231 réponses à ce sujet

[sedrikhcain]

AlanC9 wrote...

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.

Fair enough. I'm sure you know better than me. If that's the case, where do you think this is coming from?

[sedrikhcain]

Murmillos wrote...

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.

See, this is what I'm talking about. A label replaces actual decision-making based on thought. When evaluating a game as a consumer, even as things are now with labels and genre expectations rum amock, you need to actually find out something about the game. Sitting back and relying on a label, or the franchise name is silly. Every franchise tweaks things at least a little from offering to offering, so instead of buying the game and complaining that it's not exactly what you wanted, you should be doing a bit of research first. When we become better consumers, we get better products.

As for the whole "side that doesn't get listened to" business, that kind of tribal thinking isn't doing anybody any good. BioWare changed all kinds of things about ME from 1 to 2. There was no "side", there were a series of decisions, designed to please a variety of different interests. The idea that there is some "side' that BioWare chose in a battle between two distinct, warring factions that comprise the majority of ME gamers is another false dichotomy.

[Gatt9]

sedrikhcain wrote...

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.

No,  it's an insurmountable dichotomy.  ME2's really the poster child for it.  Trying to "Hybridize" any RPG just results in a Shooter with an above average amount of dialogue.  It's impossible to resolve the two systems because they're polar opposites.  An RPG is about the Role you take on,  and the skills of that Role.  An FPS is about your skills.  You can't mix those two things together,  at some point,  all that matters is either the character or the player,  but never can it be both because they're mutually exclusive.

As far as loot goes,  is it a mandatory facet for an RPG?  No.  You can assume a character without loot.  But it is a mainstay of most RPG's,  and it's difficult to eliminate without resulting in tedium.  Loot is reward for combat which eventually becomes somewhat tedious,  Loot makes combat worth it.  Remove loot,  all you have is endless combat without incentive.

Genres are Genres,  there's no super-secret genre waiting to be discovered.  Just like in Movies and TV,  it's always going to fall within some catagory,  and it's possible to fall within complementary catagories,  like Comedy + anything but Drama.  So it's *really* pointless to try and play the "Just let developers do whatever they want and they'll come up with something new and great" card,  it does not exist.

As far as "Snobbery" goes,  the problem is this:  Sometime following Final Fantasy 7,  it became "Cool" to be an RPG-gamer.  Thing is,  a significant number of people who decided they were RPG-gamers had no idea what Armor class was,  or Hit Points,  Turns,  or To-Hit rolls,  they don't want to learn,  and they don't like them.  They think they should just be able to hit whatever's close to them without missing,  they don't want to have to learn what a Skill does,  and how it interacts with other skills.  They just want to kill things.  In short,  they don't actually like RPG's,  but they want the badge.  So we get this message board,  alot of people who hate RPG's,  but want to be labelled RPG-gamers,  insisting that the game be made a shooter instead of an RPG because they don't actually like RPG's.

[sedrikhcain]

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.

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.

I agree with some of what you've said here, regarding loot. I would not have minded if they had tweaked the loot system. It was awful, no doubt, but I'm not anti-loot, they could have changed it for the better rather than nearly eliminating it (you do still find objects, and they're ALL useful. i like that part). I just object to the notion that cutting out loot makes it less of an RPG, or more to the point, that we need to be so concerne with whether or not it's an RPG. I want fans and devs to get beyond that.

That brings me to my next point: I disagree strongly that very few people are saying it's not an RPG. There are reams of posts on these forums stating exactly that. I spent some time shortly after I joined the boards reading many of those posts because the intensity of the debate of RPG/not an RPG astounded me and I wanted to try to understand it. Trust me, there are tons of people who will argue strongly that it's not one.

And last, I disagree that they changed the mood so much. I've spent well over 100 hours with each game and the feel of each is pretty much the same to me. Especially since the changes in customization all but end before you're done with one playthrough on a profile (i've seen people post that they need three playthroughs to do this. got no idea where that comes from. you've maxed out everything and moved to endless, useless omnigel and loot WAY before that). So I wasn't so thrown by the changes to the game. Gameplay is slightly different, inventory is radically different but since it was a clunky part of the first game it seemed like something I had to overcome to play ME1 not like an integral part of the experience.

[sedrikhcain]

Gatt9 wrote...

sedrikhcain wrote...

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.

No,  it's an insurmountable dichotomy.  ME2's really the poster child for it.  Trying to "Hybridize" any RPG just results in a Shooter with an above average amount of dialogue.  It's impossible to resolve the two systems because they're polar opposites.  An RPG is about the Role you take on,  and the skills of that Role.  An FPS is about your skills.  You can't mix those two things together,  at some point,  all that matters is either the character or the player,  but never can it be both because they're mutually exclusive.

As far as loot goes,  is it a mandatory facet for an RPG?  No.  You can assume a character without loot.  But it is a mainstay of most RPG's,  and it's difficult to eliminate without resulting in tedium.  Loot is reward for combat which eventually becomes somewhat tedious,  Loot makes combat worth it.  Remove loot,  all you have is endless combat without incentive.

Genres are Genres,  there's no super-secret genre waiting to be discovered.  Just like in Movies and TV,  it's always going to fall within some catagory,  and it's possible to fall within complementary catagories,  like Comedy + anything but Drama.  So it's *really* pointless to try and play the "Just let developers do whatever they want and they'll come up with something new and great" card,  it does not exist.

As far as "Snobbery" goes,  the problem is this:  Sometime following Final Fantasy 7,  it became "Cool" to be an RPG-gamer.  Thing is,  a significant number of people who decided they were RPG-gamers had no idea what Armor class was,  or Hit Points,  Turns,  or To-Hit rolls,  they don't want to learn,  and they don't like them.  They think they should just be able to hit whatever's close to them without missing,  they don't want to have to learn what a Skill does,  and how it interacts with other skills.  They just want to kill things.  In short,  they don't actually like RPG's,  but they want the badge.  So we get this message board,  alot of people who hate RPG's,  but want to be labelled RPG-gamers,  insisting that the game be made a shooter instead of an RPG because they don't actually like RPG's.

My point is, genres are only important if you make them so. You're completely hung up on it to the point that you're ranting against people who consider themselves RPG gamers in a way that your'e not. Why does it matter?

Get past your unnecesary expectations. Evaluate games based on what they are, not whether they fit into a certain box that substitutes for you having to think about them. That way you'll get much more satisfaction out of it.

And, btw, you'll eliminate this ridiculous cachet that's become attached to "earning" the "prestigous" label of RPG-gamer, so you won't have to listen to so many people trying to claim the title.

In short, labels and genres are crutches that substitute for thought. Move past them.


ETA: To be clear, I'm not saying you should stop playing RPGs, I'm saying you should stop worrying about how any games are classified and evaluate them on their own terms. Example: I like games with extensive, complex inventories and detail character advancement, this game offers some of both, I'll play it. Not, I like RPGs, this game calls itself an RPG, so I'll buy it. Only to get home and realize it only have 10 character levels and just 5 upgrades per class.

Modifié par sedrikhcain, 10 mars 2010 - 10:13 .

[Murmillos]

sedrikhcain wrote...

Every franchise tweaks things at least a little from offering to offering,.. 

See, you just proved what am getting at.. "at least a little".

What we got from ME1 to ME2 wasn't little tweaks.  They were huge game play changing differences.  In the way we play and experience the ME world.

The idea that there is some "side' that BioWare chose in a battle between two distinct, warring factions that comprise the majority of ME gamers is another false dichotomy.

So the two groups of people on this board whom have complete opposite reactions to what bioware offered in ME2 isn't dichotomy?

And I'm not talking about the game in general, there are a lot of points I like ME2 took, and a lot others I didn't. Same for every aspect of this game.

This topic is about loot. Period. You either like loot based systems, or you don't. ME1 and it, ME2 doesn't. A and B.

Group A loves the changes, and are glad for them.
Group B doesn't like the changes, and explains why the change was too much of a change.

If it is false, then why do these threads occur with the same back and forth arguments? By saying its false, then you are saying these debate threads are not real, and nobody has any issue with any aspect of ME2 and we are all happily playing it - with no reason to post on these boards other to give endless praise and worship to our lord and savior BioWare.

....

BioWare in the end had to make a choice in which direction to take a game, largely based on the feedback taken. (Or do you think all those feedback threads where only made to pacify us that they where "listening" to us and really ignored everything that was brought up in those threads?)

Of course its not a warring faction, but there are two groups whom wanted to see ME2 with stronger based shooter game play and those whom wanted to see ME2 more stat/RPG based. And of course in the middle, those who thought ME1 was perfect in every-way possible and could not be improved upon.

There are the people whom agree with BioWare in the direction ME2 took on some aspects, there are those of us who don't.

Modifié par Murmillos, 10 mars 2010 - 10:57 .

[sedrikhcain]

Murmillos wrote...

sedrikhcain wrote...

Every franchise tweaks things at least a little from offering to offering,.. 

See, you just proved what I said.. "at least a little".

What we got from ME1 to ME2 wasn't little tweaks.  They were huge game play changing differences.  In the way we play and experience the ME world.

The idea that there is some "side' that BioWare chose in a battle between two distinct, warring factions that comprise the majority of ME gamers is another false dichotomy.

So the two groups of people on this board whom have complete opposite reactions to what bioware offered in ME2 isn't dichotomy?

And I'm not talking about the game in general, there are a lot of points I like ME2 took, and a lot others I didn't. Same for every aspect of this game.

This topic is about loot. Period. You either like loot based systems, or you don't. ME1 and it, ME2 doesn't. A and B.

Group A loves the changes, and are glad for them.
Group B doesn't like the changes, and explains why the change was too much of a change.

If it is false, then why do these threads occur with the same back and forth arguments? By saying its false, then you are saying these debate threads are not real, and nobody has any issue with any aspect of ME2 and we are all happily playing it - with no reason to post on these boards other to give endless praise and worship to our lord and savior BioWare.

....

BioWare in the end had to make a choice in which direction to take a game, largely based on the feedback taken. (Or do you think all those feedback threads where only made to pacify us that they where "listening" to us and really ignored everything that was brought up in those threads?)

Of course its not a warring faction, but there are two groups whom wanted to see ME2 with stronger based shooter game play and those whom wanted to see ME2 more stat/RPG based. And of course in the middle, those who thought ME1 was perfect in every-way possible and could not be improved upon.

There are the people whom agree with BioWare in the direction ME2 took on some aspects, there are those of us who don't.

I said "at least a little". The point being that you need to investigate what those changes are. This requires some effort. If we are lazy as consumers, we get lazy work from devs and publishers. This is what I'm saying.

You took it back to merely loot. I'm talking about the notion of defining genres in general. I'm calling it a crutch to do so. Clearly there is a split about whether or not having tons of loot is a big deal (personally, I don't care either way, as long as what I'm finding is potentially useful). I posted in response to statements on this thread, i didn't draw my initial post here out of thin air, even though I know it's off a bit from the originally posted topic.

[Terror_K]

The thing is, ME2 isn't really a sequel so much as it is Part 2 of a trilogy that's intended to be a trilogy from the start. Dune II was a fantastic title when it came out since it was pretty much the first proper RTS game, and it didn't matter that it was so completely different from the original Dune game because it was never trying to be a proper sequel or the second part in the same story in the first place. Mass Effect 2 is supposed to be the second part of what is essentially a three-part game: it's designed that way and always was. Most people would expect the second part of anything to be mostly like the first, and the same goes for the third. But ME2 is actually very, very different from the original game in a lot of ways.



Let's split the Mass Effect games into the following three basic sections:-

1) RPG Elements

2) Shooter Elements

3) Interactive Movie/Story/Adventure Elements



If we look at these parts, they pretty much sum up the three major genres and styles. While both games have these elements, only the third one has remained consistent between both of them. Both the shooter elements and the RPG elements are drastically different between both titles, and given this the second game seems to only retain about a third of its original identity. That may be a little unfair, since not all the factors from the other two elements are completely different, but there's definitely more different than there is the same.



On top of that, as has been stated before, many fans feel the stuff that was cut and replaced was stuff than needed work instead of binning and oversimplifying. Many feel this was perhaps an easy way out... others feel it was merely done to simplify the game to appeal to a more mainstream audience who generally go for titles with less complexity and depth: who generally don't play RPGs and prefer shooters or simple hack'n'slash action titles, something that BioWare themselves have fully admitted to when it comes to the direction they decided to take ME2. Many feel too much has been sacrificed to cater to newcomers rather than rewarding the existing fanbase, including cut content and import stuff that didn't have as much meaning as was hoped or even indicated by BioWare themselves.



Now, it may seem as if the more I type the more this goes off-topic, but the fact is this is all a symptom of the same problems that have also caused these other symptoms I've mentioned. ME2 overall has taken an overall dive in quality where it matters most. Yes, it's pretty, interrupts and the new Normandy and all the fluff stuff that goes with it are neat, but the meat and potatoes of the game have been reduced to just meat now because that's what today's "gamers" want. The potatoes and the vegetables are just apparently plate-filler that gets in the way. Sure, BioWare will garnish the plate with some parsley and small spoonful of gravy as well that seems nice and looks pretty, but in the end lacks real substance.



Personally, after playing both games, I do think that ME2 proved that the game doesn't necessarily need an inventory screen to work. What it did prove however is that it desperately needs inventory itself, because ME2 just feels anemic in that department.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Terror_K wrote...
Let's split the Mass Effect games into the following three basic sections:-
1) RPG Elements
2) Shooter Elements
3) Interactive Movie/Story/Adventure Elements

You forgot Mako driving sections

[Collider]

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?

Not on the level that the OP implies. It's not particularly fun to scan, but it beats driving the mako up mountains in boring barren planets.

[Murmillos]

Collider wrote...

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?

Not on the level that the OP implies. It's not particularly fun to scan, but it beats driving the mako up mountains in boring barren planets.

Here is a question.. would you like the mako if there were half of the explorable worlds, the differences between each world was more unique between each other, and the overly painful mountainous maps were not as abundant - or as steep?

Modifié par Murmillos, 10 mars 2010 - 11:02 .

[sedrikhcain]

Murmillos wrote...

Collider wrote...

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?

Not on the level that the OP implies. It's not particularly fun to scan, but it beats driving the mako up mountains in boring barren planets.

Here is a question.. would you like the mako if there were half of the explorable worlds, the differences between each world was more unique between each other, and the overly painful mountainous maps were not as abundant - or as steep?

I would. Heck if the environments and missions were unique and the driving not so tedious/treacherous I'd want more worlds to explore, not fewer.

[Murmillos]

sedrikhcain wrote...

Murmillos wrote...

Collider wrote...

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?

Not on the level that the OP implies. It's not particularly fun to scan, but it beats driving the mako up mountains in boring barren planets.

Here is a question.. would you like the mako if there were half of the explorable worlds, the differences between each world was more unique between each other, and the overly painful mountainous maps were not as abundant - or as steep?

I would. Heck if the environments and missions were unique and the driving not so tedious/treacherous I'd want more worlds to explore, not fewer.

See.. another thing which many of us see as an "easy" fix - was discarded and junked.  Planet scanning would have been fine if the only reason for it was to find missions to go down on.

Ramp up the environments a bit.. take out the tedious mountain climbing aspect (or add a rear booster option - to power up the hills) and horrible Mako complaints are gone.

Heck, and instead of maybe each world being an open square mile of land.. they could have make it a long rectangle for a few of them.  (Halo: Blood Glutch.. but much much longer in length) Some point A to B with a few interesting things in between.  Or maybe even land on an island, like 'Halo:The Silent Cartographer'.

Again.. this should be its own topic.. but the point remains - too many "fixes" were not fixed but instead of junked.

(gack I'm bad on the grammar tonight)

Modifié par Murmillos, 10 mars 2010 - 11:46 .

[sedrikhcain]

Murmillos wrote...

See.. another thing which many of us see as an "easy" fix - was discarded and junked.  Planet scanning would have been fine if the only reason for it was to find missions to go down on.

Ramp up the environments a bit.. take out the tedious mountain climbing aspect (or add a rear booster option - to power up the hills) and horrible Mako complaints are gone.

Heck, and instead of maybe each world being an open square mile of land.. they could have make it a long rectangle for a few of them.  (Halo: Blood Glutch.. but much much longer in length) Some point A to B with a few interesting things in between.  Or maybe even land on an island, like 'Halo:The Silent Cartographer'.

Again.. this should be its own topic.. but the point remains - to many "fixes" where not fixed but instead of junked.

That's all true but, as you said, it's also a separate topic.

[Terror_K]

That is, essentially, the heart of the matter.



When people were suggesting things for ME2 and BioWare were asking for thoughts on the matter, I remember people were generally saying they essentially wanted the same game with things improved on. I don't recall many saying they wanted an almost entirely different game. The Mako and UNC quests are a classic example, where the controls and the terrain were the biggest problem in the case of the former, and the samey worlds and bases were the problem of the latter. The PC version fixed the Mako controls and most players agreed that aspect was pretty much fixed, and if some planets had terrain that wasn't so fussy and mountainous it would be fine. As for the missions themselves, players generally wanted a few less barren places and a few more places that felt alive, with bases on them that weren't all pretty much the same three types (mine, double-storey square base and four-roomed base with central fighting room). I don't think most original fans wanted the vehicle cut entirely and all their offworld missions to be limited to only tiny little linear zones. I'm curious about the Hammerhead, even if it does seem to have been actioned-up and made more shooter-happy than I'd have liked from the videos... hardly surprising given ME2's general style though.

[jack3auer]

Murmillos wrote...

sedrikhcain wrote...

Murmillos wrote...

Collider wrote...

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?

Not on the level that the OP implies. It's not particularly fun to scan, but it beats driving the mako up mountains in boring barren planets.

Here is a question.. would you like the mako if there were half of the explorable worlds, the differences between each world was more unique between each other, and the overly painful mountainous maps were not as abundant - or as steep?

I would. Heck if the environments and missions were unique and the driving not so tedious/treacherous I'd want more worlds to explore, not fewer.

See.. another thing which many of us see as an "easy" fix - was discarded and junked.  Planet scanning would have been fine if the only reason for it was to find missions to go down on.

Ramp up the environments a bit.. take out the tedious mountain climbing aspect (or add a rear booster option - to power up the hills) and horrible Mako complaints are gone.

Heck, and instead of maybe each world being an open square mile of land.. they could have make it a long rectangle for a few of them.  (Halo: Blood Glutch.. but much much longer in length) Some point A to B with a few interesting things in between.  Or maybe even land on an island, like 'Halo:The Silent Cartographer'.

Again.. this should be its own topic.. but the point remains - too many "fixes" were not fixed but instead of junked.

(gack I'm bad on the grammar tonight)

this makes sense and indeed i wouldn't mind the mako back without all those mountains to climb and more varied worlds would make exploring in it more fun....BUT............... take away the mountains and joker can just steam in with the normandy and drop the mako right near the mission.    

the mission in ME1 where you were chasing monkeys around was tedious as were most of the Mako missions.
but it was a joy to see one of those monkeys run past my squad on Zaeeds loyalty mission.  

i look forward to the hovertank missions

[Daeion]

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.

I've seen this a few times in this thread.  How do you grind in ME?  It's not like mobs respawn, I couldn't kill everything on the way to Saren on the citadel and then go back and rekill everything all over again unless I wanted to reload.

[Daeion]

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.

Tis a good idea, be notified by Tim, Liara, or anyone really.  Get a message saying x weapon in research and some merc group stole the prototype and then you can decide to go get it from their base or something.

[Daeion]

Collider wrote...

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?

Not on the level that the OP implies. It's not particularly fun to scan, but it beats driving the mako up mountains in boring barren planets.

Sorry, but I'd rather drive the MAKO uo mountains on barren plaents, actually having to think and work out the best path instead of sitting there, seeing nothing new and moving my mouse up and down side to side not thinking.

[Poison_Berrie]

There certainly is some merit to Murmillos idea a page back. I like the system implemented in ME 2 over ME 1, but it lacks in rewarding and numbers.
Let the player be rewarded pieces for armor, weapons or upgrades in most missions (side and main). After defeating a mercenary boss, let us find a new weapon or shield piece on his/her person you can scan and thus acquire.
Requiring licenses would be a nice detail.

Also Gatt9 I disagree with shooters and RPGs being polar opposites, which are impossible to marry.
Sure you sacrifice certain aspects of one to accommodate the other, but I don't see how it shouldn't work. I'd say Mass Effect 1 was a pretty good one and it flaws were more with individual implementations rather than trying to get two type of game together.

It does show that to you an RPG is all about stats. Almost everything your character does must be governed by stats you can influence and see. If not than you are somehow not taking on a role anymore. This disregards that you are taking on that role and that it's your hands that shape the character as much as the provided histories do.

I say one can take two directions. Either you separate what your character does by your "skill" and by his (stat) skill or you make both of influence.

Modifié par Poison_Berrie, 10 mars 2010 - 02:33 .

[Daeion]

Terror_K wrote...

I'm curious about the Hammerhead, even if it does seem to have been actioned-up and made more shooter-happy than I'd have liked from the videos... hardly surprising given ME2's general style though.

Yeah, I'm looking forward to the Hammerhead, but I'm not expecting much outside of just driving around shooting things.

[Daeion]

Poison_Berrie wrote...

There certainly is some merit to Murmillos idea a page back. I like the system implemented in ME 2 over ME 1, but it lacks in rewarding and numbers.
Let the player be rewarded pieces for armor, weapons or upgrades in most missions (side and main). After defeating a mercenary boss, let us find a new weapon or shield piece on his/her person you can scan and thus acquire.
Requiring licenses would be a nice detail.

Also Gatt9 I disagree with shooters and RPGs being polar opposites, which are impossible to marry.
Sure you sacrifice certain aspects of one to accommodate the other, but I don't see how it shouldn't work. I'd say Mass Effect 1 was a pretty good one and it flaws were more with individual implementations rather than trying to get two type of game together.

It does show that to you an RPG is all about stats. Almost everything your character does must be governed by stats you can influence and see. If not than you are somehow not taking on a role anymore. This disregards that you are taking on that role and that it's your hands that shape the character as much as the provided histories do.

I say one can take two directions. Either you separate what your character does by your "skill" and by his (stat) skill or you make both of influence.

I'll agree that you can effectivley marry shooter combat and RPG elements.  I would ask if you consider Bioshock to be a RPG since you play a role and you can shape the character and the ending of the game.

[Poison_Berrie]

Daeion wrote...
I'll agree that you can effectivley marry shooter combat and RPG elements.  I would ask if you consider Bioshock to be a RPG since you play a role and you can shape the character and the ending of the game.

I would not. The role you play is entirely pre-defined, the only choice you have is what ending you get and a big part of the game is how you don't have control. The only RPG-aspect are the plasmids which work as a bit of combat skill. 
It may take some inspiration from it, but I would not call it an RPG or a FPS/RPG. 

It's not so much about labels to me, though. And a game should be able to take from whatever aspects it want and can acomplish.

[AlanC9]

sedrikhcain wrote...
Fair enough. I'm sure you know better than me. If that's the case, where do you think this is coming from?

Well, if someone's only RPGs ever are Western-style CRPGs, he's probably got the idea that this is how they're supposed to be. Most of the games in the genre have been designed this way. CRPGs have historically adopted the worst aspects of PnP RPGs because those aspects are relatively easy to program.

But that doesn't answer the question of why someone would care that CRPGs have always been this way. Some people seem to require a definite taxonomy for things, and don't like stuff that violates those categories. I've seen this phenomenon in other places. For instance, it was fairly common for posters over on TrekBBS to denounce "Battlestar Galactica" because the show was simultaneously a sci-fi show, a political show, and a relationship drama. Not denouncing if because it didn't do these things well, but because these things simply should not be done in the same program. You often see this in politics too, though that may have more to do with identity issues.

The social science research has associated this habit of mind with culturally conservative politics, which I guess isn't too surprising, though I've always found that sort of research too tendentious to take seriously. And in all fairness, there is something to be said for being able to pigeonhole stuff; actually having to weigh things on their own merits requires thought and effort, and is a costly process.

As for why people like loot in itself, that's easy; it's just operant conditioning 101.

[DarthValo81]

On the loot topic...



I felt there was not enough to satisfy my personal tastes as a gamer. When I pick up an RPG, I have certain expectations, that while may not be required to define a game as an RPG, are in pretty much all the RPG's I play. Loot is one of those expectations. I agree the ME1 system was flawed and I think the ME2 system is a good step but currently it feels really shallow. No matter how many time I play it it's the exact same gear in the exact same spot. Leaves little room for me to try different builds on guns or armor. To improve it how about instead of getting credits from every **** thing I hack/bypass(excepting of course the upgrade items we already find) merge the ME1 looting system with the ME2 system. Use the omni-tool to scan "blueprints" of upgrades for guns/armor which are scattered randomly throughout the level and have those "blueprints transfered to the Normandy. Then after the mission you research the upgrades as we already do. A simple fix that adds more choice to the game. Thats what looting brings to a game for me. Choice. Thats one thing I felt ME2 was missing.