3223 réponses à ce sujet

[Ahglock]

SalsaDMA wrote...


Hmm... that's odd. I can see your point of view by glancing at the list, but the problem is I can remember while playing the game being faced with the choice of using the precise sniper rifle or the damaging one very clearly.

Now you made me load up one of made saves to verify.

k. Found a early save with a sentinel I made just to check out some stuff. He's at citadel and got 3 sniper rifles on him. Avenger I, Hammer II and Reaper II. There is a distinction between those weapons as I mentioned, the avenger I even being the most precise of the lot while packing the least damage.

Yeah the list is missleading.  What ytou get in play is different, there are choices between guns in play.  Now yeah you can mess with the system to just get the best, and there are cases where you just randomly get thebest an dnever have to look back, but in many places there is a choice to be made.  It sucked overall don't get me wrong, and ME2 did a decent job of making weapons feel distinct, but ME1 could have been improved on in that regard to do the same.  

[Sylvius the Mad]

Roleplaying consists entirely of in-character decision-making. ANYTHING that allows for that is a good RPG mechanic.

That includes stats and loot. That includes exploration. And that includes choices that have gameplay consequences.

The story-based choices also count, but unfortunately Mass Effect has proven wholly incapable of offering those because of the way the dialogue system works. Since the players are not in control of what Shepard says or does, they can't be accurately described as making choices. They're just watching choices be made on their behalf.

That's not roleplaying. The thing Casey says they want to do isn't possible as long as they keep the same obfuscatory dialogue system that ME and ME2 use. The player would need to know what Shepard is going to say, and actually have chosen that statement based on Shepard's personality, in order for the game to offer the type of roleplaying depth that Casey says he wants.

As such, Casey can't possibly be telling the truth. The core mechanic to which the series appears to be wed makes his claims obviously false.

[littlezack]

Except on rare occasions, I never had much problem guessing what Shepard was going to say based on the choices. It's typically quite clear.

[littlezack]

Except on rare occasions, I never had much problem guessing what Shepard was going to say based on the choices. It's typically quite clear.

[Aimi]

And even if that were a legitimate complaint, that's not a "core mechanic" problem, that's an implementation problem that's fixable.

[Lumikki]

Ahglock wrote...

It sucked overall don't get me wrong, and ME2 did a decent job of making weapons feel distinct, but ME1 could have been improved on in that regard to do the same. 

I'm not so sure about it, because in ME2 weapons has one addional attribute what ME1 weapons did not have. What allowed weapons to be more district.

[Veex]

daqs wrote...

And even if that were a legitimate complaint

Thats the gist of the issue. Sylvius' rigid definition of what constitutes role-playing would have to be wholly accepted before it could even begin to be argued. As he stated it there isn't a point in even discussing it, as he staunchly believes his opinion its literally a fact.

I'd be tempted to debate with Sylvius that no game allows for roleplaying as you can't determine inflection from text, and thus aren't capable of determining how your character says something and only what they can say. Using his definition, of course.

[vader da slayer]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Roleplaying consists entirely of in-character decision-making. ANYTHING that allows for that is a good RPG mechanic.

That includes stats and loot. That includes exploration. And that includes choices that have gameplay consequences.

The story-based choices also count, but unfortunately Mass Effect has proven wholly incapable of offering those because of the way the dialogue system works. Since the players are not in control of what Shepard says or does, they can't be accurately described as making choices. They're just watching choices be made on their behalf.

That's not roleplaying. The thing Casey says they want to do isn't possible as long as they keep the same obfuscatory dialogue system that ME and ME2 use. The player would need to know what Shepard is going to say, and actually have chosen that statement based on Shepard's personality, in order for the game to offer the type of roleplaying depth that Casey says he wants.

As such, Casey can't possibly be telling the truth. The core mechanic to which the series appears to be wed makes his claims obviously false.

its actually pretty flipping obvious what each option will do. no DA:O's dialogue options are vague. I remember on my first time playing the game (before restarting after realising I had messed something way up) that I told the chapel priestess in Lothering something that had a dialogue option of something that sounded like a departing phrase while at teh same time expressing displeasure at her in ability to let Sten go. what happened was evidentally me threatening to kill her and Allistair losing 20 rep with me.

also you do make choices (more so in ME1 than in ME2) like saving/killing rachni queen. or killing off the Ferros colonist or killing shiala etc. in ME2 keep/destroy base, sell legion, don't awaken grunt. there's also the choices of killing/not killing some people. there are choices there that allow you to shape the character. Bioware NEVER said they would allow you to shape the story as the story has a definitive plot line of whats supposed to go on (it allows for books and other things to be made during and after the trilogy) just how shepard handles the situations that are encountered.

funny thing is is people will try to argue how ME2 isn't an rpg and that he final fantasy games are when their plot lines are very elementary and have no ability for the player to influence anything the characters in the story do in that plot line.

[Lumikki]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Roleplaying consists entirely of in-character decision-making. ANYTHING that allows for that is a good RPG mechanic.

Yes and No.  "in-character", here is the important part, but too many players miss it, because while choises does support it, they also support something else and that's metagaming.

That includes stats and loot. That includes exploration. And that includes choices that have gameplay consequences.

Role-playing choises can be supported many ways and some choises aren't really role-playing choises, but metagaming choises. Meaning while base of many different things can support role-playing, player can get lost and start metagame like any other strategy game as trying to find optimal solution with rewards. When that happens role-playing it self is lost even if there is "good" choises. So, it's also important to know how to create choises so that it actually support role-playing and not metagaming.

Look this thread as example, how much players are in here focusing "I want my reward everytime I level up". When getting rewards was actual role-playing? Meaning the gameplay focus is more in metagaming the system than actual role-playing. So, as you see "GOOD" rpg mechanic doesn't allways mean good role-plaing, when it's actually supporting metagaming.  Metagaming is considered as bad role-playing.

Point been some choises, like stats and loot does support roleplaying, but even more they support metagaming. Because customation what they provide for role-playing can often also be get more role-playing friendly ways. Haven't you notice how some players here is playing RPG's because loot and stats, not because they provides customation. Meaning it has become gameplay it self for them, that's metagaming. Easy to notice when numbers, items and stats in gamesystem becomes main priority for player.

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 juillet 2011 - 07:39 .

[littlezack]

vader da slayer wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Roleplaying consists entirely of in-character decision-making. ANYTHING that allows for that is a good RPG mechanic.

That includes stats and loot. That includes exploration. And that includes choices that have gameplay consequences.

The story-based choices also count, but unfortunately Mass Effect has proven wholly incapable of offering those because of the way the dialogue system works. Since the players are not in control of what Shepard says or does, they can't be accurately described as making choices. They're just watching choices be made on their behalf.

That's not roleplaying. The thing Casey says they want to do isn't possible as long as they keep the same obfuscatory dialogue system that ME and ME2 use. The player would need to know what Shepard is going to say, and actually have chosen that statement based on Shepard's personality, in order for the game to offer the type of roleplaying depth that Casey says he wants.

As such, Casey can't possibly be telling the truth. The core mechanic to which the series appears to be wed makes his claims obviously false.

The only time I can think of, off the bat, where Shepard did or said something I completely didn't see coming was when he punched the reporter in the face. And that was so funny, I just let it go.

its actually pretty flipping obvious what each option will do. no DA:O's dialogue options are vague. I remember on my first time playing the game (before restarting after realising I had messed something way up) that I told the chapel priestess in Lothering something that had a dialogue option of something that sounded like a departing phrase while at teh same time expressing displeasure at her in ability to let Sten go. what happened was evidentally me threatening to kill her and Allistair losing 20 rep with me.

also you do make choices (more so in ME1 than in ME2) like saving/killing rachni queen. or killing off the Ferros colonist or killing shiala etc. in ME2 keep/destroy base, sell legion, don't awaken grunt. there's also the choices of killing/not killing some people. there are choices there that allow you to shape the character. Bioware NEVER said they would allow you to shape the story as the story has a definitive plot line of whats supposed to go on (it allows for books and other things to be made during and after the trilogy) just how shepard handles the situations that are encountered.

funny thing is is people will try to argue how ME2 isn't an rpg and that he final fantasy games are when their plot lines are very elementary and have no ability for the player to influence anything the characters in the story do in that plot line.

[tonnactus]

Darji wrote...
Guess they havent learned anthing from the feedback they recieved with Dragon Age 2.

Compared with Mass Effect 2 Dragon Age 2 is a hardcore rpg...

[Googlesaurus]

kregano wrote...

Googlesaurus wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...


Not really. It was linear in as much that version II was better than version I, and versino III was better yet again. But the different brands of weapons favoured different characteristics. I didn't start using sniper rifles that ditched precision for damage till I got more proficient in sniper rifle, for example, cause I wanted an easier time in actually connecting with my shots.

Spectre weapons broke the mold, ofc, but take those out the equation and ME1 actually had the grounds for a decent system where manufactorer brand determined weighting of stats of a given weapon.

Really? I'm looking at all the manufacturers now. Perhaps I'm just getting lost in all the numbers, but I'm seeing very few brands where there is a  significant difference in stats. I'm comparing all the Sniper Rifle arms, mind.

http://masseffect.wi...y:Manufacturers

-snip list-

Ah, if ME3 could make a good stats system for their weapons that would be exquisite.

Are those screenshot previews?

[SalsaDMA]

Lumikki wrote...

Ahglock wrote...

It sucked overall don't get me wrong, and ME2 did a decent job of making weapons feel distinct, but ME1 could have been improved on in that regard to do the same. 

I'm not so sure about it, because in ME2 weapons has one addional attribute what ME1 weapons did not have. What allowed weapons to be more district.

And there is nothing preventing that aditional attribute to be present in an enhanced ME1 system. Nobody is saying ME1 was perfect, far from it. But it could have been improved upon instead of being ditched entirely.

[Aimi]

Googlesaurus wrote...

Are those screenshot previews?

Yeah, they're from E3.

[Lumikki]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Ahglock wrote...

It sucked overall don't get me wrong, and ME2 did a decent job of making weapons feel distinct, but ME1 could have been improved on in that regard to do the same. 

I'm not so sure about it, because in ME2 weapons has one addional attribute what ME1 weapons did not have. What allowed weapons to be more district.

And there is nothing preventing that aditional attribute to be present in an enhanced ME1 system. Nobody is saying ME1 was perfect, far from it. But it could have been improved upon instead of being ditched entirely.

Yes, it could have been improved, but it NEVER could have be fixed.

This is because ME1's problems was in the base system design, it was focusing too much in statical gameplay. ME2 was the fix, they actually fixed the base system design, but they made huge mistake, when they cut all the customation option totally off or made them too simple. What meaned player lost most customation choises too, not just the statical gameplay what was the issue. In ME3 they will try to fix that mistake and bring the customation choises back, without brigning the statical gameplay. What was the base issue with statical gameplay? They used normal RPG feature system in game what was not normal RPG. It doesn't work well, because wrong kind of game.

Issues where:

Combat (conflict between two different opposite system):
- TPS combat (player skill)  vs stat based combat (character skill)

Games focus (two different gameplay style conflicting each other):
- Induvidual item based loot with big inventory (slow, statical)  vs cinematic high visual impression action gameplay (fast, visual)

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 juillet 2011 - 08:32 .

[ODST 5723]

I agree with Bioware on this one. I'd like a strong story and good combat over a significant upswing in stats and loot.

I don't need a bunch of stats or loot to roleplay. I need a character I can customize to fit without going into the minutia of a +3 gain to fortitude at the cost of -1 defense. That's not necessary and it drives towards loot seeking. If I'm a soldier I expect to be able to be able to use any weapon I can carry unless it's totally alien technology. As for non-combat skills, I could see the need for a few more than currently exist, but nothing to the level of ME1 where I have to pick who comes with me based on whether I want to go after more loot instead of taking someone with me who may have more impact on the outcome of the mission.

As a hypothetical, taking Legion in instead of Garrus because even though they can both decrypt things, it might make more sense to have a geth present in a conversation about the geth vs. the quarians. Or Jack insted of Kaidan, because I need a biotic powerhouse who's not from the Alliance to talk to a bunch of rebel biotics who think that any Alliance biotics are brainwashed. (like having a Circle Mage talk to a group of Apostates instead of say, an Apostate Bethany).

To me, that's better roleplaying than stats and loot.

I like loot. I like new guns. I like new armor components. I'd like to be able to scan new armor or weapons off of existing models, or even pick up existing weapons. I see some point to that. But there's got to be some purpose there. Some value. What's the value? If it's negligible, then just give me a stock piece I can tweak a bit to fit my play style.

I can see some value in having a charm/intimidate stat that I can invest in. I don't see any value in having to spend points I could spend on other skills on those when I've already established through my action that my character has charisma and can charm or intimidate the pants of just about anyone in the galaxy, except the Council and Udina. So there, the question is, is investing in non-combat skills worth the investment and can it add something to the story and experience that it worth putting points there instead of elsewhere?

[Googlesaurus]

daqs wrote...

Googlesaurus wrote...

Are those screenshot previews?

Yeah, they're from E3.

Cool.

I'm trying to limit spoilers for myself, but this is really raising my hopes for the mechanics of ME3. 

[Jebel Krong]

ODST 5723 wrote...

I agree with Bioware on this one. I'd like a strong story and good combat over a significant upswing in stats and loot.

I don't need a bunch of stats or loot to roleplay. I need a character I can customize to fit without going into the minutia of a +3 gain to fortitude at the cost of -1 defense. That's not necessary and it drives towards loot seeking. If I'm a soldier I expect to be able to be able to use any weapon I can carry unless it's totally alien technology. As for non-combat skills, I could see the need for a few more than currently exist, but nothing to the level of ME1 where I have to pick who comes with me based on whether I want to go after more loot instead of taking someone with me who may have more impact on the outcome of the mission.

As a hypothetical, taking Legion in instead of Garrus because even though they can both decrypt things, it might make more sense to have a geth present in a conversation about the geth vs. the quarians. Or Jack insted of Kaidan, because I need a biotic powerhouse who's not from the Alliance to talk to a bunch of rebel biotics who think that any Alliance biotics are brainwashed. (like having a Circle Mage talk to a group of Apostates instead of say, an Apostate Bethany).

To me, that's better roleplaying than stats and loot.

I like loot. I like new guns. I like new armor components. I'd like to be able to scan new armor or weapons off of existing models, or even pick up existing weapons. I see some point to that. But there's got to be some purpose there. Some value. What's the value? If it's negligible, then just give me a stock piece I can tweak a bit to fit my play style.

I can see some value in having a charm/intimidate stat that I can invest in. I don't see any value in having to spend points I could spend on other skills on those when I've already established through my action that my character has charisma and can charm or intimidate the pants of just about anyone in the galaxy, except the Council and Udina. So there, the question is, is investing in non-combat skills worth the investment and can it add something to the story and experience that it worth putting points there instead of elsewhere?

oh look: someone sensible. PREPARE THE TORCHES AND PITCHFORKS!

[Sylvius the Mad]

littlezack wrote...

Except on rare occasions, I never had much problem guessing what Shepard was going to say based on the choices. It's typically quite clear.

She routinely makes assertions when I expect her to ask questions.  She is routinely aggressive when I want her to be polite, or indifferent, or dismissinve, or anything other than aggressive.

I generally have no idea what it is she's going to say or how she's going to say it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

daqs wrote...

And even if that were a legitimate complaint, that's not a "core mechanic" problem, that's an implementation problem that's fixable.

Three games so far they've built using the same core mechanic, and all three times it has failed completely to allow the player control over his character.

The problems look intrinsic.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Veex wrote...

I'd be tempted to debate with Sylvius that no game allows for roleplaying as you can't determine inflection from text, and thus aren't capable of determining how your character says something and only what they can say. Using his definition, of course.

The inflection isn't contained within the text.  The inflection is added by the player.  The game is wholly unaware of it.

[MightySword]

I kinda agree with the assestment as well. Loots seems to be an old and out of date idea in RPG. Think about it, what loots ever do to you? Even back in BGII or NWN, after the first play most of my equipements come from very specific places. The only usable random loot for the most part are consumable. Other loots, for the most part are just to haul and sell for gold and add time into your inventory slot/weight limit without any meaningful gameplay element. For me I can do away with loots, instead of hauling stuff to sell, I prefer quest giving more gold or a salary system, which make more sense. Equipement can come from shop, boss drop or quest rewards.

If we need to have a loot system, I prefer it to be more elaborate and actually contribute to the game instead of just a loot and sell thing. Same for stat, honestly if stats is something as simple as me allocating points for 10 seconds each time I level up, then I can do without it since those 10 seconds I can do without. If a system is already that simple, most of the time where you put your points is already too obvious, making the players allocate the point themselves only to give an artificial freedom that amount to nothing.

Modifié par MightySword, 05 juillet 2011 - 09:31 .

[littlezack]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

littlezack wrote...

Except on rare occasions, I never had much problem guessing what Shepard was going to say based on the choices. It's typically quite clear.

She routinely makes assertions when I expect her to ask questions.  She is routinely aggressive when I want her to be polite, or indifferent, or dismissinve, or anything other than aggressive.

I generally have no idea what it is she's going to say or how she's going to say it.

That honestly sounds like more your problem than anything.

[Sylvius the Mad]

vader da slayer wrote...

also you do make choices (more so in ME1 than in ME2) like saving/killing rachni queen. or killing off the Ferros colonist or killing shiala etc. in ME2 keep/destroy base, sell legion, don't awaken grunt. there's also the choices of killing/not killing some people. there are choices there that allow you to shape the character.

But in a traditional RPG, you get to make that sort of choice with every single dialogue option.

Why did you choose to ask a question rather than state your opinion?  Why did you choose to let someone live rather than killing him?  Older BiOWare games allow this.  ME (and DA2) do not, because the PC's words and actions are hidden from the player until after the selection has been made.

And then it's too late.

funny thing is is people will try to argue how ME2 isn't an rpg and that he final fantasy games are when their plot lines are very elementary and have no ability for the player to influence anything the characters in the story do in that plot line.

That would be idiotic.  I've never seen anything in a JRPG that I would call roleplaying.

[SalsaDMA]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

littlezack wrote...

Except on rare occasions, I never had much problem guessing what Shepard was going to say based on the choices. It's typically quite clear.

She routinely makes assertions when I expect her to ask questions.  She is routinely aggressive when I want her to be polite, or indifferent, or dismissinve, or anything other than aggressive.

I generally have no idea what it is she's going to say or how she's going to say it.

heh. First time I played ME I riflebutted a guy when I just wanted to tell him to calm down...

Talk about doing something else than you thought you would...