131 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

XCOM Enemy Unknown didn't really have a loot system in the typical RPG sense that's being advocated here. Not only were all items auto-picked up at the end of any successful mission, but there wasn't a 'incrimental upgrade by swapping to latest weapons' dynamic. Yeah, you could capture weapons... but you still had to research them to use them, at which point you could buy them outright.

 

What XCOM did with its inventory that the vast majority of RPGs don't, and never did, was integrate it's entire economy into the strategy layer and balance it. Even things as ubiquitous as weapon shards (the default drop reward for most killed enemies) were treated as strategic resources that confined choices (and thus gave strategic choices more weight). XCOM is a game in which there really is a use for all the 'loot', because weapon shards and elyrium and alien alloys are not only limited, but universally useful. Not only do they allow the purchase of items, research, and upgrades, but they were also convertable into money- in a game where all of these were extremely limited resources from start to finish. Money in particularly was always a limiting factor until the end-game, from start to finish..

 

Typical RPGs don't do that. Some exceptional ones do- Fallout has a dynamic of inventory balance thanks to the weight system, and even more in 'Hardcore Mode' of FNV where basic essential count towards that- but most have very poor approaches to the resource management that makes an inventory system a merit. A game with an inventory system either needs a very well balanced economy such that everything has significant value (which is rare to see- most games just jack up the prices of the end-game good stuff so that it takes longer to grind your way to purchases even after selling countless junk gear), or the inventory itself needs to be constrained enough that inventory is a strategic element that deters you from picking up and carrying everything (Bethesda weight restrictions, Deus Ex space allocatoin, Mass Effect's weight-recharge penalty).

[Daiyus]

I'm actually in general agreement with the "no" crowd. Given the lore of the universe we are given it doesn't make sense to have to loot things in the traditional manner. When the way to purchase items becomes digital licenses to minifacture said items rather than actual physical items it makes sense to "loot" data.

 

My biggest problem was that most of the content is locked based on story progression. I'd rather everything was available at the start with the ability to "transfer" licences from the mercs/whatever you're killing.

 

Overall I really like ME3's approach to equipment.

[Sanunes]

I disagree, I much rather have a system like Mass Effect 2 and 3. Collecting loot that it is entire purpose is to either be broken down for parts or sold for currency doesn't interest me for it becomes a tedious process.

[DarthLaxian]

I really hope that the majority of the fans and ME players would like for these two things to be returned and properly implemented.

 

I don't know why it was so messed up in ME1 and I think it was bad that ME2 & ME3 drastically changed it instead of implementing it how other rpg's have. 

 

Is there anyone truly opposed to having an inventory menu or looting enemies and crates, etc.?

 

To clarify my request, I am not asking for a clunky inventory like ME1, there are enough rpg's that have good inventories like Bioware's past games.

 

Indeed, I'd love real loot (but not stupid stuff, more like being able to loot what an enemy was using - so if someone was using an SMG to fire on me, I want to loot an SMG if I kill them not a pistol or useless rubish - oh and I want their gear (armor, omni-tool, gadgets etc. etc.), too (not like looting peasant stuff of an armed knight like in some other games -.-))

 

greetings LAX

[Jaquio]

XCOM Enemy Unknown didn't really have a loot system in the typical RPG sense that's being advocated here. Not only were all items auto-picked up at the end of any successful mission, but there wasn't a 'incrimental upgrade by swapping to latest weapons' dynamic. Yeah, you could capture weapons... but you still had to research them to use them, at which point you could buy them outright.

 

What XCOM did with its inventory that the vast majority of RPGs don't, and never did, was integrate it's entire economy into the strategy layer and balance it. Even things as ubiquitous as weapon shards (the default drop reward for most killed enemies) were treated as strategic resources that confined choices (and thus gave strategic choices more weight). XCOM is a game in which there really is a use for all the 'loot', because weapon shards and elyrium and alien alloys are not only limited, but universally useful. Not only do they allow the purchase of items, research, and upgrades, but they were also convertable into money- in a game where all of these were extremely limited resources from start to finish. Money in particularly was always a limiting factor until the end-game, from start to finish..

 

Typical RPGs don't do that. Some exceptional ones do- Fallout has a dynamic of inventory balance thanks to the weight system, and even more in 'Hardcore Mode' of FNV where basic essential count towards that- but most have very poor approaches to the resource management that makes an inventory system a merit. A game with an inventory system either needs a very well balanced economy such that everything has significant value (which is rare to see- most games just jack up the prices of the end-game good stuff so that it takes longer to grind your way to purchases even after selling countless junk gear), or the inventory itself needs to be constrained enough that inventory is a strategic element that deters you from picking up and carrying everything (Bethesda weight restrictions, Deus Ex space allocatoin, Mass Effect's weight-recharge penalty).

 

An excellent comment that ties to an idea I put forth earlier, because one of the things about XCOM was it had, for lack of better term, loot missions.  Crashed UFO sites and Landed UFOs were basically risky loot sites where you would get large supplies of research materials, building materials and things to sell for cash.  Landed UFOs were, in particular, high risk-reward missions because they were loaded up with fresh troops.

 

In the end I paid more attention to the loot in that game, despite it being a strategy game, than I do in most RPGs, because it was intrinsic to every element of the game experience.  Heck, I remember (I was playing about a month ago) falling back and trying to lure aliens out of a room specifically because there were working navigation computers in the room I needed for my satellite nexus and I didn't want to risk damaging them with laser fire.

 

Which is why I advocate loot missions rather than rummaging through corpses and carrying 50 widgets back to the ship.  DAI was the worst of it - I'm the leader of a religious/military force with a unique magical ability and powerful combat skills.  Carrying raw materials (stupid elfroots) is literally the first thing I should be delegating to subordinates.

[SolNebula]

Well this time around we are a pathfinder and an explorer so we are supposed to find habitable planets and resources to collect. It seems the plot support exploration and looting. I'm against looting mission because I want the loot to be in the main missions as well as side ones. Weapon parts and schematics as well as mods and armors as physical objects to have in our inventory. They can instead have junk loot or simply valuable resources to simply convert automatically into credits once scanned or collected.

[Dean_the_Young]

An excellent comment that ties to an idea I put forth earlier, because one of the things about XCOM was it had, for lack of better term, loot missions.  Crashed UFO sites and Landed UFOs were basically risky loot sites where you would get large supplies of research materials, building materials and things to sell for cash.  Landed UFOs were, in particular, high risk-reward missions because they were loaded up with fresh troops.

 

In the end I paid more attention to the loot in that game, despite it being a strategy game, than I do in most RPGs, because it was intrinsic to every element of the game experience.  Heck, I remember (I was playing about a month ago) falling back and trying to lure aliens out of a room specifically because there were working navigation computers in the room I needed for my satellite nexus and I didn't want to risk damaging them with laser fire.

 

Which is why I advocate loot missions rather than rummaging through corpses and carrying 50 widgets back to the ship.  DAI was the worst of it - I'm the leader of a religious/military force with a unique magical ability and powerful combat skills.  Carrying raw materials (stupid elfroots) is literally the first thing I should be delegating to subordinates.

 

'Loot missions' (can we just call them 'resource missions?') have their place, I agree, but mainly when they make sense in the context of the game as a whole.

 

In ME1, which was a narrative built around 'the Chase', where we were supposedly in a race against time with Saren and always on a time crunch at every story mission, side-quests in general and exploration in particular didn't make much sense. Resource gathering (which in ME1 mainly meant credits) didn't make much sense- and was largely pointless, because credits had so little use.

 

On the other hand, ME2 was an ideal place for it. Infact, some of the N7 missions are ideally suited for it: infact, there's one or two in which 'resource extraction' was an explicit goal. That worked well not only in the context of the 'prepare for the suicide mission'/'have time to kill before the next big story mission' dynamics, but also in the context that the upgrade/research station required significant amounts of distinct resources, and credits were in short supply. Resource missions for e-zero, platinum, and so on were always welcome alternatives to planet mining.

 

ME3's N7 missions were somewhere in the middle. They gave you money, XP, and war assets, even if they weren't necessary for the main plot. It'd be fair to call them focused on getting resources, but the tie-ins with the war effort kept them at least somewhat sensible.

 

Of course, sometimes resource missions just exist to make the rest of the game easier... and that can be okay as well. Switching franchises a bit, one of my favorite examples was a 'grinding' DLC pack for the strategy game 'Fire Emblem Awakening.' It was three map scenarios, that you could do as much as you want, that existed solely for simplified grinding: a map for getting tons of gold, a map for getting tons of XP, and a map for getting rare/legendary weapons. It completely broke the normal game play- but that was kind of the point, since that's what you bought it for. (Also had a wicked sense of humor to boot.)