3223 réponses à ce sujet

[Varen Spectre]

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.

I don't know... 

It's a mechanic that does not make much sense (to me) in the first place - player kills somebody -> gains XP points -> increases his level -> gains skill points -> which he can usually invest into ability totally unrelated (speech, barter) to abilities which were required to kill characters / creatures...

However, after reading this thread, I am not sure that this is not supposed to represent something more (like overal growth of character or that the character would not be in that situation without his/her other skills in the first place) anymore. And more importantly, this does not apply to Mass Effect 2, since there practically aren't non-combat skills anymore.

Than there are other issues, that were already mentioned, like grinding or promotion of certain type of playstyle which relies on killing other characters / creatures.

Personally, I have never had problems with grinding since most of the modern games are soo easy or their difficulty is so independant from the level of my character (level scaling) that I did not deem it necessary to try to reach high levels with my character anymore.

This, IMO, again applies to Mass Effect 2 to large degree as well, since 
a) the effects of leveling up (improvements of Shepard's abilities) in relation to enemies' strength weren't big enough to motivate player (or at least me) to grind, if grinding was possible (though, I did find fighting with Shepard definitely more and more comfortable as he leveled up) and 
 The game does not provide as much room for grinding as other games - most of the enemies are placed so well, that player simply has to engage them anyway if he/she wants to advance further (not to mention the activiation of some scripts) and there are very few areas with respawning enemies.

But I do agree in principle. XP per kill may have all these effects and I undestand that somebody, or even majority, may perceive it that way.

The question of promotion of action playstyle (killing everything) at the expense of others is almost non-existant in Mass Effect 2's case as well, because there simply was no other way to advance further in most of ME 2's levels other than to fight the enemies. There were very few ocasions, when Shepard could have talked his way out of the fight or use something to his advantage.

And the action nature of Mass Effect 2 brings me to my little personal problem with the absence of XP per kill in Mass Effect 2 and that is... lack of motivation / desire to fight all those enemies throughout the game. 

I mean especially during later playthroughs, I simply felt that sometimes there were too many too similar fights with too similar opponents. The Witcher 2 for example, suffered in the same way sometimes (forest near Flotsam, mountains near Vergen), but unlike Mass Effect 2, it's XP per kill system kept me motivated to go on and gave me the willpower to fend off another wave of harpies. 

Of course, this "problem" could be adressed in many other ways (less repetitive fights, more ways to advance through the game, more engaging combat - which seems to be ME 3's way of adressing it) but for now,... if I had to choose between the game with repetitive combat without XP/kill system and game with repetitive combat with it, I would opt for the latter. 

Modifié par Varen Spectre, 14 juillet 2011 - 12:30 .

[Sarevok Synder]

EternalPink wrote...

protection from undead worked since the lich was unable to target you and was easily available (magic worked but as you said there was only like 4 of those in the game) and there were two items that were available early, the +4 staff from a vendor and that +5 sling (from the vendor that was in icewind dale)

So? It's still role-playing. There are a variety of options. And you would have to do many quests to get the money to buy those items. Unless you cheated of course. But in ME2, all that was required was an itchy trigger finger.

[Someone With Mass]

Sarevok Synder wrote...
So? It's still role-playing. There are a variety of options. And you would have to do many quests to get the money to buy those items. Unless you cheated of course. But in ME2, all that was required was an itchy trigger finger.

Then again, that's all the Soldier is designed for, so that argument fell flat on its face.

[Sarevok Synder]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Sarevok Synder wrote...
So? It's still role-playing. There are a variety of options. And you would have to do many quests to get the money to buy those items. Unless you cheated of course. But in ME2, all that was required was an itchy trigger finger.

Then again, that's all the Soldier is designed for, so that argument fell flat on its face.

What? You don't use weapons with any other class? All the levels come down to one thing, kill everyone. There is no option B.

[Phaedon]

Sarevok Synder wrote...
Considering ME2 didn't have any weapon allocation slots at levelling, it would make no difference. BTW, I played soldier, no cloak. So I wouldn't notice any difference. 

Heh, I imagined so, I would actually ask you about it, but I wouldn't imagine you would go as far to say it.

Soldier is designed to focus on the shooter part. Still, the "easy" part is an unimpressive hyperbole.

Try playing a power-based class next time. Oh and check the Strategy and Builds forum, I'd say they think levelling up is important.

Modifié par Phaedon, 14 juillet 2011 - 11:59 .

[Someone With Mass]

Sarevok Synder wrote...
What? You don't use weapons with any other class? All the levels come down to one thing, kill everyone. There is no option B.

Yeah. So? You killed hundreds in ME1 too.

Or perhaps you want to talk to the 2 kilometer long machines that are enslaving everyone.

[Someone With Mass]

And yes, I use weapons with other classes too, but they're not the main focus.

[Sarevok Synder]

Phaedon wrote...

Sarevok Synder wrote...
Considering ME2 didn't have any weapon allocation slots at levelling, it would make no difference. BTW, I played soldier, no cloak. So I wouldn't notice any difference. 

Heh, I imagined so, I would actually ask you about it, but I wouldn't imagine you would go as far to say it.

Soldier is designed to focus on the shooter part. Still, the "easy" part is an unimpressive hyperbole.

Try playing a power-based class next time. Oh and check the Strategy and Builds forum, I'd say they think levelling up is important.

The game-play is shooter based. So I play soldier. Of course other classes must be so difficult; you know with the five or six options to level. There is even a Strategy and Builds forum!? I don't know how you people playing other classes manage! You're obviously sooooo much smarter than I am.

[Sarevok Synder]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Sarevok Synder wrote...
What? You don't use weapons with any other class? All the levels come down to one thing, kill everyone. There is no option B.

Yeah. So? You killed hundreds in ME1 too.

Or perhaps you want to talk to the 2 kilometer long machines that are enslaving everyone.

Who said anything about ME1? Even with its many problems, there were still more options than ME2.

Modifié par Sarevok Synder, 14 juillet 2011 - 12:13 .

[Phaedon]

[quote]Sarevok Synder wrote...
The game-play is shooter based. So I play soldier. Of course other classes must be so difficult; you know with the five or six options to level. There is even a Strategy and Builds forum!? I don't know how you people playing other classes manage! You're obviously sooooo much smarter than I am.[/quote]
The game is shooter-based? Damn. 

And I wondered what those dialogue and skill trees were. Along with the powers. Along with the loot and the inventory.

Nice job discrediting yourself, though. The soldier can be played without powers. Awesome discovery.


[quote]Gatt9 wrote...
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]

Words like generic and dumbed down are sure impressive, but they make you look bad when you don't know how to use them.

A game is either generic or it isn't.

A game that has no unique elements of it's own, but repeats a formula, is generic. That's exactly what you want.


[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]
Characteristic elements and basic components are not the same thing?

Let's take a look at that very nice list of what a "tru arr pee gee" is about:

Inventory? Mass Effect 2 has one. You can select your weapons during combat, as well as change your load out in specific locations. And unlike ME1, it's weapons are actually different from one another, they don't rely on a single stat. 

Loot? Like picking up weapons, minerals, armour parts and credits from crates and other locations? Gotcha.

Statistical progression? Like assigning points to specific skills? Very well.

Powers? Hmm...they are there, aren't they?


Claiming that it is distilled down to basic components is actually quite interesting. Anything that is pure fat needs to be trimmed, no? Which gameplay element that made ME1 good is missing from ME2, other than extensive squad armour customization?

[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?[/quote]BioWare made a car out of Corvette and Chrystler parts and called it a hybrid.
They never called it a pure Corvette.

You instead, look at it, and call it a Chrystler, because true Corvettes have more Corvette parts. You completely forget that ME2 was never supposed to be an RPG with some shooter elements.

It is supposed to be a RPG/shooter hybrid, combining the best of both worlds.





[quote]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.[/quote]
This must be the greatest inaccuracy posted on this thread.

Not only do you butcher the definition of adventure games, but you claim that all RPGs are emulating PnP RPGs, while core mechanics actually go against them.

Also, JRPGs don't exist.


[quote]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]
Bet all the money you want, you are still embarassing your argument by compiling a list of features that make a true RPG, forget that ME2 has them, and claim that shooters require no skill at all.




[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.[/quote]You do realize that Gamasutra is not a factbook, right? 

Stop stating your opinion and the opinion of others as facts. Especially when you manage to contradict yourself half of the time. 

"Dev interviews"?

I've got Casey Hudson's interview right here. He worked on BG, KOTOR and all ME games. But no, only the opinions of those who agree with you, value. Typical.



[quote]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]
The Misses are caused by a combination of stats. Not just bonuses. There are several ways to simulate missing on a target and that has purely to do with game design, not RPGs.

[quote]Please,  it's a fixed circle of variability present in only some games.  Most of them it's just the gait animation.[/quote]
Fixed circle? Sounds like stats in RPGs to me.

That "fixed" circle, is also based on stats and has the same effect. Try again.


[quote]Nice try. [/quote]
It's a shame I can't say the same for you. Showing off your e-peen by admitting on having bought classics games that a good part of gaming fans have, is not exactly a compelling argument.

Both genres require a different kind of skill.
Turn-based games require predicting your enemy's next move, whereas RTSs are about coming up with a tactic, and deploying it within seconds, I would argue that it takes more brains to do that, but that's not important.

How about you ask around which strategy game is considered the most difficult one? The one that requires more skill?

On the other hand, considering that your entire argument is based on the fact that you dislike that direction and come up with excuses to degrade the amount of strategical thinking required in RTSs, you might as well just drop it.








[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.[/quote]And you should try replying to my points first.

Anyway, Grenades? ME1 doesn't have conventional grenades. You can call them charges, if you must. While vanilla ME2 has no grenades, it does have heavy weapons. Anyway, considering the "grenades" of ME1 as a good "shooter element" must be a bad joke.

Ammo in sensical manner? I suppose that the system that 95% of all shooters use makes no sense, sorry. 




[quote]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]
Try again.

You claim that D&D is not about interactive storytelling in comparison to other tabletop games?

I like how your refer to authorities as always, and yet you ignore what Wizards of the Coast have to say about DnD.




As for GoW? Yeaah, I remember your argument last time. 

"It has a third person camera, and you can hide behind chest-high cover"

And then cover-based TPSs were discovered.


[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]
Upgrades do upgrade your stats, therefore count as statistical progression.

While difficulty is not entirely consinstent in ME2, it does get more difficult as you progress further in the game.
You start by fighting mere mechs, then go on to fight the big mech and the FENRIS mechs, and go on shooting up Geth, Collectors, husks, etc.

.

Modifié par Phaedon, 14 juillet 2011 - 12:14 .

[Sarevok Synder]

Phaedon wrote...

Sarevok Synder wrote...
The game-play is shooter based. So I play soldier. Of course other classes must be so difficult; you know with the five or six options to level. There is even a Strategy and Builds forum!? I don't know how you people playing other classes manage! You're obviously sooooo much smarter than I am.

The game is shooter-based? Damn. 

And I wondered what those dialogue and skill trees were. Along with the powers. Along with the loot and the inventory.

Nice job discrediting yourself, though. The soldier can be played without powers. Awesome discovery.

Yes, because dialog trees make all the difference. Too bad the inventory is gone in ME2 and they had to put weapons lockers in stupid places instead. But then you're soooo much smarter than anybody who plays soldier, so you're right by default......

[Phaedon]

Sarevok Synder wrote...

Yes, because dialog trees make all the difference.

The first two letters of RPG are always overrated.

Too bad the inventory is gone in ME2 and they had to put weapons lockers in stupid places instead. But then you're soooo much smarter than anybody who plays soldier, so you're right by default......

My cannon Shepard is a soldier, are you done with your rant?

The shooter component also requires skill, but not the same type of skill.

The soldier was designed as one of the most combat-oriented classes. It is logical that you invest on it if you prefer to test your eye-to-hand coordination, or your aim. Using powers as a soldier not only makes that component easier, but deeper too.

Ammo powers react differently to different creatures and different protections. Adrenaline Rush makes the game more fun and is always useful when you want to move from Point A to B as safely as possible, or just want to murder everyone in front of you.

Inventory in ME2? How could you possibly say that it's not there? You can select the weapon you wish to use, and that choice is actually meaningful, unlike ME1, where all of the weapons are defined by,essentially, a single stat.

[Sarevok Synder]

Phaedon wrote...

Sarevok Synder wrote...

Yes, because dialog trees make all the difference.

The first two letters of RPG are always overrated.

Too bad the inventory is gone in ME2 and they had to put weapons lockers in stupid places instead. But then you're soooo much smarter than anybody who plays soldier, so you're right by default......

My cannon Shepard is a soldier, are you done with your rant?

The shooter component also requires skill, but not the same type of skill.

The soldier was designed as one of the most combat-oriented classes. It is logical that you invest on it if you prefer to test your eye-to-hand coordination, or your aim. Using powers as a soldier not only makes that component easier, but deeper too.

Ammo powers react differently to different creatures and different protections. Adrenaline Rush makes the game more fun and is always useful when you want to move from Point A to B as safely as possible, or just want to murder everyone in front of you.

Inventory in ME2? How could you possibly say that it's not there? You can select the weapon you wish to use, and that choice is actually meaningful, unlike ME1, where all of the weapons are defined by,essentially, a single stat.

In your opinion they're overrated

Oh yes, ammo is a "power" now; rather than an Item like it should be.

When I hit "I" nothing happens. Yes, there is no inventory. I noticed you just ignored the fact that weapons lockers highlighted the fact that there wasn't one.

Modifié par Sarevok Synder, 14 juillet 2011 - 12:33 .

[Phaedon]

Sarevok Synder wrote...
In your opinion they're overrated

You need to recognize sarcasm. Interactive storytelling doesn't work very well without dialogue options.

Oh, yes ammo is a "power" now; rather than an Item like it should be.

Should be?

Right. 

Playing with tactics and using different ammo types to face different creatures and different protection types that change all the time, is how it shouldn't happen, then.

When I hit "I" nothing happens. Yes, there is no inventory. I noticed you just ignored the fact that weapons lockers highlighted the fact that there wasn't one.

An inventory holds various items that can be equipped. That is it's definition. Do you think that changing weapons during combat is a good idea? That it helps balance? ME2's inventory (other than it's component in which you can select to equip one of the weapons you are carrying with you, and therefore exists anyway) comes up when it makes sense to change your selections.

It would be great to start the mission by using the Vindicator, shooting the enemies from  far away, and then suddenly switching to the Revenant when they come closer. Balance would definitely not be screwed up.

You have constructed the illusion that the inventory should be available at all times, because frankly, you rarely can just switch between more than 2 weapon types in  pure RPGs, yet alone 5.

[Il Divo]

Phaedon wrote...

You have constructed the illusion that the inventory should be available at all times, because frankly, you rarely can just switch between more than 2 weapon types in  pure RPGs, yet alone 5.

I do support this very much.

[Someone With Mass]

Fun fact: The enemies in ME2 are actually leveling up their weapons, damage and powers as the player does, only not as often.

[Terror_K]

Phaedon wrote...

Inventory in ME2? How could you possibly say that it's not there? You can select the weapon you wish to use, and that choice is actually meaningful, unlike ME1, where all of the weapons are defined by,essentially, a single stat.

That's it? That's inventory? Because last time I checked Doom, Quake, Unreal Tournament, etc. allowed me to select the weapon I wished to use too.

Whether it's "meaningful" is a point of view too. I honestly never got it why people keep saying that about ME2's weapons, because to me they were just weapons. That was it. They felt no more "meaningful" than any other gun in any other shooter to me. More varied, yes, I can agree to that. But "meaningful?" Seriously?

Sorry, but the sniper rifle I crafted in ME1 to basically be a one-shot killer felt more "meaningful" to me than anything in ME2. Why? Because its something I crafted myself, not just a static thing that I can't alter or personalise whatsoever.

Modifié par Terror_K, 14 juillet 2011 - 12:47 .

[Sarevok Synder]

Phaedon wrote...

You need to recognize sarcasm. Interactive storytelling doesn't work very well without dialogue options.

You're not very good at conveying it.

Should be?

Right. 

Playing with tactics and using different ammo types to face different creatures and different protection types that change all the time, is how it shouldn't happen, then.

Ammo is a physical object, not something that's conjured with ones mind. Yes it should be an item.

An inventory holds various items that can be equipped. That is it's definition. Do you think that changing weapons during combat is a good idea? That it helps balance? ME2's inventory (other than it's component in which you can select to equip one of the weapons you are carrying with you, and therefore exists anyway) comes up when it makes sense to change your selections.

It would be great to start the mission by using the Vindicator, shooting the enemies from  far away, and then suddenly switching to the Revenant when they come closer. Balance would definitely not be screwed up.

You have constructed the illusion that the inventory should be available at all times, because frankly, you rarely can just switch between more than 2 weapon types in  pure RPGs, yet alone 5.

No, I don't consider a weapons locker in the middle of the collector ship to be better than being able to change weapons on the fly.

Modifié par Sarevok Synder, 14 juillet 2011 - 12:50 .

[Someone With Mass]

Sarevok Synder wrote...

In your opinion they're overrated

Oh yes, ammo is a "power" now; rather than an Item like it should be.

When I hit "I" nothing happens. Yes, there is no inventory. I noticed you just ignored the fact that weapons lockers highlighted the fact that there wasn't one.

in·ven·to·ry  (nvn-tôr, -tr)n. pl. in·ven·to·ries1.

a. A detailed, itemized list, report, or record of things in one's possession, especially a periodic survey of all goods and materials in stock.

b. The process of making such a list, report, or record.

c. The items listed in such a report or record.

d. The quantity of goods and materials on hand; stock.

I guess ME2 has an inventory after all, since definition A is exactly what ME2 is doing. 

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 14 juillet 2011 - 12:52 .

[Someone With Mass]

And for people that say that Mass Effect shouldn't copy games like Gears of War, you're saying that they should make them more like other more RPG influenced games, but they'd still be copies of other games and that would make people whine about that too.

[Sarevok Synder]

Someone With Mass wrote...



in·ven·to·ry  (nvn-tôr, -tr)n. pl. in·ven·to·ries1.

a. A detailed, itemized list, report, or record of things in one's possession, especially a periodic survey of all goods and materials in stock.

b. The process of making such a list, report, or record.

c. The items listed in such a report or record.d. The quantity of goods and materials on hand; stock.

I guess ME2 has an inventory after all, since definition A is exactly what ME2 is doing. 

We have been over this before with regards to weapons mods and changing them on the fly. Your stupid solution was to reload. ME2 has no inventory, deal with it.

[Eduadinho]

Arguing with the purists is like arguing with a rock, they do not budge. Have the same mental capacity too.
Also Synder you are being a douche there someone had to say it, same to Gatt9 and Terror K amongst others.

Modifié par Eduadinho, 14 juillet 2011 - 12:56 .

[Sarevok Synder]

Someone With Mass wrote...

And for people that say that Mass Effect shouldn't copy games like Gears of War, you're saying that they should make them more like other more RPG influenced games, but they'd still be copies of other games and that would make people whine about that too.

They can make Mass Effect like Gears for all I care. But they can drop the act that there is still an RPG in the package.

[Sarevok Synder]

Eduadinho wrote...

Arguing with the purists is like arguing with a rock, they do not budge. Have the same mental capacity too.
Also Synder you are being a douche there someone had to say it, same to Gatt9 and Terror K amongst others. 

Depends on the size of the rock. Don't worry your pea-brain about it little one. I love how everyone who disagrees that ME2 was just the awsomezzzzz; is a douche in the "mindset" of the Biodrones. You guys are a joke. 

Modifié par Sarevok Synder, 15 juillet 2011 - 01:37 .