1067 réponses à ce sujet

[Darkhour]

TJSolo wrote...

You are not going to fill your Paragon/Renegade in ME2 without using the skills attached to you Mastery.
It was not a gripe it is a fact that the skills of charm/intimidate are still in ME2 just in a more condensed form.
Good thing instead of being optional choices in ME1 they are spoonfed to you in ME2.

I put skills into mastery to increase my damage, health, recharge times, etc. If I get some paragon and renegade points as a bonus so be it. Still beats the **** out of wasting points on two seperate skills to whom I'd have to gimp myself in order to get any benefit from.

I said box but you can interchange that with safe, door, datapad, wall, or whatever skill based object is in any given game.

...right. Because rather or not there are boxes was the meat of my comment.  The fact of the matter is that there are only 2 techs which you can't get until midway to late into the game. Requiring everyone to take Tali everywhere they went in order to have enough cash for upgrades would be utterly retarded and you know it. Do you recommend there be nothing to hack/bypass until the point that Tali or Legion shows up? 

No Kaiden was not equally as combat oriented as Ashley in a firefight.
No the NPCs could not use every weapon with equal efficiency even though they had access.
The ratings was an indicator of where the majority of damage would come from. Would it be guns(combat)  that had a constant output with some spiking. Would it be biotics that were more about control than damage. Would it be tech in that it was a mix of damage and control.
ME2 limited cross power access among the squad but that did not improve usefulness. It made them all generically useful on casual - vet and on HC-Insanity Miranda is an automatic pick thanks to her squad bonuses. After you pick Miranda the other squad mate is decided by if it is a loyalty mission or R-P-S against what will be the most prevalent defenses in that mission.

You're just saying Ashley is soldier; therfore, she is better in a firefight. Yeah, that was the IDEA, per the manual, but it didn't work that way ingame. I found nothing particularly superior about Ashley's combat skills versus Kaidan, Liara, Tali or Garrus. Only Wrex was clearly superior. And there was no noticable difference if I gave Kaidan a pistol or assault rifle. Garrus was no better with a sniper rifle than Tali. They may not have had the special abilities, but the base performance was identical. If, in your opinion, I am wrong. So be it. I stand by what I've said. 

All the loyalty things are mandatory in ME2.
There are games that have missions attached to characters and if they are not brought along react accordingly so after the mission is done. ME1, DAO, and KOTOR have missions like that.
There are also times when a character is mandatory for sake of the story.
The issue is that ME2 makes loyalty missions the story so therefore mandatory for the sake of the story.

They aren't mandatory. But even if they were, having to bring Jacob to JACOB'S MISSION cannot be compared to having to bring Tali to EVERY MISSION.

Intimidate/charm was not pointless it was optional and offered rewards.Some of those rewards like store discounts are there from the use of Paragon/Renegade.

Store discounts? I easily have more than enough money from selling the 5 billion pieces of equipment I've picked up. What is pointless is having a paragon/renegade bar AND a intimidate/charm skill in order to do 1 action.

Bringing a tech was how ME1 handled hacking/bypassing. Tech was a skill in ME1 and that was one of the factors that made it usefull.

And ME2 gave tech type skills a usage. Destroying defense. You know, an actual good reason. But the only full tech is a engineer shep. I wil say that I did not like how only Shepard has a full array of skills.

The inventory system offered a depth to the ME-verse with various manufactuers, stores, and items.

Pfft, depth my ass. It offered loads and loads of crap I didn't need after the first 200 or so items of the same type. How deep is a world where a millionaire can't go to a store and buy/order the armor and weapons he wants. He's reduced to rummaging through boxes, settling for whatever he can find like a homeless bum. Really immersive and full of depth.... riiiight.

It has issues in that there was a flood of crap to handle at any given time. Inventory systems that function just like ME1s system but without the massive drop rate are better such as KOTOR and DAO.
ME2 obliteration of inventory is not an improvment.

It's not a bad thing either. I think Barbie Online is good place to collect outfits and play dress up if that's what you're into. 

[SurfaceBeneath]

Ok, I don't have time to go through this thread and it pretty much has just gone in circles since my last post anyway but...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Oh, is World of Warcraft not an RPG because raids require very precise timing and pvp requires quite proficient reaction time? These are both player skills, not character skills.

Does anyone actually think WoW is an RPG?

I certainly don't.

MMOs are closer to "true" RPGs than any single player game since you're at least allowed to create your own character and play in a shared space with other players, which is how PnP roleplaying games were always intended to be played in the first place.

[AlanC9]

What actually goes on in MMOs doesn't seem to have much in common with any PnP RPG I've ever played. Bio's games are much more like it.

[TJSolo]

Without doing all the quoting.

You are exaggerating the issues of ME1 and wrong on several parts of it.

[TJSolo]

AlanC9 wrote...

What actually goes on in MMOs doesn't seem to have much in common with any PnP RPG I've ever played. Bio's games are much more like it.

Except that in WOWs case it based off its own pnp games.

[TornadoADV]

Just for those uninformed, putting points into your Charm and Intimidate Skills in ME1 did have secondary effects on your Shepard aside from dialogue choices and store discounts/bonuses.

(Specifically the points need in the respective meters to unlock those higher levels of each skill.)

Modifié par TornadoADV, 11 mars 2010 - 05:54 .

[SurfaceBeneath]

AlanC9 wrote...

What actually goes on in MMOs doesn't seem to have much in common with any PnP RPG I've ever played. Bio's games are much more like it.

Really? What PnP game have you played where your DM railroaded you on their plot, you didn't get to interact with any individuals besides some cue cards that your DM gives you, and your party was filled with premade personalities that you could command as you please? That sounds like the ****tiest PnP game I've ever seen.

MMOs actually allow you to interact with players and although the game world itself is quite immutable usually (and I say usually because some MMOs actually do change based on your actions in game) there is a definable social sphere of which your actions actually have influence on. If you actually are on a roleplay server or involved in a roleplay group, it is quite frankly the closest you can get through a virtual medium to the authentic PnP experience.

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 11 mars 2010 - 06:02 .

[JaegerBane]

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

[quote]JaegerBane wrote...

What you're asking for has never been provided by any cRPG. No Company has ever produced a cRPG that gives you total control over what you say. [/quote]
I'm not asking for that.  Why does anyone ever think I'm asking for that?

I'm asking for dialogue options where the only explicit content is visible to me before I choose it.  That's all.

Every BioWare game except for Mass Effect has given me that.
[/quote]

Everyone thinks you're asking for that because that is what you're writing in your posts. TJSolo makes a good point in that you see written text as kosher because it can be 'interpreted', which, frankly, is absolute nonsense. You're drawing an arbitrary line between interpreting text and speech. That's up to you, but you can't realistically expect anyone - including the game devs - to take this kind of inane rubbish seriously.

[quote]
[quote]TJSolo wrote...

What is holding you back from interpreting a spoken line to fit?[/quote]
Because the game makes that content explicit.  I can't just rewrite the game without possibly contradicting future events.

If that content is implicit, then the game won't assume it's true one way or the other.  If Shepard actually says something I don't expect, then the game might then react to that, with characters referring back to Shepard's utterance of that line.  A line I didn't want Shepard to say.  If I just retcon that line away, that doesn't change that the game still thinks it happened.

But if the game doesn't add in lines that I didn't choose, then the game won't react to that non-existent content.

This isn't complicated.[/quote]
[/quote]

*sigh*

You're right, this isn't complicated.

This is the issue. You've got your own bizarre concept of what constitutes 'implicit' and 'explicit' lines. Very few people, including the majority of the audience, the game devs, and the reviewers couldn't give a **** about this issue.

Is it likely it's going to get changed, given no-one cares? And the fact that spelling out whole lines runs squarely counter to the system in use that is generally well-liked?

No. Hell Sylvius, I've never even seen anyone else even bringing this bizarre point up.

[Bigdoser]

Yana Montana wrote...

Combat was improved in ME2-hurray! But now I have to spend 90% of my game hiding behind crates playing a VANGUARD-tedious.
New characters-hurray! One freaking dialgue and then they refuse to talk to my desperate Shep-lame.
New story twists-hurray! Wait, have we actually had any?-uber-lame.
I WANT STORY AND ROLE-PLAYING NOT ANOTHER BIG GUN DLC, BioWare!

if your hiding behind crates as a vanguard most of the time you are doing it wrong.

Guys stop beating a dead horse no matter what bioware does they cant please everyone.

[Fluffeh Kitteh]

Sadly there will always be purists who are so far down their rose-tinted perceptions of their ideal game that nothing can ever please them.

[Murmillos]

Sylvius the Mad (and Gatt9 if he is still lurking), you can not cut such hard lines into the ground that constitutes what makes an computer game a RPG.

RPG's are not a make up single fact elements, but the whole general aspect of the game over all. Yes cRPG are always going to be more limited in design/scope/freedom then a PnPRPG. But you have to look within those limitations to see if the game allows and gives you a strong believable choice into play a role.

Does the game allow you to customize your character to include such aspects as: sex, race, face, class, talents?

Does the game allow you to further flavor your character to include equitable items, clothing, loot, food - anything seen as "extra" that doesn't dictate your character, but allows you to further create an attachment to the "avatar" that represents you.

Does the game allow you to customize your character in personality, such as: good or evil, smart or dumb, charismatic or repulsive, loner or leader (or anything in between)? The more options the game allows you to identify with your character, the more of an RPG it is.

That's why RPG's don't have a single hard aspect that clearly states what makes it an RPG. Its the sum of the parts. You have to measure each aspect of the game to determine the over all goal of the game. If you state, "a game has to do this, can't allow you to do that", then you further pigeon-hole the genre into stagnation.

The better the game allows you to customize and role play your character, even within the hard limits that cRPG's are often limited too, then the better the game as an PRG is.

Modifié par Murmillos, 11 mars 2010 - 07:48 .

[Fluffeh Kitteh]

Technically "RPG" is just a genre term. If a game needs to have sufficient depth, etc in order to earn its genre status, the market would have tons of genre-less games which have "no genre" purely by virtue of not meeting a bunch of trivial standards ran from a checklist.

[JaegerBane]

Murmillos wrote...

Sylvius the Mad (and Gatt9 if he is still lurking), you can not cut such hard lines into the ground that constitutes what makes an computer game a RPG.

Murmillos, I beg to differ here. They can cut such hard lines if they so wish. They have the right to their opinion.

Where I draw the line is when they start telling other people, the industry, the rest fo the world, that their, as fluffeh called it, 'trivial checklist' is somehow more valid or more important than anyone else. PArticularly when the changes they suggest would represent a step backward and would conflict with what has already been put forward.

To be honest I find it arrogant to an almost comical degree that they take it upon themselves to drone on with their purist sermons based on nothing more than the fact that this is what they think. These are people who've never been involved with the development of the modern cRPG. These are people who've never had to translate a PnP system into a functional computer game system wholesale. It always amazes me why the RPG genre is unique in the sense that they always have this crowd who whinge and moan the second changes get made. Other genres never seem to have to deal with it. When Quake introduced true 3d polygonal environments, did we have a whole squad of Doom fanboys yakking on about how FPS had become dumbed down? Gah.

/rant.

[FlintlockJazz]

Christ, not this **** again? How many times does it need to be debated?



*Executes OP*

[Meistr_Chef]

JaegerBane wrote...

Murmillos wrote...

Sylvius the Mad (and Gatt9 if he is still lurking), you can not cut such hard lines into the ground that constitutes what makes an computer game a RPG.

Murmillos, I beg to differ here. They can cut such hard lines if they so wish. They have the right to their opinion.

Where I draw the line is when they start telling other people, the industry, the rest fo the world, that their, as fluffeh called it, 'trivial checklist' is somehow more valid or more important than anyone else. PArticularly when the changes they suggest would represent a step backward and would conflict with what has already been put forward.

To be honest I find it arrogant to an almost comical degree that they take it upon themselves to drone on with their purist sermons based on nothing more than the fact that this is what they think. These are people who've never been involved with the development of the modern cRPG. These are people who've never had to translate a PnP system into a functional computer game system wholesale. It always amazes me why the RPG genre is unique in the sense that they always have this crowd who whinge and moan the second changes get made. Other genres never seem to have to deal with it. When Quake introduced true 3d polygonal environments, did we have a whole squad of Doom fanboys yakking on about how FPS had become dumbed down? Gah.

/rant.

Um, lol?

But seriously, are you saying that attempting a hybrid RPG beast is a bad thing? What Bioware is attempting here is unique you gotta admit. I personally cannot stand a game company that churns out game after game after game using the same old game mechanics over a decade. This is why I tire of id software's games. I tire of stagnation.

[Murmillos]

JaegerBane wrote...

Murmillos wrote...

Sylvius the Mad (and Gatt9 if he is still lurking), you can not cut such hard lines into the ground that constitutes what makes an computer game a RPG.

Murmillos, I beg to differ here. They can cut such hard lines if they so wish. They have the right to their opinion.

Where I draw the line is when they start telling other people, the industry, the rest fo the world, that their, as fluffeh called it, 'trivial checklist' is somehow more valid or more important than anyone else. PArticularly when the changes they suggest would represent a step backward and would conflict with what has already been put forward.

To be honest I find it arrogant to an almost comical degree that they take it upon themselves to drone on with their purist sermons based on nothing more than the fact that this is what they think. These are people who've never been involved with the development of the modern cRPG. These are people who've never had to translate a PnP system into a functional computer game system wholesale. It always amazes me why the RPG genre is unique in the sense that they always have this crowd who whinge and moan the second changes get made. Other genres never seem to have to deal with it. When Quake introduced true 3d polygonal environments, did we have a whole squad of Doom fanboys yakking on about how FPS had become dumbed down? Gah.

/rant.

Maybe I should have said; "You should not..." As in.. go ahead if you want.. but doing so limits your ability to let the genre to grow and expand in introducing new ideas and concepts. Sure there still needs to be some grounding fixtures, but not all aspects must be adhered down to the letter or its not an RPG mentality is not the right way to think/demand about things.

[Murmillos]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

Christ, not this **** again? How many times does it need to be debated?

*Executes OP*

If you don't like these threads, don't partake in them. I explicitly stay out of Tali threads - I don't go in there bashing all of them for having secret desires in wanting to bang their little sister while she is wearing a hockey mask *cough* really "liking" the character *cough* just because I don't like said treads.

Modifié par Murmillos, 11 mars 2010 - 11:08 .

[FlintlockJazz]

Murmillos wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...

Christ, not this **** again? How many times does it need to be debated?

*Executes OP*

If you don't like these threads, don't partake in them. I explicitly stay out of Tali threads - I don't go in there bashing all of them for having secret desires in wanting to bang their little sister while she is wearing a hockey mask *cough* really "liking" the character *cough* just because I don't like said treads.

*Finds Murmillos guilty of consorting to pervert the course of Jazz Justice and executes him*

[Terror_K]

The definition of an RPG was never a problem even as little as 5-6 years ago. It's only been in the latter half of the last decade when more genres have blended and blurred that it's become a problem, when younger and more modern "gamers" think anything with a story, choices and consequences and even simply playing a role constitutes an RPG. Too many take the name of the term too literally, and now we have people calling games "RPGs" that aren't and have never been officially considered as such. Heavy Rain, for instance, is not an RPG, but adheres to so many peoples' own definition these days just because it has the things they like or they commonly see in many RPGs.

[Sir Caradoc]

Shavon wrote...

Mass Effect 1 was rpg-lite, but that was
fine with me, the story was awesome, Shepard was very customizable, it
became a unique game per person who played.  Maybe a little too light,
but still one of my favorite games of all time.  Mass Effect 2, amazing
combat (imo), a decent story, despite certain characters getting the
shaft, but it's no longer what Biwoare does best: an rpg.

So,
Bioware, what happened?  We're getting guns for dlcs?  Are we going to
get any story-driven stuff, similar to Bring Down the Sky?  Or the
excellent dlc's for Dragon Age?  I know a game company can put out more
than one type of genre, but it seems like Bioware is trying to cross
genres at the expense of the game.  

Ok, discuss, flame I don't
care, I just want the rpg stuff back.  [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/angry.png[/smilie]

You are not alone.

I haven't still bought me2 as I'm waiting for the
price to drop. I enjoyed mass effact 1 a lot mainly because of the
fresh scifi setting and epic storyline. Character progression was
somewhat rewarding, but  the whole inventory was a big mess and at the
end of day player's twitch skill mattered more than his character build.
It saddening because with a combat system similar to Dragon age the
first mass effect could have been an instant classic, proper inventory,
good strategic combat, better customization of your party etc would
added so much depth.The whole third person action combat system felt so
akward.

Me2 seems to offer more the same. I don't doubt that
storytelling will once again  blow my mind, and party interaction is
good old bioware style, but combat and other gameplay mechanics have
been scaled down towards action crowd. Its alright i quess if you love
action games, but I love classic rpg gameplay. I'm not saying that I
wouldn't play action games, its just that i don't buy them with full
price and they aren't on my top  priority list. Moreoever judging by the
various gameplay videos combat feels still somewhat akward and quite
predictable even though controls have been improved. But it has also
lost quite much depth at the same.

Modifié par Sir Caradoc, 11 mars 2010 - 11:22 .

[AOPotter]

JaegerBane wrote...

*sigh* 

You're right, this isn't complicated.

This is the issue. You've got your own bizarre concept of what constitutes 'implicit' and 'explicit' lines. Very few people, including the majority of the audience, the game devs, and the reviewers couldn't give a **** about this issue.

Is it likely it's going to get changed, given no-one cares? And the fact that spelling out whole lines runs squarely counter to the system in use that is generally well-liked?

No. Hell Sylvius, I've never even seen anyone else even bringing this bizarre point up.

I guess you just trying to misunderstand him on purpose. Which is an easy thing to do on the internets.

I will give you an example of what he means: There is a certain loyalty mission where you can choose the line "I don't want you on my team". Now a player choosing that line would most likely feel that he or she indeed does not want that ****** on their team. But the mission ends with said ****** still being in the team, on the ship etc. You selected a certain text in hopes of a certain outcome and the exact opposite happened.  This illustrates two problems with Mass Effect 2: 
a) that you have quite often no way of knowing what the line that you just selected actually means and does
that the game gives you no choice at all - I want to leave that ****** behind and still he is on my ship, I want the AI to be turned of and can not etc.

Some people here are hoping this will get better in ME3 - but I really doubt it. One thing cited in this thread was the Rachni-message, But if a decision made in ME 1 really had a profound impact on ME3 (makes the game easier, bigger, adds more content etc.) Bioware would be stoned on these forums (even worse than in this thread) because of  forcing people new to the game into buying and playing ME1 to get the whole ME3-experience. I can already see the cries of "That happens when you work with EA!" and "Greed is bad!" on these very pages. So the best we can hope for is what we got in ME2: Yes you can be a Spectre again, but it does not mean anything. So yes the rachni will help you, but you will get an email of what they did and not actually take part in it. 

Best we can hope for is a new line of casual clothing for Shepard: "I saved the council and all I got is this lousy t-shirt"

[FlintlockJazz]

Sir Caradoc wrote...

Shavon wrote...

Mass Effect 1 was rpg-lite, but that was
fine with me, the story was awesome, Shepard was very customizable, it
became a unique game per person who played.  Maybe a little too light,
but still one of my favorite games of all time.  Mass Effect 2, amazing
combat (imo), a decent story, despite certain characters getting the
shaft, but it's no longer what Biwoare does best: an rpg.

So,
Bioware, what happened?  We're getting guns for dlcs?  Are we going to
get any story-driven stuff, similar to Bring Down the Sky?  Or the
excellent dlc's for Dragon Age?  I know a game company can put out more
than one type of genre, but it seems like Bioware is trying to cross
genres at the expense of the game.  

Ok, discuss, flame I don't
care, I just want the rpg stuff back.  [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/angry.png[/smilie]

You
are not alone.

I haven't still bought me2 as I'm waiting for the
price to drop. I enjoyed mass effact 1 a lot mainly because of the
fresh scifi setting and epic storyline. Character progression was
somewhat rewarding, but  the whole inventory was a big mess and at the
end of day player's twitch skill mattered more than his character build.
It saddening because with a combat system similar to Dragon age the
first mass effect could have been an instant classic, proper inventory,
good strategic combat, better customization of your party etc would
added so much depth.The whole third person action combat system felt so
akward.

Me2 seems to offer more the same. I don't doubt that
storytelling will once again  blow my mind, and party interaction is
good old bioware style, but combat and other gameplay mechanics have
been scaled down towards action crowd. Its alright i quess if you love
action games, but I love classic rpg gameplay. I'm not saying that I
wouldn't play action games, its just that i don't buy them with full
price and they aren't on my top  priority list. Moreoever judging by the
various gameplay videos combat feels still somewhat akward and quite
predictable even though controls have been improved. But it has also
lost quite much depth at the same.

Have you actually tried the game?

[Murmillos]

AOPotter wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...

*sigh* 

You're right, this isn't complicated.

This is the issue. You've got your own bizarre concept of what constitutes 'implicit' and 'explicit' lines. Very few people, including the majority of the audience, the game devs, and the reviewers couldn't give a **** about this issue.

Is it likely it's going to get changed, given no-one cares? And the fact that spelling out whole lines runs squarely counter to the system in use that is generally well-liked?

No. Hell Sylvius, I've never even seen anyone else even bringing this bizarre point up.

I guess you just trying to misunderstand him on purpose. Which is an easy thing to do on the internets.

I will give you an example of what he means: There is a certain loyalty mission where you can choose the line "I don't want you on my team". Now a player choosing that line would most likely feel that he or she indeed does not want that ****** on their team. But the mission ends with said ****** still being in the team, on the ship etc. You selected a certain text in hopes of a certain outcome and the exact opposite happened.  This illustrates two problems with Mass Effect 2: 
a) that you have quite often no way of knowing what the line that you just selected actually means and does
that the game gives you no choice at all - I want to leave that ****** behind and still he is on my ship, I want the AI to be turned of and can not etc.

What you are stating is different then what the argument is.

If the line choice is "I don't want you on my team" and Shepard says "I don't think you what it takes to handle what I'm going after." then in essence, the line what you said is true the choice given.  Regardless of what happens after that, your line was true to what you picked.
If the line choice is "I don't want you on me team" and Shepard says "I'm not asking you to join us, but I'm not going out of my way to ask you to join." Then the line and choice do not match.  That is what the above argument is about. That choice and dialog do not match.

What Shepard says, to what really then is the outcome, is completely different - and if you agree to the writing/script is another subject all together.   You can tell the cop that you don't want the ticket, but he is the one whom decides to give you the ticket or not.

[FlintlockJazz]

Terror_K wrote...

The definition of an RPG was never a problem even as little as 5-6 years ago. It's only been in the latter half of the last decade when more genres have blended and blurred that it's become a problem, when younger and more modern "gamers" think anything with a story, choices and consequences and even simply playing a role constitutes an RPG. Too many take the name of the term too literally, and now we have people calling games "RPGs" that aren't and have never been officially considered as such. Heavy Rain, for instance, is not an RPG, but adheres to so many peoples' own definition these days just because it has the things they like or they commonly see in many RPGs.

Actually, its the other way around.  Many people who know of and played cRPGs from the old days are now seeing the fruition what was intended all along: the realisation of tabletop RPG in a computer environment.  The people who are complaining are those who grew up only knowing the Final Fantasies and World of Warcraft games while never bothering with the lore or are the tabletop players commonly refered to as rollplayers who believe that its the stats that define the genre and the requirement to have a cumbersone inventory is all that is needed. 

RPG has always covered a wide range of gamestyles, hell the difference between WRPGs and JRPGs attest to this.  What really needs to be done to solve this problem is the definition and use of the sub-genres in RPGs, to avoid crying by those wanting a level grinding game.

Modifié par FlintlockJazz, 11 mars 2010 - 11:50 .

[SurfaceBeneath]

FlintlockJazz wrote...
The people who are complaining are those who grew up on Final Fantasies and World of Warcraft or are the tabletop players commonly refered to as rollplayers who believe that its the stats that define the genre and the requirement to have a cumbersone inventory is all that is needed. 

Hey man, I've done more roleplaying in World of Warcraft than I've done in any other video game. I do think that no kind of game comes closer to the authentic PnP experience than MMOs.