616 réponses à ce sujet

[AdmiralCheez]

Galad22 wrote...

That is very kind of you to say, thanks!

No problem.  I definitely know what it's like to feel a little betrayed when a source of entertainment takes a "wrong" direction.  It's one of the reasons I don't watch much TV anymore.

And yes it does sucks. I am still hoping that after DA2 lukewarm reception they will understand that there are quite lot of customers exactly like me and they shouldn't just throw us under the bus.

There are two problems, I think, with DA2:

1. They assumed that what worked for one IP will work for another, which completely misses the point of having two different IPs.

2. They shoved it out the door before it was finished, leaving a so-so plot, glitches galore, and tedious re-use of dungeouns.

Had they taken their time with it and realized that DA is not just ME with swords and dragons, they would have had much more success.  Never, ever make two IPs meant to capture the exact same audience--that's what sequels are for.

[MajesticJazz]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

MajesticJazz wrote...

I didn't read 6 manuals and spend 3 hours in front of a character creation sheet before I started NWN.

Yeah, well I had to put down DA:O after only three hours of gameplay.

Besides, you are dodging my question: If Bioware/EA wants to focus on making ME3's combat more on par with core shooter games such as GOW and Uncharted, then how come they cant have similar focus on making ME3's RPG elements more on par with core RPG games in terms of stats, customization, crafting, exploration etc.....

Because shooters are more marketable and easier for the average customer to pick up and start playing.  A niche audience will only bring in so much profit.  Additionally, ME2's success has led them to conclude that better pew pew is the way to go.  However, RPG elements are not going to be ignored--Casey Hudson stated repeatedly that there will be more modding and deeper skill trees.

So it is becoming clearer and clearer.

I see why you make the statements you make. If you had to put down DAO after 3 hours then I can see why a game like ME2 would be so appealing.

DAO was the spiritual successor to Baulder's Gate (A game you probably would have put down after 1hr) and it wasn't that bad.

-The inventory was reasonable
- It had tactical gameplay
- Crafting
- Buffing
- Debuffing
- Crowd Control
- Tanks
- DPS
- Healers
- Aggro

etc.....

I can see why a game like DAO would be too much for you.

[aridor1570]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Galad22 wrote...

That is very kind of you to say, thanks!

No problem.  I definitely know what it's like to feel a little betrayed when a source of entertainment takes a "wrong" direction.  It's one of the reasons I don't watch much TV anymore.

And yes it does sucks. I am still hoping that after DA2 lukewarm reception they will understand that there are quite lot of customers exactly like me and they shouldn't just throw us under the bus.

There are two problems, I think, with DA2:

1. They assumed that what worked for one IP will work for another, which completely misses the point of having two different IPs.

2. They shoved it out the door before it was finished, leaving a so-so plot, glitches galore, and tedious re-use of dungeouns.

Had they taken their time with it and realized that DA is not just ME with swords and dragons, they would have had much more success.  Never, ever make two IPs meant to capture the exact same audience--that's what sequels are for.

I'm pretty sure EA gave the DA2 team a limit for the development time, but problem one is probably correct.

I mean, look at GW2, that game is being made for about 4 years and  NCsoft gives ArenaNet no limits, and supplies them with alot of resources, there's no release date, they're releasing it when its ready, thats one way to make a good game with it's mechanics polished enough.

Modifié par aridor1570, 05 mai 2011 - 03:35 .

[Someone With Mass]

I honestly find that kind of RPG to be very boring. Because they've been done to death and back.

[Darth Death]

aridor1570 wrote...

Bostur wrote...

This could just be a smoke screen for worried investors, but it does have bad stuff happening written all over it.

Aiming for a broader audience can result in some decent games, but it rarely results in excellence. I also worry that if they start 'tweaking' for a broader audience this late in the development cycle they may end up breaking some things that would have worked well. I see another DA2 disaster in the works.

If you've read the GI article you would know what they're "tweaking", it was stated that the gameplay won't be far off from what ME2's gameplay was.

How I see it the worse has already happened (for hardcore RPG fans) in ME2. ME3 is going to add on to the already successful formula, so ultimately if you enjoyed ME2's gameplay, then you have nothing to worry about regarding ME3. If you didn't enjoy ME2's gameplay, then hopefully ME3's story will make up for it. 

[nelly21]

MajesticJazz wrote...

[So it is becoming clearer and clearer.

I see why you make the statements you make. If you had to put down DAO after 3 hours then I can see why a game like ME2 would be so appealing.

DAO was the spiritual successor to Baulder's Gate (A game you probably would have put down after 1hr) and it wasn't that bad.

-The inventory was reasonable
- It had tactical gameplay
- Crafting
- Buffing
- Debuffing
- Crowd Control
- Tanks
- DPS
- Healers
- Aggro

etc.....

I can see why a game like DAO would be too much for you.

Lol.

And yet, you take all the things and speed up combat just a litlle bit more (forcing you to think and react quicker) and the game becomes too much for you rpg elitists.

Condescension. Ain't it grand?

[CroGamer002]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Galad22 wrote...

That is very kind of you to say, thanks!

No problem.  I definitely know what it's like to feel a little betrayed when a source of entertainment takes a "wrong" direction.  It's one of the reasons I don't watch much TV anymore.

And yes it does sucks. I am still hoping that after DA2 lukewarm reception they will understand that there are quite lot of customers exactly like me and they shouldn't just throw us under the bus.

There are two problems, I think, with DA2:

1. They assumed that what worked for one IP will work for another, which completely misses the point of having two different IPs.

2. They shoved it out the door before it was finished, leaving a so-so plot, glitches galore, and tedious re-use of dungeouns.

Had they taken their time with it and realized that DA is not just ME with swords and dragons, they would have had much more success.  Never, ever make two IPs meant to capture the exact same audience--that's what sequels are for.

And despite those flaws, I still claim DA2 is superior to DA:O.

[OssieZero]

RPG is a genre that has been fairly well defined by games in that field. It does no good to say "Well, an RPG to me means good story" or "Roleplaying, as defined by Websters means..." because RPG doesn't mean those things. It is, in a sense, a technical term, not to be taken literally. RPG as a game genre has its roots in tabletop gaming, and in character building, looting, staggering breadth of world, huge variety in class, weapon, armour etc. These are established tropes for the genre, and it is for those most familiar with these tropes to determine whether a game is an RPG or not.

Yes, you can broaden 'RPG' to the point where it fits any game, but to what purpose? It only serves to dilute the genre. In an age where big budget games are becoming progressively more and more homogenised in the interest of mass appeal, this would a very poor decision for any roleplayer to make. So lets not call it an RPG please.

[Someone With Mass]

I guess we should stay old-school instead of trying something new. Because that might be fun.

[CroGamer002]

Galad22 wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...

Is Mass Effect 2 a bad game no . Is it a rpg no 

Not everyone liked ME2 more than ME1 either.

I didn't. I played ME through 4 times. I had patience to play ME2 only once.

And yes exactly I didn't like it much since it was a cover shooter with some "rpg elements". Not an rpg.

You just described ME1.

[AdmiralCheez]

Wow, Jazz. Thanks for implying that I'm stupid.

Listen, I like games with tanks, healers, crafting, crowd control, items, etc. However, having them all thrown at me at once is a huge turn-off, as it is for many gamers. This is my problem with a lot of "hardcore" RPGs--they assume that I know how all the doodads work even though I have never seen them before.

It's be like if Portal opened with Test Chamber 17, or if on the first day of a calculus course they threw a million derivatives and logarithms at you even though this is your first calc class ever.

It also didn't help that DA:O's pacing was... sluggish, to say the least.

[AngelicMachinery]

OssieZero wrote...

RPG is a genre that has been fairly well defined by games in that field. It does no good to say "Well, an RPG to me means good story" or "Roleplaying, as defined by Websters means..." because RPG doesn't mean those things. It is, in a sense, a technical term, not to be taken literally. RPG as a game genre has its roots in tabletop gaming, and in character building, looting, staggering breadth of world, huge variety in class, weapon, armour etc. These are established tropes for the genre, and it is for those most familiar with these tropes to determine whether a game is an RPG or not.

Yes, you can broaden 'RPG' to the point where it fits any game, but to what purpose? It only serves to dilute the genre. In an age where big budget games are becoming progressively more and more homogenised in the interest of mass appeal, this would a very poor decision for any roleplayer to make. So lets not call it an RPG please.

Seems like an RPG to me,  I'm not sure why people consider it otherwise. 

[Galad22]

Someone With Mass wrote...

I guess we should stay old-school instead of trying something new. Because that might be fun.

It is not really new if you turn rpg into a shooter. It is just a shooter then.

Games should be different. Rpgs are quite different from other games for a reason.

[MajesticJazz]

nelly21 wrote...

MajesticJazz wrote...

[So it is becoming clearer and clearer.

I see why you make the statements you make. If you had to put down DAO after 3 hours then I can see why a game like ME2 would be so appealing.

DAO was the spiritual successor to Baulder's Gate (A game you probably would have put down after 1hr) and it wasn't that bad.

-The inventory was reasonable
- It had tactical gameplay
- Crafting
- Buffing
- Debuffing
- Crowd Control
- Tanks
- DPS
- Healers
- Aggro

etc.....

I can see why a game like DAO would be too much for you.

Lol.

And yet, you take all the things and speed up combat just a litlle bit more (forcing you to think and react quicker) and the game becomes too much for you rpg elitists.

Condescension. Ain't it grand?

No, it is just that when I want to play a RPG I want to play a RPG. When I want to play a shooter I want to play a shooter.

I play games outside of RPGs such as Battlefield: Bad Company 2 (This fall I'll be playing BF3) and other shooters such as Gears of War (currently in the beta now). So "Quick twitch" gameplay isn't a problem for me.

That is what I don't get when Cheez says that ME3 is going more towards "pew pew". Well homegirl, if I wanted "pew pew" I would go play Halo: Reach, BFBC2, or Gears of War 3 Beta.....

[Darth Death]

Galad22 wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

I guess we should stay old-school instead of trying something new. Because that might be fun.

It is not really new if you turn rpg into a shooter. It is just a shooter then.

Games should be different. Rpgs are quite different from other games for a reason.

I agree, but really depends on how well its done. A perfect example is DA2. It went in a new direction, but was executed poorly.  

[Galad22]

Mesina2 wrote...

You just described ME1.

It is much more accurate description of ME2. You can of course have different opinion.

[Simiancustard]

I'm having flashbacks to when similar comments were made for Dragon Age 2, and to be honest, I'm not happy (or even surprised). If Bioware wants to make a "gears of war in space" game (because presumably that's where the money is now), then do so, but refrain from calling it an RPG. Just be honest to your RPG fans, that you've moved away from RPG games. The vast majority of us would actually appreciate the honesty.

[AdmiralCheez]

Galad22 wrote...

It is not really new if you turn rpg into a shooter. It is just a shooter then.

Games should be different. Rpgs are quite different from other games for a reason.

And both are worn-out and tiresome.

Mass Effect is fun for me because it combines aspects of both.  It's not Gears, and it's not Baldur's Gate.  Sure, it may have more Gears than Gate, but it doesn't confine itself to the style of either.

[Bostur]

Darth Death wrote...

aridor1570 wrote...

Bostur wrote...

This could just be a smoke screen for worried investors, but it does have bad stuff happening written all over it.

Aiming for a broader audience can result in some decent games, but it rarely results in excellence. I also worry that if they start 'tweaking' for a broader audience this late in the development cycle they may end up breaking some things that would have worked well. I see another DA2 disaster in the works.

If you've read the GI article you would know what they're "tweaking", it was stated that the gameplay won't be far off from what ME2's gameplay was.

How I see it the worse has already happened (for hardcore RPG fans) in ME2. ME3 is going to add on to the already successful formula, so ultimately if you enjoyed ME2's gameplay, then you have nothing to worry about regarding ME3. If you didn't enjoy ME2's gameplay, then hopefully ME3's story will make up for it. 

I was actually hoping for something better than ME2.

I did enjoy ME2 otherwise I wouldn't even consider ME3. But ME2 had a lot of potential for improvement that I'm worried won't happen now. As much as I like the ME setting if ME3 ends up being just another average sequel, I don't see much reason for buying it. There are plenty of those around. Unfortunately these new signals suggests they want to go for averageness and cash in as much as they can.

Adding 20% more RPG, or removing 20% RPG isn't really the issue for me. It's more important for me if it fits the game. Those kind of concerns doesn't seem like something EA is fussed about unfortunately.

[Alienmorph]

MajesticJazz wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

MajesticJazz wrote...

I didn't read 6 manuals and spend 3 hours in front of a character creation sheet before I started NWN.

Yeah, well I had to put down DA:O after only three hours of gameplay.

Besides, you are dodging my question: If Bioware/EA wants to focus on making ME3's combat more on par with core shooter games such as GOW and Uncharted, then how come they cant have similar focus on making ME3's RPG elements more on par with core RPG games in terms of stats, customization, crafting, exploration etc.....

Because shooters are more marketable and easier for the average customer to pick up and start playing.  A niche audience will only bring in so much profit.  Additionally, ME2's success has led them to conclude that better pew pew is the way to go.  However, RPG elements are not going to be ignored--Casey Hudson stated repeatedly that there will be more modding and deeper skill trees.

So it is becoming clearer and clearer.

I see why you make the statements you make. If you had to put down DAO after 3 hours then I can see why a game like ME2 would be so appealing.

DAO was the spiritual successor to Baulder's Gate (A game you probably would have put down after 1hr) and it wasn't that bad.

-The inventory was reasonable
- It had tactical gameplay
- Crafting
- Buffing
- Debuffing
- Crowd Control
- Tanks
- DPS
- Healers
- Aggro

etc.....

I can see why a game like DAO would be too much for you.

Is this really all you want in a game? Healing potions? Repetitive sidequests? Characters and locations that could have been used without ANY change in tons of other fictional worlds? And before you suggest I'm too dumb for understand that kind of games, I'v played both BGII and NWN, and finished the second one. And all I can say is that if really DA is the "spiritual sequel" (insert the airquoting Turian Councilor here, for more abravise feeling) of the old BW's RPGs you just gave me only more reasons to continue to DON'T play it. 

Modifié par Alienmorph, 05 mai 2011 - 03:46 .

[Vez04]

Mesina2 wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Galad22 wrote...

That is very kind of you to say, thanks!

No problem.  I definitely know what it's like to feel a little betrayed when a source of entertainment takes a "wrong" direction.  It's one of the reasons I don't watch much TV anymore.

And yes it does sucks. I am still hoping that after DA2 lukewarm reception they will understand that there are quite lot of customers exactly like me and they shouldn't just throw us under the bus.

There are two problems, I think, with DA2:

1. They assumed that what worked for one IP will work for another, which completely misses the point of having two different IPs.

2. They shoved it out the door before it was finished, leaving a so-so plot, glitches galore, and tedious re-use of dungeouns.

Had they taken their time with it and realized that DA is not just ME with swords and dragons, they would have had much more success.  Never, ever make two IPs meant to capture the exact same audience--that's what sequels are for.

And despite those flaws, I still claim DA2 is superior to DA:O.

[Someone With Mass]

Galad22 wrote...

It is not really new if you turn rpg into a shooter. It is just a shooter then.

Games should be different. Rpgs are quite different from other games for a reason.

Mass Effect 1 and 2 had both. Can't see why ME3 should differ from that.

[aridor1570]

Galad22 wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

I guess we should stay old-school instead of trying something new. Because that might be fun.

It is not really new if you turn rpg into a shooter. It is just a shooter then.

Games should be different. Rpgs are quite different from other games for a reason.

I can't see any differance between ME2 and DA:O in the RPG aspect, it sounds like your implying any RPG must be a game where its in a fantasy setting, where the basic weapons are swords, maces, bows, and other kinds of medievel stuff, and you need to press something to interact with/attack it?

[Walker White]

MajesticJazz wrote...
I can see why a game like DAO would be too much for you.

These types of statements are not helping your point.  All they do is suggest that you are a narrow part of the market that will never accept any change.

Some of us on the forums are very old school RPG players.  Back in the days when computer RPGs had text graphics (like Island of Kesmai, the first "MMO").  Or the old SSIs. Baldur's Gate, which everyone lauds as the holy grail, is a relatively new game.

And games continue to change.

[Leonia]

I'm one of those "traditional RPG" fans that didn't play ME1 for the longest time because I assumed it was a shooter. Even when I did play it, it didn't feel like playing Dragon Age or Baldur's Gate or NWN. It never felt like an RPG really, the best description I can remember was someone saying "ME1 is an RPG with shooter elements and ME2 is a shooter with RPG elements" but it didn't make much sense until I actually played it.

I love the crap out of ME1 and ME2 and I love the crap out of DA:O, DA2, and a whole host of other Bioware (and other companies) RPGs. If I wanted a pure shooter, I'd play one but so far I have NOT gotten the imrpession that ME3 will be one of those. If anything, it should be "more" of an RPG than ME2 was. I'm glad I took that chance to try out ME despite my total disdain for games that involve aiming a gun and I expect ME3 will still be playable for someone with my sort of background/preferences.

Label it however you like; the story and the lore is what interests me the most (though, after actually playing ME2 I am sort of digging that combat style now too).

Modifié par leonia42, 05 mai 2011 - 03:50 .