583 réponses à ce sujet

[Cyonan]

Agree with this, two days late. ME2 was a well-executed game, but it was not a well designed one. It sacrificed many of the RPG ideals ME1 brought to the table, even if it did so in a package that was genuinely well received.

Nearly everything wrong with ME3 can be traced back to poor design decisions made in ME2. They just did a much more terrible job at covering them up in ME3.

 

Well, Mass Effect was never designed as a pure RPG so it was dropping some RPG ideals right out of the gate.

 

It was supposed to be a third person shooter/RPG hybrid, and the first game in my opinion failed pretty hard on the design of the shooter half of the game. The problem is that while fixing it over the course of the next two games, they sacrificed a lot of RPG.

 

What we need is a game with the gunplay of ME3 and the RPG of ME1.

[Fast Jimmy]

@Fast Jimmy: And yet you think something is more in-depth if there's a little evil in it.

Well, being altruistic is usually pretty pedestrian. To be diabolical, you need to have some thought and planning going on.

[Fast Jimmy]

Well, Mass Effect was never designed as a pure RPG so it was dropping some RPG ideals right out of the gate.

It was supposed to be a third person shooter/RPG hybrid, and the first game in my opinion failed pretty hard on the design of the shooter half of the game. The problem is that while fixing it over the course of the next two games, they sacrificed a lot of RPG.

What we need is a game with the gunplay of ME3 and the RPG of ME1.

Pre-release of ME1, I had the impression of a space RPG, not a shooter/RPG hybrid. That's what they advertised it as - a space opera RPG - and space just meant guns and biotics instead of swords and magic.

If the mechanics of ME had been more in line with what you see in DA:O, where attacking a unit simply meant selecting them instead of using a aiming reticule, then the game could have been billed as a full fledged RPG.

[Cyonan]

Pre-release of ME1, I had the impression of a space RPG, not a shooter/RPG hybrid. That's what they advertised it as - a space opera RPG - and space just meant guns and biotics instead of swords and magic.

If the mechanics of ME had been more in line with what you see in DA:O, where attacking a unit simply meant selecting them instead of using a aiming reticule, then the game could have been billed as a full fledged RPG.

 

Well of course it would have been a full RPG if they changed how the combat works, but they didn't. That's what made it a hybrid =P

 

If the marketing did a poor job of representing the game that's one thing, but the game itself is actually a RPG/Shooter. They marketed DA:I as a pure RPG, but this thread still exists.

 

I'm also not quite sure what you're getting at here. Should they not have made attempts to improve the combat in the game?

[Fast Jimmy]

Well of course it would have been a full RPG if they changed how the combat works, but they didn't. That's what made it a hybrid =P

If the marketing did a poor job of representing the game that's one thing, but the game itself is actually a RPG/Shooter. They marketed DA:I as a pure RPG, but this thread still exists.

I'm also not quite sure what you're getting at here. Should they not have made attempts to improve the combat in the game?

Improve which combat? The RPG aspect? Or the shooter aspect? I can give you a guess on which one they didn't improve on.

[Cyonan]

Improve which combat? The RPG aspect? Or the shooter aspect? I can give you a guess on which one they didn't improve on.

 

I'd argue that they improved the feel of biotics and tech abilities in combat throughout the trilogy. Hell I'd even take Mass Effect 3's evolution system over the "Spend points to get +1 second Warp duration!" of ME1.

 

To be honest, the only thing I think they didn't improve upon is the actual RPing and story which aren't a part of the combat.

 

and exploration, because screw planet scanning.

[Fast Jimmy]

I'd argue that they improved the feel of biotics and tech abilities in combat throughout the trilogy. Hell I'd even take Mass Effect 3's evolution system over the "Spend points to get +1 second Warp duration!" of ME1.

To be honest, the only thing I think they didn't improve upon is the actual RPing and story which aren't a part of the combat.

and exploration, because screw planet scanning.

Agreed, but they also removed inventory management (down to upgrades with loadouts only certain characters/classes could use). And they removed any non-combat skills, such as hacking or lock picking. They traded the Mako in for corridor levels and they practically abandoned any sort of long distance combat, preferring instead for every fight to occur ten inches from the player's face a la Gears of War.

This is taking complex problems and systems and, instead of improving them to make them better, kicks the whole set of mechanics out and makes it as streamlined as MP COD levels.

[Cyonan]

Agreed, but they also removed inventory management (down to upgrades with loadouts only certain characters/classes could use). And they removed any non-combat skills, such as hacking or lock picking. They traded the Mako in for corridor levels and they practically abandoned any sort of long distance combat, preferring instead for every fight to occur ten inches from the player's face a la Gears of War.

This is taking complex problems and systems and, instead of improving them to make them better, kicks the whole set of mechanics out and makes it as streamlined as MP COD levels.

 

I was talking specifically about combat, though. They didn't need to remove inventory, hacking, decryption, or Mako exploration to improve the game's combat.

 

The only one of those that can be considered a combat system is the Mako at times.

[Il Divo]

Improve which combat? The RPG aspect? Or the shooter aspect? I can give you a guess on which one they didn't improve on.

 

From the start, I think Mass Effect's idea of trying to go with non-combat skills was terrible. All hacking gives you is more inventory, which is the last thing the game needed. This left persuasion checks via charm/intimidate sticking out like a sore thumb next to all the other combat skills. 

 

I also wouldn't say there was anything complex about the Mako. I thought it was essentially the Halo warthog, with worse controls. 

[Fast Jimmy]

I was talking specifically about combat, though. They didn't need to remove inventory, hacking, decryption, or Mako exploration to improve the game's combat.

The only one of those that can be considered a combat system is the Mako at times.

The non-combat skills are tied to the character leveling. To streamline the character leveling to be more combat oriented, they ripped out these elements.

The best game systems have close to non-existent gameplay segregation. Using combat skills should tie into the game as seamlessly as using your skill as a negotiator or a hacker.

Let's not forget that ME1's inventory offered exploration benefits, such as improved shields in hostile atmospheres. The system was designed to be a holistic package. That's the sign of a good system. ME2's system was "have three sets of cooldowns that get progressively stronger." ME3 "returned to its roots" with six or seven sets of cooldowns... overlooking the fact that a pure combat leveling system is part of the problem.

[Fast Jimmy]

From the start, I think Mass Effect's idea of trying to go with non-combat skills was terrible. All hacking gives you is more inventory, which is the last thing the game needed. This left persuasion checks via charm/intimidate sticking out like a sore thumb next to all the other combat skills.

I also wouldn't say there was anything complex about the Mako. I thought it was essentially the Halo warthog, with worse controls.

But again - the idea that it needed to be improved is something I agree on. I just find it barfling that Bioware's idea of improvement is to take a chainsaw to ideas until the final product barely resembles an RPG. Or what used to pass for an RPG, I suppose.

[Il Divo]

But again - the idea that it needed to be improved is something I agree on. I just find it barfling that Bioware's idea of improvement is to take a chainsaw to ideas until the final product barely resembles an RPG. Or what used to pass for an RPG, I suppose.

 

Largely because you're operating from the stand point that those sytems are worth preserving in the first place, which is fine depending on your stand point. 

 

Conceptually, I do enjoy inventory systems. I do not enjoy bad inventory systems. In ME1's case, I consider it the single worst inventory system ever created, hence why I can only look at its removal as a positive. As Alanc9 might put it, there may be some alternate universe where Bioware made ME2 with a good inventory system, but that's not the one we're living with. I have two options before me: ME1's inventory, which I actively despise, and ME2's non-existent inventory which while bland didn't require any resources. 

 

Likewise with planet exploration. I actually don't think ME2 took this far enough and should have removed all planet scanning/minerals completely. 

[Cyonan]

The non-combat skills are tied to the character leveling. To streamline the character leveling to be more combat oriented, they ripped out these elements.

The best game systems have close to non-existent gameplay segregation. Using combat skills should tie into the game as seamlessly as using your skill as a negotiator or a hacker.

Let's not forget that ME1's inventory offered exploration benefits, such as improved shields in hostile atmospheres. The system was designed to be a holistic package. That's the sign of a good system. ME2's system was "have three sets of cooldowns that get progressively stronger." ME3 "returned to its roots" with six or seven sets of cooldowns... overlooking the fact that a pure combat leveling system is part of the problem.

 

and none of those systems were ripped out because they wanted to have better gunplay/ability usage.

 

I'm not saying it was good that they shifted towards more combat oriented, just that it was good they worked on improving the combat. Back in my first post about it I specifically stated "The problem is that while fixing it over the course of the next two games, they sacrificed a lot of RPG.".

 

"it" being the first game's really weak shooter mechanics. Beyond that, I'm agreeing that they shouldn't have ripped out so many other systems and instead improved upon them.

 

Especially the Mako with was far more enjoyable than the planet scanning, and made the universe feel a lot bigger.

[Lee T]

I was talking specifically about combat, though. They didn't need to remove inventory, hacking, decryption, or Mako exploration to improve the game's combat.
 
The only one of those that can be considered a combat system is the Mako at times.

You forgot the reduction of range for in your face combat, the sniper rifle makes sense in ME1 and seems a bit of a joke in the sequels. Hopefully the bigger areas in the next one will give you more leeway in how you choose to approach a combat situation. I'll add to the list global cooldown, preventing combos within a character set of skills, and the drastic reduction of the number of skills per character. Combat was more repsonsive in ME2 and 3 but the cost was less tactical options. It had some plus, like the dispearance of the standardised colony base, but the price was too high imo.

Going back to DAI, they did almost the opposite mistake. They gave us an open world but the combat system is still locked in a close quarter maneuver state of mind. You can't really separate your guys for a multi vector attack for exemple, and once the fight is engaged the bigger world might as well not exist. It's probably a lot harder to do with party based gme than with solo charcters.

[Medhia_Nox]

@Fast Jimmy:  I disagree entirely.  Being evil is mindless - anyone can "do what they want".  It takes absolutely nothing.  

 

The problem is what people define as "being altruistic".  

Being a good person is a struggle - being an evil douchebag is self-indulgent.  Most people are just so self-indulgent that when they do even the smallest kindesses they think they're being paragons of virtue. 

 

Anyway - we won't agree, but that's my thought on the topic.

[CronoDragoon]

Largely because you're operating from the stand point that those sytems are worth preserving in the first place, which is fine depending on your stand point.

This is a central point in many discussions about RPGs, which is that sometimes it feels like the existence of typical RPG trappings is more important than whether they are any good or not (not that Fast Jimmy was advocating this view in particular). 
 
 

Conceptually, I do enjoy inventory systems. I do not enjoy bad inventory systems. In ME1's case, I consider it the single worst inventory system ever created, hence why I can only look at its removal as a positive. As Alanc9 might put it, there may be some alternate universe where Bioware made ME2 with a good inventory system, but that's not the one we're living with. I have two options before me: ME1's inventory, which I actively despise, and ME2's non-existent inventory which while bland didn't require any resources.

I think everyone was relieved that Mass Effect 3 ended up in the right place. Though some improvements are still in order (I agree with the view that ammo powers should be a mod on weapons instead of powers). 
 
 

Likewise with planet exploration. I actually don't think ME2 took this far enough and should have removed all planet scanning/minerals completely.

...I really liked planet scanning. It was very relaxing when I needed a break from missions. I think games do well to fill their pacing with some element of quiet time, whatever form that may take.

[AlanC9]

Being a good person is a struggle - being an evil douchebag is self-indulgent.  
 

i used to have a button that said "Being Chaotic Evil means never having to say you're sorry."

[AlanC9]

Agreed, but they also removed inventory management (down to upgrades with loadouts only certain characters/classes could use). And they removed any non-combat skills, such as hacking or lock picking. They traded the Mako in for corridor levels and they practically abandoned any sort of long distance combat, preferring instead for every fight to occur ten inches from the player's face a la Gears of War.
This is taking complex problems and systems and, instead of improving them to make them better, kicks the whole set of mechanics out and makes it as streamlined as MP COD levels.

I don't see that these were ever complex systems except for maybe the programming to generate the UNC worlds. ME1's tiered item progression is fairly brain-dead -- mileages vary, but to me the whole system screams that the devs werent really invested in it in the first place. (I get the same sense from DA:O's tiered routine items, actually.) I'll take the ME3 weapons, which have far more different characteristics; the tiering's still brain-dead, but at least it all happens instantly on the Normandy. Except for one sequence on Ilos, the hacking games only give you credits, which are only useful for purchasing Spectre weapons -- though I suppose this could also be described as a problem with the shop inventories. (At least ME2 credits are broadly useful.) I don't check you on long-distance combat unless you're talking about planet surfaces, where the Mako made combat a joke (and the Hammerhead was even worse.)

[AlanC9]

I really liked planet scanning. It was very relaxing when I needed a break from missions. I think games do well to fill their pacing with some element of quiet time, whatever form that may take.

That was my take on it. An hour or so over the course of a 30-hour game strikes me as about right for this.

[KaiserShep]

I don't see that these were ever complex systems except for maybe the programming to generate the UNC worlds. ME1's tiered item progression is fairly brain-dead -- mileages vary, but to me the whole system screams that the devs werent really invested in it in the first place. (I get the same sense from DA:O's tiered routine items, actually.) I'll take the ME3 weapons, which have far more different characteristics; the tiering's still brain-dead, but at least it all happens instantly on the Normandy. Except for one sequence on Ilos, the hacking games only give you credits, which are only useful for purchasing Spectre weapons -- though I suppose this could also be described as a problem with the shop inventories. (At least ME2 credits are broadly useful.) I don't check you on long-distance combat unless you're talking about planet surfaces, where the Mako made combat a joke (and the Hammerhead was even worse.)

Yeah, all's I can say regarding ME1's inventory system is good riddance. I very much prefer the bottomless pit that is ME3's system, and the wider variety of guns that are vastly more fun to play.

[AlanC9]

ME2 does come out a bit badly in this regard, though, unless you have all the DLC. It doesn't help that Bio unwisely built some progression into weapon availability

[Fast Jimmy]

I don't check you on long-distance combat unless you're talking about planet surfaces, where the Mako made combat a joke (and the Hammerhead was even worse.)

Sequences like Therum, like the sections where you have to leave the Mako and make the attack on the base. There are enemies at high altitude who snipe you from long distances away, requiring cover tactics to move up to them in pieces in order to avoid getting pegged. Or the UNC Probe mission, where you arrive and get trapped in the nuke-covered cave by the Skyllian Blitz organizer (who hates Shephard if you have the War Hero background). You escape the cave and can engage his group from up high, using sniper tactics to avoid direct conflict. Or any of the Geth missions, where you can take out their forces by using hit and run tactics at distances far enough to avoid detection.

All of these examples of long-range, overland combat are removed in ME2 + 3. If it wasn't for the cloaking ability, being a sniper would be laughably impractical, since there is rarely enough distance to justify not going after everything with a shotgun instead of a long range precision weapon.

[o Ventus]

Agreed, but they also removed inventory management (down to upgrades with loadouts only certain characters/classes could use). And they removed any non-combat skills, such as hacking or lock picking. They traded the Mako in for corridor levels and they practically abandoned any sort of long distance combat, preferring instead for every fight to occur ten inches from the player's face a la Gears of War.

This is taking complex problems and systems and, instead of improving them to make them better, kicks the whole set of mechanics out and makes it as streamlined as MP COD levels.

 

Err, hmm? There's plenty of long-distance combat in Gears (Gears 2, which largely takes place underground in caves and tunnels, has fairly large battlegrounds with a good amount of ground to cover). Have you played Gears of War? The only time CQC is really mandated is in the multiplayer. Hacking and lock-picking are still in the game, they just aren't skills you need to level (which is good, because something like "+1 to hacking" always struck me as arbitrary and a bit stupid), they're minigames. In ME2 anyway. 3 did away with it entirely IIRC.

[KaiserShep]

Sequences like Therum, like the sections where you have to leave the Mako and make the attack on the base. There are enemies at high altitude who snipe you from long distances away, requiring cover tactics to move up to them in pieces in order to avoid getting pegged. Or the UNC Probe mission, where you arrive and get trapped in the nuke-covered cave by the Skyllian Blitz organizer (who hates Shephard if you have the War Hero background). You escape the cave and can engage his group from up high, using sniper tactics to avoid direct conflict. Or any of the Geth missions, where you can take out their forces by using hit and run tactics at distances far enough to avoid detection.

All of these examples of long-range, overland combat are removed in ME2 + 3. If it wasn't for the cloaking ability, being a sniper would be laughably impractical, since there is rarely enough distance to justify not going after everything with a shotgun instead of a long range precision weapon.

 

Yeah, one thing I loved about ME1 was that it actually made real use of the sniper rifle. In ME3, the only time I really bring it with me now is for Priority: Earth, to pick off the enemies that start coming in from a distance when defending the missiles. For every other mission, I can easily pick off enemies, and even score a few headshots, with my Mattock/Harrier from most ranges.

[AlanC9]

All of these examples of long-range, overland combat are removed in ME2 + 3. If it wasn't for the cloaking ability, being a sniper would be laughably impractical, since there is rarely enough distance to justify not going after everything with a shotgun instead of a long range precision weapon.

I don't check you on this part. Some missions in ME2 have very long sight-lines -- Grunt and Garrus' RMs stand out in particular. In ME3 it's often the case that the player has control over the engagement distance. Though I do agree that when the player doesn't have control, the battle will be at short range.