297 réponses à ce sujet

[Terror_K]

While Mass Effect may not have been a traditional RPG, the first one was closer to it than the second, which was only a hop skip and a jump away from simply being a Third-Person Shooter with RPG elements rather than being an RPG at all. I'm still not really convinced that the XP you earn isn't just a bunch of meaningless numbers slapped on to placate RPG fans with the new way the XP system is handled... one of ME2's so-called "improvements" that I think should be binned and returned to the original method where we knew XP had meaning and we were really earning it.

[A Fhaol Bhig]

Terror_K wrote...

While Mass Effect may not have been a traditional RPG, the first one was closer to it than the second, which was only a hop skip and a jump away from simply being a Third-Person Shooter with RPG elements rather than being an RPG at all. I'm still not really convinced that the XP you earn isn't just a bunch of meaningless numbers slapped on to placate RPG fans with the new way the XP system is handled... one of ME2's so-called "improvements" that I think should be binned and returned to the original method where we knew XP had meaning and we were really earning it.

I never denied that " the first one was closer to it than the second" in terms of RPG content, I simply argue against people who say its virtually non-existant.


And I'm in total agreement with the EXP system in ME2, I want a "reward me now!" button everytime I pull the trigger and kill someone, not so gay "mission accomplished screen" which would be fine if, say you WANTED to review everything you accomplished.

[slyguy07]

I rather like the XP per kill actually. It was rewarding. If you kill a Thresher Maw or Colossus on foot you got more XP for it. It's the same lame thing now at the end of each mission.

[A Fhaol Bhig]

Chuck_Vu wrote...

A Fhaol Bhig wrote...

Don't get me wrong man, I wouldn't mind more RPG elements and choices, I'm just saying don't over do it.

I've never played tabletop, I can't really say anything beyond the rules I learned over the years.

I don't think you can over do it.   Because having more RPG elements and choices, boil down to this - You can choose not to take it.  In Oblivion you could murder everyone in any town, or you leave them alone (except for essential storyline characters).  No one is forcing you to do either.  And yes, I know, that game has it's flaws as well.  But that should be discussed on Bethesda's forums, not here.  Most gamers, I think, would leave the towns people/villagers alone.  Some of us, would try it.  I did, and I actually made a mini game out of it - see how long it would take the guardsmen to wear me down and kill me.  There were houses I broke into, and there were house I didn't.  I didn't have to any of it.  I chose the option to do so.  If you played that game, and did things differently, I would not think less of you for not taking the options I did.  I played the game the way I wanted to.  I would want you to play that same game the way you want to, not the way I would want to play that game.  That's my point of having more options.

I don't believe I disagreed with that, I simply said Don't make mass effect fallout. I want more choices, but ME is not Fallout or Oblivion. That's what I was saying when I mentiond "don't go overboard"



Oh, and I'm the kind of person to save the game, and than pilliage nad ravish the inhabitants and than reload

Modifié par A Fhaol Bhig, 06 mars 2010 - 03:48 .

[A Fhaol Bhig]

slyguy07 wrote...

I rather like the XP per kill actually. It was rewarding. If you kill a Thresher Maw or Colossus on foot you got more XP for it. It's the same lame thing now at the end of each mission.

Thats how I hit the level 50 cap in my first run at one point, just killing as many people out of the vehicle as possible.

Course even on insanity, I could take down a thresher maw with immunity...

[Vena_86]

Only full Paragon or Renegade paths are valid, everything else results in a lesser experience.

There is very little skill customization, even less for the party members.

There is zero armor customization for the party and the one for shepard is very linear too. Experimenting or combining according to gameplay preference is has very little usefull paths. Weapon upgrades are so straight forward that there is very little to no choice for the player.

There is almost no exploration of the world (or in this case even universe) you play in.

Many missions have their order fixed, where it wasnt neccessary.

Killing special (boss) enemies is very meaningless and doesnt reward you with experience or powerfull loot. This is a very old idea, but there is a good reason why such gameplay mechanics are still so popular that whole games are build arround it (Diablo 3 anyone?) - the feeling of reward and accomplishment

Also, everything is clearly sepperated and level borders are very obvious.



These among other things are RPG elements which are stronger represented in ME1. Instead of improving flawed aspects, BioWare removed them all together.



What puts shooters and RPGs appart (I like and play both) is that in a shooter you mostly just follow a path which the developer has prepared for you while a RPG tries to put you into a living, breathing world which you become a part of and inside that world you follow a storyline.

ME2, despite claiming to be a RPG goes more into the shooter direction.



As i said, I like both genres but I am sure that a combination of each world into a hybrid game can be done better in many ways than ME2 did, without dissappointing either fanbase.

[A Fhaol Bhig]

Glad to read your post Vena.



No their isn't a lot of character customization. Can't argue against that.



I'd rather have small, five minute worlds, than 20 minute barren wastelands. Even then, if you dropped in the mako and went directly to the mission or anomoly and completed the planet, it'd take you little more than 10 minutes. Not exactly a huge leap forward from ME2.



They removed thos things because PEOPLE KEPT COMPLANING ABOUT THEM AND HOW MUCH THEY SUCKED! Sorry for the caps, but I needed that point to get across, they removed them because people hated them.



ME2 claims to be an RPG yes, but it doesn't say 90% RPG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It just says it is part RPG.

[FlashedMyDrive]

[A Fhaol Bhig]

haha!
I was just here to post that exact thing!

[addiction21]

I do wish I could coalesce my thoughts into such a well written and eloquent way that Gaider does. Alas Ialways get stuck thinking about waffles...

[A Fhaol Bhig]

addiction21 wrote...

I do wish I could coalesce my thoughts into such a well written and eloquent way that Gaider does. Alas Ialways get stuck thinking about waffles...

Well, its not easy being a waffle lord, but you do a good job!

[Vena_86]

It is wrong to claim an RPG needs an inventory or a set number of skills, true. And ME2 is not even advertised as a full blooded old school RPG. What matters is that you play a character, a role and ME2 actually made some improvements, with the personal room and normandy as a whole.



But it can not be denied that as a ROLEPLAYING GAME (and for me that also puts alot of emphazise on the believability of the game world) Mass Effect 2 took atleast one step back from where the franchise started.



As a long time gamer of many genres my opinion simply is that Mass Effect is an franchise that has written EPIC (not the company) all over it. But ME2 actually made it less epic and more short termed, intense fun like shooters usually are as opposed to the more lasting appeal of RPGs.



I simply believe that the franchise works better as a Role Playing Game at heart with better than usual action elements and not just another cover based shooter at heart with great dialogues which is Mass Effect 2.

[Minister of Sound]

I think its safe to say Mass Effect 2 is a RPG lite much like Deus Ex 2

Modifié par Minister of Sound, 07 mars 2010 - 12:40 .

[A Fhaol Bhig]

Vena_86 wrote...

It is wrong to claim an RPG needs an inventory or a set number of skills, true. And ME2 is not even advertised as a full blooded old school RPG. What matters is that you play a character, a role and ME2 actually made some improvements, with the personal room and normandy as a whole.

But it can not be denied that as a ROLEPLAYING GAME (and for me that also puts alot of emphazise on the believability of the game world) Mass Effect 2 took atleast one step back from where the franchise started.

As a long time gamer of many genres my opinion simply is that Mass Effect is an franchise that has written EPIC (not the company) all over it. But ME2 actually made it less epic and more short termed, intense fun like shooters usually are as opposed to the more lasting appeal of RPGs.

I simply believe that the franchise works better as a Role Playing Game at heart with better than usual action elements and not just another cover based shooter at heart with great dialogues which is Mass Effect 2.

always up to the person itself

[lukandroll]

FlashedMyDrive wrote...

David Gaider words are being tosed too much lately...
What I mean with this??
In a sequel to a well known game, like ME2 is, you can't hope to change the game entirely and expect all people will be happy....
I personaly think It was a bad move from bioware. Normaly sequels build up from the last game, improving and adding new things in the process. And that's it, you take what you got, you fix the problems it had and you improve it. That way you will have most of your fanbase happy, those who enjoyed the first game will rejoice at the new tweaks, and those who complain and hated certain aspects of the first will be happy to see they problems adressed.
Again, I'm sure there was finantial and contractual matters on the middle(On part of EA mostly), I know BioWare wouldn't have stripped so much if weren't working with a tight deadline.

Modifié par lukandroll, 07 mars 2010 - 06:09 .

[MassEffect762]

lukandroll wrote...

FlashedMyDrive wrote...

David Gaider words are being tosed too much lately...
What I mean with this??
In a sequel to a well known game, like ME2 is, you can't hope to change the game entirely and expect all people will be happy....
I personaly think It was a bad move from bioware. Normaly sequels build up from the last game, improving and adding new things in the process. And that's it, you take what you got, you fix the problems it had and you improve it. That way you will have most of your fanbase happy, those who enjoyed the first game will rejoice at the new tweaks, and those who complain and hated certain aspects of the first will be happy to see they problems adressed.
Again, I'm sure there was finantial and contractual matters on the middle(On part of EA mostly), I know BioWare wouldn't have stripped so much if weren't working with a tight deadline.

*In a calm voice*
Is Gaider the man with the wallet? If not then his opinion is that of any others in my opinion.
The bo$$ mans wallet and limits of will/desire are the begining and ending of this art.

Modifié par MassEffect762, 07 mars 2010 - 07:28 .

[A Fhaol Bhig]

MassEffect762 wrote...


*In a calm voice*
Is Gaider the man with the wallet? If not then his opinion is that of any others in my opinion.
The bo$$ mans wallet and limits of will/desire are the begining and ending of this art.

Dude, chill. We aren't saying his words are god's own. We're just pointing out that thats probably the main problem with everyone complaining about the problems, even if they don't want to admit it. Their is not strict definition of an RPG, so people can't really say this HAS to be a part of it to make it more or less of one.

Nobody said you had to like the changes, and nobody said you couldn't complain. Don't take peoples word's out of context because like you said, his opinion is like any others, including yours.

Wallet? Desire? If thats what you think, if you personally know everyone at Bioware who made this game, and they all go "money money money" then you can say, that, otherwise stick to critiquing the game and dont' act like jerk and insult people who spent hundreds and hundreds of hours making this game.

Again, you don't have to like the game, or you can like the game but not like the changes, or you can just love the game. WHATEVER. This thread is to discuss the RPG parts of the game, not to discuss what the thoughts and motivations of the people are, its to discuss the GAME. Lets try to  Keep it that way, please.

Modifié par A Fhaol Bhig, 07 mars 2010 - 08:24 .

[MassEffect762]

A Fhaol Bhig wrote...

MassEffect762 wrote...


*In a calm voice*
Is Gaider the man with the wallet? If not then his opinion is that of any others in my opinion.
The bo$$ mans wallet and limits of will/desire are the begining and ending of this art.

Dude, chill. We aren't saying his words are god's own. We're just pointing out that thats probably the main problem with everyone complaining about the problems, even if they don't want to admit it. Their is not strict definition of an RPG, so people can't really say this HAS to be a part of it to make it more or less of one.

Nobody said you had to like the changes, and nobody said you couldn't complain. Don't take peoples word's out of context because like you said, his opinion is like any others, including yours.

Wallet? Desire? If thats what you think, if you personally know everyone at Bioware who made this game, and they all go "money money money" then you can say, that, otherwise stick to critiquing the game and dont' act like ****got and insult people who spent hundreds and hundreds of hours making this game. Again, you don't have to like the game, or you can like the game but not like the changes, or you can just love the game. WHATEVER. This thread is not to discuss what the thoughts of the people are, its to discuss the GAME.Lets try to  Keep it that way, please.

*Relaxed voice*

I did not mean to offend, that is the easiest way for me to look at the change. It's a buisness afterall, not to discredit bioware either, they're the kings of gaming as far as I'm concerned.

Modifié par MassEffect762, 07 mars 2010 - 08:26 .

[A Fhaol Bhig]

*nods*

Buisness is correct.



Back to the game?

[lukandroll]

Ok.

As I said earlier, I'd like to have more character building on ME3, giving more points to certain Weapon training, armor training, passive skills, and all sort of bonuses that can be earned thought experience and hard work.

[A Fhaol Bhig]

lukandroll wrote...

Ok.
As I said earlier, I'd like to have more character building on ME3, giving more points to certain Weapon training, armor training, passive skills, and all sort of bonuses that can be earned thought experience and hard work.

I'd rather it have more of an impact like in ME2, than in ME when you level up or upgrade something.

[CatatonicMan]

A Fhaol Bhig wrote...

Dude, chill. We aren't saying his words are god's own. We're just pointing out that thats probably the main problem with everyone complaining about the problems, even if they don't want to admit it. Their is not strict definition of an RPG, so people can't really say this HAS to be a part of it to make it more or less of one.

Nobody said you had to like the changes, and nobody said you couldn't complain. Don't take peoples word's out of context because like you said, his opinion is like any others, including yours.

Wallet? Desire? If thats what you think, if you personally know everyone at Bioware who made this game, and they all go "money money money" then you can say, that, otherwise stick to critiquing the game and dont' act like jerk and insult people who spent hundreds and hundreds of hours making this game.

Again, you don't have to like the game, or you can like the game but not like the changes, or you can just love the game. WHATEVER. This thread is to discuss the RPG parts of the game, not to discuss what the thoughts and motivations of the people are, its to discuss the GAME. Lets try to  Keep it that way, please.

The argument presented by David Gaider has merit, and does certainly point out some problems with the whole idea of the RPG. The genre is too ill-defined for most expectations to be valid.

However, I do have a problem with people throwing his argument around all willy-nilly and out of context.

Here is the issue: while his arguments are good, they are targeted at new, independent games that have access to the entirely of the RPG spectrum (which is incredibly broad, as stated). This could apply to ME2 if you consider it all on its lonesome.

But ME2 is a sequel, which changes everything.

Being a sequel, it doesn't simply have access to the broad spectrum of the ill-defined RPG; it also has a large chunk of baggage that it inherits from ME1 - story, background, universe, mechanics, expectations, etc. This constrains the game - or rather, the expectations of the game - to a small section of the expanse. Improvements and changes are allowed, of course, but too many changes will make the game a sequel in name only.

This is what Bioware did with ME2. While the game is certainly still an RPG in the widest sense, it fails to succeed ME1 in the narrowest sense. This doesn't make it bad, but it does break expectation.

Basically, David Gaider's argument applies in the widest sense (it is an RPG by definition), but fails in the narrower (it is too different from ME1, and breaks expectation).

Modifié par CatatonicMan, 07 mars 2010 - 08:57 .

[lukandroll]

A Fhaol Bhig wrote...

lukandroll wrote...

Ok.
As I said earlier, I'd like to have more character building on ME3, giving more points to certain Weapon training, armor training, passive skills, and all sort of bonuses that can be earned thought experience and hard work.

I'd rather it have more of an impact like in ME2, than in ME when you level up or upgrade something.

More impact? like what in particular
While I applaud the especialization on every skill at the end, upgrading skills in between didn't had that much of an impact on my experience with all classes. Not as much as fully leveling the weapons masteries in ME1 either.
I don't feel its that much of an improving... Not to mention the lack of non-battle skills or passive abilities.

[A Fhaol Bhig]

lukandroll wrote...

A Fhaol Bhig wrote...

lukandroll wrote...

Ok.
As I said earlier, I'd like to have more character building on ME3, giving more points to certain Weapon training, armor training, passive skills, and all sort of bonuses that can be earned thought experience and hard work.

I'd rather it have more of an impact like in ME2, than in ME when you level up or upgrade something.

More impact? like what in particular
While I applaud the especialization on every skill at the end, upgrading skills in between didn't had that much of an impact on my experience with all classes. Not as much as fully leveling the weapons masteries in ME1 either.
I don't feel its that much of an improving... Not to mention the lack of non-battle skills or passive abilities.

Yes, because everyone misses stasis.

I mean impact as in when you put points in something, you got plus Seven, instead of plus 2%. Techincally thats just several of those points from ME1, but when I added points in ME2, since their is less "blocks" to level up in, it felt like more of an impact. And I noticed a big difference from overload with one point, to overload with 3 points in it.

Upgrading to masteries did nothing to change my experience in ME1. I would intentionally leave a few levels behind mastery in leveling things up because It wouldn't really effect anything. But thats just me, maybe five more seconds for your overkill really made all the difference for you.

[A Fhaol Bhig]

CatatonicMan wrote...

A Fhaol Bhig wrote...

Dude, chill. We aren't saying his words are god's own. We're just pointing out that thats probably the main problem with everyone complaining about the problems, even if they don't want to admit it. Their is not strict definition of an RPG, so people can't really say this HAS to be a part of it to make it more or less of one.

Nobody said you had to like the changes, and nobody said you couldn't complain. Don't take peoples word's out of context because like you said, his opinion is like any others, including yours.

Wallet? Desire? If thats what you think, if you personally know everyone at Bioware who made this game, and they all go "money money money" then you can say, that, otherwise stick to critiquing the game and dont' act like jerk and insult people who spent hundreds and hundreds of hours making this game.

Again, you don't have to like the game, or you can like the game but not like the changes, or you can just love the game. WHATEVER. This thread is to discuss the RPG parts of the game, not to discuss what the thoughts and motivations of the people are, its to discuss the GAME. Lets try to  Keep it that way, please.

The argument presented by David Gaider has merit, and does certainly point out some problems with the whole idea of the RPG. The genre is too ill-defined for most expectations to be valid.

However, I do have a problem with people throwing his argument around all willy-nilly and out of context.

Here is the issue: while his arguments are good, they are targeted at new, independent games that have access to the entirely of the RPG spectrum (which is incredibly broad, as stated). This could apply to ME2 if you consider it all on its lonesome.

But ME2 is a sequel, which changes everything.

Being a sequel, it doesn't simply have access to the broad spectrum of the ill-defined RPG; it also has a large chunk of baggage that it inherits from ME1 - story, background, universe, mechanics, expectations, etc. This constrains the game - or rather, the expectations of the game - to a small section of the expanse. Improvements and changes are allowed, of course, but too many changes will make the game a sequel in name only.

This is what Bioware did with ME2. While the game is certainly still an RPG in the widest sense, it fails to succeed ME1 in the narrowest sense. This doesn't make it bad, but it does break expectation.

Basically, David Gaider's argument applies in the widest sense (it is an RPG by definition), but fails in the narrower (it is too different from ME1, and breaks expectation).

He mainly talks about nostalgia, and what people consider to be an RPG affecting how people view ME2.