73 réponses à ce sujet

[weger007]

@Ezohiguma : Your point is? Whom are you referring to?

Modifié par weger007, 09 février 2010 - 03:25 .

[Mister Mage]

I'm definitely not sure I agree with everything here. I think that the changes in ME2 are overall good, but we have to pull back a bit to avoid an "interactive movie". Now, I don't think comparing numbers and seeing which is bigger is gameplay, nor do I think turning 40 items into omnigel is gameplay. Getting rid of those is fine. But the problem, I think, is that they had a good idea(move inventory to the ship, prepare pre-mission, move that to a screen before you embark), and they didn't create a wide enough range of equipment and uses to really work out strategic options. And I think that the way they cut back skill advancement created a lot of cookie-cutter builds.



Of course, if I was making this game, it'd be turn-based and on a grid, so perhaps I'm not the best person to ask.

[HrznKn]

Mister Mage wrote...

I'm definitely not sure I agree with everything here. I think that the changes in ME2 are overall good, but we have to pull back a bit to avoid an "interactive movie". Now, I don't think comparing numbers and seeing which is bigger is gameplay, nor do I think turning 40 items into omnigel is gameplay. Getting rid of those is fine. But the problem, I think, is that they had a good idea(move inventory to the ship, prepare pre-mission, move that to a screen before you embark), and they didn't create a wide enough range of equipment and uses to really work out strategic options. And I think that the way they cut back skill advancement created a lot of cookie-cutter builds.
...

This

The research/scanning weapons/armor/objects to improve your own tech system has real promise i think, but its current incarnation is just too simplified imo, i expected more of it.

[termokanden]

I did have fun doing that too. That doesn't mean that all the trial and error leading up to that (in part thanks to the weak manual) didn't make it frustrating. And even then, it's always better to not have to spend a weekend studying a ruleset before playing.

And no, that's not "thought", it's just planning around a set of rules to maximize a character. It's just a puzzle. A very fun puzzle for people like me and you, but a puzzle nonetheless.

Sure. A fun puzzle. I think there should be room for that in games. I'm sometimes worried that this type of gaming will disappear as gaming becomes more mainstream. I think it has to an extent already and I do think this is a valid concern.

As for NWN having poor manual descriptions. Yes, that was a bit sad. It was better documented than Dragon Age though...

There should be room for people who like micromanagement and figuring out the rules and people who don't.

All that being said, I didn't at all see this problem in ME2. After all, it's a shooter with RPG elements isn't it? That's how I understood it anyway.

Modifié par termokanden, 09 février 2010 - 03:46 .

[weger007]

To builds and tactics:

Actually when you burn it down, builds are always the same in all RPGs.
You get a Tank , a damege dealer, a healer, some crowd control, some area damage and some thieving. Thats the way you build your group. always.
Most of us are at a point where these options are just obsolete anyway. Having played this many RPG games these decisions come instinctively. there is no real choice there.
So its cookie cutter anyways. A no brainer. Really.
So whenever I play a game like this, I try to keep the time fiddling with statistics to a minimum and get into the action as soon as possible.
Dont get me wrong. I like developing my characters. Otherwise I wouldnt play this genre. Its just not what primarily makes me enjoy it anymore.
What kept me playing was the story and being part of it. Getting immersed in this universe. Dealing with the NPCs, making important decisions.

Modifié par weger007, 09 février 2010 - 03:48 .

[termokanden]

weger007 wrote...

Actually when you burn it down, builds are always the same in all RPGs.
You get a Tank , a damege dealer, a healer, some crowd control, some area damage and some thieving. Thats the way you build your group. always.
Most of us are at a point where these options are just obsolete anyway. Having played this many RPG games these decisions come instinctively. there is no real choice there.
So its cookie cutter anyways. A no brainer. Really.

Okay, now we're moving away from ME2 but I can't agree with this at all.

There are plenty of RPGs where you can choose from many different options and create a personalized build that fits your playstyle. Maybe not if you're maintanking in WoW, but that's not exactly the perfect game anyway.

[weger007]

I am sure i do exaggerate here.
But you get the gist of it. I dont see that much of an intellectual challenge there.

Builds that really are "in character" are interesting to visit imo. In Dragon age i did choos to build characters weaker because i thought learning the stronger ability would not fit the way I build them as person. (Not taking blood magic for example).


If the choices you make building your character have some influence on the story you are perceiving as a player, then that is a great game for me. Kotor was great in this regard, as your choices had direct influence on your abilities.
I feel that building a character should not be a tactics decision only, but have relevance in your doings and vice versa. Having already explored these possibilities for Star Wars i hope to see more of that in SWTOR.


I also agree on the concept of game styles. On of my "good game criterias" is if a gamer can find his own style in playing. It is quite related to the "in character" character development issue or the KOTOR dark side/light side decisions but goes further than that. This can only be acchieved by offering more options than a gamer can possibly persue. I admit that ME2 could offer more in this regard. these choices should logically also have effect on the tactics you have to persue in fighting.

Modifié par weger007, 09 février 2010 - 04:13 .

[termokanden]

Actually I am not at all talking about ME2, I just got caught up in the discussion about gaming in general. I think the detail level is in ME2 is just right for a "shooter RPG", or a "shooter with RPG elements".

[weger007]

the essence of it is:
IMO the future of RPG is story telling. Every part of the game should contribute to that. If I was a designer of a game i would carefully examine all aspects of my game by this criteria.
Making build decisions, exploring tactical possibilities and equipping your character can and should really contribute to this aspect of a game, if done right, as has bioware shown in the past. But if they are in the game just for the sake of being there, they play no role in the role playing an thus are superfluous.

Modifié par weger007, 09 février 2010 - 04:48 .

[Alathnar]

Purely talking about gameplay mechanics I have to admit that ME2 is not a great game. In fact it is pretty simple and easy accessible, you seldom have to think twice if putting your points here or there will make a great difference. You'll get through the game anyway.

But what makes ME2 such a great game is not gameplay, it is storytelling and in this respect ME2 is a milestone. Sure I could watch a movie for story and sure I could play a simple shooter for... well shooting things. But no movie could ever provide me an experience comparable to that of this game, no movie could ever give me the feeling to be the maincharakter for the few hours I'm watching it. Whenever I played ME2 I was Shepard, it was MY ship, MY crew, MY decisions, MY story. And yes, I know how weird that sounds But it's the best way to express this experience not just to watch a story but to be actual part of it, no matter how much or how little influence I actually have on the outcome of it.

So, in short, ME2 may not be the future of gaming in general but it show's the potential of video games as a storytelling-medium. And I hope Bioware will continue their greatwork in this respect with ME3.

Modifié par Alathnar, 09 février 2010 - 04:50 .

[Dragnx80]

I want to know how Viseral games can get away with Beatrice being fully naked full frontal and all that and We get shafted just because you could see a sexy blue babe's back side. Ever since they caught flak because od that they've shy'd away from showing the Romance cut scenes. WTH?

[weger007]

And that is what i came to say in so many words.
And as this
was the goal they wanted to achieve I must say they really delivered.
Everything else is really not important.

[quote]Alathnar wrote...


But what makes ME2 such a great game is not gameplay, it is storytelling and in this respect ME2 is a milestone. Sure I could watch a movie for story and sure I could play a simple shooter for... well shooting things. But no movie could ever provide me an experience comparable to that of this game, no movie could ever give me the feeling to be the maincharakter for the few hours I'm watching it. Whenever I played ME2 I was Shepard, it was MY ship, MY crew, MY decisions, MY story. And yes, I know how weird that sounds But it's the best way to express this experience not just to watch a story but to be actual part of it, no matter how much or how little influence I actually have on the outcome of it.

Modifié par weger007, 09 février 2010 - 04:56 .

[Mister Mage]

weger007 wrote...

the essence of it is:
IMO the future of RPG is story telling. Every part of the game should contribute to that. If I was a designer of a game i would carefully examine all aspects of my game by this criteria.
Making build decisions, exploring tactical possibilities and equipping your character can really contribute to this aspect of a game, if done right, as has bioware shown in the past. But if they are in the game just for the sake of being there, they play no role in the role playing an thus are superfluous.

Sounds like an interactive storybook to me.

[termokanden]

Oh I agree about the storytelling. That is why I play Mass Effect (both 1 and 2). By no means are the mechanics great, but it's fun advancing the story and replaying it to make different choices.



Storytelling is also why one of my favorite RPGs is still Vampire: Bloodlines. The system really sucks there. No excuses, it just plain sucks. But the atmosphere, the voice acting and the plot make it great. Also, it's actually dark and plain evil, much unlike all that recent mainstream vampire stuff.



Sadly I know of other games with excellent mechanics where the storytelling is poor. If only we could somehow combine everything into the perfect game. Hmm.

[weger007]

Mister Mage wrote...
Sounds like an interactive storybook to me.

Yeah, youre trolling me now. But for the sake of you and others ill make things clear:

RPG should of course have a point. And this will always be to pitch you against opponents. Otherwise its no game.
But fighting the opponents can tell a story.
How you are fighting those opponents can tell a story.
With what you are fighting can tell a story.
All I am saying is that they should tell a story to make a game great.

Hell even opening crates, finding rusty knives and fighting rats
could tell a story.
Mostly those stories are quite trodden paths
though.

Modifié par weger007, 09 février 2010 - 05:14 .

[Mister Mage]

weger007 wrote...
Yeah, youre trolling me now. But for the sake of you and others ill make things clear:

By no means did I intentionally "troll", that is, seek antagonism.  Just keeping the point short and clear, and if that came off antagonistically be sure to know that wasn't the intent, any more than offering up a differing viewpoint ever is.

RPG should of course have a point. And this will always be to pitch you against opponents. Otherwise its no game.
But fighting the opponents can tell a story.
How you are fighting those opponents can tell a story.
With what you are fighting can tell a story.
All I am saying is that is should tell a story to make a game great.

Hell even opening crates, finding rusty knives and fighting rats
could tell a story.
Mostly those stories are quite trodden paths
though.

I don't see the point here.  I'm not sure you know the definition of "story".  I never sat down and read the exciting adventure of the day a guy opened a box, or the sordid tale of shooting a guy.  I read the story of Edmond Dantès and his escape from the Château d'If, and the subsequent plots for vengeance.  Maybe you mean atmosphere, maybe you mean something else entirely, but I honestly have no idea what you're trying to convey at all.

[weger007]

Three Musceteers is actually a great example. Thank you so much.

Just imagine a musketeer that believes fighting with the rapier is "not a good skilling".
And he changes to the greataxe and clads himself in heavy armor for effectivity in game mechanics.
This would totally blow the story! Dont you think so?
The whole character of Dartagnan is based on how he fights.
The whole "all for one thing" should show up in all fighting scenes. The upbringing of the characters will show in their style. Even stuff like Ponthos being overweight will have meaning in the way he fights. So does fighting tell a story? Of course!
So of course the three musketeers ia a story about Dartagnan gutting Richelieus thugs. Isnt it?

Modifié par weger007, 09 février 2010 - 05:37 .

[Draguzul]

bjdbwea wrote...

Yeah, pew-pew is really the next step in the evolution of gameplay. YOU are afraid, fellow forumer, of thinking it seems. If you want your games to be nothing more than a (more or less interactive) movie with shooting stuff, why don't you just watch a movie and then play a mindless ego shooter.

Okay, that may have been a really harsh, but really. Why can't we just have "auto" options for the fans of pew-pew, and a little more options and freedom for everyone else? ME 1 did that well, ME 2 not.

Thinking? I have to think plenty to tactically place my squad as well as deciding when it is most oppertune to use a biotic/tech power. Though of course, you probably don't consider this thinking. No thinking to you is somewhere along the lines of playing quartermaster for your entire squad and making sure they have the right bullets loaded for the situation at hand. All that is, is added clicks that really frustrate and break the immersion, I hated nothing more than having to stop mid fight because a Krogan showed up in the middle of all that Geth and he needed to be taken down ASAP.

I'm glad Bioware did away with this, and its just a simple shift + click away from being rectified.

So I part with this, why don't you try and think of a better insult next time, mmkay?

[weger007]

Another thing: If the weapon is handed to a character his father as a heirloom (again Dartagnan). would he exchange that for some loot a mob drops?

I find that non immersive. Sorry I am odd taht way it seems.

The way you get a weapon that suits your character can be part of the storytelling. And if it is, then there is no need for random drops anymore, you would just ruin that story element imo. And I would always go for the better story and against the better statistical value.

[Lusitanum]

termokanden wrote...

As for NWN having poor manual descriptions. Yes, that was a bit sad. It was better documented than Dragon Age though...

There should be room for people who like micromanagement and figuring out the rules and people who don't.

See, that's the thing: Dragon Age had a much better ruleset than D&D because you could just pop the game and start playing. It was fairly complex but you could ease into it, instead of getting killed by your very first enemy because you thought that higher AC was a good thing (getting used to Baldur's Gate was a pain after playing NWN and KotOR... ). It was complex, but it didn't require you to know all the ins and outs in order to make a good character and manage your party.

Now that's a really nice set of rules and guess what: people still complain about it because they say its accessibility was just an act of Bioware going mainstream and dumbing down the RPG genre. <_<

Mister Mage wrote...

weger007 wrote...

the essence of it is:
IMO
the future of RPG is story telling. Every part of the game should
contribute to that. If I was a designer of a game i would carefully
examine all aspects of my game by this criteria.
Making build
decisions, exploring tactical possibilities and equipping your
character can really contribute to this aspect of a game, if done
right, as has bioware shown in the past. But if they are in the game
just for the sake of being there, they play no role in the role playing
an thus are superfluous.

Sounds like an interactive storybook to me.

And I have to ask, what's so bad in that? I want more than just storytelling in my games, but what's so bad with having an interactive story? Hell, that's what videogames are all about: interaction. And if you can add to that a good story, you can make something no other form of media can offer.

Lord knows we need really need to have decent stories in our videogames for a change and I'm glad Bioware is on the forefront of that trend.

[AlanC9]

I'm with Lusitanum there. Mister Mage, you have to make the argument rather than just assume it.

[Mister Mage]

weger007 wrote...

Three Musceteers is actually a great example. Thank you so much.

Just imagine a musketeer that believes fighting with the rapier is "not a good skilling".
And he changes to the greataxe and clads himself in heavy armor for effectivity in game mechanics.
This would totally blow the story! Dont you think so?
The whole character of Dartagnan is based on how he fights.
The whole "all for one thing" should show up in all fighting scenes. The upbringing of the characters will show in their style. Even stuff like Ponthos being overweight will have meaning in the way he fights. So does fighting tell a story? Of course!
So of course the three musketeers ia a story about Dartagnan gutting Richelieus thugs. Isnt it?

...Count of Monte Cristo, actually.  But same author, I suppose.  Just that Monte Cristo is a superior work.

I think you are either playing a different game.  Where in Mass Effect are concepts like this employed?  Where is story atmosphere through gaming used in Mass Effect 2?  You seem to applaud this aspect of the game.  Where is it?

[Draguzul]

Lusitanum wrote...

termokanden wrote...

As for NWN having poor manual descriptions. Yes, that was a bit sad. It was better documented than Dragon Age though...

There should be room for people who like micromanagement and figuring out the rules and people who don't.

See, that's the thing: Dragon Age had a much better ruleset than D&D because you could just pop the game and start playing. It was fairly complex but you could ease into it, instead of getting killed by your very first enemy because you thought that higher AC was a good thing (getting used to Baldur's Gate was a pain after playing NWN and KotOR... ). It was complex, but it didn't require you to know all the ins and outs in order to make a good character and manage your party.

Now that's a really nice set of rules and guess what: people still complain about it because they say its accessibility was just an act of Bioware going mainstream and dumbing down the RPG genre. <_<

Mister Mage wrote...

weger007 wrote...

the essence of it is:
IMO
the future of RPG is story telling. Every part of the game should
contribute to that. If I was a designer of a game i would carefully
examine all aspects of my game by this criteria.
Making build
decisions, exploring tactical possibilities and equipping your
character can really contribute to this aspect of a game, if done
right, as has bioware shown in the past. But if they are in the game
just for the sake of being there, they play no role in the role playing
an thus are superfluous.

Sounds like an interactive storybook to me.

And I have to ask, what's so bad in that? I want more than just storytelling in my games, but what's so bad with having an interactive story? Hell, that's what videogames are all about: interaction. And if you can add to that a good story, you can make something no other form of media can offer.

Lord knows we need really need to have decent stories in our videogames for a change and I'm glad Bioware is on the forefront of that trend.

Whats wrong with that you ask? He made it pretty clear, he wants a dull, mindless excursion into the realm of customize everything. He wants to play the avid role of quartermaster, doling out rewards that he thinks benefits his characters - he wants to search for that ultra hidden gear, numbingly pouring hour after hour into the relentless pursuit for the best of the best!

God forbid a game give you all meat and no trimmings - I played this game to experience the story - a story is what I got. I'm very glad I didn't have to deal with a clunky inventory system that was always bursting or having to deck out my crew in the latest/greatest gear. It was focused, centralized on the story, my squad mates and I liked every second of it. Few flaws here and there, credits being one of them, lack of side quest content, but I'll live.

Most of the people like Mister Mage, seem to come in with the resume, well I played D&D tabletop, I know what an RPG is. Get off your high horse, come back to reality, then we can have a good discussion on why RPG is not what you think it is because of some misguided fantasy of what your youth used to be.

[Mister Mage]

Draguzul wrote...
Whats wrong with that you ask? He made it pretty clear, he wants a dull, mindless excursion into the realm of customize everything. He wants to play the avid role of quartermaster, doling out rewards that he thinks benefits his characters - he wants to search for that ultra hidden gear, numbingly pouring hour after hour into the relentless pursuit for the best of the best!

God forbid a game give you all meat and no trimmings - I played this game to experience the story - a story is what I got. I'm very glad I didn't have to deal with a clunky inventory system that was always bursting or having to deck out my crew in the latest/greatest gear. It was focused, centralized on the story, my squad mates and I liked every second of it. Few flaws here and there, credits being one of them, lack of side quest content, but I'll live.

Most of the people like Mister Mage, seem to come in with the resume, well I played D&D tabletop, I know what an RPG is. Get off your high horse, come back to reality, then we can have a good discussion on why RPG is not what you think it is because of some misguided fantasy of what your youth used to be.

...Um, I think you have the wrong guy.

[termokanden]

Lusitanum wrote...

termokanden wrote...

As for NWN having poor manual descriptions. Yes, that was a bit sad. It was better documented than Dragon Age though...

There should be room for people who like micromanagement and figuring out the rules and people who don't.

See, that's the thing: Dragon Age had a much better ruleset than D&D because you could just pop the game and start playing. It was fairly complex but you could ease into it, instead of getting killed by your very first enemy because you thought that higher AC was a good thing (getting used to Baldur's Gate was a pain after playing NWN and KotOR... ). It was complex, but it didn't require you to know all the ins and outs in order to make a good character and manage your party.

Now that's a really nice set of rules and guess what: people still complain about it because they say its accessibility was just an act of Bioware going mainstream and dumbing down the RPG genre. <_<

I started with Baldur's Gate and already knew the AD&D rules by heart. To me it was very familiar and fun straight away (to say the least, actually I think that is the game I've had the most fun with ever), but I can imagine it being frustrating if you don't know the system.

As for Dragon Age, I won't complain that it's too mainstream. I think it was inspired by MMOs in a nice way but also sort of retro in its similarity to the Infinity Engine games. I still think they made a few mistakes (which is true for any game really), and I do honestly think they could have documented the new system better.