185 réponses à ce sujet

[TheShogunOfHarlem]

Whereto wrote...

JedTed wrote...

RPG elitists are worse than PC elitists.

I play PC and i cant stand elitists, they are a pain in the ass and state the obvious that pc would beat xbox and ps3 in every aspect of competitive gaming. Im like come on you have a mouse and generally better internet connection combined with better hardware, who do you think is going to win

But as for shooters being 'mindless' it tends to be true now days.MW2 i think is the worst think eve to happen to FPS. Now everyone wants to copy and have lots of money in the bank. In actual fact they kill there chances of making more money cause it only attracts the child who have their parents money

So so true.

[MTN Dew Fanatic]

Whereto wrote...

JedTed wrote...

RPG elitists are worse than PC elitists.

I play PC and i cant stand elitists, they are a pain in the ass and state the obvious that pc would beat xbox and ps3 in every aspect of competitive gaming. Im like come on you have a mouse and generally better internet connection combined with better hardware, who do you think is going to win

But as for shooters being 'mindless' it tends to be true now days.MW2 i think is the worst think eve to happen to FPS. Now everyone wants to copy and have lots of money in the bank. In actual fact they kill there chances of making more money cause it only attracts the child who have their parents money

I agree with all of this.

[SithLordExarKun]

bjdbwea wrote...
 which is probably one more reason why they didn't buy ME 2 in as large numbers as BioWare/EA certainly hoped.

More conspiracy theories from you yet again, where did they say they hoped that ME2 would sell as much as those military shooters? By the way, like it or not ME2 outsold your precious ME1 game, whether or not it sold as much as other shooters.

[SithLordExarKun]

Whereto wrote...

JedTed wrote...

RPG elitists are worse than PC elitists.

I play PC and i cant stand elitists, they are a pain in the ass and state the obvious that pc would beat xbox and ps3 in every aspect of competitive gaming. Im like come on you have a mouse and generally better internet connection combined with better hardware, who do you think is going to win

Couldn't agree more, mind you that based on what i have seen, it is the console users who 90% start these elitist fights by making the first move proclaiming why the think a PC sucks.

But overall they aren't as bad as some of the RPG elitist clowns here who think that just because they think they are "tru"RPG fans, that they are indeed superior and thus on a higher level of wisdom and looks down on anyone who likes ME2 more than the first game(even if they are RPG fans).

[Geth001]

Whereto wrote...
I play PC and i cant stand elitists, they are a pain in the ass and state the obvious that pc would beat xbox and ps3 in every aspect of competitive gaming. Im like come on you have a mouse and generally better internet connection combined with better hardware, who do you think is going to win

Though, as a humorous aside, the whole reason that Microsoft dropped merging GFWL and XBL (something they talked about in the early 360 days) was because the PC players (having generally more powerful hardware and more precise controls) were stomping the console players in every single mixed-platform matchup.

[Vena_86]

The hate comes from the fact that the Mass Effect series is a leading example on how every game needs to be shooterized and as close to GoW as possible these days. Shooters are just fine when you expect a shooter but not when you expect a RPG. Mixing the genres is just fine too but can be far better then the way ME2 did it. ME2 is a medicore shooter and a shallow RPG. Its the writing and characters that keeps it on top.

If you are awaiting Gears of War 3, buy it and then find out its a turn based isometric RPG just because that happens to be "in" at that time you would be pissed too.

Furthermore, Mass Effect has far more chances to come close to its potential as an open adventure with many elements (shooter, RPG, exploration, space, vehicle, planets, immersion) then a stripped down corridor level shooter, which makes the design shift even more painfull.
Do I hate shooters? I regulary play shooters and RPGs and while Crysis or CoD should not be RPGs, Mass Effect should not be shooter.

Modifié par Vena_86, 01 août 2010 - 10:03 .

[SithLordExarKun]

Vena_86 wrote...

The hate comes from the fact that the Mass Effect series is a leading example on how every game needs to be shooterized and as close to GoW as possible these days. Shooters are just fine when you expect a shooter but not when you expect a RPG. Mixing the genres is just fine too but can be far better then the way ME2 did it. ME2 is a medicore shooter and a shallow RPG. Its the writing and characters that keeps it on top.

If you are awaiting Gears of War 3, buy it and then find out its a turn based isometric RPG just because that happens to be "in" at that time you would be pissed too.

Furthermore, Mass Effect has far more chances to come close to its potential as an open adventure with many elements (shooter, RPG, exploration, space, vehicle, planets, immersion) then a stripped down corridor level shooter, which makes the design shift even more painfull.
Do I hate shooters? I regulary play shooters and RPGs and while Crysis or CoD should not be RPGs, Mass Effect should not be shooter.

First off i felt that ME1 did an incredibly poor job trying to mash RPG and Shooter together(along with trying to play like a shooter too), it had poor RPG mechanics and poor shooter mechanics. At least ME2 got one aspect right : shooting. Hell i thought the shooting in ME2 was far better than the mindless SP shooter that is MW2, at least shooting felt more tactical in ME2.

[RyuGuitarFreak]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Vena_86 wrote...

The hate comes from the fact that the Mass Effect series is a leading example on how every game needs to be shooterized and as close to GoW as possible these days. Shooters are just fine when you expect a shooter but not when you expect a RPG. Mixing the genres is just fine too but can be far better then the way ME2 did it. ME2 is a medicore shooter and a shallow RPG. Its the writing and characters that keeps it on top.

If you are awaiting Gears of War 3, buy it and then find out its a turn based isometric RPG just because that happens to be "in" at that time you would be pissed too.

Furthermore, Mass Effect has far more chances to come close to its potential as an open adventure with many elements (shooter, RPG, exploration, space, vehicle, planets, immersion) then a stripped down corridor level shooter, which makes the design shift even more painfull.
Do I hate shooters? I regulary play shooters and RPGs and while Crysis or CoD should not be RPGs, Mass Effect should not be shooter.

First off i felt that ME1 did an incredibly poor job trying to mash RPG and Shooter together(along with trying to play like a shooter too), it had poor RPG mechanics and poor shooter mechanics. At least ME2 got one aspect right : shooting. Hell i thought the shooting in ME2 was far better than the mindless SP shooter that is MW2, at least shooting felt more tactical in ME2.

Hell yeah. ME2 is my second favorite shooter game now, only losing to the awesomeness of Team Fortress 2.

[The Interloper]

Is it too much to ask to be a great shooter and a great rpg?



ME 2 came very close, but they dumbed down the rpg mechanics a little too much. If they widened it out more, kept the better controls, and avoided the mish-mash of ME 1s inventory and progression system, then it would have been awesome.



As it was, it's almost awesome.

[ThePatriot101]

bjdbwea wrote...
BioWare should continue to use their strengths instead of trying to cater to a different audience that has enough games to their liking already - which is probably one more reason why they didn't buy ME 2 in as large numbers as BioWare/EA certainly hoped.

Take it from someone who actually studies business.  Making the same thing over and over - particularly items with high production values like video games - is NOT good for business.  Soon you are churning out assembly line games that ultimately do little in terms of innovation and isolate yourselves with a particular customer base.

The ME series proves that Bioware goes above merely making RPGs and making contender TPS games with an RPG core component.  It identifies Bioware as an innovative and adaptive company that they can try something that stirs the hardcore RPG base so much yet earns rave reviews and even has impressive sales.

Please don't argue business issues unless you've actually studied enough to formulate a valid argument.

[JHorwath]

I enjoy a good fps from time to time. However, I like the wierd ones. I don't particularly get into the military shooters that much.

[bjdbwea]

ThePatriot101 wrote...

Take it from someone who actually studies business.  Making the same thing over and over - particularly items with high production values like video games - is NOT good for business.  Soon you are churning out assembly line games that ultimately do little in terms of innovation and isolate yourselves with a particular customer base.

Oh, really? So is that why most shooters look and play very similar these days? As far as I know, the audience is happy enough to buy them in record numbers.

ThePatriot101 wrote...

The ME series proves that Bioware goes above merely making RPGs and making contender TPS games with an RPG core component.  It identifies Bioware as an innovative and adaptive company that they can try something that stirs the hardcore RPG base so much yet earns rave reviews and even has impressive sales.

Actually, the sales numbers are far beyond shooters and all those casual games that sell millions and millions of copies. While the production costs for an RPG are of course much higher. From a business perspective this is questionable, and of coure that's exactly why all these "changes" happen. Nothing innovative about it, just the good old attempt to increase profits by following a successful model. Not a big increase in sales numbers in comparison to ME 1 so far though.

ThePatriot101 wrote...

Please don't argue business issues unless you've actually studied enough to formulate a valid argument.

I think I'll continue to voice my opinion, if it's all the same to you. Also, I don't need to be a rocket scientist to see which one flies and which one crashes.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 02 août 2010 - 07:27 .

[JHorwath]

Vandrayke wrote...

Different games for different moods. Sometimes I want to dork out and play an RPG all day, sometimes I want to blow crap up, sometimes I want to manage an NFL team, sometimes I want to play the actual games, sometimes I want to conquer the world, sometimes I want to build crap. I don't turn stupid when I decide to play Bioshock or Madden and then get smart again when I play Europa Universalis 3.

^^ Well Said.  That's why I like to have a well rounded game library.  It helps to have a variety of games to pick from when you decide to hunker down for a weekend of gaming.

Modifié par JHorwath, 02 août 2010 - 07:36 .

[PathofDaggers]

CSS FTW for online only games. But mainly I play everything. I thought MW1 and MW2 hand good story and gameplay. The story was predictable and basically the same basic plot as most Hollywood action movies. But I still enjoyed them. and MW 2 I thought was especially amazing when you had to pull the knife out of your stomach and such. Fallout 3 (for an example of a RPG) I loved but was too linear for me in way of the fact there was a forced age upon you, which made it awkward to create an older character as I prefer. also you were kinda punished if you wanted to play as a bad guy, in example the men that are sent after you if your karma goes down a certain amount which will happen if you blow up megaton. In Mass Effect you did have a set age, but it wasnt mentioned in the dialogue very much, if at all. Things like that made it much less linear compared to other RPG's.But linear stories in games such as the CoD saga is expected because of the type of game, which is why it doesnt bother me at all. The point is that linear doesnt mean mindless as there are many different types of linear. Mass Effect is linear in its levels. CoD games are linear in the story lines and levels. Fallout 3 is linear in character type. Im sure there are many games that are linear in many different ways. I guess if a game that is linear makes the people who play it mindless (which seems to be what most people have said that I have seen post) I guess we are all mindless since ME's level design is linear.

[ThePatriot101]

bjdbwea wrote...
Oh, really? So is that why most shooters look and play very similar these days? As far as I know, the audience is happy enough to buy them in record numbers.

You seem to also miss the fact that shooters have different environments, atmospheres, and overall gameplay mechanics that RPGs don't like Multiplayer (which is a big part of most shooters today).  And just because shooters have some things that they have in common does not mean they're all the same.  I've played a bunch of shooters, and even though the basic controls of "Aim, Press Trigger, Aim, Press Trigger" haven't changed much, it doesn't mean they're still making the same game over and over.  Not to mention you have to consider their target market which is for people who don't necessarily want to grind through hours of gameplay only to get a mere fraction of the way through the game.  They're people who want to get through something quick-paced and explosive.

And you know what, genres like military shooters do have some constrictions regarding how much the developers can change while keeping it within that same atmosphere.  But that's not a bad thing, especially when it comes to modern military shooters.  They're recognizable.  They're easier to get the grasp of.  They're easier to learn how to take control.  Overall, they're more accessible.  You don't have to spend hours trying to figure out what universe you're in like with pure RPGs.  Now certainly to the RPG advocates who play "sophisticated" games you'd get turned off.  But people like that are in fact in a minority of overall gamers - namely the ones with the time and patience to go through to learn all of the aspects of the leveling, looting, combat, etc. in the game.  A greater number of people just happen to like the more-action oriented stuff.

Actually, the sales numbers are far beyond shooters and all those casual games that sell millions and millions of copies. While the production costs for an RPG are of course much higher. From a business perspective this is questionable, and of coure that's exactly why all these "changes" happen. Nothing innovative about it, just the good old attempt to increase profits by following a successful model. Not a big increase in sales numbers in comparison to ME 1 so far though.

Well now you clearly are showing chinks in your armor if you're going to the profit argument this fast.  You never seemed to consider that they genuinely wanted to meld the shooter and RPG to create something that was action-oriented and deep?  It's a genre blender.  How many companies can do that and be successful?  Not many.  If you think they went through all of that work to make two impressive games for profit then you're saying the guys at Bioware simply don't care.

Of course, I don't believe that.  They want to create genuinely new games.  They don't want to make the same things over and over.  Plus they don't want to be shoved away as some company that just sticks with the norm that has a meager reputation.  How many companies successfully blended the RPG and Shooter in a big way?  Bathesda certainly made something with the Fallout series, then there was Borderlands and Alpha Protocol (though that one was too much RPG).  Plus Square Enix and Eidos are going to be releasing the new Deus Ex game in the near future.

Also note that projects like these cost tens of millions of dollars to make and take years of planning into the corporate strategy (which is longer than the game's development time).

I think I'll continue to voice my opinion, if it's all the same to you. Also, I don't need to be a rocket scientist to see which one flies and which one crashes.

Well clearly I am a rocket scientist because I see that ME2 flies you don't seem to think so despite the overwhelmingly positive response to such a game.  How can you just brush off the fact that ME2 alone did better score-wise than FF13, got tons of impressive reviews, and had tons of people seeing it as a contender for Game of the Year?  That's not a dime-a-dozen occurence.  It even did better than Dragon Age: Origins which is more for the hardcore RPG gamer.

Now, are there markets for heavy and hardcore RPG gamers?  Of course there is.  Does that mean that Bioware should always only appease them?  No.

[Chuvvy]

MTN Dew Fanatic wrote...

Slidell505 wrote...

I like some shooters. Like Metro 2033, STALKER, Singularity, Half Life, ect. I bet I'm the only one here ****ing loved Shellshock Nam' 67. That's one of my favorites. I could have cried when I played the second one it was so awful.

You're not alone!

**** YEAH!

Modifié par Slidell505, 03 août 2010 - 06:30 .

[TheKillerAngel]

Given the whole rise of the "Mass Effect as shooter thread," I think this thread might interest a few people as well.

[Kandid001]

Apples and oranges.



Shooters don't get an awful lot of hate on this forum. "Shooterizing" great RPG franchises to appeal to a wider, "FFS LONG DIALOGZ ARE TEH SUK I WANT PLAY 30 MINS EVERY DAY I HAVE HOMEWORK I WANT ALL ACHIEVEMENTZ IN 2 DAYZ" audience gets an awful lot of hate on this forum.



I love shooters, I love RPG's. I hate it when an RPG franchise is shooterized.

[PHub88]

Lets see...I dont hate shooters..



I hate the idiotic fans these days seeming to think that if its not %100 based on the shooting aspect....then it needs to be changed ASAP and immediately made into a game where shooting shooting and shooting are the only focus it has....



I enjoy playing through a story....and back in the day I would of never dreamed multiplayer would ultimately screw the story aspect of games so hard to the point where you actually have fans WANTING NO STORY whether they are even aware of it or not....The average shooter these days is 10-15 hours of play time...2-4 days and the campaign, my favorite part...is done...just...like that....and the rest of the focus is durrrrrr yo bro da rpgh daaa turret dadddd spawwnn durrr me shoot u dead spawn shoot me dead durrr 5 minutes repeat....Its extremely maddening to see games becomming short and shorter for the sake of them all becoming more alike...and more focused on boring multiplayer



and to think Mass Effect...a game I loved more than any other game I have played in my life...is also going to fall victim? Well why dont I just quit gaming all together...the masses of FOOLS seem to all want every video game to be the exact same thing as eachother



The one thing I never can understand is why ME1 and ME2 get so many complaints about combat and shooterism...how many freaking shooters is there....go play those!!!!...leave my game alone for christ sakes...Its like these idiots seee a game with guns and automatically asssume....DUURRRRRRR SPACE COD DURRRRRRR...Im so sick and tired of this AWFUL generation of gamers being hellbent on ruining anything original...and demanding easier games to make...shorter games...and the prices keep going up because its easier to milk multiplayer based stuff

[PsyrenY]

I loved ME2. I never want to have to fiddle with an inventory again. Just give me a couple more power options on each squadmate and let me adjust their stats/appearances and I'm good.



I am fine with the migration towards Gears of War. It's a damn good game. GoW was very light on story, and what Bioware did - ME story + GoW gameplay - was like combining peanut butter and chocolate for me. In other words, a no-brainer.

[MrnDvlDg161]

First of all --- I want to say I am in no means picking on you at all --- its just an example: 

"loved ME2. I never want to have to fiddle with an inventory again. Just
give me a couple more power options on each squadmate and let me adjust
their stats/appearances and I'm good.



I am fine with the
migration towards Gears of War. It's a damn good game. GoW was very
light on story, and what Bioware did - ME story + GoW gameplay - was
like combining peanut butter and chocolate for me. In other words, a
no-brainer."


Of which I stated a good post or two back in a different thread....  the shooters won this round in ME2 and there is no doubt about it from one end of the spectrum to the other.  The cut corners.  The condensed atmospheres. What was taken out versus what was applied. If one wanted Gears of War --- they should go find Gears of War or wait for  3-4-and-5 to come out. Halo is another. 

My point is, its eventually becomming  more  Resistance Fall of Man than  Mass Effect.  The gutting of No.1 as a trade off to the ME2 on another console unfortunately gives it more merit.  ME2 is  ME1  re-done just for that purpose.  Having played ME2 for a 4th round, this time very slowly,  I've since paid attention a little more to how badly the transition was enacted and....

Well who cares what the RPG fans want at this point, it has been mangled, brutalized, and modified like a Protheon slave.  So its really over in that respect.  Congradulations in the end --- someone had to complete the process.

[MrnDvlDg161]

PHub88 wrote...

Lets see...I dont hate shooters..

I hate the idiotic fans these days seeming to think that if its not %100 based on the shooting aspect....then it needs to be changed ASAP and immediately made into a game where shooting shooting and shooting are the only focus it has....

I enjoy playing through a story....and back in the day I would of never dreamed multiplayer would ultimately screw the story aspect of games so hard to the point where you actually have fans WANTING NO STORY whether they are even aware of it or not....The average shooter these days is 10-15 hours of play time...2-4 days and the campaign, my favorite part...is done...just...like that....and the rest of the focus is durrrrrr yo bro da rpgh daaa turret dadddd spawwnn durrr me shoot u dead spawn shoot me dead durrr 5 minutes repeat....Its extremely maddening to see games becomming short and shorter for the sake of them all becoming more alike...and more focused on boring multiplayer

and to think Mass Effect...a game I loved more than any other game I have played in my life...is also going to fall victim? Well why dont I just quit gaming all together...the masses of FOOLS seem to all want every video game to be the exact same thing as eachother

The one thing I never can understand is why ME1 and ME2 get so many complaints about combat and shooterism...how many freaking shooters is there....go play those!!!!...leave my game alone for christ sakes...Its like these idiots seee a game with guns and automatically asssume....DUURRRRRRR SPACE COD DURRRRRRR...Im so sick and tired of this AWFUL generation of gamers being hellbent on ruining anything original...and demanding easier games to make...shorter games...and the prices keep going up because its easier to milk multiplayer based stuff

Whoah --- thought I was the only one --- glad to know its not so! 

[Kavadas]

JaegerBane wrote...

To be honest, I'm sick of hearing shooters being stereotyped as 'mindless games for retards, unlike us superior RPG gamers with all of our stats' crap. It's snobbery, pure and simple.

Pretty much this.  The RPG elitism abounds on these forums which is kind of interesting because there are a lot of shooters which do "RPG" better than most "RPGs" such as Bioshock, Fallout 3, and the golden standard set by Deus Ex.

Sorry, but no "trv kvlt" RPGs did it better than those games, IMO.

And I think it's not even so much as RPG elitism as it's Bioware RPG elitism (considering the location forum it shouldn't be surprising).
Anyways, I'd love to see some of the posters here struggle through Armed Assault 2

Modifié par Kavadas, 23 août 2010 - 05:29 .

[MrnDvlDg161]

I don't agree with you that Fall Out 3 is a shooter, its a misconception. Fall Out 3 is an RPG without the pause for turned based moves. What threw many regular shooters off was they thought that it was one... when really it leaned more towards an RPG type atmosphere.



Fall Out 3 had its own flaws, particularly in the story department --- what saved its ass was the Broken Steel DLC, if that wasn't added on, it would have been a different result all together.

[MrnDvlDg161]

I don't see it as elitism.



In the end... your either one or the other. The problem is you have a dual game that suggests Both RPG/Shooting.



I have a different suggestion. I doubt these arguments would even be so if not for the defective switch seen in ME2 from ME1. Its not really so much the shooter portion or the RPG portion. Its the revelation that because of various reasons, ME1 is the unfortunate sacrificial lamb that is suddenly condensed into " oh...yeah that long game where you made choices..." in order to facilitate a console/property rights move. Not only that, you can even see the shooter based influences in a few dozen ways on top of it.



So now you have a hybrid game. A new " No. 1". New crew. New everything. Consider looking at it as if you just created one world but then you took white-out all of a sudden to transform it into something else while avoiding where you started from.



This is like --- starting Star Wars, TESB only you kill off luke in the beginning, Yoda has a heart attack, Hoth gets destroyed by unknown reasons, and then your introduced to a totally new cast and your supposed to switch your expectations from then on out... and like it or leave.