3223 réponses à ce sujet

[Candidate 88766]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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

That'd be very annoying in the beginning if you had to improve that skill. If I'm playing a futuristic soldier I expect him to know what cover looks like and be able to crouch behind it without having to manually improve his ability to do so.

[Candidate 88766]

-

Modifié par Candidate 88766, 06 juillet 2011 - 07:25 .

[the_one_54321]

I tend to expect my futuristic soldier to have the best weapons available, but somehow that is never the case at the start of the game.

Point is, progression and the difficulty curve are part of every game in some form.

[Il Divo]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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?

Not at all, in the same way that I would not suggest that KotOR is a racing game because it features swoop-racing.

Ultimately, I see any genre's label as being a thresh-hold, RPGs included. I consider choice to be an important component of the RPG. Some games (like Mass Effect) make it a point to include choice as a significant aspect of gameplay. On the other hand, Half-Life  features a single choice at the end of the game, which really isn't a significant aspect of gameplay.

[Candidate 88766]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I tend to expect my futuristic soldier to have the best weapons available, but somehow that is never the case at the start of the game.

Point is, progression and the difficulty curve are part of every game in some form.

Progression makes sense in some cases - like having your equipment improve through the game, like it does in ME1 and ME2 - but progression with weapon skill or skill with using cover doesn't make as much sense considering the character we are playing.

[the_one_54321]

It makes sense that your super soldier of the future that is being deployed specifically to save the universe does not already have the very best weapons available?

[Bnol]

Candidate 88766 wrote...
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.

You could design a turn based RPG with shooting and cover.  Take Fallout 2 for example, they had a turn based system for shooting and stats and skills were primary.  There were action points and movement and various abilities cost certain action points..  Now Fallout 2 combat was a lot of  just stand there and shoot and there was limited ability to use cover so cover would need to be improved.  Cover would generally need to be destructible and also being behind cover wouldn't necessarily mean safe, but instead give a negative modifier to accuracy of those shooting at you from LOS which intersects with the cover.  You would also have varying degrees of cover, with low cover providing less of a negative modifier to hit, but also you can shoot over it yourself with less of an AP hit, or not have to spend AP to move around it and back.   it  It would increased the tactical use of biotic abilities because you would be able to use it  to remove cover and change the landscape of the battle.

Now, I am not saying that would be my preferred style of play, but it can be done, and it can be fun and challenging.

[Lumikki]

the_one_54321 wrote...

It makes sense that your super soldier of the future that is being deployed specifically to save the universe does not already have the very best weapons available?

Yes, it makes sense, because while you have best gear what you can have. That does't mean you can not modify it to be different. Example increase accuracy but lose little bit fire rate. That's like adjusting the gear, not make you weapon 200% better. Of course you could find something what can also in general make you gear better. Never know because universe is big place.

[sympathy4saren]

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

This proves my point exactly.

Mass Effect was never the mecca of "RPG Elements". Neither was it the mecca of great "TPS Elements".


Many people note that shooting elements in Mass Effect were flawed. So improvements were made in ME2.

Why didn't the rpg elements receive the same attention and allotment for improvement? Many people claim it was because they were flawed, inferring a 'screw it' mentality. But the sword is two-sided....if shooting elements were greatly improved upon why couldn't improvement be made to Inventory, armor and guns, and other collectibles and loot be added??? And more interestingly, why doesn't everyone care about that unless they are just worried about pew pew pew pew?

Because, IMO, there are many who don't give a rats tail about it and want Mass Effect to evolve into Gears of War with a legitimate story.

People like me are doing everything possible to make sure that won't occur in Mass Effect.

Ever.

[Lumikki]

Bnol wrote...

You could design a turn based RPG with shooting and cover.  Take Fallout 2 for example, they had a turn based system for shooting and stats and skills were primary.  There were action points and movement and various abilities cost certain action points..  Now Fallout 2 combat was a lot of  just stand there and shoot and there was limited ability to use cover so cover would need to be improved.  Cover would generally need to be destructible and also being behind cover wouldn't necessarily mean safe, but instead give a negative modifier to accuracy of those shooting at you from LOS which intersects with the cover.  You would also have varying degrees of cover, with low cover providing less of a negative modifier to hit, but also you can shoot over it yourself with less of an AP hit, or not have to spend AP to move around it and back.   it  It would increased the tactical use of biotic abilities because you would be able to use it  to remove cover and change the landscape of the battle.

Now, I am not saying that would be my preferred style of play, but it can be done, and it can be fun and challenging.

Yes, you could and it could be even fun. How ever, does it sound like Mass Effect style? Does is sound like some fast cinematic action game? Or would that fit better in more slower strategy based combat game?

[the_one_54321]

Valkyria Chronicles - Turn based TPS

And the combat mechanics were absolutely fantastic. This is how you make a game like this right.

[Il Divo]

sympathy4saren wrote...

This proves my point exactly.

Mass Effect was never the mecca of "RPG Elements". Neither was it the mecca of great "TPS Elements".


Many people note that shooting elements in Mass Effect were flawed. So improvements were made in ME2.

Why didn't the rpg elements receive the same attention and allotment for improvement? Many people claim it was because they were flawed, inferring a 'screw it' mentality. But the sword is two-sided....if shooting elements were greatly improved upon why couldn't improvement be made to Inventory, armor and guns, and other collectibles and loot be added??? And more interestingly, why doesn't everyone care about that unless they are just worried about pew pew pew pew?

Because, IMO, there are many who don't give a rats tail about it and want Mass Effect to evolve into Gears of War with a legitimate story.

People like me are doing everything possible to make sure that won't occur in Mass Effect.

Ever.

Not really. I couldn't care less which direction Mass Effect evolved in, as long as they didn't keep that unholy union of tps/rpg. ME2 could have been completely turn-based and I would not have minded the removed tps elements. I want Mass Effect to be a good game. ME1's gameplay felt awkward, while ME2's was very fluid.

The other problem was that the shooting elements were the fundamental mechanics of the series. If Bioware chose to alter the inventory, loot, etc, that would have still left the awkward shooting mechanics intact. In that sense, fixing the actual combat system is a much higher degree of importance than fixing secondary gameplay.

[sympathy4saren]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

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.

As in it wouldn't sell? Yeah right!!! It would attract hordes of Elder Scrolls fans who are interested in Mass Effect but turned off by how much it lacks in collectables, loot and exploration.

When Skyrim comes out, take a peak every so often at sales numbers.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

It objectively does not matter. Where and why is there a differentiation between what you can and cannot control? Why does one instance dictate the applicability of role playing and the other does not?

Because only one of them is concurrent with my inputs.

 Not if you were initially in a position of disagreement or uncertainty. Then the presented "context" may sway your opinion. Thus, an assertion.

That a statement might cause people to draw conclusions does not mean that the statement contains information.  That just means that some people misinterpret it.

As an aside, why not just price the water to discourage overuse?

As it turns out, that's exactly what we do. But the problem of people with more money than sense remains a factor. They just pay the jacked up fees.

Then your fees aren't high enough.

If you're still selling more water than you have, then your prices are too low.  The only way that's not true is if there's no price elasticity in the demand.

[Bnol]

Lumikki wrote...
Yes, you could and it could be even fun. How ever, does it sound like Mass Effect style? Does is sound like some fast cinematic action game? Or would that fit better in more slower strategy based combat game?

Like I said, it wouldn't be my preferred style for ME, but my point was it could be made.  ME didn't have to be TPS, but since it did I think improving the TPS is desirable.  I prefer how they implemented the combat in ME2 over ME1, and I think they are on track for adding RPG elements that make sense within the universe and will be interesting choices without the additional baggage of traditional stats and loot. 

[Candidate 88766]

sympathy4saren wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

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.

As in it wouldn't sell? Yeah right!!! It would attract hordes of Elder Scrolls fans who are interested in Mass Effect but turned off by how much it lacks in collectables, loot and exploration.

When Skyrim comes out, take a peak every so often at sales numbers.

No, as in the gameplay and story style of Mass Effect doesn't fit well with traditional RPG styles. I have no doubt Skyrim will sell, and I myself have already contributed to that number by preordering it. It is a very different style of game to what Mass Effect is meant to be though.

[sympathy4saren]

Il Divo wrote...

sympathy4saren wrote...

This proves my point exactly.

Mass Effect was never the mecca of "RPG Elements". Neither was it the mecca of great "TPS Elements".


Many people note that shooting elements in Mass Effect were flawed. So improvements were made in ME2.

Why didn't the rpg elements receive the same attention and allotment for improvement? Many people claim it was because they were flawed, inferring a 'screw it' mentality. But the sword is two-sided....if shooting elements were greatly improved upon why couldn't improvement be made to Inventory, armor and guns, and other collectibles and loot be added??? And more interestingly, why doesn't everyone care about that unless they are just worried about pew pew pew pew?

Because, IMO, there are many who don't give a rats tail about it and want Mass Effect to evolve into Gears of War with a legitimate story.

People like me are doing everything possible to make sure that won't occur in Mass Effect.

Ever.

Not really. I couldn't care less which direction Mass Effect evolved in, as long as they didn't keep that unholy union of tps/rpg. ME2 could have been completely turn-based and I would not have minded the removed tps elements. I want Mass Effect to be a good game. ME1's gameplay felt awkward, while ME2's was very fluid.

The other problem was that the shooting elements were the fundamental mechanics of the series. If Bioware chose to alter the inventory, loot, etc, that would have still left the awkward shooting mechanics intact. In that sense, fixing the actual combat system is a much higher degree of importance than fixing secondary gameplay.

Shooting is the fundamental combat mechanic of the series....although go ask a group of Vanguards if they think its that or biotics.

THE fundamental mechanic of the series is the way you interact with the story.

The fundamental mechanic of exploration used to be exploring open planets. That could have been improved upon too....God I hope open terrain planets are back and this time you use the Hammerhead.

In reality though, both combat and inventory/stats/loot could be fixed in one development cycle if proper time was given in development.

In essence then, was ME2 rushed?

[Candidate 88766]

the_one_54321 wrote...

It makes sense that your super soldier of the future that is being deployed specifically to save the universe does not already have the very best weapons available?

It does, and I found it annoying in ME1 that as a Spectre you had to buy your own equipment because you were given the most basic stuff at the start.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Questions can convey information; even in the most stringent sense, questions convey the assumptions I am currently using (which are not themselves a question).

"How is your pregnancy?" (said truthfully) entails multiple things, including that I believe it is logically possible for you to be pregnant.

That parenthetical is your problem.  The truthfulness of the statement isn't contained within the statement.

[Candidate 88766]

Bnol wrote...

Lumikki wrote...
Yes, you could and it could be even fun. How ever, does it sound like Mass Effect style? Does is sound like some fast cinematic action game? Or would that fit better in more slower strategy based combat game?

Like I said, it wouldn't be my preferred style for ME, but my point was it could be made.  ME didn't have to be TPS, but since it did I think improving the TPS is desirable.  I prefer how they implemented the combat in ME2 over ME1, and I think they are on track for adding RPG elements that make sense within the universe and will be interesting choices without the additional baggage of traditional stats and loot. 

This is pretty much spot-on how I feel. They could have tried to devise a new method of working shooting into a game, but went for a method they know works. Some RPG aspects don't fit at all with that style, but the ones that do fit were a little too streamlined for ME2 I think. Although I'm not that fussed, I'm here for the story and as long as the gameplay works I don't mind what direction they take.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Because only one of them is concurrent with my inputs.

But the game is dictating to you that [event] happened. If [event] happened outside of the game, shouldn't it not make a difference if it were before or after, and for the game world shouldn't this not be any different from [event] happening during gameplay? 

I'm assuming all the other things you've claimed in the past will continue to apply. The game world exists outside of my interpretation of it, remember.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That a statement might cause people to draw conclusions does not mean that the statement contains information.  That just means that some people misinterpret it.

That the aquifers around El Paso and the Rio Grande are delicate water sources is information. I am not seeing at all how you are figuring that they are anything but information. Strictly speaking, even if they were just context, context is also information.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Then your fees aren't high enough.

That's exactly what I said to my boss when we were discussing it. The prices are tiered so that small users are not penalized but heavy users are penalized. I suggested that the tiers should be much much steeper so that heavy users are very severely penalized. The response was that they heavy users are the people with money and influence, so such price structers, though practical, are unlikely to ever be implemented.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I was responding to the_one's claims that BioWare's previous games had done the same thing, but they hadn't.  When the Warden consents to the joining ceremony, he does so because the player directed him to.  When the Bhaalspawn accepts Shandalar's punishment, it is because the player chose acquiesence.  When the Hero of Neverwinter infiltrates the Bloodsailors, it is because the player wanted him to do so.

KoTOR forces you to pick someone to escape from Malak. You cannot demand everyone surrender or attempt to kill and capture Bastilla at that point and beg for Malak's mercy. That's a rather egrigious example.

ETA:

DA:O also forces you to drink from the chalice Duncan hands you in the cut-scene.

You agreed to the joining ceremony.  That wasn't forced.  Yes, once you've agreed to it you're forced to complete it, but that's not unlike saying that after you jump out of the plane you're forced to fall.  You're still the one who jumped.  Jumping was still your choice.

As for Malak, you're missing the point.  I'm not claiming that you can choose any path you can imagine.  I'm saying that among the available paths, you get to choose one.  That's what makes ME2 and DA2 different from KotOR and DAO.  The earlier games showed you the options, and you got to choose.  The newer games don't bother showing you the options first.

That's the difference.  That's what I'm talking about.  Whether any game gives you options you like is irrelevant, as none of the games can do that in all cases.

[Arppis]

I loved the new system in Mass Effect 2.

We had awesome custom armor (loved those stats and all the pimping it involved). Guns actualy felt diffirent to use and upgrade system wasn't too bad. The only part I would change really was the skills, there was just too few of them (but I'm glad that the weapon skills were taken off, those were pain in the ass).

[Il Divo]

sympathy4saren wrote...

Shooting is the fundamental combat mechanic of the series....although go ask a group of Vanguards if they think its that or biotics.

Why do I need to ask the vanguards? I play one. Even with the abilities, the game takes place in the tps style.

If you have a turn-based system, that is the primary focus of your gameplay. If the combat system is broken, you don't fix the inventory. This is the case with Mass Effect, except here both the combat and inventory systems were broken.  

The fundamental mechanic of exploration used to be exploring open planets. That could have been improved upon too....God I hope open terrain planets are back and this time you use the Hammerhead.

And it could have been cut out, which they chose to do. Removal of bad features is still considered a form of improvement. The only debate is what constitues a bad feature.

In reality though, both combat and inventory/stats/loot could be fixed in one development cycle if proper time was given in development.

In essence then, was ME2 rushed?

Was Mass Effect? After all, they did manage to release the game with all those gameplay problems intact.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sidney wrote...

There's just no defending ammo powers.

Ingame? No.

And in game is all that matters.