252 réponses à ce sujet

[Phaedon]

Oblivious wrote...

I tried to hold the fort alongside Grand Admiral Cheezburger but that Midget just wouldn't STFU

What was it this time? Garrus,Liara,Legion, Ashley, Wrex and Mordin won't return to ME3 after all, supposedly?

[Someone With Mass]

I won't play ME1 again willingly, because of the tedious missions on various planets. And driving that Mako was nothing else but boring.

I have played ME2 a lot more than ME1, because I don't have to deal with the same dragging crap ME1 had.

And ME3 seems to improve a lot.

[candidate88766]

MrGone wrote...

candidate88766 wrote...

Glorious. I dare you to post this in the 'where are the RPG elements?' thread. Unless that got locked. Oh I hope it got locked.

Actually, I did. Just a few posts before it got locked too. I was pissed cause it meant no one got to see it, and I thought it was the perfect counter to their silly argument.

*shakes hand*

Pity no one got to read it, but at least that thread got locked. I was there when it started - they didn't even wait a day before starting the complaints.

[FluffyScarf]

ME1. Masterpiece? Not even close. Some of BW's older RPGs, yes. Guess people weren't around when BW announced a console exclusive shooter/RPG hybrid all those years ago. Funnily enough, the reception to ME1's announcement and initial release wasn't that different to ME2. And ME3 apparently.

[Phaedon]

candidate88766 wrote...
Glorious. I dare you to post this in the 'where are the RPG elements?' thread. Unless that got locked. Oh I hope it got locked.

Forget BSN, post this on RPG Codex, the result shall be of epic proportions.
--
Personally, I think that ME1 was a masterpiece. And so was ME2. Both are diamonds of the modern gaming scene.

As of the removal of inventory and loot in ME2? That's a false claim, and I can explain why, if you wish.

Modifié par Phaedon, 07 juin 2011 - 11:04 .

[Oblivious]

Phaedon wrote...

Oblivious wrote...

I tried to hold the fort alongside Grand Admiral Cheezburger but that Midget just wouldn't STFU

What was it this time? Garrus,Liara,Legion, Ashley, Wrex and Mordin won't return to ME3 after all, supposedly?

 You missed it? He had a bloody crusade, calling every forum goer who disagreed with him or disapproved of his actions hypocrites, idiots, fools, and ilk following the herd off a cliff. He mocked us and said we were wrong while he was right. It spread to 6 or 7 threads before he actually fell asleep.

The topic was Ashley has a new hairstyle.

[MrGone]

Phaedon wrote...

candidate88766 wrote...
Glorious. I dare you to post this in the 'where are the RPG elements?' thread. Unless that got locked. Oh I hope it got locked.

Forget BSN, post this on RPG Codex, the result shall be of epic proportions.
--
Personally, I think that ME1 was a masterpiece. And so was ME2. Both are diamonds of the modern gaming scene.

As of the removal of inventory and loot in ME2? That's a false claim, and I can explain why, if you wish.

RPG Codex? I'm just here for the punch and pie.

Also, I agree with you on ME1. Though it has it's flaws, I think it's an excellent game that captures a lot of elements better than, well, any other game even remotely similar.

Namely, ME1 is a badass Star Trek. One that's better than any Star Trek game before it or since. There. I said it.

Also . . . the music still blows my mind (shame about the soundtrack cutting out some of the best songs *grumble grumble*).

[candidate88766]

Phaedon wrote...

candidate88766 wrote...
Glorious. I dare you to post this in the 'where are the RPG elements?' thread. Unless that got locked. Oh I hope it got locked.

Forget BSN, post this on RPG Codex, the result shall be of epic proportions.
--
Personally, I think that ME1 was a masterpiece. And so was ME2. Both are diamonds of the modern gaming scene.

As of the removal of inventory and loot in ME2? That's a false claim, and I can explain why, if you wish.

I haven't heard of RPG Codex. They sound fairly, um, pretentious.

Also, I spoke briefly about the loot and inventory on the previous page. I love both games too, but I think the memory of ME1 is better than going back and replaying it. The gameplay lets it down now, but the story, the characters, the music and above all else the atmosophere are truly incredible. I've only ever seen them matched in ME2 and some of Valve's games.

[The Elder King]

Phaedon wrote...

I am sorry, but I don't get it.

I can understand ME3 being better or worse, gameplay-wise than GoW, but being the same?

Nah-uh,
GoW is a pretty generic shooter, imo. ME2's shooter component would have been as well, if it wasn't for the powers. The only similarities is that you shoot and that there is a cover system in place. I am sorry, I don't see how that changes anything.

There are a lot of other shooters that do that.

I don't know a lot about shooter and FPS, so I don't know if GOW is generic or not. I only play a bit GOW2 in the single player mode. I don't know if ME3 will be better or worse than GOW in term of gameplay, but when I saw the demo on Sur'Kesh, it feels a lot like GOW. I don't know why, maybe it's the fact that Bioware gave to the Cerberus troops shields that are used in the same way by some enemeies in GOW2, or the Y button to look on an objective, or the fact that when Shepard was in cover sometimes there was suggestions to go left or jump out cover (sorry about that last phrase, english isn't my first language). As I already said, it isn't necessarily a bad thing, and maybe the gameplay isn't the same, but I have this feeling, that ME3 is resembling GOW2 in some parts.

[Oblivious]

If possible I would never replay ME1 again. I'd rather the game live in nostalgia-land like Pokemon and Digimon rather than ruin my childhood by returning to it

[TheChosen]

candidate88766 wrote...

TheChosen wrote...

I couldn't give a hoot whether the combat plays for Gears of War, well, I hope there's more wide open environments. I do give a hoot that the RPG elements were stripped out of ME2 and now Bioware will pretend to redeem themselves by throwing a couple back in calling it a "RPG/Shooter", when in reality, it's not going to regain the RPG elements of ME1.

ME2 took the series in a direction on purpose, to appeal to a wider market (the COD/Gears/Halo market). Why do you think exploration, inventory, levelling up was removed? Why was it a corridor to corridor shooter? Because that's what the main stream want.

I'm just happy we have ME1, and as choked as I am about the follow up games not sticking to the ME formula, I can easily play ME1 again and again because it's an untouchable masterpiece.

It had inventory - you just had to walk around the Normandy to find it in the armoury, in Shepard's quarters and in the lab. Its called immersion.
It had levelling up - I'm pretty sure level 30 is higher than level 1.
Exploration - I'll admit there wasn't as much, but at least we had a variety of locations as opposed to the same 3 buildings on repeat.

Untouchable masterpiece? The graphical glitches, the ridiculous load times, the poor implementation of the inventory system, the poor AI, the fact that Shepard was a trained soldier but couldn't fire his weapon straight unless he trained himself in it - all those seem like problems. Most of the missions were either corridor shooting galleries or single path Mako routes. All ME2 did was get rid of the Mako parts. Hardly 'untouchable'. It had a fantastic story, setting, atmosphere, soundtrack and characters but the gameplay was subpar. ME2 had all those things and gameplay (I prefer ME1's main plot, but I prefer ME2's character stories).

Whilst ME1 did have it's flaws they were strictly with the gameplay. The setting, the story, the main villain, the characters.....it was completely immersive. It just wasn't the same in ME2, the game mechanics had been fixed but they stripped away the RPG and just watching that interview at Gametrailers; Hudson doesn't alleviate my fears at all, the interviewer asks him about the RPG elements he more or less dodgies the question and quickly throws out a short answer before changing the subject.

[candidate88766]

TheChosen wrote...

candidate88766 wrote...

TheChosen wrote...

I couldn't give a hoot whether the combat plays for Gears of War, well, I hope there's more wide open environments. I do give a hoot that the RPG elements were stripped out of ME2 and now Bioware will pretend to redeem themselves by throwing a couple back in calling it a "RPG/Shooter", when in reality, it's not going to regain the RPG elements of ME1.

ME2 took the series in a direction on purpose, to appeal to a wider market (the COD/Gears/Halo market). Why do you think exploration, inventory, levelling up was removed? Why was it a corridor to corridor shooter? Because that's what the main stream want.

I'm just happy we have ME1, and as choked as I am about the follow up games not sticking to the ME formula, I can easily play ME1 again and again because it's an untouchable masterpiece.

It had inventory - you just had to walk around the Normandy to find it in the armoury, in Shepard's quarters and in the lab. Its called immersion.
It had levelling up - I'm pretty sure level 30 is higher than level 1.
Exploration - I'll admit there wasn't as much, but at least we had a variety of locations as opposed to the same 3 buildings on repeat.

Untouchable masterpiece? The graphical glitches, the ridiculous load times, the poor implementation of the inventory system, the poor AI, the fact that Shepard was a trained soldier but couldn't fire his weapon straight unless he trained himself in it - all those seem like problems. Most of the missions were either corridor shooting galleries or single path Mako routes. All ME2 did was get rid of the Mako parts. Hardly 'untouchable'. It had a fantastic story, setting, atmosphere, soundtrack and characters but the gameplay was subpar. ME2 had all those things and gameplay (I prefer ME1's main plot, but I prefer ME2's character stories).

Whilst ME1 did have it's flaws they were strictly with the gameplay. The setting, the story, the main villain, the characters.....it was completely immersive. It just wasn't the same in ME2, the game mechanics had been fixed but they stripped away the RPG and just watching that interview at Gametrailers; Hudson doesn't alleviate my fears at all, the interviewer asks him about the RPG elements he more or less dodgies the question and quickly throws out a short answer before changing the subject.

The thing is though, it wasn't the RPG elements that made ME1 good - as you say it was the story, villain, characters, music, atmosophere, and none of those are unique to RPGs, they're just often better in them. ME1's flaws were all gameplay, both shooter and RPG elements. I'd prefer them to be in ME3, but they're not what makes the game good. I'd argue that most RPG features aren't even necessary in Mass Effect - just the choices and character customisation.

Modifié par candidate88766, 07 juin 2011 - 11:17 .

[MrGone]

TheChosen wrote...

Whilst ME1 did have it's flaws they were strictly with the gameplay. The setting, the story, the main villain, the characters.....it was completely immersive. It just wasn't the same in ME2, the game mechanics had been fixed but they stripped away the RPG and just watching that interview at Gametrailers; Hudson doesn't alleviate my fears at all, the interviewer asks him about the RPG elements he more or less dodgies the question and quickly throws out a short answer before changing the subject.

I'd disagree with the "gameplay as flaw" but to each his own.

Still I think the yearning you describe here is far less to do with the game play than overall tone.

ME1 is slower, contemplative.

ME2 is faster, more direct.

That has absolutely nothing to do with gameplay in either case. There's a LOT of fighting in ME1, actually much more than in ME2 (considering the large number of planets and vehicle battles), but the game promotes itself as more . . . zen on the battlefield. ME2 is upping the ante and making it more focus on the battlefield, more abrasive.

Both are valid, but they appeal to different audiences.

ME3 does seem more in line with ME2 in that regard, but it also is an evolution of it. Another heightening.

BUT

and here's the thing. This was all bound to happen.

The three games are part of a whole. A single unified story that builds in intensity. It makes sense that the first would be the slowest and the last the crazyest and most action packed.

If you take this long view, rather than look at them all individually, I think you'll see that it works rather well.

[Varen Spectre]

Well, I also think that a lot of important moves / mechanics in Mass Effect 3 do look like moves / mechanics from Gears of War series.

Whether it's front flip:



Side flip:



Cover system:




Zoom and blur effects during the run:



Or even stabing:...



... they look very similar to me. Now I am not sure if it was actually Epic Games studio that came up with them first, but if so, not giving them any credit, while being inspired by them so heavily, would be very ungrateful IMO. Especially since they work and look so good.

[Oblivious]

Pictures are indeed worth a thousand words;)

[WizenSlinky0]

It's hard to use pictures to compare actions like that as justification. Generally when companies make games that aren't meant to be "over the top", they have to subscribe to what the human body generally does when performing an action like that. And well...minus some little changes per person...if you roll you roll. We all recognize a roll. They look alike because it's...well how you roll.

[ramnozack]

IDK i tried to get into the Gears series a couple months ago so i bought the first game.......played it for 5 minutes but couldn't continue cuz all the graphics "blended" together and i couldn't see **** let alone who to shoot i just went around randomly chainsawing people XD

[ramnozack]

Varen Spectre wrote...

Well, I also think that a lot of important moves / mechanics in Mass Effect 3 do look like moves / mechanics from Gears of War series.

Whether it's front flip:



Side flip:



Cover system:




Zoom and blur effects during the run:



Or even stabing:...



... they look very similar to me. Now I am not sure if it was actually Epic Games studio that came up with them first, but if so, not giving them any credit, while being inspired by them so heavily, would be very ungrateful IMO. Especially since they work and look so good.

.....Really so all because ME 3 uses cover like they had in every game so far its copying.......and them giving a upgraded melee is copying to huh? lets not forget rolling is unheard of in the future! Besides GoW dude's head is to little for his body

[MrGone]

Varen Spectre wrote...

Well, I also think that a lot of important moves / mechanics in Mass Effect 3 do look like moves / mechanics from Gears of War series.

Whether it's front flip:



Side flip:



Cover system:




Zoom and blur effects during the run:



Or even stabing:...



... they look very similar to me. Now I am not sure if it was actually Epic Games studio that came up with them first, but if so, not giving them any credit, while being inspired by them so heavily, would be very ungrateful IMO. Especially since they work and look so good.

Well, it's not like other games don't have most of these features too.

Look at James Bond - Blood Stone. That had cover (with arrows), melee finishers and dashing. As well as GOW's blind fire.

Splinter Cell Conviction had a lot of these elements too. So did Wanted: Weapons of fate.

BUT 

They each do certain things differently, to stay unique. GOW still has Active reloads (no one else has done this), ME has poweres, levels and a branching evolving story line.

Fair trade I'd say.

[Dangerfoot]

Since I hate playing Gears of War and I enjoy playing Mass Effect games, I'd argue that they surpassed GoW a long time ago.

[Jonathan Shepard]

Honestly, except for the cover system (which, as seen in the videos, isn't as necessary), I never felt like I was playing GoW. As MArcus, you're always this lumbering brute who moves so... darn... slowly! I still haven't beat the second one because of how unresponsive the game feels.
ME2 felt MUCH quicker, MUCH more responsive, and while the graphics weren't as "gritty," it was a much more engaging experience for me, personally.

SO, ME3 will not be a GoW clone. GoW influenced? Maybe.

[A Killing Sound]

I'm probably the minority here (being on Bioware's forum) but Gears of War's combat system far surpasses Mass Effect's not so much for the moves you can do (Mass essentially borrowed Gears cover system), but how responsive it is. Half the time in Mass Effect 2, Shepard never dives for cover when I want him/her to, and I die as a result of it. Plus, Mass Effect's team AI is crap to Gears.
At least, that's my opinion. I like both series.

[MrGone]

A Killing Sound wrote...

I'm probably the minority here (being on Bioware's forum) but Gears of War's combat system far surpasses Mass Effect's not so much for the moves you can do (Mass essentially borrowed Gears cover system), but how responsive it is. Half the time in Mass Effect 2, Shepard never dives for cover when I want him/her to, and I die as a result of it. Plus, Mass Effect's team AI is crap to Gears.
At least, that's my opinion. I like both series.

No, you're objectively right . . . for now.

We'll see how Gears 3 and ME 3 stack up though. Then we can pass final judgement.

[Dangerfoot]

I wouldn't put money on them ever figuring out how to make useful AI.

[sevalaricgirl]

I like the romance better in ME1 and everything else better in ME2. ME3 should be great. Of course I like shooters with stories, FEAR for instance. So far, I like everything I see in ME3 and would love a co-op play too then my son and I could co-op together. Hubby isn't into our types of games. I want from ME3, great shooting, great story, great romance and then I'll be happy. I hated the inventory of ME1, constantly having to look through it and make it into omni gel because I had way too much and it was never any good. ME2's system was much better imo. I think the ME devs are getting better with each game.