891 réponses à ce sujet

[themikefest]

Whatever the system has. Accuracy. Damage. Weapon skills.

Accuracy is controlled by the player
Damage is dependent on where the target is hit and/or what weapon is used
weapon skills is based on the experience the character has with that weapon

You still haven't said what theses so-called stats are.

 You want to know how many times you used this weapon to kill the enemy? You want the game to say 75% of your rounds fired hit its target? What weapon you've used the most? How many headshots? What is the characters heart rate when firing at the target? How many enemies escaped because you were too slow to fire your weapon? Or how many times you died because you failed to fire you weapon or get to cover in time? How about how many times you ran out of ammo because you're a poor shot and you wasted your ammo by firing at nothing?
 

Character skills arise from past experience and training. If you play the same game twice with two different sets of character skills, then those two characters have different backstories (at insofar as their training and experience go).

So you want a backstory for a character that may have less experience than another character that you would play in another playthrough? If that's the case, Bioware would have to come up with x number of backstories for people who want to do multiple playthroughs.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Still, if we're using your drunk player scenario, I think there's a point to make that someone who is ****** drunk is far less likely to be able to play their character relative to a sober player.

I was thinking of someone perhaps over the legal driving limit (so the reflexes are dulled), but otherwise still able to carry on a coherent conversation.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Accuracy is controlled by the player

Actual accuracy, yes. That doesn't preclude their being a stat called Accuracy that affects something relevant like damage or recoil.

Damage is dependent on where the target is hit and/or what weapon is used

How precisely modeled is that? Does the armour have seams. Does the game's physics actual model those seams, or might a more skilled marksman simply get a bonus to damage for targeting them more effectively?

You still haven't said what theses so-called stats are.

You want to know how many times you used this weapon to kill the enemy? You want the game to say 75% of your rounds fired hit its target? What weapon you've used the most? How many headshots? What is the characters heart rate when firing at the target? How many enemies escaped because you were too slow to fire your weapon? Or how many times you died because you failed to fire you weapon or get to cover in time? How about how many times you ran out of ammo because you're a poor shot and you wasted your ammo by firing at nothing?

No, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the character's in-game statistical characteristics.

So you want a backstory for a character that may have less experience than another character that you would play in another playthrough? If that's the case, Bioware would have to come up with x number of backstories for people who want to do multiple playthroughs.

When has that ever been true? Have you never played an RPG? The backstory isn't limited to the one the developers write (assuming they write one at all). There are always gaps for you to fill.

What's Shepard's favourite food? Does he prefer chairs with or without arms?

Anything left unsaid by the game is there for the player to define, including the details of the backstory. An Adept Shepard has a different backstory from an Engineer Shepard. How are they different, though? Is every aspect of that difference written by BioWare? Is there any evidence of that?

[In Exile]

In a tabletop game, the GM could adjust the enemies to be dumber than you, thus simulating your character's tactical acumen without you having to possess it. Or tactical acumen could be modeled through your attacks being more effective, thus tilting the battle in your favour the same way superior tactics would.

CRPG combat already abstracts things like damage. It could use those same systems for tactics.

I agree with you. I don't mean to say it cannot be done this way: only that so far as I can tell, the current design of combat systems in RPGs I am familiar with does not do it this way.

Though I am sceptical if the GM could simulate a lack of acumen. That itself is based on skill - albeit GM skill.

[themikefest]

Actual accuracy, yes. That doesn't preclude their being a stat called Accuracy that affects something relevant like damage or recoil.

There are several things that can effect accuracy. Since it's a video game, your accuracy would depend on how well you are with a mouse/keyboard/controller.
 

How precisely modeled is that? Does the armour have seams. Does the game's physics actual model those seams, or might a more skilled marksman simply get a bonus to damage for targeting them more effectively?

Would players care about that? When you target an enemy, are you looking for seams in the armor? Or do you just aim at whatever and fire?
 

No, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the character's in-game statistical characteristics.

So why aren't you mentioning what those statistical characteristics are instead of just saying stats?
 

[straykat]

Accuracy stat? This was never even meant to be that extensive of an RPG. Why that demand? It's still a shooter at heart.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I agree with you. I don't mean to say it cannot be done this way: only that so far as I can tell, the current design of combat systems in RPGs I am familiar with does not do it this way.

Though I am sceptical if the GM could simulate a lack of acumen. That itself is based on skill - albeit GM skill.

A skilled GM is vital, but he's not just roleplaying. He's running a whole world, including managing its physical laws.

An unskilled GM would be a disaster.

[Cyonan]

In a tabletop game, the GM could adjust the enemies to be dumber than you, thus simulating your character's tactical acumen without you having to possess it. Or tactical acumen could be modeled through your attacks being more effective, thus tilting the battle in your favour the same way superior tactics would.

CRPG combat already abstracts things like damage. It could use those same systems for tactics.

 

A tabletop game also features multiple players, so you'd also be asking other players to act dumber unless they are also supposed to be playing a tactical genius.

 

Roleplaying is basically just acting like another person, and acting is a skill that somebody can be better or worse at than other people.

 

While one can claim that it is impossible to win or lose a RPG(something I wouldn't disagree with), one can also make the claim that somebody can more accurately portray a character than somebody else can. Not everybody's brain will think of the same possibilities and thus wont all come to the same outcome.

 

That means skill at some point factors into it. Since the GM is just another kind of player in a pen and paper game, they too will have their own skill level at RPing and may themselves not be perfect at RPing every type of character or think of absolutely everything that character could do.

 

I think most of us here who play pen and paper games on a regular basis has had a case where the GM goes "holy crap, I never thought of you doing that". Of course a good GM will run with it and write up an outcome on the fly, but the point is that they themselves didn't even think of that action so had it been somebody else playing the character not even the GM would have suggested it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

There are several things that can effect accuracy. Since it's a video game, your accuracy would depend on how well you are with a mouse/keyboard/controller.

Given that we can aim while paused, that seems pointless.

Would players care about that? When you target an enemy, are you looking for seams in the armor? Or do you just aim at whatever and fire?

If I'm in a firefight, I'm going to seize every advantage. Which advantages I pursue would depend on my skill level.

It is not for us to decide what players care about.

I would think that it would matter more what the characters care about.

So why aren't you mentioning what those statistical characteristics are instead of just saying stats?

Because what they are specifically has no bearing on the point I'm making. I don't need any specific stats. But whatever the stats are, I'd like them to matter more than player skill does.

[straykat]

We're lucky it even has the RPG elements that it does. It started on the 360 (and conceived before that)... the damn Halo platform. And Bioware had already been wanting to one up their attempt at Action, since Jade Empire (yet another Xbox foray, originally). It's always been intended to be more of a shooter and not a replacement for Kotor (or anything before). Don't make them into something they're not..or even intended of being. 

 

And the point is just furthered with ME2 and ME3 btw...which are even more streamlined. And by that point, you can add Gears of War as an influence. The devs were big fans of it.

[Cyonan]

We're lucky it even has the RPG elements that it does. It started on the 360 (and conceived before that)... the damn Halo platform. And Bioware had already been wanting to one up their attempt at Action, since Jade Empire (yet another Xbox foray, originally). It's always been intended to be more of a shooter and not a replacement for Kotor (or anything before). Don't make them into something they're not..or even intended of being. 

 

And the point is just furthered with ME2 and ME3 btw...which are even more streamlined. And by that point, you can add Gears of War as an influence. The devs were big fans of it.

 

Why shouldn't the devs be fans of Gears of War? It was a good game. Is there some rule that states somebody who likes Gears of War and Halo cannot also like Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights?

 

As much as people like to claim Mass Effect copied Gears of War, the only mechanics they really share are standard of the cover based shooter genre. If we're going that route we ought to just claim they all copied Operation Winback, since to my knowledge that was the first one.

[Sylvius the Mad]

A tabletop game also features multiple players, so you'd also be asking other players to act dumber unless they are also supposed to be playing a tactical genius.

Multiplayer games have many issues. This is one of them.

Roleplaying is basically just acting like another person, and acting is a skill that somebody can be better or worse at than other people.

Depending on the style, it might be necessary to act out the character's behaviour. Roleplaying doesn't require that we speak the lines or express the emotion.

Also, if we're playing characters we've designed ourselves, no one else could ever really tell if we were doing it well.

To me, tabletop roleplaying was just decision-making. I never acted out my character's lines. I tended to address the GM and describe what my character was trying to do, and by what means he meant to do it.

I think most of us here who play pen and paper games on a regular basis has had a case where the GM goes "holy crap, I never thought of you doing that". Of course a good GM will run with it and write up an outcome on the fly, but the point is that they themselves didn't even think of that action so had it been somebody else playing the character not even the GM would have suggested it.

I would have been surprised if my GM could have predicted our actions reliably most of the time. I certainly couldn't when I did it. As such, my impression is that GMing is mostly improvisational. The world is mostly set up in advance, so we'd just play in it (like a sandbox).

[Sylvius the Mad]

We're lucky it even has the RPG elements that it does. It started on the 360 (and conceived before that)... the damn Halo platform. And Bioware had already been wanting to one up their attempt at Action, since Jade Empire (yet another Xbox foray, originally). It's always been intended to be more of a shooter and not a replacement for Kotor (or anything before). Don't make them into something they're not..or even intended of being.

Early ME design documents show the ability to control the squadmates directly, just like KotOR. And don't forget ME1's stat-based accuracy.

[straykat]

Why shouldn't the devs be fans of Gears of War? It was a good game. Is there some rule that states somebody who likes Gears of War and Halo cannot also like Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights?

 

As much as people like to claim Mass Effect copied Gears of War, the only mechanics they really share are standard of the cover based shooter genre. If we're going that route we ought to just claim they all copied Operation Winback, since to my knowledge that was the first one.

 

No, you can like both, but it says a lot about their direction here when they call it out by name.

 

I like RPG elements, but you guys seem to be expecting Mass Effect to be something it's not. This is more shooter than anything. It hsn't been that good of an RPG. Even when the trilogy is over and done with, you're somehow holding to this other idea... despite the reality of the games presenting something else.

[LogicGunn]

To me Mass Effect is an RPG with shooter combat, there are a 100 different shooter titles, but the character relationships and large, complex story are what makes ME unique. I'm hoping for a more complex combat system, where you need to figure out and take advantage of weaknesses rather than point and shoot.

[straykat]

To me Mass Effect is an RPG with shooter combat, there are a 100 different shooter titles, but the character relationships and large, complex story are what makes ME unique. I'm hoping for a more complex combat system, where you need to figure out and take advantage of weaknesses rather than point and shoot.

 

That makes it unique, but I wouldn't necessarily designate that part as RPG. Plenty of adventure titles do the same thing. And I hope that always remains.. or gets even more complex.

 

I'm just talking about the character building/skill sets. That part is strongly action oriented.

[Cyonan]

Depending on the style, it might be necessary to act out the character's behaviour. Roleplaying doesn't require that we speak the lines or express the emotion.

Also, if we're playing characters we've designed ourselves, no one else could ever really tell if we were doing it well.

To me, tabletop roleplaying was just decision-making. I never acted out my character's lines. I tended to address the GM and describe what my character was trying to do, and by what means he meant to do it.

 

There are just different styles of acting. A voice actor need not be skilled in showing body language like a film actor but still takes other skills. Thinking like another person is another form of acting.

 

Nobody could tell if we're doing it perfectly but there can be inconsistencies spotted. If I'm playing a character who is established as a kleptomaniac and I start forgetting to steal stuff I haven't faithfully kept to my character. I could write up some BS reason as to why the character did what they did but the original point still stands: I did a poor job in acting as that character as it had been established.

 

It's not just about the dialogue, it's also about declaring the actions that character would take. If I declare(or fail to declare) actions that go against what has been established for that character then I'm doing a poor job acting as them.

 

If I can do a poor job of roleplaying  a character, then roleplaying can be defined as a skill that somebody can be better or worse at than other players. That means, by definition, RPGs take skill in order to be able to roleplay a character.

 

I would have been surprised if my GM could have predicted our actions reliably most of the time. I certainly couldn't when I did it. As such, my impression is that GMing is mostly improvisational. The world is mostly set up in advance, so we'd just play in it (like a sandbox).

 

My point is that the argument of "The GM should point it out" is a rather weak argument because GMs will sometimes miss stuff too. They're just another person.

[Cyonan]

No, you can like both, but it says a lot about their direction here when they call it out by name.

 

I like RPG elements, but you guys seem to be expecting Mass Effect to be something it's not. This is more shooter than anything. It hsn't been that good of an RPG. Even when the trilogy is over and done with, you're somehow holding to this other idea... despite the reality of the games presenting something else.

 

It says that they wanted Mass Effect to be a more action oriented game, though I always see people invoking stuff like Gears of War like that's somehow a bad thing that it isn't trying to be Baldur's Gate: Space Edition.

 

I expect Mass Effect to be what I have always gotten out of the series because I like all types of games. I think it's more people like Sylvius that want it to be something it's not, because he doesn't give a damn about the developer's intentions for the game.

[straykat]

It says that they wanted Mass Effect to be a more action oriented game, though I always see people invoking stuff like Gears of War like that's somehow a bad thing that it isn't trying to be Baldur's Gate: Space Edition.

 

I expect Mass Effect to be what I have always gotten out of the series because I like all types of games. I think it's more people like Sylvius that want it to be something it's not, because he doesn't give a damn about the developer's intentions for the game.

 

It's not a bad thing to me though.. I didn't mean my post to come out that way, if it did.

[Degs29]

I want ME's RPG elements, ME2's writing, and ME3's combat.

 

So, I guess that's a "yes" to both your questions.

[Geth Supremacy]

It's made to be a "game" so that is paramount for me.  I'm not saying I wouldn't watch a movie Bioware put out, but I mostly want to play games.

 

I also feel like Bioware is learning that SP is all drama.  Just put something out and focus on the MP.  We will see how it turns out, but I think the rage that was ME3 may have changed their focus a bit.

[straykat]

It's made to be a "game" so that is paramount for me.  I'm not saying I wouldn't watch a movie Bioware put out, but I mostly want to play games.

 

I also feel like Bioware is learning that SP is all drama.  Just put something out and focus on the MP.  We will see how it turns out, but I think the rage that was ME3 may have changed their focus a bit.

 

I can never tell if you MP guys are serious

 

Bioware writes drama intentionally... and feeds off tears. That isn't changing.

[Sylvius the Mad]

No, you can like both, but it says a lot about their direction here when they call it out by name.

I like RPG elements, but you guys seem to be expecting Mass Effect to be something it's not. This is more shooter than anything. It hsn't been that good of an RPG. Even when the trilogy is over and done with, you're somehow holding to this other idea... despite the reality of the games presenting something else.

It's been a terrible RPG, and getting worse with every installment.

They may well be good games, but they've been dreadful RPGs (especially ME2 and ME3).

[Sylvius the Mad]

I think it's more people like Sylvius that want it to be something it's not, because he doesn't give a damn about the developer's intentions for the game.

Is there a reason why I should care about that?

[Cyonan]

Is there a reason why I should care about that?

 

There's a reason why it matters when it comes to things like what the game will focus on in development.

 

If BioWare wants the game to be action oriented, they're far less likely to spend the time needed to implement the RPG features that you want.

 

The opinion of the forums, even in the unlikely event the majority of us could actually agree on something, is still exceedingly unlikely to actually change BioWare's entire design approach to the game when it comes to something this significant.