1467 réponses à ce sujet

[Vegos]

111987 wrote...

Isn't the Mass Effect franchise all about choices?

And this is just one more choice a player can make.

Variety is one thing, but too much of that and you have an amorphous mashup where nobody is entirely sure just what it is anymore.

I'm stretching it a little here, yes, but action mode/story mode are more like invasions from the shooter/visual novel sides, respectively....

[dreman9999]

Vegos wrote...

BluSoldier wrote...

I don't see why anyone would be against this. While the true ME fans will all play on RPG mode, we lose nothing by their putting in a COD NOOB or a Kiddie game modes.

It simply loses its essence, that's all.

Just like if a gourmet restaurant suddenly decided to add french fries hamburgers to their menus "to appeal to a wider public". You can bet that wouldn't go down too well, either, even if the McDonald's kiddies rejoiced. I say, they should stick to McDonald's if they want junk food and leave my favorite fancy restaurant alone. Am I going to McDonalds and demanding a culinary masterpiece?

It's more a question what the Mass Effect franchise is than a question of who gains, who loses.

Listen, your not understanding that if a person buys something they can deal with it any way they want. If somone wants to play with the story out of they way, they cando so. It has n oeffect on you. Youcan play the game how ever you want.

[1136342t54_]

Vegos wrote...

111987 wrote...

Isn't the Mass Effect franchise all about choices?

And this is just one more choice a player can make.

Variety is one thing, but too much of that and you have an amorphous mashup where nobody is entirely sure just what it is anymore.

I'm stretching it a little here, yes, but action mode/story mode are more like invasions from the shooter/visual novel sides, respectively....

Actually Action mode and Story mode fit in more with your assumption. Also ME3 is an Action RPG this was going to happen eventually but I honestly like this option. I may actually do Story mode and Action Mode pretty often.

[Vegos]

Listen, here is whatyour not getting.BW is focus on making ME3 an action rpg, like it always was. All the new modes do to turn off what they already build in the game. They already made a game with mulitple dialoge options and way the story can go, all they did in action mode is pick something out of what they already made. In story mode, they just turn the rpg part they already made off.
Your problem is that your not understanding is that everything you want in the rpg mode is turned on in the rpg mode.

Burgers and fries in a gorument resuarant don't make them suddenly stop serving the other stuff either.

Oh wait....

It's you.

Forget I said anything.

Modifié par Vegos, 06 novembre 2011 - 05:20 .

[Alex_SM]

dreman9999 wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

I used tactics quite a lot  actually..

You used the "tactics" you could set to npcs, or "real tactics"?

First time I played DA:O I based all my combat in positioning, micromanaging everything and focusing extremely in the position of every character in the field. 

Also there are a lot of situations where you can make ambushes to the enemies. Obviosly, you must not run in straight line to them, but look carefully where they are and how many the are.

In DA2, due to the nature of the encounters, all this turns to be useless. The way they appear (magically around you) makes impossible to ambush anyone or to make any plans, the respawns makes positioning useless (because you cannot create any "safe ground" at your back: sooner or later an enemy will magically appear there), and at the end the new way of combat makes all unnecesary. You can just go and kill everything as if you where playing a regular hack & slash. 

At the end I just used to threw two simultaneous meteor showers (don't remember the name of the spell), launched the tank to the middle of the fight, and killed everyone with my rogue. Most combats finished in a few seconds (until the damned respawn that used to happen every combat). Even the one from the Arishok lasted less than 20 seconds, he was dead before the tank arrived him.

The problem is notthe game has no tactic. It's the fact that you are trying  us DA:O tactics in da2. That won't work. DA:O is a 1:1 system, DA2 system is that  the battle changes as you fight. You need to think cc, that's the strongest thing to invest in in DA2. It sounds like you have character build for single attack damage. You need to look for powers that slowdown,stun, attack or devurt groups. Parylising gliph, confusion smoke, gravity well and anything at putan effect on enemies areyour priority. And pay attetion. DA2 has way more tactical options then DA:O, it's just that people whe play it try to try to play it like DA:O.

My character was well built, as I said most of my combat usually lasted a few seconds. Even the Arishok was dead before my tank arrived to entertain him. At the end I never needed to do anything complex (which is the opposite as DA:O) to win, and all combats ended up being just boring. 

I never felt the need to think about any tactics. With a tank, a rogue (2 swords) and 2 mages (two healers with a few very damaging attack spells) all combats where really easy (yet frustrating, because they turned to be all the same). 

Modifié par Alex_SM, 06 novembre 2011 - 05:27 .

[Jcarlo123]

111987 wrote...

Jcarlo123 wrote...

The only thing that worries me about this is that if you are playing the same game regardless of which mode you choose, this would suggest to me that the actual choices you can make in the game have been really dumbed down just accommodate the possibility of an "action" mode.

If it's possbile for the player to play the game without making any choices, then I don't imagine the choices that are there when you do play with choices are very complex or interesting.

So in otherwords, I hope they didn't design the entire game with the possibility of an "Action mode" in mind--throwing out any sort of real decisions or complexity just so an action mode would work at all.

I think it's more likely that in action mode the game just makes choices for you, automatically. What those automatic choices would be, or if you could set it to Paragon, Renegade, or neutral, I have no clue about.

Yes, but if that's the case, why would Bioware bother developing a bunch of extra content that you w\\ill never even see if you play in action mode?  I don't see them doing that.  For an action mode to work at all the choices are going to have to be pretty limited and cosmetic.  So I doubt you'll be able to make any huge decisions that will affect story and gameplay in a big way even if you play in RPG mode (Although, I guess now that I think of it, the ME series has never really had all that many big decisions to begin with.  They mostly are just cosmetic.  So maybe this is just a case of Bioware finally being upfront about the fact that these really aren't RPG games at all, just mediocre action games with really, really long cut scenes).

[1136342t54_]

I do not know why you are arguing DA2 game mechanics. Hell in both Dragon Age games people have different experiences. I would have trouble as a warrior fighting the Arishok in a one on one duel on Nightmare while someone would say It took me less than 30 seconds.

[Vegos]

1136342t54 wrote...

Vegos wrote...

111987 wrote...

Isn't the Mass Effect franchise all about choices?

And this is just one more choice a player can make.

Variety is one thing, but too much of that and you have an amorphous mashup where nobody is entirely sure just what it is anymore.

I'm stretching it a little here, yes, but action mode/story mode are more like invasions from the shooter/visual novel sides, respectively....

Actually Action mode and Story mode fit in more with your assumption. Also ME3 is an Action RPG this was going to happen eventually but I honestly like this option. I may actually do Story mode and Action Mode pretty often.

If I had a penny every time someone pulled the "optional" or the "action RPG" card on me...

But you know, "Action RPG" is one thing, but "Action or RPG or visual novel" just makes it look like they couldn't even decide what they wanted to make themselves >.<

I don't mind ME being an action RPG franchise, but seriously, why such drastic changes in the final game of a trilogy?  Wouldn't it make more sense to launch a new "Action or RPG or visual novel" franchise and toy with it there, if they have to toy with it?

Modifié par Vegos, 06 novembre 2011 - 05:25 .

[111987]

Jcarlo123 wrote...

111987 wrote...

Jcarlo123 wrote...

The only thing that worries me about this is that if you are playing the same game regardless of which mode you choose, this would suggest to me that the actual choices you can make in the game have been really dumbed down just accommodate the possibility of an "action" mode.

If it's possbile for the player to play the game without making any choices, then I don't imagine the choices that are there when you do play with choices are very complex or interesting.

So in otherwords, I hope they didn't design the entire game with the possibility of an "Action mode" in mind--throwing out any sort of real decisions or complexity just so an action mode would work at all.

I think it's more likely that in action mode the game just makes choices for you, automatically. What those automatic choices would be, or if you could set it to Paragon, Renegade, or neutral, I have no clue about.

Yes, but if that's the case, why would Bioware bother developing a bunch of extra content that you will never even see if you play in action mode?  I don't see them doing that.  For an action mode to work at all the choices are going to have to be pretty limited and cosmetic.  So I doubt you'll be able to make any huge decisions that will affect story and gameplay in a big way even if you play in RPG mode (Although, I guess now that I think of it, the ME series has never really had all that many big decisions to begin with.  They mostly are just cosmetic.  So maybe this is just a case of Bioware finally being upfront about the fact that these really aren't RPG games at all, just mediocre action games with really, really long cut scenes).

We don't know how the action mode will choose our decisions though. Like I said, their could be a Renegade, Paragon, and 'neutral' playthrough in action mode, and you just choose that right at the beginning. Or maybe the choices Shepard makes in action mode are dependent on his background and psych profile.

I think we just have to wait and find out more information.

[Alex_SM]

1136342t54 wrote...

I do not know why you are arguing DA2 game mechanics. Hell in both Dragon Age games people have different experiences. I would have trouble as a warrior fighting the Arishok in a one on one duel on Nightmare while someone would say It took me less than 30 seconds.

Not on duel, but in regular combat with all his fellows. 2 Mages focusing on him, launching everything they had in the first rounds, rogue with 2 swords attacking him on the back and ignoring everyone else, and tank calling him so he ignores the rogue. Just pure attack ignoring every damage received. He was dead, all his companions untouched, and the fight ended. 

Modifié par Alex_SM, 06 novembre 2011 - 05:28 .

[1136342t54_]

Vegos wrote...

If I had a penny every time someone pulled the "optional" or the "action RPG" card on me...

I didn't even mention it was optional. I just sad the word option and it was never in the context of "Its optional."

But you know, "Action RPG" is one thing, but "Action or RPG or visual novel" just makes it look like they couldn't even decide what they wanted to make themselves >.<

Fighting games and Racing games have different modes that dumb down the game extremely. This is not the first time it has happened.

[Vegos]

Fighting games and Racing games have different modes that dumb down the game extremely. This is not the first time it has happened.

A fighting game on "Daddy can I play" is still a fighting game and a racing game on "Slowpoke who can't hold the wheel properly" is still a racing game. ME3 on "Action" or "Story" mode is no longer a role playing game, at least not in the sense I understand role playing.

Modifié par Vegos, 06 novembre 2011 - 05:28 .

[dreman9999]

Alex_SM wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

I used tactics quite a lot  actually..

You used the "tactics" you could set to npcs, or "real tactics"?

First time I played DA:O I based all my combat in positioning, micromanaging everything and focusing extremely in the position of every character in the field. 

Also there are a lot of situations where you can make ambushes to the enemies. Obviosly, you must not run in straight line to them, but look carefully where they are and how many the are.

In DA2, due to the nature of the encounters, all this turns to be useless. The way they appear (magically around you) makes impossible to ambush anyone or to make any plans, the respawns makes positioning useless (because you cannot create any "safe ground" at your back: sooner or later an enemy will magically appear there), and at the end the new way of combat makes all unnecesary. You can just go and kill everything as if you where playing a regular hack & slash. 

At the end I just used to threw two simultaneous meteor showers (don't remember the name of the spell), launched the tank to the middle of the fight, and killed everyone with my rogue. Most combats finished in a few seconds (until the damned respawn that used to happen every combat). Even the one from the Arishok lasted less than 20 seconds, he was dead before the tank arrived him.

The problem is notthe game has no tactic. It's the fact that you are trying  us DA:O tactics in da2. That won't work. DA:O is a 1:1 system, DA2 system is that  the battle changes as you fight. You need to think cc, that's the strongest thing to invest in in DA2. It sounds like you have character build for single attack damage. You need to look for powers that slowdown,stun, attack or devurt groups. Parylising gliph, confusion smoke, gravity well and anything at putan effect on enemies areyour priority. And pay attetion. DA2 has way more tactical options then DA:O, it's just that people whe play it try to try to play it like DA:O.

My character was well built, as I said most of my combat usually lasted a few seconds. Even the Arishok was dead before my tank arrived to entertain him. At the end I never needed to do anything complex (which is the opposite as DA:O) to win, and all combats ended up being just boring. 

I never felt the need to think about any tactics. With a tank, a rogue and 2 mages (two healers with a few very damaging attack spells) all combats where really easy (yet frustrating). 

1, What setting?

2. If your having troble with group, I doubt you build your group well.

3. if your rolling with a tank, a rogue and 2 healers, you must be playing on normal. How are you doing any real damage?

[1136342t54_]

Alex_SM wrote...

Not on duel, but in regular combat with all his fellows. 2 Mages focusing on him, launching everything they had in the first rounds, rogue with 2 swords attacking him on the back and ignoring everyone else, and tank calling him so he ignores the rogue. He was dead, all his companions untouched, and the fight ended. 

To be honest he ignores the hell out of my tank half the time and goes straight for my damage dealers. Including the other half of the Qunari in the room. Also I'm not specifically talking about you I'm saying in general encounters are rather easy. In Dragon Age Origins I actually ended fights much more quickly than in DA2. DA2 did many things worse than DAO but the combat sometimes did feel better. The spawns were bull**** but the enemy actually were a bit more dynamic forcing me to actually adapt. 

Now this is the last time I'm speaking it lol.

[1136342t54_]

Vegos wrote...

Fighting games and Racing games have different modes that dumb down the game extremely. This is not the first time it has happened.

A fighting game on "Daddy can I play" is still a fighting game and a racing game on "Slowpoke who can't hold the wheel properly" is still a racing game. ME3 on "Action" or "Story" mode is no longer a role playing game, at least not in the sense I understand role playing.

Then your understanding of RPG is a bit limited. For some they feel combat and stats makes or breaks the RPG. For others they feel the story is what makes or break a RPG. Then there are many who feels its both.

Modifié par 1136342t54 , 06 novembre 2011 - 05:30 .

[dreman9999]

Vegos wrote...

Listen, here is whatyour not getting.BW is focus on making ME3 an action rpg, like it always was. All the new modes do to turn off what they already build in the game. They already made a game with mulitple dialoge options and way the story can go, all they did in action mode is pick something out of what they already made. In story mode, they just turn the rpg part they already made off.
Your problem is that your not understanding is that everything you want in the rpg mode is turned on in the rpg mode.

Burgers and fries in a gorument resuarant don't make them suddenly stop serving the other stuff either.

Oh wait....

It's you.

Forget I said anything.

You do know Gorument resuarant do serve Bugers and fries.
And I have a point.
They make the rpg first and the other mode they just turn things off to make it simpler. How is this a bad Idea?
Before we had to deal with BW trying to make the entire game balance for everyone. Now the can focus on one mode for us and take that mode and make dumb doawn modes for everyone else.
We no longer need to free that theyare trying to dumb down the rpgpart of the game.

[Alex_SM]

dreman9999 wrote...

1, What setting?

2. If your having troble with group, I doubt you build your group well.

3. if your rolling with a tank, a rogue and 2 healers, you must be playing on normal. How are you doing any real damage?

I never said I had problems. I found the game extremely easy ( as I pointed) but frustrating because every combat was the same, never had to think about them. Just needed to be "brutal" and kill the hardest enemy before he does anything, and then clean the field. Beating everything playing it as a Hack & Slash is easy. 

I finished it on Hard (the one below Nightmare, don't know how it is called in english), and didn't played again because I didn't like the game at all. 

The Damage: The two healers also had attacking spells. Launching two simultaneous firestorms, with the equipment of the two mages focused on fire, usually did a fine job killing weak enemies and extremely damaging strong ones. Then two simultaneos fireballs, etc... 

[dreman9999]

Vegos wrote...

Fighting games and Racing games have different modes that dumb down the game extremely. This is not the first time it has happened.

A fighting game on "Daddy can I play" is still a fighting game and a racing game on "Slowpoke who can't hold the wheel properly" is still a racing game. ME3 on "Action" or "Story" mode is no longer a role playing game, at least not in the sense I understand role playing.

You do understand that ME is a shooter/rpg hybrid action rpg, right? How is the ability to turn off the rpg part going to effect your game if bw focuses on the rpg part of the game?

[ElitePinecone]

Vegos wrote...
It's more a question what the Mass Effect franchise is than a question of who gains, who loses.

Urgh. Spare me the existential crisis. 

Play the game. If it's a good game, and you enjoy it, you should have no qualms about other people enjoying it in different ways. 

Have you watched the demo?

[dreman9999]

Alex_SM wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1, What setting?

2. If your having troble with group, I doubt you build your group well.

3. if your rolling with a tank, a rogue and 2 healers, you must be playing on normal. How are you doing any real damage?

I never said I had problems. I found the game extremely easy ( as I pointed) but frustrating because every combat was the same, never had to think about them. Just needed to be "brutal" and kill the hardest enemy before he does anything, and then clean the field. Beating everything playing it as a Hack & Slash is easy. 

I finished it on Hard (the one below Nightmare, don't know how it is called in english), and didn't played again because I didn't like the game at all. 

The Damage: The two healers also had attacking spells. Launching two simultaneous firestorms, with the equipment of the two mages focused on fire, usually did a fine job killing weak enemies and extremely damaging strong ones. Then two simultaneos fireballs, etc... 

The problem that can;t really work that well for mages being healers. It like burning two ends of a candle stick. Also, how do you keep you mages safe with no stun or divert spells. The fire works on weak enemies but  strong ones and archer don't die that easy. I've played it on hard, it's not that easy at all. From what it sounds, you mages would be easily knifed in the back by cloaked rouges.

[Vegos]

1136342t54 wrote...

Vegos wrote...

Fighting games and Racing games have different modes that dumb down the game extremely. This is not the first time it has happened.

A fighting game on "Daddy can I play" is still a fighting game and a racing game on "Slowpoke who can't hold the wheel properly" is still a racing game. ME3 on "Action" or "Story" mode is no longer a role playing game, at least not in the sense I understand role playing.

Then your understanding of RPG is a bit limited. For some they feel combat and stats makes or breaks the RPG. For others they feel the story is what makes or break a RPG.

I don't think "limited" is the word you meant to use so I'm going to pull an OOC move and not get ballistic over it.

But, let me just refresh this; Role playing means, to me, that you're actually making choices, even if only "cosmetic" ones, you can still decide whether to be an all-around nice guy, have a stick up your butt, or be an antisocial git who's constantly five minutes away from tearing the world a new one. At the same time, of course, it means I'm actually doing something important in the game universe, so there needs to be some sense of conflict as well, not things falling over when I sneeze at them. And then being told how awesome I am for sneezing at them.

So, what action mode takes out of the RPG is the option to shape your own personality as you see fit - and that is not role playing, that is following a path someone else carved for you. The story mode basically makes you just an observer while things die around you - that, again, is not role playing, as you're not actually doing much, things just happen on their own.

And no, playing the numbers game with stats and combat efficiency isn't what makes a good roleplaying experience to me. Doing it my way is what does. Mind you, I'm not saying I don't like stats and toying with them, I'm simply saying I'm more likely to run around with a bit flawed character and mabe take an extra knock on the head or two, instead of going the munchkin route.

Oh, look at me ramble...

Again, this is how I see things and I don't care if people agree or not, I'm sure some will, and some won't; but in the end, it's an opinion. The only thing you can hold against me here is the fact that I want the game franchises I enjoyed to continue being the way I enjoyed them - and that is free of stuff that is in other games, which are suited for that stuff.

Modifié par Vegos, 06 novembre 2011 - 05:48 .

[Vegos]

ElitePinecone wrote...


Urgh. Spare me the existential crisis.

Why should I?

[Vegos]

dreman9999 wrote...

You do understand that ME is a shooter/rpg hybrid action rpg, right? How is the ability to turn off the rpg part going to effect your game if bw focuses on the rpg part of the game?

Wait, you're still talking to me?

[Takio]

You can only complain if the other modes somehow detract from RPG Mode, or if Action mode automatically gets the Optimal Ending.

[Vegos]

Takio wrote...

You can only complain if the other modes somehow detract from RPG Mode, or if Action mode automatically gets the Optimal Ending.

I didn't ask your, or anyone else's, permission.