289 réponses à ce sujet

[Cyonan]

Why do you think it's the same substance?  What evidence do you have for that?

 

It behaves wildly differently.  You're just assuming it's the same substance because it has the same name.

 

Because when you use non combat medi-gel it still consumes your combat medi-gel but doesn't do all the magical things that your combat medi-gel does.

 

I fail to see how that would ever be fun.

 

I often argue that the game's mechanics should be designed first, and then everything else (including lore) be built to accommodate that.  Most games don't.  Most CRPGs don't.  But if CBS games did that, they would have the solid mechanics you want (because those were built first, unconstrained by any other concerns) with the consistent lore I want.

 

You fail to see how it's fun because cover based shooters clearly aren't your thing and aren't likely to ever be fun to you. If I'm being honest, attempting to convince you of that would be about as big of a waste of time as anybody trying to convince me that KotoR's combat is any good.

 

You already said that in order to have a coherent universe you should be allowed to play a skilled marksman without being one yourself. CBS combat directly conflicts with this because it's a skill based system that expects the player to aim for themselves.

 

It doesn't break the balance of the game at all.  It does allow the player to break the balance of the game, but that should always be the player's call.  That's also why I'm a big fan of modding or using the developer console.  The game can be whatever each player wants it to be.  If the player wants to play the game the devs made as the devs intended, they're free to do that.  But they're not forced.

 

Forcing them benefits no one.  Nowhere have I asked for anything to be forced on anyone.  I have asked only for options.

 

It breaks the design of a weapon that is meant to be high reward but requires high skill.

 

There's already a feature Mass Effect has to allow the player to choose how much or how little of a challenge they want out of combat: Difficulty.

 

When I play on Insanity that means I want a game that tests my skills. Not just my aiming skills but my ability to equip a character well and to strategize in combat as well. When you present me with a superior option that trivilizes combat I now have to make a choice: Intentionally gjmp myself, or use the thing that breaks combat.

 

I don't consider either to be fun. This is also why I didn't like the Knight-Enchanter in Inquisition despite being excited for the return of the melee mage: Spirit Blade was a completely broken ability that lets you auto win most fights by just spamming it. The entire playstyle I was so excited to play again in a Dragon Age game was rendered boring to me because of how overpowered it was. Skyrim did the same thing with stealth.

 

Since modding is not going to happen in ME:A then it's not really relevant to any discussion as much as we both might think it's a good thing to have.

 

Except those close-up weapons produce faster-paced gameplay, which is exactly the think pause-to-aim avoids.

 

There are long ranged weapons which don't require a great deal of skill in comparison to weapons like the Javelin. They may not be as powerful as the Javelin, but that's the trade off. You ought to be rewarding players for using skill in a skill based combat system.

 

How does that work?  What are the mechanics of persuasion under those circumstances?

 

It works the way I already explained it.

 

I disagree with you about the definition of RPG, but I've gotten a general idea as to what you're talking about. I can make a mental note when you use the term to understand what you mean, despite the fact that I use the term in a different way.

 

Unless you want me to start getting into the basics of how Humans communicate, I can't exactly explain it more than that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Because when you use non combat medi-gel it still consumes your combat medi-gel but doesn't do all the magical things that your combat medi-gel does.

Then we call that the gameplay contrivance, rather than the same substance having wildly dissimilar abilities.

Simply having two items draw from the same pool is how ME2 handles thermal clips.

My point here isn't that my interpretation is better than yours. My point here is that my interpretation (or any one of several other possible interpretations) is exactly as good as yours, on the grounds that all of them require we make some assumptions to deal with the incongruity in the game.

There's no need for you to make the assumptions you're making. I hope you're making those assumptiojs because you prefer them, but the great thing about ambiguity in games is that it allpws each of us to resolve that ambiguity as we see fit.

There's no right answer, which means there's no wrong answer.

You fail to see how it's fun because cover based shooters clearly aren't your thing and aren't likely to ever be fun to you.

Or indeed any game that tests my physical skills.

If I'm being honest, attempting to convince you of that would be about as big of a waste of time as anybody trying to convince me that KotoR's combat is any good.

KotOR's combat is pretty bad. Rivals DA2 for BioWare's worst RTwP combat.

You already said that in order to have a coherent universe you should be allowed to play a skilled marksman without being one yourself.

I don't think I strictly said that, but I'm not going to go back and check right now.

That said, the ME clearly requires Shepard to be a skilled marksman, because she's an elite solder. Having an unskilled player render Shepard ineffective results in thw whole world believing Shepard is something she isn't, despite a growing mountain of evidence to the contrary.

CBS combat directly conflicts with this because it's a skill based system that expects the player to aim for themselves.

Which is why I think the pause-to-aim option is good.

There's already a feature Mass Effect has to allow the player to choose how much or how little of a challenge they want out of combat: Difficulty.

It's not about difficulty. It's about whether the act of playing the game is fun.

Moreover, my understanding is that ME3 wasn't particularly difficult on any difficulty setting. I certainly found normal to be of trivial difficulty, and I almost never needed to aim while paused (because I almost never fired my weapon after the first 5 hours of the game).

When I play on Insanity that means I want a game that tests my skills. Not just my aiming skills but my ability to equip a character well and to strategize in combat as well. When you present me with a superior option that trivilizes combat I now have to make a choice: Intentionally gjmp myself, or use the thing that breaks combat.

Mods do the same thing. You don't oppose modding, so your opposition to this is incongruous.

Are you gimping yourself by not using the killallhostiles command in the dev console?

I don't consider either to be fun. This is also why I didn't like the Knight-Enchanter in Inquisition despite being excited for the return of the melee mage: Spirit Blade was a completely broken ability that lets you auto win most fights by just spamming it. The entire playstyle I was so excited to play again in a Dragon Age game was rendered boring to me because of how overpowered it was. Skyrim did the same thing with stealth.

They did patch Spirit Blade later to make it less powerful.

Also, stealth was my favourite part of Skyrim. I combined it with mods to let me have 5 followers at once, so I'd snipe enemies from stealth and leave my followers (and summoned atronachs) to clean up the mess.

I like breaking the game. I suppose that's the challenge I want. I want mental puzzle I can solve and then enjoy the fruits of my labours through trivial combat encouters. Stealth + Paralysis Explosion does much the same in DAO.

It works the way I already explained it.

I disagree with you about the definition of RPG, but I've gotten a general idea as to what you're talking about. I can make a mental note when you use the term to understand what you mean, despite the fact that I use the term in a different way.

Unless you want me to start getting into the basics of how Humans communicate, I can't exactly explain it more than that.

Given that I don't think communication is even a thing, that might be necessary. But I doubt you want to do that.

[Statichands]

MW2, those were days. I'd prefer it was more like the cover system from Uncharted 2

[Cyonan]

There's no need for you to make the assumptions you're making. I hope you're making those assumptiojs because you prefer them, but the great thing about ambiguity in games is that it allpws each of us to resolve that ambiguity as we see fit.

 

There's no assumptions here, I'm using the evidence presented to me in game while you're doing mental gymnastics to try to make a point that makes no sense in the first place.

 

Should we assume absolutely nothing is lore breaking because they didn't specifically tell us it can't happen, and even if they did then we shouldn't believe it because it's not reliable? Because that is exactly how you're coming off right now.

 

That said, the ME clearly requires Shepard to be a skilled marksman, because she's an elite solder. Having an unskilled player render Shepard ineffective results in thw whole world believing Shepard is something she isn't, despite a growing mountain of evidence to the contrary

 

CBS combat directly conflicts with this because it's a skill based system that expects the player to aim for themselves.

 

The first paragraph of yours is why the second is true. In a system where the player is expected to aim for themselves, it's immediately inconsistent with a protagonist. Characters like Shep? Bad shots make them look unbelievable in real time combat. Characters like Lara Croft in the reboot who is supposed to have never killed anybody or even used a gun? I make them look unbelievable by headshotting people like she's been doing it all her life in the special forces.

 

However a skill based real time combat system expects you to aim for yourself, so there is no in-game explanation for it. It's a case of "Deal with it".

 

It's not about difficulty. It's about whether the act of playing the game is fun.

Moreover, my understanding is that ME3 wasn't particularly difficult on any difficulty setting. I certainly found normal to be of trivial difficulty, and I almost never needed to aim while paused (because I almost never fired my weapon after the first 5 hours of the game).
Mods do the same thing. You don't oppose modding, so your opposition to this is incongruous.

Are you gimping yourself by not using the killallhostiles command in the dev console?

 

I like breaking the game. I suppose that's the challenge I want. I want mental puzzle I can solve and then enjoy the fruits of my labours through trivial combat encouters. Stealth + Paralysis Explosion does much the same in DAO.

 

and when I feel like I need to gimp myself or have no challenge then the act of playing the game isn't as fun. Dev debug commands don't count because it's not within the rules of the game. Pause to aim however, is.

 

That Mass Effect 3's singleplayer was way too easy is actually one of my bigger complaints about the game.

 

Mods are irrelevant because they wont support it. EA/DICE have already said that they're not going to make modding tools for the engine.

 

When it comes to Mass Effect, I like picking the game's mechanics apart and being challenged on both my knowledge of building/equipping a character and actual skill with in actually playing the combat. When using my knowledge negates the need for use of skill, I can no longer get that. I now must choose between challenging my knowledge or my skill, but not both.

 

I will also note my underlying point in all this is that if we want to argue that Mass Effect is or isn't something and needs to rigidly be confined to some very specific definition we have of that label, all you're really doing is restricting the game and making it worse off for doing it. The truth of it is that in what I would call a "pure approach to cover based shooting" I honestly don't think pause to aim would have a place in it, and you're not likely to convince me otherwise. That doesn't mean I don't think it should be in the game, because why would I think a game should confine itself to a single label when it never has tried to do that?

 

There's no worth in "earning" a label. They're an arbitrary thing we slap on afterwards so we can give other people a general idea as to what the thing is about. If a call a movie a comedy, then most people know it's supposed to be funny. Horror films are supposed to scare you. FPS games involve shooting in the first person.

 

The genres are by nature very broad terms so as to encompass a lot of games or films(or whatever else). They are not actually detailed descriptors of what a game is.

[capn233]

It breaks the design of a weapon that is meant to be high reward but requires high skill.
 
There's already a feature Mass Effect has to allow the player to choose how much or how little of a challenge they want out of combat: Difficulty.
 
When I play on Insanity that means I want a game that tests my skills. Not just my aiming skills but my ability to equip a character well and to strategize in combat as well. When you present me with a superior option that trivilizes combat I now have to make a choice: Intentionally gjmp myself, or use the thing that breaks combat.

That Mass Effect 3's singleplayer was way too easy is actually one of my bigger complaints about the game.
 
...

When it comes to Mass Effect, I like picking the game's mechanics apart and being challenged on both my knowledge of building/equipping a character and actual skill with in actually playing the combat. When using my knowledge negates the need for use of skill, I can no longer get that. I now must choose between challenging my knowledge or my skill, but not both.

I agree that ME3 in SP isn't as hard as I would like.  Even at release when the weapons were crappier and there weren't any fancy DLC toys.

 

However, I don't think they pause function is that big of a deal, and I wouldn't mind if it is included in the series in the future.  It's generally less time efficient to pause the game repeatedly than to play it in real time, and when the easier path takes longer than the more challenging path through the game it doesn't bother me that much.

 

If you want to talk about breaking the difficulty, the real problems with ME3 have to do with the ability to essentially sidestep aiming if you have the right character, and spam a single power throughout the game.  Adept with Throw is a prime example.  Add in Liara and whoever as a second squadmate and the game is basically over.  Combo everything, profit.  The only enemies that might require a little weapon fire are power block ones (you only fight around 14 Phantoms in the whole campaign with DLC though, and Banshees are also rare) and the clone / mirror enemies from Citadel.  Mirror match isn't even a side quest though.

[Sylvius the Mad]

There's no assumptions here, I'm using the evidence presented to me in game while you're doing mental gymnastics to try to make a point that makes no sense in the first place.

The evidence, on its own, leads us to no conclusion. It's not conclusive evidence.

And that's a good thing. That ambiguity gives us power over the game.

Should we assume absolutely nothing is lore breaking because they didn't specifically tell us it can't happen, and even if they did then we shouldn't believe it because it's not reliable?

If it makes the game more enjoyable, absolutely.

The first paragraph of yours is why the second is true. In a system where the player is expected to aim for themselves, it's immediately inconsistent with a protagonist. Characters like Shep? Bad shots make them look unbelievable in real time combat. Characters like Lara Croft in the reboot who is supposed to have never killed anybody or even used a gun? I make them look unbelievable by headshotting people like she's been doing it all her life in the special forces.

However a skill based real time combat system expects you to aim for yourself, so there is no in-game explanation for it. It's a case of "Deal with it".

Thus making those games terrible RPGs.

RPGs are rules-based. Shooters are skills-based. It's not possible to play both ways simultaneously, but the ME games do show us that it's possible for a game to support both playstyles.

and when I feel like I need to gimp myself or have no challenge then the act of playing the game isn't as fun. Dev debug commands don't count because it's not within the rules of the game. Pause to aim however, is.

A distinction without a difference.

What if tactical pause had to be enabled in an options menu? Would that work? Or activated by editing an .ini file? If the choice of whether to pause couldn't be made from within the game, but you had to step outside the game to do it, would that help how you feel?

Mods are irrelevant because they wont support it. EA/DICE have already said that they're not going to make modding tools for the engine.

Which is why they need to build these options directly into the game. If they released mod tools, they wouldn't have to worry about catering to different audiences themselves; mods could do it.

But an unmoddable game needs to be customizable right out of the box.

When it comes to Mass Effect, I like picking the game's mechanics apart and being challenged on both my knowledge of building/equipping a character and actual skill with in actually playing the combat. When using my knowledge negates the need for use of skill, I can no longer get that. I now must choose between challenging my knowledge or my skill, but not both.

I will also note my underlying point in all this is that if we want to argue that Mass Effect is or isn't something and needs to rigidly be confined to some very specific definition we have of that label, all you're really doing is restricting the game and making it worse off for doing it. The truth of it is that in what I would call a "pure approach to cover based shooting" I honestly don't think pause to aim would have a place in it, and you're not likely to convince me otherwise. That doesn't mean I don't think it should be in the game, because why would I think a game should confine itself to a single label when it never has tried to do that?

There's no worth in "earning" a label. They're an arbitrary thing we slap on afterwards so we can give other people a general idea as to what the thing is about. If a call a movie a comedy, then most people know it's supposed to be funny. Horror films are supposed to scare you. FPS games involve shooting in the first person.

The genres are by nature very broad terms so as to encompass a lot of games or films(or whatever else). They are not actually detailed descriptors of what a game is.

This is why, when I ask for features, I don't ask for other features to be removed (except cinematics - cinematics are the devil). I don't want to prevent people from playing in a certain way. I just want to expand the range of ways in which the game can be played.

Improving pause-to-aim would make the game a better RPG, without harming the CBS aspect of the game at all.

I suggested removing hard cover not because I dislike hard cover, and not for RPG reasons, but because I find the combat in ME2 and ME3 to be repetitive and dull, and I hoped that losing hard cover would lead to more diverse tactical options, as it would flow through to level and enounter design.

[AlanC9]

Should we assume absolutely nothing is lore breaking because they didn't specifically tell us it can't happen, and even if they did then we shouldn't believe it because it's not reliable? Because that is exactly how you're coming off right now.

I'd phrase it a bit differently. I think the sensible procedure is to pick assumptions which make the lore work, if any are available. (There's a similar principle in legal interpretation.) For example, a lot of people ran around here frothing at the mouth about how Shepard should have burned up when entering Alchera's atmosphere. That's only true if Normandy was moving fast relative to Alchera, but nothing ever established that Normandy was in orbit. Motion relative to Alchera could be anything Bio needed it to be. (The sequence is bad enough without inventing more bad stuff.)
 
Also, I think you just unintentionally made the case for skill-based systems being a lousy fit for any game with a defined protagonist.

[Cyonan]

Thus making those games terrible RPGs.

RPGs are rules-based. Shooters are skills-based. It's not possible to play both ways simultaneously, but the ME games do show us that it's possible for a game to support both playstyles.

 

We've already established you don't think Mass Effect is a RPG, so it's irrelevant.

 

but then we have no evidence to suggest that Lara Croft isn't naturally talented or Shep is secretly not very good at aiming and has relied on powers up to that point. The game doesn't specifically tell you that's not the case so you know, too much ambiguity for it to be inconsistent =P

 

A distinction without a difference.

What if tactical pause had to be enabled in an options menu? Would that work? Or activated by editing an .ini file? If the choice of whether to pause couldn't be made from within the game, but you had to step outside the game to do it, would that help how you feel?

 

The easiest way to think of is simply: If it works on the console version of Mass Effect then it would be free game. An options menu would be included on the consoles, but they can't access the ini files or the dev console or mod their games. It only gets to count for this one if it every Mass Effect player gets to access it, not just the PC.

 

I will also note that I generally don't consider modding or "it's optional" to be valid arguments to begin with because it's too convenient. Any argument can effectively countered by saying "If you don't like it, mod/don't use it". Since that obviously prevents any actual discussing from taking place about game design, I don't like them as arguments.

 

I also don't disagree that modding should be supported but EA kind of already has confirmed that it's a no go for the Frostbite Engine which all of BioWare's games will now be running on. Saying they should support it is kind of a moot point anyway, because it's not going to happen. 

 

This is why, when I ask for features, I don't ask for other features to be removed (except cinematics - cinematics are the devil). I don't want to prevent people from playing in a certain way. I just want to expand the range of ways in which the game can be played.

Improving pause-to-aim would make the game a better RPG, without harming the CBS aspect of the game at all.

I suggested removing hard cover not because I dislike hard cover, and not for RPG reasons, but because I find the combat in ME2 and ME3 to be repetitive and dull, and I hoped that losing hard cover would lead to more diverse tactical options, as it would flow through to level and enounter design.

 

Suggesting they remove Hard Cover from Mass Effect 3 would add nothing it doesn't already have and remove a playstyle. Even after this was pointed out to you, you insisted it was still problematic because of accidentally entering hard cover when sprinting.

 

As I recall you've also asked for the removal of interrupts, not that I'm a huge fan of the way the Paragon/Renegade system is implemented myself. You've also said that accuracy should go back to being based on character skills and not player skills.

 

Basically the rest of us are only allowed to keep our fun as long as it doesn't interfere with your vision of what RP ought to be.

 

I agree that ME3 in SP isn't as hard as I would like.  Even at release when the weapons were crappier and there weren't any fancy DLC toys.

 

However, I don't think they pause function is that big of a deal, and I wouldn't mind if it is included in the series in the future.  It's generally less time efficient to pause the game repeatedly than to play it in real time, and when the easier path takes longer than the more challenging path through the game it doesn't bother me that much.

 

If you want to talk about breaking the difficulty, the real problems with ME3 have to do with the ability to essentially sidestep aiming if you have the right character, and spam a single power throughout the game.  Adept with Throw is a prime example.  Add in Liara and whoever as a second squadmate and the game is basically over.  Combo everything, profit.  The only enemies that might require a little weapon fire are power block ones (you only fight around 14 Phantoms in the whole campaign with DLC though, and Banshees are also rare) and the clone / mirror enemies from Citadel.  Mirror match isn't even a side quest though.

 

So the truth of it that pause to aim really isn't a big deal and I don't actually think it should be removed.

 

I'm illustrating a point to Sylvius by acting like he is: Insisting that things he views as interfering with his "pure roleplaying approach" need to be removed or changed. The point being that by restricting ourselves to a single genre and everything else only being "allowed" if it doesn't interfere with our vision of what that label is does more harm to a game like Mass Effect than it does good.

 

It's an incredibly selfish, and ultimately bad for the game, way of looking at things. Not that most of the BSN isn't just as bad =P

 

but yeah, Mirror Match I liked a lot more how they handled things. That should definitely be the standard going forward for ME:A.

[Cyonan]

I'd phrase it a bit differently. I think the sensible procedure is to pick assumptions which make the lore work, if any are available. (There's a similar principle in legal interpretation.) For example, a lot of people ran around here frothing at the mouth about how Shepard should have burned up when entering Alchera's atmosphere. That's only true if Normandy was moving fast relative to Alchera, but nothing ever established that Normandy was in orbit. Motion relative to Alchera could be anything Bio needed it to be. (The sequence is bad enough without inventing more bad stuff.)
 
Also, I think you just unintentionally made the case for skill-based systems being a lousy fit for any game with a defined protagonist.

 

My way of working it is to simply assume combat mechanics are what they are for the sake of gameplay when they don't line up, since that also explains away things like getting up after a sniper bullet goes clean through your skull, or even the very specifically designed Banshee shoving a claw through your heart =P

 

I think I did unintentionally make that argument. At least for games where there are generic skills like "Rifles".

 

Now that I think about, it can even cause issues with a non defined character if you want to play somebody like Shep who is supposed to be a veteran Soldier but the campaign starts at level 1. The last time I played a character like that I had to explain their skills away by basically saying "They haven't fought in a long time and are rusty".

[capn233]

So the truth of it that pause to aim really isn't a big deal and I don't actually think it should be removed.

 

I'm illustrating a point to Sylvius by acting like he is: Insisting that things he views as interfering with his "pure roleplaying approach" need to be removed or changed. The point being that by restricting ourselves to a single genre and everything else only being "allowed" if it doesn't interfere with our vision of what that label is does more harm to a game like Mass Effect than it does good.

 

Sidestepping the issue of whether it is possible to actually change Sylvius's mind on this issue in any length thread, I largely agree.

 

And to the related point, I agree that it isn't necessarily a bad thing when gameplay bends the lore in order to improve the experience since the whole point of a game is entertainment.  Outright contradictions should be avoided either through tweaking whatever mechanic they dreamed up, or changing the codex entry.

 

I suppose this wasn't really the difficulty thread, but cover is somewhat related to it and so I wanted to beat the drum a bit more for harder Insanity.

[Sylvius the Mad]

We've already established you don't think Mass Effect is a RPG, so it's irrelevant.

Not of you're looking for a roleplaying game.

We need to be able to describe what games aren't so that fans of those things can avoid those games.

but then we have no evidence to suggest that Lara Croft isn't naturally talented or Shep is secretly not very good at aiming and has relied on powers up to that point. The game doesn't specifically tell you that's not the case so you know, too much ambiguity for it to be inconsistent =P

Well done.

See how most problems can be solved by exploiting ambiguity?

Now we just run into a replayability problem, as we can't have a character that is meaningfully different in terms of capabilities from playthrough to playthrough.

But then, maybe CBS games aren't replayable. Maybe that's typical of the genre. I wouldn't know.

I only play games in which I can roleplay, which is a suprisingly wide set of games, but the best games for it these days tend to be turn-based strategy games rather than anything calling itself an RPG.

The easiest way to think of is simply: If it works on the console version of Mass Effect then it would be free game. An options menu would be included on the consoles, but they can't access the ini files or the dev console or mod their games. It only gets to count for this one if it every Mass Effect player gets to access it, not just the PC.

Then let's go with the options menu (though I dispute that console players can't mod their games). Would an options menu option (perhaps one like the control scheme in DAI where you needed to exit to the main menu to switch it) eliminate that gimping problem (which I still don't get - each player is responsible for his own experience)?

I will also note that I generally don't consider modding or "it's optional" to be valid arguments to begin with because it's too convenient. Any argument can effectively countered by saying "If you don't like it, mod/don't use it". Since that obviously prevents any actual discussing from taking place about game design, I don't like them as arguments.

I think options are good. Taking them away doesn't benefit anyone. Being irritated that an option exists is dumb. If the presence of the option creates some other actual problem, complain about that, but don't ask for options to be taken away.

I also don't disagree that modding should be supported but EA kind of already has confirmed that it's a no go for the Frostbite Engine which all of BioWare's games will now be running on. Saying they should support it is kind of a moot point anyway, because it's not going to happen.

That doesn't make asking for it pointless. If we can drum up enough popular support for mod tools (and distaste for their absence), DICE's position will carry more and more bad PR.

That's good for us.

Suggesting they remove Hard Cover from Mass Effect 3 would add nothing it doesn't already have and remove a playstyle. Even after this was pointed out to you, you insisted it was still problematic because of accidentally entering hard cover when sprinting.

I still think it leads to poor level design and encounter design, but that's really the thing I should be asking them to fix. Whether there's hard cover is immaterial.

As I recall you've also asked for the removal of interrupts, not that I'm a huge fan of the way the Paragon/Renegade system is implemented myself. You've also said that accuracy should go back to being based on character skills and not player skills.

Basically the rest of us are only allowed to keep our fun as long as it doesn't interfere with your vision of what RP ought to be.

I request the features I prefer. My preferences are not subject to democratic approval.

So the truth of it that pause to aim really isn't a big deal and I don't actually think it should be removed.

I'm illustrating a point to Sylvius by acting like he is: Insisting that things he views as interfering with his "pure roleplaying approach" need to be removed or changed.

I typically insist only that they be made optional, the way real-time aiming has already been made optional in all 3 ME games.

The point being that by restricting ourselves to a single genre and everything else only being "allowed" if it doesn't interfere with our vision of what that label is does more harm to a game like Mass Effect than it does good.

It's an incredibly selfish, and ultimately bad for the game, way of looking at things.

All behaviour is selfish. Selfishness is a necessary consequence of free will.

Do you not see how subjective your use of the word "bad" is in that sentence?

[Khaz]

I really just want to avoid "spacebar does everything" WHY MUST use/cover/sprint be bound the the same key!?! (ME3)

[Cyonan]

Not of you're looking for a roleplaying game.

We need to be able to describe what games aren't so that fans of those things can avoid those games.

 

Which, as we've already established and I keep pointing out: You don't think Mass Effect is a RPG.

 

So either you lied about that, or you're lying about needing to define RPG so people can avoid non RPGs because right now you're trying to convince others that Mass Effect should be your idea of a RPG. By your own admission you're trying to "increase the PR cost".

 

Well done.

See how most problems can be solved by exploiting ambiguity?

Now we just run into a replayability problem, as we can't have a character that is meaningfully different in terms of capabilities from playthrough to playthrough.

But then, maybe CBS games aren't replayable. Maybe that's typical of the genre. I wouldn't know.

I only play games in which I can roleplay, which is a suprisingly wide set of games, but the best games for it these days tend to be turn-based strategy games rather than anything calling itself an RPG.

 

Oh no, there's no problem. I can pull a lot of BS excuses out of nowhere so long as I'm allowed to introduce anything into the universe that the developers didn't go out of their way to note 100% doesn't exist. Nothing is lore breaking, everything is permitted.

 

Half of it wont make any damn sense but hey, developers didn't say it couldn't happen so we have to allow it.

 

CBS are considered replayable due to good combat mechanics. It's why I can fire up Half-Life after all these years and enjoy it more than most modern games.

 

Then let's go with the options menu (though I dispute that console players can't mod their games). Would an options menu option (perhaps one like the control scheme in DAI where you needed to exit to the main menu to switch it) eliminate that gimping problem (which I still don't get - each player is responsible for his own experience)?

I think options are good. Taking them away doesn't benefit anyone. Being irritated that an option exists is dumb. If the presence of the option creates some other actual problem, complain about that, but don't ask for options to be taken away.

 

It would have to be in the dev console or ini files to not count anymore.

 

Options are good, but the argument of "If you don't like it, it's optional so don't use it" doesn't really accomplish anything except trying to prevent any actual discussion from taking place. At the end of the day that argument can be applied to a lot of features so the real thing you should be trying to convince me of if you're using this argument isn't that it's optional and I can ignore it, but rather why is this optional feature better to spend time developing over any other optional feature?

 

I still think it leads to poor level design and encounter design, but that's really the thing I should be asking them to fix. Whether there's hard cover is immaterial.

 

To be honest I think the actual combat arenas of Mass Effect 3 were fine, even though the maps themselves could be less linear. My main complaint is about the omni-button that does too many functions at once. You can actually edit the config files to change it in ME3, but it should be included in the game itself.

 

I request the features I prefer. My preferences are not subject to democratic approval.

I typically insist only that they be made optional, the way real-time aiming has already been made optional in all 3 ME games.

All behaviour is selfish. Selfishness is a necessary consequence of free will.

Do you not see how subjective your use of the word "bad" is in that sentence?

 

Everybody is going to naturally lean towards their own preferences, but your claims of "not wanting to take away playstyles" ring hollow when you ask for the removal of hardcover(Yes, even to change combat to something you enjoy more) or say that weapon accuracy should go back to being character stat dependent.

 

It was a completely subjective use. I don't think you could use the word bad in this context without it being subjective, because it's a subjective word. Hell, your use of the term RPG is subjective because I don't agree with it and it has no universal definition like most English terms do. Most of the things we're discussing right now are 100% subjective.

 

I am however trying to speak from my views about game design in general rather than what I personally want like many people here do. You were completely right before: I don't care about pause to aim and personally I wouldn't lose any sleep over it if they removed it. I also don't care about story mode or action mode. This is because I don't use any of those things. They're just wasted development resources to me.

 

but I don't deny that they have value to the game itself for the people who do like those things and think they should stay as a result. I could just as easily claim that I believe they would be better served by spending their time working on more "worthwhile"(aka things that I want) features for the game.

[Xerxes52]

I'm personally fine with the cover system, just don't bind too many commands to the A button (or its PC or PS4 equivalent).

 

One thing to do: move the "Interact" command (open doors, talk to people, revive dead allies, etc.) to the X button (or its PC or PS4 equivalent). Tap X to reload, hold X to interact.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Which, as we've already established and I keep pointing out: You don't think Mass Effect is a RPG.

So either you lied about that, or you're lying about needing to define RPG so people can avoid non RPGs because right now you're trying to convince others that Mass Effect should be your idea of a RPG. By your own admission you're trying to "increase the PR cost".

I can have more than one objective simultaneously.

I want the world to know that Mass Effect isn't an RPG, because that both earns players away from it and takes away one of the marketing tools EA as been using to sell it.

I also want to affect the market conditions such that EA will want to call their games RPGs, and thus will need to make them more RPG-like.

Oh no, there's no problem. I can pull a lot of BS excuses out of nowhere so long as I'm allowed to introduce anything into the universe that the developers didn't go out of their way to note 100% doesn't exist. Nothing is lore breaking, everything is permitted.

Half of it wont make any damn sense but hey, developers didn't say it couldn't happen so we have to allow it.

Exactly. And if doing that improves the gameplay for you, why not do it?

There's no objective truth to discover. You're not going to find more evidence than is there. How you draw conclusions based on the inconclusive evidence available is up to you, and I see no reason not to draw the conclusions I prefer.

In the real world this doesn't work because more evidence does exist to be discovered, but in the game (when seen from outside the game) there isn't, so the ambiguity is never going to resplve itself.

You do this, too, but you seem to do it in an attempt to find the conclusion that's most likely to be true. Except none of them are true, so the concept of likelihood doesn't apply. You're not using your own preferences to direct your reasoning the way thr game empowers you to do.

CBS are considered replayable due to good combat mechanics. It's why I can fire up Half-Life after all these years and enjoy it more than most modern games.

Okay. That makes sense.

I wouldn't want to play a shooter for those reasons, but I accept that others might.

It would have to be in the dev console or ini files to not count anymore.

Options are good, but the argument of "If you don't like it, it's optional so don't use it" doesn't really accomplish anything except trying to prevent any actual discussion from taking place. At the end of the day that argument can be applied to a lot of features so the real thing you should be trying to convince me of if you're using this argument isn't that it's optional and I can ignore it, but rather why is this optional feature better to spend time developing over any other optional feature?

Wait. You play SP on Insanity. How is that not gimping yourself? You're using an optional feature that's built into the game that makes the game harder. How is that different from just not using pause-to-aim?

I completely understand the development resources argument. That's why I oppose the voiced protagonist, cinematics, and multiplayer.

To be honest I think the actual combat arenas of Mass Effect 3 were fine, even though the maps themselves could be less linear.

I didn't like how they forced us to engage at fairly close range, and presented us with waves of enemies that didn't exist before we got there, so there was no way to deal with them except in the method and order that BioWare intended.

I would have preferred more open areas where I could choose the direction from which I approached the enemies, the means I used to defeat them, and the range at which I engaged. Basically the stealth archer playstyle from Skyrim.

My main complaint is about the omni-button that does too many functions at once. You can actually edit the config files to change it in ME3, but it should be included in the game itself.

I didn't know about that. I wish I had.

I'll concede I didn't really expect to like ME3. I only played it so I could see if the complaints about the ending was justified. I don't think they were. The game has many flaws (from my point of view), but the ending isn't one of them.

Everybody is going to naturally lean towards their own preferences, but your claims of "not wanting to take away playstyles" ring hollow when you ask for the removal of hardcover(Yes, even to change combat to something you enjoy more) or say that weapon accuracy should go back to being character stat dependent.

We're not going to have an open discussion of that topic if no one takes that side.

It was a completely subjective use. I don't think you could use the word bad in this context without it being subjective, because it's a subjective word.

I agree. The word serves no purpose in this context.

[iM3GTR]

Everyone, place your bets! How long will Sylvius the Mad and Cyonan be repeating the same points, which are hardly even related to the topic anymore, over and over?

Two days? Two years? Forever?

[RoboticWater]

I can have more than one objective simultaneously.

I want the world to know that Mass Effect isn't an RPG, because that both earns players away from it and takes away one of the marketing tools EA as been using to sell it.

I also want to affect the market conditions such that EA will want to call their games RPGs, and thus will need to make them more RPG-like.

You can have both objectives, but you can't make both arguments. You can't insist that Mass Effect isn't an RPG while forwarding your own design agenda under the assumption that Mass Effect is and intends to be an RPG. Either Mass Effect is an RPG and it requires certain features or it isn't and you're demanding such features without a basis.

 

I also find it ridiculous that you think stripping Mass Effect of the title "RPG" will somehow earn players away from it, as if a statistically significant portion of players are sold by the mere presence of a term (which many believe to be ambiguous anyway). You're not going to change market conditions here on the BSN, especially not in the way you're approaching it. Customers aren't logical beings swayed by definitions.

 

You're not going to reignite the CRPG golden age in 2016 on the BioWare forums. You might actually garner some support on the Obsidian, InExile, or Larian forums, but here you're just being needlessly pedantic.

 

Everyone, place your bets! How long will Sylvius the Mad and Cyonan be repeating the same points, which are hardly even related to the topic anymore, over and over?

Two days? Two years? Ever?

If it's going to come up in every discussion (as it always does), we might as well have it out.

[Sylvius the Mad]

You can have both objectives, but you can't make both arguments. You can't insist that Mass Effect isn't an RPG while forwarding your own design agenda under the assumption that Mass Effect is and intends to be an RPG. Either Mass Effect is an RPG and it requires certain features or it isn't and you're demanding such features without a basis.

I'm not claiming that it is. I'm saying that it claims to be, which means either that it intends to be or they are lying to us.

Neither of those is incompatible with the claim that it isn't an RPG.

I, frankly, don't care what Mass Effect wants to be. I know what I want it to be. I know what sorts of games I want BioWare to make, and games that deviate from that make it less likely that they'll make my games in the future by muddying up the brand identity.

I also find it ridiculous that you think stripping Mass Effect of the title "RPG" will somehow earn players away from it, as if a statistically significant portion of players are sold by the mere presence of a term (which many believe to be ambiguous anyway). You're not going to change market conditions here on the BSN, especially not in the way you're approaching it. Customers aren't logical beings swayed by definitions.

They could dissuaded by its explicit lack, however. You're mistakenly assuming an excluded middle.

You're not going to reignite the CRPG golden age in 2016 on the BioWare forums. You might actually garner some support on the Obsidian, InExile, or Larian forums, but here you're just being needlessly pedantic.

Their forums have a smaller population of casual lurkers, who are my intended audience.

Hardcore fans aren't going to be persuaded by me. And many of the fans on those forums already agree with me, so my presence there would have a smaller marginal effect.

[RoboticWater]

I'm not claiming that it is. I'm saying that it claims to be, which means either that it intends to be or they are lying to us.

It's an established fact that what EA markets as an RPG differs from what you believe is an RPG. Lying requires specific intent to mislead. In this case, EA is just following the most modern definition of RPG.

 

That doesn't make "because it needs to be an RPG," a valid basis for an argument.
 

Neither of those is incompatible with the claim that it isn't an RPG.

I, frankly, don't care what Mass Effect wants to be. I know what I want it to be. I know what sorts of games I want BioWare to make, and games that deviate from that make it less likely that they'll make my games in the future by muddying up the brand identity.

Then that's just inconsiderate. It's also as pointless as trolling around the Halo forums and demanding that Halo be an RPG. BioWare can't muddy their brand identity by making games that other people clearly like.
 

They could dissuaded by its explicit lack, however. You're mistakenly assuming an excluded middle.

I'd like you to try and justify that assertion. As we have already know, the term RPG is nebulous within the public. An informed consumer (because there is always burden on the consumer in a transaction) would need to research the game slightly more to determine if the RPG moniker aligns with their understanding. If they're unhappy with their purchase, they can return the game.

 

So even if this is a marketing issue, I can't imagine it's actually causing any problems.

 

Their forums have a smaller population of casual lurkers, who are my intended audience.

Hardcore fans aren't going to be persuaded by me. And many of the fans on those forums already agree with me, so my presence there would have a smaller marginal effect.

If your target audience is intended to be casual, then your marketing tactics are ill advised. Most people don't respond well to protracted factual diatribes about taxonomy, nor are they likely receptive to someone so willfully selfish. Quite frankly, the only ones who would ever agree with you are people who already feel the same way, and given the state of the CRPG market, that population is very small and located almost exclusively on those hardcore forums.

 

In the mean time you're harming discussion by dashing anyone's opinion with "nope, not RPG," and only acquiescing when they pander to your preferences. 

[Spectr61]

Sylvius, questions;

If I role-play, even an infinitesimal amount for an infinitesimal period in any game, can't that be considered role playing, and thus I am playing a role playing game?

Second, who or what institution maintains and defends the definitions of what is, and what constitutes, a Role Playing Game (RPG)?

[Cyonan]

I can have more than one objective simultaneously.

I want the world to know that Mass Effect isn't an RPG, because that both earns players away from it and takes away one of the marketing tools EA as been using to sell it.

I also want to affect the market conditions such that EA will want to call their games RPGs, and thus will need to make them more RPG-like.

 

It sounds a lot to me like you're saying you want to sway opinion of what people like. Something you said wasn't possible.

 

Exactly. And if doing that improves the gameplay for you, why not do it?

There's no objective truth to discover. You're not going to find more evidence than is there. How you draw conclusions based on the inconclusive evidence available is up to you, and I see no reason not to draw the conclusions I prefer.

In the real world this doesn't work because more evidence does exist to be discovered, but in the game (when seen from outside the game) there isn't, so the ambiguity is never going to resplve itself.

You do this, too, but you seem to do it in an attempt to find the conclusion that's most likely to be true. Except none of them are true, so the concept of likelihood doesn't apply. You're not using your own preferences to direct your reasoning the way thr game empowers you to do.

 

It doesn't improve the gameplay for me because I feel like I'm now writing too much of the story myself. When I play a RPG I typically want to be in control of my character, unless a game makes an interesting in-game mechanic out of controlling the universe.

 

Plus, the game can turn around and shut it down at any time at which point I now have to change my character to fit the story. It's more enjoyable to work within what I'm shown.

 

Wait. You play SP on Insanity. How is that not gimping yourself? You're using an optional feature that's built into the game that makes the game harder. How is that different from just not using pause-to-aim?

I completely understand the development resources argument. That's why I oppose the voiced protagonist, cinematics, and multiplayer

 

Because Insanity is the difficulty that claims it's meant to challenge the player to their fullest abilities. If Insanity disabled pause to aim only for that difficulty then yes, it would count.

 

MP doesn't take away resources in this case. It's a separate team with a separate budget.

 

I didn't like how they forced us to engage at fairly close range, and presented us with waves of enemies that didn't exist before we got there, so there was no way to deal with them except in the method and order that BioWare intended.

I would have preferred more open areas where I could choose the direction from which I approached the enemies, the means I used to defeat them, and the range at which I engaged. Basically the stealth archer playstyle from Skyrim.

 

There are enemies that will try to rush you more, but it is possible to stay at the longer ranges. The only thing you don't get are the super long ranges of ME1, which I wouldn't mind seeing come back in some form. That allowed for long range sniping and then once you got inside the base, CQC cover based shooting.

 

I think that getting the player to switch up tactics from time to time is actually a fairly good thing to do. It helps keep the gameplay fresh, and doesn't actually remove a particular style. Having a variety of enemies that need to be tackled in different ways is just good game design in almost any genre that has enemies, in my opinion.

 

I didn't know about that. I wish I had.

I'll concede I didn't really expect to like ME3. I only played it so I could see if the complaints about the ending was justified. I don't think they were. The game has many flaws (from my point of view), but the ending isn't one of them.

 

So I am going to refuse to get into any discussion about the ending but I still have to ask: Did you have the Extended Cut DLC installed that altered the ending?

 

Everyone, place your bets! How long will Sylvius the Mad and Cyonan be repeating the same points, which are hardly even related to the topic anymore, over and over?

Two days? Two years? Forever?

 

Either until I get bored or Sylvius stops for whatever his reasons would be.

 

but Robot still has a point: This discussion keeps coming up and without any actual info from BioWare to talk about, might as well have it out. Not that I expect it to actually resolve the discussion.

[Seraphim24]

Whoa wait the multiquote thing is still going?

 

Honestly I think at this point BWF has produced enough text to fill the libraries of Alexandria...

[Eelectrica]

is it even possible to define an RPG anymore? The term seems to have become so broad as to be meaningless.

Narrow the definition too much and suddenly classic RPG's such as Deus Ex and PS:T aren't RPG'S because they both feature a fixed protagonist. Widen it too much and games like Borderlands become an RPG because our character levels up.

None of which has anything to do with how the cover mechanic works in ME:A. Just hope Space bar doesn't do every bloody thing.

[SardaukarElite]

is it even possible to define an RPG anymore?

 

Genres don't have definitions so much as histories. Games that call themselves Role Playing Games tend to be based off other games that called themselves RPGs. Eventually you can trace the lineage back to actual tabletop RPGs where the term sort of makes more sense. There are plenty of games which include the same mechanics as archetypal RPGs yet don't call themselves RPGs because they come from a different lineage. 

 

The Wing Commander series are sci-fi space shooters. 3 and 4 had full on Mass Effect like paraphrased dialogue choices and branching narratives, yet they aren't RPGs because they grew out of flight shooters, they just arrived at a similar destination. Likewise Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Elder Scrolls and Diablo are all RPGs and all omit mechanics the others consider core, and none have mechanics unique to RPGs - but they all have a similar history if you trace it back. 

 

That is to say, it's always been kind of pointless, yet people normally know what you are talking about anyway. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

It's an established fact that what EA markets as an RPG differs from what you believe is an RPG. Lying requires specific intent to mislead. In this case, EA is just following the most modern definition of RPG.

That definition is incoherent.  Anyone who understands it can only use it disingenuously.

 

And I don't concede the point about intent.

Then that's just inconsiderate. It's also as pointless as trolling around the Halo forums and demanding that Halo be an RPG. BioWare can't muddy their brand identity by making games that other people clearly like.

BioWare is widely known as one of the top AAA RPG developers.  If they make games that don't resemble RPGs, that will make those non-RPG games be perceived as RPGs.

 

It's not BioWare's brand identity I'm worried about.  It's the identity of RPGs.

I'd like you to try and justify that assertion. As we have already know, the term RPG is nebulous within the public. An informed consumer (because there is always burden on the consumer in a transaction) would need to research the game slightly more to determine if the RPG moniker aligns with their understanding. If they're unhappy with their purchase, they can return the game.

 

So even if this is a marketing issue, I can't imagine it's actually causing any problems.

Players seek out games they can play in a way they will enjoy.  Players avoid games in which they cannot.  Some players will use positive criteria.  Some players will use negative criteria.

If your target audience is intended to be casual, then your marketing tactics are ill advised. Most people don't respond well to protracted factual diatribes about taxonomy, nor are they likely receptive to someone so willfully selfish. Quite frankly, the only ones who would ever agree with you are people who already feel the same way, and given the state of the CRPG market, that population is very small and located almost exclusively on those hardcore forums.

I don't expect casual lurkers to read these arguments in detail.  I expect them only to identify the presence of dissent.