874 réponses à ce sujet

[Jebel Krong]

Murmillos wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

scyphozoa wrote...

the bars look good and make it feel more rpgy. i can dig it

adding a few bars makes it an rpg now? this is exactly what i'm arguing against: the bars mean nothing, they could say anything, because all that info is still in the game as it stands now, only terror_k put a picture and bar-chart on the equipment screen it suddenly becomes something else?!

You fail at reading and comprehension.

really? please enlighten me, oh facetious one...

[Murmillos]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Murmillos wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

scyphozoa wrote...

the bars look good and make it feel more rpgy. i can dig it

adding a few bars makes it an rpg now? this is exactly what i'm arguing against: the bars mean nothing, they could say anything, because all that info is still in the game as it stands now, only terror_k put a picture and bar-chart on the equipment screen it suddenly becomes something else?!

You fail at reading and comprehension.

really? please enlighten me, oh facetious one...

He said it makes it feel more RPGy.. not "there that makes it an RPG", but that it only gives it more of an PRG feeling.

Its like somebody adding a spoiler to a honda civic and somebody goes, "nice, that gives it a more sporty look" with you yelling off in the background "BUT ITS NOT A SPORTS CAR!!!"..

Percieved perception of what something is or could be, is very powerful in how people determine how item A is better then item B.  Often it is wrong, but its something that happens all the time, every day.

[Jebel Krong]

Murmillos wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

Murmillos wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

scyphozoa wrote...

the bars look good and make it feel more rpgy. i can dig it

adding a few bars makes it an rpg now? this is exactly what i'm arguing against: the bars mean nothing, they could say anything, because all that info is still in the game as it stands now, only terror_k put a picture and bar-chart on the equipment screen it suddenly becomes something else?!

You fail at reading and comprehension.

really? please enlighten me, oh facetious one...

He said it makes it feel more RPGy.. not "there that makes it an RPG", but that it only gives it more of an PRG feeling.

Its like somebody adding a spoiler to a honda civic and somebody goes, "nice, that gives it a more sporty look" with you yelling off in the background "BUT ITS NOT A SPORTS CAR!!!"..

Percieved perception of what something is or could be, is very powerful in how people determine how item A is better then item B.  Often it is wrong, but its something that happens all the time, every day.

fine but you analogy fails because, to use it: there is already a spoiler on the car. all he has done is made it look slightly different!

[Terror_K]

Jebel Krong wrote...

scyphozoa wrote...

the bars look good and make it feel more rpgy. i can dig it

adding a few bars makes it an rpg now? this is exactly what i'm arguing against: the bars mean nothing, they could say anything, because all that info is still in the game as it stands now, only terror_k put a picture and bar-chart on the equipment screen it suddenly becomes something else?!

Where in the game is it now? Show me a screenshot that tells us how much damage and shield/barrier/armour penetration the guns in the game do. It's no more "in the game as it stands now" as the damage of the guns of Unreal Tournament are in that game. Sure, people have found out the guns various stats going into the code, and they have hidden values as part of said game, but they're not up there on screen for the player to look at and compare; all there is is a vague description that says "yeah... these guns are kinda good at x, but not so good at y" which is pretty shallow. I'd have a fit if I were playing Dragon Age and all the swords I was coming across said on them was "this sword is kind of good at cutting darkspawn, but not so good at cutting undead" and that was all I had to go on to compare to the sword I already had. 

[Murmillos]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Murmillos wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

Murmillos wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

scyphozoa wrote...

the bars look good and make it feel more rpgy. i can dig it

adding a few bars makes it an rpg now? this is exactly what i'm arguing against: the bars mean nothing, they could say anything, because all that info is still in the game as it stands now, only terror_k put a picture and bar-chart on the equipment screen it suddenly becomes something else?!

You fail at reading and comprehension.

really? please enlighten me, oh facetious one...

He said it makes it feel more RPGy.. not "there that makes it an RPG", but that it only gives it more of an PRG feeling.

Its like somebody adding a spoiler to a honda civic and somebody goes, "nice, that gives it a more sporty look" with you yelling off in the background "BUT ITS NOT A SPORTS CAR!!!"..

Percieved perception of what something is or could be, is very powerful in how people determine how item A is better then item B.  Often it is wrong, but its something that happens all the time, every day.

fine but you analogy fails because, to use it: there is already a spoiler on the car. all he has done is made it look slightly different!

No he hasn't; where are the bars in game then?

Oh wait.. there are none, Terror_K added them. So he added the spoiler - he added something to which nothing existed before.

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

scyphozoa wrote...

the bars look good and make it feel more rpgy. i can dig it

adding a few bars makes it an rpg now? this is exactly what i'm arguing against: the bars mean nothing, they could say anything, because all that info is still in the game as it stands now, only terror_k put a picture and bar-chart on the equipment screen it suddenly becomes something else?!

Where in the game is it now? Show me a screenshot that tells us how much damage and shield/barrier/armour penetration the guns in the game do. It's no more "in the game as it stands now" as the damage of the guns of Unreal Tournament are in that game. Sure, people have found out the guns various stats going into the code, and they have hidden values as part of said game, but they're not up there on screen for the player to look at and compare; all there is is a vague description that says "yeah... these guns are kinda good at x, but not so good at y" which is pretty shallow. I'd have a fit if I were playing Dragon Age and all the swords I was coming across said on them was "this sword is kind of good at cutting darkspawn, but not so good at cutting undead" and that was all I had to go on to compare to the sword I already had. 

can't say i have ever looked, but the gun descriptions are detailed enough to tell you what the guns do damge to, and well/not so well. you then have the upgrades that do tell you exactly what percentage they upgrade damage/effect by etc. as you say you can also look at the code, and some of the stats have been posted here and in other places (i think the game-guide does, but again i haven't read it too closely as i didn't use it).

if you wanted detailed dps figures on-screen then really you'd only need damage (with extra colour for modifiers), rate of fire, clip size/cooldown time.

murmillos - whether they state damage and modifiers explicity to the point, percentage or otherwise you only have to play the game to see the effects - all the information is right there on-screen as soon as you go into combat, and the game introduces the different enemies gradually so you can work out very quickly what's what in any case. these aren't isolated systems that function on their own...

[Murmillos]

Massamies wrote...

However, complexity doesn't always make game more challenging. Due to gear and skill progression, ME1 went from easy from start to stupid easy with all perma chain cc, immunity spam, and spectre gear, hitting in. ME1 might be more complex, but ME2 is more challenging by a lightyear.

This has to do with the balance of the game overall, but not by just the loot.  You could make ME2 just as stupid easy if it had Spectre grade weapons and N7 armor set pieces that made me invincible to damage.

Loot is the aspect of collecting items and equipping your character with said items, and the amount of "grind" you have to put into collecting, sorting, determining whats better, equipment and junking what you don't want.  Balance can be determined by the loot obtained, but balance isn't determined by loot or the lack of loot alone.

Modifié par Murmillos, 16 mars 2010 - 01:21 .

[TJSolo]

scyphozoa wrote...

hilarious that people flipped out over rpgy. yeah, it does make it like an rpg because rpgs are filled with a lot of arbitrary d20 numbers and dice rolls.

Again...really.
I don't see where the bars in the pic add in a d20 roll.
It is just a visual representation of the stats. Something that even without visual representation stilll exist in the game and rule over how the guns function.

[rastakore]

Catsith wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Here's a mock-up I made of the basic thing I would have liked to have seen for ME2 and would like to see for ME3:-

Please consider something like this for ME3, Christina. All the great shooters have stat screens like that. You can easily see how powerful a weapon is, compare it to currently equipped, etc. It's nice to have weapons that feel different, but we want to see the numbers too, not just a line that reads "this gun is good against shields" in the description window.
The above example is a perfect mix of interfaces from ME1 and ME2, both sleek and informative. Keep something like that, multiply the arsenal, have upgrades shown directly on the weapons instead of a separate screen, and I think it'll be perfect.

I agree. Think about it this is a great system that has been prove to work well in both shooters and rpgs, even MW2 has weapon stats and upgrades! Does this mean it is more a RPG than ME2, of course not. It just means it allows more options, variety and costumization to the way we want to play the game. The lack of weapon stats and costumization in ME2 doesn't make it less of an rpg, but it removes an element that gives the players more felixibility.

[TJSolo]

scyphozoa wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

scyphozoa wrote...

hilarious that people flipped out over rpgy. yeah, it does make it like an rpg because rpgs are filled with a lot of arbitrary d20 numbers and dice rolls.

Again...really.
I don't see where the bars in the pic add in a d20 roll.
It is just a visual representation of the stats. Something that even without visual representation stilll exist in the game and rule over how the guns function.

d20 rolls were just an example of number generating that is common in "traditional" rpgs. i'll be blunt, i have no love for the "traditional" rpg mold. not because i dislike it, but because i believe it is an outdated game mechanic. it made sense to make turn based d&d games on 8bit and 16bit systems. i personally love BG and KOTOR and JE and ME1 for their experiences as games. Not because they fit any traditional RPG mold or standard, but because their stories are compelling. Personally I find the gameplay of KOTOR and ME1 both pale in comparison to JE SE. I love the twitch based combat and I love a good story.

As for bars being representative of stats that already exist. yes, that is certainly the case, stats for guns already do exist and there are no graphical bars in game. If the bars give people a better understanding of variables and players can adjust and tweak their settings, the experience would feel more customized and hence, more "rpgy"

ME1s gameplay is like Borderlands, FO3 and other action based RPGs that have guns but don't use the GoW cover system.
Turn based combat isn't outdated it is just one option to how combat can be implemented.
I am not diving around for all RPGs to bring up examples all I can think of right now are Lost Odyssey and Tales of Vesperia. Both were good RPGs for me but one used turn based mechanics and the other real-time.
Hopefully there will still be some good turn based games as that mechanic offers its own style of stradegy.

Your "rpgy" statement made sense to me.

[Jebel Krong]

turn-based games developed primarily because the technology wasn't there to present real-time combat in the fashion desired, it is a relic from a bygone era... games of the future won't even conform to current "class standards" of rpg/shooter/etc as they become more complex and feature-rich.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 16 mars 2010 - 03:52 .

[Murmillos]

Jebel Krong wrote...

turn-based games developed primarily because the technology wasn't there to present real-time combat in the fashion desired, it is a relic from a bygone era... games of the future won't even conform to current "class standards" of rpg/shooter/etc as they become more complex and feature-rich.

Not really.. technology as always been there to present real-time combat; its just that due to the massive popularity of PnPRPG, such as D&D, turned based combat best mimicked the PnP. You roll, they roll, you roll, they roll..  Thats how PnP did it.. thats how may of the cRPG clones of the PnP system did it.  

But there were also plenty of cRPGs that were real time also - but they never followed a D20 system at all.

[WillieStyle]

In the off chance that Bioware is considering returning to an "loot grinding" inventory system or a "hybrid" regenerating ammo system:

I'd like to point out that the people making such suggestions also believe that turn-based combat isn't obsolete.

[baller7345]

Terror_K wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

this thread is a great example of people stuck with certain preconceptions of what they think an rpg should be and features it *should* contain by default, rather than accepting (ME2) for the game it actually is.

A shallow one?

That is your opinion.  Not everyone feels mass effect 2 is a shallow experience just the same that not everyone feels mass effect 1 was better than Mass Effect 2.  He has a good point in that everyone wants to determine what should be in a RPG but the thing is you can't decide that because the genre in itself is very vague as to what it is.  Just because something doesn't fit the definition you laid out for it doesn't mean it isn't successful or that it isn't an improvement. It simply isn't an improvement for you.  It all comes down to opinion.

[Lvl20DM]

It looks like they are planning on implementing more RPG features into the next game. This makes sense - they basically started over with ME 2 (as shown in the slides). The concerns cited by Norman in her presentation should be a good sign for those that felt that too few RPG features were included in ME 2.

For ME 3, I like the idea of "loot" being more like it is in ME 2, though actually finding more interesting upgrades would be nice. Finding suits of armor or pieces (other than on vendors) would also make sense. Picking over corpses to the degree you do in some RPG's just doesn't fit with the setting, though.

Making the classes more customizable would be nice. They did a good job of differentiating the classes, but two Engineers tend to play pretty similar to one another. Adding in Specializations like in Dragon age, skill/power trees and that kind of thing would be a good move, I think. While I liked the class power, it seemed like everybody would max that one out. It gave lots of good, static bonuses. In ME 3, they could allow you to make two Engineers as different as a two warriors can be in a game like Dragon Age. As in, some powers would only be available to certain "builds" of those classes. It would be harder to balance, but at this point they don't need to worry about building the combat system and can simply focus on adding more complexity to the game.

The class skill in ME 2 kind of ties into my second point. It is very good, and I imagine that most players max that one out. Maybe some of those benefits (increased health, weapon damage, and so on) should automatically increase as you level.

Modifié par Lvl20DM, 16 mars 2010 - 04:35 .

[Murmillos]

WillieStyle wrote...

In the off chance that Bioware is considering returning to an "loot grinding" inventory system or a "hybrid" regenerating ammo system:
I'd like to point out that the people making such suggestions also believe that turn-based combat isn't obsolete.

WE DO NOT WANT A LOOT GRINDING INVENTORY SYSTEM.. WE DO NOT WANT BIOWARE TO GO BACK TO A LOOT GRINDING INVENTORY SYSTEM..

why can't you understand this?

Modifié par Murmillos, 16 mars 2010 - 04:43 .

[baller7345]

I honestly think a lot of this could have been averted if they would have just made the menus reflect what various upgrades were doing to the various weapons. If they would have added the stat bars and showed players what improved when you purchased an upgrade I figure a good deal of the complaining would be diverted. Of course there will always be unhappy people but like the mockup that is up here shows that the inclusion of stat bars can change the preception of people when they play a game that doesn't have them so it pulls them away from knowing what the upgrades are actually accomplishing thus diminishing the feeling of loot. The systems are there they are just hidden from the player which annoys a few people.



Not sure if the second to last sentence makes sense but hey no sleep will do that too you.

[JKoopman]

Fluffeh Kitteh wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

this thread is a great example of people stuck with certain preconceptions of what they think an rpg should be and features it *should* contain by default, rather than accepting (ME2) for the game it actually is.

A shallow one?

Perceived depth of gameplay is a highly subjective matter.

Plus I still stand by what I said earlier. Adding a loot system and inventory won't make this game any less shallow. What could you possibly do? Browse through your hoard of stuff while hiding behind a crate to make the combat system suddenly seem much more dynamic and exciting? or perhaps rearrange your items in the inventory in-between scanning planets? I mean, it's not like a huge chunk of the game's quality hinges on the existence or lack thereof of shiny items to pick up on the ground, unless said shiny items actually have non-superficial significance.

Inventory leads to customization which leads to depth. Depth is what we're after. Without depth, Mass Effect isn't an RPG; it's just a story-driven action game.

[incinerator950]

Murmillos wrote...

WillieStyle wrote...

In the off chance that Bioware is considering returning to an "loot grinding" inventory system or a "hybrid" regenerating ammo system:
I'd like to point out that the people making such suggestions also believe that turn-based combat isn't obsolete.

WE DO NOT WANT A LOOT GRINDING INVENTORY SYSTEM.. WE DO NOT WANT BIOWARE TO GO BACK TO A LOOT GRINDING INVENTORY SYSTEM..

why can't you understand this?

Obsolete or not, it's refreshing when games like this do something else.  That being said, I've only beaten KOTOR 1/2, ME 1 and 2 only around 4-6 times each, where as games like Morrowind and Oblivion I've beaten over 14 times each, and games like Champions ON or RtA I've beaten 10 times over.  

It's people's playstyle, if you don't like what you have, go return it, and get a new game, or if you pirated it, then don't complain because you don't have any right to complain about something you got for free.

[JKoopman]

WillieStyle wrote...

In the off chance that Bioware is considering returning to an "loot grinding" inventory system or a "hybrid" regenerating ammo system:
I'd like to point out that the people making such suggestions also believe that turn-based combat isn't obsolete.

That's a somehwhat pompous statement to make. Actually, scratch that "somewhat." That's a very pompous statement to make.

Turn-based combat is no more "obsolete" than are RTS games or platformers. It's a gameplay style, nothing more. Just because you happen not to like it doesn't make it some antiquated relic from the past. Do I think ME3 would be better with turn-based combat? Don't be ridiculous. Do I think games with turn-based combat can be fun? Of course they can.

[Cross1280]

Terror_K wrote...

Here's a mock-up I made of the basic thing I would have liked to have seen for ME2 and would like to see for ME3:-

I think this is the best concept I have seen yet on this issue, You have a good idea here.

I noticed you put in the mods from the first game which i feel is good, but my only suggestion to this is I think they need to stay away from the  "Combat sensor I - X" (insert any mod name) system they had in the first and just make it one mod that gives a set value. 

This way you can simplify the inventory system to just state Combat sensor: Qty 5 for example. this could be done with all the mods and the ammo types if they so wish it.

edited for typos.

Modifié par Cross1280, 16 mars 2010 - 05:11 .

[Hulk Hsieh]

JKoopman wrote...

Inventory leads to customization which leads to depth. Depth is what we're after. Without depth, Mass Effect isn't an RPG; it's just a story-driven action game.

Add one more layer of menu to let us select two extra "enchantments" after selecting a weapon, then ME2 systems does everything ME1 can do with weapon. 

Modifié par Hulk Hsieh, 16 mars 2010 - 05:24 .