198 réponses à ce sujet

[Faust1979]

if anything since Mass Effect 3 is the end of the first trilogy of games or whatever they plan on doing in the future this one should be even more action packed so it goes out on a bang

[bigSarg]

Therefore_I_Am wrote...

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.

Ok thanks for the clarification

[ME-ParaShep]

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.

They weren't Spectres that time. During the time lapse from ME 2 to ME 3, Vurmire Survivor (VS) was undergoing Spectre training. It's only recently that they've been appointed as Spectres. But I also think the same as Therefore_I_Am. Ashley can wear whatever she wants and have whatever hairstyle she wants because she is a Spectre. She has the utmost authority in almost all situations. If she wants to look hot while fighting so be it. As long as she performs well in a firefight, then that's great because I expect a Spectre to kick ass.

[Crackseed]

Yeah, Dave666 I understand you wanted a bit more non-violent solution stuff but there was a fair amount of it in ME2, and in better condition IMO. ME1's side missions were about it and they were generally blegh. ME2 gave you a few solutions in loyalty missions [Jack's with Aresh, Thane's, etc] and some of the side quests like Patriarch or even being able to keep your people from initiating violence until absolutely unavoidable [Garrus killing Sidonis or Miranda shooting Nikael] - so there's plenty of it I think people just get in this cycle of wanting to hate ME2 for slimming down some of the RPG stuff that weighed ME1 down a great deal.

As for Gatt9, I like how he keeps claiming to be in the know about true RPGs and yet all he ever does is repeat stuff that's been debunked. I understand that my love of RPGs and how I define an RPG will not match up with another person's view - and that's fine. It's why communities thrive and exist and debate can be so much fun, but there's a serious layer of delusion over this particular individual's eyes and it doesn't feel like you can even reason with them anymore >_<

ME2 was every bit of an RPG that I've come to expect from Bioware - it simply made some drastic changes but it still fit what really defined an RPG for me. I control the character, I make the choices and I choose what goes on. Even if there were sequences that no choice would avoid war or combat, I could still guide myself there and sometimes spare SOME people or even avoid letting my squadmates make decisions that later regretted, when you know, I go to other RPG aspects like having in depth convos with them.

While I missed having more control over things like weapon modification and armoring my squad, which I feel was a mistake to axe out completely, I do not think these RPG fillers detracted from ME2 - and further, the lore changes, while not often perfect, will always happen in a game universe as the devs and story evolve. Part of the reason we play RPGs and games in general is to enjoy suspension of disbelief and see things that may/will never be possible in our lifetimes and getting bent out of shape over a change/ret-con like ammo clips that made gameplay more enjoyable and was semi-plausible just seems to be having a go at something for the sake of having a go at it.

Modifié par crackseed, 09 juin 2011 - 09:00 .

[Aimi]

ME-ParaShep wrote...

They weren't Spectres that time. During the time lapse from ME 2 to ME 3, Vurmire Survivor (VS) was undergoing Spectre training. It's only recently that they've been appointed as Spectres.

Nitpick: there's no such thing as Spectre training.  But it seems likely that the VS wasn't a Spectre yet on Horizon, yes.  I think he/she was in a similar situation as Shep was before being assigned as XO of the Normandy - not being "trained" to be a Spectre, but being groomed to be a Spectre candidate.

[UBER GEEKZILLA]

plus you all gotta remeber with a 2nd game in a franchise they always experiment. with ME2 bioware was using it to experiment with the new combat system.

[Wildfire Darkstar]

In Exile wrote...
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.

The point I've been trying to make all along is that "gender customization and appearance customization" aren't hugely essential characteristics of the RPG genre, to me. In battle mechanics and overall play style, TW2 places a much higher premium on character capabilities than player capabilities: my character's effectiveness is less a matter of how good my own reflexes are, and more a matter of long-term strategic development of that character. It's a sliding scale, to be sure, since TW2 itself is an action RPG, but the balance is much closer to what I'm comfortable with than a game like ME2, in the same way that ME1 was balanced closer to my preferences than ME2.

Inventory isn't the point, per se (it's typically a factor in strategic development, though there are certainly other ways of getting at the same thing), and creating a character from the ground-up isn't neccessary. The point, to me, of an RPG is to allow me to play the role of a given character over the course of the game. It's far more important that I have an active role in developing that character once the game begins than it is that I get the opportunity to determine my character's history and backstory. That's a nice feature, but it's not essential. The point of role-playing isn't self-insertion, and a character can have a quite rigidly defined backstory and still be effectively role-played, provided the game gives you ample room to take up that role and sculpt it as you see fit once the festivities are under way.

[InkognitoV]

 I have nothing against action, so long as it doesn't take away from other aspects of the game. 

[Tony Gunslinger]

I have nothing against action, I have nothing against RPG, I play the games I play because they are good. I suck at driving games but I still love playing them. I suck at fighting games but I still enjoy getting the crap beat out of me. When I judge a game, I base it on what its objectives are and how it's executed. If something isn't fun for me, I can still recognize why it can be fun for others. Shoe-horning a certain idea about how a genre should be done is the death of creativity. It happens in movies, music, media, techology all the time, fueled by people who have the right intentions but with the wrong outlook.

[Homebound]

u say action-packed and rpg like two exclusive elements that cannot touch one another and make babies.

[sp0ck 06]

Wildfire Darkstar wrote...


The point I've been trying to make all along is that "gender customization and appearance customization" aren't hugely essential characteristics of the RPG genre, to me. In battle mechanics and overall play style, TW2 places a much higher premium on character capabilities than player capabilities: my character's effectiveness is less a matter of how good my own reflexes are, and more a matter of long-term strategic development of that character. It's a sliding scale, to be sure, since TW2 itself is an action RPG, but the balance is much closer to what I'm comfortable with than a game like ME2, in the same way that ME1 was balanced closer to my preferences than ME2.

Inventory isn't the point, per se (it's typically a factor in strategic development, though there are certainly other ways of getting at the same thing), and creating a character from the ground-up isn't neccessary. The point, to me, of an RPG is to allow me to play the role of a given character over the course of the game. It's far more important that I have an active role in developing that character once the game begins than it is that I get the opportunity to determine my character's history and backstory. That's a nice feature, but it's not essential. The point of role-playing isn't self-insertion, and a character can have a quite rigidly defined backstory and still be effectively role-played, provided the game gives you ample room to take up that role and sculpt it as you see fit once the festivities are under way.

What do you mean by role-playing though?  Leveling a character?  Any video game you ever play will be based at least somewhat on your ability to manipulate a controller or have a big high def tv.  My character wouldnt be staggering around from crappy fps.  Your character will always be based on playing a videogame, so I don't see how Mass Effect being based on your reflexes makes it a lesser RPG.  

What's so "strategic" about developing your character in more traditional RPGs?  It might be masked with a bunch of traveling and dialogue, but you just pick the better weapon, better armor, better spell, higher rank ability.    

In addition, Mass Effect was never billed as a hardcore RPG, although I don't think that term is clear.  Its a story-based RPG with tps combat, if it must be labeled.  Within the confines of the plot, the player has a huge influence on how the story is told.  I dictate the order of events, control every conversation, and create the character of Shepard throughout.  My choices affect the lives of all the major characters, as well as greater political events. 

Of course, all my "choices" are confined to what the developers have created...but they created quite a bit.  More than enough for multiple replays and maximum fun.

Modifié par sp0ck 06, 10 juin 2011 - 02:37 .

[In Exile]

Wildfire Darkstar wrote...
The point I've been trying to make all along is that "gender customization and appearance customization" aren't hugely essential characteristics of the RPG genre, to me. In battle mechanics and overall play style, TW2 places a much higher premium on character capabilities than player capabilities: my character's effectiveness is less a matter of how good my own reflexes are, and more a matter of long-term strategic development of that character.

That's just a sign your reflexes aren't good enough. It's very possible to beat all of TW2 with Geralt never leveling up on hard, just with gear upgrades. Just like you can never level up Shepard and still beat ME2 on insanity with the research upgrades. It just takes forever (moreso in the case of insanity than hard on TW2). TW2 is really big on fake difficultly.

I can appreciate that you feel combat customization is the key to an RPG (I disagree, but let's not go down the what makes an RPG path more).

Inventory isn't the point, per se (it's typically a factor in strategic development, though there are certainly other ways of getting at the same thing), and creating a character from the ground-up isn't neccessary. The point, to me, of an RPG is to allow me to play the role of a given character over the course of the game. It's far more important that I have an active role in developing that character once the game begins than it is that I get the opportunity to determine my character's history and backstory. That's a nice feature, but it's not essential. The point of role-playing isn't self-insertion, and a character can have a quite rigidly defined backstory and still be effectively role-played, provided the game gives you ample room to take up that role and sculpt it as you see fit once the festivities are under way.

But self-insertion isn't what I was talking about. What I was talking about was culpting it. You happen to think background and apperance are superflous; I think combat customization is superflous. It's all fluff, and it feeds into AlanC9's point: the question isn't really about RPGs, but about what you subjective feel is an enjoyable game.

Modifié par In Exile, 10 juin 2011 - 03:47 .

[Wildfire Darkstar]

sp0ck 06 wrote...
What do you mean by role-playing though?  Leveling a character?  Any video game you ever play will be based at least somewhat on your ability to manipulate a controller or have a big high def tv.  My character wouldnt be staggering around from crappy fps.  Your character will always be based on playing a videogame, so I don't see how Mass Effect being based on your reflexes makes it a lesser RPG.

I should be used to this attitude, but I'm not. Traditional RPGs (of which there really aren't any, anymore) were about as minimally reflex-based as was physically possible. They're based on the old pen and paper model, which obviously could not be reflex-based. But gaming, as a whole, has moved definitively away from that model: about the only thing left is the strategy genre, and not even all real-time strategy games would qualify, IMO. Less focus on reaction time and reflex, and more on planning and strategy.

I realize that I sound like an old fogey, here, so let me digress and emphasize that I'm perfectly aware that no Mass Effect game ever came within spitting distance of this model. Heck, BioWare is one of the godfathers of the action RPG genre. But there's a spectrum: on one end you have, say, the original Wizardry, which was entirely turn-based and involved nothing resembling modern action gaming. On the other, there's rhythm games like Dance Dance Revolution, which are almost entirely reflex-based. Both require a certain skillset, but each skillset is qualitatively different from the other. Pretty much everything else falls somewhere between. And depending on your own preferences, where a particular game falls is going to have a material effect on your attitude towards and opinion of that game.

As I've been saying all along, ME1, for all of its shooter trappings (which I acknowledge) still maintained enough of a germ of character development and strategic battling that it appealed to me in spite of the fact that I emphatically dislike action games. ME2 didn't. With the inherent subjectivity of BioWare's promise to improve the "RPG elements" of the series, I had hoped that ME3 would move far enough back towards ME1's examples that I would like it better. That doesn't appear to be the case, and I think the reason why is simply that "RPG" means something different to BioWare than it does to me. Que sera sera, I guess.

What's so "strategic" about developing your character in more traditional RPGs?  It might be masked with a bunch of traveling and dialogue, but you just pick the better weapon, better armor, better spell, higher rank ability.

Er, no. Not at all. A well-designed RPG not only enables, but forces choices upon the player. That's the entire point. Your decisions have consequences: it shouldn't be just a linear progression from neophyte to badass. Depending on which weapons, armors, spells, and abilities you choose you open and close various paths through the game. Are there RPGs that fail to do this? Of course, but since they're not fulfilling arguably the most basic requirement of the genre (meaningful choices and consequences being necessary to actually play a role, as opposed to being railroaded through a sequence of predetermined sequences), then they're not really good examples of the genre.

In addition, Mass Effect was never billed as a hardcore RPG, although I don't think that term is clear.  Its a story-based RPG with tps combat, if it must be labeled.  Within the confines of the plot, the player has a huge influence on how the story is told.  I dictate the order of events, control every conversation, and create the character of Shepard throughout.  My choices affect the lives of all the major characters, as well as greater political events.

That's fair, but I don't remember the series being billed that way initially. That's certainly where the series has wound up going after ME2, but the first game was advertised more simply as an RPG/TPS hybrid. The actual details of what that meant were hashed out over time more so than they were apparent from the get-go. In terms of story, I don't really have a complaint with the series (well, except maybe that the mission-based approach leads to a overly episodic and potentially fragmented narrative, but that's a minor quibble). I just wish that the battle mechanics shared more of that role play aspect.

Of course, all my "choices" are confined to what the developers have created...but they created quite a bit.  More than enough for multiple replays and maximum fun.

Of course. I don't think anyone can seriously blame BioWare for having to impose some restrictions on the thing, even if it would be momentarily entertaining to have Shepard quit the Alliance and retire as a hog farmer somewhere.

[CitizenSnips]

More action doesn't automatically make a better game. More action doesn't automatically make a worse game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wildfire Darkstar wrote...

I should be used to this attitude, but I'm not. Traditional RPGs (of which there really aren't any, anymore) were about as minimally reflex-based as was physically possible. They're based on the old pen and paper model, which obviously could not be reflex-based. But gaming, as a whole, has moved definitively away from that model:

My standard is still that an RPG should be playable by a quadriplegic.  Playable slowly, but playable.

[sp0ck 06]

Wildfire Darkstar wrote...

I should be used to this attitude, but I'm not. Traditional RPGs (of which there really aren't any, anymore) were about as minimally reflex-based as was physically possible. They're based on the old pen and paper model, which obviously could not be reflex-based. But gaming, as a whole, has moved definitively away from that model: about the only thing left is the strategy genre, and not even all real-time strategy games would qualify, IMO. Less focus on reaction time and reflex, and more on planning and strategy.

I realize that I sound like an old fogey, here, so let me digress and emphasize that I'm perfectly aware that no Mass Effect game ever came within spitting distance of this model. Heck, BioWare is one of the godfathers of the action RPG genre. But there's a spectrum: on one end you have, say, the original Wizardry, which was entirely turn-based and involved nothing resembling modern action gaming. On the other, there's rhythm games like Dance Dance Revolution, which are almost entirely reflex-based. Both require a certain skillset, but each skillset is qualitatively different from the other. Pretty much everything else falls somewhere between. And depending on your own preferences, where a particular game falls is going to have a material effect on your attitude towards and opinion of that game.

As I've been saying all along, ME1, for all of its shooter trappings (which I acknowledge) still maintained enough of a germ of character development and strategic battling that it appealed to me in spite of the fact that I emphatically dislike action games. ME2 didn't. With the inherent subjectivity of BioWare's promise to improve the "RPG elements" of the series, I had hoped that ME3 would move far enough back towards ME1's examples that I would like it better. That doesn't appear to be the case, and I think the reason why is simply that "RPG" means something different to BioWare than it does to me. Que sera sera, I guess.

Fair enough, but I would say that as a shooter goes, Mass Effect is very slow paced and "strategic," but I understand what you're saying.  I grew up playing games like Fallout and Betrayal at Krondor, and I love those kinds of games.  But what I loved most about them was the stories, not necessarily combat or leveling mechanics.  I like collecting loot and having an inventory, but ultimately I feel these elements are no different than finding better weapons in BioShock.  Playing Mass Effect's combat using shooter mechanics makes me feel closer to Shepard than turn based combat using stats.

Er, no. Not at all. A well-designed RPG not only enables, but forces choices upon the player. That's the entire point. Your decisions have consequences: it shouldn't be just a linear progression from neophyte to badass. Depending on which weapons, armors, spells, and abilities you choose you open and close various paths through the game. Are there RPGs that fail to do this? Of course, but since they're not fulfilling arguably the most basic requirement of the genre (meaningful choices and consequences being necessary to actually play a role, as opposed to being railroaded through a sequence of predetermined sequences), then they're not really good examples of the genre.

Mass Effect series' strongest selling point is the amount of choice it forces upon the player.  It doesn't have the volume of a game like Elder Scrolls, but the choices it does have are relevant, dramatic, and reflected in how the story plays out.

I respect your arguments, though.

[Wildfire Darkstar]

In Exile wrote...
That's just a sign your reflexes aren't good enough. It's very possible to beat all of TW2 with Geralt never leveling up, just with gear upgrades. Just like you can never level up Shepard and still beat ME2 with the research upgrades.

First of all, of course my reflexes aren't very good. I'm the guy sitting here raging against you kids today and your fancy, shmancy action games, remember?

The thing is (and I should preface this by saying that I haven't finished TW2 yet) that even without traditional experience levels, there's still an element of character improvement (gear upgrades) involved. That's what I'm groping about, trying to address here. It's the development/advancement of the character's skills, as opposed to my skills as a player, which are decisive. And, again, I'll preemptively trot out my "spectrum" disclaimer: I realize that there are precious few shooters in this day and age that don't include some sort of upgrade system, but that doesn't address the question of how much of the game depends upon those upgrades, and how much depends upon player skill.

I can appreciate that you feel combat customization is the key to an RPG (I disagree, but let's not go down the what makes an RPG path more).

Oh, lord. no. Seriously, no. As much as I love a good, old school dungeon crawler like Diablo (or, showing my age again, the Might and Magic series), which focus almost exclusively on combat customization (as you put it) I'm not sure I'd hold them up as a good RPGs. A good RPG should, in my mind, allow one to develop his or her character in a complete sense, both in and out of combat (which, technically speaking, isn't even necessary for a good role-playing experience)

But self-insertion isn't what I was talking about. What I was talking about was culpting it. You happen to think background and apperance are superflous; I think combat customization is superflous. It's all fluff, and it feeds into AlanC9's point: the question isn't really about RPGs, but about what you subjective feel is an enjoyable game.

That's not really what I was talking about, actually. The point is (and I admit it's a bit of a digression from where the conversation started) that sculpting appearance and background aren't part of role-playing. They're pre-work: they establish a character that will subsequently be role-played. It's perfectly reasonable for a game to throw a predefined character with an elaborate backstory at you and ask you to role play that character. You take on whatever persona exists at the start of the game, whether it was one you crafted yourself or one that was provided to you, and make the choices (and suffer the consequences of those choices) for that character for the duration of the game. It's not that it's superfluous, per se, just that it's not role playing in the strict sense of the term. At best, it's a means to end, like inventory management, and it's not what I'm concerned about when I fret over "RPG elements."

You're right that the question isn't inherently about RPGs, except in so far that my enjoyment of the series has waxed and waned over the presence or absence of role playing in it. So, yes, it's extremely subjective (and I never claimed otherwise) but it's not unrelated.

[Wildfire Darkstar]

sp0ck 06 wrote...
Fair enough, but I would say that as a shooter goes, Mass Effect is very slow paced and "strategic," but I understand what you're saying.

Yeah, I'm probably revealing just how utterly awful I am at reflex-based gaming through this discussion, huh?

I grew up playing games like Fallout and Betrayal at Krondor, and I love those kinds of games.  But what I loved most about them was the stories, not necessarily combat or leveling mechanics.  I like collecting loot and having an inventory, but ultimately I feel these elements are no different than finding better weapons in BioShock.  Playing Mass Effect's combat using shooter mechanics makes me feel closer to Shepard than turn based combat using stats.

Fair enough. Different strokes for different folks, after all. If I haven't said it before, I'll say it now: I'm really not trying to be combatative. I'm interested in this discussion because I think it's interesting, but I'm not trying to criticize ME3 for (probably) not being what I'm looking for in a video game, nor am I saying that my opinions or beliefs are any more right than anyone elses. I'm just trying to put my own sense of why (as the OP asked) I had a bad reaction to information we've gotten so far.

Mass Effect series' strongest selling point is the amount of choice it forces upon the player.  It doesn't have the volume of a game like Elder Scrolls, but the choices it does have are relevant, dramatic, and reflected in how the story plays out.

Certainly. But the choices are largely restricted to the narrative side of the game. That's important (even essential), but to me it's not sufficient.

Modifié par Wildfire Darkstar, 10 juin 2011 - 04:13 .

[Mordaedil]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Wildfire Darkstar wrote...

I should be used to this attitude, but I'm not. Traditional RPGs (of which there really aren't any, anymore) were about as minimally reflex-based as was physically possible. They're based on the old pen and paper model, which obviously could not be reflex-based. But gaming, as a whole, has moved definitively away from that model:

My standard is still that an RPG should be playable by a quadriplegic.  Playable slowly, but playable.

I think Bioware hates you. They probably hate me as well.

I don't think they'll ever make a turn-based game. At last not while taking it seriously. And their RPG qualities have declined as well, I'm kinda sad.

Oh well, at least there's still Obsidian Entertainment. Maybe they'll make another ToEE one day-

[MadLaughter]

The thing is, Mass Effect has always had decent action and amazing story. So even if the action is better, we don' want the story to suffer because it did not get as much focus.

Also, the turret scene, while cool, was completely pointless. The turret didn't damage the reaper at all, the reaper never shot back, the turret didn't make it stagger, nothing. That part might as well have been a cutscene.

[Weiser_Cain]

Because I like RPG's.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mordaedil wrote...

I think Bioware hates you. They probably hate me as well.

I suspect they're indifferent to me.  At best, maybe ambivalent.

I don't think they'll ever make a turn-based game. At last not while taking it seriously. And their RPG qualities have declined as well, I'm kinda sad.

I still think the voice is their biggest problem.  If they get rid of the voice their games will instantly become good again.

They still do some things well, and with each new game there's usually something they've done well that wasn't done well previously.  So I wouldn't say they're on an inexorable decline.

[Weiser_Cain]

I think of it as a relationship, and we've just grown apart.

[GodWood]

Weiser_Cain wrote...
I think of it as a relationship, and we've just grown apart.

For me Bioware is like a friend that I was close with but who eventually I started to hang around with less as they drifted away trying to appeal to the 'cool crowd'.

Sure we will still talk but we're definitely not as close as we used to be.