140 réponses à ce sujet

[Murmillos]

Gatt9 wrote...
RPG's absolutely require the skill to be based upon the character,  shooters absolutely require the skill to be based on the player,  they're polar opposites.  You can't mix them.  One of those two systems has to go,  and once it does,  you've lost the genre.

There is absolutely no truth in this. RPG require player/avatar customization - not that the skill is based on the character stats only.

Besides, if the story indicates that I am the best damn Solider the Alliance has to offer and I have the best weapons training and skills and battle experience to back it up, but "in game" I can't hit anything beyond 20 feet unless I put 10 points into my weapons skill, we have just broken the immersion of that game and everything that comes to follow.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Gatt9 wrote...

Of course,  one could also simply realize that ME2 is one of the first major releases under EA,  and EA's advertising dollars pay the bills at pretty much every gaming review site.

That why Dante's Inferno, another game released by EA at the same time, got **** ratings?

Cut the conspiracy crap. It might work if your sources were a handful of review sites, but when metacritic has logged nearly a hundred review sites from all around the world with a 96% aggregate score, you'd have to have that tin foil cap strapped on mighty tight to believe that EA could possibly have done anything to significantly influence that.

EDIT: Also, reviewers are paid to provide relatively objective views to the best of their abilities. If a reviewer consistently misleads the public, or misreflects the quality of a game consistently, that reviewer will not be working much longer as people will take notice, their reviews will become less viewed, and there will be no reason for whatever entity they work under to employ them.

EDIT EDIT: Also, Dragon Age was released under EA, making Mass Effect 2 the second major Bioware release under EA. What were its ratings? Between 86-91% depending on which version. Man, you'd think EA would have shined those reviewer's knobs a bit more to bump it up a to 96 with ME2 wouldn't ya think?

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 10 mars 2010 - 10:08 .

[Sadja]

Gatt9 wrote...

Of course,  one could also simply realize that ME2 is one of the first major releases under EA,  and EA's advertising dollars pay the bills at pretty much every gaming review site.

Cause and effect.  It's already pretty well established that gaming journalism is not on the consumer's side,  through a series of high-profile leaks.  Doesn't take much to figure out where the review scores came from.

Put on your tin hats!

I would kindly like to direct you to http://www.escapistm...ero-punctuation

If anyone would bash a game for being bad (when its really bad) then here's your man. Another poster already outlined why else your statement is a conspiracy theory, and not a conspiracy fact.

Moving on.

As far as the OP goes,  strongly disagree.  Mass Effect is supposed to be an RPG,  not a shooter.  There's no middle ground.  RPG's absolutely require the skill to be based upon the character,  shooters absolutely require the skill to be based on the player,  they're polar opposites.  You can't mix them.  One of those two systems has to go,  and once it does,  you've lost the genre.

Here I would like to direct you to http://en.wikipedia....es#Role-playing and note the usage of subgenres. However, I would also like to point out that the meaning, the soul, of RPG is Roleplaying Game. The mechanics behind it are just that, mechanics. A focus on a characters advacement, in particular in more than just skills, is the heart of any RPG out there, will yield an RPG. The mechanics merely alters how you play the RPG.

We can here see that you do not enjoy playing any sort of game that requires reflexes. That is too bad for you, however, it does not mean that Mass Effect 1/2/3 does not qualify as an RPG. It merely means that you do not qualify for the game.

It's the difference between a Role and an Avatar,  so I'll explain it the way people here will likely understand best.

Gordon Freeman is an Avatar.
Garrett (from Thief) is an Avatar.
The Master Chief is an Avatar.
Mr. Fenix is an Avatar.

The Gray Warden in Dragon Age: Origins is a Role. You are given the slate that has been created by BioWare, the rest is up to you. And you control his or her action through clicking.
Shepard is a Role that you step into. You make the decissions, you shape him or her. He or she is yours to mold. The only difference is that you actually have to point, and not click, to shoot.

The blue guy the human became in James Cameron's Avatar was an Avatar,  it was the human's skill that took precedence,  as shown when he was training.  If the human had taken on the Role of the blue guy,  he wouldn't have to train,  his skill would be immaterial,  it would be the blue guy's skill that mattered.

You are wrong.

If you were to pretend that Pandora is a game and the Marine is a player, then it's an RPG. He is developing his Blue guys abilities. Riding, flying, shooting a bow.. etc.. you could particullary see the skillpoint increase through the movie ^^
That he didn't have to learn how to walk or shoot.. well, you don't necessary have to learn how to walk or wield a sword in Dragon Age either. You've already been given the basics.

edit: HOWEVER there is a flaw in that too. At the end AVATAR has RPG elements (the development of skills), but is at its heart not an RPG, because it misses the crucial development of the actual character. The Marine is still the Marine and not the Blue Guy.
Whileas ME2 has just that, merely uses a point to shoot, instead of click to shoot, mechanic -- making it an RPG. Unless you are Commander Shepard. And.. and.. you play yourself.

It's a key difference,  and it's the defining line between an RPG and a Shooter,  which is exactly why ME2 is not a RPG.

It's a key difference for you. It's your personal view of the gameplay mechanics; it doesn't make the actual game any less an RPG. That you are not fond of the mechanics is, well, too bad.

I'm not fond of sport games. Too bad for me, eh?

Modifié par Sadja, 10 mars 2010 - 10:55 .

[RE0305]

Agree 100%

[Nolenthar]

Meistr_Chef wrote...

I am a huge PC gaming fan. Been one since 1995. I do not like consoles. I use my PS3 to play blurays mostly, and my Xbox 360 hasn't been turned on for 3 months now. These are my first console purchases. For what it's worth, I have the PC edition of Mass Effect 1 and 2. And the Xbox 360 version of ME1 which I do not care for any longer.

That was just a guess because you talked about console games. I was wrong on the console part, ok

Meistr_Chef wrote...
Oblivion and Fallout 3 left a sour taste in my mouth because of the totally pointless deluge of lame missions, lousy characters, ****e dialogue, and general clunkiness. I probably will not buy another Bethesda game. Anyway, you see I have missed a lot of Bioware's earlier efforts and even some other classics like Fallout 1/2.

I felt the same about Fallout 3, a lot less on Oblivion. I regretted a lot autoleveling of the monsters, because it was ridiculous (why the hell is this brigand wearing full daedric armor ???) but I had nice time on it. It was a lot easier than Morrowing (because of autolevelling). Fallout 3, it's different ... the problem of a RPG with shooting action is that when you do it badly, it's not interesting. Fallout 3 was not interesting because it was a bad FPS and didn't offer the tactic we had on the previous episodes.
With ME2, I don't feel this because Mass Effect 2 is a good third person shooter. Even if I liked Kotor, I share your point of view. Futurist RPG must involve real time combat, and ME2 does it really well.

Meistr_Chef wrote...

Since battle is central to just about any part of an action game or even RPG, I thought it was interesting that Bioware moved from the purely stats based "click and see what happens" approach to putting more realtime control in the player's hands.

Can't agree more ! Futurist RPG requires real time combat involving Tactics. ME2 does it.
I'll stop quoting you now. I agree with you anyway.

My only concern is that they can make your character more "companion and skill dependent" that it is now, like they did for the final mission. Bringing a Biotic should allow me to do stuff I wouldn't be able if I didn't. The Same for a tech, or for a soldier. What we have now is just companions with different combat quality. Who ever you bring with you, it changes nothing but the power they have. It has never any role on the mission itself. 
In DAO for instance, I could win a combat or lose it depending of my companions, and there was no way I could have the treasure if I didn't have a rogue with me with unlocking talent. That is a very simple example, because even DAO didn't include real companion dependancy.
I hope it can have it in ME3.

[LoweGear]

On the above point with companion specialties:



They tried that with Mass Effect 1 already, and the result was that in order to get the best out of each level, you always had to bring someone with electronics/decryption in order to get each and every piece of loot and treasure, which limited your choices to those characters that have said abilites. I could bring Tali or Kaidan into each and every combat situation and be none the worse for it, since I brought them along for their unlocks anyway (like needing master decryption to complete Tali's pilgrimage).



At the very least, ME2 allows you to bring along any set of companions that you desire specifically for their powers in combat without having to worry about them playing a role in a non-combat situation, allowing you to better mix-and-match different combinations without fear of losing out on the loot in safes and lockers.



Having a companion dependent system would be nice in certain missions perhaps, as they've already done for loyalty missions. But it needs to be done without the expense of being railroaded into a certain companion pair just to get the best deal out of the level.

[Nolenthar]

LoweGear wrote...

Having a companion dependent system would be nice in certain missions perhaps, as they've already done for loyalty missions. But it needs to be done without the expense of being railroaded into a certain companion pair just to get the best deal out of the level.

I think it's a point of view problem. In ME1, there was not much companions so you didn't really have choices. But I can understand your point. You prefer being completely free choosing your companions than having to choose the most combat/non combat balanced group.
Let's be honest, do you bring Tali with you now ? I like the character, but I just take her with me on Geth missions. I think it shouldn't be like this. She pays the price for this gameplay change.

[Terror_K]

That's the way it should be. It's the classic rogue-sydrome, but for sci-fi. In Baldur's Gate and Dragon Age, etc. you needed a rogue to unlock things, set traps, etc. and the same should be true with Mass Effect, IMO. Even KotOR needed a tech expert to unlock things, usually, though sometimes this could be bypassed by bashing.



In either case, Mass Effect 3 needs to return more to its roots and definitely NOT become even more like a shooter. It needs more RPG elements brought back and more depth given to the ones that were still left. It certainly doesn't need to scrap them.

[Nolenthar]

 I created a poll, for whoever likes this idea (or not).
http://social.biowar...505/polls/3167/

[SurfaceBeneath]

Terror_K wrote...

That's the way it should be. It's the classic rogue-sydrome, but for sci-fi. In Baldur's Gate and Dragon Age, etc. you needed a rogue to unlock things, set traps, etc. and the same should be true with Mass Effect, IMO. Even KotOR needed a tech expert to unlock things, usually, though sometimes this could be bypassed by bashing.

In either case, Mass Effect 3 needs to return more to its roots and definitely NOT become even more like a shooter. It needs more RPG elements brought back and more depth given to the ones that were still left. It certainly doesn't need to scrap them.

That's an awful small selection of games though, two of which sharing the same component ruleset. And in Dragon Age and Mass Effect, the difference between having someone with decryption or lockpicking in your party in miniscule because neither actually rewards you with loot that is any good. Heck, one of the most popular DAO mods is one that lets you bash open chests rather than pick it.

Why should it be a requirement to have such a specialized role? Does it have any objective use? Why not just make them as good in combat as the other classes? Utility is generally not a fun "role" to play in any RPG, especially when it puts an artificial limitation on your combat abilities to compensate. The ME2 approach grants larger freedom in combat to bring whichever characters you personally like or that are fit for the job at hand based on the skills they have. Especially in a cast of 11 characters (soon to be 12), only 2 of which can be with you at a time, arbitrarily requiring a select few of that roster to come with you on every mission really improve the game?

[SurfaceBeneath]

Nolenthar wrote...
Let's be honest, do you bring Tali with you now ? I like the character, but I just take her with me on Geth missions. I think it shouldn't be like this. She pays the price for this gameplay change.

Tali's not half as bad as Jack is. Jack is 100% useless as a party member. Tali is at least still a A+ character on any mission with heavy inorganics and Combat Drone and Energy Drain are actually both extremely good skills even against non-organics.

Balance is an issue in every game. You don't need non-combat abilities justifying decreasing the relative combat abilities of your squad.

[Nolenthar]

Your answer obviously illustrates that, without any offense for saying so, combat is what people wants in Mass Effect, and only this.



It's unfortunately not what RPG is exactly. It's combat, but it's also skill. In ME2, you don't have skill anymore. Your companions should offer useful non-combat skills. Whatever it is, unlocking is an example (because, as you said, very common in heroic-fantasy RPG). Let's take the final mission : it was exactly what I talk about. I needed a tech to do this, a biotic to do this, a charismatic commander to take care of the second team. That was a hell of a video game moment ! I would just be happy if I could have it more than once (and obviously, I'm not requesting it to be as evolved as last part of the game).

[Heart Collector]

Some good points there OP, nice post.



I initially had a very negative view of the game when I first heared about no inventory, saw the stripped down skill trees and played with the new controls - but now it's becoming one of my all-time favorites, and the only game I'm trying out the highest difficulty.



A couple of things I hope to see:



- Meaningful planetary exploration. I missed it in ME2. I'd love it if you could actually take the Normandy in atmospheric flight, and fly around the planet...



- More customization! I like the fact that the game was streamlined, but I never felt that I was actually developing the character, more like simply making it stronger. I don't mind not having an inventory system, but there should be more choice in upgrades! Also, I hope our weapons, omni-tools and biotic amps are fully upgradeable too. And maybe include implants and cybernetics as well.



- I mentioned the Normandy before. I'd love to see a few space combat missions in ME3. They could even be optional, an alternative way to finish a mission. E.g. you're fighting this huge reaper general, you can either choose to duke it out with him from the Normandy's cockpit (and 2 ship "squadmates"), taking on the reaper and other smaller ships, or you can go "covert", infiltrate the reaper's interior on foot and destroy - weaken it from within.



- *small spoiler here*



On that note, it would be awesome if you could complete any "split up" missions this way. I.e. in a situation like the final mission of ME2, where your people split up, you could be on either team, not just "leading the charge".



- Even more distinctive class abilities. E.g. mines, turrets etc. for an engineer, toxic/stun darts for an infiltrator, that sort of thing.



- Fluff. I'd love it if the game contained lots of it. After all, it is still an RPG at heart. Like mini-game "arcades" on the Normandy (maybe even they could have actual updating high scores from actual players on the Cerberus network xD), more casual outfits, games like Pazaak from KOTOR in bars, more interactions with secondary NPCs... That sort of thing.



Of course this is all stuff I'd like, not saying that it's the best thing for the game

[SurfaceBeneath]

Nolenthar wrote...

Your answer obviously illustrates that, without any offense for saying so, combat is what people wants in Mass Effect, and only this.

It's unfortunately not what RPG is exactly. It's combat, but it's also skill. In ME2, you don't have skill anymore. Your companions should offer useful non-combat skills. Whatever it is, unlocking is an example (because, as you said, very common in heroic-fantasy RPG). Let's take the final mission : it was exactly what I talk about. I needed a tech to do this, a biotic to do this, a charismatic commander to take care of the second team. That was a hell of a video game moment ! I would just be happy if I could have it more than once (and obviously, I'm not requesting it to be as evolved as last part of the game).

Actually, on any difficulty below insanity, I completely randomize my choices for each mission because I want a good mix of everyone's personality. I enjoy that the game doesn't penalize me much for this (except on Insanity where some parts of the game are too hard to be able to do such and I would be screwed if I picked Jack and Jacob).

I agree with you on the final mission though. It was too short and I wish it were 5 times longer than it was and for each phase and particular NPCs that served specific uses. However, notice that you still got to choose which 2 people you wanted with you without any penalties (beyond how well they do in combat). Personally, a system where you choose your squad based on their combat abilities and then you chose an additional 1-2 squad members in a back up role who's purpose was to assist you through story based missions and provide benefits indirectly would be the best system imo. For instance, say you and your squad of 3 have to invade a compound and you have Samara and Tali on support. When you're moving through the base, Samara could provide your group with an extra bit of protection from her biotics, while Tali might have been able to hack a few droids in the compound remotely.

Heart Collector wrote...

On that note, it would be awesome if you could complete any "split
up" missions this way. I.e. in a situation like the final mission of
ME2, where your people split up, you could be on either team, not just
"leading the charge".

I couldn't agree more. These definitely need to be in ME3 more. I've always thought it was kind of silly of Bioware when they started using the kind of party management they've been using in KoTOR where you have access to all your party at any time, but have to sit out most of your crew. Everyone should play a part in the missions whether they're "with you" or not.

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 10 mars 2010 - 01:22 .

[Nolenthar]

Good idea, you're right. Makes both combat and non-combat ability useful. It's a perfect grey system, rather than the black or white I'm suggesting.

And yes, for the final mission, I would have loved if I could play each team one by one. as they did in DAO.

Modifié par Nolenthar, 10 mars 2010 - 01:26 .

[Terror_K]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

That's the way it should be. It's the classic rogue-sydrome, but for sci-fi. In Baldur's Gate and Dragon Age, etc. you needed a rogue to unlock things, set traps, etc. and the same should be true with Mass Effect, IMO. Even KotOR needed a tech expert to unlock things, usually, though sometimes this could be bypassed by bashing.

In either case, Mass Effect 3 needs to return more to its roots and definitely NOT become even more like a shooter. It needs more RPG elements brought back and more depth given to the ones that were still left. It certainly doesn't need to scrap them.

That's an awful small selection of games though, two of which sharing the same component ruleset. And in Dragon Age and Mass Effect, the difference between having someone with decryption or lockpicking in your party in miniscule because neither actually rewards you with loot that is any good. Heck, one of the most popular DAO mods is one that lets you bash open chests rather than pick it.

Why should it be a requirement to have such a specialized role? Does it have any objective use? Why not just make them as good in combat as the other classes? Utility is generally not a fun "role" to play in any RPG, especially when it puts an artificial limitation on your combat abilities to compensate. The ME2 approach grants larger freedom in combat to bring whichever characters you personally like or that are fit for the job at hand based on the skills they have. Especially in a cast of 11 characters (soon to be 12), only 2 of which can be with you at a time, arbitrarily requiring a select few of that roster to come with you on every mission really improve the game?

Because that's the very point of having a party-based RPG in the first place: so that your character can be a class that specialises in a certain manner and has strengths associated with said class, but weaknesses in other areas, thus why you have other party members of other classes who specialise in covering your weaknesses and use their own strengths to aid you. It's not a must, but you generally find the best combinations of characters are when you have a good variety of classes to cover all your bases.

One of the reasons ME2 fails is because it fails to do this at all any more. With the possible exception of taking too many biotics (since their powers have been so terribly nerfed in a manner that doesn't even make sense) you can pretty much take anybody with you in any combination in ME2 and it doesn't really matter that much, since there are so little stats that determine anything relevant outside of combat any more. You don't need to build a team that requires a techie or a biotic to succeed or even make things harder on yourself. ME2 was the first BioWare RPG where I just chose random people each time and it never made a difference, while their previous games (including the original) have pretty much always required be to choose smart combinations when choosing my party members, as well as developing their stats and skills (another thing that makes little difference in ME2 really). You don't even have to equip them intelligently... since you can barely do that at all, and they almost always just automatically get assigned the best weapon. If not it's one change throughout the entire game at the most.

The only reason it gives you greater freedom is because there's no real reason to choose at all really. You don't need to work out a character's strengths and weaknesses because it doesn't matter diddilysquat in ME2. They don't really effect anything and are pretty much just two extra guns and targets to draw fire in 90% of cases. In the original game if I wasn't a biotic I felt I needed one with me. Same if I wasn't a tech. They felt useful there... now they just feel redundant. And a good RPG should reward you for choosing a well-balanced team of specialists and punish you for being a jack of all trades and taking random people with you. ME2 doesn't punish you at all really, with a few minor exceptions.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Terror_K wrote...
Because that's the very point of having a party-based RPG in the first place: so that your character can be a class that specialises in a certain manner and has strengths associated with said class, but weaknesses in other areas, thus why you have other party members of other classes who specialise in covering your weaknesses and use their own strengths to aid you. It's not a must, but you generally find the best combinations of characters are when you have a good variety of classes to cover all your bases.

One of the reasons ME2 fails is because it fails to do this at all any more.

Wrong. Now with the variety of defenses that enemies have, there are VERY compelling reasons to take certain squad mates over others in certain situations. Tali is much weaker in an organic based fight with enemies with heavy armor whereas Mordin excells in that kind of fight. The difference is, these strengths and weaknesses emerge in combat instead of for utility's sake, which again I ask, was bringing along someone just because you had to have them there to get all the loot you wanted and weaknening your party otherwise really of any use? Is this character fun or interesting to have around? No. They aren't. It's just an artificial ball and chain the developers strap around your leg.

With the possible exception of taking too many biotics (since their powers have been so terribly nerfed in a manner that doesn't even make sense)

Adepts are a very powerful class even on insanity. Sentinals are arguably the most powerful class on Insanity. There are videos out there and several guides on the classes and Builds forum that have dismissed the claim that Biotics are underpowered at any level of play.

ME2 was the first BioWare RPG where I just chose random people each time and it never made a difference, while their previous games (including the original) have pretty much always required be to choose smart combinations when choosing my party members, as well as developing their stats and skills (another thing that makes little difference in ME2 really). You don't even have to equip them intelligently... since you can barely do that at all, and they almost always just automatically get assigned the best weapon. If not it's one change throughout the entire game at the most.

I've done random parties in both Dragon Age when my main character was a mage and I've done all mage parties in Baldur's Gate 2. In the later case, making an all mage party was the most powerful team you could have. Actually, in KoTOR, Jade Empire, and the first ME it didn't matter either since in all three of those games you were just as well off soloing the game and the hacked crates in ME1 just gave you more junk to omni-gel.

The only reason it gives you greater freedom is because there's no real reason to choose at all really. You don't need to work out a character's strengths and weaknesses because it doesn't matter diddilysquat in ME2. They don't really effect anything and are pretty much just two extra guns and targets to draw fire in 90% of cases. In the original game if I wasn't a biotic I felt I needed one with me. Same if I wasn't a tech. They felt useful there... now they just feel redundant. And a good RPG should reward you for choosing a well-balanced team of specialists and punish you for being a jack of all trades and taking random people with you. ME2 doesn't punish you at all really, with a few minor exceptions.

Again, on insanity it does matter because if you don't have team mates with the proper tools to handle enemy defenses, you will get summarily owned. Go play insanity carrying around Jack and Jacob if you disagree.

Again, I do think ME3 should continue to promote specialized party members, however those specializations should make combat more interesting, not the other way around. Alternatively, as I described above, allow out of party squad members to provide support bonuses your squad.

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 10 mars 2010 - 02:31 .

[Terror_K]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
Because that's the very point of having a party-based RPG in the first place: so that your character can be a class that specialises in a certain manner and has strengths associated with said class, but weaknesses in other areas, thus why you have other party members of other classes who specialise in covering your weaknesses and use their own strengths to aid you. It's not a must, but you generally find the best combinations of characters are when you have a good variety of classes to cover all your bases.

One of the reasons ME2 fails is because it fails to do this at all any more.

Wrong. Now with the variety of defenses that enemies have, there are VERY compelling reasons to take certain squad mates over others in certain situations. Tali is much weaker in an organic based fight with enemies with heavy armor whereas Mordin excells in that kind of fight. The difference is, these strengths and weaknesses emerge in combat instead of for utility's sake, which again I ask, was bringing along someone just because you had to have them there to get all the loot you wanted and weaknening your party otherwise really of any use? Is this character fun or interesting to have around? No. They aren't. It's just an artificial ball and chain the developers strap around your leg.

Funny how you say I'm wrong despite saying yourself just a few posts above "Actually, on any difficulty below insanity, I completely randomize my choices for each mission because I want a good mix of everyone's personality. I enjoy that the game doesn't penalize me much for this"

Moving beyond that: No, it's not just a ball and chain. It's part of the foundation of a proper party-based RPG. If you played any P&P RPG and had bunch of people who were all the same class and/or who didn't have certain key skills covered, you'd likely fail horribly in 90% of cases if the GM was going their job right because you wouldn't be able to accomplish simple tasks since nobody could do them. ME2 spits in this notion by allowing everybody to do everything pretty much.

All you've proven is that there's pretty much no RPG factors to Mass Effect at all outside of combat, which just proves further how bloody dumbed-down the whole game is. Besides, it's not like you were THAT limited in ME1 when it came to necessary party members: assuming you weren't a techie yourself, you had half the squad to choose from. I'm sure it's such a chore if you don't like Kaidan, Garrus or Tali at all, but I'm pretty sure anybody who is a fan of the game would like at least ONE of them.

Adepts are a very powerful class even on insanity. Sentinals are arguably the most powerful class on Insanity. There are videos out there and several guides on the classes and Builds forum that have dismissed the claim that Biotics are underpowered at any level of play.

Sure... biotics are strong once you can get past the other defenses. My main beef is that biotics should need to, since it makes no real sense to me that armour would stop biotic attacks so well suddenly (even if they don't in cutscenes and the like... hmmmmm...?). But that's another topic entirely.

I've done random parties in both Dragon Age when my main character was a mage and I've done all mage parties in Baldur's Gate 2. In the later case, making an all mage party was the most powerful team you could have.

Uh-huh... and when your character wasn't a mage?

Again, on insanity it does matter because if you don't have team mates with the proper tools to handle enemy defenses, you will get summarily owned. Go play insanity carrying around Jack and Jacob if you disagree.

Yes. So you have to be on the highest difficulty for party choices to matter, huh? Wow... that's great. That just proves your point sooooooooo well. <_<

And you go to mention Jack and Jacob being a problem on insanity which kind of proves my point about biotics earlier, since you need to get through the enemies defenses before they do anything beyond making the enemy wobble for a couple of seconds.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Terror_K wrote...
Funny how you say I'm wrong despite saying yourself just a few posts above "Actually, on any difficulty below insanity, I completely randomize my choices for each mission because I want a good mix of everyone's personality. I enjoy that the game doesn't penalize me much for this"

Moving beyond that: No, it's not just a ball and chain. It's part of the foundation of a proper party-based RPG. If you played any P&P RPG and had bunch of people who were all the same class and/or who didn't have certain key skills covered, you'd likely fail horribly in 90% of cases if the GM was going their job right because you wouldn't be able to accomplish simple tasks since nobody could do them. ME2 spits in this notion by allowing everybody to do everything pretty much.

I do play PnP RPGs actually. Running a 4th edition DnD campaign right now. You know what the cool thing about 4th edition is? Every class is equally useful in combat. They changed the rogue class from a complete skill monkey to someone who actually provides flanking bonuses and is good at damaging single enemies and weakening them for your party. Which is what I am supporting. Equal usefulness in combat. Not arbitrarily punishing those for maximizing combat potential.

All you've proven is that there's pretty much no RPG factors to Mass Effect at all outside of combat, which just proves further how bloody dumbed-down the whole game is. Besides, it's not like you were THAT limited in ME1 when it came to necessary party members: assuming you weren't a techie yourself, you had half the squad to choose from. I'm sure it's such a chore if you don't like Kaidan, Garrus or Tali at all, but I'm pretty sure anybody who is a fan of the game would like at least ONE of them.

Actually I proved that every Bioware game up to this point has been "dumbed down" and required no party balance whatsoever in actuality.

Sure... biotics are strong once you can get past the other defenses. My main beef is that biotics should need to, since it makes no real sense to me that armour would stop biotic attacks so well suddenly (even if they don't in cutscenes and the like... hmmmmm...?). But that's another topic entirely.

Agreed, there are other topics on this subject in the class and build forums. Feel free to debate there with those who excel with biotics on insanity.

Uh-huh... and when your character wasn't a mage?

I took a sorceror . But seriously, without any mages you sucked it. But that's not proper balance like you're describing it, that's just one class being given all the tools needed to do everything in the game with all the other classes only able to function partially as well.

Yes. So you have to be on the highest difficulty for party choices to matter, huh? Wow... that's great. That just proves your point sooooooooo well. <_<

And you go to mention Jack and Jacob being a problem on insanity which kind of proves my point about biotics earlier, since you need to get through the enemies defenses before they do anything beyond making the enemy wobble for a couple of seconds.

Of course, the game is frankly quite easy on anything other than Insanity (and Hardcore in certain situations... when I did vanguard it was on hardcore and I randomly selected Jack to come with me to the Collector ship... that was a tough run). On Insanity thought your group matters and you rely on their abilities to succeed.

And the reason that Jack is weak is because she is useless against any protected enemey and she has a shotgun, the worst weapon for squaddies to use. That's not a problem with biotics, it's a problem with the skills that were given to her. The idea is to have squad mates that have powers that compensate for your class's weakness, which is what I'm saying that Bioware should be striving to achieve in ME3. Make your party choices matter, but don't arbitrarily make them weaker because of some random non-combat ability. Likewise, don't make it necessary to bring along someone because they are the only one who has the skeleton key to unlock the assault rifle of baddassery +5.

EDIT : Fixed formatting.

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 10 mars 2010 - 02:55 .

[Nolenthar]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

I do play PnP RPGs actually. Running a 4th edition DnD campaign right now. You know what the cool thing about 4th edition is? Every class is equally useful in combat. They changed the rogue class from a complete skill monkey to someone who actually provides flanking bonuses and is good at damaging single enemies and weakening them for your party. Which is what I am supporting. Equal usefulness in combat. Not arbitrarily punishing those for maximizing combat potential.

Let's be honest, you can't really say 4th edition DnD is a true RPG ? Come on, it's a paper CRPG (or a paper MMORPG ...)

SurfaceBeneath wrote...
I took a sorceror . But seriously, without any mages you sucked it. But that's not proper balance like you're describing it, that's just one class being given all the tools needed to do everything in the game with all the other classes only able to function partially as well.

In DAO, it's balanced. You can't bring 3 mages + 1 fighter, because you'll be ruined quickly. Mage is required, rogue is needed, fighter is also. That's a party-based RPG. It's exactly what we say

SurfaceBeneath wrote...
Of course, the game is frankly quite easy on anything other than Insanity (and Hardcore in certain situations... when I did vanguard it was on hardcore and I randomly selected Jack to come with me to the Collector ship... that was a tough run). On Insanity thought your group matters and you rely on their abilities to succeed.

And the reason that Jack is weak is because she is useless against any protected enemey and she has a shotgun, the worst weapon for squaddies to use. That's not a problem with biotics, it's a problem with the skills that were given to her. The idea is to have squad mates that have powers that compensate for your class's weakness, which is what I'm saying that Bioware should be striving to achieve in ME3. Make your party choices matter, but don't arbitrarily make them weaker because of some random non-combat ability. Likewise, don't make it necessary to bring along someone because they are the only one who has the skeleton key to unlock the assault rifle of baddassery +5.

And, just a question, don't you think the game is easy just because you don't have to take care of the non-combat ability of your squadmate ? If Tech weren't needed in ME universe, Krogan would rule this world . Is it coherent that everyone play hardcore or insane so they can feel like it's difficult ?

RPG is not combat all the time. It's combat, strategic, skills. If you were Shepard, and could kill 100 Geths without using any of your weapon, just using your companion's skills won't you do it ? 

I don't suggest, as it seems you think, that your companion's main role would be non-combat. I'm just suggesting that we can find different alternatives for each missions, some of them involving firepower (Grunt) and some of them involving intelligence (Tali).

Modifié par Nolenthar, 10 mars 2010 - 03:08 .

[SurfaceBeneath]

Nolenthar wrote...
Let's be honest, you can't really say 4th edition DnD is a true RPG ? Come on, it's a paper CRPG (or a paper MMORPG ...)

As someone who has played 2nd through 4th incarnations of DnD, I can honestly say it is the most balanced and fun version of DnD to be released yet, and also encourages team work and cooperation more than any DnD edition up to this point. People criticize it for its focus on ACTIONACTIONACTION but to be honest, all I ever wanted out of a roleplaying manual was rules to moderate combat. I've never ever used the RPG rules for social interactions and skills straight out of the box. Those things were made to be house ruled.

In DAO, it's balanced. You can't bring 3 mages + 1 fighter, because you'll be ruined quickly. Mage is required, rogue is needed, fighter is also. That's a party-based RPG. It's exactly what we say

I have beaten DAO on Nightmare, I can tell you honestly that there is no stronger team in the game than a mage PC, Morrigan, Wynne, and Alistair/Shale. If I could make Alistair or Shale a mage I would. That is partly due to the straight overpoweredness of Arcane Mages, but point of fact there is very little need for a warrior and NO need for a rogue (seriously, what does a rogue bring over... say, a DW warrior? Slightly more damage when under extremely specific conditions? The ability to lock pick chests that contain junk you will never use? Pass.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
And, just a question, don't you think the game is easy just because you don't have to take care of the non-combat ability of your squadmate ? If Tech weren't needed in ME universe, Krogan would rule this world . Is it coherent that everyone play hardcore or insane so they can feel like it's difficult ?

RPG is not combat all the time. It's combat, strategic, skills. If you were Shepard, and could kill 100 Geths without using any of your weapon, just using your companion's skills won't you do it ? 

I don't suggest, as it seems you think, that your companion's main role would be non-combat. I'm just suggesting that we can find different alternatives for each missions, some of them involving firepower (Grunt) and some of them involving intelligence (Tali).

Like I said, those would be perfect missions for support squad members who assist you from behind the scenes. What I'm saying is I want everyone to be unique, but to be unique where it matters, which is in combat on missions actually helping you. I just don't think having non combat abilities like lockpicking and decryption are especially fun or engaging concepts that are required to be shoehorned in. I want Bioware to get creative, not regress to tired RPG tropes which the OP is all about.

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 10 mars 2010 - 03:44 .

[SurfaceBeneath]

[Terror_K]

I personally hate 4th Edition D&D, which is why my D&D chums and I still use the 2nd Edition ruleset when we play... before the whole thing was oversimplified, made to focus too much on combat and removed too many restrictions/penalties that too easily encourage God characters. I have to say the parallels to Mass Effect are uncanny, and the fact that you prefer ME2 over the original and prefer 4th Edition over the earlier versions speaks volumes to me as to your preferences regarding RPGs. No wonder we're generally on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to these things.



You mention BioWare being creative, which is interesting, since I still can't fathom how people consider oversimplifying and making things less complex and falling back on old shooter mechanics to be "creative" in any way. ME1 was far more creative than ME2, because while it was admittedly broken one has to admit there really isn't another game out there that can easily be compared to it. ME2 on the other hand isn't really unique at all, and falls back on far more standard mechanics than the original one, mostly as alternatives to the binned broken stuff from the first. And yet people praise BioWare for being "creative" or "innovative" or "avoiding cliches" etc. despite this. Weird.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Terror_K wrote...

I personally hate 4th Edition D&D, which is why my D&D chums and I still use the 2nd Edition ruleset when we play... before the whole thing was oversimplified, made to focus too much on combat and removed too many restrictions/penalties that too easily encourage God characters. I have to say the parallels to Mass Effect are uncanny, and the fact that you prefer ME2 over the original and prefer 4th Edition over the earlier versions speaks volumes to me as to your preferences regarding RPGs. No wonder we're generally on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to these things.

Actually I would say you just misread what I said entirely. I prefer 4th edition purely for its combat system.

God characters are more a product of 3rd edition in which any Arcane spellcaster above level 5 quickly overtook any other member of the group and by 15th level it was frankly ridiculous what you could accomplish as one.

4th edition actually fixed that and every class is pretty uncannily balanced now. They each fulfill their role and contribute to the group. It's extremely hard to munchkin through 4th edition rules, especially in comparison to 2nd and 3rd edition (I have no experience with 1st, so I won't comment on that). You have to admit, the rules of second edition also could be exploited quite easily to make some absurdly and comically powerful characters. I find that most people who have a problem with 4th edition actually just haven't looked at it hard enough, because I know that my first impression of 4th edition was also extremely negative. Until I actually played a game of it. The benefits of its very balanced and cooperative focused combat system pretty much overturns any lack of imagination that the older version have. Because, get this, I can actually still use my Dark Sun or Planescape Campaign books for their flavor and imagination but use 4th edition's superior combat rules. PnP RPGs rock like that.

You mention BioWare being creative, which is interesting, since I still can't fathom how people consider oversimplifying and making things less complex and falling back on old shooter mechanics to be "creative" in any way. ME1 was far more creative than ME2, because while it was admittedly broken one has to admit there really isn't another game out there that can easily be compared to it. ME2 on the other hand isn't really unique at all, and falls back on far more standard mechanics than the original one, mostly as alternatives to the binned broken stuff from the first. And yet people praise BioWare for being "creative" or "innovative" or "avoiding cliches" etc. despite this. Weird.

Because you're misrepresenting what I'm saying, perhaps to justify your own stance on the issue. I'm not saying I want the game to be oversimplified. It isn't. Combat in ME2 is vastly more complicated than it was in ME1. It's more engaging and asks more from the player. But I want things to be complicated where they matter, not arbitrarily and superficially. Lockpicking is superficial. It demands you bring different classes to simply pass a check the game throws at you. Requiring a diverse squad to more effectively remove protections from enemies is 10 times more rewarding.

ME1 was creative, but it had problems because Bioware attempted to take the format of RPGs they were familiar with it and transform it into a 3rd person action shooter/rpg. That is quite a transition and not one that they were able to fully take. Many of the elements of their classic RPGs and Shooters simply aren't fully compatiable with each other. You say Mass Effect 2 isn't unique, but there is literally no other game like it on the market. No, Gears of War is COMPLETELY different than Mass Effect 2. Sure the combat was lifted from it on some level, but the level progression, classes, and squad formula of the game turn it into a far different creature. And far more interesting.

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 11 mars 2010 - 08:43 .

[Nolenthar]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...
I have beaten DAO on Nightmare, I can tell you honestly that there is no stronger team in the game than a mage PC, Morrigan, Wynne, and Alistair/Shale. If I could make Alistair or Shale a mage I would. That is partly due to the straight overpoweredness of Arcane Mages, but point of fact there is very little need for a warrior and NO need for a rogue (seriously, what does a rogue bring over... say, a DW warrior? Slightly more damage when under extremely specific conditions? The ability to lock pick chests that contain junk you will never use? Pass.

Ok, no offense for saying so, but you're an Hardcore gamer. You prefer an unbalanced powerful party to a balanced less powerful one. I haven't played with Shale more than 5 minutes because he was way too powerful and unbalanced. I could have, obviously, bring two mages with me while playing a mage PC, but I didn't because it was nonsense. After this, I admit, there is so much mods in DAO it doesn't really mean something "having beaten it in Nightmare", admitting you're playing the PC version. I can remember an unlocking spell for instance (which definitely make the rogue useless).

Whatever, I won't criticize what you like in a game. Each person is different, and if you play this way, who am I to say my way is better ?

SurfaceBeneath wrote...
Like I said, those would be perfect missions for support squad members who assist you from behind the scenes. What I'm saying is I want everyone to be unique, but to be unique where it matters, which is in combat on missions actually helping you. I just don't think having non combat abilities like lockpicking and decryption are especially fun or engaging concepts that are required to be shoehorned in. I want Bioware to get creative, not regress to tired RPG tropes which the OP is all about.

I already agreed with you on this point. Obviously, the problem is that you wouldn't bring these specific characters in your 3-men party because you don't need them. According to what you said above, You've never played with Sten, Zevran, Leliana and Oghren (I might be forgetting one, btw) when you were playing this mage PC. Why ? Quite simple : Sten and Oghren, as two handed weapons character, were weaker than Alistair or Shale. Leliana and Zevran, as rogue, were weaker than a warrior in your opinion. So, it clearly underlines that these characters are useless for you, because their combat ability are not as good as you wish. The skills are the concrete of the RPG. Why is there priest or druid in D&D (for druid, except 4th edition which nukes D&D tradition) ? Healing mostly. Not only, but mostly. Why is there rogues ? lockpicking, trap disabling, trap creation (I won't give you the complete list, you know those games at least as good as I do). Without em, your party will be ripped apart by traps. I can continue listing all classes this way but you have my point. 

You happy with what ME2 is ? For most parts, I'm also, but if my companions are only there to decrease different ennemy defenses (shields, armor, health), even if I forget how ridiculous the armor is managed, I can say it's far from enough and we need more.

I can agree when you say that balancing the game should also be done in combat, and not only non-combat. But I would say ME2 lacks traps, heavy defenses and all those stuff that makes a dungeon interesting to visit.
Way to go Bioware !