231 réponses à ce sujet

[slyguy07]

BlightWalker wrote...

What most of the 'pro-loot' people are forgetting is that if you re-introduce items like Colossus X armor it would throw the balance of the combat system out of the window. It didn't matter much in ME1 because at high levels the game consisted of standing in the middle of the room and holding down the fire button or just stunlocking every single enemy with biotics but it would suck ME2.

I'm sorry, but the combat system is anything but balanced. Biotics are useless above veteran aside from a few select powers and there are only 2 tech powers worth a crap. I'm sorry, but balance is non existent. The best way to kill is with guns in ME2. Once you remove an enemy's armor, shields, or barrier why bother blowing the cooldown time to use a power like throw or neural shock? Headshots trump those with ammo powers.

The tech and biotic powers leave much to be desired unless you are a vanguard. The inventory leaves just as much to be desired. Casual people may like it, but it sucks. Buying a gun is something you should be able to do. Or armor. You just shouldn't be spammed with loot like in ME1. Really there shouldn't be but 5-10 meaningful items per weapon class aside from HW. Throw in ammo upgrades and remove them as stupid powers (immersion breaker) and allow them to be customized in appearance as well as the armor for you and your squad and I will be happy. I imagine a lot of other people, too, given the way my poll is going right now.

[slyguy07]

Daeion wrote...

Ah yes, another topic that I will argue all day long but is completely pointless to argue.  There apparently is no happy middle ground here.  You have those who feel loot and an inventory system add a lot to the game, those that feel it detracts from the game, and apparently neither side is willing to compromise.  This seems to be a common theme with ME2.  Instead of making small tweeks that could have kept both sides happy, BW went from one extream to the other.  So those who hated the system in ME now have what they want and are unwilling to compromise at all.

To me the simple solution would have been to get rid of about 50% of the manufacturers in a given level range, decrease drop rates, and decrease overall inventory size.  This way you end up with a system where you aren't getting flooded with through away items, aren't at the omnigel cap at all times, and you aren't walking around with 40 weapons, 50 mods, and 10 sets of armor.  Add in better filters so that same items stack, like items are grouped,  when looking at armor for shep I'm not seeing krogan armor, auto break dow, autoe equip, and auto sell buttons and I think you ahve a streamlined system where both sides can be happy.  Those who enjoy finding items still find them and those who don't want tot ake the time to pick through things can hit a few buttons like they can with auto level and bam, there you go.

I have to say, I'm a little tired of the whole everyone ended up in Colossus X and Specter X weapons.  Yes you did end up there, but it took about 3 play throughs and a max lvl char to do that.  You didn't start with it and the items I used were probably different then the items you used while building to that.

My friend that was a very productive reply for a quickly degenerating thread. My thanks. You have some good ideas...I wished that the high end armors had separate strengths for using them. They did actually, but it was negligible. Armax Arsenal's Predator line trumped everything in shields. Kassa Fabrication's Colossus line trumped everything in damage protection. ME3 needs to combine the customizable N7 armor aspect of ME2 with ME1's upgrade system to armor and weapons.  Seriously there was nowhere near enough to satisfy those who enjoy customizing their avatar to make them their own in ME2.

Basically in ME3 I think there should be about 8ish armors and all of them have customizable components. However seeing as this is the last game I think they should take the initiative to do something else that would make the game more immersive. Seeing as Shepard will lead the fight he will certainly have the support of the galaxy at some point and say certain manufacturers offer to make our hero top of the line components for our hero. Maybe even experimental tech. I don't know if they will bother, but having the manufacturers actually work to help you could be interesting if done right. Then again if they go about the wrong way it could be a terrible idea.

Just a thought.

[A Fhaol Bhig]

slyguy07 wrote...

BlightWalker wrote...

What most of the 'pro-loot' people are forgetting is that if you re-introduce items like Colossus X armor it would throw the balance of the combat system out of the window. It didn't matter much in ME1 because at high levels the game consisted of standing in the middle of the room and holding down the fire button or just stunlocking every single enemy with biotics but it would suck ME2.

I'm sorry, but the combat system is anything but balanced. Biotics are useless above veteran aside from a few select powers and there are only 2 tech powers worth a crap. I'm sorry, but balance is non existent. The best way to kill is with guns in ME2. Once you remove an enemy's armor, shields, or barrier why bother blowing the cooldown time to use a power like throw or neural shock? Headshots trump those with ammo powers.

The tech and biotic powers leave much to be desired unless you are a vanguard. The inventory leaves just as much to be desired. Casual people may like it, but it sucks. Buying a gun is something you should be able to do. Or armor. You just shouldn't be spammed with loot like in ME1. Really there shouldn't be but 5-10 meaningful items per weapon class aside from HW. Throw in ammo upgrades and remove them as stupid powers (immersion breaker) and allow them to be customized in appearance as well as the armor for you and your squad and I will be happy. I imagine a lot of other people, too, given the way my poll is going right now.

Uh, no.

slyguy07 wrote...


My friend that was a very productive reply for a quickly degenerating thread. My thanks. You have some good ideas...I wished that the high end armors had separate strengths for using them. They did actually, but it was negligible. Armax Arsenal's Predator line trumped everything in shields. Kassa Fabrication's Colossus line trumped everything in damage protection. ME3 needs to combine the customizable N7 armor aspect of ME2 with ME1's upgrade system to armor and weapons.  Seriously there was nowhere near enough to satisfy those who enjoy customizing their avatar to make them their own in ME2.

Basically in ME3 I think there should be about 8ish armors and all of them have customizable components. However seeing as this is the last game I think they should take the initiative to do something else that would make the game more immersive. Seeing as Shepard will lead the fight he will certainly have the support of the galaxy at some point and say certain manufacturers offer to make our hero top of the line components for our hero. Maybe even experimental tech. I don't know if they will bother, but having the manufacturers actually work to help you could be interesting if done right. Then again if they go about the wrong way it could be a terrible idea.

Just a thought.

Yes! What I've been saying for awhile! I love this idea, the strenghts of both games!

Modifié par A Fhaol Bhig, 10 mars 2010 - 12:47 .

[Collider]

I'm glad for the system that ME2 has. Although I may want more armor pieces and all that, I hate having to grind ever. For any reason. I'm also spared the inventory nightmare in ME2.

[A Fhaol Bhig]

In agreement.

[TJSolo]

Collider wrote...

I'm glad for the system that ME2 has. Although I may want more armor pieces and all that, I hate having to grind ever. For any reason. I'm also spared the inventory nightmare in ME2.

So you don't consider planet scanning a grind?

About the armor and gear in ME2 it is nice that BW is doing DLC to add to the numbers.
But just getting emails from TIM that x item has been added to the Normandy feels so superficial.
Some kind of ingame effort would add depth to the DLC.
Even it is as small as going to Omega and just clicking on a crate near the docking bay.

[A Fhaol Bhig]

TJSolo wrote...

Collider wrote...

I'm glad for the system that ME2 has. Although I may want more armor pieces and all that, I hate having to grind ever. For any reason. I'm also spared the inventory nightmare in ME2.

So you don't consider planet scanning a grind?

About the armor and gear in ME2 it is nice that BW is doing DLC to add to the numbers.
But just getting emails from TIM that x item has been added to the Normandy feels so superficial.
Some kind of ingame effort would add depth to the DLC.
Even it is as small as going to Omega and just clicking on a crate near the docking bay.

Reiterate in detail that point right their, what exactly are you getting at?

[TJSolo]

OK. For example you download the new Heavy weapon.

The way DLC has been working is you get an email from TIM and have instant access to it in game.

I was saying to add a game play layer to it.

Get the DLC, then an email from TIM saying x has been discovered/recovered/improved, and now to actually use it you have to go somewhere in the game and pick it up.

[A Fhaol Bhig]

Ah ha =D



I see, that is a perfect idea!



Have a new pistol or something, and then as soon as people grab it, spawn a geth colossus!



Okay not really, but I like the concept of going out of you way to get something.

[Murmillos]

I'm sure we all at least agree on one thing; the loot system in ME1 had some fundamental flaws. 

• Getting too much loot - period.  90% of it was junk for selling to get money or for omni-gel.  Good your first play thru or 20 levels in game.. frustrating and tedious after wards.
• Nothing but colored re-skins for marginal increases, while also having weapon of IV grade while still being twice as better as another X grade weapon.
• The fact that it was easy enough to get the 2 best weapon in the game at a early level, and the upgrade to the best weapon was minor at best.

At least the Colossus armor was random.  But still - it had the same problem as weapons, it had the best of end all stats.  Not that it was ever required - many people whom have the innate desire to min/max used it.

What many people complained about - and wanted, was a minor fix.  Less loot that drops like every enemy you kill is a loot pinata.  And more focused and unique weapon stats.

·edited·
Each weapon should be based off these 5 stats; and displayable.

[*]Damage per Shot
[*]Rate of Fire & Type: Single, 3-5 Round Burst, Full Auto)[*]Heat Sustainability (or in ME2 case - shots per heat clip)
[*]Accuracy (or Spread rate for SG)
[*]Effectivness vs Defences (+35% armor, +50% shields .. etc.etc.)

Have a couple of weapon manufacture that offer strengths for 3 to 5 different styles per weapon class - spread out to 3 to 5 upgraded versions thru out the game, and you have a minimalist approach to the number of weapons found. You can code the game that it will randomly drop 3-5 upgrades (weapon type and class all random) per major plot world, 1-2 upgrade per minor/side world and you leave each map with a realistic approach to the number of weapons you find, carry and take home.

To further the realistic, all your squad mates don't get the new weapon when you pick up one (Tali mission anybody?) You thus can use the "weapon" replicators to make more weapons of the upgrade when come across. Which work that you need a license to have the machine to make it. Once you come across the weapon, EDI will get the license; either by hacking the rights "renegade" or buying it "paragon + cost of $1000 - $2500" (also, "Not Right Now, EDI" choice available)

Armor could work in the same way. There are upgrades laying out thru the world for each of your armor slots +2% head shot.. +5% weapon damage.. +7% power.. etc etc.. you get the idea. again as above, slowly find upgrades as you kill/explore thru the game. Limited in number as weapons.

Realistic in terms of finding/getting/carrying loot, satisfy those of us whom like loot, doesn't bog down the system of deleting or selling everything you come across you don't need if you don't like a loot system.

Modifié par Murmillos, 10 mars 2010 - 05:23 .

[EternalWolfe]

Murmillos wrote...

I'm sure we all at least agree on one thing; the loot system in ME1 had some fundamental flaws. 

• Getting too much loot - period.  90% of it was junk for selling to get money or for omni-gel.  Good your first play thru or 20 levels in game.. frustrating and tedious after wards.
• Nothing but colored re-skins for marginal increases, while also having weapon of IV grade while still being twice as better as another X grade weapon.
• The fact that it was easy enough to get the 2 best weapon in the game at a early level, and the upgrade to the best weapon was minor at best.

At least the Colossus armor was random.  But still - it had the same problem as weapons, it had the best of end all stats.  Not that it was ever required - many people whom have the innate desire to min/max used it.

What many people complained about - and wanted, was a minor fix.  Less loot that drops like every enemy you kill is a loot pinata.  And more focused and equine weapon stats.

Each weapon should be based off these 4 stats; and displayable.

• Damage per Shot
• Rate of Fire
• Hit sustainability (or in ME2 case - shots per heat clip)
• Accuracy

Have a couple of weapon manufacture that offer strengths for 3 to 5 different styles per weapon class - spread out to 3 to 5 upgraded versions thru out the game, and you have a minimalist approach to the number of weapons found. You can code the game that it will randomly drop 3-5 upgrades (weapon type and class all random) per major plot world, 1-2 upgrade per minor/side world and you leave each map with a realistic approach to the number of weapons you find, carry and take home.

To further the realistic, all your squad mates don't get the new weapon when you pick up one (Tali mission anybody?) You thus can use the "weapon" replicators to make more weapons of the upgrade when come across. Which work that you need a license to have the machine to make it. Once you come across the weapon, EDI will get the license; either by hacking the rights "renegade" or buying it "paragon + cost of $1000 - $2500"

Armor could work in the same way. There are upgrades laying out thru the world +2% head shot.. +5% weapon damage.. +7% power.. etc etc.. you get the idea. again as above.. Limited in number as weapons.

Realistic in terms of finding/getting/carrying loot, satisfy those of us whom like loot, doesn't bog down the system of deleting or selling everything you come across you don't need if you don't like a loot system.

An acceptable idea overall.  One point though - You don't have to be limited to those four stats.  Effectivness vs defences(assuming they are kept) is another set of stats.  The Viper is only 35% more effective vs Armor(while the Mantis is 50% more effective), but gains a 15% increase in damage vs shields/barriers(while the Mantis does not).  This allows for more weapons with unique uses/properties.

[Murmillos]

EternalWolfe wrote...

An acceptable idea overall.  One point though - You don't have to be limited to those four stats.  Effectivness vs defences(assuming they are kept) is another set of stats.  The Viper is only 35% more effective vs Armor(while the Mantis is 50% more effective), but gains a 15% increase in damage vs shields/barriers(while the Mantis does not).  This allows for more weapons with unique uses/properties.

Ahh yes Thank You.. I knew I was forgetting something.  Along with the above system, also keeping the current vs. affect that the weapons have.  I'll modify that into my list.

Modifié par Murmillos, 10 mars 2010 - 05:22 .

[TornadoADV]

I used the Predator S/M/L, superior shields and tech/biotic protection and just overall better military look for my Infiltrator Shepard.

[Terror_K]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Just because it fits the definition of an RPG doesn't mean it does a good job at pulling it off. While Mass Effect 2 is a good game, I don't think its a very good RPG. It's far too shallow and superficial, even compared to the original game which wasn't exactly a hardcore RPG in the first place.

I consider the renovation of generic RPG mechanics anything but shallow.

Culling half the RPG elements and simply falling back on standard shooter elements is hardly what I'd call a renovation. It's about as much a renovation as renovating your kitchen, ripping out the dishwasher and the oven and replacing them with a sink and a coal range.

jack3auer wrote...

fair point i guess. but RPG means Role Playing Game. ie you play the role of a certain character and put your own take on how that character behaves in the virtual world, making moral choices and altering the outcome of the story.

Common misconception, and one that's only really cropped up over the past 5 years or so in gaming circles thanks to the blending of genres. By that definition a lot of games could be RPGs. There are games that aren't RPG's that do that and games that are RPG's that don't. Every RPG has some form of statistical progression: that's the key factor.

Modifié par Terror_K, 10 mars 2010 - 05:33 .

[Murmillos]

Terror_K wrote...

Culling half the RPG elements and simply falling back on standard shooter elements is hardly what I'd call a renovation. It's about as much a renovation as renovating your kitchen, ripping out the dishwasher and the oven and replacing them with a sink and a coal range.

RPGs are the Marble Sink and Wood Burning Brick Oven..  Character, class and Elegance, but requires time and dedication to get the most out of and enjoy - but in the end, offer personal rewards for being able to pull it off.

Shooters are the dish washer and electric oven. Efficient - but bland and boring and anybody who can understand to push a few buttons is on their way. No need to think, no need to understand.. its just do and done.  With no rewards for learning or understanding.

Modifié par Murmillos, 10 mars 2010 - 05:46 .

[EternalWolfe]

Murmillos wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Culling half the RPG elements and simply falling back on standard shooter elements is hardly what I'd call a renovation. It's about as much a renovation as renovating your kitchen, ripping out the dishwasher and the oven and replacing them with a sink and a coal range.

RPGs are the Marble Sink and Wood Burning Brick Oven..  Character, class and Elegance, but requires time and dedication to get the most out of and enjoy - but in the end, offer personal rewards for being able to pull it off.

Shooters are the dish washer and electric oven. Efficient - but bland and boring and anybody who can understand to push a few buttons is on their way. No need to think, no need to understand.. its just do and done.  With no rewards for learning or understanding.

. . . so two questions: What does that make Mass Effect(both of them)?  and What is an RTS? . . .

hmm . . .

[Terror_K]

Murmillos wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Culling half the RPG elements and simply falling back on standard shooter elements is hardly what I'd call a renovation. It's about as much a renovation as renovating your kitchen, ripping out the dishwasher and the oven and replacing them with a sink and a coal range.

RPGs are the Marble Sink and Wood Burning Brick Oven..  Character, class and Elegance, but requires time and dedication to get the most out of and enjoy - but in the end, offer personal rewards for being able to pull it off.

Shooters are the dish washer and electric oven. Efficient - but bland and boring and anybody who can understand to push a few buttons is on their way. No need to think, no need to understand.. its just do and done.  With no rewards for learning or understanding.

Touché. I find it hard to disagree with that. Guess I'll have to change my analogy. 

How about "it's about as much a renovation as giving up your cordless eletronic phone, fax and answering machine for an old rotating-dial phone?"

[sedrikhcain]

Murmillos wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Culling half the RPG elements and simply falling back on standard shooter elements is hardly what I'd call a renovation. It's about as much a renovation as renovating your kitchen, ripping out the dishwasher and the oven and replacing them with a sink and a coal range.

RPGs are the Marble Sink and Wood Burning Brick Oven..  Character, class and Elegance, but requires time and dedication to get the most out of and enjoy - but in the end, offer personal rewards for being able to pull it off.

Shooters are the dish washer and electric oven. Efficient - but bland and boring and anybody who can understand to push a few buttons is on their way. No need to think, no need to understand.. its just do and done.  With no rewards for learning or understanding.

But isn't this really a false dichotomy? I mean, ME2 is, in the literal sense, a shooter, because it involves shooting people -- LOTS of people. In the same way, it's also an RPG, because it involves role play. When you look at things in the literal sense, games qualify for either of these genres in a very basic way. It's all the particular characteristics of each individual game that actually define it. Why can't we forget about this whole "it's a shooter, no it's an rpg" back and forth and focus on what particular elements of a game that we like and which we don't? Wouldn't that be far more productive? As it stands now, game developers have to go through all these twists, turns and convulsions to squeeze nearly every game into a box defined by some set of "elements" or face the wrath of legions of fans who have lumped what are really peripheral details into their understanding of what MUST be in a game for it to receive a certain label.

I say, let's get rid of all that. Let's free up our developers to give us true innovation and accomplish something extraordinary. Does an RPG really HAVE to have a vast, complex inventory page that allows you to move bits and pieces around after taking them off every enemy you defeat in battle to gain incremental advantages? Does it really make sense to slam the controller down in disgust and remove the somehow-prestigious "RPG" label from a game just because it doesn't have this one element? Does anything labeled a shooter REALLY have to be mindless and without any customization, strategy or thought? How did the "RPG" label become a tool for the geek snobbery anyway?

I really think we are potentially depriving ourselves of the kind of creative, expansive game play and design we'd all enjoy by insisting on forcing games into these preconceived roles and wielding the "RPG" label as some sort of gamer/geek-authorized status symbol, to be dangled like a carrot in front of game devs who should instead be encouraged to follow their imaginations wherever they may lead.

[AlanC9]

sedrikhcain wrote...


I really think we are potentially depriving ourselves of the kind of creative, expansive game play and design we'd all enjoy by insisting on forcing games into these preconceived roles.....

You mean "you," not "they," right? I presume you yourself don't do this.

As for the substance of the post, I completely agree. RPG conventions aren't valuable in themselves, they're valuable if they produce enjoyable gameplay. The OP -- who I honestly thought was joking -- simply likes the loot experience. I'm kind of bored with loot in general and find it utterly silly when tacked onto the ME gameworld and situation. Whether or not loot is "really" part of what an RPG is or ought to be wouldn't make him like loot less or me like it more. It might make one of us feel differently about the genre, but you don't buy a genre, you buy a game.

Sometimes I wonder if we'd even be having this discussion if a better PnP system than D&D had become the big hit. D&D was always the loot-heaviest system out there, because of its lousy character customization.

[Murmillos]

sedrikhcain wrote...

But isn't this really a false dichotomy? I mean, ME2 is, in the literal sense, a shooter, because it involves shooting people -- LOTS of people. In the same way, it's also an RPG, because it involves role play. When you look at things in the literal sense, games qualify for either of these genres in a very basic way. It's all the particular characteristics of each individual game that actually define it. Why can't we forget about this whole "it's a shooter, no it's an rpg" back and forth and focus on what particular elements of a game that we like and which we don't? Wouldn't that be far more productive? As it stands now, game developers have to go through all these twists, turns and convulsions to squeeze nearly every game into a box defined by some set of "elements" or face the wrath of legions of fans who have lumped what are really peripheral details into their understanding of what MUST be in a game for it to receive a certain label.

Not many people are saying ME2 is not an RPG.. just a much weaker/lesser RPG then what most other RPG are like.  ME2 has the feeling of less role playing in favor of more action and shooting. RPG's are like Adventure Games.  There is so much that defines the genre, that its not one single element alone, but the over all sum-of-its-parts.  If the parts feel diminished or as added afterthoughts, then the over all whole of the game gets dragged down - including the so called label.  ME2 is a great game, but not a great game if one was looking for a RPG experience. The "loot" aspect is one of those many things.

I say, let's get rid of all that. Let's free up our developers to give us true innovation and accomplish something extraordinary. Does an RPG really HAVE to have a vast, complex inventory page that allows you to move bits and pieces around after taking them off every enemy you defeat in battle to gain incremental advantages? Does it really make sense to slam the controller down in disgust and remove the somehow-prestigious "RPG" label from a game just because it doesn't have this one element? Does anything labeled a shooter REALLY have to be mindless and without any customization, strategy or thought? How did the "RPG" label become a tool for the geek snobbery anyway?

Most people would totally agree with you, but those changes should not happen between sequels - or at least these major & drastic changes. Everybody is for innovative and creativity, but once you set the scene and mood - you have to follow thru or you loose your core audience. BioWare doesn't own any of us a RPG experience, but since that is the mood they started with in ME1, it should be the mood that they continue with.
We all know Die Hard is a cheesy male-action movie, so the change is as if Die Hard 10 (or what ever number they are up to now) turns into a teen romance half way into the movie, with the only thing that links them all together is Bruce Willis as the main character. The mood changed, that is the issue.

the geek snobbery attached to RPG's mostly came due to D&D. Turned based, slow methodical thinking. You had to plan your actions, plan your character. RPG's had become largely about planing and executing with a large amount of luck "come on D20...*SHAKE SHAKE SHAKE* come on D20!!! *toss*"

Most all popular game styles are more largely reflex and environment reflex based. See enemy; shoot. See incoming missile; dodge.

I really think we are potentially depriving ourselves of the kind of creative, expansive game play and design we'd all enjoy by insisting on forcing games into these preconceived roles and wielding the "RPG" label as some sort of gamer/geek-authorized status symbol, to be dangled like a carrot in front of game devs who should instead be encouraged to follow their imaginations wherever they may lead.

Some people may call that loot is always needed for an RPG, many of us have pointed out there have been many good RPG's that did not have loot.

But regardless in the end on how you feel about loot, the major argument here, is "Where has all the loot gone." As in, why the drastic turn around. Yes ME1 used an old-fashioned out-of-date glut dump of loot that caused even the most patient gamers started to get irritated at - but many feel this should have been fixed, tweaked instead of out right removed.

Modifié par Murmillos, 10 mars 2010 - 07:25 .

[AlanC9]

Murmillos wrote...

Not many people are saying ME2 is not an RPG.. just a much weaker/lesser RPG then what most other RPG are like.  ME2 has the feeling of less role playing in favor of more action and shooting. RPG's are like Adventure Games.  There is so much that defines the genre, that its not one single element alone, but the over all sum-of-its-parts.  If the parts feel diminished or as added afterthoughts, then the over all whole of the game gets dragged down - including the so called label.  ME2 is a great game, but not a great game if one was looking for a RPG experience. The "loot" aspect is one of those many things.

But this means that the important thing is the genre. A game is good if it expresses the genre, bad if it doesn't. Is that really the position? Edit:: I'm just assuming the good/bad thing here -- but if this isn't where the argument's going, then who the hell cares whether ME2 is an RPG or not?

As for whether a sequel should keep doing what the predecessor game did, Bio's never done this. BG2, arguably their greatest success ever, threw out the free-exploration world map of BG1 in favor of quest-specific map. Some folks didn't like it -- you can still get a lively argument going on the topic over on the BG boards. Most did like it. Bio's never looked back.

Modifié par AlanC9, 10 mars 2010 - 07:59 .

[sedrikhcain]

AlanC9 wrote...

sedrikhcain wrote...


I really think we are potentially depriving ourselves of the kind of creative, expansive game play and design we'd all enjoy by insisting on forcing games into these preconceived roles.....

You mean "you," not "they," right? I presume you yourself don't do this.

As for the substance of the post, I completely agree. RPG conventions aren't valuable in themselves, they're valuable if they produce enjoyable gameplay. The OP -- who I honestly thought was joking -- simply likes the loot experience. I'm kind of bored with loot in general and find it utterly silly when tacked onto the ME gameworld and situation. Whether or not loot is "really" part of what an RPG is or ought to be wouldn't make him like loot less or me like it more. It might make one of us feel differently about the genre, but you don't buy a genre, you buy a game.

Sometimes I wonder if we'd even be having this discussion if a better PnP system than D&D had become the big hit. D&D was always the loot-heaviest system out there, because of its lousy character customization.

well, since it's the collective "we" that's painting devs into a box, "we" is the right word. But you're right that I do try to break out of that Matrix myself. I think perhaps it's easier for me to do because I was largely untouched by PnP RPGs as a child. Played a few times. Literally a few. That's it, so I'm not fighting as much of a pre-conceived notion.


As for the rest, I think you've picked up on the two main themes that seem to keep coming up. There is one group that just wants loot back, no matter what. But there is another that is fighting against any change in the notion of what an RPG is and is attached quite a bit of cache to what gets called an RPG and what doesn't. That latter group is the one that, I think, holds back creativity to a great extent.

[AlanC9]

sedrikhcain wrote...

[quot But you're right that I do try to break out of that Matrix myself. I think perhaps it's easier for me to do because I was largely untouched by PnP RPGs as a child. Played a few times. Literally a few. That's it, so I'm not fighting as much of a pre-conceived notion.

Actually,  a lot of PnP gamers have been exposed to different RPG systems, and so have less attachment to CRPG genre conventions. For instance, in Champions, and similar point-based systems, you can't loot; characters have to pay for all abilities out of their own character points, even if they are associated with items.

CRPG genre conventions are a couple of decades obsolete in the PnP world.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Yes, ME1 inventory was flawed.



NO ONE IS REFUTING THAT!



However, just because something is flawed it does not mean it should be COMPLETELY REMOVED!



Improved on, yes. COMPLETELY REMOVED, FRAK NO!

[Murmillos]

AlanC9 wrote...

Murmillos wrote...

Not many people are saying ME2 is not an RPG.. just a much weaker/lesser RPG then what most other RPG are like.  ME2 has the feeling of less role playing in favor of more action and shooting. RPG's are like Adventure Games.  There is so much that defines the genre, that its not one single element alone, but the over all sum-of-its-parts.  If the parts feel diminished or as added afterthoughts, then the over all whole of the game gets dragged down - including the so called label.  ME2 is a great game, but not a great game if one was looking for a RPG experience. The "loot" aspect is one of those many things.

But this means that the important thing is the genre. A game is good if it expresses the genre, bad if it doesn't. Is that really the position? Edit:: I'm just assuming the good/bad thing here -- but if this isn't where the argument's going, then who the hell cares whether ME2 is an RPG or not?

As for whether a sequel should keep doing what the predecessor game did, Bio's never done this. BG2, arguably their greatest success ever, threw out the free-exploration world map of BG1 in favor of quest-specific map. Some folks didn't like it -- you can still get a lively argument going on the topic over on the BG boards. Most did like it. Bio's never looked back.

The genre is important as it allows people a general idea of what to expect when they play a game.  Some people may have limitations or just no damn desire to play a type of genre, regardless on how damn fun that damn game is.

Lets say you want to buy a racing game - you didn't keep up with all the news of the game in question, but its the sequel to the hottest racing game to own to date; You are like cool, this will be awesome, win races, win better cars, fvk the prom queen - just like the good old times, just like the first game.
Only, when you start playing the game, you realize that half your time is having to run a successful automotive store(s) to pay for your racing gig - no store, no money, no car, no racing.  You don't care that this is the most realistic fun that everybody is talking about, as the store is also the core aspect of setting up/sponsoring races and getting racing car gear, its just not racing.  So, am I now playing a business sim, or a racing game.. or both?  Is it my fault I don't like both?

ME2 feels at times like this too.  It feels like part of its RPG core has been made limited to make way for the shooter aspect - or just over all ease of use.  I'm not saying ME2 is a bad game - it does what does well - as the scores and general reaction of the game has been positive enough.  But for some people looking for and wanting a lot of the same, are finding that a lot of the same isn't there.

We knew there was going to be changes, but some of the changes are just too drastic and at times, confusing and bewildering to believe it really happened.

Nobody wants to be on the side that doesn't get listened too or looked over, but in this case, we feel that we have.

Modifié par Murmillos, 10 mars 2010 - 09:28 .