3223 réponses à ce sujet

[Bnol]

Gatt9 wrote...

You cannot expect the game to track every single thing you do and then have some sort of immediate consequence or some sort of immediate companion VO for each companion and each situation. What you are wanting is not feasible in a video game like ME with full VO. If you want that deep of interactions you will need to do PnP.

You don't want Renegade or Paragon interrupts allowable for the other side. Hell, I would rather get rid of the whole interrupt system to be honest, because it is never clear what you will be doing. However, whether that fits with your character also depends on how you define Paragon. Maybe you define it as a Justicar, in terms of doing everything to protect the innocent, but all criminals must die. You are forcing me out of a role if that is how I play my Shepard, because you didn't like the way it played out for you. Again, things can't be perfectly tailored as much as you would like them to be.

Please don't take this as me being rude,  but this is not all that difficult of a handle...

It's really not a difficult thing to track.  on the action,  check the morality,  check to see if a party member is there.  It's not like it's not already doing it,  take Tali with you on the Krogan Homeworld and tell the captive krogan he's acting like a quarian with a tummyache,  game reacts then.  Doesn't react when you violate the "Role".

I suspect it's because Bioware doesn't want to bother the Shooter crowd with taking on Roles,  since it'd be a turn-off for them.  Because 13 years ago,  doing things that bothered your party members had definitive responses.

Which is something important to keep in mind.  Bioware was handling this 13 years ago on a Pentium 2 with less memory than a Smartphone on it.

As far as the interrupts go,  the point is,  in an RPG taking a Role violating action would result in consequence.

As far as definitions go,  Bioware already defined it.  The blue option is always lawful and good,  the red option is always chaotic and mean.  It's not like taking blue occasionally slaps a girl,  or picking red occasionally makes you wait for the green light before crossing the street.  It's *always*  those moralities.  So I don't have to define it,  I spent two whole games following the rules and being nice,  and then I just suddenly randomly pushed someone off a building.

So which is it,  is ME2 an RPG or not?  Because I had established a Role,  by the parameters the game used,  and then I arbitrarily violated it.  Because if you're going to define ME2 as an RPG,  then you really need to give an explanation for why it is ok to violate a Role,  and why it's ok for the game to not notice that someone absolutely good just murdered someone randomly.

First off, don't worry about potentially sounding rude, I much rather have direct and clear, than worrying about tone over the internet.

My point wasn't that it was impossible, because it is certainly possible to do what you are wanting.  My point was that it would be prohibitively expensive to implement with full high quality VO.  Sure, 12 years ago before quality full game VO you could have whatever reactions you wanted because all it took was the intern typing them in, or some low-quality one-take generic VO.  You didn't need the studio, sound engineer, VO director, and VO actor to do every statement made in the game.  Sure, you could have some reuse statements that wouldn't cost that much, but repeatedly hearing that reused statement over and over would get old (calibrations?).  They have certain times when they have some unique character dialogue, but it isn't going to happen for every single choice you make.

The thing about your example of pushing off a building, it is a renegade option.  There is a paragon way to let the guy live in that situation.  I don't know why you are blaming the game for your violation of your own role, as another poster stated the game is telling you that you did a renegade action and gave you those points, the game is tracking it, it just isn't giving you VO of your squad saying shame on you.  In a PnP  game (D&D for example) you can break from your alignment at times, sure other players might respond respond but the actual game restrictions on alignment are only for certain classes and only for repeated offenses would your alignment change.  So one or two out of alignment acts are permitted, and generally not going to be punished.

In terms of the Paragon and Renegade.  I will agree that Paragon is generally all lawful good type behavior, with the occasion threats of physical violence and breaking things.  The thing is Renegade is really a crap shoot what you get.  Sometimes it is fighting dirty, sometimes it is being an ass (to friends/LI for no real reason), sometimes it is being practical, sometimes it is being purely mercenary, sometimes it is the only non-naive choice, sometimes xenophobic/genocidal, sometimes indignant of wrongs, sometimes completely apathetic.  The thing that is annoying is that many times the Renegade option is not to take a particular assignment, even though you could still gain renegade points/XP/credits for handling it in a renegade fashion, and sometimes you still get the assignment when you choose no and other times you get locked out with no renegade points gained.  

In the end it is all a game.  It will have limitation both in terms of over-arching morality and role and in terms of tracking and responding to every situation present.  Not sure how those practical limitations take away from it being an RPG.

[Candidate 88766]

Having mulled it over for a little while, I'm going to leave you guys with my last thoughts on the subject.

Firstly, a true old-school RPG set in space probably could work as long as the combat wasn't just based on ranged weapons and there was plenty to do outside of combat. KotOR showed that it is possible. I love the idea of a hardcore space RPG, where you have complete freedom to explore the galaxy as you wish, upgrading your ship, doing whatever you want. I'm still waiting for a game where I can just choose to be a space pirate flying around the galaxy in my own ship. Mass Effect was never meant to be that game. I'm sure this game will be made on day, and when it does it may end up replacing the Mass Effects as some of my favourite games of all time. If it is done well, if it is even possible to do well without being an MMORPG like EVE.

Secondly, I don't think a true old-school style would ever have worked with the Mass Effect Bioware wanted. Hear me out on this. -An RPG generally gives the player a blank slate for their character, setting them up as someone low down (like a prisoner or an urchin) and throughout the game having them rise up to some kind of hero. Progression and complete control over characteristics makes sense here. However, with Mass Effect Bioware went for an already defined character. Shepard is defined as an already high-ranking and elite soldier who is elevated early on to a position that requires them to protect the galaxy. The player can choose the gender of Shepard, and the way in which they approach their galaxy-protecting mandate but they cannot change the fact that Shepard is out to protect the galaxy and is ultimately the good guy. In a traditional RPG, you normally have the freedom to be good or evil, but that choice never existed in Mass Effect. Something that really shows this is that, unlike many RPGs, the protagonist has an actual voice. I personally think this serves Mass Effect very well, but wouldn't work in a traditional RPG where the character is defined by me and so the voice should be up to my imagination too.
   -A traditional RPG will give you a big overarching story, but the focus is less on the story and more allowing you to explore the world and do all the side stuff. Take Oblivion - it gives you this grand story about saving the emperor, but encourages you to stray away from the story, to explore the other stuff. This is true of a lot of traditional RPGs and in some regards help define the genre. The story is always there, and often it is very good, but the focus is on the stuff around the main story. Mass Effect is the opposite of this. From the very start Bioware was setting out to make a story. Not an RPG, not a shooter, but first and foremost a story. If you play ME1 you notice that there isn't actually much to do outside of the main quests, and the game is always pushing you towards those story quests. ME2 was better in this regard as it encouraged you to invest in your squad more, putting the Collector story missions on the back burner, but in both games the focus is on pushing the player to complete the story. The side stuff is just extra, it is not the focus as it often is in traditional RPGs.
   -The small amount of stat-based stuff that was in ME1 was in there because that is what Bioware is used to. They were already taking a risk by creating a game for a new console, creating a new IP that was yet to prove itself, and by taking the game in action direction, which was new for them as well. They were creating a new conversation system. They had to have some aspect of this game founded on mechanics they knew and so they brought over some RPG mechanics regardless of whether they were relevant. The focus on choice and consquence, and the heavy emphasis on character interaction pretty much define Mass Effect. The other RPG stuff, the stats and the customization, was often slated in reviews (along with the shooter stuff, but seeing as that makes up most of both games they had to improve it). Now, removing this things completely was unnecessary I think. I agree that trying to improve them could have worked and allowed them to be in ME2. However, I also feel that they aren't actually essential to either Mass Effect game. The stat stuff, the loot, none of that Mass Effect good. If anything, those were the parts that hindered it, along with the combat. The story, the choices, the characters, the conversations and the promise of consqeuence are what make Mass Effect, well, Mass Effect. The article is bang on that those are the parts that need focus as those parts make this game great.

Thirdly, both ME1 and ME2 have a lot of features that people consider hallmarks of RPGs already. Weapon, armour and ability customization. Levelling. Heavy emphasis on character interaction. Non-linear mission structure. The sheer length of both games (RPGs are generally far longer than most other games. Generally). The idea of choice and consequence. While those things were present to different amounts in ME1 and ME2, they were still there. For the record, I feel ME2 had far better armour customization, and more interesting inventory system (in that parts of the Normandy sort of were the inventory), more choices and more missions to choose from. ME1 had Eden Prime, the Citadel, Noveria, Feros, Therum, Virmire and Illos/final run as story missions; ME2 had 7 recruitment missions, 10/12 loyalty missions, the Lazarus base, Freedom's Progress, Horizon, the Collector Ship, the Derelict Reaper and the Suicide mission as story missions. ME2s story missions where generally shorter than ME1s, but there were a lot more of them and a lot more choice about them.

Fourthly, there really isn't that much difference between ME1 and ME2. The only difference in terms of RPG features between ME1 and ME2 was the amount of weapons and abilities you could customize. With regards to weapons, there was a wider range in ME1 but a much smaller range of actually different weapons in ME2. With regards to ability customization, the main thing they took away was stat based aiming. I think this is a good thing, as stat based aiming meant that at the start the game had to intentionally miss and you spent points to remove the handicap placed on accuracy. It is pretty much accpeted in games now that if you aim at an enemey in a game that the gun should shoot at them, not intentionally miss them because you haven't invested points. There were also fewer abilities in ME2 than in ME1, but I feel they were more defined in ME2. In ME1, the infiltrator was literally just a mix of soldier and engineer. The engineer was just a mx of infiltrator and sentinel. None of them were really unique, just a mix of other classes. With ME2, they had the much better idea of giving each class something unqiue. Now, the infiltrator is the guy who can turn invisible. I would have liked more abilities to use in ME2, that much I agree with.

Finally, I would like to see more RPG stuff in ME3. I don't think it is essential for ME3 to be good - I found ME2 to be very good despite the lack of traditional RPG stuff because everything else was, I think, improved vastly. I think the focus should be on story, characters, choice and above all else consequence. Without out those, Mass Effect is nothing. After nailing those, Bioware needs to focus on making the shooter stuff work as this is what made up about 80% of ME1 and ME2. It was what essentially got you fomr A and B and actually made it a game. After getting that right though, they should then focus on making sure that there is a lot of emphasis on weapon and armour customization (which I'm pleased to see they're already doing) and a wider range of abilities and skill-trees (which again they seem to be doing). I would also like to see more exploration, but only if it is justifiable in the face of the galactic war Shepard is meant to be fighting.

Modifié par Candidate 88766, 07 juillet 2011 - 10:25 .

[Lunatic LK47]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Having mulled it over for a little while, I'm going to leave you guys with my last thoughts on the subject.

Firstly, a true old-school RPG set in space probably could work as long as the combat wasn't just based on ranged weapons and there was plenty to do outside of combat. KotOR showed that it is possible. I love the idea of a hardcore space RPG, where you have complete freedom to explore the galaxy as you wish, upgrading your ship, doing whatever you want. I'm still waiting for a game where I can just choose to be a space pirate flying around the galaxy in my own ship. Mass Effect was never meant to be that game. I'm sure this game will be made on day, and when it does it may end up replacing the Mass Effects as some of my favourite games of all time. If it is done well, if it is even possible to do well without being an MMORPG like EVE.

Secondly, I don't think a true old-school style would ever have worked with the Mass Effect Bioware wanted. Hear me out on this. -An RPG generally gives the player a blank slate for their character, setting them up as someone low down (like a prisoner or an urchin) and throughout the game having them rise up to some kind of hero. Progression and complete control over characteristics makes sense here. However, with Mass Effect Bioware went for an already defined character. Shepard is defined as an already high-ranking and elite soldier who is elevated early on to a position that requires them to protect the galaxy. The player can choose the gender of Shepard, and the way in which they approach their galaxy-protecting mandate but they cannot change the fact that Shepard is out to protect the galaxy and is ultimately the good guy. In a traditional RPG, you normally have the freedom to be good or evil, but that choice never existed in Mass Effect. Something that really shows this is that, unlike many RPGs, the protagonist has an actual voice. I personally think this serves Mass Effect very well, but wouldn't work in a traditional RPG where the character is defined by me and so the voice should be up to my imagination too.
   -A traditional RPG will give you a big overarching story, but the focus is less on the story and more allowing you to explore the world and do all the side stuff. Take Oblivion - it gives you this grand story about saving the emperor, but encourages you to stray away from the story, to explore the other stuff. This is true of a lot of traditional RPGs and in some regards help define the genre. The story is always there, and often it is very good, but the focus is on the stuff around the main story. Mass Effect is the opposite of this. From the very start Bioware was setting out to make a story. Not an RPG, not a shooter, but first and foremost a story. If you play ME1 you notice that there isn't actually much to do outside of the main quests, and the game is always pushing you towards those story quests. ME2 was better in this regard as it encouraged you to invest in your squad more, putting the Collector story missions on the back burner, but in both games the focus is on pushing the player to complete the story. The side stuff is just extra, it is not the focus as it often is in traditional RPGs.
   -The small amount of stat-based stuff that was in ME1 was in there because that is what Bioware is used to. They were already taking a risk by creating a game for a new console, creating a new IP that was yet to prove itself, and by taking the game in action direction, which was new for them as well. They were creating a new conversation system. They had to have some aspect of this game founded on mechanics they knew and so they brought over some RPG mechanics regardless of whether they were relevant. The focus on choice and consquence, and the heavy emphasis on character interaction pretty much define Mass Effect. The other RPG stuff, the stats and the customization, was often slated in reviews (along with the shooter stuff, but seeing as that makes up most of both games they had to improve it). Now, removing this things completely was unnecessary I think. I agree that trying to improve them could have worked and allowed them to be in ME2. However, I also feel that they aren't actually essential to either Mass Effect game. The stat stuff, the loot, none of that Mass Effect good. If anything, those were the parts that hindered it, along with the combat. The story, the choices, the characters, the conversations and the promise of consqeuence are what make Mass Effect, well, Mass Effect. The article is bang on that those are the parts that need focus as those parts make this game great.

Thirdly, both ME1 and ME2 have a lot of features that people consider hallmarks of RPGs already. Weapon, armour and ability customization. Levelling. Heavy emphasis on character interaction. Non-linear mission structure. The sheer length of both games (RPGs are generally far longer than most other games. Generally). The idea of choice and consequence. While those things were present to different amounts in ME1 and ME2, they were still there. For the record, I feel ME2 had far better armour customization, and more interesting inventory system (in that parts of the Normandy sort of were the inventory), more choices and more missions to choose from. ME1 had Eden Prime, the Citadel, Noveria, Feros, Therum, Virmire and Illos/final run as story missions; ME2 had 7 recruitment missions, 10/12 loyalty missions, the Lazarus base, Freedom's Progress, Horizon, the Collector Ship, the Derelict Reaper and the Suicide mission as story missions. ME2s story missions where generally shorter than ME1s, but there were a lot more of them and a lot more choice about them.

Fourthly, there really isn't that much difference between ME1 and ME2. The only difference in terms of RPG features between ME1 and ME2 was the amount of weapons and abilities you could customize. With regards to weapons, there was a wider range in ME1 but a much smaller range of actually different weapons in ME2. With regards to ability customization, the main thing they took away was stat based aiming. I think this is a good thing, as stat based aiming meant that at the start the game had to intentionally miss and you spent points to remove the handicap placed on accuracy. It is pretty much accpeted in games now that if you aim at an enemey in a game that the gun should shoot at them, not intentionally miss them because you haven't invested points. There were also fewer abilities in ME2 than in ME1, but I feel they were more defined in ME2. In ME1, the infiltrator was literally just a mix of soldier and engineer. The engineer was just a mx of infiltrator and sentinel. None of them were really unique, just a mix of other classes. With ME2, they had the much better idea of giving each class something unqiue. Now, the infiltrator is the guy who can turn invisible. I would have liked more abilities to use in ME2, that much I agree with.

Finally, I would like to see more RPG stuff in ME3. I don't think it is essential for ME3 to be good - I found ME2 to be very good despite the lack of traditional RPG stuff because everything else was, I think, improved vastly. I think the focus should be on story, characters, choice and above all else consequence. Without out those, Mass Effect is nothing. After nailing those, Bioware needs to focus on making the shooter stuff work as this is what made up about 80% of ME1 and ME2. It was what essentially got you fomr A and B and actually made it a game. After getting that right though, they should then focus on making sure that there is a lot of emphasis on weapon and armour customization (which I'm pleased to see they're already doing) and a wider range of abilities and skill-trees (which again they seem to be doing). I would also like to see more exploration, but only if it is justifiable in the face of the galactic war Shepard is meant to be fighting.

No way in hell I could ever put those in my words. Thanks for posting this.

[Candidate 88766]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...
-

No way in hell I could ever put those in my words. Thanks for posting this.

Haha thanks. That image is great.

[Xaenn]

The small amount of stat-based stuff that was in ME1 was in there because that is what Bioware is used to. They were already taking a risk by creating a game for a new console, creating a new IP that was yet to prove itself, and by taking the game in action direction, which was new for them as well. They were creating a new conversation system. They had to have some aspect of this game founded on mechanics they knew and so they brought over some RPG mechanics regardless of whether they were relevant.

 

Although I agree, I feel this is a bit harsh as well, I don't believe they added 'stats' just because it's what they are used to, it obviously is what their fans wanted/enjoyed.  However, the game was always marketed as an Action-RPG.  People would or should understand it was never going to have the same elements as an 'traditional' RPG.

The stat stuff, the loot, none of that Mass Effect good. If anything, those were the parts that hindered
it, along with the combat. The story, the choices, the characters, the conversations and the promise of consqeuence are what make Mass Effect, well, Mass Effect. The article is bang on that those are the parts that need focus as those parts make this game great. With regards to ability customization, the main thing they took away was
stat based aiming. I think this is a good thing, as stat based aiming meant that at the start the game had to intentionally miss and you spent points to remove the handicap placed on accuracy. It is pretty much accpeted in games now that if you aim at an enemey in a game that the gun should shoot at them, not intentionally miss them because you haven't invested points.

I completely disagree about the stats, loot and other things that were removed were a hinderance at all, keep in mind I'm not saying they were good, but could of been implimented much better, but a hinderance? No.  Stat calculations was one of the more fun parts of actually customizing my character, in the very basic stat allocation, I felt I could control far more of my characters path then Mass-Effect 2. 

You also critizied stats removing your chance to miss, how that isn't the case with what shooters should be, but take into consideration that they were lazer rifles, and that modern guns do miss, they just call it recoil, having increased accuracy simply thing same thing as decreasing recoil. which is in all shooters. I guess unless you play on console, which I believe sometimes shooters actually have less or none to make up for the joystick sensitivity.

Hell if you really didn't care to allocate points it took what, 5 seconds to open and click on a stat? I'm pretty sure you could beat it by randomly allocating points (You get nearly max points anyway).  Despite the terrible implementation of inventory (not defending it) but it didn't hinder my experience with the game in the slightest, nor did the stats. I understand all my points are more perspective and tied to my personal enjoyment, I just don't buy the whole 'hinderance' concept, even if I didn't like the original, I would find it far fetched.

Thirdly, both ME1 and ME2 have a lot of features that people consider hallmarks of RPGs already. Weapon, armour and ability customization. Levelling. Heavy emphasis on character interaction. Non-linear mission structure. The sheer length of both games (RPGs are generally far longer than most other games. Generally). The idea of choice and consequence. While those things were present to different amounts in ME1 and ME2, they were still there. For the record, I feel ME2 had far better armour customization, and more interesting inventory system (in that parts of the Normandy sort of were the inventory), more choices and more missions to choose from. ME1 had Eden Prime, the Citadel, Noveria, Feros, Therum, Virmire and Illos/final run as story missions; ME2 had 7 recruitment missions, 10/12 loyalty missions, the Lazarus base, Freedom's Progress, Horizon, the Collector Ship, the Derelict Reaper and the Suicide mission as story missions. ME2s story missions where generally shorter than ME1s, but there were a lot more of them and a lot more choice about them.

Although I enjoy the story of the original vastly more, I can't argue that two had more interesting places to visit, although I do feel that missions were longer and more in depth in the original. Quanity doesn't necessarly mean quality I supose, which is where I felt Mass-Effect 2 took a hit.  Most quests in Mass-Effect 2 felt like filler content, where I felt more of what I did in the original had to do with me or the story in most places. I would also say, just using 1 peice of gear and all the mods you could get for armor, you could customize your armor in one vastly more then in 2 as well, infact I felt that was one of the games weakest links(RPG element wise) was lack of gear customization. They did improve on it a little with DLC.

Fourthly, there really isn't that much difference between ME1 and ME2. The only difference in terms of RPG features between ME1 and ME2 was the amount of weapons and abilities you could customize. With regards to weapons, there was a wider range in ME1 but a much smaller range of actually different weapons in ME2. There were also fewer abilities in ME2 than in ME1, but I feel they were more defined in ME2. In ME1, the infiltrator was literally just a mix of soldier and engineer. The engineer was just a mx of infiltrator and sentinel. None of them were really unique, just a mix of other classes. With ME2, they had the much better idea of giving each class something unqiue. Now, the infiltrator is the guy who can turn invisible. I would have liked more abilities to use in ME2, that much I agree with.

 Can't argue here except that, they are exactly the same in two as well except pretty much one difference being the class skill they added.  Which perspectively, weren't that great or implimented.  Also addition to shields, armor, barriers deflecting/neutralizing most CC abilities making some abilities moot.  Abilities I wouldn't even say are more definied in case of actual abilities, just description.  What they did is took what the oringinal had broke it down (one of the abilities) into 2 parts and gave you choice between them, AoE or More damage?

I suppose one of my biggest issues with Action side bioware is taking is that the over use of cover, I spent most of my time behind cover, had to be one of the most boring things I've ever done.  If I had to use cover because I just killed 5 people and I'm nearly dead thats one thing, but you had to use it almost indefinitely.  Where I felt combat in the oringinal was more unbelieviable I supose but more intense and fun, where I could run into a group of people use all my CC (and party memebers) shoot them down then back off if I had to use ability to restore shields get back into the mix ectra.

Finally, I would like to see more RPG stuff in ME3. I don't think it is essential for ME3 to be good - I found ME2 to be very good despite the lack of traditional RPG stuff because everything else was, I think, improved vastly. I think the focus should be on story, characters, choice and above all else consequence. Without out those, Mass Effect is nothing. After nailing those, Bioware needs to focus on making the shooter stuff work as this is what made up about 80% of ME1 and ME2. It was what essentially got you fomr A and B and actually made it a game. After getting that right though, they should then focus on making sure that there is a lot of emphasis on weapon and armour customization (which I'm pleased to see they're already doing) and a wider range of abilities and skill-trees (which again they seem to be doing). I would also like to see more exploration, but only if it is justifiable in the face of the galactic war Shepard is meant to be fighting.

Thumbs up!

Note - Sorry for the weird way this is formatted, it wasn't like that when I clicked ok..

Modifié par Xaenn, 07 juillet 2011 - 12:51 .

[Candidate 88766]

Xaenn wrote...

The small amount of stat-based stuff that was in ME1 was in there because that is what Bioware is used to. They were already taking a risk by creating a game for a new console, creating a new IP that was yet to prove itself, and by taking the game in action direction, which was new for them as well. They were creating a new conversation system. They had to have some aspect of this game founded on mechanics they knew and so they brought over some RPG mechanics regardless of whether they were relevant.

 

Although I agree, I feel this is a bit harsh as well, I don't believe they added 'stats' just because it's what they are used to, it obviously is what their fans wanted/enjoyed.  However, the game was always marketed as an Action-RPG.  People would or should understand it was never going to have the same elements as an 'traditional' RPG.

I think it was partly that they needed to implement something that would encourage their RPG fans to buy the game. And you're right, people arguing that it needs traditional RPG elements need to first consider that they may not be relevant to the hybrid genre Mass Effect went for.

The stat stuff, the loot, none of that Mass Effect good. If anything, those were the parts that hindered
it, along with the combat. The story, the choices, the characters, the conversations and the promise of consqeuence are what make Mass Effect, well, Mass Effect. The article is bang on that those are the parts that need focus as those parts make this game great. With regards to ability customization, the main thing they took away was
stat based aiming. I think this is a good thing, as stat based aiming meant that at the start the game had to intentionally miss and you spent points to remove the handicap placed on accuracy. It is pretty much accpeted in games now that if you aim at an enemey in a game that the gun should shoot at them, not intentionally miss them because you haven't invested points.

I completely disagree about the stats, loot and other things that were removed were a hinderance at all, keep in mind I'm not saying they were good, but could of been implimented much better, but a hinderance? No.  Stat calculations was one of the more fun parts of actually customizing my character, in the very basic stat allocation, I felt I could control far more of my characters path then Mass-Effect 2. 

You also critizied stats removing your chance to miss, how that isn't the case with what shooters should be, but take into consideration that they were lazer rifles, and that modern guns do miss, they just call it recoil, having increased accuracy simply thing same thing as decreasing recoil. which is in all shooters. I guess unless you play on console, which I believe sometimes shooters actually have less or none to make up for the joystick sensitivity.

Hell if you really didn't care to allocate points it took what, 5 seconds to open and click on a stat? I'm pretty sure you could beat it by randomly allocating points (You get nearly max points anyway).  Despite the terrible implementation of inventory (not defending it) but it didn't hinder my experience with the game in the slightest, nor did the stats. I understand all my points are more perspective and tied to my personal enjoyment, I just don't buy the whole 'hinderance' concept, even if I didn't like the original, I would find it far fetched.

It wasn't about the 5 seconds of effort, it was the fact that for a good portion of the game it was actively preventing you from being accurate until you'd accumulated enough points to take away the handicap, or at least make it negligible. Points that I'd rather have spent on powers.

And while I agree that the stat could have been implemented better to make it more enjoyable, I don't thitnk they're essential for Mass Effect to be good. Thats purely my opinion, and I enjoy stat-based character customization in other games, I just didn't feel right for me in ME1.

Thirdly, both ME1 and ME2 have a lot of features that people consider hallmarks of RPGs already. Weapon, armour and ability customization. Levelling. Heavy emphasis on character interaction. Non-linear mission structure. The sheer length of both games (RPGs are generally far longer than most other games. Generally). The idea of choice and consequence. While those things were present to different amounts in ME1 and ME2, they were still there. For the record, I feel ME2 had far better armour customization, and more interesting inventory system (in that parts of the Normandy sort of were the inventory), more choices and more missions to choose from. ME1 had Eden Prime, the Citadel, Noveria, Feros, Therum, Virmire and Illos/final run as story missions; ME2 had 7 recruitment missions, 10/12 loyalty missions, the Lazarus base, Freedom's Progress, Horizon, the Collector Ship, the Derelict Reaper and the Suicide mission as story missions. ME2s story missions where generally shorter than ME1s, but there were a lot more of them and a lot more choice about them.

Although I enjoy the story of the original vastly more, I can't argue that two had more interesting places to visit, although I do feel that missions were longer and more in depth in the original. Quanity doesn't necessarly mean quality I supose, which is where I felt Mass-Effect 2 took a hit.  Most quests in Mass-Effect 2 felt like filler content, where I felt more of what I did in the original had to do with me or the story in most places. I would also say, just using 1 peice of gear and all the mods you could get for armor, you could customize your armor in one vastly more then in 2 as well, infact I felt that was one of the games weakest links(RPG element wise) was lack of gear customization. They did improve on it a little with DLC.

ME2 did seem to go for quantity, but I felt there was a lot of quality there too. It is just my opinion, but I found some of the loyalty missions to be the best missions in either Mass Effect game. Not all of them mind, but enough. Legion's, Tali's, Garrus', Mordin's and Jack's loyalty missions were amongst my favourites in Mass Effect so far, possibly topped by the final run in ME1 and the suicide missions in ME2. However, I do agree that at times some of them did feel like filler.

With regards to armour, I felt like there was more customization in ME2 - the colour, the style, the interchangeable parts. There was more choice in ME1 granted, but a lot of those were never used and were just there to pad out the amount of armour available it seemed.

Fourthly, there really isn't that much difference between ME1 and ME2. The only difference in terms of RPG features between ME1 and ME2 was the amount of weapons and abilities you could customize. With regards to weapons, there was a wider range in ME1 but a much smaller range of actually different weapons in ME2. There were also fewer abilities in ME2 than in ME1, but I feel they were more defined in ME2. In ME1, the infiltrator was literally just a mix of soldier and engineer. The engineer was just a mx of infiltrator and sentinel. None of them were really unique, just a mix of other classes. With ME2, they had the much better idea of giving each class something unqiue. Now, the infiltrator is the guy who can turn invisible. I would have liked more abilities to use in ME2, that much I agree with.

 Can't argue here except that, they are exactly the same in two as well except pretty much one difference being the class skill they added.  Which perspectively, weren't that great or implimented.  Also addition to shields, armor, barriers deflecting/neutralizing most CC abilities making some abilities moot.  Abilities I wouldn't even say are more definied in case of actual abilities, just description.  What they did is took what the oringinal had broke it down (one of the abilities) into 2 parts and gave you choice between them, AoE or More damage?

I suppose one of my biggest issues with Action side bioware is taking is that the over use of cover, I spent most of my time behind cover, had to be one of the most boring things I've ever done.  If I had to use cover because I just killed 5 people and I'm nearly dead thats one thing, but you had to use it almost indefinitely.  Where I felt combat in the oringinal was more unbelieviable I supose but more intense and fun, where I could run into a group of people use all my CC (and party memebers) shoot them down then back off if I had to use ability to restore shields get back into the mix ectra.

Cover was overused in ME2, and the environments were often very clearly built around chest-high walls which I didn't like. It looks like they've listened to this and are opening environments up much more in ME3, so I don't think either of us have anything to worry about there. And with the omni-blade you now have more opportunity to just run up to people and batter them into oblivion.

Finally, I would like to see more RPG stuff in ME3. I don't think it is essential for ME3 to be good - I found ME2 to be very good despite the lack of traditional RPG stuff because everything else was, I think, improved vastly. I think the focus should be on story, characters, choice and above all else consequence. Without out those, Mass Effect is nothing. After nailing those, Bioware needs to focus on making the shooter stuff work as this is what made up about 80% of ME1 and ME2. It was what essentially got you fomr A and B and actually made it a game. After getting that right though, they should then focus on making sure that there is a lot of emphasis on weapon and armour customization (which I'm pleased to see they're already doing) and a wider range of abilities and skill-trees (which again they seem to be doing). I would also like to see more exploration, but only if it is justifiable in the face of the galactic war Shepard is meant to be fighting.

Thumbs up!

Note - Sorry for the weird way this is formatted, it wasn't like that when I clicked ok..

I'm hoping this comes out formatted nicely, I'm not used to dealing with so many quote boxes.

Modifié par Candidate 88766, 07 juillet 2011 - 01:33 .

[In Exile]

Candidate 88766 wrote...
Firstly, a true old-school RPG set in space probably could work as long as the combat wasn't just based on ranged weapons and there was plenty to do outside of combat. KotOR showed that it is possible.

KoTOR had lightsabers. And swords, strangely enough. Melee combat was a big part.

The story is always there, and often it is very good, but the focus is on the stuff around the main story. Mass Effect is the opposite of this. From the very start Bioware was setting out to make a story. Not an RPG, not a shooter, but first and foremost a story. If you play ME1 you notice that there isn't actually much to do outside of the main quests, and the game is always pushing you towards those story quests. ME2 was better in this regard as it encouraged you to invest in your squad more, putting the Collector story missions on the back burner, but in both games the focus is on pushing the player to complete the story. The side stuff is just extra, it is not the focus as it often is in traditional RPGs.

Bioware has, since BG (compared to its competitors) created games that were more about the story than exploration, combat or side quests.

The fundamental reality is that Bioware has always had a design philosophy that was no traditional RPG - it has just taken several attempts for them to refine the mechanics they do care about to really see the difference.

[Candidate 88766]

In Exile wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...
Firstly, a true old-school RPG set in space probably could work as long as the combat wasn't just based on ranged weapons and there was plenty to do outside of combat. KotOR showed that it is possible.

KoTOR had lightsabers. And swords, strangely enough. Melee combat was a big part.

Exactly. Traditional RPG combat worked because the focus wasn't just on ranged combat, you also had a lot of focus on melee combat. Mass Effect has a very strong focus on ranged combat, and there are very few RPGs that do this so they had to try a different method of doing combat than most RPGs do. In the end they chose mechanics from TPS games as they felt this worked best with the style of game they were trying to create.

The story is always there, and often it is very good, but the focus is on the stuff around the main story. Mass Effect is the opposite of this. From the very start Bioware was setting out to make a story. Not an RPG, not a shooter, but first and foremost a story. If you play ME1 you notice that there isn't actually much to do outside of the main quests, and the game is always pushing you towards those story quests. ME2 was better in this regard as it encouraged you to invest in your squad more, putting the Collector story missions on the back burner, but in both games the focus is on pushing the player to complete the story. The side stuff is just extra, it is not the focus as it often is in traditional RPGs.

Bioware has, since BG (compared to its competitors) created games that were more about the story than exploration, combat or side quests.

The fundamental reality is that Bioware has always had a design philosophy that was no traditional RPG - it has just taken several attempts for them to refine the mechanics they do care about to really see the difference.

I think we're on the same side of the debate. Bioware is focusing on the important RPG elements - story, choice, characters, interaction - and taking out those features they feel aren't relevant to Mass Effect despite these features being hallmarks of traditional RPGs. I agree with this approach because it works for Mass Effect. This approach doesn't work for every game - see DA2 - but it works for Mass Effect.

Modifié par Candidate 88766, 07 juillet 2011 - 01:50 .

[Sidney]

Xaenn wrote...

Although I agree, I feel this is a bit harsh as well, I don't believe they added 'stats' just because it's what they are used to, it obviously is what their fans wanted/enjoyed.  However, the game was always marketed as an Action-RPG.  People would or should understand it was never going to have the same elements as an 'traditional' RPG.

Action RPG is oddly used by people in relation to ME2 and DA2. It appears that action-RPG has come to mean "combat that doesn't suck" RPG and that isn't what it has meant to me. BG2 and IWD used the same combat system but IWD is an "action RPG" and BG2 isn't. The difference being the presence of a storyline. Action RPG's like IWD or Diablo or currently Torchlight don't have much in the way of story and they are basically leveling simulations where your character's defining traits are their stats and equipment not the actions they take.

[Il Divo]

Sidney wrote...

Action RPG is oddly used by people in relation to ME2 and DA2. It appears that action-RPG has come to mean "combat that doesn't suck" RPG and that isn't what it has meant to me. BG2 and IWD used the same combat system but IWD is an "action RPG" and BG2 isn't. The difference being the presence of a storyline. Action RPG's like IWD or Diablo or currently Torchlight don't have much in the way of story and they are basically leveling simulations where your character's defining traits are their stats and equipment not the actions they take.

I could be completely off the mark, but I thought Action RPG referred to games which have more fast-pace combat/player-focused combat associated with them.

Ex: I've heard Jade Empire, Mass Effect, and Dungeon Siege all referred to as action RPGs.

[Candidate 88766]

Sidney wrote...

Xaenn wrote...

Although I agree, I feel this is a bit harsh as well, I don't believe they added 'stats' just because it's what they are used to, it obviously is what their fans wanted/enjoyed.  However, the game was always marketed as an Action-RPG.  People would or should understand it was never going to have the same elements as an 'traditional' RPG.

Action RPG is oddly used by people in relation to ME2 and DA2. It appears that action-RPG has come to mean "combat that doesn't suck" RPG and that isn't what it has meant to me. BG2 and IWD used the same combat system but IWD is an "action RPG" and BG2 isn't. The difference being the presence of a storyline. Action RPG's like IWD or Diablo or currently Torchlight don't have much in the way of story and they are basically leveling simulations where your character's defining traits are their stats and equipment not the actions they take.

How does 'action-RPG' equate to a lack of storyline? It just means that the game is geared towards more action-packed, fast-paced gameplay instead of the calmer, more methodical gameplay of many traditional RPGs.

[Candidate 88766]

Il Divo wrote...

Sidney wrote...

Action RPG is oddly used by people in relation to ME2 and DA2. It appears that action-RPG has come to mean "combat that doesn't suck" RPG and that isn't what it has meant to me. BG2 and IWD used the same combat system but IWD is an "action RPG" and BG2 isn't. The difference being the presence of a storyline. Action RPG's like IWD or Diablo or currently Torchlight don't have much in the way of story and they are basically leveling simulations where your character's defining traits are their stats and equipment not the actions they take.

I could be completely off the mark, but I thought Action RPG referred to games which have more fast-pace combat/player-focused combat associated with them.

Ex: I've heard Jade Empire, Mass Effect, and Dungeon Siege all referred to as action RPGs.

Exactly. Deus EX: Human Revolution is another modern game that seems to fit that bill. The RPG stuff is there, but the moment-to-moment gameplay is meant to be fast-paced.

[Xaenn]

All good points Candidate 88766! Haha. Not going to use quote boxes this time.. You are right it's not really needed (stats, inventory). I find the story, not even the choices have been enough to keep me going through Mass-Effect series alone. Even if I hated combat and customization in one and two, I think the story alone in Mass-Effect series is enough to make me want to keep playing for the third installment.

I completely agree with the loyalty missions as well, they were very fun. Call my a talimancer, but I felt that her side quest was the most in-depth I've played in a while. I really get into games, to the point where I feel a lot for all my companions, I felt they did a really amazing job on hers in particular, making you feel a wide range of emotion for her, even negative emotion is better then none.

I  Deus Ex

Modifié par Xaenn, 07 juillet 2011 - 02:09 .

[Sidney]

Il Divo wrote...

I could be completely off the mark, but I thought Action RPG referred to games which have more fast-pace combat/player-focused combat associated with them.

Ex: I've heard Jade Empire, Mass Effect, and Dungeon Siege all referred to as action RPGs.

So then what is Diablo vs BG2. They're clearly not even close to the same thing despite the fact that Diablo isn't "action" oriented in any meaningful way. Action RPG was to me always a bit of slur for games that lacked depth to their story - IWD's go kill everything you find story not being a really deep exerience.

All combat should be fast and interesting, the notion that RPG combat should be slow is odd. There was really nothing "slow" about BG1 or BG2 combat - if anything it was harder to follow than anything in DAO. Is the combat in Oblviion "actiony" since it is fast, I have to control everything? I never would have thought of either of those games as an action RPG.

This is, I understand 100% semantics but an interesting discussion none-the-less.

[In Exile]

Candidate 88766 wrote...
Exactly. Traditional RPG combat worked because the focus wasn't just on ranged combat, you also had a lot of focus on melee combat. Mass Effect has a very strong focus on ranged combat, and there are very few RPGs that do this so they had to try a different method of doing combat than most RPGs do. In the end they chose mechanics from TPS games as they felt this worked best with the style of game they were trying to create.

I should have made it clear. I agree with you. I just wanted to expand a little on your example.

Shooting elements in an RPG, essentially, have to solve the problem of aiming. How do you implement stat-based aiming in a way that does not frustrate the player? I don't think any game where they give you an aiming reticule works.

I think we're on the same side of the debate. Bioware is focusing on the important RPG elements - story, choice, characters, interaction - and taking out those features they feel aren't relevant to Mass Effect despite these features being hallmarks of traditional RPGs. I agree with this approach because it works for Mass Effect. This approach doesn't work for every game - see DA2 - but it works for Mass Effect.

What I am saying though is that is not unique to Mass Effect. Bioware never focused in the same way others felt Bioware focused on these elements.

[Il Divo]

Sidney wrote...


So then what is Diablo vs BG2. They're clearly not even close to the same thing despite the fact that Diablo isn't "action" oriented in any meaningful way. Action RPG was to me always a bit of slur for games that lacked depth to their story - IWD's go kill everything you find story not being a really deep exerience.

It often is used as a slur. I see it directed at games like Diablo all the time, but I think that's because of dislike of Diablo (a sentiment I share).

Diablo and BG2 have very different combat systems in place, mind. Diablo isn't turn-based and has a greater degree of player skill involved (you can actively move your character with the mouse, and you have to aim for your enemies/dodge attacks/switch abilities in a real-time scenario).

All combat should be fast and interesting, the notion that RPG combat should be slow is odd. There was really nothing "slow" about BG1 or BG2 combat - if anything it was harder to follow than anything in DAO. Is the combat in Oblviion "actiony" since it is fast, I have to control everything? I never would have thought of either of those games as an action RPG.

Slow doesn't necessarily refer to how quick characters may be moving in combat. Typically, I hear action-RPG used in reference to games which rely on player's reflexes, which consequently always feel faster-paced.

BG's combat feels slow because the game is turn-based, but the only element of player reflexes involved is actually pausing the game. Diablo doesn't have a turn-based system and players are expected to react in a real-time setting.

This is, I understand 100% semantics but an interesting discussion none-the-less.

Agreed.

Edit: So I suppose by that classification, I do consider Oblivion to be closer to an action-RPG.

Modifié par Il Divo, 07 juillet 2011 - 02:46 .

[SalsaDMA]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

I always hated RPGs where this character's supposed to be a seasoned warrior... and yet he can't shoot straight or hit hard/use advanced tactics at the start of the game.

Mass Effect 2 did an awesome job of keeping Shepard from being at the strength of a child at the beginning of the game.

As far as I'm concerned, only coming-of-age stories should start characters out as weak and undisciplined as other RPGs have them. Hurrah for Bioware.

Wrong calibrations of a system doesn't invalidate the system itself. Only the person calibrating it messed up.

[Candidate 88766]

Xaenn wrote...

All good points Candidate 88766! Haha. Not going to use quote boxes this time.. You are right it's not really needed (stats, inventory). I find the story, not even the choices have been enough to keep me going through Mass-Effect series alone. Even if I hated combat and customization in one and two, I think the story alone in Mass-Effect series is enough to make me want to keep playing for the third installment.

I completely agree with the loyalty missions as well, they were very fun. Call my a talimancer, but I felt that her side quest was the most in-depth I've played in a while. I really get into games, to the point where I feel a lot for all my companions, I felt they did a really amazing job on hers in particular, making you feel a wide range of emotion for her, even negative emotion is better then none.

I  Deus Ex

The story and the choices are more than enough for me. The only thing that they can improve is to ensure that there are real consquences in ME3, and to know that we'll have to wait until March .

Tali's loyalty was a great mission. I always wanted to visit the Migrant Fleet in Mass Effect, and I finally got the chance. it was also interesting to the internal conflict within the Quarian people. The only loyalty missions I thought better were Legion's, because I've always found the Geth fascinating, and Garrus' because on my first playthrough (when I didn't know that either choice on his would gain his loyalty) the choice of whether to spare Sidonis was the hardest I've had to make in Mass Effect so far. Garrus is my right hand man. Going into battle without his loyalty was unthinkable, but was I willing to allowing him to murder in order to get his loyalty. Tough call.

Also, I can't wait until Deus Ex. With that, Skyrim and Deus Ex I'm covered game wise for at least another year.

[Candidate 88766]

In Exile wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...
Exactly. Traditional RPG combat worked because the focus wasn't just on ranged combat, you also had a lot of focus on melee combat. Mass Effect has a very strong focus on ranged combat, and there are very few RPGs that do this so they had to try a different method of doing combat than most RPGs do. In the end they chose mechanics from TPS games as they felt this worked best with the style of game they were trying to create.

I should have made it clear. I agree with you. I just wanted to expand a little on your example.

Shooting elements in an RPG, essentially, have to solve the problem of aiming. How do you implement stat-based aiming in a way that does not frustrate the player? I don't think any game where they give you an aiming reticule works.

Makes a little more sense now. Yeah, stat based aiming in ME1 was a bad idea because the style of shooter they went for relies on player skill but they put an artificial handicap on it that could only slowly be removed as you progressed through the game. Very annoying. The shooting should be based entirely on the player's skill, and the RPG-style customization saved for powers, weapons and armour. Which seems like what they're doing with ME3, so I'm very happy with that.

I think we're on the same side of the debate. Bioware is focusing on the important RPG elements - story, choice, characters, interaction - and taking out those features they feel aren't relevant to Mass Effect despite these features being hallmarks of traditional RPGs. I agree with this approach because it works for Mass Effect. This approach doesn't work for every game - see DA2 - but it works for Mass Effect.

What I am saying though is that is not unique to Mass Effect. Bioware never focused in the same way others felt Bioware focused on these elements.

I didn't really play many Bioware games before Mass Effect so I don't know a lot about their past game styles. Is Mass Effect not that much of a departure from Bioware's style as people seem to say it is then? I know they're renowned for putting story first in their games, thats why they're one of my favourite developers even though I've only played a handful of their games.

Modifié par Candidate 88766, 07 juillet 2011 - 04:38 .

[the_one_54321]

If you eliminated the Mass Effect UI entirely and replaced with a UI like what we have in DA:O, a space based RPG that uses only firearms could work just fine. It's a simple matter of environmental design and combat abilities that function around environment.

Alternatively, you make it a matter of hit:miss ratios and you make the ratio of hit to miss very small and couple them with a range of diverse combat abilities for each class. Meaning that you have time to activate abilities and use other ways to take down enemies other than standing out in the open just firing.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 07 juillet 2011 - 05:14 .

[Lumikki]

Issue has been that some people treat Mass Effect like it's normal RPG, when it's far from it, it's action RPG with TPS combat. Bioware even did choose unreal 3 engine just so they could have TPS combat in Mass Effect serie.

It's really sad to see that some people can't accept what Mass Effect tryes to do. Some of them have even sayed that it's fine that Bioware tryes to do something else than normal RPG, but when they actually have allready done it, it's not acceptable anymore? It has to be changed back to normal RPG with any cost.

I can understand that people want more RPG customation and features, most of players here want, me included. Bioware is even doing that for ME3, because ME2 had not enough. How ever, I don't want RPG features what sacrifice what is Mass Effect series vision. ME1 allready showed it wasn't good idea. And no, it wasn't just bad design, what could have been fixed. You can't fix when two different game design just doesn't fit well togather. You can't just force normal RPG feature in game what isn't normal RPG. That was Biowares mistake in ME1.

Ask form you self, can Bioware do also games what aren't normal RPG?

If answer is Yes, then why to hell you keep pushing normal RPG features in Mass Effect serie what doesn't fit in well?
When so many here has tryed to say it allready. How many times we have to say Mass Effect serie is not normal RPG.

Modifié par Lumikki, 07 juillet 2011 - 06:17 .

[SalsaDMA]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Tali's loyalty was a great mission. I always wanted to visit the Migrant Fleet in Mass Effect, and I finally got the chance. it was also interesting to the internal conflict within the Quarian people.

You mean aside that it broke the lore? Yeah, sure, it was an interesting mission, just a shame they couldn't stick to their lore regarding the migrant.

I dunno why they didn't put Shep and crew in hazard suits during their entire visit, if it was because they were lazy our someone decided that it would be prettier to look at our 'unique character models'. Whatever the reason, it broke their lore which ranks it as yet a hole in the corpse called consistency in the ME universe...

[sp0ck 06]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Tali's loyalty was a great mission. I always wanted to visit the Migrant Fleet in Mass Effect, and I finally got the chance. it was also interesting to the internal conflict within the Quarian people.

You mean aside that it broke the lore? Yeah, sure, it was an interesting mission, just a shame they couldn't stick to their lore regarding the migrant.

I dunno why they didn't put Shep and crew in hazard suits during their entire visit, if it was because they were lazy our someone decided that it would be prettier to look at our 'unique character models'. Whatever the reason, it broke their lore which ranks it as yet a hole in the corpse called consistency in the ME universe...

Who honestly gives a crap about omg the lore consistency?  Tali's LM was one of the best missions in entire ME series.  Besides, Shep and crew were in pretty sealed suits so...?  If its a choice between lore and a fun mission, I choose the mission.

Salsa, over the course of this thread you have sunk further and further and are now just throwing out petty insults like "the corpse called consistency."  Why so serious?  All you ever have to offer is negative feedback and remarks shrouded in a bunch of SAT words.  If you feel the ME series is so poor and below your standards, why do you even both hanging around this forum?

[Sylvius the Mad]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

Who honestly gives a crap about omg the lore consistency?

Anyone who wants to roleplay his character consistently.

If you make an in-character decision based on established lore, and then the game contradicts that lore, then the game is broken.

[the_one_54321]

sp0ck 06 wrote...
Who honestly gives a crap about omg the lore consistency?

This is sarcasm, right? Right??
<_<