3223 réponses à ce sujet

[Terror_K]

AlanC9 wrote...

This is actually more confusing than your original post. How is this different from saying that you're gaining too much ability with each level?

Because its not the levels, its the skills. You're jumping too much awkwardly rather than smoothly getting better. I don't get why this is so hard to understand, even if you don't agree. A good, smooth progression system should be like this:-

1 = 1 (+1 at Start)
2 = 2 (+1 increase)
3 = 3 (+1 increase)
4 = 4 (+1 increase)
5 = 5 (+1 increase)
6 = 6 (+1 increase)
7 = 7 (+1 increase)
8 = 8 (+1 increase)
9 = 9 (+1 increase)
etc.

What ME2 has is this:-

1 = 1 (+1 at Start)
2 = 1 (no increase)
3 = 3 (+2 increase)
4 = 3 (no increase)
5 = 3 (no increase)
6 = 6 (+3 increase)
7 = 6 (no increase)
8 = 6 (no increase)
9 = 6 (no increase)
10 = 10 (+ 4 increase)

When you practice painting or playing an instrument or playing a sport do you gradually get better the more you play over, say, 12 months of hard practice, or do you get better in sudden bursts only on the 3rd, 6th and 10th month, and exponentially so? Are you seriously exactly just as talented in early June as you are on October 31st, and then you suddenly become twice as good or more overnight on November 1st?

[Terror_K]

In Exile wrote...

- Edit:

I need to preface this by saying I don't play PnP RPGs and this is based off what I've read, seen & heard.

- Edit.

I don't think PnP RPGs are actually about imagination. You don't (for example) get to imagine new areas, or new characters. All of these are set for you. You use your imagination in the same way you would for a book: as a mental simulation of the action that you're either picking or you're having described to you.

Wow, you really haven't played P&P RPGs.

In most cases you do get to create new areas, situations and characters. The only real limitation is your imagination and the basic rules of the universe. The DM/GM will often create their own maps, complete with varied areas and objects. They often have to keep things fairly loose, especially in (for example) a large city, because sometimes the players will break away from where the DM/GM is leading them and then they have to create a new place on the fly. It up to them what they devise for their players and how much detail they go into. There's not a limited set number of samey dungeons, caves and villages in the guide book that limit you to where you can go and what you can see and do. A person running the game could go somewhere nice for a vacation on the weekend and then just go, "this would make a good area for my players this Wednesday. I just add a cave here, some tall, jagged fantasy cliffs here. Put an extra moon in the sky, a shimmering pond here, etc." The same goes with characters too: a DM/GM can make their characters as in-depth or shallow as they like. They don't even have to give them stats if they design them as a quest-giving NPC, and they can alter the stats of any they do create to their liking. Most things in the books are guidelines, not strict rules that must be followed.

That's something really valuable. But I think that's essentially true for everything. Literally. Including real events from our daily life.

Well, that's definitely true. I mean, not all the ideas I'll have related to a Mass Effect story come from Mass Effect. One can be inspired by anything.

But when you design games, you have to narrow it down to core elements you can implemented versus peripheral elements you're willing to cut.

Then the question is, which elements are the former and which are the latter?

[In Exile]

Terror_K wrote...
In most cases you do get to create new areas, situations and characters. The only real limitation is your imagination and the basic rules of the universe. The DM/GM will often create their own maps, complete with varied areas and objects.

But the player isn't the DM. The players have to interact with the world the DM creates.

They often have to keep things fairly loose, especially in (for example) a large city, because sometimes the players will break away from where the DM/GM is leading them and then they have to create a new place on the fly.

Which means the DM has to invent it on the fly, but the players still have to actively explore ''fixed'' content, in the sense that a player can never say ''and then I found the invisible unicorn you didn't mention who was invisible''.

It up to them what they devise for their players and how much detail they go into. There's not a limited set number of samey dungeons, caves and villages in the guide book that limit you to where you can go and what you can see and do. A person running the game could go somewhere nice for a vacation on the weekend and then just go, "this would make a good area for my players this Wednesday. I just add a cave here, some tall, jagged fantasy cliffs here. Put an extra moon in the sky, a shimmering pond here, etc."

But that still doesn't mean you imagine content. Practically speaking, it would be no different from a game using procedurally generated content.

The same goes with characters too: a DM/GM can make their characters as in-depth or shallow as they like. They don't even have to give them stats if they design them as a quest-giving NPC, and they can alter the stats of any they do create to their liking. Most things in the books are guidelines, not strict rules that must be followed.

But a player can't invent a character that the GM hasn't decided was there. Right?

Well, that's definitely true. I mean, not all the ideas I'll have related to a Mass Effect story come from Mass Effect. One can be inspired by anything.

Sure. It happens to me pretty often. I'm just saying by that standard, everything is imagination.

Then the question is, which elements are the former and which are the latter?

Well, exactly. Everyone's subjective defintion then suddenly matters.

Terror_K wrote...
When you practice painting or playing an
instrument or playing a sport do you gradually get better the more you
play over, say, 12 months of hard practice, or do you get better in
sudden bursts only on the 3rd, 6th and 10th month, and exponentially so?
Are you seriously exactly just as talented in early June as you
are on October 31st, and then you suddenly become twice as good or more
overnight on November 1st?

Both, actually. One is S-Curve (or insight) learning, and the other is the gradual sort of learning people experience.

Any time you ''get it'' when trying to learn something, you're actually suddenly x times better.

Instruments and sports are actually reallly good examples of how learning is not linear at all.

[Lumikki]

So numbers are so important that if you can't adjust them in every level it's bad?
Even when you know linear progression doesn't really mean anything for gameplay?

You adjust 2% number and game scaled that same 2% off. So, what just happen was that you just wasted your time in adjusting number what doesn't really do much anything. Because only time this actually mean something is when you get something new.

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 juillet 2011 - 08:36 .

[Terror_K]

In Exile wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
In most cases you do get to create new areas, situations and characters. The only real limitation is your imagination and the basic rules of the universe. The DM/GM will often create their own maps, complete with varied areas and objects.

But the player isn't the DM. The players have to interact with the world the DM creates.

Which means the DM has to invent it on the fly, but the players still have to actively explore ''fixed'' content, in the sense that a player can never say ''and then I found the invisible unicorn you didn't mention who was invisible''.

While this is technically true, the entire circumstances require imagination to work. If you don't use your imagination you can't truly interact and picture the universe, locates, objects and other players and NPCs in the campaign. And imagination comes too in the form of the players using their own imagination and ideas to try and solve problems, which is more restricted in a cRPG where you only have options A, B and C. There are far more in a P&P RPG, sometimes ones the DM/GM doesn't think of. A good DM/GM will often reward players for using their imagination in this sense.

Finally, even if the players are limited by the world the DM/GM has set around them, at the very least the DM/GM is using imagination to craft the places, characters, sitations, etc. for the players. Often players also can create their own things and have a certain degree of freedom in more freeplay stuff, and all the GM has to do is approve it.
It's not uncommon for D&D campaigns to have characters creating their own guilds, keeps, businesses, etc. later on in campaigns for example. In Vampire: The Masquerade a GM will often have a large city for players to explore and they can often create their own places and the GM had approve or reject them. He may ask at the start of a session after a major quest, "what are you all doing now?" and a player can randomly create a location for them to be doing something in (a bar, a friend's place, a shop they may frequent, etc.) and if the GM says "yes" then they've used their own imagination to add to the GM's world. I had a character who liked art for example, so procured an art gallery and started up an art school for students. The GM basically gave me free reign with it, then even used it a few times in future quests.

But that still doesn't mean you imagine content. Practically speaking, it would be no different from a game using procedurally generated content.

Even that is far more limited than the options present in a P&P RPG. Or at least most of them. It's still got a finite amount of procedurally generated stuff and there are only so many combinations.

But a player can't invent a character that the GM hasn't decided was there. Right?

Yes, and no. It depends.

For instance, in our weekly P&P games we're moving from Star Wars: Saga Edtion to a Mutants and Masterminds campaign soon (which is essentially a superhero based RPG, somewhat like Champions). When I was crafting my character for the GM I also crafted several other factors related to them, including family, co-workers, friends, neighbours, etc. and gave them all descriptions and personalities. Ultimately its the GM who approved them and will be roleplaying them, but I was still the one that created them, as a player. One can even sometimes do this on the fly to a degree, though, again, the GM has the final say. In a Vampire campaign for instance I created a few brothers and assosciates for  my character pretty much on the fly, just through mentioning them. Most GMs don't mind that, and in a sense you get to shape the world a little for your character, even if it doesn't have as much impact or weight as what the GM has crafted.

Both, actually. One is S-Curve (or insight) learning, and the other is the gradual sort of learning people experience.

Any time you ''get it'' when trying to learn something, you're actually suddenly x times better.

Instruments and sports are actually reallly good examples of how learning is not linear at all.

Yeah, and that's represented in ME1 by the major skill upgrades and unlocks you get as you progress through your leveling. It's almost like ME2 only has those, but doesn't have the progression to get there: rather than working your way up, you're instantly at the next major skill upgrade the very next time you do. While you are right that there are key moments where things suddenly click and become easier as you cross a threshold, etc. you're also right in that it's a case of both: you still gradually get better, as well as making a major breakthrough every so often. ME2 only focuses on the instant gratification moments and the "clicks" as it were: the smooth transition is absent.

Modifié par Terror_K, 05 juillet 2011 - 08:38 .

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

So numbers are so important that if you can't adjust them in every level it's bad?
Even when you know linear progression doesn't really mean anything for gameplay?

You adjust 2% number and game scaled that same 2% off. So, what just happen was that you just wasted your time in adjusting number what doesn't really do much anything. Because only time this actually mean something is when you get something new.

That's bad design. Again, a good system should involve you gradually getting better and not just sudden leaps for greater rewards. The fact is, its holding you back.

For example, say you go up to Level 3 in a skill and gain another 2% damage bonus, giving you a total of a damage bonus of 6%. The next time you can increase your damage bonus is at Level 4 where you get a damage bonus of another 2%, increasing it to 8% total. That makes sense, that's logical progression, and while the gain may be small it's still there. You logically gained the experience and the payoff for it. At Level 5 you get another 2% to give you 10% and then at Level 6 another to give you a 12% total damage bonus.

Now, the way ME2 does it is that you are at Level 3 and gain a 2% damage bonus, giving you a total of 6%. So far, things are the same. However, when you level up to Level 4 you don't get any bonus. Same with Level 5. It's not until Level 6 that the damage bonus comes along. Admittedly when you do it's a 6% bonus, giving you a total of 12% bonus damage. Now, while the result is the same at Level 6 in both ways, in this way there's no smooth progression, so while you've gone up to Level 4 and Level 5 you've gained no bonuses whatsoever, because it doesn't let you increase the skill until Level 6. You don't have the 8% and 10% damage bonuses you would in the first example respectively, you're still only on 6% during those levels. You're essentially getting screwed.

[Lumikki]

Sorry, doesn't bother to me at all, because I role-play in the game. Not spend my time adjusting numbers. Isn't this annoying?

I do agree about linear progression as more equal steps, but I don't consider too small steps as good thing. It turns too much focus in to numbers. Real meaning happens when you get something new, like new talent what provides variety, not when something is scaled get you stronger or weaker.

Meaning just to have under 10% differences has very little meaning to me, because it's role and gameplay what matters, not is my power is 2% stronger or weaker. This is exactly what's wrong in heavy linear progression, too much hole game is just adjusting numbers what has allmost no meaning for the gameplay at all. It's all about I want that 1,25% more, when player can't even feel 10% differences in gameplay. Also linear progression  is scaled off too anyway, so what't the point, unless it's all about just adjusting numbers.

Real deal is in new action possiblities, new skills and powers what allow you to do something what you could not do before. Because it's giving you real possibility feel the differences as variety to your gameplay and role.

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 juillet 2011 - 09:39 .

[olymind1]

Terror_K wrote...

It's not the pace of leveling that's too fast in ME2, it's the way the skills progress.

Put it this way: if the skills in ME2 were levels, it would be the equivalent of sayings that as you earn XP you first have Level 1 and then you can't go to Level 2 and upgrade at all, you have to wait until you're Level 3. Then after that Levels 4 and 5 don't technically exist, and you can't improve until Level 6. Then Levels 7 to 9 are non-existent and you don't really level up until Level 10, etc. And because it works this way, instead of gradually getting better, you can only make these big leaps that get bigger each time with the gap widening further each time. Instead of gradually getting better, you're suddenly leaping ahead. It's stupid and counter-intuitive, and can leave you with leftover points to spend which really shouldn't be because the system is busted.

and (based on the e3 vids) they will increase more this type of leveling:

level1 skill/power requires 1point, level2 2points, level3 3points, level4 4points, level5 5points, level6 6points.

in the vid Shepard was level18, and he had a total 36 skill/power points. i hope they don't limit the max character level limit at 30, because then you can't even max out 3 skills/powers.

But the problem is that you actually have to wait even further to achieve a level6 power. which is good in a way, but i think it was better in ME1, because the skill progression was limited by character level and you could invest points in other skills.. in ME2 a skill was maxed out at level 5-6 which is sixth or fifth of the total character level. if the system remains which was presented in the vid, a single skill/power will be maxed out at level 11. i hope BW fine tune it.

IMO it would be better if the skills/powers' rank1-2-3 (linear, no choice) would require 1 point , and rank4-5-6 (non linear, 2 choices) would require 2 points, AND every skills/powers' ranks would be unlockable after predefinied character levels, as appropriate weaker/lower ranks at low character level, and stronger ones at mid-high character level. it is a matter of balance.

edit:
in ME1 he/she became a Spectre, and thanks to that new skill was available. in ME3 i'd like to see Shepard's skills/powers a bit/minimal story specific at least one.
gaining xp after each kill, i like it better than summary screen.
and maybe some weapons and armors should have character level requirements, as there are no stats. or some weapons would need specific ammo power to activate for usage. or some armor needs a specific amount of health to wear, or some tech power needs a certain level of omni-tool upgrade to even invest points in it. same for biotic: certain level of biotic amp upgrade required to invest points in some biotic powers. etc...

and with these, there are still no stats, no inventory, yet feels more like as an rpg

Modifié par olymind1, 05 juillet 2011 - 10:47 .

[ShadowSplicer]

I don't understand how stats and loot ever got worked into the definition of an RPG at all. It's based on choices and story, not gameplay in the least bit. Afterall, RPG does in fact stand for ROLE PLAYING GAME. How the term role playing, which seems to suggest being involved in the story as a particular character making choices, ever became unanimous with stats and phat loot is forever a mystery to me. You tell them Casey, this is the evolution of the RPG, it's okay to have stats and numbers, but that's not the defining factor of the genre and it certainly isn't what comes to mind when I hear RPG.

[JediMB]

ShadowSplicer wrote...

I don't understand how stats and loot ever got worked into the definition of an RPG at all. It's based on choices and story, not gameplay in the least bit. Afterall, RPG does in fact stand for ROLE PLAYING GAME. How the term role playing, which seems to suggest being involved in the story as a particular character making choices, ever became unanimous with stats and phat loot is forever a mystery to me. You tell them Casey, this is the evolution of the RPG, it's okay to have stats and numbers, but that's not the defining factor of the genre and it certainly isn't what comes to mind when I hear RPG.

Choosing how to play one's character can include choosing how to equip and physically develop one's character. In order to have a good selection of choices in the area of equipment, you need a method in which you aquire said equipment, and that's where loot comes into the picture. Stats are also a way to let the player determine in what areas the character should improve him-/herself, which would be good for role-playing.

In those areas, Mass Effect 2 did extremely poorly, since the options in both equipment and "powers" were extremely limited, and so role-playing was more or less restricted to the dialogue wheel.

[Lumikki]

Nope, it's different between customize and management of characters abilities and role-playign the role of character. Too many players have forgoten that customation is just tool for role-playing, playing the role in story is the real role-playing. Don't get me wrong, ability define players character is important part of role-playing, but it's not the gameplay it self, it's just tool for role-playing.

[Il Divo]

Terror_K wrote...

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.

I enjoy fiddling with items, when implementation is done well. Morrowind was a game where the enchanting system was designed to let you make any kind of item you could imagine. And it worked great, despite being very overpowered. Every time I enter my inventory in Morrowind, there's usually a good reason.

Mass Effect? Not so much. It gives me the tedium of having an inventory without all the fun perks.  

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.

Again, potential is meaningless to the experience at hand. Most video games 'have potential'. But if something exists as potential, then it does not exist at all. A potentially good video game is not a good video game.

 If Mass Effect has an actual good inventory, then it has a good inventory. If Bioware then removes that inventory, my enjoyment goes down. If Mass Effect has a potentially good inventory, then it does not have a good inventory. If Bioware removes that inventory, then my enjoyment goes up.
 
In this case, you're still trying to compare Mass Effect 2 against some imaginary non-existent Mass Effect 2...all because of some very small potential.

Choosing the right weapon mods for the right situations

This amounted to going back into my inventory to switch out weapon mods for organic or synthetic enemies. 
 

and making sure you were prepared to use decryption and electronics was at least one factor that required some degree of thought.

 
True, but then decryption also meant more unlocking crates...which led to creating more omnigel...which led to me wanting to gouge my eyes out from the boredom. 

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.

But I don't care about developers 'trying'. I do not pay $60 for a video game for them to try. I play video games for the features they succeed at creating. In this case, Mass Effect attempted to incorporate a completely linear form of weapon progression (like ME2), included an excessive number of weapons, and did so while expecting the player to break omnigel every 30 seconds. Those were the fundamental flaws of the system.

Now, you're saying that there was potential in this...because there were a very small number of items where the progression was not linear. And this 'potential' was somehow enough to justify completely reinventing the inventory instead of removing it? Well, I disagree.

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

Good. Then you do understand; I don't really play video games, read novels, or watch films to not be gratified instantly. They are mediums of entertainment. The longer it takes for me to experience gratification, the less likely I will finish the experience.

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.

No, in a good leveling system, you're progressing gradually, but progression is not meaningless. In Dragon Age, I get a new spell/talent every level. Playing a 3.0 Fighter, I get a new feat every level which grants me access to new styles of combat. Playing a Jedi in KotOR, I get a new force power every level. This is all instant gratification, because it grants me something new to play with immediately. 

Mass Effect's failing is that every level up is not noticeable; it never becomes satisfying from a gameplay stand point. I level up...with 1% pistol damage. I level up again...1% pistol damage. I don't notice it. Now, take Incinerate, where the damage goes up by 20 points for every rank. I actually notice that in combat; my character feels substantially stronger as a result every time I kill a scion, for example. Mass Effect's system attempts a gradual progression, where nothing becomes gratifying.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 05 juillet 2011 - 02:07 .

[Ahglock]

ShadowSplicer wrote...

I don't understand how stats and loot ever got worked into the definition of an RPG at all. It's based on choices and story, not gameplay in the least bit. Afterall, RPG does in fact stand for ROLE PLAYING GAME. How the term role playing, which seems to suggest being involved in the story as a particular character making choices, ever became unanimous with stats and phat loot is forever a mystery to me. You tell them Casey, this is the evolution of the RPG, it's okay to have stats and numbers, but that's not the defining factor of the genre and it certainly isn't what comes to mind when I hear RPG.

It is the basis of role playing on some levels.  You are playing a role, you are not playing yourself.  Those stats and inventories help define the role you are playing in the world the character is in.  At its basic level in a role playing game all you are deciding to do is determine what actions the character you are playing is going to take.  Ideally you only give your character actions that are fitting for the character.  But since your twitch reflex skill is not the characters reflexes in CRPGs or your smooth talking or martial art skills are not the characters skills in a pen and paper game stats, inventories, and die rolls come into play.  Not all role playing games follow this, but I consider it the core.  Once you deviate from a stat/die roll based system you are not really playing a pure RPG.  Nothing is wrong with that, I play and enjoy a lot of hybrid games.  

Now how detailed or loosely things are defined is totally up in the air and honestly the importance of a lot of it diminishes as you slip into a single player game.  Take base D&D skills were not in at the core, things were determined on the fly by characteristic rolls.  As the game evolved skills entered the game and eventually there was a robust skill mechanic.  Which is better is kind of up in the air, under the 3.0-3.5 skill system you fall into a trap where things are over defined and characters seem to become incapable of performing basic functions of life.  Also as I said the importance is tied a lot to it being a multi-player game.  Using me as an example I suck at talking, I just don't am not that persuasive, my friend is really good at talking.  Now lets say I was playing a smooth talking bard and he was playing a drunken dwarf fighter with no talking skills.  It would suck if his natural ability to talk let him do all the things I spent points on doing for free, I'd feel cheated.  It is not like when we get to a stuck door I can showcase my strength I gained from weight lifting, my character is scrawny there isn't much I can do about that.  Now in a single player game you don;t have to deal with that kind of inequity.  But I do think replying on die rolls and stats increases replayability when the systems are robust.  When you are given multiple ways to solve a problem as long as you have the skills to do so different builds actually matter

Side note, I hate these boards.  Put an effing spell check in here for us dyslexics.  It always seems to go screwy when I copy and paste.  I hate having to edit and fix.

Modifié par Ahglock, 05 juillet 2011 - 03:36 .

[whywhywhywhy]

AlanC9 wrote...

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

sale, reviews and etc mean nothing, the true test is time and me2 will be forgotten, especially if me3 is any good.  You keep pointing to these things as if they are definitive(sales and etc) but they are not.  Halo was hailed as the best thing since sliced bread when it launched sold well and all that, but halo was a really poor game when compared to other shooters.  Another thing about sales, I bought me2 and I don't like it as much as the first.  You assume a purchase = happiness, you have no way to judge a gamer's satisfaction.  One indicator of how well me2 did was how fast the price dropped as good games are sold at a higher price longer.  ME2 Price dropped FAST. 

That simple enough for you smart guy (I have to tell you that was complete sarcasm since your slow)

AlanC9 wrote...
"What played better" isn't a matter of likes and dislikes? You're serious?

yes has to do with GAMEPLAY me1's method felt more akin to a sci fi flick and me2's feels more like a poor fps.  So likes and dislikes don't matter, in a sci fi rpg me1 captured that sci-fi feel and played like one.

AlanC9 wrote...
Huh? I didn't say any such thing. I think that people who think additional FPS elements made ME2 better are a meaningful part of the franchise.

And who are these people ?  Or are you claiming the increased sales came from fps elements vs brand recognition(both game and company) ?  Most gamers who bought the game were fans of the first so it's impossible to gauge who picked it up for "fps elements" vs who picked it up because it was ME2. 

Your argument it moot.  You can start a did you buy me2 poll for fps elements if you want to try and disprove me. 

[SalsaDMA]

Il Divo wrote...
 
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.

Let's elaborate on your example, rather than take a simplified outlier.

When your GM tells you that a short sword +1 dropped, do you use that for all your fights instead of your longsword, or do your reserve your normal longsword for some, given that they perform differently? When you have a 'longsword +2, flametongue' do you replace it with the new 'longsword +3' you just found? Some would stick to the old, some would stick to the new and some would keep both and use them for different scenarios.

And if we go into AD&D 2nd edition which I played back then, weapon proficiencies/specializations start becoming important too for some classes/kits in wether or not you would use a 'new' weapon in favour of an old one. 

So even back then things weren't as simple overall as you just claimed.

[sp0ck 06]

whywhywhywhy wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
"What played better" isn't a matter of likes and dislikes? You're serious?

yes has to do with GAMEPLAY me1's method felt more akin to a sci fi flick and me2's feels more like a poor fps.  So likes and dislikes don't matter, in a sci fi rpg me1 captured that sci-fi feel and played like one.

How did ME1 play like a sci fi RPG compared to ME2 playing like a "poor FPS".  First off, its not an FPS.  I could see how you might argue that ME1 "felt" like more of a sci fi flick due to atmosphere, music, etc.  But in terms of gameplay?  ME2's combat is vastly superior in every way to ME1's, in terms of actual mechanics.  ME1 had horrendous combat.  I often felt like the action was a chore, something to be done with as fast as possible in order to get to the juicy story bits.

Explain how ME1's gameplay was "better".  Loot ?  Stats?  Because I do not understand how you can possibly make that argument.

[Il Divo]

[quote]SalsaDMA wrote...

Let's elaborate on your example, rather than take a simplified outlier.

When your GM tells you that a short sword +1 dropped, do you use that for all your fights instead of your longsword, or do your reserve your normal longsword for some, given that they perform differently? When you have a 'longsword +2, flametongue' do you replace it with the new 'longsword +3' you just found? Some would stick to the old, some would stick to the new and some would keep both and use them for different scenarios.

And if we go into AD&D 2nd edition which I played back then, weapon proficiencies/specializations start becoming important too for some classes/kits in wether or not you would use a 'new' weapon in favour of an old one. [/quote]

[/quote]

Mass Effect does not possess weapon proficiencies/specializations. Once I get a better assault rifle, there is no reason for me to use a weaker assault rifle.

If it did, the comparison would be relevant. It is a linear progression. In Mass Effect, I find a gun. The gun I pick up is likely either better than what I am holding, or much worse. If it's better, I take it and hand my old gun to someone else. If it's worse, the gun becomes omnigel. Often times, I don't even need to look at the actual numbers. The new weapon's stats will either be all yellow for 'better' or all red for 'worse'. Rare is it that I find a gun where this isn't the case.

That's why the longsword example works; you're dealing with two items of the exact same type, but one is clearly better. I can't think of an instance in DnD where I would use a weaker longsword, unless I had reason to believe the +1 might break. Likewise, in Mass Effect, I've never found a reason to use a gun with weaker stats.
 

Modifié par Il Divo, 05 juillet 2011 - 04:45 .

[whywhywhywhy]

AlanC9 wrote...

This would all seem really plausible if I hadn't actually played ME2. But I have, and it isn't.

I can tell the differentce between ME2 and shooters. Are you actually telling me that you can't? Or are you saying that you don't think the difference amounts to a difference in genre?

If it's the latter, I don't care. Genre definitions are of no interest to me. I was only going there because the_one_54321 was using the terms.

If it's the former, which other shooters would give me an equivalent experience?

your able to tell the difference because me2 is a poor shooter, this is what I've been telling you all along.

AlanC9 wrote...

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

unjustified and unjustifiabe assumption towards what  ?  Of my opinion that bioware is making a mistake ?  That me2 is a horrible sequel ?  That this new direction is bad ?  I have plenty.

I don't know if you know of game development but delays are bad, the later a delay the more expensive.  So for a delay to happen so late and to be delayed so long indicates that their are BIG problems and BIG mistakes were made.  Just because they have extra time to rectify the problem(not that we'd ever get a straight answer to what that is) doesn't mean it will be fixed.

Despite how well ME2 sold or didn't sell(depending on your view) how many people bought me2 because it was a sequel ?  A reasonable educated guess would be the majority with new fans being drawn in by advertisements.  How many were expecting a sequel ?  I'm sure many might of had no complaints, some a few and others irate.  But let's say for argument sake those not satisfied with me2 number within 500k, based on the choices made for me3 500k people could potentially walk away from that game.  Now that's a made up number but it could be right, lower or maybe even higher I don't know but what we do know is that not everyone who bought me2 is happy with me2 and that will effect me3. 

Sequels are meant to surpasse their predecessors yet me3 will be adding stuff back in from me and improving it in the way that me2 was suppose to do.  If all is truly well why are they taking these steps ?  Why not continue on with the sci fi FPS style play completely ?  This has to indicate the rpg fanbase is significant.

It could all turn out well but it's not Guarenteed.
unjustifiable ?  To you maybe but I know more then you.

Modifié par whywhywhywhy, 05 juillet 2011 - 04:47 .

[Il Divo]

whywhywhywhy wrote...

 unjustified and unjustifiabe assumption towards what  ?  Of my opinion that bioware is making a mistake ?  That me2 is a horrible sequel ?  That this new direction is bad ?  I have plenty.

I don't know if you know of game development but delays are bad, the later a delay the more expensive.  So for a delay to happen so late and to be delayed so long indicates that their are BIG problems and BIG mistakes were made.  Just because they have extra time to rectify the problem(not that we'd ever get a straight answer to what that is) doesn't mean it will be fixed.

Despite how well ME2 sold or didn't sell(depending on your view) how many people bought me2 because it was a sequel ?  A reasonable educated guess would be the majority with new fans being drawn in by advertisements.  How many were expecting a sequel ?  I'm sure many might of had no complaints, some a few and others irate.  But let's say for argument sake those not satisfied with me2 number within 500k, based on the choices made for me3 500k people could potentially walk away from that game.  Now that's a made up number but it could be right, lower or maybe even higher I don't know but what we do know is that not everyone who bought me2 is happy with me2 and that will effect me3. 

Sequels are meant to surpasse their predecessors yet me3 will be adding stuff back in from me and improving it in the way that me2 was suppose to do.  If all is truly well why are they taking these steps ?  Why not continue on with the sci fi FPS style play completely ?  This has to indicate the rpg fanbase is significant.

It could all turn out well but it's not Guarenteed.
unjustifiable ?  To you maybe but I know more then you.

Ah, what a wonderful argument. "I know more than you". Yes, you clearly showed him the error of his ways!

Modifié par Il Divo, 05 juillet 2011 - 04:50 .

[whywhywhywhy]

this isnt my name wrote...

Savber100 wrote...


Does Halo have the option where I don't have to fight the damn Covenant? Does God of War 3 have the option where Kratos does not have to kill Zeus? Does Assassin's Creed have an option where I can join the Templars?

No? Then, shut the hell up about ME2 being a shooter with lots of dialogue.  

Does ME2 have an option where I dont fight collectors ? WHere I dont fight the mechs ? And the same 3 merc groups ?

An option not to kill the collector general ?
An option not to work with cerberus ?


Please, your argument fails, ME2 has bugger all in terms of choices, mst are end quest choices, which have no impact on the game.

Its a shooter, it has dialouge, most of which is pointless. 3 ways to get the same outcome, but hey shepard got to be angr in one option... That changes it right ? Oh wait.

You know what halo has that mass effect 2 dosent ?

A decent story.

OUCH!

I agree with your position but even I think that was cruel.......true no doubt but a cruel realization.  I hag on halo all the time I feel it's gameplay was/is overrated but I can't argue against it's story.

That was like a bucket of ice water.

[Phaelducan]

Terror_K wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

So numbers are so important that if you can't adjust them in every level it's bad?
Even when you know linear progression doesn't really mean anything for gameplay?

You adjust 2% number and game scaled that same 2% off. So, what just happen was that you just wasted your time in adjusting number what doesn't really do much anything. Because only time this actually mean something is when you get something new.

That's bad design. Again, a good system should involve you gradually getting better and not just sudden leaps for greater rewards. The fact is, its holding you back.

For example, say you go up to Level 3 in a skill and gain another 2% damage bonus, giving you a total of a damage bonus of 6%. The next time you can increase your damage bonus is at Level 4 where you get a damage bonus of another 2%, increasing it to 8% total. That makes sense, that's logical progression, and while the gain may be small it's still there. You logically gained the experience and the payoff for it. At Level 5 you get another 2% to give you 10% and then at Level 6 another to give you a 12% total damage bonus.

Now, the way ME2 does it is that you are at Level 3 and gain a 2% damage bonus, giving you a total of 6%. So far, things are the same. However, when you level up to Level 4 you don't get any bonus. Same with Level 5. It's not until Level 6 that the damage bonus comes along. Admittedly when you do it's a 6% bonus, giving you a total of 12% bonus damage. Now, while the result is the same at Level 6 in both ways, in this way there's no smooth progression, so while you've gone up to Level 4 and Level 5 you've gained no bonuses whatsoever, because it doesn't let you increase the skill until Level 6. You don't have the 8% and 10% damage bonuses you would in the first example respectively, you're still only on 6% during those levels. You're essentially getting screwed.

Just as a counterpoint, as I've played PnP games for years, but there are many examples of ME2 type advancement. 

DnD? Yay I'm a level 7 fighter, and I just got a bunch of cool stuff. Now I'm a level 8 fighter and I get... hit points. Awesome. Level 9? More cool stuff. Level 10? Hit points. Same with magic users. Sometimes you get functionally nothing, then BANG a new spell level and an order of magnitude higher power.

Shadowrun? Same deal. I've finished 4 "runs" worth of Karma accumulation, and I want to increase my Strength from 6-7. I need 21 Karma, but I only have 20, so I get nothing. Next run (now my 5th), I finally get enough for my threshold. 

Many RPG's have that progression. Heck, even JRPG's have it. I'm thinking of Rydia in FF2, where she gets like nothing at all from level 50 or so until level 60 and learns Meteo. 

It's not uncommon at all. It's just a matter of Threshold's. Some abilities in many RPG's take more than one level worth of advancement to increase.

[Il Divo]

Phaelducan wrote...

Just as a counterpoint, as I've played PnP games for years, but there are many examples of ME2 type advancement. 

DnD? Yay I'm a level 7 fighter, and I just got a bunch of cool stuff. Now I'm a level 8 fighter and I get... hit points. Awesome. Level 9? More cool stuff. Level 10? Hit points. Same with magic users. Sometimes you get functionally nothing, then BANG a new spell level and an order of magnitude higher power.

Shadowrun? Same deal. I've finished 4 "runs" worth of Karma accumulation, and I want to increase my Strength from 6-7. I need 21 Karma, but I only have 20, so I get nothing. Next run (now my 5th), I finally get enough for my threshold. 

Many RPG's have that progression. Heck, even JRPG's have it. I'm thinking of Rydia in FF2, where she gets like nothing at all from level 50 or so until level 60 and learns Meteo. 

It's not uncommon at all. It's just a matter of Threshold's. Some abilities in many RPG's take more than one level worth of advancement to increase.

Even WoW has featured this kind of progression. Once you hit ~40, you typically don't receive any more new abilities until level 60, where you start entering expansion content (new spells, etc). Unfortunately, this also makes that 20 level separation feel rather bland, by comparison.

[sp0ck 06]

whywhywhywhy wrote...



I don't know if you know of game development but delays are bad, the later a delay the more expensive.  So for a delay to happen so late and to be delayed so long indicates that their are BIG problems and BIG mistakes were made.  Just because they have extra time to rectify the problem(not that we'd ever get a straight answer to what that is) doesn't mean it will be fixed.

Despite how well ME2 sold or didn't sell(depending on your view) how many people bought me2 because it was a sequel ?  A reasonable educated guess would be the majority with new fans being drawn in by advertisements.  How many were expecting a sequel ?  I'm sure many might of had no complaints, some a few and others irate.  But let's say for argument sake those not satisfied with me2 number within 500k, based on the choices made for me3 500k people could potentially walk away from that game.  Now that's a made up number but it could be right, lower or maybe even higher I don't know but what we do know is that not everyone who bought me2 is happy with me2 and that will effect me3. 

Sequels are meant to surpasse their predecessors yet me3 will be adding stuff back in from me and improving it in the way that me2 was suppose to do.  If all is truly well why are they taking these steps ?  Why not continue on with the sci fi FPS style play completely ?  This has to indicate the rpg fanbase is significant.

It could all turn out well but it's not Guarenteed.
unjustifiable ?  To you maybe but I know more then you.

Umm..or a game delay is because the developers care about making the game as good as it can be and are willing to take the time to do so?  See: Valve, Blizzard.  It doesn't mean BIG MISTAKES were made.  Where did you get that from?

Why not continue with the sci-fi FPS style play completely?  Well, its not a first person shooter at all, for starters.  Secondly, maybe because...um...the game isn't a TPS?  Never was.  Its an action RPG from the start.  To me, it seems like they trimmed too much fat from the game in ME2, and now they're taking everything that was great in ME2 and beefing it up with more of what fans want.

I don't understand what you're trying to prove.  Seems to me like you just didn't like ME2.  If thats the case you're in the minority from BW's point of view and be prepared for a similar experience in ME3.

[SalsaDMA]

Terror_K wrote...

While this is technically true, the entire circumstances require imagination to work. If you don't use your imagination you can't truly interact and picture the universe, locates, objects and other players and NPCs in the campaign. And imagination comes too in the form of the players using their own imagination and ideas to try and solve problems, which is more restricted in a cRPG where you only have options A, B and C. There are far more in a P&P RPG, sometimes ones the DM/GM doesn't think of. A good DM/GM will often reward players for using their imagination in this sense.

Indeed. In the end of my GM'ing days, often I didn't even construct 'solutions' for situations, but relied on the players to figure out something that seemed plausible for me to go with and made it work on the fly. It only works if you got imaginative players, though.