285 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Do we have a working definition of "RPG elements" for this thread?

[Iakus]

Again, provide us with this version of ME1 which had good RPG elements and then we can talk about a loss with respect to ME2. "At least it had RPG elements" isn't a defense. There are a million terrible games which have RPG elements. They're not saved by their terrible inventory systems either. 

 

Except I'm not talking about "good" or "bad"  I'm talking about "presence" or "absence"  This is marketed as an RPG/TPS hybrid.  If it was a pure TPS, sure cr*ppy RPG elements aren't going to add anything toit.  But as I said, coming in from an RPG perspective and finding extremely limited or worse no RPG elements to speak of will (rightly) p*ss people off.

 

 

 

From your perspective, that's reasonable. From Bioware's? As I pointed out, ME1 has far more in common with Gears of War than it ever did with Baldur's Gate and as a foundation lacks any sort of in depth RPG mechanics of any kind. It's only slightly deeper than Jade Empire, which is about as RPG-lite as it gets.

It's not incorrect to point out a hybrid should succeed at both. But succeeding at one still results in a net win over failing at both.

I actually compared ME1 to the original Deus Ex games (one of the few RPG/shooter hybrids at the time)

 

I contest that succeeding at one is a "win".  You win by succeeding at both, not leaving one in the dust in favor of the other. 

[FKA_Servo]

Do we have a working definition of "RPG elements" for this thread?

 

As ever, I think it mostly boils down to "things that I like." For my part, I think that a changeable storyline and varied classes and playstyles are the most important things in this case, but then I have also thought from day one of ME1 that the game *should* be more of a shooter mechanically (and I can't help but think that Bioware shares that view).

 

I do contend that leaving the inventory system in the dust is preferable to any implementation, even a decent one, for ME. I have a really hard time believing that anyone who played all three games could feel otherwise.

[Iakus]

 

I do contend that leaving the inventory system in the dust is preferable to any implementation, even a decent one, for ME. I have a really hard time believing that anyone who played all three games could feel otherwise.

Given one of the few nice things I have to say about ME3 is the happy medium they struck with inventory and mods...

[FKA_Servo]

Given one of the few nice things I have to say about ME3 is the happy medium they struck with inventory and mods...

 

Unless I'm misremembering (which is possible, seeing as I haven't even fired up the game since mid 2013), there's still no inventory in ME3, just loadout. And the mods just got better and more in-depth, but they're also chosen as loadout or on the Normandy. So... I guess I agree?

[Iakus]

Unless I'm misremembering (which is possible, seeing as I haven't even fired up the game since mid 2013), there's still no inventory in ME3, just loadout. And the mods just got better and more in-depth, but they're also chosen as loadout or on the Normandy. So... I guess I agree?

 

There is no inventory as in a backpack full of stuff to carry around, but there are numerous different types of weapons of each category to choose from.  As opposed to the 2-3 each in ME2.

 

Said weapons are also moddable for numerous stats, something you flat out couldn't do in ME2.

 

There were also a lot more pieces of modular armor available for purchase or find (only flaw there is companions couldn't get in on that action)

[FKA_Servo]

Fair enough. All of those things are awesome.

 

I guess what I'm strictly referring to is an inventory as in "uh oh, my bags are full, now I have to go back to town and empty them." Which some people miss, for some reason. I'm OK never going that route in a ME game ever again.

[Iakus]

Fair enough. All of those things are awesome.

 

I guess what I'm strictly referring to is an inventory as in "uh oh, my bags are full, now I have to go back to town and empty them." Which some people miss, for some reason. I'm OK never going that route in a ME game ever again.

The main problem with ME1's inventory was you didn't get a choice on whether to pick stuff up or not.

 

I'd still be fine with that if I could go "no thanks, I'm using better" and let that be the end of it.

 

But like I said, ME3 actually struck a pretty good medium.  Not perfect, but satisfactory.

[Il Divo]

Except I'm not talking about "good" or "bad"  I'm talking about "presence" or "absence"  This is marketed as an RPG/TPS hybrid.  If it was a pure TPS, sure cr*ppy RPG elements aren't going to add anything toit.  But as I said, coming in from an RPG perspective and finding extremely limited or worse no RPG elements to speak of will (rightly) p*ss people off.

 

 

But creating bad mechanics will equally annoy people. Case in point: ME1. Presence or absence are irrelevant without the qualifiers of good or bad. It's possible to (for example) be an RPG fan who dislikes bad RPG mechanics. Tossing in an inventory system with no design considerations does not fix that. 

 

 

I actually compared ME1 to the original Deus Ex games (one of the few RPG/shooter hybrids at the time)

 

I contest that succeeding at one is a "win".  You win by succeeding at both, not leaving one in the dust in favor of the other. 

 

 

 

That's a bit misleading. And it reiterates my point that you're comparing this to an idealized version of ME2. Yes, doing both well is the best case scenario (as per Deus Ex). But failing at both means that you are not keeping your RPG or your tps fans happy. Whatever we'd like to call it, succeeding at least in one element puts you closer to that end of the "win" spectrum than ME1 does. 

[Il Divo]

Do we have a working definition of "RPG elements" for this thread?

 

I figured in this that by RPG mechanics we were referring to the gameplay mechanics, just for convenience. I just figured it was a convenient term in this case.

 

But you're right, we could get into other topics like "choices and consequences, etc, etc". 

[Iakus]

 

But creating bad mechanics will equally annoy people. Case in point: ME1. Presence or absence are irrelevant without the qualifiers of good or bad. It's possible to (for example) be an RPG fan who dislikes bad RPG mechanics. Tossing in an inventory system with no design considerations does not fix that. 

 

Sure poor RPG mechanics aren't exactly desirable.  So improving on them is to be expected in sequels.  But to see them removed entirely in said sequel?  That did p*ss people off.  It can be the greatest TPS ever, but if you bought the game expecting there to be RPG in this RPG/TPS hybrid and not finding anything, you are justified in feeling ripped off.

 

 

That's something of a strawman. And it reiterates my point that you're comparing this to an idealized version of ME2. Yes, doing both well is the best case scenario (as per Deus Ex). But failing at both means that you are not keeping your RPG or your tps fans happy. Whatever we'd like to call it, succeeding at least in one element puts you closer to that end of the spectrum than ME1 does.

Believe me, my idealized version of ME2 would require more tweaking than simple mechanics 

 

But for the purposes of RPG mechanics and players, succeeding at being a good TPS is no better, and arguably worse, than being a mediocre, or even poor RPG.  Because again, that's not what everyone bought the game for.

 

When Bioware says 'We want Call of Duty's Crowd" is there an unspoken  "along with" or "instead of" at the end? 

[Iakus]

I figured in this that by RPG mechanics we were referring to the gameplay mechanics, just for convenience. I just figured it was a convenient term in this case.

 

But you're right, we could get into other topics like "choices and consequences, etc, etc". 

I am not getting into the specifics of what constitutes RPG mechanics.  The quibbling that comes fro that never ends well.

[Il Divo]

^That's what I figured. It just seemed easier to assume we were talking about typical game mechanics/systems by "RPG systems" before that gets hijacked. 

[Il Divo]

 

 

Sure poor RPG mechanics aren't exactly desirable.  So improving on them is to be expected in sequels.  But to see them removed entirely in said sequel?  That did p*ss people off.  It can be the greatest TPS ever, but if you bought the game expecting there to be RPG in this RPG/TPS hybrid and not finding anything, you are justified in feeling ripped off.

 

 

 

 

If you buy a game expecting good RPG/TPS mechanics and find that they don't exist, you'll end up feeling the exact same way, which also pissed people off (these forums are very indicative of that). This is exactly what I mean about comparing to some non-existent version of ME2. Yes, we can imagine the version of ME2 that was as good as Deus Ex - it would have been awesome. And we could do the exact same with ME1, which was substantially worse as an overall game.  

 

ME2's butchering at the end of the day involved arguably the worst inventory system in mainstream RPG history and removed point slots of 1% pistol damage. That's not a great framework to argue about ME2 removing any worthwhile RPG mechanics. Overall, Mass Effect scratches the RPG mechanics itch about as much as Jade Empire does. 

 

 

But for the purposes of RPG mechanics and players, succeeding at being a good TPS is no better, and arguably worse, than being a mediocre, or even poor RPG.  Because again, that's not what everyone bought the game for.

 

When Bioware says 'We want Call of Duty's Crowd" is there an unspoken  "along with" or "instead of" at the end? 

 

 

And anyone who bought the game for that would not have been happy with ME1. I've said this a couple times, the game ranks far closer to Gears of War than it ever did to Baldur's Gate, especially from a mechanics stand point. 

 

End of the day: Bioware could have focused on the TPS, or the RPG, or made a good hybrid with ME2. Yes, I would have loved it if Bioware had pulled it off across the spectrum. At the end of the day, they didn't. We can talk quite a bit about how much better ME2 could have been, but from a mechanics stand point, it's more likely to make the tps group happy than ME1 was to make either the tps or rpg groups happy. Subjecting ME2 to the Deus Ex comparisons doesn't make much sense, given that ME1 bombs the test even worse. 

[tesla21]

Fair enough. All of those things are awesome.

 

I guess what I'm strictly referring to is an inventory as in "uh oh, my bags are full, now I have to go back to town and empty them." Which some people miss, for some reason. I'm OK never going that route in a ME game ever again.

I agree.

 

I guess I am really dumb but it was only like +60 hours in that I realized I had been playing trash collector simulator aka FO4,  when I looked back at it, like 70% of my time in that game was spent either picking up trash, EVERY single little bit of "useful" trash in each map, managing my inventory weight so that I carry over the most valuable trash or in loading screens fast traveling to go deposit the loads of trash I just picked up. 

 

I for one was very pleased with my magical vaccum stash in PoE, inventory management has abit of nostalgic value but honestly, that's where it should stay. It takes no skill nor has any interesting complexity, it's just a chore to deal with and should stay in survival games (like in New Vegas on hardcore, where it actually adds some depth). Otherwise I'd rather fight the enemies and not the game mechanics, more so in a story driven game that has no real benefit from an old-school inventory.

 

I have never been much of a fan of FPS/TPS games compared to rpgs but I honestly was never really bothered by the rather limited leveling and customization of ME, for this franchise I look for fluditity, enjoyability (meaning mostly not tedious rather than being amazing or anything), some degree of difficulty and hopefully little inmersion breaking elements gameplay wise.

 

What I truly look for is a great story, interesting characters, branching dialogue, sense of consequences, etc. I see it more of a tellatale's with actual gameplay rather than a true rpg. When I think of ME:A I don't think "man I can't wait for the new skill trees" rather "I wonder what the companions will be, I wonder how will they treat the ME1-3 events". I would moderately pissed if they completely removed the rpg from the tps part of the game, yet still gameplay is definetly not what drives me into Mass Effect.

[Luke Pearce]

Make ****-ups that blow up in their face. It means they won't make the same ****-ups again.

 

...probably just lead to a whole new variety of ****-ups

[Halfdan The Menace]

Hope they no longer make that crappy space magic triple-color ending.

[Bruno Hslaw]

I decided a long time ago to wait for the next ME game to launch without me stupidly pre ordering it. After the last ending I genuinely felt annoyed at EA/Bioware. It was the first Mass Effect I played through once and only once. I really could not bring myself to commit the time and effort simply to get a terrible ending regardless of my actions/choices.

 

That gave me a rather poor expectation for future games. ME needs resolving properly in future games IMO. I simply lost faith in the developers. ME3 felt like they jammed in a quick ending to meet a deadline as far I could see. 3 games banging on about my actions dictating the ending, then I get no choice!

 

I genuinely want this to be a good game but all trust is missing at this point. They need to make the game and I will see what reviews and the public make of it, before committing my cash/time.

[Biotic Apostate]

I agree.

 

I guess I am really dumb but it was only like +60 hours in that I realized I had been playing trash collector simulator aka FO4,  when I looked back at it, like 70% of my time in that game was spent either picking up trash, EVERY single little bit of "useful" trash in each map, managing my inventory weight so that I carry over the most valuable trash or in loading screens fast traveling to go deposit the loads of trash I just picked up. 

 

I for one was very pleased with my magical vaccum stash in PoE, inventory management has abit of nostalgic value but honestly, that's where it should stay. It takes no skill nor has any interesting complexity, it's just a chore to deal with and should stay in survival games (like in New Vegas on hardcore, where it actually adds some depth). Otherwise I'd rather fight the enemies and not the game mechanics, more so in a story driven game that has no real benefit from an old-school inventory.

 

I have never been much of a fan of FPS/TPS games compared to rpgs but I honestly was never really bothered by the rather limited leveling and customization of ME, for this franchise I look for fluditity, enjoyability (meaning mostly not tedious rather than being amazing or anything), some degree of difficulty and hopefully little inmersion breaking elements gameplay wise.

 

What I truly look for is a great story, interesting characters, branching dialogue, sense of consequences, etc. I see it more of a tellatale's with actual gameplay rather than a true rpg. When I think of ME:A I don't think "man I can't wait for the new skill trees" rather "I wonder what the companions will be, I wonder how will they treat the ME1-3 events". I would moderately pissed if they completely removed the rpg from the tps part of the game, yet still gameplay is definetly not what drives me into Mass Effect.

I think it's safe to say many people look for story first, mechanics later in BW games. Sure it will be fun to explore new biotic abilities (especially in the new engine), but I'm more excited for the story.

 

And dear lord, Fallout 4. The game is fighting me so often. After 30h of teleporting between piles of garbage and the workshops I had enough and installed an unlimited carry mod, because it felt like such a waste of time. What the game did remind me (like skyrim did) is that I prefer a much more confined worlds, but with a more fluid story, than a big world, where gameplay mechanics were implemented before the story. Very limited games, when it comes to mechanics, but with a great narrative, like Telltale ones, are far more likely to hold my interest, than something that perfectly implements RPG mechanics, but gives little thought to story.

[Drakoriz]

Well, i will said DA I.

 

That is really what give me alot of hope for ME: A and ofcurse ME 1-3 too.

 

ME and DA probably are 2 of my favorite games worlds since the time of Neverwinter and Baldur Gates.

 

Not even Witcher 3 great world have the magic i find on ME and DA lore. Not even TES or Fallout (another 2 excellent games i enyoid too)

 

For me Bioware not only craft amazing characters, but the world over all and the background lore is what keep me going and coming back and replay this games.

 

LoL i been replaying DA I, and i spend ALOT of time just reading books and lore, and i love that, something i do to on ME.

 

And after watching what Frostbite can do on DA I, MAN I CANT WAIT to see every different planet on ME:A

[Iakus]

 

 

If you buy a game expecting good RPG/TPS mechanics and find that they don't exist, you'll end up feeling the exact same way, which also pissed people off (these forums are very indicative of that). This is exactly what I mean about comparing to some non-existent version of ME2. Yes, we can imagine the version of ME2 that was as good as Deus Ex - it would have been awesome. And we could do the exact same with ME1, which was substantially worse as an overall game.  

 

ME2's butchering at the end of the day involved arguably the worst inventory system in mainstream RPG history and removed point slots of 1% pistol damage. That's not a great framework to argue about ME2 removing any worthwhile RPG mechanics. Overall, Mass Effect scratches the RPG mechanics itch about as much as Jade Empire does. 

 

The inventory system in ME1 was pretty bad.  But it wasn't exactly a standard RPG loot system anyway.  Like I said, you had no option to NOT pick something up.

 

And what was it replaced with?  No inventory at all.  My Infiltrator has exactly three sniper rifles to choose from at the end of the game.  One that was total cr*p and one that was that was stupidly overpowered.  And zero ability to mod any of them.  Just a linear upgrade system and a very anemic set of skills (which was really no better than ME1's skills.  The improvements are just more dramatic).

 

This is what I mean by "improving" a car's mileage by removing the gas tank.  You don't improve an RPG by taking away RPG mechanics.  You improve it by improving them.

 

I don't care if it has the best shooter mechanics in the world.  If it isn't the shooter mechanics that drew me, I'm going to feel cheated if they promised "RPG hybrid" and don't even try to deliver on that promise.

 

 

 

And anyone who bought the game for that would not have been happy with ME1. I've said this a couple times, the game ranks far closer to Gears of War than it ever did to Baldur's Gate, especially from a mechanics stand point.

End of the day: Bioware could have focused on the TPS, or the RPG, or made a good hybrid with ME2. Yes, I would have loved it if Bioware had pulled it off across the spectrum. At the end of the day, they didn't. We can talk quite a bit about how much better ME2 could have been, but from a mechanics stand point, it's more likely to make the tps group happy than ME1 was to make either the tps or rpg groups happy. Subjecting ME2 to the Deus Ex comparisons doesn't make much sense, given that ME1 bombs the test even worse.

 

No, it's not that Bioware could have focused on a good hybrid, they should have focused on a good hybrid.  Because that's what they were marketing.  Saying they shouldn't bother because ME1's mechanics were lacking is like that Homerism "You tired your best, and you failed.  The lesson here is: Never try"

 

Making a comparison to Deus Ex is entirely valid because they largely succeeded, showing such a hybrid is a possibility.  

[Il Divo]

And what was it replaced with?  No inventory at all.  My Infiltrator has exactly three sniper rifles to choose from at the end of the game.  One that was total cr*p and one that was that was stupidly overpowered.  And zero ability to mod any of them.  Just a linear upgrade system and a very anemic set of skills (which was really no better than ME1's skills.  The improvements are just more dramatic).

 

This is what I mean by "improving" a car's mileage by removing the gas tank.  You don't improve an RPG by taking away RPG mechanics.  You improve it by improving them.

 

 

Exactly. And the overall product was improved for it. In ME1, my Infiltrator may as well have had 3 sniper rifles for all the differences they each had. You pointed out a linear upgrade system, that is pretty much exactly what ME1 employed, anyone with a basic recognition of inequalities can discern what the best items in ME1 are, in the vast, vast majority of cases. This is because of how bloated the inventory system was. All those resources may as well have gone into something else for all the good they did adding an RPG inventory.  

 

I don't care if it has the best shooter mechanics in the world.  If it isn't the shooter mechanics that drew me, I'm going to feel cheated if they promised "RPG hybrid" and don't even try to deliver on that promise.

 

 

And this is going around in circles at this point. It's a razor thin margin between "Bioware ignored RPG mechanics" and "Bioware delivered terrible RPG mechanics". This is also why I pointed out that Mass Effect 1 was far closer to Gears of War than Baldur's Gate. The amount that Mass Effect 2 "axed" the RPG elements is mild compared to the amount the TPS mechanics improved. It's fine to say that you don't care about the shooter mechanics. But  I'd also say ME1's gameplay  wasn't designed with that fan base in mind, especially compared to the tps fan base. I think it's the same with Jade Empire - I would not recommend it to any fans who were interested in in-depth RPG mechanics. 

 

I should point out too that, given ME1 failed to deliver any moderately deep RPG mechanics, there should be immediate skepticism about ME2's RPG mechanics as its immediate sequel. To be clear, did Bioware say anything specific prior to ME2's release that made you think it would have improved inventory/leveling? Or is this speculation? 

 

o, it's not that Bioware could have focused on a good hybrid, they should have focused on a good hybrid.  Because that's what they were marketing.  Saying they shouldn't bother because ME1's mechanics were lacking is like that Homerism "You tired your best, and you failed.  The lesson here is: Never try"

 

Making a comparison to Deus Ex is entirely valid because they largely succeeded, showing such a hybrid is a possibility.  

 

 

No, that's a strawman position. The lesson isn't "never try". There's a reason I point out that Bioware had a number of viable options to fix ME1's terrible gameplay (I also mentioned focusing more on the RPG mechanics for example).

 

The point isn't to create some singular perfect approach to game design - hence why saying the lesson is "never try" doesn't cut it. The point is that Bioware's approach was perfectly valid with respect to improving the overall game design. Talking about Deus Ex is fine as some "gold standard" of what hybrid's can be, but that doesn't get us away from the idea that ME1 wasn't a great sell, for anyone who wanted a good RPG, a good tps, or a good hybrid. 

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

Mac Walters is the lead writer for ME:A.  If you've got hope for this game, then I say to you... Good luck.  I'll be over here watching the mayhem.

[Iakus]

Exactly. And the overall product was improved for it. In ME1, my Infiltrator may as well have had 3 sniper rifles for all the differences they each had. You pointed out a linear upgrade system, that is pretty much exactly what ME1 employed, anyone with a basic recognition of inequalities can discern what the best items in ME1 are, in the vast, vast majority of cases. This is because of how bloated the inventory system was. All those resources may as well have gone into something else for all the good they did adding an RPG inventory.  

 

ME3 employed different weapons with different, albiet linear statistics.  Which could be further customized via mods.  You can certainly argue there were too many of them, you didn't want to collect them, some were over/underpowered, etc. But that doesn't make what ME2 did any better.  Just less cluttered. And given that ME3 did in fact increase the number of available weapons and brought back weapon mods indicates that the backlash to ME2's chainsaw surgery was actually listened to

 

Yeah, I'm shocked too 

 

 

 

 

And this is going around in circles at this point. It's a razor thin margin between "Bioware ignored RPG mechanics" and "Bioware delivered terrible RPG mechanics". This is also why I pointed out that Mass Effect 1 was far closer to Gears of War than Baldur's Gate. The amount that Mass Effect 2 "axed" the RPG elements is mild compared to the amount the TPS mechanics improved. It's fine to say that you don't care about the shooter mechanics. But  I'd also say ME1's gameplay  wasn't designed with that fan base in mind, especially compared to the tps fan base. I think it's the same with Jade Empire - I would not recommend it to any fans who were interested in in-depth RPG mechanics.

I should point out too that, given ME1 failed to deliver any moderately deep RPG mechanics, there should be immediate skepticism about ME2's RPG mechanics as its immediate sequel. To be clear, did Bioware say anything specific prior to ME2's release that made you think it would have improved inventory/leveling? Or is this speculation?

It's not razor thin at all

 

Bad RPG mechanics =ther were rpg mechanics

Ignored rpg mechanics=THere weren't any to begin with.

 

Improving TPS elements may make a game a better shooter.  But removing RPG elements does not make for a better RPG.  IF you like shooters, well, that's fine I guess.  You'll enjoy the game more.  ANd if that's what Bioware wants to do, that's okay too.  THey should just come clean about it and stop claiming Mass Effect is a hybrid.

 

As for ME2's marketing claims, I admit we're quite a few years removed from that time.  But I do recall them gushing about the new heavy weapons of the game as well as talking about the new smg.  THus implying more options, not less.

 

 

 

No, that's a strawman position. The lesson isn't "never try". There's a reason I point out that Bioware had a number of viable options to fix ME1's terrible gameplay (I also mentioned focusing more on the RPG mechanics for example).
The point isn't to create some singular perfect approach to game design - hence why saying the lesson is "never try" doesn't cut it. The point is that Bioware's approach was perfectly valid with respect to improving the overall game design. Talking about Deus Ex is fine as some "gold standard" of what hybrid's can be, but that doesn't get us away from the idea that ME1 wasn't a great sell, for anyone who wanted a good RPG, a good tps, or a good hybrid.

THe point isn't to create a "perfect approach" no.  But what Bioware did was to create a better shooter.  Not a better RPG.  Or even an RPG hybrid.  And I do not believe that is a good approach when RPG hybrid is precisely what you are marketing.

 

ME1 had flaws.  I'm not denying that.  But what Bioware did was remove the mechanics entirely rather than try to improve them.  THe fact that even as sorry a game as ME3 could actually put some of them back in and even improve upon them (though sadly gutting others at the same time) shows that they didn't need to be cut out to begin with.

 

Imagine how much better ME2 might have been with ME3's loadout and modding system.

 

Edit;  Maker who would have thought I'd be posting something about how ME3 did something better than ME1 or ME2?  THe end times must be upon us!

[Cribbian]

They got rid of this guy...