3223 réponses à ce sujet

[sighineedname]

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.

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.

I think the combat system ME2 has is what this genre will be, roughly, for the forseeable future. I would guess you are in the minority when you want combat to be determined by gear, rather than the player. More and more this approach seems to be left to the MMORPGs rather than action RPGs.

The problem with the debate between more and less RPG elements is it's completely opinion. You can debate good versus bad RPG elements and good versus bad FPS/TPS elements, but it's very difficult to compare a shooter approach versus a RPG approach. I personally enjoy playing ME2 a lot more than ME1. I get more enjoyment about doing things when I had to do something rather than my gear having to do something. Even on insanity in ME1 I feel like I am cheating in combat.

Modifié par sighineedname, 03 juillet 2011 - 03:05 .

[Raxxman]

well generally the status of tactical games is poor, the whole area is in a serious decline, with Starcraft 2 and Shogun 2 being the only two major titles out for years. Both of those games require real time skills, starcraft 2 is the mecca for clicks per min gameplay.

The thinking mans game is basically going down the pan because gamers as a general rule, don't think, don't want to think, but rather want to relax and have fun while gaming.

[Lunatic LK47]

Raxxman wrote...

The thinking mans game is basically going down the pan because gamers as a general rule, don't think, don't want to think, but rather want to relax and have fun while gaming.

Pretty damn convenient that you forgot that there's also the other half of the games that fail on making it a "thinking man's game" because the A.I. is too ******-poor to follow your orders (which is every military simulation game in existence, and that includes the much-overated Tom Clancy franchise)

[Cainne Chapel]

Raxx- I've never recalled ANY game really being a "Thinking" mans game. IF that were the case we'd all be playing chess or war games, etc.

Some game do require a bit of thought to complete thats true. But in my 20+ years of gaming, I can honestly say i've NEVER had trouble playing/defeating a video game.

Doesn't necessarily mean I've ENJOYED all of them, but i've never had any trouble understanding and playing them, and honestly I'm surprised if people have ever come across a game that was TOO tough for them to understand...

But then I also had the luck to pretty much grow up with games from a young age so they've basically just progressed as I got older.

Even tactical games i remember as a kid, still didn't require that much forethought into beating once you knew the formula.

[sighineedname]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

Some game do require a bit of thought to complete thats true. But in my 20+ years of gaming, I can honestly say i've NEVER had trouble playing/defeating a video game.

Civilization 4 on diety. If you did that without trouble, then props to you, but I think most normal people would have to think quite a lot to do it.

Not to get too side tracked, but requiring high micro in RTSs isn't a good or bad thing. That being said, a lot of people highly inflate their actions per minute since it gets so much hype in Starcraft. Just look at a video of the high APM guys playing. They draw hundreds of selection boxes for no reason.

That being said in a game like Mass Effect you could easily use the difficulty slider to adjust how much player skill is required versus gear/upgrades. I'm not sure if the lower difficulties increase the aim assist in ME2 or not, but it's a feasible way to make it more gear/upgrade based than player based.

[Symji]

sighineedname wrote...

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.

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.

I think the combat system ME2 has is what this genre will be, roughly, for the forseeable future. I would guess you are in the minority when you want combat to be determined by gear, rather than the player. More and more this approach seems to be left to the MMORPGs rather than action RPGs.

The problem with the debate between more and less RPG elements is it's completely opinion. You can debate good versus bad RPG elements and good versus bad FPS/TPS elements, but it's very difficult to compare a shooter approach versus a RPG approach. I personally enjoy playing ME2 a lot more than ME1. I get more enjoyment about doing things when I had to do something rather than my gear having to do something. Even on insanity in ME1 I feel like I am cheating in combat.

It's not that I want combat to be determined by gear, because gear is a factor in both rpg style and shooter style games. I would rather have it determined by skills. For instance, If I wanted to shoot someone, I would want the success of that attack determined by how many ranks i have in my weapons skill, combined with whatever attribute ranged combat is based on. Having the success of my attack rely completely on my ability to track a reticle across a screen, completely removing the character from combat breaks immersion for me, because now it's not the character fighting, it's me.

It's not that I don't like the ME series, in fact it's quite the opposite, it's just that i'm the type of gamer that generally dislikes twitch based gaming, and prefers the only influence a gamer should have over their character's success in an rpg should be strategic.

[Lunatic LK47]

Symji wrote...


It's not that I want combat to be determined by gear, because gear is a factor in both rpg style and shooter style games. I would rather have it determined by skills. For instance, If I wanted to shoot someone, I would want the success of that attack determined by how many ranks i have in my weapons skill, combined with whatever attribute ranged combat is based on. Having the success of my attack rely completely on my ability to track a reticle across a screen, completely removing the character from combat breaks immersion for me, because now it's not the character fighting, it's me.

Major hole in your logic. Shepard's already an elite soldier (i.e. Best Special Forces operative in existence of Mass Effect.) Something like weapon skills should be non-existent because of EXTENSIVE TRAINING. Last time I checked, no regular military organization would ever recruit someone for their Special Forces program if he/she can't hit the broad side of a damn barn.

[Raxxman]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

Raxx- I've never recalled ANY game really being a "Thinking" mans game. IF that were the case we'd all be playing chess or war games, etc.

Some game do require a bit of thought to complete thats true. But in my 20+ years of gaming, I can honestly say i've NEVER had trouble playing/defeating a video game.

Well probably because like me having 20+ experiance in gaming makes you fairly darn good generally.

But as has been stated, Civ, Alpha Centuri both require a lot of thinking to do well with. As does XCom on the hardest difficulty (and by that I mean patched so it actually did have the hardest diff, with base invasions happening in the first month). You really need a good over arching strategy combined with compimentary team setups else you'll get creamed.

Sure once you've got the system down (or just read the wiki like everyone seems to do) the thinking gets removed but thats the limits of the AI.

You can see trend setters in games like GW and LoL, they're the ones doing things that people don't consider viable because it's not on Wikipedia, they're applying thinking to the game, they might not be the best at the execution of the tactics, but those tactics can often win top level games.

And yeah, the AI in general sucks, but this boils down to the general gamer not wanting to be outwitted by their xbox.

[Tony Gunslinger]

Symji wrote...
Having the success of my attack rely completely on my ability to track a reticle across a screen, completely removing the character from combat breaks immersion for me, because now it's not the character fighting, it's me.

If that's true, then making Shepard walk with your arrow keys breaks immersion all the time. You might as well not control ANY of his movements, and instead program a bunch of macros in the beginning of the game, set his Morality Tendency to 72.3% renegade, and watch him randomly choose renegade dialog 72.3% of the time. It's called Coach Mode.

It's not that I don't like the ME series, in fact it's quite the opposite, it's just that i'm the type of gamer that generally dislikes twitch based gaming, and prefers the only influence a gamer should have over their character's success in an rpg should be strategic.

Dislike or can't? If it's "dislike", then it's like you're critcizing a fighting game for relying on reflex. If it's "can't", then admit it to yourself, use the pause wheel, and lower the difficulty so you can enjoy the other parts of the game.

[sbvera13]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

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.

It has been identified, if you go back far enough in the thread.  It's what I call artistic synergy; reviewers at the time said "This is a game that thinks it's a movie."  The music, artwork, characters, style, lore, and cinematic presentation all combined to make you go "whoa" the first time you saw it.  This is a game that impacts you llike any good sci-fi movie ever has.  The opening sequence puts you squarly on the living decks of the Normandy (granted they don't stay that way during actual gameplay, but portrayal and ilusion is what makes dramatic art work); the first time you flyover the citadel with that amazing music.  The totally tongue-in-cheek spectre induction scene, the verbal sparring with Saren followed by real sparring, the techno-rock-jazz of Ilos leading straight into the mournful peace of Vigil's theme and sad plot revelations.  ME1 was a game that set the bar for gaming production as high or higher then Hollywood sets for it's movies.

I came to ME2 knowing the gameplay changed, and not giving a crap.  I wanted that movie, that sci-fi experience and great storytelling.  Didn't even get that much.  Instead, I got a lot of combat, and very below-the-bar combat as well considering that I still have games from the mid 1990's (Terra Nova, System Shock, Jedi Knight, etc) with better gameplay.

[Roeding]

When it comes to loot, there is also the DLC aspect to consider, they wound obviously prefer that you buy item-pack DLC instead of finding good loot.

It is hard to combine, if the DLC is worse than the loot, no one will buy it, if the DLC is better than the loot, the looting becomes pointless. This is one of the many areas that failed in DA2.

[Luigitornado]

As long as the skill tree is expanded upon, and I feel like the activity chain actually matters...then I'm fine with no looting and stats.

[The Spamming Troll]

Roeding wrote...

When it comes to loot, there is also the DLC aspect to consider, they wound obviously prefer that you buy item-pack DLC instead of finding good loot.

It is hard to combine, if the DLC is worse than the loot, no one will buy it, if the DLC is better than the loot, the looting becomes pointless. This is one of the many areas that failed in DA2.

thats a good point.

once i get the mattock, looting is unnessecary. heck, cracking safes and lockers even becomes unnessesary at that point.

[rt604]

Hulk Hsieh wrote...

I really don't think we need everything in number to help us do the thinking and comparison.
Actually, sometimes numbers kill the necessary of thinking. You don't need to use your brain to know a rifle +3 is better than rifle +2.

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

Partially agree with your statement, but I like the fact that Bioware is showing bargraph stats for weapons, and how they are effected when you modify them in ME3.  In my opinion it was a step in the right direction, I hope they somehow do that for armor pieces as well.  Also the thing in ME1 was that even though one particular armor had more shields or better protection against tech and biotics, like the Predator H X, it's damage protection wasn't as good as the Colossus X heavy, you had to make a choice for armor preference.  For the Xbox360 version we didn't have the Jormungand Heavy X armor, which was ultimately a better choice of the two.

[Praetor Knight]

GreenSoda wrote...

We need to go deeper.

Yes we do, and I feel compelled to share this funny cat video; oh how Inception is a treasure trove for memes :innocent:




And I'm not worried about ME3 since there is a different Dev team working on the game compared to DA2, as far as I know.

[AlanC9]

[quote]whywhywhywhy wrote...
 Lots of people ?  But we can't define how many, my only problem with your view is you attribute the success of me2 to these gamer/fans who like the hybrid fps approach.  Ignoring the many fans of the first game that bought it, the game was absolutely marketed as a RPG.  It is reasonable to conclude that RPG gamers are the majority and not the minority of the fanbase.  I attribute the increase in sales to the many "I just bought a xbox what games shoud I buy" threads and marketing.   [/quote]

I'm not sure if it's your ideas or just your writing that's muddled up. Sure, RPG fans are a majority of the fanbase. And yet these same RPG fans seem to have preferred ME2's gameplay by a pretty wide margin. Or are you saying that the professional reviews, user revieews, and sales figures are all lying, and lying in the same direction?

[quote]
[quote]AlanC9 wrote...
You don't like it? [/quote] not a matter of likes and dislikes but more of a matter of what played better.  I have likes and dislikes about elements of both methods.  That said I feel that me1's feel was better then me2 which to me started feeling like a poor shooter.[/quote]
[/quote]

"What played better" isn't a matter of likes and dislikes? You're serious?



[quote]AlanC9 wrote...
Fans are seperated by what they like, doesn't mean one can't like the other.  However I was pointing out that gamers, fans of fps for instance like different things and it's a mistake to try to enhance a rpg game by dropping many rpg elements from a the game in favor of fps elements.

On one side you have rpg fans on the other fps enthusiasts and in the middle casuals, I use this as an umbrella term for the many varied gamers.  Casuals that lean to the fps side will favor the changes as that was the biggest complaint about the first game, it wasn't a good fps.  They changed it in part 2 to grab more fans, fps don't always need a good story and etc.  This is why a lot of stuff in me2 stopped making sense storywise, it was more combat based.  Casuals on the rpg side or that lean in that direction are sitting around wondering why and wanted a game similiar to the first with the problems improved/fixed and the story progressed.

I felt the need to explain this as you think I think fps which we both agree wouldn't buy the game for a fps kick are a meaningful part of the fanbase.  I'd think they're actual rare, too much is missing.[/quote]

Huh? I didn't say any such thing. I think that people who think additional FPS elements made ME2 better are a meaningful part of the franchise.

[Tony Gunslinger]

sbvera13 wrote...

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

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.

It has been identified, if you go back far enough in the thread.  It's what I call artistic synergy; reviewers at the time said "This is a game that thinks it's a movie."  The music, artwork, characters, style, lore, and cinematic presentation all combined to make you go "whoa" the first time you saw it.  This is a game that impacts you llike any good sci-fi movie ever has.  The opening sequence puts you squarly on the living decks of the Normandy (granted they don't stay that way during actual gameplay, but portrayal and ilusion is what makes dramatic art work); the first time you flyover the citadel with that amazing music.  The totally tongue-in-cheek spectre induction scene, the verbal sparring with Saren followed by real sparring, the techno-rock-jazz of Ilos leading straight into the mournful peace of Vigil's theme and sad plot revelations.  ME1 was a game that set the bar for gaming production as high or higher then Hollywood sets for it's movies.

I came to ME2 knowing the gameplay changed, and not giving a crap.  I wanted that movie, that sci-fi experience and great storytelling.  Didn't even get that much.  Instead, I got a lot of combat, and very below-the-bar combat as well considering that I still have games from the mid 1990's (Terra Nova, System Shock, Jedi Knight, etc) with better gameplay.

That's the 'money shot' storytelling. ME's possibility of being a trilogy depended on the success of the first game, which is why they pulled out the guns to make the storytelling more epic. The score was deliberately 'epic'; everywhere you go had ambient music; your squadmates just 'happens' to have a daughter of a very powerful Quarian admiral, just 'happens' to have a daughter of a very powerful Asari matriarch, just 'happens' to have a Krogan that's the head of the ruling clan on Tuchanka, just 'happens' to have a turian Spectre prodigy, the end had Shepard standing in perfect Roman hero pose. ME1 also had more closure for the possibility that ME1 couldn't continue as a series.

ME2 and 3 are built specifically to be two parts. Two years have passed, you got spaced and now you're working with the enemy. The honeymoon is gone. There are no ambient music in the background, it's either the mechanical hum of the engine or the bickering chatter of people trying to make a living or surviving. The Normandy 2 is a sterile symbol of corporate might, right down to the mahogany table in the center of the ship. You no longer have Alliance friends and have to recruit mercs, assassins and criminals. Omega is a ghetto, Illium is corrupt, Tuchanka is a wasteland. The atmosphere and tone is meant to be this way, and not the idealistic vision of ME1, it is supposed to make you feel uncomfortable.

"Every wonder about the good old days, Joker" Shepard asks.

In ME2, enemies are tougher and of similar skill as you. You are no longer the hero who can easily defeat the bad buys, now you have work at it. It's a wake-up call to reality, as if though what happened in ME1 was just a distant memory. Instead of story lines dealing with politics and exploration, ME2 is about character driven plots. And that's basically part 1 of a two-part series.

[Mister Mida]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

That's the 'money shot' storytelling. ME's possibility of being a trilogy depended on the success of the first game, which is why they pulled out the guns to make the storytelling more epic. The score was deliberately 'epic'; everywhere you go had ambient music; your squadmates just 'happens' to have a daughter of a very powerful Quarian admiral, just 'happens' to have a daughter of a very powerful Asari matriarch, just 'happens' to have a Krogan that's the head of the ruling clan on Tuchanka, just 'happens' to have a turian Spectre prodigy, the end had Shepard standing in perfect Roman hero pose. ME1 also had more closure for the possibility that ME1 couldn't continue as a series.

ME2 and 3 are built specifically to be two parts. Two years have passed, you got spaced and now you're working with the enemy. The honeymoon is gone. There are no ambient music in the background, it's either the mechanical hum of the engine or the bickering chatter of people trying to make a living or surviving. The Normandy 2 is a sterile symbol of corporate might, right down to the mahogany table in the center of the ship. You no longer have Alliance friends and have to recruit mercs, assassins and criminals. Omega is a ghetto, Illium is corrupt, Tuchanka is a wasteland. The atmosphere and tone is meant to be this way, and not the idealistic vision of ME1, it is supposed to make you feel uncomfortable.

"Every wonder about the good old days, Joker" Shepard asks.

In ME2, enemies are tougher and of similar skill as you. You are no longer the hero who can easily defeat the bad buys, now you have work at it. It's a wake-up call to reality, as if though what happened in ME1 was just a distant memory. Instead of story lines dealing with politics and exploration, ME2 is about character driven plots. And that's basically part 1 of a two-part series.

You did notice that ME2 has that as well, right? You have a resurrected hero, you have the human bred to be perfect, you still have a daughter of a very powerful Quarian admiral, you still have a turian Spectre prodigy, and you have a perfect krogan. You have the epic death of our hero and the epic suicide mission. Hell, the suicide mission alone is a textbook example of a money shot.

And still, I prefer ME (1) "money shot storytelling" over what ME2 tried to do.

Modifié par Mister Mida, 03 juillet 2011 - 05:06 .

[slimgrin]

 

[Tony Gunslinger]

Mister Mida wrote...
you still have a daughter of a very powerful Quarian admiral,

Whose father is dead.

you still have a turian Spectre prodigy

Who is damaged goods.

and you have a perfect krogan.

It's a perfect krogan... baby.

You have the epic death of our hero and the epic suicide mission. Hell, the suicide mission alone is a textbook example of a money shot.

Except the reapers are still coming, as Shepard looks past the damage hull and into space, with x number of coffins beside him.

[Mister Mida]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

Except the reapers are still coming, as Shepard looks past the damage hull and into space, with x number of coffins beside him.

Exactly. Same as at the end of ME (1). Nothing has changed.

Modifié par Mister Mida, 03 juillet 2011 - 05:24 .

[Symji]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Symji wrote...


It's not that I want combat to be determined by gear, because gear is a factor in both rpg style and shooter style games. I would rather have it determined by skills. For instance, If I wanted to shoot someone, I would want the success of that attack determined by how many ranks i have in my weapons skill, combined with whatever attribute ranged combat is based on. Having the success of my attack rely completely on my ability to track a reticle across a screen, completely removing the character from combat breaks immersion for me, because now it's not the character fighting, it's me.

Major hole in your logic. Shepard's already an elite soldier (i.e. Best Special Forces operative in existence of Mass Effect.) Something like weapon skills should be non-existent because of EXTENSIVE TRAINING. Last time I checked, no regular military organization would ever recruit someone for their Special Forces program if he/she can't hit the broad side of a damn barn.

Skills are an rpg mechanic. Using your logic, with him being super awesome and already having all his training, we should have started the game at the level cap, because he had already been a soldier for so long. Having progression is a vital component of rpg's, and it's also vital to make the progression relevant to the setting. Therefore, if you're shooting guns, you need proficiency progression.

As an Aside, a few years ago the US Army decided that you no longer needed to be an experienced soldier to join the Army Special Forces, and it is now possible to take the SFAS and SFQC right out of basic. 

[Someone With Mass]

I'm glad they got rid of the weapon skills, because they made no sense. For being in the military since he was eighteen, one would think Shepard can be effective with any weapon. But nope, it's restricted to some slot I must waste points on in order to be able to hit the broadside of the Citadel with a sniper rifle. Which in its turn makes no sense either, since the weapons have targeting computers to help the user aim.

[littlezack]

 Exactly. I'm no marine, but if I picked up a sniper rifle, I think I'd at least be able to hit a non-moving target without my gun wobbling all over the place.

[Tony Gunslinger]

Mister Mida wrote...

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

Except the reapers are still coming, as Shepard looks past the damage hull and into space, with x number of coffins beside him.

Exactly. Same as at the end of ME (1). Nothing has changed.

At the end of ME1, Shepard is a hero. At the end of ME2, Shepard is an outcast.