617 réponses à ce sujet

[Nathan Redgrave]

bald man in a boat wrote...

Whatever. It's not baiting, it's calling him out on his BS.

And being quite a berk about it, just sayin'.

[Justforvisit]

And now Casey Hudson stated on german games mag "Computer Bild Spiele" in an interview that they want to make ME3 the best FIRST PERSON SHOOTER out there...

Some say it's just a translation error...really? When it's about the same, simple word? I doubt...and I fear where this is going to...

*SIGH*

[Murmillos]

Talogrungi wrote...
Hmm, so they say that they're improving the RPG and Shooter aspects of ME3..

And people are complaining about this? .. really?

You can't totally blame people. To the more level headed less RPG elitist among us, while we may realize that ME isn't a fill stat/skill/loot RPG by any measure (regardless of what came out in ME1); and want a good TPS with strong RPG features, a lot of promised RPG mechanics/features/improvements were removed by the final game, while they were stating promising them in development.

So when it comes to RPG features and ME development team, sorry if we don't quite take their word for it.

[RaenImrahl]

Nathan Redgrave wrote...

bald man in a boat wrote...

Whatever. It's not baiting, it's calling him out on his BS.

And being quite a berk about it, just sayin'.

I am telling everyone to cool it.  Final warning.

[Someone With Mass]

Justforvisit wrote...

And now Casey Hudson stated on german games mag "Computer Bild Spiele" in an interview that they want to make ME3 the best FIRST PERSON SHOOTER out there...

Some say it's just a translation error...really? When it's about the same, simple word? I doubt...and I fear where this is going to...

*SIGH*

And you're honestly taking this seriosuly?

Wow. Just...wow.

[TheConfidenceMan]

PnXMarcin1PL wrote...

Since when ME1 has got better combat than ME2 ?
Combat in ME1 is riddiculously odd. I don't say ME1 is bad game, because I enjoy both ME and ME2. I've noticed a plague of haters here on forums. They've been raging here for a week now. With one guy leading (some ppl may know who I mean).

Since ME2 came out? 

No global cooldown, biotics work against shielded enemies, tech mines, more ammo mod types, weapon abilites like Carnage, more abilities for Shepard, way more abilities for squad members, just more flexibility and variety in general than ME2.

The one thing ME2 actually improved on was adding locational damage. Beyond that the combat was more limited and generic feeling in every way.

[Terror_K]

Murmillos wrote...

Talogrungi wrote...
Hmm, so they say that they're improving the RPG and Shooter aspects of ME3..

And people are complaining about this? .. really?

You can't totally blame people. To the more level headed less RPG elitist among us, while we may realize that ME isn't a fill stat/skill/loot RPG by any measure (regardless of what came out in ME1); and want a good TPS with strong RPG features, a lot of promised RPG mechanics/features/improvements were removed by the final game, while they were stating promising them in development.

So when it comes to RPG features and ME development team, sorry if we don't quite take their word for it.

Exactly. As I said earlier, it's a case of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" here. BioWare claimed ME2 was still a strong RPG and wasn't dumbed down, and then claimed the same with DA2. Scepticism is natural.

Also, regarding ME2's popularity, when you make a game more mainstream and twist it to bring in a bigger audience and appeal to more people of course it's going to be more highly regarded by more people. That's just common sense.

[Nathan Redgrave]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Justforvisit wrote...

And now Casey Hudson stated on german games mag "Computer Bild Spiele" in an interview that they want to make ME3 the best FIRST PERSON SHOOTER out there...

Some say it's just a translation error...really? When it's about the same, simple word? I doubt...and I fear where this is going to...

*SIGH*

And you're honestly taking this seriosuly?

Wow. Just...wow.

Even if it could be taken seriously, the "FPS" label is regularly misused by nearly everyone in existence. People always forget that "first person" part and just use it to refer to shooters in general.

[Murmillos]

Justforvisit wrote...

And now Casey Hudson stated on german games mag "Computer Bild Spiele" in an interview that they want to make ME3 the best FIRST PERSON SHOOTER out there...

Some say it's just a translation error...really? When it's about the same, simple word? I doubt...and I fear where this is going to...

*SIGH*

I wouldn't worry about.. people been calling ME1 a FPS since it came out, regardless even if it really is a TPS, the core mechanics between first person and third person viewing is negligible.

You still have to find an enemy in real time, aim at him in real time, and shoot at him in real time all while trying to avoid being hit for too long to which you die.

[bald man in a boat]

Terror_K wrote...

Also, regarding ME2's popularity, when you make a game more mainstream and twist it to bring in a bigger audience and appeal to more people of course it's going to be more highly regarded by more people. That's just common sense.

And how does that make it worse?

[GodWood]

bald man in a boat wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
Also, regarding ME2's popularity, when you make a game more mainstream and twist it to bring in a bigger audience and appeal to more people of course it's going to be more highly regarded by more people. That's just common sense.

And how does that make it worse?

It's not that hard to comprehend.

Say there's a black metal fan and he listens to this black metal band.
However all of a sudden the band starts copying Justin Bieber to widen its audience.

Obviously, despite the band appealing to more people the BM fan is going to be pissed as JB's music is not to his liking.

[SalsaDMA]

Murmillos wrote...

lazuli wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

an entire skill tree for each vcharacter with multiple paths of progression where you can dump multiple points in each skill when you unlock them doesn't count?

This debate is pointless when you start making up bollock statements like that.

My point was that tons of passive abilities with proc chances hardly seem to have the same depth as different active abilities, each with unique effects.  In Borderlands, a lot of your abilities are left to chance.

I guess I put more value on active abilities than passive traits.

Borderlands isn't an RPG per say, but it does incorporate a very strictly focused (and very well done) loot/skill based RPG system; as they had 4 archetypes, each with one unique skill along with a lot of passive skills which improve the ability and intended play style of your archetype character. Also, the weapons/shield/class mod was a very classic RPG mechanic too - but again, only within the loot system.

ME could have used a easily used a borderland style class mod system. Different Omni tools that increase certain powers differently or provided special bonus, biotic amps for biotic users (faster cool downs or stronger power.. etc, bonus to Warp or Throw/Pull). Not sure what would "work" for the Solider like types, but they would have an item which increased intended like skills for them too.

Borderland fails the true RPG role as the role for all 4 was identical and you couldn't shape/change the outcome of the story. No matter what you did or didn't do, it didn't change the outcome of the story. You couldn't recruit, make friends, make enemies. The story was just a story to get you, as the player, to play.

I don't think anyone claimed borderlands was a rpg. In fact it was used by me as an example of a shooter that did incorporate skill trees, just to show that such a thing doesn't inherently make a game into a rpg.

[bald man in a boat]

@GODWOOD

That still doesn't make it worse. 

Modifié par bald man in a boat, 07 mai 2011 - 03:22 .

[kalwren]

darknoon5 wrote...

@Terrok K: You proved his point that you're a hypocrite. You rage and insult him back, but then report him? Something doesn't seem right there. I also doubt he would've blown off the handle if you were less condescending and insulted other genre's less. (I still can't believe that whole "RPG's take more skill then shooter" line:pinched:)

That bald guy fellow has been flaming people with concerns since this thread started. I’ve reported about three of his blatant flame attacks. Terror K, Gatt9 and many of the others folks with concerns have been extremely mature in the face of such attacks imo. All I can say to those guys is, don’t let the trolls get to you otherwise they win. Keep up the constructive criticism, there are many of us that agree with you and miss the CRPG in Mass Effect. 

Honestly if folks cant share their opinions without getting all riled up then they shouldn’t be posting in this thread, or maybe on the forums at all. Some peeps just need to chill out and respect that some of us have a different opinion. 

Modifié par kalwren, 07 mai 2011 - 03:23 .

[bald man in a boat]

^ LOL. Proof of flammage please? ^

[Murmillos]

[quote]SalsaDMA wrote...

[quote]Murmillos wrote...

Borderlands isn't an RPG per say, but it does incorporate a very strictly focused (and very well done) loot/skill based RPG system; as they had 4 archetypes, each with one unique skill along with a lot of passive skills which improve the ability and intended play style of your archetype character. Also, the weapons/shield/class mod was a very classic RPG mechanic too - but again, only within the loot system.

ME could have used a easily used a borderland style class mod system. Different Omni tools that increase certain powers differently or provided special bonus, biotic amps for biotic users (faster cool downs or stronger power.. etc, bonus to Warp or Throw/Pull). Not sure what would "work" for the Solider like types, but they would have an item which increased intended like skills for them too.

Borderland fails the true RPG role as the role for all 4 was identical and you couldn't shape/change the outcome of the story. No matter what you did or didn't do, it didn't change the outcome of the story. You couldn't recruit, make friends, make enemies. The story was just a story to get you, as the player, to play.[/quote]

I don't think anyone claimed borderlands was a rpg. In fact it was used by me as an example of a shooter that did incorporate skill trees, just to show that such a thing doesn't inherently make a game into a rpg.

[/quote]
[/quote]
Nether was I - I think. I was just hopefully pointing out some loot & skill "RPG features" that worked really well in Borderlands that ME3 could take note of and maybe reincorporate since the slash and burn of ME2 (and yes, ME1 system was atrociously bad.)

[Tony Gunslinger]

Terror_K wrote...
Only at what BioWare, Mass Effect, the RPG genre and these forums are becoming as time goes by. Though that is my first reported post since I've been here. It's pretty hard to actually insult me and I'm willing to let a fair amount slide, particularly if the poster attacks the points I make more than me personally. But that was just downright visceral.

Incidentally, I have quite the games library of shooters, and enjoy them a lot. In fact, some of my favourite times in video games have been in shooters. I also currently have pre-orders for Duke Nukem Forever and Battlefield 3 at the moment, and am considering even looking into Brink. I realise that shooters do require a great degree of skill and quick reactions, and even tactical thought, particuarly with multiplayer ones. But they are a different kettle of fish than RPGs, and I go to my RPGs for a different experience than I go to my RPGs for.

I don't play Mass Effect to play a shooter, I play it to play an RPG, just like I don't go to Unreal Tournament, Team Fortress 2, Gears of War, Half-LIfe 2 or Call of Duty for roleplaying and RPG mechanics. I like all kinds of genres, including puzzle games, platform games, RTS's, etc. but that doesn't mean I want Mass Effect to become them. I go to Starcraft for Starcraft, Unreal Tournament for Unreal Tournament, and Mass Effect for Mass Effect. I don't go there for Gears of War.

I play games because they are fun and challenging. I've played many shooters and RPGs, many sports and racing games, and I pretty sure ME2 is as much an RPG as any turn-based, stat-intensive, dice-rolling, paper-and-pen D&D. I think what you and the detractors are really talking about are two issues:

1) A subculture unable or unwilling to adapt to the changing medium

2) And the denial that you are not good at playing games where tactical decisions need to be made with fast reflexes

Whenever you talk about the lack of "RPG elements", you're generalizing a huge set of game mechanics that may or not make feel like you're "role-playing." For me, being able to customize how Shepard looks, his background, making decisions that affect outcomes of narratives, character building that affects how I perform in combat, makes me feel like I am definitely role-playing. It doesn't matter what game mechanics being used to achieve it. But for people like you, you need the game to hand-hold you and re-affirm that you're in "RPG genre" by using recognizable and conventional mechanisms like loot and stats.

For people who are concerned about 1) all you're doing is shoving an ideology into our faces and it's obstruct any real constructive discussion about how to make a specific game better, RPG or not. You're blinded by "RPG-ness" that you can't see what the game is actually doing, and have been doing that since the first one came out. "Dumbed down" is a rhetoric, one that you can conveniently apply to anything, and closes off any path to the truth.

For people who are concerned about 2) all you're doing is blaming outside circumstances instead if addressing your own issues. You can't shoot straight or you can't react fast enough with the right powers and change your strategy, and you want to substitute that with a set of mechanics that makes it easier for you. Now that's called dumbing down. If you're playing a fighting game, you know that the skill required to beat it is hand-eye coordinationa and pattern recognition. If you suck at it, you accept that you don't have those skills. If you're playing a turn-based strategy game, you know it requires decisions that trades off short- and long-term success. If you suck at it, you accept that you don't have the patience or mental state to get into it. Both of these games makes it obvious what is required to win. In ME2, you're required to have to both set of skills, and this confuses you, and because there are not many games like it, you lack a context to fall back on (ie, I suck at shooting games, I suck at thinking games), so your frustration is misplaced.

There is nothing wrong with suck. I suck at racing games, but I can acknoweldge that GT and Forza are damn good games because I recognize what's required to be good, and judge the game based on those requirements, and have fun with it. I recognize what's required to be good at ME2 and for me, the fun is in the challenge of honing those skills while constantly discovering different combinations of tactics and play out different story permutations.

Furthermore, a good game in my definition is one where the system itself allows multiple permutations of strategy, and not upgrading your way to victory. Chess is one of those games that has lasted for centuries precisely because of this quality. Both sides have equal pieces, so the factors of winning and losing resides on the players, not the equipment. ME2 has similar qualities, and the point of the hardest difficulty in a good game is to experience that system in its truest form. Enemies use the same weapons and skills as you do. They need to reload like you do. They need to cooldown like you do. They operate under same rules as you do. They flank and use team work as you do. They respond to changing situations like you do. Are there flaws? Definately. But nearly enough to say it's broken. For every teenager brat who says "Widow = WIN, end of discussion", there are countless other ways to play that's offers different rewards. Every class, ever power, every weapon, every squadmate, has advantages and weaknesses. Every decisions you make matters. It's a freakin' live-time chess match, and I love it. And I suck at chess.

[GodWood]

bald man in a boat wrote...
@GODWOOD

That still doesn't make it worse.

Depends if you're an original fan or one of the new ones.
Either way it's perfectly understandable for the original fan to be pissed.

[bald man in a boat]

^ But it's just opinion. I know what you're saying though.

[Murmillos]

bald man in a boat wrote...

@GODWOOD

That still doesn't make it worse. 

It makes it worse if you don't like Justin Beiber music.

ME1 had some good concepts, just suffered from bad balancing and implementation. So instead of improving these aspects (which we feel should have happened), the ME2 team thought the best way to improve something was to cut it out and pretend it didn't exist in the first place; all while panning lip service that they did intend to improve on them.

If they were up front and straight about it; "Sorry guys, we made ME1 more RPG-ish then we wanted it to be, but as a factor of doing RPG games for 20 years those ideas just came out as a fall back during development. You may be disappointed, but less RPG mechanics will carry over into ME2 then what you may want/expect as the series continues on." We wouldn't have these threads.

Yes they wanted to move on with a TPS with much lighter RPG mechanics, the only problem is they didn't tell us that - its only what they provided after months of promises and RPG improvements for ME2.

They say the same thing again for ME3 and we are to take their word for it?
The only thing we have gotten out of them is "Weapon Customization"! You mean we now get CoD style of weapon customization - thats a genre changer!!

Modifié par Murmillos, 07 mai 2011 - 03:42 .

[Terror_K]

@Tony Gunslinger

The problem with your post --as well-worded as it is-- is that I actually enjoy shooters, have played a lot of them and actually consider myself fairly decent at (many of) them. Particularly the original Unreal Tournament which I played to death in its heyday. Hell... my forum name is the name I used when playing multiplayer in shooters like UT.

The second issue is that I've experienced hybrids before, like Deus Ex, one of my all time favourite games. I thought it worked incredibly well and was incredibly balanced. I even enjoyed Alpha Protocol a fair bit, despite its flaws.

Finally, I created this thread a while back, which was even fairly popular amongst several posters I often clashed with. If that doesn't demonstrate an ability to compromise, offer constructive criticism/alternate suggestions and consider both styles of game, I don't know what does.

[thompsonaf]

--Visuals

>Mass Effect 1








>Mass Effect 2









--Gameplay

>Mass Effect 1

Mutiple skills and abilities for biotics, tech, weapon types, and more
Decryption and Electronics
Independant cooldowns for each power
Mako
Exploration
Helmet Toggle
Always available inventory
Mutiple UNC collection missions
Galaxy map that worked and felt like a large navigational map
Workable airlock for docked worlds

>Mass Effect 2

Limited abilities for all classes
Global cooldown
Incredible hacking ability that all space marines are taught and requires no skill
Hammerhead
Restricted inventory, want to change your armor or gun on the fly? Too bad.
Linear shooting hallways and chest high walls
Planet scanning
Galaxy map with a little toy normandy flying around
Normandy must leave the world/space station everytime you do...for no reason


--Loot

>Mass Effect 1

Lots of different armors to outfit Shepard and squad members
Gun mods, armor mods, ammo mods, omnitool mods, grenade mods, biotic amp mods
Full head helmets on toxic/no atmosphere worlds/space
Very cluttered inventory

>Mass Effect 2

Around a dozen or so interchangeable armor parts for shepard
Half a dozen one piece DLC armors with no helmet toggle
Squad members with nipple shirts, space spandex, and breathing masks in the void
Linear equipment upgrade path, no variations
No inventory


--Story

>Mass Effect 1

Clear antagonist
Railroading evident but cleverly hidden
Main missions involve tracking down the antagonist
Main missions also reveal story developments (IE Beacons purpose, cipher, etc..)
Side missions fun and brief
Briefing room with voice over and cinematics after every main mission
Vigil + Ilos
Satisfying ending

>Mass Effect 2
Railroading thrown in your face
Main missions involve finding random people you don't know
Side missions involve solving their daddy issues
Mission/game end of level screen
Terminater Reaper
Arrival makes the end of ME2 meaningless

Modifié par thompsonaf, 07 mai 2011 - 03:53 .

[bald man in a boat]

Murmillos wrote...
It makes it worse if you don't like Justin Beiber music.

ME1 had some good concepts, just suffered from bad balancing and implementation. So instead of improving these aspects (which we feel should have happened), the ME2 team thought the best way to improve something was to cut it out and pretend it didn't exist in the first place; all while panning lip service that they did intend to improve on them.

If they were up front and straight about it; "Sorry guys, we make ME1 more RPG-ish then we wanted it to be, but as a factor of doing RPG games for 20 years those ideas just came out as a fall back during development. You may be disappointed, but less RPG mechanics will carry over into ME2 then what you may want/expect as the series continues on." We wouldn't have these threads.

Yes they wanted to move on with a TPS with much lighter RPG mechanics, the only problem is they didn't tell us that - its only what they provided after months of promises and RPG improvements for ME2.

They say the same thing again for ME3 and we are to take their word for it?
The only thing we have gotten out of them is "Weapon Customization"! You mean we now get CoD style of weapon customization - thats a genre changer!!

I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm right but I didn't find ME1 to be more of an RPG than 2. Sure there's some more stats and loot but that's not what defines an RPG for me, if it does for you that's fine. In the end it's all just semantics.

[bald man in a boat]

thompsonaf wrote...

*snip*

Wouldn't it have been easier just to say you like ME1 better?

Modifié par bald man in a boat, 07 mai 2011 - 04:02 .

[cachx]

I was misrepresented in an article recently, which made it sound like I wanted to remove RPG elements and stats from combat. What I actually said was, I wanted RPG progression to have a more meaningful impact on combat, but that was misrepresented as "cutting rpg stats" we actually have more stats in me3 that affect combat, and the overall impact of rpg progress on combat is greater. Anyway sorry for the longish tweet but I just wanted ot clear that up, and a few people were asking me what was up!

A recent series of tweets by Christina Norman.
http://twitter.com/t...885574451142657