429 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

dreman9999 wrote...
I play bg2 after ME1, ME2, DA:O, kOTOR and JE......Only 2 game combine in BW cataloge of games made after BG2 are even equal to it and that ME1 and ME2. BG2 is that good a game that it can standthe test of time.

Not DA:O?

But yeah, I think a lot of gamers really prefer the more, I guess, structured plots of NWN1 and KotOR and ME1 and DA:O.... which all have pretty much the same structure.

[PrinceLionheart]

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.

Absolutely this. I honestly think ME2's story would've been better if they attempted to tie in the characters to the main plot. With the exception of Jacob and Miranda, they all felt like they were in their own little worlds throughout the entire game.

But yeah, ME1 gameplay sucked. The level up system and customization was better, but the actual gameplay really sucked. So if Bioware can manage to mix the polished third person shooter elements with ME1's level progression (like Noveria) then I'll be in love with them forever. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/love.png[/smilie]

[AlanC9]

See what I mean, dreman9999?

PrinceLionheart wrote...
Absolutely this. I honestly think ME2's story would've been better if they attempted to tie in the characters to the main plot. With the exception of Jacob and Miranda, they all felt like they were in their own little worlds throughout the entire game.

Release BG2 now and players would be posting that Nalia's plot doesn't have anything to do with the main plot, for instance.

[dreman9999]

AlanC9 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
I play bg2 after ME1, ME2, DA:O, kOTOR and JE......Only 2 game combine in BW cataloge of games made after BG2 are even equal to it and that ME1 and ME2. BG2 is that good a game that it can standthe test of time.

Not DA:O?

But yeah, I think a lot of gamers really prefer the more, I guess, structured plots of NWN1 and KotOR and ME1 and DA:O.... which all have pretty much the same structure.

Nope...Not when most of it's plot points can be paraphasedas"Gasp, It's blood magic!".
 Point, only ME1 is that strctured. Every thing you did in the game based on the story was related to finding Saren. In other bw game your focus shifts to the current areas problem thenyou have to solve to move forward with the story. In  da:o you had to deal and focuson the the elf/wolves problem and so on to move forward. In Kotor, you had to sift your focus on a Wookiee rebelion and so on. In ME1, you never shifted your focus to anything else out side of finding Saren, even on Novaria  you can side step the corporate politics and not help the people on Feros. ME1 is the most direct plot BW has ever done.

Modifié par dreman9999, 29 janvier 2012 - 07:13 .

[dreman9999]

AlanC9 wrote...

See what I mean, dreman9999?

PrinceLionheart wrote...
Absolutely this. I honestly think ME2's story would've been better if they attempted to tie in the characters to the main plot. With the exception of Jacob and Miranda, they all felt like they were in their own little worlds throughout the entire game.

Release BG2 now and players would be posting that Nalia's plot doesn't have anything to do with the main plot, for instance.

I blame ME1.

[Rudy Lis]

curly haired boy wrote...

i guess it's the difference between directing shepard and becoming shepard.  when i play a game, if it's immersive, then i'm not guiding or directing or roleplaying as the character. i'm melding with the character. i'm not hovering over the game making decisions. it's not "shepard chose this, because I wanted him to" it's "I/shepard chose this".

my motives and the character's motives start to blend together until i'm feeling what the character is feeling. i don't have this little voice at the back of my head saying "how should i react to this so i stay in character?"

that's why it makes sense that my performance is shepard's performance. that's also why Insanity feels like the only truly immersive difficulty to me, because it keeps that melding especially strong. the enemies can kill me/shepard incredibly fast. it transmits the danger shepard is feeling to me, and the more we share, the more immersive the game is.

Impressive.
Generally I have same point of view. Couple of remarks, however.
First. I think that character performance should be based on character's abilities, not player's. Otherwise, we can see picture seen in Gothic 1-2 - when skilled player, controlling non-skilled character (lvl 1, no exp, with lowly weapon), was able to beat wolf pack near Old Camp without being scratched. 
If your character can cut card in half from two miles with single bullet - so should you. If he can not hit broad side of barn standing inside that barn, so should (or "shouldn't"?) you. That's why I like Fallout pre-3 system, when your success in combat was based on your character combat skills (also on agility, available space to maneuver, luck, perks and serious amount of save-load). In Fallout 3/Vegas your combat skills only affect accuracy in VATS and some amount of "bonus" damage dealt in "real time". But, if ignore that "bonus" damage - why bother if you can snipe enemies at your maximum rendering distance, out of VATS range and even before character with perception 10 and ED-E as companion will be able to notice that particular enemy as tick mark on compass? That's why I like Witcher 1 combat - no matter how fast you click (hello, Diablo 1-2), if you didn't train Geralt in specific combat style, he would be able to do only basic combos when using this particular style. Or Jagged Alliance 2: Vince (Beaumont) is good doctor, but with that marksmanship his he can't hit elephant butt at point blank range.
At the same time, I think that character performance should follow character development and background. For example, in Fallout 1-2 we played as young (or not so) basically (un)trained person, so character development, level-up and growing in power is normal. Same goes for most of games, including those I mentioned above: if you give Vince good shooting training, soon he will be able to shoot quite well, on par with more experienced merc, help Geralt to restore his skills and he will turn into combat shredder on self-propelled chassis.
So, in Mass Effect Shepard is trained soldier, thus training his skills, especially weapon ones, is completely out of place - usually that done on basic, and since he is N7, not some backwater desktop commando, his other skills should be developed as well. Regardless of his class, he must be able to use any range of personal firearms (just imagined our sappers' squad members saying our CO that they were trained to use only pistols) with practically same efficiency. Same goes for his "secondary" abilities. To compensate lack of those for soldier class (for example), he could be given improved performance with guns, including accuracy, reloading time and higher damage output. However, to remain realists, this improved performance should be in percents, not dozens of percents.
Second. Player's skills, not character skills, should be used only after character's skills implementation, not before. In games like ArmA, SWAT or multiplayer part of, say, BF3, it doesn't matter what kind of character you control - rebel, soldier, Force Recon member, or US Marine - it is your skills that matters, not you character's. Whether you hit or miss depend on your distance appraisal, proper elevation adjustment, choosing proper lead and moment to fire.

AlanC9 wrote...

But yeah, I think a lot of gamers really prefer the more, I guess, structured plots of NWN1 and KotOR and ME1 and DA:O.... which all have pretty much the same structure.

Structured plot of NWN1?

[AlanC9]

dreman9999 wrote...

 Point, only ME1 is that strctured. Every thing you did in the game based on the story was related to finding Saren. In otherbwgame you focus shifts to the current areas problem theyou have to solve t moveforward with the story. In  da:o you hadto deal and focuson the theelf/wolves problem and so onto move forwars. In Kotor, you had to sift your focus on a Wookiee rebelion and so on. In ME1, you never shifted yourfocusto anything else out side of finding Saren, even on Novaria  you can side step the corprate politics and not help thepeople on Feros. ME1 is the mostdirect plot BW has ever done.

That's a good point. ME1 went a lot further in that direction than other Bio games have.

[Deaddude56]

I don't like ME1's combat on higher difficulties, with enemies spamming immunity every 4 seconds...

[AlanC9]

Rudy Lis wrote...

Structured plot of NWN1?

Sure. It's the same thing you're doing in KotOR -- the PC knows he has to collect these four things by completing separate subplots to reach the endgame, except in NWN's case the structure is repeated twice -- collect 4 creatures to get to Chapter 2, collect 2 pieces of evidence to get to Chapter 3, collect three Words to get to the endgame.

[Rudy Lis]

AlanC9 wrote...

Sure. It's the same thing you're doing in KotOR -- the PC knows he has to collect these four things by completing separate subplots to reach the endgame, except in NWN's case the structure is repeated twice -- collect 4 creatures to get to Chapter 2, collect 2 pieces of evidence to get to Chapter 3, collect three Words to get to the endgame.

Oh, I see, I missed KotOR entirely. And JE, by the way. But I I always thought that NWN1 was released before KotOR.

[AlanC9]

NWN was first. I just refer to KotOR because people usually get what I'm talking about faster.

[Omilophile]

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.

This.

[Slothful Koala]

Mass Effect 2 has such better combat I find it difficult to go back and have fun playing the first. Honestly, just terrible in comparison. Even the things people claimed it did well, such as open areas, weren't fun. Honestly ME2 was just a better game. I cannot enjoy playing through ME anymore after 2.

Just, god. I played ME because it was supposedly an incredible game. I couldn't see it. I beat it as quickly as possible and hated it. When ME2 came out I was just simply not going to get it. A year later I purchased ME2 and it was the greatest thing ever made. I had fun while I played it. I just can't say that about the first one.

Were their things that ME did well? Yes. And personally I believe ME2 to be an incredible improved experience. But would I say I want ME3 to be anything like ME? No. Not at all. Maybe in conversation with people and input your squadmates had, but nothing more.

[All-a-Mort]

Slothful Koala wrote...

Mass Effect 2 has such better combat I find it difficult to go back and have fun playing the first. Honestly, just terrible in comparison. Even the things people claimed it did well, such as open areas, weren't fun. Honestly ME2 was just a better game. I cannot enjoy playing through ME anymore after 2.

Just, god. I played ME because it was supposedly an incredible game. I couldn't see it. I beat it as quickly as possible and hated it. When ME2 came out I was just simply not going to get it. A year later I purchased ME2 and it was the greatest thing ever made. I had fun while I played it. I just can't say that about the first one.

Were their things that ME did well? Yes. And personally I believe ME2 to be an incredible improved experience. But would I say I want ME3 to be anything like ME? No. Not at all. Maybe in conversation with people and input your squadmates had, but nothing more.

Then I would have to ask whether you prefer playing FPS games to RPGs. Put simply, FPS gamers prefer ME2 because it was designed to play more like one; RPG gamers (from what I have read and personally think) prefer ME because it had more of a RPG feel to the game with more loot items, customisation of weaponry and levelling up options. Combat in ME2 is better from a pure shooter point of view, but is otherwise seriously repetative and has gone from having enemies spamming immunity on higher levels, to enemies so heavily protected as to make biotics far less useful than just guns. Great for shooter fans, poor for those who liked the ME1 biotics.

Modifié par All-a-Mort, 30 janvier 2012 - 12:32 .

[LordCrux]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

I don't think you're getting the big picture here. If you tell Shepard to dodge a rocket or dash across a hallway to a cover from incoming fire, it's twitch-based. If you want Shepard to walk forward, turn left, interact with an NPC on the Citadel, you're controlling Shepard with precison. Likewise, nearly all high-profile games these days use this basic set of metaphors to navigate your avatar around a virtual world, regardless if they're RPGs or whatnot.

Yes, there are still turn-based games that uses a 'step forward button' to move to a designated block on a map, but notice that everything you do in those games are consistent with the turn-based metaphor. What you're asking for is to mix different metaphors that caters only to your specific strengths, weaknesses and personal preferences without taking considering its overall effect as a gaming experience.

In a game where 97.43% of the gameplay involves this twitch-based and instantaneous interaction, you demand one part of it (the shooting part) to be completely taken over by a stat-driven interface. I don't believe that works well. I think the best analogy is you watching a movie then all of a sudden, a conventional scene with actors and sets gets cut to a screenshot of a screenplay, as if the filmmakers expect you to read it instead of watching a film. It breaks continuity and the fourth wall. Sure, that kind of thing would work for French movies in the 60's, but I seriously don't believe Bioware intended to make ME as a pre-grad level media experiment.

I'm sorry, but I just can't take the "player skill =/= character skill" argument seriously when you can't see the overall intent of the game.

[Kevin Martell]

The combat in ME2 is miles ahead of the combat in ME1. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves, in my opinion. The combat in ME1 requires no strategy whatsoever; simply use immunity, lift or singularity and the fight is over. Cover is optional. Additionally, the class you use in ME2 actually changes the way you play. The class you use in ME1 only changes what powers you use.

What do I mean by this? In ME1, if you're a Vanguard, you might use lift or throw or something. If you're an Infiltrator, you might use immunity or something. Essentially, the only thing that differentiates between classes is the powers you're using and guns.

In ME2, if you're a Vanguard, you're charging into crowds with a high risk - high reward style and blasting guys point blank. If you're an Infiltrator, you're either hanging out back sniping guys with your cloak or sneaking up behind people. Your class not only affects the powers you use but also how you play. It changes your tactics. It changes whether you play defensively or offensively.

tl;dr - Combat in ME1 is ridiculously mindless and simple. Combat in ME2 is legitimately fun and somewhat tactical.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

ME1 was pretty linear, too. And how is being too character -mapped a bad thing? BG2 is  nearly 90% character mapped and no one had a problem with it.

Maybe if you released BG2 now it wouldn't be thought of as having a good plot. In thirteen years gamers' tastes can change.

I get the feeling that a lot of people don't remember what actually happened in BG2 (like that last post you replied to).

I complained when BG2 was released that it was far more linear and limiting that BG1 was.

I've seen people complain that modern RPGS don't give you as much freedom to choose your background as BG did, which is just idiotic.

No it isn't.  In terms of what the PC did before the game actually took place, sure, but who the character is as a person is left entirely to the player.

Also, isn't there some freedom to decide wha the PC did between the two games?

[JaceTAce]

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.

This. And the fact that nowadays I prefer playing RPG's where you grow stronger in your abilities, but in gameplay, combat is more action oriented where you don't just take turns hitting each other, doing nothing but hoping to get missed while standing still.  I want to be able to move around , dodge hits while being able to damage my enemies. 

ME has brought in a good start with ME2 acting like a COD shooter with the health thing where everything goes red then you recover.  ME3 will bring in more ability  to affect skills when working on them, where skills branch off with varying degrees of affects depending on which branch we choose. More so then in ME2 where it splits only at the end.

Nowadays, I'm finaly seeing the types of RPG's I've been looking for and I wouldn't mind working on them some day.

[Il Divo]

AlanC9 wrote...

That's a good point. ME1 went a lot further in that direction than other Bio games have.

Agreed. Jade Empire and (to a lesser extent) ME1 demonstrated that Bioware could have a dedicated narrative, while still giving the player the ability to choose the order of their missions (to an extent). Much as I love the Bioware experience, KotOR, DA:O, and ME2 really fell flat in this regard.

[pianomaestra]

I'm probably one of the brave (and stupid) few that played ME1 and ME2 on a laptop touchpad. That said, gameplay on the first was a nightmare for me. Positioning never worked the way it should ("not without an airlift!"), squadmates would never actually take cover, and they'd go blat, leaving my squishy adept to take a room full of mooks with a pistol. The second was much, much, smoother. I wouldn't mind if they added an element for a proper health bar back in (though I don't really care either way), but taking cover, moving around the room--that all was so much better done in the second game. From what I experienced, anyway.

[Terror_K]

I actually don't prefer the ME3 gameplay. About the only aspects I do prefer are the interrupts and the more "alive" Normandy where the crew have more to say. I prefer ME1 in almost every way.

[Terror_K]

AlanC9 wrote...

See what I mean, dreman9999?

PrinceLionheart wrote...
Absolutely this. I honestly think ME2's story would've been better if they attempted to tie in the characters to the main plot. With the exception of Jacob and Miranda, they all felt like they were in their own little worlds throughout the entire game.

Release BG2 now and players would be posting that Nalia's plot doesn't have anything to do with the main plot, for instance.

I think the problem wasn't so much that the squaddies needed to tie into the main plot with their stories, but they needed to be better tied into actually being necessary for the suicide mission better. Mordin was the only one who was really well done in this regard: he had his own stories and background and loyalty mission seperate from the main one, but he was also key to the main plot as well. The rest of the squad felt largely superfluous until the very end, and even then if you had them all you felt like you could make it through with less than half of them okay. It's not until you literally crash on the Collector base at the end and end up going, "we need somebody to crawl through here and a team leader to do this and a biotic expert to do this, etc." that we even have any clue as to how useful any of these people are, with the exception of Mordin. They didn't need to have the main plot wrap around them and be directly integral to it, but they could have done with being far more connected with it than they were. Usually when you have a Dirty Dozen or Ocean's Eleven style group, you get specialists because you have a plan in mind, and not just a bunch of random badasses to run in near-on completely blind.

[essarr71]

Terror_K wrote...

Usually when you have a Dirty Dozen or Ocean's Eleven style group, you get specialists because you have a plan in mind, and not just a bunch of random badasses to run in near-on completely blind.

And what part of ME2s entire story gave you the impression they knew what to expect?

[tetrisblock4x1]

They didn't know what to expect, that's why the comparison was made. Movies like Dirty Dozen, Oceans ii and Mission Impossible did the whole planning phase so much better because we could see why each team member was important in those movies. Everyone but Mordin seems rather random. I guess Miranda and Jacob wanted to keep an eye on Shep so I think they deserve a pass for been on the Normandy, but having only 3 out of 12 squad members with a specific non-generic "you are the best of the best" reason to be selected for the omega 4 relay mission is not very good.

Modifié par tetrisblock4x1, 30 janvier 2012 - 04:39 .

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Maybe if you released BG2 now it wouldn't be thought of as having a good plot. In thirteen years gamers' tastes can change.

I complained when BG2 was released that it was far more linear and limiting that BG1 was.

Yep, I remember. I use you as exhibit A whenever someone makes the claim that Bio shouldn't make changes that don't suit all of the existing fans; obviously, this works best on someone who thinks that BG2 was Bioware's crowning moment of awesome.

Did you ever get around to playing Storm of Zehir?

I've seen people complain that modern RPGS don't give you as much freedom to choose your background as BG did, which is just idiotic.

No it isn't.  In terms of what the PC did before the game actually took place, sure, but who the character is as a person is left entirely to the player.

Umm....yeah.  That's why I said "background." Sure, you can play an elf, but everything you know about elven cutrure comes to you either from books or secondhand.

Modifié par AlanC9, 30 janvier 2012 - 04:45 .