494 réponses à ce sujet

[Rockworm503]

Luc0s wrote...

Rockworm503 wrote...

People have called the Zelda games RPGs with a straight face.  

I always LOL at people who think Zelda is an RPG.


As for Mass Effect... I would call it borderline-RPG.


Yes, I think "borderline-RPG" describes Mass Effect pretty well. Or maybe bipolar-shooter/RPG.

damn something we can agree on.  There are people who think Call of Duty is more of a RPG than Mass Effect because it has an inventory or something?  Thats what people have told me.  It makes no sense.  Zelda has an inventory and thats it but some people really believe that its more of an RPG because of it...
And people wonder why I don't hold much stock in the whole term.

[Iakus]

[quote]Logical Escape wrote...

Being allowed to complete tasks in any order, wander around bars, ordering drinks and dancing, and flying between planets seems like a pretty good sandbox feature to me.

Does the game have to be a driving simulator to be a sandbox?[/quote]

Being able to run down corridors in any order counts as "sandbox"?  

Drinking at a bar counts as "sandbox"?  (guess that makes DA2 a sandbox game as well)

A game doesn't need to be a "driving simulator" but it should reward you for going off the beaten path, to qualify for having exploration, let alone being a sandbox game.


[quote]

No, but the absence of one or the other doesn't mean there's less "RPG elements."[/quote]

Actually, it does.  Eliminate customization, even annoying customization=reduced RPG elements.

[quote]

The classes actually diverged more in ME2 than ME1, where most of your classes shared the same abilities.  How is that more "customizable"?[/quote]

Because my Widow is the same as Legion's Widow.  My Locust is the same as Miranda's, my Carnifex is the same as Mordin's.  And if I want to alter a squadmates' resistances, shields, regeneration?  Nope, sorry.  Can't even alter their appearance.

[quote]iakus wrote...

Given Commander Shepard is not a protoss...[/quote]
Doesn't mean he can't look badass like one.
[/quote]

So it doesn't matter as long as it looks awesome?

[Sharn01]

The game is still to far off for me to draw any conclusions, I will start looking into it a bit more around december or january.

[lazuli]

Gatt9 wrote...
The best selling series in the history of gaming is a turn-based RPG (Pokemon). 

Pokemon has completely stagnated, though.  The gameplay has remained largely the same for around fifteen years now, with bells, whistles, and other effluvia tacked on from time to time.  The change between Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2 was more dramatic than all of the changes between Pokemon Red/Blue (the first) and Pokemon Platinum (the most recent I have played).

Games should continue to evolve (pun intended) if the medium is to ever improve.

To get back to the OP, the only thing I'm all that disappointed in would be the inclusion of turret segments.  Hssssssss.... turrets.

[wizardryforever]

iakus wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

I'm a huge mass effect fan but this series sucks. I mean, a name like Shepard is clearly retarded. And an RPG in space? Puleesse! Where are my elves? Any RPG where I can't dual wield 2-handed swords is not a real RPG. And why can't I stop and loot bodies every 2 seconds for 3 copper coins and a bit string? I mean, what is an RPG without a ball of string???

Anyone feel the same?

Hater's gonna hate 

And haters of haters gonna hate too. 

It's like a neverending circle of hate.  At least on the internet.

[daddyjah21]

i loved me1 but if you think the shooting mechanics where good and want them back your crazy

[shinobi602]

RPG elements are at least much improved over ME2, which drastically had...budget cuts in that department. Dialogue and squad banter is much more prevalent than both ME1 and ME2. The combat and shooting has been made extremely smooth and perfected.

I'd say I'm more excited for ME3 than ever before.

[Rockworm503]

lazuli wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...
The best selling series in the history of gaming is a turn-based RPG (Pokemon). 

Pokemon has completely stagnated, though.  The gameplay has remained largely the same for around fifteen years now, with bells, whistles, and other effluvia tacked on from time to time.  The change between Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2 was more dramatic than all of the changes between Pokemon Red/Blue (the first) and Pokemon Platinum (the most recent I have played).

Games should continue to evolve (pun intended) if the medium is to ever improve.

To get back to the OP, the only thing I'm all that disappointed in would be the inclusion of turret segments.  Hssssssss.... turrets.

LOL suddenly it sounds like Gatt9 wants the same game every time.

[Il Divo]

Dionkey wrote...

Again with just getting rid of something because it has a problem. Here, you want to fix the inventory? Easy. Make money worth something and not everywhere in the game. Make it so you can research new upgrades with the minerals you collect. The amount of items just needs to be scaled down a bit, not dropped to a few dozen weapons. Omni-gel was useless and should have been the only thing completely scrapped.

With any badly implemented feature, developers always have two options to fix it:

1) Redesign.

2) Removal.

Ultimately, both are perfectly viable solutions, depending on circumstances. In this case, if the developers felt that the inventory/exploration system were weak enough that removal is more productive, it's an acceptable solution. In the case of the inventory, it was a bit more than a problem. I personally consider Mass Effect's inventory to be the worst implemented in any game I've ever played.

[Thompson family]

Some of the "arguments" on this thread are the type of elitest nonsense that burned away every last trace of sympathy I once had for people facing the loss of detailed RPG elements.

I played the old paper and cardboard counter board game "Campaign for North Africa," a simulation of the desert campaigns in WWII, where you had to keep track on paper of the FUEL EACH UNIT USED when it moved. It really was a game that took five hours to get anywhere and "you had to remember to drink water."

And I did it when a lot of you elitests really were in elementary school, if you were even born yet.

I'll never play "North Africa" again unless somebody comes up with a computerized version that keeps track of fuel and so forth for me. That's called "improvement." And all the moaning and groaning about how almost nobody is printing detailed boardgames any more will change that.

People don't avoid old-time RPGs because people are dumb. People avoid old-time RPGs because they are as boring as needlepoint embroidery.

Modifié par Thompson family, 17 août 2011 - 04:07 .

[Logical Escape]

iakus wrote...

Being able to run down corridors in any order counts as "sandbox"?  

Drinking at a bar counts as "sandbox"?  (guess that makes DA2 a sandbox game as well)

A game doesn't need to be a "driving simulator" but it should reward you for going off the beaten path, to qualify for having exploration, let alone being a sandbox game.

I didn't disagree with having more opportunities to go off the beaten path.  But making it a driving simulator was very clearly not the way to do it.  Just like mining on planets is also not the way to do it.

iakus wrote...

Actually, it does.  Eliminate customization, even annoying customization=reduced RPG elements.

The difference is that RPGs should translate customization towards functionality.  Wearing something ugly should get people to call you ugly.  Simply having a thousand things that don't do anything doesn't make it an RPG, it makes the Sims... in Space.

iakus wrote...

Because my Widow is the same as Legion's Widow.  My Locust is the same as Miranda's, my Carnifex is the same as Mordin's.  And if I want to alter a squadmates' resistances, shields, regeneration?  Nope, sorry.  Can't even alter their appearance.

Actually, your Widow does about 40% more damage than Legion's widow.

The tradeoff is that ME2 has a considerably larger group of party members.  While I may not be able to customize Legion's appearance much, I can have the opportunity to play with Jack instead, and she's obviously very different to Legion.  That's another form of customization.  Just not necessarily the one YOU want.

iakus wrote...
So it doesn't matter as long as it looks awesome?

Yes, because there's something so indelibly wrong or impossible about the omni-blade?  I must have missed the part in my ME1/2 playthroughs where they mentioned that "the omni-tool cannot become corporeal".

[Massadonious1]

There are plenty of reasonable and logical reasoning for the omni-blade floating around, some people just have a selective bias and choose to ignore such reasoning so they can compare it to the "HALOLZ AND AZZIZINS CREED OMGZ."

And I'm not entirely sure how they're supposed to design it so it doesn't replicate something or even resemble something else. Make it a standard combat knife, it's like CoD. Make it skinnier, it's too much like a lightsaber. Put it in motion, and it's like Gears. It's ALWAYS going to look/feel like something else. Might as well get used to it.

Modifié par Massadonious1, 17 août 2011 - 04:01 .

[SkittlesKat96]

Well Bioware doesn't really hide the fact that they want to get a bigger playerbase and have more fans and success in the gaming industry...I'm not surprised that they are trying to show off the combat to everyone.

And besides, at least they aren't giving us irresistable immersion-ruining/'spoiler' content. If they gave us a 1 minute scene of Shepard talking to Liara to show off the dialog and story then people would complain regardless.

I suppose a James Vega character reveal trailer wouldn't be so bad though.

[Rockworm503]

Thompson family wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Major flaw in logic. Target audience is PRIMARILY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL KIDS.

This is exactly the kind of elitest c*** that burned away every last trace of sympathy I once had for people facing the loss of detailed RPG elements.

I played the old paper and cardboard counter board game "Campaign for North Africa," a simulation of the desert campaigns in WWII, where you had to keep track on paper of the FUEL EACH UNIT USED when it moved. It really was a game that took five hours to get anywhere and "you had to remember to drink water."

And I did it when a lot of you elitests really were in elementary school, if you were even born yet.

I'll never play "North Africa" again unless somebody comes up with a computerized version that keeps track of fuel and so forth for me. That's called "improvement." And all the moaning and groaning about how almost nobody is printing detailed boardgames any more will change that.

People don't avoid old-time RPGs because people are dumb. People avoid old-time RPGs because they are as boring as needlepoint embroidery.

HEHE you said what I was thinking but I didn't think he deserved the reply.

[Dionkey]

Logical Escape wrote...
And how do you propose that they fix it?  By making ME2 a BETTER driving simulator?  Then people would complain that the game is too much of a driving game and losing its "RPG elements."

I wouldn't mind having more open-endedness to the world.  But let's not pretend that, "drive for ten minutes while you get to your next destination, hop out and play through an embarrassingly bad combat scene, and then talk to some guy" is a perfect system.

The driving in ME1 was fine, it was the problem with the controls and the emptiness. Fill it up with more interesting sights and reifne the controls (Hammerhead was fine, but way too weak). 

Logical Escape wrote...
Sure, this would have been the ideal situation.  But this situation is just as far off from ME1 as ME2.  Credits weren't worth a damn thing in ME1.  And the amount of time you have flipping through your inventory (where 95% of the stuff is getting melted into omni-gel anyway) is grossly disporportional to the amount of payoff you get.  Did you like the planet scanner feature?  Because that's about as much fun and "open-ended" as flipping through your inventory.

I agree, melting down omni-gel was terrible, but I think completely taking out the inventory was a lazy solution. Something more similar to the DA2's inventory (which I thought was pretty well done) would be nice.

Logical Escape wrote...
There's still side quests in ME2.  ME1 is a longer game (such as having a level cap of 60), but that doesn't mean there aren't side quests in ME2.

Diverse skill trees?  What was the end result of those diverse skill trees?  Regardless of skills, regardless of classes, regardless of companions, the combat system was so basic that you basically ran out, spammed your biotics, and tried to headshot everything that you came across.

ME2 features classes that have a very tangible difference in how you play them, skills that are unique and have a very appreciable difference on play-style and how you want to approach things, and a system that actually rewards taking cover and being a cover shooter, exactly how the game is SUPPOSED to play out.

The thing about ME2 was that builds had no advantage over each other. You could adapt any 2 squadmate to your weaknesses no matter what class you were. In ME1, there were 20x the builds and they all applied for the most part. 

Logical Escape wrote...
Omni-tools are shown to be plenty tangible.  You're able to touch it and use it as a keyboard, after all.  Donovan Hock had an omni-tool keyboard in his suite.  Why is it such a stretch to assume that they could fashion a weapon out of it?
It's certainly an improvement over whacking people with your magic elbow.

First off, the Omni-tool's haptic interface comes from built in pieces in the armor or synthetic weaving in the skin. All that force feedback is artificial. Secondly, if Omni-blades were to sear through armor, they would need to be hotter than a plasma cutter. Unless omni-tools are now plasma cutters, I don't see how that works.

Modifié par Dionkey, 17 août 2011 - 04:01 .

[Davie McG]

Rockworm503 wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

Rockworm503 wrote...

People have called the Zelda games RPGs with a straight face.  

I always LOL at people who think Zelda is an RPG.


As for Mass Effect... I would call it borderline-RPG.


Yes, I think "borderline-RPG" describes Mass Effect pretty well. Or maybe bipolar-shooter/RPG.

damn something we can agree on.  There are people who think Call of Duty is more of a RPG than Mass Effect because it has an inventory or something?  Thats what people have told me.  It makes no sense.  Zelda has an inventory and thats it but some people really believe that its more of an RPG because of it...
And people wonder why I don't hold much stock in the whole term.

There are also plenty of people on here who think Mass Effect is no longer an RPG because they done away with the inventory.

It's always been advertised as an Action-RPG as far as I can recall. It definently has RPG elements. You play as commander Shepard, get to decide what your characters path is, how his skills progress. Granted it was a little stunted in ME2 but the previous sentance still applies. However at the same time it still has alot of action sections of the game with all the combat.

So I still think Action-RPG is an apt description of what Mass Effect is. 

[Logical Escape]

Thompson family wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Major flaw in logic. Target audience is PRIMARILY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL KIDS.

This is exactly the kind of elitest c*** that burned away every last trace of sympathy I once had for people facing the loss of detailed RPG elements.

I played the old paper and cardboard counter board game "Campaign for North Africa," a simulation of the desert campaigns in WWII, where you had to keep track on paper of the FUEL EACH UNIT USED when it moved. It really was a game that took five hours to get anywhere and "you had to remember to drink water."

And I did it when a lot of you elitests really were in elementary school, if you were even born yet.

I'll never play "North Africa" again unless somebody comes up with a computerized version that keeps track of fuel and so forth for me. That's called "improvement." And all the moaning and groaning about how almost nobody is printing detailed boardgames any more will change that.

People don't avoid old-time RPGs because people are dumb. People avoid old-time RPGs because they are as boring as needlepoint embroidery.

It's not elitist to plainly point out that pokemon and mass effect cater to different segments of the market.  They may overlap some, but that's not the point.  Pokemon will sell regardless of their games because it has the support of a younger audience.  It doesn't mean that older players can't enjoy the game.  It's almost impossible to market Mass Effect to elementary school students (nor should it be marketed towards them).

[crusher1990]

Actually this kind of thing happens all the time...

Before release people *itch about every single thing they see, just because thats not what they wanted;
During release: "The best game ever!", "GOTY!" and so on;
After release: Nitpicking every single detail, and realising that they don't like that game so much after all.

Happened with ME2; MGS4; Fallout: NV; Crysis 1 & 2 etc.

So no matter what... everybody is going to enjoy it during its release.

[Thompson family]

Logical Escape wrote...

Thompson family wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Major flaw in logic. Target audience is PRIMARILY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL KIDS.

This is exactly the kind of elitest c*** that burned away every last trace of sympathy I once had for people facing the loss of detailed RPG elements.

I played the old paper and cardboard counter board game "Campaign for North Africa," a simulation of the desert campaigns in WWII, where you had to keep track on paper of the FUEL EACH UNIT USED when it moved. It really was a game that took five hours to get anywhere and "you had to remember to drink water."

And I did it when a lot of you elitests really were in elementary school, if you were even born yet.

I'll never play "North Africa" again unless somebody comes up with a computerized version that keeps track of fuel and so forth for me. That's called "improvement." And all the moaning and groaning about how almost nobody is printing detailed boardgames any more will change that.

People don't avoid old-time RPGs because people are dumb. People avoid old-time RPGs because they are as boring as needlepoint embroidery.

It's not elitist to plainly point out that pokemon and mass effect cater to different segments of the market.  They may overlap some, but that's not the point.  Pokemon will sell regardless of their games because it has the support of a younger audience.  It doesn't mean that older players can't enjoy the game.  It's almost impossible to market Mass Effect to elementary school students (nor should it be marketed towards them).

That's true. I'll edit my original post.

Modifié par Thompson family, 17 août 2011 - 04:08 .

[Il Divo]

Logical Escape wrote...

Thompson family wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Major flaw in logic. Target audience is PRIMARILY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL KIDS.

This is exactly the kind of elitest c*** that burned away every last trace of sympathy I once had for people facing the loss of detailed RPG elements.

I played the old paper and cardboard counter board game "Campaign for North Africa," a simulation of the desert campaigns in WWII, where you had to keep track on paper of the FUEL EACH UNIT USED when it moved. It really was a game that took five hours to get anywhere and "you had to remember to drink water."

And I did it when a lot of you elitests really were in elementary school, if you were even born yet.

I'll never play "North Africa" again unless somebody comes up with a computerized version that keeps track of fuel and so forth for me. That's called "improvement." And all the moaning and groaning about how almost nobody is printing detailed boardgames any more will change that.

People don't avoid old-time RPGs because people are dumb. People avoid old-time RPGs because they are as boring as needlepoint embroidery.

It's not elitist to plainly point out that pokemon and mass effect cater to different segments of the market.  They may overlap some, but that's not the point.  Pokemon will sell regardless of their games because it has the support of a younger audience.  It doesn't mean that older players can't enjoy the game.  It's almost impossible to market Mass Effect to elementary school students (nor should it be marketed towards them).

I could be wrong, but I've heard that film ratings follow a similar logic in terms of generating sales. In general, R rates films are restricted to a certain segment of the audience. OTOH, PG films don't suffer from this restriction.  

[sedrikhcain]

Dionkey wrote...

Logical Escape wrote...
Better than a poor excuse for a driving simulator..

You have a problem? Instead of fixing it, let's burn it to the ground. If your house has a leak, do you just sell the house? No, of course not. Make better vehicle controls and create planets with more unique environments. The environments in Mass Effect 2 may have been unique, but they were so closed off and linear that it was embarrassing. You're argument is shoddy at best.

Logical Escape wrote...
Incessantly flipping through your inventory and melting everything down into omni-gel.  Dull.

Again with just getting rid of something because it has a problem. Here, you want to fix the inventory? Easy. Make money worth something and not everywhere in the game. Make it so you can research new upgrades with the minerals you collect. The amount of items just needs to be scaled down a bit, not dropped to a few dozen weapons. Omni-gel was useless and should have been the only thing completely scrapped.

Logical Escape wrote...
Yes, and thank you for straw manning my point.  The combat in ME2 is improved, while they retain the same core RPG elements.  This is bad... how?

Is that a joke? Inventory? Gone. Exploration? Gone. Interesting side-quests? Gone. Diverse skill trees? Gone. I don't know what your definition of an RPG is but I am certainy not role playing when the options are as diverse as childs toys where you can put the moon block in the moon shaped hole.

Logical Escape wrote...
Most SC players think that the zealot looks pretty badass.  But I guess your opinion on appearance matters more.

Yeah, badass! Let's ignore the fact that omni-tools are not physical objects and pretty much explain everything with magic! The science that the series was founded on was too much for the Mac Walters apparently. 

1. the whole planet exploration thing. I think the problem you'll run into in making the argument for the mako is that planetary exploration in ME1 -- even apart from the Mako mechanics and the climbing over mountain ranges -- just didn't have all that much to it. You wandered endlessly over barren environments to find minor power-ups and collectables. It wasn't all bad but to jump and and down screaming that the game is cheapened because that's gone just seems to be an outsized response.

2. As for the inventory, it was not "gone" in ME2, neither was loot. They were just very much streamlined. Example: ME1: find anti-shield rounds all over the place, once you get three of the highest ones, that's all you ever need but you keep finding them incessantly so they become clutter. ME2: squad members have disruptor ammo as upgradable "Power". Insert for whole squad. Done, No omnigel and no clutter. If you ask me, that's an improvement. If there is a complaint about this I agree with, it's with the armor. There were options in me2 but they were very limited and didn't change your appearance that much. ME1's was cluttered but fed the look of things more. That's a minor quibble for me, though.

3. As said before rpg elements are there. the more tedious among them were streamlined. And interesting side quests are a matter of opinion. I've just recently played both games again and this time I found the side quests in me1 to be mostly cookie-cutter as far as environment and combat. ME2's were much more interesting on that score. I will say that most of the ME1's side quest stories were interesting, whereas ME2's were more scattershot in that regard.

[KainrycKarr]

The game has more RPG elements than ME2. We've seen this. We know this to be fact.

So...how is that bad?

[Lunatic LK47]

Rockworm503 wrote...

Thompson family wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Major flaw in logic. Target audience is PRIMARILY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL KIDS.

This is exactly the kind of elitest c*** that burned away every last trace of sympathy I once had for people facing the loss of detailed RPG elements.

I played the old paper and cardboard counter board game "Campaign for North Africa," a simulation of the desert campaigns in WWII, where you had to keep track on paper of the FUEL EACH UNIT USED when it moved. It really was a game that took five hours to get anywhere and "you had to remember to drink water."

And I did it when a lot of you elitests really were in elementary school, if you were even born yet.

I'll never play "North Africa" again unless somebody comes up with a computerized version that keeps track of fuel and so forth for me. That's called "improvement." And all the moaning and groaning about how almost nobody is printing detailed boardgames any more will change that.

People don't avoid old-time RPGs because people are dumb. People avoid old-time RPGs because they are as boring as needlepoint embroidery.

HEHE you said what I was thinking but I didn't think he deserved the reply.

To both Thompson and Rockworm: My comment was regarding Pokemon.