10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Sidney]

bjdbwea wrote...

You shouldn't call that "fine RPG elements", you should say "the RPG elements were removed, and I like that". Many have said that, and while I don't understand why they didn't just leave the ME series alone and buy one of the countless shooters instead, they're of course entitled to their opinion.

No, i said what I meant to say. People who think the RPG elements were removed have lost their minds because they are zealots and all RPG's must hew to some ****eyed standard. You've got all the usual elements you just don't like the way they were implemented. That is your problem for being closed minded.

Frankly, the biggest sin of ME2 for most of the Monty Haul "RPG Fans" is that it dares to make you make choices. You can't have all your skills, you can't take along every known gun and bit of armor in your magic mag of holding, there's not enough cash to buy every weapons or upgrade you want, your allies don't have every known power so you might want to think about who your drag along on a given mission.

[Sidney]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

Sorry but they added ammo, health regen, forcing the player into waist high cover, and littered that cover throughout the game. They even FORCE power based characters to use weapons originally restricted to "shooter" classes.

Ammo isn't an RPG element? I must have missed that trucking around those arrows in BG2 and all that lovely ammo in FO1-3.

Cover can't exist in an RPG? I know it typically hasn't because RPG's have terrible combat mechanics but, seriously, you don't want cover? You want the KoTOR world where people with guns stand around like they are in a Napoleonic Army and blast away standing bolt upright?

They force you to use weapons? Huh? Really? First, how stupid is it that a Biotic can't use a certain type of gun. That's never made anymore sense than wizards not being able to use swords. You accept that but alas it doesn't make sense. Guys in the army who don't use guns still learn to shoot guns. Second, you can play the entire game with only one gun. I know, I did using only an SMG for my Adept. Don't tell me about the value of classes or some silly sense of game balance in a single-player game.

Not sure why Health Regen is a problem, health makes no sense anyways so almost anything they do it ok and frankly the sort of recovery makes more sense than the perma-loss in AD&D. Assuming hit points are some sort of measure of luck, skill that means you don't get hit and not just that your body is so tough it can take a bazillion bullets/arrows/sword hits.

[bjdbwea]

Sidney wrote...

Frankly, the biggest sin of ME2 for most of the Monty Haul "RPG Fans" is that it dares to make you make choices. You can't have all your skills, you can't take along every known gun and bit of armor in your magic mag of holding, there's not enough cash to buy every weapons or upgrade you want, your allies don't have every known power so you might want to think about who your drag along on a given mission.

Guess what, all that you described are already signs of a dumbed down RPG. A proper RPG limits the amount of things you can carry, it doesn't allow you to maximize all skills in one playthrough, and it offers only a balanced amount of cash. It does however not do that by removing the inventory or an economy altogether. That is just a sign of even more dumbing down.

You obviously know very little of RPGs. That's okay though, I don't know much about all the fine intricacies the shooter genre no doubt consists of.

As for having to think about which companions to take along, guess what, you had to do that in ME 1 if your Shepard couldn't unlock containers, but that element too was cut from ME 2. Both games are easy enough that you don't need the companions in fights.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 22 août 2010 - 11:23 .

[Terror_K]

Il Divo wrote...

Ironically, I have the same conclusion as you do but for the exact opposite reasons. I recall you mentioning that
you wanted your choices to be more meaningful in Mass Effect 2. To be honest, I felt 100% opposite. Not opposed to huge decisions (Saving the Council, exterminating the Rachni, etc) being relevant, but the truth is why must Shepard be confronted with every decision he made in Mass Effect?
 
Is saving/exterminating the Feros colony really going to have adverse consequences throughout the galaxy? If I save/kill the biotic cult and Major Kyle, do I really need such a minor side quest to have huge ramifications? Hell, I would honestly be opposed if they took all those emails and made them in-game cameo appearances or become new side quests. It would have felt too forced. I'm honestly glad that all these 'decisions' can at least be ignored in their email form. The only decisions I really thought should be relevant for future games are Shepard's choice for Councilor, extinction of the Rachni, and letting the Council die. Those aside, I didn't see the need for my choices to be hugely relevant.

Shame those decisions weren't that big of a deal. The first one of them has been undone by the recent novel,
thus taking away one of only choices that actually seemed to make a difference in the game, while the second is still a big '?' thus far and the third barely seemed to change anything at all.

The thing is not all of these import things don't need to have a massive, galaxy-changing effect, but it is nice to see what effect they did have --no matter how minor-- first hand. Reading about it only is a massive cop-out, especially with things like Dr. Michel's and Emily Wong's messages where you can so easily see how they could actually be incorporated without it being forced (them appearing on The Citadel would be far less forced that you visiting one small area on Illium not even a half kilometre squared and finding a Rachi Queen messenger, Gianna Parasini, Liara, Shiala and Conrad Verner all in the vicinity of each other).

On top of it all even the biggest decisions lacked any domino effect whatsoever, as everything seemed to only effect the things within their own little bubble and nothing beyond that. The closest thing we got to breaking this trend was within the game itself, where Kal'Reegar and Veetor would be at Tali's trial later or not depending on your actions earlier. Beyond that the changes were completely insular, which is fine sometimes but with things like The Council shouldn't be.

The main issue is that BioWare outright stated that our choices in ME1 would have meangingful consequences in ME2. And I fail to see how even the most die-hard ME2 fan can think of the emails as anything less than a cheap cop-out and the laziest way of dealing with it beyond absolutely nothing. It's like BioWare decided they bit off more than they could chew or that they were running out of time, so rather than actually put in the effort and perhaps delay the game a little they went for the easy option to try and save face (since just not doing anything would have been worse).

Il Divo wrote...

Which would be all well and good if you weren't before trying to make the point that Deus Ex is a good shooter. Clearly Deus Ex is not a good shooter in this case if you're pointing out that "combat isn't everything". It clearly isn't, which is why Deus Ex works incredibly well as an rpg, but not an fps.  

Deus Ex works well as both. That's what makes it so great. That's why even 10 years later it's still often taking the top spot in "Greatest Games of All Time" lists.

Modifié par Terror_K, 22 août 2010 - 11:25 .

[77boy84]

bjdbwea wrote...

Sidney wrote...

Frankly, the biggest sin of ME2 for most of the Monty Haul "RPG Fans" is that it dares to make you make choices. You can't have all your skills, you can't take along every known gun and bit of armor in your magic mag of holding, there's not enough cash to buy every weapons or upgrade you want, your allies don't have every known power so you might want to think about who your drag along on a given mission.

Guess what, all that you described are already signs of a dumbed down RPG. A proper RPG limits the amount of things you can carry, it doesn't allow you to maximize all skills in one playthrough, and it offers only a balanced amount of cash. It does however not do that by removing the inventory or an economy altogether. That is just a sign of even more dumbing down.

You obviously know very little of RPGs. That's okay though, I don't know much about all the fine intricacies the shooter genre no doubt consists of.

As for having to think about which companions to take along, guess what, you had to do that in ME 1 if your Shepard couldn't unlock containers, but that element too was cut from ME 2. Both games are easy enough that you don't need the companions in fights.

Inventory and Economy are not requirements for good RPGs.

Also, the squad choices in ME2 where done better than ME1. I actually have to think about who compliments my shepard, and what will work best for the level, unlike ME1 where the only choice you had to make was whether you wanted garrus or tali to unlock your doors.

[bjdbwea]

77boy84 wrote...

Inventory and Economy are not requirements for good RPGs.

Yes, they are. They aren't for shooters with a story, which is what some people call RPGs these days. But calling it so doesn't make it one. But who cares how shooter fans define an RPG anyway? I'm not telling them what makes an FPS either.

77boy84 wrote...

Also, the squad choices in ME2 where done better than ME1. I actually have to think about who compliments my shepard, and what will work best for the level, unlike ME1 where the only choice you had to make was whether you wanted garrus or tali to unlock your doors.

While you might have enjoyed thinking about it, in reality it makes little difference, as the game is easy enough regardless, even on the highest difficulty. So yeah, only in ME 1 is it of any real importance. That's of course still nowhere near other good RPGs where you have a bigger party that you need to build properly.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 22 août 2010 - 11:46 .

[Iakus]

Terror_K wrote...

On top of it all even the biggest decisions lacked any domino effect whatsoever, as everything seemed to only effect the things within their own little bubble and nothing beyond that. The closest thing we got to breaking this trend was within the game itself, where Kal'Reegar and Veetor would be at Tali's trial later or not depending on your actions earlier. Beyond that the changes were completely insular, which is fine sometimes but with things like The Council shouldn't be.

"Insular"  I like that word.  It really describes ME 2.  The characters are all on their own little islands, isolated from each other.  Their personal missions are totally seperate from each other.  The games themselves have few points of contact, very little carries over.  Everything is neatly packaged and compartmentalized.  Shepard is the only common thread.

Yes, insular describes the game very well.

Modifié par iakus, 22 août 2010 - 11:56 .

[tonnactus]

77boy84 wrote...

Also, the squad choices in ME2 where done better than ME1. I actually have to think about who compliments my shepard, and what will work best for the level,

Really?


A low level character that didnt need any squadmates and still progress fast enough.

Modifié par tonnactus, 22 août 2010 - 11:57 .

[Solaris Paradox]

bjdbwea wrote...

as the game is easy enough regardless, even on the highest difficulty.

I broke cover for one second and my shields just gave up.

Please tell me you are not calling that "easy."

EDIT: Squad choices weren't done any better in ME1, stop kidding yourself. The only conscious choice I ever had to make was to keep someone with good Electronics and Decryption in my squad so I could "lockpick" things. I did most of the work myself why my team was trying to shoot the enemy THROUGH THE WALLS.

Modifié par Solaris Paradox, 23 août 2010 - 12:00 .

[Epic777]

tonnactus wrote...

77boy84 wrote...

Also, the squad choices in ME2 where done better than ME1. I actually have to think about who compliments my shepard, and what will work best for the level,

Really?


A low level character that didnt need any squadmates and still progress fast enough.

Ah the can of worms, someone will post the utube vid of the me1 maw being downed on insanity by a soldier

[Pocketgb]

bjdbwea wrote...
Let's see... maybe because players like freedom in their games? Take notes, BioWare!

Define "freedom". GTA caters to the same thing that FO3 can cater to: Being an incredibly crazy douchebag who does random **** all the time.

Bioware are not good at making such types of 'freedom'. That's Bethesda's job: They're good at making large, explorable and open-ended games.

But that's not Bioware's strength. They're good at dialog and making the game a bit more localized and personal.

bjdbwea wrote...
Maybe because people like well-told stories in diverse cutscenes with memorable characters and adversaries with names and faces?

Cutscenes aren't diverse?
Characters aren't memorable?
Adversaries aren't distinct?

My friend, we'll have to agree to disagree.

iakus wrote...

Did Thane have anything to say about Garrus's thirst for vengeance in his loyalty mission?...

No, no, no, no, no, and no. Goes back to what I said: **** voice-acting. Having their games appear "cinematic" is why the RP factor is being held back. But I've always felt that Mass Effect has been Bioware's sort of 'gateway' game for newcomers.

iakus wrote...
I am noticing, however, that some praise the combat and cinematics like that's all that's needed.

The character threads are the things I notice the most.
And interestingly enough 4chan seems to love it as well. For a place that hates everything it's weird to see them love ME2.

iakus wrote...
And yes I played Ocarina of Time more years ago than i care to count (on the orginal N64).  Fun game as I recall.

Remember when you first talk to the owl and he gives you a really long and drawn out tutorial?
If you keep hitting "A" to skip he'l ask "You want me to repeat that?" And he will. And it sucks.
Not the same end result, but it's the same issue. If the 'typical shooter player' wants to ignore all the dialog and blaze through every conversation he'll be in a really crappy place.

iakus wrote...
As long as it's consistent I don't care.  Just as long as combat development doesn't swallow up the story.

I've never cared for the combat in a Bioware game until ME2, and even then it's not that great. My dream Bioware game is when they take less emphasis off of both VOs and combat. If they took complete emphasis off of combat, though, I could maybe deal with the VOs.

bjdbwea wrote...
Yes, they are.

Oh boy, here we go!

bjdbwea wrote...
 So yeah, only in ME 1 is it of any real importance. 

The AI was so bothersome that I always sent my squadmates as far away from the battle as possible. Most of Bioware's catalog has easy as crap gameplay.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 23 août 2010 - 12:16 .

[tonnactus]

Solaris Paradox wrote...


EDIT: Squad choices weren't done any better in ME1, stop kidding yourself.

Surviving charging krogans on insanity without an biotic squadmember early game? Who is kidding yourself? Even the bouncer in choras den would kill shepardt in one hit.

Modifié par tonnactus, 23 août 2010 - 12:05 .

[Solaris Paradox]

tonnactus wrote...

Surviving charging krogans on insanity without an biotic squadmember early game? Who is kidding yourself? Even the bouncer in choras den would kill shepardt in one hit.

Of course you need to make choices like that on Insanity. You have to make choices like that on Insanity in ME2, too. The fact remains that on Normal, in ME1, I shot things a lot and let my squadmates use their powers as they saw fit. In ME2, I actually had to order them to use Overload once or twice, but otherwise I just shot things a lot and let my squadmates use their powers as they saw fit. I never even gave them orders on where to go, just let them do their thing. My time with Insanity in ME2 has convinced me that such a method is suicide.

[Pocketgb]

tonnactus wrote...
Surviving charging krogans on insanity without an biotic squadmember early game? Who is kidding yourself? Even the bouncer in choras den would kill shepardt in one hit.

Keep your distance and you're good.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 23 août 2010 - 12:18 .

[Epic777]

Pocketgb wrote...

tonnactus wrote...
Surviving charging krogans on insanity without an biotic squadmember early game? Who is kidding yourself? Even the bouncer in choras den would kill shepardt in one hit.

Keep your distance and you're good.

"Korgan charging" - last words of mordin solus

Modifié par Epic777, 23 août 2010 - 12:22 .

[Pocketgb]

Yeah, keep your distance. They do not charge until they're a bit closed in. By that point they should almost be down and out. Worst comes to worst just use any one form of cc and you're a-okay.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 23 août 2010 - 12:28 .

[tonnactus]

Pocketgb wrote...

tonnactus wrote...
Surviving charging krogans on insanity without an biotic squadmember early game? Who is kidding yourself? Even the bouncer in choras den would kill shepardt in one hit.

Keep your distance and you're good.

Doesnt work with the guy on therum at least...
He wasnt patience enough.
And krogans were really fast enemies in the first game.To bad a lot them dont allowed shepardt to keep the distance.

[Pocketgb]

tonnactus wrote...
Doesnt work with the guy on therum at least...

Well dur, he's a boss!

tonnactus wrote...
And krogans were really fast enemies in the first game.To bad a lot them dont allowed shepardt to keep the distance.

That, or *your* Shepard allowed them to close the distance ;p

[DanielNorman668]

FAO Chris Priestly:



Hi Chris,



Of course as expected and naturally im a great fan of both DA and ME and love your site. Just got into it the last couple of weeks and read the number of qualms, etc with the Lotsb DLC, ending with you rightly shutting its forum thread down, which unfortunately i've seen the somewhat over zealous statements continued on Facebook. Still though, taking into consideration fans occasional bloated sense of entitlement i can sympathise with the frustration over the minimal release of information on Lotsb, especially on a DLC many are very passionate about, specifically the story surrounding Liara.



I can imagine and agree with the variety of reasons release info has been kept quiet no doubt, but with so much frustration currently being exhibited by fans to the point of having to shut down the forum concerning the subject, due to rudeness, and the continued angst, though unfair, being thrown at Bioware on Facebook, would it be possible to make a definitive statement just as to the reason release info has been kept so minimal.



I genuinely admire Bioware (Hell, better than Square Enix now imo) and your job Chris (though dont envy it!), though please could you shed any light on this subject other than the request to remain patient (which i sympathise with a slightly rude member who stated that it has been over a month since lotsb was announced) or that nothing can be said as of yet. Understand please that the frustration of not knowing even why release details are kept is very frustrating, especially when your serving in Afghanistan and (sad as it sounds!) aiming to arrange RNR for its release, heh.



Regardless Chris, you and the rest at Bioware are amazing and apart from my beautiful girlfriend of course first and foremost, you guys and gals have given me something to look forward to when i get back with the amazing games your creating. Cheers!



Daniel

[tonnactus]

Pocketgb wrote...


That, or *your* Shepard allowed them to close the distance ;p

I dont have to care with the right squad and dont rely on ai glitches...

But some reminder is needed here,i think(not my shepardt):


Krogans were actually dangerous enemies in the first game.

[Sidney]

bjdbwea wrote...

Guess what, all that you described are already signs of a dumbed down RPG. A proper RPG limits the amount of things you can carry, it doesn't allow you to maximize all skills in one playthrough, and it offers only a balanced amount of cash. It does however not do that by removing the inventory or an economy altogether. That is just a sign of even more dumbing down.

As for having to think about which companions to take along, guess what, you had to do that in ME 1 if your Shepard couldn't unlock containers, but that element too was cut from ME 2. Both games are easy enough that you don't need the companions in fights.

A proper RPG limits you, right. That's why BG2 (even with the "weight limit") allows you to carry several suits of "spare"armor with your party, dozens of weapons and of course enough potions to fill the Black Sea - and THEN you get the Bag of Holding to make that even more crazy. I guess it is "dumbed down".  Fallout I had god only knows how much crap with me. More "dumbed down" RPG's, god these things so suck - and those are considered the good RPG's. I'm not sure where all these "smart" RPG's are that enforce a semi-real weight system on you because so far Jade Empire and ME2 are the only ones that have anything like reality attached to inventory and they do it by not letting you truck along everything under the sun.

Yes, in ME1 you had to think about companions but since most companions had so many skills other than unlocking chests with a game of Simon it wasn't a big deal. Each NPC sports a smaller set of skills and it makes it harder to pick an uber-party in ME2. I have a wholly different squad fighting Geth than I do fighting organics in ME2 for example. In ME I used the same core group of folks the whole time just like I did in DAO, FO, or BG2.

[Sidney]

[quote]bjdbwea wrote...
Inventory and Economy are not requirements for good RPGs.[/quote]

Yes, they are. They aren't for shooters with a story, which is what some people call RPGs these days. But calling it so doesn't make it one. But who cares how shooter fans define an RPG anyway? I'm not telling them what makes an FPS either.
[/quote]


This is such a crock. Why must you have inventory to "role play"? Does having a different suit of armor affect your ability to choose Harrowmont or Bhelen? Does having 6 Darkspawn Daggers in your backpack change your tactics in combat? Maybe in a world with potions, balms, poultices and the ilk to need those things in inventory to min/max a fight but in ME2 you don't have those things. Didn't in ME1 either.

What ME2 really got rid of wasn't even looting and inventory -- it got rid of vendor trash.  You still find new guns, new upgrades, new research projects and money. You still buy upgrades. You pick the items you will take with you. What you don't do is corpse rob every dead guard of his pistol and his gloves. You still deck your Shep out in "magic" armor - the variations on that armor in terms of mix n' match and appearance puts DAO or BG2 to shame BTW- but you don't have 8 suits of armor with you. You don't sell endless waves of the same old stuff over and over, you get paid for finishing the mission which, again, makes a lot more sense that trucking back 10 Pistol IV's from your latest conquest.

[Pocketgb]

tonnactus wrote...
I dont have to care with the right squad and dont rely on ai glitches...

False assumptions.

[Iakus]

Pocketgb wrote...
.

iakus wrote...

Did Thane have anything to say about Garrus's thirst for vengeance in his loyalty mission?...

No, no, no, no, no, and no. Goes back to what I said: **** voice-acting. Having their games appear "cinematic" is why the RP factor is being held back. But I've always felt that Mass Effect has been Bioware's sort of 'gateway' game for newcomers.

What I don't understand is why it's bad voice-acting when the scenes that I mentioned aren't in the script at all.  How can one act out a scene if there is nothing written to say?

iakus wrote...
And yes I played Ocarina of Time more years ago than i care to count (on the orginal N64).  Fun game as I recall.

Remember when you first talk to the owl and he gives you a really long and drawn out tutorial?
If you keep hitting "A" to skip he'l ask "You want me to repeat that?" And he will. And it sucks.
Not the same end result, but it's the same issue. If the 'typical shooter player' wants to ignore all the dialog and blaze through every conversation he'll be in a really crappy place.

Hmm, I must have just listened to that owl once and got it the first time.

I can never understand why someone would get a game from a company known for Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, and KOTOR and want to skip all the "talky parts".

[Pocketgb]

iakus wrote...
What I don't understand is why it's bad voice-acting when the scenes that I mentioned aren't in the script at all.  How can one act out a scene if there is nothing written to say?

It's not that I believe the voice-acting is bad, it's more that I believe voice-acting in and of itself is bad for an RPG.

iakus wrote...
Hmm, I must have just listened to that owl once and got it the first time.

I can never understand why someone would get a game from a company known for Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, and KOTOR and want to skip all the "talky parts".

Right, which is why I question the stance that Bioware did all these changes strictly to appease the 'shooter crowd'. As mentioned previously they'll have to chop off an overwhelmingly large amount of dialog to get them to come near it.

I bring up the Zelda Owl example because people like to claim that it easily becomes a 'shoota game' when you skip all of it. While somewhat true it also completely bewilders the player, which sucks.