258 réponses à ce sujet

[sinosleep]

TheGuv wrote...
The key difference between a story driven shooter like Half Life 2, hack'n'slash game like Diablo or the console Baldurs Gate, and a game like Dragon Age/Mass Effect 2 is what you do has massive effects on the story and how it turns out.  You pick not only a class, but a role in the story.  Are you going to be the neutral arbiter?  The knight in shining ceramics?  Or are you going to be an industrial strength ****?  Or maybe you play the nice guy with a set fuse after which he shoots you in the head.

You could play a game of Mass Effect 2 by insulting every last one of your squadmates continually regardless of circumstances.

None of those elements are present in non-RPGs.  The stat nonsense and inventory systems are present in plenty of games that are not roleplaying games, and thus cannot be used as an indicator.  For the same reason Fable was a roleplaying game, Mass Effect 2 is a roleplaying game.  Choice.

And the sad thing is that I 've made that point repeatedly. When I brought up Uncharted 2 in this thread I specically mentioned how even though the game has an engrossing story, YOU HAVE NO IMPACT on it whatsoever. I beat it in a day. Nothing I did make Nathan Drake any better or any worse. Uncharted 2 is clearly a shooter with a good story. Mass Effect 2 on the other hand is quite clearly an rpg. The choices you make have a clear impact on the narrative and everything in the game other than aiming/hacking/decrypting is entirely stat based. The notion that somehow ME 2 isn't an rpg is absolutely ridiculous.

[Terror_K]

As I've said in other threads, most problems with the inventory system relate to the inventory itself and not the system behind it. If the items were far better and not as unbalanced, then the system would work. Aside from that it needed a little tweaking and streamlining to make it more user-friendly (convert all to medi-gel, item sorting, etc.). To me it seems BioWare have cut off their nose to spite the face in this case.

[Archilochos]

sinosleep wrote...

How many times do I have to post a correction to this incorrect logic? There is no goddamned ammo in the traditional sense. You AREN'T picking up magazines filled with bullets to load into your weapon to shoot at th enemy. Your weapon STILL hass a big block of metal in it that gets shaved into itty bitty pieces to get blasted at the enemy. The lore is UNTOUCHED in that regard.

What is FUNCTIONALLY serving as ammo in ME 2 are HEATSYNCS. The ME 1 codex didn't mention a single damned word about heat dissipation in the codex so there is no lore to contradict. They've just replaced the passive cooling, with active heatsync changes. Each heatsync affords you X amount of shots with said weapon before you have to change it out. So again, FUNCTIONALLY, it's acts like ammo since it restricts the number of shots. Lorewise though, it doesn't change the fact you have a big block of metal being shaved into essentially infinite ammo inside of your weapon. So using lore as a crutch for saying you don't like the ammo mechanic simply can't be done.

sino's right, it doesn't conflict with the lore... but it IS annoying, for two reasons:

1. If the heatsinks are just absorbing heat, they shouldn't need to be changed based on how many shots are fired, but based on the RATE of fire, which is what caused overheat in ME1.

2. By sevring FUNCTIONALLY as ammo, the heatsinks are basically added lore that functionally reverses the (clever, I thought) original lore which served to justify not having ammo in the game, which in turn added to the flavor of the setting and the gameplay.

The real problem is that the heatsinks have the same effect on gameplay as ammo because they are implemented like ammo, and not like heatsinks.  If they were implemented like heatsinks, it would be theoretically possible to never change your heatsink by lowering your rate of fire or by letting your gun cool instead of changing heat sinks.

[sinosleep]

I think it's far more realistic the way it's implemented now. When I was in the military m249 gunners had to carry an extra barrel because the machine gun could get so hot that the barrel would literally start to melt. Even if it wasn't being so hot would warp it and affect the trajectory of the bullets. If your weapon got that hot simply letting it air cool for 30 seconds wasn't going to do jack for it.



I feel that heatsyncs work the same way. They're essentially changing out that barrel. Sending off rounds at the speeds that you do must use an immense amount of energy, and as such cause an immense amount of heat, regardless of rate of fire. So in that regard I find them to be far more realistic than just waiting around for your gun to cool off. If it was so hot it couldn't fire, it wouldn't be cooling off so quickly.

[TheGuv]

Terror_K wrote...

As I've said in other threads, most problems with the inventory system relate to the inventory itself and not the system behind it. If the items were far better and not as unbalanced, then the system would work. Aside from that it needed a little tweaking and streamlining to make it more user-friendly (convert all to medi-gel, item sorting, etc.). To me it seems BioWare have cut off their nose to spite the face in this case.

Or they cut an element of the game that never made any sense.

Riddle me this.  I'm part of Special Tactics and Recon.  I have the best gear, the best weapons, the best research in theory, yes?  The Citadel would equip me with The Gear To Do The Job.  So why is some random pirate on the backend of nowhere packing a Geth special edition weapon and armour that makes mine look like it was put together by someone working at Tescos with tin foil?

The inventory system never made any sense at all.  There's no reason for me to carry around 100 sets of armour.  An inventory never made any sense in the context of the game.

Now, picking up credits to pay for weapon mods or something similar, or the idea that you sell what you can police on the black market.  That makes sense for a game like Mass Effect.

You still haven't grasped what an RPG is about.

1. If the heatsinks are just absorbing heat, they shouldn't need to be
changed based on how many shots are fired, but based on the RATE of
fire, which is what caused overheat in ME1.

Depends on how they store heat.  If you had a heat clip that stored energy by internal vapourisation of components with a high thermal conductance and a high specific heat capacity, the stored heat would be slowly radiated away, but likely not quick enough to overcome the 1 km/s railgun that it's trying to cool.

Thermal clips, btw, would be almost required to function in space.

Modifié par TheGuv, 27 janvier 2010 - 11:08 .

[Terror_K]

TheGuv wrote...

None of those elements are present in non-RPGs.

Wrong. Fahrenheit, It Came from the Desert, Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, GTA IV, and the upcoming Heavy Rain all have these factors and are NOT RPG's.

[Sailears]

Why does a game have to fit in a category? RPG, FPS, as long as it is enjoyable, does it matter? In this case I feel the story and cinematic experience are the overarching features.

[Rhogog]

sinosleep wrote...



IMO, stats based aiming on guy who is supposed to be a hardened special ops war hero just doesn't make any sense. I hated it in ME and I would have hated it in ME 2. As an army veteran in a non combat MOS I was able to hit a target from 300 meters with my m16, hit a target with my 203 grenade launcher attachment at a 100, toss a hand grenade at a target 50 meters away, and mow down a target at 300 meters with an m249 machine gun after 8 weeks of basic. I was able to keep up my skill with those weapons with only periodic training for the remainder of my 5 1/2 years in. But my special ops war hero had to pick and choose between four weapons, was only proficient with hand grenades by default, and generally had the aim of a half blind ferret? No, no, no, and no. Shepard doesn't have amnesia and he's not some random farmboy turned hero. He's had the training, stats shouldn't have anything to do with what armor he wears or what weapons he wields.



I like loot as much as the next guy considering Diablo and Diablo II are two of my all time favorite games, but I don't like vendor trash. And the loot system in ME 1 was just a vendor trash system. Spectre gear was god and quite easy to attain early on considering I reach the money cap halfway through the game every playthrough (and you don't need to hit the money cap to deck out every sqadmate in spectre gear) so the loot was all just junk I didn't need to get money I didn't need either.

The old system was not perfect I agree. But you don't reinvent things if they work but not perfect, you improve them. Remove the accuracy stat from weapons, make a fast weak shooting assault rifle, a slow powerful shooting assault rifle and some rifles with random flow of those stats in between, how bad can it be in compare with having just two ARs throughout the whole game (3 with specialization, 4 with DLC, yeah, great!)? You'll have an option to choose a rifle according to your play stile instead of being forced to use the only best gun out of two available. Same with other guns. Same with armor. It's not the vendor trash that I miss, it's variety. Either visual or in terms of stats.

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

Teknor wrote...

Many people whine here not because ME2 is not a RPG but because whining about ME2 not being a RPG gives them some kind a bizarre feeling of superiority over shooter crowd.

I was thinking that exact same thing.

I really dont get how these people think the combat in ME1 was much more complex than a normal FPS games just because they made the combat rely more on character stats and equipment. In my opinion the shooter aspect of ME1 was actually the one that was dumbed down when they made combat rely more on stats than skill, plus with the shonky AI and huge health bars cover became pretty much useless and combat turned into both characters point their guns at each other and fire until one is dead.  

[TheGuv]

Terror_K wrote...

Wrong. Fahrenheit, It Came from the Desert, Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, GTA IV, and the upcoming Heavy Rain all have these factors and are NOT RPG's.

Really?

I was unaware I was completely in control of everything Niko said or did.  You must have gotten the special version of GTA IV where they added dialogue screens and more than one end game choice.

[Eikixia]

It ain't so bad, in fact, if I wasn't always concerned about conserving my ammunition (thermal clips), it would be even better. Weapons have such a low "ammo" capacity

[Archilochos]

sinosleep wrote...

I think it's far more realistic the way it's implemented now. When I was in the military m249 gunners had to carry an extra barrel because the machine gun could get so hot that the barrel would literally start to melt. Even if it wasn't being so hot would warp it and affect the trajectory of the bullets. If your weapon got that hot simply letting it air cool for 30 seconds wasn't going to do jack for it.

I feel that heatsyncs work the same way. They're essentially changing out that barrel. Sending off rounds at the speeds that you do must use an immense amount of energy, and as such cause an immense amount of heat, regardless of rate of fire. So in that regard I find them to be far more realistic than just waiting around for your gun to cool off. If it was so hot it couldn't fire, it wouldn't be cooling off so quickly.

You've got a good point there.  I still think there's a bit of a disconnect with the ME1 implementation, given that those guns apparently could cool down enough to fire after a few seconds.  (Maybe a near-constant state of overheat explains ME1Shep's early game inaccuracy?)   If we had any interest in sci-fi pseudophysics we might debate the properties of hypothetical alloys, ceramic composites, etc...  but why do that?  Bottom line, I think the new system makes sense, I'm just not crazy about this particular implementation.

It's the same with the stat system in ME1.  Even among the very skilled, there are visible variations in skill.  It's perfectly believable that our favorite N7 might improve his/her skills through heavy use, but when you start at spastic and work up to good, there's something off in the implementation.

@TheGuv: Didn't see your post on the heatsinks until after I posted this.  I hadn't considered the way heat might be stored.  Good point.

Modifié par Archilochos, 27 janvier 2010 - 11:33 .

[DeadlyZer0]

RPG stands for role-playing game, which in this game you play a role as Shepard and you make the calls. I just find it hard to believe that you actually think that the first one was less of a shooter than Mass Effect 2 especially since they took out the MAKO in ME 2.

[Terror_K]

TheGuv wrote...

You still haven't grasped what an RPG is about.

Yes... I don't know what an RPG is. Somebody who has played cRPG's since the late 80's with SSI's AD&D series. Somebody who owns most of BioWare's titles (evidenced by my account at the old forums... you can add the Baldur's Gate series to that too). Somebody who has played proper pen and paper RPG's such as AD&D and Vampire: The Masquerade for over ten years now, and just this evening was playing the Star Wars Saga Edition system with some friends. 

Yeah... you keep telling yourself that. <_<

[Terror_K]

TheGuv wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Wrong. Fahrenheit, It Came from the Desert, Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, GTA IV, and the upcoming Heavy Rain all have these factors and are NOT RPG's.

Really?

I was unaware I was completely in control of everything Niko said or did.  You must have gotten the special version of GTA IV where they added dialogue screens and more than one end game choice.

While there wasn't dialogue choices per se, one had various choices throughout the game they can make that have consequences. Dialogue choices are not necessary to an RPG, nor do they define it. There are plenty of RPG's that don't even have any real dialogue choices, such as Ancient Domains of Mystery. Even many of the old SSI AD&D titles were fairly simple on that side of things, offering little more than Yes/No style situations and merchant choices. They were pretty linear and most consisted of you wandering around and either doing the quests or not.

[klossen4]

I love rpg and mass effect was never a true rpg and i still love it.

[Count Viceroy]

QQ

[tonnactus]

[quote]Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...


Seriously the combat in ME1 was horrible, it took no skill, no tactics and no brains. Combat was decided by stats rather than skills, the person who had the highest stats won, no contest. The guns and armours all looked and felt pretty much the same only with higher stats.[/quote]
[/quote]
That is b.u.lls.hit .On insane,without biotics,players will have a much tougher time then on normal where this doesnt matter.So,on which difficulties did you played Mass Effect 1????
Ever tried to play on isane,beginning at level 1???

Modifié par tonnactus, 27 janvier 2010 - 11:42 .

[Closing-Gap]

TheGuv wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Wrong. Fahrenheit, It Came from the Desert, Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, GTA IV, and the upcoming Heavy Rain all have these factors and are NOT RPG's.

Really?

I was unaware I was completely in control of everything Niko said or did.  You must have gotten the special version of GTA IV where they added dialogue screens and more than one end game choice.

The very last mission had multiple choices and affects the game following it, does that count?

[TuringPoint]

I'm wondering, how many people who prefer ME1 also liked Morrowind?



Anyway, I love this game to death. I can't bloody wait for the third game, to see what further improvements they've made.

[TuringPoint]

[quote]tonnactus wrote...

[quote]Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...


Seriously the combat in ME1 was horrible, it took no skill, no tactics and no brains. Combat was decided by stats rather than skills, the person who had the highest stats won, no contest. The guns and armours all looked and felt pretty much the same only with higher stats.[/quote]
[/quote]
That is b.u.lls.hit .On insane,without biotics,players will have a much tougher time then on normal where this doesnt matter.So,on which difficulties did you played Mass Effect 1????

[/quote]

Lol.  I agree with Gandalf.  I guess it's just a matter of playstyle.  

I've played the game at every difficulty level.  On insanity, at low levels - ok, the game is more difficult.  At higher levels it doesn't matter.  It just involved hammering more rounds into your enemy.  Some biotics abilities helped, yeah, but the biotics shouldn't have been the only thing to make a difference at higher difficulty levels.  The game wasn't balanced.

Modifié par Alocormin, 27 janvier 2010 - 11:45 .

[Rhogog]

DeadlyZer0 wrote...

RPG stands for role-playing game, which in this game you play a role as Shepard and you make the calls.

That's a very dangerous statement, if you think about it. I mean, you play a role in almost every game be it a shooter, an adventure or even a strategy.

[Archilochos]

Terror_K wrote...

TheGuv wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Wrong. Fahrenheit, It Came from the Desert, Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, GTA IV, and the upcoming Heavy Rain all have these factors and are NOT RPG's.

Really?

I was unaware I was completely in control of everything Niko said or did.  You must have gotten the special version of GTA IV where they added dialogue screens and more than one end game choice.

While there wasn't dialogue choices per se, one had various choices throughout the game they can make that have consequences. Dialogue choices are not necessary to an RPG, nor do they define it. There are plenty of RPG's that don't even have any real dialogue choices, such as Ancient Domains of Mystery. Even many of the old SSI AD&D titles were fairly simple on that side of things, offering little more than Yes/No style situations and merchant choices. They were pretty linear and most consisted of you wandering around and either doing the quests or not.

This is exactly why RPG genre debates never go anywhere meaningful.  The cRPG genre is almost as old as PC gaming itself(Akalabeth, World of Doom, anyone?).  I think the main point to consider in this situation, is that yes, the old SSI games often had few choices.  At the same time, in the context of the stories as they were developed at the time, those choices represented more of an impact on the narrative as it was then expressed than they would today in a narrative expressed with full VO, more complex plotlines, etc.  GTA IV is (correctly) not considered an RPG because the player's choices are far less involved, far less relevant in the context of the story as a whole.  GTA IV also doesn't provide the illusion of innovative choice, ie the feeling that the player might choose something he/she would not expect to find in the scope of the narrative at hand.  In short, the old SSI choices were minimal, but meanigful because the complexity of the choices matched the complexity of the surrounding narrative.  GTA IV's choices don't do this.

[N1MA]

I f/ucking love this game! Way better than ME1, i just started up ME1 to see the difference and i almost cried...

[Ingrimm22]

The only thing that i can't believe is that we're having exactly the same discussion we had on Dragon Age Launch AGAIN. Suddenly it's Dragon Age which is the pinnacle of "hardcore-rpg". At launch however the forums where flooded with complaints on how Bioware "destroyed" RPGs by "dumbing down" Dragon Age, to "make it more accessible to the masses". Moronic to say the least. Make up your minds already!

Modifié par Ingrimm22, 27 janvier 2010 - 11:59 .