469 réponses à ce sujet

[SNascimento]

I agree. Mass Effect had a lot of broken part, the weapon/amor customization and leveling up were one of them.
.
The former was great reduced in ME2, and the latter was reworked in a way that it was actually interesting. ME3 seens to be keeping ME2's track in this last feature and recreating weapon/amor customization, I hope they do it right this time.

[Kai Hohiro]

KaidanWilliamsShepard wrote...
The combat in the first Mass Effect was perfectly fine.
Its rediculous that anyone would expect Gears Of War from Bioware, but they got their wish.
I still want to see how the story ends, and i am sure that you can understand that.

Well what I just find funny is that people like you (not talking about you per se) whined on the ME2 forums that they would never buy ME3 if it's anything like ME2.

Well turns out ME3 is gonna play pretty identically to ME2 in the grand scope of things. And yet more than a year later the same people are *still* here whining about the very same thing. And they will *still* buy ME3 anyways.

That's just what strikes me as weird. It's this futile negativity that people want a game to be something that it simply isn't.

[Bluko]

Kai Hohiro wrote...

I don't think Bioware has massive exploration in mind in any of their games. And guess what the Bethesda fans are saying on their forum? They say Bethesda needs to include some proper story to compete in any way with Bioware. But you know what, but companies simply have their own design philosophies. 
Want freeform exploration and sandbox? Bethesda that way. Want action packed and epic story lines? Then you are where you should be.

Maybe I don't want Bioware games to turn in MGS4 type dribble? Seriously the most over-rated game I have ever played.

Look I don't want complete freeroam environments. I just want some levels and missions that are open and more then a linear path towards the end. I don't see this request being that outrageous considering they had this in mind making ME1.

Kai Hohiro wrote...

And no it isnt and never was half the point to explore random planets and what not in ME. This isn't Star Trek, it's a war. Like I said not a single ME game had any good exploration mechanics, so I don't know where people get the idea from ME3 should suddenly have them or that the ME series has somehow lost them.

Uh you sure about that? Pretty sure that's always been a big part of the appeal of Mass Effect. That you are essentially your own sort of Captain Kirk or Captain Picard. There's certainly plenty of Star Trek references in-game. I dunno I kind of thought that was sort of the premise of this series. But maybe not. It's all about gunning bad guys down, making cheesy one liners, and deciding which alien chick to bang right?

But hey the Galaxy Map is really more about boring people to death. They obviously created that stuff to bore people, not because heaven-forbid some of us enjoy the idea of exploring the Galaxy. I'm really not sure exactly what you're trying to get at myself. That Mass Effect should just be an action game or that's it's always been action game.

I'd really like to think Bioware is a little better then that and hasn't totally broken down to the point where the make pure action games just like everyone else pretty much does.

[Kai Hohiro]

Bluko wrote...
But hey the Galaxy Map is really more about boring people to death. They obviously created that stuff to bore people, not because heaven-forbid some of us enjoy the idea of exploring the Galaxy. I'm really not sure exactly what you're trying to get at myself. That Mass Effect should just be an action game or that's it's always been action game.

I'd really like to think Bioware is a little better then that and hasn't totally broken down to the point where the make pure action games just like everyone else pretty much does.

Yes there is that kind of exploration. But it's exploration with a purpose. What I mean is that the ME games aren't the kind of games where you walk into some random cavern and happen upon a magic sword.

Shepard is always on a mission and when he drops onto a planet it's due to a distress call or some other task. Not just to have some random stroll in the park  or look at alien plant life, that's what I mean.
And I think ME2 did that pretty well.

Modifié par Kai Hohiro, 14 juin 2011 - 10:40 .

[Bluko]

Kai Hohiro wrote...

Shepard is always on a mission and when he drops onto a planet it's due to a distress call or some other task. Not just to have some random stroll in the park  or look at alien plant life, that's what I mean.
And I think ME2 did that pretty well.

Well I didn't, but to each their own I suppose.

I don't see why it would be so bad for ME3 to have some UNC: World type missions and some N7 type missions. Everybody gets a little of what they want, everybody is happy.

[Kai Hohiro]

Bluko wrote...
Well I didn't, but to each their own I suppose.

I don't see why it would be so bad for ME3 to have some UNC: World type missions and some N7 type missions. Everybody gets a little of what they want, everybody is happy.

You only have that much development ressources 
And since there's apparently no drivable vehicle huge maps like in ME1 wouldnt make sense.

I mean I wouldn't even totally mind dirving around in a vehicle if the vehicle and most imporatently the maps were fun. But frankly the Mako sucked and the Hammerhead wasn't much better, so I'd prefer they make some more interesting on foot missions rather than make me drive around in some broken vehicle on some boring map.

Still weird though considering Bioware did once make an awesome simulator (WHERE IS MY SHATTERED STEEL 2, YOU PROMISED!!!....ah wait I get the Atlas now, its alright)

Modifié par Kai Hohiro, 14 juin 2011 - 11:00 .

[rt604]

I also felt that Mass Effect was more rpg oriented in terms of elements than Mass Effect 2. Where Mass Effect 3's rpg elements respective of the previous 2 games, well it's hard to say until I actually play the game. But I liked that your persuasion (charm or intimidate was based on the decisions you made during the course of the game and became increasingly more persuasive as you filled up the bar). The thing I don't like and I continue to see them doing from Mass Effect 2 to Mass Effect 3 was that you have to choose passive bonuses that are either offensive or defensive, while in Mass Effect 1 you could choose to enhance both kinds of bonuses.

[Wildfire Darkstar]

Kai Hohiro wrote...
The hardcore RPGers of my time were invested in story, dialogue and heroic actions, where stats and random die rolls were secondary(or even less than that).

The problem there is that you've just generalized "RPG" to the point where it ceases to be a useful category. An RPG is defined by story and dialogue? Does that make every old LucasArts adventure game an RPG? "Heroic actions"? Leaving aside the question of whether or not a game that forces you into a heroic role is really offering you much freedom to role play in the first place, that barely excludes anything. By that criteria, Duke Nukem Forever is an RPG.

Stats and die rolls are a means to an end, yeah. But that end is that the character's skills are central to the gameplay, equal to or more so than the player's skill. You're not a big time space action hero, you're playing the role of a big timke space action hero. An RPG can be done, and done well, without heavy use of statistics, but what's less negotiable is what those statistics exist for in the first place. Telling a story, or having a dialogue tree is not, in and of itself, role playing. It's not even especially unique in modern video games.

[Wildfire Darkstar]

Phaedon wrote...

And shouldn't say what a game should do based on the genre that we place it under. Games are about experiences, not 50-year old definitions of genres, which innovative games tend to break.

The basic problem I have is that it's always RPGs that need to be innovated, and shouldn't be "limited" by "50-year old definitions of games." Shooter fans would cry bloody murder if one of their most anticipated games decided to get rid of one of the staples of that genre. Platformer fans would react just as badly if the next Super Mario game tried to experiment with turn-based combat.

Innovation is spectacular, but not all change can be blindly called innovation. And, quite frankly, the only thing especially innovative about ME2 was that it played less like an RPG than its immediate predecessor. Shooter/RPG hybrids have been done before (System Shock 2, arguably BioShock and the two most recent Fallout games). ME2 didn't revolutionize the market. Merely stripping out loot, reducing the impact of dice rolls, and instituting a fairly linear, mission/level-system stopped being innovative in 2000. Whether or not it was a worthwhile idea is another question, of course. The problem is, that question is much more subjective.

Genres aren't prisons, and, frankly, there's enough bleed between most gaming genres that "pure" experiences are fleetingly rare. This is, and really, always has been true. There's nothing inherently wrong with releasing a game like ME2 that is much, much closer to a TPS than it is an RPG (even though it's obviously not my cup of tea). But to hold it up as an example of "innovation" in RPG carries a rather disparaging suggestion that to get with the times, RPGs need to have most of their traditional characteristics removed, and that we should just accept that the hip, new definition of RPG is that it's a game that has a story, or something.

[Wildfire Darkstar]

Bluko wrote...
Well most of the dialogue choices are always going to be "fake" on some level. Does it really matter which dialogue option you choose if the outcome in the end is the same?

That's a problem in and of itself. If all choices lead to the same outcome, you're not really making a meaningful choice at all. And if the entire game is like that, then there's precious little role playing involved, even at the most broadly defined level. Clearly there are limitations of the medium (for a game to be truly open-ended, it would have to be able to respond meaningfully to an almost infinite number of permutations of choices and consequences), but at trying to accomodate a range of possible outcomes isn't too much to ask.

To that end, I have little doubt that ME3's role playing will be superior to ME2's, simply because it would hard not to be and still provide an acceptable conclusion to the trilogy. While the choices and consequences from ME2 weren't awful, it suffered by clearly having to bridge the gap from the first game to the third game, and everything needed to wind up in roughly the same place, give or take or few details, regardless of how it got there. Which, really, is a problem with the middle part of any trilogy: some games handle it better, some handle it worse.

[alihou]

If you want to make this game a successful RPG it doesn't only have to fit combat initiatives... I have a simple solution: Make planet scanning exciting!!! ... i.e. upgrades on scanning radius, speed etc. Make upgrades for mining camps and extractions ala Age of Empires where it will passively extract resources... Perhaps be able to sell our elements for $? It will another dimension of commerce in the game...What do you guys think?

[Wildfire Darkstar]

alihou wrote...

If you want to make this game a successful RPG it doesn't only have to fit combat initiatives... I have a simple solution: Make planet scanning exciting!!! ... i.e. upgrades on scanning radius, speed etc. Make upgrades for mining camps and extractions ala Age of Empires where it will passively extract resources... Perhaps be able to sell our elements for $? It will another dimension of commerce in the game...What do you guys think?

Not that it's a bad idea (it sounds less dire than the planet scanning in ME2, at least), but I'm not sure that it really counts as role playing. Unless you're role playing as the radar (or whatever) dish on the Normandy....

[Crackseed]

I think the problem stems more so from a vocal few who seem to keep saying that ME1 had more RPG to it outside of combat which ME2 got rid of...when if you break it down, what did ME2 lack from the RPG end aside from simplified/streamlined/removed combat-supporting RPG assets like inventory for mods and gear?

The only real knock I can level at ME2's non-combat RPG portion was that squad-mate convos were too truncated/lackluster if you weren't romancing said crewmember. The rest of the "meat" that went missing and is bemoaned was all stuff that supported and backed the combat.

Mass Effect was designed as a story-based RPG with player driven choices/decisions ensconced within a TPS format. In ME1, the TPS portion was incredibly shaky and broken in some veins while the RPG backings showed all the usual Bioware flair. In ME2, I would agree they oversimplified a bit but the result was a leaner package that still maintained their focus on story/player decisions while making the combat flow and fit better. With ME3, they can bring it all full circle and return the RPG elements that back the combat and add depth to it both while fighting and outside of fighting and still maintain their knack for stories and the player's choice.

I just don't get where ME2 "failed" to keep non-combat RPG elements when ME1 never had those elements to begin with and the majority of the RPG trappings missing support combat. Hell in terms of non-combat additions we saw interrupts and improved presentation of conversations/actions.

[nitrog100]

Any word on if your armor pieces carry over into ME3? Maybe it would be better if they did so you could start off with a customized loadout right off the bat.

[Wildfire Darkstar]

crackseed wrote...

I just don't get where ME2 "failed" to keep non-combat RPG elements when ME1 never had those elements to begin with and the majority of the RPG trappings missing support combat. Hell in terms of non-combat additions we saw interrupts and improved presentation of conversations/actions.

That's not a major complaint of mine, but the one thing that did strike me about the storytelling in ME2 is that it was much more obviously episodic. The mission-based approach (which certainly existed in the first game) was a more overt, and it felt more self-consciously "game-y" than before: like a sequence of levels rather than an organic whole. But it's a minor complaint, and it's not directly related to the loaded "RPG elements" question: it's awkward storytelling, regardless of whether or not it's role playing.

Other than that, I tend to agree. Combat/gameplay issues were at the heart of my disappointment with ME2's poor showing as an RPG, not story, per se. I do like ME1's story more than ME2's, but that's got nothing to do with it, and probably has as much to do with the fact that I tend to get bored with the middle part of trilogies as anything else.

[AlanC9]

Bluko wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Bluko wrote...
However the biggest offense to me about Mass Effect 2 is the general lack of freedom and customization. The hallmarks of good WRPGs. Something Bioware really seems to be struggling with lately. 

I'm not sure I'd go with "struggling with" there. How about "uninterested in"?

I dunno a lot of people complained about copy and paste in ME1's environments or simply how boring and bleak they were. I believe this is also an issue with DA2.

I didn't say they were good. My point was that Bio isn't interested enough in exploration to do it well.

Edit: of course, Bio could be "struggling" with exploration in the same sense that someone who refuses to diet and exercise is "struggling" with being overweight. For this to be true Bio would have to be saying that they think exploration is important even though they're not behaving as if they believe that. I don't follow their marketing chatter enough to know if this is true or not

Modifié par AlanC9, 15 juin 2011 - 03:39 .

[AlanC9]

Wildfire Darkstar wrote...
That's not a major complaint of mine, but the one thing that did strike me about the storytelling in ME2 is that it was much more obviously episodic. The mission-based approach (which certainly existed in the first game) was a more overt, and it felt more self-consciously "game-y" than before: like a sequence of levels rather than an organic whole.

Hmmm... this makes me wonder if I'm predisposed to like ME2 because all my favorite dramas these days are television rather than films.

[Gatt9]

Kai Hohiro wrote...

KaidanWilliamsShepard wrote...
The combat in the first Mass Effect was perfectly fine.
Its rediculous that anyone would expect Gears Of War from Bioware, but they got their wish.
I still want to see how the story ends, and i am sure that you can understand that.

Well what I just find funny is that people like you (not talking about you per se) whined on the ME2 forums that they would never buy ME3 if it's anything like ME2.

Well turns out ME3 is gonna play pretty identically to ME2 in the grand scope of things. And yet more than a year later the same people are *still* here whining about the very same thing. And they will *still* buy ME3 anyways.

That's just what strikes me as weird. It's this futile negativity that people want a game to be something that it simply isn't.

You do realize how ironic it is considering that the complaining about ME is what lead to more than a few changes right?  Like the Mako...

I think the problem stems more so from a vocal few who seem to keep saying that ME1 had more RPG to it outside of combat which ME2 got rid of...when if you break it down, what did ME2 lack from the RPG end aside from simplified/streamlined/removed combat-supporting RPG assets like inventory for mods and gear?

Well,  lets see...

-Noncombat skills
-Healing,  which is now a generic "Wait a couple seconds and you'll heal fully like any other shooter"
-Being able to make decisions,  in ME I could save the Rachni,  someone else could kill it,  and get a different result.  In ME2,  everyone's the same,  gets the same things,  same outcomes,  no matter their path,  with one exception (Samara/Daughter).
-Stores with something in them.
-Rewards for quests that mattered
-The ability to actually progress based upon what you did in the game,  rather than flat awards,  that were clearly designed to give the most rewards to the main missions,  such that even if you did side missions you were pretty much no different from the next guy.
-Actual gear worth having.

ME2's really very sterile.

I just don't get where ME2 "failed" to keep non-combat RPG elements when ME1 never had those elements to begin with and the majority of the RPG trappings missing support combat. Hell in terms of non-combat additions we saw interrupts and improved presentation of conversations/actions

In almost every RPG the majority of the elements are there to support combat,  even the noncombat skills.  With the exception of diplomacy and merchant skills.  RPG's are primarily conflict driven,  so of course even the noncombat skills tie into it in some manner.

Also,  I really don't think you can call "Interrupts" an improvement in any way in an RPG.  RPG's are about the character,  not your ability to pull a trigger really fast.  It gets really stupid when you consider the fact that in ME2,  your morality is defined by your ability to pull a trigger really fast.  The pendulem of Good vs Evil is now defined by your ability to pull a trigger,  not by decisions,  I'm really not seeing how this has moved gaming forward here.  In fact,  TBH,  I'd venture it exists only to make sure that the people who hate RPGs paid attention,  especially since the new market is apparently so disinterested in story and dialogue that Bioware felt it necessary to include on a loading screen "You have to talk to people to have a Romance". 

OTOH,  it would be a huge improvement to the genre of TPS,  since it's traditionally low on dialogue and story,  and player driven.  Of course,  we're right back to that loading screen and how it appears their new market isn't terribly interested in talking parts.

[Ylhaym]

 

Bluko wrote...
Also don't get the wrong idea. I'm not saying Inventory and Loot are the superior end all, be all. As I said customization is what truly matters. How that it is done matters little to me as long as it's there. ME2's one real customization was in armor, and I do actually like that system better. I have no complaint with the skill trees in ME2 either. The gun lists were pretty short and you were limited to even what ammo powers you could use. Heck unless you buy all the DLC you basically have 2 guns to choose from in each catergory and that's it. You basically choose what weapon to use and then maybe use your class ammo power. While I appreciate the weapons are unique I do not find the weapon system to be anymore in-depth then ME1. In fact I just find it extremely limiting.

So do we agree that ME2s way of doing it is better but it lacked depth? 

Gatt9 wrote...
-Being able to make decisions,  in ME I could save the Rachni,  someone else could kill it,  and get a different result.  In ME2,  everyone's the same,  gets the same things,  same outcomes,  no matter their path,  with one exception (Samara/Daughter).

I think we should wait for ME3 before we say anything about ME2s decision. Many of ME2s big decision was clearly designed to have a result not in ME2 but in ME3... The guy next to me may have the same ending in ME2 as i have, but he may have a very different experience in ME3 compared to me... 

KaidanWilliamsShepard wrote...
Can someone PLEASE give me a direct link to this proof of "Added RPG Elelments" and "Awesome Armor Custimization"...If there is anything about armor custimization out there, i am sure its still just as figuritave as the stats in ME2.
"Oh you cant see it, but its definitely more betterer than it was before Shep, trust me."
Link Please Someone?

A dude last page gave a link to screencaps about the "Added RPG Elements"

and there's no info yet on "Awesome Armor Customization" on ME3. The discussion above about armors is about ME2s Armor Customization

Modifié par Ylhaym, 15 juin 2011 - 05:29 .

[CaptainSpandex]

Kai Hohiro wrote...

KaidanWilliamsShepard wrote...
The combat in the first Mass Effect was perfectly fine.
Its ridiculous that anyone would expect Gears Of War from Bioware, but they got their wish.
I still want to see how the story ends, and i am sure that you can understand that.

Well what I just find funny is that people like you (not talking about you per se) whined on the ME2 forums that they would never buy ME3 if it's anything like ME2.

Well turns out ME3 is gonna play pretty identically to ME2 in the grand scope of things. And yet more than a year later the same people are *still* here whining about the very same thing. And they will *still* buy ME3 anyways.

That's just what strikes me as weird. It's this futile negativity that people want a game to be something that it simply isn't.

Nothing futile about it. I canceled my pre-order. I'm sure I'm not alone.
It's not anything personal, either. One canceled preorder doesn't impact BioWare at all, really. it's just that I wanted an RPG with shooting elements. They've gone the inverse route. I don't despise them, they've just decided to deliver a different product than what I was expecting, that's all.

Frankly, Deus Ex: Human Revolution looks to be picking up the ball and running with it after Mass Effect's fumble, so I happily put the 60 bucks down on DX and went my merry way.

Modifié par CaptainSpandex, 15 juin 2011 - 06:09 .

[AlanC9]

Gatt9 wrote...

Also,  I really don't think you can call "Interrupts" an improvement in any way in an RPG.  RPG's are about the character,  not your ability to pull a trigger really fast.  It gets really stupid when you consider the fact that in ME2,  your morality is defined by your ability to pull a trigger really fast.

Wait a minute. You thought the interrupts require the player to be actually fast? I don't see how it's possible to miss one unless you're eating a sandwich or something.