3223 réponses à ce sujet

[Bnol]

JayhartRIC wrote...

Bnol wrote...

sbvera13 wrote...

Yes, I believe I mentioned that.  The issue was the amount of ammo, forcing you to snipe with a pistol for half the fight, unless you play on low difficulties and can kill everything with one hit.  I had to use the Viper instead of the Widow simply because it would last for an entire fight.

Actually, the Widow has more damage output with it's ammo available with the +damage modification of assasination cloak than the Viper when talking about an Infiltrator (which is the only class that will have the widow and have overall ammo problems).  Sure if you miss a lot you are going to be better off with the Viper.  The Widow is the 1S/1K gameplay and misses are more heavily punished.  The only time it is somewhat of a problem is against collectors if you don't have warp ammo, but generally you aren't faced with more than 8 collectors (or 1.5 shots per kill with one miss) at a time and you can utilize squad abilities to break down barriers.  So you don't have to snipe with the pistol for half the fight, unless of course you are missing a bunch, but I generally like a game to be difficult and punish players for mistakes.

But using Assassination Cloak every time means you have a means you have a 6 second cooldown between shots.  Plus when you have cloak on enemies tend to hide so you don't have a shot anyway.

You don't have to use cloak every time for it to be superior as the base weapon stats when multiplying the damage per shot by the total ammo the Widow still wins out.  Cloak just makes it even more apparent. You can cloak right after coming out of cover and hit them before they go back with the scope time dilation.  There are also generally squadmates to hit.  The only reason to use the Viper over the Widow is if you tend to miss or rather don't get headshots.

[Gatt9]

element eater wrote...
on topic, funny while i dont realy have any dislike for te comment i cant help but think biowares definition of rpg has changed somewhat over recent years. Its also interesting that while some issues being labled rpg mechanics could just as easily be labled shooter mechanics customising your gun for example is pretty common these days but rarely do i see it being labled an rpg mechanic.

exploration is most interesting to me but its such a vague term it doesnt realy help as so many aspects of the game could be called exploration
 

I don't think Bioware's definition changed any...I mean...

Mass Effect:  Stat based gameplay to a significant degree,  loads of character progression,  loot,  loads of exploration,  even non-combat skills.  Yes,  it wasn't the smoothest system for loot,  but it was a starting point.

Dragon Age Origins:  Stat based gameplay in a very well developed setting,  straight down to having strong history.  Well done loot system,  balanced such that you cannot have all of the best things,  exploration,  non-combat skills,  strong party interaction.

Mass Effect 2:  Player based gameplay,  almost no RPG elements,  no exploration,  no loot,  no non-combat skills,  inconsistent storytelling,  shooter elements shoehorned in.

Dragon Age 2:  Stat based gameplay,  but it was mostly irrelevant because everyone just exploded when you got near them,  non-combat skill stripped out.  Combat streamlined to be more action than tactical,  dialogue system replaced by the "Wheel of Idon'twannaread" complete with icons just in case you *really* hate reading but buy reading-centric games anyways,  recycled locations,  inconsistent story.

An event happened right in the middle of those 4 games,  EA bought Bioware.  Suddenly the whole game design changed.  To the point where one Dev who worked there for a very long time felt it necessary to leave.

So TBH,  I really don't think anything changed at Bioware other than EA's policy of only making games that'll appeal to the very largest demographic possible.  I mean honestly,  look at E3.  Not a single word about RPG elements,  but a whole bunch about "You can read the screen outloud with Kinect!",  like this is somehow going to make for a better game.

It's very clear where the priorities lie.

[Cainne Chapel]

Gatt9 wrote...


I don't think Bioware's definition changed any...I mean...

Mass Effect:  Stat based gameplay to a significant degree,  loads of character progression,  loot,  loads of exploration,  even non-combat skills.  Yes,  it wasn't the smoothest system for loot,  but it was a starting point.


Mass Effect 2:  Player based gameplay,  almost no RPG elements,  no exploration,  no loot,  no non-combat skills,  inconsistent storytelling,  shooter elements shoehorned in.
.

Shooter elements shoe horned in? Loads of Character progression? Loads of exploration? Non combat skills?

Man Gatt, you really hated ME2... or you have rose colored glasses on for ME1... I cant tell which but.

Dont get me wrong I love me1 and 2, but... wow.  I dont even wanna bother arguing or even defending against that.

DA:0 to DA:2 I can understand they did mess significantly with the tried and true RPG template.  But with ME1 to ME2... I felt ME2 did the Hybrid thing better in terms of combat but, I'll just leave it at that.

[Il Divo]

I'm still trying to get past how Mass Effect's exploration was a plus.

[Rockworm503]

It looks like Gatt9 is against anything that changes the formula... because change is scary.

[JayhartRIC]

Bnol wrote...

JayhartRIC wrote...

Bnol wrote...

sbvera13 wrote...

Yes, I believe I mentioned that.  The issue was the amount of ammo, forcing you to snipe with a pistol for half the fight, unless you play on low difficulties and can kill everything with one hit.  I had to use the Viper instead of the Widow simply because it would last for an entire fight.

Actually, the Widow has more damage output with it's ammo available with the +damage modification of assasination cloak than the Viper when talking about an Infiltrator (which is the only class that will have the widow and have overall ammo problems).  Sure if you miss a lot you are going to be better off with the Viper.  The Widow is the 1S/1K gameplay and misses are more heavily punished.  The only time it is somewhat of a problem is against collectors if you don't have warp ammo, but generally you aren't faced with more than 8 collectors (or 1.5 shots per kill with one miss) at a time and you can utilize squad abilities to break down barriers.  So you don't have to snipe with the pistol for half the fight, unless of course you are missing a bunch, but I generally like a game to be difficult and punish players for mistakes.

But using Assassination Cloak every time means you have a means you have a 6 second cooldown between shots.  Plus when you have cloak on enemies tend to hide so you don't have a shot anyway.

You don't have to use cloak every time for it to be superior as the base weapon stats when multiplying the damage per shot by the total ammo the Widow still wins out.  Cloak just makes it even more apparent. You can cloak right after coming out of cover and hit them before they go back with the scope time dilation.  There are also generally squadmates to hit.  The only reason to use the Viper over the Widow is if you tend to miss or rather don't get headshots.

I think I do miss headshots quite a bit.  I don't see how anyone can reliably get headshots.  Everyone runs around like chickens with their head cut off.  Turning on cloak usually means they rush me when they wouldn't have if they knew I was right there.  Plus it seemed like even when creating my whole build around damage, I still wasn't one-shotting anyone.  As an Infiltrator, I never made it off the ship with the Widow.  People say that is one of the most powerful classes, and I do way better with Adept.

[this isnt my name]

Rockworm503 wrote...

It looks like Gatt9 is against anything that changes the formula... because change is scary.

Change is only good when it makes things better. While better here is debateable. I played ME1 many differnt ways, I played ME2  ways, vangaurd charging everything, or like gears of war. More choices, more variety = better.

People are in denial, you would think devs leaving and Zur even saying in DA2 EA rushed him, not BW but EA. The same ompany that kill other companies, the same company that made a rpg a tps/hack n slash.

I wonder how long until you people realize, maybe when BW gets out of EA we can see them return to thier rpgs.

[squee365]

Mass Effect:  Stat based gameplay to a degree,  Decent character progression, Cumbersome loot and inventory with excessive need to get rid of loot (Item limits), Vehicle based exploration to a degree, mostly on copy-pasted empty worlds; 3 unique on-foot combat areas,  Some non-combat skills (charm/intimidate), Little DLC. Yes,  it wasn't the smoothest system for loot,  but it was a starting point. 

Mass Effect 2:  Player based gameplay,  Streamlined RPG elements with a focus on combat,  More unique exploration (no two worlds look the same), Streamlined loot like Credits and Upgrade research making loot more substantial and worthwhile (you can't get rid of it, you don't need to),  Some Non-Combat upgrades (e.g. Combat mastery 2 gives +20 paragon/renegade),  Episodical Storytelling (something new and fresh for BW),  shooter elements made primary FOCUS of gameplay, has Best DLC on the market. 

Fixed it for you. But I actually think both games are great. 

Modifié par squee365, 08 juillet 2011 - 04:12 .

[Il Divo]

this isnt my name wrote...

I wonder how long until you people realize, maybe when BW gets out of EA we can see them return to thier rpgs.

Why do I have to wait until they leave EA? I've been enjoying all their RPGs now, even DA2.

Modifié par Il Divo, 08 juillet 2011 - 04:16 .

[In Exile]

Candidate 88766 wrote...
]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.

Mass Effect was more cinematic than any previous Bioware game, but it build on a foundation (Knights of the Old Republic) and follows a general trend in Bioware RPGs relative to the competition (and relative to Bioware's own past titles). What Bioware has always done is expand NPC interaction and story. Their only departure from this after BGII was NWN, and they went back to characters & story for NWN: Hordes of the Underdark.

SalsaDMA wrote...
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...

Cost for new character models. Freedom for party composition (maybe someone wants Miranda along). You can take Garrus with you if you want, and suddenly everyone is sealed airtight.

the_one_54321 wrote...
I can play any vapid action fest any
other day of the week from a million other developers. Those are the
instances where all I really care about is that the mechanics of the
game work well. For one, the mechanics in the ME franchise have never
worked really well to begin with, but that's not the main reason I play
it. I expect quality writing. That is non-negotiable.

How did you last through the ME1 plot-holes and inconsistencies?

the_one_54321 wrote...
Because a heat sink actually can't work
that way. Anyone that has put a new CPU in a computer knows that the
air gap is enough to render the heat sink ineffective. You need a solid
fluid contact, via that thermal goop. The whole concept of a thermal
clip as a heat sink is really silly. The gun overheating or needing a
general cooldown time made a lot more sense internally.

Did you just complain that ME tells science to go **** itself? Again, that's like... I mean, have you seen Quarians/Joker's Bones/Asari reproduction + mind reading/Neutrons that lead to FTL? ME just tells science to grab a big pipe and **** itself silly.

[In Exile]

Ace of Dawn wrote...
Well, the Mass Effect universe still follows most scientific principles and the like fairly well. When they don't, kinda causes issues...

So long as you count biology a science... not really. And if you start looking at things like how we believe AI might work, or even basic chemical principles (element zero is a neutron, WTF?)... it gets bad.

[FieryDove]

Rockworm503 wrote...

It looks like Gatt9 is against anything that changes the formula... because change is scary.

Right, change is BAD.
These people only wanted more of the same and can't handle the mass of *innovations* incoming.

/sarcasm

/thread (half of it at least)

/marketing

[AlanC9]

Ace of Dawn wrote...

EternalPink wrote...
I read a news article about how 2 new elements were added to the periodic table the other day, perhaps the next two they discover will have the "magical" properties to solve your imagined problems with how you've assumed they've built something.

Doubtful. All elements past bismuth are radioactive and have half-lives. Any new elements discovered would likely have half-lives in the order of seconds and be too unstable to have any worthwhile use out of them.

IIRC there's been some speculation about an "island of stability" further up the periodic table. I don't know if the theory's still live, though.

[Lumikki]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...


I don't think Bioware's definition changed any...I mean...

Mass Effect:  Stat based gameplay to a significant degree,  loads of character progression,  loot,  loads of exploration,  even non-combat skills.  Yes,  it wasn't the smoothest system for loot,  but it was a starting point.

Mass Effect 2:  Player based gameplay,  almost no RPG elements,  no exploration,  no loot,  no non-combat skills,  inconsistent storytelling,  shooter elements shoehorned in.
.

Shooter elements shoe horned in? Loads of Character progression? Loads of exploration? Non combat skills?

Man Gatt, you really hated ME2... or you have rose colored glasses on for ME1... I cant tell which but.

Dont get me wrong I love me1 and 2, but... wow.  I dont even wanna bother arguing or even defending against that.

Yeah I agree, what's point even argue if someone has so blind view point. I mean person is looking one game like everyting is rose garden and other like it's directly from hell. When in reality both had issues and good points.

DA:0 to DA:2 I can understand they did mess significantly with the tried and true RPG template.  But with ME1 to ME2... I felt ME2 did the Hybrid thing better in terms of combat but, I'll just leave it at that.

I agree again.

DA serie at least was normal RPG so, when it get changed there is reason to for agument. How ever, ME serie was never normal RPG from start. Still some players treat it like it's normal RPG and nothing else is good enough.

I ques in end there isn't anyting else to say, that these people are wrong customer target for ME serie. They don't even have clue what Mass Effect serie is. They still treat it like normal RPG. No wonder Bioware sayed stats and loot isn't good for ME serie and they are right.

I ques the issue was that these people play ME serie like normal RPG, they never did understand the TPS side at all.  It's little like same issue what us had with ME1. We tryed to play ME1 gameplay like TPS, but it just did not work well because it was broken, so we played it like RPG.

I don't know how to say this, but if we split ME games in three area, gameplay, story and customation.

ME1 did well in story, was medium in customation and medium in RPG gameplay / broken TPS gameplay.
ME2 did well in gameplay, was low in customation and medium in story.

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 juillet 2011 - 06:30 .

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...
]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.

Mass Effect was more cinematic than any previous Bioware game, but it build on a foundation (Knights of the Old Republic) and follows a general trend in Bioware RPGs relative to the competition (and relative to Bioware's own past titles). What Bioware has always done is expand NPC interaction and story. Their only departure from this after BGII was NWN, and they went back to characters & story for NWN: Hordes of the Underdark.

And those of use who were around here back when NWN shipped can well remember how badly the NWN OC was received. Sorta like DA2 except with lots fewer defenders.

[nitrog100]

It's not just about the stats and loot. Part of RPGs is getting progressively better over time. Leveling up your abilities 4 times and only being able to upgrade your weapon a couple of times through found items was extremely rigid compared with ME1. Plus there were only about 20 weapons in the vanilla game. If an FPS has a crap ton more items than an RPG, somebody done goofed.

[Sepewrath]

nitrog100 wrote...

It's not just about the stats and loot. Part of RPGs is getting progressively better over time. Leveling up your abilities 4 times and only being able to upgrade your weapon a couple of times through found items was extremely rigid compared with ME1. Plus there were only about 20 weapons in the vanilla game. If an FPS has a crap ton more items than an RPG, somebody done goofed.

lol well isn't that just about stats and loot, that your talking about? Anyway, when it comes to RPG elements, something I don't consider defining elements...is stats and loot. That's like saying a jump button defines a platformer.

[Lumikki]

nitrog100 wrote...

It's not just about the stats and loot. Part of RPGs is getting progressively better over time.

That's the issue, part of RPG. TPS side has no linear progression, like RPG has, players skill doesn't change .
Meaning hole gameplay style is different because player skill based gameplay. Don't treat  like ME serie is normal RPG.
Both RPG and TPS can have customation...

Stats (progression) are conflicting with TPS combat. Unless there is also non-combat gameplay, I don't see any use for progression based stats.

Loot can work with TPS too, but main point of loot is offer customation. Loot's issue is that it leads sertain type of statical item based gameplay. Heavy inventories, micro-management of items, junk items and so on. So, Bioware cuts the loot from heavy to low and consenrate directly to customation without loot. Leaving loot only as part of exploration, not as part of main customation.

So, Bioware is in my opinion right path with ME3 design.

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 juillet 2011 - 07:47 .

[Sanunes]

I don't consider Mass Effect 1 having a lot of varied loot. For there were 10 different assault rifle brands, but not every assault rifle brand had 10 levels (if I recall only half did the rest only had six levels), and once you can afford it the only weapon you wanted was the Spectre weapons.

There was some choice in Armor, for there was one that would make you immune to the toxic environments and another that gave minor health regeneration, but at the end of the day most people picked between the one that gave the most shields or the one that gave the most health.

[Candidate 88766]

AlanC9 wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...
]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.

Mass Effect was more cinematic than any previous Bioware game, but it build on a foundation (Knights of the Old Republic) and follows a general trend in Bioware RPGs relative to the competition (and relative to Bioware's own past titles). What Bioware has always done is expand NPC interaction and story. Their only departure from this after BGII was NWN, and they went back to characters & story for NWN: Hordes of the Underdark.

And those of use who were around here back when NWN shipped can well remember how badly the NWN OC was received. Sorta like DA2 except with lots fewer defenders.

So actually the approach Bioware took with ME1 and ME2 really isn't that much of a departure from their previous games, more of an enhancement of it? It took cinematic gaming to the next level - their character interaction and conversation system was pretty much revolutionary in ME1.

Essentially this boils down to 'haters gonna hate'. Every Bioware game is criticised by some of the fans because it isn't literally exactly the same as the previous one, and heaven forbid that Bioware should try and expand their portfolio of games into other genres instead of churning out the same game in a different setting until it becomes stale. 

[element eater]

Candidate 88766 wrote...
So actually the approach Bioware took with ME1 and ME2 really isn't that much of a departure from their previous games, more of an enhancement of it? .....

well it might follow a similar idea but the extent of the change is more striking than most bioware follow ups imo. Wether or not its an enhancement is simply a reflection of what game play elements you feel are needed and which you think arent.

Candidate 88766 wrote...
Essentially this boils down to 'haters gonna hate'.

not realy it alot of the criticism you might see is completely valid. Yes there is always going to be a minority which simply dislike any change but that doesnt mean other people dont have completely legitimate grievances with the game
 

Bnol wrote...
Actually, the Widow has more damage output with it's ammo available with the +damage modification of assasination cloak than the Viper

 is that into taking into account wasted damage output? because if it isnt it makes the statement some what redundent as its the economics of the weapons which is important here not the potential damage.

what is important is how often the gun needs ammo and how many enimies will it kill between these instances 

Modifié par element eater, 08 juillet 2011 - 01:22 .

[Luigitornado]

This entire thread is stupid, and should not exist. It is one giant inconsistency and plot hole.

[Ace of Dawn]

In Exile wrote...

Ace of Dawn wrote...
Well, the Mass Effect universe still follows most scientific principles and the like fairly well. When they don't, kinda causes issues...

So long as you count biology a science... not really. And if you start looking at things like how we believe AI might work, or even basic chemical principles (element zero is a neutron, WTF?)... it gets bad.

I figured element zero was a catchy name for it, not an actual neutron or anything. As for some other things, willing suspension of belief? Not everything can be bound by reality. Though obviously they can't just pick and choose... or can they?

[Candidate 88766]

element eater wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...
So actually the approach Bioware took with ME1 and ME2 really isn't that much of a departure from their previous games, more of an enhancement of it? .....

well it might follow a similar idea but the extent of the change is more striking than most bioware follow ups imo. Wether or not its an enhancement is simply a reflection of what game play elements you feel are needed and which you think arent.

But its not as though ME1 and ME2 were a colossal departure to past Bioware games. I personally that some RPG features people want back aren't needed for Mass Effect to be good.

The story, characters, choices and interaction make Mass Effect good.
Weapon, armour and power customzation would certainly add to the game.
I personally don't think we need lots of stat-based progression for Mass Effect to be good, although that is purely my opinion and many in this thread seem to disagree.

element eater wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...
Essentially this boils down to 'haters gonna hate'.

not realy it alot of the criticism you might see is completely valid. Yes there is always going to be a minority which simply dislike any change but that doesnt mean other people dont have completely legitimate grievances with the game

I wasn't trying to dismiss every argument in favour of RPGs elements as invalid. Many of them are valid as you say. I just feel that many of the comlaints are geared around the massive loss of RPG elements from ME1 to ME2 when really there weren't many RPGs features in ME1. The difference between the games wasn't all that big, but Bioware made a massive fuss about them and talked about them all through the build-up to ME2, making the changes seem far bigger than they actually are. 

[Praetor Knight]

Ace of Dawn wrote...

In Exile wrote...

So long as you count biology a science... not really. And if you start looking at things like how we believe AI might work, or even basic chemical principles (element zero is a neutron, WTF?)... it gets bad.

I figured element zero was a catchy name for it, not an actual neutron or anything. As for some other things, willing suspension of belief? Not everything can be bound by reality. Though obviously they can't just pick and choose... or can they?

With Element Zero, this picture from ME2 is what is used to defend it as have zero protons in the nucleus on the wiki:





So if that is the case, then eezo could then be related to what we "know" as neutronium.
But with how it can be used to modify mass, eezo could just as easily be related to what we "know" as higgs bosons too.