3223 réponses à ce sujet

[Lumikki]

sympathy4saren wrote...

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?

That's is good point.

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?

I can't answer all, because some stuff what they removed did not make sense to me at all. How ever, it seems that they are bringing those elements back in ME3. So, it was mistake from Biowares side.

How ever, the inventory+looting part I do understand. I'm not just sure can people accept what I say. Basicly having normal RPG inventory and loot system was mistake. Because Mass Effect game is little different style than normal RPG, it's Action RPG + TPS combat, what change the style. Normal RPG is usually slow and tactical. So having some slow inventory system is not agaist what normal RPG is, it works well. Loot provides reward and customation too. But in Mass Effect case where game is more cinematic fast action, the slow inventory and heavy looting every where just isn't good. Same problem what termal clips has, it breaks the impression of the fast cinematic gameplay.  It's impression breaker. Wrong kind of type of "element" in wrong game.

I could use metaform.

You have car game, like formula driving. Where the point is driving car really fast. But game developers add some minigame feature, that every 1 km of driving you have to stop and does this minigame, where you get out of car and fill tank, change tires, clean windows and so on. But because it happens so often and is totally different than driving the car, it breaks everytime the players driving. it seems likes the minigame fits, but mostly it just annoy players, because player wants to drive the damm car. 

Same here, while it looks good and seem that they are fine, it's wrong kind of feature for Mass Effect as it's normal RPG state. Because Mass Effect is like that driving car, while looting and inventory is that minigame.

[Il Divo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

You also did not know what the ceremony entailed when you agreed. The game forced my character to pick up the chalice and drink from it, having just watched Duncan murder Ser Jory. That does rather change circumstances.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 06 juillet 2011 - 08:09 .

[sympathy4saren]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

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.

IN YOUR OPINION. Open world, yes. But Collectibles? Stat systems? Inventory? Your view, not mine. Many people are on each side of the fence, at that is where the discrepancy is.

Many want it to shift more traditional tps, many want it to shift in the direction of more loot, stats, exploration.

I've been begging Bethesda to ditch Fallout and create a genuine sci fi rpg...I've written Todd Howard emails explaining how many Mass Effect fans would hop over.

But BioWare has the writing

I'm personally fine with the shooting mechanics if the other rpg is there, I would even appreciate them more if the corresponding rpg elements equated to them. See....I want to meet halfway.

Modifié par sympathy4saren, 06 juillet 2011 - 08:15 .

[sp0ck 06]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

This is just total semantics.  Does it really make a difference whether there's some dialogue option for "Yes, I'll do it."  I might as well argue you have a choice to help Cerberus or not.  If you choose no, turn off the game.

[sympathy4saren]

General question:

In The Force Unleashed, you as Starkiller at the end of the game can choose to fight Darth Vader (and kill him) or Emperor Palpatine (almost defeating him, but dying).

One is a Canon ending, on is not. The endings are completely different, and you choose.

Is The Force Unleashed an RPG?

Modifié par sympathy4saren, 06 juillet 2011 - 08:16 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sidney wrote...

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.

There's no real difference.  If you don't accept the game's winning conditions, and instead make strategic decisions in-character (rather than meta-gaming what you think is most liekly to work), then the strategy part of the game becomes the roleplaying part of the game.

This is usually how I play turn-based strategy games.  I've been known to play sports games the same way (Football Manager is a good example).

[Nashiktal]

sympathy4saren wrote...

General question:

In The Force Unleashed, you as Starkiller at the end of the game can choose to fight Earth Vader (and kill him) or Emperor Palpatine (almost defeating him, but dying).

One is a Canon ending, on is not. The endings are completely different, and you choose.

Is The Force Unleashed an RPG?

Actually a good question, becasue you level up in that game too ya know. You gain experience, choose to allocate points to powers and abilities, and you have a choice at the end of the game.

[Bnol]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

I don't see how the newer games don't show you the options.  Certainly they don't show you the outcomes of those choiced upfront, but that is more realistic, and also leads to better replayability.  I mean just in terms of ME2.  You have options not to upgrade and not to do loyalty missions, as well as options to choose people over others (except you always have the Blue/Red iwin buttons that cheapen those options).  They pretty much tell you that people will die if everything isn't ready, so you pretty much know that by not upgrading/loyalty, people will die.  It is more realistic that you don't know the outcome of those options immediately. 

Further, in the suicide mission you have options on who to send for various assignments.  Obviously the choices for the specific roles are blatantly obvious, the only thing that isn't so blatantly obvious is for the final defending squad which is fairly obvious that the combat specialists (especially those with military/squad training/exp) would be better defenders than techs/scientists.  You then have the option to keep or destroy the base.  Again, the consequences of the actions are not presented to you up front, and you have to wait for the consequences in ME3, like you had to wait for the consequences of the final ME1 decisions in ME2, and also see those consequences in ME3.

[tonnactus]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

And with your example, how would the shooting work with DA:O style gameplay?

Like in Kotor except the turn based combat.

[Nashiktal]

tonnactus wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

And with your example, how would the shooting work with DA:O style gameplay?

Like in Kotor except the turn based combat.

Ugh, I hated ranged combat in kotor when I wasn't a Jedi. It just looked silly that my character was dodging lasers and whatnot. 

I can't even say it was my innate force powers, considering everyone did it.

[Lumikki]

tonnactus wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

And with your example, how would the shooting work with DA:O style gameplay?

Like in Kotor except the turn based combat.

Exactly, what means hole Mass Effect just got turned to normal slow RPG.
Point been DAO is classic (slow) RPG, Mass Effect is not.

If you would really want RPG combat what is fast, then you should used more like Tabula Rasa mmorpg had.

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 juillet 2011 - 08:26 .

[sympathy4saren]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

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.

Because there are lots of tps that let you get in vehicles and randomly explore planets, explore open space stations with no shooting and just walk up to npcs and chat with them. Silly me....

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

This is usually how I play turn-based strategy games.  I've been known to play sports games the same way (Football Manager is a good example).

Please tell me you type in custom answers in press conferences. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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?

If the event happens during gameplay then it might contradict your character design.  Events that happen prior to the beginning of teh game inform your character design, so any contradiction there is your fault.  Your ability to roleplay a character isn't  altered by pre-game events (though your ability to roleplay any character is).

Events that take place any time after character creation - so both during and after gameplay - have the ability to violate the coherence of your character.  For this reason I tend to ignore game epilogues, because there's no way they can be written to accommodate my character, so I simply don't acknowledge them.  But in-game events can't simply be ignored like that, because they have a demonstrable effect on the events around the player's character.  If I want my character to protect someone, and my character then kills that someone, how can I ignore that?  The entire game will likely think I've killed that person, and all of the NPC's reactions might be affected by that knowledge of an event I deny.  What sort of game does that make?

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.

I remember. 

That the aquifers around El Paso and the Rio Grande are delicate water sources is information.

Yes, that's information, but you're not asserting that they are delicate within your question.

I ask again, if the water sources were not delicate, are you them lying to me with that question?

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.

Therefore, those in control are not interested in solving the water problem.  I'd suggest you stop worrying about it.

[Bnol]

sympathy4saren wrote...

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?

There is a limited amount of development resources for any game.  This is a fact that many gamers tend to ignore repeatedly.  Improving the combat was the most important, as it is what you do for a majority of the game.  They pretty much redesigned all of the combat.  Then they needed to add in the tech and biotic skills and needed to balance those.  Then they needed to introduce the various weapons and balance those both between weapon types and within weapon types.  To add rng loot and inventory to this balancing would be more difficult and more time consuming.  You have to weigh that difficulty and time consumption against the gameplay gains, as well as the potential that the inventory system would be a detriment.  In ME1 it was a pain because the UI was so poor and the loot system was just poorly implemented.  They would need to redesign that UI and the implementation.  They decided it didn't add enough to the game. 

Fast-forward to ME3.  They see that some of the good aspects of customization were lost with their system of loot in ME2.  Thus they are adding the modifications.  They already have a better base combat/skill system so they can now just add, and fine-tune that while having time to implement a quality modification system.  The reason why people who didn't like the inventory system in ME1 don't want to see it return was because it negatively impacted our enjoyment of ME1 and we don't feel that the redesign of that original system will fit with the ME2/3 combat system, and if it could that it would take away from other combat/skill balancing resources for little gain.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lumikki wrote...

sympathy4saren wrote...

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?

That's is good point.

The supposed improvement of ME's shooting elements completely removed an important RPG element.

RPGs need stat-driven combat.

[sympathy4saren]

Ok....good discussion with everyone. Off to the Skyrim forums. Everybody have a good one

[JayhartRIC]

sympathy4saren wrote...

General question:

In The Force Unleashed, you as Starkiller at the end of the game can choose to fight Darth Vader (and kill him) or Emperor Palpatine (almost defeating him, but dying).

One is a Canon ending, on is not. The endings are completely different, and you choose.

Is The Force Unleashed an RPG?

One choice in the whole game does not make it an RPG.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Il Divo wrote...

You also did not know what the ceremony entailed when you agreed. The game forced my character to pick up the chalice and drink from it, having just watched Duncan murder Ser Jory. That does rather change circumstances.  

There's a reason I oppose all non-interactive cutscenes.

My biggest complaint in the joining ceremony was that look of horror that appeared on the PC's face when Jory was killed.  It's not the game's place to decide whem my character is horrified.

Yes, appropriate facial expressions do improve the game (I liked the grimace when struck by an arrow, for example), but since there's no way for the designers to know what facial expressions are appropriate, they should just leave them all out.

Really, NWN was far better in this regard than even DAO was, because NWN never showed the PC's face.

[sympathy4saren]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

sympathy4saren wrote...

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?

That's is good point.

The supposed improvement of ME's shooting elements completely removed an important RPG element.

RPGs need stat-driven combat.

Hit the nail on the head, my friend

[Sylvius the Mad]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

This is just total semantics.  Does it really make a difference whether there's some dialogue option for "Yes, I'll do it."  I might as well argue you have a choice to help Cerberus or not.  If you choose no, turn off the game.

It;'s not just semantics.  The player needs time to figure out bhow this action fits into his character's design.  He can't do that if the action takes place before he knows it's coming.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

RPGs need stat-driven combat.

That may be true, I just think ME1-2, as it exists, works better as a tactical shooter that happens to have the dialogue and characterization elements of other BioWare games.

In the sense that if I wanted it to rip off another game's mechanics, I'd be looking at Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon before Gears of War (TPS) or say, KOTOR (RPG).

Which isn't to say I think it does that already.  If anything, it's closest to - and it pains me to say this - Deus Ex: Invisible War.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 06 juillet 2011 - 08:36 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

This is usually how I play turn-based strategy games.  I've been known to play sports games the same way (Football Manager is a good example).

Please tell me you type in custom answers in press conferences.

I've never played Football Manager.  It's just the best known series that came to mind.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I've never played Football Manager.  It's just the best known series that came to mind.

You might like it.  It's got so many RPG elements now that half the posts on the General Boards for Sports Interactive complain that its become one.    Well, not half, but they're pretty common.

The house rules for a gameplay style called "Lower league management" might appeal to you.  An example of one of the rules is never using player search (its something of a metagame mechanic) and instead only using scout reports, matches you attend yourself, and trial days to evaluate players externally. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 06 juillet 2011 - 08:37 .

[Lumikki]

sympathy4saren wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

sympathy4saren wrote...

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?

That's is good point.

The supposed improvement of ME's shooting elements completely removed an important RPG element.

RPGs need stat-driven combat.

Hit the nail on the head, my friend

Yes, BUT Mass Effect has NO RPG combat, Mass Effect is hybrid of action RPG and TPS combat.

TPS combat can NOT have character progressions based RPG stats. (Aiming)

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 juillet 2011 - 08:40 .