Went through the thing. Nice little bit to put out there. All sounds sensible. I wasn't a hater and I won't be, I'll just be hopeful that ME3 proves to be exactly what everyone wants.
Where did my inventory go? by Christina Norman
Débuté par
Chala
, mars 13 2010 07:13
Retour en haut
#652
Posté 20 mars 2010 - 01:03
Guanxii
-
- Members
- 1 646 messages
slyguy07 wrote...
I think I can say something that everyone who is posting here can agree: the changes to Mass Effect show the passion that people have for keeping the game "good" from what they like. I almost would suggest they make two modes for ME3: RPG or shooter. That or have a toggle for the "RPG" and "shooter" options in the gameplay menu.
For example you could choose between the overheat bar or thermal clips, whether or not loot would drop, etc. the only problem is this would delay the game's release by a year or so and increase it's budget therefore I would not hold out much hope for that option. Would be awesome though. I miss a lot of the old powers like dampening and sabotage.
I like your Idea about being able to tailor your game to your own personal gaming preferences - for shooter fans, rpg fans and people in between by just going in the options menu and changing a setting like you can with the difficulty.
In my view this new option could be along the lines of the extent to which you are comfortable with RPG-mechanics on a spectrum from say casual Shooter to possibly hardcore RPG - the higher up you go in the scale intervals the more RPG features are unlocked. It wouldn't necessarily take any longer to develop as it would just be a case of locking out content for other modes. Here's some examples;
(1) 3rd person Shooter > (2) Action/RPG > (3) RPG > (4) Hardcore RPG
(1) 3rd person Shooter mode:
no upgrades
no resource scanning/mining
no dialogue wheel ('cannon only' cutscenes - no investigate options or ren/par choices)
no levelling up or xp
no power wheel (only mapped controls)
me2 gun rack-style weapon selection
no N7 side-quests
(2) Action/RPG mode (default): basically ME2
(3) RPG mode: ME2 + additional tweaked ME1 features, e.g.
- adds looting support on top the existing system by integrating a tweaked me1 inventory system into the ME2 wardrobe and weapon select terminals.
I'd image it would be almost exactly the same for all intensive purposes but you now have much more toys to play around with. However default items cannot be modified except for the N7 armor. All the extra stuff you find can be stored and accessed in exactly the same way only with the added option to be sold or omni-gelled at a moment's notice
- Alien armor/gear could be saved to squadies virtual wardrobes in the armory
-We would now be managing squad gear and upgrades via the equipment screen (again)
- Certain things however annoying from ME2 like the ammo power system would probably remain intact unfortunately as we are not modifying the ME2 system here just adding to it.
-etc
I think this would be win win for everybody
Modifié par Guanxii, 20 mars 2010 - 01:57 .
#653
Posté 20 mars 2010 - 02:35
CatatonicMan
-
- Members
- 560 messages
Guanxii wrote...
I think this would be win win for everybody
Interesting idea, but it is about as likely as a paper dog chasing an asbestos cat through hell.
#654
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 04:04
MarloMarlo
-
- Members
- 199 messages
[quote]Murmillos wrote...
Adding or detracting from something may not have a noticeable effect, or one that doesn't cause notice - thus why the one change for the at one NWN module wasn't enough not to call it an RPG. But if a lot of little things change, then it starts to add up.[/quote]
I didn't say things with unnoticable effects can't add up. I'm saying things with no effect, like all the things being listed for why ME2 is supposedly less of an RPG, don't suddenly have an effect because they are bundled next to more things with absolutely zero effect.
Zero + zero + zero adds up to zero no matter how many times you add zero to zero.
[quote]Murmillos wrote...
The problem is, you still don't seem to understand what the argument is about. Its not about one change, one difference, one element, it is the whole change of everything together.[/quote]
Oh! Then I guess I should've said something like "If you take a trillion things that don't affect whether or not something is an RPG, you don't suddenly have a whole picture that says that a game is less or more of an RPG," the first time I responded, which would indicate that I know that you're talking about things adding up. Silly me. Maybe next time.
I know, I'll take a time machine to the past before I made my last post and tell myself to make that argument. That way, there's no indication that I merely edited my post after reading all bout how I don't seem to understand your argument. Hooray time machines.
[quote]Murmillos wrote...
Just as RPG's are not defined by a single element..."[/quote]
Elements like what? And why? Why are the RPG elements that add or detract to whether or not something is an RPG, or more or less of an RPG, rather than not having a such an effect?
How about, instead of telling me the exact same argument I already argued against because of some false impression that I'm not understanding something, you make an argument about why anything you're saying is supposed to be valid in the first place.
[quote]Murmillos wrote...
ME2 is not a bad game - if ME2 is the only ME game of the series you have played.[/quote]
ME1 is not a bad game if ME1 is the only Me game of the series you have played.
Are you seriously under the impression that you merely saying something is a certain way is automatically valid by virtue of... I don't even know what. How can anyone know. Because if you are, then you can't argue with
[quote]Murmillos wrote...
I never said I liked the ME1 inventory system, I think its god awful; but I like the overall idea of earning/acquiring "loot".[/quote]
Whether or not you actually liked it doesn't matter. Inventory was an example of an element that doesn't get any more RPG-affecting no matter how much you liked or didn't like it or how many other non-RPG-affecting elements are one way or another.
Maybe you hate ME1's inventory system. That likewise has no effect on whether or not ME1 is or is more or less of an RPG. A lack of mission complete screens doesn't change that. Nor does having merely more boxes to fill on the character screen. Add in squad armor customizaton, and ME1's inventory system is just as irrelevant as it was before.
[quote]Murmillos wrote...
Many of us thought they could have fixed the loot system - with out the need to completely gut it out.[/quote]
I'm sure they could have. They also could have made ME2 all about collecting fish and trading it with a krogan for better guns. Is it supposed to matter to the RPGness of ME2 that BioWare didn't make ME2's inventory just the way you wanted it to be?
[quote]Murmillos wrote...
People like gear rewards - as long as being able to manage it is not tedious. Having to buy for random upgrades in the store is not rewarding.[/quote]
Oh? How many upgrades do you need to buy or find out in the field for it to get rewarding, then. If having rewards isn't a matter of having rewards or not and is instead of having more rewards than X, how many rewards is it supposed to take before rewards become rewards? Fifty? Why not 49?
[quote]Murmillos wrote...
What made that random weapon that I just scanned "better" then the one that I have now, and why do I have to spend resource points to make the rest of mine better.[/quote]
What could possibly make one weapon better than another, I wonder. Hmm.
[quote]Terror_K wrote...
The reason beyond that I prefer the old method is because I like to know exactly what it is I'm getting this XP for and why.[/quote]
You know why: mission completions. You get a screen and everything.
[quote]Terror_K wrote...
It's kind of like if I were to take a 50 question exam and then when I got back my results all I saw was my final score, but the marker of the exam didn't actually indicate which questions I got right or wrong or provide any additional comments. As it stands I have no idea whether I'm actually earning XP for my deeds or whether the game is just giving me a random lump sum and leveling me up to try and satisfy me as an RPG fan in a "oh, here are some random points and you advanced" manner.[/quote]
There's no reason to see missions as 50 question tests that all have to be answered correctly to get an A rather than something you either successfuly complete or not. You don't have to kill X-number of mercs or whatever in order to get full XP credit and there's no reason why the game should require you to. Nor do I see an argument for why such a requirement would be better.
Also, XP isn't the only reward from doing things in missions.
[quote]Terror_K wrote...
On top of that, the whole "Mission Complete" thing seems rather cheesy, ham-fisted and B-Grade to me. It just feels... out of place and slapped on.[/quote]
I can say that playing ME1 feels like swimming through a pool full of cheese and eels and leave it at that.
[quote]Terror_K wrote...
RPG's are generally known for having a selection of weapons with visible stats on them. Whether you and I can validly state that its a requirement for an RPG or not, it's become the standard.[/quote]
RPGs are generally known for a lot of things. And I wouldn't settle for uncertanty over whether or not it's an RPG requirement. There's no reason for it to be an RPG requirement. No argument for it has ever been made and defended. If Planescape Torment's weapon descriptions were all changed to text descriptions like "slow attack rate and high damage," it would still be an RPG. Obvioulsy it's not required.
Whether it's standard is irrelevant. What does it matter if it's standard or not? And it's just common, which is not the same as standard. Back in the day, the standard or common perspective in RPGs was top down. What does that matter?
[quote]Terror_K wrote...
When the system is absolutely no different from that of any shooter out there that has a weapon description somewhere in it, to me it becomes a shooter mechanic and not an RPG one. To me that indicates that this factor is more of a shooter one now than an RPG one since it's essentially a shooter element and lacks a component that 95% or RPG's have. Now we can argue about RPG semantics 'til the cows come home on this and we'll probably get nowhere... lord knows its happened on this forum so many times before, but its of my opinion that the weapons system in ME2 is no longer an RPG element at all really. And it doesn't help that there's essentially only one type of each gun.[/quote]
Again, you're using RPG mechanic as if it's something that actually exists to be compared to non-RPG mechanics. There's no such thing. No one has ever made a defensible argument identifying an RPG mechanic, other than role playing if it counts as a mechanic.
If you want to go somewhere with the semantics, you have to actually go somewhere with them.
[quote]Terror_K wrote...
I suppose the question is: how much can you carve an RPG feature before it ceases to be what it was and becomes something else?[/quote]
Before you ask that, you should ask how RPG features are determined in the first place. How does something count as an RPG feature as opposed to a non-RPG feature. Commonality of things that are not role playing hasn't held up to scrutiny.
[quote]Terror_K wrote...
Yes, but you control these aspects and when you choose them and they're part of the game itself. "Mission Complete" screen only serve to remind you you're playing a game. It doesn't help they're not even consistent (some sidequests don't even have them... though I'm actually kind of thankful of that).[/quote]
Inventory and weapon screens of any kind remind you that you're playing a game. When you see "X damage, Y shots per second" on a screen along with is corresponding bar, it's a reminder that you're playing a game. When you fill in a box that says "+1 damage and +2 accuracy," it's a reminder that you're playing a game. When you see a bar that represents your health and shields, it's a reminder that you're playing a game. When you see a pop up that says "+100 XP," it's a reminder that you're playing a game.
[quote]Terror_K wrote...
It does when it's a feature that's generally avoided in RPG titles, and for good reason. I don't feel like I'm exploring a vast universe in space at my leisure with them: I feel like I'm in a game and moving from level to level... like in an action game.[/quote]
The RPG-ness of a feature can't be determined by how it makes Terror_K feel. And not being something commonly found in RPGs isn't the same as that feature being avoided for any reason.
[quote]Terror_K wrote...
If I was pulling this out of my arse, then how come a lot of fans are being alienated?[/quote]
I already presented what I think is the explanation: because ME2 is not ME1. It fits. People are making arguments about one thing that doesn't make sense when they're really making them about another thing. Instead of just saying "I liked ME1's stat system," they say "ME2 isn't an RPG." Instead of "I liked ME1's inventory better," it's "ME2 doesn't have an inventory." The fact that a lot of people are doing the same together doesn't suddenly make their arguments valid. That would be like bundling up things that don't make anything less or more of an RPG and then having them all together make something more or less of an RPG.
And is anyone supposed to do anything with a statement that merely says "this is how I feel?" We can get your opinion, but that's it. And whether or not something is an RPG or more or less of an RPG isn't a matter of opinion if there are things to measure. That would be like saying biological evolution is just a matter of opinion.
[quote]slyguy07 wrote...
I almost would suggest they make two modes for ME3: RPG or shooter. That or have a toggle for the "RPG" and "shooter" options in the gameplay menu.
For example you could choose between the overheat bar or thermal clips, whether or not loot would drop, etc. [/quote]
Really? An overheat bar is an RPG option?
[quote]yoda23 wrote...
I have struggled a bit to identify why I may have been more interested by ME1 as opposed to ME2. I think it does have something to do with the lack of inventory and customization that is available. What I referring to is immersion.[/quote]
Really? Carrying 150 guns and full sets or armor at once and being able to switch between them in the middle of combat in ME1 is why you're referring to immersion?
Adding or detracting from something may not have a noticeable effect, or one that doesn't cause notice - thus why the one change for the at one NWN module wasn't enough not to call it an RPG. But if a lot of little things change, then it starts to add up.[/quote]
I didn't say things with unnoticable effects can't add up. I'm saying things with no effect, like all the things being listed for why ME2 is supposedly less of an RPG, don't suddenly have an effect because they are bundled next to more things with absolutely zero effect.
Zero + zero + zero adds up to zero no matter how many times you add zero to zero.
[quote]Murmillos wrote...
The problem is, you still don't seem to understand what the argument is about. Its not about one change, one difference, one element, it is the whole change of everything together.[/quote]
Oh! Then I guess I should've said something like "If you take a trillion things that don't affect whether or not something is an RPG, you don't suddenly have a whole picture that says that a game is less or more of an RPG," the first time I responded, which would indicate that I know that you're talking about things adding up. Silly me. Maybe next time.
I know, I'll take a time machine to the past before I made my last post and tell myself to make that argument. That way, there's no indication that I merely edited my post after reading all bout how I don't seem to understand your argument. Hooray time machines.
[quote]Murmillos wrote...
Just as RPG's are not defined by a single element..."[/quote]
Elements like what? And why? Why are the RPG elements that add or detract to whether or not something is an RPG, or more or less of an RPG, rather than not having a such an effect?
How about, instead of telling me the exact same argument I already argued against because of some false impression that I'm not understanding something, you make an argument about why anything you're saying is supposed to be valid in the first place.
[quote]Murmillos wrote...
ME2 is not a bad game - if ME2 is the only ME game of the series you have played.[/quote]
ME1 is not a bad game if ME1 is the only Me game of the series you have played.
Are you seriously under the impression that you merely saying something is a certain way is automatically valid by virtue of... I don't even know what. How can anyone know. Because if you are, then you can't argue with
[quote]Murmillos wrote...
I never said I liked the ME1 inventory system, I think its god awful; but I like the overall idea of earning/acquiring "loot".[/quote]
Whether or not you actually liked it doesn't matter. Inventory was an example of an element that doesn't get any more RPG-affecting no matter how much you liked or didn't like it or how many other non-RPG-affecting elements are one way or another.
Maybe you hate ME1's inventory system. That likewise has no effect on whether or not ME1 is or is more or less of an RPG. A lack of mission complete screens doesn't change that. Nor does having merely more boxes to fill on the character screen. Add in squad armor customizaton, and ME1's inventory system is just as irrelevant as it was before.
[quote]Murmillos wrote...
Many of us thought they could have fixed the loot system - with out the need to completely gut it out.[/quote]
I'm sure they could have. They also could have made ME2 all about collecting fish and trading it with a krogan for better guns. Is it supposed to matter to the RPGness of ME2 that BioWare didn't make ME2's inventory just the way you wanted it to be?
[quote]Murmillos wrote...
People like gear rewards - as long as being able to manage it is not tedious. Having to buy for random upgrades in the store is not rewarding.[/quote]
Oh? How many upgrades do you need to buy or find out in the field for it to get rewarding, then. If having rewards isn't a matter of having rewards or not and is instead of having more rewards than X, how many rewards is it supposed to take before rewards become rewards? Fifty? Why not 49?
[quote]Murmillos wrote...
What made that random weapon that I just scanned "better" then the one that I have now, and why do I have to spend resource points to make the rest of mine better.[/quote]
What could possibly make one weapon better than another, I wonder. Hmm.
[quote]Terror_K wrote...
The reason beyond that I prefer the old method is because I like to know exactly what it is I'm getting this XP for and why.[/quote]
You know why: mission completions. You get a screen and everything.
[quote]Terror_K wrote...
It's kind of like if I were to take a 50 question exam and then when I got back my results all I saw was my final score, but the marker of the exam didn't actually indicate which questions I got right or wrong or provide any additional comments. As it stands I have no idea whether I'm actually earning XP for my deeds or whether the game is just giving me a random lump sum and leveling me up to try and satisfy me as an RPG fan in a "oh, here are some random points and you advanced" manner.[/quote]
There's no reason to see missions as 50 question tests that all have to be answered correctly to get an A rather than something you either successfuly complete or not. You don't have to kill X-number of mercs or whatever in order to get full XP credit and there's no reason why the game should require you to. Nor do I see an argument for why such a requirement would be better.
Also, XP isn't the only reward from doing things in missions.
[quote]Terror_K wrote...
On top of that, the whole "Mission Complete" thing seems rather cheesy, ham-fisted and B-Grade to me. It just feels... out of place and slapped on.[/quote]
I can say that playing ME1 feels like swimming through a pool full of cheese and eels and leave it at that.
[quote]Terror_K wrote...
RPG's are generally known for having a selection of weapons with visible stats on them. Whether you and I can validly state that its a requirement for an RPG or not, it's become the standard.[/quote]
RPGs are generally known for a lot of things. And I wouldn't settle for uncertanty over whether or not it's an RPG requirement. There's no reason for it to be an RPG requirement. No argument for it has ever been made and defended. If Planescape Torment's weapon descriptions were all changed to text descriptions like "slow attack rate and high damage," it would still be an RPG. Obvioulsy it's not required.
Whether it's standard is irrelevant. What does it matter if it's standard or not? And it's just common, which is not the same as standard. Back in the day, the standard or common perspective in RPGs was top down. What does that matter?
[quote]Terror_K wrote...
When the system is absolutely no different from that of any shooter out there that has a weapon description somewhere in it, to me it becomes a shooter mechanic and not an RPG one. To me that indicates that this factor is more of a shooter one now than an RPG one since it's essentially a shooter element and lacks a component that 95% or RPG's have. Now we can argue about RPG semantics 'til the cows come home on this and we'll probably get nowhere... lord knows its happened on this forum so many times before, but its of my opinion that the weapons system in ME2 is no longer an RPG element at all really. And it doesn't help that there's essentially only one type of each gun.[/quote]
Again, you're using RPG mechanic as if it's something that actually exists to be compared to non-RPG mechanics. There's no such thing. No one has ever made a defensible argument identifying an RPG mechanic, other than role playing if it counts as a mechanic.
If you want to go somewhere with the semantics, you have to actually go somewhere with them.
[quote]Terror_K wrote...
I suppose the question is: how much can you carve an RPG feature before it ceases to be what it was and becomes something else?[/quote]
Before you ask that, you should ask how RPG features are determined in the first place. How does something count as an RPG feature as opposed to a non-RPG feature. Commonality of things that are not role playing hasn't held up to scrutiny.
[quote]Terror_K wrote...
Yes, but you control these aspects and when you choose them and they're part of the game itself. "Mission Complete" screen only serve to remind you you're playing a game. It doesn't help they're not even consistent (some sidequests don't even have them... though I'm actually kind of thankful of that).[/quote]
Inventory and weapon screens of any kind remind you that you're playing a game. When you see "X damage, Y shots per second" on a screen along with is corresponding bar, it's a reminder that you're playing a game. When you fill in a box that says "+1 damage and +2 accuracy," it's a reminder that you're playing a game. When you see a bar that represents your health and shields, it's a reminder that you're playing a game. When you see a pop up that says "+100 XP," it's a reminder that you're playing a game.
[quote]Terror_K wrote...
It does when it's a feature that's generally avoided in RPG titles, and for good reason. I don't feel like I'm exploring a vast universe in space at my leisure with them: I feel like I'm in a game and moving from level to level... like in an action game.[/quote]
The RPG-ness of a feature can't be determined by how it makes Terror_K feel. And not being something commonly found in RPGs isn't the same as that feature being avoided for any reason.
[quote]Terror_K wrote...
If I was pulling this out of my arse, then how come a lot of fans are being alienated?[/quote]
I already presented what I think is the explanation: because ME2 is not ME1. It fits. People are making arguments about one thing that doesn't make sense when they're really making them about another thing. Instead of just saying "I liked ME1's stat system," they say "ME2 isn't an RPG." Instead of "I liked ME1's inventory better," it's "ME2 doesn't have an inventory." The fact that a lot of people are doing the same together doesn't suddenly make their arguments valid. That would be like bundling up things that don't make anything less or more of an RPG and then having them all together make something more or less of an RPG.
And is anyone supposed to do anything with a statement that merely says "this is how I feel?" We can get your opinion, but that's it. And whether or not something is an RPG or more or less of an RPG isn't a matter of opinion if there are things to measure. That would be like saying biological evolution is just a matter of opinion.
[quote]slyguy07 wrote...
I almost would suggest they make two modes for ME3: RPG or shooter. That or have a toggle for the "RPG" and "shooter" options in the gameplay menu.
For example you could choose between the overheat bar or thermal clips, whether or not loot would drop, etc. [/quote]
Really? An overheat bar is an RPG option?
[quote]yoda23 wrote...
I have struggled a bit to identify why I may have been more interested by ME1 as opposed to ME2. I think it does have something to do with the lack of inventory and customization that is available. What I referring to is immersion.[/quote]
Really? Carrying 150 guns and full sets or armor at once and being able to switch between them in the middle of combat in ME1 is why you're referring to immersion?
Modifié par MarloMarlo, 21 mars 2010 - 04:09 .
#655
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 04:10
TJSolo
-
- Members
- 2 256 messages
lol you have so many analogies that aren't even remotely correct.
Pool of cheese and eels!
Here if you have to ask what characteristics RPGs have. Look* it up somewhere so the answer doesn't come from these boards. The answer will be impartial to this debate and will be informative for you and not something meant to be picked apart.
*Edit. I was missing a word.
Pool of cheese and eels!
Here if you have to ask what characteristics RPGs have. Look* it up somewhere so the answer doesn't come from these boards. The answer will be impartial to this debate and will be informative for you and not something meant to be picked apart.
*Edit. I was missing a word.
Modifié par TJSolo, 21 mars 2010 - 05:22 .
#656
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 05:01
MarloMarlo
-
- Members
- 199 messages
TJSolo has trouble with using words correctly.TJSolo wrote...
lol you have so many analogies that aren't even remotely correct.
Pool of cheese and eels!
Here if you have to ask what characteristics RPGs have it up somewhere so the answer doesn't come from these boards. The answer will be impartial to this debate and will be informative for you and not something meant to be picked apart.
#657
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 05:04
Murmillos
-
- Members
- 706 messages
I honestly don't even know what he is arguing against. other then against me in some failed attempt to prove that the way I feel about the game is wrong.
#658
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 05:04
Murmillos
-
- Members
- 706 messages
bah - double post.
Modifié par Murmillos, 21 mars 2010 - 05:04 .
#659
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 05:21
TJSolo
-
- Members
- 2 256 messages
MarloMarlo wrote...
TJSolo has trouble with using words correctly.TJSolo wrote...
lol you have so many analogies that aren't even remotely correct.
Pool of cheese and eels!
Here if you have to ask what characteristics RPGs have it up somewhere so the answer doesn't come from these boards. The answer will be impartial to this debate and will be informative for you and not something meant to be picked apart.
Been adding and editing posts a lot today; all I was missing in the last post was the word look.
I didn't quote all your statements but basically if you have a lack of understanding of what an RPG is; don't ask for clarification on this forum to use in the ME1 and 2 debate.
Look it up online at an impartial site so you don't feel it is attacking or supporting you views.
Cheers, cheese and eels to us all.
#660
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 06:07
FataliTensei
-
- Members
- 1 449 messages
[quote]TJSolo wrote...
[/quote]
Then there is this that sounds the bells of how the project was approached.[/quote]
Just great, i can only imagine how they'll approach Mass Effect 3 <_<
[/quote]
Then there is this that sounds the bells of how the project was approached.[/quote]
Just great, i can only imagine how they'll approach Mass Effect 3 <_<
Modifié par FataliTensei, 21 mars 2010 - 06:08 .
#661
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 07:13
FlyingWalrus
-
- Members
- 889 messages
FataliTensei wrote...
Then there is this that sounds the bells of how the project was approached.
Just great, i can only imagine how they'll approach Mass Effect 3 <_<
Don't be ignorant. They were trying to improve the gameplay, so they turned off the other stuff to judge the gameplay on its own merits and not in conjunction with other systems. It's called a control experiment. They clearly didn't LEAVE them off because, if they did, you'd never upgrade a single weapon or talent.
Modifié par FlyingWalrus, 21 mars 2010 - 07:14 .
#662
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 07:18
finnithe
-
- Members
- 357 messages
CatatonicMan wrote...
Jaysonie wrote...
When Kalfear brings up the professional reviews for ME2, he implys(to me atleast) that they were the result of bias and bribery plus that a large portion of the people playing this game were dissapointed and the quality of the game(ME2) is nowhere near what the reviews are saying. Im just saying that when the user summited reviews are around the same score as the professional reviews, it means that most(I think) think the
professional reviews were correct in there high scores. I never said that you should use the reviews to decide if you like the game, i just said that it seems like alot tend to be in agreement with the "Bias" review scores.
From my experiences reading reviews, the lowest scoring ones are the most telling.
Even if there are a large number of great reviews, this never changes.
Yea, statistical outliers are always the most telling.
You guys bring up the worst points here. Honestly, crouch? Why do we need this in Mass Effect 2? Name on situation where crouch would have been helpful. Why waste a button on something the game does for you?
The one button for everything was obviously a reaction to the console controller limitations. If anything the fault lies with Bioware because they failed to take advantage of keyboards' increased buttons. I myself find the one button stuff ok, though they could have just shifted sprint to shift and the squad interface to left ctrl.
Having two "modes" (RPG and Shooter) is also kind of useless. The shooter fans are already able to play the soldier class.
Guanxii wrote...
slyguy07 wrote...
I think I
can say something that everyone who is posting here can agree: the
changes to Mass Effect show the passion that people have for keeping the
game "good" from what they like. I almost would suggest they make two
modes for ME3: RPG or shooter. That or have a toggle for the "RPG" and
"shooter" options in the gameplay menu.
For example you could
choose between the overheat bar or thermal clips, whether or not loot
would drop, etc. the only problem is this would delay the game's release
by a year or so and increase it's budget therefore I would not hold out
much hope for that option. Would be awesome though. I miss a lot of the
old powers like dampening and sabotage.
I like your Idea
about being able to tailor your game to your own personal gaming
preferences - for shooter fans, rpg fans and people in between by just
going in the options menu and changing a setting like you can with the
difficulty.
In my view this new option could be along the lines
of the extent to which you are comfortable with RPG-mechanics on a
spectrum from say casual Shooter to possibly hardcore RPG - the higher
up you go in the scale intervals the more RPG features are unlocked. It
wouldn't necessarily take any longer to develop as it would just be a
case of locking out content for other modes. Here's some examples;
(1)
3rd person Shooter > (2) Action/RPG > (3) RPG > (4) Hardcore
RPG
(1) 3rd person Shooter mode:
no upgrades
no resource
scanning/mining
no dialogue wheel ('cannon only' cutscenes - no
investigate options or ren/par choices)
no levelling up or xp
no
power wheel (only mapped controls)
me2 gun rack-style weapon
selection
no N7 side-quests
(2) Action/RPG mode (default):
basically ME2
(3) RPG mode: ME2 + additional tweaked ME1
features, e.g.
- adds looting support on top the existing
system by integrating a tweaked me1 inventory system into the ME2
wardrobe and weapon select terminals.
I'd image it would be
almost exactly the same for all intensive purposes but you now have much
more toys to play around with. However default items cannot be modified
except for the N7 armor. All the extra stuff you find can be stored and
accessed in exactly the same way only with the added option to be sold
or omni-gelled at a moment's notice
- Alien armor/gear could be
saved to squadies virtual wardrobes in the armory
-We would now be
managing squad gear and upgrades via the equipment screen (again)
-
Certain things however annoying from ME2 like the ammo power system
would probably remain intact unfortunately as we are not modifying the
ME2 system here just adding to it.
-etc
I think this would be
win win for everybody [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/love.png[/smilie]
Though it might have some merits, I don't think it would ever work. First of all, you forget that "choices" and "role-playing" (in the sense that you are Shepard) is what differs the Mass Effect trilogy from other games. Should they remove this, they would end up competing with games like Call of Duty and Batlefield. Except that it would have even less customization and no multiplayer. The 3rd person shooter mode is useless because of these reasons.
And is this really the perception you have of a shooter fan? I don't care if Bioware has the same perception. You forget that many shooters are implementing RPG (in the stat/equipment sense) elements. Look at Battlefield or Call of Duty. Each of those games have optimal multiplayer "buids" depending on what purpose you're trying to achieve. In Battlefield, the smarter Recons don't snipe, they take advantage of their ghillie suit to sneak into enemy territory using their shotgun (which is available to all classes) to dispatch enemies while utilizing their C4 to destroy enemy objectives. Believe me, the shooter crowd is much smarter than you (and maybe even Bioware) think it is, which is why I think ME2 could be more complex.
This is of course ignoring all the additonal development costs that would make it impossible in the first place.
#663
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 07:39
finnithe
-
- Members
- 357 messages
I just read the topic on crouching and I sort of do think that a roadie run a la GoW would be helpful in ME2. So while I will modify my stance on crouching that there was no situation where it was needed, I think a roadie run could easily fill that gap.
#664
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 09:19
QuantumSponge
-
- Members
- 65 messages
Where did my inventory go? Development hell, I hope. Can't say I miss it. Most of my time in the ME1 inventory menu was spent smelting down generic guns and upgrades that I'd never have an opportunity to use.
#665
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 10:25
slyguy07
-
- Members
- 219 messages
Just a bit of advice to MarloMarlo: your viewpoint isn't the universal truth and you could be a bit less condescending in your posts here. Some people like me are trying to come up with ideas or suggestions that might help make ME3 a better game. Nobody likes a know-it-all. Just saying.
#666
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 10:36
Karstedt
-
- Members
- 1 536 messages
CatatonicMan wrote...
Guanxii wrote...
I think this would be win win for everybody
Interesting idea, but it is about as likely as a paper dog chasing an asbestos cat through hell.
Soooo..... you're saying there's a chance! Woot!
#668
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 12:53
Beastfoot
-
- Members
- 227 messages
finnithe wrote...
You guys bring up the worst points here. Honestly, crouch? Why do we need this in Mass Effect 2? Name on situation where crouch would have been helpful. Why waste a button on something the game does for you?
The one button for everything was obviously a reaction to the console controller limitations. If anything the fault lies with Bioware because they failed to take advantage of keyboards' increased buttons. I myself find the one button stuff ok, though they could have just shifted sprint to shift and the squad interface to left ctrl.
ME2 on the xbox has two buttons for the map - they could easily have added crouch.
#669
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 04:42
Pocketgb
-
- Members
- 1 466 messages
Murmillos wrote...
I honestly don't even know what he is arguing against. other then against me in some failed attempt to prove that the way I feel about the game is wrong.
Pretty much the crux of what he's attempting to convey is near the end:
MarloMarlo wrote...
I already presented what I think is the explanation: because ME2 is
not ME1. It fits. People are making arguments about one thing
that doesn't make sense when they're really making them about another
thing. Instead of just saying "I liked ME1's stat system," they say
"ME2 isn't an RPG." Instead of "I liked ME1's inventory better," it's
"ME2 doesn't have an inventory." The fact that a lot of people are
doing the same together doesn't suddenly make their arguments valid.
That would be like bundling up things that don't make anything less or
more of an RPG and then having them all together make something more or
less of an RPG.
And is anyone supposed to do anything with a
statement that merely says "this is how I feel?" We can get your
opinion, but that's it. And whether or not something is an RPG or more
or less of an RPG isn't a matter of opinion if there are things to
measure. That would be like saying biological evolution is just a
matter of opinion.
That there really speaks pretty loudly, and really sums up my feelings of the issue.
ME2 isn't more or less of an RPG than ME1, it's only different. A few
things may've been a bit more streamlined (weapon custimization is all
I can think of) but certainly not enough to warrant the "IT'S A SHOOTER" label.
TJSolo wrote...
lol you have so many analogies that aren't even remotely correct.
Pool of cheese and eels!
Here
if you have to ask what characteristics RPGs have. Look* it up
somewhere so the answer doesn't come from these boards. The answer will
be impartial to this debate and will be informative for you and not
something meant to be picked apart.
If you're attempting to argue why ME2 is "less of an RPG", shouldn't be up to you to "look up" the answer to provide it to strengthen your point, i.e. burden of proof?
Modifié par Pocketgb, 21 mars 2010 - 04:55 .
#670
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 06:11
FataliTensei
-
- Members
- 1 449 messages
FlyingWalrus wrote...
FataliTensei wrote...
Then there is this that sounds the bells of how the project was approached.
Just great, i can only imagine how they'll approach Mass Effect 3 <_<
Don't be ignorant. They were trying to improve the gameplay, so they turned off the other stuff to judge the gameplay on its own merits and not in conjunction with other systems. It's called a control experiment. They clearly didn't LEAVE them off because, if they did, you'd never upgrade a single weapon or talent.
<_<
#671
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 06:46
Pocketgb
-
- Members
- 1 466 messages
FataliTensei wrote...
<_<
See:
javierabegazo wrote...
You should be careful not to take
that out of context though, I can just as easily add the slide where
she says "Turned back on RPG systems"
The whole point of
that was, BioWare makes good RPG's, but they made the combat too
sluggish because of their lack of experience with Shooter combat
#672
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 07:12
TJSolo
-
- Members
- 2 256 messages
Let's not forget the last few slides and the plans for ME3; Richer and more complex RPG elements.
The flaw of ME2 was too much focus on the shooter aspect and the RPG elements suffered.
The flaw of ME2 was too much focus on the shooter aspect and the RPG elements suffered.
#673
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 07:20
grellas
-
- Members
- 13 messages
Well, the phrase "Richer RPG Features" makes me more optimistic 
#674
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 07:34
slyguy07
-
- Members
- 219 messages
Pocketgb wrote...
Murmillos wrote...
I honestly don't even know what he is arguing against. other then against me in some failed attempt to prove that the way I feel about the game is wrong.
Pretty much the crux of what he's attempting to convey is near the end:MarloMarlo wrote...
I already presented what I think is the explanation: because ME2 is
not ME1. It fits. People are making arguments about one thing
that doesn't make sense when they're really making them about another
thing. Instead of just saying "I liked ME1's stat system," they say
"ME2 isn't an RPG." Instead of "I liked ME1's inventory better," it's
"ME2 doesn't have an inventory." The fact that a lot of people are
doing the same together doesn't suddenly make their arguments valid.
That would be like bundling up things that don't make anything less or
more of an RPG and then having them all together make something more or
less of an RPG.
And is anyone supposed to do anything with a
statement that merely says "this is how I feel?" We can get your
opinion, but that's it. And whether or not something is an RPG or more
or less of an RPG isn't a matter of opinion if there are things to
measure. That would be like saying biological evolution is just a
matter of opinion.
That there really speaks pretty loudly, and really sums up my feelings of the issue.
ME2 isn't more or less of an RPG than ME1, it's only different. A few
things may've been a bit more streamlined (weapon custimization is all
I can think of) but certainly not enough to warrant the "IT'S A SHOOTER" label.TJSolo wrote...
lol you have so many analogies that aren't even remotely correct.
Pool of cheese and eels!
Here
if you have to ask what characteristics RPGs have. Look* it up
somewhere so the answer doesn't come from these boards. The answer will
be impartial to this debate and will be informative for you and not
something meant to be picked apart.
If you're attempting to argue why ME2 is "less of an RPG", shouldn't be up to you to "look up" the answer to provide it to strengthen your point, i.e. burden of proof?
I am going to have to say most people simply disagree with those points because of the simple fact that modern RPGs in recent years generally have an inventory and a stat system of some sort. People on these forums want to claim that RPG's can be something so close to an action game simply because it has leveling and decisions that change the world around you. While that indeed does have some validation to make it an RPG it just doesn't magically make "as much of an RPG" as ME1. The difference primarily between ME1 and ME2 is that ME1 has the qualities that are typically associated with an RPG in recent years much less a BW one.
Trying to say it's action happy gameplay and less complex storyline is as much an RPG is like trying to tell someone that Blue is the same color as Red. ME2 IS an RPG. Just not as much so as ME1. I don't understand why people can't get that. People have their own opinions on what an RPG is, but if you look at what is typically associated with that genre ME2 is even lighter than ME1.
#675
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 07:52
Dudeman315
-
- Members
- 240 messages
Find me one rpg game that the rpg elements don't prop up the combat other than ME2. And one that would label that as the most important move.
