3223 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Going back to this concept of progression for a second....

Gatt9 wrote...
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.

....is this actually a hallmark of SF RPGs? I don't remember ever seeing a game structured like this in PnP. SF CRPGs seem to be pretty thin on the ground. I suppose Starflight counts as having this kind of progression. KotOR? I guess so, but there are so few different types of enemy that it hardly ever comes up. If there weren't rancors in the endgame I don't know if it could count.

[EDIsMYHO]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

I agree w/ Casey.

ME series should focus on what it does best - big story, great characters, cinematics, dialogue, and action. There is no need to tack on "RPG elements" to appease hardcore RPG fans. It's not the point of the series.

Was The Matrix a bad action movie because it didn't have a car chase scene, a "staple" of the genre?

First of all, Matrix came in a trilogy, just like ME, so my point will be valid:

Ever seen the second one? Guess not. There's an epic car chase scene with the two ghosts.

ME should definitely incorporate more RPG elements. Sure, actually having to go to each planet for resources would suck, but I want to be able to model my character's entire body to match my liking. I want a giant muscular vanguard dude? I should be able to have it. I want a chick to be a little less flat-chested and be sexy as hell? Why can't I?

More player customization, way more armor. Gimme it all man!

[Terror_K]

Il Divo wrote...

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.

While I personally feel like I returned to a restaurant for another helping of the large steak dinner that satisfied me last week but asking for a tad less fat, only to find it so trimmed down that instead I got something more akin to one of those overly-expensive, pretentious fancy meals that was merely a small cube of meat drizzled with some sauce I didn't much care for and a sprig of parsley.

Sure, they trimmed the fat, but they also trimmed a hell of a lot of the meat, leaving me with something that was meagre and largely unsatisfying. On top of that, I'm pretty much told that that's all they serve these days and they don't do the big steaks any more. Even a big hunk of perfectly prepared dragon meat has been reduced to a tiny, undercooked shrivel of rubbish covered in spices and sauces that completely ruin the flavour.

[Il Divo]

Terror_K wrote...

Sure, they trimmed the fat, but they also trimmed a hell of a lot of the meat, leaving me with something that was meagre and largely unsatisfying. On top of that, I'm pretty much told that that's all they serve these days and they don't do the big steaks any more. Even a big hunk of perfectly prepared dragon meat has been reduced to a tiny, undercooked shrivel of rubbish covered in spices and sauces that completely ruin the flavour.

I'd argue that the meat trimmed was far less than the fat. The 'meat' in question (from my perspective) was weapon-modding and total skills. Even I was disappointed when I saw the number of skills my Shepard possessed.

On the other hand, I'd consider 'fat' to be the 12 meaningless skill ranks, which were concentrated down to 4 substantial upgrades and pretty much the entire loot system. The point of looting is not simply to play a game of "greater than or less than".
 
If it follows a completely linear pathway, then loot has become pointless. If you want a comparison, in DnD I make a fighter. I give him a basic longsword. At the end of my first adventure, my DM presents me with a +1 longsword. There's nothing of value to consider between the two; the +1 longsword is clearly better, which makes the loot system itself superfluous. Essentially, it's all fat. A good loot system should not consist of only linear upgrades.

Modifié par Il Divo, 05 juillet 2011 - 01:10 .

[Lumikki]

Linear upgrades has very little real meaning, because player character vs enemy combat difficulty balance needs to allways kept as same. Basicly everyting is just scaled when you do linear progress. It doesn't even matter what you progress, skill, levels, items, because in the end it's allways balanced agaist content.

Real differences comes when the "ability" offers for player something new, as new way to do something. Call it parallel progression. You don't upgrade, but you get differences. Parallel progression gives player variety. Linear progression just makes what you allready have stronger, but even that is scaled away because content balance.

Only reason people like linear progression is that it gives them feeling they go forward. Put in reality they haven't gone anywhere and hole linear progression is just illusion. Game levels controls you general progression speed. Meaning every advance what you get can't go faster than progression speed, is it skills, items or what ever, because game doesn't allow that situation. Meaning you don't get or use +15 longsword at level 1. You get or can use it when you progression is higher enough. You don't get skill point to put in some skill, because game doesn't allow it to happen before it's ready for it.

Doesn't it also means that parallel progressions advance is also counter affected with content balance? Yes it does, but they can't take away the variety what it did provide.

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 juillet 2011 - 01:58 .

[Terror_K]

Il Divo wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Sure, they trimmed the fat, but they also trimmed a hell of a lot of the meat, leaving me with something that was meagre and largely unsatisfying. On top of that, I'm pretty much told that that's all they serve these days and they don't do the big steaks any more. Even a big hunk of perfectly prepared dragon meat has been reduced to a tiny, undercooked shrivel of rubbish covered in spices and sauces that completely ruin the flavour.

I'd argue that the meat trimmed was far less than the fat. The 'meat' in question (from my perspective) was weapon-modding and total skills. Even I was disappointed when I saw the number of skills my Shepard possessed.

On the other hand, I'd consider 'fat' to be the 12 meaningless skill ranks, which were concentrated down to 4 substantial upgrades and pretty much the entire loot system. The point of looting is not simply to play a game of "greater than or less than".
 
If it follows a completely linear pathway, then loot has become pointless. If you want a comparison, in DnD I make a fighter. I give him a basic longsword. At the end of my first adventure, my DM presents me with a +1 longsword. There's nothing of value to consider between the two; the +1 longsword is clearly better, which makes the loot system itself superfluous. Essentially, it's all fat. A good loot system should not consist of only linear upgrades.

Again though, not all loot systems are like that, so you arguing as if they are is pointless. DnD and Dragon Age: Origins for example both had cases of special weapons with various effects, so it wasn't as clear cut as that. In any loot system at some points its going to be, yes. But not always.

ME1's main problem in this area was that the weapons were not well balanced enough: too often the next gun you came across was better across the board so rather than putting forth a choice to the player the switch was elementary. Rarely you'd be presented with a gun that was better at one factor, but worse at another, thus making you have to pick and choose, and those rare moments showed that the potential was there.

You admit say "a good loot system should not consist of only linear upgrades" at the end of your post. That indicates that a good loot system can exist, by your own admission. Again, this is another case of the idea having warrant, but being shot down by those who preferred the ME2 method because of the mere factor of "ME1 failed at it" and little else. Just because "ME1 failed at it" doesn't mean the idea can't work, especially when other games have demonstrated that it can.

Also, ME2's research/upgrade system is in fact far more linear than ME1's basic weapon and modding systems, especially considering it allows you to max every item with no effort and no trade-offs or penalties. As broken as ME1's system was, it (as I said) at least had those glimmers of potential when you came across those rare instances where a weapon wasn't better across the board, and on top of that had modding, where you had to pick and choose. ME2's upgrade system is nothing but a straight line that allows no real customisation because every player just gets every upgrade and upgrades their entire arsenal to max every time. There's nothing really stopping you except resources, which are easy to come by (especially after LotSB) and there's never a case where you have to sacrifice one aspects for another. You can point out the ME1system's flaws all you like, but you can't essentially be the pot calling the kettle black by defending ME2's method of going about things when it suffers the exact same problem, albeit in a different manner. Heck... even the weapons themselves are completely linear: they're in the same damn location every time, and they are so few that you can memorise them.

The things I'd call fat are things such as having up to ten versions of almost every item, especially when it came to mods. Only 2-3 versions would have been needed with weapons and armour, and only the one with the mods. I wouldn't call omni-tools and biotic amps fat either. Nor would I call non-combat skills fat (especially Decryption and Electronics) and armour classes. The amount of overall items was fat, definitely, but ME2 reduced this far too much. After all, you need a little bit of fat to give the meat flavour, or it risks becoming bland and tasteless. Weapon skills aren't so much fat, but could have been done better and differently (as I've suggested, more for giving bonus abilities and skills to using weapons).

ME1 may have had the skills with too many points that have a minor effect, but I honestly never saw the problem with this. RPG progression IMO should be smooth and gradual and not these large leaps of instant gratification every time. Progression should take its time, not be a rush-job where every single level-up has to have a pay-off. ME2's was too jerky and seemed too concerned with making sure the ADD gamers out there couldn't get bored with too many insta-rewards too fast. On top of that, the points spending system was broken, and could lead to you having points left over if you wanted to try certain builds, not allowing you to even invest part-way into the next tier of the skill (though perhaps ME3 has fixed this by allowing you to tweak the stats within each power more).

Modifié par Terror_K, 05 juillet 2011 - 02:09 .

[Lumikki]

You are missing the point, the speed of progression is max-min level.

Example 1-30 levels. Skills have 4 progression step.
Example 1-30 levels. Skills have 12 progression step.

These are exactly same, because you get 3 times more points for progression in game where there is more progression steps. It's illusion of difference. In end they are same.

Think about ME1 decryption skill, it had 12 skill step, but how many actual action steps it did have in gameplay?

Point been that most of ME1 skills has only 3 actual action step. (easy, advance and master)

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 juillet 2011 - 02:31 .

[Niddy']

MELTOR13 wrote...

Loot and pointless stats =/= RPG

Go back to board games and dice rolls if you want your 'hardcore' RPG.

Go back to Halo.

[Aesieru]

Uh... anyone notice how "STORY" wasn't even put in "the vitals"...

That bodes poorly...

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

You are missing the point, the speed of progression is max-min level.

Example 1-30 levels. Skills have 4 progression step.
Example 1-30 levels. Skills have 12 progression step.

These are exactly same, because you get 3 times more points for progression in game where there is more progression steps. It's illusion of difference. In end they are same.

Think about ME1 decryption skill, it had 12 skill step, but how many actual action steps it did have in gameplay?

Except that the ME2 skills are the equivalent of ME1's 1 - 60 levels by comparison (i.e. your Shepard with his/her skills maxed at Level 30 in ME2 is closer to a Shepard of Level 60 in ME1 than he/she is to a Level 30 ME1 Shepard). A level 30 ME2 Shepard is far more capable and powerful than a level 30 ME1 Shepard, except for maybe a Soldier who focused on only one weapon skill. The reduction of skills and complete focus on offensive combat powers doesn't help this factor either.

The main point is that with ME2's system you make big leaps rather than slowly progressing. Even moreso with companions when you want to get their specialty power (because you'll tend to hold onto their points and horde them rather than spend them on skills you don't want to have, so once it unlocks they often go from not having the skill at all to having it maxed or near maxed in a matter of seconds). In ME1 you gradually improved because you could always spend a point, while ME2 makes you accrue 3 or 4 for the upper levels of that skill, meaning instead of gradually getting better it makes jerky leaps each time, and you can sometimes be stuck and not progressing. In ME1 you could always progress, and the progression was smoother and more natural.

Modifié par Terror_K, 05 juillet 2011 - 02:35 .

[Lunatic LK47]

Terror_K wrote...

In ME1 you gradually improved because you could always spend a point, while ME2 makes you accrue 3 or 4 for the upper levels of that skill, meaning instead of gradually getting better it makes jerky leaps each time, and you can sometimes be stuck and not progressing. In ME1 you could always progress, and the progression was smoother and more natural.

Uh, not really. I always maxed out my Charm/Intimidate and two weapons skills on the first go by the time I've hit my mid- or late 20s for both my Soldiers and Infiltrators.

[Lunatic LK47]

Niddy' wrote...


Go back to Halo.

Go screw yourself.

[Lumikki]

Sure, ME2 has bigger leaps. ME1 was smooth and more linear.
Like you sayed, ME1 has more fat, but it only provide nothing more than smoothness.
Both ME1 and ME2 provided only 1 parallel progression per skill.

1,1,1,(1),1,1,1,(1),1,1,1,(1) = 12 point linear
1,2,3,4 = 10 point

In ME3 there is 6? step with multible parallel progression too.
So basicly it's way more "better" than both of ME1 and ME2.

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 juillet 2011 - 02:51 .

[Gatt9]

Il Divo wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Sure, they trimmed the fat, but they also trimmed a hell of a lot of the meat, leaving me with something that was meagre and largely unsatisfying. On top of that, I'm pretty much told that that's all they serve these days and they don't do the big steaks any more. Even a big hunk of perfectly prepared dragon meat has been reduced to a tiny, undercooked shrivel of rubbish covered in spices and sauces that completely ruin the flavour.

I'd argue that the meat trimmed was far less than the fat. The 'meat' in question (from my perspective) was weapon-modding and total skills. Even I was disappointed when I saw the number of skills my Shepard possessed.

On the other hand, I'd consider 'fat' to be the 12 meaningless skill ranks, which were concentrated down to 4 substantial upgrades and pretty much the entire loot system. The point of looting is not simply to play a game of "greater than or less than".
 
If it follows a completely linear pathway, then loot has become pointless. If you want a comparison, in DnD I make a fighter. I give him a basic longsword. At the end of my first adventure, my DM presents me with a +1 longsword. There's nothing of value to consider between the two; the +1 longsword is clearly better, which makes the loot system itself superfluous. Essentially, it's all fat. A good loot system should not consist of only linear upgrades.

I respectfully suggest you're leaving out some important things there.

Your DM might award you that longsword.  Or a Tome that increases strength,  gauntlets of ogre power,  ring of free action,  ring of fire resistance,  sword of flame,  bag of holding,  deck of many things,  mirror of life trapping, Elven Cloak,  and on and on. 

D&D does not,  and never has,  been a linear progression.  It's always been an alinear and often situational progression.  It's not even completely combat oriented,  as the loot can easily have non-combat effects.

Which is the ideal way to implement loot.

Of course,  since ME2 is all combat,  with no systems to support noncombat skills,  it's completely impossible to implement an effective loot system.  Looks like ME3's going to be about the same.

Linear upgrades has very little real meaning, because player character vs enemy combat difficulty balance needs to allways kept as same. Basicly everyting is just scaled when you do linear progress. It doesn't even matter what you progress, skill, levels, items, because in the end it's allways balanced agaist content.

Real differences comes when the "ability" offers for player something new, as new way to do something. Call it parallel progression. You don't upgrade, but you get differences. Parallel progression gives player variety. Linear progression just makes what you allready have stronger, but even that is scaled away because content balance.

Only reason people like linear progression is that it gives them feeling they go forward. Put in reality they haven't gone anywhere and hole linear progression is just illusion. Game levels controls you general progression speed. Meaning every advance what you get can't go faster than progression speed, is it skills, items or what ever, because game doesn't allow that situation. Meaning you don't get or use +15 longsword at level 1. You get or can use it when you progression is higher enough. You don't get skill point to put in some skill, because game doesn't allow it to happen before it's ready for it.

Doesn't it also means that parallel progressions advance is also counter affected with content balance? Yes it does, but they can't take away the variety what it did provide.

Actually,  that's the wrong way to design an RPG.  That's the Bethseda way,  and increasingly the Bioware way,  and definitively the wrong way.

An RPG will feature a series of progressively more difficult opponents that you cannot kill at level 1,  until you progress in power.  Your goal is meant to seem insurmountable,  because if it was something you could handle at level 1,  it wouldn't be very threatening.  If the average farmer can handle the problem,  there's no need for a Hero.

The method an RPG does this through is Character based skill,  so that you are removed from the equation and it is possible for your character to fail.  This way,  the character can progress such that a once insurmountable foe,  such as a Dragon,  ultimately becomes challengable.

What you describe is textbook lazy design.  Rather than put the effort into creating challenges that might initially be insurmountable,  and ultimate doable,  they just level scale everything because then they don't have to spend the 3 days it takes to develop a system.

Which then results in the gameplay of some other game,  TPS or Action-Adventure,  since you've now made the entire basis of RPG mechanics useless.

Which begs the question,  if you never intended to make an RPG,  then why start making one?

There's reasons these systems exist,  and why they've survived and thrived for approaching 40 years,  and it's not because they were wrong.

[Lumikki]

Gatt9, I was talking ALL RPG ever invented has it that same way.

Killing enemy in level 1 is same as killing enemy level 100 in linear progression.
Meaning if it takes 3 fireballs to kill level 1 enemy in level 1. It takes 3 fireballs to kill level 100 enemy at level 100.

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

[Il Divo]

Terror_K wrote...

Again though, not all loot systems are like that, so you arguing as if they are is pointless. DnD and Dragon Age: Origins for example both had cases of special weapons with various effects, so it wasn't as clear cut as that. In any loot system at some points its going to be, yes. But not always.

Not so. "Other loot systems are not like that." Mass Effect's was. That's the only important point of comparison on the topic Mass Effect's inventory vs. Mass Effect 2's. Hence why it's trimming fat. Your point would workd better if we had a system like DA:O (where loot is not always linear) and then a shift to Mass Effect 2.

Your mistake is that you continually compare Mass Effect 2 as released against this non-existent Mass Effect 2 which has a non-linear loot progression that you so desire. Unfortunately, you don't hold Mass Effect to this standard. Ultimately, it doesn't  matter to me that Mass Effect 2 could have had a good loot system. What matters is the game as released compared to its predecessor. And imo as released, Mass Effect 2's non-existent inventory beats Mass Effect's linear inventory where I spent most of my time breaking down omnigel. At least with the former, I save time.

ME1's main problem in this area was that the weapons were not well balanced enough: too often the next gun you came across was better across the board so rather than putting forth a choice to the player the switch was elementary. Rarely you'd be presented with a gun that was better at one factor, but worse at another, thus making you have to pick and choose, and those rare moments showed that the potential was there.

I've gone entire games without this cropping up, even once. The few instances this ever happened to me, the difference has been incredibly marginal. I don't see that as 'potential'. Figuring out that 100>78 didn't inspire much hope in me for the inventory's future. Unfortunately, we seem to disagree on this.

You admit say "a good loot system should not consist of only linear upgrades" at the end of your post. That indicates that a good loot system can exist, by your own admission. Again, this is another case of the idea having warrant, but being shot down by those who preferred the ME2 method because of the mere factor of "ME1 failed at it" and little else. Just because "ME1 failed at it" doesn't mean the idea can't work, especially when other games have demonstrated that it can.

When a feature fails, you have two options:

1) Redesign
2) Removal

If the feature actively diminishes my enjoyment of the game (which the inventory did), then I will gladly take removal. You yourself admitted that Mass Effect 'had potential'. I don't want potentiality in my video games; I want actuality. If Mass Effect has potential for a good inventory, then Mass Effect does not have a good inventory.

You can point out the ME1system's flaws all you like, but you can't essentially be the pot calling the kettle black by defending ME2's method of going about things when it suffers the exact same problem, albeit in a different manner. Heck... even the weapons themselves are completely linear: they're in the same damn location every time, and they are so few that you can memorise them.

Mass Effect 2's system saves me time and energy. It keeps Mass Effect's linearity, but I'm not breaking down omnigel every 30 seconds and I'm not cycling through ten copies of the same item. I define that as an improvement. I'm also not proposing that Mass Effect 2's upgrade system requires any thought, where you have claimed that ME2 'dumbed down' ME1's inventory. I don't see how either system requires intelligence in the first place.

ME1 may have had the skills with too many points that have a minor effect, but I honestly never saw the problem with this. RPG progression IMO should be smooth and gradual and not these large leaps of instant gratification every time.

I do not consider 1% pistol damage to be gratifying. At any point. If you want a better point of comparison, Dragon Age featured a far superior leveling system, primarily due to the implementation of the spell/talent system. Every level offers me something new, something which can offer a new playstyle. That is 'instant gratification' and yet the system is far superior for it. I'm playing a video game. I want it to be gratifying.


Disclaimer: Despite how harsh this post may sound, none of this is intended to be taken personally. So apologies, in advance.

Modifié par Il Divo, 05 juillet 2011 - 03:26 .

[Terror_K]

Gatt9 wrote...

Actually,  that's the wrong way to design an RPG.  That's the Bethseda way,  and increasingly the Bioware way,  and definitively the wrong way.

An RPG will feature a series of progressively more difficult opponents that you cannot kill at level 1,  until you progress in power.  Your goal is meant to seem insurmountable,  because if it was something you could handle at level 1,  it wouldn't be very threatening.  If the average farmer can handle the problem,  there's no need for a Hero.

The method an RPG does this through is Character based skill,  so that you are removed from the equation and it is possible for your character to fail.  This way,  the character can progress such that a once insurmountable foe,  such as a Dragon,  ultimately becomes challengable.

What you describe is textbook lazy design.  Rather than put the effort into creating challenges that might initially be insurmountable,  and ultimate doable,  they just level scale everything because then they don't have to spend the 3 days it takes to develop a system.

Which then results in the gameplay of some other game,  TPS or Action-Adventure,  since you've now made the entire basis of RPG mechanics useless.

Which begs the question,  if you never intended to make an RPG,  then why start making one?

There's reasons these systems exist,  and why they've survived and thrived for approaching 40 years,  and it's not because they were wrong.

Actually, as much as I usually agree with you here, I have to counter these points somewhat. While they aren't technically wrong, the more progressive system you speak of only really works when you're creating a linear path for the player to travel, at least to a certain degree. With open-world cRPGs and ones like BioWare has implemented in KotOR, Mass Effect and Dragon Age where once you reach a certain point (or points) in the game you get to branch off and choose your path, you have far more freedom where to go overall, so you can't place a more linear type of progressive difficulty and enemies because otherwise the player risks going to "the wrong" area when they are told they have complete freedom and get slaughtered for it.

If you're going to give the player choice of where to go, whether it be an open world area or several branches you can do in any order, you kind of have to scale the enemies, loot and difficulty up with the player. In PnP RPGs this isn't an issue, because despite the whole scenario and world being somewhat dynamic, the DM does still largely put you on a linear path and you follow the story. Sure, it can branch due to your choices, and far more than any cRPG can, but a DM can work with that on the fly to a certain degree, and then adjust between sessions. A full cRPG doesn't allow that freedom and adjustment as much.

So in the end, either you have to do progressive scaling properly and keep the players on a set path to a certain degree (e.g. games like Baldur's Gate, NWN, Fallout 1&2, The Witcher, etc.) or you have to scale things to the player if you want to actually allow them some freedom of choice in where to go (KotOR, Oblivion, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Fallout 3&NV, etc.). And to be honest, as much as I kind of agree that progressive scaling is better and as much as I prefer the former list of stronger RPGs, I'd prefer to still have the freedom the latter list give me, even if it falls into the trap.

[Il Divo]

Gatt9 wrote...

I respectfully suggest you're leaving out some important things there.

Your DM might award you that longsword.  Or a Tome that increases strength,  gauntlets of ogre power,  ring of free action,  ring of fire resistance,  sword of flame,  bag of holding,  deck of many things,  mirror of life trapping, Elven Cloak,  and on and on. 

D&D does not,  and never has,  been a linear progression.  It's always been an alinear and often situational progression.  It's not even completely combat oriented,  as the loot can easily have non-combat effects.

Which is the ideal way to implement loot.

But none of those possibilities you listed are relevant. Mass Effect does not possess the variety of dnd. Practically every weapon upgrade in Mass Effect is a linear form of progression. It all amounts to longsword vs. +1 longsword, hence it requires no thought.

D&D's loot progression is only as non-linear as your DM makes it. If he gives you the +1 longsword, that is linear progression. If he gives you a ring of fire resistance and you are wearing no ring at the moment, that is a linear progression. If he gives you a deck of many things, you now have an issue of cost-effectiveness (which is non-linear). Mass Effect's inventory consists almost entirely of linear progression, hence why I did not point out the sheer number of DnD items a DM can hand you.

Of course,  since ME2 is all combat,  with no systems to support noncombat skills,  it's completely impossible to implement an effective loot system.  Looks like ME3's going to be about the same.

Mass Effect did not have a loot system to support non-combat skills, primarily because the game possessed a grand total of 4 non-combat skills (Charm, Intimidate, Decryption, and Electronics).

I stand by my point: no inventory will always be superior to a bad inventory.

Modifié par Il Divo, 05 juillet 2011 - 03:18 .

[Lumikki]

In my opinion ME serie scales enemies at fly. Meaning they difficulty is based level of player when steping in area.

[Reapinger]

MELTOR13 wrote...

Loot and pointless stats =/= RPG

Go back to board games and dice rolls if you want your 'hardcore' RPG.

Go back to Madden insert number here.

Modifié par Reapinger, 05 juillet 2011 - 03:20 .

[Terror_K]

Il Divo wrote...

Not so. "Other loot systems are not like that." Mass Effect's was. That's the only important point of comparison on the topic Mass Effect's inventory vs. Mass Effect 2's. Hence why it's trimming fat. Your point would workd better if we had a system like DA:O (where loot is not always linear) and then a shift to Mass Effect 2.

Yeah, but I'm not trying to argue "ME1's inventory vs. ME2's inventory" when it comes down to it. I only am in the sense that ME1 actually had one and had loot, while ME2 barely had one at all. It's not merely trimming the fat when you're taking away some of the meat too. I'm merely arguing a RPG inventory/loot system over a complete lack of one... not ME1's system specifically. The only exception and important factor related to ME1 is that it was present. That's it. It ends there.

Your mistake is that you continually compare Mass Effect 2 as released against this non-existent Mass Effect 2 which has a non-linear loot progression that you so desire. Unfortunately, you don't hold Mass Effect to this standard. Ultimately, it doesn't  matter to me that Mass Effect 2 could have had a good loot system. What matters is the game as released compared to its predecessor. And imo as released, Mass Effect 2's non-existent inventory beats Mass Effect's linear inventory where I spent most of my time breaking down omnigel. At least with the former, I save time.

I guess that's where we differ. I would prefer a clumsy, awkward system that has some of what I like and enjoy to one completely devoid of these factors due to its simplicity and linearity. You personally think you're saving time by not fiddling with things in ME2, while I feel like I don't get to fiddle with things that I want to because I enjoy doing that. I suppose at least some of that's coming back in ME3, though I'm not sure if it's going to be enough to satisfy me. We'll see I guess, but if anything the fact that they're bringing some of it back proves that at least BioWare now agrees that its worth bringing back. My only argument is that I didn't think it was worth getting rid of entirely in the first place.

Again, when a feature fails, you have two options:

1) Redesign
2) Removal

If the feature actively diminishes my enjoyment of the game (which the inventory did), then I will gladly take removal. You yourself admitted that Mass Effect 'had potential'. I don't want potentiality in my video games; I want actuality. If Mass Effect has potential for a good inventory, then Mass Effect does not have a good inventory.

Yeah. But it still had potential. And that potential was wasted and squandered when the devs turned their backs to it when making ME2 and instead chose the easy way out. When opportunity knocked, they didn't answer.

Mass Effect 2's system saves me time and energy. It keeps Mass Effect's linearity, but I'm not breaking down omnigel every 30 seconds and I'm not cycling through ten copies of the same item. I define that as an improvement. I'm also not proposing that Mass Effect 2's upgrade system requires any thought, where you have claimed that ME2 'dumbed down' ME1's inventory. I don't see how either system requires intelligence in the first place.

Choosing the right weapon mods for the right situations and making sure you were prepared to use decryption and electronics was at least one factor that required some degree of thought. In ME2 there are no mods at all, and all you get is the auto-upgrades that god mod everything. You no longer need a tech expert because unlocking and decrypting things is just handed to you on a platter now as anybody can do it. There was at least choice and customisation in ME1's system, with limitations and trade-offs. That's completely absent in the sequel, and you never really get to play with your toys. You just have them, and they are.

Also, the point isn't so much that ME1 had truly deep systems, but that it at least tried and incorporated the basic functionality of a system that would allow it, and that other games that do have depth and require thought and choice possess. ME2's system was too simple, too linear and too closed-off/restricted to truly allow it to be any more than it was.

I do not consider 1% pistol damage to be gratifying. At any point. If you want a better point of comparison, Dragon Age featured a far superior leveling system, primarily due to the implementation of the spell/talent system. Every level offers me something new, something which can offer a new playstyle. That is 'instant gratification' and yet the system is far superior for it. I'm playing a video game. I want it to be gratifying.

Which just proves that's all your after: instant gratification.

Here's a tip from playing PnP RPG's: it's a lot more gratifying to level up and gain something when it takes work and time to get there than it is when it's just plattered to you instantly at almost every turn. RPGs are supposed to represent you gradually getting better via experience. That's what XP means. That's completely ruined when ME2 instead does the equivalent of putting you in a lab and injecting you with a hypo every hour or so that gives to a massive upgrade in abilitiy instead like you're a genetically engineered super soldier. In a good RPG you're slowly progressing and getting better, so that the transition is gradual like it would be if you were practicing something. ME2 lacks that entirely: it's just jerky leaps too quickly. You're not progressing naturally, you're just stagnating for a while then making a sudden jump.

[Ahglock]

Il Divo wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Sure, they trimmed the fat, but they also trimmed a hell of a lot of the meat, leaving me with something that was meagre and largely unsatisfying. On top of that, I'm pretty much told that that's all they serve these days and they don't do the big steaks any more. Even a big hunk of perfectly prepared dragon meat has been reduced to a tiny, undercooked shrivel of rubbish covered in spices and sauces that completely ruin the flavour.

I'd argue that the meat trimmed was far less than the fat. The 'meat' in question (from my perspective) was weapon-modding and total skills. Even I was disappointed when I saw the number of skills my Shepard possessed.

On the other hand, I'd consider 'fat' to be the 12 meaningless skill ranks, which were concentrated down to 4 substantial upgrades and pretty much the entire loot system. The point of looting is not simply to play a game of "greater than or less than".
 
If it follows a completely linear pathway, then loot has become pointless. If you want a comparison, in DnD I make a fighter. I give him a basic longsword. At the end of my first adventure, my DM presents me with a +1 longsword. There's nothing of value to consider between the two; the +1 longsword is clearly better, which makes the loot system itself superfluous. Essentially, it's all fat. A good loot system should not consist of only linear upgrades.

While I generally agree more fat was trimmed than meat, I think the problem is that they started with a 1 pound steak and it was 50% fat, they came back and gave you a 8 ounce stek that was 10% fat, when what I wanted was a 1 pound steak that was 10% fat.  

Take the inventory system, it totally blew in ME1 but that doesn't mean I wanted it full on removed.  Changing the guns/armor so there wasn't a best optiion for a pure linear and pointless system would have been better IMO.  Keep all those guns and armor exceot things like specter class guns or collossus armor so you have guns that have better accuracy but do less damage, or armor that fits more mods for your omni-tool but has weaker shields etc.  Keep the inventory but make it so there is an actual choice.   

Pointelss power increases sure get rid of those, but outside of the level 4 evolution the increases were just as pointless in ME2.  And even with the evolution in most cases there wasn't really a choice, the wide version was just better in most cases.  ME3 might be pulling this off in that each level might be important, we will have to wait and see.  

The mako sucked?  I actually liked it and never had problems driving it, but I'll accept the general consensus on that.  Cool, but does that mean I want almost all of the exploration removed, not so much.  Hey at least exploration was on their list of important RPG features in  the quote, so maybe we will get something in ME3.  

They needed a scapel for trimming but they went in with a machette.  

[Hulk Hsieh]

I'd like to have deeper skill tree and weapon mods, but I don't really thing we need loots and stats to implement those.

[sbvera13]

If they bring back the epic, I'll be happy no matter what the gameplay is like.  I just finished listening to some ME1 music and it gooified my brains pretty good, and that's just from rembering the plot.  I think I'll break out Audacity and make an epic music compilation that tells the story using just the character themes.  That would be one amazing track.

Notable that all the good music in ME2 was just a rewrite of ME1 music, which I think highlights the lack of plot better then anything I could write about it.  Please BW, keep your RPG elements if you want (and this pains me to say, because I really like RPGs), but bring back the epic story!

[haberman13]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Niddy' wrote...


Go back to Halo.

Go screw yourself.

No, seriously, you should go back to Halo.

If you are a meatbrain stick with meatbrain games.

Keep the fun actiony combat, but also maintain the stats/depth/complexity/choice/options.

Halo is for Halo (and the bras).

Modifié par haberman13, 05 juillet 2011 - 04:03 .