252 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

candidate88766 wrote...
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.

Driving the mako up an impassable vertical hill to hit the same generic building with no dialogue where you kill some mooks and lot identical equipment is not exploration.

[A Killing Sound]

MrGone wrote...

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.

True enough mate.  Time will tell.

[Art3m]

I don't care. I'm ME universe fan

[Walker White]

I wish combat in Gears of War was as fun as ME2. That would give me another game to play in the wait. Get back to me when GoW gets real controller weapons/abilities.

That is why I just cannot get excited about Skyrim. In every single gameplay video I have seen, the combat looks boring and grindy -- just like Fallout 3. All the magic looks like DPS magic; I have only seen one weak controller power with the Dragon Shout stun.

[88mphSlayer]

when shepard got on that machine gun turret to fight a reaper in an on-rails sequence my immediate thought was:

been there, done that

also where's my rpg elements in gameplay?

[Someone With Mass]

I think it's just good if ME3 is using cover and dodge mechanics that other TPS games have had for quite some time now.

And stop bi***ing about the RPG elements. BioWare will show them when they're ready.

[88mphSlayer]

candidate88766 wrote...

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.

and as we all know, aping the most generic games on the market is a smart way to get people immersed in your world? i feel like designers need to go back to game design 101 and replay Nintendo games and learn how gameplay is just as important an "immersive" element as music/story/etc. is, gameplay shouldn't just be an "awesome" way of getting from point A to point B

[sp0ck 06]

Dasher1010 wrote...

ME2 was in many ways a carbon copy of Gears of War but with powers andmroe control over your squad but wan't really as good as Gears in terms of gameplay. Seeing demos of both ME3 andf GoW3, it looks like ME3 will have more depth, variets and freedom of movement than Gears 3 has. Congrats Bioware, the ultimate cover shooter arrives next year. Gears 3 is now a just a game to hold me over.

Do you just mean in the shooter gameplay department?  Gears and Mass Effect are drastically different games...

[Mann42]

Gears of War is developed by Epic Games. 

Epic Games develops, supports, and licenses the Unreal Engine (the game engine used to develop Gears and ME). Although their support was occassionally spotty in the past, they've gotten significantly better at providing updated engine code and development support for licensees. If Epic is working on Gears 3, then everyone else with an Unreal license is basically working with Gears 2 until they're done, at which point they update the engine with the awesome stuff they updated for Gears 3.

Bioware licenses the Unreal Engine for Mass Effect. The Unreal Engine has been used for all three Mass Effect games (even the first one).

As far as Epic is concerned, any game that uses their engine successfully, especially ones that emulate their flagship game (Gears of War), is a total win for them. More exposure, more potential licensees in the future, and more free PR in the form of forum posts about how Mass Effect 3 is better/worse than Gears of War. Because if you prefer Mass Effect 3 to Gears of War, that's cool too because Epic still gets paid. 

The base Unreal Engine has almost all of the combat mechanics movement code for cover, shooting, rolling, melee, etc as Gears of War. Thus, Gears of War is a standard. Epic did pioneer it, because they made the engine for it. 

To make Mass Effect 1, Bioware had to change Unreal A LOT. This also meant that it would be difficult, and sometimes impossible to support or integrate fixes from Epic.

In Mass Effect 2, they didn't 're-design' the combat system. They reverted it to Gears, then tweaked the things they wanted to without really changing the core combat mechanics. Powers, weapons, and armor could all be layered on top of the standard Unreal combat without really changing the core.

Now, when Epic sends over a bunch of fixes for combat, based on stuff they learned from Gears, Bioware can just integrate that code and make tweaks to specific numbers, masses, velocities, etc, without changing the way the core combat feels.

And ultimately, this is great. It allows a dedicated shooter company (EPIC) to develop the core combat mechanics for Mass Effect 3, which in turn allows Bioware to focus on layering RPG mechanics, new powers and tactics, and fantastic dialogue/storytelling on top, without having to spend too much time tweaking something that already works well (aka, Gears of War combat). In fact, that's one of the main reasons to license an engine in the first place. 

Modifié par nexworks, 07 juin 2011 - 02:22 .

[Tony Gunslinger]

Dasher1010 wrote...

ME2 was in many ways a carbon copy of Gears of War but with powers andmroe control over your squad but wan't really as good as Gears in terms of gameplay.

The problem with this is that you're only looking at the glass half-full/half-empty on this one. ME2 plays like Gears if you've only played the Soldier/Infiltrator, and to a certain extent, the Vanguard. Gameplay becomes completely different when you've played the other 3 classes.

[Da Mecca]

Eh not really.

At this stage, animations are still rough, it still looks like ME3 has the pop-a-mole shooting galleries in ME2, and the animations for holding the guns should be more nuanced, (there is no difference in animation when you are aiming and when you are shooting without aiming, every other third person shooter has that)

[ROD525]

Gears is a great 3rd person shooter, but as far as Im concerned Army of 2 The 40th day outshines it with the fluidity of gameplay.
So far though M3 looks to be a steller experience. I loved both games and cant wait for the 3rd but I do admit that omni tool blade made me a little embarassed for some reason. It just feels like Bioware is trying too hard to be "cool".
All the 12 and 13 year olds are gonna be begging their parents for this one...Shepard's got a sword and guns.

[Les_Carver]

I'm very happy with the way ME has been evolving their combat dynamics, the transition from ME1 to 2 was adequate, though some details were lacking in order to make things more practical speaking about cover and some physical skills. BioWare has taken this seriously in consideration and are making a much more smooth and complete combat experience, why can someone whine about this? This war isn't something that should be won with just some RPG and conversation elements like some trapped-in-the-past RPG fans want, combat is esential to make the experience better, get over it dudes.

Way to go with combat, BioWare

[candidate88766]

88mphSlayer wrote...

candidate88766 wrote...

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.

and as we all know, aping the most generic games on the market is a smart way to get people immersed in your world? i feel like designers need to go back to game design 101 and replay Nintendo games and learn how gameplay is just as important an "immersive" element as music/story/etc. is, gameplay shouldn't just be an "awesome" way of getting from point A to point B

So you want them to ape generic old-fashioned RPGs instead?

And the gameplay is immersive - Shepard is a futuristic soldier, so shooter gameplay is the best and most immersive way to reflect that.

[marshalleck]

ROD525 wrote...

All the 12 and 13 year olds are gonna be begging their parents for this one...Shepard's got a sword and guns.

Oh don't kid yourself. Plenty of thirty-somethings are going to be buying the game as well...what with them constituting the average age of gamer, and having much more disposable income than the oft ill-invoked 12-13 year old demographic.

[stu117]

lol not even out yet and its being flamed. How dare an excellent RPG have Excellent combat! This enjoyable combat will surely mean that this is a kids game! Because when i think fast paced high action warfare i think children. /sarcasm

ps. So do some people just play this game to feel superior to people that play shooters? lol! Also for the this is an RPG not a shooter argument RPG=role playing game. There are no limitations to how combat works in that description if u notice most RPG's differ in combat mechanics. This is a pointless argument

Modifié par stu117, 07 juin 2011 - 04:10 .

[The Interloper]

Ah, the rose tinted glasses. There is nothing that can defeat their clinical dissatisfaction.

I admit the vehicle chases were a bit much but glitches aside (to be expected for an early build) it looks great. The combat looks fun and dynamic, enemies are interesting and the setpieces are fantastic. Throw in the RPG elements and we have a winner. Besides, wasn't ME intended from the start to be a shooter/rpg hybrid?

I do hope they make the way missions play out more variable than ME2, or ME1 for that matter-having multiple or variable paths, SM-style squad management (more than the two with you) and variances based on your decisions. For instance, I wonder how the Krogan princess mission will play out for my renegade shepard playthrough, in which mordin and wrex are both dead. Hopefully it'll be more complex than substituting different characters.

[ROD525]

marshalleck wrote...

ROD525 wrote...

All the 12 and 13 year olds are gonna be begging their parents for this one...Shepard's got a sword and guns.

Oh don't kid yourself. Plenty of thirty-somethings are going to be buying the game as well...what with them constituting the average age of gamer, and having much more disposable income than the oft ill-invoked 12-13 year old demographic.

Im in my 30's and I'll be picking it up on launch day:D.....It just feels like Bioware is catering to a younger audience but doen't want to admit it.  The omni blade looks like it's just cool for cools sake. The hard rock soundtrack the melee kills it just screams we wanna be cool. Mass Effect doesn't need to do that ,it's already a great series in its own right.
It doesn't matter though Bioware already has my 64.95...I have to see how this ends.

[marshalleck]

 If anyone doesn't want to admit something, I think it's you not wanting to admit that adults can be swayed by such gimmicks just as easily as younger people.  

[tfive24]

Vanni127 wrote...

You know...it's interesting to me just how many people want this series to go the way of CoD, Gears, etc. And by interesting...I mean infuriating.

CoD is nothing more than your average mindless FPS crap that honestly should not be as successful as it is. Gears is only slightly better for actually having a halfway decent story. Though the characters are all just over the top cretins.

Mass Effect is a god damn RPG, and I really wish people would fight more to keep it that way. Keep the CoD and Gears crap in their games and out of my RPG thanks.

i agree, but it's not happening. they are going full force into the action game market instead of staying in the rpg. 

[tfive24]

Phaedon wrote...

ME2 sold 2 million? Right... ME1 and 2 combined sold over 7 million fyi.


ME2 sold 2 million in the first week, and that was on the XBOX and the PC, without taking Steam and other services into account.

uh. ME2 only sold 1. 4 million on thoe xbox. the other majority of sells came from the pc users. 
Gears will eat ME3 alive on total sales on the xbox and lifte time sales. 

[sp0ck 06]

candidate88766 wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

candidate88766 wrote...

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.

and as we all know, aping the most generic games on the market is a smart way to get people immersed in your world? i feel like designers need to go back to game design 101 and replay Nintendo games and learn how gameplay is just as important an "immersive" element as music/story/etc. is, gameplay shouldn't just be an "awesome" way of getting from point A to point B

So you want them to ape generic old-fashioned RPGs instead?

And the gameplay is immersive - Shepard is a futuristic soldier, so shooter gameplay is the best and most immersive way to reflect that.

What do "Nintendo games" hae to do with anything?  The Wii sure had a lot of *cough* deep, immersive games.

Also, Gears is not some "generic" game.  When it first came out it was quite revolutionary and launched the 3rd person, cover based tactical genre.  If you're making an action-RPG like ME, why not copy from the best?

[Mann42]

tfive24 wrote...

i agree, but it's not happening. they are going full force into the action game market instead of staying in the rpg. 

No, they're licensing the Unreal Engine and not investing a heavy amount of time changing the third-person shooter mechanics inherent in the engine so they can focus on the RPG stuff.

Sure, the core is still a third person shooter, but as seen in ME2, they are expanding on it with RPG mechanics like powers and statted armor. They've impled a lot that there's going to be more of this for ME3.

If they use the engine's inherent preference to act like Gears of War, this means they can focus more resources and development time into making more powers and RPG mechanics to hook into the shooter gameplay.

sp0ck 06 wrote...

If you're making an action-RPG like ME, why not copy from the best?

This. Sort of. I just wouldn't exactly call it copying when you've licensed and paid for it. 

Modifié par nexworks, 07 juin 2011 - 04:23 .

[kreite]

Ahem "finally?"

[KainrycKarr]

Dasher1010 wrote...

Oblivious wrote...

javierabegazo wrote...

Why is it that any 3rd person shooter that involves actually having to use cover (god forbid firefights be realistic) means that they're automatically a "GOW Clone."?

Seriously? Did ME2 have Shepard running up and chain sawing a merc in half?

Did Jacob breakout in some ridiculous stereotypical "I'm gonna kill all you mutha*&^*&^" speech when they got to the suicide mission?

Was there fast paced Multiplayer deathmatch options?

Were there only 5 guns?

Were there not tactical squad powers and abilities that you can choose to invest points in?

Was there not roleplaying at all?

What's the deal guys, why the "GOW Clone" phrase thrown around so much?

Same engine as GoW? Check.
Same cover system as GoW? Check
One hit melee? Check
Carry 4+ weapons at once? Check
Camera shakes when Shepard "sprints"? Check
Unlimited Sprinting? Check
Blind shooting? Check (sorta)

When it looks like GoW and plays like GoW then of course people are gonna say its a "GOW Clone". What you are mistaking is that it's a bad thing. I think this is awesome since the original ME was a fantastic RPG wrapped in the package of a terribad shooter. Now ME3 is a fantastic RPG wrapped in fantastic shooter mechanics. This is a fantastic addition that brings hope that RPGs aren't limited to "old nerds stuck in the past"

Summed up eloquently. I'm in complete agreement

Let's do this with Gears of War

Character customization? Nope
Dialogue choices? Nope.
Non-linear subplots(LI's, etc)? Nope
Player Choice(Collector Base, Rachni Queen, Council, etc)? Nope
Imported player choices that affect how the next sequel plays? Nope.
Any kind of New Game + feature? Nope.

ME wins, hands-down, as an RPG, and now, as a shooter.