3223 réponses à ce sujet

[sympathy4saren]

Lumikki wrote...

So, people are back to beging now.

Saying Mass Effect serie should not have TPS combat, because "I WANT RPG" system. What's the point even discuss if you don't allow Mass Effect serie be what it has been allways, cinematic action RPG with TPS combat. Because TPS combat does change how everyting is connected to each other. You don't need character skill based combat (stats), because there is TPS combat, what is player skill based. You want some heavy loot system, not just for customation reasons, because customation can be done without loot too, but because you expect Mass Effect to be find best item from loot game. You expect slow RPG based statical gameplay fit to Mass Effect serie.

Are you people kiding, do you understand what that does game like Mass Effect. We would be going back to ME1 problems. What can't be fixed with RPG system, because those RPG systems where the problem. Sure, some of the features what was issue, can be made more smooth as less as issue, but they would still be issue. Fast action based TPS gameplay doesn't go well with slow statical RPG gameplay.

Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning looks amazing IMO, and that game is an rpg with authentic, genuine action combat very similar to God of War.

Why does it still look amazing??? Because unlike Mass Effect, role playing elements haven't been compromised. Statistics govern everything. There are 3 different crafting systems. Skill trees appear to be very diverse and complex.

Shooter fans want the rpg crowd to shut up and accept the changes. Not gonna happen. The argument of "ME1's system didn't work so get over it" isn't going to work. Combat in ME1 wasn't great, but they sure made improvements to combat again in ME2. Ironic, isn't it? Same improvements could have been made to inventory and statistics, armor and general customization.

I wish they would have gutted combat features so the shooter fanboys could have whined and got a taste of what its like.

I sometimes wonder how many of the people on here like rpgs and how many are shooting fanboys who have been brought under the tent as the CoD crowd BioWare was seeking. I'm sure it doesn't apply to everyone, but you get what I mean.

This combination isn't going to work, youre right. I've already lost tons of interest in ME3 and I love it...that guitar trailer with rail shooting and the pew pew pew pew pew pew pew is making me sour on this series I love really fast. Now there are Halo Energy Swords, too.

I want a game series and a genre where the shooter crowd cannot ruin it!!!!! Go play Black Ops and that level where you dont have to shoot at all but twice when you're scripted to do so

Modifié par sympathy4saren, 06 juillet 2011 - 05:46 .

[the_one_54321]

Lumikki wrote...
Fast action based TPS gameplay doesn't go well with slow statical RPG gameplay.

Mutually exclusive.

sympathy4saren wrote...
an rpg with authentic, genuine action combat very similar to God of War.

Mutually exclusive.

I will go to my grave insisting that stats based play is the single defining feature of RPGs as a genre.

Every single genre of video games has stories, and choices, and consequences. Every. Single. One. So, I guess every game ever made is an RPG, right?

[upsettingshorts]

I'd sorta agree with that.

To me the difference between an RPG and an action RPG is twitch mechanics. Everything else is marketing.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 06 juillet 2011 - 05:51 .

[the_one_54321]

You sorta agree with the satire or with the point I was trying to make by using it?

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Every single genre of video games has stories, and choices, and consequences. Every. Single. One. So, I guess every game ever made is an RPG, right?

"RPG" is an incredibly loosely-defined genre, anyway. But you do have to agree that a Mass Effect game gives you more storyline choices than, say, a Halo game, right?

[olymind1]

Sidney wrote...

olymind1 wrote...

1. 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.

2. gaining xp after each kill, i like it better than summary screen.

3. and maybe some weapons and armors should have character level requirements,

1. Who cares if you can max out or not? You have to make choices with your skill poitns and that is what matters.

2. XP per kill is meaningless, they should only allow the level up at home anyweays no magically getting better mid-firefight. That's just dumb at least at home I can imagine training or something helping me get better.

3. Why do these things ever have level requirements? The "strength" requirements type stuff is marginally sensible assuming certain armors weight more - then again all playe should have the same not the goofy this plate needs a 42 and this needs a 20.  Level OTOH makes no sense.  How does the armor know you can't wear it?

You last two points are just lame RPG tropes that slap you in the face with "game mechanism for the sake of game mechanism". The last in particular is just a lazy way around level scaling loot.

1. if the level limit is the same, you can't develope 3 powers to there maximum potential due to the increasing skill points requirements and i think for Soldier Combat Mastery, Adrenalin Rush, and two types of ammo is needed to compensate against other classes.

2. IMO killing enemies and getting expreience after that is meaningful. it is showing that you're getting better doing it. i don't understand why a soldier can't evolve/adapt during combat. but this don't exclude the post mission summary.

3. ok, there is no strenght. the armor doesn't know what character level Shepard must be, you/Shepard do/does. or attach the requirements to the Soldier's Combat Mastery rank or to something else. personally i like a bit when in other games i find a great item and can't use is right away, it gives me the impression that it is superior than others.

Modifié par olymind1, 06 juillet 2011 - 06:06 .

[upsettingshorts]

the_one_54321 wrote...

You sorta agree with the satire or with the point I was trying to make by using it?

That stat-based mechanics are more or less the fundamental basis of what makes an RPG an RPG.

However, that being said, sports games fall under the same criteria in many ways.  Sure you can choose when to go for that layup, but the player's Layup skill - possibly checked against difficulty and the defensive skills of anyone attempting to stop him - is going to determine if it goes in.   Even the ability to move - the most basic aspect of twitch mechanics - is often determined by player skills like Dribbling or Skating (in soccer or basketball or hockey) or as basic as Speed, Acceleration, and Agility (in pretty much anything).

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 06 juillet 2011 - 06:02 .

[Sidney]

Halo Quea wrote...
This would be a good point if you didn't have to invest points in ammo powers.   That's like saying that an experienced soldier needs advanced training just to load his guns.    It's just a ridiculous notion.

There's just no defending ammo powers.

[upsettingshorts]

Sidney wrote...

There's just no defending ammo powers.

Ingame? No.

From a design standpoint?  Balance.  

That said, it would be entirely possible - I suppose, I'm not a designer - to make ammo powers free and "simply" rebalance the game.   Make combat more difficult and ammo powers more situationally useful and require the player to use them at the right times.  That kinda thing.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 06 juillet 2011 - 06:07 .

[sympathy4saren]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Lumikki wrote...
Fast action based TPS gameplay doesn't go well with slow statical RPG gameplay.

Mutually exclusive.

sympathy4saren wrote...
an rpg with authentic, genuine action combat very similar to God of War.

Mutually exclusive.

I will go to my grave insisting that stats based play is the single defining feature of RPGs as a genre.

Every single genre of video games has stories, and choices, and consequences. Every. Single. One. So, I guess every game ever made is an RPG, right?

Reread my post. I agree with you whole heartedly.

[Sidney]

sympathy4saren wrote...

Shooter fans want the rpg crowd to shut up and accept the changes. Not gonna happen. The argument of "ME1's system didn't work so get over it" isn't going to work. Combat in ME1 wasn't great, but they sure made improvements to combat again in ME2. Ironic, isn't it? Same improvements could have been made to inventory and statistics, armor and general customization.

I'll snip all the "I'm a better gamer than you" parts of your rant.

ME's combat was awful. A huge part of it that was awful was the failed hybrid between TPS and Shooter. Now either the ME2 system which is basically a shooter or a return to something like JA2's pure shooter stat driven thing would have worked better the hybrid wasn't happening because in order to be effect you still had to be good at the shooter parts to even get the recticle over the target,

They did improve inventory and armor by getting rid of a bad game mechanism that has nothing to do with role playing. Sorry your Flea Market simulator got taken away.

[the_one_54321]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
You sorta agree with the satire or with the point I was trying to make by using it?

That stat-based mechanics are more or less the fundamental basis of what makes an RPG an RPG.

However, that being said, sports games fall under the same criteria in many ways.  Sure you can choose when to go for that layup, but the player's Layup skill - possibly checked against difficulty and the defensive skills of anyone attempting to stop him - is going to determine if it goes in.   Even the ability to move - the most basic aspect of twitch mechanics - is often determined by player skills like Dribbling or Skating (in soccer or basketball or hockey) or as basic as Speed, Acceleration, and Agility (in pretty much anything).

The distinction would be that athlete in the game cannot layup on his own unless you press the layup button while also pressing the motion button toward the hoop. You have to press the button before something awesome happens. Contrast this, in DA:O once you click on a target the character continues to execute actions until you give different directions. No button/awesome.

So, button/awesome != RPG.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 06 juillet 2011 - 06:08 .

[upsettingshorts]

Yeah, I recognize that difference.  I just don't believe that any genre exists on an island.

That said, if ME2 came before ME1, shooter fans would have just as much cause to say "ME1 dumbed down the shooter elements to appeal to the RPG crowd" as RPG fans have now to say the reverse.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 06 juillet 2011 - 06:12 .

[Sidney]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Ingame? No.

From a design standpoint?  Balance.  

That said, it would be entirely possible - I suppose, I'm not a designer - to make ammo powers free and "simply" rebalance the game.   Make combat more difficult and ammo powers more situationally useful and require the player to use them at the right times.  That kinda thing.

Iunderstand as a balance/soliders need something bit but they don't work as a "power" you have to learn. I never noticed any real difference between the clips with different ammo I had to fire. It wasn't like the ammo delivery mechanism has to change for the type of round in it - it, well, can't really.

[the_one_54321]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Yeah, I recognize that difference.  I just don't believe that any genre exists on an island.

That said, if ME2 came before ME1, shooter fans would have just as much cause to say "ME1 dumbed down the shooter elements to appeal to the RPG crowd" as RPG fans have now to say the reverse.

They made it a better game by removing its bipolar disorder.

[Sidney]

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Every single genre of video games has stories, and choices, and consequences. Every. Single. One. So, I guess every game ever made is an RPG, right?

"RPG" is an incredibly loosely-defined genre, anyway. But you do have to agree that a Mass Effect game gives you more storyline choices than, say, a Halo game, right?

Well and more than even AC or GTA where you have a "character" but no options with him. Bioshock treads the line but even there you have only one decision (maybe 2) in the whole game.

Stats aren't the domain marker of the RPG unless Madden is a RPG since that has more stats and really can be played wholly stats driven (coach mode). Almost all strategy games are stat driven - Civ, EUII, Galatic Civilization.

The combo of a stats driven player character AND the effect of player choice is really what an RPG is about. All the other mechanics are just "other" things loaded into the genre.

[Candidate 88766]

Why are people arguing that RPG features and shooter features are mutually exclusive? They simply aren't.

Shooting is how you get from A to B in ME1, ME2 and presumably ME3. When it boils down to it, Mass Effect is a series of conversations and cutscenes spaced out by shooting sections with the occasional hub world. The RPG elements are there to bolster the shooting elements as these are the bits that actually make it a game. Otherwise it is an interactive cutscene.

It is a game set in the future. As a game, it needs challenge and like most games the challenge is provided by combat. As it is set in the future, it makes sense that the combat sections involve shooting and guns. A game cannot just be made of 'RPG features'. It either needs platforming or combat or else it isn't really a game (ignoring sport games). The reason virtually no other RPGs involve shooting is because they are set in fantasy settings with magic and swords. There, the combat is essentially a mix of beat-em-up and hack-n-slash styles. When you look around, there are surprisingly few futuristic RPGs compared to the number of fantasy ones, particularly in the current generation of games.

While you can argue about how important RPG features are to Mass Effect, they are not as important as the shooter elements. Why? Well, without the shooting elements there'd be nothing to do apart from talk to people and as good as Bioware is with that side of games, it cannot be sustained over 30-40 hours. A film cannot be made up entirely of exposition.

Both Mass Effect games have been about 80% shooting, 20% conversing and walking around hubs like the Normandy. The difference is in the style of the shooting - in ME1 it relied more on numbers and in ME2 it relied more on player skill. Which approach you prefer is down to a person's indivual opinion, but both contained near enough the same amount of shooting. Both had pretty minimal RPG features when compared to most 'old-school' RPGs. The difference between them is far smaller than people seem to make out. The only real difference was that in ME1 you got better at shooting guns by spending points, in ME2 you got better by playing the game and getting used to it. ME1 had a larger range of very similar guns, ME2 had a smaller range of guns that were noticably different. The armour system in ME2 allowed for far more customization than ME1 did. 

sympathy4saren wrote...

I wish they would have gutted combat features so the shooter fanboys could have whined and got a taste of what its like.

So the game would have been entirely conversations and walking? Yeah, that'd be a fantastic game...

Modifié par Candidate 88766, 06 juillet 2011 - 06:28 .

[upsettingshorts]

sympathy4saren wrote...

I wish they would have gutted combat features so the shooter fanboys could have whined and got a taste of what its like.

"For spite" is an amazing design principle.

[the_one_54321]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
"For spite" is an amazing design principle.

FOR SPITE will be my new forum battle cry.

[upsettingshorts]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...
"For spite" is an amazing design principle.

FOR SPITE will be my new forum battle cry.

It's already more than half of the BSN's.

[Siven80]

Hmm, i personally dont think stats make an RPG at all.

For me the key of an RPG is a character progression system. Whether its stat based or not doesnt make a difference in my view.

A lot of so called RPGs go overboard with things like stats and loot, to the point where they can become too complex, time consuming and boring.

But then i never played any tabletop RPGs. Im a gamer, i play many types of games and dont limit myself.

[upsettingshorts]

Siven80 wrote...

For me the key of an RPG is a character progression system.

How do you define progression without stats?

[the_one_54321]

Sidney wrote...
Madden is a RPG since that has more stats and really can be played wholly stats driven (coach mode).

Actually "coach mode" sounds exactly like a sports coach RPG.

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

Sidney wrote...

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Every single genre of video games has stories, and choices, and consequences. Every. Single. One. So, I guess every game ever made is an RPG, right?

"RPG" is an incredibly loosely-defined genre, anyway. But you do have to agree that a Mass Effect game gives you more storyline choices than, say, a Halo game, right?

Well and more than even AC or GTA where you have a "character" but no options with him. Bioshock treads the line but even there you have only one decision (maybe 2) in the whole game.

Stats aren't the domain marker of the RPG unless Madden is a RPG since that has more stats and really can be played wholly stats driven (coach mode). Almost all strategy games are stat driven - Civ, EUII, Galatic Civilization.

The combo of a stats driven player character AND the effect of player choice is really what an RPG is about. All the other mechanics are just "other" things loaded into the genre.

I honestly don't even think stats factor that much into the RPG formula. It's where RPGs started out because of D&D, though. But if you compare, say, Dragon Age: Origins and Bad Company 2, you're actually thinking a lot harder about stats in the latter than in the former. There are more numbers that matter to a particular build, and you're doing more trade-offs instead of just maximizing your important variables.

[AlanC9]

the_one_54321 wrote...
Every single genre of video games has stories, and choices, and consequences. Every. Single. One. So, I guess every game ever made is an RPG, right?

Choices? Really? We must be using different definitions of what counts as a choice here.