3223 réponses à ce sujet

[whywhywhywhy]

Gatt9 wrote...

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.

you've put a lot of thought into your post, I agree with your position.

[Lumikki]

Loot and stats and skills are all related customation.

Loot can also provide motive for player as reward, what seems first good, but doesn't necassary be so. Why?

Because it's different why player is playing the game as what is players motive. Example very item heavy game the motive of playing has changed from playing role of character to get the better items. So, while it first seem that more motive is better, it's also what kind of motive it creates for player. If player has too many not playing role motives, player isn't anymore role-playing, but playing game like any other simple find optimal situation. I ques it's called metagaming or powerplaying.

So, it's not just about having deeper customation or more motive, it's also about where the players focus and motive is when playing the game. That's why it's very important how items are done in game, because item based customation can be done many ways. Question is does looting actually support as motive role-playing or does it create players more like metagaming motives.

Same goes with stats and skills, even if they can also be related progression. They can be done many ways, it's question is players focus in role-playing the character or has focus shifted where adjusting numbers in stats and skills has become actual gameplay for player.

What I'm trying to say is that while many feature can support roleplaying (RPG = Role-Playing games) we have to also ask what is the players REAL motive why player is playing role-playing games. Is it really playing role of character or has the metagaming with items, stats and numbers and finding optimal solution become players main focus for playing the game.

Many features can be design many ways and some of them support better role-playing while some more about metagaming. Both are valid gaming styles, but when I choose RPG, I do it my self because role-playing reasons. As ability play role in story. Not to metagame numbers to find optimal solutions. So, I don't consider game mechnics what supports a lot number based gameplay in role-playing games as good thing, if they customation function can be done more role-playing friendly ways.

Point been just because you play RPG doesn't mean you role-play at all. I would like features done so that they would promote actually orginal purpose why RPG even exist and not promote so strongly metagaming where statical gameplay becomes too important for players. These statical features has been tool for role-playing as creating variation as deeped customation for player, but when they become gameplay it self for player, hole role-playing is totally lost and metagaming started.

So, are you asking loot and stats for what reasons and motive?
Because customation what they provide can also achievable other means.

So, while I support sertain stuff like players ability find something in missions, that doesn't mean we need some major item looting systems for it. While stats are important for RPG, Mass Effect combat is player skill based Third-Person SHOOTER. Meaning it doesn't require character skills or stats, because player is directly acting those skills. Same way that actors are acting in they role in movies. How good player can do it, isn't issue, because we all should be allowed to play role and not been judge how good we can do it.

Are RPG skills or powers needed when something isn't combat related action in Mass Effect. Yes, because outside of combat Mass Effect is still more traditional RPG, so game should support character based skills there more.

If there is anyting in game what isn't combat related, could require use of character skill, if it's not also made player skill based. How ever, Biowares games focus seem to be little strong only related combat. So, non combat activities seem to be allmost non existense. Too bad, because there could be a lot of nice role-playing opportinies outside of combat too. Because role-playing so combat heavy can be little dull when there isn't enough gameplay variety.

Modifié par Lumikki, 02 juillet 2011 - 01:20 .

[Il Divo]

Gatt9 wrote...

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.

I've never understood the obsession with loot. As a proponent of games as a form of art, emphasis on loot is a detriment of this. World of Warcraft is a great example of what happens when loot becomes the end result of video games. A movie/novel/comic book motivates the viewer/reader to continue through story, characters, etc. Video games are an interactive medium, so obviously they need some form of gameplay, but I've never considered loot to be a good motivation, mainly because the player's focus is being diverted from other important aspects.
 
"I have to do this quest because it might give me a +5 magic sword, not because there was any interesting content". That's the potential result.   

Mass Effect is a great example of a game that would have benefited without any loot. The presence (or lack) of loot is not what causes me to notice flaws in combat/story/whatever. 

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.

Loot would not have motivated me to perform ME2's side missions (which were largely worthless). It certainly didn't motivate me to perform ME1's.

Modifié par Il Divo, 02 juillet 2011 - 11:35 .

[Il Divo]

whywhywhywhy wrote...

 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.

Mass Effect does not have an FPS toggle. Move along.

[Terror_K]

Il Divo wrote...

I've never understood the obsession with loot. As a proponent of games as a form of art, emphasis on loot is a detriment of this. World of Warcraft is a great example of what happens when loot becomes the end result of video games. A movie/novel/comic book motivates the viewer/reader to continue through story, characters, etc. Video games are an interactive medium, so obviously they need some form of gameplay, but I've never considered loot to be a good motivation, mainly because the player's focus is being diverted from other important aspects.
 
"I have to do this quest because it might give me a +5 magic sword, not because there was any interesting content". That's the potential result.   

Mass Effect is a great example of a game that would have benefited without any loot. The presence (or lack) of loot is not what causes me to notice flaws in combat/story/whatever.

I think like any other aspect of a game it's about execution and overall balance. If you focus too much on any one particular aspect it can become too strong and the other elements feel weak. There needs to be a good balanced focus on all the aspects of the game rather than letting one factor overdominate it.

For example, many felt the statistical RPG factors of ME1 overdominated it and that it was controlling aspects of the game it shouldn't have. Similarly (and also conversely) when ME2 came along many felt that the TPS combat elements were far too strong and focused upon and that the statistical RPG elements were neglected. Different people like different aspects of the game, and while there are many who are satisfied with the RPG elements being pushed aside because they either prefer the TPS combat stuff or merely find the RPG elements get in the way, and while there are many who are put off by the TPS combat stuff being too strong and prefer the RPG elements be a bit more in-force one still has to accept that these many different factors are a part of the game.

Combat. Weapons. Item Management. Inventory and Loot. Story. Dialogue. Choices and Consequences. Statistical Progression. Powers. All these things and more need a good balance so that overall they are neither too strong, nor too weak. Some people may not really like loot and items that much, but there still needs to be a certain degree of these factors as they are part of the game and there are players who enjoy these factors, and just like they shouldn't dominate too much and turn Mass Effect into something akin to Diablo II or Borderlands, nor should they fade away entirely and be little more than collecting guns in something like Doom or Quake either.

Granted, there are factors that are simply bad game design. Bad game design and taste is an entirely different thing, although both can be a point of view. Some things I find bad game design about ME2 for instance other people don't. Some people like minimalist HUDs for instance, while I personally think they're bad game design. There will no doubt be factors I consider good game design that others find to be bad though.

[Phaedon]

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.

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

You couldn't be more wrong.

More loot doesn't mean better quality or more "surprises".

And ME1 shows that perfectly.

"Oh look, there are 25 crates scattered around the level, better interact with every single one of them, temporarily ignoring the objective as I search around the battlefield for hidden crates and break the experience completely"

"Oh look! It's a weapon! Well, I hope that it plays differe- Seriously! Out of all the weapons in this game, all feel the same?"

"But well, at least I have more choices to suit my build, bec- What. All of the weapons have the same stats, other than a very small increase in attack. All of the weapons that have a higher attack stat are better than my previous weapon!"

"Oh well, at least I can mess around with the inventory, I loved the inventory back in BG and Knights of the Old Rep- WHAT IS THIS CLUSTERF---"

Transmission failed.

Modifié par Phaedon, 02 juillet 2011 - 12:36 .

[Terror_K]

Hyperbole much, Phaedon?

In fact, no offense, but your posting lately seems to have taken a dive in quality. You were once pretty good at discussing things, but now you seem to be throwing out a bunch of exaggerated exclamation quotes. Are you particularly frustrated lately or something?

Seriously, I mean no offense. It's just your posts used to be more constructive in the past.

In response to your post, I personally found the whole "each weapon is unique"  and "each weapon feels different" aspect of ME2 to be both overstated and overrated. Especially given the overall lack of items in the game. Few have issues with the fact that in most RPGs the weapons often don't differ that much in feel and style within their own type, but yet because the combat in Mass Effect is more action-oriented and uses TPS elements suddenly each weapon has to act and fire completely differently or the system is fail?

Perhaps I'd be more receptive if each different weapon had some variations too, but as it stands I actually think there's still not enough weapons all up. ME1's were admittedly were too much the same and offered too much, but in some ways ME2 didn't offer enough and could have done with more options that were the same, yet different.

Modifié par Terror_K, 02 juillet 2011 - 12:53 .

[Phaedon]

Terror_K wrote...

Hyperbole much, Phaedon?

In fact, no offense, but your posting lately seems to have taken a dive in quality. You were once pretty good at discussing things, but now you seem to be throwing out a bunch of exaggerated exclamation quotes. Are you particularly frustrated lately or something?

Seriously, I mean no offense. It's just your posts used to be more constructive in the past.

My posts are constructed of fine and pure quality rage.

I do honestly, believe however, that you couldn't be more wrong with quanity vs quality when it comes to loot.

I can't think of a good game that had a terrible amount of loot and didn't end up having either vendor trash or copy/pastes with very small stat upgrades.

Modifié par Phaedon, 02 juillet 2011 - 01:00 .

[Terror_K]

Phaedon wrote...

I do honestly, believe however, that you couldn't be more wrong with quanity vs quality when it comes to loot however.

I can't think of a good game that had a terrible amount of loot and didn't end up having either vendor trash or copy/pastes with very small stat upgrades.

Aside from the fact that I wasn't actually advocating Mass Effect to have a "terrible amount of loot" and was talking about balancing it, there's the likes of Diablo II and Borderlands: two games very well received and loved for their loot.

Now, you could say, "those aren't good games" but that's really a point of view again. A lot of people say they are, especially Diablo II. It was a massive hit when it first came out, and still hasn't disappeared from the shelves even now.

You can say, "those games have vendor trash" but you can't really have a loot system at all without the standard and bad items. Diablo II again proves the point here: the good and rare items are special because they're rare and hard to come by as much as they are because they're good items. Lower the trash and every item is great, and when every item is great then the rarity and special nature of the items disappears. The only reason anything is special is because there are so many other things in the world that aren't, and the same applies to loot in games.

Again though, having loot in some form doesn't automatically mean having to go to the upper extreme. Like I said, like any element you can go too far in either direction: too much loot and items (ala ME1) or too little (ala ME2). Removing it almost entirely may please you, but that doesn't mean that's what a lot of others want from the game. Just like if ME3 were to remove something you liked about ME2.

For instance, what it the situation were reversed? What if in the first game the system was like it was in ME2: less items overall, but each was more unique and special. And then in the sequel they decided, "we want more items, so we'll have to just scale the weapons back to each weapon class being the same, and just alter the stats on them, then bring in a looting system." That would have annoyed you and you would have been saying, "where have my unique weapons gone?!!" Just like people were saying, "where has my looting and customisation gone?!!" with ME2.

[Phaedon]

Terror_K wrote...
Aside from the fact that I wasn't actually advocating Mass Effect to have a "terrible amount of loot" and was talking about balancing it, there's the likes of Diablo II and Borderlands: two games very well received and loved for their loot.

No.

And I personally think the same for Diablo.

Now, you could say, "those aren't good games" but that's really a point of view again. A lot of people say they are, especially Diablo II. It was a massive hit when it first came out, and still hasn't disappeared from the shelves even now.

Diablo II is a great game, Borderlands, I haven't played yet. The loot of Borderlands however has been a matter of discussion on multiple gaming forums.

Just because they have a good or a bad element doesn't apply to the games as a whole.

And Diablo II doesn't have much of a storyline which is why I didn't care about loot.

You can say, "those games have vendor trash" but you can't really have a loot system at all without the standard and bad items.

Yes you can. 
Moderate quantity means more items that are not clearly better or worse than others, but have their own unique features (visual or practical) and their own advantages and disadvantages.

Diablo II again proves the point here: the good and rare items are special because they're rare and hard to come by as much as they are because they're good items. Lower the trash and every item is great, and when every item is great then the rarity and special nature of the items disappears. The only reason anything is special is because there are so many other things in the world that aren't, and the same applies to loot in games.

Not at all.

Different items can have different visual effects, special powers, as well as stats that don't make them good or bad. They just make them different.

And in the ME1, no weapons are just different, they are all better or worse than the one you are equipped with.

Again though, having loot in some form doesn't automatically mean having to go to the upper extreme. Like I said, like any element you can go too far in either direction: too much loot and items (ala ME1) or too little (ala ME2). Removing it almost entirely may please you, but that doesn't mean that's what a lot of others want from the game. Just like if ME3 were to remove something you liked about ME2.

I didn't say otherwise.

Why not expand on the ME2 philosophy of "different" weapons, with more diversity.

For instance, what it the situation were reversed? What if in the first game the system was like it was in ME2: less items overall, but each was more unique and special. And then in the sequel they decided, "we want more items, so we'll have to just scale the weapons back to each weapon class being the same, and just alter the stats on them, then bring in a looting system." That would have annoyed you and you would have been saying, "where have my unique weapons gone?!!" Just like people were saying, "where has my looting and customisation gone?!!" with ME2.

What is the point of your argument here? I would dislike if a good feature was not transferred to the sequel for no reason (and that's why I hated the fact that there was no improved Mako because the community complained enough.)

I haven't seen anyone defend the loot or inventory of ME1, just the concept of having loot and inventory.

[Lumikki]

I think both Terror_K and Phaedon are right. Just different reasons. It all depense what you are looking from game as what kind of experience you want from it. Like where you values are as what kind of focus you want from the game.

How ever, in this case I think I support Phaedon, not because Terror_K's point isn't valid. But because what kind of game Mass Effect really is, what isn't anything like Diablo. More loot doesn't necassary make Mass Effect game better. I don't say that little more than ME2 had would hurt, but amount of ME1 did hurt the game.

Also item based customation doesn't have to come from loot, it can also come from buying items from shops. I think loot should be more related discover as exploration than actual customation in Mass Effect case. Meaning when you explore you can discover something new, but when you actally do "heavy" customation, it happens with items buyed from shops. If loot becomes main point of customation, then it change the focus too much to loot as find the best item. That's not what Mass Effect serie is all about. I rather have that loot is more about discovery new stuff than actual customation of those stuff.

Modifié par Lumikki, 02 juillet 2011 - 01:49 .

[Terror_K]

Phaedon wrote...

What is the point of your argument here? I would dislike if a good feature was not transferred to the sequel for no reason (and that's why I hated the fact that there was no improved Mako because the community complained enough.)

My point is that there were a lot of factors from ME1 that either weren't transferred to the sequel or were transferred in such an altered and watered-down manner that they were unsatisfactory and/or lost their purpose in the transition. You (and others) may not feel this way, but a lot of us do. And while you can defend the devs and say, "a lot of this stuff is coming back in ME3 in some manner" that doesn't avoid the fact that a lot of us are still saying, "Yeah. But it should never have gone in the first place."

ME2's answer to ME1's problems was cull and simplify. Whether that was improvement and made a better game is a point of view. Less is not always more, and a less flawed game does not always automatically mean a better one.

I haven't seen anyone defend the loot or inventory of ME1, just the concept of having loot and inventory.

I won't respond to the other stuff you replied to because I think this final sentence of yours nails the issue well enough: this is very much the point.

Seriously... why it is when ME2's faults in this area are pointed out almost all the ME2 defenders immediately leap to its defense by trying to assassinate the original game? (something you yourself just did earlier with your little quotes railing against ME1's method of going about things). The point wasn't that ME1 did loot and inventory well; the point was that it still did it, but ME2 really just didn't. ME1's loot and inventory itself doesn't deserve defending when it comes to execution, but the concept and idea itself does.

You may ask then, "well if you think both sides are faulted, why do you defend ME1 more than ME2?" The main difference for me is simply this: ME1 had a good idea and concept that was poorly executed when it came to loot and inventory. For the most part, I just felt ME2 had bad ideas, even if these ideas were executed better (then again, they were so simple it was almost impossible for them not to work). Not every aspect was bad mind you, but the overall idea and concept wasn't a good one, IMO.

[Lumikki]

Terror_K, you are complaining customation in ME2 what they allready gonna fix in ME3.

Issue is, is more loot better for game or not?

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Terror_K, you are complaining customation in ME2 what they allready gonna fix in ME3.

Issue is, is more loot better for game or not?

For me personally, I think it would be. But I'm not sure whether it would be better overall, and better for the game. As much as I like loot of some kind and would prefer it to the small selection of predictable items ME2 gave us, those who have said "loot doesn't really fit Mass Effect" do have a very valid point.

I'm conflicted. This is one of those rare instances where I'm divided between what's better for me and what I think is better for the game itself. Loot is a very tricky thing to balance and get right. Neither system ME has seen so far has worked, IMO.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

I've really gotten to where I hate developer interviews from Bioware. They all tend to be very vague reassurances, no matter whether it's someone from Bioware Austin or Edmonton. I understand why they do it, so they won't give too much away. But also it tells me absolutely nothing most of the time. "Character driven" could be many things, most basicly it could be either about developing a player's character, developing Bioware's character or be developing NPCs around the player character or some form of all of the above. I can only assume he means Shepard, since it's been about Bioware's Shep since the first game.

I hope they don't neglect adding more items to ME 3, I enjoyed the variety of weapons and armors in ME 1, though it did end up resulting in turning most of it into Omnigel. It was rather fun customizing the gear for each character's needs, especially maximizing the firepower of weapons with different barrels, sights, dampeners and ammunition types. It was a little bit of a downer in ME 2 that I couldn't alter companion NPC armor or actually give them legitimate armor to go into combat wearing. Please, no more skin tight jumpsuits, high heels or handful of leather straps (Jack) for NPC armor when heading into a firefight...especially in SPACE!

That said, I do hope they spend time giving Shepard more roleplay options. I enjoyed the story to ME 2, but it seemed more about the combat goals and over arching story than the small conversations and party banter which usually make Bioware games a rich experience. The fact the Garrus and Tali have one banter in ME 2 that alludes to the lack of banters (the elevator comment) makes me wonder if Bioware was conciously trying to cut down on banters and roleplay elements and go for more combat or if they really were only just joking about load times with elevator transitions.

[Dangerfoot]

Borderlands isn't terrible or anything, but building your enemy scaling around gear progression more than talent progression is annoying, especially when 99% of loot is random and also not very good. I'm kind of biased because I don't care much for gear progression in general, so I couldn't tell you if Borderlands had low quality gear progressions, just that it wasn't something that I'd put on the "pro" column of the game.

[In Exile]

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.

Well, no. Loot doesn't provide a short-term goal unless loot is actually something you think is valuable. Which goes right back to loot needing to be in because loot needs to be in type reasoning.

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?

Exactly the same, but now you'd get trash loot you have to sell.

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.

On the one hand, people believe RPGs are a more intelligent form of interaction. On the other hand, they quite literally describe them in terms we use to condition pidgeons (fyi - pidgeons are really stupid) to press switches.

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.

Only if you like look. Otherwise (assuming the game is bad) loot is just an extra feature that sucks and makes the game worse.

Modifié par In Exile, 02 juillet 2011 - 02:38 .

[In Exile]

Terror_K wrote...
Perhaps I'd be more receptive if each different weapon had some variations too, but as it stands I actually think there's still not enough weapons all up. ME1's were admittedly were too much the same and offered too much, but in some ways ME2 didn't offer enough and could have done with more options that were the same, yet different.

I agree - ME2 didn't offer enough variety. But ME1 offered less variety using a worse interface, inferior gameplay and more aggravating mechanic. That ME2 wasn't good at it doesn't somehow make ME1 good at it, and it certainly doesn't mean going back to a failed implementation.

Lower the trash and every item is great, and when every item is great
then the rarity and special nature of the items disappears. The only
reason anything is special is because there are so many other things in
the world that aren't, and the same applies to loot in games.

You actually like vendor trash? I cannot possibly understand what is so great about essentially acting as if you were a homeless person scouring through trash cans. I just don't get loot (well, that's wrong - I get the psychology of loot, I just don't get why it actually is something people seek out).

Seriously... why it is when ME2's faults in this area are pointed
out almost all the ME2 defenders immediately leap to its defense by
trying to assassinate the original game? (something you yourself just
did earlier with your little quotes railing against ME1's method of
going about things).

To jump in: because we aren't having a discussion about what ME2 did wrong. We're having a discussion about what ME1 did better.

Take exploration - people don't really want to talk about implementing exploration. They want to talk about how ME1 handled exploration and how ME3 can bring it back.

No one says novel things, like ME3 should allow you to kill reapers and their explore and loot their shattered remains for tech + lore. People talk about bringing back re-textured barren worlds or the Mako.

I just felt ME2 had bad ideas, even if these ideas were executed better
(then again, they were so simple it was almost impossible for them not to work). Not every aspect was
bad mind you, but the overall idea and concept wasn't a good one, IMO.

And other people feel it's a great one. In fact, I think ME2 had great ideas that it executed badly. 

[Varen Spectre]

Lumikki wrote...

Issue is, is more loot better for game or not?

I don't know... I can only speak for myself and I am sure my opinion is quite unique and very inefficient from developer's perspective. 

I like when the games are trying to be realistic in this regard (at least on Deus Ex level). That means, I like when I am able to take the equipment from defeated enemies (just like in real life). And I also like, when there is a lot of items (weapons, armors, etc.) since IRL, there are also many different versions and variations of them.

On the other hand, I have always found it weird, that my characters were able to carry so many items (especially armors ) and still were able to fight.

So, my ideal would be, looting "yes", a lot of different items "yes", big inventories full of them "no".

Modifié par Varen Spectre, 02 juillet 2011 - 05:31 .

[upsettingshorts]

I liked the "loot" in ME2 for one reason: It didnt rely on the MAGIC BAG OF HOLDING that somehow allows you to carry 50 weapons and a dozen armor sets in addition to a bunch of mods.  Basically the loot system was replaced by a loadout system common in tactical shooters, which was - for the purposes of the Mass Effect setting - fine by me.

But then, I'm a fan of inventory Tetris combined with weight limits. If you can't literally picture your character or your party literally being able to carry it, then you shouldn't be able to.

I'm not a huge fan of trash loot as a source of income, and the whole "Spectres have to buy their own gear" thing in ME1 struck me as a contrivance to justify implementing that mechanic.  So I was doubly annoyed by it.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 juillet 2011 - 02:48 .

[Raxxman]

Terror_K wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Terror_K, you are complaining customation in ME2 what they allready gonna fix in ME3.

Issue is, is more loot better for game or not?

For me personally, I think it would be. But I'm not sure whether it would be better overall, and better for the game. As much as I like loot of some kind and would prefer it to the small selection of predictable items ME2 gave us, those who have said "loot doesn't really fit Mass Effect" do have a very valid point.

I'm conflicted. This is one of those rare instances where I'm divided between what's better for me and what I think is better for the game itself. Loot is a very tricky thing to balance and get right. Neither system ME has seen so far has worked, IMO.

The issue is they're basically polarised opposties in how they handed out loot.

ME1 = completely random, based on licences you obtained, but otherwise you had loot tables based on your level. At no point did you pick up specific weapons.

ME2 = completely fixed. You picked up weapons based entirely on the level you played. Want the better AR? go do Archangels recruitment. Want the best SMG? go do Kasumis. You get one 'superweapon' pickup on the collectors ship, or you buy them as DLC.

ME3 tbh is probably going to go down the ME2 path of looting, because it's simple to impliment, and it allows you to milk profits. Might be cynical conjecture based on snippets of information, but it's also probably true.

[AlanC9]

Terror_K wrote...
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.

Gotcha. So BG and FO are in the second category -- no actual randomness except for trivial RE drops, but effectively random since unless the player is looking at a walkthrough he won't remember where all the stuff is.

I don't think I've seen another game with quite a shop system as utterly anaemic as ME2's ones.

Hey, I was lobbying for shops to be pulled altogether. One of those "doesn't fit the storyline" things.

Modifié par AlanC9, 02 juillet 2011 - 03:35 .

[AlanC9]

whywhywhywhy wrote...
 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.

My bad for being unclear. I wasn't denying that ME2 isn't for "FPS fans." IF you only like FPSs, you won't like ME2, true.

But that doesn't mean that it's impossible for RPG players to like having FPS elements added to an RPG. I like the hybrid approach ME2 took. Lots of people liked it. I'm going to like ME3's approach too. So will they.

You don't like it? Well, sucks to be you.

Edit: I guess I missed the post where you declared that fans are segregated into "FPS fans " and "RPG fans." I don't buy this premise.

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

Do they? I'll take your word for it. None of the ones I've played have it, but I haven't bought a new FPS in a while.

Does this mean that you don't think there is any such genre as a TPS, though?

Modifié par AlanC9, 02 juillet 2011 - 03:38 .

[Epic777]

FPS? ME is does not play in the First Person, its always been partly a Third Person Shooter -TPS. Its like Final Fantasy fans who cannot tell the difference between ATB combat and true turn based combat.