177 réponses à ce sujet

[Smilietime]

They have made it clear, several times, that Mass Effect 3 is going to add MORE RPG back to Mass Effect! What is wrong with every RPG player onthe internet??? Look at Gamerant, or The Escapist, everyone and there mother twists anything said about ME3 to mean OH NOES, THEY ARE STUPIFYING it for the dirty peasents. I can't be the only one tired of seeing these comments.

Mass Effect 1 was an excellent RPG, but not a good shooter, whereas ME2 was a good hybrid lacking in customization options. We are being told that ME3 TRULY follows the line between these two genres. I disliked how ME2 had  meaningless stats. Plus 3% health? Plus 4% power damage? ugh!... I'm glad I'll be able to choose to do more damage, and reduce recharge time with my Vanguard charge, rather than ONLY getting to add bullet time to it...

EA/Bioware are horrible at advertizing their RPGs. You needto treat us like children, because most of us might go into a tantrum at the slightest phrasing.

Modifié par Smilietime, 06 mai 2011 - 01:55 .

[Someone With Mass]

They're disappointed because it isn't an RPG like Baldur's Gate or some other RPG that was popular about twenty years ago.

[sarcasm]Because changes are bad. Sticking with the same formula forever without trying to do anything new is good.[/sarcasm]

[PnXMarcin1PL]

Someone With Mass wrote...

They're disappointed because it isn't an RPG like Baldur's Gate or some other RPG that was popular about twenty years ago.

[sarcasm]Because changes are bad. Sticking with the same formula forever without trying to do anything new is good.[/sarcasm]

This

[nelly21]

Countdown to Majesticjazz tantrum begun:

[lolwut666]

You shouldn't care so much about that kinda thing.
Let Thane summarize it to you:

[Shadowbanner]

Yes we did hear Cassidy saying they'll add more RPG elements. Bravo!

BUT two days later in comes EA's boss, JR, saying that ME will now "address to a larger market opportunity" and will thus be delayed to the 1Q of 2012 = we are going to make it more of a shooter simplifying things to appeal to mainstream CoD boys and girls. Shooter-meets-RPG thingy, capisce?

There's a little game of BioWare called Dragon Age 2, that came out over a month ago, which forums are, to put it mildly, in a perma state of civil war because the fanbase is split in two sides. The reviews haven't been particularly hot either, specially gamer reviews, not professional reviewers like UK's PC Gamer's 94% best...game...evar.

So the good news that ME3 would be delayed had a very warm  & welcome reception across the board. Every poster here and his mother were happy and felt relieved that ME would be spared from DA2's ill fate.

But in comes JR two days later to spew before his shareholders, who are freeakin' out after having lost 400 million USD in the last year, that they are going to tweak ME's gameplay to attract a broader fanbase ( > $$$$$$) which is more into shooters (The CoD crowd).

It's no secret EA hates the guts of Activision and wants BF3 to oust CODMW once and for all placing BF3 as King of all Shooters. Everyone knows the BIG money is in the CoD crowd. The numbers are just crazy compared to any other game out there, specially niche RPGs like DA and company. RPGs are meant to be niche! Surprise!!

So EA wants ME to be closer to a shooter which necessarily implies that ME needs RPG elements to be stripped off. The less RPG and the more Shooter, the more customers. Good for EA and stakeholders, awful for RPG-lovers like myself. That's why all reviewers and their mothers are freaking out with JRs little speach, and rightly so if you like RPGs.

Modifié par Shadowbanner, 06 mai 2011 - 01:51 .

[Leonia]

InBeforeExtremeOnePosts.

But really, ME3 is blurring the line of shooter and RPG. It'll all be OK.

[JKoopman]

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

What BioWare says and what BioWare does are two entirely different things, and it's difficult to know precisely what to believe when they so often seem to contradict themselves; one moment they'll talk about how RPG elements are totally a renewed focus and are going to be so much more improved than in ME2 and the next they're talking about how non-combat stats and skills are "meaningless" and their head-honcho is saying how it's going to be re-focused on action and tailored to a larger market.

These things do not inspire confidence.

At this point, if BioWare wants to earn back the trust of those of us who were burned by ME2 (and DA2), they need to stop talking and start showing. Until then, I'll remain skeptical.

[Ahriman]

Someone With Mass wrote...

They're disappointed because it isn't an RPG like Baldur's Gate or some other RPG that was popular about twenty years ago.

[sarcasm]Because changes are bad. Sticking with the same formula forever without trying to do anything new is good.[/sarcasm]

Everyone who wants more rpg is retrograde with small brain which cannot embrace all beauty of shooters. Yeah, yeah.

[Someone With Mass]

What few seems to comprehend, is that ME3 is not even being made by the same team as DA2. And ME3 have had more time in development too.

I really don't understand what everyone's so worried about.

Oh no, we might have to shoot stuff, and therefore it's bad. How's that any different from what we've done so far in ME1 and 2? Several devs have also said that they're improving the RPG parts in ME3.

So really. Shut up and chill.

[roflchoppaz]

Someone With Mass wrote...

[sarcasm]Because changes are bad. Sticking with the same formula forever without trying to do anything new is good.[/sarcasm]

This, pretty much.

People in here complain and rage at just about anything.

[Bail_Darilar]

Shadowbanner wrote...

Yes we did hear Cassidy saying they'll add more RPG elements. Bravo!

BUT two days later in comes EA's boss, JR, saying that ME will now "address to a larger market opportunity" and will thus be delayed to the 1Q of 2012 = we are going to make it more of a shooter simplifying things to appeal to mainstram CoD boys and girls. Shooter-meets-RPG thingy, capisce?

There's a little game of BioWare called Dragon Age 2 which forums are, to put it mildly, in a perma state of war because the fanbase is split in two sides. The reviews haven't been particularly hot either, specially gamer reviews not professional reviewers.

So the good news that it would be delayed had a very welcome impact across the board. Every poster here and his mother wre happy and felt relieved that ME would be spared from DA2's fate.

But in comes JR two days later to tell his shareholders, who are freeakin out after having lost 400 million USD, that they are going to tweak ME's gameplay to attract a broader fanbase which is more into shooters (The CoD crowd).

Its no secret EA hatea Activision to its guts and wants BF3 to oust CODMW onece and for all as king of all Shooters. everyone knows the BIG money is in the CoD crowd. the numbers are just crazy comparaed to any other game out there.

So EA wants ME to be closer to a shooter which necessarily implies that ME needs RPG elements to be stripped off. The less RPG and the more Shooter, the more customers. Good for EA and stakeholders, awful for RPG-lovers like myself. That's why all reviewers and there mothers are freaking out with JRs little speach.

Yet again thats all peoples speculations. I don't understand what RPG mechanics they can remove making the game more of a shooter than it was in ME2 and even then they only removed the stuff which had a negative affect on the game. The only thing that they changed in ME2 was the linearity of the mission structure and by now everyone should be used to it.

[nelly21]

Shadowbanner wrote...

Blah, Blah, Blah

Shadow

Why in the name of Zeus's butthole would EA throw ME up against CoD when they have Battlefield coming down the pipe? They are different genres. It makes no sense outside of the parallel universe rpg elitists exist in where every game company is out to get them. EA sucks. But they aren't idiots. They know what they have in ME and they know what they have in Bioware.

You can cite DA 2 until you're blue in the face and it won't make the argument any better. DA 2 was the direction Mike Laidlaw wanted to take the franchise in (I'm glad, I quite enjoyed DA 2). ME is going in the direction Casey Hudson wants to take it in.

[Jebel Krong]

if they didn't act like children, then they wouldn't have to be treated as such.

[Severyx]

It's the forums. Vocal minorities run rampant.

[Sparda Stonerule]

I'm always disappointed that gamers need to have their hand held when it comes to everything. They always need clarifications and confirmations for every bit of information under the sun. If someone said "You will be playing as a Female scientist who works for a pharmaceutical corporation." people would still demand details and clarifications as to what precisely that means.

It's absurd really. A lot of gamers these days have lost their imagination and ability to have fun without a man standing at the side of the screen constantly telling you everything about the game you are playing, including why that bush is placed in that exact location.

That is a bit hyperbolic, however many people who complain about these things do the same. I figured I might as well have fun with my hyperbole.

[Shadowbanner]

JKoopman wrote...

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

What BioWare says and what BioWare does are two entirely different things...

It doesn't matter one iota what BioWare says any longer.

BW = EA

BioWare will do as they are told by their OWNERS, EA, just like Westwood, Pandemic and so many others before them.

They are no longer independent.

EA rules, period, overiding anything BW says as it should be.

Modifié par Shadowbanner, 06 mai 2011 - 01:54 .

[JKoopman]

Someone With Mass wrote...

What few seems to comprehend, is that ME3 is not even being made by the same team as DA2. And ME3 have had more time in development too.

I really don't understand what everyone's so worried about.

Oh no, we might have to shoot stuff, and therefore it's bad. How's that any different from what we've done so far in ME1 and 2? Several devs have also said that they're improving the RPG parts in ME3.

So really. Shut up and chill.

FYI I don't believe that telling people to "shut up and chill" is going to net you the desired response.

No one is preventing you from posting optimistic threads about ME3 until you're blue in the face, so don't try to tell people they can't be skeptical or pessimistic when frankly we have every reason to be so.

Modifié par JKoopman, 06 mai 2011 - 01:56 .

[Leonia]

Shadowbanner wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

What BioWare says and what BioWare does are two entirely different things...

It doesn't matter whar BioWare says any longer.

BW = EA

BioWare will do as they are told by their OWNERS, EA, just like Westwood, Pandemic and so many others before them. They are no longer independent.

EA rules, period, overiding anything BW says.

You do realise what other games are sporting the EA logo right?

*looks at her copies of ME1 and ME2*

Yep.

[Ahriman]

Shadowbanner wrote...
They are no longer independent.

They never were. Bioware belonged to another company before EA.

[Nozybidaj]

Someone With Mass wrote...
Several devs have also said that they're improving the RPG parts in ME3.

Here is where I think the disconnect is occuring.  What Bioware considers RPG elements and what rpg gamers consider RPG elements aren't the same thing.

I'm not terribly interested in ME3, so I don't care one way or the other, but ME1 was already pretty rpg-lite.  ME2 was pretty much a straight forward action/shooter game.  I don't know why anyone would expect ME3 to be a deep rpg experience to begin with.

[Someone With Mass]

JKoopman wrote...
FYI I don't believe that telling people to "shut up and chill" is going to net you the desired response.

No one is preventing you from posting optimistic threads about ME3 until you're blue in the face, so don't try to tell people they can't be skeptical or pessimistic when frankly we have every reason to be so.

The fact that BioWare themselves said things that contradicts everything that people are worrying about, but still are whining about it, as if the aforementioned comments were never made makes it all so laughably stupid.

[Severyx]

If you want to talk RPG elements, go the pinned thread about this whole crapstorm. People could go on forever and ever and ever about what RPG elements actually are because it's relative to the individual.

It's like asking what defines a shooter. If you shoot things, it's a shooter. Everything else is fluff and opinion.

[JKoopman]

leonia42 wrote...

Shadowbanner wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

What BioWare says and what BioWare does are two entirely different things...

It doesn't matter whar BioWare says any longer.

BW = EA

BioWare will do as they are told by their OWNERS, EA, just like Westwood, Pandemic and so many others before them. They are no longer independent.

EA rules, period, overiding anything BW says.

You do realise what other games are sporting the EA logo right?

*looks at her copies of ME1 and ME2*

Yep.

I would be shocked and amazed if the EA logo was on your ME1 box seeing as it was published by Microsoft and released before BioWare was purchased by EA.

The EA logo however IS on ME2. Coincidentally, guess which title stripped out nearly every background RPG mechanic and turned Mass Effect into what amounts to a Michael Bay-esque vanilla action-shooter with a dialog wheel?

Yep.