10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Terror_K]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Way to completely miss the entire point.

ME1: Weapons of the same type behaved exactly the same.  Objectively the only difference was those stats you so lovingly champion.  The stats reflected the only actual difference between the weapons you start out with on Eden Prime and Spectre X gear.   The problem isn't with the stats, it's that the weapons only improved, they were never different.   The item progression in Mass Effect 1 is just a slow progression to Spectre gear and Colossus armor.  Mass Effect 1 as far as weapons go presents the illusion of choice.  You're just going to end up using the objectively better weapon.  Upgrades offer true customizability where people are free to choose their preferences.

ME2: No stats, the weapons do not improve, but there is variety in performance through a variety of factors.  Each weapon has a short paragraph that details their strengths and weaknesses, and that's it.   The part of this people favor is that each weapon handles differently, not the lack of stats describing it.   There is no item progression of the same fashion in Mass Effect 2, but weapons are different enough that you can find "Revenant vs. Mattock" and other similar threads in the forum here.   Mass Effect 2 gives the player actual choice at the expense of item progression.

Ideally, there would be a way to combine the strengths of both systems.

Furthermore, the constant labeling of anyone who prefers anything other than traditional RPG mechanics as "dumb" is getting really, really old.  Some of the people throwing that accusation are among the thickest people on the internet.  So let's drop it, shall we?

People don't complain about fantasy RPGs such as Baldur's Gate, NWN or Dragon Age: Origins when every sword is essentially the same and even bow or axe or dagger is essentially the same, but with differen numbers on it. So why the sudden complaint here? Because it's got shooter combat and because they're so used to playing shooters where all the guns are unique and different? That may be very well, but that's no reason to hide the stats from the player. Even some pure shooters have them, and have a deeper weapons system and have a deeper modding system than ME2 had.

So that's no excuse for giving ME2 such a dull, shallow, linear and RPG-free system at all. There's more to weapons than just how they feel, and in an RPG that isn't enough and you need some kind of progression. And all encouraging and praising the ME2 way of doing things is going to do is mean that when ME3 rolls around it doesn't get much better. I'm sick of seeing people praise ME2's lacklustre systems constantly just because they might feel it was better and/or less complicated and clumsy than ME1's. It's still a really shallow and poorly done system, and BioWare should know this.

Yes... I agree that we should combine the strengths of both. But we're not going to get that when people keep saying that "stats are bad" and that ME2's system was infinitely better. Praising mediocrity will just get you more mediocrity. But given BioWare's attitude and way of going about things lately, I doubt it'll change much. They should have known better in the first place than to create such a lacking system in the first place. And that goes for a lot of ME2. ME1 was filled with promise that wasn't quite fulfilled due to poor execution. ME2 was just filled with shallowness and bad concepts from the get-go.

[Whatever42]

Terror_K wrote...

Geez... what do people have against seeing stats in a game? I thought you were all supposed to be BioWare and RPG fans. Does it really harm your game so much to see some numbers now and then? Many of us want it... I fail to see how it really effects those who don't care about them for them to be there. If you're really that bothered by it, you could always have it so that on the weapon selection screens it allows you to toggle between seeing either the description or the stats for the weapon, and that way if numbers are really so damn scary you can just avoid them. It's not like they affect your gameplay, so I don't see why those of us that want them there should miss out. The fact they were gone from ME2 is just one of the clear pieces of evidence as to how dumbed-down for the common gamer it was. Nobody had a problem with there being stats on the guns in ME1, but now suddenly we have people crying at the idea of them being in ME3.

Personally, it doesn't harm my game at all but I'm not disagreeing, I'm simply expanding on what I think they should provide. Since all ME2 weapons progress when you get upgrades then all weapons are the same "tier". You're not comparing a +5 sword to a +2 sword, you're comparing two weapons of equivalent power. The only real difference is the behaviour of the weapon - which one is situationally better - and I don't think many stats are helpful with that.. 

Which is a more powerful weapon, a +5 sword or a +1 vorporal blade? Well, if your opponent has a head to cut off and it will be a longer fight then statistically the vorporal blade is better. So all I am suggesting that it is less than useful to simply provide the stats in ME1, where you really were comparing +2 swords to +4 swords. Bioware should provide more complete information on each weapon. Which weapon does better burst damage? Which weapon does better sustained dps?  What is the accuracy of each weapon?  What are the modifiers against different defenses? However, I would be all for Bioware providing that and would find it interesting. It also seems like a minor thing that shouldn't take too much time. 

Now personally, if they had provided such stats in ME2, I doubt it would have improved my game much. I pretty quickly learned the weapons that worked for me so I'm not going to complain at all if they don't include it. Now, if there was far more options in guns and the upgrade system was more varied then I will definitely sing a different tune.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 18 septembre 2010 - 01:05 .

[Fhaileas]

Hey, how about a compromise:



Play ME2 if you want to play a ****ty shooter, play ME1 if you want to play a ****ty RPG.



Take your pick -- I choose the latter.

[MaXiMuMMaXiMuS]

Mass Effect 2 was an incredible game. Other than the game-breaking glitches and the ****ty liquid-physics (and low res-textures here and there) I must say that I really can't think of anything particularly wrong with it.

[Kavadas]

Terror_K wrote...

People don't complain about fantasy RPGs
such as Baldur's Gate, NWN or Dragon Age: Origins when every sword is
essentially the same and even bow or axe or dagger is essentially the
same, but with differen numbers on it.

Then let me be first the to complain:

I do not enjoy the banality of forced linear item progression.  This isn't 1995.  We're not playing some fantasy RPG from Sierra.

As Upsettingshorts pointed out, all of the gear in ME1 is nothing but a worthless grind to Spectre X weapons and Colossus X armor.

All other weapons and armor in the entire game are worthless.

I would rather have lateral gear progression which offers actual choice through item variation.

By that same token, I do not enjoy the forced linear item upgrades progression of ME2 that masquerades as an item "modification" system.

ME2's upgrade system sucks just as hard as ME1's item system.

So that's no excuse
for giving ME2 such a dull, shallow, linear and RPG-free system at all.
There's more to weapons than just how they feel, and in an RPG that
isn't enough and you need some kind of progression.

There is progression: lateral progression (i.e. the acquisition of gear which isn't necessarily statistically superior but fundamentally operates differently).

I'm sick of seeing
people praise ME2's lacklustre systems constantly just because they
might feel it was better...

ROFL

Yeah, everybody.  Quit praising ME2 because you think it did something better than ME1.  Terror_K says so!



Do you realize how childish you sound...?

Yes... I agree that we should combine the strengths of
both. But we're not going to get that when people keep saying that
"stats are bad" and that ME2's system was infinitely better. Praising
mediocrity will just get you more mediocrity.

Weird, because I thought having dozens of versions of the exact same item, all equally meaningless, was pretty mediocre.  In the meantime I'm going to continue enjoying what separates the Revenant from the Mattock from the Avenger from the Vindicator.

Notice how all of the weapons are useful, different, and not just mediocre re-skins of the same model with jostled stats?

Modifié par Kavadas, 18 septembre 2010 - 02:13 .

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...
Geez... what do people have against seeing stats in a game? I thought you were all supposed to be BioWare and RPG fans. Does it really harm your game so much to see some numbers now and then?

Only if it serves a purpose that's beyond vanity. I wouldn't object to ME2's gear showing more stats, but nor will I condemn Bioware if they didn't.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 18 septembre 2010 - 02:04 .

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
Geez... what do people have against seeing stats in a game? I thought you were all supposed to be BioWare and RPG fans. Does it really harm your game so much to see some numbers now and then?

Only if it serves a purpose that's beyond vanity. I wouldn't object to ME2's gear showing more stats, but nor will I condemn Bioware if they didn't.

If it doesn't then the system is fail, like ME2's one. It should be there so players can compare the weapons and decide what's best. It shouldn't go by feeling alone. ME1's main issue was that in 90% of cases the next best weapon you got was best across the board, instead of having a varied and more balanced series of weapons. Just fixing that would have made a big difference.

As it stands ME2 severely lacks proper, non-linear item progression, and has a terribly upgrade system that is basically in-built God-modding when it comes down to it. When ME2 first came out there was a flood of people wondering what the stats were on the weapons and having to go to the Internet to find out rather than just looking in the game itself. And it's only really now after half a dozen weapons packs that we're starting to see the range and item selection that should have been in the game from Day 1.

That's why I'm really hoping that ME3 either has backwards compatibility with the ME2 DLC items or that it simply has them already built into the vanilla game (and whether you get them straight away depends on your import). But even now the items still lack visible stats, and they tend to be a little gimmicky and too individual. There should be weapons that essentially behave the same as others of the same type, but instead do better or worse at certain things. Other games have proven that even slight, subtle changes to a weapon can make a big difference, but BioWare seems to think that each weapon must be massively unique and diverse to satisfy players.

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...
If it doesn't then the system is fail...

Nope.

Terror_K wrote...
It should be there so players can compare the weapons and decide what's best. It shouldn't go by feeling alone.

Um, why not? If the major thing seperating one weapon from the rest is personal preference then that's one huge step towards having a balanced system, which is *good*

Terror_K wrote...
ME1's main issue was that in 90% of cases the next best weapon you got was best across the board, instead of having a varied and more balanced series of weapons. Just fixing that would have made a big difference.

Dunno about you, but that's what *I* got: An upgrade, a fix. Having two distinct options for my AR slot is double the benefit of one. I don't consider losing the gear progression much of a setback due both to the setting and the level scaling nature of the game.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 18 septembre 2010 - 03:35 .

[Iakus]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Personally, it doesn't harm my game at all but I'm not disagreeing, I'm simply expanding on what I think they should provide. Since all ME2 weapons progress when you get upgrades then all weapons are the same "tier". You're not comparing a +5 sword to a +2 sword, you're comparing two weapons of equivalent power. The only real difference is the behaviour of the weapon - which one is situationally better - and I don't think many stats are helpful with that.. 

Which is a more powerful weapon, a +5 sword or a +1 vorporal blade? Well, if your opponent has a head to cut off and it will be a longer fight then statistically the vorporal blade is better. So all I am suggesting that it is less than useful to simply provide the stats in ME1, where you really were comparing +2 swords to +4 swords. Bioware should provide more complete information on each weapon. Which weapon does better burst damage? Which weapon does better sustained dps?  What is the accuracy of each weapon?  What are the modifiers against different defenses? However, I would be all for Bioware providing that and would find it interesting. It also seems like a minor thing that shouldn't take too much time. 

Now personally, if they had provided such stats in ME2, I doubt it would have improved my game much. I pretty quickly learned the weapons that worked for me so I'm not going to complain at all if they don't include it. Now, if there was far more options in guns and the upgrade system was more varied then I will definitely sing a different tune.

Keep in mind I'm not a big shooter fan when I say this.  But to me, it would have really helped.  Personally, with the exception of the Mantis for sniper rifle, pretty much every weapon of a given type was like every other weapon of the same type in the game.  Vindicator or Revenant, Katana or Scimitar, whatever.  I'm sure there is a difference, I just don't see it.  

In other rpgs, even if I can't immediately see a difference, I can look at the object and know it does something. In Dragon Age, if a dagger says it increases critical/backstab damage by 10%, I can know to watch for that, and see if it makes a difference.  If a weapon says it does x fire damage on top of its regular damage, I can have faith that it does in fact do x fire damage on top of its regular damage. 

In ME 2, a weapon is "effective" or "weak" against this or that form of defense.  Other descriptors are similarly vague.  To get the "real" nubmers, you have to go to the forums or a wiki or somesuch.  I'm all for picking a weapon that "feels right" for your character.  But give me something to look for!

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
It should be there so players can compare the weapons and decide what's best. It shouldn't go by feeling alone.

Um, why not? If the major thing seperating one weapon from the rest is personal preference then that's one huge step towards having a balanced system, which is *good*

How exactly is it a more balanced system?It's all one-sided: all feel and no substance. If there was both it would be balanced, but ME2's system is even more unbalanced on the "too simple/shallow" side of things than ME1's system is on the "too complex/needlessly complicated" side.

Let me gues... you support Dragon Age 2 turning into a hack'n'slash game too, right?

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
ME1's main issue was that in 90% of cases the next best weapon you got was best across the board, instead of having a varied and more balanced series of weapons. Just fixing that would have made a big difference.

Dunno about you, but that's what *I* got: An upgrade, a fix. Having two distinct options for my AR slot is double the benefit of one. I don't consider losing the gear progression much of a setback due both to the setting and the level scaling nature of the game.

While I find it a downgrade. Shallow, lacking and linear. Completely lacking in inventory, with too few items that are all gimmick and no substance. No customisation at all. No randomness or change of experience between games. Nothing special. No trade-offs or limitations to stop me from upgrading every single item to God-status (funny how people complain that the Spectre weapons were too unbalanced and Godlike, and yet it's fine to do the same to EVERY weapon in ME2 through research). An upgrade system that's too strong, linear and mindless that practically does all the work for you. Armour that doesn't even act like armour any more. The list goes on.

Sure... I'm sure you and others will say that ME1's systems aren't much better when it comes to depth, and only give the illusion of it and all that rot. But ME1's were shallow by design, while ME2's are shallow by nature. ME1's had potential if executed correctly, while ME2's are pretty much set up to be devoid of any depth through the very core of what they are. They're made to be beyond simple, and it'll take a lot of work to actually give them something beyond that.

And the level scaling is no different from that of any other RPG that has level-scaling.

[Gibb_Garrus]

Fhaileas wrote...

Hey, how about a compromise:

Play ME2 if you want to play a ****ty shooter, play ME1 if you want to play a ****ty RPG.

Take your pick -- I choose the latter.

W-T-F. GTFO these forums.

ME2's only downfall is it's story and how it integrated the past characters. They basically tossed aside all the **** you did in ME1 just to "accompany" new players. It was bloody ridiculous, they really ****ed up the story in ME2.

Thats really it's only downfall, all other complaints are coming from RPG nerds that have a hard-on for stats over skill. 

[Kavadas]

iakus wrote...

...pretty much every weapon of a given type was like every other weapon of the same type in the game.  Vindicator or Revenant, Katana or Scimitar, whatever.  I'm sure there is a difference, I just don't see it.

What.

The.

F***.

You mean you don't notice any difference between a rifle with a small magazine that fires in accurate bursts and a light machine gun with a big bullet spread and solid DPS?

Are you serious?

You don't see any difference between the Viper, a sniper rifle which does like 80 damage, and the Widow which does 368 damage?

You just, like, didn't notice hundreds upon hundreds of points in damage difference?  No? 

You didn't notice the difference between the 3 shot Eviscerator which does massive damage at short range and the Geth shottie which has an alt fire and puts it out at medium range?

Really, you really didn't notice any difference?

You can't see any difference between the M100 MGL and the M920 Cain?  You don't notice the 9500 damage point discrepancy between the two?

Or the M920 and the M451???

Are you serious...?

Do you think any sane person reading your post actually believes you?

Geez, if all you and Terror_K wanna do is grind out worthless items in the name of "progression" you should try out any MMO ever made; you'll f***ing love it.

You can dedicate months, if not years, to doing nothing but.

Modifié par Kavadas, 18 septembre 2010 - 05:12 .

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...
How exactly is it a more balanced system?It's all one-sided: all feel and no substance. If there was both it would be balanced, but ME2's system is even more unbalanced on the "too simple/shallow" side of things than ME1's system is on the "too complex/needlessly complicated" side.

Here's what I don't get.

ME1's weapon selection was this: If the damage was higher, then you equipped the weapon. If it wasn't, you didn't. All roads led to Spectre gear with no choices in between.

ME2 doesn't do this and it becomes accused of being 'dumbed down' in this department.

Terror_K wrote...
Let me gues... you support Dragon Age 2 turning into a hack'n'slash game too, right?

If you're implying something I'm not and you are not trolling, then why are you here?

Terror_K wrote...
While I find it a downgrade. 

That's where you should've stopped. The rest is nothing but preference with little to back-up how it 'increases depth'.

Terror_K wrote...
funny how people complain that the Spectre weapons were too unbalanced and Godlike, and yet it's fine to do the same to EVERY weapon in ME2 through research. 

Missed the point. We bring up the shallowness of ME1's progression to highlight how both games are still on many levels one and the same, and how *both* lack a large amount of depth.

Terror_K wrote...
Sure... I'm sure you and others will say that ME1's systems aren't much better when it comes to depth, and only give the illusion of it and all that rot.

Again, missed the point. A lot of us will argue that *all* of Bioware's own systems are terrible when it comes to depth, and if we wanted depth in our mechanics we wouldn't come to a Bioware game.

Terror_K wrote...
But ME1's were shallow by design, while ME2's are shallow by nature. ME1's had potential if executed correctly, while ME2's are pretty much set up to be devoid of any depth through the very core of what they are.

There is not a single game in the world that cannot be increased in depth.

Terror_K wrote...
And the level scaling is no different from that of any other RPG that has level-scaling.

And? Are you saying that makes it "okay"?

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

Here's what I don't get.

ME1's weapon selection was this: If the damage was higher, then you equipped the weapon. If it wasn't, you didn't. All roads led to Spectre gear with no choices in between.

ME2 doesn't do this and it becomes accused of being 'dumbed down' in this department.

It gets accused of being dumbed down for other reasons. ME1's gear progression was weak but still existed. ME2's is just a small handful of weapons that all progression in the same way across the board, are always in the same places, can't be modded or customised and have no visible statisical values whatsoever. ME2's weapons system is basically like if you took ME1's, got rid of all but two to three guns from each category (say, the ones you start with, one mid-ground set and the Spectre gear), removed the stats and that's all you had. How, in any way, shape or form is that more deep? It's no deeper than playing Doom or Quake and finding the guns as you play them. The only thing it's got that those shooters don't is the research/upgrade system, and it's so horrible and linear that it basically turns all your weapons into Spectre weapons by the end of it all.

You say that ME2 doesn't do this, but instead it has: you find every weapon without even trying, you know where they are and all roads lead to you getting them all and upgrading them fully with no real choice in between.

Now here's where you'll probably say "butbutbut each weapon is unique and feels different." That's not good enough when there's only a small handful of each one, and you pretty much always go for the one you don't start with anyway. And no, DLC weapons don't count either. They didn't develop them until afterwards, and ME1 didn't get any.

I just don't see how ME2's system can be considered good, let alone satisfactory.

If you're implying something I'm not and you are not trolling, then why are you here?

I'm just making comparisons because the parallels are pretty obvious to me. And I'm here because I consider myself a Mass Effect fan and was massively disappointed by ME2 and don't want to see ME3 become the same disappointment because a whole bunch of people here are patting BioWare on the back and telling them they did the right thing.

That's where you should've stopped. The rest is nothing but preference with little to back-up how it 'increases depth'.

It's self-evident as far as I'm concerned. But we've already established in the past that you and I both consider depth to be very different things.

In either case I've yet to see you or anybody else defend ME2's system and prove how it's any deeper, and yet you still seem to defend it at every turn.

Missed the point. We bring up the shallowness of ME1's progression to highlight how both games are still on many levels one and the same, and how *both* lack a large amount of depth.

And yet you defend ME2's way of going about things and pat BioWare on the back every time somebody puts ME2's system down and even thinks about hinting that ME1 may have done certain things a little better.

You want to know why I attack ME2 more than ME1 despite believing both systems are flawed? There are two reasons: 1) I thought what ME1 was going for was superior even if it failed and found its systems far more interesting and fitting for what it was going for. And 2) (and this is the main one) ME2 was the later game. The progression didn't go from ME2 to ME1, it went from ME1 to ME2. An obvious statement I know, but there's no point in challenging and putting down elements that are already gone and forgotten from the previous game. ME2 was made last, and that's where the devs are going to be building ME3 from. It's going to evolve from ME2, and not ME3, and they've already stated that the gameplay will (sadly) be closer to the latter than the former and that it won't (d)evolve and alter as drastically as the shift from ME1 to ME2.

Again, missed the point. A lot of us will argue that *all* of Bioware's own systems are terrible when it comes to depth, and if we wanted depth in our mechanics we wouldn't come to a Bioware game.

To be honest, I've only actually seen you argue this. Most people I come across here generally like BioWare games and like the gameplay of them. You're the only one I see here who keeps saying that BioWare gameplay sucks and that it's only the story and characters and presentation that BioWare are good at.

And? Are you saying that makes it "okay"?

I don't see it as an issue. Loads of games have scaled enemies, and this usually means you need to either upgrade or switch to better gear as you progress. It's part of the gameplay.

Or is this another one of them knocks against the thing because of all this realism nonsense? How it doesn't make sense that you'd only find crappy guns in areas with low level enemies and only find and be able to use great guns when there are high-level ones, and that it makes no sense that crappy weapons would exist in the first place and that Shepard would be forced to use them, yadda, yadda, yadda...

Modifié par Terror_K, 18 septembre 2010 - 06:15 .

[bzurn]

*puts down the popcorn* Wow! This stuff sure got spicy in a hurry.



I'd rather watch this thread with sweet buttery popcorn rather than the spicy variety. This discussion has turned into name calling and saying your opinion is superior to another. A good discussion this does not make.



ME1's base weapon stats were a simple linear progression, but the key to making them unique were the weapon and ammo mods you installed. Sure those things weren't perfect either, as they could have used some balance, but at the end of the day with those things in play ME1's weapon selection was a lot more varied. And I will only compare the weapon selection of the base game, no DLCs, as ME1 didn't have any DLC or preorder / collectors edition garbage that I had to pay for in order to fully flesh out the game in this category.



Given that the stats can be dug up within the game files smacks of lazy design in not presenting the user of a supposed RPG with the stats at the weapon selection screen. I hope we will get a return of some weapon modification and be able to see the base stats come the next installment.

[Kavadas]

Terror_K wrote...

ME2's weapons system is basically like if you took ME1's, got rid of all but two to three guns from each category (say, the ones you start with, one mid-ground set and the Spectre gear), removed the stats and that's all you had.

...except that isn't how ME2's weapon system is.  At all.

You've played ME2, right?

Modifié par Kavadas, 18 septembre 2010 - 05:53 .

[upsettingshorts]

Indeed. I find it hard to buy any criticism of Mass Effect 2's weapons being "dumbed down" when it's coming from people who can't tell the difference between a Revenant and a Mattock or a Viper and a Widow.

Or worse, claim there simply isn't any

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 18 septembre 2010 - 05:53 .

[Terror_K]

Kavadas wrote...

...except that isn't how ME2's weapon system is.  At all.

You've played ME2, right?

Yes it is. It gives an illusion of depth by limiting the items so much. Of course the weapons all seem special and unique when there's only a tiny handful. Each weapon in ME1 would be unique too if there was just one pistol, one shotgun, one assault rifle and one sniper rifle: you'd have four unique weapons that are all different from each other. ME2 went by the same basic logic. And when you're so concerned about making all weapons special and unique you either have to limit the number greatly or start doing away with categories. How many types of sniper rifles can you have before you run out of unique factors? There should be multiple guns in each sub-category instead of one. And even that's just the tip of the iceberg with what's wrong with ME2's pathetic weapons system. Most of the issues stem from one simple fact: BioWare pushed the RPG out of the combat system almost entirely. Now the whole thing is basically a cheap shooter system that's been slotted in there, and it's not even a very good one.

Modifié par Terror_K, 18 septembre 2010 - 06:25 .

[Kavadas]

Terror_K wrote...

Stuff.

I actually read your entire post.

There wasn't a single factual statement in it.

I can't take you seriously anymore.  I'm sorry.

[upsettingshorts]

Kavadas wrote...
I actually read your entire post.

There wasn't a single factual statement in it.

I can't take you seriously anymore.  I'm sorry.

I had the same observation.  Though my initial reaction was to close my browser window in disgust.

[Clover Rider]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Kavadas wrote...
I actually read your entire post.

There wasn't a single factual statement in it.

I can't take you seriously anymore.  I'm sorry.

I had the same observation.  Though my initial reaction was to close my browser window in disgust.

Mass Effect 2 hate just can't die man I try to fight it but now I am crazy:wizard:.

[Whatever42]

Terror_K wrote...

To be honest, I've only actually seen you argue this. Most people I come across here generally like BioWare games and like the gameplay of them. You're the only one I see here who keeps saying that BioWare gameplay sucks and that it's only the story and characters and presentation that BioWare are good at.

CRPG gameplay in general lacks any kind of dynamism. Most are simply evolved rules from the original 1970s tabletop wargaming rules adapted for roleplaying. Those rules were great for tabletop gaming because it let you create a statistical and even physical model of your character with which you could combat enemies as part of the roleplaying experience. Eventually most people dropped the physical model and just played with character sheets. However those rules were not roleplaying, people wargamed without roleplaying and some people even roleplayed without the wargaming. 

For early CRPG games, the graphics were generally pretty poor and it made sense to simply use the same rules but in a computer based environment. However, it was never considered exciting gameplay by most people. We played it for the roleplaying, characters, and story. The gameplay was simply a means to an end. And I have heard that argument hundreds of times during debates between FPS and RPG fans, so its not just me.

There is no reason we can't marry the exciting gameplay of a TPS with roleplaying. There are methods of offering the personalization, customization, characters, stories, and roleplaying experience without character sheets detailing statistical models.  I won't say Bioware got it perfect. I'm not even saying that I'm against keeping some of the old mechanics but to simply just reject the whole thing because it doesn't keep traditional mechanics is just being a reactionary. 

[Kavadas]

Some Geth wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Kavadas wrote...
I actually read your entire post.

There wasn't a single factual statement in it.

I can't take you seriously anymore.  I'm sorry.

I had the same observation.  Though my initial reaction was to close my browser window in disgust.

Mass Effect 2 hate just can't die man I try to fight it but now I am crazy:wizard:.

It's amazing how disconnected from reality these people are.

Hopefully in ME3 Bioware will throw in a "+4 Strength Sword" as an easter egg for them so they can have a sense of progression and actually enjoy the game

Modifié par Kavadas, 18 septembre 2010 - 06:44 .

[upsettingshorts]

Yep, other games have melded the stats/attributes/"dice-rolls" and data stuff with twitch elements pretty well.



The combat in Age of Conan is my favorite example. The combat in that game has completely ruined me for all MMOs and most swords/magic RPGs. Nothing I've seen compares, personally.

[Clover Rider]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Yep, other games have melded the stats/attributes/"dice-rolls" and data stuff with twitch elements pretty well.

The combat in Age of Conan is my favorite example. The combat in that game has completely ruined me for all MMOs and most swords/magic RPGs. Nothing I've seen compares, personally.

I have a friend who thinks like that about Age of Conan I need to try itB).