198 réponses à ce sujet

[sp0ck 06]

UBER GEEKZILLA wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Dave666 wrote...

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

Bioshock and Half-Life 2 would both like to have a word with you. I would argue that both manage to tell more effective stories than Mass Effect without being an info dump.

QFT.  

im sorry but im sick of hearing people say that BIOSHCOK AND HALF LIFE 2 ARE THE BEST OF THE BEST...they are not.

bioshock is good but not GOTY material. its story is good but the enemies are just a bunch of people on drugs and the only cool monsters are big daddys. the jumping is clunky, the fact you cant die makes it easy( though you can turn off cryotube). and then half life 2 OMG.....let me get this straight with all of you. valve is good, half life is good, portal is good, but THEY ARE NOT AS GREAT AS PEOPLE SAY THEY ARE. they arent BEST GAME EVER material. they are only prasied cuz VALVE made it. it ticks me off hearing people say that COUNTER STRIKE is the best multyplayer ever cuz its made by VALVE, half life is the best game ever cuz its made by VALVE, left 4 dead( which sucked hard) is the best zombie game ever cuz its VALVE. its just the name VALVE that makes these games praised.   im not saying they all make bad games im just saying they are overated. like is gordan freeman THE BEST CHARACTER EVER....HES GOT NO PERSONALITY

bottomline...shooters are good...but dont compare to rpgs one bit

You obviously have not played either Half Life or BioShock to completion to be making those kinds of statements.  Valve was a nobody before Half Life, and Half Life 2 was only their second game.  The reason it was so hyped was because Half Life totally changed the face of gaming, introducing scripted encounters, intelligent enemies, and immersive first person gameplay which was at the time unprecedented.  HL2 was a fully realized Orwellian dystopia with spectacular level design, believeable characters (including the first instance of realistic lip synching), physics, incredible set pieces (the strider fight comes to mind), and an emotional sci-fi storyline in which the player witnessed entirely first hand.  You can literally trace your steps throughout the game and account for how you got to be where you are at any given moment.  Thats called immersion

BioShock is the strongest argument to those haters who claim games can't be art.  The presentation of Rapture is probably the most impressive game world ever developed, by far.  I wasn't a huge fan of its shooter mechanics (they felt clunky and too stat based), but you have to give it respect for its design and brilliant plot.  Andrew Ryan is a classic villian, and the 'oh sh*t" plot twist moment is one of the best in any game, ever.

Both of these games are masterpieces in their own right.  Don't talk trash about what you don't understand.

[Il Divo]

UBER GEEKZILLA wrote...

im sorry but im sick of hearing people say that BIOSHCOK AND HALF LIFE 2 ARE THE BEST OF THE BEST...they are not.

bioshock is good but not GOTY material. its story is good but the enemies are just a bunch of people on drugs and the only cool monsters are big daddys. the jumping is clunky, the fact you cant die makes it easy( though you can turn off cryotube). and then half life 2 OMG.....let me get this straight with all of you. valve is good, half life is good, portal is good, but THEY ARE NOT AS GREAT AS PEOPLE SAY THEY ARE. they arent BEST GAME EVER material. they are only prasied cuz VALVE made it. it ticks me off hearing people say that COUNTER STRIKE is the best multyplayer ever cuz its made by VALVE, half life is the best game ever cuz its made by VALVE, left 4 dead( which sucked hard) is the best zombie game ever cuz its VALVE. its just the name VALVE that makes these games praised.   im not saying they all make bad games im just saying they are overated. like is gordan freeman THE BEST CHARACTER EVER....HES GOT NO PERSONALITY

bottomline...shooters are good...but dont compare to rpgs one bit

Well, thanks for setting the record straight. But you'll understand if I ignore your advice. I can compare them to RPGs. And I just did. Have a nice day. 

[UBER GEEKZILLA]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

UBER GEEKZILLA wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Dave666 wrote...

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

Bioshock and Half-Life 2 would both like to have a word with you. I would argue that both manage to tell more effective stories than Mass Effect without being an info dump.

QFT.  

im sorry but im sick of hearing people say that BIOSHCOK AND HALF LIFE 2 ARE THE BEST OF THE BEST...they are not.

bioshock is good but not GOTY material. its story is good but the enemies are just a bunch of people on drugs and the only cool monsters are big daddys. the jumping is clunky, the fact you cant die makes it easy( though you can turn off cryotube). and then half life 2 OMG.....let me get this straight with all of you. valve is good, half life is good, portal is good, but THEY ARE NOT AS GREAT AS PEOPLE SAY THEY ARE. they arent BEST GAME EVER material. they are only prasied cuz VALVE made it. it ticks me off hearing people say that COUNTER STRIKE is the best multyplayer ever cuz its made by VALVE, half life is the best game ever cuz its made by VALVE, left 4 dead( which sucked hard) is the best zombie game ever cuz its VALVE. its just the name VALVE that makes these games praised.   im not saying they all make bad games im just saying they are overated. like is gordan freeman THE BEST CHARACTER EVER....HES GOT NO PERSONALITY

bottomline...shooters are good...but dont compare to rpgs one bit

You obviously have not played either Half Life or BioShock to completion to be making those kinds of statements.  Valve was a nobody before Half Life, and Half Life 2 was only their second game.  The reason it was so hyped was because Half Life totally changed the face of gaming, introducing scripted encounters, intelligent enemies, and immersive first person gameplay which was at the time unprecedented.  HL2 was a fully realized Orwellian dystopia with spectacular level design, believeable characters (including the first instance of realistic lip synching), physics, incredible set pieces (the strider fight comes to mind), and an emotional sci-fi storyline in which the player witnessed entirely first hand.  You can literally trace your steps throughout the game and account for how you got to be where you are at any given moment.  Thats called immersion

BioShock is the strongest argument to those haters who claim games can't be art.  The presentation of Rapture is probably the most impressive game world ever developed, by far.  I wasn't a huge fan of its shooter mechanics (they felt clunky and too stat based), but you have to give it respect for its design and brilliant plot.  Andrew Ryan is a classic villian, and the 'oh sh*t" plot twist moment is one of the best in any game, ever.

Both of these games are masterpieces in their own right.  Don't talk trash about what you don't understand.

actully i have played bioshock and i thought it was great i gave it an 8 out of 10...im sorry i wasnt like the other people who said OOOMMZMMYYGOOOD ITS THE BEST GAME EVEERRR NOTHIN COMPPARES, BESWT GAME EVER MADE, IM ON CRACK FOR HOW GOOD IT IS 10 OUTAA 10 ABWAHAH

Modifié par UBER GEEKZILLA, 08 juin 2011 - 08:00 .

[Anihilus]

Modifié par Anihilus, 08 juin 2011 - 08:03 .

[Beautiful_Perfection]

Bioware should take a look at how DoA producers do things. They actually know how to make strong woman in all their jiggling goodness.

[Anihilus]

I liked what I have seen so far. ME3 is going to give us our fair share of action AND RPG elements.

[Wildfire Darkstar]

AlanC9 wrote...
Let's say everyone agreed that RPG combat shouldn't be based on the player's reflexes. Would ME2 fans like ME2 less, or would they like RPGs less?

Does it matter? Whether ME1/2/3 is a good game is really an entirely seperate question from whether or not it's a good/true/whatever RPG. And, to be sure, both are subjective: depending on one's definitions, a reasonable case ccan be made that ME2 was a good game and a poor RPG, a poor game but a good RPG, a good game AND a good RPG, or a poor game and a poor RPG. But that's really not what I was talking about, earlier.

My point is, quite simply, that my personal tastes are such that I tend to dislike action games and enjoy RPGs. There correlation isn't 100%, but it's enough that I can usually rely on genre definitions to gauge my interest in a title. I don't like shooters, so I didn't bother with Call of Duty. If I didn't like RPGs, I probably wouldn't bother with the Witcher 2. That's pretty straightforward, and its part of the reason why we bother to divide games into genres in the first place. The tricky part is judging a game that is deliberately defined as a hybrid, and it's made trickier still when each installment of that game's series tends to vary the mixture in significant ways. I don't like shooters, but there was enough of (what I consider) RPG elements in ME1 that I loved the game regardless. With its much greater emphasis on action and reflex gaming, I didn't like ME2.

The point isn't that to be melodramatic, or cry and whine about how BioWare betrayed me. The point is that I was clinging to some hope, based on previous statements, that the "RPG elements" that were being advertised as being brought back to ME3 would be enough to bring the game closer to alignment with my interests. It looks like that wasn't destined to be (based on the E3 footage), and so be it. I'm disappointed, but there's no blame involved. The reason I waded into this discussion (and inadvertantly seem to have thrown it off-track entirely, sorry) is to explain why, to me, describing a game as "action-packed" is discouraging. It's because, in promotional/ad-speak, "action-packed" almost inevitably precludes the sort of (RPG-style) gameplay that I was looking for. More succinctly, by being "action-packed" (especially in comparision with the previous two games), it means that my hope that BioWare and I were on the same page with regards to "RPG elements" is pretty much shot. And because that means that the chances of my enjoying the game as much as I enjoyed ME1, that makes it a bad thing to me.

Obviously (and I should hope it goes without saying), your mileage may vary. I'm sure the game will find an appreciative audience, and I expect that it'll win lots of critical acclaim. I'm not criticizing, I was just attempting to answer the original question. Sorry for any misunderstanding, really.

[AngelicMachinery]

UBER GEEKZILLA wrote...


actully i have played bioshock and i thought it was great i gave it an 8 out of 10...im sorry i wasnt like the other people who said OOOMMZMMYYGOOOD ITS THE BEST GAME EVEERRR NOTHIN COMPPARES, BESWT GAME EVER MADE, IM ON CRACK FOR HOW GOOD IT IS 10 OUTAA 10 ABWAHAH

Wouldn't you kindly stop raging?

[lietk12]

I'd like to see someone make a convincing, exciting, and bamf game trailer using the dialogue scenes of the demo instead of the fighting scenes of the demo.

[FluffyScarf]

Actually HL2 is pretty much considered a classic. Says a lot when a FPS released in 2004 has yet to be topped after 7 years.

[Wildfire Darkstar]

lietk12 wrote...

I'd like to see someone make a convincing, exciting, and bamf game trailer using the dialogue scenes of the demo instead of the fighting scenes of the demo.

I think the point is that the game is being explicitly advertised as "action-packed." It would be one thing if BioWare made an action-packed trailer focusing on fast-paced battles but then went out of their way to assure their audience that the game wasn't really as action-packed as they were making it out to be (I have no idea why any developer would go about undercutting their own promotional efforts like this, though...), but I think the issue has less to do with the trailer itself than with the fact that the vast majority of promotional information we have so far is directed towards emphasizing the action to the arguable exclusion of the rest of the gameplay. It's a bad sign to people who are more interested in the non-action elements.

[Mx_CN3]

Having all-action advertisement makes sense to me: pretty much everyone that has played RPGs already knows about BioWare, and probably Mass Effect. It would be a waste of advertising to show off how the plot changes based on your choices, dialogue options, Renegade/Paragon interrupts, etc. Honestly I think the fighting in ME has drawn a lot of criticism (ME1 was boring, ME2 was too cramped/repetitive), so they're trying to show that they've been changing that. I think we all already know that BioWare can make good RPG elements if they choose to.

Also, they might just not be ready to showcase their menu systems, weapon mods, etc. They've promised that there will be expanded RPG elements already, and I trust them to deliver.

[Therefore_I_Am]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Yakko77 wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

If Ashley is becoming "Miranda 2" then both Shepard and Anderson are becoming "Thane 2 and Jacob 2" because no one else was wearing heavy armor in that scene.

But, it's just easier to assume. It always has been. Carry on.

Thank goodness someone else has their eyes (and their mind) open too.  Well played.

I....Wh...

They were ESCAPING Earth. They were RUNNING for their lives. WHERE would they get armour from? WHY would they stop and take the chance of being swarmed?

It annoys me to no end when someone starts self congratulating when they sound like fools.

Completely agree. People complaining about the lack of armor on anderson and ashley, about how ashley is letting her hair down (for ****s sake), is getting moronic.
Ashley joined the specters for one thing, thus not answering to any military's dress code, so she can put herself in a miranda suit if she wants to. Plus her personality has always been a line between flirty woman and astute soldier.

[Vez04]

And everything is exactly as i fear'ed..... 90% are really happy for what BW have done, 20% however isent satisfied. Bahhh wish some people would realise that bw can't please everyone.

[AdamNW]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

That said, I was quite worried after seeing the EA press conference gameplay video (with the reaper). It screamed out "GEARS OF WAR! GEARS OF WAR!" so hard it hurt. And I'm usually the one that doesn't disapprove of Bioware's design choices. We'll see though.

[bigSarg]

I like alot of action but I also like the opportunity to explore and maybe take a break from all the action based storylines, to explore new planets and relationships with squadmembers, to me thats what makes an RPG instead of a straight shooter game, in fact thats what I liked the most about ME2, yea scanning planets for resources and stuff got boring but it was a nice deviation from all the shooting and questing.  Personally I would have liked to be able to sell some resources or trade them for other things, instead of just buying things or hording resources that you don't need, I always had tons of Palladium but it seemed to take forever to get enough platinum, it would be cool if they had a DLC for a resource broker, so you could trade/sell/buy resources, but this is off topic (sorry).  I like the combination of action and exploration/ non-action elements.

[In Exile]

Wildfire Darkstar wrote...
My point is, quite simply, that my personal tastes are such that I tend to dislike action games and enjoy RPGs. There correlation isn't 100%, but it's enough that I can usually rely on genre definitions to gauge my interest in a title. I don't like shooters, so I didn't bother with Call of Duty. If I didn't like RPGs, I probably wouldn't bother with the Witcher 2.

I don't get that. TW2 is essentially the same sort of RPG than ME is. You've got a greater inventory and powers on one character in TW2, but you give up gender customization and apperance customization, along with direct a party.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

TW2 is essentially the same sort of RPG than ME is.

That is the best reason I've yet heard for why I should not play TW2.

[GreenDragon37]

Action isn't bad. Infact, I love having action. However if a good story, character development, and other RPG elements get replaced by too much CoD action stuff, then we have a problem. Mass Effect 2 seemed to be going down that road, but that's another topic.

Modifié par GreenDragon37, 09 juin 2011 - 06:50 .

[bigSarg]

Therefore_I_Am wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Yakko77 wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

If Ashley is becoming "Miranda 2" then both Shepard and Anderson are becoming "Thane 2 and Jacob 2" because no one else was wearing heavy armor in that scene.

But, it's just easier to assume. It always has been. Carry on.

Thank goodness someone else has their eyes (and their mind) open too.  Well played.

I....Wh...

They were ESCAPING Earth. They were RUNNING for their lives. WHERE would they get armour from? WHY would they stop and take the chance of being swarmed?

It annoys me to no end when someone starts self congratulating when they sound like fools.

Completely agree. People complaining about the lack of armor on anderson and ashley, about how ashley is letting her hair down (for ****s sake), is getting moronic.
Ashley joined the specters for one thing, thus not answering to any military's dress code, so she can put herself in a miranda suit if she wants to. Plus her personality has always been a line between flirty woman and astute soldier.

I wasn't aware that Ashley was a specter, I was under the impression that she was a regular soldier with the Alliance, I didn't play ME1 so my knowledge of those characters is rather limited, I just did the Genesis DLC for ME2 and all references to Ashley/Kaiden were about them just being soldiers but nothing specific.  Knowing this adds alot to understanding them and their involvement with Shep.  Plus on Horizon, if I remember correctly, Kaiden mentions being a soldier for the Allliance and I believe Ashley says the same thing.  It would have been nice if it had been mentioned that they were specters at that time.

[wolfennights]

GreenDragon37 wrote...

Action isn't bad. Infact, I love having action. However if a good story, character development, and other RPG elements get replaced by too much CoD action stuff, then we have a problem. Mass Effect 2 seemed to be going down that road, but that's another topic.

Vidya games are meant to be exciting and action packed. if i wanted a deep, moving, complex story, I'd go and read a book.

But having a good story in a game is definitely a plus. 

[AlanC9]

Wildfire Darkstar wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Let's say everyone agreed that RPG combat shouldn't be based on the player's reflexes. Would ME2 fans like ME2 less, or would they like RPGs less?

Does it matter? Whether ME1/2/3 is a good game is really an entirely seperate question from whether or not it's a good/true/whatever RPG. And, to be sure, both are subjective: depending on one's definitions, a reasonable case ccan be made that ME2 was a good game and a poor RPG, a poor game but a good RPG, a good game AND a good RPG, or a poor game and a poor RPG. But that's really not what I was talking about, earlier.

Heh. That was the point I was trying to make myself. It doesn't matter whether a game you know something about is a "good RPG" or not. If you know enough about the specifics of the game to be able to tell if it's a "good RPG" or not, then you don't need to know if it's a good RPG because you already know what you need to know about it.

I think we agree about the usefulness of categories like "RPG." They don't help you decide if a particular game is good, but they do help you decide if a game isn't of any interest to you in the first place, so you don't have to spend any time figuring out if it's good or not. Assuming, of course, that the person who described a game as a "good RPG" likes the same things about RPGs that you do.

[Therefore_I_Am]

bigSarg wrote...

Therefore_I_Am wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Yakko77 wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

If Ashley is becoming "Miranda 2" then both Shepard and Anderson are becoming "Thane 2 and Jacob 2" because no one else was wearing heavy armor in that scene.

But, it's just easier to assume. It always has been. Carry on.

Thank goodness someone else has their eyes (and their mind) open too.  Well played.

I....Wh...

They were ESCAPING Earth. They were RUNNING for their lives. WHERE would they get armour from? WHY would they stop and take the chance of being swarmed?

It annoys me to no end when someone starts self congratulating when they sound like fools.

Completely agree. People complaining about the lack of armor on anderson and ashley, about how ashley is letting her hair down (for ****s sake), is getting moronic.
Ashley joined the specters for one thing, thus not answering to any military's dress code, so she can put herself in a miranda suit if she wants to. Plus her personality has always been a line between flirty woman and astute soldier.

I wasn't aware that Ashley was a specter, I was under the impression that she was a regular soldier with the Alliance, I didn't play ME1 so my knowledge of those characters is rather limited, I just did the Genesis DLC for ME2 and all references to Ashley/Kaiden were about them just being soldiers but nothing specific.  Knowing this adds alot to understanding them and their involvement with Shep.  Plus on Horizon, if I remember correctly, Kaiden mentions being a soldier for the Allliance and I believe Ashley says the same thing.  It would have been nice if it had been mentioned that they were specters at that time.

During that time they were soldiers. But now they are specters in ME3, of what we heard from game magazines.

[Faust1979]

 It's not the first two games were action packed. It's a scifi RPG/Action game about war  so why change it now? 

[CroGamer002]

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?

Ever heard of Loyalty Missions in ME2?