416 réponses à ce sujet

[Murmillos]

Terror_K wrote...

Perhaps we're getting hung up on the "more or less" aspect of ME1 vs. ME2 when it comes to it being an RPG. Or we're looking at it from the wrong angle. Perhaps a more accurate way of describing it is "Mass Effect 2 is a simpler RPG than the original game." A lot of factors have been simplified after all, and BioWare have admitted as such. Whether the game is more or less RPG or not, the fact remains that ME2 has been created to be more accessible and cut some of the fat off. The problem is, many of us RPG fans like some of that fat and feel that BioWare have gone too far and oversimplified things. It doesn't matter that new RPG elements have been added when they too (like the existing ones) have mostly been presented in such a simple way. It's like Mass Effect was for "Ages 15 and above" and ME2 has
become "Ages 5 and above" instead. Then there's the fact that much of the game resembles a newer version of Microsoft Word and decides it's going to decide to make changes and automatically assume things for you. This is supposed to be a Role Playing Game... not a Self-Playing game.

Not all aspects have been simplified, that again is looking at it from the wrong angle.

Yes, game play elements apparently have been simplified, other game play elements & aspects have been expanded on, and others mechanics have stayed about the same, but with a new way of doing it.

Some losses, some wins.  Removed some elements that didn't work, expand and improve on the elements that did, and hopefully made the game more fun and fluid.

As for your whole "self playing game" quip.. that is ONLY and ONLY if you want the game to play that for you.  Remember how in ME1 how there was the Auto Level-Up selection.  The one where you could select Off, Squad only, Squad and Player.  Were you out raged over that?  I bet that made you mad and thought ME1 was being dumbed down for the masses huh?.. "What.. a game that auto selects my points.. that's for 5 year-olds!!!" That's basically the same thing, but now expanded on to weapons. 

They are NOT taking anything away from you, they are not limited your ability to deal with your squad the way you want to, they are just expanding the choice to allow those who don't want to deal with that aspect.  Maybe some players just want to focus on the story telling elements - and find gear upgrading not something they enjoy, or believe in the RPG element that the new gear you get SHOULD replace the old gear right away.  Either way, giving players more choice is never a bad thing.  
How does Mr Joe the shooter fan playing his single player game - allowing the game to make game play choices for him, affect you, playing your single player game, which STILL allows you to make deep customization choices in the elements that you want?  I really want to know this.  Is it going to affect your game play, your own Mass Effect 2 experience knowing that somebody, out there, is playing the game who doesn't care about every single deep aspect of the game?

Are you telling us that if somebody don't like an aspect or two that are staple elements of RPG's then you are not a "real" RPG fan.  That's super elitist talk - and the reason many people disagree with you on nearly EVERYTHING!.  You come in here and spout, "Unless you like RPG's only as PRG's that require 100% user thought and decision, you are not a RPG fan."

You are many - many of the few (on this board) who constantly believe that unless game has X Y and Z elements in the way you believe should be the only way of doing X Y and Z - then the game is dumbed down and the developers are selling out to some 'slack jaw drooling mouth breathing cussing because it makes them cool' crowd which is damn right insulting to the rest of who enjoy games for the simple fact that they are fun.

Don't get me wrong, many of us do enjoy debating with you Terror_K, but you really have to stop on your snide insults and put-downs because some aspects are not as in "depth" as you would like them to be.

Is Bioware catering to 5 year-olds, or those who enjoy good games?  Which is it?

Modifié par Murmillos, 22 janvier 2010 - 01:44 .

[Terror_K]

With regards to complexity: more complexity does not always mean something is better. Mass Effect would not suit a system as deep and involved as AD&D for instance, or even the Star Wars Saga Edition P&P RPG system. Mass Effect characters shouldn't have to worry about stats relating to climbing, or jumping or swimming, etc. because that's redundant stuff.



However, none of the stuff in ME1 was redundant, IMO. A player should always have some statistical element that determines their ability to use their weapon; one that as they invest points in it grows stronger. People say that this has shifted to the weapon modding now, but this has a fundamental problem: it's determining the stats of the gun and not your character. The weapon is progressing, not Shepard. And while they can say "it's basically the same" the fact is, it's not. For one thing, when one builds a character that build is set in stone once the points are locked in. When one builds a weapon, those attributes are entirely dynamic, and changing to another weapon changes everything too.



It's funny you mention the new "ammunition" system, because while it adds complexity it comes across as a needless complexity that will only serve to annoy and frustrate, IMO. It's pretty much pure a shooter mechanic. Sometimes RPG's have ammo, but the better ones don't force the player to deal with such trivialities. I personally find RPG's where one has to physically find arrows tedious. It's a bit like ME1's much frowned upon inventory system, but the opposite: players complained that it was awkward and needless and prefer the newer system. I think ammo is awkward and needless, particularly given the game's lore and the way it worked in the original. For those who don't really like the shooter combat, the "ammo" thermal clip system is just another thorn in the side. Complexity should suit the medium and not just be there to annoy and get in the way. There's a fine line between adding something as a challenge and adding something as a burden.

[CmdrFenix83]

Vaeliorin wrote...

Eragondragonrider wrote...
I a person that has designed and played rpgs for 25 years, I think why most purest are saying ME2 is not a real rpg is because it doesn't have the wait command menu. FFIII set the bar for purest out there and most people want RPGs to be like it because it was such a great for its time.

RPG Purists don't think JRPGs are RPGs.

A lot of purest can not get past the idea that RPGs are evolving constantly to get more people into them. I think having a game that it more live action then waiting to chose what you want to do draws you more into the game and story.

When you remove the role-playing, you no longer have an RPG.  ME has removed the role-playing, therefore it's not an RPG.  That doesn't mean it's a bad game.  I rather enjoyed ME1, but I would put it in the genre of shooter with RPG elements, not into the RPG genre (there are very, very few games that make it into that genre anymore.  Pretty sure DA was the only mainstream game that fit the genre in 2009.)

Apparently you aren't familiar with what the term 'RPG' means.  It means you step into the role of a character, and perform actions and decisions that you belive the character would make.  There's an immersive storyline, character development in terms of both story and equipment, and choices you have to make.  I would honestly love to hear one example of something, anything, that makes ME1 'not' an RPG.

[Terror_K]

Murmillos wrote...

Not all aspects have been simplified, that again is looking at it from the wrong angle.

Yes, game play elements apparently have been simplified, other game play elements & aspects have been expanded on, and others mechanics have stayed about the same, but with a new way of doing it.

...that's simpler.

Some losses, some wins.  Removed some elements that didn't work, expand and improve on the elements that did, and hopefully made the game more fun and fluid.

I'm still adamant that most of the removed elements that "didn't work" did work, but it was how they were done that let them down. Simply put: the idea was sound, but the overall execution was poor. In most cases this was due to either a clumsy interface or to unbalanced items. That doesn't mean the entire system should go in the bin. And then there's the matter of stuff that was removed that worked 100% fine, but is just now gone.

As for your whole "self playing game" quip.. that is ONLY and ONLY if you want the game to play that for you.  Remember how in ME1 how there was the Auto Level-Up selection.  The one where you could select Off, Squad only, Squad and Player.  Were you out raged over that?  I bet that made you mad and thought ME1 was being dumbed down for the masses huh?.. "What.. a game that auto selects my points.. that's for 5 year-olds!!!" That's basically the same thing, but now expanded on to weapons. 

Yes, it is basically the same thing. And as I said in an earlier post, no real RPG fan would have that system turned on. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but from what I understand the ME2 variant can't be turned off, but can instead be overridden by your own changes. That's not really giving the option and leaving it down to the player if that's the case, because it's still giving them the answer to the question, and simply letting them change it if they wish. If I'm wrong and the system can be turned off entirely, then I withdraw my complaint. It was my understanding that it could not.

They are NOT taking anything away from you, they are not limited your ability to deal with your squad the way you want to, they are just expanding the choice to allow those who don't want to deal with that aspect.  Maybe some players just want to focus on the story telling elements - and find gear upgrading not something they enjoy, or believe in the RPG element that the new gear you get SHOULD replace the old gear right away.  Either way, giving players more choice is never a bad thing.

So, in other words, they're making the RPG aspects simple so that the Shooter Fanatics can deal with the system without their brain hurting, but they're not making the shooter aspects more simple so that the RPG Purists can deal with the system without being frustrated?
 

How does Mr Joe the shooter fan playing his single player game - allowing the game to make game play choices for him, affect you, playing your single player game, which STILL allows you to make deep customization choices in the elements that you want?  I really want to know this.  Is it going to affect your game play, your own Mass Effect 2 experience knowing that somebody, out there, is playing the game who doesn't care about every single deep aspect of the game?

I'd like to think that BioWare made a deep involved game to suit my particular type of audience and aren't reducing the factors I enjoy just so that another audience can come in and enjoy it. If I was watching a sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey, I wouldn't want it to just be a simplified follow up that barely does anything more than explain the original movie for those that don't get it.

Oh... wait...

Are you telling us that if somebody don't like an aspect or two that are staple elements of RPG's then you are not a "real" RPG fan.  That's super elitist talk - and the reason many people disagree with you on nearly EVERYTHING!.  You come in here and spout, "Unless you like RPG's only as PRG's that require 100% user thought and decision, you are not a RPG fan."

You are many - many of the few (on this board) who constantly believe that unless game has X Y and Z elements in the way you believe should be the only way of doing X Y and Z - then the game is dumbed down and the developers are selling out to some 'slack jaw drooling mouth breathing cussing because it makes them cool' crowd which is damn right insulting to the rest of who enjoy games for the simple fact that they are fun.

Don't get me wrong, many of us do enjoy debating with you Terror_K, but you really have to stop on your snide insults and put-downs because some aspects are not as in "depth" as you would like them to be.

Is Bioware catering to 5 year-olds, or those who enjoy good games?  Which is it?

There is a difference between catering to a particular audience and only catering to a particular audience. I believe BioWare should cater to their RPG fans before the casual gamer out there, that's all.

And I'd realistically say that, given the marketing and shift of focus for ME2, that BioWare is catering more to teenagers and less to those between 25 and 40 that they were with with the original.

[Tokalla]

Terror_K wrote...
Perhaps a more accurate way of describing it is "Mass Effect 2 is a simpler RPG than the original game." A lot of factors have been simplified after all, and BioWare have admitted as such. Whether the game is more or less RPG or not, the fact remains that ME2 has been created to be more accessible and cut some of the fat off. The problem is, many of us RPG fans like some of that fat and feel that BioWare have gone too far and oversimplified things. It doesn't matter that new RPG elements have been added when they too (like the existing ones) have mostly been presented in such a simple way. It's like Mass Effect was for "Ages 15 and above" and ME2 has become "Ages 5 and above" instead. Then there's the fact that much of the game resembles a newer version of Microsoft Word and decides it's going to decide to make changes and automatically assume things for you. This is supposed to be a Role Playing Game... not a Self-Playing game.

At what point has simplicity become inextricably linked to the loss of maturity or intelligence?  While I can understand concern over changes you feel may diminish your enjoyment, why must you include indirect attacks at those opposed to your opinion when expressing those concerns?  I have already stated I can understand that we all have different preferences in our ideal game.  However, simply assuming that those who do not share a preference for complexity in areas you do are lesser (in maturity, intelligence, etc) is nothing more than an attempt to justify your own preferences as inherently superior to those who disagree.  From all the discussions I have thus far read, the amount of indirect attacks (I expect often made unintentionally) being made on both sides are incredible (though those opposed to the changes seem to either be less aware of the insults they make, or are simply much more bold in their willingness to be insulting).  The attacks I speak of are not from the obvious flames either, but the attempts at well reasoned discussion (such as your own).

Though I loathe utilizing quotations, I find the following quite appropriate and well phrased for this discussion:

Leonardo da Vinci – “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.”

Albert Einstein – “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”

Henry Wadsworth – “In character, in manner, in style, in all things, the supreme excellence is simplicity.”

Hans Hofmann – “The ability to simplify means to eliminate the unnecessary so that the necessary may speak.”

E.F. Schumacker – “Any intelligent fool can make
things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of
genius—and a lot of courage—to move in the opposite direction.”

Charles Mingus – “Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that’s creativity.”

[Soruyao]

I'm going to sum up what it seems like you said here, because it doesn't match up with what you said earlier about how it's bad that ME2 is getting "simplified."

Terror_K wrote...

With regards to complexity: more complexity does not always mean something is better. Mass Effect would not suit a system as deep and involved as AD&D for instance, or even the Star Wars Saga Edition P&P RPG system. Mass Effect characters shouldn't have to worry about stats relating to climbing, or jumping or swimming, etc. because that's redundant stuff.

Not all complexity is good.  Some complexity is redundant and you don't need it.

However, none of the stuff in ME1 was redundant, IMO. A player should always have some statistical element that determines their ability to use their weapon; one that as they invest points in it grows stronger. People say that this has shifted to the weapon modding now, but this has a fundamental problem: it's determining the stats of the gun and not your character. The weapon is progressing, not Shepard. And while they can say "it's basically the same" the fact is, it's not. For one thing, when one builds a character that build is set in stone once the points are locked in. When one builds a weapon, those attributes are entirely dynamic, and changing to another weapon changes everything too.

Nothing in ME1 was redundant.   ME2 has exactly the same stats being upgraded, except it's through your equipment and not your skills therefore it's redundant because you can switch weapons.  (Even though we can customize those weapons too, for even more complexity than just putting points in.)

It's funny you mention the new "ammunition" system, because while it adds complexity it comes across as a needless complexity that will only serve to annoy and frustrate, IMO. It's pretty much pure a shooter mechanic. Sometimes RPG's have ammo, but the better ones don't force the player to deal with such trivialities. I personally find RPG's where one has to physically find arrows tedious. It's a bit like ME1's much frowned upon inventory system, but the opposite: players complained that it was awkward and needless and prefer the newer system. I think ammo is awkward and needless, particularly given the game's lore and the way it worked in the original. For those who don't really like the shooter combat, the "ammo" thermal clip system is just another thorn in the side. Complexity should suit the medium and not just be there to annoy and get in the way. There's a fine line between adding something as a challenge and adding something as a burden.

Ammunition is more complex, but it's redundant too, because it's annoying and trivial, because it reminds me of shooters.

Anyway, so it sounds like you're saying that you agree that the game ISN'T less complex, you just don't like the new complexities that were added, and you want the old ones back.   This directly conflicts with what you said earlier about how you think the game is becoming a less complex rpg.

It's not and you just admitted it.

Also, of course the weapon skills in ME1 were redundant.   Everybody maxed that stuff out for exactly the same reasons, no matter what their playstyles were because you spend 90% of your combat time shooting things (even as an adept), so there is no greater increase to your dps.  There was no reason not to take it first and every reason not to take it last.   There was no choice and it just meant we had to spend the start of our game just shooting stuff no matter what class we were, or suffer the consequences.

Just assume that they did that work for you and maxed it out anyway, since you would have done that first anyway.  Especially as a soldier.

Also keep in mind that with the old system, even if they added a bunch of new weapon classes, nobody would ever use one other than the one they put points into, especially if they had infinite ammo.   Being encouraged to run around with one weapon all the time and never changing your tactics and never pulling your finger off the trigger is very simple dumbed down gameplay, which is exactly the thing you say you don't want!  

I think what you actually want is less complex combat gameplay so you never get challenged or have to think in between conversations and dialogue trees.

And you want the old inventory system so that you can collect 50 identical sniper rifles that you will never use, so that you can sell them to a shop en masse for money that you will never use.

-edit-   30 sniper rifles, 20 shot guns, 10 pistols, 20 ARs, 40 ammo mods, 10 armors, and 20 armor mods.   All of it worthless vendor trash.  Then you omni gel everything you loot until you sell it all, until you cap at 99999999 and then you just omni gel everything you run into or just stop looting things altogether.   Ugh.

Modifié par Soruyao, 22 janvier 2010 - 02:12 .

[Soruyao]

-edit- AGH. the quote button and the edit button are too close together.  >_<

Modifié par Soruyao, 22 janvier 2010 - 02:18 .

[Tokalla]

Terror_K wrote...

Yes, it is basically the same thing. And as I said in an earlier post, no real RPG fan would have that system turned on. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but from what I understand the ME2 variant can't be turned off, but can instead be overridden by your own changes. That's not really giving the option and leaving it down to the player if that's the case, because it's still giving them the answer to the question, and simply letting them change it if they wish. If I'm wrong and the system can be turned off entirely, then I withdraw my complaint. It was my understanding that it could not.

The ability to override the choices defaulted by the system is no different than the ability to turn off the system.  This new system is actually more accurrate in regards to your crew automatically upgrading their own gear, as they are supposed to be competent specialists capable of making their own decisions regarding their equipment.  Unless you truly feel that someone like Garrus is incapable of realizing that a new (and superior) type of sniper rifle has become available from the armory, how is allowing you to tell them you want them to take something else on the mission damaging your ability to control their gear choices?  After all, we technically only play one character who is in command of the others, and not the entire party of characters.

[Terror_K]

Simplicity is a good thing in the right context. Streamlining is good if you simplify the system but still remain true to its intent and form. As you have Einstein quoting, “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” I think BioWare crossed the line between "as simple as possible" and "but not simpler" because instead of taking the original systems, such as the inventory, and making them simpler they just threw them out and brought in a new system that was overly simple.



As with any extreme, there's a point where one goes too far. Complexity and simplicity are no different. Look at Mass Effect as a puzzle. A 1000 piece puzzle is a reasonable and good amount that suits the medium. A four piece puzzle is not, and at the other end of the scale a ten billion piece puzzle is also a bad idea.



For an RPG example, one can look at the Star Wars Saga Edition, which was a simplified version of the existing Star Wars d20 P&P RPG system. They did things like reduce a bunch of individual tech-related skills into a single tech skill. That's a case of good simplification and one I approved of. I actually prefer the less complicated version of these two systems because it makes sense and finds a good balance. However, if they were to reduce the tech skill further and just say "you don't need tech skills at all to do any tech stuff" then that would be going too far. And I feel ME2 has gone a little too far, such as the complete removal of Decryption as a tech skill and reducing it solely to a mini-game related to nothing but one's ability to physically do it.

[Soruyao]

Terror_K wrote...

Simplicity is a good thing in the right context. Streamlining is good if you simplify the system but still remain true to its intent and form. As you have Einstein quoting, “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” I think BioWare crossed the line between "as simple as possible" and "but not simpler" because instead of taking the original systems, such as the inventory, and making them simpler they just threw them out and brought in a new system that was overly simple.

As with any extreme, there's a point where one goes too far. Complexity and simplicity are no different. Look at Mass Effect as a puzzle. A 1000 piece puzzle is a reasonable and good amount that suits the medium. A four piece puzzle is not, and at the other end of the scale a ten billion piece puzzle is also a bad idea.

For an RPG example, one can look at the Star Wars Saga Edition, which was a simplified version of the existing Star Wars d20 P&P RPG system. They did things like reduce a bunch of individual tech-related skills into a single tech skill. That's a case of good simplification and one I approved of. I actually prefer the less complicated version of these two systems because it makes sense and finds a good balance. However, if they were to reduce the tech skill further and just say "you don't need tech skills at all to do any tech stuff" then that would be going too far. And I feel ME2 has gone a little too far, such as the complete removal of Decryption as a tech skill and reducing it solely to a mini-game related to nothing but one's ability to physically do it.

Except the game isn't less simple.  You admitted yourself that there are things they added that make it more complex, but that you don't think they count because you don't like them.

Also, did you know engineers get a bonus to researching new weapon mods?   They actually -gasp- are better at engineering things!   Complexity!


-edit-

You can't go on about how the shooter complexity they added makes the game worse and then in the same breath say the game is too simple.   It doesn't work that way.

Modifié par Soruyao, 22 janvier 2010 - 02:23 .

[Bootsykk]

todahouse21 wrote...

But it has to be more than that. In the old forum I read comments that basically said "I can't play this game. It's too dumbed down."

What?

Is it the lack of chocobos? I bet it's the lack of chocobos.

It's too dumbed down because it lacks 40+ pounds of playing manuals to study, lacks dice, and has no dungeon master.

It's too dumbed down because it doesn't take a lifetime to learn how to move without looking through a rulebook.

If a so-called "lover of the original RPG" and "RPG purist" will disagree with me, then you are a PHONEY.  

Modifié par Juneya, 22 janvier 2010 - 02:28 .

[Terror_K]

Simply adding new systems and attributes that are inherently simple does not automatically mean additional complexity. There is nothing complex about having to pick up thermal clips. There is nothing complex about your inventory being handled for you. There is nothing complex about having to only worry about class skills. There is nothing complex about stats that were once locked in stone being able to be chopped and changed because they're now simply weapon mods you can alter at any time. There is nothing complex about throwing out a progression system in favour of everything being determined by the player simple pressing the thumbstick or moving the mouse so the crosshair is on their enemy.

[Soruyao]

Terror_K wrote...

Simply adding new systems and attributes that are inherently simple does not automatically mean additional complexity. There is nothing complex about having to pick up thermal clips. There is nothing complex about your inventory being handled for you. There is nothing complex about having to only worry about class skills. There is nothing complex about stats that were once locked in stone being able to be chopped and changed because they're now simply weapon mods you can alter at any time. There is nothing complex about throwing out a progression system in favour of everything being determined by the player simple pressing the thumbstick or moving the mouse so the crosshair is on their enemy.

Adding multiple simple things to something makes it more complex.    Imagine a straight line.    Pretty simple right?   Draw a triangle above that line.  Draw a square underneath the line.   Now write the words "simplicity simplicity simplicity" inside of the triangle.    Congratulations, you started with a line and made it into something more complex.

If you have a  whole composed of multiple parts, you have something complex.  The more parts you add, the more complex the whole becomes, as long as they're still connected.

Modifié par Soruyao, 22 janvier 2010 - 02:43 .

[Terror_K]

By that logic, completely removing the level-up system and adding 50 new weapons and 50 new enemies would be adding complexity to the game.

[Soruyao]

Terror_K wrote...

By that logic, completely removing the level-up system and adding 50 new weapons and 50 new enemies would be adding complexity to the game.

It depends how different and complex the weapons themselves are.   Are they just reskins or recolors?    Are the gameplay choices that we lose from the level up system moved into the weapons?    What if there were a pull gun and a charge "gun" and a warp gun and these were all customizable?

Potentially the game could still be equally complex, and if the weapon and armor customization were complex enough I could even see it being called an rpg.  (Assuming it has all the dialogue choices and divergent plot points and stuff.)

It would be much harder to explain that in terms of lore than any of the changes currently in game though.  I'm not sure if even I could make a proper explanation for that.  XD

[Terror_K]

Let me put it this way: a car is not more complex if you take out it's engine and replace it with a hamster on a running wheel.

[Tokalla]

Terror_K wrote...

Simplicity is a good thing in the right context. Streamlining is good if you simplify the system but still remain true to its intent and form. As you have Einstein quoting, “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” I think BioWare crossed the line between "as simple as possible" and "but not simpler" because instead of taking the original systems, such as the inventory, and making them simpler they just threw them out and brought in a new system that was overly simple.

As with any extreme, there's a point where one goes too far. Complexity and simplicity are no different. Look at Mass Effect as a puzzle. A 1000 piece puzzle is a reasonable and good amount that suits the medium. A four piece puzzle is not, and at the other end of the scale a ten billion piece puzzle is also a bad idea.

For an RPG example, one can look at the Star Wars Saga Edition, which was a simplified version of the existing Star Wars d20 P&P RPG system. They did things like reduce a bunch of individual tech-related skills into a single tech skill. That's a case of good simplification and one I approved of. I actually prefer the less complicated version of these two systems because it makes sense and finds a good balance. However, if they were to reduce the tech skill further and just say "you don't need tech skills at all to do any tech stuff" then that would be going too far. And I feel ME2 has gone a little too far, such as the complete removal of Decryption as a tech skill and reducing it solely to a mini-game related to nothing but one's ability to physically do it.

I am aware of your issues with ME2, as I have read you posts in this thread and others.  I honestly do not take issue with your concerns (for the most part anyway, there are a few I disagree with...but those are generally just differences of opinion), merely the way you choose to express them.

I believe a better comparison than puzzles would be ice cream, as your puzzle example still attempts to carry the concept of simplicity being inherently inferior to complexity via the intelligence and challenge being assumed to be inherently linked to complexity.  Simply because I prefer my ice cream sundae with vanilla ice cream, whip cream, chocolate syrup, and a cherry does not make it inherently inferior to other preferences.  I also doubt that any disagreement will exist that what I enjoy is an ice cream sundae.  Perhaps my preference is boring or unappealing to some, but that is ultimately beside the point when we are discussing whether or not what I enjoy is (or is not) an ice cream sundae.

There are plenty of PnP RPGs that I do not enjoy due to my dislike of portions of their rules.  Sometimes this is because I feel the rules are overly complex or overly simple, but that does not alter my ability to objectively recognize them as RPGs.  I find the claims of many people who are expressing concern about the changes in ME2 seem to lack the understanding that simply because they may not be in favor of the changes does not relegate the game to being a lesser RPG targeted at people inferior to themselves.

EDIT:

However, none of the stuff in ME1 was redundant, IMO.

I actually do feel that forcing both the player and the character to aim is quite redundant.  If I have to aim at my target in order for the character to miss, then why bother making me aim at all?  ME1 combat was reliant on the player aiming at an enemy, and then on the character's ability to hit that enemy.  They resolved this redundancy by dropping the character's "to hit" roll (which with any favored weapon would now be a maxed skill for anyone porting from ME1 anyway), though I still find it difficult to imagine N7 trained Alliance officers with combat experience wouldn't have always been that capable with at least one weapon anyway.

Modifié par Tokalla, 22 janvier 2010 - 03:35 .

[Soruyao]

Terror_K wrote...

Let me put it this way: a car is not more complex if you take out it's engine and replace it with a hamster on a running wheel.

It might be less functional, but it would still be complex.

If anything, it might be more complex.  Or at least, it would make your day more complex.   Just imagine opening the hood to try and find out why the car didn't start and finding a hamster on a wheel in there instead.   There would be many questions in your mind.  Where did this hamster come from?  Who would go through the trouble to play this joke on me?  Where is my engine?  You would not have an ordinary day.

[jegillan]

This has probably already been said, but I would just like to reiterate it: ME, for all of its "shooter" gameplay, has you playing the role of Commander Shepard.  You may not like that fact, but it is his story you are playing.  In that capacity, you can shape it by your decisions in the game.  To me, that is much more in line with the term "role-playing game" than creating a completely unique character and having a random adventure of your choosing.  You aren't playing a role there, you are creating a story.  

In any case, if you don't like the way ME is being handled you can go on over to the Dragon Age forums and complain about bugs/DLC/not enough gay sex/etc there.  Leave this forum to those of us who actually look forward to the game.

[Terror_K]

BioWare have stated several times themselves that they designed the game to appeal to a broader audience; an audience that is usually scared by RPG's because they have too much complexity and are generally more involved than... well... I'll just say the simpler, more popular titles that said audience tends to play.



Feel free to read between the lines there, as I'm sure some of you will do. It's only fair... I did the exact same thing with what BioWare have said.



My overall point is that one can make things too simple, just as one can make things too complex.

[Terror_K]

I am still looking forward to ME2. As I've said in another, similar thread, I by no means think that ME2 is going to be a horrible failure for me and a game I won't enjoy. I just feel that it'll probably be a 7/10 or 8/10 game as far as I'm concerned, rather than the potential 9 or 10 I was hoping for.

[Static Entropy]

Soruyao wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Let me put it this way: a car is not more complex if you take out it's engine and replace it with a hamster on a running wheel.

It might be less functional, but it would still be complex.

If anything, it might be more complex.  Or at least, it would make your day more complex.   Just imagine opening the hood to try and find out why the car didn't start and finding a hamster on a wheel in there instead.   There would be many questions in your mind.  Where did this hamster come from?  Who would go through the trouble to play this joke on me?  Where is my engine?  You would not have an ordinary day.

Indeed, Hamsters are very complex living organs that put the engine to shame. 

Anyway, I think it's silly to equate RPGs with stats and whatnot.  RPGs are, at their heart, games that allow players to interact with the story through choice in ways that traditional mediums and genres do not.  All the number keeping introduced by the old Pen & Paper games was only there as a way to provide structure and to allow the player to become more involved with his character through customization.  In a game like Mass Effect, there's a still a framework of rules to provide structure, and there are still substantial ways for us to become involved with our characters through customization, (in fact, I find choosing my armor color and picking fish works better for creating a sense of character than swapping guns all the time).  As a side note, I'd also like to point out that weapon skills made no sense in ME anyway: you're a frelling Spectre--you should know how to look down the scope of a sniper rifle, even if you're an Engineer.  Everything is, of course, IMHO.

[Tokalla]

Terror_K wrote...

My overall point is that one can make things too simple, just as one can make things too complex.

I never stated you couldn't, merely that your subjective perspective on what is too simple or complex in regards to something does not impact anything beyond your own ability to appreciate or enjoy it.

[todahouse21]

Terror_K wrote...

Simply adding new systems and attributes that are inherently simple does not automatically mean additional complexity. There is nothing complex about having to pick up thermal clips. There is nothing complex about your inventory being handled for you. There is nothing complex about having to only worry about class skills. There is nothing complex about stats that were once locked in stone being able to be chopped and changed because they're now simply weapon mods you can alter at any time. There is nothing complex about throwing out a progression system in favour of everything being determined by the player simple pressing the thumbstick or moving the mouse so the crosshair is on their enemy.

Nor is there any complexity to simply aiming at a target and as long as your reticule is one or two inches away, you can hold down the trigger until the enemy is dead.

For all my love for ME 1, the combat became boring once you figured out the tricks. 

You're saying in one sentence that it's terrible that the game auto equips you and that it's great that it auto aims for you. 

My theory is that the purist is looking for less combat and more stat progression. I find this to be an absurd expectation because Bioware never advertised Mass Effect as a pure stat progression rpg. It's always been advertised as a hybrid. All they've done is make the combat more intense. They've done away with stat aiming because it was a combat killer, and it's not just shooter fans that say it. Go back and read the reviews. 

I can't understand why player skill based combat is so bad. 

Modifié par todahouse21, 22 janvier 2010 - 03:38 .

[Terror_K]

Static Entropy wrote...

Anyway, I think it's silly to equate RPGs with stats and whatnot.  RPGs are, at their heart, games that allow players to interact with the story through choice in ways that traditional mediums and genres do not.

Not this again... <_<

For the fifty billionth time stats are vital to RPG's. Stop mixing up interactive story-driven games with RPG's.