1067 réponses à ce sujet

[demongirl420]

EA is what happened http://social.bioware.com/brc/967354

[IoneWanderer101]

 Theres plenty of rpg in there, but some people don't like to fully utilise all of the rpg feature, which it pointless. It has a great story, interesting, if very slightly shallow characters in some cases, and they got rid of rpg elements that many people hated before e.g. the infamous inventory. There is more customization and distinguishable weapons. If you ask me its a sleeker more developed version of the first.

[Vena_86]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Xpheyel wrote...

I have no problem getting more powerful but I want the mooks to keep pace with me (though usually with different/more complex behavior than just having them scale HP). If the enemies aren't a legitimate threat, I get bored.

I don't understand this position at all.  If I build a character well or make good decisions, the game should get easier to reward me.

Imagine if your boss said to you, "Great job today.  As a reward, I'm going to cut your salary to make your life that much more of a struggle."

No challenge means that it becomes boring. Actually I don`t even need to explain this, as this is true for pretty much everything. If something so too easy to pull of then there is no feeling of reward. There only is a feeling of reward when you know that not any hamster could have done the same.
In an RPG the concept of becomming stronger has to be balanced well with an increasing difficulty. Not only your character gains experience but also you as a player. If there is no new challenge, nothing that keeps the game from mechanical repetition then it also becomes boring.
You need to feel that your character becomes considerably stronger, for example by throwing in enemies and threats from the beginning where these were a challange at a later time so the player can see the difference and the satisfaction of beating a once fearsome foe with ease. But at the same time there need to be new dangers and obstacles to overcome, so your character and you as a player grow more.

For example by the end of the first chapter from The Witcher I can kill multiple ghost hounds with ease, which at the beginning killed me several times, even in low numbers. However, at the end I not only face several of the hounds but also a boss monster (the beast) which together with the hounds give me a hard time. While I could manage to play without making much use of alchemy befor that boss fight I had to rethink my strategy. So I used the right potions and the right blade coating and mastered the situation which otherwise would have been almost impossible. Seeing my strategy, my thought in action and actually working is great satisfaction along with the satisfaction of slaying multiple hounds which befor would have ripped me appart.

This is something which far too few gamers and developers for that matter understand these days. Character growth and increasing challenge can be very important for satisfying gameplay. The players just need to learn not to try going with their heads through the wall and blaming the character or developer if it doesnt work but rather use their head to get the idea that there might be a door in the wall.
Btw that also applies to all the "I hate the vertical mountain climbing with the MAKO, so the MAKO sucks" people
well...how about finding a better way instead of just looking at the radar and going straight for the marker, no matter whats in the way?

Modifié par Vena_86, 07 avril 2010 - 10:28 .

[EternalWolfe]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EternalWolfe wrote...

The proper comparison would be "Great job, as a reward, I'm going to promote you(level up).  You'll get paid more(more tools/better rewards from the gameplay), but the work will be harder(increase in difficulty, which you proved you can handle)." 

But who would want that?

I'd much rather have the job get easier instead.  It's not much of a reward if I have to work harder now.

Lazy, are you?  And that's not how it works.  You get promoted and you get more money/benifits.  You work harder to keep it it.  And apparently he wants it that ways, as do myrid other gamers who will tell you strait out they want to play for a challenge - if its not challenging, its boring.

Some people prefer not to get higher level jobs - they just stick to low level, making low level money, because they don't want the extra work.  That's why we have 'casual' as a difficulty - for people who want it all easy.

Anyway, I was only correcting your assumption on what he wanted - that a game remain challenging and fun(in his eyes) as you level.  As you gain more tools(skills, stats, whathaveyou), the enemies you are fighting should be more challenging, requiring better use of these new skills - this was his point.  Not the game should stop rewarding you as you level up(as your comparison suggests).

Edit: also, jobs are bad comparison - people work because they have to(or they choose not to work and live off the goverment - in which case they are scum).  People play games for fun - some of them find challenges to be fun, some of them want to cakewalk everything.

People having their own opinions - when will the nightmare end?

Modifié par EternalWolfe, 08 avril 2010 - 12:20 .

[Amairmeh]

http://social.bioware.com/brc/1529357

[Dudeman315]

EternalWolfe wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EternalWolfe wrote...

The proper comparison would be "Great job, as a reward, I'm going to promote you(level up).  You'll get paid more(more tools/better rewards from the gameplay), but the work will be harder(increase in difficulty, which you proved you can handle)." 

But who would want that?

I'd much rather have the job get easier instead.  It's not much of a reward if I have to work harder now.

Lazy, are you?  And that's not how it works.  You get promoted and you get more money/benifits.  You work harder to keep it it.  And apparently he wants it that ways, as do myrid other gamers who will tell you strait out they want to play for a challenge - if its not challenging, its boring.

Some people prefer not to get higher level jobs - they just stick to low level, making low level money, because they don't want the extra work.  That's why we have 'casual' as a difficulty - for people who want it all easy.

Anyway, I was only correcting your assumption on what he wanted - that a game remain challenging and fun(in his eyes) as you level.  As you gain more tools(skills, stats, whathaveyou), the enemies you are fighting should be more challenging, requiring better use of these new skills - this was his point.  Not the game should stop rewarding you as you level up(as your comparison suggests).

Edit: also, jobs are bad comparison - people work because they have to(or they choose not to work and live off the goverment - in which case they are scum).  People play games for fun - some of them find challenges to be fun, some of them want to cakewalk everything.

People having their own opinions - when will the nightmare end?

Actually it is how it works, higher level job = less work(deligation is wonderful) and higher pay in most fields.  A few years back the CEO of coke continually failed to get the company to preform better and got preformance based raises every year.  Jon & Kate didn't work harder than I did and still got payed more cause they simple have a bunch of kids.  Paris hilton made more an hour as a baby than I do now simple just being alive. 

Hard work =/= Better pay.

Challenge isn't an issue stasis is.  If when you got promoted your cost of living went to directly counter your new income you'd have the everything lvls with you system, there is no net gain just numbers going up. 

Most thinking games get easier the more you play them. Chess, go, and soduku all get easier once you get better at them. Heck monopoly even gets easier as you beat it (not really what I'd call a thinking game though).

[EternalWolfe]

Dudeman315 wrote...

Actually it is how it works, higher level job = less work(deligation is wonderful) and higher pay in most fields.  A few years back the CEO of coke continually failed to get the company to preform better and got preformance based raises every year.  Jon & Kate didn't work harder than I did and still got payed more cause they simple have a bunch of kids.  Paris hilton made more an hour as a baby than I do now simple just being alive. 

Hard work =/= Better pay.

Challenge isn't an issue stasis is.  If when you got promoted your cost of living went to directly counter your new income you'd have the everything lvls with you system, there is no net gain just numbers going up. 

Most thinking games get easier the more you play them. Chess, go, and soduku all get easier once you get better at them. Heck monopoly even gets easier as you beat it (not really what I'd call a thinking game though).

Yeah, like I said, jobs is bad comparison, and it doesn't ever really work right.  Also, most people aren't so high that they can just delegate all their work - gods knows I'm not and I'd have to climb some serious ladders to get there.  You still get more responsability - although I've never seen any of my bosses pay for their mistakes . . . *sigh* jobs suck, one way or another.

But my point is that the poster he was quoteing was talking about the game increasing in difficulty as you level, to challenge you and your new skills/stats/ect - not the game becoming harder for no reason by taking away your rewards.

Edit: Also, chess and go may get 'easier' as you get better, but its only easy when your opponent is not as good as you.  Master player vs new player = no challenge.  Master player vs Master player = challenge.  More or less, there are always exceptions.  Fighting better players is like getting stronger/smarter/ect enemies - some people feel more rewarded by beating something challenging.

Sudoku, I give you - but Sudoku is a simple game - if they want more challenge, they may get harder puzzles(i've seen one that my co-worker does with 25 being the number rather then 9).

Modifié par EternalWolfe, 08 avril 2010 - 01:29 .

[Pocketgb]

Dudeman315 wrote...

Most thinking games get easier the more you play them. Chess, go, and soduku all get easier once you get better at them. Heck monopoly even gets easier as you beat it (not really what I'd call a thinking game though).

And then the opponents enter the playing field.

Personally I don't get much of a kick out of beating completely new players to Brawl. I'd prefer to play against my roomate whenever I can, since he's better than me and I want something to test my abilities.

[Therigan]

ME2 is a good game but I did miss the customization that they had in ME.  Also missed the weapons enjoyed equipping myself with different weapons and armor and all.


social.bioware.com/brc/689521

[Sylvius the Mad]

EternalWolfe wrote...

Lazy, are you?  And that's not how it works.  You get promoted and you get more money/benifits.

And if the money and benefits outweigh the extra work, I accept the promotion.  If not, I refuse the promotion.

This guarantees that I get either an improved situation or the status quo.  Things never just get harder.

But games don't do this.  Games often make things harder with no added reward for me.  Why would I want that?

[MotoSkunkX]

For me both sections of the game were vastly improved, in terms of being an RPG and being a Shooter.



The paragade interrupts were definitely great, and I feel that the characters of your crew, while they could have been expanded on a bit more, were more in-depth and 'real' than in the first game.



The people who keep mentioning how there is 'cover' conveniently located everywhere should remember that in the first game Immunity literally made it impossible to die, even on Insanity. I find conveniently placed indestructible crates/barriers to be far more realistic than immortality and godmode. Once again, an improvement.

[ThePatriot101]

At first when I read threads like this my first thought is always to chastise the person starting them as being naive among a list of other things. But having been lost on the intense debates that have ensued I've decided not to argue for or against the validity of the RPG label for the Mass Effect series. It is what it is (compared to some games which claim to be RPGs but to an even lesser degree than ME).



The Merriam-Webster dictionary lists the term "role-play" as a transitive and intransitive verb in the following:



transitive

1 : to act out the role of

2 : to represent in action



intransitive

: to play a role



Dictionary.com offers the same with more in its definition of "role-play" in the following:



–verb (used with object)

1. to assume the attitudes, actions, and discourse of (another), esp. in a make-believe situation in an effort to understand a differing point of view or social interaction

2. to experiment with or experience (a situation or viewpoint) by playing a role





Now, the more liberal and casual persons approaching RPGs will likely agree that ME and ME2 are true and true RPGs because they satisfy the fundamental component of a game that involves role-play. You assume the role of a character in a fictional setting and run them through the game's setting and story to reach an endgame point.



The more conservative and traditionalists will of course argue the contrary that an RPG requires not only a series of quests to accomplish towards an endgame but also include a stat-based level & combat system, and a large inventory, loot, and customization system - with an added side of free-roaming world. That without these basic mechanics a game cannot be considered an RPG.





As a fact both sides are correct. The point of an RPG is for you to assume the role of a character (however user-customized s/he is) and play through a game setting and story. Of course you need some traditional mechanics such as a leveling system or otherwise any game where you assume the role of a character, be it in first-person shooters or even sports games, could be considered an RPG. But the structure and makeup of an RPG is not so rigid that it has to include a static set amount of features in order to be classified as one.



The truth is if RPGs continued along the traditionalist path from their roots years ago the entire genre would be considered an elitist realm to partake in, where games would be rejected unless they possessed a free-roaming world, stat-based leveling and combat, large inventory and looting, and a customization function as a prerequisite in order to fulfill the niche that is the traditionalist RPG player.



Thankfully, as observed by both independent game developers and large corporate game developers, the RPG market is not made up of only the elitists. They are made up of casual players as well who may not have the time or constitution or desire to endure the long-term commitments to traditional RPGs.



Now I've heard all the arguments I can take from the elitist crowd that ME isn't as good as it is or it isn't an RPG or whatever. I will not argue with you. I will merely point out that, because we live in a world where people have bills to pay and games to make, that ME is not the only role-play game out there in the market - let alone made by Bioware. And we do not live in a world where we live highly coordinated, highly organized lives where opportunities are few and far between. You can play traditional RPGs, forum-based RPGs, or make your own RPGs.



If you don't like ME, that is fine. If you want to voice your displeasure at ME, fine. But show a sense of self-awareness that despite your qualms and screaming that both games have done very well in terms of both ratings, sales, and Bioware's reputation as a developer - even better than the last Final Fantasy game and close to or better than the previous Final Fantasy (which has long been regarded as a standard of the RPG genre). And the discussions have included how the ME series has positively contributed not only to RPGs but to the gaming industry as a whole.

[Kandid001]

Electronic Farts happened.

[catabuca]

I'm not sure what you're saying, ThePatriot101. You say it's fine to have an opinion on the RPG thing in ME, and that it's fine to discuss said opinion, but then you imply that to do so isn't self-aware?



And dear god, it's hardly elitist to have an opinion that differs from yours.

[catabuca]

scyphozoa wrote...

What happened to this being a rpg?

Mass Effect 1 is a Hybrid game. Mass Effect 2 is a Hybrid game. Mass Effect 3 will be a hybrid game.

/thread is over

Internets n00b.

A thread is never over.

[Tirigon]

scyphozoa wrote...

What happened to this being a rpg?

Mass Effect 1 is a Hybrid game. Mass Effect 2 is a Hybrid game. Mass Effect 3 will be a hybrid game.

/thread is over

Tirigon Shephard approves + 64

[Kusy]

[catabuca]

Mr.Kusy wrote...

This is all kinds of win.

[Rinkusu]

ME1 was 50% shooter 50% rpg

ME2 is 80%shooter 20% rpg



I admit that the shooter part in ME1 was lacking and was greatly improved in ME2, however the rpg part in me2 was dumbed down alot. The inventory system was a a pain and needed improvement, instead it was thrown in the trash.



One of the ways a rpg game rewards players is with loot, better weapons, armor, items, skills. ME2 has almost none of it, the research idea is good but i would rather see my weapon change with it since a new weapon is almost nonexistant. In terms of skills you have fewer than in ME1.



ME2 was basically made for rush combat and it was thrown a rpg taste at it.



I do hope ME3 will keep the combat as it is and raise thr RPG part back to 50%.

[baller7345]

Therigan wrote...

ME2 is a good game but I did miss the customization that they had in ME.  Also missed the weapons enjoyed equipping myself with different weapons and armor and all.


social.bioware.com/brc/689521

Why are so many people putting this link in their posts?  Am I missing something.

[Sylvius the Mad]

baller7345 wrote...

Therigan wrote...

ME2 is a good game but I did miss the customization that they had in ME.  Also missed the weapons enjoyed equipping myself with different weapons and armor and all.


social.bioware.com/brc/689521

Why are so many people putting this link in their posts?  Am I missing something.

They're trying to generate Bazaar tokens.

[xDarkicex]

Screw shooters Add more RPG PLEASE

[catabuca]

I'm with the person who wants a return to 50/50.



ME1 was 50% shooter (albeit badly implemented) and 50% RPG (albeit with some annoying inventory issues).

ME2 was (I'm picking these percentages out of thin air based on my feelings, not on any statistic evidence or anything, just so you know) 75% shooter (implemented in a better way than ME1) and 25% RPG (with a 'if it's broke, don't fix it, nuke it and replace it with something entirely different' approach).



I sincerely hope the RPG fans, those who have been, for better or worse, loyal to BW for a long time, are listened to and the RPG is brought back closer to 50% again.

[Daeion]

The problem lies in the fact that a RPG means different things to different people so what one person is looking for in a RPG may not be what the person next to them is looking for. To some a RPG is simply a game where you take on a role and thus every game is a RPG, to others just having a good story makes a RPG, yet still for others a RPG is all about find items and seeing changes in their character as they progress. To Casey Hudson upgrading the Normandy is a RPG mechanic, to a lot of upset people it's not.

Modifié par Daeion, 08 avril 2010 - 10:45 .