10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

There's a lot I could've said to that huge portion of your post, but I need only direct you to this:

Terror_K wrote...

A car doesn't need a stereo to be a car, and an RPG doesn't need roleplaying elements to be an RPG, so these factors don't define them.

"A role-playing game doesn't need role-playing elements to be a role-playing game." Without the abreviations, that's what you've just said.

Can you now understand why so many would disagree with you? Can you comprehend that people have different wants, needs, and preferences when it comes to the word "role-playing game"?

I can understand this, yes. But one also has to understand that there are those of us that also want the statistical stuff there as well. It doesn't have to be as deep and game-shaping as Baldur's Gate, but it needs to be a foundation upon which the rests sits instead of being a weak, slapped-on extra, ala ME2. ME1 was still built on RPG foundations, while ME2 was built on shooter ones and then had some RPG bits tacked on (a factor which even the devs have admitted to when designing ME2). And I don't think any of us are saying that we don't want these other elements that you and others want too, because we do. But we feel both can exist, because they have before, and did somewhat in ME1.

But you are right: RPGs weren't known for actual role-playing. That's when Bioware came and gave us Baldur's Gate. That's where things changed, that's where standards were set, that's why so many other developers are basing their games off of the concepts Bioware have pioneered.

That's why people who actually enjoy role-playing are able to find enjoyment in Bioware's games: Because Bioware provided it for us. I'm no longer just a 'hero' set on the path set for me, I'm actually talking to people, making conversations, finding friendship, falling in love - ALL in a video game. More specifically, a Bioware game.

Yes, and it's why BioWare games tend to be amongst my favourites. But I still love my statistical elements too. If BioWare made a game that was more like the CRPG's of old like the old SSI titles where everything is pretty linear, there's next to no dialogue and the characters are almost non-existent personality wise beyond basic stereotypes then you and all the others who value story, character and narrative would throw a fit in a very similar fashion to those of us who feel ME2 is a watered down game. What we have here are two sides of the same coin, and you prefer one and I prefer the other. I see no reason both sides can't win. It's not like we're flipping this coin and it can only come up one way.

If you view the mechanics from the prequel as poor then yes, it's definitely better. It's removing more pickles from my sandwhich.

But I don't hate on people for like pickles at all.
It sure is irritating when they pick on me, though...

To me it's more like removing almost everything from the sandwich except one ingredient and replacing it with nothing, just because some of the ingredients were a little off, leaving a rather plain and bland sandwich. Sure... the original sandwich wasn't ideal either, but if the ingredients were of slightly better quality we would have had something really tasty. Instead the sandwich maker just gave up and left the one thing that was okay.

If you feel I'm picking on you I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned the more people who let BioWare know that this game could have been a lot better and deeper the better. People all arguing against those of us who want richer RPG elements are only going to make BioWare think more and more that ME2 was perfectly fine and we're just going to get an equally if not more shallow ME3 as a result.

And the fact is, how many of these non-statistical, story-based elements were that strong too? I mean really... the original game's Noveria gave far more options and roleplaying opportunities than anywhere in ME2 did. There were less chances to actually roleplay a character beyond Paragon or Renegade dialogue options towards the end of a mission, and many times this rarely ever changed the outcome of anything that much. All the main missions were pretty much recruitment ones with the same inevitable "you got them" ending, and the Collector ones barely had any choices at all until the final mission itself. The exceptions to this would be the loyalty missions of course, but these were essentially optional sidequests and didn't impact the main story that much until, again, the very end. The Suicide Mission itself is kind of the exception to the rule.

The point is, wouldn't it be nice to get some strong roleplaying stuff too? Wouldn't it be neat if, for example, different dialogue options were open to only biotic or tech-based classes? Wouldn't it be neat if certain abiltities, skills or alignment were to effect how certain NPC characters reacted towards you? Wouldn't it be great if there were some deeper consequences beyond mostly emails and character+dialogue swaps and that the universe actually seemed to shift and change depending on your choices? Wouldn't it ne nice to customise your items more, including biotic amps and omni-tools as well as weapons and armour?

I'm fully willing to admit that the combat is tighter now that stat-based aiming is gone, but wouldn't it be nice to have a bit more to it instead of just running from one set of waist-high cover to the next? Why not introduce some Gears of War style puzzles and different-from-norm situations and boss-fights where it's not just about hunkering down behind cover and shooting until they're dead?

I'll admit that the inventory is cleaner now and less cumbersome, but did the item list really have to shrink so much? Did the stats of the weapons have to go? Did we have to lose modding and just get an all-too-easy upgrade system? Do all items have to be in the same locations every single time? Does it have to be so easy to get and upgrade everything without true limitations? Did omni-tools and biotic amps really have to go? Did armour classes? Did stat-based decryption and hacking, etc?

I'm just saying that a lot of these elements didn't need to go the way of the dodo just to make combat better.

Modifié par Terror_K, 22 juillet 2010 - 02:56 .

[lazuli]

AwesomeEffect2 wrote...

300 pages of disappointment. That’s lovely.

No one's expecting you to read the entire thing, but a generous portion of the "disappointment" is just people defending the game.

[FlintlockJazz]

Terror_K wrote...

Back when Baldur's Gate came out, or even as late as NWN coming out, you never got people confusing what an RPG was and wasn't. Everybody knew it was the statistical ruleset that defined an RPG. Because you can have an RPG without actual roleplaying or strong narrative, but you can't have one without a ruleset and statistical progression system.

Maybe for CRPGs, but RPG was more than its ruleset way before that.  I take it you never played tabletop RPGs like the World of Darkness games (Vampire:The Masquerade, Werewolf: The Apocalypse, etc), which stressed playing your role over the actual statistics. 

Tabletop allowed different flavours of roleplaying, from the stats-hungry roll-players who only care about gaining xp and min/maxing to the overly-dramatic performers who will ignore their stats as they just want to portray a character and perform for the group.  Consider contact LARP has been around as long if not longer than CRPGs and yet its use of stats are often limited to the damage calls that are called out (and some don't even have that).  Contact LARP is an example of how RPGs change when played via different mediums and yet is still considered an RPG, the emphasis has just moved from stats to how well a player can handle a latex sword (and I know of players, myself not included, who are scarily good at handling a latex sword, able to take down multiple long term characters with ease when playing a starter character).

The only reason why computer RPGs started off as just statistic based is because the hardware at the time could not support the more wider-ranging aspects of roleplaying.  It can now, and so they are following more closely to the original tabletop RPGs than they were before.  Not a bad thing.

[tonnactus]

Il Divo wrote...


Planescape Torment, Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind, Deus Ex. All offer various ways to accomplish their goal whether through negotiations, entirely stealth, or information-gathering. Mass Effect's focus is entirely shifted to combat with the occasional distraction.

Those are actual examples?? Tell me is it possible to completly avaid fighting daedra in oblivion? Or Enclave Soldiers in Fallout 3? No?

So combat or combat? Very much an expression in options.

Different ways,different enemies(krogans are easier for an adept then heavy rocket turrets) ,less enemies,better positions. And even to avoid combat in some situations. Something that Mass Effect offer in some missions. A thing that Mass Effect 2 lacks completly

Thane's loyalty mission where you are offered mulitple ways of interrogating the Prisoner.

Yes,beat them or be nice. If you want to name a good example,to kill the mechanic in the arangel mission would be a better example.Too  bad garrus was still heavy wounded,what made this completly pointless. Another wasted opportunity.

Your point is idiotic. "Inventory system was fine because you could avoid it" is what you're saying. 

Why should someone open weapon lockers when he/she had spectre weapons for the whole team? Mass Effect had different lockers where armor was,omnitools/bioamps and weapons. The only problem was the forced loot after someone got the best. If someone spent half of the game with that he/she made something wrong.Until that it was still ok to made money and get better equipment.

[tonnactus]

Il Divo wrote...

Mass Effect, as I said, does not feature this. I use an assault rifle that does 174 damage the same way I use one which does 172 damage; it does not alter playstyle or mechanics,

Mods change the playstyle,like explosive ammo to call one example.
And no,i dont think Mass Effect is a deep rpg. But why they had to make things with the sequel even worser instead to include more roleplaying elements...

Modifié par tonnactus, 22 juillet 2010 - 03:40 .

[Il Divo]

Terror_K wrote...

But it's what defines an RPG. There are plenty of games out there that have roleplaying factors such as giving you choice and allowing you to shape events and the story, such as It Came From The Desert, Fahrenheit and Heavy Rain to name a few, but these aren't RPGs because they have no statistical ruleset or experienced-based progression system and allow you to develop your character beyond dialogue choices.

No, I will tell you for a fact that this is entirely wrong. You are thinking of the d20 system, where statistics come into play. Baldur's Gate, Warcraft, etc are all inspired by the d20 system to create statistical games and call them "RPG"s. That's all you've shown. You could take all the numbers, combat, and inventory out of Kotor and it would still be an RPG if it kept all the story-options. You could do the same with Jade Empire and the Elder Scrolls. That's why they are role-playing games and not "d20 games".

Role-playing games are most distinguished by the number of choices a player has available to them, as this allows them to further define their character's personality, back-story, and incorporate character development. Heavy Rain certainly has heavy role-playing elements in it based on the player's ability to impact events, but most of the characters already have pre-defined motives, personalities, history, etc. Mass Effect does this to a degree, through Shepard's voice-acting, appearance (changeable, but still), and history.  

If DOOM suddenly claimed to be an RPG it wouldn't be one. You seem to be one of those people who think that an RPG is defined by character rather than by rules, which I guess we'll just have to disagree with. Though I prefer RPGs that do allow player choice and shaping of their character, which is why I too generally dislike most JRPGs as well.

A role-playing game is defined by the ability to role-play, not by combat mechanics, not by the size of my inventory, not by complicated statistics. Player choice in combat is nice; Halo can offer me options: throw grenades, pick up weapons, etc. Player choice impacting story, characters, etc is so much more critical to depth. That is something Halo cannot replicate. Story pans out the same way each time and you are given a set identity. That's why options in the story are far more critical an issue than choices in combat which involves little to no role-playing typically.

I would be unhappy. But I would be fine with things if they made their mainstream RPG-lite games along side their deeper ones. In fact, I encourage it. It would stop them watering down their existing IPs just to appeal to the mainstream to make their dosh. That's why I thought that if they wanted to make a game that was mostly shooter like ME2 turned out to be they should have made it a seperate game instead of a Mass Effect title.

And perhaps this is the problem. Mass Effect is no different to many gamers than what Mass Effect 2 is to you: a dumbing down of the genre. With Mass Effect's introduction, Bioware's focus shifted (aside from Dragon Age which was in production for quite a while). Some want Bioware's old school RPG's back. Since Mass Effect's gameplay is a dumbed down version of every previous Bioware game barring Jade Empire, I say they have a right to it following your logic train.

Also, at least in ME1 you needed to take a tech-based class with you to hack, decrypt, etc. which was akin to needing a theif/rogue with you to unlock chests, set traps, etc. in a fantasy RPG. That was thrown out the window with ME2.

Except Mass Effect is dumbed down to a much higher degree, as I said. Typical thief/rogue role also involves setting traps, scouting, stealth,etc. It's the specialist role. Mass Effect reduces this to lock-picking.

I've said I already admit that ME1 isn't a really deep RPG in the same vein as Baldur's Gate or even KotOR. But that doesn't mean that ME1 wasn't deeper than RPG. Even not being that much higher up the totem still is higher. And at least ME1 did have some non-combat skills, such as hacking, decryption, electronics, first aid, persuasion, etc.

Okay, so we have

Baldur's Gate/Kotor: Incredible RPG's
Mass Effect: Crap RPG.
Mass Effect 2: Slightly more crap RPG.

I'm not seeing how Mass Effect is deep at all. You want Bioware to return to the days of Mass Effect's gameplay. Some want a return to the days of Kotor before voice-acting, giant head syndrome, and Gears of War. Tell me, who has the better claim? You, or the old-school gamers?

Again, slightly better than its retarded brother is still slightly better. 

No it doesn't make all the difference. If it made all the difference, then Mass Effect is already a bastardized RPG-shooter hybrid instead of the RPG epic you claim it to be.

On top of it all what's there doesn't even have any visible stats for comparison, making the whole system essentially a watered-down shooter one (and that's saying something considering the CoD series and Hitman: Blood Money even have items with stats and better modding and they aren't even RPGs).

Kotor: Attributes, Skills, Feats, Powers.

Mass Effect: Talents. <---Watered down.
 

Noveria. There are at least half a dozen ways to get a garage pass there for one, each which result in different outcomes and vary in how much XP you earn and how fast you do it, as well as how many combat encounters you have. Then later on at Peak 15 you can either fight your way through the back area to get straight to Benezia, or talk your way through the long way by investigating some more and getting the cure for Dr. Cohen, etc. This also has avoidable combat encounters, in both paths.

And how is xp relevant? Who cares about xp, I ask you? This is the mentality of a power-gamer, not a role-player. Much like your response to SSV Enterprise, you are not being clear.
 
You responded that:"  It's a classic case of a different means to the exact same end." to his examples of Mass Effect 2. None of the examples you gave alter anything. No matter how I get my garage pass, I get to Peak 15 the same way. No matter what I do with Captain Kirahee, the mission ends with Kaidan or Ashley dead and the revelation of the Reapers. There is no instance in Mass Effect 1 or 2 that alters an end result, beyond perhaps killing/saving the Council and destroying/preserving the Collector Base.

Modifié par Il Divo, 22 juillet 2010 - 04:06 .

[SSV Enterprise]

Terror_K wrote...

SSV Enterprise wrote...

Mordin's recruitment.  Giving medigel to the sick batarian and finding a human couple, telling them to head to the clinic.

Doesn't effect the main mission really and doesn't net you any extra XP or let you avoid a fight. These are more like mini sidequests attached to the main one.

...no extra XP?  What does that have to do with the actual structure of the mission?  It's not much different than the Virmire example, which is little more than a few diversions off the mandatory path with no effect on the mission later on.

Zaeed's loyalty.  Choosing to either go after Vido or save the factory workers.  Note that unlike any of the ME1 examples you cited, this choice of action also results in two different endings for the whole mission.

I'll give you this, but note that it's a DLC sidequest. And both options still give you the same XP and can get you Zaeed's loyalty (admittedly it takes more for a Paragon to do it though). And while the examples I gave didn't result in different endings (though the Zhu's Hope colony surviving or not does have repercussions, as does letting Shiala live or die or sacrificing Kirrahe, etc.) things like The Rachni Queen, Kaidan vs. Ashley on Virmire, and how persuasive you are with Saren can.

Free DLC, provided you bought the game new.    If you want to talk about decisions in missions that have repercussions, I can cite ME2 examples all day.  I can't be specific, because of the no-spoiler rule, so I'll simply name the missions:

Mordin's loyalty
Legion's loyalty
Tali's loyalty
The end mission
Samara's loyalty
Overlord
Kasumi's loyalty
Zaeed's loyalty

Also, even for missions that do not have consequences of a galactic scale, they manage to be very personal, completely blowing out of the water the stuff from ME1 that tried to be personal (Garrus and Dr. Saleon, Wrex and Tonn Actus)

Kasumi's loyalty.  Either using trickery to make the guard let you in to Hock's room, or sneaking in through a window.

Also DLC. Also doesn't result in altered XP, avoid fights or not or really change the outcome of anything. It's a classic case of a different means to the exact same end.

Isn't that what Noveria is as well?  A few other things are effected, but the end you care about is the same (getting to Peak 15), and Rift Station's choices are simply mixing around the order of events with little change in the ending.

Garrus' recruitment.  Hacking in to the heavy mech and sabotaging the gunship, which actually has a tangible effect on fights later on.

Partial credit. Doesn't really avoid a fight... just makes it easier. If doing so meant you avoided a fight entirely and/or Garrus didn't get ****ed up and looked normal throughout the rest of the game then I'd agree. Also doesn't net any more or less XP.

So, such an example needs to avoid a fight?  That disqualifies Feros.

Tali's recruitment.  Letting Kal'Reegar continue fighting the geth Colossus or telling him to sit this one out.  The former choice can cause Kal to die.

Partial credit. I'll even give you bonus points here for something you didn't mention: Kal'Reegar's death determines his presence at Tali's trial or not. Again though, doesn't avoid any fights and doesn't give you more or less XP. This is more akin to the likes of choosing to kill Fist or not, choosing to get Conrad Verner killed, shooting or letting Wrex live, etc. than anything else.

Those examples had a direct effect on story and gameplay, then?  (aside from Wrex, which I'm at a loss as to why you put such a major plot point alongside minor ones)

[tonnactus]

Shotokanguy wrote...


Aww, 300 pages so I decide to just READ the 300th page and right off the bat I see a stupid comment.

I give that back.

How is ME1's system comparable to ME2? 

Dps decide what is the better weapon in both games. Plain and simple.

Only ONE character can get the Revenant. And you only get ONE of that super weapon. And even then, there are still people who prefer the Vindicator.

I dont care if and why someone still prefer the vindicator.The revenant do more damage and has a bigger clipsize.A superior weapon compared with the vindicator. Like the vindicator is to the avanger for those who choose the widow at the collector ship for example.

[Il Divo]

Mageofthedas2012 wrote...
I agree, my dragon age character is a mage but uses a sword, As in Mass Effect 2 we should be able to fight to our style there are 4 billionish people in the world, why do we have to be just like their soldier,biotic, etc......

Exactly, I favor the Arcane Warrior and also see this issue. In Dragon Age, I feel very diverse even if another person is playing an Arcane Warrior due to the unique combinations of artifacts, spells, and weapon styles available. Mass Effect diversity (both games) comes down to, "Are you a Sentinel? Or a Vanguard? Or a soldier?" My class feels just like everyone else's class.

Lumikki wrote...

Yes, good customation and variety is really nice to have. How ever, ONLY when it actually means something.

Example I play at the moment Kotor 1 as Jedi sentinel and I have shopining list. In that list is 8 items. That's right I buy 8 item from shops in hole gameplay of Kotor 1. Why? Because in reality I don't need any other items they sell. So, I just basicly loot everyting and sell them for money (credits), so that I can buy those 8 items. I also have totally ignored almost two skill and could actually do that for almost 3 skill from choise of total 8 skill in game. Why? Because you don't really need them in the game at all.

My point is that choises what aren't needed by gameplay aren't really choises at all. Choises in skills and customation need to mean someting for player. That's why people talk in ME1 the junk items, because they where no real choises. Real choises affects players gameplay so that player notice that affect.

Also a good point. Kotor's big issue is that once you become a Jedi, the incentive to use your inventory disappears. Unless you're trying something different, you're probably going to use a lightsaber, wear robes to use powers, etc. However, I do think that Kotor got the 'feeling' down right of your items/choices impacting your playstyle. Single/double-bladed lightstabers felt and controlled very differently, etc.

Modifié par Il Divo, 22 juillet 2010 - 04:31 .

[tonnactus]

SSV Enterprise wrote...

Also, even for missions that do not have consequences of a galactic scale, they manage to be very personal, completely blowing out of the water the stuff from ME1 that tried to be personal (Garrus and Dr. Saleon, Wrex and Tonn Actus)

Really? Have to kill someone or that wrex is killed by someone  other is less personal then to decide if kasumi could  have some cyber memories of her boyfriend including a dangerous secret for the alliance(to bad the player didnt know what this secret is) or to delete this?

[Terror_K]

I'll respond to the rest of what you replied with after I've woken up (need sleep tired... it's past 4:30am here) but I need to respond to this:-

Il Divo wrote...

I'm not seeing how Mass Effect is deep at all. You want Bioware to return to the days of Mass Effect's gameplay. Some want a return to the days of Kotor before voice-acting, giant head syndrome, and Gears of War. Tell me, who has the better claim? You, or the old-school gamers?

I am an old-school gamer for crying out loud! I grew up on D&D, and the old SSI AD&D games, along with the old Bard's Tale, Might and Magic and Wizardry games. Baldur's Gate was a major step forward for me, and I believe DAO to be BioWare's best game since BG2. I play P&P RPGs every week (we've just finished a Star Wars: Saga Edition Campaign for a while and in a few weeks will be having a go at Vampire: The Masquerade again. Then it'll probably be 3rd Ed. AD&D again or something). Why the hell do you think I expect more from Mass Effect than ME2 gave us? And, yes, I do want to see BioWare doing deeper RPGs and getting back to their roots. The only difference is that I accepted and loved ME1 for what it was trying to be, and as such I don't expect it to be at the depth of BG or NWN. But nor do I expect it to be as shallow as ME2 was. What the hell is so hard for you to understand about this? RPGs are not black and white, and nor was ME. It was a shade of grey. I just want it to be slightly darker and less pale.

[haberman13]

Come on brahs, we all know ME2 and its combat focus is what Bioware fans wanted.



Seriously, enough with the "thinking" and "rpg" in games....

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

It doesn't have to be as deep and game-shaping as Baldur's Gate, but it needs to be a foundation upon which the rests sits instead of being a weak, slapped-on extra, ala ME2.

No it doesn't. Take away all the stats and combats from BG2 and I'd still consider it an RPG. Not everyone likes the pickles Bioware gives us.

Terror_K wrote...

ME1 was still built on RPG foundations, while ME2 was built on shooter ones and then had some RPG bits tacked on (a factor which even the devs have admitted to when designing ME2).

The one thing they were really pushing with ME1 was the dialog system. Based on the quality of that compared to the rest of the game, everything felt nearly subpar, and it really seemed that the dialog system was what they were pushing above all else. It limited role-playing, yes, but it was pretty engaging regardless.

ME2 was the same way, just that combat was getting an overhaul and they wanted to show it off.

Terror_K wrote...

What we have here are two sides of the same coin, and you prefer one and I prefer the other. I see no reason both sides can't win. It's not like we're flipping this coin and it can only come up one way.

I personally don't see both sides winning because Bioware is terrible at making mechanics. I can find zounds more depth and structure in a roguelike than I can in a Bioware game.

I feel that Bioware's case when making all these mechanics in their gameplay is basically "don't bite off more than you can chew": Bioware put an emphasis on variety while not being able to keep a hold on balance. While this is definitely much more damaging in a multiplayer game, it's damaging for fans of single-player, too. It's why many fans considered ME2 not only as a drastically different take, but a refreshing one.

Bioware didn't make such a drastic gameplay changed based on 'minor feedback'. Many people, forumgoers and alike, did not like the way combat worked in ME1.

Terror_K wrote...

And the fact is, how many of these non-statistical, story-based elements were that strong too? I mean really... the original game's Noveria gave far more options and roleplaying opportunities than anywhere in ME2 did.

Noveria's pretty much an exception, since not even anything in ME1 really came close to what it offered. Was it the first area developed? No idea, just that it's practically unique when compared to the rest of the game.

Terror_K wrote...


The exceptions to this would be the loyalty missions of course, but these were essentially optional sidequests and didn't impact the main story that much until, again, the very end.

They don't need to impact the 'main plot' to be impacting in and of themselves. The main driving force of the story could've used some work, of course, but Bioware delivered very well on different levels.

Terror_K wrote...



The point is, wouldn't it be nice to get some strong roleplaying stuff too? Wouldn't it be neat if, for example, different dialogue options were open to only biotic or tech-based classes? Wouldn't it be neat if certain abiltities, skills or alignment were to effect how certain NPC characters reacted towards you? Wouldn't it be great if there were some deeper consequences beyond mostly emails and character+dialogue swaps and that the universe actually seemed to shift and change depending on your choices? Wouldn't it ne nice to customise your items more, including biotic amps and omni-tools as well as weapons and armour?

It would definitely be nice. It would also be nice if gumdrops came from the sky, if I won the lottery, and if Bioware actually knew how to balance their systems.

But Bioware isn't god, and they're working with what they've got. What you've stated above isn't all unreasonable, but it's not like the product we've been given is terrible.

Terror_K wrote...




Why not introduce some Gears of War style puzzles and different-from-norm situations and boss-fights where it's not just about hunkering down behind cover and shooting until they're dead?

Because it's essentially Gears of War - with spells. The way you word it makes it seem like every single active ability in ME2 doesn't exist.

Terror_K wrote...





I'll admit that the inventory is cleaner now and less cumbersome, but did the item list really have to shrink so much?... *snip*

Not much is different. There was no depth to the item progression: if you found an item that was better than what you were wearing, you equipped it. That's it. It's good allowing all classes a go at 'lockpicking' but they shouldn't open it through the same means: 'fighter' archtypes should bash it open, bioitics use their...bioitics, and techies decrypt it.

The only thing *truly* lost was weapon modding, and items being in the same place every time can be just as significant or otherwise as having them completely random.

[SSV Enterprise]

tonnactus wrote...

SSV Enterprise wrote...

Also, even for missions that do not have consequences of a galactic scale, they manage to be very personal, completely blowing out of the water the stuff from ME1 that tried to be personal (Garrus and Dr. Saleon, Wrex and Tonn Actus)

Really? Have to kill someone or that wrex is killed by someone  other is less personal then to decide if kasumi could  have some cyber memories of her boyfriend including a dangerous secret for the alliance(to bad the player didnt know what this secret is) or to delete this?

That's the only truly personal matter that can be held up as a shining example from ME1 (even then, you can just charm/intimidate your way out).  Everything else that tries to be personal is either half-baked (Garrus and Dr. Saleon, Liara and Benezia) or buried in dialogue with no dramatic effect (Ash and her sisters, Kaidan and Jump Zero).

Whereas Mass Effect 2 is filled with dramatic, well-directed personal issues.  Mordin and his student. Thane and his son, Garrus' desire for vengeance, Jack's past, etc., etc...

(Darn, I hate criticizing ME1 in order to defend ME2.  I love both games)

[Il Divo]

SSV Enterprise wrote...

(Darn, I hate criticizing ME1 in order to defend ME2.  I love both games)

Ditto. It's like trying to decide between your children. It's never a fun feeling having to criticize such a great game.  

[Terror_K]

[quote]FlintlockJazz wrote...

Maybe for CRPGs, but RPG was more than its ruleset way before that.  I take it you never played
tabletop RPGs like the World of Darkness games (Vampire:The Masquerade, Werewolf: The Apocalypse, etc), which stressed playing your role over the actual statistics.[/quote]

Aside from AD&D, Star Wars Saga Edition and several other d20, d10 or d6 based P&P games based
on various IPs, I have played Vampire: The Masquerade and am going to be joining a new campaign of it in a few
weeks actually. And while V:TM does purport actual roleplaying over everything else, you still need to build your character well in order succeed at things and can't be a master of all trades (well... eventually I suppose you could, but it would take a loooooong time). And unlike ME2, you got rewarded for your ingenuity and approaching the
situation with smart tactics, earning more points to spend on building your character, while ME2 rewards a bash-through player just as much as the smart player (not that there are many varied situations and combat
can be avoided much in ME2).

[quote]
Tabletop allowed different flavours of roleplaying, from the stats-hungry roll-players
who only care about gaining xp and min/maxing to the overly-dramatic
performers who will ignore their stats as they just want to portray a
character and perform for the group.[/quote]

Yes. And this is something ME2 fails to do. It's all about the combat and pretty much
nothing else. Beyond that it's just dialogue that's either "saint" or "bastard"

[quote]
The only reason why computer RPGs started off as just statistic based is because the hardware at the time
could not support the more wider-ranging aspects of roleplaying.  It can now, and so they are following more closely to the original tabletop RPGs than they were before.  Not a bad thing.
[/quote]

I don't see how the hardware was so limited. RPG's back then could have easily used text-adventure style mechanics to get across story and character, and other games of the time had choices and consequences in them that weren't RPGs. It was simply a matter of merging them.

The problem is that these days we're getting a greater amount of the roleplaying elements when it comes to narrative and character, but the stats-based RPG aspects are fading away. In P&P you generally have both. All I'm
saying is that just because we're getting more roleplaying elements doesn't mean the RPG elements have to suffer. That's why I loved DAO, because it's the best RPG in a long time that really gives both aspects.
RPGs aren't a see-saw (or teeter-totter for you yanks) that can only have one element strong if the other is weak.

[quote]Il Divo wrote...
No, I will tell you for a fact that this is entirely wrong. You are thinking of the d20 system, where statistics come into play. Baldur's Gate, Warcraft, etc are all inspired by the d20 system to create statistical games and call them
"RPG"s. That's all you've shown. You could take all the numbers, combat, and inventory out of Kotor and it would still be an RPG if it kept all the story-options. You could do the same with Jade Empire and the Elder Scrolls. That's why they are role-playing games and not "d20 games".[/quote]

What sided dice the game uses is irrelevant, you need the stats and ruleset to have an RPG. Otherwise all you have is a story-driven game. A "Choose your own adventure" game isn't an RPG. By that logic Fahrenheit, Heavy Rain, It Came From The Desert, Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, etc. would all be RPGs, but they're not. If you can name me a story-based CRPG that doesn't have a statistical form of character progression in some form and a rulset behind it and is still classed as an RPG I'd like to hear it.

[quote]
Role-playing games are most distinguished by the number of choices a player has available to them, as this allows them to further define their character's personality, back-story, and incorporate character development. Heavy Rain certainly has heavy role-playing elements in it based on the player's ability to impact events, but most of the characters already have pre-defined motives, personalities, history, etc. Mass Effect does this to a degree, through Shepard's voice-acting, appearance (changeable, but still), and history.[/quote]

And yet before Baldur's Gate game along there were dozens upon dozens of CRPGs out there which didn't even have any of these elements, including the SSI AD&D titles. And yet these are RPGs.

[quote]
A role-playing game is defined by the ability to role-play, not by combat mechanics, not by
the size of my inventory, not by complicated statistics. Player choice in combat is nice; Halo can offer me options: throw grenades, pick up weapons, etc. Player choice impacting story, characters, etc is so much
more critical to depth. That is something Halo cannot replicate. Story pans out the same way each time and you are given a set identity. That's why options in the story are far more critical an issue than choices in
combat which involves little to no role-playing typically.[/quote]

Again, a common misconception, considering there have been so many RPGs that
don't have these aspects and so many games that have that aren't RPGs. For something to be defined by attributes every example of it must have those attributes.

[quote]
Except Mass Effect is dumbed down to a much higher degree, as I said. Typical
thief/rogue role also involves setting traps, scouting, stealth,etc. It's the specialist role. Mass Effect reduces this to
lock-picking.[/quote]

Only compared to Baldur's Gate, NWN, DAO, etc. You can't call ME1 "dumbed down" when comparing it to games that have nothing to do with it and are going for a different style entirely. That's like calling God of War "dumbed down" compared to Dragon Age when they aren't even in the same club or trying to do the same things.
ME is not a pure RPG and never tried to be. And ME1 may reduce this element to two things (you said only lock-picking, but there's also computer hacking), but that's still a case of it being present compared to ME2's zero things.

[quote]
No it doesn't make all the difference. If it made all the difference, then Mass Effect is already a bastardized RPG-shooter hybrid instead of the RPG epic you claim it to be.[/quote]

The only difference between what we're saying is that you're looking at all BioWare RPGs prior to
ME's release and I'm looking at ME as a standalone product independent of them, because Mass Effect is unrelated to them beyond the fact it's made by BioWare and is partially RPG. Essentially, what we have is
this:-

You
RPG [--BG-------------------------------------------ME1--ME2---] Action Game

Me
RPG [---------------------ME1--------------------------ME2-------] Action Game

Because to me how ME1compares to Baldur's Gate or any other CRPG before it is irrelevant. The gap only seems smaller because you're comparing it on a grander scale with something that doesn't really fit. Mass Effect isn't
Baldur's Gate, isn't trying to be Baldur's Gate and has little to do with Baldur's Gate, and the same goes for any other BioWare RPG. Baldur's Gate is Baldur's Gate and Mass Effect is Mass Effect. ME1 may be miles off being a strong RPG compared to Baldur's Gate, but it never intended to be, and if it had it would be a completely different kettle of fish and wouldn't even work in the same manner, thus failing to achieve what it set out to. All I'm asking is for some consistency and a common balance within the IP and between the games themselves, not between ME and all of BioWare's previous titles.

[quote]
Kotor: Attributes, Skills, Feats, Powers.

Mass Effect: Talents. <---Watered down.[/quote]

Mass Effect 2: Half the Talents <--- Completely diluted.
 
[quote]
And how is xp relevant? Who cares about xp, I ask you? This is the mentality of a power-gamer, not a role-player. Much like your response to SSV Enterprise, you are not being clear.
 
You responded that:"  It's a classic case of a different means to the exact same end." to his examples of Mass Effect 2. None of the examples you gave alter anything. No matter how I get my garage pass, I get to Peak 15 the same way. No matter what I do with Captain Kirahee, the mission ends with Kaidan or Ashley dead and the revelation of the Reapers. There is no instance in Mass Effect 1 or 2 that alters an end result, beyond perhaps
killing/saving the Council and destroying/preserving the Collector Base.[/quote]

As I said, XP should be a reward based on effort, not just a meaningless pre-defined number thrown at you no matter how you completed the task.

And the examples I gave do alter things. Of course they're means to the same end to a degree, since you
are after all trying to achieve a single purpose. The point is how you get there and what else it effects alter, not the actual path.

Let me put it this way: the examples SSV Enterprise gave are like opening two doors that lead to the same room. The Noveria example is more like opening several doors that lead to different corridors that each eventually lead to the same room. In SSV's examples each door just results in the same thing, with the only difference being the way I came in. In my example each corridor is of different length, involves a different puzzle to solve, and in
turn branches off in a few more corridors before getting to the final room. What I do in those corridors determines how quickly I reach the room, how easy it is, and what happens to those I interact with along the way. In the end I come to the same result, but how I got there effects other things, including how quickly I made it, how much I was
rewarded, etc.

Good roleplaying games have always had this, and in the case of P&P RPGs things often hinge on you and your party trying to come up with various solutions to a puzzle or problem, and being rewarded more for doing it smart and efficiently. ME1had some of this, but save for a few rare exceptions ME2 doesn't. Most of the ones it does are loyalty missions and not really part of the main story. And none of them compare to Noveria (which even I will admit was ME1's only truly diverse roleplaying area).

[quote]Pocketgb wrote...

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

It doesn't have to be as deep and game-shaping as Baldur's Gate, but it needs to be a foundation upon which the rests sits instead of being a weak, slapped-on extra, ala ME2.[/quote]

No it doesn't. Take away all the stats and combats from BG2 and I'd still consider it an RPG. Not everyone likes the pickles Bioware gives us.[/quote]

You may still consider it one, but it wouldn't actually be classed as one. As I said before, it would basically be an story-driven adventure game, akin to a "Choose Your Own Adventure" book.

[quote]
I feel that Bioware's case when making all these mechanics in their gameplay is basically "don't bite off more than you can chew": Bioware put an emphasis on variety while not being able to keep a hold on balance. While this is definitely much more damaging in a multiplayer game, it's damaging for fans of single-player, too. It's why many fans considered ME2 not only as a drastically different take, but a refreshing one.

Bioware didn't make such a drastic gameplay changed based on 'minor feedback'. Many people, forumgoers and alike, did not like the way combat worked in ME1.[/quote]

Yes, but as I said, they could have still "fixed" combat in ME2 without throwing out a lot of other RPG elements. Things like stats on weapons, more item variety, having omni-tools and biotic amps, more paths to complete a mission, greater XP variance, skill-based decryption and hacking, armour classes, etc. don't directly effect the combat mechanics that much. The main thing they did to "improve combat" was to eliminate stat-based shooting and not have the player stopping to collect stuff as much. That's unrelated to the stuff I listed above and as such I don't feel the elements needed to suffer to achieve superior combat.

Modifié par Terror_K, 23 juillet 2010 - 01:19 .

[SSV Enterprise]

Terror_K wrote...

As I said, XP should be a reward based on effort, not just a meaningless pre-defined number thrown at you no matter how you completed the task.

That's nonsense.  XP should have no effect on the enjoyment or structure of a mission.

And the examples I gave do alter things. Of course they're means to the same end to a degree, since you
are after all trying to achieve a single purpose. The point is how you get there and what else it effects alter, not the actual path.

Let me put it this way: the examples SSV Enterprise gave are like opening two doors that lead to the same room. The Noveria example is more like opening several doors that lead to different corridors that each eventually lead to the same room. In SSV's examples each door just results in the same thing, with the only difference being the way I came in. In my example each corridor is of different length, involves a different puzzle to solve, and in
turn branches off in a few more corridors before getting to the final room. What I do in those corridors determines how quickly I reach the room, how easy it is, and what happens to those I interact with along the way. In the end I come to the same result, but how I got there effects other things, including how quickly I made it, how much I was
rewarded, etc.

How about two hallways that lead to two different rooms entirely?

Good roleplaying games have always had this, and in the case of P&P RPGs things often hinge on you and your party trying to come up with various solutions to a puzzle or problem, and being rewarded more for doing it smart and efficiently. ME1had some of this, but save for a few rare exceptions ME2 doesn't. Most of the ones it does are loyalty missions and not really part of the main story. And none of them compare to Noveria (which even I will admit was ME1's only truly diverse roleplaying area).

As you describe it, only Noveria qualifies.  And Zaeed's mission succeeds at something Noveria doesn't even try.  It was no less present in ME2 as it was in ME1.

Modifié par SSV Enterprise, 23 juillet 2010 - 02:43 .

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

You may still consider it one, but it wouldn't actually be classed as
one...

And people still think whales lay eggs. So?

But in all honesty I don't care whether or not it's labelled as an "RPG" long as it provides what I want: good and decent role-playing.

And again: you're essentially "role-playing" in almost every game, just like how you can loosely apply almost every genre label to every game. It's the emphasis, the quality of the game feature that matters.

Terror_K wrote...

Yes, but as I said, they could have still "fixed" combat in ME2 without throwing out a lot of other RPG elements.

That would do nothing for people who didn't like those RPG elements in ME1 in the first place.

"More everything" is good, yes. ME2 needing more variety and choices (which is still something I consider to be more than ME1's case) would be a plus, but it's a bit understandable when they pretty much reworked combat from the ground up.

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

Yes, but as I said, they could have still "fixed" combat in ME2 without throwing out a lot of other RPG elements. Things like stats on weapons, more item variety, having omni-tools and biotic amps, more paths to complete a mission, greater XP variance, skill-based decryption and hacking, armour classes, etc. don't directly effect the combat mechanics that much. The main thing they did to "improve combat" was to eliminate stat-based shooting and not have the player stopping to collect stuff as much. That's unrelated to the stuff I listed above and as such I don't feel the elements needed to suffer to achieve superior combat.

Fixing some of them was possible in different ways, some may not be. How ever, have you consider that not all people want to see more traditional RPG elements in Mass Effects, while they want to see more roleplaying elements.

You seem to want stats, but why?

Stats does provide variety. How ever, not allways so good ways. There is possibility design game so that "stats" aren't shown, but they are defined by players gameplay it self. Meaning, if you do actions what use alot of some stat then that stat can become better. In my opinion you live too much in traditional RPG age and don't seem to consider that there is other ways to provide same effects.

Example think old MMO, Ultima Online, it's skill system is still totally different way than most MMO's. Based idea you are what you do. Not the traditional RPG, where you pre-define what you are.

Mass Effect is very cinematic game. Traditional RPG doesn't really fit well in it. If you say look ME1? Yeah, it was good game, but most of it's problems are coming from traditional RPG side.

Point is why you think people even want traditional RPG in Mass Effects?

You and few here may want it, but what about all the rest. I my self want good roleplaying and game atmoshpere, but I don't want Mass Effect be turned to some traditional number RPG.

[Terror_K]

But ME1 was first and foremost an RPG. If you don't LIKE RPG elements, then why would you play an RPG? And most longtime BioWare fans DO like RPG's and DO like RPG elements. I don't expect every aspect of Mass Effect's RPG nature to be purely traditional, because much of that wouldn't work with what ME was trying to be. But there were elements in ME1 that did fit and could have worked, but they were thrown out because they were a tad broken. Customisation, options and variety are good in any game, let alone an RPG. I don't play RPG's for linear simplicity, and I find it hard to believe that most BioWare fans do.

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

But ME1 was first and foremost an RPG. If you don't LIKE RPG elements, then why would you play an RPG?

To roleplay, but it didn't allow for much of that. But it was the setting, the universe, the characters, and Shepard himself that drew me in: the awesome Paragon moments, revalations with squadmates which lead to friendship, and just seeing such an awesome character as Shepard going so out of his way to do what's right.

It's always been the characters that had me hooked in a Bioware game, and the Mass Effect series is not an exception to this rule.

Terror_K wrote...

I don't play RPG's for linear simplicity, and I find it hard to believe that most BioWare fans do.

You should broaden your view, then, since awhile ago I was bewildered at why anyone can find satisfaction based on Bioware's mechanics. There's much more to a Bioware game than that, you can definitely agree, and some cherish that above all else.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 23 juillet 2010 - 09:17 .

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

But ME1 was first and foremost an RPG.

still banging that drum? it was never foremost an rpg, even from the outset (the unreleased preview builds).

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 23 juillet 2010 - 09:21 .

[HUDuser]

Mr.BlazenGlazen wrote...

I don't get how this is a disappointment. Really my only problems with this game is lack of exploration, dialouge, some freeze up, and little minor annoyances here and there that they could most likely fix.

I agree, my main complaint is the lack of exploration on planets, especially on the Citadel WHAT WAS UP WITH THAT CRAP? And that may just be your 360 or what ever you use doing the freezing.

[Terror_K]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

But ME1 was first and foremost an RPG.

still banging that drum? it was never foremost an rpg, even from the outset (the unreleased preview builds).

Uh... yes it was. Between being a shooter and an RPG, Mass Effect was more the latter than the former. It was referred to as being an RPG by BioWare in promotional stuff and by the devs, and those preview builds you mention actually have the game with even more RPG elements than the final original game did. It's an RPG. An action-RPG with TPS elements, yes, but an RPG nonetheless.

[Darth Drago]

Saw some of these questions asked a day or so again and have been working on the answers for them since between doing other things. Sorry for the longish posting… I know how a lot of you hate these long ones.

So what do you believe are the elements of an RPG, out of curiosity?
-For me it has all of these elements.
1. A character that I create in full or partially. The more it takes to create my character the better. If I don’t care about my character then the story of the game will have less effect than if I just play a fully premade one.
2. A leveling system. This is to show that your character is actually growing and learning from the events that happened to start his/her quest to be able to defeat the villain of the story.
3. An interactive story with good storytelling elements. Story events should be seen with the antagonist of the story as well, not just around the hero of the story. Tell a full story not just from the heroes perspective. The more my decisions affect this game world or the people in it the better.
4. Interactive dialog with the characters in this world. This includes any companions you have as well as the local people you meet.
5. Lots of quests to do. Main story quests should slowly unravel the plotline of the game, not give you all the answers on a silver platter all at once. Other quests should be used to expand the game world, the lore of this world and those that live in it, not just always something to do.
6. A large game world to explore with a population of people/characters to interact in. The more this world and the people in it that you care about the better. It makes any tragic moments affect you more this way.
7. It should play out more like a good book, not a typical Hollywood movie. This means the story and the characters are more important than special effects, graphics, cut scenes and action sequences.

So how does Mass Effect 2 reward everybody regardless of effort?
-You still get to experience a good story.

What's an example of Mass Effect not giving you instant gratification?
-In ME1 it was rare that I wasn’t gratified from what I was doing. It played like a great adventure, unfolding plot elements as I went. There were a few spots when dealing with the inventory, questionable loot items in containers that shouldn’t have these things in them and shops (including dialog there) not having equipment to buy for your level that you could purchase but nothing I would consider a game wrecker.

In ME2 however, the Mission Complete screens, the addition of an ammo system, all the drastic changes made to dumb/streamline the game, the redundant pop ups telling you to “press B to end mission” or “press RT to launch probe” got old real quick to the point it was irritating. I was no longer playing an adventure I cared about, I was playing just another game.

How many options does Mass Effect really offer you besides "good" versus "evil"?
-There is the neutral route you can take where you can be more of a realistic choice. You can go renegade for one outcome like shooting the scientist Toombs was going to kill or paragon like convincing the preaching Hanar to get a permit. Since your charm/intimidate talents are not linked to your paragon/renegade level you can play the game more to your style.

ME2 does not have charm/intimidate so you more or less have to stick with following the paragon or renegade route or you’ll loose loyalty with those certain crew members that get into fights with each other if your paragon/renegade points aren’t at a high enough level.

What was terrible about Mass Effect 2's setting?
-The setting? It takes place in a sci-fi galaxy, that setting? Overall nothing and its great a non star wars game actually take place in a sci-fi setting to bad it’s a shooter/rpg hybrid (more of a shooter) instead of more of a full rpg.

Level designs are another matter. They were to linear and compact limiting any real exploration to give a sense that your actually on a different world, space station or whatever you were at. Everything was to conveniently located from quest locations, the people you need to meet to cameo appearances. Its like they wanted to rush you in and out of these locations as quickly as possible. Not one location in ME2 gave me a “Wow” factor like I got from the locations (main quest) I went to in ME1.

A lot of the areas where you have combat in have a player vs. player map feel you get in shooter games.

How is Mass Effect 1 not linear?
-Right from the moment you leave the Citadel you are given 3 routes to follow for the main quest. Go tot Feros, Noveria or go after Liara. And after you do 2 of them you get the option to go to Virmire. All of these locations are key main mission locations you need to piece together the main plot.

ME2 for the main plot concerning the Collectors (Freedom's Progress, Horizon and Collector Ship) you are forced on these missions. Usually when you don’t want to do them because you forgot that they activate (except Freedom) after you do a certain amount of the recruiting/loyalty missions. You don’t get to do them when you want to or with the group you want to use.

Il Divo wrote...
Name one instance that Mass Effect allowed you to avoid an entire combat dungeon and Mass Effect 2 did not. Everytime I go to Feros, I must fight the Geth; the same with Noveria, Virmire, and Artemis Tau.

Everything in Mass Effect was the same every playthrough. If I make a ruthless Spacer Soldier, my game will play out exactly the same my first round or my second round. The game does not change at all. You're still only offering generalizations. I'd like some specific examples.

-If your game isn’t changing at all from one play through from another then your doing everything exactly the same. There are plenty of options in many quests that let you do things differently or how you finish the quest in question. Take the Toombs one, UNC: Dead Scientists it has I think 4 different outcomes on how to end it. With the 3 background related quests, a paragon and renegade related quest a lot of optional side quests to do in any order and a lot of them (including main quest related missions) with a few ways how to finish them how can every game you play be exactly the same from one game into the other?

Yes the core main plotline isn’t going to change, Saren will always use the Geth to attack the Citadel, he will always be on Virmire, he will always beat you to Ilos, Benezia will always be on Noveria and so on.
Name one game that does change the main plotline and locations where the main bad guy will be found for your final fight based on your actions.

Just on the top of my head, here are 2 missions that can be done completely without any combat at all and 1 that can be finished without combat.
UNC: Major Kyle
UNC: The Negotiation
UNC: Hostile Takeover -The final part of this on how you deal with Helena Blake.

As for in ME2 and any mission that you could not avoid combat in where it was present, that’s easy since every quest that you encountered anyone with guns resulted in a shootout. You were never given a single option to do anything different. Start mission, shoot anything that moves, open safes and hack a few things to get some cash, find the stash of minerals and maybe an upgrade, end mission by choosing a paragon or renegade outcome if this choice is available. That’s the way almost every mission in ME2 plays out.

SSV Enterprise wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

As I said, XP should be a reward based on effort, not just a meaningless pre-defined number thrown at you no matter how you completed the task.

That's nonsense. XP should have no effect on the enjoyment or structure of a mission.

-So a game that uses experience points shouldn’t reward/punish you for doing things differently? Doing things like opening locks or hacking as well as finishing sub quests should earn you experience points. Yet every mission gives you a set net amount of experience points regardless of what you do, no more, no less.
Its not about the effect on enjoyment but the reward or punishment for doing things differently when you play the game. Of course its not like there is any variation of what you can actually do on those missions in the game in the first place.

Why even have a leveling system that uses experience points if you get the same base amount for completing a level no matter what you do in it? I’m surprised this wasn’t streamlined even more by just having you level up every time you completed a quest listed under the Main Mission list.

Modifié par Darth Drago, 23 juillet 2010 - 11:08 .