244 réponses à ce sujet

[Zulu_DFA]

In a game like Mass Effect,



Story IS Gameplay.





(And the "fluent shooter gameplay" we got in ME2 as a trade-off for the poor plot execution, is still CRAP by first person shooter standards.)

[GuardianAngel470]

GodWood wrote...

When I'm playing a role-playing game (and a Bioware game at that) I expect story to be the focus.
If I was looking for a game where gameplay was the focus I'd play something else.

Exactly. I own Halo Reach, Halo 3, Halo 2, Halo 1, Rainbow six Vegas 1, Ghost Recon AW 1&2, Call of Duty 2, 3, and MW2, Gears of War, Crysis, the Half Life Series, and more. If I wanted gameplay, I'd play one of them. With the exclusion of Halo 1 and the Half LIfe series, there isn't a whole lot of compelling story or characters but at least there was fun gameplay.

I would note that I have played only Halo 3 the same number of times as I have the Mass Effect franchise. 10 runs of ME1 and 12 runs of ME2.

For me though, I usually play the Mass Effect series for the characters, which explains the shear volume of games of ME2. I enjoyed these characters, and it was only after coming to these forums that I was exposed to the flaws. I then realized the broken nature of the game, but I didn't really care. Like I said, I played for the characters, and ME2 had plenty of what I was looking for.

A bit short on past squadmate history, but overall I was satisfied. That's just me though.

[CroGamer002]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

In a game like Mass Effect,

Story IS Gameplay.


(And the "fluent shooter gameplay" we got in ME2 as a trade-off for the poor plot execution, is still CRAP by >>>>>>first person shooter standards<<<<<<.)

FIRST PERSON SHOOTER?!


FIRST PERSON SHOOTER?!!!!!!!

[Marbazoid]

Good writing and good game-play are not mutually exclusive.



Setting and game-play can be at odds though, but one of the advantages of creating your own setting, is you can create the setting around your game-play. Unlimited ammo was perfectly fine in ME because it fit within the setting, even though the purpose was to entirely serve the game-play.

[wulf3n]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...
Uh, except the Warthog and the Ghost had *BETTER * controls than the heavier vehicles maneuverability-wise. I never had problems with the turret system with the Mako. I had problems with moving the damn thing because of the aforementioned problems in my post. With the Warthog and Ghost, all the left stick had to handle was "Drive forward when you press up, drive backward when you press down." (in the Hammerhead's case, it controls almost exactly like the Ghost, which I found to be a good thing). 

It's still comparing apples and oranges. The warthog is a fast light weight jeep designed for speed, that has no reason to look any other direction than foward when driving, compared to a light tank, that needs to remain mobile in combat. I assure you if the mako had the warthog controls there would have been a lot more complaints.

Lunatic LK47 wrote...
With the Mako, the controls flip flop back and forth depending on the direction the Mako is facing. Inconsistent controls at its finest.

Not really. On the 360 the mako handles like it's in a top down perspective:

SteveGCB...(gamespot forums)
Forward is relative to the direction the Mako is facing. So, if the Mako is facing left then, left on the Left Thumb stick is forward, if it's facing right then right on the Left Thumb stick is forward.

I'll admit it was a bit sensitive leading to some frustrating moments, but that's besides the point. You're comparing a tank to a jeep. Compare a tank with a tank.

Modifié par wulf3n, 28 octobre 2010 - 09:36 .

[Shockwave81]

I think story is slightly more important than gameplay. I don't think that one should seriously outweigh the other, more that they should complement one another, but something needs to compel you to keep playing the game. Sometimes that might be related to the story, sometimes it will be related to new abilities and 'level ups' - I think it's perfect when those things are interwoven.

[Phaedon]

Nightwriter wrote...

I hate having to choose. Story is more important but I shouldn't have to say so, you know?

So think about this: how many people do you think were working on ME2's gameplay/graphics/etc, and how many do you think were working on actual story?

By definition, story-writing requires less manpower. Even ME1 with it's mediocre gameplay had more people working on the gameplay.

[Phaedon]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

In a game like Mass Effect,

Story IS Gameplay.


(And the "fluent shooter gameplay" we got in ME2 as a trade-off for the poor plot execution, is still CRAP by first person shooter standards.)

Nope. A good story can't compensate for poor gameplay, and shouldn't. Story=Gameplay only in text adventures. Even regular adventures should pay a little more attention to Story than Gameplay.

But an RPG/Shooter game ? What the story should do would be to get you in firefights, great dillemas, and more interested into the lore of the game. Also, most RPGs have a bad story that keeps recycling the same themes.

I am really confused as to if people are treating Mass Effect 1 and 2 as a book or as a game.

If you are treating them as games, then ME1's gameplay was mediocre and ME2's gameplay was pretty good. Both of their stories would be some of the best around in the game industry.

If you are treating them as books, both of their stories were pretty poor. Go read a good book, and play Mass Effect 1 again. Ah yes, a guy who was supposed to be good is now the galaxy's worst villain, and has sided with genocidal robots to take over the world in order to help some mythical demons hiding somewhere out there.

The thing is, Mass Effect 2 is a game, and it has a very interesting story that got it's universe new fans and good review scores. Do you think that we would have any of these fans if Bioware kept the same 'we are not shooter experts, so we'll just deliver another complicated RPG for people who like viewing 'slash' and 'missed' on their screens.

[wulf3n]

Phaedon wrote...
Nope. A good story can't compensate for poor gameplay, and shouldn't. Story=Gameplay only in text adventures. Even regular adventures should pay a little more attention to Story than Gameplay.

True, but were getting to the stage where a blockbuster game should be about more than just "gameplay" I want something with depth, something rewarding, i don't want space invaders with pretty graphics where the only goal is to get a higher score.

Phaedon wrote...
But an RPG/Shooter game ? What the story should do would be to get you in firefights, great dillemas, and more interested into the lore of the game. Also, most RPGs have a bad story that keeps recycling the same themes.

That doesn't mean all games have to have  generic stories, that just shows how desperate we are for anything that even resembles a good story. Besides while ME1 may have had a cliched story it had great writing and great character development even by movie standards

Phaedon wrote...
I am really confused as to if people are treating Mass Effect 1 and 2 as a book or as a game.

No we're trying to treat it as the superior experience it has the potential to be.

Phaedon wrote...
If you are treating them as books, both of their stories were pretty poor. Go read a good book, and play Mass Effect 1 again. Ah yes, a guy who was supposed to be good is now the galaxy's worst villain, and has sided with genocidal robots to take over the world in order to help some mythical demons hiding somewhere out there.

A story doesn't have to be original to be good. most of the stuff that comes out today can be compared to something else, there are very few truly original stories being produced in any medium.

[Shoryuken]

I say focus on gameplay, immersion, and customization.


This is Bioware, so I'm not too concerned about the story because I know the writers are going to do something epic anyway. Now, as for gameplay goes ME2 hit the combat mechanics perfectly and it's hard for me to find any faults within the system without getting too specific. However, it's outside of combat is where the problems show up. Besides the camera shots and good writing, the dialogue system is mediocre and I'm hoping with the release of DA2 that Bioware will have an idea of where to take it when it comes to ME3.

One thing I really miss from ME1 was the sense of exploration I got whenever I landed down on a planet to do a mission. Yeah, the Mako was clunky (especially when you're forced to go through terrestrial planets with huge F-you mountains) and level design was redundant but I was totally immersed when I stepped out of the Mako. Bioware had already fixed vehicle mechanics with the Hammerhead, all they need now is to use ME2's level design and let us walk outside of the Hammerhead.

Customization is OK right now. Appearance is fine for Femsheps but sucks for Msheps, but I don't see that changing much. However, I was a bit disappointed in that all the upgrades you get for your weapons were mostly damage modifiers. I figure having ammo upgrades like in ME1isn't too far-fetched of an idea and I'd like for it to return. Ditch ammo powers on classes for some actual new powers that add something to the combat besides increasing the amount of weapon damage you do. In fact, dedicating more effort towards designing new weapons, powers, and armor would make customization like 10x better, allowing different playstyles and encourages more playthroughs.

Oh,and planet scanning sucks, even with the update, because it's just a poor form of grinding. If anything, I'd rather get my upgrades through loot or buying them with money, but at least recovering artifacts and surveying minerals in the first game felt involved.

Seriously, I don't see anything wrong with the story as a whole. It's not original? *shrug* Bioware's set up good characters, good writing, and a universe to expand upon, all they need to do now is to allow players more ways of interacting with said universe and that falls under gameplay.

Modifié par Shoryuken, 28 octobre 2010 - 11:40 .

[Icinix]

Story for me. I'll play through a crap game for a good story, but will struggle to get through a great game with a terrible story.



There are exceptions, but there are some great games on my shelf I've never been able to get through because the story makes me facepalm so much I end up looking like a monk fish.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...
To pull up from an old review from Gamefaqs, here are my personal problems:

Controlling the Mako was a nightmare at times, especially when I drove
Halo's Warthog proficiently in the Halo games. Just when I entered an
uncharted world for the first time, I got killed by a Thresher Maw over
twenty times just because the Mako decided to reverse on me, despite the
fact that I wanted to make a U turn and high tail out of dodge.

Here is a rudimentary diagram of how the controls are set up

Halo:

<
(Warthog) << (Camera). When I press up on the Analog stick, the
vehicle always drives forward, with the camera following behind it, it
works well, while pulling down will automatically reverse the Warthog.

>
(Warthog) << (Camera). Like the previous “paragraph,” The Warthog
will automatically steer to the direction the camera is pointing at when
I press up, making the U-Turn when necessary.

Mako:

Unfortunately, the Mako needlessly aggravated me, and here is what I got.

<
(Mako) <<(Camera). Okay, the controls are fine. At least it goes
forward when I want to, providing that the Mako's trunk is facing me.

>
(Mako) <<(Camera). The situation I mentioned in the “controls”
section is what exactly happened. Knowing that my Mako is damaged and I
needed to run away, I moved the camera to a different direction, which
is 180 degrees, and then pressed up on the analog stick. Instead of the U
turn, I got met with backing up and then getting killed just because
the Mako backed up.

I have posted this on the Gamefaqs message
boards, but got met with the typical fanboy response, “You suck at
gaming” “You suck at driving,” “You suck at this game.” I've beaten this
game three times completely, and honestly felt that the QA department
really didn't test out everything in the game. Seriously, please revamp
the controls for the Mako.

That's the full story of me hating the Mako. Oops, apparently, the subsequent Halo games had the same crappy driving controls for the tanks. Driving the Mako is the equivalent of saying "It's perfectly okay for me to suddenly hit reverse despite my transmission being set on 'Drive' when I'm attempting to make a U-Turn." That's how problematic the Mako felt.

You've actually hit on why I won't ever buy an Xbox... the controls are horrible on all Xbox games. 

It sounds like a lot of the Mako-hate comes from console players. 
On the PC, the main problem is the wacky terrain, not the Mako itself.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...
To pull up from an old review from Gamefaqs, here are my personal problems:

Controlling the Mako was a nightmare at times, especially when I drove
Halo's Warthog proficiently in the Halo games. Just when I entered an
uncharted world for the first time, I got killed by a Thresher Maw over
twenty times just because the Mako decided to reverse on me, despite the
fact that I wanted to make a U turn and high tail out of dodge.

Here is a rudimentary diagram of how the controls are set up

Halo:

<
(Warthog) << (Camera). When I press up on the Analog stick, the
vehicle always drives forward, with the camera following behind it, it
works well, while pulling down will automatically reverse the Warthog.

>
(Warthog) << (Camera). Like the previous “paragraph,” The Warthog
will automatically steer to the direction the camera is pointing at when
I press up, making the U-Turn when necessary.

Mako:

Unfortunately, the Mako needlessly aggravated me, and here is what I got.

<
(Mako) <<(Camera). Okay, the controls are fine. At least it goes
forward when I want to, providing that the Mako's trunk is facing me.

>
(Mako) <<(Camera). The situation I mentioned in the “controls”
section is what exactly happened. Knowing that my Mako is damaged and I
needed to run away, I moved the camera to a different direction, which
is 180 degrees, and then pressed up on the analog stick. Instead of the U
turn, I got met with backing up and then getting killed just because
the Mako backed up.

I have posted this on the Gamefaqs message
boards, but got met with the typical fanboy response, “You suck at
gaming” “You suck at driving,” “You suck at this game.” I've beaten this
game three times completely, and honestly felt that the QA department
really didn't test out everything in the game. Seriously, please revamp
the controls for the Mako.

That's the full story of me hating the Mako. Oops, apparently, the subsequent Halo games had the same crappy driving controls for the tanks. Driving the Mako is the equivalent of saying "It's perfectly okay for me to suddenly hit reverse despite my transmission being set on 'Drive' when I'm attempting to make a U-Turn." That's how problematic the Mako felt.

You've actually hit on why I won't ever buy an Xbox... the controls are horrible on all Xbox games. 

It sounds like a lot of the Mako-hate comes from console players. 
On the PC, the main problem is the wacky terrain, not the Mako itself.

Good for you bro, please continue with your PC elitism.

And from what i heard, it was the PC crowd that thought the Mako was clunky and unplayable, as the 360 controls were fine.

[Mandalore242]

I totally agree That this is game and from a game stand point it was one of the better stories out there. I played Halo Reach and if you want  a story filled with plot holes and that doesnt make sense play that. I love the Mass Effect universe because they use science and technologies that are in development now and add some SCI-FI to bring it to Life. I bet hardly any of you know that Helium 3 actually exists and scientists use it for alternative fuel experiments. I thought the story is an excellent plausible future. Since ME2 has come out I've played a lot of games and end up turning back to the ME series for the rich game play.

Modifié par Mandalore242, 28 octobre 2010 - 02:32 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

Mesina2 wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

In a game like Mass Effect,

Story IS Gameplay.


(And the "fluent shooter gameplay" we got in ME2 as a trade-off for the poor plot execution, is still CRAP by >>>>>>first person shooter standards<<<<<<.)

FIRST PERSON SHOOTER?!


FIRST PERSON SHOOTER?!!!!!!!

Yeah everytime I read something like that it always makes me want to go postal


You might as well call Mass Effect a Galaga clone.

[freestylez]

Gameplay. It's a game, first and foremost. Even with my criticisms of ME2's plot, I've probably played it overall a little more than ME1. The gameplay for me is the focal pont - the storyline separates a good/great game for a classic game.

ME2 is a great standalone game that could've been a classic.

Modifié par freestylez, 28 octobre 2010 - 03:20 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

In a game like Mass Effect,

Story IS Gameplay.


(And the "fluent shooter gameplay" we got in ME2 as a trade-off for the poor plot execution, is still CRAP by first person shooter standards.)

Good thing it's not an FPS then.

[vehzeel]

Gameplay and story is both equally important. Unless I have a good reason to shoot enemies, I prefer not to. I hate gameplay that is based on "The baddies are over there. Go shoot them"

[SimonTheFrog]

vehzeel wrote...

Gameplay and story is both equally important. Unless I have a good reason to shoot enemies, I prefer not to. I hate gameplay that is based on "The baddies are over there. Go shoot them"

Nah common... this is just not realistic. Games like left4dead are extremely fun and yet, the mission is basically: try to get the end of the level despite the enemies in your way. The story is: humans turned into enemies and they want to eat you. So, you must defend yourself to survive. 

I mean sure, you can say "hmpf, this game has no good story so i don't play it" but you would keep yourself from having a very nice gaming experience by your own attitude.

The problem with mass effect is, though, that the gameplay as such is not above average. It's ok, i mean the fighting and the character development and so on, but not something that is fascination in comparison to other titles. 

What really makes this game better than most is the dialog system, the interaction with interesting stories. And the setting. So, yes, i understand the fear, that if BioWare neglects the setting or steers in a direction where interacting with the stories becomes less appealing, then the game will lose it's above-average-quality. 
That's why people say: story is more important in this case. 

[TK Dude]

If I want to play games that takes priority over gameplay, I'll play Halo and other shooters.

If I play an RPG game, I expect it to put emphasis on the story even if the gameplay plays like crap.



The reason I was more immersed in Mass Effect 1 than 2 is that it's story makes more sense. Though, it was kinda cliched IMO. But I still enjoyed it.

[Phaedon]

wulf3n wrote...

Phaedon wrote...
Nope. A good story can't compensate for poor gameplay, and shouldn't. Story=Gameplay only in text adventures. Even regular adventures should pay a little more attention to Story than Gameplay.

True, but were getting to the stage where a blockbuster game should be about more than just "gameplay" I want something with depth, something rewarding, i don't want space invaders with pretty graphics where the only goal is to get a higher score.

That's true, don't get me wrong, Mass Effect 3 does deserve a better story, but still, gameplay is more important than story.

[Lunatic LK47]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...


Good for you bro, please continue with your PC elitism.

And from what i heard, it was the PC crowd that thought the Mako was clunky and unplayable, as the 360 controls were fine.

Gibbed, the Mako is still stigmatized regardless of the version of the game. How the hell is the guy's comment elitism?

[Lunatic LK47]

[quote]wulf3n wrote...

Not really. On the 360 the mako handles like it's in a top down perspective[/quote]

Which is not a good control scheme for a game that plays like a third person shooter.


[quote]'ll admit it was a bit sensitive leading to some frustrating moments, but that's besides the point. You're comparing a tank to a jeep. Compare a tank with a tank.[/quote][/quote]

Uh, except the other tanks controlled better than the Mako. The Mako had a very bad driving system, period.

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 28 octobre 2010 - 10:20 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

You've actually hit on why I won't ever buy an Xbox... the controls are horrible on all Xbox games. 

It sounds like a lot of the Mako-hate comes from console players. 
On the PC, the main problem is the wacky terrain, not the Mako itself.

Good for you bro, please continue with your PC elitism.

And from what i heard, it was the PC crowd that thought the Mako was clunky and unplayable, as the 360 controls were fine.

What he described is exactly the way every Xbox game's controls feel to me -- they even turned Mechwarrior into a clunky 3rdPS with the same kinda of controls that can't tell the difference between a U-turn and reverse.

What it doesn't match up with is how the Mako feels on KB&M.  The problem I always have with the Mako is that its reaction to variations in the terrain feels very exagerated.

[wulf3n]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...
Which is not a good control scheme for a game that plays like a third person shooter.

Maybe, but it the controls don't "flip-flop back and forth" like you said, they remain consistent, if you wanna move to the left of the screen, push left, if you wanna move foward push foward. 

Lunatic LK47 wrote...
Uh, except the other tanks controlled better than the Mako. 

Then use them in a comparison, it would make more sense.

Lunatic LK47 wrote...
The Mako had a very bad driving system, period.

I guess that depends on the person because i found the mako easier to drive than all the halo tanks. And i also remember the control scheme being very similar.

Modifié par wulf3n, 28 octobre 2010 - 10:42 .