887 réponses à ce sujet

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Hugely disappointed by this news. Looks like ME3 is going to be another shallow, dumbed-down and linear bore-fest made for the masses.

Like ME1  How's that for some catalyst?

If that were the case, they wouldn't have "needed" to change things in ME2 so much.

That's implying that anything was "drastically changed" at all.

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

That's implying that anything was "drastically changed" at all.

Oh come on! To say whether the changes were an improvement or not is something one can debate and something that's entirely subjective and personal. But to deny that there were a load of changes made is just plain false. You've even admitted to the changes in other topics, so don't start suddenly denying them now.

[Massadonious1]

If managing an inventory makes you smart, then maybe I should use my 3 full BG2 playthroughs on my resume.

[Vaeliorin]

iakus wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...
To freshen my memory: What other games or franchises have attempted to do what the ME trilogy is doing via transferring player-made choices into the sequels?

To this degree, none.  That is what really drew me to this game, not the shooter/rpg hybridization which has been done before (Deus Ex, which was great, and Deus Ex 2, which was not)

A video game trilogy, which you import saves to continue the protagonist's story?  Incredible!  An rpg-er's dream come true!  Finally the technology is here for a true video game epic, and it's Bioware that's doing it!

Of course, it turn out I'm still waiting,

That's not true.  Wizardry 6-8 did the whole importing bit, years ago (Wizardry 6 came out in 1990, Wizardry 8 in 2001.)  Heck, there were decisions (and items) from Wizardry 6 that effected your Wizardry 8 game.

Honestly, I'm disappointed, but not really shocked by this article.  The ME team seems to dislike anything that would be associated with a traditional RPG.  While I'll probably buy ME3, simply to see how the story ends, I doubt it will be a game I'll remember in years to come.

[Terror_K]

Massadonious1 wrote...

If managing an inventory makes you smart, then maybe I should use my 3 full BG2 playthroughs on my resume.

Yes... because of course the inventory was the only thing lost in ME2. And wanting more customisation, depth and options in a game is the wrong way to go.

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

That's implying that anything was "drastically changed" at all.

Oh come on! To say whether the changes were an improvement or not is something one can debate and something that's entirely subjective and personal. But to deny that there were a load of changes made is just plain false. You've even admitted to the changes in other topics, so don't start suddenly denying them now.

I said it in the other thread: There was a lot that was lost, but depth was not one of them.

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

That's implying that anything was "drastically changed" at all.

Oh come on! To say whether the changes were an improvement or not is something one can debate and something that's entirely subjective and personal. But to deny that there were a load of changes made is just plain false. You've even admitted to the changes in other topics, so don't start suddenly denying them now.

I said it in the other thread: There was a lot that was lost, but depth was not one of them.

That's a matter of opinion, as what people regard is depth is very personal. Which we also discussed and also came to a consensus on about a week ago. But that's not what you just said: you implied that nothing much was changed at all. Depth aside, a lot was changed, and that's a simple fact.

The thing that's most frustrating is that Christina Norman at least aknowledged the fact in her GDC presentation and stated that one of the main focuses on ME3 was to make the RPG elements richer again. Now it seems, according to Hudson, that this is no longer the case.

Modifié par Terror_K, 05 août 2010 - 06:00 .

[Tyrael02]

Im sick of hearing about how ME2 was "dumbed down for the masses", considering that there are threads on the forums made by people who dont understand the differences between geth shield boost, fortification and barrier. enough said. Moreover, if you want to go poking around crates for 5000000 "scram rail IX" and "cryo rounds VII" upgrades that you can sell to amass 1 million+ credits to spend on nothing, then go play ME1, because bioware is out to make a sleeker, leaner game less crammed with mundane garbage. You are telling me you ME1's idea of weapon diversity was good? OH GREAT firestorm V shotgun, i wonder how radically different firestorm VI will be!? better to have few weapons that behave differently than a huge stockpile of garbage where a colour change and redundant number crunching is what brings the excitement of novel change. And don't even get me (or anyone for that matter) started on ME1's combat and cover system.... Maybe if you feel they aren't delivering the experience you want, punish them by not buying the third installment for yourself.



And for the guy who wrote that the squadmate recruiting in ME2 made the game feel schizophrenic, I can see where you are comming from, but I also must say that I'd MUCH prefer a large number of unique characters for variety and variability than be stuck with a small squad including with the racist, one dimensional fail of a character Ashley Willams.

[snfonseka]

"rich customization of your armor, weapons and appearance."

I hope so.......

[Massadonious1]

Terror_K wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

If managing an inventory makes you smart, then maybe I should use my 3 full BG2 playthroughs on my resume.

And wanting more customisation, depth and options in a game is the wrong way to go.

That's awesome. I never said it wasn't. I'm talking to those who would lump in the inventory when they refer to things that are "dumbed down."

Even then, I find it hard pressed to find any RPG feature that is complex or would require significant intelligence in the first place.

Modifié par Massadonious1, 05 août 2010 - 06:23 .

[Throw_this_away]

Siansonea II wrote...

All the prematurely butthurt whining in this thread aside, I'm actually still looking forward to ME3. Call me crazy, but it's probably still going to be a fun game. I enjoyed the other two games though, which is why I'm a member of the forums here.

I guess other people post on forums of games they don't like. I don't understand that, but whatever. I'm not going to mosey on over to the "Army of Two" forums and start ranting.

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. 

Teach a man to fish and he will complain on internet forums about games he likes forever. 

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

...Depth aside, a lot was changed, and that's a simple fact.

If what was lost did not decrease the depth, then what was the point of it? "Just for flavor"? Just to "enforce" that this game is an RPG?

If a feature doesn't add or change anything to the game then it lacks substance. If something's going to be there I want it to matter, and frankly I find it offensive when RPG mechanics are introduced for no reason.

Terror_K wrote...

The thing that's most frustrating is that Christina Norman at least aknowledged the fact in her GDC presentation and stated that one of the main focuses on ME3 was to make the RPG elements richer again. Now it seems, according to Hudson, that this is no longer the case.

Yeah, devs are silly people in general. You should stop listening to them. Even the almighty Valve says silly things often.

[OneDrunkMonk]

For me a lot of what people think are essential "RPG elements" I find do not suit Mass Effect at all. Like ME1's huge over-inflated inventory system or the whole idea of looting bodies for credits so you can buy a weapon or armor mod. As well I don't think exploration should have been anything beyond investigating that which is essential mission specific. Surveying rocks? Hunting downed satellites? Aren't we suppose to be saving the universe instead of farting around like a 8th grade field trip?



I do think combat was improved in ME2 (with the heat-sink clip and lack of crouch being the exception). I really would have liked to do more elaborate squad commands and wish the characters in Me2 were more dynamic too.

[unluckyexponent]

Throw_this_away wrote...

Halo Quea wrote...
 I kept thinking every single time I got one of them, "Gee isn't this future?   Shouldn't messages be more media dynamic?"     We didn't have to meet up with anybody who just wanted to drop us a line, but even a tiny holographic represenation of those chracter's messages would have been more appealing than those static emails.   Certainly would have made them more relevant.

EMail does seem like ghetto tech for 2185, but then they are transmitting those emails agross the galaxy.  That has to be worth something.  It must be difficult to get bars in deep space. 

If Shepard was using an iphone I could see this being a prob but heck he can talk to TIM with holo in his ship why not recieve holo's at the personal pc in his cabin

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

...Depth aside, a lot was changed, and that's a simple fact.

If what was lost did not decrease the depth, then what was the point of it? "Just for flavor"? Just to "enforce" that this game is an RPG?

If a feature doesn't add or change anything to the game then it lacks substance. If something's going to be there I want it to matter, and frankly I find it offensive when RPG mechanics are introduced for no reason.

But they did add something. There was more customisation and more options in ME1. Weapon modding for one, choosing biotic amps and omni-tools for another, more character builds, etc. It wasn't just stat-based RPG elements that were lost, so were things like decent set-ups, NPCs and decisions with sidequests, multiple ways of doing quests, levels that actually felt like places and not linear A to B levels. ME2 is just too linear and unsatisfying with almost all its gameplay elements, be they RPG ones or not. Linear upgrades with no trade-offs aren't interesting gameplay mechanics. Sidequests whose objectives are always on the same path you're already on aren't interesting mechanics. A to B levels with obvious waist-high cover repeatedly aren't interesting mechanics. Choices that don't effect anything of significance and either come across as emails or shallow substitutes isn't an interesting mechanic.

I personally miss almost every element that was missing from ME1. I don't necessarily think it should have taken the same form in ME2, but it should have been there in some form. And it didn't help that ME2 seemed to try and NOT be an RPG at almost every turn and came across with such a "Fisher Price: My First RPG" tone and style.

[FieryIceQueen]

Wow. These forums are seriously infected with fan dumb. I think I will stay away from now on.

[kraidy1117]

Ma3j wrote...

Wow. These forums are seriously infected with fan dumb. I think I will stay away from now on.

Thank you, go play a mindless shooter pleese.

Modifié par kraidy1117, 05 août 2010 - 06:48 .

[Vaeliorin]

Pocketgb wrote...
frankly I find it offensive when RPG mechanics are introduced for no reason.

If it makes you feel any better, I'm offended when RPG mechanics are removed for no reason, so...I guess we're at a wash.

[Kai Hohiro]

Terror_K wrote...s and decisions with sidequests, multiple ways of doing quests, levels that actually felt like places and not linear A to B levels. ME2 is just too linear and unsatisfying with almost all its gameplay elements, be they RPG ones or not. Linear upgrades with no trade-offs aren't interesting gameplay mechanics. Sidequests whose objectives are always on the same path you're already on aren't interesting mechanics. A to B levels with obvious waist-high cover repeatedly aren't interesting mechanics. 

Sorry but how exactly was ME1 superior in this regard? If anything it was vastly inferior.
All ME1 sidemissions consisted of going into a cave/lab/warehouse/spaceship and killing all humans/zombies. You just shoot your wayfrom entrance to the last room. How is this better than in ME2?

In ME2 every sidequest had a unique level, many also had nice unique fighting conditions. And some even had no fighting at all. ME2 was more varied and interesting in every way.

[Terror_K]

Kai Hohiro wrote...

Sorry but how exactly was ME1 superior in this regard? If anything it was vastly inferior.
All ME1 sidemissions consisted of going into a cave/lab/warehouse/spaceship and killing all humans/zombies. You just shoot your wayfrom entrance to the last room. How is this better than in ME2?

In ME2 every sidequest had a unique level, many also had nice unique fighting conditions. And some even had no fighting at all. ME2 was more varied and interesting in every way.

ME1 had more sidequests for one, and not all of them were on the same path as you were already on. The UNC worlds were admittedly a big hilly area that was pretty much the same and had only three types of bases, but they felt more real than the obviously-manufactured little areas ME2 had. My main beef with ME2 was that there was no proper set-ups, no interesting NPCs and with a couple of exceptions no decisions. There was barely any dialogue, not even from Shepard, let alone from any companions or NPCs. ME1 at least had somebody like Admiral Hackett, Nassana Dantius, Admiral Kahoku, etc. set things up, would often have your companions weighing in on things (sometimes even with unique character-specific responses depending on the situation, e.g. taking Kaidan on some of the biotic extremist missions), had a decent story to them, had NPCs to talk to and sometimes even had a moral choice. Simply put: ME2's ones lacked polish, presentation and decent integration.

However, if ME3 came along and had a mix of both styles, as well as a few in similar vein to Overlord, then we'd actually have something decent on our hands.

[Shotokanguy]

kraidy1117 wrote...

Ma3j wrote...

Wow. These forums are seriously infected with fan dumb. I think I will stay away from now on.

Thank you, go play a mindless shooter pleese.

Why the hell would you say something like that? You just help his point.

[Fhaileas]

IrishSpectre257 wrote...

They said they aren't going to reinvent it. They didn't say they weren't going to improve it. Wasn't one of the main goals for ME3 richer RPG elements, according to Christina Norman?

With all due respect to Christina Norman, I personally think she did a terrible job in her role as lead game designer. They should bring back Preston Watamaniuk!

[Fhaileas]

dp

Modifié par Fhaileas, 05 août 2010 - 08:07 .

[KainrycKarr]

Fhaileas wrote...

IrishSpectre257 wrote...

They said they aren't going to reinvent it. They didn't say they weren't going to improve it. Wasn't one of the main goals for ME3 richer RPG elements, according to Christina Norman?

With all due respect to Christina Norman, I personally think she did a terrible job in her role as lead game designer. They should bring back Preston Watamaniuk!

Elaboration is good