10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Massadonious1]

WilliamShatner wrote...
Borderlands' weapon system is very similar to Mass Effect's and has even more ridiculous levels of "the same gun but slightly better stats" and I've heard no one complain about that or call it broken.  In fact most people I know call it the most addictive part of the game.

If by similar, you mean different. Then yeah, they're "similar".

A gun in Borderlands can take any sort of random shape. It's the nature of their system. A scope, (with a specific numerical zoom modifier to that scope) faster or slower reload speed, ammo regeneration, the amount of projectiles you can fire at one time, specific types of elements, (with a specific numerical elemental modifer) basic things like their overall DPS and numerous other things that I can't remember off the top of my head. Sure, the white generic weapons all looked and felt the same, but from the uncommon weapons and higher the guns felt different because of all the random attributes that could be generated based on their loot system. Their specific class and grenade mods worked the same way.

ME's weapons had the same static 4 (or 5?) stats. The only difference between each weapon was that some numbers were higher than the other. Besides, did a ME gun actually feel more accurate or whatnot than the other? Could you honestly notice a difference between something with 50, and something else with 55?

bjdbwea wrote...
This.

Everyone who wants simplicity: Go play a pure shooter. There are countless games for you. Pew-pew!

But please, accept that not every game with guns needs to be made simple for you.

BioWare is going to do what BioWare wants to do. They shouldn't have to feel obligated, one way or the other because people have patronized their products in the past. Their growth or downfall ultimately depends on us, sure, but it shouldn't be the end all, be all, of their design philosophy. They shouldn't have to put in a crappy inventory system or random stats for the sake of stats, because some people "might" (you know you all will anyway) not patronize their products if the next Mass Effect doesn't include or exclude such things. If it fails, then hey, it fails. I care about the universe, the characters, and the genre (shocker!) as much as the next person, but unless the commercial failure of Mass Effect 3/BioWare instantly melts the polar ice caps or causes nuculear armageddon, I'm pretty sure the world will still be rotating the same way it's always been rotating tomorrow. And hey, they always have a hugely popular franchise in Dragon Age to fall back on, which should hopefully continue to be as much of a RPG as a RPG can be without reverting to using, THACO, virtual dice rolls, or other AD&D systems.

Perhaps that is why they made both games, no?

[tonnactus]

SSV Enterprise wrote...

Ok, for the Widow, it's supposed to be the super sniper rifle you can only get if you're a soldier or infitrator, and it's obviously better than the Mantis.  Still, its function is different than the Viper or the Incisor, which do less damage per shot but have larger clips and rates of fire.  The Avenger is in fact distinct from the Vindicator- the Avenger fires a constant stream of somewhat inaccurate bullets, while the Vindicator fires slower bursts of more accurate and damaging bullets.  Which is better depends on player taste, and is not indisputable.

Spectre rifles werent "super weapons"??.But at least in the first game every squadmember could be outfitted with the best equipment available.Why not even Morinth could use the revenant ...
She has one in her room.Or Zaeed,a former blue suns leader has worser weapons then any blue sun lieutenant.
It is indispitable.More accuracy and damage make the vindicator the superior weapon. People who still took the avenger just did it for the look.Nothing someone couldnt do int the first game when using the geth pulse rifle instead of the spectre rifle.Ammo isnt a real concern in this game anyway,so even in this case the vindicator wins.

Modifié par tonnactus, 01 juillet 2010 - 06:47 .

[tonnactus]

Massadonious1 wrote...
. And hey, they always have a hugely popular franchise in Dragon Age to fall back on, which should hopefully continue to be as much of a RPG as a RPG can be without reverting to using, THACO, virtual dice rolls, or other AD&D systems.

Perhaps that is why they made both games, no?

There are enough good fantasy rpgs in the market...
There are for sure not enough sci fi rpgs to choose from.

[Max Legend]

bjdbwea wrote...

I'll just wait and see. Fallout 3 was great, and even though it was very different from the old games, it was actually not dumbed down, especially not if you use the right mods of course. I hope that Obsidian will also (refrain from) / (not be forced to) dumb down New Vegas. But if there was one company I would have thought able to withstand that, it was BioWare. So I'll just wait and see how New Vegas turns out, and hope Obdisian and Bethesda don't go down the same route.

Fallout 3 is the most dumbed down Shooter rpg hybrid i have ever seen.The game is made so that new players wont feel that they sucked in the first Fallouts and proudly say how they beat a Fallout game.

The world is dull,there is no post nuclear morbid atmospehe that the first games delivered well,the combat is noob friendly(wtf I can kill 1901289282 raiders on a low level in F3-I could hardly kill 2 raiders at low level in the first ones),VATS is a poor excuse for turned based combat,the isometric view is actually way better than FPS view,the NPC's are boring and flat voiced....the list of what brought Fallout to abominable retardness is neverending.

God I wish Interplay didnt shut down to show the console kiddy friendly Bethesda how to make a proper rpg.

[Zulu_DFA]

tonnactus wrote...
Why not even Morinth could use the revenant ...
She has one in her room.Or Zaeed,a former blue suns leader has worser weapons then any blue sun lieutenant.

This is not true. Everybody can use any weapon or ammo mod. Otherwise it would be a plot hole. But you have win the latest puzzle minigame - "Edit the Coalesced"!

[AlanC9]

Max Legend wrote...
VATS is a poor excuse for turned based combat

If if ain't turn-based, it ain't Fallout?

[tonnactus]

Max Legend wrote...


Fallout 3 is the most dumbed down Shooter rpg hybrid i have ever seen.

Compared with Mass Effect 2 Fallout 3 is still like university compared with kindergarten.

[tonnactus]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

tonnactus wrote...
Why not even Morinth could use the revenant ...
She has one in her room.Or Zaeed,a former blue suns leader has worser weapons then any blue sun lieutenant.

This is not true. Everybody can use any weapon or ammo mod. Otherwise it would be a plot hole. But you have win the latest puzzle minigame - "Edit the Coalesced"!

This is not available for console players as far as i know.

[Pocketgb]

tonnactus wrote...

Max Legend wrote...


Fallout 3 is the most dumbed down Shooter rpg hybrid i have ever seen.

Compared with Mass Effect 2 Fallout 3 is still like university compared with kindergarten.

Focus on hand-to-hand and you can beat it with the thought process and tenacity of a herp-derp.

Bethesda, like Bioware, is also not known for their combat.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 01 juillet 2010 - 09:04 .

[AlanC9]

Which RPG companies are known for their combat? I suppose ToEE had good combat. Oh, wait....

[javierabegazo]

tonnactus wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

tonnactus wrote...
Why not even Morinth could use the revenant ...
She has one in her room.Or Zaeed,a former blue suns leader has worser weapons then any blue sun lieutenant.

This is not true. Everybody can use any weapon or ammo mod. Otherwise it would be a plot hole. But you have win the latest puzzle minigame - "Edit the Coalesced"!

This is not available for console players as far as i know.

You don't need Coalesced to change who has what weapon. All you need is gibbed Save Game Editor

[KitsuneRommel]

So as long as BioWare makes ME3 moddable people will not consider it dumbed down?



*calls BioWare*

[Xeranx]

Can someone clarify something for me? Am I to understand that the mini-game people got in ME on console is different from what people got on PC?



The reason I'm asking is I only ever encountered the "simon says" mini-game [which asked you to figure out the sequence rather than follow a sequence (nitpicking I know, sorry)] when I went to Therum and on the Citadel...IIRC.

[javierabegazo]

Xeranx wrote...

Can someone clarify something for me? Am I to understand that the mini-game people got in ME on console is different from what people got on PC?

The reason I'm asking is I only ever encountered the "simon says" mini-game [which asked you to figure out the sequence rather than follow a sequence (nitpicking I know, sorry)] when I went to Therum and on the Citadel...IIRC.

Must be different. Because on the XBOX, you'd get a pop up screen with all four right hand xbox controller buttons displayed, ABXY, and one at a time the light would pop up on one of them, and you'd have to hit that corresponding button before the light flashed off. LIke i said, Simon Says


edit: may not be exactly simon says, but it's certainly a dumber version of said game

Modifié par javierabegazo, 01 juillet 2010 - 10:00 .

[Max Legend]

Combat is not the only issue of Fallout 3.

Everything that made F1 and 2 shine has been comepletly stripped down:
-Nonlinearity:Whenever you start a new game,nothing remains as it is,every location is changed.For instance:In F1 when you exit the vault and enter the first area you can run into a raider camp,or a lonely merchant,or be a deserted area etc.
-The way you handle with enemies.In F3 you can easily kill rats,radscorpions etc which is ok.However they did the same thng with more tougher enemies like raiders.I managed to kill over 20 raiders on level 1! without sweat just using small guns.Now try that on F1 and 2 raiders-is your head still on your shoulders?How about now?.
-The first Fallouts are giving you freedom to finish the quests depending on your high/low reputation,high/low inteligence which adds a major bonus to replayability while the third gaved us the "good vs bad' karma
-The freedom to be a slaver/raider or join mafia clans.
-The atmosphere.You got the feeling you are playing in a post nuclear world
-Lets compare how the skills work:
F1/2 perception-even with 10+ perception you can miss your target and that would mean game over.
F3 perception-whether you have 1 or 10+ perception it makes no differnce-you still aim good while dealing tons of damage.
F1/2 Inteligence:Lowering your inteligence opens hilarious mumbling dialogues when opening a conversation with npc's
F3 inteligence:Nothing.You can actually pass most quests with just 1 int. and not feel idiotic at all.
-Make no compromise:One of Fallout's trademarks was the freedom to kill kids which was removed just to get the nececary T rating.A pisspoor censorship to make the game console kiddie friendly.

Modifié par Max Legend, 01 juillet 2010 - 10:03 .

[javierabegazo]

Alright, enough about Fallout 3 guys, lets take it back to the OP.

[Vena_86]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

So as long as BioWare makes ME3 moddable people will not consider it dumbed down?

*calls BioWare*

If the game is too simplistic then people will still call it dumbed down for the masses. When it is moddable then people will however spend less time complaining about the game and more with fixing the problems and offer the results freely for everyone that might lack the modding skills to do it them selfs.
Then the answer to "why can't I...why isn't there?..." would be a link to a mod that deals with the problem at hand, instead of long discussions going back and forth.

[tonnactus]

Max Legend wrote...
However they did the same thng with more tougher enemies like raiders.

I dont any actual rpg where enemies dont level with the players character.And its ok that raiders are cannon fodder now.

-The first Fallouts are giving you freedom to finish the quests depending on your high/low reputation,high/low inteligence which adds a major bonus to replayability while the third gaved us the "good vs bad' karma

?
You still need high speech skills in some quests or something like ladykiller/black widow. The number in points in talents  open dialogue options know,like science.This is more intersting then just reputation based quest solving.

-The freedom to be a slaver/raider or join mafia clans.

You could still be a slaver...
Or a contract killer.

-Make no compromise:One of Fallout's trademarks was the freedom to kill kids which was removed just to get the nececary T rating.A pisspoor censorship to make the game console kiddie friendly.

At least i dont care about this...

But back to the topic.

Modifié par tonnactus, 01 juillet 2010 - 10:36 .

[Soirreb]

I dont any actual rpg where enemies dont level with the players character.And its ok that raiders are cannon fodder now.

I'm pretty sure the old Final Fantasy games (except 8) don't have enemies that level alongside you (instead, they just recolor each monster as you go into a new area with higher level stats).

Back to the topic: 

One more thing I'm disappointed with in ME2: lack of interaction between the squaddies.

For how much of the game seems to center on recruiting each squad mate and their loyalty missions, there are only two bona-fide interactions between squad members; Kasumi and Zaeed at least will occasionally offer banter related to the squad mates, but they only ever say it to you.  I feel Dragon Age did this very well with the party banter; Alistair and Morrigan sniping at each other for massive laughs, Zevran pining over Wynne's magic bosom, and Sten being mysoginistic.  There's very little of that in ME2, and aside from the two conflict events, every squad mate is anonymous to every other squad mate.

I'd post a couple more things I'm disappointed about in ME2, but they're both rather large spoilers, plus the General Discussion board has that big "NO SPOILERS ALLOWED" warning right in its name, so alas, I can't really post them. 

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Versions I, II, III, IV and so on, needed to be fixed because they has allmost no difference. Steps was so small that player did not even notice the difference and it just created alot of junk items. Also, there was same weapons with different names, needed to be fixed. It doesn't really much matter is overhead speed 36.5 or 37.2, because player will NOT notice the difference in gameplay. Hole inventory system in ME1 was about NUMBERS, not real variety of different kind of items.

It's an RPG, and thus should be about numbers. Those are what determine the variety of the items in RPGs. That wasn't the problem with ME1's inventory: the problem was the weapons themselves weren't varied and balanced well enough. Saying ME1 being about numbers is the problem is like saying a car being evaluated by its 0-60 speed, torque, horsepower, weight and maximum speed is a problem just because all the cars available to drive are a selection of samey-looking sedans without much variance instead of having some supercars, a truck, a bus and a 4x4 thrown in there too.

What ME2 tryed to do is fix the ME1 problems and some way they even did success, but some other way they did not. They did improve system so that there isn't any more junk items, but they also lost the induviduality for characters and some customation was lost, what was actually working fine. Meaning, ME2 items are now too general. Simple way to say, they simplifyed it too much.

My point is by saying that ME1 inventory was little bit broken is just understatement, it was broken big time. And fixing it would had redused items to allmost non existen.  What ME2 did was the fix. Good system is not huge amount of junk items, it's about big variety usefull different kind of items. ME1 did not have real variety as nice items, it had huge amount of same kind junk items.

But ME2 didn't actually fix the problems, it just eliminated them by throwing them out entirely. That's not fixing at all. That's like saying you fixed your red-ringed XBox by throwing it away and buying a PS2 instead. And ME2's system just brought on a whole bunch more problems, which are less forgivable to me because they stem from bad ideas that lack in depth as opposed to good ideas that tried but simply failed.

SSV Enterprise wrote...

I hate it when people, either ME2 supporters or critics, are snobbish like this.  The shooter mechanics are not the only reason that I play the game:  I mainly play for the story, characters, atmospheric universe, and control.  However, that does not mean I should sit idly by and not care about the shooter mechanics.  ME1's shooter mechanics were complex to the point of being annoying, and it had little point.  ME2 simplified things, but as long as that makes it more fun to play, I don't care. 

That's the ultimate goal of any game:  to be fun.  It doesn't matter if it's supposed to be a RPG, shooter, platformer, whatever.  If trying to be such a thing makes the game less enjoyable, game developers shouldn't be held slave to genre expectations- they should just do the best they can to make it as fun as possible.  IMHO, ME2 succeeded more in this regard than ME1.

But what is "fun" is a point of view. Many of us here, including me, find ME2 far less fun because we find the shooter gameplay generic, repetitive and boring (Look to Gears of War if you actually want to do it right... it at least changes things up now and then without even really deviating from its core style) and that the game is so damn simple now beyond the combat that it practically plays itself. Most RPG fans like some depth to their games, and like to be able to build their character properly, have some proper customisation and have a good selection of items and some choices to make within the gameplay mechanics themselves and not just in dialogue. In this sense simplifying an RPG to this extent completely defeats the purpose of an RPG and just makes it shallow. Taking the depth out of an RPG is like taking the wheels off a car. 

WilliamShatner wrote...

Funnily enough a "pure shooter" like COD:MW2 has far better and more complex weapon customization than ME2.

Which just goes to prove how unnecessarily dumbed-down and shallow ME2 is even more.

javierabegazo wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Do we agree that ME1 hacking minigame owns both ME2 minigames?

Really? I'd rather match pieces of code than play Simon Says any day, I had my fill of Simon Says back when i was 7

I'd say that the ME2 ones beat the original 360 hacking game, but that while the concept of them is superior to the PC equivalent, the PC version is actually superior because its actually effected by your stats in the appropriate skills determining its difficulty, along with three levels of difficulty overall and the fact that it can actually be fairly hard sometimes, as opposed to ME2's pretty much never-fail systems that aren't tied to anything.

I'd actually personally say that the underrated Alpha Protocol trumps both games with its two actually: they're closer to the ME2 kind of games, but actually can be challenging and are tied into a skill, ala ME1. Best of both worlds there.

[SithLordExarKun]

bjdbwea wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Except that ME2 is by far the more generic of the two games. It may have brought in some shooter mechanics that technically worked better, but it brought almost nothing new to the table. The one exception could be considered the interrupts, but these were intended for the original game and are really just flashy quicktime events when you get down to it.

I personally don't think ME1's mechanics were pointless, I just think they were a little broken. And being a little broken means that they certainly didn't need binning in favour of the simplest, shallowest  and most linear of solutions.

This.

Everyone who wants simplicity: Go play a pure shooter. There are countless games for you. Pew-pew!

But please, accept that not every game with guns needs to be made simple for you.

DAO's RPG mechanics were relatively simple, by your logic that means its a pure shooter too... oh wait. Dao isn even a shooter... ME2 isn't a pure shooter either.

Just because theres a simple RPG doesn't make it a shooter nor does it mean we should only play pure shooters.

Modifié par SithLordExarKun, 02 juillet 2010 - 12:54 .

[acehawk00]

javierabegazo wrote...

Xeranx wrote...

Can someone clarify something for me? Am I to understand that the mini-game people got in ME on console is different from what people got on PC?

The reason I'm asking is I only ever encountered the "simon says" mini-game [which asked you to figure out the sequence rather than follow a sequence (nitpicking I know, sorry)] when I went to Therum and on the Citadel...IIRC.

Must be different. Because on the XBOX, you'd get a pop up screen with all four right hand xbox controller buttons displayed, ABXY, and one at a time the light would pop up on one of them, and you'd have to hit that corresponding button before the light flashed off. LIke i said, Simon Says


edit: may not be exactly simon says, but it's certainly a dumber version of said game

Yes there are two different versions. On Xbox it is the 4 button simon says type thing and on PC there is a puzzle with a few rings with a bunch of moving and non-moving blocks positioned around them. You had to get an arrow from outside of the rings to the center without hitting any of the blocks. you moved the arrow with the direction keys around the rings to best position it to bypass the blocks.
Also you were timed.
If you can't envision it, I apologize for sucking at discribing things, here is a link to a pic of it. PC Puzzle

Modifié par acehawk00, 02 juillet 2010 - 01:06 .

[Felfenix]

Wow, holy ****, I had no idea PC had a diff puzzle. o_0

The Xbox one is REALLY dumb.

Press A.

*presses A*

PUZZLE SOLVED!

>_>;

Modifié par Felfenix, 02 juillet 2010 - 01:15 .

[Felfenix]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Except that ME2 is by far the more generic of the two games. It may have brought in some shooter mechanics that technically worked better, but it brought almost nothing new to the table. The one exception could be considered the interrupts, but these were intended for the original game and are really just flashy quicktime events when you get down to it.

I personally don't think ME1's mechanics were pointless, I just think they were a little broken. And being a little broken means that they certainly didn't need binning in favour of the simplest, shallowest  and most linear of solutions.

This.

Everyone who wants simplicity: Go play a pure shooter. There are countless games for you. Pew-pew!

But please, accept that not every game with guns needs to be made simple for you.

DAO's RPG mechanics were relatively simple, by your logic that means its a pure shooter too... oh wait. Dao isn even a shooter... ME2 isn't a pure shooter either.

Just because theres a simple RPG doesn't make it a shooter nor does it mean we should only play pure shooters.

I'm surprised there aren't rants on the DAO forum that it's not an RPG because it's not turn based, "only" has 20/30 levels, and that the game focusses too much on sex/gore and fancy real time sword swinging. lol

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

It's an RPG, and thus should be about numbers. Those are what determine the variety of the items in RPGs...

Not always. Fire or Ice damage, good vs. big monsters or good vs. small monsters, good at short range or long range?

What determines the variety of items in RPGs is function, and numbers are only a part of that.

Terror_K wrote...

But ME2 didn't actually fix the problems, it just eliminated them by throwing them out entirely. That's not fixing at all...

Trashing what's broken to start anew. Thought we went over this?

Terror_K wrote...


And ME2's system just brought on a whole bunch more problems, which are less forgivable to me because they stem from bad ideas that lack in depth as opposed to good ideas that tried but simply failed.

Good ideas? Speak for yourself. The mechanics mixed with the way gameplay was presented just did not sync well for me. In a more traditional RPG setting? It'd be awesome. Not so much if you're attempting to meld it with third-person-shooter gameplay.

I like the way combat feels this time around as well as the way armor and weapons work. I wouldn't be too upset to see them expand on customization in this regard (something both games lacked to varying degrees) and to see what else they can come up with in regards to cooldowns.

Regardless, I don't really feel that Bioware is the developer to come to when expecting 'in-depth' RPG mechanics. They can definitely be interesting from time to time, that's for sure, but for what they have in variety is lost in lack of balance.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 02 juillet 2010 - 01:19 .