198 réponses à ce sujet

[byzantine horse]

Take it easy people. Bioware can't show us too much of the RPG stuff such as dialogue unless they want to spoil too much of the story. Shep running around shooting a bunch of guys in a cool manner doesn't spoil nearly as much as a conversation with TIM questioning him why he turned on humanity. And honestly enough, is that not the kind of things we would want to see? Action is so much easier to showcase as it can be applied anywhere. Tension in a dialogue? Not so much.

[Red Panda]

Sphynx118 wrote...

mjh417 wrote...

Look I want to see the RPG stuff as much as anyone, the dialogue, the character drama and story, the weapon and armor customization, the skill trees, the exploration and adventure, but nine of that would have really impressed me the way this heavy action and massive set piece stuff they've been show has. The combat is incredible and the scale is everything they promised. This game takes place during a galactic war and reaper invasion, its gonna be bigger and differently paced than the first 2 games and Im excited by that fact.

Guess all some people need are big flashy booms and loud gunfire while running and jumping around a burning city. Tried GoW yet? Im sure you will love it:whistle:

The flames are already mostly out, since it's a ruined city.

However, I do think any action should have to make sense.

[In Exile]

Wildfire Darkstar wrote...
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.

ME3 is structurally similar to ME2. If you really dislike first sequel, you really shouldn't by the second sequel.

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.

New Vegas and DA:O sold lots of copies. But New Vegas was made from FO3, which was the Oblivion engine, which took a long-time to develop. EA wants games on a short dev. cycle and a large base from that. An action game is the easiest way to get that.

[Wildfire Darkstar]

In Exile wrote...
ME3 is structurally similar to ME2. If you really dislike first sequel, you really shouldn't by the second sequel.

The question was, how similar? I loved ME1, after all, so I hold out/held out hope that ME3 might be tweaked enough to recapture some, if not all, of my interest. If the series could be altered before, there's no reason it couldn't be altered again, technically speaking.

New Vegas and DA:O sold lots of copies. But New Vegas was made from FO3, which was the Oblivion engine, which took a long-time to develop. EA wants games on a short dev. cycle and a large base from that. An action game is the easiest way to get that.

Fallout: New Vegas was made using the Gamebryo engine. That engine was indeed used for both Fallout 3 and Oblivion, but it has also been used for Drift City (a racing game) and Epic Mickey (a platformer). Meanwhile, Dragon Age 2 used functionally the same engine as Dragon Age: Origins (the Lycium engine, which is simply a new name slapped on the Eclipse engine used for DA:O) and makes a number of major changes to the gameplay mechanics. Heck, even Mass Effect 2 used the same engine (Unreal Engine 3) as the original Mass Effect, so clearly a game's play style isn't solely defined by the engine.

BioWare/EA's short development cycle may or may not be a major factor in overall quality concerns, but I don't buy the argument that such a cycle precludes the inclusion of role-playing combat mechanics. The usual argument as to why RPGs take longer to develop than action games concerns aesthetic issues: creating artwork for a variety of different environments, plotting, dialogue, voice acting, etc. The exact sort of things which I'm arguing are not the be-all and end-all of the RPG experience. A decent tactical combat system that includes some element of randomization/dice rolls and doesn't solely rely on precision reflexes is not inherently any more time or resource consuming than a Gears of War-style cover shooter combat systems. That decision was almost certainly a deliberate one, not one forced on the team by their dev cycle.

[Synetric]

This could entirely ditch the numbered RPG elements and stick entirely on the shooter/action elements and I'd buy it as long as the storyline was as well written as the previous two. I love the dialog options and major choices, because in the end, they really shape the character you create.

[lukex38]

for the people that are complaing about the amount of action in the game and saying its not a real RPG and such, mass effect was never meant to be a true RPG its a ACTION RPG, i love me1 but i always wished that it had better gameplay, me2 loved the gameplay but the story and alot of the RPG stuff was gone or wasnt as good as me1,
so with me3 it looks like its gonna have the really good story like me1 but with great gameplay the way the the first 2 mass effect games were meant to be
and if you want traditional RPG go play something else, because those RPGs are dead, when i think of those games i think of crap gameplay, crap grahics, alot of the time it has a bad story as well
look at the elder scrolls games skyrim has a ton of RPG stuff, but the gameplay looks really solid fun, looks like there gonna be alot more action in it which is good

[Dave666]

lukex38 wrote...

for the people that are complaing about the amount of action in the game and saying its not a real RPG and such, mass effect was never meant to be a true RPG its a ACTION RPG, i love me1 but i always wished that it had better gameplay, me2 loved the gameplay but the story and alot of the RPG stuff was gone or wasnt as good as me1,
so with me3 it looks like its gonna have the really good story like me1 but with great gameplay the way the the first 2 mass effect games were meant to be
and if you want traditional RPG go play something else, because those RPGs are dead, when i think of those games i think of crap gameplay, crap grahics, alot of the time it has a bad story as well
look at the elder scrolls games skyrim has a ton of RPG stuff, but the gameplay looks really solid fun, looks like there gonna be alot more action in it which is good

That's a subjective opinion at best.  Personally I prefer ME:1's gameplay because it feels like I'm playing an RPG with guns rather than ME:2's Shooter with RPG bits tacked on.

And are you serious? RPG's having 'bad stories'?  As opposed to the awesome stories that you get in Shooters you mean?

Modifié par Dave666, 08 juin 2011 - 02:51 .

[thesilentblade006]

Wildfire Darkstar wrote...

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.

I understand what you're saying and agree to an extent. The vast majority of classic RPGs handle battle in a static manner. Usually turn based strategy which relys mostly on your intellect rather than your reflexes. However, part of the investment in any game is learning how to play.  For example, I am not an a big FPS player, the few that I do own I have because the story was interesting and involving. When I first bought ME2, the more FPS style was initially off-putting. However, the more I played, the better I got until finally I beat the game on insanity. Now, granted, that was my fourth run through of the game. I disagree that  FPS gameplay is " shallow, unstrategic, and uninvolving", especially in the ME games. I understand that it is merely your opinion and I only wish to give you a different point of viewi on it, namely my own, and maybe even give you a perspective that could make that gameplay more enjoyable. The abiltiy to freeze the combat, evaluate and plan I feel helps to compensate for the FPS chaos. Also, the ability to control my squad and to maneuver myself into a good spot were not lacking in strategy and the visceral nature of the combat drew me into the game more. I felt like Sheperd could die at any moment, which he did quite a few times. In ME1, I played a biotic and after my first run through the danger never quite felt as imminent, wheras in ME2 everytime I play I still have that experience of I could die at any moment, on insanity or when I try a new class. That's another thing, you need to find the right class that fits your. I would suggest Soldier. The soldier can slow down time to help with accuracy  and to lessen the need for quickl reflexes. One other point I disagree on is your view on exploration and story as "window dressing."  I don't see story elements as being window dressing and I don't think Bioware does either. In most RPGs if you take out the combat mostly what's left is exploration and story: which are core elements of Role-Playing Games. I understand and respect your opinion and I hope I have given you some food for thought and maybe a new perspective on the gameplay.

[sp0ck 06]

UBER GEEKZILLA wrote...

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

Haha, I was joking dude.  Making a point.  Why would I want to collect relics while Reapers are landing on Earth?

Modifié par sp0ck 06, 08 juin 2011 - 02:50 .

[stu117]

the new combat system is the ****** man it looks sweet. i have longed for a great Rpg with fun combat =D woot!

[sp0ck 06]

stu117 wrote...

the new combat system is the ****** man it looks sweet. i have longed for a great Rpg with fun combat =D woot!

The last on being IMO Baldur's Gate 2.  Playing a Wild Mage was some of the most fun I've ever had in a game.

[Gatt9]

byzantine horse wrote...

Take it easy people. Bioware can't show us too much of the RPG stuff such as dialogue unless they want to spoil too much of the story. Shep running around shooting a bunch of guys in a cool manner doesn't spoil nearly as much as a conversation with TIM questioning him why he turned on humanity. And honestly enough, is that not the kind of things we would want to see? Action is so much easier to showcase as it can be applied anywhere. Tension in a dialogue? Not so much.

Disagree.

Bioware could quite easily have shown off the Stats that affect combat and noncombat,  they could've showed off the items,  and the weapon mods.

I strongly suspect that they haven't,  because it's nothing more than "Put point here to get 5% more damage in pistols",  "Wear this shoulderpad to get 5% more shields".

There's a reason why they're only showing the Shooter stuff,  and I'm betting it isn't because they've made a great RPG.  I'm betting it's because their focus was on making Yet Another Shooter.

Because seriously,  until a couple years ago,  no one had a problem showing off RPG's for the preceding 15 years or so.  So honestly,  the whole "They can't show it" thing is just a throwaway defense.

As far as what would I rather see?  I'd rather see the RPG.  If I want a shooter,  I'll go watch Halo,  or Gears of War,  or any of the other 3 dozen Shooters being showcased.  I'm certainly not going to look to a RPG Studio that has already demonstrated they can't design a solid shooter.

[Nightshade IX]

I like third person shooters as much as RPG's so I wouldn't mind the actiony bits at all. But having watched all the E3 demos, I still can't shake the feeling that Bioware is still only playing catch up with Epic's Gears of War. For example, the omni-blade attack may be interesting but is still far from the wow factor that one gets from witnessing his first chainsaw lancer kill.

So, I would rather Bioware concentrate on something that Epic can never hope to achieve, creating an immersive role-playing environment.

[sp0ck 06]

Gatt9 wrote...

byzantine horse wrote...

Take it easy people. Bioware can't show us too much of the RPG stuff such as dialogue unless they want to spoil too much of the story. Shep running around shooting a bunch of guys in a cool manner doesn't spoil nearly as much as a conversation with TIM questioning him why he turned on humanity. And honestly enough, is that not the kind of things we would want to see? Action is so much easier to showcase as it can be applied anywhere. Tension in a dialogue? Not so much.

Disagree.

Bioware could quite easily have shown off the Stats that affect combat and noncombat,  they could've showed off the items,  and the weapon mods.

I strongly suspect that they haven't,  because it's nothing more than "Put point here to get 5% more damage in pistols",  "Wear this shoulderpad to get 5% more shields".

There's a reason why they're only showing the Shooter stuff,  and I'm betting it isn't because they've made a great RPG.  I'm betting it's because their focus was on making Yet Another Shooter.

Because seriously,  until a couple years ago,  no one had a problem showing off RPG's for the preceding 15 years or so.  So honestly,  the whole "They can't show it" thing is just a throwaway defense.

As far as what would I rather see?  I'd rather see the RPG.  If I want a shooter,  I'll go watch Halo,  or Gears of War,  or any of the other 3 dozen Shooters being showcased.  I'm certainly not going to look to a RPG Studio that has already demonstrated they can't design a solid shooter.

You see the Skyrim demo?  Almost all combat.  Think Bethesda is going for the shooter crowd?

See some EA execs saying "Yeah, show the stats that affect noncombat and the weapon mods"?

I'm not saying BW needs to tell us fans some specifics about these features soon, but give it a little time.  The game has barely been revealed for 24 hours.

[Gatt9]

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.

That's one of the bigger problems here and elsewhere,  apparently there's a fairly significant number of people who think Dialogue = RPG.  Then it devolves into massive confusion where these people think self-insertion = Roleplaying. 

It's really bad.  To most here,  a Roleplaying game is where your Shepherd is You,  and it's an RPG because you talked to people. 

Trying to explain what Roleplaying is just gets you labelled as a terrible person here though,  I wouldn't recommend it.  Seriously,  I've posted what you just said a dozen times,  and I can't even comment on a completely different topic without people jumping on me screaming I'm elitist...even when I'm pretty much supporting the original premise.

[MTN Dew Fanatic]

I'd like to see some of the choices made from the previous games actually come up again. I'm still upset with ME2 in this regard. The way they hyped up your choices and then abandoned them was disgusting.

Modifié par MTN Dew Fanatic, 08 juin 2011 - 03:17 .

[jakal66]

Nightshade IX wrote...

I like third person shooters as much as RPG's so I wouldn't mind the actiony bits at all. But having watched all the E3 demos, I still can't shake the feeling that Bioware is still only playing catch up with Epic's Gears of War. For example, the omni-blade attack may be interesting but is still far from the wow factor that one gets from witnessing his first chainsaw lancer kill.

So, I would rather Bioware concentrate on something that Epic can never hope to achieve, creating an immersive role-playing environment.

This!

[sp0ck 06]

Gatt9 wrote...

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.

That's one of the bigger problems here and elsewhere,  apparently there's a fairly significant number of people who think Dialogue = RPG.  Then it devolves into massive confusion where these people think self-insertion = Roleplaying. 

It's really bad.  To most here,  a Roleplaying game is where your Shepherd is You,  and it's an RPG because you talked to people. 

Trying to explain what Roleplaying is just gets you labelled as a terrible person here though,  I wouldn't recommend it.  Seriously,  I've posted what you just said a dozen times,  and I can't even comment on a completely different topic without people jumping on me screaming I'm elitist...even when I'm pretty much supporting the original premise.

I hear what you both are saying, but you CAN Roleplay your Shepard in Mass Effect.  Just not in a sense of controlling stats in combat.  And that was true in the first game as well, though not to the extent of ME2.  But you (as Shepard) can be a ruthless, cold leader, an altruistic hero, a rugged soldier, a feminante Adept.  You control and can manipulate the flow of the story (which is excellent).

I mean, that's what Mass Effect is, a sci-fi action/rpg game...

Modifié par sp0ck 06, 08 juin 2011 - 03:32 .

[stu117]

Bioware is doing smart things here. They're not letting the idea of specific genres define their games, they're gonna make it the way they want to. That's when great games are made, when people just make the game they want to and say to hell with your genres. And no amount of flamers will change the fact that the ME series is great

[felipejiraya]

More RPG, less RPG...hell, if they confirm that ME3 is like Tetris I still would buy it in a blink of an eye.

I agree that in E3 they show their more "herp derp" stuff trying to get new gamers from CoD but I'm hopeful in the summer they will show the RPG elements of the game.

[Ricinator]

why is it a bad thing for the game to have a fair amount more RPG than ME2?

[TexasToast712]

Action sells.

Showing off how to customize your pony and how many colors you can paint it's mane doesnt.

Besides, ME1 was lack luster in the action department until the end of the game which is why more people prefer ME2 over ME1.

Modifié par TexasToast712, 08 juin 2011 - 03:46 .

[Ricinator]

byzantine horse wrote...

Take it easy people. Bioware can't show us too much of the RPG stuff such as dialogue unless they want to spoil too much of the story. Shep running around shooting a bunch of guys in a cool manner doesn't spoil nearly as much as a conversation with TIM questioning him why he turned on humanity. And honestly enough, is that not the kind of things we would want to see? Action is so much easier to showcase as it can be applied anywhere. Tension in a dialogue? Not so much.

have you ever played ME1... you could feel tension in a good deal of dialogue... plus they don't have to show main story stuff, they can show a side quest or 2

[Ricinator]

TexasToast712 wrote...

Action sells.

Showing off how to customize your pony and how many colors you can paint it's mane doesnt.

Besides, ME1 was lack luster in the action department until the end of the game which is why more people prefer ME2 over ME1.

yes, what ME1 was lacking in combat made up for in RPG.... so still to this day makes me want to play ME1. I play ME2 less and less as i see failing RPG elements in that game. i'm not saying the menus for weapons or armor were good or anything but the richness in dialogue and actually being informed about issues in game and around the ME Universe was to well done to be scrapped throughout the Trilogy...