617 réponses à ce sujet

[CMD-Shep]

I rolled some dice and they told me that this thread is pointless.

[thompsonaf]

Those meaningless non-combat stats are really dragging the game down. Mass Effect is about Shepard, Shepard is about fighting and being a badass. Weapon levels? Pfffft. Hacking skills? Whatever. Charm? Begone!

But why stop there? Whats the point of the renegade and paragon bars? Those just limit character growth. Why should the player be punished/limited by choosing one particular play style?

You know what? Screw it, remove it all. You know what else is a non-combat stat? classes. Just get rid of them and let me choose my own powers carte blanche at start up. Background? Useless! Service history? Whats the point? These only detract from the incredible combat experience, which is exactly what mass effect is about.

No reason to stop there, hair styles? Naaaah. Skin color? Don't think so. Why do we even bother with choosing a gender? Just get rid of femshep, its not like she's as cool as sheploo. Facial customization? What face could look as good as sheploo's face? Just dump it. In fact why do we have a body? Floating mass accelerator gun for the win. All we need are linear cinematic explosions and a full auto rifle to kill generic enemies with. Thats what mass effect is about people, why are you cluttering up my linear shooter with customization, loot, and skills???

[Bail_Darilar]

Isn't this the same thing that happened a year and a half ago when people were complaining about the gameplay mechanics of ME2?? And yet now the gameplay mechanics are what most people are fond of?

Majority of the people here don't know exactly what happens behind the scenes in the game like all the calculations that the game makes whilst your playing, only the developers do. And how many of you actually care about all the calculations? Something like that is understandable in a game like Dragon Age where your changing your stats but not in ME when your just evolving your abilities.

What I think they're doing is getting rid of all the unneccessary things like they said that did very little to gamplay. We're are still getting many more options to customise our characters, more akin to how ME1 was as they have confirmed, as well as more options to customise armor and weapons so why are people complaining?

It's not like theyve said theyre getting rid of para/rene and charm/intimidation and theyre  not going to. Watch some of the Casey Hudson interviews in the GameInformer Mass Effect hub and its evident the game is going to eb closer to ME1 in the flow of the game than ME2.

Modifié par Bail_Darilar, 06 mai 2011 - 10:50 .

[Someone With Mass]

Sure, they can make the game more like Dragon Age and not let it have its own identity at all. That'd be great.

[R3MUS]

I really hope someone from Bioware can explain this more. Because i think most people here rage because they dont really understand what Bioware is talking about.

Please Bioware, explain more.

[Icinix]

R3MUS wrote...

I really hope someone from Bioware can explain this more. Because i think most people here rage because they dont really understand what Bioware is talking about.

Please Bioware, explain more.

Yeah..I think the issue was the wording at the investor presentation that got people riled up.  Problem is, damage done...it didn't help that so many people were on a big high after the delay to polish the game that everyone was riding as well.

Everything that they say now won't mean diddly.

I for one think it sounds like the shooter side of things is going to be vastly improved AND the RPG side of things is going to be deeper than ME2...I don't see how either of these things are a negative. That said though, thats going by my own interpretation because I've been in a semi good mood

[Someone With Mass]

R3MUS wrote...

I really hope someone from Bioware can explain this more. Because i think most people here rage because they dont really understand what Bioware is talking about.

Please Bioware, explain more.

They have. Both Christina Norman and Chris Priestly.

Some people are just too stubborn/stupid to notice.

 

[G00N3R7883]

I strongly urge someone from Bioware to clarify what exactly is meant by this recent announcement. Which specific bits of ME1&2 did you think were "meaningless" and will be removed? Because I cannot think of anything.

Mass Effect is my favourite game series so I'm really hoping that ME3 is the epic conclusion that the trilogy deserves. But let's be honest, when compared to Baldurs Gate or Neverwinter Nights, or even Dragon Age, Mass Effect is *already* a streamlined RPG. What is there left to cut out?

I hope ME3 will not become a purely combat focused Gears of Mass Effect game. I hope Bioware remember (as they did once know) that some people that play your games do not think of combat as the most important thing.

Ultimately I'm going to trust (or stick my head in the sand and hope) that ME3 will be good but at the very least, this has to be the most ill advised public relations comment ever, especially after all the critisism of DA2.

[R3MUS]

Someone With Mass wrote...

R3MUS wrote...

I really hope someone from Bioware can explain this more. Because i think most people here rage because they dont really understand what Bioware is talking about.

Please Bioware, explain more.

They have. Both Christina Norman and Chris Priestly.

Some people are just too stubborn/stupid to notice.

 

Well, i dont see anything BAD they have mentioned? They have only promised to deepen the RPG and ACTION elements in the game. Not doing a Gears of War 3.

[PsychoWARD23]

I'm just going to hope.

[Someone With Mass]

R3MUS wrote...
Well, i dont see anything BAD they have mentioned? They have only promised to deepen the RPG and ACTION elements in the game. Not doing a Gears of War 3.

Me neither. It's just that some whiners on this forum are focusing so hard on the possibly negative stuff, it's not even funny.

[Bail_Darilar]

I don't understand what people don't get, they're getting rid of the the combat rpg aspects that have little to no effect on the gameplay and enrichening those that do. The problem is that people are skewing whats being said so that it fits their own perception or own argument, this is not to case. Read whats being said properly without bias and you'll see what they mean.

The op is either severly misinformed or he is clever to be able to worry people like this as these are the same kind of tactics journalists and new broadcasters like fox news do meaning they skew evidence to fit their own stories.

[Nathan Redgrave]

Icinix wrote...

I for one think it sounds like the shooter side of things is going to be vastly improved AND the RPG side of things is going to be deeper than ME2...I don't see how either of these things are a negative. That said though, thats going by my own interpretation because I've been in a semi good mood

To sum it up, people are on such a genre high that they see anything remotely non-RPG as beneath them. And if you disagree you're a mindless mainstream mook, period.

Not many would word it that way, but that's the undercurrent I'm picking up: that there can be no compromise, there can be no half-measures... there can be no peace.

People are so stuck-up about RPG elements that they can't seem to understand that pointing your gun in the general direction of an enemy and letting backstage dicerolls do the work is in absolutely no way superior to what ME2 does. Ergo, going all doomsayer at every hint or mention of deepening the shooter elements is just plain stupid.

That is all. (And God above was it satisfying to let that out.)

[Jebel Krong]

Nathan Redgrave wrote...

Icinix wrote...

I for one think it sounds like the shooter side of things is going to be vastly improved AND the RPG side of things is going to be deeper than ME2...I don't see how either of these things are a negative. That said though, thats going by my own interpretation because I've been in a semi good mood

To sum it up, people are on such a genre high that they see anything remotely non-RPG as beneath them. And if you disagree you're a mindless mainstream mook, period.

Not many would word it that way, but that's the undercurrent I'm picking up: that there can be no compromise, there can be no half-measures... there can be no peace.

People are so stuck-up about RPG elements that they can't seem to understand that pointing your gun in the general direction of an enemy and letting backstage dicerolls do the work is in absolutely no way superior to what ME2 does. Ergo, going all doomsayer at every hint or mention of deepening the shooter elements is just plain stupid.

That is all. (And God above was it satisfying to let that out.)

i bet. 

[candidate88766]

Nathan Redgrave wrote...

Icinix wrote...

I for one think it sounds like the shooter side of things is going to be vastly improved AND the RPG side of things is going to be deeper than ME2...I don't see how either of these things are a negative. That said though, thats going by my own interpretation because I've been in a semi good mood

To sum it up, people are on such a genre high that they see anything remotely non-RPG as beneath them. And if you disagree you're a mindless mainstream mook, period.

Not many would word it that way, but that's the undercurrent I'm picking up: that there can be no compromise, there can be no half-measures... there can be no peace.

People are so stuck-up about RPG elements that they can't seem to understand that pointing your gun in the general direction of an enemy and letting backstage dicerolls do the work is in absolutely no way superior to what ME2 does. Ergo, going all doomsayer at every hint or mention of deepening the shooter elements is just plain stupid.

That is all. (And God above was it satisfying to let that out.)

Couldn't have put it better myself.

[Someone With Mass]

Nathan Redgrave wrote...

To sum it up, people are on such a genre high that they see anything remotely non-RPG as beneath them. And if you disagree you're a mindless mainstream mook, period.

Not many would word it that way, but that's the undercurrent I'm picking up: that there can be no compromise, there can be no half-measures... there can be no peace.

People are so stuck-up about RPG elements that they can't seem to understand that pointing your gun in the general direction of an enemy and letting backstage dicerolls do the work is in absolutely no way superior to what ME2 does. Ergo, going all doomsayer at every hint or mention of deepening the shooter elements is just plain stupid.

That is all. (And God above was it satisfying to let that out.)

Well said.

[lolwut666]

Cry moar, haters.

[Uomoz1987]

lolwut666 wrote...

Cry moar, haters.

nuff said

[Epic777]

Terror_K wrote...

Nathan Redgrave wrote...

Why would anyone want to create an "incredibly persuasive but combat-inept" space marine?!

...

Seriously, oxymoron of the freaking century. If you're in the military and are combat-inept, something is very, very wrong.

Not necessarily. There are plenty of people in the armed forces who have roles that aren't directly combat-oriented, such as a lot of the techie roles. On top of that one may be a brilliant military strategist, but not be particuarly great with a weapon themselves. There's also a difference between "combat-inept" and simply not being fantastic at it. In most RPGs with combat even if you build a character who barely focuses on combat at all they can still hold their own to a degree against enemies that aren't particularly tough and are still combat-capable, but they aren't as good as a pure Fighter/Warrior/Soldier, etc. The same could apply to Mass Effect easily. Shepard may have become a hero because he/she was as tough as nails and could handle a rifle better than anybody, but he/she could have also become a hero because he/she was smart and had good tactical sense. Both are cases of a Shepard being capable as part of the military, but in different ways.

As for Schimal's post... well, I have to say I disagree with it. It's that attitude and point of view that are the reason RPGs are so shallow, dumbed-down and unsatisfying these days, and why we're getting the likes of Dragon Age 2 these days amongst a myriad of action titles. And I quite frankly think it's sad that the industry has gone this way thanks to people with that mindset... I really do.

Terror, while that may be true, that is not true for Shepard. Mass Effect is not a regular RPG. The player assumes the role of Commander Shepard, an elite marine. Now when the player assumes a role in any game somethings are expected as standard. 
If I assume the role of a renowned mage in the D&D world. He or she has to be highly intelligent(the most important stat). Another example is from most classic shooters(pre 2000). The role the player assumes is some muscle bound soldier type. Why? Same reason: when you assume the role, somethings are expected to be standard. A soldier type explains why the player can use a variety of weapons including the BFG types.
Before the mission on Eden prime Shepard is an n7 marine, equivalent in the ME universe of a special forces elite. He or she better absolutely competent with whatever weapon they have and even more so in combat. Another note in most RPGs the protagonist is usually has no experience with combat nor has any other skills so of course it made sense to put points into skills.

Modifié par Epic777, 06 mai 2011 - 12:42 .

[Terror_K]

Nathan Redgrave wrote...

To sum it up, people are on such a genre high that they see anything remotely non-RPG as beneath them. And if you disagree you're a mindless mainstream mook, period.

Not many would word it that way, but that's the undercurrent I'm picking up: that there can be no compromise, there can be no half-measures... there can be no peace.

If that were the case then wouldn't these so-called "haters" have never liked ME1 in the first place, considering it's nowhere near as strong an RPG as say... Baldur's Gate or DAO? It's not about non-RPG elements, it's about the game being out of balance and the thought of it tipping further in the wrong direction. When your steak is overdone and has too much salt on it you don't want it cooked further and further sodium added.

People are so stuck-up about RPG elements that they can't seem to understand that pointing your gun in the general direction of an enemy and letting backstage dicerolls do the work is in absolutely no way superior to what ME2 does. Ergo, going all doomsayer at every hint or mention of deepening the shooter elements is just plain stupid.

That is all. (And God above was it satisfying to let that out.)

Deepening the shooter elements is one thing. Deepening them to the point where they drown out the (preferred) RPG aspects almost entirely and seem to near-on become the sole focus is another. And it's not so much the "shooter elements" increasing that's the issue as it is the RPG ones being made accessible and simple to the point of pointlessness. RPG elements thrive on their complexity and the fact that they're deep and involving. Make them too shallow, automated and simple and the very point of them is lost. ME2 was quite frankly so simple it was down right insulting to play, and I don't want to see ME3 the same way: I don't want to see everything labeled with big lettering, the sharp corners covered in padding in case the game mechanics hurt me and the game constantly holding my hand throughout.

[Epic777]

Terror_K wrote...



If that were the case then wouldn't these so-called "haters" have never liked ME1 in the first place, considering it's nowhere near as strong an RPG as say... Baldur's Gate or DAO? It's not about non-RPG elements, it's about the game being out of balance and the thought of it tipping further in the wrong direction. When your steak is overdone and has too much salt on it you don't want it cooked further and further sodium added.



Deepening the shooter elements is one thing. Deepening them to the point where they drown out the (preferred) RPG aspects almost entirely and seem to near-on become the sole focus is another. And it's not so much the "shooter elements" increasing that's the issue as it is the RPG ones being made accessible and simple to the point of pointlessness. RPG elements thrive on their complexity and the fact that they're deep and involving. Make them too shallow, automated and simple and the very point of them is lost. ME2 was quite frankly so simple it was down right insulting to play, and I don't want to see ME3 the same way: I don't want to see everything labeled with big lettering, the sharp corners covered in padding in case the game mechanics hurt me and the game constantly holding my hand throughout.

Mr.Kusy wrote...

If were at it, honestly... both ME were medicore if I would have to judge them as shooters. I want to play a shooter, I play Bad Company 2. Mass Effect is story.

This is not directed at you personally, but why? Why do we accept crappy to medicore shooting mechanics in a Shooter-RPG? Why must everything be saracficed in the name of RPG? Why can't we demand the same quality of shooter mechanics as we do RPG mechanics. ~agent smith tone~ WHY! WHY!? WHY?

Modifié par Epic777, 06 mai 2011 - 12:44 .

[ShaggyWolf]

The combat aspect is going to be better? The RPG aspects are going to be better? The customization is going to be better? THAT MAKES ME SO FREAKING MAD!

/end sarcasm

[Terror_K]

Epic777 wrote...

This is not directed at you personally, but why? Why do we accept crappy to medicore shooting mechanics in a Shooter-RPG? Why must everything be saracficed in the name of RPG? Why can't we demand the same quality of shooter mechanics as we do RPG mechanics. ~agent smith tone~ WHY! WHY!? WHY?

A counter question: why does it have to be the other way around? Because that's how it went with ME2: almost all the RPG mechanics were sacrificed in the name of "improving" the shooter ones. The ME2 team were suddenly so concerned about making it "compete with the best shooters out there" that they seemed to just not give a rat's ass about the RPG elements beyond the narrative. Beyond that, ME2 simply overcompensated for ME1's issues, making everything so simple that it wasn't broken due to the simple fact that it didn't have enough moving parts or complexity to break any more. Instead of being a broken game it became a dull, shallow one in the RPG department, and was so simple, lacking and automated that it was just unsatisfactory as an RPG.

The thing is, in order to improve the combat and the TPS elements the RPG ones didn't need to go. Had the basic combat been altered from stat-based to skill based, the AI tweaked and the cover and basic shooter mechanics been refined then that's all it would have needed. Skills didn't need to be cut in half and reduced to offensive combat powers only now, the inventory system didn't need to be gutted, modding didn't need to go the way of the dodo, we didn't need to automate the entire upgrade system to the point of linear shallowness, etc. Simply put, the RPG stuff doesn't need to take a massive hit in order for the TPS elements to be strengthened. But the team chooses to do it because the RPG elements are "scary and boring" to most modern gamers who just want to get to the action.

I agree that the TPS elements need to be strengthened in ME3 if they really want the combat to be more than just basic TPS genericism. They need to look at the games that do TPS combat better like Gears of War and learn from them what works and what doesn't. But that doesn't mean the whole focus of the game has to be "Combat! Combat! Combat!" and that what tiny strands of RPG are left need to be pushed into the narrow focus of just being about combat and the TPS elements too. The combat and shooter stuff should serve the story and RPG elements, not the other way around.

[RunicDragons]

I trust BioWare, they said they wanted to make Mass Effect 3 the best in the series, delaying the game and stuff, and so far of what I have read about it, they are on the right way of making the best game ever made.