10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Maybe I don't get it. But I can't understand why people are upset over the lack of stats determing whether or not you can aim.

[Terror_K]

Lizardviking wrote...

Maybe I don't get it. But I can't understand why people are upset over the lack of stats determing whether or not you can aim.

Because it defeats the purpose of character building and progression when a Level 1 character is just as adept at taking down an enemy with his weapon as a Level 30 one. Your character isn't getting better in Mass Effect 2 ala other RPG's, he/she is merely unlocking additional combat abilities and that's pretty much it. For an RPG that's pretty shallow and narrow.

[Goldrock]

me neither mass effect 2 is one of the best games ive played in ages it wasnt like part 1 but its story element was great kinda reminded me of gears of war with a rpg element added too it. imo bioware games just keep getting better every time they release one and the little whiners who complain need too just stop polluting the forums biware works pretty damn hard too give us our entertainment people should just be a little more supportive.

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

So, you say only reason why someone has companion in Mass Effect is so that they can decrypt, what isn't even required to do. I mean you can skip them all and it doesn't stop you playing.

Of course it isn't absolutely required to play, just like you don't need a thief/rogue in Baldur's Gate or Dragon Age Origins. But you miss out on stuff if you don't. ME2 doesn't even try and put a restriction on you... it just hands it to you on a silver platter.

So, you say it's bad thing that ME2 allows every player class do puzzle solving without belowing some special class? I don't know, I ques it's good or bad thing. Depense how You look situations.

Example I did not like to play adept class at all because I needed to sertain npcs with me on missions, if I wanted do the decryption. I did not feel good about it. More like disadvantage of my class, making my gameplay less fun, because some pointless requirements for squad members without missing any content.

Because only Infiltrator has all 3 main skill required to have fun, I played that class in ME1. Those skills where, pistoll skill (attack), protective skill (immunity) and decryption skill. Decryption skill, because it allowed full freedom for squad members choises.

I think these handicap class skills belongs to more in multiplayer games, not on single player games.

You say about players missing content, but then other hand you require handicaps for players classes, so they would miss content or be forced to limited choises. I would my self just have fun and not trying to create possibilities players to miss content or forcing them to choose sertain classes or squad members. How ever, if you think that's better, I respect you opinion. I just my self disagree with that, I think freedom for player is more important than handicaps on single player games.

Modifié par Lumikki, 14 juin 2010 - 01:03 .

[KitsuneRommel]

Lizardviking wrote...

Maybe I don't get it. But I can't understand why people are upset over the lack of stats determing whether or not you can aim.

It works well in games like Fallout (1 & 2) and Jagged Alliance. As soon as the game changes to FPS or TPS you notice how ridiculous it is, especially if the background makes no sense.

And since we talked about decryption earlier... It would've been a lot better if having high decryption skill had only made the minigames easier. The only indication that you got better at it was the arbitary point where you could suddenly hack something that you couldn't even try before.

[Terror_K]

Goldrock wrote...

me neither mass effect 2 is one of the best games ive played in ages it wasnt like part 1 but its story element was great kinda reminded me of gears of war with a rpg element added too it. imo bioware games just keep getting better every time they release one and the little whiners who complain need too just stop polluting the forums biware works pretty damn hard too give us our entertainment people should just be a little more supportive.

I rest my case. Thank you, and good night. <_<

[KitsuneRommel]

Lumikki wrote...

I think these handicap class skills belongs to more in multiplayer games, not on single player games.

Which is why Morrowind and Oblivion did things 1000 better. Even if you played a warrior you could still join e.g. mages guild if you just kept leveling those casting skills.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Terror_K wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Maybe I don't get it. But I can't understand why people are upset over the lack of stats determing whether or not you can aim.

Because it defeats the purpose of character building and progression when a Level 1 character is just as adept at taking down an enemy with his weapon as a Level 30 one. Your character isn't getting better in Mass Effect 2 ala other RPG's, he/she is merely unlocking additional combat abilities and that's pretty much it. For an RPG that's pretty shallow and narrow.

In my opinion. The only "RPG" aspects that should be expanded upon in ME3 is the upgrade system being made better and more original (increase damage by 10%. Really Bioware? that's the best you could come up with?) The armor system should also be made slightly deeper (althrough I liked the fact that you could complete the game with the original N7 armor in ME2). More skills and more points to use.

[Orchomene]

[...] Sorry, wrong manipulation.

Modifié par Orchomene, 14 juin 2010 - 01:05 .

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

So, you say it's bad thing that ME2 allows every player class do puzzle solving without belowing some special class? I don't know, I ques it's good or bad thing. Depense how You look situations.

Example I did not like to play adept class at all because I needed to sertain npcs with me on missions, if I wanted do the decryption. I did not feel good about it. More like disadvantage of my class, making my gameplay less fun, because some pointless requirements for squad members.

Because only Infiltrator has all 3 main skill required to have fun, I played that class in ME1. Those skills where, pistoll skill (attack), protective skill (immunity) and decryption skill. Decryption skill, because it allowed full freedom for squad members choises.

I think these handicap class skills belongs to more in multiplayer games, not on single player games.

You say about players missing content, but then other hand you require handicaps for players classes, so they would miss content or be forced to limited choises. I would my self just have fun and not trying to create possibilities players to miss content or forcing them to choose sertain classes or squad members. How ever, if you think that's better, I respect you opinion. I just my self disagree with that, I think freedom for player is more important than handicaps.

But that's almost the entire point of playing an RPG! You have to have those restrictions in place, otherwise you just end up with a Master of All Trades character with no-trade offs and no incentive or encouragement to build a character well or intelligently. Restrictions are what make RPGs great, and they need them to thrive. When playing a P&P RPG the entire point is that you gather together different players with different classes and that you strategise and work together using each other's strengths to accomplish the mission ahead. If everybody was good at everything, this would be pointless. The entire point of classes existing in the first place is to categorise the different types of specialists and what their strengths are and to limit you from being too good at everything.

[Terror_K]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

I think these handicap class skills belongs to more in multiplayer games, not on single player games.

Which is why Morrowind and Oblivion did things 1000 better. Even if you played a warrior you could still join e.g. mages guild if you just kept leveling those casting skills.

I hope you're being sarcastic, because that was terrible. You could just be everything with a single character... it was awful. Didn't encourage multiple playthroughs at all... why bother when one character can do it all. They needed restrictions on them.

[MotoSkunkX]

To me an "RPG" is about the storyline and how deeply the game pulls me into it.



Not a bajillion of weapon customization options that are 99.9% similar to one another or pointless statistical analysis on how to best turn my character into a D&D nerd's wet dream.



So no, Mass Effect 2 wasn't disappointing at all.

[Orchomene]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

I think these handicap class skills belongs to more in multiplayer games, not on single player games.

Which is why Morrowind and Oblivion did things 1000 better. Even if you played a warrior you could still join e.g. mages guild if you just kept leveling those casting skills.

Morrowind and Oblivion are RPG without companions. This changes a lot the gameplay. The idea behind having a team is to have complementary talents. That's even the concept of the pseudo story of ME2 : building a team.
But it's plain wrong in the gameplay since the result is that the only abilities of companions are dealing damamge in combat. Basically, you can take anybody you want with you in any mission of ME2 and the result is the same. Thus, it appears strangely in the end that only Tali or Legion appear to be able to do technical things since the whole party there was no gameplay that would state this.

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

But that's almost the entire point of playing an RPG! You have to have those restrictions in place, otherwise you just end up with a Master of All Trades character with no-trade offs and no incentive or encouragement to build a character well or intelligently. Restrictions are what make RPGs great, and they need them to thrive. When playing a P&P RPG the entire point is that you gather together different players with different classes and that you strategise and work together using each other's strengths to accomplish the mission ahead. If everybody was good at everything, this would be pointless. The entire point of classes existing in the first place is to categorise the different types of specialists and what their strengths are and to limit you from being too good at everything.

Sure, but there is different between restricting access to game content and resticting access to all skills. Example playing adept, soldier or engineer is different in both games, these handicaps create diversitity to classes. My point is that handicaps as different playing style is fine, but handicap as restricing access to game content, isn't really that fine.

Modifié par Lumikki, 14 juin 2010 - 01:22 .

[kalle90]

Lumikki wrote...

7a7ec wrote...

Terror_K wrote perfectly the things that were "dumbed" down , you can all argue what "RPG" even means but it wont change that all this things are still missing from the game...

Yes, some of those are missing the game, but are they missed by players is other thing.

I mean, I miss some of those stuff, but some other stuff are actually good thing that they get rid of it. A few of the good stuff get rid are stats/skills affecting the gameplay. Yeah, those RPG stuff, because those did not make gameplay better, they did make it worst.

Examples:

Decrypction skill determined players ability get access to decryption. Totally waste of time skill, because it just forces players to put point there if player wants to do decryption. Because in the end it was player based skill anyway.

Weapons skills affecting accuracy. Oh my good how bad design. Actually trying to prevent player to make the shot. Hole aiming is player skill and now character skill trying to make it harder for player. So, that player has to counter affect the negative situation with player skill. Think about sniper rifle.

What about weapon skills like marksman what totally destroyed hole weapon combat balance and also make pistol feel totally different than pistols are. More like submachine gun. Totally bad game design there.

Persuade and intimidate skills. 100% uselless skills because it only meaned if you want the addional dialog option, you where forced to put one of them points when it was possible. This is hell of lot better done in ME2, even if most of players here don't even understand why. Because it's now about players gameplay choises in dialog chat what determines the option, not just general character progression.

My point here is that what the Terror_K wrote aren't all good thing. She/he just think so. Also many of them are just illusion and did not really make the game better. Example huge variety of items, when most the itmes where same items just different names.

Also some stuff are her/his self biased opinions. Example companions not needed. WTF, I never needed companions in both games. So, how is one better than other? That's what I, mean biased opinions.

So your opinions aren't opinions?

Decryption - What skill doesn't "force" people to put points in them? If you want to use it you have to level it up.
Although I do think that if someone else was the master of decryption I shouldn't have to do any mini-game.

Aiming - In traditional RPG the player has no saying whether his attacks hit or not. In many action games there are things like shaking aim and recoil. In ME1 the lack of accuracy just showed your Shepard is not an expert (hasn't used it) with that weapon. It's not like the weapons had to be completely useless. Usually I upgrade my sniper into a super powerful lottery cannon I gamble with if necessary.

Marksman was just an another word for adrenaline burst. You use it to pull the trigger faster. All powers "break" the balance.

Now, with persuade options I can somewhat agree as they're not something you can really train. But it allowed you to set and change your personality. If you start ME2 as a tough intimidator it's difficult to change that although people should be able to change or stay neutral and still sometimes succeed in persuasion.

In ME1 your companions had very spesific specialities. In ME2 they are more for extra firepower.

Plus the regenerative health. ME1 just had more depth. Whether you had low or high health affected your strategy (well atleast mine) plus you couldn't be careless even against weak enemies as they could sip a small bit of your health. I just prefer consequenses instead of having things reset after every fight. Plus generally it is more realistic that you have to do something about to your wounds instead of having them heal like you're a vampire. Mass effectwise today's realism isn't that important, but I still preferred the regeneration upgrade as it was just 1 option out of many. ME2 forcing me to use certain stuff just makes it more like a generic action game

[KitsuneRommel]

Terror_K wrote...

I hope you're being sarcastic, because that was terrible. You could just be everything with a single character... it was awful. Didn't encourage multiple playthroughs at all... why bother when one character can do it all. They needed restrictions on them.

Why? If someone wants to spend 300 hours simply leveling one character why can't he? Is he going to have more fun than someone who played 4 characters during that time?

[Orchomene]

MotoSkunkX wrote...

To me an "RPG" is about the storyline and how deeply the game pulls me into it.

Not a bajillion of weapon customization options that are 99.9% similar to one another or pointless statistical analysis on how to best turn my character into a D&D nerd's wet dream.

So no, Mass Effect 2 wasn't disappointing at all.

Then good novel books are RPG ?

[Lumikki]

kalle90 wrote...

So your opinions aren't opinions?

Strange question. All what we say here in this forum is opinions. So, of course my words are my opinion.

Aiming - In traditional RPG the player has no saying whether his attacks hit or not. In many action games there are things like shaking aim and recoil. In ME1 the lack of accuracy just showed your Shepard is not an expert (hasn't used it) with that weapon. It's not like the weapons had to be completely useless. Usually I upgrade my sniper into a super powerful lottery cannon I gamble with if necessary.

Yeah, the best military person what human race has offer and Shepard can hardly even hold sniper rifle and would not hit in lower levels to anything. Talk about RPG impression. Mass Effects aren't traditional RPG and combat system is 3rd person shooter in both games. The RPG stuff made the combat system worst in ME1.

In ME1 your companions had very spesific specialities. In ME2 they are more for extra firepower.

Plus the regenerative health. ME1 just had more depth. Whether you had low or high health affected your strategy (well atleast mine) plus you couldn't be careless even against weak enemies as they could sip a small bit of your health. I just prefer consequenses instead of having things reset after every fight. Plus generally it is more realistic that you have to do something about to your wounds instead of having them heal like you're a vampire. Mass effectwise today's realism isn't that important, but I still preferred the regeneration upgrade as it was just 1 option out of many. ME2 forcing me to use certain stuff just makes it more like a generic action game

Maybe we played different games here. ../../../images/forum/emoticons/joyful.png

All my character regenerate health in ME1. What the hell you talk here?
What spesific specialties, what ME2 did not have?

Modifié par Lumikki, 14 juin 2010 - 01:51 .

[MotoSkunkX]

Orchomene wrote...
Then good novel books are RPG ?

No.

[kalle90]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

So, you say only reason why someone has companion in Mass Effect is so that they can decrypt, what isn't even required to do. I mean you can skip them all and it doesn't stop you playing.

Pretty much. The only reason to bring a techie is to get all those lockers open.

And the only reason to bring other people (combat or biotics) is to kill people... The only point I see for having a team of jack of all trades is to allow to people spend time with the companions they want, which is stupid IMO. It doesn't make much sense gameplaywise or storywise.

Some people need to be able to separate gameplay mechanics from narrative and story. These are games and not every mechanic makes sense. Do you think Shepard really has levels and is concerned about gaining XP and what he has to spend his points in next time? How about the fact that despite being crouched behind cover you can still see the battlefield and enemies before you, even though the way Shepard's head is positioned there's no way he/she could? Things would be pretty boring and restrictive if everything was overly realistic, and RPG progression would be meaningless if we were too concerned about that.

No, I don't think so and I didn't mean the game should be overly realistic.

But yeah, people basically have levels. The XP system is just a wrong way to show it. More appropriate is how Elder Scrolls games do it. You get better at what you're doing, not what you choose to get better in. The rest of your points just don't make any sense as a reply to my post. I'm not asking for overly realistic, I'm asking for believable.

Thing is that usually RPGs go for a story. If you are in them for the challenge then that's fine. But I'm in mostly for the story and having a pushover Shepard, Revan or Batman doesn't go well with that. I did say that I would like the supercharacter only as an option. You could add UP TO ~20 skill points when creating your Shepard (Decide whether he's really a rookie or a real experienced commander), or you could choose a Hardcore difficulty and what's supposed to be your level 30 hero would start from level 1.

It does sound a bit conflicting that I'm in it for the story but I still strongly prefer ME1 although storyqualitywise they aren't all different. I can somewhat believe Cerberus has more control over Shepard than anyone had over him in ME1. I can believe he can't carry 100 weapons on the field and modify and change everything everywhere. But that I basically lost all touch with my old squadmates, weapons suddenly have clips, the skills, items and powers have changed around almost completely etc. are things that efficiently ruin the experience. On top of everything: Why is Shepard scanning planets himself?

[KitsuneRommel]

kalle90 wrote...

And the only reason to bring other people (combat or biotics) is to kill people... The only point I see for having a team of jack of all trades is to allow to people spend time with the companions they want, which is stupid IMO. It doesn't make much sense gameplaywise or storywise.

And they do it a lot better than a techie. If we changed the phrase to "the only reason to bring a cleric is to heal people" and you just found out why (almost) no one wants to play them in PnP.

[kalle90]

Lumikki wrote...

kalle90 wrote...

So your opinions aren't opinions?

Strange question. All what we say here in this forum is opinions. So, of course my words are my opinion.

I just got that idea by looking at your numerous "You think so" comments 

Aiming - In traditional RPG the player has no saying whether his attacks hit or not. In many action games there are things like shaking aim and recoil. In ME1 the lack of accuracy just showed your Shepard is not an expert (hasn't used it) with that weapon. It's not like the weapons had to be completely useless. Usually I upgrade my sniper into a super powerful lottery cannon I gamble with if necessary.

Yeah, the best military person what human race has offer and Shepard can hardly even hold sniper rifle and would not hit in lower levels to anything. Talk about RPG impression. Mass Effects aren't traditional RPG and combat system is 3rd person shooter in both games. The RPG stuff made the combat system worst in ME1.

He doesn't have to be a soldier, atleast not a sniper oriented one. The best doesn't mean he has to be MasterChief or Marcus Fenix good killer. IMO he even isn't that unbelievably bad. I just prefer ME1 style over the "ME2-All other 3rd person shooters" style.

In ME1 your companions had very spesific specialities. In ME2 they are more for extra firepower.

Plus the regenerative health. ME1 just had more depth. Whether you had low or high health affected your strategy (well atleast mine) plus you couldn't be careless even against weak enemies as they could sip a small bit of your health. I just prefer consequenses instead of having things reset after every fight. Plus generally it is more realistic that you have to do something about to your wounds instead of having them heal like you're a vampire. Mass effectwise today's realism isn't that important, but I still preferred the regeneration upgrade as it was just 1 option out of many. ME2 forcing me to use certain stuff just makes it more like a generic action game

Maybe we played different games here. ../../../images/forum/emoticons/joyful.png

All my character regenerate health in ME1. What the hell you talk here?
What spesific specialties, what ME2 did not have?

Eh. You got mods? In my ME1 the health sure doesn't regenerate unless I use an armor upgrade

The spesific specialities: Soldier, Technician, Biotic and 3 balanced guys. I actually got the impression Liara is a superb biotic talent and Tali can crack stuff no other people can. In ME2 anyone can do almost anything. I also experienced the annoyance of having to drag Tali along to get cases open, but that's life. It's not like opening all the cases was necessary or even useful

Modifié par kalle90, 14 juin 2010 - 02:18 .

[bjdbwea]

MotoSkunkX wrote...

To me an "RPG" is about the storyline and how deeply the game pulls me into it.

Not a bajillion of weapon customization options that are 99.9% similar to one another or pointless statistical analysis on how to best turn my character into a D&D nerd's wet dream.

So no, Mass Effect 2 wasn't disappointing at all.

That's exactly the main reason why ME 2 was disappointing.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

bjdbwea wrote...

MotoSkunkX wrote...

To me an "RPG" is about the storyline and how deeply the game pulls me into it.

Not a bajillion of weapon customization options that are 99.9% similar to one another or pointless statistical analysis on how to best turn my character into a D&D nerd's wet dream.

So no, Mass Effect 2 wasn't disappointing at all.

That's exactly the main reason why ME 2 was disappointing.

Ha! too true. The biggest problem with ME2 is the story.

[7a7ec]

MotoSkunkX wrote...

To me an "RPG" is about the storyline and how deeply the game pulls me into it.

Not a bajillion of weapon customization options that are 99.9% similar to one another or pointless statistical analysis on how to best turn my character into a D&D nerd's wet dream.

So no, Mass Effect 2 wasn't disappointing at all.

Thats funny, the storyline of ME 2 was the most dissapointing aspect of the game ...