3223 réponses à ce sujet

[Phaedon]

simfamSP wrote...

"It's about exploration and combat and
making a good character-driven story and good progression."

Though I'm glad about that. I don't see how this is classed as 'Deeper RPG mechanics'
It can be present in any game.

Where as the former, 'stats and loot' are always in RPGs, and in fact, the former is one of the most basic fundamental things of an RPG.

But ME has it's own unique brand, which combines great RPG elements and an awesome combat system. A lot of games fail to do that.

Making choices is exclusive to RPGs.

Active, modifiable stats, also exist in simulation games, and actually in a much larger degree.

[Lunatic LK47]

SalsaDMA wrote...


And you are just re-iterating that you want choices to be meaningless.

Uh, no. Apparently, YOU want choices to be meaningless. How is it exactly meaningful that a stealth operative made of glass is forced to slog through 10 missions of mandatory firefights? How is it exactly meaningful that a gadget user can't use his strengths against regular bosses without resorting to firearms? How is it exactly meaningful for a Martial Arts build to be useless against boss fights? It's pointless padding for the sake of pointless padding if 2/3rds of your choices are invalidated just because "We designed it that way."

SalsaDMA wrote...

And for the Record, I took down Deng in a heavy martial arts build primarily using martial arts, so what's your point? That you somehow couldn't? So your inability makes for an objective point of view in claiming that it couldn't be done? If anything, I even didn't think it was harder for my martial arts guy than the other builds I tried, hell even the olympic boxer and russian uziwielding drug dealer went down to my fists and kicks on that build. I would actually rate the russian as harder than Deng as I had to make use of gadgets in that fight.

And I call bull**** on your claims, and this is coming from someone who already used a Veteran build and maxed out the relevant skills. YouTube vid, or it didn't happen.

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 04 juillet 2011 - 12:25 .

[Terror_K]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

I assume that you read the boards regularly, so by raising this issue, you're feigning ignorance as to why global cooldowns are needed, just like you're feigning ignorance to any response that contradicts your opinion and keep on spewing the same thing again and again, hoping to drive the conversation in your direction by burying older posts. You're not the only one that's doing it, which is why this thread is growing into 30+ pages of you and the same 3-4 people repeating the same things over and over.

If I find a response is worth commenting on, I'll comment on it. It's not "feigning ignorance" when I ignore ignorant nonsense. That's more akin to "avoiding ignorance" than feigning it.

And generally speaking TK, you and others haven't explained why ME2 was dumbed down, you haven't explained why ME2 has bad gameplay, you haven't explained how ME1 had that certain je ne sais quoi that ME2 lacked, and now all you have left is the "BW is a corporate skank" angle in a thread discussing what RPG means.

I haven't explained these factors because I've already explained them far too many times thoroughly over the last year and a half since ME2 came out. You can't complain about be repeating the same things over and over one moment and then expect me to explain things over and over the next.

Phaedon wrote...

Making choices is exclusive to RPGs.

GTA IV is not an RPG. Heavy Rain is not an RPG. Fahrenheit is not an RPG. It Came from the Desert is not an RPG. Infamous is not an RPG. etc, etc, etc.

[Tony Gunslinger]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Wrong.

To give an example: In ME2 the GCD just made several of my fights turn into me using the engineer by just spamming incenerate. Using the weapon or any other action was less than incenerate for large amounts of combat for my engineer, and rather than using different powers, the shared cooldown locked me into using only a single power.

In ME1 I used the entire arsenal of powers with my engineer, in ME2 I spammed the same power all the time.

The fact that your own example only combo with melee/weapon/storm (seriously.. storm? running is tied to using powers in your world??? ) Just goes to show that the gcd impairs real comboing. There's no "combo power A with power B for a nice effect" You can try and setup this kind of effects with your squadmates, but the implementation is way too cumbersome for the effect compared to just unripping with powers on an individual basis whenever the GCD is off.

If directing your teammates proper in tactical situations really is a core concern for the series, they should develop a proper interface for it and a proper AI for teammates. What we got in the series certainly isn't anyway near that. What the series got is as crude an interface for handling teammates as you can get, so claiming ME is about actually using them makes a mockery of real interfaces designed for such utility.

You spam a single power all the time because you're still under the habit of "use one power, wait and see its effects for a few seconds, and then make the next step"

You can shoot and activate powers at all once because you know that most powers have properties that interrupt the enemies attacks. There are very few powers that do direct damage. You should be shooting at something while waiting for cooldown, and you should be using powers the milisecond the cooldown is over. For most guns, the time it takes to empty a clip and reload is roughly the same time for most powers to cool down, and it's designed that way precisely for you to continually apply pressure and put you in a rhythm.

Combat in ME2 is about thinking in advance. You know Overload shorts out guns for a few seconds, therefore you can cast it and shoot immediately, certain that the target can't shoot back at you. Charging is not about hitting the next target, but hitting the target AND knowing what to do after you've killed the target. Cloak is not only about sniping one target, but moving taking out one target and then move in to a new location. ARush is not only about the damage and accuracy boost, but the ability to storm and flank to a new spot, while dealing damage all at once. Singurality and drone is not only about locking down one enemy, but locking down one enemy and then dealing with the NEXT target. TA is not only about buffs, but also timing it so you can use it twice in a row -- the first time for offense, the second time for defense... as you storm into the pack of goons.

This is why ME2's combat is not just a shooter. Most shooters are all about killing one enemy at a time with the fastest speed as possible. It's linear thinking. Most of ME2's abilities are about crowd control, and you use guns in conjunction with powers to make that happen.

Of course, you don' have to play it that way if you don't want to, and that's called freedom. But at the same time, some people are complaining that this freedom lacks a direction, that they need a giant text in the screen with a bunch of stats and numbers saying "THIS IS TACTICS" so that they can say "Hey, this is where I get to be smart by using intellectually smart stats and tactical things" ME2 doesn't hand-hold you and force you to play in a certain way, you have to find this out for yourself. And even if you know the tactics (RPG elements) by reading the forums like here, you still have to execute (action elements). And this combination is works because there is no guarantee it will always work, and thus there is room for player growth, and player growth = replayability, experimentation, risk, self-initiatives, etc.

[RyuGuitarFreak]

Terror_K wrote...
GTA IV is not an RPG. Heavy Rain is not an RPG. Fahrenheit is not an RPG. It Came from the Desert is not an RPG. Infamous is not an RPG. etc, etc, etc.

So isn't leveling, stats, character customization, loot, skills, etc exclusives to RPG anymore. Do I need to give examples? I have one right at the top of my head: Call of Duty. Want me to go on?

They're the most recognizable features (choices, stats, loot) of RPG games? Yes, but so what? Look at the current state of gaming. Every major AAA game has an "rpg mechanic" or two. Guess why? Because RPG games are recognizable to be deep gaming experiences in very different ways, and every developer look for it nowadays to make their game sucessful. Are all of them rpgs or not because of it? Who cares.

In my opinion and I believe many others, Mass Effect still holds in its core game design many features that the rpg genre is the most recognizable between all of them. But again, who cares?

This thread just became pointless.

Modifié par RyuGuitarFreak, 04 juillet 2011 - 01:11 .

[Tony Gunslinger]

Terror_K wrote...
I haven't explained these factors because I've already explained them far too many times thoroughly over the last year and a half since ME2 came out. You can't complain about be repeating the same things over and over one moment and then expect me to explain things over and over the next.

I agree that it's stupid to repeat. However, It's one thing if you've explained your points in one thread and all I need to do is look for it, but it's another when you make a claim and don't back it up. So I'd like you to respond to this below, because I can't find a single thing you've written in this post that hasn't been disproven:

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

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.

[Terror_K]

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

So isn't leveling, stats, character customization, loot, skills, etc exclusives to RPG anymore. Do I need to give examples? I have one right at the top of my head: Call of Duty. Want me to go on?

They're the most recognizable features (choices, stats, loot) of RPG games? Yes, but so what? Look at the current state of gaming. Every major AAA game has an "rpg mechanic" or two. Guess why? Because RPG games are recognizable to be deep gaming experiences in very different ways, and every developer look for it nowadays to make their game sucessful. Are all of them rpgs or not because of it? Who cares.

In my opinion and I believe many others, Mass Effect still holds in its core game design many features that the rpg genre is the most recognizable between all of them. But again, who cares?

This thread just became pointless.

Maybe the point isn't the fact that these are RPG factors or not we're talking about. Maybe the point is that many of us miss them and want them back in some form, regardless of the fact that they're considered RPG factors because they're most common to RPGs. The label and what kind of attributes these factors are isn't the point: the fact that some of us want them back is.

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

I agree that it's stupid to repeat. However, It's one thing if you've explained your points in one thread and all I need to do is look for it, but it's another when you make a claim and don't back it up. So I'd like you to respond to this below, because I can't find a single thing you've written in this post that hasn't been disproven:

Okay. I'll bite. Or at least nibble. But I still feel the answers to these are just stating stuff I've already stated a dozen times before.

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

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?

Not really, because the weapons are too individual and there aren't enough of them, and the choice is always obvious. The Widow and the Viper for instance perform and behave completely different, they're almost like two different weapon types. Do you honestly weigh up the situation ahead of you when choosing these weapons, or do you pick one that "feels the best" to you and pretty much stick with it every time. There's no stats, no additional effects. There's no varied version of the Widow  with one that does more damage but has poor shield bypass, another that has good shield bypass and less damage, or one that's better vs. certain enemies than others. You have to go to a completely different weapon for variation, and when you do it's obvious why.

To be honest, I thought that when the change was made in ME2 to more varied weapons the Sniper Rifles category should have just become a broader category of "Rifles" especially considering the few that no longer act like proper sniper rifles.

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

Aside from all the in-your-face pop-ups and interfaces, there's the research/upgrade system that just does all the work for you without any real input in a completely linear fashion, allowing you to god-mod every item you have far too easily. There's no trade-offs or downsides, it's all just clicking the same button over and over as you find the upgrades as it maxes out everything without the player needing to use a single grey-cell. There's the condescending messages on the loading screens, the annoying "Press and Hold (F) to end mission" prompt that won't go away, and the unsubtle "Mission complete" screens. The weapon descriptions tell you with no subtelty "This weapon is great at this. Use it for this!" It treats you like you've never played an RPG before with its overall design, and hides stats and other info in case it scares players away. The game feels like a constant tutorial from beginning until end, and like it's putting you in a high-chair with a bib as it spoons gameplay into you going, "here comes the RPG elements! Zooooom!" The whole thing is like a children's book.

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.

Aside from the fact that there's no such thing as a non-combat skill any more and that's all the game is about, there's the fact that ME2 is barely any different: with so few powers you end up with only one skill neglected most of the time, unless you end up in one of those broken builds with leftover points to spend. With classes being forced to use all the weapons they can and thermal clips dictating the need to switch, you can't build weapon-specific classes like you could in ME1 (e.g. I had two different Vanguards in ME1: a pistol-wielding long ranger and a close-quarters shotgun wielder. Now they're both the same in ME2 since both use both weapons, and I can't choose to ignore or leave one behind due to arbritrary restrictions).

The different power evolutions aren't even that different: it's always just a case of the power being exactly the same, but simply "more damage or more defense" or "hurt single enemy or lots of enemies" or "up damage or up cooldown" Simply put, the powers don't actually evolve that much at all and don't become that different, despite the concept of branching powers being a nice one.

You can't break a character build beyond leaving yourself with leftover points. Poor builds in ME1 could make the game extremely difficult for you, especially in the middling sections. Almost no powers/skills in ME2 affect your ability to survive or handle a weapon, so you're always going to be great and investing points unwisely isn't going to bork your character or have you suffering at any point. Assigning points doesn't really matter that much because you're going to be just as combat capable simply using your weapons: it might simply take a bit longer.

Modifié par Terror_K, 04 juillet 2011 - 01:58 .

[Lumikki]

simfamSP wrote...


The RPG genre is sneaking up on every little other game out there. It's EVERYWHERE. You can class out an RPG from a game with the slight RPG elements by looking on how deep and sophisticated a system is.

It's not that simple. First of there is no measurable limit, because it's based totally players personal opinion, where the limit is.

Also role-playing isn't just how deep the RPG elements you have, but what's the main point of the game it self. You could have a lot of RPG elements in the game, but the game is not ment to be role-playing game at all. Then comes the question how well game allows player to take a role and so on..

Terror_K wrote...

Aside from the fact that there's no such thing as a non-combat skill any more

Actually ME2 has two non-combat skill for all classes. You people just miss them all the time, because they are not "character skill" based, but player skill based. Those two skill can even upgraded one time.

Before you comment, remember Mass Effect is cinematic action RPG with TPS combat. NOT pure classic RPG. There is no point to argue is it pure RPG enough, when it's not even ment to be. Trying to turn Mass Effect to more classic RPG with classic RPG elements what doesn't fit well in Mass Effect style is just wrong.

Modifié par Lumikki, 04 juillet 2011 - 02:47 .

[SalsaDMA]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...


And you are just re-iterating that you want choices to be meaningless.

Uh, no. Apparently, YOU want choices to be meaningless. How is it exactly meaningful that a stealth operative made of glass is forced to slog through 10 missions of mandatory firefights? How is it exactly meaningful that a gadget user can't use his strengths against regular bosses without resorting to firearms? How is it exactly meaningful for a Martial Arts build to be useless against boss fights? It's pointless padding for the sake of pointless padding if 2/3rds of your choices are invalidated just because "We designed it that way."

SalsaDMA wrote...

And for the Record, I took down Deng in a heavy martial arts build primarily using martial arts, so what's your point? That you somehow couldn't? So your inability makes for an objective point of view in claiming that it couldn't be done? If anything, I even didn't think it was harder for my martial arts guy than the other builds I tried, hell even the olympic boxer and russian uziwielding drug dealer went down to my fists and kicks on that build. I would actually rate the russian as harder than Deng as I had to make use of gadgets in that fight.

And I call bull**** on your claims, and this is coming from someone who already used a Veteran build and maxed out the relevant skills. YouTube vid, or it didn't happen.

You don't get it, do you? You state that you have issues that different choices you made have impact on areas in the game making other choices you made regarding your character have influence on some areas becomming easier, and others becomming harder. that's what choice is about.

Then you want to remove these impacts, and have the consequences for your choices be non-existant.

You are arguing for the very essence of meaningless choices. Yet you refuse to accept it, for some reason. I'm sorry, but you can't have your chake and eat it at the same time.

As for your "bull" comment... You're not important enough for me to bother actually getting fraps or something of the like just to cater to your inability to play the game and show you how to do it. Especially since I doubt I'm a good enough player to be in a league of doing stuff only a few can do which nullifies your claim about how hard it supposedly is when I can do it. Fact is, it's possible. Deal with it and move on.

[javierabegazo]

If the insults and impolite discourse continue, this gets locked.

[SalsaDMA]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Wrong.

To give an example: In ME2 the GCD just made several of my fights turn into me using the engineer by just spamming incenerate. Using the weapon or any other action was less than incenerate for large amounts of combat for my engineer, and rather than using different powers, the shared cooldown locked me into using only a single power.

In ME1 I used the entire arsenal of powers with my engineer, in ME2 I spammed the same power all the time.

The fact that your own example only combo with melee/weapon/storm (seriously.. storm? running is tied to using powers in your world??? ) Just goes to show that the gcd impairs real comboing. There's no "combo power A with power B for a nice effect" You can try and setup this kind of effects with your squadmates, but the implementation is way too cumbersome for the effect compared to just unripping with powers on an individual basis whenever the GCD is off.

If directing your teammates proper in tactical situations really is a core concern for the series, they should develop a proper interface for it and a proper AI for teammates. What we got in the series certainly isn't anyway near that. What the series got is as crude an interface for handling teammates as you can get, so claiming ME is about actually using them makes a mockery of real interfaces designed for such utility.

You spam a single power all the time because you're still under the habit of "use one power, wait and see its effects for a few seconds, and then make the next step"

You can shoot and activate powers at all once because you know that most powers have properties that interrupt the enemies attacks. There are very few powers that do direct damage. You should be shooting at something while waiting for cooldown, and you should be using powers the milisecond the cooldown is over. For most guns, the time it takes to empty a clip and reload is roughly the same time for most powers to cool down, and it's designed that way precisely for you to continually apply pressure and put you in a rhythm.

Combat in ME2 is about thinking in advance. You know Overload shorts out guns for a few seconds, therefore you can cast it and shoot immediately, certain that the target can't shoot back at you. Charging is not about hitting the next target, but hitting the target AND knowing what to do after you've killed the target. Cloak is not only about sniping one target, but moving taking out one target and then move in to a new location. ARush is not only about the damage and accuracy boost, but the ability to storm and flank to a new spot, while dealing damage all at once. Singurality and drone is not only about locking down one enemy, but locking down one enemy and then dealing with the NEXT target. TA is not only about buffs, but also timing it so you can use it twice in a row -- the first time for offense, the second time for defense... as you storm into the pack of goons.

This is why ME2's combat is not just a shooter. Most shooters are all about killing one enemy at a time with the fastest speed as possible. It's linear thinking. Most of ME2's abilities are about crowd control, and you use guns in conjunction with powers to make that happen.

Of course, you don' have to play it that way if you don't want to, and that's called freedom. But at the same time, some people are complaining that this freedom lacks a direction, that they need a giant text in the screen with a bunch of stats and numbers saying "THIS IS TACTICS" so that they can say "Hey, this is where I get to be smart by using intellectually smart stats and tactical things" ME2 doesn't hand-hold you and force you to play in a certain way, you have to find this out for yourself. And even if you know the tactics (RPG elements) by reading the forums like here, you still have to execute (action elements). And this combination is works because there is no guarantee it will always work, and thus there is room for player growth, and player growth = replayability, experimentation, risk, self-initiatives, etc.

Regenerating shields and enemies spreading from each other means that picking them off fully one at a time is the most efficient way of dealing with them. Especially when a multitude of the powers aren't usable on shielded enemies.

Engineer, I used incenerate and combat drone. And that's about it. Sure, I used my guns every now and then, but incinerate could curve corners and hit enemies behind obstacles, bullets couldn't.

Infiltrator I used my sniper rifle alot because of the built in time dilation. Interestingly enough, I used Geth shield technology as my most used power as an infiltrator, which should show something about the lacklustre powers (since it's not even an infiltrator ability, but was my bonus ability) which you earlier claimed were more interesting since they warranted the GCD.

GCD makes sense when the options you can use are equally interesting. If one option surpasses the others, GCD just means that the less optimal options never get used. ME2 suffered ALOT from this. Add that alot of the powers were useless as long as shields were up, and it gets even worse.

[RyuGuitarFreak]

Terror_K wrote...

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

So isn't leveling, stats, character customization, loot, skills, etc exclusives to RPG anymore. Do I need to give examples? I have one right at the top of my head: Call of Duty. Want me to go on?

They're the most recognizable features (choices, stats, loot) of RPG games? Yes, but so what? Look at the current state of gaming. Every major AAA game has an "rpg mechanic" or two. Guess why? Because RPG games are recognizable to be deep gaming experiences in very different ways, and every developer look for it nowadays to make their game sucessful. Are all of them rpgs or not because of it? Who cares.

In my opinion and I believe many others, Mass Effect still holds in its core game design many features that the rpg genre is the most recognizable between all of them. But again, who cares?

This thread just became pointless.

Maybe the point isn't the fact that these are RPG factors or not we're talking about. Maybe the point is that many of us miss them and want them back in some form, regardless of the fact that they're considered RPG factors because they're most common to RPGs. The label and what kind of attributes these factors are isn't the point: the fact that some of us want them back is.

It became pointless because what Casey said was meaning for deeper rpg experience: character progression, decision making on storyline, exploration, combat. And some people went here: "noooooo, casey's wrong, these are not necessarilly mechanics that will make the rpg aspect deeper, we want stats and loot". And then "noooooo, these are the mechanics that will make a deeper rpg yes". And then "nooooo, these are not core rpg aspects, ME is a shooter/tps for these reasons". And then "nooooo, ME is an RPG because of this, this, and that". And then "nooooooo, these are the RPG mechanics blablablabla". It's going nowhere and the original discussion's gone for a while.

The thing is, I don't think you'll change Casey's vision now. It's too late for that. With Christina out and a new lead gameplay designer, maybe one thing or two will be added or changed, there's time for that, but I don't think much because Christina's work is widely considered to be successful even though you will say not and she was in charge for a long time of development. If in the end you're not satisfied with it, and the Mass Effect experience isn't in your conception deep to be entertaining enough, sell it to someone if possible and go look elsewhere.

Modifié par RyuGuitarFreak, 04 juillet 2011 - 02:32 .

[littlezack]

This is the song that never ends...yes it goes on and on my friends...some people started singing it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue singing it forever just because...

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...
Maybe the point is that many of us miss them and want them back in some form, regardless of the fact that they're considered RPG factors because they're most common to RPGs. The label and what kind of attributes these factors are isn't the point: the fact that some of us want them back is.

many more don't, so who's right? or more, correctly perhaps, many more want some aspects back that actually work right and fit with the nature fo the game better, which most blatantly didn't in ME1.

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Before
you comment, remember Mass Effect is cinematic action RPG with TPS combat. NOT pure classic RPG. There is no point to argue is it pure RPG enough, when it's not even ment to be. Trying to turn Mass Effect to more classic RPG with classic RPG elements what doesn't fit well in Mass Effect style is just wrong.

Whether it fits is a matter of opinion. And for the most part, I just want them to bring back some of the aspects that were lost from the original game, which were meant to be there if they were there originally. That doesn't mean I want Mass Effect to revert back to a D&D style system and become a pure RPG.

Jebel Krong wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
Maybe the point is that many of us miss them and want them back in some form, regardless of the fact that they're considered RPG factors because they're most common to RPGs. The label and what kind of attributes these factors are isn't the point: the fact that some of us want them back is.

many more don't, so who's right? or more, correctly perhaps, many more want some aspects back that actually work right and fit with the nature fo the game better, which most blatantly didn't in ME1.

There are very few aspects from ME1 I feel didn't fit with the nature of the game, at least if you avoid the aspect of how well executed it was or how it was gone about. About the only ones that I agree didn't fit are so much loot and weapons skills given Shepard's level and profession. However, I still believe weapon skills could still work in a different manner (i.e. rather than determining the ability to shoot they provide extra abilities related to the weapon).

But I still feel like the likes of planet exploration, non-combat skills, skill-based decryption/hacking, armour classes, omni-tools and biotic amps, weapon modding, etc. still very much fit in with the Mass Effect universe and what the series was going for. Thank god at least the latter is returning. They don't have to be done the same way as they were in ME1, but there are more pro-ME2 people acting and/or perceiving like that's what the Pro-RPG camp want than there actually are in said camp that want it. Missing aspects A and B from ME1 doesn't automatically mean having those aspects back in exactly the same manner.

Modifié par Terror_K, 04 juillet 2011 - 03:19 .

[KujiPR]

As long as there is no insane amount of loot like in ME1 that clogs my inventory....

[Il Divo]

Terror_K wrote...

Whether it fits is a matter of opinion. And for the most part, I just want them to bring back some of the aspects that were lost from the original game, which were meant to be there if they were there originally. That doesn't mean I want Mass Effect to revert back to a D&D style system and become a pure RPG.

Buth the problem is that what was originally meant to be there may not have worked like the developers thought it would. Halo 1 actually had a health bar for your character, which Halo 2 removed. Halo 2 and 3 both had dual-wielding, which ODST removed. Assassin's Creed had investigation missions, which ACII removed. WoW possessed 40 man raids, which were scrapped with Burning Crusade, if I recall. There are actually still complaints about that from hardcore raiders.

Ultimately, the developers have to do what they think is best for the game. Mass Effect originally had loot. That does not mean the series must necessarily have loot in the future, particularly if they feel it does not fit the experience or the game they are creating.

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Before you comment, remember Mass Effect is cinematic action RPG with TPS combat. NOT pure classic RPG. There is no point to argue is it pure RPG enough, when it's not even ment to be. Trying to turn Mass Effect to more classic RPG with classic RPG elements what doesn't fit well in Mass Effect style is just wrong.

Whether it fits is a matter of opinion.

Yes, little bit, but I don't fully agree. Some features are more destructive for sertain game styles than others.
I think that may be the other reason why Bioware sayes no to "stats and loots" in Mass Effect.

And for the most part, I just want them to bring back some of the aspects that were lost from the original game, which were meant to be there if they were there originally. That doesn't mean I want Mass Effect to revert back to a D&D style system and become a pure RPG.

I don't know. I understand you point, but.

Consider what Bioware is trying to do with ME3. They are trying to increase customation options in ME3, but they don't do it with loot and stats in ME3. You never asked WHY?

Could it be that some RPG elements just doesn't fit well in ME style?
What was those common issues in ME1 again for people. (Not asking, just reminding you, how it's all connectect)

Modifié par Lumikki, 04 juillet 2011 - 03:31 .

[SalsaDMA]

KujiPR wrote...

As long as there is no insane amount of loot like in ME1 that clogs my inventory....

The loot wasn't handled well in ME1, I think most people can agree on that.

[SalsaDMA]

Lumikki wrote...

Could it be that some RPG elements just doesn't fit well in ME style?
What was those common issues in ME1 again for people. (Not asking, just reminding you, how it's all connectect)

The common issue was lousy interfaces.

Rather than redo those, they scrapped the stuff the interfaces were used for...

[Someone With Mass]

I don't think the stats in ME1 contributed to anything complex, since all you had to do is look for weapons with better stats, which wasn't hard at all.

And the stats is sort of making a return in ME3 at the workbench, so I don't see what the problem is.