429 réponses à ce sujet

[nelly21]

Icinix wrote...

That was a discussion about the RPG elements - not the combat.

My mistake. If this has degenerated into another rpg elements discussion then I'm out.

[Cainne Chapel]

Yes lets not get into the whole RPG non RPG thing..... As Samara would say "If there are 3 humans in a room, there will be 6 different opinions". That blue headed woman knew what she was talking about!

[AlanC9]

Icinix wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

G3rman wrote...

ME2 brought better combat but dumbed down important RPG features from the original, mainly inventory/loot/customization of character.

"Dumbed down" assumes ME1's versions of those features were smart in the first place.

How about "Reduced complexity", "Limited expansion", "Shrunken Scope", "Simplified Elements", "Streamlined into Submission", "Manius Skillus be Removedus", "Dumbed laterally", "Freckle removal via amputation", "Surgical Precision with Rusty Chainsaw"?

Better. Still wrong, but at least witty.

[saracen16]

RKB28 wrote...

Epsilon330 wrote...

ME1 had storyline/plot. Gameplay suffered a bit.
ME2 had gameplay. Storyline suffered compared to ME1. It was too linear, too character-mapped.
ME3 hopefully will have the best of both worlds.

What? How come?

I think what Epsilon is getting at is the fact that at certain points in the game, you were not given the choice of going somewhere else or performing another mission (e.g. Horizon). This, I think, made ME2 a bit more linear. However, ME2 was longer than ME1, and because of its length it appeared less linear than it really was.

I agree with Epsilon on all other counts: ME2's gameplay was better than its story namely because the story was cut into little disconnected pieces spread too thin between the individual characters (who are compelling in their own right), and vice-versa for ME1 (if you want proof, just watch the conversations between Commander Shepard and several other NPC's - friend, foe, or otherwise - on YouTube, most notably, in my honest opinion, between him and Kaidan, Wrex, Tali, Benezia, the Rachni queen, Sovereign, Saren, and Vigil).

Something tells me that ME3 will not disappoint. Only a little over a month away...

[Sylvius the Mad]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Ok the point of playing any game is to challenge yourself as a player so of course the character's performance should be impacted by player skill.

I play these games only to roleplay.  That's literally all I want from them.  I want to implement my character design and see what happens.

If the game requires that I, the player, jump through some hoops in order to implement that design, then the game is limiting player agency.

Not to mention the question of coherence.  If I injurue my wrist, Shepard suddenly becomes a lousy shot.  How does that make any sense within the game's setting?  Why is Shepard suddenly missing all of the time?  Why does Shepard think he's missing?

I think player input with regard to aiming should be limited to target selection.  Let me tell the game which enemy I want Shepard to shoot, and then Shepard will try to do that.  Having Shepard miss because I miss doesn't make any sense at all.

As such, I really like that ME allows the player to aim while paused.  I'd also like it to let me fire while paused.  After all, I can trigger biotic abilities while paused.  In ME1 I could aim and throw tech grenades while paused.  Why are the guns treated so differently?

[Cainne Chapel]

I get what you're saying Syl, I do, But since this IS an interactive medium, being a "Game" player input will ALWAYS need to have some direction on the game, period. Otherwise it stops being an interactive medium and goes to being a passive medium.

Also with the game being an RPG/TPS hybrid... well player interaction is going to figure heavily regardless, and as a HUGE RPG fan myself, I actually prefer the gameplay in ME2 as I like good hit detection and body based damage when it comes to putting bullets down range.

But once again I do get your point of view and it seems bioware does to as they have the new Action/Story/RPG modes.

Sounds to me like Story mode was made just for you actually

Modifié par Cainne Chapel, 28 janvier 2012 - 09:01 .

[Dewart]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Ok the point of playing any game is to challenge yourself as a player so of course the character's performance should be impacted by player skill.

I play these games only to roleplay.  That's literally all I want from them.  I want to implement my character design and see what happens.

If the game requires that I, the player, jump through some hoops in order to implement that design, then the game is limiting player agency.

Not to mention the question of coherence.  If I injurue my wrist, Shepard suddenly becomes a lousy shot.  How does that make any sense within the game's setting?  Why is Shepard suddenly missing all of the time?  Why does Shepard think he's missing?

I think player input with regard to aiming should be limited to target selection.  Let me tell the game which enemy I want Shepard to shoot, and then Shepard will try to do that.  Having Shepard miss because I miss doesn't make any sense at all.

As such, I really like that ME allows the player to aim while paused.  I'd also like it to let me fire while paused.  After all, I can trigger biotic abilities while paused.  In ME1 I could aim and throw tech grenades while paused.  Why are the guns treated so differently?

It basically sounds like you just want a movie with a choose your own adventure sort of aspect to it. Basically you make a few choices and watch what happens. Thats your opinion and thats fine but if Bioware went ahead and did only that well I don't think they would sell too many copies of the game. I think most of us gamers buy a video game to play the game and have at least a bit of a challence. Emphasis on play the game not watch the game.
Sounds like you should get a buddy to play the game for you and you can sit there and tell them what to shoot and what choices to make.
I'm not sure if playing video games should be your thing, since I'm not sure if you exactly understand the concept of a video game to begin with.

[Cainne Chapel]

Well Dew I think Syl has a valid point from his view (we all do technically)

Its just that his style of gaming he leans towards I would think, games with less twitch based reflexes, so I would imagine he's a fan of strategy games, JRPGs, Puzzle games like Heavy Rain and possibly even games like Metal gear solid in a sense (All games which i enjoy myself).

So I get where his viewpoint comes from, for whatever reason, he doesn't like having too much twitch based action in his games, which is valid.

Unfortunately Syl, with ME always having been a combination RPG/TPS, some twitch based gameplay was going to figure in regardless. Even though ME1 had the Cone of death, you STILL needed to aim and take action and move around, the only real difference between ME1 and ME2 in that respect is that it has been sped up and smoothed out to a degree where its no longer a "cone of death" but a "bullet point" of death so to speak.

[Il Divo]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

Well Dew I think Syl has a valid point from his view (we all do technically)

Its just that his style of gaming he leans towards I would think, games with less twitch based reflexes, so I would imagine he's a fan of strategy games, JRPGs, Puzzle games like Heavy Rain and possibly even games like Metal gear solid in a sense (All games which i enjoy myself).

I don't think Heavy Rain would fit. He's trying to reduce player skill as much as possible, and most of Heavy Rain's action sequences are entirely player dependent.

[Cainne Chapel]

True, but ya never know! It may have been right up his alley and honestly I dont know ANY games that dont use player skill in some form or another really.

Even JRPGs some people bemoan so much, still require player forethought and skill to an extent

[Dewart]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

Well Dew I think Syl has a valid point from his view (we all do technically)

Its just that his style of gaming he leans towards I would think, games with less twitch based reflexes, so I would imagine he's a fan of strategy games, JRPGs, Puzzle games like Heavy Rain and possibly even games like Metal gear solid in a sense (All games which i enjoy myself).

So I get where his viewpoint comes from, for whatever reason, he doesn't like having too much twitch based action in his games, which is valid.

Unfortunately Syl, with ME always having been a combination RPG/TPS, some twitch based gameplay was going to figure in regardless. Even though ME1 had the Cone of death, you STILL needed to aim and take action and move around, the only real difference between ME1 and ME2 in that respect is that it has been sped up and smoothed out to a degree where its no longer a "cone of death" but a "bullet point" of death so to speak.

Oh I love strategy and puzzle games turn based rpg's the whole bit really. I even like the graphical puzzle games like myst lol. I'm pretty much into any game type out there. I just find Syl's description of what ME should be um... really really extreme. I respect the difference of opinion I just can't get my head around it though lol. to me it just sounds like a movie with diolog options the way syl describes it. even myst has you interacting with the environment in some form.

[Icinix]

AlanC9 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

G3rman wrote...

ME2 brought better combat but dumbed down important RPG features from the original, mainly inventory/loot/customization of character.

"Dumbed down" assumes ME1's versions of those features were smart in the first place.

How about "Reduced complexity", "Limited expansion", "Shrunken Scope", "Simplified Elements", "Streamlined into Submission", "Manius Skillus be Removedus", "Dumbed laterally", "Freckle removal via amputation", "Surgical Precision with Rusty Chainsaw"?

Better. Still wrong, but at least witty.

 - Yeah, I've never liked the term dumbed down.

Its one of those expressions that add about as much to a discussion as;

Deal with it.
Haters gonna hate.
Don't buy it.
..and many other commonly used lines.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

I get what you're saying Syl, I do, But since this IS an interactive medium, being a "Game" player input will ALWAYS need to have some direction on the game, period. Otherwise it stops being an interactive medium and goes to being a passive medium.

The "Game" part is the player's direction of his character's personality.  His behaviour and motives are the player's imput.  What skills he chooses to learn.  What quests he accepts and how he solves them.

Not whether he can hit a moving target.

I'm not excluding manual aiming because I don't enjoy that sort of gameplay (which I don't), but because the presence of that kind of gameplay irreparably harms the coherence of the setting.  And the setting informs all of the roleplaying decisions.

Also with the game being an RPG/TPS hybrid... well player interaction is going to figure heavily regardless, and as a HUGE RPG fan myself, I actually prefer the gameplay in ME2 as I like good hit detection and body based damage when it comes to putting bullets down range.

So you like that your character suddenly performs badly when you're injured, or drunk, or when your mouse malfunctions.  How does that contribute to roleplaying?

But once again I do get your point of view and it seems bioware does to as they have the new Action/Story/RPG modes.

Sounds to me like Story mode was made just for you actually

To the contrary, story mode seems likely to removes even more player control from conversations than ME did (which already offered too little control in that regard).  RPG mode would, I think, be the best of the three.

Again, I think ME's combat works quite well from an RPG perspective becasue the player is never forced to aim in real time.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Dewart wrote...

Oh I love strategy and puzzle games turn based rpg's the whole bit really. I even like the graphical puzzle games like myst lol. I'm pretty much into any game type out there. I just find Syl's description of what ME should be um... really really extreme. I respect the difference of opinion I just can't get my head around it though lol. to me it just sounds like a movie with diolog options the way syl describes it. even myst has you interacting with the environment in some form.

I want interaction through decision-making.  The player makes the decisions, and then the character implements those decisions.

Having the player implement the decisions himself breaks the setting.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 29 janvier 2012 - 12:07 .

[BlueMagitek]

I have always had trouble switching from ME's combat system to ME 2's. No individual cooldowns, less crowd control, different controls all kind of mess up the way I played. ._.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

Well Dew I think Syl has a valid point from his view (we all do technically)

Its just that his style of gaming he leans towards I would think, games with less twitch based reflexes, so I would imagine he's a fan of strategy games, JRPGs, Puzzle games like Heavy Rain and possibly even games like Metal gear solid in a sense (All games which i enjoy myself).

I basically only enjoy western RPGs and turn-based strategy games.  JRPGs don't allow much character freedom (if any).

So I get where his viewpoint comes from, for whatever reason, he doesn't like having too much twitch based action in his games, which is valid.

Unfortunately Syl, with ME always having been a combination RPG/TPS, some twitch based gameplay was going to figure in regardless.

But it doesn't, really.  The ability to aim while paused eliminates nearly all twitch gameplay.

The only mechanic in either ME game that required reflex-based inputs was ME2's interrupts (which I despise).

[NekOoNinja]

Well... While I do enjoy oldschool RPG's, Mass Effect clearly shouldn't be one, and has lost some things for the better:

ME1:
Inventory:
Oh. It's that useless ammo type/armor/weapon brand again I never use. *omnigel'd*
Your Inventory is Full. Please omnigel now or your head will explode. (But... BUT GETH WEAPON WITH SLOTS!) *omnigel'd
Scroll. Flip. Scroll. Scroll scome more. Oh hey, there's the menu point for modding my guns. Scroll. Scroll. Where'd the Wolfram ammo go? Scroll....

Squaddies:
Squaddie: "I can't see them!" Shep: "But you are standring infront of the enemy! How is that possible!"
Shep: "Move." Squaddie: "..."    5minutes later.... Squaddie moves! And dies. Because he forgot the concept of taking cover.

Movement:
Backtracking without sprint. Through corridors and facilities that had been recycled for the n-th time.

Me2:
More mappable hotkeys (Xbox360), less near sighted squad mates. Fluid combat thanks to an usable sprint button. No more omnigel madness. Customizable armor. Less empty environments. Better side missions (Such as the shipwreck which is about to teeter into the chasm below.) Paragon/Renegade interrupts. Better UI.

And, better weapon behavior. A headshot is a headshot, be it from a pistol or a sniper rifle.

ME2 remedied the loss of clunky inventory managment (which I do not deem RPG at all...) with more RP opportunities. Order a drink, chat up Aethytia, dance on any dance floor in any club you like, stroll into the Normandy's men's restroom for no reason while playing femshep, collect random model ships, buy all kinds of fish and sell some to the krogan on the citadel. And be just a bit more Paragon/Renegade with the quicktime interrupts.

Methinks.

I should go.

Modifié par NekOoNinja, 29 janvier 2012 - 12:27 .

[BlueMagitek]

I actually find the interrupts to be a mixed bag. In a cinematic way, yeah, it's pretty cool, but from a role playing way, I'd like to know what the interrupt entails before I click it. I don't remember any point where you could choose between a paragon and renegade interrupt, which would be nice.

And Shepard should still be looting the bodies of his fallen enemies; how else is he expected to get funds, man? D=

[shepard1038]

the only thing mass effect 2 did was simplified the inventory and improved the combat

[ObserverStatus]

Better AI, enemies are more reactive to geting shot, more than 4 kinds of guns, classes are balanced with singularity no longer being an "I win button", better cover mechanics, greater challenge on insanity overall, better graphics, biotic charge is hella fun, and heavy weapons are a lot more fun than grenades.

[Stalker]

The biggest point for me was that combat in ME2 was more... organized.

In ME1, you get into a room full of enemies who are rushing through the room without any orientation. They run behind you, right around you, hitting nothing and making combat an annoyance.

In ME2, they use cover and seem like an organized unit. Some are still going for you, but with their goal is to really flank you, not just run around like a cat on coke.

[Sylvius the Mad]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I want interaction through decision-making. The player makes the decisions, and then the character implements those decisions.

Having the player implement the decisions himself breaks the setting

This isn't your expectation for ME, is it? I don't think it is, but just asking, because the "hybrid"-ness of it (RPG AND shooter) kind of denies it fitting into that explanation.

Ths is my expectation for every RPG.

And I think ME's combat gameplay fits this fairly well.  Again, given that the player can aim while paused, there's no need at all for player skill to have any material effect.

[Dewart]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I want interaction through decision-making. The player makes the decisions, and then the character implements those decisions.

Having the player implement the decisions himself breaks the setting

This isn't your expectation for ME, is it? I don't think it is, but just asking, because the "hybrid"-ness of it (RPG AND shooter) kind of denies it fitting into that explanation.

Ths is my expectation for every RPG.

And I think ME's combat gameplay fits this fairly well.  Again, given that the player can aim while paused, there's no need at all for player skill to have any material effect.

Whoa I get what you're saying. From your description here you totally remind me of a friend of mine. I think he is a little bit more extreme though since he still searches for old shareware dos based rpgs and text based stuff. Do you ever get into those sorts of games? I used to play games like that when I was a kid but I could never go back to that sort of thing.

You ever do the old Sierra graphical adventure games? Kings Quest being the one people would recognize most. There is one series that they did that I always loved called Quest for Glory it was adventure game style but actually had a bunch of rpg elements to it as well.

edit: Quest for Glory actually spanned 5 games and you imported your character through to each game lol it was an epic series.

Modifié par Dewart, 29 janvier 2012 - 06:43 .