874 réponses à ce sujet

[TheConfidenceMan]

[quote]FataliTensei wrote...

[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]

They'll approach it the same way, unfortunately, and despite the hope to add "richer RPG elements" to ME3 I have little trust they'll acually deliver.

The real problem here is that in ME1 you couldn't simply "turn off" the RPG systems, they were a core part of the game integrated into every aspect. That's what made it what it was (an RPG), and why people liked it.

With ME2 it's like they just made a standalone shooter, added a few stats and options on top of it and tried to pass it off as an RPG.

Modifié par TheConfidenceMan, 21 mars 2010 - 07:57 .

[Destructo-Bot]

I've been critical of Bioware's choices in ME2, but credit is due. They did a very good job overall, but made a few faux paus that need rectified going into ME3. My post on the subject is near the start of the thread.

[EternalWolfe]

TheConfidenceMan wrote...
They'll approach it the same way, unfortunately, and despite the hope to add "richer RPG elements" to ME3 I have little trust they'll acually deliver.

Wouldn't approching it in the same way(according to what has been said) be to overreact to complaints on ME2's systems, junk 90% of it and throw it out, then rebuild it compeltly different.

Yep, this time, It'll be a turn-based 'Shooter' RPG with 26 stats, 294 different skills(with double redundancy, of course), they'll bring back ME1's inventory in all its 'glory', with twice as many items that won't see any use, Overheating will be back, but now it'll be even easier to ignore, with almost no consequences.

Maybe if we get lucky, they'll even make you grind the same enemies for days to level up to the next level so you can go to the next area.  Oh, and don't forget, you'll need to drink water and food to keep yourself alive - after all, gotta play the role right, you know.  And if you make the wrong choice, about 5 more hours into the game, you'll find  out you can't win and you have to start over.  Yay for overreacting!!

Or, maybe they'll learn from both their mistakes in ME1 and ME2 and create ME3 somewhere in the middle, with good shooter combat spread generously with delcious RPG goodness, all ontop of a beautiful peice of cinematic masterpiece.

NOTE: I have no problem with suggested game type above(when done right, no screwed up to hell like I said).  I was just making a point of 'overreacting'.

[FataliTensei]

[quote]TheConfidenceMan wrote...

[quote]FataliTensei wrote...

[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]

They'll approach it the same way, unfortunately, and despite the hope to add "richer RPG elements" to ME3 I have little trust they'll acually deliver.

The real problem here is that in ME1 you couldn't simply "turn off" the RPG systems, they were a core part of the game integrated into every aspect. That's what made it what it was (an RPG), and why people liked it.

With ME2 it's like they just made a standalone shooter, added a few stats and options on top of it and tried to pass it off as an RPG. [/quote]

[Pocketgb]

slyguy07 wrote...

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.

I certainly hope that's not what you seem to assume what I'm claiming, because I've never advocated for that!

slyguy07 wrote...

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.

In ME1 the only reason for an inventory is to get better gear, and to act as a holding place until you can get to the market and sell all the gear that's worse than the one you're currently wearing. That was it really, and the way gear worked in ME1 was rather boring: there was no variety, no different choices in regards to multiple armors. It is kinda cool to look over your collection of armors and weapons, but it's not fun when none of them are equal.

Enter the N7 armor: allowing the player to configure bonuses to their liking. More pieces and choices would've been cool, such as more complete sets that still focus largely on a particular theme. The other reason inventory was needed was for the weapon mods, and providing further customization in ME3 in regards to your weapons would definitely be a welcome addition.

Then we get into customizing Shepard's strengths. Since the leveling systems between the two systems is drastically different (and based upon how much quicker abilities can be used in ME2) it's a bit difficult to truly compare the two. So what I look for is, again, variety. This exists in both ME1 and 2, therefore it's really going to come down to which system you preferred more.

Then we get down to the combat, and this truly is one of Bioware's best achievements. Admittadly, Bioware's had a rough time into making a truly good combat experience: KotOR was way too easy, Jade Empire was incredibly clunky, ME1 evolved into an incredibly boring endgame, and DA is as easy (if not moreso) than KotOR but with a wonky-as-crap difficulty curve.

ME2 is the first game they've been able to make that actually has truly enjoyable and replayable combat, and with all of the abilities/squadmates/weapons that you can bring to the table provides a very unique experience. Action/RPG has been done, but Bioware has truly made an RPG shooter - and it is wicked sick, and wicked unique. My only issue with it is how good cover is, so I hope they make it less safe in ME3.

[Mimaiselphenai]

Not that I don't think ME2 has its flaws, but what exactly is different about ME1 and ME2 as far as "RPG elements?" Exploration? 'Cause there wasn't a whole lot of worthwhile exploration in 1. As far as combat, ME1 would be a cover-fest too if Insanity wasn't so laughable. Just curious. Can't really think of anything that made 1 more RPGish than 2.

[Dudeman315]

Everything  seemed tacked onto the combat system. Rpg elements have less effect on combat, story feels 1/2 assed. Options are very limited.

Modifié par Dudeman315, 22 mars 2010 - 12:01 .

[MarloMarlo]

TJSolo wrote...
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.

By your apparent standards of rhetoric, an appropriate and effective rebuttal to what you said is: no, you're wrong.

Also, I'm not asking for clarification about what an RPG is because I don't know or don't understand. I'm asking because I'm confident that the people I'm asking will find their definitions lacking once they try think about it, try to explain it and defend that explanation. Maybe you think such an approach gives people too much credit; I don't believe that. If anything, it's better than an exchange that basically consists of "This is my opinion," "Why," "Because it's my opinion." You'd know that if you read what you were replying to.

But don't worry about that, because my real rebuttal is that you are wrong, followed by smiley faces and laughing.

slyguy07 wrote...
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.

I could be a bit less condescending (though the pepper avatar would no longer fit). People could also be less dense about their evaluations that I don't understand something. My condescension has been appropriate to the material it's in response to. I've been mostly nice to Terror_K as far as I can tell. But I have feelings, too, you know! And when you bite into a pepper, things get spicy. Maybe you should try being nice to the pepper instead of biting into it.

slyguy07 wrote...
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.

Which is meaningless, especially considering that ME2 has stats and an inventory of some sort.

slyguy07 wrote...
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.

I hope you like satire:

Actually, the realest and truest difference is that ME2 has an inventory system and stats whereas ME1 does not. ME1 does not have a true inventory system because it's not immersive and I don't feel like it was an RPG inventory system. ME2 also had an ammo system, which a lot of RPGs in recent years have for their ranged weapons. ME2 also had better club music, which is more immersive and sucked me into the universe and made me feel like I was actually at a space club with space dancers everywhere. It truely made me feel a certain way and that way is the truth because I said so.

ME2's story is more complex. The end.
 
ME2 is also the closest to BioWare's latest RPG, which is also one of the latest RPGs released, so that makes it more of an RPG than ME1. In fact, ME1 had third person shooting, and so does ME2, so there's another RPG element that ME2 has. You could also shoot things from a third person perspective in Dragon Age, Oblivion and Baldur's Gate, but with olden times weapons. And we all know that the first RPG was not really an RPG because it was not like other RPGs that were released before it was released.

Maybe some people think ME1 is just as much of an RPG as ME2 because it has other things that aren't related to being an RPG that have also been in RPGs, like an inventory system that doesn't seem like it was designed on purpose. There's some truth to that, but that doesn't magically mean that it's just as much of an RPG as ME2.

I don't have to prove anything, even though I just told you all what was what. It's an argument that magically validates itself by virtue of being my argument, because everyone has their own opinion of what an RPG is, and mine is just as good as everyone else's, if not better.

In conclusion, stop thinking that you have the universal truth, because you just don't understand.

slyguy07 wrote...
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.

Spoken like someone that thinks he has the universal truth. How condescending.

That you don't understand why people "can't get that" says that your criticism of my post is coming from a position of ignorance. Your definition of "RPG" doesn't make sense if going by it means that ME2 is less of an RPG than ME1. If you still don't understand why -- which you apparently don't -- then subject it to scrutiny. Or you can stop pretending that people don't understand some truth -- some universal truth that you have -- that has yet to be argued to even exist.

ME1 has a more complex story than ME2? Really? Should I be surprised that you didn't qualify that statement?

And an either/or analogy for a gradient? Where's TJSolo when someone actually uses an analogy that doesn't make sense!

slyguy07 wrote...
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.

People have opinions that don't make sense. That's why we have forums to argue. If everyone has their own opinion on what an RPG is, that's what has to be argued about before you can argue about whether or not something is or is more or less of an RPG. People start saying things like "I don't understand why people can't get my undefined/illdefined opinion of what an RPG is" in the cacophony of 20 opinions considered equally valid or beyond criticism.

[Tesla17]

Why is it that people are more inclined to argue pointless arbitrary definitions of RPG's instead of arguing the game's actual merits. From what I've noticed, the general consensus seems to be that Mass Effect 2 fell short in terms of customization options and the game is a little too simplified with too little options. The gameplay was upgraded in many portions and much of that is appreciated and should be refined and improved upon for Mass Effect 3. But hey, it's not like Christina Norman said these exact same things in her presentation. I haven't read through all 28 pages but I believe the topic might be deviating a tad...

[slyguy07]

Pocketgb wrote...

slyguy07 wrote...

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.

I certainly hope that's not what you seem to assume what I'm claiming, because I've never advocated for that!

slyguy07 wrote...

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.

In ME1 the only reason for an inventory is to get better gear, and to act as a holding place until you can get to the market and sell all the gear that's worse than the one you're currently wearing. That was it really, and the way gear worked in ME1 was rather boring: there was no variety, no different choices in regards to multiple armors. It is kinda cool to look over your collection of armors and weapons, but it's not fun when none of them are equal.

Enter the N7 armor: allowing the player to configure bonuses to their liking. More pieces and choices would've been cool, such as more complete sets that still focus largely on a particular theme. The other reason inventory was needed was for the weapon mods, and providing further customization in ME3 in regards to your weapons would definitely be a welcome addition.

Then we get into customizing Shepard's strengths. Since the leveling systems between the two systems is drastically different (and based upon how much quicker abilities can be used in ME2) it's a bit difficult to truly compare the two. So what I look for is, again, variety. This exists in both ME1 and 2, therefore it's really going to come down to which system you preferred more.

Then we get down to the combat, and this truly is one of Bioware's best achievements. Admittadly, Bioware's had a rough time into making a truly good combat experience: KotOR was way too easy, Jade Empire was incredibly clunky, ME1 evolved into an incredibly boring endgame, and DA is as easy (if not moreso) than KotOR but with a wonky-as-crap difficulty curve.

ME2 is the first game they've been able to make that actually has truly enjoyable and replayable combat, and with all of the abilities/squadmates/weapons that you can bring to the table provides a very unique experience. Action/RPG has been done, but Bioware has truly made an RPG shooter - and it is wicked sick, and wicked unique. My only issue with it is how good cover is, so I hope they make it less safe in ME3.

I'm sorry I wasn't talking about you in general Pocket I was speaking about how some people on here just want to pretend that RPG's haven't any standards in years past or certain factors and elements that come into play. I have to say having an inventor is one them. It's one element. It's been a big part of the recent hits aside from Bioshock which very much favored FPS elements in many ways. It feeds a material progression need in a very simple manner in most cases. In the most extreme it is the focal point of getting better and better gear. Regardless it has been a big part of it. When an inventory is done right it can add to the immersion of the game and add a sense of satisfaction that your character has become more powerful. While you don't want gear to make your character you want it to help. That's where balance comes in.

As for combat in ME2 it's better than ME1 in some ways, but unfortunately all it does is make using guns the best way to kill. Too many biotic and tech abilities are useless or pointless now because of the barrier/shield/armor system blocking their effects. Throw for example is now a waste to spend points in. Tech powers have suffered the worst by far. In ME1 the powers Dampening and Sabotage were greatly helpful. In ME2 you get incinerate(meh armor should be a damage mitigator only not a defense layer) and overload. Cryoblast is garbage compared to squad cryo and AI hack is only occasionally useful. Imho they need to make powers still go through shields/barrier and get rid of the dumb armor defense layer. It makes no sense. Maybe on vehicles I can see it, but not on living things. That and get rid of the universal cooldown which just made things simpler to balance. Balance can be achieved by making several cooldowns if need be, but one is prohibitive to the player. Some will argue it simplifies and you can't spam powers. Well that's true when you have like 20 powers. This game doesn't have enough. Ammo powers are the worst. They should be weapon upgrades instead.

Sigh sorry I am starting to rant now...tired as the day is winding down. Seriously though they need to get rid of ammo powers and make the player feel more powerful. Shepard feels like a wuss on insanity. 3 shots and shields are gone. Enemies are bullet sponges. They need to find another way to make it challenging. It just doesn't feel right to be the guy who saved the galaxy by wiping out hordes of geth and then being shot a few times with the "best" gear money can buy and you bite the dust. I am not saying insanity is too hard. I am saying they should make it difficult by other means. What means I don't know, but I think it's absurd to have to empty 3 clips to kill a krogan. Anyhow getting too tired to put my thoughts out here. Will be be back later.

[slyguy07]

MarloMarlo wrote...

TJSolo wrote...
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.

By your apparent standards of rhetoric, an appropriate and effective rebuttal to what you said is: no, you're wrong.

Also, I'm not asking for clarification about what an RPG is because I don't know or don't understand. I'm asking because I'm confident that the people I'm asking will find their definitions lacking once they try think about it, try to explain it and defend that explanation. Maybe you think such an approach gives people too much credit; I don't believe that. If anything, it's better than an exchange that basically consists of "This is my opinion," "Why," "Because it's my opinion." You'd know that if you read what you were replying to.

But don't worry about that, because my real rebuttal is that you are wrong, followed by smiley faces and laughing.

slyguy07 wrote...
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.

I could be a bit less condescending (though the pepper avatar would no longer fit). People could also be less dense about their evaluations that I don't understand something. My condescension has been appropriate to the material it's in response to. I've been mostly nice to Terror_K as far as I can tell. But I have feelings, too, you know! And when you bite into a pepper, things get spicy. Maybe you should try being nice to the pepper instead of biting into it.

slyguy07 wrote...
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.

Which is meaningless, especially considering that ME2 has stats and an inventory of some sort.

slyguy07 wrote...
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.

I hope you like satire:

Actually, the realest and truest difference is that ME2 has an inventory system and stats whereas ME1 does not. ME1 does not have a true inventory system because it's not immersive and I don't feel like it was an RPG inventory system. ME2 also had an ammo system, which a lot of RPGs in recent years have for their ranged weapons. ME2 also had better club music, which is more immersive and sucked me into the universe and made me feel like I was actually at a space club with space dancers everywhere. It truely made me feel a certain way and that way is the truth because I said so.

ME2's story is more complex. The end.
 
ME2 is also the closest to BioWare's latest RPG, which is also one of the latest RPGs released, so that makes it more of an RPG than ME1. In fact, ME1 had third person shooting, and so does ME2, so there's another RPG element that ME2 has. You could also shoot things from a third person perspective in Dragon Age, Oblivion and Baldur's Gate, but with olden times weapons. And we all know that the first RPG was not really an RPG because it was not like other RPGs that were released before it was released.

Maybe some people think ME1 is just as much of an RPG as ME2 because it has other things that aren't related to being an RPG that have also been in RPGs, like an inventory system that doesn't seem like it was designed on purpose. There's some truth to that, but that doesn't magically mean that it's just as much of an RPG as ME2.

I don't have to prove anything, even though I just told you all what was what. It's an argument that magically validates itself by virtue of being my argument, because everyone has their own opinion of what an RPG is, and mine is just as good as everyone else's, if not better.

In conclusion, stop thinking that you have the universal truth, because you just don't understand.

slyguy07 wrote...
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.

Spoken like someone that thinks he has the universal truth. How condescending.

That you don't understand why people "can't get that" says that your criticism of my post is coming from a position of ignorance. Your definition of "RPG" doesn't make sense if going by it means that ME2 is less of an RPG than ME1. If you still don't understand why -- which you apparently don't -- then subject it to scrutiny. Or you can stop pretending that people don't understand some truth -- some universal truth that you have -- that has yet to be argued to even exist.

ME1 has a more complex story than ME2? Really? Should I be surprised that you didn't qualify that statement?

And an either/or analogy for a gradient? Where's TJSolo when someone actually uses an analogy that doesn't make sense!

slyguy07 wrote...
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.

People have opinions that don't make sense. That's why we have forums to argue. If everyone has their own opinion on what an RPG is, that's what has to be argued about before you can argue about whether or not something is or is more or less of an RPG. People start saying things like "I don't understand why people can't get my undefined/illdefined opinion of what an RPG is" in the cacophony of 20 opinions considered equally valid or beyond criticism.

You honestly think ME2 has more complex story than ME1? Wow...okay how about this. You build a squad. A team. Then you do a suicide mission. The end. Seriously. Even most of the people who like ME2 have said they liked ME1's story better. Of course I feel another annoying response coming on now. Let me see....just because a game was released more recently makes it more of an RPG? Okay...if you say so. Yes you have the universal truth my friend. Truly.

I am going off what is consistent in today's RPGs...and you well I am not sure what you are going off of. First off I don't have any sort of universal truth and neither do you Einstein. I am basing most of what I am saying off of factual parts of previous games and what has been the "status quo" for the genre in modern terms. And I do understand that people have opinions. Even if they want to draw horrible analogies and comparisons to try and back them up as if it somehow validated them. But if you want to continue spouting more ignorant garbage such as ME2 has a stat system a inventory where ME1 does not go ahead. At least you could see the stats in ME1. Or maybe you like invisible stats? Aside from health and shields?

Calling the weapons locker and armor system an inventory is just pitiful. I don't care for looting Billybob's Sniper Rifle of Melon Popping every kill, but don't try to say that qualities as much of an inventory system as it does just a weapon selection. The best thing was the N7 armor in ME2. As far as customization goes it was the only real part of that word in ME2. It was really thin though. Anyhow I think I will quit wasting my time with people who want to keep this "an RPG isn't like those RPG genre games released here lately because we say so even if it contains some consistant elements across those games" because it's just that: a waste of time. 

[Jackal904]

So Christina Norman, in your slide about things to keep in ME3 you said to "keep the same team." Did you mean the same dev team or the same squadmates from the game?

[Darth Drago]

I cant link the picture I would want to show not like I would since they would take up two pages here, but here are a few observations.

What Kind Of Game is Mass Effect 2:
-Very Different Game. Two quotes from Chris Remo. I guess getting a quote from another person was to difficult? Should I even care who this person is or their opinion?

Under the Our Goals for Mass Effect 2:
-Better Inventory. What weapons? You mean the massive selection of a handful of weapons we got?
-Better Balance. “Reward shooter and RPG skill”. Huh? What RPG skill are you talking about?
-+ Other Stuff. “Vehicles” Must have missed the vehicles unless they are talking about this Hammerhead that looks so not impressive. “Make Conversations More Active” Yep, love that Miranda gratuitous ass shot.

Under High Level Plan:
]-Forget Labels Make A great Game. “Don’t worry about shooter/RPG balance”. Not only didn’t they not worry about it they forgot about most of it.

Under the Building For Intensity:
-The Enemies. “Consistent Behavior” and “Consistent Abilities”. Yep you wouldn’t want them to think on their own to do something like out flank you or use an ability/power. Just the basics like shoot, duck behind cover, stand up and shoot, repeat until killed.

Under RPG systems:
-ME1 Level Up. I personally love the comment “Even I don’t know what all this stuff is” if that doesn’t make you wonder about the people in charge of this game I don’t know what will. If a lead game developer doesn’t have a clue on what something does in their own game how am I to believe that they know anything else about what else is in the game?
-ME2 Level Up. “One class power boosts combat and conversation”. How does it boost conversation? I don’t recall anyone saying “hey I got incinerate and you don’t, want some of my massive powers?”
-Armor Personalization. “Editing color and pattern most common“. Ooh cool we got two patterns to choose from. “Works with gender choice and face customization”. I wonder if all the people who hate the fact you cant hide the helmet would say about that one?
-And More. “Dynamic Captains Quarters” Yes it’s a better one with fish, a space rodent and models that you cant zoom in tolook at or even interact with in anyway. Yet we get a garbage compactor in Zaeeds room and can watch a block of garbage get chucked into space? How many people noticed the skylight or wished they could actually look up at it decently?

Controversial Changes
-Heat Sinks. Hey look, they cant even get it right in the picture showing the dead Quarian and the heat sink next to him with the arrow pointing to it and saying “Hey look, ammo!” So what is it, Heat Sink, Thermal Clip or Ammo?
-Mining. “Source of fan humor/parody” and “Encourage exploration”. I’m so laughing at the boring task of doing this it hurts. Exploration to find what, a couple of side quests and more planet scanning/probing to do?

Lessons Learned:
-Improve Quality by Designing to a Core Experience. “Every feature supports core narrative/combat mission experience” and “Everything that interfered with that flow was redesigned or cut”. Still think ME2 is not designed to be a third person shooter?

Modifié par Darth Drago, 22 mars 2010 - 03:45 .

[Pocketgb]

slyguy07 wrote...

When an inventory is done right it can add to the immersion of the game and add a sense of satisfaction that your character has become more powerful. While you don't want gear to make your character you want it to help. That's where balance comes in.

Here's the biggest problem with having an inventory: I personally can't recall a single game, on any platform, where it made any sense. Bioware games are great examples of this: how in the world am I able to fit a dozen suits of armor into my pockets and still walk? More importantly, how am I able to change between wearing all of them in the blink of an eye?

This is why I liked the "gear up" screens before you ever set out from the Normandy. I just hope you actually get to see Shepard and co. looking through the lockers when deciding what weapons they want to bring to the fray.

slyguy07 wrote...

As for combat in ME2 it's better than ME1 in some ways, but unfortunately all it does is make using guns the best way to kill. Too many biotic and tech abilities are useless or pointless now because of the barrier/shield/armor system blocking their effects.

Whoa whoa whoooooa! Slow down, tiger, and see what ThatAverageGatsby has to say about that!

slyguy07 wrote...

That and get rid of the universal cooldown which just made things simpler to balance. Balance can be achieved by making several cooldowns if need be, but one is prohibitive to the player. Some will argue it simplifies and you can't spam powers. Well that's true when you have like 20 powers. This game doesn't have enough.

# of powers is simply personal taste: Do you prefer several abilities with long cooldowns, or a few with short cooldowns? Do you like the assault rifle or the battle rifle? Apples or oranges? Black and white? Sierra Mist or Sprite?

slyguy07 wrote...

Ammo powers are the worst. They should be weapon upgrades instead.

Here's where I respectfully disagree. As a player you'd be discouraged from specializing your ammo type, and you would need metagame knowledge to actually be truly effective. Say you're a Soldier and you put Disruptor ammo on your rounds on your assault rifle only to see that - surprise! - you're going against a lot of Vorcha. Have fun!

Of course one could just say you should be able to change rounds on the go...Well, isn't that what we have right now?

slyguy07 wrote...

Sigh sorry I am starting to rant now...tired as the day is winding down. Seriously though they need to get rid of ammo powers and make the player feel more powerful. Shepard feels like a wuss on insanity. 3 shots and shields are gone. Enemies are bullet sponges. They need to find another way to make it challenging. It just doesn't feel right to be the guy who saved the galaxy by wiping out hordes of geth and then being shot a few times with the "best" gear money can buy and you bite the dust. I am not saying insanity is too hard. I am saying they should make it difficult by other means. What means I don't know, but I think it's absurd to have to empty 3 clips to kill a krogan. Anyhow getting too tired to put my thoughts out here. Will be be back later.

See, this is the issue I was talking about earlier.

Combat in both Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2 essentially put you in the battle between David and Goliath. The difference is that ME1 put you in the shoes of the latter, while ME2 put you in the shoes of the former.

Now, which booties would you prefer to be in?
Keep in mind that there are no wrong answers.

slyguy07 wrote...

You honestly think ME2 has more complex story than ME1? Wow...okay how
about this. You build a squad. A team. Then you do a suicide mission.
The end.

I can trump that! ME1: You kill the bad guys. Credits! (hint: play faaair...)

SPOILERS

I consider both stories to have plenty of strengths and weaknesses, but ME1 flat-out, boldly, and hilariously trumps ME2 in terms of silliness when you find out what the Conduit is for.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 22 mars 2010 - 04:20 .

[MarloMarlo]

slyguy07 wrote...
You honestly think ME2 has more complex story than ME1?

Yes, let's get serious opinions out of satire. Well done.

The correct response was to realize that I didn't back up my opinion. I just said it. The end. And then after that, you can realize that you do the exact same thing. That's how satire works.

slyguy07 wrote...
Wow...okay how about this. You build a squad. A team. Then you do a suicide mission. The end. Seriously.

Wow, okay how about this: you find some clues, then you save the Citadel. The end. Seriously.

slyguy07 wrote...
Even most of the people who like ME2 have said they liked ME1's story better.

Actually, most of them said the opposite. They also said they agree with everything I said. Most of them, anyway. You're on the fringe, which automatically makes you wrong.

slyguy07 wrote...
Of course I feel another annoying response coming on now.

I should hope so, considering how stupid your arguments are. I'm just throwing them back at your face. Name one annoying argument that isn't just your logic turned around on you and maybe your complaint will indicate more than your hypocrisy.

slyguy07 wrote...
Let me see....just because a game was released more recently makes it more of an RPG? Okay...if you say so. Yes you have the universal truth my friend. Truly.

Let me see. Just because a game has or doesn't have elements that don't make it more or less of an RPG, it's more or less of an RPG? Yes, you have the universal truth, my friend. Truely.

slyguy07 wrote...
I am going off what is consistent in today's RPGs...and you well I am not sure what you are going off of.

Yes, I know what you're going off of. What you haven't done is argue why that even makes a difference. Girls tend to have 10 fingers and 10 toes. Add or subtract some, and a girl is no less a girl than another girl with 10 fingers and 10 toes. This is because finger and toe count has absolutely nothing to do with determining gender, sort of like your supposed non-role playing RPG elements have nothing to do with whether or not a game is more or less of an RPG.

It's common. Big deal. You have yet to successfully argue why that matters. All you do is keep saying that it's common. Do you think that if you say it again it'll matter?
 

slyguy07 wrote...
Even if they want to draw horrible analogies and comparisons to try and back them up as if it somehow validated them. But if you want to continue spouting more ignorant garbage such as ME2 has a stat system a inventory where ME1 does not go ahead. At least you could see the stats in ME1. Or maybe you like invisible stats? Aside from health and shields?

Yes, ME2 doesn't have stats, aside from the stats that it has. Good job. When you take away all the stats, like health and shields and newtons and durations and whatnot, ME2 doesn't have stats. Sort of how like ME1 doesn't have stats if you don't count the health and the 2 percent accuracy increases or whatever. And why do stats make a game more or less of an RPG again?

Is it the same reason that Modern Warfare is less of a FPS game than Doom because of it's different health system? I mean, the health system has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you shoot from the first person, sort of like the inventory has nothing to do with whether or not the game has role playing and rules to make it a game in the first place. But still!

By the way, you see those guns on Shepard's back? That's an inventory of weapons. When Shepard checks the lockers, that's an inventory screen you're seeing. Medigel is in Shepard's inventory, too. Why isn't it an inventory? Because there's no 100+ item list on a separate screen that you can access no matter where you are? Is that all?

If it's all about stuff to carry around, ME2 has an inventory. If it's all about a separate screen, ME2 has an inventory. Does ME2 have to have ME1's inventory in order to have an inventory? No. So what's the problem?

slyguy07 wrote...
Calling the weapons locker and armor system an inventory is just pitiful.

Why, becasue you said so? OK. Well, I say that ME1's inventory system is pitiful and ME2's inventory system is great, because, like you, I merely said so. And you know what? It's more immersive. True and pure RPG fans like immersion, right?

slyguy07 wrote...
I don't care for looting Billybob's Sniper Rifle of Melon Popping every kill, but don't try to say that qualities as much of an inventory system as it does just a weapon selection.

That's what an inventory is: stuff. If that stuff is weapons, then it's a weapons selection.

slyguy07 wrote...
Anyhow I think I will quit wasting my time with people who want to keep this "an RPG isn't like those RPG genre games released here lately because we say so even if it contains some consistant elements across those games" because it's just that: a waste of time. 

If you want a waste of time, try aruging with people that want to measure how tall a person is in gerflunklebagles, and them having 10 separate opinions about how much one gerflunklebagle is and no desire to validate their opinion. Also, a gerflunklebagle is a measure of sourness. It's sort of like arguing with people who think they can say that ME2 is more or less of an RPG than another game without validating their opinion on what makes an RPG an RPG or less or more of an RPG. So, like arguing with someone like you but without all the things you've been factually incorrect about. People who talk about gerflunklebagles have done their research, at least.

Modifié par MarloMarlo, 22 mars 2010 - 06:12 .

[Dudeman315]

So how's that philosophy degree coming mariomario?

[MarloMarlo]

Dudeman315 wrote...

So how's that philosophy degree coming mariomario?

That's a lower case L in my name, not an i. How thoughtless of you to overlook that. I'm glad that you at least know that logic is a philosophy course, though. But your question seems like either a bizarre attempt at socializing or an indication that you'd mix in with a mob of slack-jawed yokels who look down on educated people in between breathing through their mouths. You aren't a fan of Fox News, are you?

Modifié par MarloMarlo, 22 mars 2010 - 06:55 .

[TJSolo]

[SurfaceBeneath]

slyguy07 wrote...
Anyhow I think I will quit wasting my time with people who want to keep this "an RPG isn't like those RPG genre games released here lately because we say so even if it contains some consistant elements across those games" because it's just that: a waste of time.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Damn this brings me back to the days where people would rant about how Diablo was not an RPG.



Good times.

[lastpawn]

I just saw the presentation. It was very well done. I'm encouraged that the developers intend to weave more RPG elements into the gameplay.



Personally, I thought that virtually all the changes made were for the best, save for the actual story (storytelling improved, however). All my other complaints are relatively minor, like "Why can't I change armor at the start of every mission? I can change weapons."



Anyway, if Christina Norman reads this, she can add me to the list of rabid ME1 fans who are also highly satisfied with ME2 (and still hope for those "richer RPG elements").

[thompsonaf]

I don't miss the mess that was ME1's loot system but I do miss tricking out my Spectre X Assault rifle with mods. Rail Extension VII x2 + High Explosive Rounds X on my shotgun was insane. Rounds from that gun would rocket geth into space. Armor would be nice to have back as well, Miranda/Jacob/Thane/Jack all look ridiculous running around a battlefield in their t-shirts.

[Pocketgb]

thompsonaf wrote...

I don't miss the mess that was ME1's loot system but I do miss tricking out my Spectre X Assault rifle with mods. Rail Extension VII x2 + High Explosive Rounds X on my shotgun was insane. Rounds from that gun would rocket geth into space. Armor would be nice to have back as well, Miranda/Jacob/Thane/Jack all look ridiculous running around a battlefield in their t-shirts.

I wouldn't mind seeing their clothing get more of an armored or battle-hardened appearance, but it was pretty cool to see them in unique suits. It did much to help them as a character, and I can't ever imagine Jack being the same if she was decked-out in any form of armor.

[slyguy07]

[quote]MarloMarlo wrote...

[quote]slyguy07 wrote...
You honestly think ME2 has more complex story than ME1?[/quote]
Yes, let's get serious opinions out of satire. Well done.

The correct response was to realize that I didn't back up my opinion. I just said it. The end. And then after that, you can realize that you do the exact same thing. That's how satire works.

[quote]slyguy07 wrote...
Wow...okay how about this. You build a squad. A team. Then you do a suicide mission. The end. Seriously.[/quote]
Wow, okay how about this: you find some clues, then you save the Citadel. The end. Seriously.

[quote]slyguy07 wrote...
Even most of the people who like ME2 have said they liked ME1's story better.[/quote]
Actually, most of them said the opposite. They also said they agree with everything I said. Most of them, anyway. You're on the fringe, which automatically makes you wrong.

[quote]slyguy07 wrote...
Of course I feel another annoying response coming on now.[/quote]
I should hope so, considering how stupid your arguments are. I'm just throwing them back at your face. Name one annoying argument that isn't just your logic turned around on you and maybe your complaint will indicate more than your hypocrisy.

[quote]slyguy07 wrote...
Let me see....just because a game was released more recently makes it more of an RPG? Okay...if you say so. Yes you have the universal truth my friend. Truly.[/quote]
Let me see. Just because a game has or doesn't have elements that don't make it more or less of an RPG, it's more or less of an RPG? Yes, you have the universal truth, my friend. Truely.

[quote]slyguy07 wrote...
I am going off what is consistent in today's RPGs...and you well I am not sure what you are going off of.[/quote]
Yes, I know what you're going off of. What you haven't done is argue why that even makes a difference. Girls tend to have 10 fingers and 10 toes. Add or subtract some, and a girl is no less a girl than another girl with 10 fingers and 10 toes. This is because finger and toe count has absolutely nothing to do with determining gender, sort of like your supposed non-role playing RPG elements have nothing to do with whether or not a game is more or less of an RPG.

It's common. Big deal. You have yet to successfully argue why that matters. All you do is keep saying that it's common. Do you think that if you say it again it'll matter?
 
[quote]slyguy07 wrote...
Even if they want to draw horrible analogies and comparisons to try and back them up as if it somehow validated them. But if you want to continue spouting more ignorant garbage such as ME2 has a stat system a inventory where ME1 does not go ahead. At least you could see the stats in ME1. Or maybe you like invisible stats? Aside from health and shields?[/quote]
Yes, ME2 doesn't have stats, aside from the stats that it has. Good job. When you take away all the stats, like health and shields and newtons and durations and whatnot, ME2 doesn't have stats. Sort of how like ME1 doesn't have stats if you don't count the health and the 2 percent accuracy increases or whatever. And why do stats make a game more or less of an RPG again?

Is it the same reason that Modern Warfare is less of a FPS game than Doom because of it's different health system? I mean, the health system has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you shoot from the first person, sort of like the inventory has nothing to do with whether or not the game has role playing and rules to make it a game in the first place. But still!

By the way, you see those guns on Shepard's back? That's an inventory of weapons. When Shepard checks the lockers, that's an inventory screen you're seeing. Medigel is in Shepard's inventory, too. Why isn't it an inventory? Because there's no 100+ item list on a separate screen that you can access no matter where you are? Is that all?

If it's all about stuff to carry around, ME2 has an inventory. If it's all about a separate screen, ME2 has an inventory. Does ME2 have to have ME1's inventory in order to have an inventory? No. So what's the problem?

[quote]slyguy07 wrote...
Calling the weapons locker and armor system an inventory is just pitiful.[/quote]
Why, becasue you said so? OK. Well, I say that ME1's inventory system is pitiful and ME2's inventory system is great, because, like you, I merely said so. And you know what? It's more immersive. True and pure RPG fans like immersion, right?

[quote]slyguy07 wrote...
I don't care for looting Billybob's Sniper Rifle of Melon Popping every kill, but don't try to say that qualities as much of an inventory system as it does just a weapon selection.[/quote]
That's what an inventory is: stuff. If that stuff is weapons, then it's a weapons selection.

[quote]slyguy07 wrote...
Anyhow I think I will quit wasting my time with people who want to keep this "an RPG isn't like those RPG genre games released here lately because we say so even if it contains some consistant elements across those games" because it's just that: a waste of time. [/quote]
If you want a waste of time, try aruging with people that want to measure how tall a person is in gerflunklebagles, and them having 10 separate opinions about how much one gerflunklebagle is and no desire to validate their opinion. Also, a gerflunklebagle is a measure of sourness. It's sort of like arguing with people who think they can say that ME2 is more or less of an RPG than another game without validating their opinion on what makes an RPG an RPG or less or more of an RPG. So, like arguing with someone like you but without all the things you've been factually incorrect about. People who talk about gerflunklebagles have done their research, at least.[/quote]

Lol I like how you try to dissect everything then spew your total wall of bullsh*t. You should be a politician. I think I will take Bethesda's, 2K Games, and Bioware's opinions on what an RPG is over you anyday. Hate to break it to you Sherlock, but you're the one who is factually incorrect. All you need to do is look at the most recently released games. Just because they are common makes them the most common elements of an RPG today. That's not  something I should have to argue makes a difference if you had any sense. Of course since your the absolute master know-it-all I am sure your opinion is above reproach or something like that. You want to play your little game of philosophical crap that's fine, but the status quo of the genre is what it is and those things are what many people are going to qualify the game by.

Nobody has to like it, but that's how it is. Oh wait that's another reply of semi-witty douchebaggery coming on?

[slyguy07]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

slyguy07 wrote...
Anyhow I think I will quit wasting my time with people who want to keep this "an RPG isn't like those RPG genre games released here lately because we say so even if it contains some consistant elements across those games" because it's just that: a waste of time.

Yes I am serious. How clever.