83 réponses à ce sujet

[Wildfire Darkstar]

TheGuv wrote...

A percentage damage increase is never going to.  I'm never going to look at that point and think "yes, that's good".  It's not good.  It's boring.  Why not slave that into the weapon upgrades?

I would probably agree. I thought the skill system in ME1 worked because you had a sufficient number of skill points to spend per level that you could usually getting at least one noticeable difference per level. I didn't really have a problem with it, per se, but I don't have a major problem with the skill system in ME2 as structured, either. I feel that skills, in general, have less of an impact on the game because the combat system is so much different, but that's a different issue, ultimately.

All that the shooter/RPG thing did was complicate it.  You admit this yourself here.

I do. But part of what I'm trying to suggest is that complexity isn't a bad thing. It's the sort of thing I thrive in, actually: "streamlined" usually means "less interesting" to me. Not always, of course, but frequently enough that I'm skeptical of the term. And certainly that's the case when speaking specifically of the combat system in ME2, IMO.

Ultimately, it's clear than you and I (and, judging from the general reception, most of the gaming public and I) were looking for different things from the Mass Effect series. Perhaps that's to be expected from a game that is advertised as a hybrid of two very different genres. We can both agree that the original had its flaws, but its clear that I would have addressed them in a fundamentally different way. I didn't enjoy the original despite its attempts to incorporate RPG elements into its combat system, I enjoyed it (to some degree) because of it. I wasn't really looking for the ability to pull off precisely aimed shots ala CoD or GoW. That ME2 is undeniably better than ME1 for that kind of thing I don't dispute: I just don't see anything compelling in that. The system is streamlined, certainly, and can be fairly described as better polished than the original. But the process of refinement has removed the aspects of the original I found interesting (if flawed), and I can't help but be disappointed by that.

[Wildfire Darkstar]

lokiarchetype wrote...

I didn't say you specifically, it's just a general observation.

Oh, I know you didn't. I was just playing devil's advocate.

Missing a target even though your reticle is directly on it because you havent invested points into that weapon is Fake Difficulty.  It makes the game harder, but it has nothing to do with the skill of the player.

I don't think I agree here, necessarily. Traditional RPG mechanics (what Surface Beneath refers to as "roll-playing") doesn't rely exclusively on the skill of the player. To quote an old tech injoke, that's not a bug, it's a feature. Calculating accuracy and damage based on a character's attributes and skills is part and parcel of the combat system I'm most interested in. That's a very different sort of difficulty than you'd fine in a straight-up action/shooter game, but it's not "fake." I totally understand not caring for it (and I sometimes think I'm one of a vanishing breed who actually prefers it), but as long as the game is clear about what's going on, it's certainly legitimate.

Advertised as a shooter/RPG hybrid, that was precisely the sort of mechanic I expected from the original ME. The result lived up to that, more or less, though the execution wasn't perfect by any means (as someone pointed out previously, Fallout 3 did it better). 

[Iamoncewas]

Fiacha wrote...

I think we all see the heavy hand of EA here (and in the f***ed up DLC bull****) in ME2 and in Dragon Age. As for me, when I buy a game, I want to play it--I want to at least feel like I'm in control. If I want a cinematic experience, I'll go to the g*d d***ed movie theater.

I've made many mentions of this before, and people told me I was crazy and should stop complaining I guess now they are beginning to see that maybe I wasn't so crazy after all.

[Spectre_Moncy]

As long as the story is still awesome in ME2, it's good

[AntiChri5]

Iamoncewas wrote...

Fiacha wrote...

I think we all see the heavy hand of EA here (and in the f***ed up DLC bull****) in ME2 and in Dragon Age. As for me, when I buy a game, I want to play it--I want to at least feel like I'm in control. If I want a cinematic experience, I'll go to the g*d d***ed movie theater.

I've made many mentions of this before, and people told me I was crazy and should stop complaining I guess now they are beginning to see that maybe I wasn't so crazy after all.

They have ****ed up the DLC so epically and stupidly it is insulting (see the thread i have created about my difficulties with it)

[Iamoncewas]

AntiChri5 wrote...

Iamoncewas wrote...

Fiacha wrote...

I think we all see the heavy hand of EA here (and in the f***ed up DLC bull****) in ME2 and in Dragon Age. As for me, when I buy a game, I want to play it--I want to at least feel like I'm in control. If I want a cinematic experience, I'll go to the g*d d***ed movie theater.

I've made many mentions of this before, and people told me I was crazy and should stop complaining I guess now they are beginning to see that maybe I wasn't so crazy after all.

They have ****ed up the DLC so epically and stupidly it is insulting (see the thread i have created about my difficulties with it)

I am still wondering why I have to link to EA's account with my microsoft account and my Bioware account, I really don't like link accounts because that is how much of our information is lost in translantion (aka Stolen) by hackers, I really don't like having EA know so much and then no respect the fact that they have seriously changed a very good game to a good game instead of making it an Excellent game. 

[lokiarchetype]

Wildfire Darkstar wrote...

I don't think I agree here, necessarily. Traditional RPG mechanics (what Surface Beneath refers to as "roll-playing") doesn't rely exclusively on the skill of the player. Calculating accuracy and damage based on a character's attributes and skills is part and parcel of the combat system I'm most interested in. That's a very different sort of difficulty than you'd fine in a straight-up action/shooter game, but it's not "fake." I totally understand not caring for it (and I sometimes think I'm one of a vanishing breed who actually prefers it), but as long as the game is clear about what's going on, it's certainly legitimate.

Advertised as a shooter/RPG hybrid, that was precisely the sort of mechanic I expected from the original ME. The result lived up to that, more or less, though the execution wasn't perfect by any means (as someone pointed out previously, Fallout 3 did it better). 

RPGs are my favorite genre, and I understand that part of an RPG is picking what you're good at and developing your characters skills in that area.  However, I don't think having to develop your ability to use a weapon effectively fits that well for shooter combat. 
I'm okay with you putting points into Assault Rifle and getting more damage out of it, or being able to use different mods or different ammo types, or getting abilities like Overkill that make it more effective for short bursts, but building up the ability to use the weapon effectively at all is silly.  You couldn't use the sniper rifle at all until you had sunk 8+ points into it.  That's just ridiculous, especially for a situational weapon.  I had an easier time sniping people I couldn't even see with my assault rifle with accuracy and stability mods.  As a solider, the sniper rifle might have well be named drunk-goggle binoculars until end game when you had points to spare for it.

It's one thing when you roll to see if you hit when you swing your sword since when its the only thing governing the action (like NWN, you can't aim, you have to rely on dice rolls).
However, this game in a hybrid in that it implements shooter combat, and shooters have a different way of deciding whether or not you hit a target - your own accuracy.  Mixing the two mechanics together is just clumsy.  It'd be like mixing Real Time Combat with Menu Based Combat where the menus don't pause the game (*cough*kingdomhearts*cough*). 
It's a hybrid, yes, as in its an RPG with Shooter Combat, that doesn't mean the combat should be half shooter/half rpg anymore than the story should be half rpg/half shooter.  That's not to say the combat shouldn't have any RPG aspects, but rather, that the RPG aspects it does have should be ones that enhance the existing mechanics, rather than conflict with them.

And just to clarify how the specific facets I mentioned before on how they actually give the combat intelligence and depth, and thus are the opposite of dumbing down:

Wanting infinite ammo is dumbing a game down because it removes tension and makes hitting and missing shots less meaningful.  If you have limited shots, you have to make each one count and choose wisely.  It makes you treat bullets as bullets, a combat resource to be managed and used responsibly, instead of running around the citadel with your trigger held down.


Wanting to be able to spam biotic powers regardless of the protection of your target is dumbing the game down since you're not picking and choosing which  attack is best based on the situation nor coordinating your offense with a  team.  This time around you don't need to bring a lockpicker or a medkitter so you're free to choose teammates based on balancing your offensive abilities.

Armor, Barrier, and Shields have different strengths and weaknesses that you need to exploit.  That makes the combat deeper.  If you don't have the power to take down any enemy's shielding quickly, bring a squadmate with that power.

It's like complaining about adding elemental affinities to magic.  "Why can't I spam fireballs at the salamander monster that lives in volcanos!?"  Yes, it sucks if you're a fire mage, but if you're in a party and had the option of bringing an ice mage with you, then it shouldn't be an issue.  Bring squadmates that complement your own powers so you can handle anything.

Though I suppose a more apt comparison for this particular scenario is being a full-on offensive magic user and making sure to bring a utility magic user with dispel/instill weakness in case of enemies with shell/reflect/resistances.

Modifié par lokiarchetype, 28 janvier 2010 - 01:28 .

[action jim]

maggitPL wrote...

Well, I'm totally loving the story so far but I'm a bit worried about the lack of any inventory and the dumbing down of mechanics. Not that they were complicated in ME but I expected at least a way to change weapons without having to walk up to a weapons cabinet.

Another thing I don't like is purely cosmetic but it's annoying that Shepard always wears his helmet.

I like that this thread actually has reasonable discussion.  Maybe this game is catered to me but I'm really getting a similar experiance to ME1.  Sure there are less powers, but I'm using them constantly. (Looking at you Stasis)  There's no inventory, but I like the upgrade system, and finding a new gun is even better now because it's much more rare, and really changes the dynamic of the gun.   Also, Shepard doesn't have to wear the helment all the time, it's selectable in the armor screen.  And, you can finally get the awesome visor's that NPC's wear. 

[Archon Shiva]

I've been playing role-playing games for over twenty years.  You know, the table-top ones that are the grandfather of Final Fantasy and Fallout.  The ones that defined the term RPG itself long before computers and consoles tried to emulate them.

A role-playing game is about playing the role of a character - stepping into their shoes, thinking in their place, seeing things from their point of view, and feeling their emotions.  Not only feeling involved, as if watching a movie, but being able to act on it and truly decide how the character was going to deal with any situation.  Stats, classes, levels, character improvement and so on are a significant, but incidental part of the general definition, but some role-playing games do without some or all of these and remain, fully, role-playing games.  Games that feature all of the incidental characteristics but do not involve "playing a role" as defined above, are not role-playing games.  Playing a role or not playing a role makes one game better than another - role-playing is not inherently superior to other forms of games - but on a game table, what makes a game role-playing is playing the role.

 * Note that the *rules* of a role-playing games can be (and have been) used to fight purely tactial battles - just like you could use a spreadsheet program to write your mom a letter.

I've also been playing console and computer "RPG"s for almost as long as they have been around.  The first ones (Pools of Radiance, 1988) tried to replicate the tabletop RPG experience as close as a computer allowed - and realized full well that actual "role-playing" was pretty much not happening. Still, they were great games that evolved into the stat-driven genre, which led into Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest over in Japan, and to the and the classic Brian fargo and Bioware games over here.  As JRPGs shifted towards involved storylines, pregenerated characters with predetermined emotions and dialog became the norm, and "RPG" monicker came to mean stats and levels.  That was fine, as everyone knew the difference, and actually playing a role on computers and consoles was not on the radar anyway.  We call a sports games that, even though the NES Ice Hockey had very little to do with the real-world experience of playing hockey.

Except something happenned - somewhere along the line, a handful of studios, which knew better than most what role-playing was supposed to mean in the first place, managed to start creating games where "role-playing" actually can happen.  Specifically in that regard, I'd call Jade Empire the crowning achievement of the gaming industry so far, with the original Deus Ex a close second.  Note that neither game was too big on numbers or equipment, but you *play the role* of your character.  We're not 100% there yet, but it's getting a whole lot better.

Now, the tricky part is terminology -- we seriously need a new term --  CCRPG comes to mind:
classic Co(mputer/nsole) Role-Playing Game, to define the levels and stats games we (all?) love.

It pained me to lose the term shooter (which referred to R-Type and Gradius) to the FPS and TPS genres, and have to switch to using an altermnate term (Shoot-em ups) so that people would see the distinction.  I liked when I could say Shooter and people would ask Horizontal or Vertical.  I'm still getting over it, actually.  The best shooter ever is Einhander - Halo and Call of Duty are still "just" FPS to me, which is not valid subcategory of shooter (which doesn't make the games any less good - I just don't let them steal the term just yet)

I think RPGs are there now.  We need a term for the CCRPGs to define them as a subcategory of RPGs, which is really just getting grandfathered in because of its origins.  The category already specializes further into JRPG.  But it is senseless to claim that a game where you get the actual "play a role" part isn't a RPG for lack of the early genre's incidental characteristics.  Whether that game exists yet is a matter for another discussion entirely, but if it doesn't, it will.

I want more CCRPGs, or whatever we call them.  I also want more "Playing a role" games.  The two have been branching off FAR from one another ion recent years, with too much time spent opimizing character builds and equipment (which I love) to really get into "playing the role" (which I also love),.  What I would especially like, however, is clear terminology to distinguish which is which, and stop one category being an unfortunate trap to people looking forward to the other.

So, the question is, "Is ME2 (or ME1) a RPG?", and the answer is "It's closer to being an RPG than the reference games used for the litmus test are, but that tests all the wrong stuff, so meh.  Hey, let's branch off the definition of RPG a bit instead of bickering pointlessly amongst ourselves."

Long first post, nay?

For the record, from my perception, you are controlling Mario or Lara or Cloud or your WoW character, but you BECOME Commander Shepard.  I know I do, even though she's a girl.

Modifié par Archon Shiva, 28 janvier 2010 - 02:29 .

[Greenphrog]

it's not DAO. It's diffrent. Better or worse well thats up the person playing it.

[Cloaking_Thane]

Serious question



For the people who loved the stats? did anyone ever max out decryption/electronics or did you get to the Master power then stop?



How many weapons/ Powers did you max out?



Did you max out Para and Rengade and forego something else?

[Thompson family]

Re: "Dumbing down"

Look, I've played "Jutland," which is as micro as anything. I've played "Oblivion," of course. And IL-2 Sturmovik, where I had to choose prop pitch, for crying out load. My next game purchase will be "Rise of Flight," supposedly one of the most accruate — and complex — flight sims around. Heck, I complied a book of a player's guide on how to use horse archers in Medieval II: Total War called "Hunters All Their Lives."

Great gobs of micromanagement doesn't faze me — when there's a point to it.

That said, I've done things like switch ammo types in the middle of a battle a LOT more in ME2 than I ever did in ME1. That's because the systems simpler, smoother and a lot more elegant than switching to an inventory screen and:

1. Clicking on the gun you're or want to use.
2. Clicking on the ammo slot.
3. Finding the ammo you want amoung the several dozen types you haven't bothered to convert to omni-gel yet and double-clicking that.
4. Hitting the "return" button.
5. Hitting the "resume" button.

... and repeating as necessary. It was better to just load inferno ammo and blaze away.

You have to take cover to heal up anyway. Make the changes you want then.

Modifié par Thompson family, 28 janvier 2010 - 04:49 .

[Raydiate]

FireSarge wrote...

streamlined is dumbed down.

sorry no if and or buts about it.

they made this for the Xbox 360 shooter fans. the controls for the PC are terrible. and the RPG elements that made the first one great and the reason i even played it arent there. if i wanted to play a shooter i would play HL2. what you call streamlined and polish i call lazy and boring. i have 3 weapons to choose from. my actual choices have not mattered at all. the game actually has a mission complete screen.

yeah pretty much makes it fugly.

So wait you played the first one to omnigel constantly, upgrade you skills every level or so, find one good set of armor and then use it for the whole game while ignoring all the other inferior armors you find, AND stick frictionless materials into all your weapons? Man that must have been so complicated and exciting...fraid I missed that bit on my playthroughs. Ok I am going to assume that you are not a total dip****, and say that when you reffer to your actual choices not mattering at all,you are not reffering to the game itself as all your interactions affect who survives the final mission. I mean that would REALLY be dumb now wouldn't it.

streamlined is dumbed down.

sorry no if and or buts about it.

Actually since this is your own private opinion there are ifs and buts, you are not god.

[Catlana]

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

Serious question

For the people who loved the stats? did anyone ever max out decryption/electronics or did you get to the Master power then stop?

How many weapons/ Powers did you max out?

Did you max out Para and Rengade and forego something else?

Yes, I maxed out decryption / electronics on one character each play through. However, my main toon was a paragon Vanguard / rengade Adept. Top priority for each play through was getting Paragon or Rengade status so I went for those abilities pretty early. I usually only picked a couple of weapons and specialized in those. I really liked my biotic abilities. 

The changes from Mass Effect to ME2 negatively affected me. I really, really disliked the ME2 vanguard. 


 

[George Shepard]

A RPG is just that a ROLE PLAYING GAME. Just because classic RPGs have had tons of micromanaging involved (I thoroughly enjoyed DAO which was a micromanaging game) you don't need to have that aspect for it to be an RPG. If you are allowed to create our character with some customization and pick his actions then you are in a ROLE.

[Thompson family]

George Shepard wrote...

A RPG is just that a ROLE PLAYING GAME. Just because classic RPGs have had tons of micromanaging involved (I thoroughly enjoyed DAO which was a micromanaging game) you don't need to have that aspect for it to be an RPG. If you are allowed to create our character with some customization and pick his actions then you are in a ROLE.

Well said.

[ACF76]

The game is **** the now, controls are lazy, inventory is nowhere to be seen. Lazy console port, you people are all saying it's the best game ever now because it's just released. This is no where near a GOTY. This was like a step back in the Mass Effect franchise.

[Kanye150]

I think ME2 is the best game ever!

[Pocketgb]

I find it pretty hard to get around ME2 being "catered" toward the "console crowd". If that were true, I'd feel that they'd remove all the hard-ass decisions, the low survival rate of Shepard (which will really kick ya if you don't take time to earn loyalty), and all the often-times long dialogues. You mean in terms of progression? It's still there, just not the same. It may not be focused all into what specific aspect - i.e. your character - but still lengthy.

[bensmith91]

People need to understand that Dragon Age is their traditional RPG series, while Mass Effect is definitely an ARPG, ARPGs are supposed to have good fast paced gaming while still having RPG elements, which is exactly what mass effect is

[novaseeker]

What they did was trim out most of the hybridization of the combat.



ME1 was a hybrid on the macro and micro level. Macro-wise it was a hyrbid because it combined storyline gameplay with shooterish gameplay. However it was also a micro hybrid on the level of the combat, which combined RPG approaches to combat (where character stats determine outcome) with shooter-type combat. So it was a hybrid within a hybrid.



What they've done with ME2 is largely eliminate the hybridization of the combat side of the game. This is what is causing the angst among many of the RPG players, many of whom don't play shooters often, if at all. ME2 is still a macro storyline/shooter hybrid, but the combat is more or less pure shooter. This was probably done intentionally both to attract the larger shooter-fan market more effectively as well as differentiate between ME2 and DA:O more clearly.



I don't like shooters much, but I like the storytelling of ME2 enough to enjoy playing it despite the changes to the combat. Others may disagree, depending on how much they are willing to put up with in terms of the combat changes -- it's a personal thing.

[Hot Juicy Pie]

It's not that it doesnt have RPG elements, it's that all the definitive RPG elements from the first game that made this title huge have been either removed or dumbed down. This game is a copp out designed with casuals in mind. They had no desire to please the veteran players because they already knew they could get our money. The only similarity this has to the first game is the title on the box.

[Kwonnern]

Great game!



Great story, great characters and scenery and great action!

[Cloaking_Thane]

Hot Juicy Pie wrote...

It's not that it doesnt have RPG elements, it's that all the definitive RPG elements from the first game that made this title huge have been either removed or dumbed down. This game is a copp out designed with casuals in mind. They had no desire to please the veteran players because they already knew they could get our money. The only similarity this has to the first game is the title on the box.

Hyperbole is fun isnt it