3223 réponses à ce sujet

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

*Dantooine. My bad. The murder investigation of one of the settlers. There were like 2-3 suspects IIRC. Very fun little side quest.

[Dangerfoot]

Man, I never get tired of "RPG fans" speaking for other RPG fans and telling everyone how stats and loot are the key components of RPGs.

You know what I think the biggest part of a Role Playing game is? The Role Playing. I'm a bit off my rocker, I know. But I can personally accept a lack of loot and stats if Role Playing is present in Role Playing games. Did I mention Role Playing?

[Il Divo]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Investigation on Tatooine, you mean with the Tusken Raiders and how you can avoid fighting them (minus a few raiders at the beginning)?
I don't seem to recall.

But yea, Kotor had great sidequests that went beyond just killing. I want more of those.

Hmm, maybe I am confused. I was actually thinking of the Dantooine quest where you're able to investigate which settler murdered Caldor Nettic.

Edit: Nevermind.

Modifié par Il Divo, 01 juillet 2011 - 01:24 .

[Malanek]

Savber100 wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

I'd like someone to explain to me how stripping gameplay complexity somehow makes characters and story better. Because it sure as hell didn't work in ME2. The plot was one of the weaker aspects of the game.

IMO the plot was one of the weaker elements because the story of the Reapers could almost certainly be quite easily told in two games. There wasn't enough main plot in the game. The actual writing on the individual characters and missions was fine, in fact much better than ME1. Just the lack of main focus held it back.

They said the same for Two Towers when it came out. No big conflict with the main baddie (Sauron). It could have just ended within two books. The characters just kinda meandered around and defeated a traitor within a single major battle.

So why did it exist? Character development and setting the final chapter.

IMO The two towers was actually the strongest book (well technically two books out of six) in the series. In terms of pacing, it was certainly the fastest moving which is not really the case in ME2. I'm not saying ME2 was bad, it was quite possibly my favourite game of all time, I just would have liked to see fewer squadmate missions and a bit more reaper/collector substance.

[Fortlowe]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Casey Hudson: People really want us to deepen the RPG aspect of the
experience. We interpret that as being about the kind of intelligent
decision making around how you progress. To us, the RPG experience isn't
necessarily about stats and loot. It's about exploration and combat and
making a good character-driven story and good progression.

YES.  Correct.  **** loot.  **** endless stats.  Throw them away.  Tell me a great story, give me plenty of control over my character's story path choices, plenty of say in what the character can do in action sections, and plenty of action sections.  Add in fun and interesting compansions and it's all win.  It's all pure win.

I like the loot. I don't like loot that's just there to be there. Loot in Bioshock was awesome. A lot of thought was put into the ingame economy and it showed, because just about every single piece of loot felt like something you could use. DA2 had a horrible loot system. The only stuff I can count on is the DLC items. Cool game, but this was not cool. ME2 didn't have loot at all, and well the only reason I felt it's absence is when I went to a store and didn't have anything to sell.

Also loot is without a doubt the best motivation for exploration. For that reason, I am for loot in ME3, but none of the useless junk that was in DA2.

[KnightofPhoenix]

mrcrusty wrote...

*Dantooine. My bad. The murder investigation of one of the settlers. There were like 2-3 suspects IIRC. Very fun little side quest.

Yea that was awesome.
Also the schemes you can hatch on Korriban when it comes to Yuthura and Uthar.

Bioware was a lot more varied in the past.

Also, and this is something ME2 and DA2 suffer from a lot imo. Both PCs are made to be important because they are ungodly killing machines. While yes the whole being part of an order with special powers is getting boring and repetitive, at least it made a bit of sense why previous PCs were important. Revan had his visions (and is Revan), Shepard in ME1 has his visions, and the Warden has his own and him being necessary to kill the archdemon.  That's primarly why each of them was integral to the plot, the fact that they are killing machines came next.

ME2's Shepard and Hawke on the otherhand are primarly killing machines, with no real reason as to why they are important to the plot.

So either they have to find ways to make them relevant to the plot (hopefulyl while being original and less reptitive). OIf they have to downplay the whole killing aspect and how important they are (DA2 was in the awkward middle of not knowing whether Hawke is important, or is completely useless). 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 01 juillet 2011 - 01:29 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

I can accept no loot, but not no stats.

Stats are a necessary abstraction to establish the difference between player and character.

You are creating a character, you are not inserting yourself into the game. As such, older (and some newer) RPGs had attributes which (ought) to determine your character's basic physical/mental baseline concept. Rolling High INT gave you an intelligent character, regardless of how smart you are. Rolling High STR gave you a strong character, regardless of how strong you are. Conversely, rolling Low INT gave you a dumb character.

All of these choices in character creation ought to affect how your character interacts with the game world.

That's just part of it. Now, how you interact with the story is dependant on what kind of character you've rolled and what kind of personality you've crafted for the character.

I get a bit of sad face when role playing becomes "I play as Shepard, I am Shepard, therefore I roleplay".

I don't even want stats back to dictate accuracy or anything, but it just annoys me...

Modifié par mrcrusty, 01 juillet 2011 - 01:29 .

[MrFob]

maxernst wrote...

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

MrFob wrote...

Am I the only one who thinks video game RPGs are too much about combat these days?
And I am not talking about stats vs. action either.
his occurred to me yesterday when I played DA2 (still have to finish it after quite the break). The structure is sooooo repetitive. It's a dialogue, you go to the next area, there is combat, you go on, another battle, you go on, next dialogue, and then combat. Rinse and repeat.
It is especially bad with DA2 because of the waves of enemies and the bad combat but in the end, it is true for most other RPGs these days as well. DA:O, Mass Effect, Witcher2, Two Worlds 2, etc., etc.
When we used to play pen and paper RPGs, combat would only be a minute part of the "gameplay". A lot more would consist of social interactions and - and that is what I am missing most - puzzles. Why is it that today, inventory is made up of weapons, armor and potions (and jumk ) and that is it? Why not take a page out of the adventure book and give us some items for puzzles or give us more puzzles that require us to interact with the environment (e.g. how come, physics puzzles are more relevant to shooters than RPGs?). Why not add that into some more social quests (none of the best social quests in recent years that com to mind is the detective story in chapter 2 of witcher 1).
I don't miss stats and loot in RPGs, what I miss is more diverse gameplay. I mean I get that combat is more important for video game RPGs than say PnP and that especially the social component is difficult due to voice over costs, etc. but it is getting ridiculously emphasized IMO.

I remember when Might & Magic VI came out in the 90s, it was a great RPG with lot's of exploration etc., but it was criticized for it's focus on rather extensive combat against armies of enemies. If you play it today, apart from graphics and some mechanics that were not possible at the time it plays pretty much like any of today's RPGs but there is no criticism, anymore because that is what we got used to. IMO that lack of diversity needs to be addressed.

Sorry for wall of text.

That's an interesting argument. I have to say that one of the many, many things the RPG genre failed to learn from Planescape: Torment is that combat is not always the most interesting way to resolve a situation. Witcher 2 and Mass Effect 1, and FO:NV, despite as you said suffering from the "lots of combat" syndrome, get a lot of credit from me for allowing you to talk your way out of the final boss fight. Sh*t, the final boss in [name redacted for spoilers] doesn't even want to fight you at all!

Although in the case of those games, all is forgiven for the implausible number of fights because the fights are really fun But I see why you'd want a game that tries something different.

Count me among those who think that RPG's are too combat heavy or at least too rarely have alternatives to combat.  It's interesting you should bring up M&M6 because i remember arguing at the time that while Baldur's Gate obviously had much more story and dialogue than M&M6, when it came to actually accomplishing anything significant in the game, there were still rarely any alternatives to combat in BG.  In contrast, the Fallout games allowed many more quests to be resolved using stealth and/or conversational skills, as did PS:T.  But it's never been Bioware's style.  DA2 was just an exaggeration of the combat-heavy style Bioware's games have always had, to the point that there really isn't any non-combat gameplay.

One trope I'm getting particularly irritated with (and NWN2 and DA:O were two of the most obvious offenders) are when games force you to do a bunch of quests (to amass evidence for a trial in the case of those games), but it makes absolutely no difference whether you argue your case successfully or not.

Good points there.
Yes, I guess there is a standard in VG RPGs that says you got three ways through situation: Fight the guys, sneak around the guy or talk your way through the guys.
My argument is that this needs to be broken up a bit. Dave!Yognaut said it is great that in ME1 you can tlak your way out of fights. I agree but then, it is still either talk or fight, still the old set of options. Hell, ME even got rid of the stealth part and DA (O and 2) did effectively the same by completely incorporating stealth into the combat mechanic (so it's just another skill in a fight).
I am saying the gameplay needs to be broken up a bit by other elements like puzzles. We've git everything we need to do it: An inventory, , lot's of items, (according to marketing) an interactive environment, lot's of NPCs so why not use them. Why is the best puzzle they could come up with in ME1 the freaking tower of Hanoi thing (again)?
My suspicion is that once again the devs/ publishers (and I am not talking exclusively about BW/EA here) think they have to cater for a dumb audience which usually is a false impression.

[DaringMoosejaw]

Stats & Loot is all about progression, so long as they implement some other form of progression to replace it I will not miss either by far.

[l DryIce l]

 I agree with Casey. Besides, he already said that they're going to give us more options when it comes to buting things from stores, and the weapon modding stations look promising. In ME1, loot just became a hindrance. There's no point in having a bunch of loot and stats if there's one gun that's better than the rest. 

The guns in ME2 were much more distinct from one another, and as long as they give us more options I'll be fine. There was still the problem of one gun being better than all the others. 

[Savber100]

Malanek999 wrote...

Savber100 wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

I'd like someone to explain to me how stripping gameplay complexity somehow makes characters and story better. Because it sure as hell didn't work in ME2. The plot was one of the weaker aspects of the game.

IMO the plot was one of the weaker elements because the story of the Reapers could almost certainly be quite easily told in two games. There wasn't enough main plot in the game. The actual writing on the individual characters and missions was fine, in fact much better than ME1. Just the lack of main focus held it back.

They said the same for Two Towers when it came out. No big conflict with the main baddie (Sauron). It could have just ended within two books. The characters just kinda meandered around and defeated a traitor within a single major battle.

So why did it exist? Character development and setting the final chapter.

IMO The two towers was actually the strongest book (well technically two books out of six) in the series. In terms of pacing, it was certainly the fastest moving which is not really the case in ME2. I'm not saying ME2 was bad, it was quite possibly my favourite game of all time, I just would have liked to see fewer squadmate missions and a bit more reaper/collector substance.

Oh I'm not bashing TT. As you said, it's a great book. I was only using TT as an example of what a second part in a trilogy generally is. It's just unfair to judge the plot of a single game/book before the trilogy has even ended. As much as the marketing speak and EA wants you to think likewise, ME gamse are not standalone titles in terms of story arcs.

Wait till the final chapter before declaring a verdict on the plot.

[Lumikki]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

Stats & Loot is all about progression, so long as they implement some other form of progression to replace it I will not miss either by far.

Actually they are progression and customation.

How ever, you point is correct in my opinion, as long there is other ways to have same results, they aren't needed.

Modifié par Lumikki, 01 juillet 2011 - 01:35 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Yea that was awesome.
Also the schemes you can hatch on Korriban when it comes to Yuthura and Uthar.

Bioware was a lot more varied in the past.

Also, and this is something ME2 and DA2 suffer from a lot imo. Both PCs are made to be important because they are ungodly killing machines.

ME2's Shepard and Hawke on the otherhand are primarly killing machines, with no real reason as to why they are important to the plot.

So either they have to find ways to make them relevant to the plot (hopefulyl while being original and less reptitive). OIf they have to downplay the whole killing aspect and how important they are (DA2 was in the awkward middle of not knowing whether Hawke is important, or is completely useless). 

This is why a reputation mechanic and more varied quests ala New Vegas would've done a game like Dragon Age 2 a world of good. Derpiness in the story aside, if they had designed more varied quests, tied them to major factions (Templars, Circle, Nobles, etc), then the player could feel like they are becoming more important which unlocks unique quests with the factions. It would also prevent the "I've been working for the Mages the whole time, why ask now?" issue at the end.

I don't think you could do the same for Mass Effect, because I think there's a good enough to make Shepard important to the plot. In Dragon Age 2, you could remove Hawke from the equation and the same crap still happens more or less. You don't get that with Shepard.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 01 juillet 2011 - 01:38 .

[slimgrin]

l DryIce l wrote...

The guns in ME2 were much more distinct from one another, and as long as they give us more options I'll be fine. There was still the problem of one gun being better than all the others. 

I agree with this. Combat was actually the highlight for me in ME2, but I wanted more out of it, more customization, evolution of powers, more abilties, and yes I wanted my damn weapon mods back. 

[Malanek]

Savber100 wrote...
Wait till the final chapter before declaring a verdict on the plot.

Fair enough. I just suspect that we spent so much time focused on the characters and most of those will end up playing minor roles in the conclusion. If that happens my verdict would be that much of the ME2 story was "filler".

Modifié par Malanek999, 01 juillet 2011 - 01:40 .

[wolfennights]

CheeseEnchilada wrote...

RPGs have multiple definitions for different people. One person may see character interaction as the essential component, while others believe it to be stats and loot.

In short, arguing the definition of an RPG is going to go nowhere.

As for the OP's comment? IrishSpectre257 nailed it.

This. Lots of people say that the Zelda series is an RPG, when it is more action-adventury. O.o

[HTTP 404]

I want bioware to make their game, not ours

[erynnar]

mrcrusty wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Yea that was awesome.
Also the schemes you can hatch on Korriban when it comes to Yuthura and Uthar.

Bioware was a lot more varied in the past.

Also, and this is something ME2 and DA2 suffer from a lot imo. Both PCs are made to be important because they are ungodly killing machines.

ME2's Shepard and Hawke on the otherhand are primarly killing machines, with no real reason as to why they are important to the plot.

So either they have to find ways to make them relevant to the plot (hopefulyl while being original and less reptitive). OIf they have to downplay the whole killing aspect and how important they are (DA2 was in the awkward middle of not knowing whether Hawke is important, or is completely useless). 

This is why a reputation mechanic and more varied quests ala New Vegas would've done a game like Dragon Age 2 a world of good. Derpiness in the story aside, if they had designed more varied quests, tied them to major factions (Templars, Circle, Nobles, etc), then the player could feel like they are becoming more important which unlocks unique quests with the factions. It would also prevent the "I've been working for the Mages the whole time, why ask now?" issue at the end.

I don't think you could do the same for Mass Effect, because I think there's a good enough to make Shepard important to the plot. In Dragon Age 2, you could remove Hawke from the equation and the same crap still happens more or less. You don't get that with Shepard.

This^. Hawke is not essential to the story (in fact, I hope she never comes back). Shep is the story, in a way.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

wolfennights wrote...

CheeseEnchilada wrote...

RPGs have multiple definitions for different people. One person may see character interaction as the essential component, while others believe it to be stats and loot.

In short, arguing the definition of an RPG is going to go nowhere.

As for the OP's comment? IrishSpectre257 nailed it.

This. Lots of people say that the Zelda series is an RPG, when it is more action-adventury. O.o

There is some truth to that though. The original Legend of Zelda games were the foundation for the first Action RPGs.

Anyways... Mass Effect 3....

While the customisation elements aren't what makes or breaks an RPG, it's certainly nice to see more of it in so people can personalise their character more.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 01 juillet 2011 - 01:52 .

[Dangerfoot]

mrcrusty wrote...

I can accept no loot, but not no stats.

Stats are a necessary abstraction to establish the difference between player and character.

You are creating a character, you are not inserting yourself into the game. As such, older (and some newer) RPGs had attributes which (ought) to determine your character's basic physical/mental baseline concept. Rolling High INT gave you an intelligent character, regardless of how smart you are. Rolling High STR gave you a strong character, regardless of how strong you are. Conversely, rolling Low INT gave you a dumb character.

All of these choices in character creation ought to affect how your character interacts with the game world.

That's just part of it. Now, how you interact with the story is dependant on what kind of character you've rolled and what kind of personality you've crafted for the character.

I get a bit of sad face when role playing becomes "I play as Shepard, I am Shepard, therefore I roleplay".

I don't even want stats back to dictate accuracy or anything, but it just annoys me...

I don't think high agility is what distinguishes me from my character. I'm not roleplaying as "a strong guy". When I roleplay, I want to experience reasonably complex choices that allow me to shape my character's personality and "career". That's what roleplaying is to me, not rolling dice to determine if I'm a better mage or warrior.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Dangerfoot wrote...

I don't think high agility is what distinguishes me from my character. I'm not roleplaying as "a strong guy". When I roleplay, I want to experience reasonably complex choices that allow me to shape my character's personality and "career". That's what roleplaying is to me, not rolling dice to determine if I'm a better mage or warrior.

It's not a zero sum game. You can have both. The best RPGs do.

But the stats which provide a basic physical/mental construct are layer upon which to establish the character as it's own entity and determine how they interact with the game world.

Like I said, I'm not arguing for this in Mass Effect. But a stat less RPG is an (Action) Adventure game with choices.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 01 juillet 2011 - 02:14 .

[Bostur]

mrcrusty wrote...

wolfennights wrote...

CheeseEnchilada wrote...

RPGs have multiple definitions for different people. One person may see character interaction as the essential component, while others believe it to be stats and loot.

In short, arguing the definition of an RPG is going to go nowhere.

As for the OP's comment? IrishSpectre257 nailed it.

This. Lots of people say that the Zelda series is an RPG, when it is more action-adventury. O.o

There is some truth to that though. The original Legend of Zelda games were the foundation for the first Action RPGs.

Anyways... Mass Effect 3....

While the customisation elements aren't what makes or breaks an RPG, it's certainly nice to see more of it in so people can personalise their character more.

Oh Legend of Zelda 1986, I remember that year. It was the time when D&D was the big thing in the media and all us kids wanted to do it, even though we had no idea what it was. Anything slightly fantasy flavoured was called Dungeons and Dragons back then. Hardly the best period for defining RPG. ;-)


Anyway if the definition of RPG is so wide that it covers most game genres it starts to lose any meaning it once had. A lot of shooters have exploration and combat. Prior to the linear hallway shooters, all of them had this. It didn't make them into RPGs. Originally RPG on computer meant exactly loot, stats and story nothing more, nothing less.

One of the first action RPGs was System Shock, because it had
loot and stats. That was what made it RPG flavoured. Not the story or
the exploration because any shooter at the time had that as well. Take away the loot and stats and you have an old-skool shooter.

I think its fine if Bioware don't want to go the RPG route but do something else instead, but then try to be more specific in interviews. Or make some demos and screenies that show something else than the action parts. By the description in the interview it sounds more like a cinematic action game similar to Wing Commander.

Modifié par Bostur, 01 juillet 2011 - 02:12 .

[88mphSlayer]

MrFob wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...
removing stats/loot really hasn't slowed the greater emphasis on combat nowadays, in some ways removing the need to deal with an inventory or having places to sell off loot has actually increased the amount of combat in games <_<

removing stats is the same because now you need to make every choice have "gratifying impact" which basically means more 'splosions

But I do not want to reduce the percentage of time spent in combat by selling junk in a shop. What I would like to see is that my character should be allowed to do other stuff in the world (not menus) aside from hitting/shppting people ... at least sometimes.

it's not really about "selling junk" it's about giving the player the necessary downtime and freedom which in turn forces a developer to make those downtime parts interesting and thus interesting interactive moments such as quests that don't involve combat

if i were to use Mass Effect 2 as a case study, by reducing loot to a diagram that can only be interacted with on the normandy, the game in essence is compartmentalizing combat from everything else, given that everybody still expects these games to be at least over 20 hours in length this means extra combat and far less exploration as there was basically nothing to explore outside of mining planets for minerals, the bonus issue that ME2 brought up was that by compartmentalizing combat away from everything else, the emphasis on "choice" had to be relegated to something that would happen during those combat sections in order to fill in the gap, basically more 'splosions less non-combat quests

as ideal as it would be to eliminate loot/stats and conversily increase non-combat gameplay, i don't think there's any proven example that this even works yet, it would be like not forcing players to find upgrades in a metroid game and then expecting designers to have more exploration... more exploration of what? it seems oddly anti-progressive for modern game design which is so focused nowadays on giving players something to do other than combat

Modifié par 88mphSlayer, 01 juillet 2011 - 02:13 .

[Manic Sheep]

mrcrusty wrote...

I can accept no loot, but not no stats.

Stats are a necessary abstraction to establish the difference between player and character.

You are creating a character, you are not inserting yourself into the game. As such, older (and some newer) RPGs had attributes which (ought) to determine your character's basic physical/mental baseline concept. Rolling High INT gave you an intelligent character, regardless of how smart you are. Rolling High STR gave you a strong character, regardless of how strong you are. Conversely, rolling Low INT gave you a dumb character.

All of these choices in character creation ought to affect how your character interacts with the game world.

That's just part of it. Now, how you interact with the story is dependant on what kind of character you've rolled and what kind of personality you've crafted for the character.

I get a bit of sad face when role playing becomes "I play as Shepard, I am Shepard, therefore I roleplay".

I don't even want stats back to dictate accuracy or anything, but it just annoys me...

Why do you need a stat to determine how smart you character is? Just because you’re not restricted by stats doesn’t mean you are playing yourself. If you don't think your character would do something based on personality, intelligence, how charismatic they are, whatever then don't pick that option.

Modifié par Manic Sheep, 01 juillet 2011 - 02:21 .