3223 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

AlanC9 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?

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

I just finished F3AR. It has only one actual choice. But it does have it. And that character choice defines the entire end game. Would you suggest that F3AR is an RPG?

[upsettingshorts]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

It's a bit of that and a bit of strategy game.  Also a bit of regular old sports game if you control the players too.

There was a mode in 2k's now discontinued (sadly) College Hoops series called Legacy mode.

You started out as a coach with Fs for attributes and could only be hired by bottom-tier (in terms of prestige and budget) colleges, and as you met challenges you improved your stats, were able to recruit better players (or get more out of the ones you did get), and eventually get hired by bigger and better programs.  You could define your coaching style, tactics (the offense and defenses you ran), etc.  It was very much a sports coach RPG.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 06 juillet 2011 - 06:25 .

[AlanC9]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

My impression was that they made ammo into powers because there's nowhere else to put them on the interface since there isn't any inventory screen.

[Siven80]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Siven80 wrote...

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

How do you define progression without stats?

Depends what you call a stat. To me a stat is something like Str, Dex, Cunning etc.

ME2 progressed my character with skills which required xp, levels and skill points. I dont call them stats.

May be a simple view, but works for me. At times i see people get too involved in game mechanics as to what is an RPG, and to me its always been about how my character grew and progressed by my actions.

Modifié par Siven80, 06 juillet 2011 - 06:30 .

[AlanC9]

the_one_54321 wrote...

AlanC9 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?

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

I just finished F3AR. It has only one actual choice. But it does have it. And that character choice defines the entire end game. Would you suggest that F3AR is an RPG?

I don't even know what F3AR is, let alone know enough about it to make that call. Even if I was in the business of defining what genre a game is in, which I most definitely am not.

Actually, your quote above is a little unclear. Is it every genre that has games in it with choices, or every single game ever made that has choices? You seem to change your mind between sentences.

Modifié par AlanC9, 06 juillet 2011 - 06:29 .

[the_one_54321]

Siven80 wrote...
Depends what you call a stat. To me a stat is something like Str, Dex, Cunning etc.

ME2 pregressed my character with skills which required xp, levels and skill points. I dont call them stats.

That's not even pedantic, it's just arbitrary. There is no strict reason to differentiate those with the label "stat." In base definition of statistics, level xp and skill points are also very much character statistics.

[Nashiktal]

I feel I have to point out.... ME was never a big RPG. I still don't understand why people think this. It was a TPS with RPG elements.

The game can get more and more RPG elements, but at its core ME is a TPS.

So comparing ME to the Kingdoms of Amalur does nothing. Kingdoms of Amalur is and action RPG, while ME is a TPS with RPG elements.

I think people are trying to make ME1 more of an rpg than it ever was

[the_one_54321]

AlanC9 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

AlanC9 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?

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

I just finished F3AR. It has only one actual choice. But it does have it. And that character choice defines the entire end game. Would you suggest that F3AR is an RPG?

I don't even know what F3AR is, let alone know enough about it to make that call. Even if I was in the business of defining what genre a game is in, which I most definitely am not.

Actually, your quote above is a little unclear. Is it every genre that has games in it with choices, or every single game ever made that has choices? You seem to change your mind between sentences.

F3AR

"Every game ever made" was hyperbole. Every genre does have examples of games that are story based (as far as story based, most games actually are) and examples of games that give you character choices.

[Candidate 88766]

Nashiktal wrote...

I feel I have to point out.... ME was never a big RPG. I still don't understand why people think this. It was a TPS with RPG elements.

The game can get more and more RPG elements, but at its core ME is a TPS.

So comparing ME to the Kingdoms of Amalur does nothing. Kingdoms of Amalur is and action RPG, while ME is a TPS with RPG elements.

I think people are trying to make ME1 more of an rpg than it ever was

The rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia are powerful things.

[SalsaDMA]

Something just struck me regarding combat and skills...

We've seen biotics be able to fly through their biotics, and we've seen the footage from ME3 where cerberus troops fly up to meet shepard too.

So the logical question would ofc be: What req is there for shepard to learn to fly?

Something tells me it's not gonna happen due to the considerations that got the Geth Hopper scrapped, namely that it would impact heavily on the AI and how it would need to deal with a highly mobile shepard.

The natural question then becomes: Why keep including these things in the games lore and show them to us as players, while you are restricting the player from using them? It's a pure clash as it can be of game mechanics impacting negatively on the immersion when it seems like every NPC in existence can be allowed to do something that you as a player can't. Even worse when the NPCs also seemingly only can do it when calculations doesn't need to be made, showing a huge lack of care to detail and believability of the setting. Hyper mobile enemy troops flying to tactical superior situations would impact heavily on the need for the player to adapt tactics to the changing scenario, yet it was never utilized. Presumable because it took too much effort...

In ME2 we saw biotics and Collectors zoom all over the place, but as soon as they were engageable in combat, they performed just like every other enemy in the game. I have a feeling ME3 will be the same, which makes me wonder why this charade is even put into the game when it's not being utilized proper?

In ME1 we at least had the hoppers to shake things up tactically with their usage of the 3rd dimension in engagements. In ME2 nothing of this, and from what we've seen so far, the same will be true for ME3.

Modifié par SalsaDMA, 06 juillet 2011 - 06:33 .

[AlanC9]

the_one_54321 wrote...

"Every game ever made" was hyperbole. Every genre does have examples of games that are story based (as far as story based, most games actually are) and examples of games that give you character choices.

I wish people would stop using hyperbole on the net. It's not reliable.

[Praetor Knight]

Sidney wrote...

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.

I was thinking about that recently, there was a thread where ammo powers were brought up, and I was thinking back to that.

And about the way they are implemented in ME2, the squad versions seem a tad abstract as I think about them, even with ME2 having a well balanced system, but I don't have too much trouble having ammo powers fixed for the classes as they are in ME2 for ME3. Since I think that ME3 will improve on ammo powers; especially for companions, compared to ME2.

At any rate, I Iike these sort of discussions.
(and here's the thread if anyone is interested in what I'm referring to: Link)

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Something tells me it's not gonna happen due to the considerations that got the Geth Hopper scrapped, namely that it would impact heavily on the AI and how it would need to deal with a highly mobile shepard.

The really strange thing is that it doesn't actually seem like that much of a stretch, given that a highly mobile Vanguard Shep already exists. And the AI isn't super-good at dealing with it, but TBH it reacts about as well as you'd expect someone to react when a shotgun-wielding cyborg rides a shockwave into their face.

But yeah, I think jetpacks are always a worthwhile use of dev time haha.

[Sidney]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

Except unless you confuse "Strategy" with "Role" it isn't.

[Candidate 88766]

For people complaining about the shooter elements, what would you replace that gameplay with?

Bioware has to focus on making the shooting elements good as these make up the bulk of the game, as they did with ME1 and ME2. Both games are a string of conversations and cutscenes linked by combat sections and occasional hub worlds, and so is pretty much every RPG ever. Combat is what gives these games an element of challenge and interaction that raise them above being simply interactive films. The combat in Mass Effect has to involve guns and shooting because it is the future and it wouldn't make sense for them to be fighting with swords and shields.

Without combat, an RPG is essentially the Sims - you can customise your character, talk with other characters and walk around the world. If Mass Effect was like that it'd be a very boring experience. The combat makes it a game, and the combat elements make sense to be based off shooters because combat in the future will involve shooting.

[the_one_54321]

Candidate 88766 wrote...
For people complaining about the shooter elements, what would you replace that gameplay with?

I think it's fine as a shooter. I'm just bewildered that BioWare ever decided to make shooters to begin with.

However, in the hypothetical, if I were to replace it with something I would just make the ME franchise play exactly like DA:O, except with guns and shield generators.

[Cainne Chapel]

I'm gonna have to agree with you there Candidate.

ME1 never was a mecca of supposed "RPG Elements" Even its claimed Non combat skills...supported combat (Decryption/Electronics and the like).

So either way you cut it, at its most basic, you're right. Its a series of conversations and set pieces/cutscenes filled with combat in between.

As its been a TPS from the start, improving the twitch based gameplay, I really dont see as much of a leap or a problem, because you at least had to be proficient at it even in ME1 as you couldnt shoot up and expect to hit something in front of you.

So the problem with the shooter elements some people have does kind of make me question what game they thought they played in ME1. As i've never played any of the ME games that DIDN'T revolve around shooter aspects to a majority degree.

[Cainne Chapel]

I would also like to see other genres set in the ME universe as well The_One.

Though i'd be intersted in how an "old school" version of ME would play considering.... would definately be different.

A strategy game set in the first contact war would be nice too.

A C-sec game in the fashion of LA Noire would also be my cup of tea As long as I get to play a hanar agent.

[Candidate 88766]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...
For people complaining about the shooter elements, what would you replace that gameplay with?

I think it's fine as a shooter. I'm just bewildered that BioWare ever decided to make shooters to begin with.

However, in the hypothetical, if I were to replace it with something I would just make the ME franchise play exactly like DA:O, except with guns and shield generators.

They didn't set out to make a shooter. They wanted to make a game set in a new futuristic IP, and its logical that any game set in the future will involve guns. 

And with your example, how would the shooting work with DA:O style gameplay? Would characters stand in the open, locking onto enemies and spamming the trigger? I'm not trying to pick holes in the idea, I just think combat involving shooting just works best when the player is in direct control of the aiming and cover is involved.

Modifié par Candidate 88766, 06 juillet 2011 - 07:05 .

[Savber100]

the_one_54321 wrote...

AlanC9 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?

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

I just finished F3AR. It has only one actual choice. But it does have it. And that character choice defines the entire end game. Would you suggest that F3AR is an RPG?

A random sudden arbitary "choice" that is DEFINED by player score (and not by an actual choice) in-game does not make a RPG.


A RPG is defined by the one thing that makes it distinct: CHOICES AND CONSEQUENCES. This must be integrated THROUGHOUT the game and not at the very end with a sudden decision for a different ending.

Complain all you want about the C&C in ME2 but the consequences are still culiminating for the third act. Most haters will just sprout how there's no consequences in ME2 but isn't that the whole point of a damn trilogy?! It's called overarching plots. You can't see the end til you reached the end! If Bioware fails with this in ME3... hell, I'll join you all in burning Bioware but not until the story wraps.

Modifié par Savber100, 06 juillet 2011 - 07:06 .

[the_one_54321]

Candidate 88766 wrote...
And with your example, how would the shooting work with DA:O style gameplay? Would characters stand in the open, locking onto enemies and spamming the trigger? I'm not trying to pick holes in the idea, I just think combat involving shooting just works best when the player is in direct control of the aiming and cover is involved.

It woudl work exactly like the bow and arrow does. Except that each class would have a different ability progression instead of only one ability progression for bows.

[Candidate 88766]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...
And with your example, how would the shooting work with DA:O style gameplay? Would characters stand in the open, locking onto enemies and spamming the trigger? I'm not trying to pick holes in the idea, I just think combat involving shooting just works best when the player is in direct control of the aiming and cover is involved.

It woudl work exactly like the bow and arrow does. Except that each class would have a different ability progression instead of only one ability progression for bows.

The bow and arrow system worked in DA:O as it was only a small part of the gameplay. If the bulk of the combat revolved around ranged combat, as in ME, I don't see how that system could work. It would just be enemies standing in the open shooting you while you stood in the open, locking onto each enemy in turn and holding the trigger until they died. Cover would have to implemented in some way to give it even semblance of realism and I just can't see a cover system working well in a top-down game. Also, being able to lock onto enemies to shoot them will either make the game really easy and boring, or mean that enemies have to have large health bars in which case it would be a grind and boring. Shooting in games works well with the mechanics established in FPS games and TPS games. Your method is much more in line with an arcade-style game, like Call of Duty Dead Ops but with stats based customisation.

Modifié par Candidate 88766, 06 juillet 2011 - 07:14 .

[the_one_54321]

Instead of "combat stance" abilities you'd have "find cover" abilities.

[Lumikki]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

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

We aren't argue that ALL shooter and RPG elements are mutually exclusive, but some are. Example stat aiming and player aiming doesn't work well in same game, because it takes worst from both.

Mass Effect tryes to have both shooter and RPG elements, nothing wrong in it, but when you combinate elements what doesn't fit well togather, it cause issues.

Nashiktal wrote...

I feel I have to point out.... ME was never a big RPG. I still don't understand why people think this. It was a TPS with RPG elements.

Pretty much so as is ME2 and ME3 will be also.

The game can get more and more RPG elements, but at its core ME is a TPS.

Yes, core is TPS, but too much RPG connection can destroy the TPS side.  TPS is based player aiming, if you lose it, there is no more TPS, just TP combat. That was ME1's issue in combat, it had player based aiming, but it did not work well, because stat based RPG connection. Of cause the combat had also other issues, but those could have been fixed others ways too.

So comparing ME to the Kingdoms of Amalur does nothing. Kingdoms of Amalur is and action RPG, while ME is a TPS with RPG elements.

Yep, ME serie is or should be action RPG with TPS combat, that has been the point.
Bioware did choose unreal 3 engine for Mass Effect because TPS combat.

I think people are trying to make ME1 more of an rpg than it ever was

Yet people are trying to turn hole ME serie to full blood RPG, even when even ME1 wasn't one, because they love RPG's. I also love RPG's, but I don't try to turn every damm game to pure RPG. I was agaist that DA2 did go so much action RPG direction, because DAO was more pure RPG in it's heart. How ever, ME 1 never was some pure RPG. Mass Effect series strenght is in cinematic nature of it's action.

Bioware redused stats and loot from ME serie, because it's doesn't make ME serie better. Now they increase customation in ME3. But that isn't same as stats and loot, because it can be done other ways too.

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 juillet 2011 - 07:21 .

[Candidate 88766]

Lumikki wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

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

We aren't arguing that ALL shooter and RPG elements are mutually exclusive, but some are. Example: stat aiming and player aiming don't work well in same game, because it takes the worst from both.

Mass Effect tried to have both shooter and RPG elements, nothing wrong with that, but when you combine elements what don't fit well togather it cause issues.

And as ME1 showed, stat based aiming in a TPS-based game just doesn't work. If I aim a gun at something in a game I expect the gun to shoot at whatever I'm aiming at. Stat-based combat works well wih swords and fantasy combat as the player only controls how often the strike. With shooting, they control how often they shoot and where they are aiming. Aiming somewhere and having the game intentionally shoot elsewhere is poor design.

Stat-based customisation works in most RPGs as the combat in most RPGs involves swords. When the combat revolves entirely around shooting - something pretty new and unique for an RPG - you can't just assume old RPG mechanics will work and are relevant to the game.

Some RPG elements are relevant to Mass Effect. Weapon, armour and ability customization is, I think, important and while armour customization was better in ME2 than in ME1, the other parts were streamlined a bit too much for my taste. However, there are some RPG elements that are not necessary in Mass Effect. Stat-based aiming is one thing. A massive loot system is another. They may be hallmarks of old-school RPGs, but Mass Effect is not an old-school RPG and simply wouldn't work as one.