87 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

Explain to me in absolute facts what role playing combat is.

A role playing game is one where the character immerses themselves into the character, either one of their own making, that of the game writer's making, or a combination of the two. The way the role is played can come in a variety of ways.

Sometimes this is through dialogue or narrative choices. Other times it is through gameplay, where the skills, knowledge or abilities that the player can do are limited by the character.

Want to cast magic as a player? Well, that's not possible - your character is in the rogue class. Want to sneak past the guard and steal his pants off? Well, that's not possible - your character is in the fighter class. And so on.

A player's skill at sneaking should not allow accomplishments that the character has no reason to pull off. A player's ability to shoot a bow should not compensate for skills the character lacks. That violates the concept of playing in that role, with all the relevant limitations in place. Otherwise, the game is merely an action game, where the player controls all the actions their video game avatar takes. Call of Duty Black Ops 2 has this type of gameplay, even though it has RPG dialogue choices. Black Ops is classified as an action game, in the FPS genre.


If Mass Effect wants to go to full action combat/gameplay, then it should classify itself as an action game, because having dialogue choices doesn't default you to being an RPG in today's landscape.

[Quarian Master Race]

Skill based. Stat based mechanics simply don't work in a third person shooter, which these games are and always have been.
 

I would like my contribution to combat to be an intellectual one, not a physical one. How cleverly my character uses the mechanics to his advantage, not how quickly and accurately I can move a mouse.

Especially since ME's pause-to-aim feature renders that trivial anyway. Ever since ME2, we haven't been able to miss in an ME game unless we chose to introduce that uncertainty ourselves, so every battle that was winnable was winnable regardless of player skill.

In every stat based game I've ever played the "intellectual" requirement involves reading the mechanics, finding a single method to break them and then mindlessly spamming it every time combat rolls around. In the single DA:O playthorugh I did (because I couldn't stomach more than one), I simply built a cunning archer that by midgame auto-crited on every hit and smashed all opposition easily as soon as I saw them with auto attacks. The idea that RPG combat systems require any actual thought is silly, especially in the age of the internet when literally anyone can look up the best builds and play them at full effectiveness. Action games require far faster information processing, much more immediate memory recall, judgement and evaluation, and thus higher cognitive ability, so I wouldn't claim that traditional RPG systems are more "intellectual"

Claiming that pause to aim is a "feature" when it categorically is not, but is in fact an exploit that the developers intentionally discouraged is a bit of a disingenuous way to try and form an argument. You can use it to orient your character in the general direction of the enemy, but as of ME2 If you ADS then try to use the power wheel to aim, you will lower your weapon to hipfire upon exiting thus ruining your accuracy cone and random spread until you manually reengage ADS and aim in real time. Further, any continuous fire weapon (AR's, SMG's, high ROF pistols etc) cannot feasibly be paused between each shot. A certain amount of physical skill thus is required to shoot, and the absolutely optimal playstyle in terms of efficiency keeps pauses to a minimum.

[Quarian Master Race]

If Mass Effect wants to go to full action combat/gameplay, then it should classify itself as an action game, because having dialogue choices doesn't default you to being an RPG in today's landscape.

When has it ever been classified otherwise except subjectively by some disgruntled members of the playerbase (usually fans of other bioware games that do fall more into the pure RPG class)?  ME1 was an action third person shooter/RPG hybrid and in every subsequent installment the games have moved more toward the action shooter archetype and away from the superficial RPG elements the first game contained. ME3 even has a selectable mode to completely eliminate all the RPG elements in dialouge and character builds, turning it into a pure shooter with fixed cutscenes, but there is no selectable ability to do away with the skill based action shooter combat. Curious, no?

People who want to play Dragon Age or Baldur's Gate should simply play those games instead of trying to change ME into a scifi version of them.

[wolfhowwl]

Are people pretending that ARPGs aren't RPGs again?

[AlanC9]

Skill based. Stat based mechanics simply don't work in a third person shooterA certain amount of physical skill thus is required to shoot, and the absolutely optimal playstyle in terms of efficiency keeps pauses to a minimum.

Efficiency in terms of what? Rounds fired Player time spent?

[AlanC9]

Are people pretending that ARPGs aren't RPGs again?

Why should today be different from any other day?

[Quarian Master Race]

 

Are people pretending that ARPGs aren't RPGs again?

There's not really much pretending required in the case of Mass Effect. These games have a predefined protaganist, combat mechanics that are far more reliant on player skill than stats, and a narrative that hardly changes based on ultimately superficial choices. The RPG elements can even be turned off completely via a toggle in the most recent installment.

It's less DA with guns and more Gears with (now optional) RGB.
 

Efficiency in terms of what? Rounds fired Player time spent?

You could use that as a subjective quantifier and it would be true as a more mechanically accurate player is going to place more shots on target in less time with less missed shots all other things being equal, as well as targeting using powers more efficiently for maximum effect, but it's pretty much every mechanic. A player with higher physical skill is going to be unequivocally better than one with lower skill at accomplishing the same things within the combat system.

I can conservatively estimate that I am likely better at these games than 99.99% of the people who have ever played them in every objectively measurable way due to my ability to complete platinum solos with a variety of characters and builds. I am simply more efficient, superior. No use in denying it or trying to argue unless you can git gud and do the same.

[AlanC9]

You could use that as a subjective quantifier and it would be true as a more mechanically accurate player is going to place more shots on target in less time with less missed shots all other things being equal, as well as targeting using powers more efficiently for maximum effect, but it's pretty much every mechanic. A player with higher physical skill is going to be unequivocally better than one with lower skill at accomplishing the same things within the combat system.

I can conservatively estimate that I am likely better at these games than 99.99% of the people who have ever played them in every objectively measurable way due to my ability to complete platinum solos with a variety of characters and builds. I am simply more efficient, superior. No use in denying it or trying to argue unless you can git gud and do the same.

You have shifted topics here. You were talking about which playstyle is more efficient, but now you've gone off into how having more physical skill is more efficient. Well, yeah. And also, duh.

[Quarian Master Race]

You have shifted topics here. You were talking about which playstyle is more efficient, but now you've gone off into how having more physical skill is more efficient. Well, yeah. And also, duh.

Having more physical skill is more efficient. Ergo, using playstyles that allow one to maximize use of physical skills (constant action to defeat the enemy with as little interruption as possible) are most efficient, and therefore objectively and measurably superior. I could pause for every shot, refuse to use reload/animation cancels, introduce an arbirtrary no misses failure condition or play without shooting my gun or using powers, and do it all much better than 99.99% of the playerbase, but why bother when there is no physical benefit, and I can and prefer to perform the same actions in other ways with less wasted time and effort?

There's no need to be upset and imply ad homenim that is potentially disparaging to mentally challenged people just because I'm better. You too can git gud if you really try.

[Ravenfeeder]

Attempts to define roleplaying have been prooved to be pointless time and time again, so I'm not going there.

 

I preferred ME1's system where character skill was more important than player skill. Skill is the key word here. I'm not looking for DnD type stats, theyre worthless, but skill is a different matter. I do not claim to be an elite special forces type (I'm a sysadmin), but the character I'm playing is. If I have defined the character as being good with assault rifles but poor with pistols then tha's what should happen, regardless of how good I am at lining up headshots with a mouse (about 95% FWIW).

 

Sure ME1 was a bit clunky in places, but it could be improved instead of lumbering us with a mouse-fest.

[Cyonan]

In every stat based game I've ever played the "intellectual" requirement involves reading the mechanics, finding a single method to break them and then mindlessly spamming it every time combat rolls around. In the single DA:O playthorugh I did (because I couldn't stomach more than one), I simply built a cunning archer that by midgame auto-crited on every hit and smashed all opposition easily as soon as I saw them with auto attacks. The idea that RPG combat systems require any actual thought is silly, especially in the age of the internet when literally anyone can look up the best builds and play them at full effectiveness. Action games require far faster information processing, much more immediate memory recall, judgement and evaluation, and thus higher cognitive ability, so I wouldn't claim that traditional RPG systems are more "intellectual"

 

Because we certainly didn't just find the best strategy on ME3 MP and exploit the hell out of it.

 

and then after BioWare fixed it, we certainly didn't find an even more effective one and exploit the hell out of that.

[MrStoob]

I think one of the steep learning curve games for stats vs skills for me was System Shock 2.  It didn't matter how accurate or good you are at FPS, you simply won't do much damage without the appropriate stats and/or research.  You had to play smart and cautious, with little room for gung-ho.  While there's stats in MP, I'd hardly call it an RPG.  SP, just about.

[Quarian Master Race]

 

Because we certainly didn't just find the best strategy on ME3 MP and exploit the hell out of it.

 

and then after BioWare fixed it, we certainly didn't find an even more effective one and exploit the hell out of that.

Of course, but none of them were both efficient and requiring zero skill or thinking ability beyond basic literacy to implement. FBWGG (and Glaicer room/ Box of Shame after it) was easy and had low failure risk but was ultimately slow and inefficient. Conversely, playing a proper Javelin GI is highly efficient but requires mastery of game mechanics.

Putting a million points in cunning, eqipping critical chance gear then selecting and autocritting everything to death could be done by a trained monkey. It's hardly an intellectual activity. The only example that even comes close to it in terms of brainlessness in ME3MP is missile glitching, which is legit cheating. The use of loaded terms in comparing "intellectual" RPGs vs "twitch" action games for ego stoking is utterly hilarious.

[Cyonan]

 

 

Of course, but none of them were both efficient and requiring zero skill or thinking ability beyond basic literacy to implement. FBWGG (and Glaicer room/ Box of Shame after it) was easy and had low failure risk but was ultimately slow and inefficient. Conversely, playing a proper Javelin GI is highly efficient but requires mastery of game mechanics.

Putting a million points in cunning, eqipping critical chance gear then selecting and autocritting everything to death could be done by a trained monkey. It's hardly an intellectual activity. The only example that even comes close to it in terms of brainlessness in ME3MP is missile glitching, which is legit cheating. The use of loaded terms in comparing "intellectual" RPGs vs "twitch" action games for ego stoking is utterly hilarious.

 

 

You can also spawn nuke with missile launchers and Reegar Carbines, which really doesn't take much mastery of game mechanics.

 

Just like in stat based games there are faceroll easy strategies that can be exploited and some that require more than mindlessly mashing a few buttons to make work.

 

I'd also argue DA:O probably isn't the best example, considering it can be played fully in real time like it were a hotkey MMO. Only in WoW I can't spam Crusader Strike and expect to beat every raid ever on the highest difficulty.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In every stat based game I've ever played the "intellectual" requirement involves reading the mechanics, finding a single method to break them and then mindlessly spamming it every time combat rolls around. In the single DA:O playthorugh I did (because I couldn't stomach more than one), I simply built a cunning archer that by midgame auto-crited on every hit and smashed all opposition easily as soon as I saw them with auto attacks. The idea that RPG combat systems require any actual thought is silly, especially in the age of the internet when literally anyone can look up the best builds and play them at full effectiveness. Action games require far faster information processing, much more immediate memory recall, judgement and evaluation, and thus higher cognitive ability, so I wouldn't claim that traditional RPG systems are more "intellectual"

Where to start?

First of all, DAO isn't a great example, because its ruleset isn't particularly robust. That said, there are many more ways than you describe to "break" them. Most of them involve mages.

Second, you're assuming that the point of the mechanics is to challenge the player. I disagree. What I like about DAO (or other stat-based rulesets) is that there are many ways to build a character, and that character will succeed or fail based largely on that build. Getting to the end of the game isn't a question of difficulty - merely persistance. And again, this is also true of the ME games.

There is no winning in an RPG. There is merely playing.

Claiming that pause to aim is a "feature" when it categorically is not, but is in fact an exploit that the developers intentionally discouraged is a bit of a disingenuous way to try and form an argument. You can use it to orient your character in the general direction of the enemy, but as of ME2 If you ADS then try to use the power wheel to aim, you will lower your weapon to hipfire upon exiting thus ruining your accuracy cone and random spread until you manually reengage ADS and aim in real time. Further, any continuous fire weapon (AR's, SMG's, high ROF pistols etc) cannot feasibly be paused between each shot. A certain amount of physical skill thus is required to shoot, and the absolutely optimal playstyle in terms of efficiency keeps pauses to a minimum.

That's not how it works on PC. There's no delay when pausing.

But hey, if you want Shepard to be able to miss based solely on something that doesn't exist within her reality, by all means, aim in real time.

And there's no such thing as an exploit. There are merely features. Your attempt to apply value judgments is without reasoned foundation.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The use of loaded terms in comparing "intellectual" RPGs vs "twitch" action games for ego stoking is utterly hilarious.

What should I have said? Cognitive? Thinky?

I play these games with my brain, not with my fingers. There should be no difference in skills required between roleplaying in a computer game or roleplaying across a tabletop.

[Catastrophy]

Whatever the case (I don't really mind) - progress should reflect an increased set of options to attack enemies for me. In general I like systems where proficiencies improve with usage (like Skyrim e.g. - I find them best for RP aspects) but I am fine with other models as long as they are well done.

[WittyUsername]

It's already been mentioned that our character will be combat trained, but not have any actual combat experience. We'll be rookies this time around rather than already a veteran like Shep was.

Hmm, then perhaps some already skills based on what your character's background training was. Like if s/he trained more with the pistol, she'd have a few points in pistol skill at the start.

Of course, that's IF it went the skill tree route, which it likely won't. It'll probably follow the ME3 style where it only trained your powers and health rather than your skill with a gun. Which is a shame, for me, I liked that.

[Quarian Master Race]

You can also spawn nuke with missile launchers and Reegar Carbines, which really doesn't take much mastery of game mechanics.

 

Just like in stat based games there are faceroll easy strategies that can be exploited and some that require more than mindlessly mashing a few buttons to make work.

 

I'd also argue DA:O probably isn't the best example, considering it can be played fully in real time like it were a hotkey MMO. Only in WoW I can't spam Crusader Strike and expect to beat every raid ever on the highest difficulty.

I disagree. I hand my 8 year old cousin a perfectly built Reegar proguard and throw them into a plat thunderdome with only instructions on the controls and they will get demolished. I do the same with the mentioned RPG character and they need only highlight and autoattack the things on the screen to win. Spawn nuking itself is a result of mastering a certain game mechanic (spawns) and exploiting it, and further only works in coordinated groups of mechanically versed players, and doesn't work at all on objective waves where the players must still be able to play the game conventionally, so it isn't really comparable anyway. Ultimately, in a more skill based game one still needs a modicum of skill to implement strategies. They can't simply plug the broken build/strategy in and create a macro (or not even) to play it while watching Netflix in the background (unless they are named Peer of the Empire).

Neither is ME even close to a a good example of a balanced shooter/action game. I can't spawn nuke in CS:GO, for instance. Mechanically it is an example of near perfect competitive balance and I'd be surprised if a stats based game could even get close to comparable without an extremely simplistic ruleset.
 

Where to start?

First of all, DAO isn't a great example, because its ruleset isn't particularly robust. That said, there are many more ways than you describe to "break" them. Most of them involve mages.

Second, you're assuming that the point of the mechanics is to challenge the player. I disagree. What I like about DAO (or other stat-based rulesets) is that there are many ways to build a character, and that character will succeed or fail based largely on that build. Getting to the end of the game isn't a question of difficulty - merely persistance. And again, this is also true of the ME games.

There is no winning in an RPG. There is merely playing.

Okay, that's an........ interesting opinion. I don't see how it is inherently "intellectual" to hold it but sure, whatever you enjoy.

 

That's not how it works on PC. There's no delay when pausing.

But hey, if you want Shepard to be able to miss based solely on something that doesn't exist within her reality, by all means, aim in real time.

And there's no such thing as an exploit. There are merely features. Your attempt to apply value judgments is without reasoned foundation.

Can't comment on the PC version but it is certainly considered a fix for a game mechanics exploit on 3 of the 4 platforms it is on as evidenced by the fact that it was a feature intentionally introduced in ME2 and kept in ME3.

Aiming in real time is required for every single shot. You can't fire from the power wheel so trying to eliminate the character/player distinction is pointless in that regard. You will always be engaging in action combat when the game is not paused, and that includes during all movement and "use" actions under fire.

No, there is objectively such thing as an exploit. It even has its own wikipedia article. My value judgments are irrelevant, but those of the designers aren't.

 

What should I have said? Cognitive? Thinky?

I play these games with my brain, not with my fingers. There should be no difference in skills required between roleplaying in a computer game or roleplaying across a tabletop.

You do realise that all games are played with a combination of using cognition(done with the brain) and mechanical manipulation (usually performed by the fingers), correct? Ones based on stats vs skill or tabletop vs computer don't inherently require more or less of either, and in fact I've already mentioned that action games by and large require far faster information processing, much more immediate memory recall, judgement and evaluation, and thus theoretically higher cognitive ability to play successfully.

[Odintius]

Mixer of both honestly bioware been keeping the level 20-30 seems pretty quick to level and left with what know feel after reaching cap to it IMO. I wouldn't mind them adding an extra layer of customization like mention proficiencies improvements apon usage like soldier class could use certain sentinel abilities if trained by a squad member who's a pro in it. In the end a more improved class system keep similar to mass effect but more depth added to it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Can't comment on the PC version but it is certainly considered a fix for a game mechanics exploit on 3 of the 4 platforms it is on as evidenced by the fact that it was a feature intentionally introduced in ME2 and kept in ME3.

Still better than not having it.

I will concede that the gameplay tutorial at the start of ME3 explicitly directs the player to aim in real time, and only pause when the target has been acquired. So real-time aiming is probably the intended playstyle.

I think players have no reason to care about the intended playstyle.

Aiming in real time is required for every single shot. You can't fire from the power wheel so trying to eliminate the character/player distinction is pointless in that regard. You will always be engaging in action combat when the game is not paused, and that includes during all movement and "use" actions under fire.

That's certainly true of movement. I recall that was my number one complaint about KotOR.

As I progress through ME3, I find I have less and less need to shoot anything. I just sit behind cover triggering abilities (while paused), and I pull out the rifle pretty much only to shoot targets I've frozen.

No, there is objectively such thing as an exploit. It even has its own wikipedia article. My value judgments are irrelevant, but those of the designers aren't.

Yes they are. Death of author.

Though, points for hilarity at citing Wikipedia as a source of objective truth. Wikipedia is an excellent source of accepted wisdom, but accepted wisdom can be wrong.

The exploit/feature divide is a distinction without a difference. They are the same thing, save the designer's intent, except the designer's intent makes no material difference, so it cannot be relevant. Therefore, the two terms are synonymous.

I actually have a serious question for you here. Why do you think design intent matters?

You do realise that all games are played with a combination of using cognition(done with the brain) and mechanical manipulation (usually performed by the fingers), correct? Ones based on stats vs skill or tabletop vs computer don't inherently require more or less of either, and in fact I've already mentioned that action games by and large require far faster information processing, much more immediate memory recall, judgement and evaluation, and thus theoretically higher cognitive ability to play successfully.

I'm not claiming that action games require less cognitive ability. I'm claiming that RPGs require less ability that isn't cognitive. I'm looking for gameplay that is cerebral, but not visceral, and not physical. Action games may well be cerebral, but they're also physical.

I don't want physical challenges to interfere with my roleplaying. My character should do what I want him to do, within the rules. There should be no barriers beyond that.

[Cyonan]

I disagree. I hand my 8 year old cousin a perfectly built Reegar proguard and throw them into a plat thunderdome with only instructions on the controls and they will get demolished. I do the same with the mentioned RPG character and they need only highlight and autoattack the things on the screen to win. Spawn nuking itself is a result of mastering a certain game mechanic (spawns) and exploiting it, and further only works in coordinated groups of mechanically versed players, and doesn't work at all on objective waves where the players must still be able to play the game conventionally, so it isn't really comparable anyway. Ultimately, in a more skill based game one still needs a modicum of skill to implement strategies. They can't simply plug the broken build/strategy in and create a macro (or not even) to play it while watching Netflix in the background (unless they are named Peer of the Empire).

Neither is ME even close to a a good example of a balanced shooter/action game. I can't spawn nuke in CS:GO, for instance. Mechanically it is an example of near perfect competitive balance and I'd be surprised if a stats based game could even get close to comparable without an extremely simplistic ruleset.

 

On the other hand, let your 8 year old cousin play XCOM on the highest difficulty and watch them lose the entire squad on the first mission. Not a RPG, but still stat based combat that you need to understand what you're doing.

 

Or pretty much any of the Fire Emblem games and the same thing will happen. Even in games like Baldur's Gate it is very easy to die as most of the classes in the game early on if you don't know what you're doing. Your casters can die in 1 hit if you let enemies wail on them.

 

If a game lets you exploit a strategy to AFK win then the problem is with the game's balance, not with the fact that the combat is based on character stats.

[Sylvius the Mad]

If a game lets you exploit a strategy to AFK win then the problem is with the game's balance, not with the fact that the combat is based on character stats.

I don’t think that's even a problem necessarily.

The original Dungeon Siege (which was called an ARPG) threw progressively harder monsters at you, and was entirely linear, but it was still possible to find yourself over-leveled or under-leveled depending how you built your party.

Dungeon Siege used a learn-by-doing system, and was entirely combat-based, so you gained strength by successfully attacking things. But you were in control of the size of the party (and the number of combatants in it). If you filled it with 8 combatants, the game would grow harder as you went, as the characters didn't gain enough strength individually to keep up with the game. You'd also have subpar equipment, since you couldn't carry enough loot.

But, if you used a full party of two combatants, a non-combatant healer, and 5 pack mules, you'd walk over the second half of the game.

[ApocAlypsE007]

Basically my preferences gravitate toward the second option. I would like a combination of stat and skill based level ups for single player, skill based level ups only for multiplayer. I like building offbeat characters with unique strengths, so I would like a stat system similar to Pillars of Eternity where each stat gives a some form of advantage to all classes, less like DA:I series where each class has 2 primary stats and all your allocation should be based around those stats, for example a mage needs Willpower and Magic, Strength doesn't give him any benefit. As for multiplayer, keep it skill based to minimize the grind2win or pay2win effect. IMO multiplayer should be always player skill test and not player wallet or patience test.

[Fast Jimmy]

When has it ever been classified otherwise except subjectively by some disgruntled members of the playerbase (usually fans of other bioware games that do fall more into the pure RPG class)? ME1 was an action third person shooter/RPG hybrid and in every subsequent installment the games have moved more toward the action shooter archetype and away from the superficial RPG elements the first game contained. ME3 even has a selectable mode to completely eliminate all the RPG elements in dialouge and character builds, turning it into a pure shooter with fixed cutscenes, but there is no selectable ability to do away with the skill based action shooter combat. Curious, no?

People who want to play Dragon Age or Baldur's Gate should simply play those games instead of trying to change ME into a scifi version of them.

Bioware is the one who calls their games (including Mass Effect) RPGs. And Mass Effect without any leveling isn't an RPG.

Or, put simply, if completely FPS Mass Effect is an RPG, then Black Ops 2 was an RPG. And so was NBA2K14. Both games have branching narratives that impact the story in very large ways and dialogue options throughout their game. For instance, NBA2K14 realizes that "being a basketball player" doesn't automatically mean you have flawless ball handling skills, undeniable three point shooting skills, unsurpassable driving skills and impenetrable defense skills. Players all have different skills and abilities they are good at over another, despite all being top tier basketball players.

In the same vein, not every soldier perfectly excels at all things just because a player can click a mouse on the right spot. Some excel at certain weapon types, others in different tactics, still more in approach and analytics. Because a player can quickly learn to be excellent with all types of combat, it stretches belief that one character can be so expertly proficient at all things as well. This is what leveling represents - an abstraction of your character's knowledge and skills, NOT the player's. Because then you are not playing that role and hence not roleplaying. Dialogue choices alone do not make a game an RPG.