416 réponses à ce sujet

[Kalfear]

Massadonious wrote...

I think I might have said this at some point before, but it bears repeating.

In regards to archetypes like Rogues/Techs, I remember that there were certain locks in Baldur's Gate 2 that you could try brute force open. Of course, it had a higher chance of failure, but at least there was an option. You mean to tell me a trained soldier, hell, even a trained biotic couldn't find a way to open a flimsy locker lock?

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind the system as a whole, but I fail to see how the modernization of such ideas is a bad thing. I don't like the Engineer classes and I didn't like Tali as a (combat) character and I'm glad I wont be pressured to take her along this time around.

Where is it written the locks were flimsy?

honestly in ME1, when I couldnt open a lock, I always assumed the security was just to high tech and to good for my skill!

After all, were talking about secure containers that survived crashing throught the atmoshpere onto (mostly) hard rocky ground with out opening! Not some wooden chest that can be broken apart with nearest axe.

Seems to me the problem you had was seperating Sci fi from fantasy settings.

I think the Engineer class offered ALOT and was a welcome addition to the team dynamic.

[Terror_K]

MrBiggens wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
Wow... and people wonder why I shoehorn Shooter Fanatics into being immature idiots who can't speak English and act like children (except children have an excuse for being ignorant). <_<

It's not about having skills or not, it's about the fact that if it truly is an RPG there should be something stat-based effecting this and not just your skills. If you're playing a shooter, that's all well and good. In an RPG that's not acceptable.

Besides, I use a mouse and keyboard.... not a controller.

how am i immature? i was laughing so hard i almost died from not being able to breathe. true story.

lol i still cant stop laughing. your saying that because you cant make your gun more powerful other than gettinga  new gun (is there anything else?) that its less of an rpg/not an rpg? do you honestly have any idea how rediculous u sound?

Wow... way to entirely miss the point entirely. And you call me ignorant. <_<

Okay, I'll dumb it down simple for you: no matter how powerful the weapon, the thing is near useless if the person holding it doesn't know how to use it properly.

Do you get it now, or do I have to explain further with a pop-up picture book with small words?

bah... such ignorant minds... you prob also think there should be ****** relationships in the game too huh?

Wow! Just... wow!

I think even those who are defending ME2 wish you weren't on their side now with that comment.

Yes, I do think there should be "******" relationships in the game. I'm all about fairness and equality, but that's another matter. In either case, such bigoted prejudice has pretty much killed any tiny amount respect I had for your or what you've been saying.

[MrBiggens]

lol at kelfer. he keeps trying to defend a mute point with random points he twists around to fit him

[Kalfear]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Kalfear wrote...

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Kalfear wrote...

Mass Effect 1 was a RPG/Shooter but you still had to level and train your character up and design YOUR CHARACTER SPECIAL TO YOU!

Tell me, with all we know about Soldiers in ME2, how is my soldier going to be any different from yours (other then maybe sex and armor color and cosmetic stuff like that). From what Ive read and seen, not only are we both going to be trained in the same weapons but we going to be FORCED to use all those weapons.

What if MY SOLDIER doesnt like Sniper Rifles? From everything we been told, Im still going to have to use them.

In ME1 I didnt have to use any weapon I didnt want and could use those points on other aspects of my character!  So you might have been spec'd in Assult, sniper,shotgun, I was specd in Assult andfirst aide and specter training.

Do you see the difference and how the RPG has been removed from the soldier class (just a example as esiest to demonstrate on). Now we all just Master Cheif in a new world. There is a reason I never finished Halo (even though I got it free with old xbox) ITS BORING.

Anyways, this getting silly, the shooter fans understand the points the majority of folks making, they just trolling and creating arguements outta bordom. Troll elsewhere kiddies.

Oh to that kid whining about more experienced players, speaking as someone that played ALL THE OLD SSI GOLD BOX GAMES, you are nubs (your word, not mine). Just so that clear.

Ok, ok, well trolled sir. Well trolled. You fooled me once, but I ain't falling for it again!

???? so now when someone presents a counter arguement you cant counter back you just call it trolling and move on?

Me thinks the pot better meet kettle cause there was no trolling in my post at all.

It's funny, because your trying to troll me into arguing that ME1 had any customization meaningful customization at all to its classes besides what bonus skill you chose on a new character when Mass Effect 2 has branching paths to all its skills that you have to choose between in addition to bonus skills you unlock at periodic points in the game.

Not this time you clever troll you

god I wish I had a ignore fuction cause I think I actually lost int listening to this person try to weasel her way out of the discussion as she simply cant back up her opinion.

What ever, lesson learned.

Awwww how cute, now shes mistyping my name, how original! 

What next? stomp your feet and flap your arms or would that wake up your parents?

Modifié par Kalfear, 21 janvier 2010 - 11:03 .

[MrBiggens]

Terror_K wrote...

Wow... way to entirely miss the point entirely. And you call me ignorant. <_<

Okay, I'll dumb it down simple for you: no matter how powerful the weapon, the thing is near useless if the person holding it doesn't know how to use it properly.

Do you get it now, or do I have to explain further with a pop-up picture book with small words?

isnt that why you put talent points into the weapon you want? which is also a reason why adepts couldnt use shotguns, rifles, or snipers (unless a remade character with specialization). like i really dont see where you're going with this... the more points you put into your 'shotgun talent', the more damage you did.

bah... such ignorant minds... you prob also think there should be ****** relationships in the game too huh?

Wow! Just... wow!

I think even those who are defending ME2 wish you weren't on their side now with that comment.

Yes, I do think there should be "******" relationships in the game. I'm all about fairness and equality, but that's another matter. In either case, such bigoted prejudice has pretty much killed any tiny amount respect I had for your or what you've been saying.

lolol ok i admit my last statement was for pure trolling purposes

Modifié par MrBiggens, 21 janvier 2010 - 11:05 .

[Terror_K]

Massadonious wrote...

I think I might have said this at some point before, but it bears repeating.

In regards to archetypes like Rogues/Techs, I remember that there were certain locks in Baldur's Gate 2 that you could try brute force open. Of course, it had a higher chance of failure, but at least there was an option. You mean to tell me a trained soldier, hell, even a trained biotic couldn't find a way to open a flimsy locker lock?

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind the system as a whole, but I fail to see how the modernization of such ideas is a bad thing. I don't like the Engineer classes and I didn't like Tali as a (combat) character and I'm glad I wont be pressured to take her along this time around.

That might have been okay, but the fact is that's not the way it is in ME2. They just allow anybody to do Decryption now, whether there's a techie or not.

I personally have no problem with the "bash system" as I generally call it. I particularly like the dynamic when 1) there is a chance of failure rather than automatic and eventual success, and 2) When there's a chance the items within said bashed container have a chance of being broken due to the heavy-handed approach.

If ME2 had included a Decryption skill for Tech characters, but allowed others to bash said items with a chance of permanent damage, I'd have no problem with it whatsoever.

[Terror_K]

MrBiggens wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Wow... way to entirely miss the point entirely. And you call me ignorant. <_<

Okay, I'll dumb it down simple for you: no matter how powerful the weapon, the thing is near useless if the person holding it doesn't know how to use it properly.

Do you get it now, or do I have to explain further with a pop-up picture book with small words?

isnt that why you put talent points into the weapon you want? which is also a reason why adepts couldnt use shotguns, rifles, or snipers (unless a remade character with specialization). like i really dont see where you're going with this... the more points you put into your 'shotgun talent', the more damage you did.

Uh... no. In the original Mass Effect, you spent points investing in your skill with said weapon, which determined your accuracy with said weapon. You weren't upgrading the weapon itself, you were increasing your ability to use it. Damage and other factors such as overheat and additional accuracy were determined by the weapons stats, and further abilities granted by additional weapons mods.

In Mass Effect 2 there are no weapon skills. Skill with your weapon is now determined solely by your own abilities with a controller or mouse. Your weapon skill is no longer a stat-based attribute at all. Your weapon is modded much like the original Mass Effect mods, but to a greater degree. None of these mods determine your skill with the weapon however, and simply improve the gun itself.

Additional, semi-unrelated comment: I love how the definition of troll seems to have completely changed at the Mass Effect message board(s) over the past year or so. I really do... it kind of makes me realise and wonder "how can I expect people to know what the definition of an RPG is when they can't even get a more modern meme definition correct?":whistle:

Modifié par Terror_K, 21 janvier 2010 - 11:12 .

[SurfaceBeneath]

Kalfear wrote...

god I wish I had a ignore fuction cause I think I actually lost int listening to this person try to weasel her way out of the discussion as she simply cant back up her opinion.

What ever, lesson learned.

Awwww how cute, now shes mistyping my name, how original! 

What next? stomp your feet and flap your arms or would that wake up your parents?

How cute. He pretends that he doesn't see I actually listed all counter-points to his arguments because I don't wish to engage trolls in a pointless discussion.

[MrBiggens]

Terror_K wrote...

MrBiggens wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

 no matter how powerful the weapon, the thing is near useless if the person holding it doesn't know how to use it properly.

the more points you put into your 'shotgun talent', the more damage you did.

Uh... no. In the original Mass Effect, you spent points investing in your skill with said weapon, you were increasing your ability to use it.

i rest my case.

and on a seperate but related point, you should recheck Wrex (he was my shotgun/rifle guy) and see what it says when you want to put in a talent point into shotgun/rifle.

Modifié par MrBiggens, 21 janvier 2010 - 11:17 .

[Soruyao]

But wait, not knowing how to use a gun? Can you honestly (really honestly) see shepard at this point in the game not being able to hold a pistol straight?



It didn't make sense in ME1 because shepard was a top of the line alliance navy commander who had been forged in the fires of combat multiple times.



It especially doesn't make sense in ME2 because not only did Shepard fight well enough to save the entire galaxy, we maxed out the weapon skills on him/her by the end of the game.



It wasn't much of a choice. Did anyone ever beat the game with missing points in the weapon they use? No? Then why on earth does it make sense for Shepard to magically forget everything he or she knew about how to hold a gun steady?



That was the lore explanation. The gameplay explanation is as follows: Putting points into a weapon skill was mandatory and boring. It sucked so much not to have those points in there (especially for snipers!!) that if was pretty much the first thing you had to do on every character.



Choices that everyone feels compelled to make exactly the same aren't really choices, they're poor game design. Now we have actual choices (which powers to upgrade and how) that people will make differently based on their playstyle.



Oh, and if you want to have skills you can invest to make your guns more effective and powerful, that is in the game in the form of the ammo powers. Putting points into inferno/cryo/disruptor ammo makes each bullet more effective. It's actually a choice because shooting without it isn't painful, while still allowing you to upgrade your guns through talents.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Terror_K wrote...
Uh... no. In the original Mass Effect, you spent points investing in your skill with said weapon, which determined your accuracy with said weapon. You weren't upgrading the weapon itself, you were increasing your ability to use it. Damage and other factors such as overheat and additional accuracy were determined by the weapons stats, and further abilities granted by additional weapons mods.

In Mass Effect 2 there are no weapon skills. Skill with your weapon is now determined solely by your own abilities with a controller or mouse. Your weapon skill is no longer a stat-based attribute at all. Your weapon is modded much like the original Mass Effect mods, but to a greater degree. None of these mods determine your skill with the weapon however, and simply improve the gun itself.

Additional, semi-unrelated comment: I love how the definition of troll seems to have completely changed at the Mass Effect message board(s) over the past year or so. I really do... it kind of makes me realise and wonder "how can I expect people to know what the definition of an RPG is when they can't even get a more modern meme definition correct?":whistle:

You fundamentally misunderstand the new system or you're fundamentally misconstruing it to fit your definition of "not an RPG" to suit your arguments.

The new research system takes resources that you must spend time gathering (instead of experience you spend time gathering) in order to alter your weapons to enable you to make weapons that do more damage (instead of increasing accuracy and damage, which fundamentally fall under the same overhead of "DPS") and have peripheral effects. You have to carefully comb through levels for schematics to allow you to upgrade your weapons and also carefully administer your resources and time in order to research those weapons as you will not be able to do all the research available to you in one play through. Also, playing an engineer increases this rate of research (how's that for RPG elements?) . Bioware saw that static improvements to weapon damage were not an interesting way to level and decided to make leveling up instead give noticible improvements to the effect of your skills while putting static progression of damage and armor absorbtion through a seperate mechanic.

You're basically saying that one method of improving your damage with weapons personally is superior and more "RPGey" to another way which progresses the technology your squad has access to. Both are means of progression you obtain by gathering resources of a king (XP vs. Minerals Deposits) So again, you're either completely ignorant about how such a system works, or you are purposely misconstruing it to suit your argument.

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 21 janvier 2010 - 11:21 .

[Terror_K]

Did you even read the rest of what I said beyond that? Or do you simply not care that ME1 had weapon skills and ME2 does not?



Yes, you did get a bonus damage to your weapon skills by leveling them up in ME1, but this was related you you getting better at using it. Now damage is solely determined by your weapon and its mods in ME2 and not by any statistical element determining your ability to use the weapon. Sure, not every RPG has a weapon-specific skill to level up, but those that don't almost always have a base attribute (such as Strength or Dex) influencing it instead. Mass Effect 2 doesn't have that to fall back on.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Terror_K wrote...

Yes, you did get a bonus damage to your weapon skills by leveling them up in ME1, but this was related you you getting better at using it. Now damage is solely determined by your weapon and its mods in ME2 and not by any statistical element determining your ability to use the weapon. Sure, not every RPG has a weapon-specific skill to level up, but those that don't almost always have a base attribute (such as Strength or Dex) influencing it instead. Mass Effect 2 doesn't have that to fall back on.

But you are already a top alliance soldier at the very pinnacle of skill with a weapon. If you're randomly missing 25% of the time, you shouldn't be the "savior of the galaxy" in the first place. The method you're describing is actually counter to what should realistically happen while the new system is much more natural AND provides a very awesome secondary approach to customizing and progressing your squad. It's a much better solution to increasing damage over the course of the game than leveling up weapon skills. That's not even mentioning how being skilled with all of the weapons that are available to you gives you innumerable tactical advantages and options in combat scenarios.

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 21 janvier 2010 - 11:30 .

[Terror_K]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

You fundamentally misunderstand the new system or you're fundamentally misconstruing it to fit your definition of "not an RPG" to suit your arguments.

The new research system takes resources that you must spend time gathering (instead of experience you spend time gathering) in order to alter your weapons to enable you to make weapons that do more damage (instead of increasing accuracy and damage, which fundamentally fall under the same overhead of "DPS") and have peripheral effects. You have to carefully comb through levels for schematics to allow you to upgrade your weapons and also carefully administer your resources and time in order to research those weapons as you will not be able to do all the research available to you in one play through. Also, playing an engineer increases this rate of research (how's that for RPG elements?) . Bioware saw that static improvements to weapon damage were not an interesting way to level and decided to make leveling up instead give noticible improvements to the effect of your skills while putting static progression of damage and armor absorbtion through a seperate mechanic.

You're basically saying that one method of improving your damage with weapons personally is superior and more "RPGey" to another way which progresses the technology your squad has access to. Both are means of progression you obtain by gathering resources of a king (XP vs. Minerals Deposits) So again, you're either completely ignorant about how such a system works, or you are purposely misconstruing it to suit your argument.

No, I understand perfectly. None of what you said points to anything whatsoever that indicates that Shepard's skill with the weapon is measured in any way statistically through a standard RPG skill-based system. It basically admits what I'm saying: everything (beyond your own skill as a shooter) is now determined by the guns themselvesand their upgrades. There is nothing that delegates Shepard's (or anybody else's) ability to use said guns as a skill. The closest thing to that is the restriction of guns to certain classes.

[Terror_K]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

But you are already a top alliance soldier at the very pinnacle of skill with a weapon. If you're randomly missing 25% of the time, you shouldn't be the "savior of the galaxy" in the first place. The method you're describing is actually counter to what should realistically happen while the new system is much more natural AND provides a very awesome secondary approach to customizing and progressing your squad.

Oh, that silly excuse again...

If that's the case and Shepard is so friggin' great, why level up anything at all? Why spend points in his/her class skills since he's already the best in the galaxy? Why does Thane get better as being an assassin if he's already the best? Why does Tali need to level-up when she was such a tech badass in ME1?

If people can't separate game mechanics from narrative then they shouldn't be playing an RPG at all.

Modifié par Terror_K, 21 janvier 2010 - 11:32 .

[Kalfear]

Soruyao wrote...

But wait, not knowing how to use a gun? Can you honestly (really honestly) see shepard at this point in the game not being able to hold a pistol straight?

It didn't make sense in ME1 because shepard was a top of the line alliance navy commander who had been forged in the fires of combat multiple times.

It especially doesn't make sense in ME2 because not only did Shepard fight well enough to save the entire galaxy, we maxed out the weapon skills on him/her by the end of the game.

It wasn't much of a choice. Did anyone ever beat the game with missing points in the weapon they use? No? Then why on earth does it make sense for Shepard to magically forget everything he or she knew about how to hold a gun steady?

That was the lore explanation. The gameplay explanation is as follows: Putting points into a weapon skill was mandatory and boring. It sucked so much not to have those points in there (especially for snipers!!) that if was pretty much the first thing you had to do on every character.

Choices that everyone feels compelled to make exactly the same aren't really choices, they're poor game design. Now we have actual choices (which powers to upgrade and how) that people will make differently based on their playstyle.

Oh, and if you want to have skills you can invest to make your guns more effective and powerful, that is in the game in the form of the ammo powers. Putting points into inferno/cryo/disruptor ammo makes each bullet more effective. It's actually a choice because shooting without it isn't painful, while still allowing you to upgrade your guns through talents.

By Biowares own admission, its not a choice, you (as a soldier ) will have to use all your weapons at specific times due to situation and/or ammo levels (for lack of better term) as you can only have so many coolants for each weapon at one time (IE: Limited ammo).

So I go back to, what if my design of my soldier doesnt use shotguns and sniper rifles (and yes, Ive meet many gun people that dont know how to shoot every type of gun out there properly). What if I only want to use Assult rifle as thats the STYLE MY CHARACTER chooses.

So again, your just playing a character someone else designed and being forced to use weapons when someone else wants you to, or you die. It amazes me that shooter fanatics (sorry but terror got it right after the back and forth with the two same avatar kiddies) ok with this as this is really a step backwards to hard and fast linear level design. Your choices are gone and eliminated as a soldier.

See, Terror (and many many many others) said this but it bares repeating. YOU ARE NOT SHEPARD. SHEPARD IS YOUR CHARACTER. So Shepard doesnt fight from your skill base. hes suppose to fight from the skill base you design for him. IE: ROLE PLAYING. Your playing the role of commander Shepard, Commander Sheppard IS NOT playing the role of you.

To answer your question, I always assumed when my Sheppard tranfered over he would do so with his skills from ME1 intact so you wouldnt be starting from scratch as you suggest. Bioware didnt go that direction sadly as it made the most sense. Honestly, im really not sure what good transfering over is now that couldnt be acheived by a few well placed questions when you start. I really thought when they said your character and world would transfer over, they meant that and I would be starting with maxed out sheppards fully outfitted from ME1.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Terror_K wrote...

No, I understand perfectly. None of
what you said points to anything whatsoever that indicates that
Shepard's skill with the weapon is measured in any way statistically
through a standard RPG skill-based system. It basically admits what I'm
saying: everything (beyond your own skill as a shooter) is now
determined by the guns themselvesand their upgrades. There is
nothing that delegates Shepard's (or anybody else's) ability to use
said guns as a skill. The closest thing to that is the restriction of
guns to certain classes.

So you ARE saying that one
means of progression is superior and more "RPG-ey" than another even
when they have the same net results.

Listen, the very definition of elitism is to me, discounting new things simply because they are different. Which is what you are doing exactly at this point. Call me a troll all you want, but I have seen nothing from you in my entire stay on these forums to show me that you do anything else but look for things to be upset about and do not take a moment to look at the larger picture.

Terror_K wrote...

Oh, that silly excuse again...

If that's the case and Shepard is so friggin' great, why level up anything at all? Why spend points in his/her class skills since he's already the best in the galaxy? Why does Thane get better as being an assassin if he's already the best? Why does Tali need to level-up when she was such a tech badass in ME1?

If people can't separate game mechanics from narrative then they shouldn't be playing an RPG at all.

Because it's still an RPG with leveling up and progression elements. Just because Bioware chose to make passive ability increases come with tech research and skill and focus on making leveling feel more important by giving less static increases to skills and more increases to their effects doesn't make it less RPGy and doesn't even mean that they even removed any RPG elements at all. They simply split the two, one you do by gathering experience, the other you do by conducting research.

So at your core, you're saying what defines an RPG is a system in which your character's skill must have static improvements to percentage chances over the course of the game and these MUST be bought with experience points. It's a blatently silly argument.

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 21 janvier 2010 - 11:39 .

[Shady314]

I do't know exactly what you THOUGHT troll meant Terror_K but people are using it just fine. http://www.urbandict...p?term=trolling

[Soruyao]

Terror_K wrote...

No, I understand perfectly. None of what you said points to anything whatsoever that indicates that Shepard's skill with the weapon is measured in any way statistically through a standard RPG skill-based system.

Cryo, disruptor, inferno ammo.   He/she gets better at utilising it properly.   (Knowing how to handle the gun while using it, where to shoot someone to use it to max effect, etc.     It's a skill based weapon imbue that uses experience and improves your shepards skill/effectiveness with their weapon.   It might not be the way you want them to measure it, but it is a way.

Oh, that silly excuse again...

If that's the case and
Shepard is so friggin' great, why level up anything at all? Why spend
points in his/her class skills since he's already the best in the
galaxy? Why does Thane get better as being an assassin if he's already
the best? Why does Tali need to level-up when she was such a tech
badass in ME1?

If people can't separate game mechanics from narrative then they shouldn't be playing an RPG at all.

There are ways to improve once you're already a deadeye.   You learn how to handle fancy ammunition and the different kinds of kickback and weapon technical issues that you may need to mess with, and you improve at reacting quickly and effectively on the battlefield.     He simply starts at a further point in skill than he did in the first game. (this is called progression, by the way.)

Just because he's stronger/better than he was at the start of ME1 doesn't mean he has no way to improve, he just won't improve by making his hand shake less while he's sniping.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Shady 314, I love your sig. That quote informed most of my high school life.

[Terror_K]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Listen, the very definition of elitism is to me, discounting new things simply because they are different. Which is what you are doing exactly at this point. Call me a troll all you want, but I have seen nothing from you in my entire stay on these forums to show me that you do anything else but look for things to be upset about and do not take a moment to look at the larger picture.

You can think of me what you will... I don't really care. But if you think I actually want this game to upset me... to annoy me with its changes, you are sorely mistaken. I complain because I love the original Mass Effect game and because I love the Mass Effect IP, not because I hate it. And complain isn't the right term even... not at this point. More accurately, I "express concern" for what it looks like Mass Effect 2 has become and where the series may go from here.  I express concern because I love the Mass Effect series up until now and I don't want to see it heading in the wrong direction... down a path I can no longer follow.

I invested a lot of time and interest and even money into Mass Effect, and I don't want to see that wasted because BioWare decided to take the game in what I consider to be the wrong direction. Especially if it's to bring in new fans rather than make the game more for its existing ones. I don't think BioWare is intentionally trying to alienate both sides, but I do think they're trying to appeal to them, and while this may please some it doesn't please all. And it doesn't please me. I've been betrayed by companies and IP owners in the past more than enough times in the past for the sake of mainstreaming their product so I think I'm at least entitled to be a bit bitter and cynical.

I don't want to dislike Mass Effect 2. I want it to be a good game that appeals to my interests. I don't think everything about it sucks either... even the first one had problems and flaws, but the material in the end raised it above them. I was hoping Mass Effect 2 would become a better game and a better RPG, but while it has made some improvements in some areas these seem to have come with a cost. So I get the feeling that instead of being a game where the game itself and the material are good, it'll once again only be the material. And that's assuming that's up to the quality of the original game's stuff as well.

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Oh, that silly excuse again...

If that's the case and Shepard is so friggin' great, why level up anything at all? Why spend points in his/her class skills since he's already the best in the galaxy? Why does Thane get better as being an assassin if he's already the best? Why does Tali need to level-up when she was such a tech badass in ME1?

If people can't separate game mechanics from narrative then they shouldn't be playing an RPG at all.

Because it's still an RPG with leveling up and progression elements. Just because Bioware chose to make passive ability increases come with tech research and skill and focus on making leveling feel more important by giving less static increases to skills and more increases to their effects doesn't make it less RPGy and doesn't even mean that they even removed any RPG elements at all. They simply split the two, one you do by gathering experience, the other you do by conducting research.

So at your core, you're saying what defines an RPG is a system in which your character's skill must have static improvements to percentage chances over the course of the game and these MUST be bought with experience points. It's a blatently silly argument.

To respond to this as succinctly as possible: An RPG should be primarily about the progression and evolution of the character you're playing... not the weapons said character has. 

Modifié par Terror_K, 21 janvier 2010 - 11:59 .

[jsachun]

I just hope Sheperd (Motion Animation) isn't as poofy as he was in ME

[SurfaceBeneath]

Terror_K wrote...

To respond to this as succinctly as possible: An RPG should be primarily about the progression and evolution of the character you're playing... not the weapons said character has. 

I ignored your wall of text above this post because it doesn't matter what you said there about not wanting to pick apart ME2 for flaws. You're going back on what you said and doing it right now. You pick out little crap that doesn't even matter and just dwell on it.

RPGs are about progression and immersion. Putting yourself in to a role and seeing yourself improve in that role as the game goes on. You're saying that just because progression occurs in two avenues that it is less of an RPG. And it's a stupid statement. Absolutely meaningless. The research system is progression just the same as leveling up through experience. Experience you get from completing combat missions, Research your get from time + resources. It's like saying that crafting systems in a lot of MMORPGs (and a few single player RPGs I've seen as well) that use seperate experience for combat and crafting is not RPG-like. Which is senseless. Seriously, think about what progression means in the game as a whole and stop making the Great Wall of China out of molehills.

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 21 janvier 2010 - 12:08 .

[Nohvarr]

Kalfear wrote...



By Biowares own admission, its not a choice, you (as a soldier ) will have to use all your weapons at specific times due to situation and/or ammo levels (for lack of better term) as you can only have so many coolants for each weapon at one time (IE: Limited ammo).

Actually they’ve said that the Soldier has a tool for every situation, not that he’d be forced to use a particular weapon. Yes, if you fail to manage your thermal clips you’ll have to switch weapons. The same thing happens in a lot of RPG if you run out of arrows. However, if you manage your shots, as you would arrows then you likely be fine.



They’ve said multiple times that people tend to pick a weapon based on feel and stick with it, that suggest that you can choose to use just one particular type of firearm if that’s the style of your character.

Your choices are gone and eliminated as a soldier.

Six talent to upgrade, all of which have branching final levels, and you only have enough points to max out three. Then there’s the bonus talent and the ability to upgrade your weapons with various mods. Plus the fact that bringing in your ME 1 save will provide bonuses to your characters starting stats and credits.



From someone who’s supposedly acquired the game already

Blind_179 wrote...



Equipment Mods are interspersed throughout levels, some are

found, hacked, or bought, they need to be “researched” to be implemented though

it seems. Researching costs raw materials, buying “plans” costs credits. Pretty

sure mordin is necessary for the implementation aspect



*****



Some of the weapons seem to look and feel…powerful. Great

improvement. The revenant isn’t the only interesting machine gun.

So it’s still possible to mod your weapons to fit your character’s style, they just haven’t chained you down to certain RPG conventions as was done in ME 1.

Kalfear wrote...

todahouse21 wrote...



So what's best for the game? Last I checked pre-orders were doing fine, the game is receiving good reviews and bioware is going to make a ton of money.



What is the "obvious fact" you're talking about?

Obvious fact is people are worried about these changes. A MAJORITY OF PEOPLE!

Well, can't speak for anywhere else but after reading through this thread the break down appears to be



18% of the posters were solidly on the fence, unwilling to comment one way or another until they played the game.



24% of the posters had noticeable negative inclinations, though even a number of them were willing to concede that Bioware might have gotten it right.



58% of the posters had decidedly positive outlooks on ME 2’s system.



This breakdown was based on the posters attitudes, and not the number of actual posts. Each poster and there opinion was only counted once. This breakdown seems similar to other threads I’ve monitored around Bioware’s forums in the weeks leading up to ME 2.



I know that it’s been pretty well received on other forums not linked to Bioware, but I won’t assume that the positive sentiment is universal. That said, I think the statement that ‘majority of people’ on this forum are upset about the RPG aspect of the game might just be a little strong.

[Terror_K]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...


I ignored your wall of text above this post because it doesn't matter what you said there about not wanting to pick apart ME2 for flaws. You're going back on what you said and doing it right now. You pick out little crap that doesn't even matter and just dwell on it. 

Whether something is "little crap" and whether it matters or not is a matter of perspective. The fact that there are disgruntled RPG fans out there proves that. Just because you personally don't care, doesn't mean others don't.

RPGs are about progression and immersion. Putting yourself in to a role and seeing yourself improve in that role as the game goes on.

Yes... seeing yourself improve.

You're saying that just because progression occurs in two avenues that it is less of an RPG. And it's a stupid statement. Absolutely meaningless.

No. If I was saying that I'd have been against mods in ME1 and against runed weapons in DAO and Diablo 2. What I'm saying is that the progression of your items shouldn't overshadow the progression of your character to the point where they barely progress at all and attributes that should be their's are instead slapped onto the items rather than having attributes that fit and compliment those of the items. The system here is all one-sided, and not in favour of the character.

The research system is progression just the same as leveling up through experience. Experience you get from completing combat missions, Research your get from time + resources. It's like saying that crafting systems in a lot of MMORPGs (and a few single player RPGs I've seen as well) that use seperate experience for combat and crafting is not RPG-like. Which is senseless. Seriously, think about what progression means in the game as a whole and stop making the Great Wall of China out of molehills.

No, what it's like is if you were playing Dragon Age Origins and you didn't have any Strength, Dexterity, Cunning, etc. that determined your character's makeup and instead you had a class with no real attributes and were simply limited to a set of particular weapons, and the only progression you had was putting a bunch of runes in said weapons that determined what their strength, dexterity and cunning were instead of yours. Add to that a hack'n'slash mechanic where you physically slash at the enemies with mouse clicks to determine whether you hit and do damage or not, and that's basically what ME2 has become except in the mould of a fantasy RPG akin to Dragon Age.

Modifié par Terror_K, 21 janvier 2010 - 12:24 .