A couple people have already touched on this, but I think a lot of what you're looking at is a basic struggle between the two halves of RPG game design.
The first important aspect of an RPG (from a gameplay standpoint, I'm not getting into the writing aspect) is
choice. Do you want to play a wizard? A warrior? A rogue? A sturdy melee tank, or a ranged glass cannon?
It's essential to an RPG that this kind of choice be available. And in order for this kind of choice to be
real, all of the different options need to be equally viable. That sturdy warrior and that glass cannon mage need to be able to contribute equally to the action; a player should be able to play either, and feel victory was just as easy or just as hard either way. Each should
feel different, but in the end, each should be able to
achieve the same. It should be like two roads, each exactly one mile long, each starting in Littleville and ending in Bigville, but one goes past the ocean and one goes through the forest. If you like trees, take one, if you like water, take the other; you have the choice, and neither is any better or any worse in any other way.
The other important aspect of an RPG is
progression. It's been a staple of the genre since that very first D&D manual: a character starts out with crappy gear, useless skills, and pitiful enemies, and accumulates power as gameplay progresses. Playing is not just its own reward, it's a way to achieve new rewards. The sword you carry at level 1 should be a useless pokey stick compared to the awesome laser katana of +15 smiting you pick off a dead boss at level 83, that's part of the fun.
Mass Effect 1 went the traditional route with these two aspects. Diversity - choice - was maintained through character class, skill choice within character class, and which
class of weapon you chose. In the case of weapons (the biggest issue with ME3 balance), pistols, snipers, shotguns and assault rifles were all meant to have their various advantages and disadvantages that, in the end, made all of them equally viable versus the game as a whole. But within each grouping there was a single weapon that was clearly superior to all others, which you only achieved by progressing far into the game.
In ME2, they tried to change the system. They gave
choice a greater degree of granularity by trying to make not only each weapon
class equally useful and balanced against the others, but each weapon
within each class equally viable with the others within those criteria. You could have strong vs armor (pistols), strong vs shields (SMGs), or medium against both (assault rifles); once you chose armor as a priority, you could have spike damage that was safer but required better aim (Carnifex), or rapidfire that was more dangerous but more forgiving of ammo waste (Predator). Both were equally good choices, and
progression was no longer a question of getting a better gun than you had before, but rather finding a generic upgrade that made the gun you have more powerful.
In ME3, they're trying to have it both ways. We have this unlock system, common/uncommon/rare/N7, that seems to say, "some weapons are simply Better Than Others, and within a class, you should be able to become more powerful as you achieve more levels."
But at the same time, we have this completely egalitarian multiplayer that requires every player to be able to contribute equally to the team -- there's no restriction barring someone with only the Avenger IV unlocked from participating in multiplayer alongside someone with a Revenant X - and this complicated system of weight and DPS and reload speed that's clearly designed to allow weapons to excel at some things and be weak at others in a way that provides equal choice.
Of course no one can agree on whether balance should be achieved, or if so, how - the system itself is designed in a way that flatly forbids either group from being right.
Modifié par Quething, 02 juin 2012 - 12:52 .
Retour en haut
