10273 réponses à ce sujet

[tonnactus]

Kai Hohiro wrote...

Alot of people prefer the Vindicator over the revenant. Or the scimitar over the Claymore, even Vanguards..

They could prefer what they want,its just "feeling".
Like some people use the avenger because of the look.
The claymore is still ahead in term of damage per second like the revenant compared
with the vindicator. Considering the fact that the stronger weapon also have a far bigger clipsize,there is absolutly nothing that speaks for using the vindicator.

Modifié par tonnactus, 13 août 2010 - 09:36 .

[Il Divo]

bjdbwea wrote...

What are you even talking about? Depth in writing and depth in gameplay are two completely different issues. The games of old didn't need depth in gameplay to make up for anything, they just had it because back then that's where the money was. Now gaming has developed into a mass phenomenon, and the mass market demands - or rather: is satisfied with - less depth in gameplay. And apparently in writing, if ME 2 is any indication.

His point is that if you need to refer to stats/inventory in order to explain how Mass Effect is 'deep', then its not worthy of that adjective. His point is that many games can get away with the rpg label because they include statistics and inventory when the story, characters, and writing may have little to no quality.

[Pocketgb]

bjdbwea wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

That was the entire premise of the series: Being "RPG-lite".

That was the premise? You sure about that?

Is Shepard's aim with a gun dependant on Shepard, or the player? Given that much of your success depends on how well you shoot, that means that much of your success is dependent on you, not your character.

Then there's looking at the role-playing aspect, one which was sacrificed largely for a more 'cinematic' effect.

[Whatever42]

ME2 might simpler than ME1 for some players but not for me. 

ME2 did remove the resource mini-game (inventory). It also replaced the driving mini-game (mako). 

On the other hand, it did add a scanning mini-game and an extra hacking mini-game but those took up far less game time. However, ME2 had a more in-depth relationship mini-game.

The skills system seems simpler. You got several skills for basically free in ME2 (weapons, persuade/intimidate) while in ME1 you did have to make choices. Of course, you have to make choices in ME2 as well, with the level 4 skills, which also have a big impact on your gameplay. Was it as significant as ME1? Debateable.

Overall, I think it was a wash. Perhaps some people did spend more time on secondary activities in ME1, playing with their inventory or driving around in the Mako. Personally, I omni-geled practically everything as soon as I got it and past my first playthough, drove straight to my destination and collected nothing on the planets. To me, ME2 was no simpler than ME1.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 13 août 2010 - 09:45 .

[Pocketgb]

Double post bullcrap!

Modifié par Pocketgb, 13 août 2010 - 09:45 .

[tonnactus]

Pocketgb wrote...


Obviously when you're at longer ranges

For longer ranges sniper rifles are far better then the vindicator.Any sniper rifle.

[tonnactus]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...
 Of course, you have to make choices in ME2 as well, with the level 4 skills, which also have a big impact on your gameplay. Was it as significant as ME1? Debateable.

If someone had as an example "heavy overload" with a range of an 1,75 meters or "area" overload of 3 meters is not only not significant,
Its joke compared to the range powers had in the first game.

Modifié par tonnactus, 13 août 2010 - 09:54 .

[Pocketgb]

tonnactus wrote...

For longer ranges sniper rifles are far better then the vindicator.Any sniper rifle.

Of course they are, but there's much more dangerous things to spend your ammo on.

Where are you getting your 'weaponary facts', by the way?

Modifié par Pocketgb, 13 août 2010 - 10:07 .

[tonnactus]

Darth Drago wrote...

Kai Hohiro wrote...

Like I said, people like you don't even bother to look somewhere else. There are numerous great RPGs out there which you probably haven't even bothered to try.

How many of those are sci-fi RPG’s?

Thats another thing why i consider a lot of the "loyality missions" a waste of time.Thane has problems with son.That
is something a lot of soap operas have too.Did i play i sci fi rpg game for this???
Out of 12 loaylity mission only 4 were interesting: Grunts ritus,talis(how the quarian society works),legions and samaras.
All those expand the view and knowledge about the Mass Effect universe.All other are a waste of time for me.I couldnt care less about miranda and her sister or garrus revenge.Pointless waste of time.

[tonnactus]

Pocketgb wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

For longer ranges sniper rifles are far better then the vindicator.Any sniper rifle.

Of course they are, but there's much more dangerous things to spend your ammo on.

Dangerous things in Mass Effect 2? Ok,there are heavy weapons for this.But even scions are easily killed just with heavy pistols...

Where are you getting your 'weaponary facts', by the way?

To show thats there is only "an illusion of uniqueness".

[Pocketgb]

tonnactus wrote...
Dangerous things in Mass Effect 2? Ok,there are heavy weapons for this.But even scions are easily killed just with heavy pistols...

Scions are easily killed. Period.
The game is easily beaten, altogether.
This is the same for ME1. Bioware is bad at making combat.
With ME2 they were better at making the 'bad combat' 'more fun'.

That is besides the point, though.

Oh I remember now: The Vindicator is better than the Revenant at long ranges.
"Then use a sniper rifle".
Then it's hard to pinpoint what ARs are for: Sniper Rifles are better long range, shotguns are better short range. ARs don't have a niche.

Or is that the point?

tonnactus wrote...
To show thats there is only "an illusion of uniqueness".

You misread my post: I'm asking where are you getting your facts from? Is it 'personal'? Do you have any sources to back up your claims?

Modifié par Pocketgb, 13 août 2010 - 10:25 .

[tonnactus]

Pocketgb wrote...

With ME2 they were better at making the 'bad combat' 'more fun'.

A matter of opinion.I would only agree for the soldier class because that was nothing more then a dull immunity spammer
in the first game.Adepting was far more fun in MAss Effect,because even thresher maws could be affected not only by warp.

tonnactus wrote...


You misread my post: I'm asking where are you getting your facts from? Is it 'personal'? Do you have any sources to back up your claims?

Look at the weapon comparisons/stats at the wikia if you want sources or crucials vids on you tube.

Modifié par tonnactus, 13 août 2010 - 10:28 .

[Pocketgb]

tonnactus wrote...
A matter of opinion...

And that's why the ME franchise is in trouble, as a whole.

tonnactus wrote...
Look at the weapon comparisons/stats at the wikia if you want sources or crucials vids on you tube.

Yeah, I've watched those vids a lot. That's why I was confused: They don't really agree with what you've been claiming.

[shootist70]

bjdbwea wrote...

What are you even talking about? Depth in writing and depth in gameplay are two completely different issues. The games of old didn't need depth in gameplay to make up for anything, they just had it because back then that's where the money was. Now gaming has developed into a mass phenomenon, and the mass market demands - or rather: is satisfied with - less depth in gameplay. And apparently in writing, if ME 2 is any indication.

Il Divo was right, but I'll respond anyway. We need to get past this myth that involves constantly blaming 'mass market demands', and we need to get rid of our false memory syndrome about old-school RPG's. They didn't have depth, they just had complexity. The genre was horribly cliched - progressing down their tired rehashings of the old Hero's Journey didn't involve absorbing plot twists and plot progression, it relied more heavily on gear and skill progression. That's cheap, lazy, artificial, and completely inconsistent with the heroic saga that RPG's try to recreate. Let's be honest here, most old-school RPG's were mind-numbingly shallow, and simply threw up a vast smokescreen of detail to hide the fact.

If I want to defeat the big bad guys, I want to do it by making important plot choices and by character interaction with well developed characters, and by overcoming plot twists, and through layers of conflict, because THAT is roleplaying. I don't want to do it by deciding which items I should equip from the dozens of weapons and armours I seem to be miraculously carrying in my backpack. If I want to overcome my enemies with skill, I want to do it with my own ability, and not the abilites I slotted points next to on a character screen. Whatever role is recreated by fiddling with stats and gear, I don't know, but it doesn't sound that exciting to me.

ME2, for all the haters say about simplifcation, actually has a real crack at bringing depth into the gameworld where it should be, and away from the stats/inventory screens. The problem is that it's hard to notice because it's so fragmented and unfocused.  Still, I far prefer the direction it's taking the genre in rather than backpedalling into the cliched and hackneyed past of the old-school RPG.

Modifié par shootist70, 13 août 2010 - 10:51 .

[Kai Hohiro]

bjdbwea wrote...

What are you even talking about? Depth in writing and depth in gameplay are two completely different issues. The games of old didn't need depth in gameplay to make up for anything, they just had it because back then that's where the money was. Now gaming has developed into a mass phenomenon, and the mass market demands - or rather: is satisfied with - less depth in gameplay. And apparently in writing, if ME 2 is any indication.

Just your opinion. I found ME1s entire story rather cliched, simplistic and overdone in every single bioware game. In ME2 they actually tried an entirely different plot for once, rather than the standard Hero's journey.
I prefered having a goal to accomplish, rather than stumbling across the galaxy and through lucky breaks and Deus Ex Machina events finding artifacts whereever I happen to go.
It's a plot more comparable to a dirty dozen and ocean's eleven and is actually something new in gaming which to my knowledge hasn't been done before. 
So yeah I'd prefer a new and engaging plot, rather than one that has been done to death.

Again your arguments hold no ground, because you think something that doesn't appeal to you automatically means "dumbed down for the mass market".

Modifié par Kai Hohiro, 13 août 2010 - 11:08 .

[Darth Drago]

tonnactus wrote...

Darth Drago wrote...

Kai Hohiro wrote...

Like I said, people like you don't even bother to look somewhere else. There are numerous great RPGs out there which you probably haven't even bothered to try.

How many of those are sci-fi RPG’s?

Thats another thing why i consider a lot of the "loyality missions" a waste of time.Thane has problems with son.That
is something a lot of soap operas have too.Did i play i sci fi rpg game for this???
Out of 12 loaylity mission only 4 were interesting: Grunts ritus,talis(how the quarian society works),legions and samaras.
All those expand the view and knowledge about the Mass Effect universe.All other are a waste of time for me.I couldnt care less about miranda and her sister or garrus revenge.Pointless waste of time.

Yea exactly how many of those loyalty mission dealt with family issues anyways?
-Miranda: sister/father issues
-Jacob: father issues
-Thane: son issues
-Samara: daughter issues
-Tali: father issues (it is at its heart)
-Legion: family issues (it is in a way isn’t it)

Others
-Jack: abuse issues
-Mordin: science ethics issues
-Grunt: puberty issues
-Garrus: revenge issues (again)
-Zaeed: revenge issues
-Kasumi: revenge/boyfriend issues

I agree with your list of Grunt, Tali, Legion and Samara but would add:
-Jack’s for its Cerberus background. We knew they were nasty from ME1 but to hear her experiences of what they did hit’s a nerve.
-Mordin’s for its genophage research info and how it really affected him.

However I will say all the loyalty missions were the best part of the game. I do love all of them because they enhance the featured character. It sucks that the “other’” squad mate didn’t really have anything to say. I expected to head Miranda comment on Cerberus during Jack’s or Garrus say something during Tali’s for two examples.

I just wish they had done something for Morinth. You either side with her or don’t and that’s it. You never really get into her head as it were like the others. Everything you know about her comes from Samara who when you think on it really doesn’t know her that well, just her crimes.

On my original question above in the quote, I’ll ask again.
-How many sci-fi RPG are out there for us to choose from?

[Pocketgb]

Darth Drago wrote...
On my original question above in the quote, I’ll ask again.
-How many sci-fi RPG are out there for us to choose from?

None. But that's just me. I don't consider either ME to be as "RPG" as I had hoped. They're fun, of course, but far from enjoyable RPG depth.

Of course, this is just recently. If you haven't yet, Systemshock 2 and Deus Ex are amazing. X-Com as well if you can get it to work. That was actually the triad of awesome those many years ago: X-Com, Master of Orion 2, and Daggerfall were all amazing and addicting games.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 13 août 2010 - 11:08 .

[Il Divo]

Kai Hohiro wrote...

Just your opinion. I found ME1s entire story rather cliched, simplistic and overdone in every single bioware game.

You bring up a great point in your post, but I definitely want to comment on this. I view Kotor, Jade Empire, and Mass Effect as being the rough equivalent of the Halo Trilogy's history. I start with Kotor and not BG2 because this was the first 'fully 3D' Bioware game and I think a better starting point for this comparison.

If we view Kotor as the rough equivalent of Halo 1, it was very innovative and mind-blowing in many ways, leaving us wanting more.

Likewise, I would say Jade Empire is the equivalent of Halo 2, where we see Bioware/Bungie 'perfect' their formulas, story and gameplay respectively. Each is at top form.
 
Unfortunately, Mass Effect becomes the rough equivalent of Halo 3. They're both great games in their own ways, but it feels like Bioware/Bungie took a half step back in the everything they learned with their previous game. Mass Effect's plot/characters don't quite compare with past experiences. Neither really brings anything new to their respective formulas.

[roosterclocker]

I agree with Pocket, ME2 totally blows. come to think of it, ME1 kinda blows chunks too.

[Pocketgb]

I'd say as an RPG both kind of blow, but as a whole - or just as a "game" - theyre pretty fun.

[Il Divo]

And to answer the question, I feel that Mass Effect 1 and 2 are both closer to space fantasy than they are to hard science fiction.

http://www.kheper.ne...fi/grading.html

Judging by this, they're at best medium and at worst space fantasy. So to go with common terminology, as sci-fi they blow.

Modifié par Il Divo, 13 août 2010 - 11:14 .

[ArchDemonXIII]

2 cents from a shooter fan:

 What some people call "dumbing down", others may refer to as "streamlining". In my opinion, the only thing that was truly dumbed down in ME 2 was the morality system. the best playthroughs of ME 1 for me was after you maxed both charm and intimidate and could make choices based on whim or WWMYCD (what would my character do?) and not on what I have enough points to  do. It's pretty rediculous when you find yourself a few points short of a renegade choice and find yourself wandering around the Normandy looking for crew members to whom you can  say mean things. All so we could have that  ludicrous and out of place scarring.

 ME1's inventory system wasn't deep, it was just a bunch of random placeholders for  Spectre weapons and Colossus/Predator armor. The one point I'll acknowledge is that there should have been a way to mod the weapons in ME2. Granted, I'd be just as happy if they had made ammo powers an item rather than a power.

 I'm not saying ME2 isn't flawed, it is. I dislike that pistols aren't really a viable main weapon anymore. Scanning sucks. Armor & Shields nullifying half your powers is stupid as it doesn't do what it's supposed to... keep you from dipping into the power menu (in fact I find it exacerbates the issue). On a related note, the rock-paper-scissors nature of weapons (to me, focusing on the weapon you like using is as much customization as choosing armor).

 Overall, though I like that it's more focused on the elements that drew me to ME 1: Interaction with people, whether by words or by bullets. It's an RPG that eschews the thing that makes me not enjoy most RPG's: the stat based combat.
 
 I rememeber playing Xenogears back in the day. I thought the story was awesome, but I ended up dropping it at the final dungeon because I wasn't high enough level to tackle it and had to grind up levels to finish the game. The combo system it had was a neat idea, but it got to the point where you just kept using the new, more powerful combos over and over, so in essence it became just like hitting the "ATK" button, only now you had to hit 7 buttons to do it.

 So where some might call it a dumed down RPG, II think of it more as a smartened up shooter. BW just have to get better with shooter mechanics as they picked up some the bad habits of TPS's.

P.S. I now that rambles a bit but I guess i had more to say than I could coherently distill into one post

[shootist70]

Il Divo wrote...

And to answer the question, I feel that Mass Effect 1 and 2 are both closer to space fantasy than they are to hard science fiction.

http://www.kheper.ne...fi/grading.html

Judging by this, they're at best medium and at worst space fantasy. So to go with common terminology, as sci-fi they blow.

I don't think for one second they have an pretensions at hard Sci-fi. What they are, and what they're totally comfortable at being, is what's known as space opera.

Modifié par shootist70, 13 août 2010 - 11:23 .

[Sparda Stonerule]

As far as me liking a story and a game then being upset about it. Gears of War and Gears of War 2. I loved the first game. The story of the Locust interested me greatly. Then Gears of War 2 showed up and I didn't like where it went so I won't be getting the third game. You don't see me going to a board about GOW 2 complaining about how I didn't like the story. Heck the only reason I stuck with Halo was because I liked the story and 3 let me down in every way possible. I don't complain to people online about these things. I discuss them with my friends because it is a lot more interesting.

As far as RPG's go I like a lot of "complex" RPG's such as Jade Empire and KOTOR. I like some "average" RPG's like Dragon Quest 8 and Losy Odyssey. I also like some "simple" RPG's like just about every Final Fantasy (although I haven't liked any FF game that has come after X, even then I barely liked X).

No one is any more of an RPG fan over the other. Everyone has their own tastes I just get sick when people say one side is blatantly wrong or something is "obvious". Those are all personal feelings and I see on average a bit more of the down talking coming from the people who are disappointed.

Again I will state. I doubt anyone doesn't want ME 3 to be an absolutely astounding game. So I know you will all do what you think is right. However there is no need to talk down to people because you feel the game is "simpler" or "dumbed down". Likewise there is no need to berate people for liking one RPG system over another. So everyone is actually allowed to complain but I don't feel it's anyones prerogative to declare themselves as knowing better or being "right" for any reason.

Modifié par Sparda Stonerule, 13 août 2010 - 11:30 .

[Halo Quea]

ArchDemonXIII wrote...

 So where some might call it a dumed down RPG, II think of it more as a smartened up shooter.

FINALLY!!  Some honesty!   And it took a shooter fan to point it out!

Bless you ArchDemon, we've had so little honesty here.   In fact if you've been paying attention to the last few pages and all of the amazingly open-ended definitions of role playing I guess one could come to the conclusion that anything could be declared an RPG.

Hell, let's declare Halo an RPG while we're at it!