3223 réponses à ce sujet

[Terror_K]

In Exile wrote...

But what does it mean to be consistent with the source? To keep this on topic, let's look at the shift from ME1-ME2. I think ME2 is essentially a re-hash of al the crucial elements of ME1. Spirit, design, setting, characters, etc. All of it is the same type of game. What do you think makes a game deviate from that?

To be honest, if I could summarise it most succinctly, it would be that ME2 didn't feel like Mass Effect to me. It's actually hard to nail down specifically because it's a lot of factors, but it just wasn't the same experience and didn't feel the same. ME1 felt like it was more than the sum of its parts and a work of art despite its flaws, while ME2 felt too focused on just being a game and came across as kind of cold and methodical. The feel and style felt different too: ME1 felt like a proper homage to great sci-fi of the 1970's/80's like it was stated it was originally, but ME2 in many ways felt more like a modern mainstream action movie and too focused on the flashy stuff, a little too "Rule of Cool" and style over substance, etc. It felt like it was marketed at a different audience. ME1 treated me as if I'd played an RPG before and knew that it was an RPG, while ME2 felt like a constant tutorial that was trying to baby me, keeping too much away from my actual control and trying to hide its more technical/statistical RPG elements as if almost embarrassed by them.

All these things and more just felt like a deviation and like Mass Effect was embarrassed to be a "nerd game" and wanted to get in with the in-crowd. And to be honest, I'd be willing to forgive a lot of the gameplay shallowness in ME3 if it returned to its stylistic roots and didn't feel like it was shamed to be an RPG any more.

ME1 was very bad at trying to be any sort of game. It tried to copy the literal wording of what it meant (to most) to have RPG features (dialogue options, loot, character customization, stat-basd combat, power trees) and what it meant to most to have 3rd person shooter mechanics (i.e. an aiming reticule and a cover system). 

ME2 did the same thing - it had the essence of what it meant to have an RPG (character progression, XP awarded for achievements and not for murder, varied rewards, more direct and impactful skill systems, reactive item choice, power progression) and 3rd person shooter mechanics. 

I think ME2 did a much better job of having RPG features and a lot worse job at showing that it did have them.

I partially agree, but mostly disagree. As I said before, ME2 almost seemed embarrassed to be an RPG and like it was trying to hide it at every turn, while also being overly simple. Just as one can be too complex and complicated, one can be too simple and not complex enough. ME1 was one, ME2 was the other.

I also don't agree that XP in ME2 was awarded for achievements, since it was completely arbritrary and meaningless in the form it took. The rewards weren't really varied at all, as each game played out largely the same, and I actually feel the character and skill progression was too jumpy and sudden and too focused on instant gratification than smooth progression. I'm not saying ME1 was necessary brilliant in these areas either, but ME2 was hardly that much better, and did some factors worse.

ME2 did fix the issues for existing fans. I followed ME ever since I heard it announced as a spiritual succesor for KoTOR. And it had a lot of flaws; useless lot, pointless exploration, bad FPS mechanics, power progression that was all flash and no substance... 

... and ME2 then went out and addressed them. You're confusing an 'existing fan' with an 'a fan who shares your tastes'.

I'm not questioning that ME2 "addressed" a lot of the issues. I just question the way they went about it. In a lot of cases I'd have preferred repairing and adjusting over culling and replacing. I was never a big fan of Christina Norman's "simpler =  better" philosophy and basically felt they went overboard and took things too far. Some systems needed big changes and ME2 had good ideas that were simply overdone, while some systems just needed tweaking, but were gutted entirely. And on top of it all, a lot of the systems we got in exhange were either devoid of any real customisation or depth, overly linear, overautomated, presented as if aimed at a child or all four of these things. A lot of it didn't feel like progress either, and just a case of, "let's just rip this mechanic found in every other shooter out there and jam it in, but not actually do it as well."

Modifié par Terror_K, 13 juillet 2011 - 01:58 .

[Someone With Mass]

To me, ME1 felt like it went on forever sometimes, when it was really a few hours shorter than ME2, and I thought that game felt rather short, because it kept going pretty smooth all the way through.

If they can improve the flow of the game, that's just good, because I don't want to be dragged down by some mundane task that adds little to the gameplay and isn't very complex as some people claim it to be.

I don't really want to scour the galaxy for some weapon that's slightly better than the one I'm currently using, when I can just buy upgrades for my current weapon in a store.

I found it to be a lot more rewarding when I found the Vindicator or the Viper for the first time, because I didn't know the characteristics of the weapons or how effective they were, and I got a little excited to try them out. Unlike the weapons in ME1, which all had the exact same behavior and it all came down to which weapons had the better stats.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 13 juillet 2011 - 02:08 .

[Terror_K]

Someone With Mass wrote...

I found it to be a lot more rewarding when I found the Vindicator or the Viper for the first time, because I didn't know the characteristics of the weapons or how effective they were, and I got a little excited to try them out. Unlike the weapons in ME1, which all had the exact same behavior and it all came down to which weapons had the better stats.

The key there is in the bold though: for the first time. And that's one of my biggest issues with ME2's items, inventory, weapons, etc.: that once you've played through once you've already exhausted the reward factor and any chance of items being interesting, because every other playthrough is exactly the same in that regard. And stats have always been a determining factor in RPGs when it comes to items and item progression. How a weapon "feels" or "behaves" it pretty much a purely shooter-based mechanic. It's sad that non-RPGs like Call of Duty and Hitman:Blood Money actually outdo both Mass Effect titles in getting both of these aspects right.

[Someone With Mass]

Terror_K wrote...

The key there is in the bold though: for the first time. And that's one of my biggest issues with ME2's items, inventory, weapons, etc.: that once you've played through once you've already exhausted the reward factor and any chance of items being interesting, because every other playthrough is exactly the same in that regard. And stats have always been a determining factor in RPGs when it comes to items and item progression. How a weapon "feels" or "behaves" it pretty much a purely shooter-based mechanic. It's sad that non-RPGs like Call of Duty and Hitman:Blood Money actually outdo both Mass Effect titles in getting both of these aspects right.

Same thing can be said about ME1 weapons. One look at the stats could tell anyone if it was garbage or not.

And ME3 will have weapon mods, which should give the player the option to give the weapons more ways look and behave diffrently, which is all I really ask for.

When we have 21 weapons (not counting the heavy weapons) and some new ones, and I can mod each weapon with a certain number of mods so they can have more stats that I want, like a higher rate of fire and a slight accuracy boost or more damage, or even change the color of them to give that personal touch, I think that's more than enough.

Especially when I think that ME2 already had a good variety of weapons even if the ability to modify them wasn't there.

[Terror_K]

I agree that modding will definitely help. Though I didn't think vanilla ME2 had a good variety of weapons at all. ME2 should have had about the number of weapons we ended up with via DLC from the start, IMO.

ME3 is definitely on the right track, but I'd still prefer it if each weapon wasn't in precisely the same location every single time.

[Il Divo]

Terror_K wrote...

It's sad that non-RPGs like Call of Duty and Hitman:Blood Money actually outdo both Mass Effect titles in getting both of these aspects right.

The great thing about Hitman: Blood Money (just started replaying it recently) is that every upgrade does feel like a significant change; when I give my custom silver ballers a scope, they now have added functionality. But I still would not say that Hitman is any different after the first playthrough. Unless you plan on embracing a run and gun style, it's usually the same upgrades which always benefit the stealth-focused style. To a good degree, upgrades also follow a linear progression.

[sp0ck 06]

Gatt9 wrote...

If you do some google research,  which may require a little legwork at this point,  you'll find alot of dev's have commented over the years that one of the most frequent complaints in an RPG or Strategy game was "Why did my guy miss?  He's right there in front of him!!!". 

You'll also find Armor class was a major issue,  though that system was a bit convulted,  but that's what evolved Damage Resistance from armor instead of AC.  Incidental loot is another very common complaint,  people don't understand that the loot on that wolf is meant to represent what's lying around on the ground from past victims. 

Encumbrance is another biggie,  character based diplomacy skills are often misunderstood.

The thing is though,  this is most often people who bought a game in a genre they don't like,  and/or just as often people who didn't even bother reading the instruction book.  It's not representative of the market as a whole,  but you can't tell a suit that some number of people just shouldn't have bought the game,  all the suit sees is a sale.

So what does the suit do?  Mandates the games be made such that those people aren't bothered by the game.  Which leads us into "Streamlining".

Plus,  you always have the problem of some suit seeing some dissimiliar game and saying "Make it more like that!  It'll sell more units! (So I can get a bigger bonus)".  Which is essentially what happened to TB Strategy games.  Command & Conquer and Warcraft 2 sold huge,  and shortly thereafter *every* strategy game had to be RT.  This was pretty much literally an overnight shift,  because suddenly everything was RTS whether it made sense or not (X-com apocalypse and Acclaim's RT Civilization are probably the poster children.)
'cause that's about what has to happen for us to get away from COD 12 and Halo 7.

I was recently struck by the urge to pick up an old favorite of mine, Fallout 2.  While the dialogue, world, freedom, and characters are all as good as I remember, the combat is ATROCIOUS.  It's almost unplayable.  Having my character "miss" with a spear when he's standing right on top of an enemy is not a good game feature.  There's a reason why people complained.  Not because they're morons, because that is not a fun mechanic.

How does old turn based combat or encumberance make a game more intelligent?  The D&D system of AC might work for PnP...it does not work well in cRPGs.  Swordfights in BG games often devolved into two mighty heroes whiffing on each other for two minutes (fortunately the magic system was awesome.)  Unless there's some secret that only those in the top 5% of IQ (which apparently encompasses all "true" rpg fans) can comprehend, I don't understand how those old school RPG mechanics = better game.

What you call "streamlining" I call "progress."  Ultimately, I believe most people play games to have fun.  In certain games (like Fallout and BG), it IS fun to search for loot, tweak your character, etc (although I fail to see what game ever benefited from an encumberance system).  But that simply isn't what ME games are about.  To me, removing inventory and combat stats from ME2 was the right thing to do.  Those systems just didn't feel right in ME1.  Instead of being fun like in other RPG, they just felt like an immersion breaking chore, a task that had to be done with in order to get to the good bits.  ME2 was obviously not perfect.  It should have shipped with more weapons.  The skill trees should not have had restricted powers.  The mission complete screens were awful.  The story missions were too short and too few.  But it certainly was not a "dumb" game because it got rid of awkward RPG elements that didn't fit with the overall vision of the game.

Sidenote:  What are you talking about with RTS's?  There have been plenty of great turn based strat games in the past 10 years.  Total War series, Civilization.  Also: what is so TERRIBLE about real time, in RPGs or strategy games?  Why is turn based so much more intelligent?  Ever play Sins of a Solar Empire?  Homeworld?  Those are some of the best games I've ever played, and they require a hell of a lot more strategic thinking than Heroes of Might and Magic.

Modifié par sp0ck 06, 13 juillet 2011 - 03:33 .

[In Exile]

Foolsfolly wrote...
I agree. Otherwise items are just different by small percentages of stats. They mean nothing because in two hours you'll have different weapons and armor. Every mission you'll replace something. Unless it's ME1 in which case once you get Predator X armor and Spectre X weapons you're pretty much done.

Unless you like Colossus X armors better...which I sometimes do because I enjoy the look of the armor more.

I liked the Colossus X armours better. Can't stand the green military cammo (doesn't even make sense when there's nothing green in ME1).

Alpha Protocol and New Vegas are rather reactive plots. Mike Thorton's a rather static character, you can pick his dialogue choices but his mission and drive are never in question. The Courier is anyone you want it to be, although the next two DLCs will give the Courier backstory. Still the Courier's whatever voice you want. You can support any of three factions in a shallow plot, but all three factions are very different, have their pros and cons, and have at least three separate endings each.

New Vegas isn't a reactive game at all. If you sit down and sketch the actual number of scripted choices, you'll see there aren't very many, and there's nothing very special that goes on with the faction system other than a few threshold checks. 

I think the less complex the character, the more reactive the plot can be, seems to be true.

What New Vegas has is an open-world where you can try to do lots of things (you get the same results, but you can do it really differently). This makes the plot seem reactive, but it really isn't. 

If you can do 10 different things... but you always get outcome A or B, the game isn't actually very reactive. Now, New Vegas has a few endings (4 variants, if I recall) but that's nothing too drastic and it most quests just break down in 1 of 2 ways.

Shepard's not complex, he's a lot like Mike Thorton. You know exactly what Shepard's personality is and what Shepard's goal is. The past is left to your imagination, and the manner in which Shepard behaves is up to you...but Shepard has drive and a single goal without the player deciding those things.

Yes, but that makes the story react to Shepard more personally,  because Shepard is a known quantity. There's nothing personal at all in New Vegas. 

[Bnol]

daemon1129 wrote...

Something mainstream doesn't mean it is dumbed down and suck, you are correct.  But things get dumb down because of it being mainstream.  What is the best way to appeal to all types of auidence? Dumb it down.  Make it simple and fun. Streamlining annoying interface controls and stuff into something anyone can use without a hassle.  Remove medkits and backtracking and replace with recovernig health and on rail action.  Remove HUDs that gives information to the player because the player doesn't need to care about anything but mash buttons.  Health bar?  Gone.  Mana Bar?  Cooldown.   Inventory?  Too time consuming.  Crafting with loots?  Not everyone wants to spend that much time farming for loots.

When you are trying to make something mainstream, the end product will always end up "dumbed down" compare to what you started with.  It's inevitable, but also a shame if you ask me.

That doesn't have to be the case.  World of Warcraft has all the things you say are removed from games (Loot, HUD, Health/Mana, CDs, Inventory, Crafting), because presumably players don't want it, and it is the best selling MMORPG game ever.  Certainly the game in terms of questing/leveling is really easy, but there are difficult challenges at the end game and PVP.  You also have Starcraft 1 & 2 as one of the best selling RTS series of all time, and many find is one of the most balanced and complex RTS.  I don't like RTS so I don't have any experience with it.  But, those are just two examples of how mainstream games don't have to be dumbed down.

[Il Divo]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

I was recently struck by the urge to pick up an old favorite of mine, Fallout 2.  While the dialogue, world, freedom, and characters are all as good as I remember, the combat is ATROCIOUS.  It's almost unplayable.  Having my character "miss" with a spear when he's standing right on top of an enemy is not a good game feature.  There's a reason why people complained.  Not because they're morons, because that is not a fun mechanic.

But that was also due to the limitations of the top-down view at the time BG/Fallout were created. Anyone with an understanding of DnD mechanics will comprehend the hit/miss animations. Compare that to KotOR for example, where graphics were much more capable. That issue became non-existent. Hell, the turn-based system really worked well for KotOR because the synched combat animations made every conflict feel like an epic sword fight.

Edit: Having said that, I did find BG's combat to be aesthetically lacking, much like Morrowind's.

Modifié par Il Divo, 13 juillet 2011 - 04:24 .

[In Exile]

Terror_K wrote...
To be honest, if I could summarise it most succinctly, it would be that ME2 didn't feel like Mass Effect to me. 

That's not really a criticism. That's just a subjective feeling.

It's actually hard to nail down specifically because it's a lot of factors, but it just wasn't the same experience and didn't feel the same. 

Which is just a way of saying you liked one execution more than the other.

ME1 felt like it was more than the sum of its parts and a work of art despite its flaws, while ME2 felt too focused on just being a game and came across as kind of cold and methodical. The feel and style felt different too: ME1 felt like a proper homage to great sci-fi of the 1970's/80's like it was stated it was originally, but ME2 in many ways felt more like a modern mainstream action movie and too focused on the flashy stuff, a little too "Rule of Cool" and style over substance, etc. 

We've been over this. ME1 had many ''Rule of Cool'' moments (the entire ending sequence, especially Sovereign being defated by Assuming Direct Control to fight the player 1 v 3), overwrote it's own lore, etc. 

What it really sounds like you're saying is that you didn't like ME1 - you like 80s sci-fi and you happened to like ME1 because it reminded you of it.

It felt like it was marketed at a different audience. ME1 treated me as if I'd played an RPG before and knew that it was an RPG, while ME2 felt like a constant tutorial that was trying to baby me, keeping too much away from my actual control and trying to hide its more technical/statistical RPG elements as if almost embarrassed by them.

... Are you kidding? No, you're being serious.

ME1 had linear skills and linear item progression. It assumed that all that RPG content needed was lots of crap that didn't make a tangible difference on anything.

ME1 didn't feel like it respect players for having played an RPG before - it felt like the developers honestly designed the entire mechanic as satire. If I didn't know better, I'd swear ME1's skills and progression were all just a way to patronize RPG fans.

And to be honest, I'd be willing to forgive a lot of the gameplay shallowness in ME3 if it returned to its stylistic roots and didn't feel like it was shamed to be an RPG any more.

ME1 was the game that was ashamed to be an RPG. ME2 is just proud of what really is - a TPS interface with some very shallow RPG elements, which is really all that ME1 was.

I partially agree, but mostly disagree. As I said before, ME2 almost seemed embarrassed to be an RPG and like it was trying to hide it at every turn, while also being overly simple. Just as one can be too complex and complicated, one can be too simple and not complex enough. ME1 was one, ME2 was the other.

Wait, did you just say ME1 was complex? Are you making fun of me right now? 

I'll be really blunt - inequalities aren't complicated. That's all ME1 was based on it. 

A pistol had the best DPS in the game and powers were irrelevant to it. 

I also don't agree that XP in ME2 was awarded for achievements, since it was completely arbritrary and meaningless in the form it took. 

As if XP/kill isn't the most idiotic way to convey progression, well, ever?

This is one aspect where I honestly don't care ME2 did it badly - they at least removed the stupidest part of any RPG.

The rewards weren't really varied at all, as each game played out largely the same, and I actually feel the character and skill progression was too jumpy and sudden and too focused on instant gratification than smooth progression. 

Every RPG is based on leaps. Look at D&D - you have leaps in power per level. DA:O - leaps in power per level (via talents). Having 28 ranks of +0.5% accuracy isn't complicated - it's an insulting grind that acts as if the important part of an RPG is mindlessly making your numbers go up slowly. 1 rank of +14% achieves the same thing. 

I'm not saying ME1 was necessary brilliant in these areas either, but ME2 was hardly that much better, and did some factors worse.

You said ME1 was complex. It makes me wonder if you've played ME1. 

 And on top of it all, a lot of the systems we got in exhange were either devoid of any real customisation or depth, overly linear, overautomated, presented as if aimed at a child or all four of these things. 

That was what ME1 did, but I don't see how it ties into your point.

Before you say I'm twisting your words - I know what you really want is to say ME1 did these things, but honestly, if you think the ''greater than'' operator is complex, you need to revise your sense of worth and the attitude that you have been chosen for intellectual greatness that you seem to have. Because four year olds have an intuitive sense that ''5 is greater than 3'' that was ME1's RPG system. 

[Bnol]

whywhywhywhy wrote...

That's PR talk, reality is delays = increase in development cost period, even if the intent by BW was as you say(I don't believe that's the story, not entirely).  BW is owned by EA if you know anything about EA's past game development practices you'd understand what I meant. 

I can point this out to you from your point of view.  Let's say your correct the game is all about being the best, look at how close it was to it's launch date.  What happened that requires a year delay to release the game so close to it's original launch date and why close to a year delay ?  What could they possible be changing ? It would have to be significant to require such a long extension.  After all if it was minor and just bugfixes a 3-4 or 6month delay would suffice.  So the delay was to either to add or change something significant something that was missing from the game if it released on it's original launch date.

Keep in mind the timing of the delay matters greatly a delay a few months out from launch is bad but manageable, but a few weeks from launch ?  It's strong indicator.

I thought the original release date was in November, we all learned of the change in release date in May so it was still over 6 months until the release date.  If they needed just 1-2 months then they hit the dead zone of Dec-Feb.  You don't want to release a game that close to the holiday so it is better to push it to March, especially since you can get that 3-6-12 release date for ME 3.  They might not have even necessarily needed the extra time, and potentially could be pushing the release to avoid the November competition and/or keep the fall open for SW:TOR.  They won't just be working on ME3, but also on a lot of DLC content, and then being able to release a lot more DLC content earlier.

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
To be honest, if I could summarise it most succinctly, it would be that ME2 didn't feel like Mass Effect to me. 

That's not really a criticism. That's just a subjective feeling.

I'd say it is a criticism. It's just not a criticism that's valid for anyone who doesn't share that subjective feeling. Or rather feelings, since what's being posted seems to be only semi-coherent.

We're allowed to have these subjective feelings, as long as we don't expect others to necessarly share them. But I'm not quite sure what the point is of repeatedly posting about them. If someone doesn't share those feelings he can't possibly be swayed by such posts. I guess the value is for people who share the feelings but are incapable of articulating them.

Edit: really, it's like an Alien fan complaining that he didn't like Aliens because Aliens wasn't a horror movie the way Alien was. (I don't necessarily agree with Terror_K's descriptions of the two games; but sure, there's a tonal shift).  True, but.... what of it?

If I didn't know better, I'd swear ME1's skills and progression were all just a way to patronize RPG fans.

I really do believe this WRT the inventory system, and maybe the exploration too. They seem to be ways to provide this content without actually expending thought or effort on it.

Every RPG is based on leaps. Look at D&D - you have leaps in power per level. DA:O - leaps in power per level (via talents). Having 28 ranks of +0.5% accuracy isn't complicated - it's an insulting grind that acts as if the important part of an RPG is mindlessly making your numbers go up slowly. 1 rank of +14% achieves the same thing.

Different people have different tastes in leveling granularity. Some folks liked Morrowind with GCD because it theoretically makes levelling go away -- or rather, fade into a seamless grind. "Theoretically" because GCD doesn't make the rotten incentives of the underlying stat system go away, it just makes them somewhat easier to ignore

Modifié par AlanC9, 13 juillet 2011 - 07:09 .

[Il Divo]

AlanC9 wrote...

I'd say it is a criticism. It's just not a criticism that's valid for anyone who doesn't share that subjective feeling. Or rather feelings, since what's being posted seems to be only semi-coherent.

We're allowed to have these subjective feelings, as long as we don't expect others to necessarly share them. But I'm not quite sure what the point is of repeatedly posting about them. If someone doesn't share those feelings he can't possibly be swayed by such posts. I guess the value is for people who share the feelings but are incapable of articulating them.

Edit: really, it's like an Alien fan complaining that he didn't like Aliens because Aliens wasn't a horror movie the way Alien was. (I don't necessarily agree with Terror_K's descriptions of the two games; but sure, there's a tonal shift).  True, but.... what of it?

Good point. I personally did not consider Mass Effect to be a work of art and actually thought that it struggled to be a good game. So I didn't mind ME2's genre shift because it produced a much more enjoyable experience.
 
It's the same way for the Alien series. Aliens may have been more action-oriented, but that just means I love both films for different reasons.

[Phaedon]

In Exile wrote...
-snip-

I agree with you, but BioWare needs to learn more from Bethesda.

It doesn't matter just how many choices you have, but also creating the illusion of free choice.

[whywhywhywhy]

Bnol wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...

That's PR talk, reality is delays = increase in development cost period, even if the intent by BW was as you say(I don't believe that's the story, not entirely).  BW is owned by EA if you know anything about EA's past game development practices you'd understand what I meant. 

I can point this out to you from your point of view.  Let's say your correct the game is all about being the best, look at how close it was to it's launch date.  What happened that requires a year delay to release the game so close to it's original launch date and why close to a year delay ?  What could they possible be changing ? It would have to be significant to require such a long extension.  After all if it was minor and just bugfixes a 3-4 or 6month delay would suffice.  So the delay was to either to add or change something significant something that was missing from the game if it released on it's original launch date.

Keep in mind the timing of the delay matters greatly a delay a few months out from launch is bad but manageable, but a few weeks from launch ?  It's strong indicator.

I thought the original release date was in November, we all learned of the change in release date in May so it was still over 6 months until the release date.  If they needed just 1-2 months then they hit the dead zone of Dec-Feb.  You don't want to release a game that close to the holiday so it is better to push it to March, especially since you can get that 3-6-12 release date for ME 3.  They might not have even necessarily needed the extra time, and potentially could be pushing the release to avoid the November competition and/or keep the fall open for SW:TOR.  They won't just be working on ME3, but also on a lot of DLC content, and then being able to release a lot more DLC content earlier.

well all the web information has been updated to the new date so it's impossible fo me to find where I got that date/time frame in my head.  I understand they may be working on dlc but the game has to be perfect to escape backlash if that's the case.  I can see the "why was this left out of ME3" threads plaguing the forums if that happens.  

[EternalPink]

It is hard to justify why content that is available on release day as DLC isn't in the game, the main reason is most likely that DLC is handled by a different team and runs alongside development of the actual game but perception will be that if it was developed and ready at the time of release then it should have been part of the game.

It does depend on whether the content is good/important or just fluff like costumes though

[Gatt9]

[quote]Phaedon wrote...

[quote]Gatt9 wrote...
Because a game that is aimed at "Mass Market" generally has a number of characteristic features removed,  because the new target audience finds them unappealing.

[/quote]
Heh, I'll just quote my original post here to show how self-contradictive your post is:

[/quote]

My post isn't at all contradictive,  the problem is that you're trying to pull semantics by googling a term and using whatever definition fits the outcome you want.

[quote]Let's see now, is the so called, very debatable removal of elements that makes generic games, or is it to create a game based on a specific features on a formula?

I'll answer this question for you.
At least pure RPGs that are watered down are different than their predecessors because they have in fact change.[/quote]

When you remove all characteristic elements from something to distill it down to it's most basic components,  you end up with "Generic",  which is exactly what ME2 did.  Every genre has characteristic elements that define them,  when you have only those elements and nothing more,  you've hit the "Generic" range.  Which pretty much describes ME2.

[quote]You have compiled a very narrow list of features than a game must have to be an RPG, leaving room for creativity only over story (and that's still debatable). Not only do WCRPGs have offered little to no innovation gameplay-wise in the past few years, but their stories are essentially copy/pastes, all based on an epic quest, and a journey from drags to riches. With some exceptions of course.[/quote]

If I go out and put a Corvette badge on a Chrysler,  is that now what a Corvette is?  If I write a computer game that plays like Checkers,  and I call it Chess,  is Checkers now Chess?

No?

A cRPG is an emulation of a PnP RPG.  Changing it into an Adventure game or a TPS doesn't change what an RPG is,  because it's still the PnP RPG.  What I've listed,  time and again,  is the definitive features that every PnP RPG share.

So I mean honestly,  you really need to ask yourself what it is you're hellbent on defending.  You keep trying to define Checkers as Chess,  and there's gotta be some personal reason for it there.  I'd wager a very large amount of money we're nowhere near the reason why you vehemently insist ME2 is an RPG.



[quote]For an RPG,  the first thing to go is pretty consistently the "To hit" roll.  Because the masses have a long standing tendency to not understand the concepts of dodging and deflection.  Usually the next thing to go is diplomacy skills,  because the masses don't understand why their options for talking should be limited by the Character's qualities.  From there,  you generally end up with Bethseda,  remove anything that even remotely resembles an RPG mechanic.[/quote]
[quote]Is that from your factbook again? Because it is baseless.

Most games don't just have a DPS stat, they also have either an ACC or AGI stat, or both at the same time, which create the "MISS MISS MISS MISS" effect.[/quote]

I'm getting tired of this.  Go read Gamasutra,  go read Dev interviews like Tim Cain,  JE Sawyer,  and Fearus.  Go educate yourself on the subject before you claim I'm "Baseless".  Because this has been stated time and time again for years,  over a decade now.  Because you choose not to actually learn about the subject doesn't make it wrong.

You're also dead wrong about what causes Misses.  Once again,  you really should read up on how To Hit bonuses work,  which,  incidentally,  you also just proved my point.  You don't understand how and why it works,  and you're raging against it.

[quote]
Although the agility of the character tends to be set to a regular standard for balance purposes in some shooters, the accuracy stat is not. It changes according to your weapon, or your "stance".

If you attempt to set your crosshair over a target, and fire, you will still get the "MISS MISS MISS MISS" effect due to the accuracy modifier (crouch, sprint, etc) as well as the accuracy stat of every weapon.[/quote]

Please,  it's a fixed circle of variability present in only some games.  Most of them it's just the gait animation.

[quote]
[quote]It's not limited to RPG's though.  You'll find it in Strategy,  where turn-based thinking style is rapidly axed for RTS "Click as fast as you can! And just aim a large mob at the other guy!" style.  You'll see it in FPS/TPS where health packs,  and limited ammo are removed.  Every genre has it to a degree.

What you end up with is "Generic".  Anything with any complexity is removed to reduce the game to only it's most fundamental characteristics.[/quote]
It's most fundamental characteristics? For whom? You?

TBSs and RTSs are two different sub-genres, with different mechanics.

To me it looks like you don't like RTSs, because you suck at macro and micromanagement, when you do them at the same time.

And for your information, the strategy games that are considered by most to require most skill are RTSs.[/quote]

Nice try.  Sadly,  I have Starcraft 2 installed on my computer right now.  I've also played Starcraft,  all the warcrafts,  most of the C&C's,  Rise of Nations,  all of the Age of Empires,  Krush Kill Destroy,  Total Annhilation,  All of the Total War series,  and on and on.

It is what it is,  build a ton of stuff,  send it in some direction,  pray that the movement AI doesn't send people wandering off yet again.

I also highly doubt that "Most" consider it to require so much skill.  I doubt highly that the FPS crowd will agree with you for starters.  I'd venture this is another instance of your hyperbole.  Maybe if you define "Most" to mean the population of Korea,  then yeah...

[quote]


[quote]ME2 and maybe 3 fit that bill.  ME2 had most of the RPG elements axed (All IMO),  Exploration,  Loot,  complicated things like areas that weren't a straight corridor,  grenades,  it avoided implementing ammo in a sensical way.  It was reduced to the most fundamental characteristics,  all complexity completely eliminated,  such that it was really nothing more than a straight TPS with dialogue.[/quote]
Exploration is an RPG element? You surprise me, Gatt. In any case, you still did sidequests and mined planets, during which you could discover anomalies.

Loot? Such as what, finding things such as Minerals, upgrades, armour parts and weapons in random places? Whoops.

You are losing me from there on.
"complicated things like areas that weren't a straight corridor,  grenades,  it avoided implementing ammo in a sensical way"

Grenades make true RPGs!

Complexity completely eliminated? That's funny.
I don't think that anyone thought that ME1's inventory or loot was complex. Just annoying. It definitely didn't require intelligence. Unlike ME2's, where all of the weapons had their pros and cons. ME1's inventory essentially had one stat that changed progressively.

Straight TPS with dialogue?
Heh, you are obviously not the old DnD player then.
You do realize that the only real difference between the original DnD models and Chainmail, a strategy game is the interactive storytelling, right?[/quote]

Now you're trying to change the meaning of my words.  Go back,  reread what you quoted,  please note the use of the punctuation mark "," in between RPG elements and everything else you just tried to make sound different.

I own nearly every D&D book printed,  most of them in first edition runs.

You might want to reference your copies,  and notice how very little emphasis the books place on storytelling.  You may also want to pick up a copy of Gears of War,  and notice how eerily familiar the gameplay is.

[quote]
[quote]There's a reason why they're not common,  they're bad design.  The premise behind them is inherently flawed.  All you have is an FPS/TPS with it's UI intentionally crippled to tack on a "Leveling system".  All the system does is progressively decrease the crippled UI to full FPS/TPS.  Once the player has "Leveled" enough,  they can overcome the handicap,  and the entire leveling system is rendered completely redundant.

ME2 didn't have that problem though,  it wasn't a hybrid.  It was a straight up TPS,  as the leveling system was completely redundant from the word "Go".  As I've said,  you kill a YMIR at level 2,  and he's equivalent to any and every "Big boss" in the game,  so since you can kill him,  you can kill all of them,  which is a characteristic of a Shooter.

ME3 remains to be seen.[/quote]
Exactly. ME2 did the exact opposite.

Instead of crippling the player learning/skill curve, it rewarded you through upgrades, which could only be bought once. Sounds familiar.
[/quote]

You speak as if the "Upgrades" did something.  At level 2 you kill a YMIR.  At level 30,  it'll still be the hardest thing you're fighting.  None of those "Upgrades" were needed.  You could've beat the game at level 2 without them.

[sp0ck 06]

Gatt9 wrote...



Nice try.  Sadly,  I have Starcraft 2 installed on my computer right now.  I've also played Starcraft,  all the warcrafts,  most of the C&C's,  Rise of Nations,  all of the Age of Empires,  Krush Kill Destroy,  Total Annhilation,  All of the Total War series,  and on and on.

It is what it is,  build a ton of stuff,  send it in some direction,  pray that the movement AI doesn't send people wandering off yet again.

I also highly doubt that "Most" consider it to require so much skill.  I doubt highly that the FPS crowd will agree with you for starters.  I'd venture this is another instance of your hyperbole.  Maybe if you define "Most" to mean the population of Korea,  then yeah...

If you've actually played Total War series (which is doubtful, given your comments here) you would know that "building a bunch of units and sending them in some direction" is not going to get you past the first skirmish.  Those games require far more thought, strategy, and tactics then any turn based combat game I've ever played.

[Gatt9]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

If you do some google research,  which may require a little legwork at this point,  you'll find alot of dev's have commented over the years that one of the most frequent complaints in an RPG or Strategy game was "Why did my guy miss?  He's right there in front of him!!!". 

You'll also find Armor class was a major issue,  though that system was a bit convulted,  but that's what evolved Damage Resistance from armor instead of AC.  Incidental loot is another very common complaint,  people don't understand that the loot on that wolf is meant to represent what's lying around on the ground from past victims. 

Encumbrance is another biggie,  character based diplomacy skills are often misunderstood.

The thing is though,  this is most often people who bought a game in a genre they don't like,  and/or just as often people who didn't even bother reading the instruction book.  It's not representative of the market as a whole,  but you can't tell a suit that some number of people just shouldn't have bought the game,  all the suit sees is a sale.

So what does the suit do?  Mandates the games be made such that those people aren't bothered by the game.  Which leads us into "Streamlining".

Plus,  you always have the problem of some suit seeing some dissimiliar game and saying "Make it more like that!  It'll sell more units! (So I can get a bigger bonus)".  Which is essentially what happened to TB Strategy games.  Command & Conquer and Warcraft 2 sold huge,  and shortly thereafter *every* strategy game had to be RT.  This was pretty much literally an overnight shift,  because suddenly everything was RTS whether it made sense or not (X-com apocalypse and Acclaim's RT Civilization are probably the poster children.)
'cause that's about what has to happen for us to get away from COD 12 and Halo 7.

I was recently struck by the urge to pick up an old favorite of mine, Fallout 2.  While the dialogue, world, freedom, and characters are all as good as I remember, the combat is ATROCIOUS.  It's almost unplayable.  Having my character "miss" with a spear when he's standing right on top of an enemy is not a good game feature.  There's a reason why people complained.  Not because they're morons, because that is not a fun mechanic.

You illustrate my point.

The Miss factor is present because the RPG system models people's ability to dodge,  deflect,  and of armor to protect.

Being "Perfect" isn't fun,  it's one step away from the implementation of a Button that just kills everyone when you push it,  'cause waiting to see them die isn't fun. 

It's basically the equivalent of making sure that every time you pull the trigger in an FPS,  the bullet hits even if you didn't aim right. 

Please also note that I didn't use the word "Moron" anywhere in my post,  I made no assessment of anyone's intelligence.

How does old turn based combat or encumberance make a game more intelligent?  The D&D system of AC might work for PnP...it does not work well in cRPGs.  Swordfights in BG games often devolved into two mighty heroes whiffing on each other for two minutes (fortunately the magic system was awesome.)  Unless there's some secret that only those in the top 5% of IQ (which apparently encompasses all "true" rpg fans) can comprehend, I don't understand how those old school RPG mechanics = better game.

I still haven't made an assessment of anyone's intelligence.  Is there a reason you're putting words in my mouth?

As to how they make a better game?  Because you've taken on a Role,  and your Character has intrinsic abilities of his own,  can succeed or fail on his own,  and you are just guiding him.  That's the heart of an RPG.

So how does completely removing the entire basis of an RPG make it a better game?  How does putting the acronym on the box of a TPS or Adventure game make it better?

What you call "streamlining" I call "progress."  Ultimately, I believe most people play games to have fun.  In certain games (like Fallout and BG), it IS fun to search for loot, tweak your character, etc (although I fail to see what game ever benefited from an encumberance system).  But that simply isn't what ME games are about.  To me, removing inventory and combat stats from ME2 was the right thing to do.  Those systems just didn't feel right in ME1.  Instead of being fun like in other RPG, they just felt like an immersion breaking chore, a task that had to be done with in order to get to the good bits.  ME2 was obviously not perfect.  It should have shipped with more weapons.  The skill trees should not have had restricted powers.  The mission complete screens were awful.  The story missions were too short and too few.  But it certainly was not a "dumb" game because it got rid of awkward RPG elements that didn't fit with the overall vision of the game.

I won't argue with you that some of them didn't fit.  But "Progress"?  It's a TPS.  Pretty low-end by today's standards.  Progress implies it's improving on something,  I fail to see how changing into another genre is an improvement,  it's just changing to another genre.

I'd probably be a bit more forgiving if it was a good TPS,  but honestly,  the weapons were all interchangable,  the entire game was a corridor to a degree that hasn't been seen since Doom 2,  and it was so predictable it's scary.  It doesn't even try to vary the enemies,  their strategies,  or anything.  Everything plays exactly the same at pretty much all points.

Sidenote:  What are you talking about with RTS's?  There have been plenty of great turn based strat games in the past 10 years.  Total War series, Civilization.  Also: what is so TERRIBLE about real time, in RPGs or strategy games?  Why is turn based so much more intelligent?  Ever play Sins of a Solar Empire?  Homeworld?  Those are some of the best games I've ever played, and they require a hell of a lot more strategic thinking than Heroes of Might and Magic.

Isn't it interesting that you (And many others) define Total War as a turn based strat?  Only the empire management is turn based,  the actual combat is RT.

I didn't say it was terrible,  I play them and enjoy them.  I play anything other than fighters and sims.  But to answer your questions...

-RT has a distinct handicap,  it trades tactics for action.  Depending on the scale of the combat,  to a greater or lesser degree.  You have fair control in say DAO,  but in Starcraft,  or Total War,  you have minimal control.  The Movement AI is a huge part of,  and problem with,  the games at that scale.  You essentially have to fight the game to play the game.

A great example is Total War.  All too often you'll have your units haul off running somewhere you didn't tell them to go,  it's not uncommon to send your unit to attack people climbing a wall,  to have them instead haul out the nearest gate to attack the 4 guys still at the base of the wall,  getting held up by another infantry unit in the gate and ultimately letting the gate be infiltrated,  when all you did was send them to kill the people standing at the top of your wall.

Starcraft scale games have the same problem.  Send a group of units to some safe spot,  and suddenly have half of your units die because the movement AI saw some minor obstacle and suddenly rerouted them halfway around the map.

In contrast,  with TB,  you have fine control over your unit's tactics,  at the expense of a loss of action.

They both have purpose and function wonderfully in games that fit them,  the problem arises when they're used as "One size fits all" solutions.  Which RTS is treated as such a solution today.

-Please also note I didn't claim they were "More intelligent".  I said they were one-size fits all.  I said they don't require a huge amount of skill.  I didn't say there were less intelligent.  RTS's are strategic,  they require a grand strategy to achieve your goal while generally requiring minimal skill to get there,  it's pretty much "Aim X at Y and wait to see what happens".

Which is very different from tactical control,  which requires not only a strategy,  but the ability to execute the strategy in fine detail,  which requires a significantly higher degree of skill.

If I were to play Starcraft,  I could have a Stategy of taking my opponent's base with a Zerg rush,  I could send my units in to do it,  but I'm not dealing with who attacks what on a fine level of control.  My units will do whatever the AI decides they're going to do,  which is often the wrong thing as some portion of the units start firing at some random building instead of the Marine shooting them in the head.

In contrast,  in Fallout,  my guy isn't going to randomly shoot at a Mole Rat while there's 4 people which assault rifles aiming at him,  I have tactical control over how I'm going to execute my plan to succeed.

TBH,  RTS could have significant skill to it,  if you didn't have to fight the game as much as you fight the opponent as the various Assist-AI's go do random things you didn't tell them to do because the AI hiccupped and missed some variable,  or executed it's "Shortest path" algorithm badly.

[Bnol]

EternalPink wrote...

It is hard to justify why content that is available on release day as DLC isn't in the game, the main reason is most likely that DLC is handled by a different team and runs alongside development of the actual game but perception will be that if it was developed and ready at the time of release then it should have been part of the game.

It does depend on whether the content is good/important or just fluff like costumes though

Or the game has to go gold in advance to be able to manufacture and distribute for a simultaneous release.  In that time the developers can finish and polish some elements they initially had to cut and then can release it as DLC.  The fact is you would not have gotten those elements because they were cut, and you didn't pay for those cut elements in the game you purchased. 

[EternalPink]

[quote]Gatt9 wrote...

[quote]Phaedon wrote...

[quote]Gatt9 wrote...
Because a game that is aimed at "Mass Market" generally has a number of characteristic features removed,  because the new target audience finds them unappealing.

[/quote]
Heh, I'll just quote my original post here to show how self-contradictive your post is:

[/quote]

My post isn't at all contradictive,  the problem is that you're trying to pull semantics by googling a term and using whatever definition fits the outcome you want.

[quote]Let's see now, is the so called, very debatable removal of elements that makes generic games, or is it to create a game based on a specific features on a formula?

I'll answer this question for you.
At least pure RPGs that are watered down are different than their predecessors because they have in fact change.[/quote]

When you remove all characteristic elements from something to distill it down to it's most basic components,  you end up with "Generic",  which is exactly what ME2 did.  Every genre has characteristic elements that define them,  when you have only those elements and nothing more,  you've hit the "Generic" range.  Which pretty much describes ME2.


[quote]You have compiled a very narrow list of features than a game must have to be an RPG, leaving room for creativity only over story (and that's still debatable). Not only do WCRPGs have offered little to no innovation gameplay-wise in the past few years, but their stories are essentially copy/pastes, all based on an epic quest, and a journey from drags to riches. With some exceptions of course.[/quote]

If I go out and put a Corvette badge on a Chrysler,  is that now what a Corvette is?  If I write a computer game that plays like Checkers,  and I call it Chess,  is Checkers now Chess?

No?

A cRPG is an emulation of a PnP RPG.  Changing it into an Adventure game or a TPS doesn't change what an RPG is,  because it's still the PnP RPG.  What I've listed,  time and again,  is the definitive features that every PnP RPG share.

So I mean honestly,  you really need to ask yourself what it is you're hellbent on defending.  You keep trying to define Checkers as Chess,  and there's gotta be some personal reason for it there.  I'd wager a very large amount of money we're nowhere near the reason why you vehemently insist ME2 is an RPG.




[quote]For an RPG,  the first thing to go is pretty consistently the "To hit" roll.  Because the masses have a long standing tendency to not understand the concepts of dodging and deflection.  Usually the next thing to go is diplomacy skills,  because the masses don't understand why their options for talking should be limited by the Character's qualities.  From there,  you generally end up with Bethseda,  remove anything that even remotely resembles an RPG mechanic.[/quote]
[quote]Is that from your factbook again? Because it is baseless.

Most games don't just have a DPS stat, they also have either an ACC or AGI stat, or both at the same time, which create the "MISS MISS MISS MISS" effect.[/quote]

I'm getting tired of this.  Go read Gamasutra,  go read Dev interviews like Tim Cain,  JE Sawyer,  and Fearus.  Go educate yourself on the subject before you claim I'm "Baseless".  Because this has been stated time and time again for years,  over a decade now.  Because you choose not to actually learn about the subject doesn't make it wrong.

You're also dead wrong about what causes Misses.  Once again,  you really should read up on how To Hit bonuses work,  which,  incidentally,  you also just proved my point.  You don't understand how and why it works,  and you're raging against it.

[quote]
Although the agility of the character tends to be set to a regular standard for balance purposes in some shooters, the accuracy stat is not. It changes according to your weapon, or your "stance".

If you attempt to set your crosshair over a target, and fire, you will still get the "MISS MISS MISS MISS" effect due to the accuracy modifier (crouch, sprint, etc) as well as the accuracy stat of every weapon.[/quote]

Please,  it's a fixed circle of variability present in only some games.  Most of them it's just the gait animation.

[quote]
[quote]It's not limited to RPG's though.  You'll find it in Strategy,  where turn-based thinking style is rapidly axed for RTS "Click as fast as you can! And just aim a large mob at the other guy!" style.  You'll see it in FPS/TPS where health packs,  and limited ammo are removed.  Every genre has it to a degree.

What you end up with is "Generic".  Anything with any complexity is removed to reduce the game to only it's most fundamental characteristics.[/quote]
It's most fundamental characteristics? For whom? You?

TBSs and RTSs are two different sub-genres, with different mechanics.

To me it looks like you don't like RTSs, because you suck at macro and micromanagement, when you do them at the same time.

And for your information, the strategy games that are considered by most to require most skill are RTSs.[/quote]

Nice try.  Sadly,  I have Starcraft 2 installed on my computer right now.  I've also played Starcraft,  all the warcrafts,  most of the C&C's,  Rise of Nations,  all of the Age of Empires,  Krush Kill Destroy,  Total Annhilation,  All of the Total War series,  and on and on.

It is what it is,  build a ton of stuff,  send it in some direction,  pray that the movement AI doesn't send people wandering off yet again.

I also highly doubt that "Most" consider it to require so much skill.  I doubt highly that the FPS crowd will agree with you for starters.  I'd venture this is another instance of your hyperbole.  Maybe if you define "Most" to mean the population of Korea,  then yeah...

[quote]



[quote]ME2 and maybe 3 fit that bill.  ME2 had most of the RPG elements axed (All IMO),  Exploration,  Loot,  complicated things like areas that weren't a straight corridor,  grenades,  it avoided implementing ammo in a sensical way.  It was reduced to the most fundamental characteristics,  all complexity completely eliminated,  such that it was really nothing more than a straight TPS with dialogue.[/quote]
Exploration is an RPG element? You surprise me, Gatt. In any case, you still did sidequests and mined planets, during which you could discover anomalies.

Loot? Such as what, finding things such as Minerals, upgrades, armour parts and weapons in random places? Whoops.

You are losing me from there on.
"complicated things like areas that weren't a straight corridor,  grenades,  it avoided implementing ammo in a sensical way"

Grenades make true RPGs!

Complexity completely eliminated? That's funny.
I don't think that anyone thought that ME1's inventory or loot was complex. Just annoying. It definitely didn't require intelligence. Unlike ME2's, where all of the weapons had their pros and cons. ME1's inventory essentially had one stat that changed progressively.

Straight TPS with dialogue?
Heh, you are obviously not the old DnD player then.
You do realize that the only real difference between the original DnD models and Chainmail, a strategy game is the interactive storytelling, right?[/quote]

Now you're trying to change the meaning of my words.  Go back,  reread what you quoted,  please note the use of the punctuation mark "," in between RPG elements and everything else you just tried to make sound different.

I own nearly every D&D book printed,  most of them in first edition runs.

You might want to reference your copies,  and notice how very little emphasis the books place on storytelling.  You may also want to pick up a copy of Gears of War,  and notice how eerily familiar the gameplay is.

[quote]
[quote]There's a reason why they're not common,  they're bad design.  The premise behind them is inherently flawed.  All you have is an FPS/TPS with it's UI intentionally crippled to tack on a "Leveling system".  All the system does is progressively decrease the crippled UI to full FPS/TPS.  Once the player has "Leveled" enough,  they can overcome the handicap,  and the entire leveling system is rendered completely redundant.

ME2 didn't have that problem though,  it wasn't a hybrid.  It was a straight up TPS,  as the leveling system was completely redundant from the word "Go".  As I've said,  you kill a YMIR at level 2,  and he's equivalent to any and every "Big boss" in the game,  so since you can kill him,  you can kill all of them,  which is a characteristic of a Shooter.

ME3 remains to be seen.[/quote]
Exactly. ME2 did the exact opposite.

Instead of crippling the player learning/skill curve, it rewarded you through upgrades, which could only be bought once. Sounds familiar.
[/quote]

You speak as if the "Upgrades" did something.  At level 2 you kill a YMIR.  At level 30,  it'll still be the hardest thing you're fighting.  None of those "Upgrades" were needed.  You could've beat the game at level 2 without them.
[/quote]

Personnally i can't see any terms in your post that would require googling but if you yourself are of the opinion that the language you use may need googling then perhaps you should consider changing that language so it can be understood without the googling.

So what are pure RPG's?

Also if RPG elements can be lifted and put into other games without making those games RPG's surely by definition they are not the elements that make an RPG, they could be elements that were first developed in/for RPG's since there is now quite a lot of cross over (i.e character development in RTS games) but that doesn't make them exclusive.

I'm unsure where you are going with your bit about the lvl 2 mech, in every game i've ever played i've been able to kill the boss since that's generally the idea of the game, Jon Irenicus? Saverok? they both ended up pushing up daiseys

[Sarevok Synder]

Also if RPG elements can be lifted and put into other games without making those games RPG's surely by definition they are not the elements that make an RPG, they could be elements that were first developed in/for RPG's since there is now quite a lot of cross over (i.e character development in RTS games) but that doesn't make them exclusive.

I'm unsure where you are going with your bit about the lvl 2 mech, in every game i've ever played i've been able to kill the boss since that's generally the idea of the game, Jon Irenicus? Saverok? they both ended up pushing up daiseys

I believe the point being made was, in ME 2 levelling-up was redundant. Which is true, it is quite easy to complete the game with a level 1 character. Try to take on Irenicus or Sarevok with a level 2 any class and see what happens.

[The Twilight God]

Bnol wrote...

EternalPink wrote...

It is hard to justify why content that is available on release day as DLC isn't in the game, the main reason is most likely that DLC is handled by a different team and runs alongside development of the actual game but perception will be that if it was developed and ready at the time of release then it should have been part of the game.

It does depend on whether the content is good/important or just fluff like costumes though

Or the game has to go gold in advance to be able to manufacture and distribute for a simultaneous release.  In that time the developers can finish and polish some elements they initially had to cut and then can release it as DLC.  The fact is you would not have gotten those elements because they were cut, and you didn't pay for those cut elements in the game you purchased. 

Also, just because Bioware developes a DLC seperately from the main game does not make it any less intended to function on Day 1 with the retail game. It just means that intended to nickle and dime us from the very get go. Day-1 DLC is just a means to make preordering more appealing. And, hey, if you don't pre-order you have to pay extra for what should have been on the retail CD. If they make a DA3 this is probably why I won't get it. After DA2 I'm not pre-prdering and I'm not paying extra for what should have been included in the retail version after release date. And I'm not paying full price for a game with stripped content.

[EternalPink]

for BG1 it might be possible we could take out drizzt after all and the cap was lvl 5 or 6 as i recall although you'd have to use cheat/console commands to get to a point to fight him

BG2 it wouldn't be possible since you start higher and the game won't allow you to fight although i suppose it might be possible with the console commands but by the time you encounter him you would have levelled anyway its just whether you spent the allocations etc

Which while i've not tested it i would have thought it would be the same for ME2 since even if you werent spending the squad points you'd still get the benefit of having gained a level (hp mainly but again i've never tested how much it would increase without spending the squad points)