198 réponses à ce sujet

[jamesp81]

Dave666 wrote...

 The problem I have with the whole action, action action mentality is that in some cases it detracts from one of the main points of RPG's.

What I mean by this is, lets take ME:1 as an example.  In ME:1 there were many instances where if you picked the right dialog option it was possible to solve a potentally volatile situation with words and avoid a gunfight at all.  A good example of this is UNC: Major Kyle where if you wanted to you could just go in guns blazing and kill everyone, or you could talk him into going in peacefully.  Or what about Citadel: Doctor Michel? Or UNC: Hostile Takeover?  How about UNC: The Negotiation? Or UNC: Hostage?

In ME:2 can anyone name me a single instance where it was possible to do this?

Confronting the looters on Mordin's recruitment mission.  The Charm and Intimidate options allow you to either talk them out of looting, or scaring them out of it.  Any other response results in a gunfight (albeit an easy one).

[sp0ck 06]

Dave666 wrote...

 The problem I have with the whole action, action action mentality is that in some cases it detracts from one of the main points of RPG's.

What I mean by this is, lets take ME:1 as an example.  In ME:1 there were many instances where if you picked the right dialog option it was possible to solve a potentally volatile situation with words and avoid a gunfight at all.  A good example of this is UNC: Major Kyle where if you wanted to you could just go in guns blazing and kill everyone, or you could talk him into going in peacefully.  Or what about Citadel: Doctor Michel? Or UNC: Hostile Takeover?  How about UNC: The Negotiation? Or UNC: Hostage?

In ME:2 can anyone name me a single instance where it was possible to do this?

Mordin's assistant in his recruitment mission is one.  There weren't too many instances of that in ME2, I'll grant you.  But at the same time, I wouldn't put the side missions in ME1 on much of a pedestal.  For the most part, they sucked.

[Dave666]

jamesp81 wrote...

Dave666 wrote...

 The problem I have with the whole action, action action mentality is that in some cases it detracts from one of the main points of RPG's.

What I mean by this is, lets take ME:1 as an example.  In ME:1 there were many instances where if you picked the right dialog option it was possible to solve a potentally volatile situation with words and avoid a gunfight at all.  A good example of this is UNC: Major Kyle where if you wanted to you could just go in guns blazing and kill everyone, or you could talk him into going in peacefully.  Or what about Citadel: Doctor Michel? Or UNC: Hostile Takeover?  How about UNC: The Negotiation? Or UNC: Hostage?

In ME:2 can anyone name me a single instance where it was possible to do this?

Confronting the looters on Mordin's recruitment mission.  The Charm and Intimidate options allow you to either talk them out of looting, or scaring them out of it.  Any other response results in a gunfight (albeit an easy one).

I stand corrected then.  There were a few minor ones in ME:2.

Modifié par Dave666, 07 juin 2011 - 09:15 .

[AlanC9]

A couple, sure. The Partiarch and the batarian bartender come to mind. But yeah, there's very few of them. There are also a fair number of quests that don't involve combat at all.

Note that Bio's usually very weak on providing optional combat. ME1's something of an outlier here

[Dave666]

AlanC9 wrote...

A couple, sure. The Partiarch and the batarian bartender come to mind. But yeah, there's very few of them. There are also a fair number of quests that don't involve combat at all.

Note that Bio's usually very weak on providing optional combat. ME1's something of an outlier here

True.  Those quests reminded me of Planescape:Torment (The best RPG ever made in the history of RPG's ever. If you haven't played it, shame on you!). 

[Rhayth]

I agree...I like the more action tone then the RPG tone of the first game. I do see the joys of dressing your companions, but at the same time alot of times in ME1 I ended up with several members wearing the same armor cause it was good statistically. So I like not having to worry about it, but I would LOVE to be able to re-color their armors like you could to Shepard in 2.

[Ahglock]

Action in itself isn't bad. I doubt anyone is against it being action packed. The thing is Action should enhance or compliment the story, if it distracts from the story or overwhelms/obscures the story it fails. It is hard to say what role action plays in ME3 from a couple minutes of demos. But, first impressions are hard to correct.

[UBER GEEKZILLA]

im just worried people are gonna judge too quickley and spam zero scores on this game when it comes out. and ill admit dragon age 2 isnt the best bioware game, but does it really deserve to be lowly scored as much as superman 64 or blinx 3d.

i just hope people are not too strict and harsh and give this game a chance. becuz after seeing the dragon age 2 backlash i worry this game will be a masterpiece with its reputation ruined by nitpicky people who are pissed cuz smthin like OOOOOOOO THERES NOT ENOUGH MENUS will make them hate it.

[wolfennights]

I'm fine with action, as long as it doesn't take away from the story.

[Parah_Salin]

I agree with the OP. It's E3, They want to be flashy. We already know about ME3. General public less so. So naturally they want it to look good next to the 10 billion other games being announced at E3. I mean it's better then if the trailer was just the new menue screens, mineral scanning, and like...IDK, A go-fetch quest and the new Garrus calibration mini game.

[UBER GEEKZILLA]

Parah_Salin wrote...

I agree with the OP. It's E3, They want to be flashy. We already know about ME3. General public less so. So naturally they want it to look good next to the 10 billion other games being announced at E3. I mean it's better then if the trailer was just the new menue screens, mineral scanning, and like...IDK, A go-fetch quest and the new Garrus calibration mini game.

EXACTLY WHAT IM SAYING

[Admoniter]

My problem with the non stop barrage of action and explosions is that 1. it gets boring and repetitive after a while especially given that the current market is drowning in games with the same action action action mentality. 2. ME as a series is an action-rpg when you showcase just the action, what are the fans supposed to think? It kind of sends the message that the devs consider the game as just an action game with boring rpg elements that get in the way of more action.

Besides since when was it written in stone the rpg elements can't be action packed.

Modifié par Admoniter, 07 juin 2011 - 10:38 .

[Therefore_I_Am]

OP, don't listen to all of the naysayers.

The next person that utters the word 'generic' is officially a fat and lonley person who has asthma.

[UBER GEEKZILLA]

Therefore_I_Am wrote...

OP, don't listen to all of the naysayers.

The next person that utters the word 'generic' is officially a fat and lonley person who has asthma.

LOL

[Parah_Salin]

I buy generic prescription medications to save money...

[Aestivalis]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

I'm going to be EXTREMELY disappointed if the Mako and uncharted worlds do not make a glorious return in ME3. As the galaxy burns I would like the FREEDOM to be able to explore interesting planets and collect prothean relics. If this is not included then I'm DONE with bioware and their CoD CRAP.

As the galaxy burns you would like the freedom to ignore your duty and run around the galaxy looking for trinkets?

I suppose you also want them to give the Mako a finite gas supply, that way if you're not careful you may get stranded on the uninhabited planet with a radio that has a 0.2% increase in probability of breaking per second spent on the ground due to accumulated damage from exposure to hostile elements. That way, if you're really unlucky, your Shepard dies stranded, alone and unheard while mining minerals, and the game ends automatically by wiping your save data.

Now that's a real RPG, 100x better than Bioware's "CoD crap," isn't it?!? <_<

[UBER GEEKZILLA]

Aestivalis wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

I'm going to be EXTREMELY disappointed if the Mako and uncharted worlds do not make a glorious return in ME3. As the galaxy burns I would like the FREEDOM to be able to explore interesting planets and collect prothean relics. If this is not included then I'm DONE with bioware and their CoD CRAP.

As the galaxy burns you would like the freedom to ignore your duty and run around the galaxy looking for trinkets?

I suppose you also want them to give the Mako a finite gas supply, that way if you're not careful you may get stranded on the uninhabited planet with a radio that has a 0.2% increase in probability of breaking per second spent on the ground due to accumulated damage from exposure to hostile elements. That way, if you're really unlucky, your Shepard dies stranded, alone and unheard while mining minerals, and the game ends automatically by wiping your save data.

Now that's a real RPG, 100x better than Bioware's "CoD crap," isn't it?!? <_<

lol this is so true...seroisly if your gonna give up on bioware for NOT INCLUDING ONE THING OF GAMEPLAY then i feel sorry for you

Modifié par UBER GEEKZILLA, 07 juin 2011 - 10:54 .

[The Apostate]

Fixers0 has it right. If Mass Effect 3 was just action I would consider it a failure and not worth either the hype or the wait. Why? Because SF action games, with only the veneer of a respectable plot, already exist: Think of Gears of War and Halo.

What is UNIQUE about the Mass Effect series is not the SF shooter elements: it is storytelling elements; like the characters, the plot, the depth of the imagined universe, the sense of choices and their consequences.

That is what Mass Effect is all about; not ****ty action movie cliches (like when innumerable foes, for whatever reason, have terrible aim). When Bioware announced that rights to a Mass Effect movie had been bought, they said something about their games having the plot twists and the emotional depth equal to cinema. That's a lie if ME3 is a mediocre action game designed to glue players to their seats. Because in cinema, you can only blow up so much **** before it gets tedious. Even when you have an action movie like Return of the King -- which depends as much on huge battle sequences as character development and portrayal for its critical success.

[sirgippy]

Fixers0 wrote...

That the game starts  using generic tactics without even having the decency to cover it up. 
That it will just be another Third-person shooter in a Sci-Fi shell.

Then why are you here besides trolling duder?

[Inutaisho7996]

Admoniter wrote...

My problem with the non stop barrage of action and explosions is that 1. it gets boring and repetitive after a while especially given that the current market is drowning in games with the same action action action mentality. 2. ME as a series is an action-rpg when you showcase just the action, what are the fans supposed to think? It kind of sends the message that the devs consider the game as just an action game with boring rpg elements that get in the way of more action.

Besides since when was it written in stone the rpg elements can't be action packed.

What is BioWare supposed to showcase RPGwise? If the showcase mostly conversation, they'll ****** off the fans that don't want spoilers. If they showcase the action, they'll ****** off the fans that want to see conversations.

The last one seems like the lesser of the two evils. They can make a big impression with the action, and the original fans will still come back for the conversation.  And if they draw in new players with the action, they'll be impressed with the conversations and go back to the first two to see how everything started.

Besides, if  the best part of Mass Effect is the writting, why change that? Why not focus on making the combat even more fun, and keep the writing the way it is?

Modifié par Inutaisho7996, 07 juin 2011 - 11:16 .

[Wildfire Darkstar]

Fair question, and one that I'm a bit at a loss to answer, personally. Mostly, it's a sort of dog-whistle fear of what "action-packed" actually means in the context of a video game. It means battle mechanics that are overly frenetic and require the sort of split-second, twitch reflexes that I don't have and which lead to a style of gameplay that I find shallow, unstrategic, and uninvolving. "Action-packed" is a description usually used to describe the kind of fast-paced FPSes that I hate to play, and which cannot, by definition, coexist with what I consider to be the cornerstone of an RPG.

And that's the problem, I think: we're ultimately talking different languages entirely. To most people on these forums, "RPG" is synonymous with being able to make dialogue choices, or exploring. To me, that may be part of it, but the larger part is being to able to create a character whose skills and abilities are not dependent on my own. Whether or not my Shepard has quick reflexes shouldn't depend solely on whether or not I have quick reflexes, in the same way that I should be able to play Shepard as a villain without having to personally go out and torture small woodland creatures. The fact that we're dealing with a hybrid game muddies the water somewhat, but the emphasis of "action" thus far gives me little faith that BioWare sees "RPG elements" as anything other than window dressing, mostly if not wholly removed from the combat mechanics of the game.

Is this fair? Maybe not. But it's not without precedent: I've been around long enough that I'd like to think I have some sense of how game industry marketing-speak works. And at the same time, it's also evidence of how I think there's a fundamental disconnect between different "camps" of the ME fanbase, such that it's possible for one group to find nothing at odds about describing a game with "increased RPG elements" as "action-packed", because they see those "RPG elements" as having no relation to combat. It's a difference in perspective.

[Ultai]

Uh, the Reapers are FINALLY here after two games and they're blowing **** up. You'd think there'd be lots of action.

[DoNotIngest]

Give a huge amount of flashy action that non-ME players can "Wow!" at and old ME players can "OMG NEW CRAWLER-REAPER!" at. Save up that delicious RPG for gameplay, don't spoil it.




Did anyone here discover their love of RPG by watching an ad on TV about choosing what to say to a store clerk in a video game?

[Wildfire Darkstar]

DoNotIngest wrote...
Did anyone here discover their love of RPG by watching an ad on TV about choosing what to say to a store clerk in a video game?

A lot of us (well, me, at least: I can't rightly speak for anyone else) who were disappointed in the lack of RPG features in ME2 would dearly like to be convinced that ME3 is going to be an improvement. In an extreme case, being convinced that ME3 improves upon its predecessor may be the difference between playing the game or not playing the game.

These trailers aren't intended for the hardcore fans who were already going to buy the game. They're intended for people who need to be convinced to give the game a shot. It makes a certain amount of sense to go after fans of "action-packed" games, but it does nothing to assuage the worries of those of us who aren't automatically excited by the promise of hyperactive cameras and split-second timing. But BioWare/EA goes where the money is, and I don't pretend to believe that I'm in the most lucrative possible market for ME3.

[sympathy4saren]

UBER GEEKZILLA wrote...

i meen....every trilogy works that way. lord of the rings retrun of the king was the last of the 3, and it was the most action packed, and won 11 oscars. the bourne ultimatum was the best of the bourne trilogy but it was the most action packed. and return of the jedi was the most action packed of the original star wars trilogy and while not as good as empire strikes back it was still very good.

serosuly its THE FINAL BATTLE OF COURSE ITS GONNA BE ACTION PACKED. but there will be rpg elements, bioware cant just tell us everything all at once ya know, it takes time. besides theres still character development, dialouge choices, diffrent ways for the game to play out. i think its shapeing up to be the best of the 3
do any of you agree

I disagree.