252 réponses à ce sujet

[Ahglock]

marshalleck wrote...

 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.  

All they have to do now is make up a buzzword as for why the new gimmick is so much better and you will see that buzzword repeated like a religious chant every time the subject comes up.

[KainrycKarr]

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.

[SalsaDMA]

I keep seeing people complaining about the acuracy of ME1 when shooting.

Was it really that bad? My engineer completed the game with 1 skillpoint in assault rifle, and didn't have issues.

Maybe I am misunderstanding something here, but didn't they use a standard solution of keeping the spread of where you hit within the 'accuracy circle', where your skill-levels and/or acuracy from gear just affected the size of this circle? It certainly felt like this to me, and I had no issues working with it at all. If you want to complain about something from ME1 regarding accuracy, it should be that hitting someone in the finger was just as lethal as hitting them squarely in the head (ie. no hit locations on targets).

In regards to ME3, what worries me is that the only thing we have heard so far about "RPG" is.... That they have increased the skill trees...

So since when did RPG become "we have a skill tree. lolz" ? If that is their definition of RPG in this day and age, their days are numbered as a rpg developer in my book...

[KainrycKarr]

RPG - Skill trees, character customization(appearance, gender, weapon), player choice,

That's what I play RPG's for. That's what Mass Effect 3 has. Thus, to me, ME 1/2/3 all qualify as RPG's.

[marshalleck]

Ahglock wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

 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.  

All they have to do now is make up a buzzword as for why the new gimmick is so much better and you will see that buzzword repeated like a religious chant every time the subject comes up.

Memes. God help us if advertising departments ever really figure out how to use them effectively, instead of trying to force a bunch of fake memes that fail. 

[Ahglock]

SalsaDMA wrote...

I keep seeing people complaining about the acuracy of ME1 when shooting.

Was it really that bad? My engineer completed the game with 1 skillpoint in assault rifle, and didn't have issues.

Maybe I am misunderstanding something here, but didn't they use a standard solution of keeping the spread of where you hit within the 'accuracy circle', where your skill-levels and/or acuracy from gear just affected the size of this circle? It certainly felt like this to me, and I had no issues working with it at all. If you want to complain about something from ME1 regarding accuracy, it should be that hitting someone in the finger was just as lethal as hitting them squarely in the head (ie. no hit locations on targets).

In regards to ME3, what worries me is that the only thing we have heard so far about "RPG" is.... That they have increased the skill trees...

So since when did RPG become "we have a skill tree. lolz" ? If that is their definition of RPG in this day and age, their days are numbered as a rpg developer in my book...

You didn't even need to put a point into it to be reasonably accurate in ME1, you just needed the skill on you talent list.  As long as pistols was there, you oculd use your pistol fairly well, and skill points just made you better/deadlier.  A lot of classes though had 3 weapons on their back which they totally sucked with because the only skill they had was pistols.  

[jamskinner]

tfive24 wrote...

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. 

Whats your source?

[SalsaDMA]

KainrycKarr wrote...

RPG - Skill trees, character customization(appearance, gender, weapon), player choice,

That's what I play RPG's for. That's what Mass Effect 3 has. Thus, to me, ME 1/2/3 all qualify as RPG's.

Funny, cause you will find thos things in plenty of games that do not claim to be rpgs but admit they are other things.

If skill trees is what makes for 'improved the rpg' in ME3, it's gonna be just another shooter.

[marshalleck]

jamskinner wrote...

tfive24 wrote...

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. 

Whats your source?

An EA conference call from May 2010 cited 1.6 million sales for Xbox and PC, including digital downloads, in the last fiscal quarter (January - March 2010). This was from a report to shareholders in which EA are legally obligated to be accurate; it's not the "2 million sales internal estimate" that Phaedon referenced, which was just an early guess.  

Link to reports: http://ir.ea.com/res...ter=4&Year=2010

Modifié par marshalleck, 07 juin 2011 - 07:24 .

[Mann42]

SalsaDMA wrote...

I keep seeing people complaining about the acuracy of ME1 when shooting.

Was it really that bad? My engineer completed the game with 1 skillpoint in assault rifle, and didn't have issues.

Maybe I am misunderstanding something here, but didn't they use a standard solution of keeping the spread of where you hit within the 'accuracy circle', where your skill-levels and/or acuracy from gear just affected the size of this circle? It certainly felt like this to me, and I had no issues working with it at all. If you want to complain about something from ME1 regarding accuracy, it should be that hitting someone in the finger was just as lethal as hitting them squarely in the head (ie. no hit locations on targets).

In regards to ME3, what worries me is that the only thing we have heard so far about "RPG" is.... That they have increased the skill trees...

So since when did RPG become "we have a skill tree. lolz" ? If that is their definition of RPG in this day and age, their days are numbered as a rpg developer in my book...

If I point my gun at something so that my crosshairs are right on target, and then fire at it, I don't want a random die roll telling me whether I hit. I want the bullet to fly along the trajectory I indicated and hit the spot I pointed at.

Even late in ME1 when my skills were up, especially at higher difficulties, I can not tell you how many times I had my crosshairs right on the target, with the circle fully filled by the target, unloading bullet after bullet... and my shots don't hit. Through no fault of my own or lack of skill, I'm now forced to adjust my gameplay and tactics to the fact that the Universal Die Roller doesn't want me to hit my target? 

That's not fun to me. If I miss or fail, I want to know it's because of something I did wrong, not something the game randomly decides I fail on. 

If random die rolls and random failure because those die rolls is what makes an RPG to you, then I'm both sorry for you that your favorite game types are becoming less common, and extremely happy that we're moving out of the era of punishing players with uncontrolled randomness.

If they give me robust power trees, expanded weapon upgrades and modification options, and more armor choices, then yes, mechanically, that is much more an RPG than something that is not an RPG. When you add an outstanding narrative and player choice to improved powers and inventory, then it is very much an RPG, and the only thing you're missing from ME1 is a random die roller that decides how good you are regardless of how good you are.

I do understand that a lot of RPG players are used to being able to substitute reflex time or skilled precision with leveling up and making sure the numbers roll in your favor, but I'd honestly like to be rewarded for skill and not punished for lack of stats. 

Modifié par nexworks, 07 juin 2011 - 07:06 .

[Razorburn]

Wow this thread is telling of why the latest trailers have all been fighting. Big and little guns blaring at big and small enemies while Shepard talks in the background. These are trailers I'd expect from a Halo game. Combat in ME1 was good enough for me, and ME2 nailed it... no need to further improve on it.

As for the people talking about the age of people shooters appeal to... it's true only someone with the brain of a 13 year old would enjoy hour after hour of mindless combat. If you don't believe that play Call of Duty, witness the rampant "tea-bagging," and tell me if that's the mark of a mature person.

Quote from the IGN article about ME3:

Ostensibly, my job was to escort a Krogan princess offworld. But in practice, my main job was kicking Cerberus ass across a science station, and Shepard was more equipped than ever to get the job done.

That quote is the definition of a garbage game. ME3's already finished, so there's no point in hoping/asking for something; we just have to wait and see. But from that IGN article, the game sounds like a shooter with RPG elements that epic fails miserably.

Modifié par Razorburn, 07 juin 2011 - 07:08 .

[Razorburn]

nexworks wrote...
If I point my gun at something so that my crosshairs are right on target, and then fire at it, I don't want a random die roll telling me whether I hit. I want the bullet to fly along the trajectory I indicated and hit the spot I pointed at.

Even late in ME1 when my skills were up, especially at higher difficulties, I can not tell you how many times I had my crosshairs right on the target, with the circle fully filled by the target, unloading bullet after bullet... and my shots don't hit. Through no fault of my own or lack of skill, I'm now forced to adjust my gameplay and tactics to the fact that the Universal Die Roller doesn't want me to hit my target? 

You must be talking about the AR, because I never had problems with the sniper rifle or pistol when I was fully skilled in them. That happens in every game for automatic weapons, it's not a fault of ME. You are using the "die roll" analogy to attack RPG's when in fact the random automatic gun spray is in every shooter out there.

[Mann42]

Razorburn wrote...

As for the people talking about the age of people shooters appeal to... it's true only someone with the brain of a 13 year old would enjoy hour after hour of mindless combat. If you don't believe that play Call of Duty, witness the rampant "tea-bagging," and tell me if that's the mark of a mature person.

Well, broad generalizations and sterotypes of playerbase of 20 million people aside, I think ME2 proved that you can take shooter mechanics and make them much deeper with greater weapon diversity and a toolbox of powers that can, and do, change the battle and battlefield significantly. 

The whole time I played ME2, I thought it was perfect except for the fact that the shooter mechanics needed a little more polish and it needed more powers and equipment to diversify my choices and tactics. 

From everything I've read and seen, that's basically what they're promising. That's a good thing.

Razorburn wrote...

Quote from the IGN article about ME3:

Ostensibly, my job was to escort a Krogan princess offworld. But in practice, my main job was kicking Cerberus ass across a science station, and Shepard was more equipped than ever to get the job done.

That quote is the definition of a garbage game. ME3's already finished, so there's no point in hoping/asking for something; we just have to wait and see. But from that IGN article, the game sounds like a shooter with RPG elements that epic fails miserably.

Well, I'm glad you have the omniscience to know that the game is garbage from a single paragraph in an IGN preview, 9 months before the game is finished and shipped. I wish I had that power!

You have any awesome stock tips for me? I'm sure with your 9 month+ omniscience you can tell me where I should invest my money, right? Maybe it's just game related omniscience; if so, share with me your wisdom so I may bask in your infinite knowledge of all things gaming in the future!

Modifié par nexworks, 07 juin 2011 - 07:24 .

[Mann42]

Razorburn wrote...

You must be talking about the AR, because I never had problems with the sniper rifle or pistol when I was fully skilled in them. That happens in every game for automatic weapons, it's not a fault of ME. You are using the "die roll" analogy to attack RPG's when in fact the random automatic gun spray is in every shooter out there.

It wasn't just the AR, because I experienced it on my Infiltrator, Sentinel, and Adept playthroughs as well, when I wasn't using an AR.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed ME1 a lot. It was the reason I bought my 360! I just don't enjoy it as much as ME2, where my skill actually matters more.

Modifié par nexworks, 07 juin 2011 - 07:21 .

[Bad King]

It looks more like Unreal Tournament to me. You get to control big vehicles (mounted machine gun and big Cerberus mechs) and those ground reapers look a lot like some of the vehicles off Unreal Tournament.

Also there are rumours that there will be multiplayer. If this is true (which I kind of hope it isn't) then it is yet another similarity to Unreal Tournament.

Modifié par Bad King, 07 juin 2011 - 07:22 .

[Mann42]

Bad King wrote...

It looks more like Unreal Tournament to me. You get to control big vehicles (mounted machine gun and big Cerberus mechs) and those ground reapers look a lot like some of the vehicles off Unreal Tournament.

It's the Unreal Engine, which Bioware licenses and uses for all Mass Effect games. That Unreal Tournament vehicle code is already in the engine, so Bioware just repurposed it for their game. Thus allowing them to concentrate MORE on everything else. 

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

[Razorburn]

nexworks wrote...

Well, I'm glad you have the omniscience to know that the game is garbage from a single paragraph in an IGN preview, 9 months before the game is finished a shipped. I wish I had that power!

You have any awesome stock tips for me? I'm sure with your 9 month+ omniscience you can tell me where I should invest my money, right? Maybe it's just game related omniscience; if so, share with me your wisdom so I may bask in your infinite knowledge of all things gaming in the future!

Ha! As sarcasm is a form of verbal aggression, I realized something I said must have made you defensive.

I ask you this, if the stated mission objective is different than the "real" objective in practice, doesn't that mean that the mission was poorly executed?

[Walker White]

marshalleck wrote...

An EA conference call from May 2010 cited 1.6 million sales for Xbox and PC, including digital downloads, in the last fiscal quarter (January - March 2010). This was from a report to shareholders in which EA are legally obligated to be accurate; it's not the "2 million sales internal estimate" that Phaedon referenced, which was just an early guess.  

This is an outdated reference.  The 2.2 million claim was not a guess, but sell in, while the 1.6 was sell through.  Most importantly, this was the quarter in which the game was newly released and full price.  There have been significantly more sales (sales through) since that time, but we do not know the break down.

A lot of people on this forum continue to rely on VGChartz, but that source has major holes in it.  It does not include Wal-Mart or several other major retailers.  It is okay as a sample of trends, but not in determining lifetime numbers.

[Walker White]

nexworks wrote...

It's the Unreal Engine, which Bioware licenses and uses for all Mass Effect games. That Unreal Tournament vehicle code is already in the engine, so Bioware just repurposed it for their game. Thus allowing them to concentrate MORE on everything else. 

Ever talked to a AAA developer that uses the Unreal Engine?  I had a conversation with some at Irrational the other day, and he laments at how badly designed that engine is.  He claims that at times it is really a toss up of whether to redo the engine yourself, or use that engine.

[marshalleck]

Walker White wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

An EA conference call from May 2010 cited 1.6 million sales for Xbox and PC, including digital downloads, in the last fiscal quarter (January - March 2010). This was from a report to shareholders in which EA are legally obligated to be accurate; it's not the "2 million sales internal estimate" that Phaedon referenced, which was just an early guess.  

This is an outdated reference.  The 2.2 million claim was not a guess, but sell in, while the 1.6 was sell through.  Most importantly, this was the quarter in which the game was newly released and full price.  There have been significantly more sales (sales through) since that time, but we do not know the break down.

A lot of people on this forum continue to rely on VGChartz, but that source has major holes in it.  It does not include Wal-Mart or several other major retailers.  It is okay as a sample of trends, but not in determining lifetime numbers.

The source is strong enough to utterly discredit Phaedon's claim that ME2 "sold 2 million copies in the first week."

I've gone back and edited in a link to a transcript of the call. I'm not trying to extrapolate any claims about ME2's final numbers, or argue about sold in vs. sold through. The report is what it is, people can look at it and read for themselves. That said, claiming ME2 sold 2 million copies in the first week is simply untrue.

Modifié par marshalleck, 07 juin 2011 - 07:33 .

[Mann42]

Razorburn wrote...

nexworks wrote...

Well, I'm glad you have the omniscience to know that the game is garbage from a single paragraph in an IGN preview, 9 months before the game is finished a shipped. I wish I had that power!

You have any awesome stock tips for me? I'm sure with your 9 month+ omniscience you can tell me where I should invest my money, right? Maybe it's just game related omniscience; if so, share with me your wisdom so I may bask in your infinite knowledge of all things gaming in the future!

Ha! As sarcasm is a form of verbal aggression, I realized something I said must have made you defensive.

I ask you this, if the stated mission objective is different than the "real" objective in practice, doesn't that mean that the mission was poorly executed?

Oh no, I get snarky all the time when people make predictions about things they couldn't actually know and pretend like it's fact. Not you in particular, I'm just an extremely cynical and sarcastic person in the fact of absolute certainty. Call it a disdain for authority, and a downright disrespect for faux-authority. 

Their stated mission objective has always been to make a shooter-rpg hybrid (or rpg-shooter hybrid, if it suits your argument).

In ME1 we got a lot more RPG than shooter. In fact, I could barely call it a shooter because the random die roll constantly reminded me that it wasn't a shooter. I know plenty of people that liked shooters that tried ME1 and didn't enjoy it because they said it wasn't really a shooter (because of the die rolling). So much so that even after I told them ME2 was definitely more a shooter, they didn't believe me at first. (Yes, anecdotal evidence is all I got, so plenty of holes to drive through)

In ME2, I finally found the shooter they were talking about in that whole shooter-rpg hybrid. Except that they took out most of the RPG. Hmm. Alright, 2 steps forward, 2 steps back. But the combat was better, and it felt like a significantly better foundation for adding more RPG stuff on top.

So now, with ME3, they're keeping basically the same shooter backend (GoW) and promising to add more RPG (class powers, equipment customization) and all the RPG-y things that Bioware has always done great (strong narrative and player choice). 

I just cannot fathom how that is a worse direction than ME2, which was basically GoW with LESS RPG mechanics than ME1 but more than GoW. 

Modifié par nexworks, 07 juin 2011 - 07:43 .

[Spaghetti_Ninja]

KainrycKarr wrote...

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.

Eeeeexactly.

Just because ME has some of the same things another game has, doesn't mean it ''stole'' anything. ME is ME because it is a marriage of shooters and RPGs. ME1 was an abysmal marriage, ME2 was a match made in heaven.

GoW is pure shooter, it has zero RPG elements. Why would I ever play a game like that?

[Mann42]

Walker White wrote...

nexworks wrote...

It's the Unreal Engine, which Bioware licenses and uses for all Mass Effect games. That Unreal Tournament vehicle code is already in the engine, so Bioware just repurposed it for their game. Thus allowing them to concentrate MORE on everything else. 

Ever talked to a AAA developer that uses the Unreal Engine?  I had a conversation with some at Irrational the other day, and he laments at how badly designed that engine is.  He claims that at times it is really a toss up of whether to redo the engine yourself, or use that engine.

Oh, I am a AAA developer and I have used the Unreal Engine. I also know many others who have or continue to work with it. It does have a lot of problems. All engines do. Engines are designed to originally support, at best, one or two game types. The Unreal Engine is basically designed to support TPS and FPS games, and unless you're building it to play exactly like GoW or UT, you are basically faced with a difficult task of getting it to do what you want. Even then it's tough, but it's easier. 

Making games is hard. Heh.

However, if you are Bioware making a TPS or FPS game, and you've already spent the last 4 or 5 years adding RPG mechanics layers and the massive dialogue/cinematics system to Unreal, and you want your shooter mechanics to play a lot like GoW, then it's a hell of a lot easier (and better for the integrity of the projet) to just keep marching forward with what you have than to redesign a new engine or try to implement a different existing one.

Honestly, for what ME is trying to do, Unreal is probably a better fit than Radiant or Quake engine derivatives, and is a hands down better fit than more generic engine types.

Modifié par nexworks, 07 juin 2011 - 07:55 .

[marshalleck]

Spaghetti_Ninja wrote...
GoW is pure shooter, it has zero RPG elements. Why would I ever play a game like that?

Because it's fun. But you wouldn't know that, since you summarily write it off out of hand.

[Razorburn]

nexworks wrote...

So now, with ME3, they're keeping basically the same shooter backend (GoW) and promising to add more RPG (class powers, equipment customization) and all the RPG-y things that Bioware has always done great (strong narrative and player choice). 

Where is BioWare promising to add more RPG elements? All I've seen is gun customization, and the lack of story mechanics is what RPG fans are talking about. There's lots of content coming out but all of it is in favor of combat mechanics, and not one mention of the plethora of RPG mechanics that could be in game; such as meeting new races, what's replacing planet scanning, crew interactions (aside from the squad), etc.

As for making predictions, I never said the game was going to be garbage. But when I hear "mission was supposed to be X but was in practice Y," and with a seemingly passing interest in story, I usually prepare for the worst.

nexworks wrote...

Their stated mission objective has always been to make a shooter-rpg hybrid (or rpg-shooter hybrid, if it suits your argument).

Action-RPG or Shooter-RPG is the name of the genre, the order doesn't suit anyone's argument.