. It's a bit of a case of "it doesn't really fit, but I like it still" in some ways. But I do think items need to be made more interesting and dynamic, and that with such a small roster of overall items you can't just have every playthrough exactly the same item wise. Modding and getting rid of the linear research/upgrade system will help in ME3, that's for sure... whether it'll be enough though, that's still hard to say. At the moment I have my doubts, but we'll see. The devs have said looting does come back in some lighter-than-standard, unspecified form.

[Big_Stupid_Jelly]

ME-ParaShep wrote...

Dangerfoot wrote...

ME-ParaShep wrote...

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

Maybe they liked the Mako portions of the- BAHAHAHAHAA

I'm sorry I couldn't keep a straight face.

When I read Mako, I couldn't keep a straight face too. This was my face in action ----> ........:happy:....

Seriously, Mako gameplay was.. SOMETHING. I wonder what kind of vehicle antics will happen in ME 3

Personally speaking having played ME2 3 times now, going back to play ME1 with the MAKO was like a breath of fresh air, and I was suprised how much I actually missed it - beats scanning planets thats for sure, and to think I was initially defending that aspect when I bought ME2.

[whywhywhywhy]

littlezack wrote...

I'm going to a movie, so I don't have time to argue your poorly phrased points. You didn't like ME2, I can't convince you to like it, nor do I really want to.

If you could argue my points you would otherwise why respond at all ? You lack the ability to do so and lack any points to make.

littlezack wrote...
I didn't put words in your mouth, though.

You incinuated my post about bioware making a mistake had to do with:

you said-  "But, okay, let's stop and talk for a second about that last statement, making all the wrong moves. See, when someone around here says somethingabout 'Bioware is betraying the fans!', they're basically saying
'Bioware is betraying the fans like me'."  

Followed by- "The problem with that mentalityis that it acts like Bioware should only ever care about catering to
one group of fans, regardless of what that might mean for sales and whatnot. It acts like only one group of fans matter. Which is, frankly, alittle selfish."

None of this has anything to do with my post, why you chose to respond to my post with this worthless drivel I have no clue.  So I must feel everything you've wrote if I think bioware is making a mistake ?  Wrong.  You've created that argument and quoted me when it has nothing to do with my view.

littlezack wrote...
You said ME1 wasn't a million seller, and you were wrong.

No, you are wrong.  If you could read you'd see I said "Mass Effect was a million seller.  If it wasn't, there probably wouldn't
have been a Mass Effect 2"  So I see why you "don't have time to argue your poorly phrased points."  You have issues reading.  And here I thought little typo's were confusing you, lol.

littlezack wrote...
You believe ME is going in the wrong direction, and you're not alone. But it's silly of you to think you represent a majority opinion, and that the IP will suffer because of your loss. Most people really don't give a crap about how much ME is like an RPG. They just play games because they find them fun.

"But it's silly of you to think you represent a majority opinion, and that the IP will suffer because of your loss."  Ip suffer because of your loss ?? lol.  You make such grand claims about how you percieve what I'm saying but your perception is off.  People always claim the rpg element is irrevelent because the rpg fans are the minority of the fanbase, I simply presented a argument that questions this.  Mass effect was labeled a RPG yet rpg fans are a minority of the fanbase ??  Yeah right.  I have a hard time believing that, the change to fps is being made because a larger fanbase can be found.  But I doubt with the plethora of shooters available that fps fans have overwhelmed the fanbase.  Present proof otherwise or that supports your claims.

Modifié par whywhywhywhy, 02 juillet 2011 - 09:51 .

[Candidate 88766]

When it boils down to it, both ME games have essentially been conversations and cutscenes spread out by shooting sections and occasional hub sections. Bioware has nailed the conversation, cutscene and storytelling parts already, so the main part that needs improving is the shooting part as it made up the bulk of BOTH ME1 and ME2. The RPG components in ME1 were based around the story and improving the player's performance in combat, but that meant nerfing players at the start and that really doesn't work in a game that relies on shooter mechanics. For ME2 and ME3 the RPG features are mainly focused on the story and choices and less on the gameplay sections because TPS gameplay doesn't mix well with the kind of RPG features Bioware was originally trying out.

Gravbh wrote...

I think ME3 (and 2's) direction is fine. Even ME1 was billed as a shooter/rpg hybrid. 2 greatly improved the actual shooter part. 3 will hopefully strike the perfect balance for the hybrid.

The DA2 criticisms aren't really valid for Mass Effect imo. DA:O was a love letter to old school rpg design. There was nothing hybrid about it. The about-face to nearly an action-rpg was a massive change, whereas ME-ME2 refined an already unique hybrid.

I agree with this. A lot of people who don't like ME2's direction seem to think it was a change from what ME1 was going for when really both were going for the same kind of genre hybrid, but ME1 didn't pull it off anywhere near as well and was held up only by its story. 

[whywhywhywhy]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

Head on over to Metacritic.  Go on.  Take a peek at ME2 ratings, both critical and user.  You are in the minority.  A small minority.  If you seriously think BW "killed the IP" with ME2, well thats your opinion.  Obviously this is not the series for you.

I don't care about ratings I've spoken the truth, me 2 was a horrible sequel.  If your so fond of ratings let me know what me3 ratings will be, the game obviously was heading to be another train wreck.  Otherwise how do you explain such a late and long delay for the game ..... 

qworty wrote...

I don't usually like shooters there not my
thing but I enjoyed ME 2 in spite of the disappointing lack of RPG
elements. A game that is supposedly about choice but doesn't allow me
any isn't an RPG its a shooter/action game.

Choice would have
been letting me choose whether or not I worked with Cerberus or turned
them in to the alliance/council. Instead I get railroaded right left and
center with no actual choices.

Choice would have been letting me
use the paragon/renegade option in cut scenes to change what was
happening instead of a use it or not and still get basically the same
result. Like with Zaedes loyalty mission it would have been great to
have a paragon option to stop him lighting the refinery on fire and a
renegade option to help him blow it up. That would have been a real
choice in the game and an opportunity to ROLE play

Or meeting
Ashly/ Kaiden and having the CHOICE to agree with them and return to the
alliance/council. Instead I'm bashed repeatedly by the NPC's for
joining Cerberus when I never have any CHOICE in the matter.

And this is one of the reasons why it was such a horrible sequel.

Modifié par whywhywhywhy, 02 juillet 2011 - 10:27 .

[whywhywhywhy]

AlanC9 wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...
In essence they are going to kill the IP, they know this that's why they release comments trying to please both camps, but you can't.  RPG/action gamers and fps gamers are looking for two entirely different things, this is why they released a statement saying they were looking not to abandon the rpg elements, while showcasing fps elements in combat.  Those rpg/action fans make up the bulk not the minority of the fanbase, I refuse to believe any large amount of people bought ME as a fps fix.  Too many better games in the genre exist.  ME2 might of netted some more fans but just about all the fps action added in me3(shown) is been there done that for true fps fans.  With a 2012 release it's fps strides will seem dated, disgruntled rpg fans will have moved on.  A small amount will remain.

So all the people who really liked ME2 are wrong about their own tastes?

 How does my belief that one wouldn't by a ME game as a fps fix confuse people about their taste?  Do you deny that fps elements are being added to the game ?  If not answer me this what is the one thing every fps needs ?  Nevermind I'll tell you, multiplayer.  So why would fps fans turn to ME as a fps when it lacks the most basics of gameplay musts for a fps.

Also to whoever said it's third person shooter your wrong as most FPS have a toggle between 1st and 3rd perspective view.

I stand by my statements most people thought I was crazy in 07 when I said nokia would be making phones for ms, but it happened.

Modifié par whywhywhywhy, 02 juillet 2011 - 10:38 .

[whywhywhywhy]

Wildfire Darkstar wrote...

EternalPink wrote...

Seems a lot of people are caught up on things like stats when these are a carry over from pen and paper role playing were you had dice and so on to attempt to simulate chance, today's computers can simulate that chance far more efficently without having to bog us down (how many people actually understood THAC0 from the BG games? be honest) so why do we want to return to that?

Because, frankly, there are only really two ways in which stats could have been rendered obsolete.

• Because they're not actually gone, they're just hidden from the player's view
• Because decisions that were formerly determined based on calculation are now determined based on the player's inherent skill at doing whatever (reaction time, etc.)

The former is hard to defend as a good development, because it ignores that whole point of having stats in the first place was to inform a player of what his or her character was realistically capable of within the game. If my character was a poor brawler, I (the player) would know to either avoid putting that character into situations where s/he had to brawl, or (if this is possible given the rules of the game) to work on improving his or her brawling abilities. Having that information be visible doesn't "bog down" the game, it makes playing the game feasible in the first place.

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.

It's not the only way to do it, but throwing out this level of abstraction and replacing with a mechanic where a character's reaction time is directly correlated to the player's own reaction time means that it inherently involves less role playing. My choices in RPing Shepard are limited by own reflexes, which either forces me into a particular style of play or (if the game is particularly linear) makes the entire thing unplayable for me.

Stats don't need to be at AD&D2 levels of complexity. In fact, I'd argue that they probably shouldn't be: as designed, that's a ruleset intended to apply to a vast range of possible different scenarios and environments so that each DM need not devise their own set. This isn't necessary for a CRPG, where the developers can tailor their specific rules for the needs of their game. But the basic purpose behind stats have certainly not been superseded just because they've clearly fallen out of favor with developers.

And before we head back down that old rabbit hole of arguing whether or not the ME series was an RPG, I know it's a hybrid. But there's a whole range of possibilities within the definition of RPG/TPS hybrid, and the discussion has always been about where the ideal balance should be. Your mileage may vary, of course, but that's what the actual debate is about, isn't it?

[*]excellent post