3223 réponses à ce sujet

[SalsaDMA]

Lumikki wrote...

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)

Let's agree to disagree.

[Sylvius the Mad]

littlezack wrote...

That honestly sounds like more your problem than anything.

There's no way anyone can accurately predict what the content of the ME dialogue lines are, including their inflection, and any associated actions.  Certainly not with any consistency, but I insist you can't do it at all.

The only way you could think that you are doing it is if your expectations are extremely vague.

[Ace of Dawn]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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

Eh... what? That statement just seems so wrong.

[MightySword]

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

Doesn't mean none exist.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That includes stats and loot. That includes exploration. And that includes choices that have gameplay consequences.

The problem is IMO, I have never seen stats and loot was implemented in anyway meaningful in Bioware game to be honest. In their D&D game the attribute is really limited, and like I said most of the time the point allocation is really obvious given the role you play. A fighter not gonna put points in Wisdom, and a mage ain't gonna put point into Strength. Samething with loots, all the items that you actually use will eventually come from very specific situation that can be achieved in game where a loot system exist or not. To me they're nothing more than wasting my time on meaningless book keep tasks.


And it may sounds blasphemy to mention it on this kinda of forum in which a lot of people will bash JRPG for being the same and unchanging, I must say in term of stat grow and loot/inventory system JRPG have evolved far and wide while it is the western RPG that still stuck with a simple and old system from 2 decades ago. In some RPG develope your character can be as involves as a mini game, and in some the loot/inventory system IS indeed a minigame itself. A more dynamic stat system that can open up different possibilities and built for the same character (some JRPG use a stat/ability map for this as an example), or a loot system that come hand in hand with an elaborated (not gimmick) synthesis system is what I prefer.


In conclusion, for me I have 2 choices. If I have to do something in the game, then it might be as well worth it. If it's something that doesn't really add dimension to the game then I can do without. I agree that story and combat are of much higher priority.

[the_one_54321]

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

Are you still insisting that it's not role playing unless it's perfect role playing? You realize that none of BioWare's games are at all RPGs if you insist on such a stipulation?

And I do serously want an answer to those questions. I'm not just being rhetorical to make a point.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lumikki wrote...

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.

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.

Just because some people wil metagame doesn't mean that everyone will.  Those of us who want to roleplay shouldn't be denied the option just because some people will exploit it.

[littlezack]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

littlezack wrote...

That honestly sounds like more your problem than anything.

There's no way anyone can accurately predict what the content of the ME dialogue lines are, including their inflection, and any associated actions.  Certainly not with any consistency, but I insist you can't do it at all.

The only way you could think that you are doing it is if your expectations are extremely vague.

Do I know exactly what she's going to say? No. But, 99% of the time, what I think she'll say and what she actually says are close enough that there isn't a big problem.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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

Are you still insisting that it's not role playing unless it's perfect role playing?

The PC shouldn't do anything without the player's input.  JRPGs routinely feature long conversations where the player can do nothing at all.

It doesn't need to be perfect roleplaying, but there is a standard of sufficiency that I haven't seen any JRPG meet (admittedly I've only played one JRPG ever, but since it was so highly regarded - FF7 - I didn't bother with the rest of the genre once that game failed so spectacularly).

That standard of sufficiency requires that the player be able to maintain a coherent personality for his characters.

You realize that none of BioWare's games are at all RPGs if you insist on such a stipulation?

Untrue.  BG succeeds.  KotOR succeeds.  NWN succeeds.  DAO succeeds.

And I do serously want an answer to those questions. I'm not just being rhetorical to make a point.

Rhetorical questions can't make points.  Questions convey no information.

[Sylvius the Mad]

littlezack wrote...

Do I know exactly what she's going to say? No. But, 99% of the time, what I think she'll say and what she actually says are close enough that there isn't a big problem.

How close is "close enough"?  What's your standard?  By what mechanism do you determine what the line is going to say?  How do you know when you're right?

Could you teach someone else to do it?

[Lumikki]

SalsaDMA wrote...

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...

Yeah, I was in shock in ME1 when I first time did meet Coucil. I wanted to be polite, but Shepard was rude in all options. Like showing middle finger for them. I think the issues is that Bioware did not put effort for Council to have more than one reaction. What cause that all choises has to support sertain reaction. But same time it removed players ability choose the Shepards attitude.

How ever, in general, I don't have big issues not knowing what Shepard says. Most the time you can ques what is the attitude behind those different three choises, they aren't really that hard to know.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The PC shouldn't do anything without the player's input.

That standard of sufficiency requires that the player be able to maintain a coherent personality for his characters.

BG succeeds.  KotOR succeeds.  NWN succeeds.  DAO succeeds.

Each of these games strictly requires you to undertake certain actions. The only "out" with regard to these particular actions is that you can die and have a game over. Which counts, but still occurs after they tell you what your character chooses to do.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

And I do serously want an answer to those questions. I'm not just being rhetorical to make a point.

Rhetorical questions can't make points.  Questions convey no information.

A question can be worded to convey information. Which is unrelated to this, but since you took the time to specifically comment on it...

[Lumikki]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Just because some people wil metagame doesn't mean that everyone will.  Those of us who want to roleplay shouldn't be denied the option just because some people will exploit it.

Yes, but when it's only under 2% benefit and over 90% of exploiting, then that's issue.

(Example one player here ones sayed to me that 95% of players saved Wrex. Do you understand what it means, because it requires sertain amount of points in sertain skills that to happen.).

It would be better to find better way to allow role-players customize than system what can be exploited.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lumikki wrote...

Yeah, I was in shock in ME1 when I first time did meet Coucil. I wanted to be polite, but Shepard was rude in all options. Like showing middle finger for them. I think the issues is that Bioware did not put effort for Council to have more than one reaction. What cause that all choises has to support sertain reaction. But same time it removed players ability choose the Shepards attitude.

In the first conversation with Udina after rescuing Tali, Shepard suddenly divulged information I didn't think she actually had (I certainly didn't have it, so I would never have chosen it because I thought it was baseless speculation), thus completely breaking the game for me.  From then on, I had no idea who Shepard was or what she was doing, because I clearly didn't know her at all.

[BounceDK]

BioWare and deep rpg in the same sentence .. Not possible.

[MightySword]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

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

Are you still insisting that it's not role playing unless it's perfect role playing?

The PC shouldn't do anything without the player's input.  JRPGs routinely feature long conversations where the player can do nothing at all.

It doesn't need to be perfect roleplaying, but there is a standard of sufficiency that I haven't seen any JRPG meet (admittedly I've only played one JRPG ever, but since it was so highly regarded - FF7 - I didn't bother with the rest of the genre once that game failed so spectacularly).

Then seriously you should really defer your argument to something less extreme than saying it's an idiotic comment and claim you never see anthing different in JRPG. Because it proves you have an extremely narrow knowledge, and passing such an extreme judgement base on such limited knowledge would do little for others to conceive your point. Like ... saying you have seen "anything" otherwise at the same time saying you only see one thing ... do you stop and read how weird/invalid that is?


In any case, FF7 while is popular, is no where the representative of all JRPG. Just like BGII while was popular, is not the representative of all CRPG. For example, BG and Diablo represents two complete different schools of CRPG, just like there are JRPG out there that will make require you to put down the control once a while to give your hand a rest.

Modifié par MightySword, 05 juillet 2011 - 09:55 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Each of these games strictly requires you to undertake certain actions. The only "out" with regard to these particular actions is that you can die and have a game over. Which counts, but still occurs after they tell you what your character chooses to do.

First, I don't really see how that's a problem.  The game doesn't model all possible paths.

Second, I don't think that's even true.  In KotOR, for example, what it is you think you have to do?  Once you're on Taris, the game wants you to take steps to rescue Bastila.   But you don't have to do that.  You'll never progress in the game if you don't, but that's not what you said.  You said the game forces you to understake certain actions.

Which ones?  What actions?

You don't have to meet Duncan for the joining ceremony.  You don't have to ever visit Nashkel.  You don't have to cure the Neverwinter Plague.  What matters is that when you do ultimately do those things, it is because you choose to do them.

A question can be worded to convey information.

No it can't.  Interrogative sentences lack the ability to make assertions.

[MightySword]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
You don't have to meet Duncan for the joining ceremony.  You don't have to ever visit Nashkel.  You don't have to cure the Neverwinter Plague.  What matters is that when you do ultimately do those things, it is because you choose to do them.

So ... what's the point you're trying to say here? Since I don't get it. How is that different from a JRPG?

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
First, I don't really see how that's a problem.  The game doesn't model all possible paths.

Second, I don't think that's even true.  In KotOR, for example, what it is you think you have to do?  Once you're on Taris, the game wants you to take steps to rescue Bastila.   But you don't have to do that.  You'll never progress in the game if you don't, but that's not what you said.  You said the game forces you to understake certain actions.

Which ones?  What actions?

You don't have to meet Duncan for the joining ceremony.  You don't have to ever visit Nashkel.  You don't have to cure the Neverwinter Plague.  What matters is that when you do ultimately do those things, it is because you choose to do them.

In NWN your character is said to have chosen to join the accademy. That's backstory, and estrablished independant of who you want your character to be.
KotOR has a nearly identical endgame for any game path. Granted, you can bypass this by dying. DA:O has several options for backstories, but otherwise tells you exactly what your background is before you even start.

Specifically, I suppose the two best examples are DA:O and NWN. Wherein the background of your character is estrablished for you and against any of your wishes to the contrary.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

A question can be worded to convey information.

No it can't.  Interrogative sentences lack the ability to make assertions.

Just because it's often inefficient and error prone does not mean that it cannot be done.

[Mister Mida]

Lumikki wrote...

(Example one player here ones sayed to me that 95% of players saved Wrex. Do you understand what it means, because it requires sertain amount of points in sertain skills that to happen.).

You do realize you don't have to Charm/Intimidate Wrex in order to save him, right? Or is that exploitation as well?

[PnXMarcin1PL]

Ah yes, RPG elements...

Modifié par PnXMarcin1PL, 05 juillet 2011 - 10:08 .

[Lumikki]

Mister Mida wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

(Example one player here ones sayed to me that 95% of players saved Wrex. Do you understand what it means, because it requires sertain amount of points in sertain skills that to happen.).

You do realize you don't have to Charm/Intimidate Wrex in order to save him, right? Or is that exploitation as well?

Yes, I know. You can do the Wrex personal quest, then it's not required, other ways it requires 8 points.

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 juillet 2011 - 10:10 .

[Ace of Dawn]

MightySword wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
You don't have to meet Duncan for the joining ceremony.  You don't have to ever visit Nashkel.  You don't have to cure the Neverwinter Plague.  What matters is that when you do ultimately do those things, it is because you choose to do them.

So ... what's the point you're trying to say here? Since I don't get it. How is that different from a JRPG?

I think he is trying to argue that since in ME2, there are certain instances where you cannot make your own choice (Horizon being an example) until you actually go through with the mission, you have no real choice in the matter. Opposed to in other games where you technically have a choice in that you could do everything else but what you will eventually have to do.

It's an argument, I guess. Personally, I always defined an RPG as you assuming the role of a character. However, how much you can manipulate that character is up to the developer. Some games basically allow you to manipulate everything about the character. Then there's Mass Effect, where you have to do things as *Shepard* sees to do things.

[Varen Spectre]

ODST 5723 wrote...

-snip-

... 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 agree with your point. No doubt about it... 

The question however is, are good story (dialogue) choices with proper consequences and available variety of skills, weapons, armors, abilities, etc. with detailed customization two mutually exclusive things? I.e. can't modern RPGs have both?

The answer would probably depend on the amount of time and money (with time eventually being dependant on money as well), that can be invested in the development. Since the release of ME3 has already been postponed, the time should not be a (big) problem.

So, it all comes down to money and resources that are supposed to be invested in ME3. And Bioware (EA) undoubtedly wants to invest them efficiently into the features that are desired. 

Now, based on opinions presented on BSN and other forums (e.g. when we had a thread here about the most desired improvement of RPG features, by far the most common answer was customization) and currently "confirmed" features, it seems that both, majority of players and developers from Bioware themselves, feel that ME 2 lacked some complexity in character and equipment modification and continuous improvement.

My question therefore is: Is it really that necessary to advocate for an improvement / implementation of one feature (choices & consequences or customization) at the expense of the other? Unless somebody actually does want some feature to be removed. But that's quite often not the case. Therefore, wouldn't it better, if we players - consumers said: yes, we want more items (abilities) and more modifiable items (abilities) but at the very same time we want good story, choices, consequences, etc. instead of arguing which one is better?

Then we can proceed to discuss particular features and the extent to which they should be implemented. Either here, or in the forum that has already been started solely for that purpose (bit.ly/kyReai).

[Lumikki]

Varen Spectre wrote...

My question therefore is: Is it really that necessary to advocate for an improvement / implementation of one feature (choices & consequences or customization) at the expense of the other? Unless somebody actually does want some feature to be removed. But that's quite often not the case. Therefore, wouldn't it better, if we players - consumers said: yes, we want more items (abilities) and more modifiable items (abilities) but at the very same time we want good story, choices, consequences, etc. instead of arguing which one is better?

Then we can proceed to discuss particular features and the extent to which they should be implemented. Either here, or in the forum that has already been started solely for that purpose (bit.ly/kyReai).

We don't argue do we want customation as we all do.

We are arguing what's the best way to do it in Mass Effect type of game. Because some people here thinks that normal RPG is the way and some people say that kind of system doesn't fit well in Mass Effect type of game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

MightySword wrote...

So ... what's the point you're trying to say here? Since I don't get it. How is that different from a JRPG?

I wasn't talking about JRPGs.  I was contrasting the traditional BiOWare games with the newer BioWare games.

the_one_54321 wrote...

In NWN your character is said to have chosen to join the accademy. That's backstory, and estrablished independant of who you want your character to be.

But you can choose why you joined the academy.  I don't really care about the backstory because it's not something over which I can ever have control.  I can't choose not to be on the Endar Spire at the start of KotOR.  I can't choose not to live in Candlekeep at the start of BG.  But who my character is, what he wants, and why he does the things he does are entirely mine to control.

That's the thing we've lost in ME.

KotOR has a nearly identical endgame for any game path.

Only within the game.  If you ignore the game's structure, there are many different endings.  You could just live on Dantoonie forever and not go searching for the Star Forge.

DA:O has several options for backstories, but otherwise tells you exactly what your background is before you even start.

What your background is has nothing to do with your character's personality.  If anything it's just a handy aid to character design.

Just because it's often inefficient and error prone does not mean that it cannot be done.

It's neither clumsy nor inefficient.  It's impossible.