3223 réponses à ce sujet

[Rockworm503]

The elitism in this thread is giving me cancer.

[Sidney]

Faust1979 wrote...

 rpgs don't have to be just about stats and loot there have been various tabletop rpgs that focus on different hings.some gamers just want what is familiar and don't want anything new. Looting dead bodies is mostly a video game thing, as a person who has played many different RPGs I've never scavanged every monster I killed for something it's mostly just something that video games have done. 

Well and corpse looting is mostoly a product of a lot of bad design decision in terms of economics. In something like Fallout with the issue of scarcity that looting makes some sense but usually it doesn't.

In DAO for example you loot all the corpses because you need a buy magic items.  In other words in dungeon X you gather up Y gold in order to go back to Denerim and buy magic item Z. Ah the joys of a consumer simulator! Instead of that why not just have magic item Z be the reward for the dungeon since that is the end result anyways just without all the clicking to loot and sell. Plus, on the upside you eliminate magic shops that are way, way, WAY more valuable than looting all the the Deep Roads.

[Someone With Mass]

There's a non-combat skill in there. That's what Influence is. And if you want to improve your hacking speed or something, I guess one could just buy some upgrades.

[Sidney]

Gatt9 wrote...
That said,  still no non-combat skills,  and no confirmation if morality is now something you put points into.  So while a step in the right direction,  it's not perfect.

Why is morality a skill? That was easily the dumbest part of ME1. I'm learning to be a bad mother shut your mouth! Please you talk about something that makes no sense and is not part of the RPG "tradition".

BG2 made your "morality" a function of your actions. Jade Empire used your actions to detertmine you "way". New Vegas used actions to align you with a faction. Karma was earned in all FO games based on your actions. Morality is an action based activity not a random skill you decide to use.

[Bnol]

Gatt9 wrote...

'In addition to weapons, the abilities your character possesses are much more customizable in ME3 than in ME2. You will start with a "powered-up" Shepard, especially when importing your character from Mass Effect 2, though the exact details of that have not yet been revealed. Long-time fans will recognize most of the abilities, but they will be able to use them and upgrade them in ways they never have before. Passive abilities, like Combat Mastery has several different subcategories under it, like Damage, Recharge Speed, Influence & Duration, Headshots, Weapon Mastery, Influence & Damage, Influence & Dilation. In other words, you won't just add a point to "Operative." Instead, you'll get to choose exactly where that point gets spent, and what boost it gives your Shepard.'

Couldn't do that in ME1 either.

It's a definite step in the right direction,  and insures my shepherd won't be identical to the next guy's.

That said,  still no non-combat skills,  and no confirmation if morality is now something you put points into.  So while a step in the right direction,  it's not perfect.

Well for morality it is the Influence+Damage/Duration/Dilation, so it is still combined with a combat stat and charm/intimidate are combined.  The thing is that ME was always a shooter/rpg/insertwhateveryoudefinethegameas on rails, the non-combat skills were not critical at all to the main storyline.  You still just had to fight your way through most everything, sure there were some dialogue ways to avoid a fight (hey Saren kill yourself, but you still have the end battle), but no real way to sneak around, or hack your way through missions.  I would agree with those things if the game was really designed around that type of gameplay choice, but that isn't present in ME so little is gained from having those non-combat stats.

[sbvera13]

Sidney wrote...

Why is morality a skill? That was easily the dumbest part of ME1.

"Morality" was not a skill.  You could still make decisions based on what you wanted, like saving the council.  No red/blue options required there.  The charm/intimidate skill was how good you are at convincing people to agree with you.  Take Jeong on Feros.  Insult him for renegade points (right side bottom), negotiate with him for paragon points (right side top), he won't care either way and you have to shoot him.  Invest some points into one of the social skills though, and you can Intimidate/Charm (left side red/blue options open up) him and actually change the outcome.  The morality of your Shep was never actually changed by having the skills.  Since you get a reward for doing this (changing outcomes, getting more credits and or loot or XP from different resolutions) it's reasonable that the skills require some investment.  It's only in ME2 that Red/Blue started meaning morality.

Modifié par sbvera13, 10 juillet 2011 - 12:46 .

[Sidney]

sbvera13 wrote...

"Morality" was not a skill.  You could still make decisions based on what you wanted, like saving the council.  No red/blue options required there.  The charm/intimidate skill was how good you are at convincing people to agree with you.  Take Jeong on Feros.  Insult him for renegade points (right side bottom), negotiate with him for paragon points (right side top), he won't care either way and you have to shoot him.  Invest some points into one of the social skills though, and you can Intimidate/Charm (left side red/blue options open up) him and actually change the outcome.  The morality of your Shep was never actually changed by having the skills.  Since you get a reward for doing this (changing outcomes, getting more credits and or loot or XP from different resolutions) it's reasonable that the skills require some investment.  It's only in ME2 that Red/Blue started meaning morality.

Yes but of course Charm and Intimiditae don't make much more sense anyways and are just as dumb as morality. I'm amazed the RPG Zealots don't want a walking skill.

[Gatt9]

Sidney wrote...

sbvera13 wrote...

"Morality" was not a skill.  You could still make decisions based on what you wanted, like saving the council.  No red/blue options required there.  The charm/intimidate skill was how good you are at convincing people to agree with you.  Take Jeong on Feros.  Insult him for renegade points (right side bottom), negotiate with him for paragon points (right side top), he won't care either way and you have to shoot him.  Invest some points into one of the social skills though, and you can Intimidate/Charm (left side red/blue options open up) him and actually change the outcome.  The morality of your Shep was never actually changed by having the skills.  Since you get a reward for doing this (changing outcomes, getting more credits and or loot or XP from different resolutions) it's reasonable that the skills require some investment.  It's only in ME2 that Red/Blue started meaning morality.

Yes but of course Charm and Intimiditae don't make much more sense anyways and are just as dumb as morality. I'm amazed the RPG Zealots don't want a walking skill.

Being able to charm someone,  or intimidate them,  takes skill.  It's usually represented by Charisma/Strength,  but since ME didn't have attributes I guess they moved i there.

As far as the "RPG zealots" comment goes,  and the guy at the top of the page,  RPGs are supposed to play like RPGs.  I'm really confused why you think that RPG's shouldn't?

I'm *always* amazed that,  only with RPGs,  people demand they play like other things,  and condemn the genre's fans for wanting games of that genre.  People don't demand that Shooters or RTS's play like some other genre,  so why do they do it to RPGs?  There's something important in there,  either people must be getting really sick of "Just another shooter" and want some way to break the monotony,  or they must be really sick of one-dimensional narratives and want more interaction,  that's the only reason I can think of for so many people demanding all RPGs play like something else.

[Epic777]

@Gatt9 If it was so simple. The lines of genres have blurred. Shooters, RTS etc now have RPG elements. However RPGs have not added anything else from other genres.

[littlezack]

 I'm *always* amazed that,  only with RPGs,  people demand they play like other things,  and condemn the genre's fans for wanting games of that genre.  People don't demand that Shooters or RTS's play like some other genre,  so why do they do it to RPGs?  There's something important in there,  either people must be getting really sick of "Just another shooter" and want some way to break the monotony,  or they must be really sick of one-dimensional narratives and want more interaction,  that's the only reason I can think of for so many people demanding all RPGs play like something else.

...or they could be sick of the way traditional RPGs play. I know I am.

[Someone With Mass]

littlezack wrote...

 I'm *always* amazed that,  only with RPGs,  people demand they play like other things,  and condemn the genre's fans for wanting games of that genre.  People don't demand that Shooters or RTS's play like some other genre,  so why do they do it to RPGs?  There's something important in there,  either people must be getting really sick of "Just another shooter" and want some way to break the monotony,  or they must be really sick of one-dimensional narratives and want more interaction,  that's the only reason I can think of for so many people demanding all RPGs play like something else.

...or they could be sick of the way traditional RPGs play. I know I am.

Same. Mass Effect is going for its own thing, and that's how I like it.

[Il Divo]

Gatt9 wrote...

As far as the "RPG zealots" comment goes,  and the guy at the top of the page,  RPGs are supposed to play like RPGs.  I'm really confused why you think that RPG's shouldn't?

I'm *always* amazed that,  only with RPGs,  people demand they play like other things,  and condemn the genre's fans for wanting games of that genre.  People don't demand that Shooters or RTS's play like some other genre,  so why do they do it to RPGs?  There's something important in there,  either people must be getting really sick of "Just another shooter" and want some way to break the monotony,  or they must be really sick of one-dimensional narratives and want more interaction,  that's the only reason I can think of for so many people demanding all RPGs play like something else.

Here's where the problem sets in. Let's look at pen and paper RPGs. I have a good bit of experience with DnD.  But in general, has there ever been a pen and paper system which occurred in 'real-time' or that did not utilize a turn-based system? 

Now, let's fast forward to current days. Take something like KotOR (where the game is turn-based) and you don't have a problem. The player simply denotes target selection. But what about Mass Effect? Morrowind? Dragon Age 2? These games have a much heavier emphasis on the 'real-time' play and begin to move into different territory.

Gamers have certain expectations for real time (since most other games occur in this style: shooters, sports, racing, platformers, etc). Morrowind's "hit or miss" attack animations, regardless of how RPG they may have been, felt very awkward to handle. And this is coming from someone who much prefers it to Oblivion.

When rpgs remain turn-based and avoid real time, there isn't a problem. It's when they attempt to move into other spheres of influence that they cannot expect to simply abide by traditional mechanics. In this sense, Mass Effect's tps elements were not up to par. I don't demand that Bioware make hybrids. They can stick with turn-based rpgs. But if they're going to implement tps mechanics, they better make damn sure they're fluid. Otherwise, why not make it turn-based in the first place and avoid all the hassle?

Modifié par Il Divo, 10 juillet 2011 - 02:25 .

[ThePwener]

ME2 & 3 aren't RPGs. These days every game has Exp. - character customization - conversation - weapon customization.

It's just one big loop that every dev falls into since 2005. ME1 WAS an RPG. ME2 & 3 aren't.

[Il Divo]

AlanC9 wrote...

Are you sure grinding isn't mandatory in MMORPGs? Can you move on to better content without doing any?

To use WoW as an example, it's possible but at times not really feasible. Leveling in wow is either done through grinding mobs or dungeons with groups. It's become better now, but there was a point where it could take up to 2-3 hours to form a group, making the latter less feasible for leveling. Which left grinding. WoW's problem is that it never attempted to mask the grinding behind anything of value. Quests were all either:

a) "I need 15 lion pelts. The lions are east of my town."

"Bandits killed my wife. Kill 20 of them and everything will be ok."

My closest parallel experience, I guess, is Morrowind, where you either have to grind or you have to steal a lot to pay trainers.

Morrowind's system worked better because not every skill and quest were combat related. WoW's system has two goals in mind:

1) Reach maximum level.
2) Obtain the best gear possible.

While many RPGs function this way, WoW's existence as a competitive, "social" game made this all the more imperative. There is a fairly lineaer order in which you (the player) are intended to complete quests, you are intended to visit areas in a certain order, and follow this pattern ad infinitum, all to reach the level cap. Morrowind's design philosophy is closer to "Go anywhere, do anything".

Modifié par Il Divo, 10 juillet 2011 - 02:44 .

[ThePwener]

WoW is a half-assed game. Nothing good comes out of comparing it to other games, let alone ME.

[Cainne Chapel]

ThePwener wrote...

ME2 & 3 aren't RPGs. These days every game has Exp. - character customization - conversation - weapon customization.

It's just one big loop that every dev falls into since 2005. ME1 WAS an RPG. ME2 & 3 aren't.

Enlighten us.  Why do you feel ME1 was more an RPG than ME2/3?

To me, ME2/3 are merely progressive steps from what ME1 started.

So far ME3 looks have found the sweet spot between meaningful skills/customization and combat.... so far.

But what in ME1 made it an RPG and what in ME2/3 dont fit that bill?

[Savber100]

ThePwener wrote...

ME2 & 3 aren't RPGs. These days every game has Exp. - character customization - conversation - weapon customization.

It's just one big loop that every dev falls into since 2005. ME1 WAS an RPG. ME2 & 3 aren't.

SWEET! So Halo: Reach had the option where I didn't have to fight to the death? Wait, please tell me how I could have saved the Noble Team from being totally wiped out on Reach. 

OH and also tell me how I can join the templars in Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood or is that feature in the next sequel? 

Also it sounds like you already played ME3 and know everything about it! Where did you get a copy? 

Oh wait.. 

So these games all have customization of weapons/armor and leveling up characters etc but they are not called RPGs. 

Huh.. doesn't that prove that it's the CHOICES AND CONSEQUENCES within a game that allows you to differentiate a RPG from a pure action game? <_<

[Il Divo]

Savber100 wrote...

Wait, please tell me how I could have saved the Noble Team from being totally wiped out on Reach. 

Ouch, too soon, man. They gave up their lives for us. R.I.P. Team Noble.

[Someone With Mass]

I think ME2 was BioWare's experiment on how to improve the gameplay, and most of the development time went to making new versions of the engine, and redesigning almost everything. With ME3, they don't have to do that, and can focus more on other things, like the RPG parts, customization and all that.

[Praetor Knight]

Someone With Mass wrote...

I think ME2 was BioWare's experiment on how to improve the gameplay, and most of the development time went to making new versions of the engine, and redesigning almost everything. With ME3, they don't have to do that, and can focus more on other things, like the RPG parts, customization and all that.

Yeah, that's what I believe.

[Halie Star]

Hopefully this will be the best RPG,  I have ever played.I agree with Casey, people do want a RPG experience that is totally involved. I can't wait to play it .

[ThePwener]

People who think ME2 and 3 are RPGs are delusional.

[Someone With Mass]

ThePwener wrote...

People who think ME2 and 3 are RPGs are delusional.

And people who judges a game based of a demo of the incomplete version of the game months before it's released are idiots.

Your point is?

[ThePwener]

Someone With Mass wrote...

ThePwener wrote...

People who think ME2 and 3 are RPGs are delusional.

And people who judges a game based of a demo of the incomplete version of the game months before it's released are idiots.

Your point is?

Im not judging anything pal. I waited for ME2 to come out and then I balanced it. ME3 is identical to ME2. It's safe to say that it's even farther from RPG material.

[Il Divo]

ThePwener wrote...

Im not judging anything pal. I waited for ME2 to come out and then I balanced it. ME3 is identical to ME2. It's safe to say that it's even farther from RPG material.

There's always the possibility to consider that it is you who is delusional. Food for thought.