469 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

you guys are arguing opinions and forgetting theres one simple fact here that needs to be adressed, ME3 needs more RPG elements, whatever they may be.

Whatever they may be? That's ridiculous. If I don't like an RPG element at all, I certainly don't want it in ME3. And even if I'm OK with a particular RPG element in other games, that doesn't necessarily mean I'd like ME3 better with it.

whatever makes sense for the franchise.

obviously.

im not looking for mage staffs or 12 sided dice.

But that's exactly the problem. We differ on what makes sense for the franchise.

[AlanC9]

Bluko wrote...

In Exile wrote...

All of which is 100% irrelevant to the plot of the game. Moreso than Stark Trek with a fresh coat of paint, Mass Effect is about stoping the reapers. In ME1, this means stopping Saren. In ME2, this means stopping the collectors. And in ME3, this will mean stopping the reapers themselves.

Everything is incidental to that.

Oh great another "story is all that matters". Look it's a game. There's an emphasis on story, but Mass Effect is more then an interactive movie. If Bioware really only cared about story they wouldn't include all this other stuff such as player combat. That could all be explained via narrative or done via cutscenes. Is that what you want?

(snip)

Ever play Heavy Rain? (I know it's a PS3 exclusive so probably most here can't.) That game is entirely about story and dialogue choices. It also has several endings. Seriously some of you guys here should try it, cause honestly you'd probably like it way more as a game then Mass Effect I think.

Without getting into the substance here -- you're badly confused about In Exile's point, but I'm sure he'll handle that himself --- do you really think that In Exile doesn't like Mass Effect? Why do you figure he posts so much here, then?

He just doesn't like the same things about Mass Effect that you do.

If you want to get into game design, any zot spent on open-world exploration costs me story and quests. So it absolutely hurts my experience. More generally, though, none of this has anything to do with whether or not ME is about exploration, which was my point.

How does having exploration cost you story and quests exactly? Are you trying to say that if there are some non-linear levels the story will be ruined? And why can't exploration be a part of quests? Especially side quests of all things. It worked just fine with ME1. (You may not have liked the implementation, but just because it wasn't perfect doesn't mean it couldn't have been made into something enjoyable.)

This one I'll take myself; In Exile and I have essentially identical positions on exploration, I think.

The cost, obviously, is that dev time is being spend on features I don't want, rather than being spent on features I do want.

And no, ME1's exploration wasn't just fine for me. Sure, it could have sucked less. Cut it out altogether and it wouldn't have sucked at all.

You also seem to be missing the point that you still had to "explore" to some degree to find the N7 Missions in ME2. Exploration is a part of the game series. Is it integral to the plot? No. Are the guns, skill trees, etc. integral to the plot? No. Just because it's not an integral part of the plot doesn't mean it doesn't belong in the game This isn't a damn movie. It's a game.

Yep. It's a game. Aware of that.

You like exploration in your games. I don't.  I'm indifferent to exploration in itself. If it makes sense for my character to do exploration then exploration makes the game better. If it doesn't make sense for my character to do exploration then exploration makes the game worse.

Basically the impression I'm getting is that you want there to be no exploration because you don't enjoy it. Isn't that a bit selfish?

Sure. So fraking what? Unless someone has a Bioware tag, he's not under any obligation to care about anyone else's tastes but his own.

But yeah, theres nothing wrong with exploration that I'm not paying for. So I've got a different compromise for you. All exploration should be DLC. Like it? Buy it.

Modifié par AlanC9, 17 juin 2011 - 05:12 .

[DocLasty]

KaidanWilliamsShepard wrote...

Therefore_I_Am wrote...

Wait who's saying that FO3 & New Vegas isn't an RPG? To me, that was one of the greatest mix of FPS/RPG I've ever seen. You choose your identity, and stats, and choose what to say. And the skills melded in well with the weapons they are based off of. It goes up there with deus ex.

Are these people serious?
An RPG, is a game that doesnt focus on shooting, but on multiple choice storytelling based on your character, and deep character custimization. (Fallout 3, Dragon Age: Origins, Mass Effect1).
Mass Effect 2 was still an RPG, but it was turning into a mix of Red Dead, Army Of Two, and Halo.
I know that its "threadly" incorrect to make early assumptions about things here, and i will most likely be attacked for this but, We all know that Mass Effect3 will be 80% shooter and 20% RPG. Why we keep arguing is a mystery...maybe denial of some sort.

Speak for yourself. I saw a sum total of one demo at E3. I don't know jack**** about what ME3 is going to be like as a whole, and anyone who pretends that they do is speaking out of the wrong hole.

[FlyingWalrus]

I hope you're joking because ME2 did not come anywhere close to being like Red Dead Redemption, Army of Two OR Halo.

From the looks of it, ME3 will be twice the RPG that ME2 was, so those ratios seem quite a bit off. From the looks of it it WILL be a better shooter, but it WILL be a better RPG as well. It also seems to have expanded on the exploration element in terms of how one will navigate environments. I can't wait to hear the complaints from reachers about how they're turning ME3 into a Tomb Raider game for all the platforming elements.

As for exploration, if it's "exploration" like in ME1, I'm better off without it thanks. Just make the 'corridors' less narrow and a bit less predictable and I will be good. However, if exploration the likes of ME1 can be achieved with a more rewarding motive behind doing it, more power to Bioware. I won't begrudge them one way or the other for doing it unless it really drags the game down (cough probe mining minigame).

[FlyingWalrus]

KaidanWilliamsShepard wrote...

Uhm...If i don't know anything about the RPG elements, then how come YOU do?
Also, what i meant when i said Red Dead, was, all of the bars and gun shops, that replaced most of the explorable Citadel from ME1, felt very similar to RDR. And when i said Halo, i was talking about the Flood ship...or...oh sorry, i mean the Collector ship from ME2, and the new Energy swor......oh sorry again...I mean the Omni-Blade, and lets not forget the obvious focus on shooting, Sheps armor may as well just say 117, instead of N7 these days. And when i said Army Of Two, i was talking about this new weapon custimization gimmick.

Uh, did you even watch the E3 presentation? You know, the 20 minute one that showed how progressing talents and powers will work?

I'm guessing no. Here, starting at 5:11. Weapon customization is just before that.

As for the rest of your comparisons, they are such a stretch that it's practically indefensible. Most of RDR is spent outdoors on the trail and on horseback and you only occasionally go into saloons to stir **** up (and only if you want to) or to save in your quarters. Even then, bars and similar social hubs have always been RPG staples. You should not be surprised about their inclusion.

Halo doesn't play ANYTHING like Mass Effect, and though the Collector ship may resemble the Flood-infested High Charity I guarantee you that the similarities are superfluous. The omni-blade itself is far, FAR from a how a Sangheili Energy Sword works in terms of gameplay and use; indeed, it is more like the knives used in assassinations in Halo Reach. And Mass Effect has always had an emphasis on shooting, unless you just bludgeoned your way through Mass Effect (a perfectly viable gameplay option if it suits your fancy) so let's not act like it's a new thing, shall we? Hell, ME3 is actually trying to move away from the shooting a bit with the omni-blade and stealthy movement. Complaint dissonance much?

And you're actually complaining about weapon customization? Really? After a year of angry complaints from fans who enjoyed customizing their guns, you're gonna complain about its return? This can't be serious. You can't be serious.

As long as i get a vehicle, and its not like that stupid Ghost Rider game, then i am pleased.

It seems to me like you just wanna bounce around in a moon buggy. That's alright, but it better be meaningful to the game and not just a bunch of banal fetching like the Asari writings or League of One tags in ME1.

[The Spamming Troll]

AlanC9 wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

you guys are arguing opinions and forgetting theres one simple fact here that needs to be adressed, ME3 needs more RPG elements, whatever they may be.

Whatever they may be? That's ridiculous. If I don't like an RPG element at all, I certainly don't want it in ME3. And even if I'm OK with a particular RPG element in other games, that doesn't necessarily mean I'd like ME3 better with it.

whatever makes sense for the franchise.

obviously.

im not looking for mage staffs or 12 sided dice.

But that's exactly the problem. We differ on what makes sense for the franchise.

there are RPG elements that you wouldnt want in ME3? other then pints affecting aiming, ofcorse.

[FlyingWalrus]

KaidanWilliamsShepard wrote...

A vehicle, would be a hell of alot more fun that the mind numbingly monotonous mining system, in any form, don't you think?

I do somewhat agree with this. I just want the explorable zones to be not the barren sandboxes they were in ME1. And by barren, I don't mean 'unknown worlds'; I mean relatively featureless worlds.

Mass Effect 3 seems to only be focusing on jumping over pot holes, stabing people, making your guns look cool, and if you actualy think that there will be less shooting and more RPG, then i suggest that you go play Mass Effect1 again, and then check out the ME3 preview. Why would you believe that there would be more RPG in ME3? You seem to be a Halo fan, so tell me, would you still buy ME3, if it was more of an RPG than a shooter? I didnt think so man.

What's the point in asking me a question if you're going to answer it for me? Yes, I am a Halo fan. I've been a fan of the series since day one. But you know what? I'm a fan of many games, and I've been an especially big fan of Bioware since I was introduced to their work through Star Wars: KoTOR. As a result, I've also been a Mass Effect fan since day one. My opinion is that if Bioware can take the best elements from what makes shooting games fun and apply them to their game in suitable fashion, who am I to judge? Just because it isn't pure doesn't mean it isn't good in its own way. That's up to opinions but if it's an enjoyable game, why be a curmudgeon about it?

I don't have to believe there is more RPG in ME3 than in ME2—I've seen it already in that video. There's nothing that says that Bioware can't be expanding on both sides of the game, both the parley and the gunplay.

An RPG is about building your characters powers and abilities, Choosing what direction the story goes in, through the choices you make, Its NOT about stealth, stabing, shooting, or sex. How can you argue with that? Its a simple fact, and EA doesnt have the right, or power to change the definition of RPG. The only argument i keep seeing, is how much better the guns, and stealth will be. those things have nothing to do with RPG elements.

I'm not arguing about it. From what we see, you can still choose talents and abilities, but now you can choose WHAT about those talents and abilities improves now which is effectively enabling players to build their own version of a power. Also in that video I linked you can see that you can adjust abilities from the damage your allies do to the damage you get out of nailing headshots, and that's just for a soldier. Imagine the other classes. All the gameplay tweaks and features are just icing on the cake, and a lot of players here would tell you that the more choices they have about who they can sex up the better the game is for it. As a consummate Ranger in D&D games, I can tell you that for me, stealth, stabbing and shooting are all very large parts of an RPG for me, but that's neither here nor there.

And it would be foolish to believe that a Mass Effect game isn't going to allow you to choose a path on the story. Let's stop being silly about that, shall we?

[Cainne Chapel]

An RPG is about building your characters powers and abilities, Choosing what direction the story goes in, through the choices you make, Its NOT about stealth, stabing, shooting, or sex. How can you argue with that? Its a simple fact, and EA doesnt have the right, or power to change the definition of RPG. The only argument i keep seeing, is how much better the guns, and stealth will be. those things have nothing to do with RPG elements.

Well thats not strictly true.... I've played MANY MANY RPGs (JRPG and otherwise) where you NEVER choose what direction the story goes in and DONT make any choices other than which powers and abilities you're going to use in the next fight....so yes they are about stabing and shooting in a sense.

In fact its only recently i'd say that RPGs have allowed you to make that choice (and most of em you still caint tailor the main character to your liking, you just have to take him/her as they are).

But i would no less call those games RPGs than I would Morrowind or Oblivion and such.


Which brings us back to the ultimate point that describing what makes something an RPG or not is irrelevant in most cases as there will always be RPGs out there that either break the mold or are different than norm.  I mean according to the way some point out what an RPG is... I grew up thinking Final Fantasy and the Mana series and even Mario RPG were RPGs...and apparently they're not anymore.....Go figure

[Guns]

sp0ck 06 wrote...


Couldn't I just argue that Baldur's Gate was just a RTS with stats?

You could, but then you would be an idiot. 

[SalsaDMA]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

An RPG is about building your characters powers and abilities, Choosing what direction the story goes in, through the choices you make, Its NOT about stealth, stabing, shooting, or sex. How can you argue with that? Its a simple fact, and EA doesnt have the right, or power to change the definition of RPG. The only argument i keep seeing, is how much better the guns, and stealth will be. those things have nothing to do with RPG elements.

Well thats not strictly true.... I've played MANY MANY RPGs (JRPG and otherwise) where you NEVER choose what direction the story goes in and DONT make any choices other than which powers and abilities you're going to use in the next fight....so yes they are about stabing and shooting in a sense.

In fact its only recently i'd say that RPGs have allowed you to make that choice (and most of em you still caint tailor the main character to your liking, you just have to take him/her as they are).

But i would no less call those games RPGs than I would Morrowind or Oblivion and such.


Which brings us back to the ultimate point that describing what makes something an RPG or not is irrelevant in most cases as there will always be RPGs out there that either break the mold or are different than norm.  I mean according to the way some point out what an RPG is... I grew up thinking Final Fantasy and the Mana series and even Mario RPG were RPGs...and apparently they're not anymore.....Go figure

JRPGS aren't rpgs. They're squadbased tactical combat games.

[Cainne Chapel]

well thats not what i've been lead to believe for some 20 years now....*shrug* But if you said it it has to be right....right?

*sigh* Looks like my love of RPGs has been misplaced over the years....Xengears, Final Fantasy, Baldurs Gate, Shin Megami Tensei, Neverwinter nights....Mario RPG...Secret of Mana....oh the humiliation.....

All these years i've thought i'd liked RPGs in all shapes and sizes and come to find out their just combat games....

In any event that just goes to show you that labels and perceptions can change over time, therefore the argument of what is and isn't an RPG is moot and holds no real sway over the developers classification of a game

[RoninOmega]

AlanC9 wrote...

LPPrince wrote...
I feel that loot isn't really loot unless there's an inventory system for it to go into.

ME1 definitely needed a better inventory, but it ended up getting scrapped entirely rather than being improved upon/fixed/remade.

ME2, no real inventory. So I personally don't consider anything we picked up to be true loot.

Loot to me is armor, weapons, mods, such and such that can be sold, traded, etc etc.

In ME2, while we did pick things up, it didn't feel like loot to me since we couldn't sell a damn thing we had for credits we desperately needed.

Armor was bought in stores, not found, so not loot there.

I actually agree with this definition of "loot." ME2 has equipment, but not loot.

The difference, I guess, is that LPPrince is for having loot and I'm against having loot.

If you agree with this, then why did you not agree with me earlier?  Jeeze... 

This is very close, infact imo exactly the same as what I've been saying. 

Modifié par RoninOmega, 18 juin 2011 - 11:36 .

[Turran]

Did I miss something? I don't remember seeing a demo which showed any type of RPG element in it.. This isn't me trying to post a smart-arse comment, I am being serious, I only saw Shepard running around, rolling for no reason and using his Energy Sword-Lightsaber attack..

[lazuli]

Turran wrote...

Did I miss something? I don't remember seeing a demo which showed any type of RPG element in it.. This isn't me trying to post a smart-arse comment, I am being serious, I only saw Shepard running around, rolling for no reason and using his Energy Sword-Lightsaber attack..

Try this gallery.

[marshalleck]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

In fact its only recently i'd say that RPGs have allowed you to make that choice (and most of em you still caint tailor the main character to your liking, you just have to take him/her as they are).

Wrong.

[In Exile]

Bluko wrote...
Oh great another "story is all that matters". Look it's a game. There's an emphasis on story, but Mass Effect is more then an interactive movie. If Bioware really only cared about story they wouldn't include all this other stuff such as player combat. That could all be explained via narrative or done via cutscenes. Is that what you want?

What are you talking about? You made it about the story: you said that Mass Effect was 'about' exploration. I'm pointing out that Mass Effect is about stopping the reapers. I'd like for you to point out where I said that Bioware should only care about the story.

I suppose creating your own Shepard is incidental, what class you choose is incidental, what weapon you choose is incidental, etc. So why do you want to play this game exactly?

You suppose wrong. I agree with you that exploration is important (insofar as, you have to decide whether or not you include it as part of gameplay), but it's not related to the story as the ME series is written. And that makes ME not 'about' exploration, like you said.

There's plenty of other games out there with "good story". And arguably better ones then Mass Effect. What's so great about ME2's actual story anyways? You gather a team, you stop the Collectors. The characters are great, but what's so special about the actual story itself? That humans are being melted into a robot? Yeah that's real deep given there's like no exposition on it, nor much reason for it existing in the first place other then the player's sake.

Um... again, not seeing where this rant is coming from and what it has to do with your original argument, that ME i about exploration.

Ever play Heavy Rain? (I know it's a PS3 exclusive so probably most here can't.) That game is entirely about story and dialogue choices. It also has several endings. Seriously some of you guys here should try it, cause honestly you'd probably like it way more as a game then Mass Effect I think.

Again... what are you talking about?

How does having exploration cost you story and quests exactly? Are you trying to say that if there are some non-linear levels the story will be ruined?

Why are you obsessed with the story? I like branching quests. That means, if I choose to help Planet X, I want to lose out on the chance to play Planet Y and gain Planet Z. That has nothing to do with the story - it has to do with creating a non-linear game. It's just that the absence of linearity is in the content that you experience, versus in the different path you take to achieve the (effetively identical) goal.

And why can't exploration be a part of quests? Especially side quests of all things. It worked just fine with ME1. (You may not have liked the implementation, but just because it wasn't perfect doesn't mean it couldn't have been made into something enjoyable.)

I don't think exploration is fun, that's why. If exploration adds value (as in, you have to explore to get the quests) that would be one thing. I'd be okay with that. But that's nothing more than what ME2 did. I don't like wandering and actually exploring for the same of exploring.

And saying 'not perfect' is an understatement for ME1. It was non-existent. It was the same map, reskinned 50 times over with the same elements on each world.

You also seem to be missing the point that you still had to "explore" to some degree to find the N7 Missions in ME2. Exploration is a part of the game series. Is it integral to the plot? No. Are the guns, skill trees, etc. integral to the plot? No. Just because it's not an integral part of the plot doesn't mean it doesn't belong in the game This isn't a damn movie. It's a game.

Actually, guns are integral to the plot. So are spaceships. And the reapers. And Mass Effect fields.

You keep obsessing over the story, but that's not what I said matters. I just said that Mass Effect isn't about exploration.

Basically the impression I'm getting is that you want there to be no exploration because you don't enjoy it. Isn't that a bit selfish? I'm not saying there shouldn't be linear levels or side missions. What I'm saying is there should be both linear missions and ones that feature more open environments.

It's absolutely selfish. And I don't care. Are you going to give me $10 to make up for the fact I like the game less and you like the game more? No.

You're going to advocate for the sort of game you like, I'm going to advocate for the sort of game I like, and then Bioware's going to do whatevder they want and you and I might buy the game or not.

And hey if you truly hate the open environment side missions you can skip them. That's why they're side missions, because if you don't want to waste time doing them you don't have to. If you just want to focus on completing the main storyline go right ahead. If there were 1 or 2 side missions in ME3 where I could drive the Mako or some sort of vehicle around, would that truly be so bad?

Yes. Because those missions could be cut to give me extra content on defeating the reapers - e.g. the rachni come back and I get an all-exclusive mission with them.

Modifié par In Exile, 18 juin 2011 - 02:48 .

[Cainne Chapel]

Such a compelling one word response Marshalleck.

Well I'm speaking from mainly as a JRPG player. There's a reason why I didn't list games like oblivion etc.

But by and large most of the RPGs i've played the main character is rather static.

So I still stand by my comment that, not all of em, are you allowed to custom tailor the main characters looks, etc. At least not in the ones i've played lately.

But then of course as Salsa put it... JRPGs aren't RPGs...despite their classification as such for years...

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote...
Sure. So fraking what? Unless someone has a Bioware tag, he's not under any obligation to care about anyone else's tastes but his own.

But yeah, theres nothing wrong with exploration that I'm not paying for. So I've got a different compromise for you. All exploration should be DLC. Like it? Buy it.

That's a great line. I'm using this in any future compromise-so-we-can-all-enjoy-the-game debates.

[darklordpocky-san]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

Such a compelling one word response Marshalleck.

Well I'm speaking from mainly as a JRPG player. There's a reason why I didn't list games like oblivion etc.

But by and large most of the RPGs i've played the main character is rather static.

So I still stand by my comment that, not all of em, are you allowed to custom tailor the main characters looks, etc. At least not in the ones i've played lately.

But then of course as Salsa put it... JRPGs aren't RPGs...despite their classification as such for years...

what's a jRPG?

oh well *goes back to playing console-style-RPGs*

[SalsaDMA]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

Such a compelling one word response Marshalleck.

Well I'm speaking from mainly as a JRPG player. There's a reason why I didn't list games like oblivion etc.

But by and large most of the RPGs i've played the main character is rather static.

So I still stand by my comment that, not all of em, are you allowed to custom tailor the main characters looks, etc. At least not in the ones i've played lately.

But then of course as Salsa put it... JRPGs aren't RPGs...despite their classification as such for years...

Intentionally mislabeling a product to increase marketing potential isn't exactly a new thing.

But I asume you would think "Dawn of War 2" to be a rpg too?

[javierabegazo]

I'll give this thread 3 more pages for posters become more respectful towards each other. If it continues laden with insults. It's getting locked.