3223 réponses à ce sujet

[Lumikki]

the_one_54321 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
if I found ME2's combat more fun and you did not, what do we have to say to each other?

It's the shooter fan effect. People who were accustomed to playing shooters found the stat interference infuriating. As much as I love RPGs, I also am a fan of shooters and play them regularly. Variety is the spice of life.

I don't get this?

I'm RPG fan and I hell don't like first person shooters, I hardly ever play them at all, because they are just pure trash for me.

Now I can play fine TPS in action RPG like Mass Effect or even some adventure games, because shooter part is just the combat, not the perspective or hole point of the game.. Meaning long range weapon combat works well in shooter. But I would never call me shooter fan.

I just like when something works well and feels good, like ME2 combat did. Because weapons where different enough and feeled like weapon they should be. I can shoot different parts of enemies. I'm not superman most the time who can just run open and be like Rambo, in leeroy style. I actually has to consider that I can't take so many hits and try to avoid been hit, by using cover. That makes combat feel more like modern warfare. You have to consider what kind of game Mass Effect is.

So while I do get you point of variety, but why you think that RPG fans can't enjoy shooter combat in action RPG, when it's well done and fits the games style.

Modifié par Lumikki, 03 juillet 2011 - 11:11 .

[Wildfire Darkstar]

Hulk Hsieh wrote...
The ME2 way makes people really experience the weapons before comparison.
I think that make it a better "thinking" game.

The problem is that it's not just that ME2 has a more complex system for determining effectiveness than "6 is greater than 5" (which is true of dozens of very stats-heavy RPGs), or even that it just hides the numbers from its players (which is arguably something bad, in any case). It's that much of that calculation isn't even in the game: your effectiveness with a given weapon is, to a much greater extent than most real RPGs, and even to a significant extent more than ME1, based on your skill as a player, not your character's skill. It's a layer of abstraction removed, which is great for a shooter, but it removes a crucial element of role playing, in that it limits your ability to take on the characteristics of a role that is removed from your own skills and abilities as the player. Your Shepard's speed, accuracy, and reaction time are directly determined by your own speed, accuracy, and reaction time. In effect, it's like ensuring that Shepard's dialogue and choices were limited by the morality and predisposition of the player: an moral player would be prohibited from making renegade-style choices, or vice versa.

Once again, stats are an abstraction that create a framework that makes deep role playing possible. Used properly, they create a system where it is possible to quantify skills and abilities so that the player doesn't have to be, for example, an expert sniper to play the role of an expert sniper. And there are precious few RPGs (including ME1) where, to follow your example, there's a straightforward linear progression of weapons. Even basic RPGs with quite simplistic stat systems generally ensure that a given weapon has more than one property: trading off accuracy for power and/or speed, cost, availability of ammunition, etc. While ME2 arguably has a better selection of weapons, that's ultimately an entirely different issue than whether or not the game benefitted from the stripping of RPG mechanics from its combat system.

[Lumikki]

Yeah, RPG mechanics, but not role-playing possibility. These two are different thing. RPG mechnics aren't allways required for role-playing. It's difference between character controlled by player playing the role or player directly controlling character and acting the role.

Why hiding numbers is bad thing, if they are not related game world, but game system?

Modifié par Lumikki, 03 juillet 2011 - 12:07 .

[R3MUS]

I want more spells and a deeper skill tree to really customize your character. More customizations, i love customizations!

[Lunatic LK47]

Wildfire Darkstar wrote...

Hulk Hsieh wrote...
The ME2 way makes people really experience the weapons before comparison.
I think that make it a better "thinking" game.

The problem is that it's not just that ME2 has a more complex system for determining effectiveness than "6 is greater than 5" (which is true of dozens of very stats-heavy RPGs), or even that it just hides the numbers from its players (which is arguably something bad, in any case). It's that much of that calculation isn't even in the game: your effectiveness with a given weapon is, to a much greater extent than most real RPGs, and even to a significant extent more than ME1, based on your skill as a player, not your character's skill. It's a layer of abstraction removed, which is great for a shooter, but it removes a crucial element of role playing, in that it limits your ability to take on the characteristics of a role that is removed from your own skills and abilities as the player. Your Shepard's speed, accuracy, and reaction time are directly determined by your own speed, accuracy, and reaction time. In effect, it's like ensuring that Shepard's dialogue and choices were limited by the morality and predisposition of the player: an moral player would be prohibited from making renegade-style choices, or vice versa.

Once again, stats are an abstraction that create a framework that makes deep role playing possible. Used properly, they create a system where it is possible to quantify skills and abilities so that the player doesn't have to be, for example, an expert sniper to play the role of an expert sniper. And there are precious few RPGs (including ME1) where, to follow your example, there's a straightforward linear progression of weapons. Even basic RPGs with quite simplistic stat systems generally ensure that a given weapon has more than one property: trading off accuracy for power and/or speed, cost, availability of ammunition, etc. While ME2 arguably has a better selection of weapons, that's ultimately an entirely different issue than whether or not the game benefitted from the stripping of RPG mechanics from its combat system.

Simple equation. Elite soldier=/= incompetent combatant just because "skills points aren't spent." Something called EXTENSIVE TRAINING nullifies problems like these.

[Bnol]

Terror_K wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Then I believe there's a genre called "First Person Shooter" that would fit you nicely. Kindly leave RPGs alone.

Honestly, I'll never understand why people who don't enjoy RPGs insist on trying to change them into pre-existing genres rather than simply playing those pre-existing genres. I don't play Prince of Persia and complain about the platforming and puzzles, so why do people play RPGs and then complain about stats and inventory?

I think in Mass Effect's case what we've got is a bunch of people coming into it who don't really like RPGs as such and aren't big fans of the mechanics, but find the combat alone satisying and like the look of the setting and are getting into the story and characters, etc. but because there are some aspects of the game that don't suit them they're kind of demanding that the game be made to suit them more, because they still want to play it to get the story and experience it, but don't want to put up with the RPG mechanics at the same time.

There are also people who have grown up with and like RPGs that feel that ME1 just didn't hit the mark in terms of a good hybrid.   That many of the RPG elements were tedious, unbalanced, inconsequential at times, and generally not fun.  I think ME2 went a bit too far into the streamlining.  But if I had to choose one system or the other I would choose ME2, not because I am a shooter fan or hate RPGs but because I had more fun playing ME2 than I did with ME1, even though the plot of ME1 was superior, and ME1 introduced me to the ME universe.  I am going through an ME1 playthrough right now, and it is difficult for me to want to continue.

[Hulk Hsieh]

In ME2, the skill tree and weapon upgrade do make Shepard more powerful. The weapon damage goes up, and the recoil of AR lessens. I think this is quite good since both character and player skiil play their part, in a hybrid action-RPG.

I wouldn't mind more skills for ME3, as long as they aren't directly tied to 'hit or miss'. And numbers aren't necessary for the skiils. You don't need the description of "recoil -40%" to know what it means. Just go out and shoot some reapers, and you'll know Shepard is more powerful with it.

[Terror_K]

Bnol wrote...

There are also people who have grown up with and like RPGs that feel that ME1 just didn't hit the mark in terms of a good hybrid.   That many of the RPG elements were tedious, unbalanced, inconsequential at times, and generally not fun.  I think ME2 went a bit too far into the streamlining.  But if I had to choose one system or the other I would choose ME2, not because I am a shooter fan or hate RPGs but because I had more fun playing ME2 than I did with ME1, even though the plot of ME1 was superior, and ME1 introduced me to the ME universe.  I am going through an ME1 playthrough right now, and it is difficult for me to want to continue.

And yet that's how I feel playing ME2 most of the time: despite loving the characters and the universe, I find it hard going through it again with other characters.

But that aside, are you calling for Mass Effect to be mostly shooter and feeling that it's better off without RPG elements? You say yourself that you think ME2 went a bit far after all. There are some who don't seem to feel that way and/or seem to think that Mass Effect 2 didn't really go too far and nailed everything and improved the game in every sense. I find it hard to believe that anybody who claims this could be a proper RPG fan.

I know that had ME2 come first or if ME1 had the style and gameplay of ME2, I wouldn't have got into the series. I would have played the game still, yes, but I wouldn't have become a big Mass Effect fan. I wouldn't have seen it as any more than just another game. Despite its faults and clumsiness, ME1 has an X-factor that its sequel just lacks. It's not just one thing that makes this, it's a combination of factors, relating to both games. ME1 has something ME2 lacks, and because ME2 lacks it it lacks that special something that makes it special.

Again, I don't feel that the less flawed game is necessarily the better one. Maybe it's mainly because despite its faults ME1 was something rather different from anything else, while ME2's answers to ME1's problems seem to be falling back on tried-and-true mechanics that are a dime a dozen rather than improving on what was there and it just felt very "been there, done that" as a result. I dunno. ME1 felt more than the sum of its parts, while ME2 just feels exactly like the sum of its parts.

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

I find it hard to believe that anybody who claims this could be a proper RPG fan.

Just commenting this.

This is because you value statical gameplay over impression based role-playing.

PS: As you know I also agree with you that ME2 went too far as redusing players choises in customation. But customation choises aren't same as statical gameplay. How ever, as ME3 is gonna fix this customation issue, so...

Modifié par Lumikki, 03 juillet 2011 - 01:18 .

[dahoughtonuk]

I want a better way to customise my stats without relying on DLC if I'm not a Soldier. . Able to change my armour before the mission as well as my guns. (Fair enough I can't change armour once I'm on the mission)

A better way of telling the advantages/diadvantages of each gun. This is why some of us would like the stats. We're maths rather than visual or discriptive thinkers

Dont mind cunningly hidden rails -ME2 had obvious rails. ME had tighter rails but since they were tighter it didn't jerk you back to them when you went off

In despite being a Stats RPG fan namely due to my reflexes(or rather lack of them) Much of ME2's gameplay I liked.

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

I find it hard to believe that anybody who claims this could be a proper RPG fan.

Just commenting this.

This is because you value statical gameplay over impression based role-playing.

As odd as this may sound, I actually prefer what I'm guessing you refer to as "impression based" role-playing: the narrative, dialogue, characters, choices and consequences and overall roleplaying aspects of BioWare games, but yet I feel the statistical side of the roleplaying is more important and necessary. I also feel it adds to the roleplaying aspects by defining your characters more, and I believe a good RPG uses these stats to help shape/mould and justify a character, both in what they can and can't do.

As was noted by another poster recently (sorry, don't recall who, and can't be bothered sifting through all the posts to find who) the move from stats-based combat to skill-based combat has reduced Shepard from being defined in-game by values representing their skill into somebody who is essentially the same for everybody and now is defined almost purely by a player's own skill. Stats like Strength, Intelligence, Charisma, etc. help define a character and set their abilities and skills to allow them to be defined and function appropriately in the setting and ruleset they reside in.

Now, that's not to say that these examples are necessary in an RPG directly, but there must be a certian degree of this or the character soon only really becomes defined by a player's skill and dialogue choices. That can be all well and good, but the statistical build helps add depth and values to a player character as much as dialogue choice does.

The reason I often go on about the statistical RPG elements rather than the roleplaying (or impression based) RPG elements is because I don't have as many issues with ME2's handling of the latter, but I do have issues with the former. It's not that I necessarily prefer the former, but I just feel they've suffered far more and are more crucially in need of fixing.

I suppose the basic answer is "yes" to your question, but perhaps not for the reason you thought. I value statistical stuff more because I feel it's more vital to the game, the genre and what suffered more, but I like the other stuff just as much, and even more in some ways. One is something I like in RPGs, and the other is something I need in them. And as much as I harp on about the statistical stuff, it was the other half of the RPG that got me into BioWare games more than that of their competition's RPGs, or even other games in general.

[kregano]

dahoughtonuk wrote...
A better way of telling the advantages/diadvantages of each gun. This is why some of us would like the stats. We're maths rather than visual or discriptive thinkers

There you go.

Modifié par kregano, 03 juillet 2011 - 01:56 .

[Tony Gunslinger]

Terror_K wrote...

But a good RPG won't simply up a weapon or item from just +2 to +3. It'll have that, but also one weapon will have effect A and another will have effect B, or one will have two minor bonus effects and the other one slightly better effect. Then the player has to decide which one is actually better, because it's not as clear cut when you have things like that. Sometimes the +3 weapon is not always better than the +2 one when the +2 one has better effects or merely effects that better suit your character and/or playstyle or simply what the situation your in dictates.

For example, you could have a weapon that's technically stronger than another in Mass Effect, but the slightly weaker weapon does bonus damage to synthetic enemies and you know you're going to be fighting a bunch of geth or mechs in the current or next section. That changes things, and the "better on paper" weapon overall is not the better weapon at the moment.

You mean like: Widow vs. Viper? Shuriken vs. Tempest vs. Locust? Katana vs. Scimitar vs. Evi vs. Claymore vs. GPS? Vindicator vs. Revy? Shotgun vs. SR specialization?

Please. ME2 requires next to no thinking. It's "Fisher Price: My First RPG" for crying out loud. It either babies you with everything, tells you what to do or does all the work for you. That was the problem with most of what was left of its RPG systems. It felt like a big brother was coming along to wrestle control from you and saying, "you're doing it wrong!" and then it just setting things on autopilot half the time.

How does ME2 babies me, tells me what to do or does all the work for me?

Admittedly ME1 wasn't rocket science either, but at least you could make mistakes there. You could bork your characters and make bad builds, choose poor weapons and mods, etc. ME2 is mindless.

In ME1, how do you make bad builds when there was no difference between Advanced and Master versions of a skill, and in the end, you can max 8.5 of the 10 combat skill trees? No matter what you do, everybody ends up with the same build.

In ME2, you can actually make different builds with different power evolutions, weapon specializations, and bonus powers, and they play in completely different styles.

Modifié par Tony Gunslinger, 03 juillet 2011 - 02:16 .

[Raxxman]

kregano wrote...

dahoughtonuk wrote...
A better way of telling the advantages/diadvantages of each gun. This is why some of us would like the stats. We're maths rather than visual or discriptive thinkers

There you go.

Does it bother you that the stat layout is nearly a carbon copy of the way stats are presented in the Modern Warfair games?

I'm actually just curious.

[Tony Gunslinger]

JKoopman wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Then I believe there's a genre called "First Person Shooter" that would fit you nicely. Kindly leave RPGs alone.

Honestly, I'll never understand why people who don't enjoy RPGs insist on trying to change them into pre-existing genres rather than simply playing those pre-existing genres. I don't play Prince of Persia and complain about the platforming and puzzles, so why do people play RPGs and then complain about stats and inventory?

I think in Mass Effect's case what we've got is a bunch of people coming into it who don't really like RPGs as such and aren't big fans of the mechanics, but find the combat alone satisying and like the look of the setting and are getting into the story and characters, etc. but because there are some aspects of the game that don't suit them they're kind of demanding that the game be made to suit them more, because they still want to play it to get the story and experience it, but don't want to put up with the RPG mechanics at the same time.

Oh, I fully understand that they like the story and universe. The point is that it says right on the d*mn box "Genre: Role-Playing Game". They know (or should've known) exactly what they were getting into when they bought it.

For example, I love the universe and fiction of the Halo series, a First-Person Shooter. When I pick up a Halo title, it's with the understanding that I'll be playing an FPS and all that that entails (unless stated otherwise). I don't go to Bungie's forums and demand that they add stats and loot to make the game more like an RPG.

You are demanding an action RPG to play like a traditional RPG.

[kregano]

Raxxman wrote...

kregano wrote...

dahoughtonuk wrote...
A better way of telling the advantages/diadvantages of each gun. This is why some of us would like the stats. We're maths rather than visual or discriptive thinkers

There you go.

Does it bother you that the stat layout is nearly a carbon copy of the way stats are presented in the Modern Warfair games?

I'm actually just curious.

Nope. It's an efficient way to get the player to easily understand the stats and it's a system that's used in plenty of games beyond Modern Warfare (Army of Two, Crysis 2, etc...).

[Tony Gunslinger]

Terror_K wrote...

I know that had ME2 come first or if ME1 had the style and gameplay of ME2, I wouldn't have got into the series. I would have played the game still, yes, but I wouldn't have become a big Mass Effect fan. I wouldn't have seen it as any more than just another game. Despite its faults and clumsiness, ME1 has an X-factor that its sequel just lacks. It's not just one thing that makes this, it's a combination of factors, relating to both games. ME1 has something ME2 lacks, and because ME2 lacks it it lacks that special something that makes it special.

Then identify that x-factor. If you can't, then I'll help you: nostalgia, a preference for "money shot" storytelling, and exploiting aides to get through the game.

[crimzontearz]

this thread is still going strong uh?

well uhm...

I still would LOVE to see how the developers would defend their choices (not that they have to but still.....) in an OPEN conversation with the public

not for anything really but to understand their modus pensandi

[Il Divo]

JKoopman wrote...

Then I believe there's a genre called "First Person Shooter" that would fit you nicely. Kindly leave RPGs alone.

Except Mass Effect was a hybrid. Blame Bioware for choosing that approach.  If they had chosen to make it a turn-based system, no one would be complaining about stats affecting our shooting. As soon as a system becomes real time, there are other things to consider beyond stats, such as what's good for the game as a whole. In this case, the game attempts to blend player/character skill in a manner which I found awkward.

Honestly, I'll never understand why people who don't enjoy RPGs insist on trying to change them into pre-existing genres rather than simply playing those pre-existing genres. I don't play Prince of Persia and complain about the platforming and puzzles, so why do people play RPGs and then complain about stats and inventory?

Prince of Persia didn't attempt to blend two different genres of gameplay. Mass Effect does. And badly, at that. People complain about inventory, primarily because it doesn't mesh well with the setting, or the story, possessed a terrible interface, and doesn't handle items as well as other RPGs (DA:O, KotOR).  

When I play DnD, I don't collect every iron longsword I come across. If an item is an upgrade, I pick it up. If it's not, I'll leave it there. In that sense, Jade Empire was surprisingly the closest to a Pen and Paper inventory that I'd dealt with in a Bioware game.

Modifié par Il Divo, 03 juillet 2011 - 02:25 .

[crimzontearz]

Divo, there is nothing wrong with ditching the x+1 system for the loot with a "all items of the same category are similar but upgradeable to fit your character build" system.......as long as these upgrades are god damn meaningful and actually DO change the gameplay and not just hang around there for the sake of making something look like having RPG mechanics

Modifié par crimzontearz, 03 juillet 2011 - 02:29 .

[Il Divo]

crimzontearz wrote...

Divo, there is nothing wrong with ditching the x+1 system for the loot with a "all items of the same category are similar but upgradeable to fit your character build" system.......as long as these upgrades are god damn meaningful and actually DO change the gameplay and not just hang around there for the sake of making something look like having RPG mechanics

I agree. It's simply a matter of whether Bioware will implement those meaningful changes. Mass Effect simply didn't do it for me. The extremely linear weapon-scaling made choosing what weapon I used very simple.

Modifié par Il Divo, 03 juillet 2011 - 02:33 .

[crimzontearz]

Il Divo wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Divo, there is nothing wrong with ditching the x+1 system for the loot with a "all items of the same category are similar but upgradeable to fit your character build" system.......as long as these upgrades are god damn meaningful and actually DO change the gameplay and not just hang around there for the sake of making something look like having RPG mechanics

I agree. It's simply a matter of whether Bioware will implement those meaningful changes. Mass Effect simply didn't do it for me. The extremely linear weapon-scaling made choosing what weapon I used very simple.

I have nothing aqgainst simplicity, and something can be simple yet redundant (like ME1's linear progression) . The "upgrade system" can be simple, less redundant but offer you more options and choices assuming there is an "either/or" limit put in place or some such thing

that would retain simplicity, depth and remove redundancy while effectively blending RPG and TPS mechanics which is what bioware wanted to do from the start

[Symji]

My biggest gripe with the whole ME combat system is it's moving away from RPG type combat to shooter type combat. What I mean by this is simple, in rpg style combat, the success/effectiveness of your attacks relies entirely on your character's stats, where as in shooter type combat, the success part of the attack is separated from the effectiveness, and now depends completely on the player.

And as for my opinion on what a shooter rpg could be like, I think that if somehow we could get Bioware and Bethesda together to make an rpg combining the best aspects of Mass Effect (presentation, voice acting and storytelling) and Fallout (open world exploration, skills and stats) it would truly be a thing to behold, and i'd wager a game that wouldn't be equaled for a long, long time.

Modifié par Symji, 03 juillet 2011 - 02:51 .

[Tony Gunslinger]

Il Divo wrote...
Prince of Persia didn't attempt to blend two different genres of gameplay. Mass Effect does. And badly, at that.

How was it bad?

People complain about inventory, primarily because it doesn't mesh well with the setting, or the story, possessed a terrible interface, and doesn't handle items as well as other RPGs (DA:O, KotOR).  
 

People aren't complaining about inventory. People are saying inventory isn't necessary in an RPG. It's just a game mechanic that can be found in other genres. The fact that ME2 has a gameplay better than ME1 even without inventory is evidence of a solid core foundation. If ME2 had loot, then it would serve to augment the core foundation, not the other way around.

Modifié par Tony Gunslinger, 03 juillet 2011 - 02:51 .

[Tony Gunslinger]

Symji wrote...

My biggest gripe with the whole ME combat system is it's moving away from RPG type combat to shooter type combat. What I mean by this is simple, in rpg style combat, the success/effectiveness of your attacks relies entirely on your character's stats, where as in shooter type combat, the success part of the attack is separated from the effectiveness, and now depends completely on the player.

Not entirely. You have weapon properties, passives, and powers to augment your reflexes. Can't aim for a headshot? Max your Operative time dilation passive or use Adrenaline Rush. Can't break down the shields? Use overload or switch to SMGs. Getting hammered by enemy fire and you can't attack back? Use squadmate powers to interrupt them.

If you're looking for a game that requires NO reflexes involved, then you've bought the wrong game and barking up the wrong tree.