891 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Note that what Bio's trying to do depends on how they define RPG, not how we define it.

From where I sit, so many CRPG traditions are just bad that Bio abandoning them strikes me as an improvement to the genre, not a departure from it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Good gunplay is mutually exclusive with solid role-playing combat for reasons Cyonan mentioned: one relies on the player, the other relies on the character. Going halfway and sort of relying on the character and sort of on the player is the worst of both worlds, because you only ever feel half in control.

You could still rely on the player for things like real-time movement and aiming, but have character stats affect things like damage and hit points.

Nothing about having varying hit point levels makes the shooter combat less good.

Or, you could do what ME did and make all the shooter elements (like real-time aiming) optional. You can play ME3 like a shooter or not, as you see fit.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Note that what Bio's trying to do depends on how they define RPG, not how we define it.

From where I sit, so many CRPG traditions are just bad that Bio abandoning them strikes me as an improvement to the genre, not a departure from it.

Many things that are now conventions of the genre are mistakes. Throwing them away is a correction many years overdue.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Hopefully you can cope that results are likely to be just shinier Neverwinter Nights I.

That would be excellent. NWN is the BioWare game I have replayed the most.

I actually tried to license the engine from BioWare some years back, but then they were acquired by EA and they stopped doing that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Alright, but isn't that a bit confusing (and tautological)? if the context of discussion is these roleplaying games*. why refer a character immersion as roleplaying, since without a clarification the sentence is equivocal as stating either that in-character decision making is all what character immersion is, or that in-character decision making is all what playing a roleplaying game is.

It wouldn't be particularly sloppy rhetoric otherwise, but unfortunately I encounter this quite vexing reification fairly often, where people try to define roleplaying games* as a character immersion (I guess, because they consider that the term "roleplaying" is definitive rather than descriptive of roleplaying games*. Results are about as fruitful as trying to define what "true" football is from the word football alone. Like that a football you see in a TV isn't "true" football because you can also guide a ball with your head, instead of just with your feet).

It's not that using the word like that is wrong exactly, but at the very best a natural language is ambiguous and vague as it is.

*D&D ones, etc.

Think about what you're doing when you're roleplaying. You're looking at the game world from an in-character perspective, and you're making that character's decisions for him or her.

This requires the player, moment-to-moment, be experiencing the character's mental state. When an in-game events occurs, what matters is not the player's impression of it, but the character's. So I generally favour game systems that allow that.

For us to roleplay a character, we need to know that character's mind. His thoughts and background and motivation can only be unknown to us if they are also unknown to him. We have to know what the character knows in order to be able to make his decisions.

To maintain a coherent mental state for the character, which we need if we're trying to adhere to any sort of personality design, we need the character's perception of the world to be comprehensible to that character. And that's why the player's skill shouldn't matter in gameplay, because the player doesn't exist within the setting. Since he doesn't exist, he can't have any characteristics. Player skill having an effect, then, breaks reality.

I've argued before that an RPG should be playable by a quadriplegic. Playable slowly, but playable. Playing a CRPG shouldn't require any skills hat playing a tabletop RPG doesn't require (and it might require less, given that the machine can roll all the dice and do all the math).

All I've really done here is try to deconstruct what RPG mechanics actually do, and the thing they do is simulate the world so you can play your character in it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

but ignoring them results in a better shooter.

If we were to add pause-to-aim to a good shooter, that wouldn't make the shooter gameplay any worse. If we were to move some damage stats from the weapon to the character, that wouldn't make the shooter gameplay any worse.

[Iakus]

but ignoring them results in a better shooter.

If if there's one thing the video game market isn't saturated with, it's shooters 

[Cyonan]

You could still rely on the player for things like real-time movement and aiming, but have character stats affect things like damage and hit points.

Nothing about having varying hit point levels makes the shooter combat less good.

Or, you could do what ME did and make all the shooter elements (like real-time aiming) optional. You can play ME3 like a shooter or not, as you see fit.

 

Character stats should never be part of proper shooter mechanics. Not for accuracy, not for damage, and not even for hit points. Your equipment should be the only thing to determine those things and even then, they shouldn't have skill points you can spend to increase the stats. You accept your equipment is what it is when you pick it up.

 

Mass Effect doesn't let me make all the non shooter elements optional. I can't turn off my character stats or leveling up. The best I can do is automate those things.

 

While many people will enjoy the blend of shooter and non shooter elements of Mass Effect(myself included, I'm just making a point with all of this) if we focus on just the shooter things, Mass Effect could be doing a much better job but it would require changing a lot of the non shooter elements that interfere with that or letting me turn them off.

 

If we were to add pause-to-aim to a good shooter, that wouldn't make the shooter gameplay any worse. If we were to move some damage stats from the weapon to the character, that wouldn't make the shooter gameplay any worse.

 

It would actually unless all things were optional and I could turn them off and not use them.

 

but Mass Effect doesn't let me do that.

[CronoDragoon]

You could still rely on the player for things like real-time movement and aiming, but have character stats affect things like damage and hit points.

 

Doesn't Mass Effect do that already? Anyway the real sticking point with these conversations is always accuracy. Doing less damage with certain weapon types because you aren't specialized in them is fine, but when a player straight misses a shot they aimed correctly, they begin to wonder why they are being asked to aim at all.

[Il Divo]

Doesn't Mass Effect do that already? Anyway the real sticking point with these conversations is always accuracy. Doing less damage with certain weapon types because you aren't specialized in them is fine, but when a player straight misses a shot they aimed correctly, they begin to wonder why they are being asked to aim at all.

 

I was gonna say- wasn't that already the ME2 approach, which removed the ability to improve aiming by leveling. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Doesn't Mass Effect do that already? Anyway the real sticking point with these conversations is always accuracy. Doing less damage with certain weapon types because you aren't specialized in them is fine, but when a player straight misses a shot they aimed correctly, they begin to wonder why they are being asked to aim at all.

In ME1 they weren't being asked to aim. They were being asked to select targets, just like a traditional CRPG. The only difference was that the target selection was done through a shooter interface.

ME1 wasn't really a shooter at all.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Character stats should never be part of proper shooter mechanics. Not for accuracy, not for damage, and not even for hit points. Your equipment should be the only thing to determine those things and even then, they shouldn't have skill points you can spend to increase the stats. You accept your equipment is what it is when you pick it up.

But why? The gameplay would be the same.

If we accept that different characters can have different characteristics, why do those characteristics need to be based on the the weapons? And why do they need to be immutable?

Explain that to me. What's the basis for that restriction?

Incidentally, you've also managed to make shooters sound really boring.

[UpUpAway]

If if there's one thing the video game market isn't saturated with, it's shooters 

 

... ah, but there is actually a lack of shooters with RPG elements.

[Il Divo]

... ah, but there is actually a lack of shooters with RPG elements.

 

Depends to a large extent on what you're looking for. In terms of choose-your-dialogue mixed with fps/tps combat, the only other enjoyable example that comes to mind is Deus Ex. So there is something of a niche that can be filled, if Bioware thinks there is, which they seem to. 

[Cyonan]

But why? The gameplay would be the same.

If we accept that different characters can have different characteristics, why do those characteristics need to be based on the the weapons? And why do they need to be immutable?

Explain that to me. What's the basis for that restriction?

Incidentally, you've also managed to make shooters sound really boring.

 

but the gameplay isn't the same.

 

If you let character lets affect the gun suddenly that low damage gun isn't so low damage because I'm using a character that put a lot of stats into whatever the "more damage" stat is. Suddenly those shotguns don't have such a wide spread because somebody else got a lot of accuracy.

 

Alternatively it can make it so that my sniper rifle is barely tickling the enemy because I didn't dump a bunch of points into "more damage", or I'm missing shots I was accurate on because the character's aim stat wasn't high enough.

 

If we're looking at a class based shooter like Overwatch where each character is stuck to a specific weapon it hardly matters technically where the numbers are coming from. Saying Tracer gives 50% more damage to her guns is pointless, because only Tracer can wield those guns and she can't wield any other guns.

 

Which means you'd be calling it character stats only to make people feel good about it, but the core of it is still there: My stats are largely static. I don't level up and get to significantly change how accurate, damaging, etc. my stuff is by assigning stat points.

 

A lot of the game designs you talk about RPGs "needing" to do sound really boring to me. At least you admit to not liking action combat, which is a cornerstone of shooters =P

[Cyonan]

Depends to a large extent on what you're looking for. In terms of choose-your-dialogue mixed with fps/tps combat, the only other enjoyable example that comes to mind is Deus Ex. So there is something of a niche that can be filled, if Bioware thinks there is, which they seem to. 

 

It really is a shame that we don't get more in this niche, especially since as far as I know both Deus Ex and Mass Effect sell rather well. At least well enough to get sequels for both games.

 

and it seems like in Mankind Divided they're looking to refine the action half of the gameplay which is nice seeing as how Human Revolution favoured stealth over action so much.

[themikefest]

You could still rely on the player for things like real-time movement and aiming, but have character stats affect things like damage and hit points.

 Wouldn't it be the weapon that is being used and where the target is shot that effects the damage a target receives?

[Sylvius the Mad]

At least you admit to not liking action combat, which is a cornerstone of shooters =P

I'd rather be at work than play an action game. Designing relational databases is more fun.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wouldn't it be the weapon that is being used and where the target is shot that effects the damage a target receives?

If the game were a strict physics simulation, sure. But if it isn't, something has to decide how much damage a shot to the leg does. Why not stats?

[capn233]

In ME1 they weren't being asked to aim. They were being asked to select targets, just like a traditional CRPG. The only difference was that the target selection was done through a shooter interface.

ME1 wasn't really a shooter at all.

 

This seems like a bit of an arbitrary distinction.  You need to aim at targets in ME1 if you want to hit them, even if early game you may very well not hit them even with the reticle on the target.

[Iakus]

Depends to a large extent on what you're looking for. In terms of choose-your-dialogue mixed with fps/tps combat, the only other enjoyable example that comes to mind is Deus Ex. So there is something of a niche that can be filled, if Bioware thinks there is, which they seem to. 

ANd after Mass Effect, that niche is still waiting to be filled 

[Sylvius the Mad]

but the gameplay isn't the same.

If you let character lets affect the gun suddenly that low damage gun isn't so low damage because I'm using a character that put a lot of stats into whatever the "more damage" stat is. Suddenly those shotguns don't have such a wide spread because somebody else got a lot of accuracy.

Alternatively it can make it so that my sniper rifle is barely tickling the enemy because I didn't dump a bunch of points into "more damage", or I'm missing shots I was accurate on because the character's aim stat wasn't high enough.

Stat-based accuracy is clearly a non-starter. But as for damage, why are you assuming a steep power curve? Modern CRPGs all have a steep power curve, but I've long been a vocal opponent of that design. A much shallower power curve would solve a great many problems, including this one.

The stats could make small marginal improvements rather than taking the character from being useless to being unstoppable.

[Sylvius the Mad]

This seems like a bit of an arbitrary distinction. You need to aim at targets in ME1 if you want to hit them, even if early game you may very well not hit them even with the reticle on the target.

The target selection was analog rather than digital.

I thought it was quite innovative.

[themikefest]

If the game were a strict physics simulation, sure. But if it isn't, something has to decide how much damage a shot to the leg does. Why not stats?

What are these so-called stats you want that would increase damage that a larger caliber couldn't do?

[MichaelN7]

It's pretty safe to say that we'll be able to choose whether our character is male or female, what class we want to be, and what we look like.

I enjoy the Paragon/Renegade system, so I hope they bring it back, but I wouldn't be adverse to a more traditional Good/Evil morality system.

 

Perhaps all four?  A Good/Renegade is something I feel many would like (quit bothering me kid... fine, here, take these credits and get something to eat) , and an Evil/Paragon would be very interesting to see.  (Oh, of course I'll help you, but I'm only here for the artifact)

 

Being able to choose the color of my weapons/armor/civvies is always a good feature, so I don't see any issue there.

 

As for Companions, I don't want a bunch of yes-men/women who do whatever I tell them to do OUTSIDE of combat.  In a fight, I want them to follow my orders (i.e. MOVE HERE, USE THAT POWER, ATTACK THAT TARGET) and I liked how in Dragon Age: Inquisition you could modify the equipment your companions carried but the appearance would match the "theme" of the companion (a Medium Armor on Cole looks like a mismatched shirt/vest, but that same Medium Armor on Varric looks more like his open-front jacket.)

 

But outside of combat, I don't want to interact with a bunch of lemmings.  I don't necessarily want everyone to agree with me, but I do want it to be possible to:

be friends with everyone <~> everyone hates my guts

Those are the two "extremes", but you get the idea

 

 

--------

 

I liked the combat in ME3 the most, when I really understood how the power combos worked I had a field day.  I liked how ammo became a power, rather than having to carry 2 dozen types of bullets.

 

Perhaps the only thing I would change is how the powers upgrade.  I'd like to be able to upgrade the aspect of a power that I want to upgrade.

Don't get me wrong, I like how you pick one of two possibilities at ranks 4-6, but sometimes the two options are something that I don't care about.

 

So something like Biotic Charge (easy numbers for simplicity)

 

Damage - 500

Force - 500

Recharge Speed - 3 seconds

Barrier Restored - 50%

 

Instead of having to pick between recharge speed OR damage/force, I'd like to be able to improve the aspects I want to improve, so I could improve the force to be so high that I'm knocking Atlas mechs to the floor and sending little Troopers soaring high without ever changing the damage.

~~~

Damage - 500

Force - 2500

Recharge Speed - 3 seconds

Barrier Restored - 50%

 

Or a recharge speed so fast that while I'm only doing scratch damage, I'm going all "THE FLASH" on the baddies, knocking their weapons aside so my squadmates can light-em-up.

~~~

Damage - 500

Force - 500

Recharge Speed - 0.5 seconds

Barrier Restored - 50%

 

Or overcharging my shields so that I can charge and then stay in that spot, blasting away with my shotgun.

~~~

Damage - 500

Force - 500

Recharge Speed - 3 seconds

Barrier Restored - 250%

 

Not a perfect example, but you get the idea.

Overall, I'm optimistic about Andromeda, and I find that a good RPG focuses less on YOU and more on the other characters around you.

The player character is a vessel for the player, to look into the world that the game-makers created, and it's always a pleasure to see what stories I can "play" and how I can tweak the scenes with my choices.