891 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't care about taxonomy. I want a game that I'll enjoy playing.

What sort of game is that? What features does it have to have? What features must it not have?

[nfi42]

They'd rather it be impossible to miss (except intentionally) like in ME2 and ME3?

Or just damage bonuses based on stats. As your character gets better with her weapon, she does more damage with her weapon. Or it overheats less. Or something that makes it more effective.

 

Luckily,  you can usually turn off aim assist on PC.

 

2nd sentence makes sense.

[SNascimento]

Stats based combat have absolute no room in Mass Effect. You can upgrade guns and improve powers, but that's about it. 

[nfi42]

Stats based combat have absolute no room in Mass Effect. You can upgrade guns and improve powers, but that's about it. 

 

Definitely not in multi player for sure.

[Gannayev of Dreams]

Given how much our role has already been defined in what little material we've been given, it could only be the latter. 

 

We know we're a Human with the surname Ryder.

We know that we have a family with us.

It is implied you basically choose between the siblings depending on if you want Male or Female. Seems somewhat similar to how you chose in Fallout 4.

We know we work for the Alliance as a 'pathfinder'.

We can infer that our job is to find a home and allies in this new Galaxy.

 

My point is with so much already defined for our character the game will emphasize character relationships, exploration, and action while having RPG elements, but not be a true RPG. That's pretty much like all their games though, especially in the ME series, so not an unforeseen outcome. All we can really hope for is that it's good.

[Pasquale1234]

I'd like to be able to role-play effectively, though I'm open to different interpretations of exactly what constitutes an RPG or RPG elements.

ME1 is still my favorite of the lot, because it is the only ME game produced thus far in which I felt I had some room to role-play.

I think the structure has a lot to do with that - a structure that also exists in DAO (my favorite DA game). Both games (ME1 & DAO) started with some opening scenarios that took the PC to a point where s/he became a Warden / Spectre, and then left you with 3-4 main quests which you could pursue - along with other side content - at your leisure. Doing the side content / exploration does require one to find a way to ignore any urgency implied in the main quests, but I've been able to deal with that.

This structure is in direct contrast with that of ME2&3, both of which mete out their content piecemeal and enforce pacing.

I suspect one of the major sources of discontent with DAI has to do with its pacing. The pacing feels screwy because its major quest piece followed by a bunch of free-form exploration to gain power and stuff and do minor side quests, then another major quest piece. IOW, it's really uneven. I think I would like the game better if I could fully explore all of the zones from Haven before starting on the main questlines - but access to the zones is restricted until the game lets me in.

I'm not a big fan of games attempting to enforce pacing overall. Individual quests / missions / levels, yes - a well-paced mission is a beautiful thing. Enforced pacing works well for activities that take a relatively small amount of time, not so much for something that takes 50-100+ hours to complete.

Given the focus on exploration MEA promises, I'm hoping for a more free-form structure that will allow me to discover the game's content at my own pace.

[Cyonan]

They'd rather it be impossible to miss (except intentionally) like in ME2 and ME3?

 

Considering that I would rather eat a box of rusty nails than play Mass Effect entirely via pause to aim and I think that stat based aiming in a system where I have to manually aim on top of that is downright stupid?

 

Yes, I would rather have the Mass Effect 3 system because it had the most enjoyable form of the combat I actually did enjoy using.

 

I don't like character stats mixing with my gunplay.

[AlanC9]

I think the structure has a lot to do with that - a structure that also exists in DAO (my favorite DA game). Both games (ME1 & DAO) started with some opening scenarios that took the PC to a point where s/he became a Warden / Spectre, and then left you with 3-4 main quests which you could pursue - along with other side content - at your leisure. Doing the side content / exploration does require one to find a way to ignore any urgency implied in the main quests, but I've been able to deal with that.

This structure is in direct contrast with that of ME2&3, both of which mete out their content piecemeal and enforce pacing.

I don't see any big difference between the two structures. You can't do all the missions in ME2 and ME3 right from the start, and there are times when a mission is mandatory, but that's true in ME1 too -- you can't do Virmire first, and you can't do anything until you've unmasked Saren.

I also don't see what the structure has to do with role-playing. And isn't reading leisure into ME1 antithetical to role-playing?

[Aimi]

What sort of game is that? What features does it have to have? What features must it not have?

Why do you care?

[UpUpAway95]

I'd like to be able to role-play effectively, though I'm open to different interpretations of exactly what constitutes an RPG or RPG elements.

ME1 is still my favorite of the lot, because it is the only ME game produced thus far in which I felt I had some room to role-play.

I think the structure has a lot to do with that - a structure that also exists in DAO (my favorite DA game). Both games (ME1 & DAO) started with some opening scenarios that took the PC to a point where s/he became a Warden / Spectre, and then left you with 3-4 main quests which you could pursue - along with other side content - at your leisure. Doing the side content / exploration does require one to find a way to ignore any urgency implied in the main quests, but I've been able to deal with that.

This structure is in direct contrast with that of ME2&3, both of which mete out their content piecemeal and enforce pacing.

I suspect one of the major sources of discontent with DAI has to do with its pacing. The pacing feels screwy because its major quest piece followed by a bunch of free-form exploration to gain power and stuff and do minor side quests, then another major quest piece. IOW, it's really uneven. I think I would like the game better if I could fully explore all of the zones from Haven before starting on the main questlines - but access to the zones is restricted until the game lets me in.

I'm not a big fan of games attempting to enforce pacing overall. Individual quests / missions / levels, yes - a well-paced mission is a beautiful thing. Enforced pacing works well for activities that take a relatively small amount of time, not so much for something that takes 50-100+ hours to complete.

Given the focus on exploration MEA promises, I'm hoping for a more free-form structure that will allow me to discover the game's content at my own pace.

 

It's actually pretty surprising how much you can juggle the order of missions, even in ME3.   As Alan pointed out already, even in ME1, there were limitations on what you could do with the main missions... You couldn't leave the Citadel the first time until you became a Spectre, you couldn't do Virmire right away and you absolutely had to do Therum (i.e. recruit Liara) before being allowed to go to Ilos, and different portions of the Galaxy only opened up after Feros or Noveria.  In ME3, you can recruit Tali and do a good part of the Tuchanka story arc with her there... you might wind up exploding the Turian Bomb.  Why potentially people feel so much more limited in ME2 and ME3 is that not doing missions and juggling the missions around in ME3 can have more consequences than it does in ME1.  In ME1, there's just no way to get around the main story arc and the side missions are much more numerous and have almost no direct consequences within ME1 itself and very little consequences even during the subsequent 2 games.

 

ME2 is a unique beast.  You have a lot of liberty in what order you did missions and whether or not you did any or many of the recruitment and loyalty missions was completely left up to the player... and doing or not doing them had an direct impact on the ending (i.e. how many of your squad would survive the SM).  Yeah, you had to Horizon and point X and before that you had to recruit some specific team members, the Collector Ship would trigger 5 missions after Horizon (but you could pick almost any 5 missions) and you had to get the IFF before you could go through the Relay... but  that really was about it.  You could do the rest however you liked... you just had to accept the consequences of doing it that way.

[AlanC9]

@ Aimi: Well, we're talking about what we want in ME. "A game I'll like" is true, but it's true for everybody.

[Sartoz]

 Big Snip

Given the focus on exploration MEA promises, I'm hoping for a more free-form structure that will allow me to discover the game's content at my own pace.

                                                                                    <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

 

According to the studio, ME:A will give us more freedom than any previous game. Naturally, no examples were given of what it meant.  The cynic in me says: "Hm... we are given the freedom to do level 6 and do it over and over and still die or switch to MP to upgrade your weapon/armour, bring it back and do level 6 again.... your choice."

[AlanC9]

It's actually pretty surprising how much you can juggle the order of missions, even in ME3.   As Alan pointed out already, even in ME1, there were limitations on what you could do with the main missions... You couldn't leave the Citadel the first time until you became a Spectre, you couldn't do Virmire right away and you absolutely had to do Therum before being allowed to go to Ilos.  In ME3, you can recruit Tali and do a good part of the Tuchanka story arc with her there... you might wind up exploding the Turian Bomb.  Why potentially people feel so much more limited in ME2 and ME3 is that not doing missions and juggling the missions around in ME3 can have more consequences than it does in ME1.  In ME1, there's just no way to get around the main story arc and the side missions are much more numerous and have almost no direct consequences within ME1 itself and very little consequences even during the subsequent 2 games.

Perhaps the lack of consequences is the point?

[CronoDragoon]

They'd rather it be impossible to miss (except intentionally) like in ME2 and ME3?

 

This isn't actually the case for the automatic weapons. Most real-time shooting systems like ME2/3 and Battlefield have things like gun recoil and spray built into their gunplay. They just do a much better job of making it feel natural. Missing because of RNG doesn't feel natural, and any system that incorporates manual aiming would do well to avoid it. If, on the other hand, you want to make a turn-based gun RPG, like Wild Arms, feel free to stat-base the hell out of it.

 

The stat-based missing mixed with real-time aiming experiment has come and gone. It sucks. It sucked in ME1, it sucked in Alpha Protocol, and it sucked in Fallout: New Vegas. There's a reason why VATS is the core of Fallout's shooting: it nixes real-time aiming and focuses solely on stats. And it works well! It's the mixing that's the problem.

[Pasquale1234]

You couldn't leave the Citadel the first time until you became a Spectre, you couldn't do Virmire right away and you absolutely had to do Therum before being allowed to go to Ilos.

Both games (ME1 & DAO) started with some opening scenarios that took the PC to a point where s/he became a Warden / Spectre, and then left you with 3-4 main quests which you could pursue - along with other side content - at your leisure. Doing the side content / exploration does require one to find a way to ignore any urgency implied in the main quests, but I've been able to deal with that.

Yes, Virmire is assigned once you've completed one of the other main quests you're given right away.

After you complete those main quests, you are again funneled back toward the first step of the ending sequences. Those main quests were most of the content of those games. ME2&3 meted it out in smaller doses.

I prefer that structure to what the other games did.

[UpUpAway95]

Perhaps the lack of consequences is the point?

 

Yes, I agree... "true" RPG players seem to want to be able to direct both their own actions AND the consequences of those actions.  Personally, I like having the author direct the consequences... and if they are going to that in an interesting and cinematic way, they are probably going to have to offer me limited options to being with.  I'm OK with that... the other "true RPGers" can stay frustrated with it if they want... their choice.   (IRL, we don't get to "direct" all the consequences of our actions.)

[CronoDragoon]

Yes, I agree... "true" RPG players seem to want to be able to direct both their own actions AND the consequences of those actions.  Personally, I like having the author direct the consequences... and if they are going to that in an interesting and cinematic way, they are probably going to have to offer me limited options to being with.  I'm OK with that... the other "true RPGers" can stay frustrated with it if they want... their choice.   (IRL, we don't get to "direct" all the consequences of our actions.)

 

Isn't that the opposite of role-playing, ie metagaming?

[UpUpAway95]

Isn't that the opposite of role-playing, ie metagaming?

 

It isn't metagaming to allow the author of the game to provide/decide what consequences a particular choice is going to have in the game.  It only becomes metagaming if the player then "uses" a prior knowledge of those consequences to base their choice on.  It's OK for Bioware to decide, for example, that if you don't respond to the urgency of doing the Turian Bomb quickly enough after finding out about the bomb (by doing Turian Platoon),  that the bomb just goes off... perfectly acceptable consequence IMO.  To set up that consequence, however, they do have plunk in a mathematical "time limit" in the game.

 

It becomes only metagaming if you read the Wiki and know that it will go off precisely 3 missions after Turian Platoon and then decide to organize your missions a specific way to accommodate that "mathematical time limit."  Heading off to instead shore up relations with the Quarians is a legit role-playing "choice" since Hackett does tell you about them, I believe, right after you do Sur'Kesh... it just might be a choice that leads to the bomb going off.

 

In ME1, Shepard could take "forever" after Hackett told him about a mission without a consequence.  Heck, Shepard could even do a slug of side missions between leaving the Citadel the last time and Ilos without losing the opportunity to catch Saren.  True RPGers are espousing how much better that sort of freedom is by saying ME1 is way more like a true RPG than ME2 or 3.  I say that's crap... ME2 and ME3 handled "consequences" from a realistic role-playing POV much bettter than ME1.

[The Night Haunter]

Good rpg. ME1 managed it.

[CronoDragoon]

It isn't metagaming to allow the author of the game to provide/decide what consequences a particular choice is going to have in the game.  It only becomes metagaming if the player then "uses" a prior knowledge of those consequences to base their choice on.  It's OK for Bioware to decide, for example, that if you don't respond to the urgency of doing the Turian Bomb quickly enough after finding out about the bomb (by doing Turian Platoon) that the bomb just goes off... perfectly acceptable consequence IMO.  To set up that consequence, however, they do have plunk in a mathematical "time limit" in the game.

 

It becomes only metagaming if you read the Wiki and know that it will go off precisely 3 missions after Turian Platoon and then decide to organize your missions a specific way to accommodate that "mathematical time limit."

 

In ME1, Shepard could take "forever" after Hackett told him about a mission without a consequence.  Heck, Shepard could even do a slug of mission between leaving the Citadel the last time and Ilos without losing the opportunity to catch Saren.  True RPGers are espousing how much better that sort of freedom is by saying ME1 is way more like a true RPG than ME2 or 3.  I say that's crap... ME2 and ME3 handled "consequences" from a realistic role-playing POV much bettter than ME1.

 

I meant specifically the part where a player wants to control both the decisions and their consequences (the part I bolded). That sounds like metagaming to me. A strict RPer would never ask to control the consequences.

[Pasquale1234]

In ME1, Shepard could take "forever" after Hackett told him about a mission without a consequence.  Heck, Shepard could even do a slug of mission between leaving the Citadel the last time and Ilos without losing the opportunity to catch Saren.  True RPGers are espousing how much better that sort of freedom is by saying ME1 is way more like a true RPG than ME2 or 3.  I say that's crap... ME2 and ME3 handled "consequences" from a realistic role-playing POV much bettter than ME1.

I can't speak for "True RPGers", but I did feel that ME1 gave me more room to role-play than the other entries in the series.

I also said that I had to headcanon away / ignore the initial urgency of the main quest assignments in order to do so.

But I'm usually more interested in creating a narrative with my playthrough than experiencing the authored content.

[Helios969]

Ideally, both...but if it's an either or proposition - good game with RPG elements since you spend much more time on gameplay than anything else.

[UpUpAway95]

I meant specifically the part where a player wants to control both the decisions and their consequences (the part I bolded). That sounds like metagaming to me. A strict RPer would never ask to control the consequences.

 

I said "direct" both... not "control" - so you're misquoting me now... and there is a real difference between the meaning of those two words (especially when it is put in context of what a "director" does.  From posts here, some people seem to feel that a "true RPG" doesn't provide any order in which missions are to be done.  My post basically said that ME1 DID also direct an order of missions... just did not "direct" a consequence for mixing up the order of the more side missions.  ME3 does "direct" an order for side missions, but does not impose anything beyond a "logical" consequence for the player making their own decision... therefore, the author of the story is "directing" what the consequence could be... but they are not "controlling" the player's role-play.  It was implied in an earlier post that ME2 and ME3 basically "meted out" the order of mission.  They do not do that to an any greater extent than ME1 did... Bioware just inserted logical consequences for not responding to "urgency."

[Sylvius the Mad]

Why do you care?

I don't.

You should. That's where taxonomy becomes useful.

[Fiery Phoenix]

I highly doubt Andromeda will do much more than ME1 in the RPG department. It wouldn't matter to me anyway. Give me a modern shooter with good enough RPG elements and a well-written story and characters and I will be happy.