297 réponses à ce sujet

[Minister of Sound]

MassEffect762 wrote...

CatatonicMan wrote...

A Fhaol Bhig wrote...

Mhmm, again now that you mention it, I do have to state again that it comes down simply to preference.

Many people here critique the game more forcefully than elsewhere because this is devoted to the game. Elsewhere it's hard to not see adoration, so we have the people who love the game, those who don't, and the people who see lots of both.

I didn't really see any major changes to anything besides the combat, leveling, and amount of items (weapons, armour) while I'd have like to have seen more, it didn't break the game for me, but for some it did.

And I agree their is a gap between the two games, but how would the series advance if it didn't have those changes? How do you refine something if you don't try it? I suppose Mass Effect 2 was something of a Full game obviously, but also as a testing ground to refine ME3.

People hated the mako in the first game, and invetory also. its gone in the second. Now people complain about the lack of vehicles, and weapons.

The listened to the feedback and because of all the negativity, they removed it from the game, and made weapons more unique if not various.

With ME3 they will of course see what was hated the most and refine that.

So the problem is nostalgia as mentioned, but also because what the fans wanted, they got. Now they miss what they had because it went to far, or whatever reason.

See what I'm saying?

You just pointed out part of the problem (though it is certainly a matter of perspective and magnitude).

It's good for a series to advance, and trying new and different things can produce excellent results (not always, but often you won't know until you try). Refining what came before is as expected as it is necessary.

The main problem with ME2, though, is that Bioware did not try to refine the mechanics that people complained about - they removed them completely.

Mako too long and boring? Burn it for its insolence!

Inventory too cluttered? Decapitate it!

Squad inventory take too much effort? Send in the clearcutters!

Guns too spammy? Screw the canon, add in (illogical and badly done) thermal clips!

Helmets too removable? Weld them in place! (Yeah, I'm being a bit vindictive with this one.)

Combat awkward? Import Gears of War!

You see? Instead of taking what they had before and making it better, they leveled everything negative and started from scratch. In the process, they managed to take one step forward and two back (and then maybe several to the left, and one up) - something that generally doesn't happen when refining tested mechanics.

Still, even clearcutting isn't necessarily bad. ME2 is a good game in its own right - not necessarily any better than the original, but probably no worse it its own way. But even though it maintains a level of quality, too much was changed; it is a sequel to ME in name/story only.

Anyone who bought ME2 thinking it would be ME1 += 1 (as I did) was bound to be disappointed on these grounds. Some may like ME2 more, of course; but that will be because of the differences between the two rather than the similarities.

Shao kahn: OUTSTANDING!! MUAWHAHAHA

I'm loving this debate, wish I had more popcorn.

Agreed, this reminds me of the old "Diablo isn't an RPG" debate.

[Terror_K]

Timerider42 wrote...

I agree with OP. Too many RPG elements and it's just not as fun. I still haven't played ME1 but from what I hear all this customization just seems to over-complicate things.

One could also say "too few RPG elements and it's just not as fun" as well. It's a matter of perspective and preferences. I personally find ME2 not quite as fun as ME1 simply because there are too few RPG elements for me and too much has been oversimplified for my tastes. ME2 was saved from being just a mediocre third-person shooter with its story, characters, dialogue, visual design, cinematic stylings and some cool new ideas. Overall it was its design and interactive story elements that stopped the uninspired shooter stuff and watered-down RPG elements from dragging it down.

[sirandar]

After 2 play-throughs and a lot of thought I have come to the conclusion that I liked ME1 a fair bit better than ME2 and that is primarily due to the loss of specific RPG elements in ME2 (ME2 is still a great game)

The inventory, ammo, armor, weapons and other loot lost in ME2 I couldn't care less about. Actually I wish Bioware would remake ME1 with ME2 features.

The combat was also better in ME2 IMO although it had some issues.

What I missed most about ME1 was the freedom and it's rebellious nature. ME2 forces me to serve Cerebus ..... all roleplay ends there. It was still fun but not as a RPG for me.

The best part of ME1 was getting to stick it to the Alliance and council and striking out on your own, master of your own destiny. I felt it and never wanted it to end.

ME2 didn't even come close, the ship ever felt like it was your ship and I never really felt like the real captain even though Bioware did put some effort to try to make me feel like one in ME2. It was Cerebus's ship with Cerebus's spyware and Cerebus's crew. I hated being the Elusive mans lackey even with the paltry renegade aspect related to him.  Bioware could have saved the day if Shep had a driect conflict with the Elusive Man 1/2 way through the game and Shep was given the choice to eliminate him.  I was his lackey right to the end.

Didn't want to roleplay this game and that is why for me it wasn't an RPG

Modifié par sirandar, 09 mars 2010 - 05:07 .

[Cornelian]

For me ME1 and ME2 are not RPG. When i was younger, i was used to read "figthing fantasy gamebook in which you are the hero" like The warlock of firetop mountain or Starship traveller for example. In those books, freedom of roleplaying was restricted.



ME1 and ME2 are this : fighting fantasy movie/action game in which you are the hero.

Freedom of roleplaying is also restricted here.



This kind of game is new for me, and cannot be as open than Elders Scrolls games for example.

[ian528]

Restricted role-playing has been the Bioware style for a while. It is actually why I prefer them to Bethesda. In Fallout and Elder Scrolls, you can do anything you want in any order you want. It is very, very open. It has an overarching story but it is not as tightly woven together as even Baldurs Gate. Bioware has a very definitive narrative voice reflected in the gameplay and it makes the single player game much more approachable to me.



But all that being said that is the same thing you face with any gaming group. You have a tightly plotted game that is a railroad, one that is still tightly plotted but allows for deviations, and then a wide open everything is possible place. I tend to go for the second. I did find that ME 2 is a little to tightly woven to that path per each mission but I think the possibility exists to have more possible deviations. They are not going to become a completely open world kind of place.



This whole topic is really going to make what they do in The Old Republic more interesting. Standard MMO structure relies on the open world gaming. Bioware is much more directed then that. I don't know how they will be able to transmit their style into a medium that seems to be something they work against.

[Sylvius the Mad]

ian528 wrote...

Restricted role-playing has been the Bioware style for a while.

Perhaps, but ME's roleplaying is far more restricted than in previous BioWare games.  So much so that ME fails to be an RPG at all.

[ian528]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Perhaps, but ME's roleplaying is far more restricted than in previous BioWare games.  So much so that ME fails to be an RPG at all.

It is just does not fit predetermined RPG interface.  One of the great enhancements that you don't like, I love.  The fact that I can pick a simple direct choice for dialog and then have the character speak is a real win for me.  It pulls me further into the game and makes me realize how much I missed hearing a voice for my character and how odd it was that rpgs really did not include a PC voice.  There is still role playing here.  It is just not the role playing you like.

However, this is much the same argument I have with friends about 4th edition DnD not being real role playing.  I realize it is a rules and interface issue and that they do not engage me.  However, it is still a valid role playing experience.

[Sylvius the Mad]

When you choose an option in ME, you can;t know what's actually going to happen as a result of your choice. Shepard could then say or do something that is entirely out of character for the PC you designed.



That's a huge barrier to roleplaying.

[ian528]

For you it is a huge barrier. For me it allows for a more immersive experience. I make a choice. There is the role and the playing.

[Sylvius the Mad]

ian528 wrote...

I make a choice.

But you're not actually choosing what Shepard does.  You can't be choosing because you're not presented with the alternatives in advance.

[sirandar]

ian528 wrote...

Restricted role-playing has been the Bioware style for a while. It is actually why I prefer them to Bethesda. In Fallout and Elder Scrolls, you can do anything you want in any order you want. It is very, very open. It has an overarching story but it is not as tightly woven together as even Baldurs Gate. Bioware has a very definitive narrative voice reflected in the gameplay and it makes the single player game much more approachable to me.

But all that being said that is the same thing you face with any gaming group. You have a tightly plotted game that is a railroad, one that is still tightly plotted but allows for deviations, and then a wide open everything is possible place. I tend to go for the second. I did find that ME 2 is a little to tightly woven to that path per each mission but I think the possibility exists to have more possible deviations. They are not going to become a completely open world kind of place.

This whole topic is really going to make what they do in The Old Republic more interesting. Standard MMO structure relies on the open world gaming. Bioware is much more directed then that. I don't know how they will be able to transmit their style into a medium that seems to be something they work against.

Very thoughtful post .... agreed, I like the middle ground too.

[ian528]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

ian528 wrote...

I make a choice.

But you're not actually choosing what Shepard does.  You can't be choosing because you're not presented with the alternatives in advance.

In conversations, you have several choices.  You are given a wheel by which basic options are laid out.  The actual dialog is not to make it easier and faster for the player.  In fact, Bioware has also with the wheel conversation architecture kept a basic routine within the wheel that positionally you can tell the tone the conversation will take.
In ME2 they actually expanded on the choices you had by adding QTEs that are affiliated either with making a decision in that moment or not.  I don't know the alternatives or if there will be alternatives.  I make a choice because that is how I want the character to act.  Pure role playing.

[Darth Postal]

Fully agree with OP.
ME2 has inventory (or rather armory), character customization and progress, classes, non-linear story, quests, exploration, resourses, upgrades, morale choises.

If that's not a RPG, than I'm a green unicorn.

Modifié par Darth Postal, 09 mars 2010 - 07:52 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

ian528 wrote...

In conversations, you have several choices. 

If you don't know what the alternatives are, you're not really choosing.  You're guessing.

You are given a wheel by which basic options are laid out.  The actual dialog is not to make it easier and faster for the player.  In fact, Bioware has also with the wheel conversation architecture kept a basic routine within the wheel that positionally you can tell the tone the conversation will take.

But the tone might not be the most relevant aspect of that conversation or that choice.

There was at least one conversation in ME where Shepard made a factual claim that I disagreed with.  I didn't think it was true, and I never would have had Shepard say it.

Not to mention all the times the wrong sort of sentence was used.  If I select a question on the wheel, I want Shepard to ask a question.  I do not want Shepard to make an assertion, because those contain information.  Questions don't contain information, so I'm not telling anyone anything.

In ME2 they actually expanded on the choices you had by adding QTEs that are affiliated either with making a decision in that moment or not.  I don't know the alternatives or if there will be alternatives.  I make a choice because that is how I want the character to act.  Pure role playing.

Moment to moment choices with no coherent framework behind them.  You were roleplaying a crazy person.

[Daeion]

As much as I love to debate this topic, it's getting old and tiresome at this point because it's a useless topic to debate. The main problem is a RPG means different things to different people. For some a RPG is simply a game to focuses on story, to others a RPG is a game that focuses on loot, stats, dice rolls, and building up their character. I will argue all day that ME2 is a heavily simplified RPG, it has the good story that we expect from Bioware, the ability to make decisions and you do gain levels, however it is missing a lot of the technical aspects like loot, stats, and the ability to customize my squads equipment that makes a game a RPG for me. This doesn't mean I don't like the game, I still think it's a good game, but I will always view ME as the supperior game.

Modifié par Daeion, 09 mars 2010 - 08:11 .

[Gazrion]

why is it people keep saying ME is halo or gears with conversation trees? Im not a fps gamer (only played a lvl on halo and a bit of deadspace) so what i want to know is weather you can gain experiance and lvl your character, have interaction with most npc to some degree, find a team and gain loyalty, upgrade weapons/ship make chocies that affect the games outcome to some degree ect. I could go on listing other rpg elements that i came across playing mass effect. If these things are in halo and gears then yes i would agree that it is a fps.

Before people start saying i dont know what an rpg is ive played stuff like pool of radiance, baldurs gate 1+2, NWN, morrowind.

The thing is i like my rpgs to vairy in play styles to keep me intrested so i see mass effect as a nice change from the norm.

Modifié par Gazrion, 09 mars 2010 - 08:24 .

[ian528]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

ian528 wrote...

In conversations, you have several choices. 

If you don't know what the alternatives are, you're not really choosing.  You're guessing.

You are given a wheel by which basic options are laid out.  The actual dialog is not to make it easier and faster for the player.  In fact, Bioware has also with the wheel conversation architecture kept a basic routine within the wheel that positionally you can tell the tone the conversation will take.

But the tone might not be the most relevant aspect of that conversation or that choice.

There was at least one conversation in ME where Shepard made a factual claim that I disagreed with.  I didn't think it was true, and I never would have had Shepard say it.

Not to mention all the times the wrong sort of sentence was used.  If I select a question on the wheel, I want Shepard to ask a question.  I do not want Shepard to make an assertion, because those contain information.  Questions don't contain information, so I'm not telling anyone anything.

This is about the scripting.  You don't like what the character is going to say and would have picked differently if you had known.  That can pull you out of the experience but the simplified conversation wheel is vastly superior for me.  You just would have had that full line there.  Some of what was done in ME was to pull that full line out to allow for quicker more honest choices.  No you can't tell what your character will say.  If it is that important, save before each conversation, go through the conversation options, write down the line,lather rinse repeat until you have all possible lines of dialog.  That was put in as an improvement to earlier systems but I understand you do not like it.

In ME2 they actually expanded on the choices you had by adding QTEs that are affiliated either with making a decision in that moment or not.  I don't know the alternatives or if there will be alternatives.  I make a choice because that is how I want the character to act.  Pure role playing.

Moment to moment choices with no coherent framework behind them.  You were roleplaying a crazy person.

The coherent framework is what you provide as a player.  You are the person making the choices to make the character behave as you would have them behave.  I find often time in tabletop I have to discourage the players from doing exactly what you are talking about.  There are choices and there are consequences.  If you want to know all possible choices, then you are not really role playing, you are meta-gaming.  To do or not to do that is the most basic question.  Both have consequences.  Weighing out each choice is not always possible.  You can not game where every choice you make is advantageous to your character.  Sometimes the right choice can prove to be wrong for so many reasons over time.

[Xandurpein]

There is basically two different views of what constitutes a roleplaying game, and everyone who discuss this ought to recognize it.

To some people a roleplaying game is in the game mechanics. You have a character that gains levels and distributes talents, skills and attributes to 'build' your character. To them the degree a game can be called roleplaying is the degree you are able to customize your own character.

To some people, the essence of a roleplaying game is that you are playing a role. The protagonist is an empty vessel into which you pour your thoughts and decisions. The degree a game can be called roleplaying, with this definition, is the degree it lets you express yourself in the game, through conversations, choices and so on with your Avatar.

Neither view is necessarily wrong and I don't think there is any point in spending a lot of time arguing over what is the 'true' definition of an RPG. But it is important that we recognize from which of the two standpoints we argue to understand each other.

There are many roleplaying games out there by the first definition, but Bioware so far seems to be almost alone in how far they have taken roleplaying games, as defined by the second definition. Personally I tend to go by the second definition, so I guess that for me it would be an roleplaying experience if they slapped as much conversations as there is in ME on a shooter with no character building at all. But others feel the differently, and I don't begrudge them that opinion if they justify this by saying that roleplaying to them is character building.

Modifié par Xandurpein, 09 mars 2010 - 08:47 .

[ian528]

Xandurpein wrote...

There is basically two different views of what constitutes a roleplaying game, and everyone who discuss this ought to recognize it.

To some people a roleplaying game is in the game mechanics. You have a character that gains levels and distributes talents, skills and attributes to 'build' your character. To them the degree a game can be called roleplaying is the degree you are able to customize your own character.

To some people, the essence of a roleplaying game is that you are playing a role. The protagonist is an empty vessel into which you pour your thoughts and decisions. The degree a game can be called roleplaying, with this definition, is the degree it lets you express yourself in the game, through conversations, choices and so on with your Avatar.

Neither view is necessarily wrong and I don't think there is any point in spending a lot of time arguing over what is the 'true' definition of an RPG. But it is important that we recognize from which of the two standpoints we argue to understand each other.

There are many roleplaying games out there by the first definition, but Bioware so far seems to be almost alone in how far they have taken roleplaying games, as defined by the second definition. Personally I tend to go by the second definition, so I guess that for me it would be an roleplaying experience if they slapped as much conversations as there is in ME on a shooter with no character building at all. But others feel the differently, and I don't begrudge them that opinion if they justify this by saying that roleplaying to them is character building.

Agreed.

[Sylvius the Mad]

ian528 wrote...

The coherent framework is what you provide as a player.

Well yes, I have that, but I can't implement it without being allowed to vet my character's actions.

You are the person making the choices to make the character behave as you would have them behave.

 
Again, no.  ME does not allow this.

I find often time in tabletop I have to discourage the players from doing exactly what you are talking about.  There are choices and there are consequences.  If you want to know all possible choices, then you are not really role playing, you are meta-gaming.

 
That doesn't make any sense.  In tabletop gaming there's no finite list of discrete options.  Your character can do literally whatever you can describe to the GM, so this problem can't possibly arise.

To do or not to do that is the most basic question.  Both have consequences.  Weighing out each choice is not always possible.  You can not game where every choice you make is advantageous to your character.  Sometimes the right choice can prove to be wrong for so many reasons over time.

Sure.  Choices have consequences.  I can't know what will be the ultimate result of whatever it is my character says right now.  But what ME does that I'm complaining about is not let me have any meaningful input into what my character says.

The dialogue wheel, as implemented, too often gave options that did not match the resulting uttered lines or performed actions, and as soon as that happens once then I need to save every conversation to ensure that what Shepard says is consistent with the Shepard I've designed.  "Keep them away from the ship" should mean exactly that.  Instead, when I chose that, Shepard said, "Keep them away from the ship.  Gun them down if you have to."  II wanted to prioritise keeping the Normandy safe, so I chose the option that did that, but then Shepard turned into a lunatic and explicitly advocated the killing of innocents.

That's no longer a character I'm playing.  That's a character I'm watching.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Xandurpein wrote...

There is basically two different views of what constitutes a roleplaying game, and everyone who discuss this ought to recognize it.

To some people a roleplaying game is in the game mechanics. You have a character that gains levels and distributes talents, skills and attributes to 'build' your character. To them the degree a game can be called roleplaying is the degree you are able to customize your own character.

To some people, the essence of a roleplaying game is that you are playing a role. The protagonist is an empty vessel into which you pour your thoughts and decisions. The degree a game can be called roleplaying, with this definition, is the degree it lets you express yourself in the game, through conversations, choices and so on with your Avatar.

I'd like to point out that by both these standards, ME fails.

[ian528]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I'd like to point out that by both these standards, ME fails.

Since we do not agree.  I will make a completely logical suggestion here: Stop playing.  If you are not finding what you want in the game, then go elsewhere.  It does not fail for me and you will not be able to convince me it does.  I will not be able to convince you otherwise.

[another Riposte]

I am always humored by the fact that the things people call "RPG elements" are called "Strategy elements" or "crunch" in actual RPGs.

[Xandurpein]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

There is basically two different views of what constitutes a roleplaying game, and everyone who discuss this ought to recognize it.

To some people a roleplaying game is in the game mechanics. You have a character that gains levels and distributes talents, skills and attributes to 'build' your character. To them the degree a game can be called roleplaying is the degree you are able to customize your own character.

To some people, the essence of a roleplaying game is that you are playing a role. The protagonist is an empty vessel into which you pour your thoughts and decisions. The degree a game can be called roleplaying, with this definition, is the degree it lets you express yourself in the game, through conversations, choices and so on with your Avatar.

I'd like to point out that by both these standards, ME fails.

And I think that by the first definition Mass Effect is clearly an RPG, although maybe not a particularily outstanding one, but I contend that by the second definition ME is a very fine example indeed at least in mind.

[another Riposte]

Xandurpein wrote...
To some people, the essence of a roleplaying game is that you are playing a role. The protagonist is an empty vessel into which you pour your thoughts and decisions. The degree a game can be called roleplaying, with this definition, is the degree it lets you express yourself in the game, through conversations, choices and so on with your Avatar.

This is a deceptive definition. It should be that "RPGs" are games with "narrative freedom." The ability to change the plot. The more narrative freedom a game has the more complex it is as a RPG. The benchmark is the human imagination, not something a computer can emulate any time soon. Expressing yourself is done in every game, even Pong. It is a bit of a joke qualification.

Mass Effect is a very simple RPG at best. Maybe so simple one shouldn't call it a RPG at all. However if you are comparing it to other (video) games it is certainly more RPG-like than what we are used to.

Modifié par another Riposte, 09 mars 2010 - 09:26 .