3223 réponses à ce sujet

[KingDan97]

Gatt9 wrote...
*snip for length*

You seem to be conciously misinterpretting what I was saying here. What I meant when I said the landscape was changing I was referring to changes in team composition, in the approach to what you need when you go into building a game. There have been huge changes within the design process, you need to come up to your boss with much more now then you've ever needed to before. You make the argument that everything is the same, but honestly, they aren't. The devil is in the details, you can argue that every movie has similar shots, that doesn't make them the same movie, every book has a climax, that doesn't make them the same.

The pieces don't make the puzzle, it's how they go together. I can look into Mass Effect and say that a Mass Relay looks exactly like the device from Contact, does that make Mass Effect tentamount to Contact? No. It means that one thing is like Contact. Similarly, Just because Mass Effect uses a cover system similar to Gears of War, but they're far from identical. They use a similar engine but the looks, the feel of the controls and the impact of the writing compose what makes a game unique. All of them together. Just because a painting is done using oil paints doesn't mean it's the same as every other oil painting.

The dwindling I was refering to was specifically the hardcore RPG market, and a relative percentage of the sales of hardcore RPGs compared to those of the industry as a whole. I agree that many people who haven't played true RPGs would enjoy them if they game them a good chance, that doesn't however mean that as of now that their cut is much lower then the "casual" market. And the entire world economy is down, with the possible exception of North Korea. Games unfortunately have the monumental task of having something more than a story concept to come forth with when they begin developing.

Games are an art form, so a team of 200 doing art, makes sense. I don't want algorithims that can remove the human element, I well hope to become a conceptual artist at some point and there are many little touches an artist puts in because he cares(and programmers are artists too), things that go beyond what they necessarily need to do. To suggest that ways of removing artists is a good thing, well I am personally offended for one, because frankly artists inspire thinkers.

Jules Vernes, George Lucas, and Gene Roddenberry have had amazing impacts on the way our culture approaches innovation. Without artists, quite a lot of innovation wouldn't have happened because not every scientist can be a renaissance man. Both ends are equally required, both need to exist, if anything I would argue that programming use will decrease before art does because while a game will have one or two features that will really stand out in the way of gameplay, the art design within a game is what will really impact.

The notion that you shouldn't judge a book by it's cover comes to mind, mostly in just how often it is ignored. That's not to say I wholistically agree with it, but the idea is that much of the time it's exactly how a game is judged because we don't get to have a game in our hands, we do however get to see how it looks in action and when we're asked to put down over 60$ on a game with no idea how it will be to get through it, yes the look of it will sell it. The writing will sell it, the art will sell it.

I never made the argument that CEOs know whats best, that doesn't however change the fact that as of now, they are deciding what gets made. And if you think just because a company falls that means that the CEOs will immediately open their eyes and see the error of their way in a matter akin to that of Darth Vader, and then they will start caring, that is just as naieve. I also never said PC gaming is in any way dying. PC gaming is quite strong but the strongest sectors of PC gaming are RTS crowds, currently sated by Starcraft, LoL, HoN among other things that appeal to their old tastes(the tastes that haven't changed from what was previously produced). 

I could easily make the arugment, one that a CEO wouldn't have too hard of a time rationalizing that DAO sold so well because people liked ME1's shooter elements, and then ME2 sold worse because after buying DAO people were afraid that ME2 would be bogged down with features they don't look for in a game. Doesn't mean it's true, there could be one of a million reasons why it did or didn't sell as well as it did. I'm just saying that you're argument is that a CEO will see the "truth" while his truth may well be different from yours.

I would never make the claim that adding in features completely tangental to the previous market is a good thing, or a logical step. A suit would also never suggest the addition of a feature that makes no sense just to try and add to the market. That was some strong hyperbole you were throwing around because I was refering to when I saw the line of make a new game thrown when ammo was added to ME2, when the dialogue wheel was being put into DA2 or when news first broke that the entire ME1 team wasn't returning in ME2. Things that work with the game, and frankly made them stronger games, even if the ammo wasn't well explained or refined, or some of the ME2 team wasn't as well written as other characters or some ME1 characters weren't done justice because there wasn't as good of a rationalization for them to hold a permenant positon as others

I also find it ironic that your argument includes a suit trying to add more guns when I consistently see people wanting more loot, even at the cost of all the guns feeling the same like in ME1.

And while yes, vision is often heavily compromised to the end of profit that is the case in almost every media industry, with the exception of written media. The thing that separates games from the pack of movies and music is that by and large, the independant sector of games is still budding. And it's no where near as close to the forefront as it is in other areas. It's going to take some time for indie games to grow, but they're coming up fast with studios like Team Meat, Mojang, Fritctional and Frozenbyte all having best selling indie games.

Vision is still huge in the gaming industry, just like hope existed in Pandoras box, you just need to find it. And just because a game is maybe shifted to a different sector doesn't mean the vision dies, because the largest part of the vision is the world it's within, not necessarily the genre of the gameplay. Halo Wars is very distinctly a Halo game when you play it because it has the right tone, and design.

Multiplayer isn't coming, Casey has said that, the Kinect implementation was fast and could easily make gameplay easier and more fluid for those willing to adjust. The reason why Kinect was implemented is because the Kinect has voice recognition technology out of the box, Bioware basically just needs to submit the list of written dialogue, some combat commands and maybe phonetic pronunciations.

I am also aware of EA's history but blaming everything on them after they published games like Dead Space, Mirror's Edge, Brutal Legend and Shadows of the Damned, none of which were guarenteed heavy profits, but were still published on merit, is fairly laughable. I'm not saying EA is suddenly not a buisness, or that it exempts them from the behaviors of them in regards to Medal of Honor or Need for Speed, but I will however say that John Ricitiello is no Bobby Kotick.

Anyway, this has gone on for much longer than I intended or feel necessary. I'm willing to agree to disagree, because I do know how the games industry works, and I do know how games are developed and I do know how suits interfere but nowadays gameplay is just a vehicle for the true show of a game, which is the art.

[Xivai]

Mass Effect Series is an RPg, but light on the GAME and mechanics.

Thw Witcher 2 is an RPG that focuses on all of it at once.

Diablo 2 is an rPG, light on the role, but heavy in the play and game aspects.

Final Fantasy X is RpG, light on the playing but plenty on the role and game areas.

As time goes on I find few games can nail all three aspects of an RPG really well.

[SalsaDMA]

In Exile wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote..
You missed his point.

By listing Wingcommander series he outright put a hole in your claim that only rpgs had choices, dialogue or branching storylines as that series sports it all in some of the games.

Or it means Wing Commander 3 was an RPG. It's all just semantics.

I will certainly argue against such a claim. I never once while playing the WC games felt like I was playing a rpg, despite the branching storylines, choices and dialogue.

I felt like I was playing a spacesimshooter that went for the epic movie feel in storytelling, in which I feel it suceeded.

[Someone With Mass]

Gatt9 wrote...
6.  Which once again was pretty pointless,  since the YMIR you killed in the first mission would be what you killed when you were level 30.  The very first mission you show you can kill everything in the game without touching the skills.

And the opposite of this worked in ME1, because...?

Oh yeah. Because your starting equipment was garbage and you had to do tedious grinding and exploration that became boring after the third time to afford new gear
while the enemies had the same nano-millimeter precision with their weapons as they always did.

I can see how that works in the heavy RPG style's favor./sarcasm

Point is, if you want an RPG that focuses on those elements to a very high level, then Mass Effect wasn't and never will be the game for you.

[Xewaka]

Coherent stats, and a loot mechanic, means the enemies are designed in consistency with the player characters party. Both draw from the same pool, thus both are similar in attitude and capabilities. A coherent system makes coherent encounters, thus resulting in a cohesive gameplay that helps the narrative underlying.

[In Exile]

Gatt9 wrote...
6.  Which once again was pretty pointless,  since the YMIR you killed in the first mission would be what you killed when you were level 30.  The very first mission you show you can kill everything in the game without touching the

This is just false. With upgrades, more powers and better heavy weapons, the YMIR goes from "hard" to "joke".

[Lumikki]

Xivai wrote...

Mass Effect Series is an RPg, but light on the GAME and mechanics.

Thw Witcher 2 is an RPG that focuses on all of it at once.

Diablo 2 is an rPG, light on the role, but heavy in the play and game aspects.

Final Fantasy X is RpG, light on the playing but plenty on the role and game areas.

As time goes on I find few games can nail all three aspects of an RPG really well.

I disagree with The Wither 2 situation, while I do consider it as (rpg).

RPG is about character and story, while The Wither serie is more about story and failing in character role gameplay customation part. Adventure games has usually pre-define character and most the time linear story. The Withers has too pre-define character to be called as pure RPG. Dragon Age Origins is more direction of pure RPG, than The Withers 2. The Wither serie is more like combination of adventure game and RPG. Compare The Witchers character customation to real RPG's or amount of items, you will see how limitive they are and narrow character customation choises. The Witchers strenght are in story choises, open areas, good atmosphere and impression details.

Modifié par Lumikki, 04 juillet 2011 - 07:04 .

[Tony Gunslinger]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Heavens forbid a gamedesigner should spend more than a few seconds to come up with ways to design himself out of borderline problems any random jock could come up with, right?

After all, we NEED to use systems without proper time spent on design as the only substitute, right?

We couldn't think up linked cooldowns with variety, or enabling resources outside of time to use on powers, or something entirely else

Yes, they're called 'squad members', 'guns', and 'brains'. They do a bunch of stuff such as: damage, crowd control, and tactics, from what I hear.

You can try without the hidden insults, and when you start thinking about a decent reply instead of resorting to knee-jerks you will hopefully see that you neither adressed the point, nor does your so called 'mechanics' impact on cooldowns of abilities. They can be used irregardless of which system is used for managing power use, even one that doesn't force users into a single GCD affecting everything a user can do.

I have addressed the point repeatedly and have been giving you case by case explanations. You wanted to know why I think GCD works, I just did. You then reply back with sarcasm, and looking for 'something else' besides CD issues to make you feel like you can be awesome in a video game. That 'something else'  has always been there, but you don't want to use it.

You want to be able combo yourself. Why? Because it looks cool? Because it's satisfying? Because other hack n' slash games do that? Fine. But then what's the point of squadmates then when you obliterate enemies like Ryu Hayabusa? As I've said repeatedly, the more powerful you get, either the enemy gets tough or the number enemies multiply, resulting in either a) a dragged out fight with a few beefed up goons whose qualities do not match the standard units on your side, which is the equvalent of using chess pieces to fight against checker pieces, or   a simple skirmish look like a slaugherfest because you can kill 50 regualr enemies under 2 minutes, in a game where most of your missions are supposed to be spec ops.

And if you want to talk about restrictions, this what happens when you get to have multiple powers at your finger tips: the game has to restrict player progression so you never feel all that powerful for the majority of the game. And when you are at max level, you don't need to master anything, or think about enemy types because they're dead in a few seconds. Does that sound familiar? Instead of letting players experiencing the gameplay system in its true form, it's restricting players in order to hide the mindlessness of it.

I think what you really want is a more obvious mechanic, one that either grants immediate satisfaction, or some type guidance, telling you "hey you're doing it right." In other words, when the game gives you freedom, you're complaining about the lack of guidance.

Modifié par Tony Gunslinger, 04 juillet 2011 - 06:47 .

[Il Divo]

SalsaDMA wrote...

I see...

So now you're arguing that words can end up meaning anything so discussions are effectually pointless in the first place,right?

Words can mean anything. But they often don't. If I say 'floor', you probably don't think 'ceiling'.

The question is: why do so many fans think that RPGs are about choices, dialogue, and morality? Well, one problem is that the pen and paper is a fairly loose collection of games. I've played sessions of DnD where we spend 3 hours in a single combat session, and I've played sessions where we've had a single die roll.

Another problem is genre-labels. Bioware did not call their games 'adventure/role-playing games'. Instead, the label RPG was used. So, elements such as dialogue, morality, and choice start to blend into that definition.

With such a viewpoint, why does it even matter to you participate in debates on the discussion forum if the debate, topics or anything else in that regard is pointless according to your argument?

I didn't say the argument is pointless. I said definitions are mutable.

A word can mean anything, but understanding why a word's meaning has changed (or remained the same) is important. It's similar to how in linguistics words that we use can be adapted from other languages. Nietzsche touches on this in On the Genealogy of Morality. In our case, Gatt says the meaning of the term RPG can't change, never has changed, and never will change. Well, I disagree.

Modifié par Il Divo, 04 juillet 2011 - 07:03 .

[Gatt9]

In Exile wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

The really fundamental question here, I think, is what the genre definitions are supposed to do for us. Gatt9's definitions are workable, but I don't find them personally useful. A useful definition, to me, would be one that excluded Diablo but did include, say, Wing Commander 4 at the far end.

Be able to look down at the unswashed mases and know that we were chosen at birth to rule over because of our gaming preferences?

I'm with you. I don't care for genre definitions. I care if the game is fun. I would honestly engage Gatt9 on gameplay... except that someone else is already doing a great job on explaining ME2's mechanics. 

I think Bioware would be better off not calling their games RPGs just because of the crowd it attracts, and Bioware never really wanted to design RPGs in the way really major fans of the genre want (apparently).

Simply put, if the ideal RPG is Icewind Dale and it's ilk, then personally I'd never really want to play an RPG.

You touch on the crux of the issue there.

The problem isn't really that ME2 and ME3 are mostly TPS,  any one game is irrelevant.  Diablo was,  for many years,  derided as "Not an RPG",  Alan69 and I would probably fill a thread with a back and forth on whether or not it is.  But that game didn't cause the same discussion that you find here and on Bethseda's boards today.

The problem is that you have people like Laidlaw,  Norman,  Bethseda's Todd who aren't content with just releasing their game,  but they also feel it necessary to declare that what constitutes an RPG is dead,  anyone who thinks otherwise is invalid,  and that henceforth,  ME2(Fallout 3,  Oblivion) is what a true RPG is.  When their game falls short,  they blame us for being "Stuck in worthless traditions".

Then they enlist the Gaming Press in the matter to continue to deride us,  as occurred with Fallout 3.  Gamespy wishing for Fallout fans to die,  Pennyarcade doing a piece on how wrong Fallout fans are,  Gamespot,  1Up,  PCG,  all within weeks of each other,  that's no coincidence.  Everyone doesn't suddenly decide to write the same article at the same time.

The problem isn't just ME,  or TES,  the problem is the hubris of these developers telling us that we're wrong for enjoying RPG mechanics,  that we're now invalid,  and then you've got a hundred kids who've never played an RPG repeating the content of those pieces without understanding what the issues really are,  or why things existed the way they did.

As far as Bioware goes,  this is the audience they wanted,  they spearheaded the increase in non-combat interactivity and NPC's with personalities.

The problem is,  it's not the audience EA wants.  Because EA doesn't make games that won't appeal to the very largest demographic humanly possible.

Anyway, this has gone on for much longer than I intended or feel necessary. I'm willing to agree to disagree, because I do know how the games industry works, and I do know how games are developed and I do know how suits interfere but nowadays gameplay is just a vehicle for the true show of a game, which is the art.

I'm thinking it's probably best if we do.  We're going to add another 30 pages to the thread and technically be offtopic I think.  It's a good subject for debate though,  and I bow to your debate skills,  I wish we were able to talk this out.  I think it would be a great discussion.

Gatt9 wrote...
6. Which once again was pretty pointless, since the YMIR you killed in the first mission would be what you killed when you were level 30. The very first mission you show you can kill everything in the game without touching the

This is just false. With upgrades, more powers and better heavy weapons, the YMIR goes from "hard" to "joke".

My point stands.

You can kill the YMIR at level 2,  the speed at which it occurs is irrelevant.  You're still fighting him as a boss at level 30.  The entire thing is irrelevant,  if you can kill it at level 2,  without a single upgrade and with starter weapons,  then the leveling,  upgrades,  weapons,  are all completely pointless because all you're doing is killing the exact same stuff faster.

There's no progression.  Once you've beaten the first end-boss in the game,  you have everything you need to win the game without touching any of the subsystems,  which means the subsystems are completely pointless and could be excised without disrupting the flow of the game.

Which is exactly the hallmark of bad design and bad implementation.  When a system is so irrelevant that it can be excised without disrupting the rest of the game,  then the system was unneccessary and served no real purpose.

In contrast,  excise ME's inventory/loot system,  or it's non-combat skills.  The game breaks,  you can't complete the game without them.

[Il Divo]

Gatt9 wrote...

In contrast,  excise ME's inventory/loot system,  or it's non-combat skills.  The game breaks,  you can't complete the game without them.

You were unable to beat Mass Effect without non-combat skills?

Which is exactly the hallmark of bad design and bad implementation.  When a system is so irrelevant that it can be excised without disrupting the rest of the game,  then the system was unneccessary and served no real purpose.

Mass Effect was filled with bad design (the loot/non-combat skills that you yourself mentioned). When a system is so bad that its removal is looked on as an improvement, then it serves a counter-purpose to that of a video game.

Modifié par Il Divo, 04 juillet 2011 - 07:08 .

[Lumikki]

Il Divo wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

In contrast,  excise ME's inventory/loot system,  or it's non-combat skills.  The game breaks,  you can't complete the game without them.

You were unable to beat Mass Effect without non-combat skills?

What damm non-combat skills ME1 had?

[Il Divo]

[quote]Lumikki wrote...

You were unable to beat Mass Effect without non-combat skills?[/quote]
What damm non-combat skills ME1 had?

[/quote]

Only two really come to mind (outside of Paragon/Renegade scores).

Every skill had a combat application (due to new powers). The only skills I can think of which had ranks for non-combat purposes were Decryption and Electronics.

[Someone With Mass]

Lumikki wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

In contrast,  excise ME's inventory/loot system,  or it's non-combat skills.  The game breaks,  you can't complete the game without them.

You were unable to beat Mass Effect without non-combat skills?

What damm non-combat skills ME1 had?

Decryption and Electronics, which you could just let a tech based teammate like Tali handle so you could spend your own points on something else.

Nothing deep there. 

[Lumikki]

Electronics was used to repair Mako what was used in combat. Also it affected shields what was also combat related. Decryptions opens Sabotage, what was combat talent. How ever, Decryptions was most non-combat skill there was, if you don't count persuation and intimidate what where dialog based. Medicine and First aid was also combat related as they aid healing, what can only be affected by combat.

Yeah, people talk so much about non-combat skills, but even ME1 most skills was connected combat one way or other.

In ME2 there was hacking and bypass abilities, they where player skills with one upgrade possibility.
Basicly replaced ME1's decryptions skill, what deside what you can "crack open".

Modifié par Lumikki, 04 juillet 2011 - 07:34 .

[Ahglock]

In Exile wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...
6.  Which once again was pretty pointless,  since the YMIR you killed in the first mission would be what you killed when you were level 30.  The very first mission you show you can kill everything in the game without touching the

This is just false. With upgrades, more powers and better heavy weapons, the YMIR goes from "hard" to "joke".

There was some progression but it was mostly irrelevant.  By level 10 most classes were at their peak and if anything got weaker.  I blame level scaling for this mostly.  Or if you prefer poorly done level scaling, not Oblivion bad level scaling but still fairly bad.  

[Ahglock]

Lumikki wrote...

Electronics was used to repair Mako what was used in combat. Also it affected shields what was also combat related. Decryptions opens Sabotage, what was combat talent. How ever, Decryptions was most non-combat skill there was, if you don't count persuation and intimidate what where dialog based. Medicine and First aid was also combat related as they aid healing, what can only be affected by combat.

Yeah, people talk so much about non-combat skills, but even ME1 most skills was connected combat one way or other.

True but "people" also describe ME1 as an RPG lite.  So the mythical people see ME2's trimmed down even further RPG systems as making it not even a RPG.  

[AlanC9]

SalsaDMA wrote...

In Exile wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote..
You missed his point.

By listing Wingcommander series he outright put a hole in your claim that only rpgs had choices, dialogue or branching storylines as that series sports it all in some of the games.

Or it means Wing Commander 3 was an RPG. It's all just semantics.

I will certainly argue against such a claim. I never once while playing the WC games felt like I was playing a rpg, despite the branching storylines, choices and dialogue.

I felt like I was playing a spacesimshooter that went for the epic movie feel in storytelling, in which I feel it suceeded.

Of course, how we define "RPG" also defines when playing a game feels like playing an "RPG" to us.

Did WC3 really have choices? Storyline branching is by combat performance, not decisions -- unless deciding to eject counts as a choice here. (I wish RPGs did branching that way, actually). You've got the romance choice (lose wingman or do your own loadouts), choices whether to go after Flint and Hobbes (no effect/ one wingman killed), deciding to duel Thrakhath (which gets you killed and ends the game)... that's about it except for dialogue choices, which typically don't do anything except alter morale scores.

[SalsaDMA]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Heavens forbid a gamedesigner should spend more than a few seconds to come up with ways to design himself out of borderline problems any random jock could come up with, right?

After all, we NEED to use systems without proper time spent on design as the only substitute, right?

We couldn't think up linked cooldowns with variety, or enabling resources outside of time to use on powers, or something entirely else

Yes, they're called 'squad members', 'guns', and 'brains'. They do a bunch of stuff such as: damage, crowd control, and tactics, from what I hear.

You can try without the hidden insults, and when you start thinking about a decent reply instead of resorting to knee-jerks you will hopefully see that you neither adressed the point, nor does your so called 'mechanics' impact on cooldowns of abilities. They can be used irregardless of which system is used for managing power use, even one that doesn't force users into a single GCD affecting everything a user can do.

I have addressed the point repeatedly and have been giving you case by case explanations. You wanted to know why I think GCD works, I just did. You then reply back with sarcasm, and looking for 'something else' besides CD issues to make you feel like you can be awesome in a video game. That 'something else'  has always been there, but you don't want to use it.

Yes, I was sarcastic because you refused to aknowledge the ecistence of other systems than an inherently flawed one, and took up that specific system as if it was the only alternative. The only thing you have 'repeatedly stated' is that you refuse to admit that the GCD system is inherently flawed too. And your' something else' is not something else. It's just other aspects of the game that has nothing to do with the mechanic of power usage by itself. During gameplay it intreacts with how you play the game, but it has no impact on the mechanic itself, and it falls entirely on its face as an argument when you hold it up against the fact that you have missions in ME2 where you cannot rely on this 'something else'.

You want to be able combo yourself. Why? Because it looks cool? Because it's satisfying? Because other hack n' slash games do that? Fine. But then what's the point of squadmates then when you obliterate enemies like Ryu Hayabusa? As I've said repeatedly, the more powerful you get, either the enemy gets tough or the number enemies multiply, resulting in either a) a dragged out fight with a few beefed up goons whose qualities do not match the standard units on your side, which is the equvalent of using chess pieces to fight against checker pieces, or   a simple skirmish look like a slaugherfest because you can kill 50 regualr enemies under 2 minutes, in a game where most of your missions are supposed to be spec ops.

Way to go. Is there anything else you want to get off your chest of misconstructed perceptions from your part?

I want the current GCD system gone because it's inherently flawed. It limits creativity and diversity in gameplay and puts people on a track of using only whatever ability is optimal at a given time. In other words, it's a 'one solution to a given problem' scheme.

Ignoring squadmates for now, let's focus on GCDs first. The primary reason for having cooldowns at all, is to limit the rate of usage. This is done so a variable degree of 'effect' can be placed on each ability. With no cooldowns AT ALL, people would just figure out which ability had most effect and spam that ability. Insert cooldowns and you can grade the power of abilities. However, in order to be able to have varying levels of effect, the powers need to be tied to different cooldowns. In essence making using a power a choice. Do you use power A or power B? A might be inherently more powerfull, but have a longer cooldown. and so on.

Instead of going through an extended discussion regarding gamedesign, I'll just throw out the following:
Envision Powers A, B, C and D. They each have an effect in various areas, but also overlap in some areas, like damage.Dependin on circumstance, either of the powers would be deemed as most preferable. Using a power institutes a cooldown on that power of X timeunits, while it institutes a cooldown of X-Y timeunits on other powers except on any power that is already on a cooldown in which case the added cooldown will depend on a formula as deemed appropriate given playttesting. Y depends on the relation a given power has on the used power.

This gives you a flow of powerusage that varies between powers inherently, isn't catering to a single minded usage of a single power (or tactic) and still leaves choice to the player in what to use.

Appearantly, the above is unthinkable of to you since you keep using weird notions tied to something you limit yourself to in your imagination. What can I say? Tough cookie? Imagination runs different with different people? Whatever?

Heck, to fling out a second way, you could give the player a variance of resources, where the different abilities used different resources which regenerated slowly over time or when you used other powers or abilities. This one would take some more work but is yet a way to imagine a workable system that is richer than the current, encourages variety and gives a better playing experience than spamming the same button all the time.

And for your comments about teammates, I will flat out state that the ME2 interface for controlling teammates is way way way below par. It's minimalistic and lacks serious options for there to be any real usage out of tactics with teammates, not to mention the AI needs to be beefed compared to ME2 for them to be proper usable. ME seems intent to have teammates along, while not really using them proper. They are more along for the ride to deliver comments here and there, than to be actual tactical assets and a deep part of the gameplay. The fact that their damage is HEAVILY nerfed compared to the player is all the indication you need to see that ME series is about the player killing stuff, and not about commanding a team of specialists that perform as a team.

And if you want to talk about restrictions, this what happens when you get to have multiple powers at your finger tips: the game has to restrict player progression so you never feel all that powerful for the majority of the game. And when you are at max level, you don't need to master anything, or think about enemy types because they're dead in a few seconds. Does that sound familiar? Instead of letting players experiencing the gameplay system in its true form, it's restricting players in order to hide the mindlessness of it.

Again, I'm sorry your imagination limits you in your ability to discuss the topic in an objective manner.
It does not have to end with the scenario you lay out, and any game designer worth his/her salt would naturally tie up things such that it didn't if it were a concern. Ironically this is exactly what happened in ME2, though, as the skill points I invested didn't give me any noticcable rise in power while I played. All of my characters that could use the freeze effect did so just fine with only a single point in it, making further progression in the power pointless.

And the only mindlessness in the game is that which is designed into it. Which is a simplistic design of just hamfisting a GCD over all the powers instead of taking the time diferentiate between effects and powers.

I think what you really want is a more obvious mechanic, one that either grants immediate satisfaction, or some type guidance, telling you "hey you're doing it right." In other words, when the game gives you freedom, you're complaining about the lack of guidance.

Again with the asumptions and subjective spouts. The game isn't giving freedom. It's restricting things by giving you a 'I-win' button as one power and letting the other powers be there for show. If that is your idea of 'good' gamedesign, I can only disagree.

[Il Divo]

Ahglock wrote...

True but "people" also describe ME1 as an RPG lite.  So the mythical people see ME2's trimmed down even further RPG systems as making it not even a RPG.  

A fair point, but 'what' is trimmed is also important. There is a difference between trimming meat and trimming fat.
Ex: # of skill ranks. Mass Effect offered 12 ranks per skill, with three ranks which each improve a power.

Instead of 12 skill ranks (with a very small progression), Mass Effect 2 gives 4 ranks per skill, with each rank being substantially more important, and a final rank which alters an ability. This came at the cost of less skill points.

I do think that ME2 did remove some 'meat' as well (weapon-modding, total # of skills, for example). But taking everything into account, I personally thought substantially more fat was removed than meat.

Modifié par Il Divo, 04 juillet 2011 - 07:39 .

[AlanC9]

Gatt9 wrote...

As far as Bioware goes,  this is the audience they wanted,  they spearheaded the increase in non-combat interactivity and NPC's with personalities.

The problem is,  it's not the audience EA wants.  Because EA doesn't make games that won't appeal to the very largest demographic humanly possible.

What's "NPCs with personalities" doing there? Do the larger demographics actually want NPCs with no personalities?

You can kill the YMIR at level 2,  the speed at which it occurs is irrelevant.  You're still fighting him as a boss at level 30.  The entire thing is irrelevant,  if you can kill it at level 2,  without a single upgrade and with starter weapons,  then the leveling,  upgrades,  weapons,  are all completely pointless because all you're doing is killing the exact same stuff faster.

There's no progression.  Once you've beaten the first end-boss in the game,  you have everything you need to win the game without touching any of the subsystems,  which means the subsystems are completely pointless and could be excised without disrupting the flow of the game.

Isn't making the game more fun relevant?

Which is exactly the hallmark of bad design and bad implementation.  When a system is so irrelevant that it can be excised without disrupting the rest of the game,  then the system was unneccessary and served no real purpose.

The term of art for this used to be "chrome," though I'm not certain the term's widely used for computer games. 

Exactly why is chrome a hallmark of bad design? Many of my favorite games have had chrome; some quite a lot of it. They would have been worse experiences without the chrome.

[AlanC9]

SalsaDMA wrote...
And for your comments about teammates, I will flat out state that the ME2 interface for controlling teammates is way way way below par. It's minimalistic and lacks serious options for there to be any real usage out of tactics with teammates, not to mention the AI needs to be beefed compared to ME2 for them to be proper usable. ME seems intent to have teammates along, while not really using them proper. They are more along for the ride to deliver comments here and there, than to be actual tactical assets and a deep part of the gameplay. The fact that their damage is HEAVILY nerfed compared to the player is all the indication you need to see that ME series is about the player killing stuff, and not about commanding a team of specialists that perform as a team.

Could you explain why you didn't find them useful? I did. Though I agree that nerfing their damage was a bad idea.

[JayhartRIC]

One of the main reasons they went to a global cooldown was to minimize pausing and clean up the UI. Having group cooldowns or individual cooldowns will just add more icons onto the screen. I can't think of a way to go back to individual cooldowns without slowing the combat way down again.

Even with the current system, there are tradeoffs to using each power. Maybe you use Pull instead of Singularity for the shorter cooldown. Maybe you want to strip shields as a Sentinel, and instead of doing it yourself, you get a squadmate to do it and you do the finishing move. There is a lot of room for tactical gameplay and using all the powers at your disposal.

[Martanek]

LexXxich wrote...

There's one important thing a lot of people miss.
And it's: do all those stats affect something other than combat? If not, then I'm pretty sure it's not a roleplaying game, and instead an action game with RPG-elements. Which is what we see in ME2, DA2, and possibly in ME3 from recent Bioware games.

A truly good point man.

[Bnol]

JayhartRIC wrote...

One of the main reasons they went to a global cooldown was to minimize pausing and clean up the UI. Having group cooldowns or individual cooldowns will just add more icons onto the screen. I can't think of a way to go back to individual cooldowns without slowing the combat way down again.

Even with the current system, there are tradeoffs to using each power. Maybe you use Pull instead of Singularity for the shorter cooldown. Maybe you want to strip shields as a Sentinel, and instead of doing it yourself, you get a squadmate to do it and you do the finishing move. There is a lot of room for tactical gameplay and using all the powers at your disposal.

I don't see how having icons on the screen would be such a bad thing.  I mean on the PC version you already have this for keybindings and it is not really that distracting.  You wouldn't necessarily have to have every power there, but maybe just the power that is on CD.  If the powers are on a group CD then you don't need many icons at all.  I personally much rather have icons on the screen with more flexibility in power usage.  You also don't necessarily have to have the icons there, as when I am playing ME1 I get the general sense of when my powers are coming up, and having the icons could be a display option.

The GCD creates one-button classes (Soldier is the worst offender).  With a more dynamic system you would have more reason to invest some points in some of the lesser skills and actually use them, instead of spamming AR, Charge, or Cloak all the time.  Obviously the ICDs would need to be adjusted, but this would allow even more tailoring to the abilities strength. 

Modifié par Bnol, 04 juillet 2011 - 08:11 .