3223 réponses à ce sujet

[Foolsfolly]

Now that I think about it, my biggest problem with loot is when there's a limit to how much I can hold at any given time. Then, instead of just being some minor thing I just tweak every now and again, inventory becomes this chore - I have to constantly go in and clean out the junk I've picked up along the way, just so I'll have space on the off chance I find something I might actually want. I have to pick and choose what I take out of each chest and compare it to what I have.

It wouldn't be problem without the stupid limit. Is there any real reason Shepard can only hold 150 items at a time?

It is a chore. I'm not all that certain why games have inventory limits. I like how Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas both had ammo, health, and the like as weightless so I could carry all my ammo and health without it holding me down.

Replayed KOTOR recently and I never got a "you cannot carry any more" notification. Either it had an unlimited inventory or it was spacious enough that it never intruded on my gaming. I was selling things to buy Casseuss Fett's armor and pistol and doing these stops when I felt like. Not because I was in the middle of a mission and could no longer pick up anything until I headed into town.

The worst game out there with a limited inventory, to me, is DA2. They removed the importance of armor thanks to the fact that only Hawke (the PC) can wear armor and that means only 1/3 of the armor in the game is ever viable to be used (it's not like a Mage Hawke has a chance of wearing Heavy armor, nor have the Dex to wear light armor).

The weapon choice is fine. But the thing that really kills it? The jewelry, where the difference comes down to small little numbers, and the vast majority of jewelry is genetic named things with leveled amounts of stat changing. Like +1 or +1.5 to Stamina Regen.

It became a chore because every other dungeon it was time to replace one ring or amulet with one that's only slightly better.

I'd rather have just had armors that everyone could wear and rings and the like to be treasures you find and are happy to see. Not have you bogged down in dozens of rings each one of them easily replaceable.

All that game's inventory did was make weapons sometimes worthwhile, armor almost never worthwhile, and rings that were akin to trash. The whole thing was "and now I dump my crap into a vendor's stall and go and get more." And until you get Black Emporium (a DLC) there's really nothing you're saving your money for.

[Sylvius the Mad]

slimgrin wrote...

I don't think stats should interfere/alter the player's twitch abilities in an action RPG. They should be in the background like ME2 ( but viewable)

Not all action RPGs have twitch components.  I mentioned Dungeon Siege earlier, but even DA2 was routinely called an action RPG by BioWare, and there's no twitch component there at all (certainly not in the PC version).

ME2 combat is better, not arguing that.

[
I would happily argue that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

littlezack wrote...

Is there any real reason Shepard can only hold 150 items at a time?

Items have mass.

I'd rather ME limited Shepard to 20 items or some other more credible limit.

If you're loooking for a design limitation, huge invetories badly slow loading times.  BioWare learned this lesson in NWN.

[Bnol]

Gatt9 wrote...

Um...what?

The game prompts me to take an action,  I took it,  and the game failed to react,  and it's somehow my fault the game ignores the Role I was pursuing?  I was trying to "Break the game" by taking an action the game offers me?  Then the game fails to observe the morality system it has implemented,  and ignores the violation of it's own system,  and it's my fault?

Really?

Yup,  actually it would have.

if(renegade_interrupt(merc) && Morality >= 100)
{
           cutscene(Companions_freakout);
}

Notice how easy it is to check that stat the game actually had implemented and conviently ignored?

The fact is,  ME was billed as an RPG,  it fails to obvserve the very few role constraints it implements.  Hence,  not an RPG,  because it fails to even maintain the very few Roles it does establish,  any and every action is completely fine regardless of the "Role" you're pursuing.  The "Role" the game establishes,  through stat.

Now would also be a very good time for you to notice the topic of the thread,  it's a topic to discuss stats and loot.  Hence,  the reason why we're having this discussion.

The game prompted you to take a Renegade interrupt, it didn't prompt you with a Paragon interrupt.  The only thing that would be easier to do would be to check the morality before the cutscene, and then not display the interrupt option, instead of having your squadmates react after.  But then again it is just as easy for the devs to expect you won't use a renegade interrupt option if playing pure Paragon.  You are complaining about something you can easily avoid, when there are so many other things in the game that could be improved that you can't avoid.  You seem to think developers have all the time and money in the world to sink into their games. 

[Lumikki]

slimgrin wrote...

I thank god I never got into table top RPG's. Seriously. I just might be unreasonably rigid in what my definition of roleplaying is.

Hehe, not really. 

I have played PnP RPG's and I think I'm pretty open minded about RPG.

This hole argument in this thread is between statical gameplay and role-playing, from games focus perspective. Asking question, does more stats and loot make Mass Effect game better. If Mass Effect would be normal RPG, I would say yes, but because Mass Effect serie is cinematic action RPG with TPS combat, I have to say Biowares is doing fine job with ME3 design as it is.

Modifié par Lumikki, 11 juillet 2011 - 08:38 .

[Raxxman]

Lumikki wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

I thank god I never got into table top RPG's. Seriously. I just might be unreasonably rigid in what my definition of roleplaying is.

Hehe, not really. 

I have played PnP RPG's and I think I'm pretty open minded about RPG.

This hole argument in this thread is between statical gameplay and role-playing, from games focus perspective. Asking question, does more stats and loot make Mass Effect game better. If Mass Effect would be normal RPG, I would say yes, but because Mass Effect serie is cinematic action RPG with TPS combat, I have to say Biowares is doing fine job with ME3 design as it is.

The thing is, the stats are largely still there, just hidden from the players view. The question is do you want players knowing exact details? And if not why not?

[Lumikki]

Raxxman wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

I thank god I never got into table top RPG's. Seriously. I just might be unreasonably rigid in what my definition of roleplaying is.

Hehe, not really. 

I have played PnP RPG's and I think I'm pretty open minded about RPG.

This hole argument in this thread is between statical gameplay and role-playing, from games focus perspective. Asking question, does more stats and loot make Mass Effect game better. If Mass Effect would be normal RPG, I would say yes, but because Mass Effect serie is cinematic action RPG with TPS combat, I have to say Biowares is doing fine job with ME3 design as it is.

The thing is, the stats are largely still there, just hidden from the players view. The question is do you want players knowing exact details? And if not why not?

Because where the focus of the game is.

In normal RPG collecting items and adjusting stats is part of normal gameplay experience, mostly because normal RPG gameplay is slow and strategy based, like pause and deside what to do. In Mass Effect serie what is a lot more fluid action and cinematic with a lot of visuality impression, some slow gameplay stuff turns too much focus in wrong direction. It's sort of impression breaker. So, while we need customation, we need it to be done as easy and fast as possible so that we can continue our cinematic role-playing. We want player play the cinematic game, not use a lot of time deside what to adjust in stats or micro-manage inventories from junk items and so on. Focus is shifting from role-playing in story to statical gameplay, where defining and rewarding you character becomes more important than role-playing you character.

PS: We aren't talking item stats what will be visible in ME3 anyway.

Modifié par Lumikki, 11 juillet 2011 - 03:06 .

[EternalPink]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Now that I think about it, my biggest problem with loot is when there's a limit to how much I can hold at any given time. Then, instead of just being some minor thing I just tweak every now and again, inventory becomes this chore - I have to constantly go in and clean out the junk I've picked up along the way, just so I'll have space on the off chance I find something I might actually want. I have to pick and choose what I take out of each chest and compare it to what I have.

It wouldn't be problem without the stupid limit. Is there any real reason Shepard can only hold 150 items at a time?

It is a chore. I'm not all that certain why games have inventory limits. I like how Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas both had ammo, health, and the like as weightless so I could carry all my ammo and health without it holding me down.

Replayed KOTOR recently and I never got a "you cannot carry any more" notification. Either it had an unlimited inventory or it was spacious enough that it never intruded on my gaming. I was selling things to buy Casseuss Fett's armor and pistol and doing these stops when I felt like. Not because I was in the middle of a mission and could no longer pick up anything until I headed into town.

The worst game out there with a limited inventory, to me, is DA2. They removed the importance of armor thanks to the fact that only Hawke (the PC) can wear armor and that means only 1/3 of the armor in the game is ever viable to be used (it's not like a Mage Hawke has a chance of wearing Heavy armor, nor have the Dex to wear light armor).

The weapon choice is fine. But the thing that really kills it? The jewelry, where the difference comes down to small little numbers, and the vast majority of jewelry is genetic named things with leveled amounts of stat changing. Like +1 or +1.5 to Stamina Regen.

It became a chore because every other dungeon it was time to replace one ring or amulet with one that's only slightly better.

I'd rather have just had armors that everyone could wear and rings and the like to be treasures you find and are happy to see. Not have you bogged down in dozens of rings each one of them easily replaceable.

All that game's inventory did was make weapons sometimes worthwhile, armor almost never worthwhile, and rings that were akin to trash. The whole thing was "and now I dump my crap into a vendor's stall and go and get more." And until you get Black Emporium (a DLC) there's really nothing you're saving your money for.

In fallout as i recall the amount you can carry is determined by some of the skills and perks but i do agree the inventory system in DA2 sucked and the The witcher 1 inventory system is a pain as well but some games do take it to far and offer no plausable reason as to why your party can carry enough equipment to outfit a army.

The only one that comes to mind is the magical bags that showed up in BG2.

The problem with stats is when items have stat based requirements since it doesn't make sense that a warrior who can pick up one sword suddenly can't pick up another due to a arbitary stat requirement and when the game rewards you in arbitary away, i killed one goblin i was lvl 4 then suddenly i killed one more goblin and i was lvl 5 and i've "magically" grown muscles that days of swinging heavy metal objects haven't grown

[Sidney]

Gatt9 wrote...

There's 70 pages to this thread,  I think it's safe to say I'm not alone.  Head on over to RPGCodex,  post your claims,  see what happens.  Or 4chan's /v/.  Or even the D&D boards.  I'll warn you ahead of time,  none of those places will be nearly as polite as I am.

No offense but this is the equivilent of saying head on over the creationismtoday.com and see how wrong you are about evolution. Luddite fanantics aren't your best arguement.

[Sidney]

Foolsfolly wrote...
It became a chore because every other dungeon it was time to replace one ring or amulet with one that's only slightly better.

I'd rather have just had armors that everyone could wear and rings and the like to be treasures you find and are happy to see. Not have you bogged down in dozens of rings each one of them easily replaceable.

Right because most RPG's aren't a grind through moderately better items. Dear god ME1 was the high priest of just such a bad design. DA2's flaw is that it didn't get rid of trash loot it just transformed it from "Worn Leather Boots" into "Ring +3% physical damage". Same effect ot the gamer.

In then 99% of all loot is worthless because most loot isn't useful to you. All the darkspawn daggers in DAO or normal arrows in BG2 and such are worthless. Even the swarm of ring of protecton +1 you find in BG2 become worthless in short order is almost all the magic armor in DAO since there are a handful of sets people use. ME's solved that problem by making any loot you find useful - money or tech - and sparing all of us the pointlessness of trash looting.

[Xewaka]

AlanC9 wrote...

slimgrin wrote...
I thank god I never got into table top RPG's. Seriously. I just might be unreasonably rigid in what my definition of roleplaying is.

It's often the people who never played PnP who have the rigid definitions. Unless someone only played one PnP system, that is.

PnP RPG definition (shortened version and from a player, not the GM, perception): game where you play as a character coherent within the setting (ideally, created by you), and interpret him in any given situation, with a ruleset mediation to determine degree of success or failure of your character's actions.

Sidney wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...
There's 70 pages to this thread,  I think it's safe to say I'm not alone.  Head on over to RPGCodex,  post your claims,  see what happens.  Or 4chan's /v/.  Or even the D&D boards.  I'll warn you ahead of time,  none of those places will be nearly as polite as I am.

No offense but this is the equivilent of saying head on over the creationismtoday.com and see how wrong you are about evolution. Luddite fanantics aren't your best arguement.

I would like to know how rage against the machine relates to express dissapointment in a product below its company standard.

Modifié par Xewaka, 11 juillet 2011 - 12:52 .

[sp0ck 06]

Bnol wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

Um...what?

The game prompts me to take an action,  I took it,  and the game failed to react,  and it's somehow my fault the game ignores the Role I was pursuing?  I was trying to "Break the game" by taking an action the game offers me?  Then the game fails to observe the morality system it has implemented,  and ignores the violation of it's own system,  and it's my fault?

Really?

Yup,  actually it would have.

if(renegade_interrupt(merc) && Morality >= 100)
{
           cutscene(Companions_freakout);
}

Notice how easy it is to check that stat the game actually had implemented and conviently ignored?

The fact is,  ME was billed as an RPG,  it fails to obvserve the very few role constraints it implements.  Hence,  not an RPG,  because it fails to even maintain the very few Roles it does establish,  any and every action is completely fine regardless of the "Role" you're pursuing.  The "Role" the game establishes,  through stat.

Now would also be a very good time for you to notice the topic of the thread,  it's a topic to discuss stats and loot.  Hence,  the reason why we're having this discussion.

The game prompted you to take a Renegade interrupt, it didn't prompt you with a Paragon interrupt.  The only thing that would be easier to do would be to check the morality before the cutscene, and then not display the interrupt option, instead of having your squadmates react after.  But then again it is just as easy for the devs to expect you won't use a renegade interrupt option if playing pure Paragon.  You are complaining about something you can easily avoid, when there are so many other things in the game that could be improved that you can't avoid.  You seem to think developers have all the time and money in the world to sink into their games. 

This.  The game offered you, a full paragon Shepard, a renegade interrupt.  You took it, just to see if the game would respond to an out of character decision.  If you take every interrupt the game offers you, you're not role-playing.  You're testing the system of the game.  Somehow I don't think Shepard is wondering whether the devs coded responses to pushing mercs off buildings.

As for your stats, do you have any idea how much work would be involved in created a plausible system for gauging and then providing feedback for all Para/Rene decisions?  It'd be nice, but I think I'd rather the devs focus on more important things like gameplay and main story events.  

[vallore]

In Exile wrote...

vallore wrote...
While I find the wheel esthetically lacking, it is the Paragon/Renegade constrains to the available dialogue that I would like to see changed, in the current form it has. 

But the paraphrase, etc. you're okay with? Just double-checking because that tends to be a hot-button issue.

With the paraphrase itself, no. Personally I believe that it remains unclear, often not providing enough information about goal and motivations that the real phrase provides.

I believe it would improve the game if we could opt to increase the social proficiency of our shepard, if we so desire, by buying ranks in a social skill. a social skill or skills we could develop could work as a bonus to the normal rank obtained through active dialogue choices. And if a player did not desired to buy/use those skills, then he would simply use the mechanism already present in ME2, without the new bonus.

Let me see if I understand - instead of how ME1 did it, you think that a general 'persuasion' pool that just makes it easier to pass the checks is something you'd like?

If that's the case, what about a 'switch', that lets you count a % of your paragon points toward renegade or your renegade points toward paragon (e.g. 4 ranks of 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%). We could call it 'force of personality' or something along those lines, for Shepards who transcend the morality metre. 

Could work. Personally, I prefer a social skill or skills, if nothing else because of consistency, as we already have combat skills.

[AlanC9]

Xewaka wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

slimgrin wrote...
I thank god I never got into table top RPG's. Seriously. I just might be unreasonably rigid in what my definition of roleplaying is.

It's often the people who never played PnP who have the rigid definitions. Unless someone only played one PnP system, that is.

PnP RPG definition (shortened version and from a player, not the GM, perception): game where you play as a character coherent within the setting (ideally, created by you), and interpret him in any given situation, with a ruleset mediation to determine degree of success or failure of your character's actions.

Works for me. Doesn't have a heck of a lot to do with the sort of "RPG mechanics" this thread is about, of course.

[AlanC9]

Going back a bit.....

Gatt9 wrote...

if(renegade_interrupt(merc) && Morality >= 100)
{
           cutscene(Companions_freakout);
}

Notice how easy it is to check that stat the game actually had implemented and conviently ignored?

Sure, the check is easy to implement. All the actual work there happens in Companions_freakout. Is the plan to have generic squawking? In that case the companions will react the same way to Shepard punching a reporter, gunning down an armed opponent before he has time to draw, and throwing a prisoner off a rooftop. If not, we need different lines for every companion and every interrupt where this system needs to be implemented. Or is this only for this one particular interrupt?

Has any RPG ever actually implemented something like this? In KotOR, was the Temple dialogue different if you had been LS the whole way?

Modifié par AlanC9, 11 juillet 2011 - 03:28 .

[Il Divo]

AlanC9 wrote...

Has any RPG ever actually implemented something like this? In KotOR, was the Temple dialogue different if you had been LS the whole way?

For the most part, no. This was even worse with performing evil actions, since you're railroaded in a light side storyline. Most of the time Bastila would give the generic "It pains me to see you behaving this way. Such actions lead to the Dark Side".

Edit: Other Bioware games have admittedly been better on this.

Modifié par Il Divo, 11 juillet 2011 - 03:42 .

[In Exile]

Vaeliorin wrote...
While that definitely sounds better than ME2, it still brings up the question of why Shepard becomes more persuasive based entirely on how nice/how much of a dick he is to people.

Social skills are experiential. The more you act a certain way, the better you get at doing it. Shepard becoming a better dick the more he acts like a dick actually makes sense. It's a little like doing your math homework. 

 

Of course, it also punishes players who don't want to play one extreme or the other by forcing them to put points into something those who push the extremes don't have to (assuming I'm understanding what you mean by 'switch' correctly...I'm assuming you meant some sort of skill, since it apparently has 4 ranks.)

Well, I would have "paragade" checks, where you get unique outcomes based on the combination of paragon + renegade as well as paragon + renegade outcomes. But you know me - I'm opposed to a persuasion button and think gameplay via dialogue has to come from the interplay of in-character choices. 

I should have clarified this bit.

Persuasive ability should either be based on some sort of persuasion skill not tied to Paragon/Renegade, or just be something Shepard can do regardless of his Paragon/Renegade status (I'd prefer the first, of course.)  Regardless, Paragon/Renegade shouldn't play into it, unless Shepard has a little glowy meter on his uniform somewhere that says "I've been this nice to people :innocent:" or "I've been this much of a dick :devil:"

Persuasion, IMO, should never be a skill. In the same way "winning combat" should never be a skill. 

[In Exile]

Vaeliorin wrote...
Loot, I think, simply adds a layer of character customization.  That, and getting a neat piece of loot adds a moment of excitement/enjoyment to games (at least for me.)

I've nver responded well to conditioning, so the loot was never a reward - it was just trash I had to shift through. 

What I'm really curious about is the customization argument. How should loot vary to get that feeling? I like customizing and building, but only when the choices matter. DA:O had the One True Build ™ problem. ME had trash loot that essentially came down to 1-2 choices. 

I also think that randomized loot (not completely random Diablo-style, but such that while you may always get a 2-handed weapon out of a particular chest, the particular 2-handed weapon can change on each playthrough) adds to replayability, as it gives back a bit of that "What next?" excitement that's generally lacking after you've beaten a game once (unless it's a game that differs vastly from one playthrough to the next, and those are very rare.)

Only if you care about loot. To me, random loot just give a "****, again?" feeling, because I'm just forced to deal with the random # generator to get a similar bonus to my builds.

[AlanC9]

Il Divo wrote...

For the most part, no. This was even worse with performing evil actions, since you're railroaded in a light side storyline. Most of the time Bastila would give the generic "It pains me to see you behaving this way. Such actions lead to the Dark Side".

Edit: Other Bioware games have admittedly been better on this.

Yeah, and even in these cases you're just getting a reaction to the PC's action or alignment, not to inconsistency between the PC's professed or prior aligment and a recent action.

[hwf]

Foolsfolly wrote... The weapon choice is fine. But the thing that really kills it? The jewelry, where the difference comes down to small little numbers, and the vast majority of jewelry is generic named things with leveled amounts of stat changing. Like +1 or +1.5 to Stamina Regen.

This is an important issue, and I'd like to requote it just for making more feedback noise.
I agree with the tedium involved with filtering and selling unwanted loot.

What we saw in ME3's E3 gameplay demo is a barrel mod that does just "+X damage".
It's too simple, it'll devolve the number play to "go for the bigger number".

In ME1 you got Barrel Upgrades that had both a benefit and a deficit. More damage but less heat dissipation.
It actually made me prefer certain lower level barrel upgrades with more damage output for more heat creation - just because I preferred punch over quantity.

Nearly every mod should have a + and - attribute and it should deviate a bit what it improves and messes up; this way you get puzzle a bit.

[littlezack]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

littlezack wrote...

Is there any real reason Shepard can only hold 150 items at a time?

Items have mass.

I'd rather ME limited Shepard to 20 items or some other more credible limit.

Credibly speaking, Shepard couldn't carry much of any around with him. Certainly not another suit of armor.

[Someone With Mass]

The problem in ME1's case is that you could just add another mod that negated the primary mod's negative stats.

Which would more than likely be the case with the weapon mods in ME3 if they went that way.

I think they'll give more options than damage boosters, so you can choose if you want to go, for example, for more accuracy at the expense of potential more damage because it takes up a slot.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 11 juillet 2011 - 04:17 .

[Lumikki]

In Exile wrote...

Persuasion, IMO, should never be a skill. In the same way "winning combat" should never be a skill.

I agree. It seem this old topic is back again.

In role-play perspective both systems paragon/renegade and persuation/intimidate are pretty much same, maybe paragon/renegade is little better because it tries to count past actions. Metagaming perspective persuation/intimidate is better, because it allows player to get better what they want. Meaning players dialogs choises has not be limited anyway to get the postive result, because it's skill based.

I haven't really yet seen really good system.

People shouldn't think paragon/renegade and persuation/intimidate are same kind, they are totally different systems what just will cause little same kind of end results.

Persuation/intimidate is skill where player can put points to skill what can change npcs opinions to more positive for player in dialogs, if player has higher enough skill.

Paragon/renegade is moral reputation, where game counts players past moral choises in dialogs and if player has done enough same kind of choise, player gets dialog option what allow player to change npcs opinion for more positive for player.

Both systems have same issue, they allow player bypass dialogs negative outcomes when player is metagaming. Metagamers don't like paragon/renegade so much, because it force them in these two exreme paths, while persuation/intimidate system doesn't do anything else than force them to put points to skill. For real role-players both systems are irrelevant as they do choises by based they characters role, not by where they find optimal solutions for players happiness.

Modifié par Lumikki, 11 juillet 2011 - 04:22 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Lumikki wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Persuasion, IMO, should never be a skill. In the same way "winning combat" should never be a skill.

I agree. It seem this old topic is back again.

In role-play perspective both systems paragon/renegade and persuation/intimidate are pretty much same, maybe paragon/renegade is little better because it tries to count past actions. Metagaming perspective persuation/intimidate is better, because it allows player to get better what they want. Meaning players dialogs choises has not be limited anyway to get the postive result, because it's skill based.

I haven't really yet seen really good system.

People shouldn't think paragon/renegade and persuation/intimidate are same kind, they are totally different systems what just will cause little same kind of end results.

Persuation/intimidate is skill where player can put points to skill what can change npcs opinions to more positive for player in dialogs, if player has higher enough skill.

Paragon/renegade is moral reputation, where game counts players past moral choises in dialogs and if player has done enough same kind of choise, player gets dialog option what allow player to change npcs opinion for more positive for player.

Both systems have same issue, they allow player bypass dialogs negative outcomes when player is metagaming. Metagamers don't like paragon/renegade so much, because it force them in these two exreme paths, while persuation/intimidate system doesn't do anything else than force them to put points to skill. For real role-players both systems are irrelevant as they do choises by based they characters role, not by where they find optimal solutions for players happiness.

That really has to do with the design that conversation skills and moral counters are instant "I win" buttons, that they are used to bypass dialog's negative outcomes (as you say) rather than encourage the player to roleplay the personality. The way around this (imo) is through more complex dialog trees where skills opens up new avenues of dialog or reactions from the people you're talking with varying results depending on the NPCs personality and what you actually want from the conversation. Do you want to outwit them? Do you want to flatter them? Intimidate them? Get information from them? etc. Sometimes, your strongest or most prominent skills weren't the best idea.

A very good example of this in action (imo), or at least one of the only examples where it happens was the Trial of Ember in Neverwinter Nights 2.

Though on reflection, with Mass Effect's paraphrasing system and voiced protagonist, it sounds like a colossal task to implement even under the assumption that BioWare would even want to move in that direction. So maybe not for Mass Effect 3, but in general.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 11 juillet 2011 - 04:33 .