258 réponses à ce sujet

[tetrisblock4x1]

Good idea.

[Aimi]

jreezy wrote...

You have a wild imagination.

It's Sylvius. His whole frame of reference is completely disconnected from any way anybody else on BSN thinks.

[Abraham_uk]

Han Shot First wrote...

wrdnshprd wrote...

ME2 was no more an RPG than gears of war was.
.

You just lost all credibility with that statement, and everything else in your post can be thrown out.

In ME2 you can customize your character's appearance and armor, you have different combat classes with different starting abilities, you have different morality paths, you have multiple solutions to missions,  and different dialogue choices that affect missions or how characters perceive you. You also gain experience that gradually levels up your character, allowing you to further customize my spending points to either improve existing abilities or open up new ones. Elements of the game also are different depending on your actions or choices you made in Mass Effect 1.

How is that like Gears again?

• Mass Effect 2 not only has Gears of War influences, it's combat system was inspired by it.
• I has lots of cover shooting.

Um. That is all the comparisions I can think of since I haven't played Gears of War. Weren't the Locust from Gears trilogy a bit like the Collectors from Mass Effect 2?

Yes you do have plenty of customisation options and different classes with upgradable powers. You have multiple solutions to missions and different choices etc.

All that was really lost from Mass Effect 1 in terms of RPG elements were the following. Bare in mind that many people don't even consider any of the below to be RPG elements.

• Weapons training: I don't mind if it's there, but prefer improving powers than weapons. Shepard should be a pro with the weapons he/she uses. I am baffled by the fact all versions of Shepard are not proficient with an assault rifle. (Assault rifles are perhaps the most important jack of all trades weapon in combat. Correct me if I'm wrong).
• Exploration. Was done okay with the Mako. If the Mako was easier to control and the planets were more varied then it would be amazing.
• Not quite as many powers to upgrade. Doesn't bother me too much, but give me a choice between more and less and I'll choose more every time.
• An inventory: One of the few things that Western and Japanese RPG's have in common. Some people love it some people hate it. This is one of my favourite elements.
• Choosing Squadmate armour: once again loads of people complain about this. I would have loved to change Miranda's costume into appropriate battle gear without splashing out money on an alternative costumes pack.

That's it. Five elements stripped from Mass Effect 1. Five elements. Most of the elements are still there. The above elements were implemented poorly. They are all making a comeback in Mass Effect 3.

Mass Effect is more than a twitchy shooter. It has wait for it, powers! I know this means very little to you, but different approaches to combat that don't even involve shooting, along with a squad which you co-ordinate in battle and you have a little more gameplay variety than just "twitchy shooting".

[Sylvius the Mad]

daqs wrote...

It's Sylvius. His whole frame of reference is completely disconnected from any way anybody else on BSN thinks.

Now, that's not fair.  Some people on BSN are pretty clever.

[tetrisblock4x1]

Nothing needed cutting from ME1 in the first place, the game just needed to be much more intuitive and not so ambiguous on the character level up screen. The average sports game and strategy games are definitely more complicated than Mass Effect and are played by just as many. You know what they should have done in ME1? Not kill Nihulus off immediately. That character in context of the game was the most experienced, and therefore the one who would explain things like squad powers, upgrades and tactics.

The first thing you see when you level up is this giant ****ing info dump with literally dozens of skills and hundreds of points to spend on them. People don't want to spend 20 minutes learning what each of them do without even a hint as to which ones they should take, so why not be more like in Real Time Strategy games where the whole ability tree unlocks as you progress through the game? You could run with Nihlus on Eden, and Anderson until you become a spectre and they'd point out what skills are needed, tell you that the damping skill is good vs enemy biotics, that stasis is good for stopping a krogan charging you or giving you time for your powers to recharge.... don't have to tell you everything, just essential like that, and they could have a comprehensive codex chapter telling you how everything works.

Modifié par tetrisblock4x1, 08 février 2012 - 12:15 .

[Hunter of Legends]

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

Nothing needed cutting from ME1 in the first place, the game just needed to be much more intuitive and not so ambiguous on the character level up screen. The average sports game and strategy games are definitely more complicated than Mass Effect and are played by just as many. You know what they should have done in ME1? Not kill Nihulus off immediately. That character in context of the game was the most experienced, and therefore the one who would explain things like squad powers, upgrades and tactics.

The first thing you see when you level up is this giant ****ing info dump with literally dozens of skills and hundreds of points to spend on them. People don't want to spend 20 minutes learning what each of them do without even a hint as to which ones they should take, so why not be more like in Real Time Strategy games where the whole ability tree unlocks as you progress through the game? You could run with Nihlus on Eden, and Anderson until you become a spectre and they'd point out what skills are needed, take yiou

So first you say Mass Effect is simple and then describe it as hard.

Has anyone in real life wanted to violently hit you before?

[Hunter of Legends]

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

People think that weapon training = badly designed gameplay.

RPG = choices and consequences

Mass Effect was more RPG because You can't always get what you want. In ME1 it was quite possibly to be pro with all guns, but that would cost you a lot of skill points which are a limited resource.

Mass Effect 2 was still an RPG at least while you were deciding which class to choose, but everything after character creation had a fairly shallow (disclaimer: I fully acknowledge that liking shallow games does not make you a shallow person, don't get upset) effect on the gameplay. Shotguns, pistols, rifles and SMGs all have very distinctive roles in combat, and been able to get better at them for no cost (apart from a negligible sum of credits that may as well be unlimited and some minigames) makes it less RPG than ME1.

A well experienced soldier should not have to "learn" how to shoot guns or wear armor.

Let alone "learn" how to charm and intimidate people.

[Abraham_uk]

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

Nothing needed cutting from ME1 in the first place, the game just needed to be much more intuitive and not so ambiguous on the character level up screen. The average sports game and strategy games are definitely more complicated than Mass Effect and are played by just as many. You know what they should have done in ME1? Not kill Nihulus off immediately. That character in context of the game was the most experienced, and therefore the one who would explain things like squad powers, upgrades and tactics.

The first thing you see when you level up is this giant ****ing info dump with literally dozens of skills and hundreds of points to spend on them. People don't want to spend 20 minutes learning what each of them do without even a hint as to which ones they should take, so why not be more like in Real Time Strategy games where the whole ability tree unlocks as you progress through the game? You could run with Nihlus on Eden, and Anderson until you become a spectre and they'd point out what skills are needed, take yiou

You know what? Not many people appreciate your good ideas. That explanation above was full of good ideas. Perhaps you should be involved in designing Mass Effect 4 or failing that Mass Effect Chronicles 2.

[Hunter of Legends]

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

wrdnshprd wrote...

ME2 was no more an RPG than gears of war was.
.

You just lost all credibility with that statement, and everything else in your post can be thrown out.

In ME2 you can customize your character's apperance and armor, you have different combat classes with different starting abilities, you have different morality paths, you have multiple solutions to missions,  and different dialogue choices that affect missions or how characters perceive you. You also gain experience that gradually levels up your character, allowing you to further customize my spending points to either improve existing abilities or open up new ones.

How is that like Gears again?

I'd probably get banned if I told what what I think of this post.

I'd probably be put in prison for what I want to do to you and your narrow mind right now.

[Carnage752]

Mass Effect: Good RPG, ok shooter
Mass Effect 2: Good shooter, ok RPG
Mass Effect 3: Good RPG, Good Shooter

Any questions?

[AgitatedLemon]

Hunter of Legends wrote...

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

People think that weapon training = badly designed gameplay.

RPG = choices and consequences

Mass Effect was more RPG because You can't always get what you want. In ME1 it was quite possibly to be pro with all guns, but that would cost you a lot of skill points which are a limited resource.

Mass Effect 2 was still an RPG at least while you were deciding which class to choose, but everything after character creation had a fairly shallow (disclaimer: I fully acknowledge that liking shallow games does not make you a shallow person, don't get upset) effect on the gameplay. Shotguns, pistols, rifles and SMGs all have very distinctive roles in combat, and been able to get better at them for no cost (apart from a negligible sum of credits that may as well be unlimited and some minigames) makes it less RPG than ME1.

A well experienced soldier should not have to "learn" how to shoot guns or wear armor.

Let alone "learn" how to charm and intimidate people.

So you think firing a weapon is just pick up n' pull the trigger?

Have you ever disassembled a firearm before? Or put one back together? Or cleaned one?

[tetrisblock4x1]

I don't think hunter of legends knows what "intuitive" means, and I can't be ****ed explaining basic definitions to him.

Modifié par tetrisblock4x1, 08 février 2012 - 12:18 .

[Hunter of Legends]

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

I can't do this anymore...

I just have this opinion that RPGs are about stats, leveling and that the RPG factor is directly related to how much of a numbers game it is. I just felt like making that known.

And some people really do believe we didn't land on the moon.

Not all opinions are right.

[Hunter of Legends]

AgitatedLemon wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

People think that weapon training = badly designed gameplay.

RPG = choices and consequences

Mass Effect was more RPG because You can't always get what you want. In ME1 it was quite possibly to be pro with all guns, but that would cost you a lot of skill points which are a limited resource.

Mass Effect 2 was still an RPG at least while you were deciding which class to choose, but everything after character creation had a fairly shallow (disclaimer: I fully acknowledge that liking shallow games does not make you a shallow person, don't get upset) effect on the gameplay. Shotguns, pistols, rifles and SMGs all have very distinctive roles in combat, and been able to get better at them for no cost (apart from a negligible sum of credits that may as well be unlimited and some minigames) makes it less RPG than ME1.

A well experienced soldier should not have to "learn" how to shoot guns or wear armor.

Let alone "learn" how to charm and intimidate people.

So you think firing a weapon is just pick up n' pull the trigger?

Have you ever disassembled a firearm before? Or put one back together? Or cleaned one?

Those are all things a soldier knows how to do.

Once again, my soldier who is already a veteran should not need to "train" to use these things.

[AgitatedLemon]

Hunter of Legends wrote...

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

I can't do this anymore...

I just have this opinion that RPGs are about stats, leveling and that the RPG factor is directly related to how much of a numbers game it is. I just felt like making that known.

And some people really do believe we didn't land on the moon.
Not all opinions are right.

Is not an opinion. That's a conspiracy

[Hunter of Legends]

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

I don't think hunter of legends knows what "intuitive" means, and I can't be ****ed explaining basic definitions to him.

Starcraft is hardly intuitive.

[Abraham_uk]

AgitatedLemon wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

People think that weapon training = badly designed gameplay.

RPG = choices and consequences

Mass Effect was more RPG because You can't always get what you want. In ME1 it was quite possibly to be pro with all guns, but that would cost you a lot of skill points which are a limited resource.

Mass Effect 2 was still an RPG at least while you were deciding which class to choose, but everything after character creation had a fairly shallow (disclaimer: I fully acknowledge that liking shallow games does not make you a shallow person, don't get upset) effect on the gameplay. Shotguns, pistols, rifles and SMGs all have very distinctive roles in combat, and been able to get better at them for no cost (apart from a negligible sum of credits that may as well be unlimited and some minigames) makes it less RPG than ME1.

A well experienced soldier should not have to "learn" how to shoot guns or wear armor.

Let alone "learn" how to charm and intimidate people.

So you think firing a weapon is just pick up n' pull the trigger?

Have you ever disassembled a firearm before? Or put one back together? Or cleaned one?

In video games it is pick up a gun and pull the trigger. They leave the complicated maintainence out for obvious reasons. If you had to clean out your gun every 15 minutes, that would really slow down gun fights. Fire a few shots without cleaning those chambers and your weapon is busted. Could even explode. Do you really want this in a video game. I'm all for realism, but when it ruins gameplay I'm out.

[Hunter of Legends]

AgitatedLemon wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

I can't do this anymore...

I just have this opinion that RPGs are about stats, leveling and that the RPG factor is directly related to how much of a numbers game it is. I just felt like making that known.

And some people really do believe we didn't land on the moon.
Not all opinions are right.

Is not an opinion. That's a conspiracy

That is called an opinion regardless if it's a conspiracy or not.

[Abraham_uk]

Actually, if I was playing on a game with pointer motion control on consoles like DS, Wii, Playstation Move or Xbox Kinect, then I would actually enjoy the cleaning out the gun and manually reloading guns every fifteen minutes in battle. It would be quite frantic. But if I had to press a button an watch Shepard doing this I would be bored stiff.

[tetrisblock4x1]

Hunter of Legends wrote...

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

I don't think hunter of legends knows what "intuitive" means, and I can't be ****ed explaining basic definitions to him.

Starcraft is hardly intuitive.

Is easy to learn and hard to master.

It's easy to learn because it has a huge campaign where it introduces you to the game one little bit at a time. You start off by learning how to harvest resources, train marines and increase your population limit. Then each mission after introduces you to one little thing at a time. How to upgrade. How to use bunkers. How to place mines. One. mission. at. a. time.

It's hard to master because just watch the pro player on gom.tv

[tetrisblock4x1]

Yes, thumb sticks limit your full potential in an FPS.

[Sidney]

AgitatedLemon wrote...

So you think firing a weapon is just pick up n' pull the trigger?

Have you ever disassembled a firearm before? Or put one back together? Or cleaned one?

Sadly, yes it basically is. Once you know how to fire a weapon you are pretty good firing almost any weapon. It isn't like being trained on an L85 I have no idea how to fire an AK47, 12 gauge or a .308 hunting rifle.

Plus, in most armies they corss train you on a variety of weapons. When it comes to stripping and cleaning a weapon then you'd need not AR, Pistol, Shotgun training but training on the specific weapon.