10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Terror_K]

@Lumikki



So... it's not okay for RPG mechanics to get in the way of the shooter ones, but its perfectly fine for shooter mechanics to get in the way of the RPG ones. Because as we all know... Mass Effect is a shooter first, isn't it... and as such the shooter elements take precedence.



I loved how Christina Norman was going on about "no sacred cows" in her GDC presentation about ME2. It'll be interesting to see when ME3 comes along how many shooter elements are in fact sacred cows. We'll see I guess.

[tonnactus]

Lumikki wrote...

Damm can't really answer, because haven't played bionic in ME2, just on ME1. How ever, I do assume that bionic skills in ME does work fine even with 1 point on them?

No.With level one throw you couldnt stop biotic krogans or asari commandos.Not even geth destroyers.Advanced throw stop those enemies,master throw allowed it to throw an armature. This was a real evolution of skills. No this crap now,where the player could choose between a bigger range or more damage.
So i ask you again.

Why shepardt has to learn biotic or tech abilities?

And why is shepardt to dumb to use different ammo types without points in it?
 
Does this more sense then marksmen?

Modifié par tonnactus, 15 juin 2010 - 07:53 .

[Orchomene]

Lumikki wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

No. All that amounts to is the fact that some people can't separate gameplay mechanics from narrative. Or, at least they can when it suits them, but when its something they don't like they can't. People don't seem to have a problem with Shepard suddenly learning a new ability for no real in-universe reason, but they have a problem with him/her only being as good as their weapons skill stat? They have no problem with Shepard not being able to shoot if the player's skill sucks, but because their stat is low it sucks? They have no problem with Shepard somehow being able to see the enemies on the battlefield even when he/she isn't looking at them because the player controlling Shepard can because it advantages them, but they have a problem with Shepard missing because the stat is low because it disadvantages them? They have a problem with a Level 1 Shepard sucking, but no issue with their Level 60 one being a God who could take on the Reaper fleet alone with no issues?

This is an RPG, and its supposed to be about character building and progression. If Shepard was as apparently badass as is made out, there'd be next to no character building and progression. Gameplay elements are gameplay elements, and story and narrative is story and narrative. They don't always completely gel, and this is true for any game. People need to stop complaining about this and using it as an excuse, because the same applies all over the place in almost every game ever made, but when its good and players like it its never an issue.

Next is little agressive general response. Mass Effect is not just RPG, it's action RPG with 3rd person shooter (hybrid). Meaning it doesn't have ALL traditional RPG elements or even can have, because it doesn't go well with the 3rd person shooter combat part. Example to make character skill affect to player skills, can have negative affect to player skill part. My point is don't just push idea to improve RPG side, while doing it expense of the shooter side. If you only care one side, then what I can say, Mass Effects aren't just one type of game only.

People have complaining here about Shepard to be too strong in ME1 too. Remember those god like armors and weapons, running gun blazing through enemies. That it complain about Shepards to be too strong.

ME1 combat did work and did what was needed, but it wasn't good. They fixed what was the problem and that was character skills and progression affecting the player skill side combat. What meaned RPG side had negative affect to shooter side. Problem of cause is that when you take character skills advances from combat side off, it will also remove big part of traditional RPG.

ME1 inventory system wasn't good. So, they fixed that too. Now the system is good, but how much they simplified the customation and modification was way way too much. How ever, they seem to allready know that and want to bring more customation back into ME3.

They also simplifyed skills and I did not like that at all. Removing RPG skills effect from shooter side combat was fine and needed, but simplifying skills so much wasn't. So, yes, ME2 did some stuff right and some stuff wrong. Point here is that what was fixed right was badly done in ME1. They just did go too far with other stuff too and simplifyed everyting else too, what wasn't even badly done in ME1.

There is also some skill involved in the choice of development talents, in the tactics employed (even just chosing the range). Of course, those are more intellectual talents. In the shooter gameplay, there is no intelligence involved. That's why shooter games is for uneducated and dumb people whereas strategic games and roleplaying games are for people interested in intellectual activities.
That's why the market is larger for shooter games. Most persons are just too limited to enjoy playing chess, reading essays, playing wargames (as opposed to warcraft like rts).
That doesn't imply that people having the ability to use efficiently there brain don't like playing shooter games to relax a bit. Just that that those that think really that "having numbers", "having to think a bit and plan", "prepare strategy" is just bad gameplay have just a mediocre capacity to think. It was not intended to anybody in this thread and specifically not to Lumikki that takes the time to discuss and argument, even if I disagree about a majority of the arguments.
Those that feel injured by what I wrote may consider that there may be some second degree interpretation behind the simplistic generalisations I do, but I don't expect they could understand and doesn't really matter about it.

[Terror_K]

Look out Orchomene! They're all going to pile in and start calling you an "elitist snob!" etc.

[Lumikki]

tonnactus wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

What specialist? Did You read what I wrote about what ME2 story is about. It's not about finding specialist.

Wrong.It was about finding the best specialists in the galaxy.Watch the trailer on you tube where casey etc. stated this.
So a player would expect that they all are unique.What isnt the case.

I think you answered your own question here.

[tonnactus]

Orchomene wrote...
 In the shooter gameplay, there is no intelligence involved.

It matters what shooter you play. A little is still needed when you play Half Life 2, Prey or Dead Space.

[tonnactus]

Lumikki wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

What specialist? Did You read what I wrote about what ME2 story is about. It's not about finding specialist.

Wrong.It was about finding the best specialists in the galaxy.Watch the trailer on you tube where casey etc. stated this.
So a player would expect that they all are unique.What isnt the case.

I think you answered your own question here.

What i answered? The "specialists" arent unique.

[Lumikki]

tonnactus wrote...

What i answered? The "specialists" arent unique.

Yep, not the way you and I meaned. Casey may meaned the word little differently or was just using the normal marketing BS.

[InvaderErl]

Massadonious1 wrote...

ShakeZoohla wrote...

Massadonious1
wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

Do you really believe ME
2 is only 4/100 away from being THE absolutely perfect game? Does
anyone actually believe that?

You mean the same
reviewers/sites that believed the orginal ME was anywhere from 5-15
points away from being the absolutely perfect game?

I guess they
must have been more enlightened and/or less paid off back then.

I
think the point he is making is that all review scores are pretty much
irrelevant.  

Perhaps, but he never suggested as
such. Maybe his insight on if he feels ME1 reviews were justified or not
will provide some clairty.

Just to pop in for a second - a 9/10 score isn't saying the game was 1 point away from being perfect. It has more to do with the game meeting the goals that it set out for itself, for example a racing game getting a 9/10 does not mean its better than a RTS that only gets an 8/10.

Now Mass Effect 2 pretty much did meet all of the goals it set out for itself - specifically to make technical improvements that were sorely needed as well as streamline their gameplay and improve their shooter element while delivering a story told in a cinematic manner.

Whether you like the direction that these changes took the series in or not is irrelevant (as far as scoring goes), but ME2 definitely met all of its goals and it did it well, judging by the majority response.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 15 juin 2010 - 08:20 .

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

*snippet* Too many think that because the ME1 method didn't work that the entire concept is fail and should be thrown out and replaced with a simple shooter mechanic instead... including BioWare.

Improve or rework? You going to be hardpressed to find reasons that favor one over the other.

Terror_K wrote...

The combat is technically better in ME2, but not suitably better.

Given that combat in ME1 was suitably bad, the tradeoff goes straight back to what I was saying with pies.

In regards to ME2, I think that both are on pretty much the same level of refinement, balance, and technical prowess. I just personally find the way things are set up in ME2 to have a potential to be a bit more interesting and, well, fun (I love using the Avenger and controlling its recoil!)

For me, I just wanted something new, and this goes for me with all sequels. God of War was great, but the sequels were just more of the same - and that's fine. You can either make a new game that may or may not be in the same setting, or could you copy the systems from the previous title and give it some make up and fine-tuning. Just as long as the game is good.

Terror_K wrote...

Yes, in the context of being an RPG. Having classes and skills is next to meaningless when one can be absolutely everything. Its like having a racing game with dozens of cars but the one you start with is already the best at everything (speed, handling, grip, torque, etc.) or a beat-em up where your character has the moves of every other character out you fight and 10 times as large a health bar, or a shooter where the base weapon is a one-hit kill on everything. Its a mechanic that completely craps on the very concept of an RPG.

This is, of course, implying that you start with everything at the start out of the game completely maxed out.
It's also assuming that leveling those skills isn't hard and doesn't take time and money.
It's also giving the implications that this doesn't happen in every single RPG anyways, where the team at endgame is one-shotting every single thing in sight (something all RPG developers need to take note of).
The most interesting assumption, of course, is applying a blanket definition for what has become such a broad and interesting genre, with multiple intriguing and successful takes.

I'm going to redirect you to my post from the previous page, and you'd be much better off replying to that.

It's also good to bear in mind that you always played alone in the Elder Scrolls series.

Orchomene wrote...

That's why
shooter games is for uneducated and dumb people whereas strategic games
and roleplaying games are for people interested in intellectual
activities.

In defense of shooters: Play Bad Company 2.
In regards to "intellectual people play RPGs": Play WoW. Zing!

Modifié par Pocketgb, 15 juin 2010 - 08:23 .

[InvaderErl]

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

Yes, in the context of being an RPG. Having classes and skills is next to meaningless when one can be absolutely everything. Its like having a racing game with dozens of cars but the one you start with is already the best at everything (speed, handling, grip, torque, etc.) or a beat-em up where your character has the moves of every other character out you fight and 10 times as large a health bar, or a shooter where the base weapon is a one-hit kill on everything. Its a mechanic that completely craps on the very concept of an RPG.[/quote]


[/quote]

So what was it when Dragon Age Origins let you one-shot kill literally HALF the enemies for the final act?

Did they completely crap on the very concept of an RPG?

Modifié par InvaderErl, 15 juin 2010 - 08:25 .

[Orchomene]

WoW is not a roleplaying game. It's some hack and sllah/griding/looting game. It's Diablo.

But I'm not sure the Quake/Doom/Whatever multiplayer forums are any better than the WoW forum.

[InvaderErl]

WoW is a roleplaying game. Its just not a good roleplaying game.

[Massadonious1]

Terror_K wrote...

Look out Orchomene! They're all going to pile in and start calling you an "elitist snob!" etc.

Clearly, calling people uneducated and dumb for not liking or playing his chosen genre isn't elitist in the slightest.

[Terror_K]

InvaderErl wrote...

So what was it when Dragon Age Origins let you one-shot kill literally HALF the enemies for the final act?

Did they completely crap on the very concept of an RPG?

Uh... no. For one thing, that was the very end of the game. Secondly, those were incredibly low-level creatures and by that point you generally had a bunch of weapons with massive bonuses to killing Darkspawn on them. You were also just very strong in the talents you'd chosen to use, you weren't great at everything because you couldn't be.

[FlyingWalrus]

What about people that play shooters AND real-time strategy AND fighting games AND RPGs? Are they a conundrum in The Tao of Intelligent Gamers?

[Massadonious1]

That's a good question. Maybe we're only stupid in the aftermath of playing a shooter, and we only get our mojo back after playing a strategy/RPG game and make such collegiate level decisions such as using fire spells/weapons on a ice boss.

[Terror_K]

FlyingWalrus wrote...

What about people that play shooters AND real-time strategy AND fighting games AND RPGs? Are they a conundrum in The Tao of Intelligent Gamers?

Depends. For instance, I play all those genres. Heck... my favourite game of all time is still the original Unreal Tournament. And yet I'm one of the most outspoken forum-goers when it comes to the disappointment of ME2 and it being made too much of a shooter.

[FlyingWalrus]

It shouldn't "depend." There shouldn't be this schism between "dumb" and "intelligent" gamers at all! When it comes right down to it, we'd all be considered dumb at some level because we're all pretending to be space marines when we could be using that time and money to be researching cancer treatments instead.

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

You were also just very strong in the talents you'd chosen to use, you weren't great at everything because you couldn't be.

Please read previous post.

[InvaderErl]

Terror_K wrote...

InvaderErl wrote...

So what was it when Dragon Age Origins let you one-shot kill literally HALF the enemies for the final act?

Did they completely crap on the very concept of an RPG?

Uh... no. For one thing, that was the very end of the game. Secondly, those were incredibly low-level creatures and by that point you generally had a bunch of weapons with massive bonuses to killing Darkspawn on them. You were also just very strong in the talents you'd chosen to use, you weren't great at everything because you couldn't be.

All that doesn't change the fact that HALF the entire enemy army now goes down from one hit no matter weak. You could be doing 1 damage for all you care at that point and they'd be dropping.

And was that necessary? I wouldn't have complained one bit if the game had been consistent with my damage vs DS. Why not reward us for our end-game builds by letting us see how powerful our characters are against regular DS. There is no challenge in killing enemies with 1 hp.

So why is it okay for Dragon Age to do that but its somehow something terrible if you're just seriously powerful at the end of ME2?

Modifié par InvaderErl, 15 juin 2010 - 09:18 .

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

Please read previous post.

I already responded to that post you linked... I don't need to do it again.

And if you can't see the problem and fault with an RPG system that lets you so effortlessly be awesome at everything in the entire game, then as far as I'm concerned you're not worth debating with.

InvaderErl wrote...

All that doesn't change the fact that HALF the entire enemy army now goes down from one hit no matter weak. You could be doing 1 damage for all you care at that point and they'd be dropping.

And was that necessary? I wouldn't have complained one bit if the game had been consistent with my damage vs DS. Why not reward us for our end-game builds by letting us see how powerful our characters are against regular DS. There is no challenge in killing enemies with 1 hp.

So why is it okay for Dragon Age to do that but its somehow something terrible if you're just seriously powerful at the end of ME2?

I wasn't talking about ME2, I was talking about Oblivion. And that's not even what I was complaining about. My problem with ME2 is that Shepard can now be a badass persuader, badass techie and badass soldier and biotic with no drawbacks whatsoever and no class restrictions any more. class skills are now solely focussed on combat and that's it, and it makes things shallow to have such a narrow focus. There's more to RPG's than just how to kill the enemy and survive them.... or at least their should be. Dragon Age Origins didn't have your mighty fighter at the end also using roguish persuasions, setting traps, unlocking everything while hurling death spells all over the place. with 100 points in every key stat and every skill, talent and spell at his disposal.

[KitsuneRommel]

tonnactus wrote...

Why shepardt has to learn biotic or tech abilities?

Because the backstory didn't imply that he was a master of either? If he had spent his entire adulthood in a tech job becoming famous for his accomplishments you'd assume he could actually do 'tech stuff'.

And since we were talking about ME1 compare how useful 1 point in Singularity or Sabotage is compared to 1 point in Pistols or Sniper Rifles.

[InvaderErl]

Terror_K wrote...

InvaderErl wrote...

All that doesn't change the fact that HALF the entire enemy army now goes down from one hit no matter weak. You could be doing 1 damage for all you care at that point and they'd be dropping.

And was that necessary? I wouldn't have complained one bit if the game had been consistent with my damage vs DS. Why not reward us for our end-game builds by letting us see how powerful our characters are against regular DS. There is no challenge in killing enemies with 1 hp.

So why is it okay for Dragon Age to do that but its somehow something terrible if you're just seriously powerful at the end of ME2?

I wasn't talking about ME2, I was talking about Oblivion. And that's not even what I was complaining about. My problem with ME2 is that Shepard can now be a badass persuader, badass techie and badass soldier and biotic with no drawbacks whatsoever and no class restrictions any more. class skills are now solely focussed on combat and that's it, and it makes things shallow to have such a narrow focus. There's more to RPG's than just how to kill the enemy and survive them.... or at least their should be. Dragon Age Origins didn't have your mighty fighter at the end also using roguish persuasions, setting traps, unlocking everything while hurling death spells all over the place. with 100 points in every key stat and every skill, talent and spell at his disposal.

Except ME1 was also guilty of this.

You could max out almost your entire combat tree and still have enough points to dump a ton of points into the persuasion abilities or even any ability you were remotely interested in.

And I'll admit that, yes they took out a lot of the armor/gun restrictions but in their defense they actually improved the individual feel of the classes. A Vanguard is no longer just an adept with a Shotgun and missing Sing. A Sentinel is an entire different beast from their Biotic or Tech cousins. Same goes for Infiltrator and its relationship with the Soldier and Engineer classes.

So yes I will trade seeing a "You cannot wear this armor" display for classes with more clearly defined identities.

Do I want to see that happen to every rpg? No, of course not - but BW did pull it off here.

Edit:

Also just to say as far as non-combat skills go Mass Effect 1 HAD 2 and that was the persuasive abilities, and most people I'd wager only end up putting points into just one of them when they realized they served the same function.

Mass Effect series has always been combat orientated.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 15 juin 2010 - 09:59 .

[Pocketgb]

Whoops, didn't see that you replied to that post. My bad!

Without further ado:

Terror_K wrote...

It's bad RPG design. The whole point of having different classes is to have different specialists that play differently. If you're a Master of All Trades with no trade-offs and no restrictions, there's no point in even having classes in the first place. Its pathetic and broken.

If I personally set myself to it, I could be the master of everything too - in real life. But a lot of those things will take a lot (a LOT!!!) of work. So instead I'm making a living out of what I've been raised on, using the skills that have come naturally to me, and the skills that I've actually set myself out to hone.

THAT'S what a class is for in a Bethesda game. If you choose the Warrior it's because you've worked with arms and armor for a huge portion of your life. But seriously, what would be stopping you from learning something new?

And the answer to that question is time and money. Of course there are exploits that get you to the 100 cap relatively easily but 1. This is likely to happen with such an open-ended system and 2. Exists to some degree in all games anyways. But that aside all games require at least some fair amount of effort for you to max your stats.

Terror_K wrote...

And how exactly can one role-play in Oblivion when every single character is pretty much exactly the same: an unstoppable badass who is perfect at everything?

Well geeze, I'm afraid we might have to use our imagination here!

One of my favorite players posted on the forums his journal of an Argonian Monk who used nothing but hand-to-hand and never attempted to kill anyone. He'd always keep them out of fatigue and knocked down, and his main purpose was to find and free every single slave he could run into.

There are countless example of this (heck, just go to the TES forums). There are thousands of people who've crafted a very specific character in a world they're free to change. Many people have brought about avatars that they follow very strict guidelines for - and they enjoy it immensely. How is that not the very definition of role-playing in itself?

The only "bad" thing about the game in its entirety, the one indispetuble fact that no one can actually deny...

...Is that Bethesda is really, really good at baking apple pies.

And that's only "bad" because you favor cherry and you'll have to go shopping elsewhere - and nothin's wrong with that.

Terror_K wrote...

I can't see how a proper RPG fan could be a fan of a system that just allows you to master everything so easily...

It would appear to be that not everyone shares your same definition of "good RPG"!

Modifié par Pocketgb, 15 juin 2010 - 09:56 .