No "Meaningless Stat Games" in Mass Effect 3

[Duskflamer]

And what exactly is the fun of having to sit down with a calculator to work out optimal stats?

It means that when you modify your weapon, it does something. It sets things on fire - that's fun. It does 5% extra damage - how is that fun?

It's not fun for you, that's fine, don't play RPGs. But what do you have against RPG players? Did a 5% stat bonus kill your parents or something?

 

[Arec Balrin]

And what exactly is the fun of having to sit down with a calculator to work out optimal stats?

It means that when you modify your weapon, it does something. It sets things on fire - that's fun. It does 5% extra damage - how is that fun?

I would make a snide remark about you needing a calculator but the drooling morons that are all for RPGs no longer being recognisable RPGs would make a similar generalisation about me.

So I won't.

 

[Kahunaburger]

So why is the dice roll stuff central to what makes an RPG an RPG? Let's say I want to model shooting someone - I can either model it by rolling Attack Bonus + 1d20, or model it as a shooter. Tabletop games are better at the former, but the latter is generally a more immersive and engaging way to do it.

Dice rolling isn't necessarily essential, neither is inventory, leveling, customisable equipment, customisable characters, branching dialogue and plot lines, non-linear exploration... no one of these things by itself make a game an RPG, but there comes a point where you've taken so many of these elements away that what you're really looking at is a different genre.

Yes combat can be modelled by dice rolls or it can be simulated in real time; the important point here is that both are valid methods and one does not obsolete or supersede the other. Some games should have simulation and some should be probability based. The simulation approach gives you a skill based combat system which is great, and the probability approach gives you a tactical combat system which can support lots of complexity.

RPG may stand for "role playing game" but usage is more important than etymology in word definition, and RPG has come to mean games that involve loot, customisable characters/equipment, dialogue trees, and stats; with the focus on character building/equiping.
There are relatively few examples of this sort of RPG faring as well with simulation based combat as with turn based, turn based/probability based lends itself strongly to the application of stats and complex equipment.
Its quite difficult to achieve complexity that the player can make any sense of without giving them numbers.

Well, I'd rather have this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAcUzi6MfII&feature=related
than this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l54ZlwSAUs&feature=related

Both are examples of good RPGs, with deep levels of character and gear customization. (I'd argue Morrowind gives you more options, whereas Borderlands gives you more variety from character to character, but the point is that they're both examples of doin it rite.) When you've got a game where they player has real-time control over his or her character, it makes more sense to make stuff like hitting or missing contingent on player skill. This is why, for instance, Bethesada dropped the % hit mechanic of Morrowind for Oblivion and presumably Skyrim.

Stats are more effective for games like Dragon Age and Final Fantasy, where you're trying to model large scale melee combat, because melee is generally more complex to model than shooting. But the Mass Effect always focused on shooter gameplay, and I don't think using mechanics designed to model shooting vs. mechanics designed to model (mostly melee) combat abstractly for tabletop games is necessarily a bad thing for ME3 to be doing.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Look, just take a look at the AAA market right now, what do you see more of? Big budget shooters? or big budget RPGs? I guarantee you that you'll see more of the former, there are more than enough big budget shooters on the market, and while there are plenty of smaller RPGs out there, there's fewer and fewer big budget ones (especially given the disaster that were the last two offerings from the Final Fantasy series).

So yes, we're going to panic when it seems that one of the few good big budget RPGs on the market is veering off too far into Shooter territory. No we do not like meaningless stats in our games, but we do not trust EA to differentiate meaningless stats from stats who's effects are not instantly obvious (And in the first place, if there's truly a meaningless stat in a game, that is horrible game design, if the stat is there it has to be doing something).

We understand that plenty of you would enjoy playing the plot of ME without having to deal with the RPG elements, but that is simply a preference. Please understand that others would prefer there to be even more RPG elements to deal with. Neither side holds some absolute truth that must be followed, both sides have valid points, but just keep in mind that if you want a big budget shooter, there's plenty of choices on the market (Brink's about to come out if you need a new one), while RPG fans practically have to scavenge the alleyways of gaming in order to find a good one for their genre, and ME3 just being another shooter is not going to help that.

On the other hand, big budget shooters are veering into RPG territory at least as much. Bioshock, Borderlands, etc. - even games like Black Ops or BFBC2 have classes and customization now. Genre isn't as important as good gameplay, IMO.

 

[Duskflamer]

snip

On the other hand, big budget shooters are veering into RPG territory at least as much. Bioshock, Borderlands, etc. - even games like Black Ops or BFBC2 have classes and customization now. Genre isn't as important as good gameplay, IMO.

I was typing up a long, detailed responce to this when my computer decided to blue screen out of nowhere >.< so I'll give you the short version.

In games, genre = gameplay.

Borderlands is the perfect example of an FPS/RPG

Bioshock is iffy, but I'll admit it has significant RPG elements.

Haven't played the last two, but from what I hear about Black Ops, it does have rank ups and skills as a result of that, and I applaud their inclusion, but nobody is calling it an FPS/RPG, they just call it an FPS, because at the end of the day, the RPG elements are haphazardly tacked on while the overwhelming focus is on the FPS elements of the game.

ME1 was squarely an FPS/RPG, not executed nearly as smoothly as Borderlands but still definitely an RPG at heart.

ME2 is closer to Bioshock level, it's certainly more solidly an RPG than Bioshock is, but it's close.

The fear is that ME3 will end up being closer to Black Ops and similar games, a shooter with RPG elements tacked onto it, and EA's recent announcements are only fueling that fear.

 

[Saviordd1]

I'm so glad that my love of leveling, looting, and tactics is now relegated to "meaningless stat games".

Just gah.

Where the fuck does it say its getting rid of leveling and tactics?

It said that those things would have a greater impact, not that they were vanishing.

Oh, and to other "hardcore" rpg gamers. ME is a RPG, get over it

 

[Kahunaburger]

snip

On the other hand, big budget shooters are veering into RPG territory at least as much. Bioshock, Borderlands, etc. - even games like Black Ops or BFBC2 have classes and customization now. Genre isn't as important as good gameplay, IMO.

I was typing up a long, detailed responce to this when my computer decided to blue screen out of nowhere >.< so I'll give you the short version.

In games, genre = gameplay.

Borderlands is the perfect example of an FPS/RPG

Bioshock is iffy, but I'll admit it has significant RPG elements.

Haven't played the last two, but from what I hear about Black Ops, it does have rank ups and skills as a result of that, and I applaud their inclusion, but nobody is calling it an FPS/RPG, they just call it an FPS, because at the end of the day, the RPG elements are haphazardly tacked on while the overwhelming focus is on the FPS elements of the game.

ME1 was squarely an FPS/RPG, not executed nearly as smoothly as Borderlands but still definitely an RPG at heart.

ME2 is closer to Bioshock level, it's certainly more solidly an RPG than Bioshock is, but it's close.

The fear is that ME3 will end up being closer to Black Ops and similar games, a shooter with RPG elements tacked onto it, and EA's recent announcements are only fueling that fear.

Well, the real question is how you define an RPG. Because to me, a story-driven game with extensive dialogue, a large cast of characters who fight alongside you, a customizable PC, an emphasis on choice, character classes, and skill trees is solidly in RPG territory.

And for me, the whole genre vs. gameplay thing boils down to this: a choice made by game developers to put a game into a genre does not necessarily also work to make the game a good game. Take the chance to hit mechanic in Morrowind - it's an RPG trope, but it detracts from good gameplay. Morrowind is still 100% RPG with or without that mechanic.

Or take Mass Effect - in the first game, you buy and sell weapons. This makes basically no sense - if Shepard works for the Council, they'd find a way to keep her supplied. From a design perspective, it's in the game because people generally do that in RPGs, not because it makes sense in terms of the story. (Of course, the "scanning for resources" replacement makes even less sense, but that fits more into the "bad idea" category than the "RPG" or "shooter" categories.)

So the point is that devs should just focus on making their RPG a good game, rather than trying to cram as many RPG tropes as possible into it. At the end of the day, a Mass Effect game will be an RPG regardless of whether Commander Shepard had her gun built on the Normandy, filled out a requisition form for it, or bought it in a store somewhere.

 

[Karma168]

And what exactly is the fun of having to sit down with a calculator to work out optimal stats?

It means that when you modify your weapon, it does something. It sets things on fire - that's fun. It does 5% extra damage - how is that fun?

I'll agree with that, i would spend maybe 20 mins in mass effect 1 running back and forth between the team lockers and the on board shop scribbling down what every gun, armour piece and upgrade to see which one would suit each teammate best. By the end i was just throwing anything on because i cba working out my dps and everything else.

Same with WoW, used to watch my brother when he played, number of times i would sit for a good hour just watching him compare equipment to see what would give him the best stats. I'd ask him when he'd get to the actual game and he'd tell me that that was the game, why you pay £15 a month for that is beyond me

 

[Ghengis John]

Calling Mass Effect an RPG is a pretty serious genre stretch at this point, but that doesn't mean it won't be a hell of a good game when it comes out.

You think RPG's are about stats. That's a little sad really.

 

[Njdevil1288]

snip

On the other hand, big budget shooters are veering into RPG territory at least as much. Bioshock, Borderlands, etc. - even games like Black Ops or BFBC2 have classes and customization now. Genre isn't as important as good gameplay, IMO.

I was typing up a long, detailed responce to this when my computer decided to blue screen out of nowhere >.< so I'll give you the short version.

In games, genre = gameplay.

Borderlands is the perfect example of an FPS/RPG

Bioshock is iffy, but I'll admit it has significant RPG elements.

Haven't played the last two, but from what I hear about Black Ops, it does have rank ups and skills as a result of that, and I applaud their inclusion, but nobody is calling it an FPS/RPG, they just call it an FPS, because at the end of the day, the RPG elements are haphazardly tacked on while the overwhelming focus is on the FPS elements of the game.

ME1 was squarely an FPS/RPG, not executed nearly as smoothly as Borderlands but still definitely an RPG at heart.

ME2 is closer to Bioshock level, it's certainly more solidly an RPG than Bioshock is, but it's close.

The fear is that ME3 will end up being closer to Black Ops and similar games, a shooter with RPG elements tacked onto it, and EA's recent announcements are only fueling that fear.

at least your honest to admit that you havent played the last two COD but to clarify taking your statement as u said it u would know that ranking up and unlocking things swapping perks and adding mods to your guns has been around since COD4 and Black Ops only added even more customization, to further clarify COD4 was 3 COD games ago. Also the slight RPG tweeking is exclusive to the multiplayer the single player is a straight FPS thats why no1 is calling it an RPG/FPS hybrid, Dues EX, to an extent bioshock and of course borderlands fits the bill. SO no ME3 will never end up like black ops or gears of war cause those are straight shooters. Like i said the slight rpg things are exclusive to the multiplayer and they have been a staple of the game for the last few games.

 

[Duskflamer]

snip

On the other hand, big budget shooters are veering into RPG territory at least as much. Bioshock, Borderlands, etc. - even games like Black Ops or BFBC2 have classes and customization now. Genre isn't as important as good gameplay, IMO.

snip

Well, the real question is how you define an RPG. Because to me, a story-driven game with extensive dialogue, a large cast of characters who fight alongside you, a customizable PC, an emphasis on choice, character classes, and skill trees is solidly in RPG territory.

While all of those are tropes generally associated with RPGs, none of them are needed for an RPG and many of them are not unique to it. You can easily have a non-RPG that is story driven with plenty of dialog, many characters, PC customization, and choice. Character classes and Skill trees generally only show up in RPGs but I need only point to Oblivion as one that is clearly an RPG without either of those.

In my mind, the core of an RPG is a gradual and constant increase in the power of your character. I don't care if that's due to level ups, other form of stat increases, gaining magic spells, whatever. As long as the character him/herself is getting more powerful as the game goes on, it counts in my mind. I do NOT count equipment into this however, or else every FPS on the market would also count, as you get new and (generally) better guns through the game, but any other form of gradual power increase places the game as an RPG in my mind.

There are, however, certain keystone elements that define a "traditional" (read: Final Fantasy style) RPG. HP to represent how much damage you can take, MP to determine how often you can use special skills, a system to buy/sell and organize equipment for your characters, and level ups are all part of what defines a traditional RPG, but you can easily have an RPG that doesn't include all of these (I'd say any except that IMO, HP is the most acceptable way to keep track of damage, it doesn't cripple you for getting shot like you would be in real life and it shows a defined number for how much punishment you can take.)

And for me, the whole genre vs. gameplay thing boils down to this: a choice made by game developers to put a game into a genre does not necessarily also work to make the game a good game. Take the chance to hit mechanic in Morrowind - it's an RPG trope, but it detracts from good gameplay. Morrowind is still 100% RPG with or without that mechanic.

As I said before, you don't need to include every trope of the game to get the essence of the genre, when I said that gameplay = genre, I meant that video game genres are defined by how you play through the game. A game where you jump around to get from point A to point B is a platformer, a game where you go around and shoot people with guns is an FPS, etc. Do note that gameplay is not entirely combat, otherwise games like The Sims would have no gameplay and a majority of RPG/ would just be the something.

Or take Mass Effect - in the first game, you buy and sell weapons. This makes basically no sense - if Shepard works for the Council, they'd find a way to keep her supplied. From a design perspective, it's in the game because people generally do that in RPGs, not because it makes sense in terms of the story. (Of course, the "scanning for resources" replacement makes even less sense, but that fits more into the "bad idea" category than the "RPG" or "shooter" categories.)

See above, though I'd say that they shouldn't have entirely ripped out the inventory system for ME2, they could have made it a lot better and the hope (or at least, I hope) is that some improved form of the inventory system will return for ME3, some form that makes more sense for the game of course.

So the point is that devs should just focus on making their RPG a good game, rather than trying to cram as many RPG tropes as possible into it. At the end of the day, a Mass Effect game will be an RPG regardless of whether Commander Shepard had her gun built on the Normandy, filled out a requisition form for it, or bought it in a store somewhere.

I have no doubt that ME3 will qualify as an RPG, I (and others) simply hope that it will solidly qualify as such, not barely qualify as such.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, it's not that we want meaningless stats in our RPGs, it's just that we don't trust EA to differentiate a meaningless stat from something they just don't understand.

snip

snip

at least your honest to admit that you havent played the last two COD but to clarify taking your statement as u said it u would know that ranking up and unlocking things swapping perks and adding mods to your guns has been around since COD4 and Black Ops only added even more customization, to further clarify COD4 was 3 COD games ago. Also the slight RPG tweeking is exclusive to the multiplayer the single player is a straight FPS thats why no1 is calling it an RPG/FPS hybrid, Dues EX, to an extent bioshock and of course borderlands fits the bill. SO no ME3 will never end up like black ops or gears of war cause those are straight shooters. Like i said the slight rpg things are exclusive to the multiplayer and they have been a staple of the game for the last few games.

Thank you for the information. I actually didn't even realize that those games had gun mods (I don't play FPS games in general, as I suck at them and don't enjoy the multiplayer experience. I die constantly even just playing either of the Mass Effect games on low difficulty.), I could argue semantics over this but that's not at the heart at things here, and as I said I do commend the developers for adding more depth, I'll refrain from commenting more on the topic simply due to lack of first-hand experience.

 

[Njdevil1288]

snip

On the other hand, big budget shooters are veering into RPG territory at least as much. Bioshock, Borderlands, etc. - even games like Black Ops or BFBC2 have classes and customization now. Genre isn't as important as good gameplay, IMO.

snip

Well, the real question is how you define an RPG. Because to me, a story-driven game with extensive dialogue, a large cast of characters who fight alongside you, a customizable PC, an emphasis on choice, character classes, and skill trees is solidly in RPG territory.

While all of those are tropes generally associated with RPGs, none of them are needed for an RPG and many of them are not unique to it. You can easily have a non-RPG that is story driven with plenty of dialog, many characters, PC customization, and choice. Character classes and Skill trees generally only show up in RPGs but I need only point to Oblivion as one that is clearly an RPG without either of those.

In my mind, the core of an RPG is a gradual and constant increase in the power of your character. I don't care if that's due to level ups, other form of stat increases, gaining magic spells, whatever. As long as the character him/herself is getting more powerful as the game goes on, it counts in my mind. I do NOT count equipment into this however, or else every FPS on the market would also count, as you get new and (generally) better guns through the game, but any other form of gradual power increase places the game as an RPG in my mind.

There are, however, certain keystone elements that define a "traditional" (read: Final Fantasy style) RPG. HP to represent how much damage you can take, MP to determine how often you can use special skills, a system to buy/sell and organize equipment for your characters, and level ups are all part of what defines a traditional RPG, but you can easily have an RPG that doesn't include all of these (I'd say any except that IMO, HP is the most acceptable way to keep track of damage, it doesn't cripple you for getting shot like you would be in real life and it shows a defined number for how much punishment you can take.)

And for me, the whole genre vs. gameplay thing boils down to this: a choice made by game developers to put a game into a genre does not necessarily also work to make the game a good game. Take the chance to hit mechanic in Morrowind - it's an RPG trope, but it detracts from good gameplay. Morrowind is still 100% RPG with or without that mechanic.

As I said before, you don't need to include every trope of the game to get the essence of the genre, when I said that gameplay = genre, I meant that video game genres are defined by how you play through the game. A game where you jump around to get from point A to point B is a platformer, a game where you go around and shoot people with guns is an FPS, etc. Do note that gameplay is not entirely combat, otherwise games like The Sims would have no gameplay and a majority of RPG/ would just be the something.

Or take Mass Effect - in the first game, you buy and sell weapons. This makes basically no sense - if Shepard works for the Council, they'd find a way to keep her supplied. From a design perspective, it's in the game because people generally do that in RPGs, not because it makes sense in terms of the story. (Of course, the "scanning for resources" replacement makes even less sense, but that fits more into the "bad idea" category than the "RPG" or "shooter" categories.)

See above, though I'd say that they shouldn't have entirely ripped out the inventory system for ME2, they could have made it a lot better and the hope (or at least, I hope) is that some improved form of the inventory system will return for ME3, some form that makes more sense for the game of course.

So the point is that devs should just focus on making their RPG a good game, rather than trying to cram as many RPG tropes as possible into it. At the end of the day, a Mass Effect game will be an RPG regardless of whether Commander Shepard had her gun built on the Normandy, filled out a requisition form for it, or bought it in a store somewhere.

I have no doubt that ME3 will qualify as an RPG, I (and others) simply hope that it will solidly qualify as such, not barely qualify as such.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, it's not that we want meaningless stats in our RPGs, it's just that we don't trust EA to differentiate a meaningless stat from something they just don't understand.

snip

snip

at least your honest to admit that you havent played the last two COD but to clarify taking your statement as u said it u would know that ranking up and unlocking things swapping perks and adding mods to your guns has been around since COD4 and Black Ops only added even more customization, to further clarify COD4 was 3 COD games ago. Also the slight RPG tweeking is exclusive to the multiplayer the single player is a straight FPS thats why no1 is calling it an RPG/FPS hybrid, Dues EX, to an extent bioshock and of course borderlands fits the bill. SO no ME3 will never end up like black ops or gears of war cause those are straight shooters. Like i said the slight rpg things are exclusive to the multiplayer and they have been a staple of the game for the last few games.

Thank you for the information. I actually didn't even realize that those games had gun mods (I don't play FPS games in general, as I suck at them and don't enjoy the multiplayer experience. I die constantly even just playing either of the Mass Effect games on low difficulty.), I could argue semantics over this but that's not at the heart at things here, and as I said I do commend the developers for adding more depth, I'll refrain from commenting more on the topic simply due to lack of first-hand experience.

noted it just gets to me a little when people bash FPS games COD in general and know nothing about it (not that u bashed it but i wanted to clarify certian things). I have this feeling that alot of people who bash these kinda of games and are getting all pissy about the improved shooting in ME3 are people who just arent good at shooters, (also not a slight to you cause its clear that despite the lack of shooter skill it seems like u very much enjoy the ME games)

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

I've written before that traditional RPG mechanics wind up being very clunky, at best, in action RPGs. What works behind a DM's screen or between turns in a Turn-Based RPG doesn't work so well when you're the one in control. A DM can make a low damage score from a gun make sense. "The bullet grazes the orc and does 3 damage. The arrow bounces off his armor, inconveniencing him slightly." Doesn't work so well when you're the one firing the gun. When you see a normal human take a direct hit from bullet to the face as if lightly slapped (often with the same animation), shrugs it off, and keeps shooting, it ruins the experience. More so if it happens ten times.

I'm not saying RPG elements need to be scrapped for action games - but I think Bioware's on the right track with reinventing them. What worked for turn based RPGs should have stayed with turn based RPGs. Instead of making a square peg fit into a round hole, they should make a round peg.

 

[Jeronus]

I got ME1 because I heard it was a great rpg. After playing ME2 and reading this article, I wonder why they didn't make the entire series a purely shooter based affair.

 

[Duskflamer]

snip

megasnip

noted it just gets to me a little when people bash FPS games COD in general and know nothing about it (not that u bashed it but i wanted to clarify certian things). I have this feeling that alot of people who bash these kinda of games and are getting all pissy about the improved shooting in ME3 are people who just arent good at shooters, (also not a slight to you cause its clear that despite the lack of shooter skill it seems like u very much enjoy the ME games)

Noted, sorry if I came across that way. I know that I don't like FPS', and in general I don't make comments about them. The comments I did make were based on what I've heard from others (including people who do like the games), what I'd mostly heard amounted to certain perks unbalancing the game and generally what I head made it sound like the whole perk system was poorly thought out and poorly balanced. But again, all the information I got was second hand, and it's very likely that my mind put it through an "I don't like FPS'" filter.

And yes. I very much enjoy the ME games, mostly for the characters and choice system, though I do get a certain satisfactions from collection sidequests and trying out different skills.

 

[Njdevil1288]

I got ME1 because I heard it was a great rpg. After playing ME2 and reading this article, I wonder why they didn't make the entire series a purely shooter based affair.

Because it would not have worked if it was a straight shooter.

 

[Njdevil1288]

snip

megasnip

noted it just gets to me a little when people bash FPS games COD in general and know nothing about it (not that u bashed it but i wanted to clarify certian things). I have this feeling that alot of people who bash these kinda of games and are getting all pissy about the improved shooting in ME3 are people who just arent good at shooters, (also not a slight to you cause its clear that despite the lack of shooter skill it seems like u very much enjoy the ME games)

Noted, sorry if I came across that way. I know that I don't like FPS', and in general I don't make comments about them. The comments I did make were based on what I've heard from others (including people who do like the games), what I'd mostly heard amounted to certain perks unbalancing the game and generally what I head made it sound like the whole perk system was poorly thought out and poorly balanced. But again, all the information I got was second hand, and it's very likely that my mind put it through an "I don't like FPS'" filter.

And yes. I very much enjoy the ME games, mostly for the characters and choice system, though I do get a certain satisfactions from collection sidequests and trying out different skills.

alot of these unbalancing issues are indeed correct, but they are almost exclusive to modern warfare 2, infinite m203 aka noob tubes via One man army, super magic lunges through bullets via commando pro. The perks were fine in cod4 but in an attempt to make mw2 more tactical they just made it unbalanced and broken (most of these issues were fixed in black ops). MW2 as fun as it was as a black eye to FPS fans and the kind of people it attracted (alot of whom refuse to play black ops cause they cant abuse it) leaves non fps fans to generalize and think were all a bunch of idiots shouting racist and homophobic insults in the game lobbies.

 

[Cody Dishner]

well Its official IMO
Bioware is no longer exclusive to RPGs
/chokes back fanboy rage

 

[WonderWillard]

I am going to control my natural urge to get angry and nervous, and hold off until I see a gameplay video. All the information we've gotten so far is pretty vague.

 

[PhoenixVanguard]

@Duskflamer

You get to be my new favorite for using phrases like "in my mind" before stating an opinion as though it were fact, because while I disagree to an extent, I can certainly see why you might think that, and I respect it. Also...actually reading counterarguments, admitting to faults in your own argument, and keeping an open mind? Seriously, if half of the nerd raging on this forum were civilized discourse like that, we might actually be able to have real conversations on the internet. Kudos to you.