252 réponses à ce sujet

[Massadonious1]

Someone should tell the writers that technology apparently never evolves.

[Silver]

In my opinion, Mass Effect 1 already surpassed GOW in terms of the story, and that is what the ME Series is all about in my opinion.
GOW is a game like Duke Nukem 3D, where the story didn't really matter, and all you did was shoot up enemies, even though the combat in GOW was a bit different.
Sure, they use the same engine, but BioWare has changed it to such an extent that it is almost a completely different one.
The Framework is the same (GOW & ME3 both use UE3.5) but the RPG Elements alone already push the ME3 Version into a completely different direction.

[FlyingWalrus]

Oh my God not this tired and pulped horse again.

[Dave666]

Mr.BlazenGlazen wrote...

Dave666 wrote...

Mr.BlazenGlazen wrote...

Eh. I guess. Though I find battlefield's gameplay more enjoyable. I really don't understand why people are freaking out all because ME uses Unreal's engine for combat. I mean...would they rather prefer the crap combat system we got in ME1 instead?

Any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

W...why?

Because playing ME:1 felt like playing an RPG with guns, while playing ME:2 felt like playing a Shooter with RPG bits tacked on. (I shouldn't have to say this, but this is the internet after all, this is how it felt to me).

Modifié par Dave666, 08 juin 2011 - 09:22 .

[Dr.Seltsam]

What happened to the Bioware forums? Where are all these GOW fans coming from?
Admittedly I played through both Gears of Wars but comparing Mass Effect to Gears Of War??

The worst thing is that the comparison actually makes sense, since Bioware aparently decided to move their ENTIRE target audience into the average-3rdperson-action-gamer range...

Oh Bioware, how you have fallen.

This is making me feel old.

[ME-ParaShep]

Hey, what can people expect out of ME 3? The plot is about galactic war with the Reapers vs all sapient/sentient life in the galaxy. War is the issue here. There will be more guns blazing, biotics raging, tech blowing things apart, and more chaos ensuing than people talking story with each other. The Reapers aren't going to talk (much) story with each other and other species so we don't have a reason to do so with others as well. The only talking we'll be doing is talking to people with the motive as to how we can get them to join our cause and stop the Reapers. It's not a walk in the park anymore like in ME 2. War is here and war will stay throughout the whole game. Being a 3rd person shooter is what this game is majorly about now because the storyline demands it. There will still be RPG in the game, but the main focus is still stopping the Reapers. Like Shepard said, "We fight or we die. That's the plan."

[ChristianSoldier]

Dr.Seltsam wrote...

What happened to the Bioware forums? Where are all these GOW fans coming from?
Admittedly I played through both Gears of Wars but comparing Mass Effect to Gears Of War??

The worst thing is that the comparison actually makes sense, since Bioware aparently decided to move their ENTIRE target audience into the average-3rdperson-action-gamer range...

Oh Bioware, how you have fallen.

This is making me feel old.

BIOWARE may have disappointed its hardcore RPG fanbase but BIOWARE just increased its ME fanbase by tenfold!!! Casey is the kewl kid now. ME3 can now be placed along side with Gears. its a gud thing. Hated ME1 gameplay.

[ChristianSoldier]

ME-ParaShep wrote...

Hey, what can people expect out of ME 3? The plot is about galactic war with the Reapers vs all sapient/sentient life in the galaxy. War is the issue here. There will be more guns blazing, biotics raging, tech blowing things apart, and more chaos ensuing than people talking story with each other. The Reapers aren't going to talk (much) story with each other and other species so we don't have a reason to do so with others as well. The only talking we'll be doing is talking to people with the motive as to how we can get them to join our cause and stop the Reapers. It's not a walk in the park anymore like in ME 2. War is here and war will stay throughout the whole game. Being a 3rd person shooter is what this game is majorly about now because the storyline demands it. There will still be RPG in the game, but the main focus is still stopping the Reapers. Like Shepard said, "We fight or we die. That's the plan."

You dont get what ppl are complaining about. All out galatic war isnt an excuse to change ME1 RPG gameplay into ME2 action pack gameplay.(theres the direction you are coming from.) And to say that there will be STILL RPG in the game. ME2 also had RPG. One things fo sho though, ME3 will have MORE RPG than ME2, but it will still be watered down RPG for the gaming masses.

[Lunatic LK47]

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? 

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. 

Thank you. I'm actually glad I never played any of the 80's era RPGs.

[Dr.Seltsam]

ChristianSoldier wrote...

Dr.Seltsam wrote...

What happened to the Bioware forums? Where are all these GOW fans coming from?
Admittedly I played through both Gears of Wars but comparing Mass Effect to Gears Of War??

The worst thing is that the comparison actually makes sense, since Bioware aparently decided to move their ENTIRE target audience into the average-3rdperson-action-gamer range...

Oh Bioware, how you have fallen.

This is making me feel old.

BIOWARE may have disappointed its hardcore RPG fanbase but BIOWARE just increased its ME fanbase by tenfold!!! Casey is the kewl kid now. ME3 can now be placed along side with Gears. its a gud thing. Hated ME1 gameplay.

It's depressing that I actually expected a reply exactly like that.

[SalsaDMA]

nexworks wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

nexworks wrote...

. You don't even need to figure out that stuff in code, you just need to know what assets you need and where they need to be plugged in.

Urgh...

Something tells me you and I have vastly different perceptions of good behaviour when undertaking software projects.

I tried the "just plug in the stuff where it's supposed to be" once. After having had to literelly redo the entire project during bugtesting I realized there is a reason why most liteature teaching on the subject advise against that kind of projectwork.

The average AAA project has over 100 developers on it.

The average game project is divided into programmers, designers, and artists. Within each specialization, there are further sub-specializations (which programmers are working on framework, which are working on tools, on supporting new systems, and supporting the scripting systems; which designers are doing level design, writing, cinematic design, or content scripting; which artists are doing character art, animation, cinematics, environment art, particle effects, etc). There are a lot of moving parts. Everyone is doing a small piece, so you HAVE to plan.

However, when I say "you just plug them in", I think you are misunderstanding me. I'm not just talking about 'software' development, I'm talking about GAME development. Usually, by the time the designer is implementing a scene, the code is already done. The code was already programmed based on the design requirements determined by the lead designer or systems designers.

Designers may have to script something, but that's different than waiting on a full system from the programmers. If they build the tools properly, then you can make quick, iterative changes to your systems and storyline.

Any smart content pipeline for a video game should be that easy, or it will never ship in time. You need to build your game in such as way that a designer can create a new scene, build a map in it, and then script directly on that scene and map with any new assets that the designers or artists create. Is it pre-planned? Absolutely. Do you need approval from your programmer every time you add a new story arc? God no, unless you need the engine to do something new.

You can have all the systems and code in a workable state, but not have the content done. Content does not, and will never, equate to code. That is why you referring to software development really isn't extrapolating to game development.

Just because the content isn't there for you to see yet, doesn't mean it won't be, or that the systems aren't in progress or close to done already. Since the 'shooter' part is a part of the Unreal engine, and already half done, it was inevitable that is was going to be in the most finished state first.

You're describing standard object oriented programming. I fail to see how the term "just plug it in" in a miliue where object oriented programming is used normally can be used for anything than a "big crash test" (prob not the exact name, but fits well enough )

While "Alpha Protocol" was developed by another company, it showcases rather well that adding content isn't as easy as you make it sound. While the premises of that game was great, it was decidedly marred by some horrendous bugs in regards to tracking events and persuasions. If it really were as easy to just "add content in the end" I would dare say quite a few of the bugs harrassing that game wouldn't have existed at all {smilie}

Thus I have little faith in any development that follows an expectancy of "just adding stuff in the end" as a workable solution. It just doesn't work that way. Object oriented programming may be about making small re-usable black boxes of codes with defined in- and out-puts, but something always goes wrong anyways. Especially when you need to add the overall tracking layers on top which are the very heart of roleplaying games.

If anything, given the amount of variables and different outcomes we are talking about to make a proper roleplaying game, I'd say the framework of the players interaction with the world (basicly what we only have seen from them in regards to ME3 so far) is the thing that takes the least time. It's not just about plopping in some variables and then shipping stuff off. You need to test the stuff proper, and testing/fixing is what takes the most time when we are talking about content heavy variables affecting other content.

If you are just talking about a linear railroaded shooter, then yeah, I can imagine adding content in the end doesn't take long. But then you are just adding to my fear that ME3 isn't a rpg anymore, but just another shooter.

And finally, irregardless of what either of us may think of ME3 so far, there is no denying (in my opinion) that IF ME3 is actually an rpg, then marketing is doing a pisspoor job of portraying it. After watching the trailer of shepard visiting a 'reaper base' I actually got the thought: "Hmm.. This trailer makes me think of another gamedemo trailer I watched from another E3 I think..." This wouldn't be bad if the game marketed trailer had made me think of a deep rpg or the like. The problem was that the first thing that struck my mind when watching that trailer was "Bulletstorm" (with less flashy kills), and I don't think there's many of us that thinks that game is a rpg...

Ofc, EA may just be horrible at marketing Bioware games, but looking at what DA2 turned out to be and how they marketed it, I have to admit that given the target audience the game would be suitable for, they prob advertised it as it should be. Which leads me to fidge when I see ME3 being marketed like this too...

[Ahglock]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...



Thank you. I'm actually glad I never played any of the 80's era RPGs.

The too much awesome of the games would have spoiled you for the crap of today.  

As for the person you quoted about missing shots in ME1.  Honestly, I think they just sucked at aiming.  If my circle was on the target I never missed unless I was rapidly firing and the targetting circle got too big. And I only played powers classes and I neve rput points into guns.   But that isn't much different than heavy recoil weapons in ME2 causing shots to miss.  I'm not saying it was a better system, just that the problems are being vastly exagerated.

Though I do generally agree that once you put crosshairs into the game, character skill should at most effect damage not accuracy.  Though take shadowrun for the genesis and super nes, they used die rolls to determine succces on shooting but the targetting was not cross hairs but click onto the target based.  It worked great, they were awesome games some of the best RPGs out there.  Having a gun doesn't mean you have to make it a shooter/RPG, it can still be a pure RPG.  But if you make a shooter/rpg hybrid make the shooter elements work, and they do work better in ME2 at least IMO.  

[SalsaDMA]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

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? 

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. 

Thank you. I'm actually glad I never played any of the 80's era RPGs.

You missed out on some real gems I can tell you.

[log1x_dr4g0n]

Eh, I enjoy playing both GoW and ME games, and I don't really give a crap if they have similar mechanics or not. I'm still going to play them and continue to be a fan of both.

[tonnactus]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

In Mass Effect 2, they revamped the combat system and showed that off, and showed off more of the story - which people then complained about because they said they were spoiled.

Interrupts were also part of the trailers...

[tonnactus]

ME-ParaShep wrote...

Hey, what can people expect out of ME 3?

Discover some tech from ancient races(exploring while the other fleets hold the reapers off) that finally help to defeat the reapers(that were just one step away to have something to defeat them)? Uniting the space races is lame and stupid.First,they all should now that they have to work together to defeat this enemy. And even united,the current tech wouldnt really work to defeat the reapers.

[Lunatic LK47]

SalsaDMA wrote...



You missed out on some real gems I can tell you.

Where "gems" are only consisted of primarily fantasy? I'll pass (and I'm placing Ultima as the Star Wars of CRPG for the record)

[Massadonious1]

tonnactus wrote...
 Uniting the space races is lame and stupid.First,they all should now that they have to work together to defeat this enemy. 

The US adopted an official neutrality stance in WW2 before Pearl Harbor. Clearly they should of just said "Hay Europe, Imma help u!" without considering the political ramifications and cost in lives and infrastructure beforehand.

And besides certain races, namely the Batarians, could very well live with their total anihilation if it meant that they didn't have to help the Humans and other Council races they despise take back Earth and their other respective home planets. Those people clearly need convincing.

[PunchoT]

javierabegazo wrote...

This stat based aiming was and is a terrible idea. It would be like running in Dragon Age and taking a swipe at someone with your sword and in the beginning of the game only making contact with the sword 3/5 times every swing. How is that fun? Progression is fun, but that's not the way to go with gun play.

 I would like to rage at you right now, but I will be calm and collected.

I have no problem with Mass Effect not having stat-based aiming anymore, though it makes complete sense. The thing about comparing it to Dragon Age peeved me a little bit. Swords and sorcerery is entirely different from guns and grenades. Progression is entirely different when comparing the two games.

[Wildfire Darkstar]

MrGone wrote...
I see your point there. I do. But here's the thing, thought you mention that Mass effect was always an action game, you neglect to mention that it was never REALLY an RPG. At least not in a true sense. To say anything else is pretty much allowing nostalgia goggles to cloud your mind.

No, that's fair. But the thing about a hybrid game is that you can draw the balancing line pretty much wherever you want. ME1 was certainly no pure RPG, but it retained enough from the genre that I still enjoyed it. ME2 (and, based on the reports thus far, ME3) didn't, and I didn't like it nearly as much. So it's ultimately quibbling over details, but those details do matter in the end.

[PaulSX]

ChristianSoldier wrote...

Dr.Seltsam wrote...

What happened to the Bioware forums? Where are all these GOW fans coming from?
Admittedly I played through both Gears of Wars but comparing Mass Effect to Gears Of War??

The worst thing is that the comparison actually makes sense, since Bioware aparently decided to move their ENTIRE target audience into the average-3rdperson-action-gamer range...

Oh Bioware, how you have fallen.

This is making me feel old.

BIOWARE may have disappointed its hardcore RPG fanbase but BIOWARE just increased its ME fanbase by tenfold!!! Casey is the kewl kid now. ME3 can now be placed along side with Gears. its a gud thing. Hated ME1 gameplay.

ME series is by no mean a hardcore RPG, this series is a light RPG with action at the very beginning. 

and I also love to see how they change the combat in ME3.  ME1 plays like a dog running with three legs, ME2 goes to another extreme point with no customization at all. Hopefully ME3 will fix all the problems they have in first 2 games.

[FrostedFlake84]

I have played and still play both games. I do feel as though ME is trying to get more shooters by making it more of a shooter game than ME1 set out to be. Lets be real though, you dont play gears for deep storyline and you dont play ME for non stop shooter action. Its clear why they arent in the same class. No matter what anybody says ME1 was all about the story and the shooter action was a compliment to that, but in no way overpowered why people were and still are so drawn to ME. As we saw with ME2 they tried really hard to target the shooter fanbase, and they did, but in doing that alot of people were unhappy with the whole game. Me being one of them. ME3 will not control anywhere near as good as gears for that type of combat. And that was never the goal. Gears is very fast paced, ME will never be. And it shouldnt be. It will control great for the ME world and that is its goal, but surpassing gears in movement like that is just not going to happen.

[ThePwener]

ME2 beated GoW by a longshot alone. The devs of that game don't bother with innovbation. Lazy besterds.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

So now no one remembers Killswitch... you know.. that roll and cover-system shooter that arrived BEFORE Gears?

[ThePwener]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

So now no one remembers Killswitch... you know.. that roll and cover-system shooter that arrived BEFORE Gears?

Great graphics.....