874 réponses à ce sujet

[Dudeman315]

flem1 wrote.....


You don't.  I do.  Bio tossing the must-have-loot albatross is a major reason why ME2 has gotten the massive critical praise it has, topping even the superb previous Bio game that followed/revitalized *all* the old-school checkboxes.

It's not only better for gameplay, it increases immersion -- nothing screams "this is a game" like rifling through every enemy's pockets or having his loot jump across a lake of molten lava into your gigantic inventory.

Really!!!! Cause I can actually do that (bolded thing) in real life.  ME2 has more immersion breaking moments with it's Level "X" complete progress screens. Seriously my #1 complaint is level over screens broke any immersion I had. List goes on for pages but that was the #1 sign that this is not an RPG or story it's a stage based TPS.  They may as well have numbered them and called each mission a stage or level at that point.

And Yes it get critical praise for being a lessor verison (mechanics wise) of GoW with a better story, because the masses will buy anything as long as it's simple enough and doesn't require brain power.  Check you local TV listings for Trashy "Reality" Tv if you don't believe this.

This may be worded a ittle too harsh as I am very tired!

And thanks to the person who said they like mindless shooters for being honest.  I agree that they can be fun to play for a time (I'm looking at you Unreal Tournament). But I prefer depth and actually having to figure out min/maxed builds in true RPG fashion to twitch shooters.

[Terror_K]

It's a matter of perspective. If you're looking at Mass Effect 2 as a shooter, then it's one of the deepest shooters out there with great cinematic presentation and storytelling. If you're looking at it as an RPG however, it's pretty shallow and watered down. Whether it fails or not as a game depends on what you're looking for and how your perceiving it. I personally don't think it fails as a game, even if I do think it fails as being a decent RPG. It still is one; it adheres to the requirements to be considered an RPG, but it's not very good at it where it matters, even if there are some factors that are better than the original game here and there. This is mostly because of so much being cut or watered down, and even a lot of the stuff that remains being presented and coated in such an... well... I don't want to go so far as to say "anti-RPG" manner, but... in such a very action-oriented manner (e.g. no stats on weapons or armour, Mission Complete screens, lack of direct XP earning, etc.).

[MarloMarlo]

Terror_K wrote...
This is mostly because of so much being cut or watered down, and even a lot of the stuff that remains being presented and coated in such an... well... I don't want to go so far as to say "anti-RPG" manner, but... in such a very action-oriented manner (e.g. no stats on weapons or armour, Mission Complete screens, lack of direct XP earning, etc.).

I remember there was a BioWare module for NWN1 that started off at the end of some major battle where nearly everyone died. I think it was called "Witch's Wake" or something. You only earned experience points at quest completion (with good reason). Was it less of an RPG than the NWN1 main campaign or more watered down and action-oriented because of that one rule difference?
According to your logic, the answer is "yes."

And the armor and shield penetration written descriptions for ME2's weapons don't count as stats? Clear differences in performance aren't indications of those stats? Mission Complete screens are action oriented? I guess if I didn't make sense, I'd think ME2 was somehow a lesser RPG, too.

[Murmillos]

MarloMarlo wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
This is mostly because of so much being cut or watered down, and even a lot of the stuff that remains being presented and coated in such an... well... I don't want to go so far as to say "anti-RPG" manner, but... in such a very action-oriented manner (e.g. no stats on weapons or armour, Mission Complete screens, lack of direct XP earning, etc.).

I remember there was a BioWare module for NWN1 that started off at the end of some major battle where nearly everyone died. I think it was called "Witch's Wake" or something. You only earned experience points at quest completion (with good reason). Was it less of an RPG than the NWN1 main campaign or more watered down and action-oriented because of that one rule difference?
According to your logic, the answer is "yes."

And the armor and shield penetration written descriptions for ME2's weapons don't count as stats? Clear differences in performance aren't indications of those stats? Mission Complete screens are action oriented? I guess if I didn't make sense, I'd think ME2 was somehow a lesser RPG, too.

I can't speak on behalf of Terror_K, but as for myself, but its just NOT because of that one thing - such as the lack of direct XP earning, but its due to everything combined. Just like there is not one single element that is required to make up an RPG or not, ME2 is just full of bunch of little things which constantly break the continuity of it being a good full RPG.

That's what many people don't seem to realize, or don't seem to have capability to understand.

The loot alone isn't the issue, the weapons alone isn't the issue, the lack of squad members armor alone isn't the issue, the lack of full exploring isn't the issue, the mission complete screen alone isn't the issue, the lack of direct XP earning alone isn't the issue, the lack of more diverse skills alone isn't the issue, the focus more on combat alone isn't the issue. The list goes on.

But when you combine all of it together, you see the whole picture of whats changed. And you can't compare the one little change alone to another game and then make a direct comparison; because its just not of one single issue, its the whole package together - all the changes.

A change of one minor RPG element isn't much to worry about, such as your example of the NWM1 module, because for the rest of the game, nothing else changed right?

ME2 is different, it changes a lot of little things.  A lot of little things. That is the problem.

Modifié par Murmillos, 17 mars 2010 - 11:17 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Terror_K wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Nice design Terror_K. Email that to Mrs. Norman.

Thanks. I'm actually hoping that she (and perhaps other devs) is still reading this thread.

Please Terror_K, PM her or email her. She may be busy and this idea is way too good to be left to luck.

[Terror_K]

MarloMarlo wrote...

I remember there was a BioWare module for NWN1 that started off at the end of some major battle where nearly everyone died. I think it was called "Witch's Wake" or something. You only earned experience points at quest completion (with good reason). Was it less of an RPG than the NWN1 main campaign or more watered down and action-oriented because of that one rule difference?
According to your logic, the answer is "yes."

I'd have to play it to see why... I don't actually have that particular mod. If there was a good reason for it I can understand, but with ME2 I couldn't see a good reason at all why they changed it and didn't keep the old method of earning XP for direct deeds rather than just getting a lump sum at the end. That hardly rewards players who go the extra mile to search every nook and cranny and get every kill, etc. It also encourages BS like unlimited spawn enemies. It doesn't technically make the game "less RPG" but it feels like it was done.

And the armor and shield penetration written descriptions for ME2's weapons don't count as stats? Clear differences in performance aren't indications of those stats?

For the first: No. A written description only tells me vague details, it doesn't in any way outline the actual statistical values of the weapons and armour themselves. How can I compare weapons when there's no concrete mathematical representations to show me how each weapon performs in its various ways?

For the second: No again. They no more indicate the guns stats than picking up the various guns in Doom, Quake or Unreal Tournament represent the differences in how those guns perform. Which pretty much proves this aspect is purely a shooter mechanic now.

Mission Complete screens are action oriented? I guess if I didn't make sense, I'd think ME2 was somehow a lesser RPG, too.

What I mean is that this is a method and feature used most commonly in more action-oriented titles rather than RPGs, which tend to try and make things flow a lot better and not throw up "Mission Complete" screens.

My main problem with these aspects is actually the fact that they're so clearly presented in a manner that's supposed to appeal to a more mainstream audience who usually play action games and often shy away from RPGs, to the point where it almost feels like the devs were giving their old fans the middle-finger in the process. It's like waving a flag that basically says "I'm An Action Game Made for Shooter Fans Above All Else!" to the old fans and to the new one says "I'm Not Too Involved Or Filled With Scary Stats, So No Need to Be Afraid Of Me"

[AngryFrozenWater]

WillieStyle wrote...

Look, I've been in your shoes. I hated the original NWN. I complained on the NWN forums for ages. But you know what, I bought Jade Empire. I bought KOTOR. I bought ME1 and Dragon Age and ME2.
On the other hand, I bought Oblivion and hated it. I didn't spend a single second complaining on the Oblivion forums. I just threw the DVD in the trash and went on with my life.

As a developer, it isn't the folks on the forums complaining about how much they hate the game you have to worry about. It's the ones who don't even bother to complain.

The forum is partially intended to give feedback. Have a look at those slides. BioWare tells the world over and over again that they base game design partially on feedback. BW apologists like you are hindering that system. People who give that feedback are not complaining. They don't hate the game. I would go one step further. They actually love the game more than you do. They want to see it improved. People like you want to shut them up and by doing so are trying to prevent any changes that benefit the game. Instead of making stupid remarks focus that energy into something constructive. Maybe you can dream up something worthwhile for a change.

[Terror_K]

Murmillos wrote...

I can't speak on behalf of Terror_K, but as for myself, but its just NOT because of that one thing - such as the lack of direct XP earning, but its due to everything combined. Just like there is not one single element that is required to make up an RPG or not, ME2 is just full of bunch of little things which constantly break the continuity of it being a good full RPG.

That's what many people don't seem to realize, or don't seem to have capability to understand.

The loot alone isn't the issue, the weapons alone isn't the issue, the lack of squad members armor alone isn't the issue, the lack of full exploring isn't the issue, the mission complete screen alone isn't the issue, the lack of direct XP earning alone isn't the issue, the lack of more diverse skills alone isn't the issue, the focus more on combat alone isn't the issue. The list goes on.

But when you combine all of it together, you see the whole picture of whats changed. And you can't compare the one little change alone to another game and then make a direct comparison; because its just not of one single issue, its the whole package together - all the changes.

A change of one minor RPG element isn't much to worry about, such as your example of the NWM1 module, because for the rest of the game, nothing else changed right?

ME2 is different, it changes a lot of little things.  A lot of little things. That is the problem.

^ Agreed. Fully. As far as I'm concerned my friend, you can speak for me on this issue. 

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Please Terror_K, PM her or email her. She may be busy and this idea is way too good to be left to luck.

I have now actually, just in case. That was a little while ago now. No response as of yet, but then she may be busy. We'll see.

[WillieStyle]

Terror_K wrote...

I'd have to play it to see why... I don't actually have that particular mod. If there was a good reason for it I can understand, but with ME2 I couldn't see a good reason at all why they changed it and didn't keep the old method of earning XP for direct deeds rather than just getting a lump sum at the end. That hardly rewards players who go the extra mile to search every nook and cranny and get every kill, etc. It also encourages BS like unlimited spawn enemies. It doesn't technically make the game "less RPG" but it feels like it was done.

XP grinding is an RPG feature now?!  I guess Fallout isn't a true RPG.
Back in my day, the "hardcore" RPG fans decried getting XP for killing enemies.  The purists wanted you to get XP for accomplishing objectives.  That way, if you wanted to talk your way through a fight without firing a shot (not possible in ME2) or you wanted to stealth your way through (very much possible in ME2) you could without taking an XP penalty.

It's really annoying how a handful of people with idiosyncratic fetishes have taken it upon themselves to define what "RPG elements" are.  The hardcore RPGers from back in the day would ridicule folks who seem to think Diablo 2 is the height of RPGs.

[Terror_K]

WillieStyle wrote...

XP grinding is an RPG feature now?!  I guess Fallout isn't a true RPG.
Back in my day, the "hardcore" RPG fans decried getting XP for killing enemies.  The purists wanted you to get XP for accomplishing objectives.  That way, if you wanted to talk your way through a fight without firing a shot (not possible in ME2) or you wanted to stealth your way through (very much possible in ME2) you could without taking an XP penalty.

It's really annoying how a handful of people with idiosyncratic fetishes have taken it upon themselves to define what "RPG elements" are.  The hardcore RPGers from back in the day would ridicule folks who seem to think Diablo 2 is the height of RPGs.

I wouldn't quite say Diablo 2 is the height of RPG's. Definitely the height of the heavy loot-based RPG, but not overall.

Funny how ME1 seemed to manage this aspect okay though, as did pretty much all of BioWare's previous titles. You earned XP for killing, sure... but you also earned it for unlocking things, finding things, observing things, and completing quests only using dialogue was amongst these. ME2 tries too damn hard to hide these things with these lame "Mission Complete" screens and dolling out the XP in one lump sum at the end. I mean... how do we even know we're actually earning XP and what's there aren't just a random bunch of numbers dolled out with no real value to placate the RPG fans? Seems rather coincidental that pretty much every main mission ends with us leveling up, as opposed to it happening at pretty much any time in ME1 and other BioWare games. And that's not even going into the fact that the Mission Complete screens are as jarring and immersion-breaking as driving at 100kph on a country road when the Empire State building is suddenly dropped from the sky to land one foot in front of your vehicle. On top of that, they're so cheesy and lame. I love how the same people who support these are the ones also saying that Mass Effect needs to move with the times and not get stuck in old RPG mechanics that don't fit the medium. Mission Complete screens are about as unfitting, old and terrible as things get in this game. Particularly when I've given TIM the middle finger post game and I'm still getting them as if I support him and his little terrorist organisation.

[Murmillos]

WillieStyle wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

I'd have to play it to see why... I don't actually have that particular mod. If there was a good reason for it I can understand, but with ME2 I couldn't see a good reason at all why they changed it and didn't keep the old method of earning XP for direct deeds rather than just getting a lump sum at the end. That hardly rewards players who go the extra mile to search every nook and cranny and get every kill, etc. It also encourages BS like unlimited spawn enemies. It doesn't technically make the game "less RPG" but it feels like it was done.

XP grinding is an RPG feature now?!  I guess Fallout isn't a true RPG.
Back in my day, the "hardcore" RPG fans decried getting XP for killing enemies.  The purists wanted you to get XP for accomplishing objectives.  That way, if you wanted to talk your way through a fight without firing a shot (not possible in ME2) or you wanted to stealth your way through (very much possible in ME2) you could without taking an XP penalty.

It's really annoying how a handful of people with idiosyncratic fetishes have taken it upon themselves to define what "RPG elements" are.  The hardcore RPGers from back in the day would ridicule folks who seem to think Diablo 2 is the height of RPGs.

Forget to take your meds?  Diablo 2 is the height of ACTION-RPG's. Diablo 2 follows the near same set of rules, bit with a different direction in doing things; then say NWN's.
There are different flavors of RPG's, as there are different flavors of FPS and TPS and racing games and adventure games.  All follow their own set of loose rules, but they all have a central set of rules/themes.

As for the gaining XP, there wasn't an issue in ME1 because a lot of times you could talk or fight, and could earn near the same number of XP points - but it was setup for each event block - Take the 2 "dock workers" for Fist, you could either talk them down, or fight them, XP for killing, XP for talking. For ME2, the whole "mission" is a event block.

[WillieStyle]

Diablo 2 is an RPG but ME 2 isn't.

In order for people to have a productive discussion with any hope of compromise, their views have to be remotely in the same galaxy. Ours aren't so I'll bid you good day.

[M 3 i m 0 n]

WillieStyle wrote...

Diablo 2 is an RPG but ME 2 isn't.
In order for people to have a productive discussion with any hope of compromise, their views have to be remotely in the same galaxy. Ours aren't so I'll bid you good day.

Diablo is an "hack and slash rpg". It's NOT an rpg. Hack and slash is a category of the rpgs games. This is. Stop.

Modifié par M 3 i m 0 n, 17 mars 2010 - 12:19 .

[EternalWolfe]

Murmillos wrote...

As for the gaining XP, there wasn't an issue in ME1 because a lot of times you could talk or fight, and could earn near the same number of XP points - but it was setup for each event block - Take the 2 "dock workers" for Fist, you could either talk them down, or fight them, XP for killing, XP for talking. For ME2, the whole "mission" is a event block.

You only got xp for killing them - nothing else.  That goes for the entire game - if it didn't die, you didn't get XP.

I have no problem with mission-based xp, I just wish they'd use it to its full potential - allowing multiple ways to solve the quest, by fighting, by talking, ect, while not punishing people for not killing everything in sight just to get the next level.

[Murmillos]

EternalWolfe wrote...

Murmillos wrote...

As for the gaining XP, there wasn't an issue in ME1 because a lot of times you could talk or fight, and could earn near the same number of XP points - but it was setup for each event block - Take the 2 "dock workers" for Fist, you could either talk them down, or fight them, XP for killing, XP for talking. For ME2, the whole "mission" is a event block.

You only got xp for killing them - nothing else.  That goes for the entire game - if it didn't die, you didn't get XP.

I have no problem with mission-based xp, I just wish they'd use it to its full potential - allowing multiple ways to solve the quest, by fighting, by talking, ect, while not punishing people for not killing everything in sight just to get the next level.

I could have sworn there was XP for talking people out of a fight...

[Beastfoot]

WillieStyle wrote...

Diablo 2 is an RPG but ME 2 isn't.
In order for people to have a productive discussion with any hope of compromise, their views have to be remotely in the same galaxy. Ours aren't so I'll bid you good day.

(1) RLMAO  Sorry, but you got to be joking! how did you come to that conclusion?

(2) You can only reach a compromise with people that share you're opinions? ...that's hardly a compromise!

[Terror_K]

There definitely was in ME1. There were entire quests where you could avoid fighting entirely (even ones with no fighting) and you'd still get XP. You also got XP for finding codex entries, minerals, turian insignias, unlocking things, etc.

[EternalWolfe]

Terror_K wrote...

There definitely was in ME1. There were entire quests where you could avoid fighting entirely (even ones with no fighting) and you'd still get XP. You also got XP for finding codex entries, minerals, turian insignias, unlocking things, etc.

You'd still get xp for quest completion, but you didn't get any extra xp for not killing, only for killing.  Quest XP(and all xp actually) went by a formula using a base xp for its type and your level, nothing you did during a mission would affect how much you got after(except for levels, of course).

[Terror_K]

I'm pretty sure using a charm/intimidate got you extra XP as well. I distinctly remember at least one situation where I accidentally chose the wrong option and then skipped through the rest of the dialogue and then reloaded the save just beforehand, chose the Charm option I meant to, and then leveled up after the conversation, which didn't happen in the first mistake instance.

[Beastfoot]

Meistr_Chef wrote...

I thought the lack of crouching was still a sign that this is a RPG-game first and foremost geared towards the Xbox 360; I understand why they did it though. They wanted to reduce the number of controls and decided that with the new cover system the crouch is one control too many. This freed up another button for hotkey powers (on the Xbox 360 system where button real estate is precious)...

Actually with crouching gone, we now have two "buttons" for the map! so it didn't free anything

[Besetment]

Terror_K wrote...

It's a matter of perspective. If you're looking at Mass Effect 2 as a shooter, then it's one of the deepest shooters out there with great cinematic presentation and storytelling. If you're looking at it as an RPG however, it's pretty shallow and watered down. Whether it fails or not as a game depends on what you're looking for and how your perceiving it. I personally don't think it fails as a game, even if I do think it fails as being a decent RPG. It still is one; it adheres to the requirements to be considered an RPG, but it's not very good at it where it matters, even if there are some factors that are better than the original game here and there. This is mostly because of so much being cut or watered down, and even a lot of the stuff that remains being presented and coated in such an... well... I don't want to go so far as to say "anti-RPG" manner, but... in such a very action-oriented manner (e.g. no stats on weapons or armour, Mission Complete screens, lack of direct XP earning, etc.).

Alot of people are way too fixated on genre conventions. If more people just take ME2 for what it is as opposed to what they think it should be then a whole lot of people will derive more enjoyment out of the game.

Expectation bias is the problem and it happens all the time to everybody. I dont think of ME2 as a shooter or an RPG. Its just Mass Effect. The phenomenon is not just limited to games but applies to all sorts of things.

The real secret to enjoying games is to just play and not let your disappointments and expectations rule the experience. I remember when HL2 was about to be released and there were rumours that city 17 was going to be a vast open world. The tech demos did nothing to dispel this idea so of course when I got the game, I was disappointed that HL2 levels were very boxed in and that the limits of the game space were just very cleverly disguised so that you never bump into invisible barriers. It was a linear game. Mission objectives were structured so that you are constantly being stimulated and challenged so you don't even think about trying to test the limits of the game world on your first playthrough.

It was only 4 or 5 years later when I realised that the standard that Valve set in voice acting, scripting, concept art, design, execution, facial expression and narrative story telling without reams of text or verbal exposition has not really been surpassed even to this day. I didn't realise how good HL2 was until years later when I noticed that very few games even come close to its achievement.

I think ME2 takes voice acting and original sci fi IPs to a whole new level. Maybe alot of people are stuck thinking about what they think ME2 should be that they don't see the forest for the trees. They don't see just where this game is ground breaking and where the bar has now been raised so nobody can go back to the way it was before.

Modifié par Besetment, 17 mars 2010 - 02:26 .

[yoomazir]

"Where did my inventory go? by Christina Norman"

down the toilet, hon...



sorry, couldn't resist.

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

And the armor and shield penetration written descriptions for ME2's weapons don't count as stats? Clear differences in performance aren't indications of those stats?

For the first: No. A written description only tells me vague details, it doesn't in any way outline the actual statistical values of the weapons and armour themselves. How can I compare weapons when there's no concrete mathematical representations to show me how each weapon performs in its various ways?

For the second: No again. They no more indicate the guns stats than picking up the various guns in Doom, Quake or Unreal Tournament represent the differences in how those guns perform. Which pretty much proves this aspect is purely a shooter mechanic now.

having so few weapons meant they were wildly different in execution, and the descriptions stated specifically what they were good at i.e. heavy pistol operates markedly differently to an smg - you don't need an exact number on there to know that an smg is going to deal less damage but fire faster.

the "mission complete" screens were total crap, and immersion-breaking, but i really don't see the difference in being given xp at the end of the mission - based on all your deeds during said mission - than during it, other than perhaps not constantly getting pop-ups saying " x xp awarded." only completionists (like me) would notice any difference in totals, anyway. it does save you from having to wade through every conversation option to maximise your xp, rather than a more cinematic and natural approach to the conversations, which are more unique, without penalising the player.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 17 mars 2010 - 02:56 .

[M 3 i m 0 n]

yoomazir wrote...

"Where did my inventory go? by Christina
Norman"
down the toilet, hon...

sorry, couldn't
resist.

LMAO!!!

Besetment wrote...

Alot of people are way too fixated on
genre conventions. If more people just take ME2 for what it is as
opposed to what they think it should be then a whole lot of people will
derive more enjoyment out of the game.

Expectation bias is the
problem and it happens all the time to everybody. I dont think of ME2 as
a shooter or an RPG. Its just Mass Effect.

ME2 is a sequel. So it starts from ME1. ME2 IS NOT ME. ME is ME. ME2 is ME2. So we need 2 start from the thread title. Languages doesn't change the reality, but only the way in which we subdivide the reality in categoryes.

Modifié par M 3 i m 0 n, 17 mars 2010 - 02:57 .

[Besetment]

Why would you reduce the reality down to categories which don't describe what it is properly? Thats unnecessary reductionism. Everyone does it I know and I write my own music so thats always a battle over classification and genre even when its not necessary and is actually harmful to originality in music that transcends genre or tries to subvert it.