617 réponses à ce sujet

[Nathan Redgrave]

JKoopman wrote...

For RPGs, its loot, stats, leveling, etc. Otherwise it's just any other action-adventure game.

Hence the "Action RPG" classification, thankya kindly for remembering that. This is why genre-hybrid classifications were invented. Much like, you know, classes like the Vanguard, Infiltrator, and Sentinel. It's good to mix and match the pros and cons of different things where applicable.

(EDIT: Also, loot very rarely doesn't suck. Mass Effect 1 was not a case of loot not sucking. Just sayin'.)

Modifié par Nathan Redgrave, 07 mai 2011 - 03:55 .

[Nohvarr]

BattleRaptor wrote...


EA forced bioware to release DA2 Quickly... ME3 MAY have been suffering from the same things.. and the fact they delayed could be taken as a SIGN that EA relented and told them to take more time.
However we dont know how screwed ME3 may have been from a forced release date.

We don't know that it was screwed at all, your taking your fears creating a conclusion and then arranging information to fit what you already believe.

Dont try to claim one hand didnt know what the other was doing.

Wrong, I said it's two different teams making different games. 

Example: Assassins Creed 2  and Prince Of Persia (2008) were both made by Ubisoft, but by different teams. One flopped one was a critical and commerical success. Same thing here.

[AlanC9]

Savber100 wrote...

Let me offer a better definition for a RPG:

A game is a computer RPG if it
features player-driven development of a persistent character or
characters via the making of consequential choices.

That's from the freaking RPG Codex, renowned for hating anything Bioware or Bethsada.

Gotta love the Codex. But note that this definition excludes a lot of things that are commonly called RPGs (old Wizardrys , Might and Magics, and the like), and includes a few things that aren't typically thought of as being RPGs, like Wing Commander 4.

[Kileyan]

I'm not sure I understand what Bioware is trying to say in that article. It seems like they think there are too many boring combat skills that only add behind the scenes stats, rather than being in your face, push a button and things freeze, explode or fly across the room.

It isn't like the character advancement is bloated with such passive skills, off the top of my head, I can only think of the skill row that pertains to your specific class that is the catch all for cooldown, duration and damage. Is that what they are talking about, the existence of a single skill that doesn't cause heads to explode when you push a button, must be removed?

[BattleRaptor]

Nohvarr
You amaze me.

Are you stating without a doubt.. that you KNOW that me3 wont have problems?
If not
What are you stating?
That the game most likely wont be bad?

Isnt that the same as the game MAY be bad?

You know
Saying a
Glass half full.
is the same as
a glass half empty.

[Canadish]

Concerned Customer "Omg, this is gonna suck"

Optimist Customer "Oh shut up, you only heard the press release, that doesn't tell you what the game is gonna-"

Concerned Customer "Dragon Age 2."

Optimist Customer "Oh. oh fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu-"

[Nohvarr]

BattleRaptor wrote...

Nohvarr
You amaze me.

Are you stating without a doubt.. that you KNOW that me3 wont have problems?
If not
What are you stating?
That the game most likely wont be bad?

Isnt that the same as the game MAY be bad?

You know
Saying a
Glass half full.
is the same as
a glass half empty.

You said the following

Bioware said they were making race unchooseable because they were making hawke voiced so the story could be more focused.

What focused turned out to be was a game with 1/10th the dialogue of the orginal game.. and that includes Your own players lines.

Reasonble grounds exist for concern over what exactly me3 will be.

I pointed out that all those things came from a different team working on a different game. So it's not as reasonable as you claim to apply what they said and did to what the ME team is doing.

Then you said

Dont try to claim one hand didnt know what the other was doing.

I then used the example of Ubisoft and how they had two different teams, working on two different games. One of which did very well, the other did poorly.

The same applies here, you can't say 'DA 2 is proof' just because it's a Bioware game. The company has grown large enough to have multiple teams working on different projects. What one team does, is not an indication of another teams actions/intent/abilities.

[Amyntas]

That sounds a bit like the button/awesome connection of DA2. I hope that's not the case. Many players actually enjoy all those "meaningless" numbers and behind-the-scenes rules.

[Euno17]

I'm sorry people but everyone should be worried/concerned about what Bioware says of their future titles. With EA as the 'dark-horse' hiding out in the background, you have to be skeptical and cautious. First we got ME2 and then in quick fashion we got DA2 - I see a trend and it's one that I don't like.

Does that mean ME3 will be horrible? not necessarily, but it also doesn't help to know what Bioware has put out with these recent titles. At this point, we all need to at the very least take a small step back and get some true insight into the game before we buy it.

It sucks but with Bioware faltering as of late, we have little choice but to play a 'wait and see' game.

I can imagine that there be far fewer pre-orders for ME3 then EA/Bioware expects and if ME3 sucks - they can expect little to no pre-orders for any other future game. Public perception is starting to turn again Bioware/EA. It will be interesting to see if ME3 can change that perspective.

Modifié par Euno17, 07 mai 2011 - 04:57 .

[Gatt9]

AlanC9 wrote...

Savber100 wrote...

Let me offer a better definition for a RPG:

A game is a computer RPG if it
features player-driven development of a persistent character or
characters via the making of consequential choices.

That's from the freaking RPG Codex, renowned for hating anything Bioware or Bethsada.

Gotta love the Codex. But note that this definition excludes a lot of things that are commonly called RPGs (old Wizardrys , Might and Magics, and the like), and includes a few things that aren't typically thought of as being RPGs, like Wing Commander 4.

Not really,  you're both misinterpreting the statement.

You're both completely missing the word Character there,  which once again,  requires it to be defined in game terms,  not through some personal conception that the game doesn't recognize.  You cannot have a character if the game completely ignores what you've decided is his constraints,  and results in identical protagonist to everyone elses unilatererly.

You're both also misinterpreting the word choices to mean dialogue,  it can just as easily mean developing the character's abilities.  Even if we assume it to mean dialogue,  ME2 still isn't an RPG,  none of your "Choices" matter.  You still end up winning the game in the exact same manner as every other player,  with the exact same party composition,  and essentially with the exact same weaponry.  I played a 100% paragon,  my friend played a 100% renegade,  there was no difference.  There wasn't even any deviation from the choices we made in ME1.  ME2's "Choices" have no more meaning or weight than those you make in the Monkey Island series,  or closer to home,  no more than the ones you "Make" in DA2.

Contrast this,  once again,  to Fallout.  Choices you made could wipe out entire towns in the epilogue,  result in significantly different gameplay,  12-13 years ago.  Make the wrong choice,  you'd return to find your vault filled with corpses,  you could be hunted throughout the wastes,  you could even talk your way out of the final battles.

In ME2,  you've got one choice,  the Justicar or her Daughter,  and regardless of which way you go,  everything plays out the same anyways.  That's the only deviation,  unless you leave party members deactivated,  which once again,  doesn't actually change anything.  I was nice to people,  my friend bullied them,  we both got the exact same things at the exact same times from the exact same people.

The game doesn't recognize anything you do,  doesn't recognize or react to any way you act,  so the "Choices" are illusionary,  and it still fails to be an RPG even by that extremely lenient definition.

[Walker White]

Euno17 wrote...

I can imagine that there be far fewer pre-orders for ME3 then EA/Bioware expects and if ME3 sucks - they can expect little to no pre-orders for any other future game. Public perception is starting to turn again Bioware/EA. It will be interesting to see if ME3 can change that perspective.

This projection of the DA market onto the ME market is just unfounded.  Outside these forums, the people I know who play ME just don't care about DA.  In the circles I run, DA has always had a reputation as a mediocre series -- both DA:O and DA2.  

I suspect that because DA was seen as a mediocre series, it needed the "hardcore RPG players" (whatever that means) to survive.  ME, not so much.

[KainrycKarr]

Just to point something out....in the past, when the forums erupt in questions and skepticism on things regarding ME/ME2/ME3, Bioware generally stayed quiet. Those questions and skepticisms(not a word but it's 1 am and I'm making it one.) turned out to be legitimate concerns one way or the other.

In this case, Bioware has definately given their own feedback towards the fanbase regarding our concerns over "dumbing down" or "removing rpg aspects". See Chris's post and C. Norman's twitter.

Taking into account the times BW has chosen to remain quiet, and when they've spoken, I think we can safely assume that we have misinterpreted the quotes, and that BW is doing exactly what they claim to be doing ; enhancing both the shooter and RPG aspects of ME3.

[Gatt9]

kalwren wrote...

EDIT: ^ We arent asking for a better current system though. 

We asking for something closer to the old. 

++++++++++++++++++

Moderator Edit:
Two things, I want to put here.

1) A very wonderful and insightful post by Scimal
that articulates why this is a great thing to happen for the evolution of RPG's as a whole

:wizard:http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/103/index/7306591/8#7311891

Erm hold on a second. Why are certain peoples views good enough to get edited into the OP, yet equally constructive but opposing posts like Gatt9's are not? 

Because it's easier to use "Arguement by authority" to win a debate than it is to deal with the counterpoints.  I'll guarantee you there won't be any attention paid to my counterpoints either.

[Gatt9]

Walker White wrote...

Euno17 wrote...

I can imagine that there be far fewer pre-orders for ME3 then EA/Bioware expects and if ME3 sucks - they can expect little to no pre-orders for any other future game. Public perception is starting to turn again Bioware/EA. It will be interesting to see if ME3 can change that perspective.

This projection of the DA market onto the ME market is just unfounded.  Outside these forums, the people I know who play ME just don't care about DA.  In the circles I run, DA has always had a reputation as a mediocre series -- both DA:O and DA2.  

I suspect that because DA was seen as a mediocre series, it needed the "hardcore RPG players" (whatever that means) to survive.  ME, not so much.

DAO outsold ME and ME2,  nearly outsold them both combined.  ME needs alot of help,  one of the bigger RTS/FPS related gaming sites is even posting extreme scepticism about ME3 at this point.  I'd venture at this point that Bioware's got *alot* to worry about.

Especially when gaming sites are posting news bulletin's like...

 Mass Effect 3 being dumbed down more than 2

[Chala]

I want to see some gameplay before go berserk against Bioware...
Until E3 I'll keep my mouth shut

[javierabegazo]

Gatt9 wrote...

Because it's easier to use "Arguement by authority" to win a debate than it is to deal with the counterpoints.  I'll guarantee you there won't be any attention paid to my counterpoints either.

Or perhaps it's because this particular moderator has quite a lot of busy things in his real physical life and doesn't always have time to follow every thread.

Perhaps I posted that comment up there to prevent the sheep reaction of "Hey, the OP says they're making ME3 dumber, gosh that must mean it's official!"

Perhaps I haven't posted yours up there because I haven't read it, (which happens to be the truth, I have no idea what comment the poster was referring to of Gatt9's)

Perhaps a reasonable and more level headed post about why changes to existing formulae aren't always bad is a far better thing to post to level out a thread than some comment about how "BioWare's in trouble because gaming sites are already posting silly headlines like "ME3 to be more dumbed down than ME2".

[Epic777]

Gatt9 wrote...

Walker White wrote...

Euno17 wrote...

I can imagine that there be far fewer pre-orders for ME3 then EA/Bioware expects and if ME3 sucks - they can expect little to no pre-orders for any other future game. Public perception is starting to turn again Bioware/EA. It will be interesting to see if ME3 can change that perspective.

This projection of the DA market onto the ME market is just unfounded.  Outside these forums, the people I know who play ME just don't care about DA.  In the circles I run, DA has always had a reputation as a mediocre series -- both DA:O and DA2.  

I suspect that because DA was seen as a mediocre series, it needed the "hardcore RPG players" (whatever that means) to survive.  ME, not so much.

DAO outsold ME and ME2,  nearly outsold them both combined.  ME needs alot of help,  one of the bigger RTS/FPS related gaming sites is even posting extreme scepticism about ME3 at this point.  I'd venture at this point that Bioware's got *alot* to worry about.

Especially when gaming sites are posting news bulletin's like...

 Mass Effect 3 being dumbed down more than 2

Of course it did, DAO has outsold both BG, ME games and as far as I know its bioware most successful game. Considering it was released on 4 systems it better do. 

Modifié par Epic777, 07 mai 2011 - 05:30 .

[javierabegazo]

And especially when Christina Norman, the LEAD GAMEPLAY DESIGNER of ME3 says that they're equally improving the aspects of Shooter and RPG mechanics, people should be more mature in their responses instead of just being so quick to grab the pitch fork.

GameInformer releases a ton of developer documentaries detailing lots of aspects, and we hear how gun upgrades etc will be physical as well as change gameplay, and how powers will evolve multiple times, and the forum is all cherries and roses happy.

The head of EA makes a statement and all of the sudden the more pessimistic users come and outline how "BioWare are sellouts" etc. etc,

[Chala]

javierabegazo wrote...

And especially when Christina Norman, the LEAD GAMEPLAY DESIGNER of ME3 says that they're equally improving the aspects of Shooter and RPG mechanics, people should be more mature in their responses instead of just being so quick to grab the pitch fork.

GameInformer releases a ton of developer documentaries detailing lots of aspects, and we hear how gun upgrades etc will be physical as well as change gameplay, and how powers will evolve multiple times, and the forum is all cherries and roses happy.

The head of EA makes a statement and all of the sudden the more pessimistic users come and outline how "BioWare are sellouts" etc. etc,

Don't ask for miracles, they won't change...
And seriously guys...
CAN YOU WAIT UNTIL WE GET SOMETHING MORE REAL THAN JUST A TEXT OF DOUBTFUL ORIGIN BEFORE RANT AGAINST ANYTHING YOU SEE?

[Terror_K]

Savber100 wrote...

You're not Bioware and they can choose to attempt new changes on established series. You don't like it? Good for you! But don't act like an arrogant ****** in believing that because the game has LESS RPG (which I disagree) equals "HERP DERP" games. You don't like shooter games but that doesn't mean that people who plays them and enjoys them are retards or console dummies.

Typical... once again my comments are completely taken out of context and misread just because I happen to point out the factors of dumbing down and pandering to a more mainstream audience that tends to favour shooters. Especially considering my favourite game of all time is a shooter (and a pure, non-hybrid one at that) that is especially rich.

Let me put it this way: just because the "herp derp" audience of gamers these days happen to by-large like shooters above all else doesn't mean everybody who likes shooters are part of that group. It doesn't rule out the fact that the former is still the case though.

[javierabegazo]

Terror_K wrote...

Savber100 wrote...

You're not Bioware and they can choose to attempt new changes on established series. You don't like it? Good for you! But don't act like an arrogant ****** in believing that because the game has LESS RPG (which I disagree) equals "HERP DERP" games. You don't like shooter games but that doesn't mean that people who plays them and enjoys them are retards or console dummies.

Typical... once again my comments are completely taken out of context and misread just because I happen to point out the factors of dumbing down and pandering to a more mainstream audience that tends to favour shooters. Especially considering my favourite game of all time is a shooter (and a pure, non-hybrid one at that) that is especially rich.

Let me put it this way: just because the "herp derp" audience of gamers these days happen to by-large like shooters above all else doesn't mean everybody who likes shooters are part of that group. It doesn't rule out the fact that the former is still the case though.

One could also say the say the same about classic RPG gamers and reclusive elitism but if you ask me, I feel neither of these generalizations belong in any conversation.

[clipped_wolf]

*Reads OP*
*Groan* Mindless shooters indeed! It does take cleverness to excel at shooters like CoD, especially in multiplayer.
Do as you like, I have faith in the ME dev team. In ME1 the story and RPG aspects carried the game because as a shooter it was bland. Even if the RPG elements in ME2 were weakened in minor ways, it was improved as a shooter and as a game.
I also feel like I need to state that I have played Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, played and DM'ed p&p DnD 3.5.

Modifié par clipped_wolf, 07 mai 2011 - 06:16 .

[Epic777]

Terror_K wrote...

Savber100 wrote...

You're not Bioware and they can choose to attempt new changes on established series. You don't like it? Good for you! But don't act like an arrogant ****** in believing that because the game has LESS RPG (which I disagree) equals "HERP DERP" games. You don't like shooter games but that doesn't mean that people who plays them and enjoys them are retards or console dummies.

Typical... once again my comments are completely taken out of context and misread just because I happen to point out the factors of dumbing down and pandering to a more mainstream audience that tends to favour shooters. Especially considering my favourite game of all time is a shooter (and a pure, non-hybrid one at that) that is especially rich.

Let me put it this way: just because the "herp derp" audience of gamers these days happen to by-large like shooters above all else doesn't mean everybody who likes shooters are part of that group. It doesn't rule out the fact that the former is still the case though.

While you do have my sympathies on that, you have to find this ironic. This thread could be seen as a large manifestation of what you are now experiencing, 

[Burdokva]

Chris Priestly wrote...

So directly saying that were enriching the role-playing mechanics and making stats meaningful in combat somehow also means we're making them worse?

I do not understand people sometimes.

Well, Mr.Priestly, let me make it more clear - throughout ME2's marketing cycle there was constant talk about combat improvements, videos, previews etc. And every time people expressed concern about the RPG side of Mass Effect, something that began (and still is advertised as such: see above post by Ms.Norman) as an "RPG-action" game, we were told that "don't worry, the RPG still is there, it's getting improved." Nothing concrete, no info in the previews, just this ambigious "we're working on it!... and Mass Effect 2 turned out for many to be absolutely flat, a pure shooter with some minor (emphasis on minor) customization options.

Sorry, until this time I actually see something in previews, actual info about how weapons and squadmembers get customized, how minigames work, how galaxy travel works, how x and y work, I have the right to be sceptical about ME3 having some depth to it. 

So, now that we're getting bombarded with "combat is awesome!" info, and yet-again completely lacking info on non-combat RPG elements, if there are any at all, can you understand why some people are concerned and say "mindless shooter"?

[BattleRaptor]

LOL Nohvarr
I do know, because the composer who made the music for DA2 stated he was specificly rushed, unlike other games for Bioware.

I worked out the problem..
You have your point of view.. and everyone else is WRONG.