263 réponses à ce sujet

[DaemionMoadrin]

Problem is my protagonist will still be unable to intervene during a cut-scene, which will inevitably not make any sense if he/she disposes of 'x', 'y' and 'z' biotic powers.

 

And I'm not exactly blaiming BioWare entirely on that. How can they create a cinematic approach to their story telling and keep a good, plausible approach to the actual class you're playing as, at the same time? There's limits, however. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the likes of being a first class biotic ass-kicker and simply staying there idling while looking at something really bad happening (yeah, such as that Thane fight scene in ME3, had my Shepard been biotic, imagine how fast she'd have biotic-thrown that ******* away in a matter of a sec- oh wait... she was a bioctic).

 

I can't for the life of me find a good middle ground, other than having BioWare just straight up creating class-specific cut scenes to tell the same story for everyone. And something like that would definitely take... oh I don't know... eternity to make? But anyway, being "OP" as a biotic as far as story telling (on-screen) goes it would be either stupid to watch (or would at the very least turn the game in a new Dragon Ball Z saga) or would give us a real headache as we witness our biotic God simply screaming "Nooooo!" whenever a squadmate gets impaled 5 meters away from us in a cut scene. And then of course such a cut-scene would end with you finally taking control of your character, with the attacker in front of you in order for you to completely destroy it, only to then run at the corpse of your squadmate for the scene to finally continue with your Ryder crying something cheesy like "No no no no! Why did it have to be youuuuuuu!" * sniff * * tears fall on the corpse * "If only I could have done something!!!". Yeah... yeah no, I don't want to see that happen (please, BioWare).

 

And, for actual game-play, being over-powered as a biotic would just make the game too easy (obviously), but more importantly too stupid. I don't want to play The Force: Andromeda.

 

BioWare can't even display the correct weapon in cutscenes, hoping for the correct powers is futile. ^^

 

Btw... that cutscene with Thane? Lizardman deserved to die for a. not shooting Kai Leng in the back of the head when he had the chance and b. for running -at- a sword wielding assassin instead of shooting from where he stood. ME2's Thane would have killed Kai Leng on his way to important targets, not made mistakes a beginner would be ashamed of in an attempt to show off. Was that put in for people who never played the previous games? They didn't connect to him at all anyway.

 

Easy solution: Make Ryder a biotic by default. Then create roles based on that. Biotic adept, biotic soldier, biotic infiltrator (Phantom), biotic vanguard (Slayer) etc. And suddendly your protagonist doesn't stand there helplessly if they are disarmed.

[capn233]

It doesn't say anything about exhaustion, not even from over-use.

 

Nutrition is not something that goes away quickly... if you make sure you are sated before you go on a mission, it would take 4-5 hours until you get hungry again. Less if you bring some protein bars and eat them during breaks.

 

I don't know about you but I often work while hungry. It doesn't affect my performance much and I don't break down from exhaustion either.

 

Ascension talks about it.

 

But there were limits to their talents.  It took time to generate a mass effect field, as well as intense mental concentration and focus.  Fatigue set in quickly.  After one or two impressive displays a biotic was drained, leaving them as vulnerable as anyone else.

[DaemionMoadrin]

Ascension talks about it.

 

What's that?

[Cyonan]

I've written extensively on this topic, arguing that RPGs are not games, partly by virtue of them having no winning conditions.

You can't win a roleplaying game; you can merely play it.
I don't even know what those are, so disinterested am I in the shooter aspect of Mass Effect.

 

I would also argue that a game does not necessarily need a winning condition to be a game, but you want a RPG system that is 100% random which isn't a game because it can't be played. It's just roleplaying while rolling a slot machine every once in a while and changing things based on the outcome of it.

 

However I have never seen a RPG that actually fits what you seem to think a RPG should be, because skill will always come into it at some point.

 

I mentioned fully automatic weapons because they simply just don't work with your playstyle. If BioWare was designing for your playstyle of Mass Effect, they wouldn't put in guns that are nigh impossible to use with it.

[Jehuty]

No thanks, I would like the other classes to actually have a reason to exist. And I say this as someone who plays Sentinel.

ME2 Sentinel is OP. ME3 Vanguard is the definition of overpowered. If it cannot instant kill you, charge it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I would also argue that a game does not necessarily need a winning condition to be a game, but you want a RPG system that is 100% random which isn't a game because it can't be played. It's just roleplaying while rolling a slot machine every once in a while and changing things based on the outcome of it.

It's just roleplaying. Yes. Yes it is.

I want to set my character loose in the world and watch to see what happens. I don't even really get to make decisions during gameplay; my character does. I'm merely the mechanism by which those decisions are implemented.

However I have never seen a RPG that actually fits what you seem to think a RPG should be, because skill will always come into it at some point.

Unless players wilfully metagame, how could it?

I mentioned fully automatic weapons because they simply just don't work with your playstyle. If BioWare was designing for your playstyle of Mass Effect, they wouldn't put in guns that are nigh impossible to use with it.

The mistake you're making is assuming that the game is designed to be played only one way.

Sure, if they wanted everyone to play like me, automatic weapons wouldn't make a lot of sense. Actually wait, no, even that's too strong. Automatic weapons could be added to the game for use by squadmates, and be equippable the PC just to avoid them looking gamey.

But what if the devs are allowing for multiple playstyles (as they should)? Then the automatic weapons are there for you, and the pausing is there for me.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Problem is my protagonist will still be unable to intervene during a cut-scene, which will inevitably not make any sense if he/she disposes of 'x', 'y' and 'z' biotic powers.

And I'm not exactly blaiming BioWare entirely on that. How can they create a cinematic approach to their story telling and keep a good, plausible approach to the actual class you're playing as, at the same time?

If that's not possible, perhaps they shouldn't be trying to do both things.

I would happily discard the cinematics to get more credible gameplay (and less gameplay/lore segregation).

[goishen]

ME2 Sentinel is OP. ME3 Vanguard is the definition of overpowered. If it cannot instant kill you, charge it.

 

And in some cases where it can instakill you, charge it.  Such as when it has its back turned.

[Cyonan]

It's just roleplaying. Yes. Yes it is.

I want to set my character loose in the world and watch to see what happens. I don't even really get to make decisions during gameplay; my character does. I'm merely the mechanism by which those decisions are implemented.
Unless players wilfully metagame, how could it?
The mistake you're making is assuming that the game is designed to be played only one way.

Sure, if they wanted everyone to play like me, automatic weapons wouldn't make a lot of sense. Actually wait, no, even that's too strong. Automatic weapons could be added to the game for use by squadmates, and be equippable the PC just to avoid them looking gamey.

But what if the devs are allowing for multiple playstyles (as they should)? Then the automatic weapons are there for you, and the pausing is there for me.

 

The skill is in being able to build a good character and combat tactics. Even being able to come up with creative solutions to non combat stuff can be considered a player skill. You can want to play a character that has good tactical thinking as much as you want, if you aren't personally good at it then the character will suck at it too because you're controlling them.

 

The game is largely designed to be played in real time. The fact that you can pause to aim is something they've just left in there, but the game is very clearly not designed with that in mind.

 

In either case my original point was that enemies being able to 1 hit kill the PC by sheer blind luck is bad design in a game, and Mass Effect is a game =P

[Ahglock]

And in some cases where it can instakill you, charge it. Such as when it has its back turned.

Even that isn't always enough. I've had them do some weird arm bending back attacks with sync kills. I'm guessing a lag effect.

Still depending on difficulty level chosen you frequently have pretty good odds to pull it off without getting sync killer even if it's right in their face.

[Ahglock]

Ascension talks about it.

So a single out of game source vs every cut scene, gameplay, codex entry. While the novels by Drew I'm sure it had quite a few other lore hinky parts too it. And besides is the speaker knowledgeable on the subject, exaggerating for effect, generalizing about standard human biotics as opposed to special forces N level biotics etc.

Now I do think that was the initial concept which was supposed to be reflected by the long cool downs in ME1. But ME2 dropped that to 3 second style cool downs, though the intro/codex? included a scene talking about your fancy new level 5 amp previously level 3 which could be the lore reason for it. And unlike heat syncs that's an actual technological improvement.

[capn233]

So a single out of game source vs every cut scene, gameplay, codex entry. While the novels by Drew I'm sure it had quite a few other lore hinky parts too it. And besides is the speaker knowledgeable on the subject, exaggerating for effect, generalizing about standard human biotics as opposed to special forces N level biotics etc.

Now I do think that was the initial concept which was supposed to be reflected by the long cool downs in ME1. But ME2 dropped that to 3 second style cool downs, though the intro/codex? included a scene talking about your fancy new level 5 amp previously level 3 which could be the lore reason for it. And unlike heat syncs that's an actual technological improvement.

 
Yes, a canon source by the lead author.  With a quote.  That's all you need to know.
 
The individual cooldowns dropped since you couldn't alpha-strike them all at once any longer.  This is purely gameplay driven, and the change was for the better.  There is no lore explanation.  Your L5x bit in Lazarus says this:
 

Adepts are outfitted with L5x implants that can spawn a micro-singularity, damaging enemies and pulling them into the air.

Regardless, none of this is a license to "make biotics OP." That would be a poor choice.

[Ahglock]

Yes, a canon source by the lead author. With a quote. That's all you need to know.

The individual cooldowns dropped since you couldn't alpha-strike them all at once any longer. This is purely gameplay driven, and the change was for the better. There is no lore explanation. Your L5x bit in Lazarus says this:


Regardless, none of this is a license to "make biotics OP." That would be a poor choice.

No a single source by an author in a book isn't all that I need. It proves nothing for a variety of reasons especially when other lead authors demonstrate facts counter to that source in multiple areas. When reading a book you should understand that everything written is coming from potentially unreliable sources. And I'm not talking about the author, though a author on a collaborative effort is potentially even more unreliable. But if I create a character Bob, who is biased about a subject who goes on and on about the earth being flat that doesn't necessarily mean the earth is flat in that world. It could just mean Bob is an idiot or trolling everyone.

So any data source presented by Drew is not necessarily giving you correct information not even the protagonist or narrator. It might be decades old military knowledge that is no longer true but due to biases still spread as true.

And the amp still can be a in game excuse. They just never explain it like they don't explain a lot of thing. Each 5 amp has a different line in what it allows the user to do singularity or charge but it may have other features not listed maybe those happened on the 4 amp so it's not relevant to mention at the 5 amp level.

We don't know what the lore is behind that game play change. Even if it was purely done for game play behind the scenes there would logically be a lore excuse.

[capn233]

No a single source by an author in a book isn't all that I need.

This is interesting from a psychological standpoint, but not entirely relevant to the discussion of what does and does not appear in lore.

 

It proves nothing for a variety of reasons especially when other lead authors demonstrate facts counter to that source in multiple areas.

Wrong. This is a direct quote from lore supporting the claim that biotics should become fatigued after using a few powers. Don't know how more clear it gets.

There are no "multiple areas" of lore that contradict this fact. There isn't really even a single source in lore that directly contradicts this.
 

When reading a book you should understand that everything written is coming from potentially unreliable sources. And I'm not talking about the author, though a author on a collaborative effort is potentially even more unreliable.

Incorrect. The books are canon (except perhaps the last one). Saying Karpyshyn was an unreliable source is rubbish.
 

But if I create a character Bob, who is biased about a subject who goes on and on about the earth being flat that doesn't necessarily mean the earth is flat in that world. It could just mean Bob is an idiot or trolling everyone.

This analogy has no relevance to this discussion. The quote is not attributable to a random character in a fan fiction. It is the voice of the author, who happened to be the lead writer.
 

So any data source presented by Drew is not necessarily giving you correct information not even the protagonist or narrator. It might be decades old military knowledge that is no longer true but due to biases still spread as true.

That would be an interesting retcon, but does not appear in lore.
 

And the amp still can be a in game excuse. They just never explain it like they don't explain a lot of thing. Each 5 amp has a different line in what it allows the user to do singularity or charge but it may have other features not listed maybe those happened on the 4 amp so it's not relevant to mention at the 5 amp level.

Right, so this claim is not directly supported in lore and as such would be "headcanon."
 

We don't know what the lore is behind that game play change. Even if it was purely done for game play behind the scenes there would logically be a lore excuse.

 

If there is not a citable lore reason for the gameplay change, it is more likely that the gameplay isn't completely consistent with lore, not that there is secret unknown lore that justifies it.

 

This does not preclude the ME team from rectconning this in the future.

 

Many of the people in this thread, myself included, are in favor of improvements to gameplay over time that may not be consistent with lore.  However, that does not mean that I am going to make unsupported claims about lore to justify it.

[Norhik Krios]

It's not that Biotics should be OP, overpowered would mean that everything compared to a biotic would be underpowered. That's not right. BUT.
The gameplay should and WILL be more intensive, better looking, more over the top, because the technology has advanced.
Like you said, in Cutscenes Biotics were insanely powerful but in the gameplay they could have been quite underwelming at times. So in the end, I think, that every class will feel much more satisfying! Just wait!

[Sylvius the Mad]

The skill is in being able to build a good character and combat tactics. Even being able to come up with creative solutions to non combat stuff can be considered a player skill. You can want to play a character that has good tactical thinking as much as you want, if you aren't personally good at it then the character will suck at it too because you're controlling them.

The game is largely designed to be played in real time. The fact that you can pause to aim is something they've just left in there, but the game is very clearly not designed with that in mind.

In either case my original point was that enemies being able to 1 hit kill the PC by sheer blind luck is bad design in a game, and Mass Effect is a game =P

And I'm saying that if it's bad design to let the enemies one-shot the PC, then it's bad design to let the PC one-shot the enemies.

[Ahglock]

And I'm saying that if it's bad design to let the enemies one-shot the PC, then it's bad design to let the PC one-shot the enemies.

I think ME1 did this well. While snipers and rockets could one shot you at many stages of play you were given a warning or a projectile you could avoid.

[RoboticWater]

And I'm saying that if it's bad design to let the enemies one-shot the PC, then it's bad design to let the PC one-shot the enemies.

But one is fun, and the other isn't. Clearly, they both can't be bad design.

 

I think ME1 did this well. While snipers and rockets could one shot you at many stages of play you were given a warning or a projectile you could avoid.

It's fair when the player gets a warning because they have time to react. Simply getting shot out of the blue, however, is not so great. Of course, even telegraphed insta-kills aren't very well regarded either, but the debate there isn't so black and white.

[Ahglock]

It's fair when the player gets a warning because they have time to react. Simply getting shot out of the blue, however, is not so great. Of course, even telegraphed insta-kills aren't very well regarded either, but the debate there isn't so black and white.

I agree. Even tabletop games this is true. I run pen and paper RPGs all the time. While in my Shadowrun games a player sneaking up and sniping the enemies is fun. A sniper NPC who the players can't spot who out of the blue drops the player while alone isn't fun. While yeah as a DM I can do it, I just don't. Like I don't have them walk into their apartment and have that trigger a pile of explosives killing the party.

It would work in ME if it allowed your squad to medi gel the protagonist like in DA Then getting one shot is not a game over. Just like a sniper in Shadowrun generally won't create a PC death if the rest of the team is there and can provide first aid.

I generally am for a what the players can do the enemies can concept. I'm fine with lift/throw being in enemy hands for example. One your shields need to be down and two you can dodge or take cover in most cases. Mass effect 1 lift/singularity could and likely would suck to face. But if the player can do something about it, like dodge I'm fine

Though just like in table top games the DM/game engine as a potentially unlimited supply of enemies vs a limited supply of pcs. So exact parity of abilities and tactics is not wise. Not arcing the projectiles for enemy abilities so the pcs could use cover would be a way to limit things for example while still giving the enemies the powers. Yeah it's within the powers capabilities they just aren't trained enough to pull it off like the PC is.

[Sylvius the Mad]

But one is fun, and the other isn't. Clearly, they both can't be bad design.

Since we don't all agree on what counts as fun, appealing to fun is pointless.

I'm not saying instakills are bad design. I'm saying that asymmetry is bad design.

[spinachdiaper]

HELL NO! I'm so sick of the typical Mage/Rouge/Warrior MMO RPG class balancing where 2 out of 3 classes can instantaneously nuke everything to hell while the Warrior is reduced to aggro drawing pinata.

[RoboticWater]

I agree. Even tabletop games this is true. I run pen and paper RPGs all the time. While in my Shadowrun games a player sneaking up and sniping the enemies is fun. A sniper NPC who the players can't spot who out of the blue drops the player while alone isn't fun. While yeah as a DM I can do it, I just don't. Like I don't have them walk into their apartment and have that trigger a pile of explosives killing the party.

It would work in ME if it allowed your squad to medi gel the protagonist like in DA Then getting one shot is not a game over. Just like a sniper in Shadowrun generally won't create a PC death if the rest of the team is there and can provide first aid.

I generally am for a what the players can do the enemies can concept. I'm fine with lift/throw being in enemy hands for example. One your shields need to be down and two you can dodge or take cover in most cases. Mass effect 1 lift/singularity could and likely would suck to face. But if the player can do something about it, like dodge I'm fine

Though just like in table top games the DM/game engine as a potentially unlimited supply of enemies vs a limited supply of pcs. So exact parity of abilities and tactics is not wise. Not arcing the projectiles for enemy abilities so the pcs could use cover would be a way to limit things for example while still giving the enemies the powers. Yeah it's within the powers capabilities they just aren't trained enough to pull it off like the PC is.

Parity with disruptive powers like lift, singularity, and throw are difficult. Obviously is beneficial to promote parity where possible, especially with power usage, because in theory, that increases enemy variety without requiring more work. However, given the current state of AI and player preferences, the theory doesn't translate so well into action games.

 

Being stunned for more than a second (maybe even a half second) is not at all fun in an action game. Telegraphing the attacks is a good start, but in a potentially hectic battle arena with both the player and enemies behind vision-obscuring cover, the player could easily miss the enemy's wind up animation. This being the case, I think allowing the player to compensate for the negative effects of these attacks would be useful as well. For instance, fighting games sometimes have a "recover" button that the player can press to immediately get back into the fight after taking a stunning/sundering blow. A simpler "mash button to get out of lock" could work for singularity and stasis as well.

 

Since we don't all agree on what counts as fun, appealing to fun is pointless.

I'm not saying instakills are bad design. I'm saying that asymmetry is bad design.

And I'm saying that asymmetry is necessary design that is not inherently bad.

 

Actually, fun, much like morals, can be defined operationally within the context of a specific group. In this case, most people who play shooters find insta-kill headshots to be fun and insta-death to be not so fun in single player games. I would guess the same holds true to a lesser extent within the RPG community, but I haven't interacted with this community as deeply (at least in terms of TTK).

[Sylvius the Mad]

Parity with disruptive powers like lift, singularity, and throw are difficult. Obviously is beneficial to promote parity where possible, especially with power usage, because in theory, that increases enemy variety without requiring more work. However, given the current state of AI and player preferences, the theory doesn't translate so well into action games.

Being stunned for more than a second (maybe even a half second) is not at all fun in an action game. Telegraphing the attacks is a good start, but in a potentially hectic battle arena with both the player and enemies behind vision-obscuring cover, the player could easily miss the enemy's wind up animation. This being the case, I think allowing the player to compensate for the negative effects of these attacks would be useful as well. For instance, fighting games sometimes have a "recover" button that the player can press to immediately get back into the fight after taking a stunning/sundering blow. A simpler "mash button to get out of lock" could work for singularity and stasis as well.

And I'm saying that asymmetry is necessary design that is not inherently bad.

Actually, fun, much like morals, can be defined operationally within the context of a specific group. In this case, most people who play shooters find insta-kill headshots to be fun and insta-death to be not so fun in single player games. I would guess the same holds true to a lesser extent within the RPG community, but I haven't interacted with this community as deeply (at least in terms of TTK).

Since shooter gameplay has been, so far in the ME franchise, 100% optional, I don't see why we would use that as our standard.

I love having crowd control options. But the setting breaks if I'm the only one with crowd control options. And if the setting breaks, roleplaying becomes nearly impossible, as our characters can no longer have a coherent world view.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Personally, I would like ME combat better if it played out automatically without my input at all. Let the AI run both sides, thus eliminating the problem of having the play be too skilled.

[von uber]

Regarding cutscenes, bioware forgets it's own characters are biotics - especially every single asari.
Take, for example, the asari counsellor who gets threatened by udina. At the very least he should have ended up thrown off the balcony after pushing her, if he had even managed that.