3223 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Shouldn't the story discussion be happening in a different thread?

[Mister Mida]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

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.

Not in the eyes of the krogan, quarians and the geth. He become their hero.

But AlanC is right. We're derailing.

Shutting up now.

Modifié par Mister Mida, 03 juillet 2011 - 05:54 .

[Tony Gunslinger]

Symji wrote...
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.

Shepard does start with the game with his training 'capped'. The reticule in the center of screen indicates your accuracy. You push a button, bullet does there.

Instead of building a game where the whole strategy ends up determining whether or not Shepard can aim, ME2 starts off with the foundation that he can already do that, so powers and skills can be designed for higher level tactics beyond ability to hit stuff with bullets. Things like crowd control, time slow down, invisibility, teleportation. What's the point of slowing down time or turn invisible when the bullet doesn't go where you want it to?

Modifié par Tony Gunslinger, 03 juillet 2011 - 05:55 .

[Gatt9]

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.

I doubt it will be what this genre will be for the foreseeable future honestly.

The first reason is that these are mislabelled games,  ME2 was a TPS,  just because Bioware put RPG on the box for marketing reasons doesn't mean the entre genre is now different,  an RPG is still an RPG,  still requires fundamental basis in character based skill.  Bioware cannot change what an RPG is,  nor can Bethseda,  through mislabelling their product,  no more than I can change what a Corvette is by misbadging a Mitsubishi Eclipse.

The second reason is,  there are still studios making RPGs.  Iron Tower's "Age of Decadance",  Double Bear's "Dead State",  even Blizzard's "Diablo 3".  They all have their basis in the character based skill that defines the genre. 

RPG's aren't changing,  they can't change,  because they're emulations of a real world thing and neither Bioware nor Bethseda have the power to change that,  no matter how many games they mislabel. 

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?

You're a smart guy,  you know better than this.

We already know the professional reviews are motivated by the desire to aquire preview copies,  and break review embargo in exchange for positive reviews,  in order to get traffic,  so they get paid.  There's not an honest site out there these days.   After DA2,  I don't know how you would assert the reviews hold any weight.

We also have some pretty compelling evidence that EA and Bioware will review their own games as "Users" and not disclose their affiliation.  Once again,  DA2 has shown us this.  So why would we consider those to have any weight?  We can be pretty certain it exists,  the question is to what extent now.

As far as the sales figures go...

ME - 2 million units
ME2 - Between 1.6 million units and 2.5 million units depending on which site you like.
DAO - 3.2 million units.

So I would venture that the other post is likely correct.  A significant number of those sales likely did come from people like myself,  who bought the sequel expecting that the sequel to an RPG would be an RPG,  and ME2 really didn't do all that well.  That 6.6 million number that floats around was a misspeak,  uttered only once,  even the fanatics recognized it as such in the very thread on these boards when it was made.  Coincidently,  sharing relationship to the first set of numbers for ME2.  Plus,  EA's publicly held,  they'd have put it in their financials if it did that well,  that they made no comment is very telling.

http://social.biowar...index/7145086/1
http://www.firingsqu...?searchid=23784
http://en.wikipedia....360_video_games
http://gamrreview.vg.../mass-effect-2/
http://social.biowar...index/2586260/1
http://social.biowar...ndex/2583138/11

[AlanC9]

Symji wrote...
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.

Why is it that so many of the pro-RPG mechanics arguments make the genre sound stupid?

[AlanC9]

Gatt9 wrote...

You're a smart guy,  you know better than this.

We already know the professional reviews are motivated by the desire to aquire preview copies,  and break review embargo in exchange for positive reviews,  in order to get traffic,  so they get paid.  There's not an honest site out there these days.   After DA2,  I don't know how you would assert the reviews hold any weight.

We also have some pretty compelling evidence that EA and Bioware will review their own games as "Users" and not disclose their affiliation.  Once again,  DA2 has shown us this.  So why would we consider those to have any weight?  We can be pretty certain it exists,  the question is to what extent now.

An argument from ignorance, Gatt9? Really? What do you have that says ME2 is considered a worse game except for the personal opinions of a minority faction on this board?

Edit: or are you just saying that the question cannot be answered with available data? If so, fine. whywhywhywhy's still making an unjustified and unjustifiable asumption.

Modifié par AlanC9, 03 juillet 2011 - 06:11 .

[Gatt9]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

Symji wrote...
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.

Shepard does start with the game with his training 'capped'. The reticule in the center of screen indicates your accuracy. You push a button, bullet does there.

Instead of building a game where the whole strategy ends up determining whether or not Shepard can aim, ME2 starts off with the foundation that he can already do that, so powers and skills can be designed for higher level tactics beyond ability to hit stuff with bullets. Things like crowd control, time slow down, invisibility, teleportation. What's the point of slowing down time or turn invisible when the bullet doesn't go where you want it to?

I don't think I'd ever define "Put special bullet in gun" as a "Higher level tactic".  I also don't think I'd define "Magically put special bullet in all of your friend's guns" as a "Higher level tactic" either.

Since the AI's in the 90's era,  I don't think I'd define "Wait behind wall until routine 5 second pause in firing" as a higher level tactic either,  I'm pretty sure most raw recruits can handle that one as well.

The other poster was right,  if you assume Shepherd to be a super-soldier,  then the game should start you out completely maxed at everything. 

[littlezack]

 As a guy who actually did reviews for a professional site for a while, I'd like to say the notion that every review from a major site is bought is, well, idiotic. Sure, some reviewers are dishonest...just like with any sort of reviewers in the public eye, journalists in general, whathaveyou. But to say that every single professional review is unreliable just because some are paid off is a joke. Just like it's a joke to say that, because some people in Bioware (on a different team than the one doing ME) were caught making dummy reviews to support their game, that every single user is therefore inadmissable. If a one hundred people say the game is good, they're not all invalidated just because one or two of them happen to be people who made the game.

[AlanC9]

Come to think of it, I thought we were supposed to conclude that DA2 was bad because of bad user reviews.

[AlanC9]

Gatt9 wrote...
The other poster was right,  if you assume Shepherd to be a super-soldier,  then the game should start you out completely maxed at everything. 

Works for me. CRPG progression is pretty silly anyway. It's better in PnP because PnP games don't compress time so much.

[SalsaDMA]

littlezack wrote...

 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.

Depends on the distance. Heck, even at AS ranges in prone shooting, you WILL have a wobbling reticle. Only way to negate it is to stop breathing. Try and see how that works for you in extended periods.

And don't forget where you aim isn't the only 'real' factor in hitting a target. considerinf we still aren't shooting beams of light, but propelling slugs through the air, the enviroment will have an impact on your shots too, especially at sniper rifle ranges.

[littlezack]

ShutupyouknowwhatImeandamnit.

[SalsaDMA]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

Symji wrote...
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.

Shepard does start with the game with his training 'capped'. The reticule in the center of screen indicates your accuracy. You push a button, bullet does there.

Instead of building a game where the whole strategy ends up determining whether or not Shepard can aim, ME2 starts off with the foundation that he can already do that, so powers and skills can be designed for higher level tactics beyond ability to hit stuff with bullets. Things like crowd control, time slow down, invisibility, teleportation. What's the point of slowing down time or turn invisible when the bullet doesn't go where you want it to?

Wrong.

For your case to be able to hold water, it would mean the player could not negatively affect Shepards ability to shoot, which he can. The game isn't using shepards ability to shoot in any way, but purely using the players ability to shoot.

[TheKillerAngel]

For all you RPG purists, I have a game for you

Gorky 17, also known as Odium in North America.

Here is video of the gameplay

It's got pretty in-depth stats, an inventory, and combat isn't all twitch-based aiming and whatnot. Everything is pretty much stat based.

Modifié par TheKillerAngel, 03 juillet 2011 - 06:27 .

[Tony Gunslinger]

Gatt9 wrote...

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

Symji wrote...
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.

Shepard does start with the game with his training 'capped'. The reticule in the center of screen indicates your accuracy. You push a button, bullet does there.

Instead of building a game where the whole strategy ends up determining whether or not Shepard can aim, ME2 starts off with the foundation that he can already do that, so powers and skills can be designed for higher level tactics beyond ability to hit stuff with bullets. Things like crowd control, time slow down, invisibility, teleportation. What's the point of slowing down time or turn invisible when the bullet doesn't go where you want it to?

I don't think I'd ever define "Put special bullet in gun" as a "Higher level tactic".

Because it's not. Manual aiming is the baseline mechanic in ME2. Powers are higher tactical tools that augment the baseline mechanic. Of which you don't know how to use, refuse to use it, and then claim it doesn't exist because you refuse to use it by playing a Mattock Soldier on normal, and then claim you know the game.

I also don't think I'd define "Magically put special bullet in all of your friend's guns" as a "Higher level tactic" either.

Controlling and working with squadmates is higher level tactics. "Magical bullets from your friends guns" is no different than NPCs in other RPGs.

Since the AI's in the 90's era,  I don't think I'd define "Wait behind wall until routine 5 second pause in firing" as a higher level tactic either,  I'm pretty sure most raw recruits can handle that one as well.

If you have to wait 5 secs behind cover, you're doing it wrong in the first place.

[Tony Gunslinger]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

Symji wrote...
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.

Shepard does start with the game with his training 'capped'. The reticule in the center of screen indicates your accuracy. You push a button, bullet does there.

Instead of building a game where the whole strategy ends up determining whether or not Shepard can aim, ME2 starts off with the foundation that he can already do that, so powers and skills can be designed for higher level tactics beyond ability to hit stuff with bullets. Things like crowd control, time slow down, invisibility, teleportation. What's the point of slowing down time or turn invisible when the bullet doesn't go where you want it to?

Wrong.

For your case to be able to hold water, it would mean the player could not negatively affect Shepards ability to shoot, which he can. The game isn't using shepards ability to shoot in any way, but purely using the players ability to shoot.

Your entire basis is really about you not being able to aim yourself. That's the "action" part of the action RPG.

It's about tactics and action working together. Without action, then tactics is something you can pre-program after figuring out the system and let the macros do the work. Not exactly challenging nor contain any replayability.

Modifié par Tony Gunslinger, 03 juillet 2011 - 06:37 .

[littlezack]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...


If you have to wait 5 secs behind cover, you're doing it wrong in the first place.

On top of that, enemies in ME2 are a lot better at flanking you, at least in the higher difficulties. It's quite common for one of them to work their way up to you while the others hold your front, and there are quite a few enemies that can knock you out of cover if you're not watching it. Cover's still your best defense, it's a cover-shooter sort of game, but if you think you can stay in one place and everything'll be okay 100% of the time, you're in for a rude awakening.

[Tony Gunslinger]

littlezack wrote...

Tony Gunslinger wrote...


If you have to wait 5 secs behind cover, you're doing it wrong in the first place.

On top of that, enemies in ME2 are a lot better at flanking you, at least in the higher difficulties. It's quite common for one of them to work their way up to you while the others hold your front, and there are quite a few enemies that can knock you out of cover if you're not watching it. Cover's still your best defense, it's a cover-shooter sort of game, but if you think you can stay in one place and everything'll be okay 100% of the time, you're in for a rude awakening.

Or, you can use squadmate powers to interrupt the enemy's actions, giving you a window of attack or retreat. Or, had you been using teamwork and crowd control tactics in the first place, you wouldn't be in that situation.

[littlezack]

True, true. I often have to consider exactly where I place the squadmates; I try to keep them in high ground and spaced about so the enemy has to focus on multiple points. In ME1, I'd just them run around and do their thing, and I didn't really have to think much about it because that's typically what the enemy was doing, too. The only thing I really had to worry about on my Insanity run in ME1 were the damn Krogans.

[JayhartRIC]

People still think ME1 was a pure rpg, huh?

[Chino 281]

Yet another RPG complainer thread. Why can't you accept that Mass Effect is different than other games? Not every RPG must have loot or complicated stats to make it great.

[AlanC9]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...
If you have to wait 5 secs behind cover, you're doing it wrong in the first place.

That's a general problem with Bio games. They're so easy that people can play them badly and win. This goes all the way back to BG2 -- it's amazing how bad someone can be at that game and still beat it without much difficulty

[Garrison2009]

AlanC9 wrote...

Tony Gunslinger wrote...
If you have to wait 5 secs behind cover, you're doing it wrong in the first place.

That's a general problem with Bio games. They're so easy that people can play them badly and win. This goes all the way back to BG2 -- it's amazing how bad someone can be at that game and still beat it without much difficulty

Um.. Have you even played ME2 on the Insanity level? People say it's easy but... I would beg to differ. Standing up out of cover for a split second can kill you...

Modifié par Garrison2009, 03 juillet 2011 - 08:26 .

[Bnol]

Terror_K wrote...

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.

I think of myself as a "proper RPG fan".  I mean, I played and enjoyed a few pen and paper RPGs, as well as early MUDs.  I grew up playing all of the early FF titles released in the US (FF1,3,4 and 7).  I have played and enjoyed early action RPGs like Diablo and Revenant.  Also have played first person RPGs like Morrowind.  I have played and enjoyed early shooter/rpgs System Shock 1/2 and Deus Ex.  I have also played multiple MMORPGs.  I am looking forward to Skyrim and once I upgrade my computer I plan on playing the Witcher 1 and 2.  Are these not proper RPGs?

I think ME2 went a bit far with streamlining.  The weapon upgrades or skill progression should not have been so linear.  I didn't like the GCD as implemented as it created one-button wonder classes and necessary squadmates for decent power combinations, I would have preferred a GCD that was half of the power's CD, or a static shorter GCD to allow the use of abilities more often.  The GCD and very limited point allocation options marginalized certain skills and limited choice in customizing characters. 

I think the elimination of the random loot system was a good thing, I liked having distinct weapons (both between weapon classes and within weapon classes) and encouraging weapon swapping for tactical reasons (which necessitated the removal of weapon skill). Shooter/RPG is not a new concept, and there are games that have done the hybrid a lot better. Deus Ex was a game that found the mark in terms of items, mods and character progression being significant in combat and those choices really mattering in terms of how you complete objectives.  It also provided the open level design with multiple (non obvious) ways to complete assignments that is really missing in ME1 and 2.  But again, if I had a game that I would want them to modify and improve it would be ME2 over ME1 (I am fortunate that it is the case)

The thing is that ME1 had great qualities completely outside of gameplay.  It  had that new car smell to an IP that many people miss considering that the entertainment industry is flooded with sequels.  You were meeting new characters, new races with different cultures and governance.  It had to pull out all the stops in terms of story because if it didn't we wouldn't be seeing ME2&3.  But these great aspects have little to do with combat/stats/loot. 

[AlanC9]

Garrison2009 wrote...

Um.. Have you even played ME2 on the Insanity level? People say it's easy but... I would beg to differ. Standing up out of cover for a split second can kill you...

I was only talking about normal difficulty. On high levels Bio games can sometimes be fairly challenging, sure. DAO wasn't, but DA2 was.