124 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

In theory, in practice it was streamlined. Like, what's the difference between a level 8 Red Dragon Disciple/4Pale Master/3Necromancer/4Sorceror Gnome and a19 pure wizard Human with extra feats in bonus spell penetration and epic spell penetration?

Nothing?

And what's the difference between a level 10 Dwarven defender/level 5 fighter/1 arcane archer/2 shadow dancer/1 barbarian and a a level 19 human fighter with max specialization in Katanas?

Nothing?

Quite a few things, actually. I'm honestly not sure what point you're trying to make here.

it sounds all powerful and unique, but power and unique in second edition was a lot less complicated and didn't feel so convoluted, it was simply

Time stop.

Grandmaster weapon specialization.

Level 20.

Huh? Simple is good? I'm also not seeing where the unique part comes in.

[Seraphim24]

Quite a few things, actually. I'm honestly not sure what point you're trying to make here.

Huh? Simple is good? I'm also not seeing where the unique part comes in.

 

If you cannot see the point I'm trying to make here, then to be perfectly honest (no offense), I really just won't be able to make you see it.

 

Edit: Ok, so the blur that is 3e and all it's accompanying bells and whistles, yes on the surface that is more options, but it they are most inelegant and kind of globbed together in ways that just kind of make it more different ways of doing the same basic things (casting spells, defending yourselves, attacking, etc)

[FKA_Servo]

Quite a few things, actually. I'm honestly not sure what point you're trying to make here.

You're not alone in that.

[Applepie_Svk]

They should because it adds up value, but I doubt that we`ll get something better than DA:I or ME#. DA:I was so horrible with its randomization, almost each of the materials made those weapons and armors to looks like some bad cosplay.

[Sartoz]

I've noticed how the ME franchise has slowly more towards its action orientation at the price of role-playing.

 

Should Bioware continue like this? Should they add in things like a (better) loot system, such as picking up weapons and armour from fallen enemies, deeper customisation (especially for armour, but I think that is one thing they said they are addressing), more class specialisations, more freedom in the way the story is played?

 

What do you guys think?

                                                                                                 <<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>

 

That's EA influencing the studios. EA is always under pressure to appease to their investors = make a profit.  The solution was to expand the gaming market to reach the casual player. Role-Playing was seen as a niche market (ie: D&D anyone?).

 

EA found that their games were hard to learn... over an hour:  totally unacceptable from senior management PoV.... can anyone guess what happened from that epiphany?

[AlanC9]

I don't find this argument very compelling. It was easier to make a good build in DA:O than it was in the sequels -- given the limits of the rogue and warrior trees it was almost ompossible to screw up talent selection. ME went back and forth. ME1 was fairly brain-dead since racing to unlock stuff is the obvious move early, and in the endgame each class ends up with everything.; ME2 was the same early, worse in the midgame, and a little better late with actual choices at tier 4, and ME3 was the best of the lot.

And going back further, Jade Empire wasn't hard to learn, except physically, and I'm not sure I'd call KotOR hard to learn either.

[Iakus]

I don't find this argument very compelling. It was easier to make a good build in DA:O than it was in the sequels -- given the limits of the rogue and warrior trees it was almost ompossible to screw up talent selection. ME went back and forth. ME1 was fairly brain-dead since racing to unlock stuff is the obvious move early, and in the endgame each class ends up with everything.; ME2 was the same early, worse in the midgame, and a little better late with actual choices at tier 4, and ME3 was the best of the lot.
 

ME3 was identical to ME2, with a higher level cap so you have a few more options after tier 4

[AlanC9]

Good point. I was only thinking about ME3 in my own experience, since an import game skips over the low levels.

Also, the squadmate trees are more complex in ME3 than they were in ME2.

Thinking about the more general point, I'm not sure EA's wrong. Over on the DA board one of the forum regulars was talking about getting ninjamanced by Anders. Turns out he had never understood the meaning of the DA tone icons. No wonder they don't bother printing manuals anymore.

I think a lot of players really do want to just get in there without thinking too much about stuff. It works in Bio's recent games since at Normal they're pretty easy.

[Pasquale1234]

ME1 was fairly brain-dead since racing to unlock stuff is the obvious move early, and in the endgame each class ends up with everything.

ME1 has non-combat skills (Charm/Intimidate) and also Decryption and Electronics skills needed to hack stuff that are associated with combat skills (Sabotage and Overload respectively). If you want to use any persuasion skills or be able to hack stuff, you need to manage skill point investment (and squadmate selection) accordingly.

[AlanC9]

ME1 has non-combat skills (Charm/Intimidate) and also Decryption and Electronics skills needed to hack stuff that are associated with combat skills (Sabotage and Overload respectively). If you want to use any persuasion skills or be able to hack stuff, you need to manage skill point investment (and squadmate selection) accordingly.

Persuasion, sure. ME1 was way better than the other games. ME2's system was awful, and ME3's, while less annoying, lets an import Shepard pass any check unless he blows off half the game

But the ME1 hacking and decryption skills are tied to useful combat abilities. You're going to get some level of them anyway, and in the endgame all. The main difference is that party makeup now becomes important for some Shepards.

[Element Zero]

ME1 has non-combat skills (Charm/Intimidate) and also Decryption and Electronics skills needed to hack stuff that are associated with combat skills (Sabotage and Overload respectively). If you want to use any persuasion skills or be able to hack stuff, you need to manage skill point investment (and squadmate selection) accordingly.

I was happy to see these specific examples gone with ME2.

I don't like investing character resources in order to be able to successfully navigate conversations. Let my dialogue choices as the player decide what happens, not how many "skill points" I've invested into "Charm" or "Intimidate". Ugh.

I felt the same about Electronics and Decryption. Shepard is an N7 operator. There is no way he/she has advanced this far without becoming somewhat proficient without these type of skills. I thought ME2 reflected this common sense logic well in that any Shepard could hack a locked door, safe, etc... These should be rudimentary tasks for an N7 operator.

A good example of a higher difficulty task is rerouting power in the Omega reactor. Shepard has become pretty darn proficient with technology, regardless of his or her specialization, and can get this job done. What seemed to be stressful for my Adept or Soldier Shepard is rudimentary for an Engineer Shepard. That was a cool nod that we need to see way more of and need to see much more developed.

If the next game requires that I'm playing a PC with a certain background, or that I have a party member with the requisite skills present, in order to accomplish certain tasks, I'm fine with that. It makes a certain amount of sense. I don't want a repeat of ME, though, where the level progression felt somewhat slow to me and I spend much of the game dumping points into silly skills that my character should already possess (Assault Rifle, Pistols, etc...).

EDIT: In reading my post, I think I need to clarify my view. I'm not opposed to investing in these types of skills. I just think ME's starting point of complete incompetence is not good. Let us start out pretty capable, and then decide how much better we think we need to become. That's how good RPGs generally work, in my experience.

[Pasquale1234]

Persuasion, sure. ME1 was way better than the other games. ME2's system was awful, and ME3's, while less annoying, lets an import Shepard pass any check unless he blows off half the game

But the ME1 hacking and decryption skills are tied to useful combat abilities. You're going to get some level of them anyway, and in the endgame all. The main difference is that party makeup now becomes important for some Shepards.

My point is that it can impact skill point investment early on. Players have to choose between Charm, Intimidate, and combat skills in their skill growth strategies.

Most of the hackables encountered early on are at the easy level which can be accessed with minimal decryption / electronics skills - that of course changes over time, and players need to decide whether hacking stuff is a priority over other skill point investments they might make. And manage squadmate selection and growth accordingly.

None of it much matters by late to endgame, but it can make a difference early to midgame.

[AlanC9]

If you cannot see the point I'm trying to make here, then to be perfectly honest (no offense), I really just won't be able to make you see it.
 
Edit: Ok, so the blur that is 3e and all it's accompanying bells and whistles, yes on the surface that is more options, but it they are most inelegant and kind of globbed together in ways that just kind of make it more different ways of doing the same basic things (casting spells, defending yourselves, attacking, etc)

Hmm... so you like simpler games better? That's really all I'm taking away from this.

[goishen]

Intricate skill trees are exactly what I would like to see.

Planning characters is as fun as playing them.

 

 

I'll agree with this up to a point.  And that point is...    If you've played the game before and know WTF you're doing.  If not, it is absolutely not fun putting points into something that we're not going to use.  (which we could very well do)

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'll agree with this up to a point. And that point is... If you've played the game before and know WTF you're doing. If not, it is absolutely not fun putting points into something that we're not going to use. (which we could very well do)

We shouldn't have to have played the game before. The systems should be sufficiently robust that we can use skills creatively to overcome obstacles, and those skills should be sufficiently well documented that we know how they interact.

The standard for documentation should be tabletop games. Because when people play D&D, or Dominion, or Settlers of Catan, the rules are all made known to them.

[Former_Fiend]

And I'm just sitting over here, enjoying my weekly Pathfinder game.

[Catastrophy]

F*ck yeah! It's been asked before and I say it again: I love shooting rocket propelled grenades.

[goishen]

We shouldn't have to have played the game before. The systems should be sufficiently robust that we can use skills creatively to overcome obstacles, and those skills should be sufficiently well documented that we know how they interact.

The standard for documentation should be tabletop games. Because when people play D&D, or Dominion, or Settlers of Catan, the rules are all made known to them.

 

 

Right, however...  

 

Say you wanted to make a Charisma focused warrior in D&D.  You can, and will, probably make a warrior who's all so worried about his/her face that he/she isn't all that interested in fighting.  He/she's interested in undoings the injustices of the world. 

 

Okay, well, how are you gonna put that in a two sentence tooltip along with every other character stat?  It's one thing to say "This is useful for warriors."  It's number two to say, "But this stat is also useful to warriors. Just not as important. But it's still super important!"  

 

It's usefulness vs. experience that I'm talking about here. 

[Akrabra]

How does one measure RPG elements? Can you take out elements, and add? Just curious, and ofc it should have NONE!

[Sartoz]

 Snip

EDIT: In reading my post, I think I need to clarify my view. I'm not opposed to investing in these types of skills. I just think ME's starting point of complete incompetence is not good. Let us start out pretty capable, and then decide how much better we think we need to become. That's how good RPGs generally work, in my experience.

                                                                                                <<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>

 

Interesting

Bio rep mentioned that the Pathfinder is on a Hero's journey in ME:A.  This suggests that our hero starts at the bottom of the ladder in skills and abilities which are learned and honed on the way to the end of the journey. If so, then our character will be defined, at minimum,  by our choices. A character that I can say I own.

[Nohvarr]

How does one measure RPG elements? Can you take out elements, and add? Just curious, and ofc it should have NONE!

How to implement RPG elements into an action RPG is more art than science. Some players prefer that stat management, point allocation (etc) be deep, complex and highly variable. To me it depends on the type of game you are playing. With the Mass Effect series, since player skill and dialogue decisions are suppose to play a significant role in the overall game play experience I personally feel that ME3's was a lot better than the other two. I felt the way weapon weight impacted ability cool downs made sense, I enjoyed the way the ability tree worked, how weapon customization was handled and overall thought the experience fit the game they were going for. Mass Effect 1 felt like the devs had a checklist of RPG 'Expectations' they slotted in whether or not they really helped the overall gameplay feel. Worse the weapons weren't distinct enough from one another. ME2 solved the weapons problem nicely and overall became more fun to play (to me) than it's predecessor but it was still missing a few things.

 

As for dialogue, I personally, in an action RPG, don't really like dumping points into persuasion or intimidate. In fact my preferred RPG dialogue system is what we got in Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Sure a Cassie mod made things easier, but even so you still had to actually read the people to figure out the best approach to get what you wanted. To me that is more rewarding than winning because I have points in the skill. Oddly enough TOR also get's this kind of right, when it comes to companions. It's not simply a matter of being lightside or darkside with them, there is an elements of determining who they are and what they like. For example, the Imperial Agent has a companion who seems like a warm and friendly old uncle. Turns out he's a ruthless bastard and genuinely likes it when you see right through his (admittedly well done) Bulls**t. As it shows you are not easily tricked. In fact one of his last conversations (if you earn enough influence) can have him say

 

Companion: "I must admit I didn't think to highly of you when we first met"

 

Agent: "As I recall, you were full of compliments."

 

Companion: "Yes...I am sorry about that."

 

Now, looking at other Action RPG's things are handled differently but in ways that make sense for the experience. The Witcher 3 has a lot of options, but limited space. So you can either have a group of skills you switch in and out for different encounters, or choose a core set of talents to improve that play to your strengths. Fallout 4 kind of throws up it's hands and says If you can get the level you can have it (which has lead to me not even bothering to play the main mission but do everything else in an attempt to become 'The Shortening of the Way') which makes sense as the game is one gigantic playground (A fun one to be fair). Wasteland 2 gives you an entire party to build and thus you can divide up the skills between them as you like, set people up to do specific jobs. The trade off being that your crew, are pretty bland when it comes to character interaction.

 

So yeah, balancing act. I don't, yet, know exactly what Bioware is going for with ME:A and that is an exciting thought.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Right, however...

Say you wanted to make a Charisma focused warrior in D&D. You can, and will, probably make a warrior who's all so worried about his/her face that he/she isn't all that interested in fighting. He/she's interested in undoings the injustices of the world.

Okay, well, how are you gonna put that in a two sentence tooltip along with every other character stat? It's one thing to say "This is useful for warriors." It's number two to say, "But this stat is also useful to warriors. Just not as important. But it's still super important!"

It's usefulness vs. experience that I'm talking about here.

Tooltips are a lousy place to put that information. There should be a manual.

And you don't need to say "this is useful for warriors". Just describe what the stat does and leave it to the player to decide if that would be useful. Stop holding the player's hand.

[AlanC9]

I think we have to accept that the time for big manuals has passed. And tooltips work OK, don't they? (In theory, anyway. In practice DAI 's character screen is awfully sluggish for me. But since my rig is way below min spec, I'm not going to rant about it.)

DAI had a couple of big problems, like not being able to see the specialization trees until the midgame. ME3 was OK, I thought.

I'm not sure it's conceptually possible to portray the relative usefulness of dialogue skills and combat abilities in documentation, whatever format we use. Doesn't that depend on the specifics of the campaign?

[Ahglock]

As long as tool tips are accurate and are updated and can be accessed at any time they work fine for me. I'd prefer a manual as well but I'm fine with tool tips.

[Seraphim24]

Manual or not the stats and stuff have to make sense, no more insane conversion ratios or whatever, the stats in RPGs were there to make you feel good and cool about yourself, not to give you a headache.

 

If they don't do that, it's not doing it right.

 

Most games opt to take them out entirely these days and leave nothing in their place, not even action mechanics, it's almost devolved to accounting or something.