283 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Gatt9 wrote...
The conversation's are largely irrelevant,  everyone's railroaded into the same result.  I played a 100% paragon,  my friend a 100% renegade.  We got the same quests,  the same rewards,  had the same party members,  they all liked us the same,  I destroyed the station and he saved it,  and we got the same basic ending.  In fact,  it was so irrelevant,  we both start with Cerberus trying to kill us in ME3.

You sure you're not talking about KotOR? Or PS:T?

Modifié par AlanC9, 14 juin 2011 - 04:10 .

[Il Divo]

AlanC9 wrote...

You sure you're not talking about KotOR? Or PS:T?

Or Mass Effect 1, for that matter? Dragon Age: Origins? How about pretty much 'All Bioware games'?

Mass Effect 2 is also the only sequel that Bioware has ever done, excluding Baldur's Gate II (which involved forcing a cannon playthrough). It's not quite so simple to make divergent pathways in Mass Effect 2 when you have to consider the eventual repercussions in Mass Effect 3 as well.

KotOR 2 was forced to do this as well.

Modifié par Il Divo, 14 juin 2011 - 04:18 .

[FluffyScarf]

Good luck trying to reason with Gatt9. I dare say it's even more difficult than arguing with the other nostalgia-tards with blinders on.

[Cainne Chapel]

you know Gatt... I really cant think of ANY game where ANY decision changes the game so drastically that two people can have completely different gameplay outcomes.

Pretty much ANY RPG is going to have a beginning middle and end which you're, as you put it, railroaded into.

Any game with a story for that matter...which is to say pretty much every one to a T.

I have yet to play one game where it was many different games in one that any decision DRASTICALLY effected the game ona meaningful level other than maybe a few quests here and there and some dialogue interspersed throughout.

Also dont forget Paragona nd renegade doesn't mean you're not getting the same job done... you're just going about it differently.

[Lumikki]

Yeah, it's really not so fun to read posts when they are writen like some 6 years old acting like some spoiled brat. There is different to be worried something and just use extreme opinions to create hysterical world around them self. What then cause totally twisted opinions what has no reality anymore. It has come so extreme that there isn't really anymore reason to comment them at all.

Modifié par Lumikki, 14 juin 2011 - 08:13 .

[Terror_K]

shinobi602 wrote...

Sarevok Synder wrote...

The mod slots are the two boxes on the right-hand side.

Oh that's what you mean. We'll wait and see I guess. Hopefully you can modify everything instead of just two.

That would completely defeat the purpose of modding entirely. If you allow players to do that, you may as well just go back to the linear god-modding ME2 research/upgrade system.

[Payne by name]

Maybe they worry because if Bioware drastrically change the feel of ME3 as they did with ME2 over ME1, they feel they won't be able to belittle those that 'whined' about the ME1 to ME2 changes.

Clearly, whatever they do with ME3, people will have to like it or be dismissed as luddites and rose tinted spectacle wearers.

[JKoopman]

Because some people, myself included, didn't like the direction that BioWarEA took ME2 in. Then we doubly didn't like the way that BioWarEA took DA2 in. And now when we hear words like "renewed focus on melee", "action-packed", "address a larger market" and "this is the best place to jump into the trilogy", we get very, very worried.

Modifié par JKoopman, 14 juin 2011 - 09:44 .

[Sarevok Synder]

Terror_K wrote...

shinobi602 wrote...

Sarevok Synder wrote...

The mod slots are the two boxes on the right-hand side.

Oh that's what you mean. We'll wait and see I guess. Hopefully you can modify everything instead of just two.

That would completely defeat the purpose of modding entirely. If you allow players to do that, you may as well just go back to the linear god-modding ME2 research/upgrade system.

A simple inventory is what I would love to see. ME2's system made little to no difference. I certainly didn't notice the weapons getting any better.

FluffyScarf wrote...

Good luck trying to reason with Gatt9. I dare say it's even more difficult than arguing with the other nostalgia-tards with blinders on.

It has already been established that you have no intelligence to speak of. But don't beat yourself up over it, when it comes to making asinine remarks; you get an A+.

Modifié par Sarevok Synder, 16 juin 2011 - 09:45 .

[R3MUS]

I am really worried that the ending of ME3 will NOT satisfiy at all. For example, the Reapers return to dark space and it ends with Shepard hunting them....

Or it will end with Earth being saved BUT the other planets in the Galaxy is still under Reaper attack!

GAH! I cant stand the thought of it! If you screw this up Bioware i am going to haunt you forever!

[Sarevok Synder]

Massadonious1 wrote...

Sarevok Synder wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

Sarevok Synder wrote...
If they go full shooter, it's game over. They will be trounced. Take a look at BF3, superior game play and vastly superior graphics. Biowares strength is in RPGs, if they move away from it they will crash and burn.

Yes, take a look at BF3, a FPS. The proper game you're looking to compare it to is Gears 3.

And the reasons those games ultimately do better is because they have multiplayer, not because they're technological marvels. Once people beat the 10 hour campaigns, they spend the rest of the life cycle of the game until the next installment is released, fragging others online. 

If Mass 3 is recieved well, any future iteriations of the franchise/universe that feature some kind of co-op or competitive multiplayer WILL start to sell at the Gears/CoD level.

I wouldn't touch GOW with a barge pole. It's a corridor shooter, exactly what the ME series is in danger of becoming. So no, I'm not looking to compare it to Gears 3.

I could care less whether you like the game or not, I'm just suggesting that you properly identify what kind of shooter it would be.

Hint: It's not an FPS.

The biggest, and really only difference between FPS and TPS; is in a TPS you can see the PCs ass. There is little to no game-play differences. If i compared it to a RTS, then you would have a point. Gears is an awful game, with basic corridor gameplay. The fact you want to compare with it Gears; says a lot more about the ME series than it does my comparison. If you want to compare ME to that, that's your business. I'll compare it to what I like, got it? 

Modifié par Sarevok Synder, 14 juin 2011 - 10:16 .

[Sarevok Synder]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

Well given the sci-fi warefare type setting, I'm not sure inventories are really ALL that needed. Especially if there isn't an especially high amount of consumable or needed on the fly items.

ME1 or 2 never really had any consumable items save for medi and omnigel, so there really isnt a need for much of an inventory if there isnt items like that ingame, also the need of a currency or "economy" is also relatively moot in these games as really just building up money is a time sink more than anything (Personally in game economies only seem to matter in world simulators, sandboxes or MMOs if you ask me, i HATE items that are just there to be clutter to be sold).

But in so far as much as we've seen it looks like the customization elements are being pushed better so thats good and while a proper inventory may not return (aside from weapons and armor lockers etc, which in this world i think work) I see that as a good thing and not necessarily a bad one.

As for the RPG, arguments, those have been done to death and there are MANY MANY examples of RPGs that go against the grain and some that dont, those arguments that inventories make an RPG or character customization makes an RPG, etc etc are really Moot because for the most part they dont really matter to the overall of the game most of the time. (since most RPGs you cant really customize the character TOO much or the inventories are TOO barren and so on and so forth).

But yes The Mass Effect series has never been a hardline RPG game, its always been a hybrid and even then its always been revolved around combat in regards to skills, items, etc.

This is just my opinion, but I really don't like the direction BW are heading. I play shooters myself, and MEs game-play is basic compared to most. Why will I continue to purchase BW games if they continue to push towards full FPS/TPS game-play? I can get that, only better; elsewhere.

As for the inventory; a Deus Ex style one with limited space will prevent clutter, and leave the rest on the ship. Problem solved.

Modifié par Sarevok Synder, 14 juin 2011 - 10:27 .

[Massadonious1]

It's not the only difference, but whatever floats your boat.

And besides, that was never the point of my original post anyway. Games like ME2 and 3 wont compare to GEARZ OF WARZ!!!!!!OENEONEOENOENE and other "shooters" because there is some grand innovation in the genre that somehow sets these games apart from each other. It wont compare simply because it doesn't have multiplayer. That's it. I could honestly give two craps that BF3 has sparkling graphics and the 8 hour campaign that comes along with it.

Modifié par Massadonious1, 14 juin 2011 - 10:16 .

[Sarevok Synder]

Massadonious1 wrote...

It's not the only difference, but whatever floats your boat.

And besides, that was never the point of my original post anyway. Games like ME2 and 3 wont compare to GEARZ OF WARZ!!!!!!OENEONEOENOENE and other "shooters" because there is some grand innovation in the genre that somehow sets these games apart from each other. It wont compare simply because it doesn't have multiplayer. That's it. I could honestly give two craps that BF3 has sparkling graphics and the 8 hour campaign that comes along with it.

TPS and FPS are so close in game-play it really doesn't make any difference. Yes, because multi-player makes all the difference to the single player game, doesn't it?

My point was: why will I continue to purchase BW games if they continue to push for shooter game-play; when I can get that; only better elsewhere?

Modifié par Sarevok Synder, 14 juin 2011 - 10:28 .

[Lumikki]

Sarevok Synder wrote...

TPS and FPS are so close in game-play it really doesn't make any difference.

Actually there is big difference. Not the shooter part, but the perspective part.
2D, isometric, 3rd person perspective and 1st person perspective.

You may think it doesn't matter so much, but believe me someone like me who suffers motion sickness, I feel the difference like night and day. Also as cinematic gameplay style it also has difference. Have you ever seen movies done in 1st person perspective? If you have, then you know what I'm talking with cinematic style. Then there is also the strategy side, the perspective is affecting it, do you see more narrow field or also around you character, like example behind you.

Modifié par Lumikki, 14 juin 2011 - 11:55 .

[Sarevok Synder]

Lumikki wrote...

Sarevok Synder wrote...

TPS and FPS are so close in game-play it really doesn't make any difference.

Actually there is big difference. Not the shooter part, but the perspective part.
2D, isometric, 3rd person perspective and 1st person perspective.

You may think it doesn't matter so much, but believe me someone like me who suffers motion sickness, I feel the difference like night and day. Also as cinematic gameplay style it also has difference. Have you ever seen movies done in 1st person perspective? If you have, then you know what I'm talking with cinematic style. Then there is also the strategy side, the perspective is affecting it, do you see more narrow field or also around you character, like example behind you.

Are you taking the ******? The only difference is being able to see the PC or not. Behind you? TPS has your view point a couple of meters behind the PC. You STILL have to turn around to see what's behind the PC. The game-play is practically identical, and it's game-play that I was talking about. I don’t play TPS any differently to FPS. The only difference is hitting space to take cover; in FPS I use Ctrl to cover. I don’t suffer from motion sickness, so any issues you have in that area don’t apply to me.

Modifié par Sarevok Synder, 14 juin 2011 - 12:28 .

[Massadonious1]

Sarevok Synder wrote...
My point was: why will I continue to purchase BW games if they continue to push for shooter game-play; when I can get that; only better elsewhere?

Aside from multiplayer, it really isn't all that better. You're telling me that you would rather play "Generic Modern Combat Simulator v. 43" over a pure TPS in the ME universe?

[Wussypoo]

Sarevok Synder wrote...
Are you taking the ******? The only difference is being able to see the PC or not. Behind you? TPS has your view point a couple of meters behind the PC. You STILL have to turn around to see what's behind the PC. The game-play is practically identical, and it's game-play that I was talking about. I don’t play TPS any differently to FPS. The only difference is hitting space to take cover; in FPS I use Ctrl to cover. I don’t suffer from motion sickness, so any issues you have in that area don’t apply to me.

TPS and FPS play very differently. Aiming is different, taking cover is different... there's a reason platformers are largely third person in perspective rather than firstperson. There's a reason cover based shooting got emphasized to a far greater extent in TPS than FPS. Theres a reason iron sights don't get much look in with TPS.

[Sarevok Synder]

Massadonious1 wrote...

Sarevok Synder wrote...
My point was: why will I continue to purchase BW games if they continue to push for shooter game-play; when I can get that; only better elsewhere?

Aside from multiplayer, it really isn't all that better. You're telling me that you would rather play "Generic Modern Combat Simulator v. 43" over a pure TPS in the ME universe?

Yes, I would. If the game-play in "Combat Simulator v.43" is superior, simple as that. All Bioware have going for them is the RPG side of things. They are one of the best in the world at it. If they turn their backs on it, I'll turn my back on them.

[Wussypoo]

Sarevok Synder wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

Sarevok Synder wrote...
My point was: why will I continue to purchase BW games if they continue to push for shooter game-play; when I can get that; only better elsewhere?

Aside from multiplayer, it really isn't all that better. You're telling me that you would rather play "Generic Modern Combat Simulator v. 43" over a pure TPS in the ME universe?

Yes, I would. If the game-play in "Combat Simulator v.43" is superior, simple as that. All Bioware have going for them is the RPG side of things. They are one of the best in the world at it. If they turn their backs on it, I'll turn my back on them.

So it's all personal spite then. Glad we got that established. Frames the rest of this thread well.

[Sarevok Synder]

Wussypoo wrote...

Sarevok Synder wrote...
Are you taking the ******? The only difference is being able to see the PC or not. Behind you? TPS has your view point a couple of meters behind the PC. You STILL have to turn around to see what's behind the PC. The game-play is practically identical, and it's game-play that I was talking about. I don’t play TPS any differently to FPS. The only difference is hitting space to take cover; in FPS I use Ctrl to cover. I don’t suffer from motion sickness, so any issues you have in that area don’t apply to me.

TPS and FPS play very differently. Aiming is different, taking cover is different... there's a reason platformers are largely third person in perspective rather than firstperson. There's a reason cover based shooting got emphasized to a far greater extent in TPS than FPS. Theres a reason iron sights don't get much look in with TPS.

Aiming is different? How so? You just point and shoot. I addressed cover. Funny, I use cover a lot in FPS. What, you just run and gun? Platformers have different game-play mechanics to TPS. First and foremost, they aren't shooters. Try again. Oh, and you can Zoom in TPS as well as use sights. Heck ME2 had sights.

[Sarevok Synder]

Wussypoo wrote...

Sarevok Synder wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

Sarevok Synder wrote...
My point was: why will I continue to purchase BW games if they continue to push for shooter game-play; when I can get that; only better elsewhere?

Aside from multiplayer, it really isn't all that better. You're telling me that you would rather play "Generic Modern Combat Simulator v. 43" over a pure TPS in the ME universe?

Yes, I would. If the game-play in "Combat Simulator v.43" is superior, simple as that. All Bioware have going for them is the RPG side of things. They are one of the best in the world at it. If they turn their backs on it, I'll turn my back on them.

So it's all personal spite then. Glad we got that established. Frames the rest of this thread well.

Yes, not liking the game-play direction a company is taking is born purely from spite. Does that make you feel better? Writing off those who disagree with you as spiteful?

[Paul Sedgmore]

Sarevok Synder wrote...

Wussypoo wrote...

Sarevok Synder wrote...
Are you taking the ******? The only difference is being able to see the PC or not. Behind you? TPS has your view point a couple of meters behind the PC. You STILL have to turn around to see what's behind the PC. The game-play is practically identical, and it's game-play that I was talking about. I don’t play TPS any differently to FPS. The only difference is hitting space to take cover; in FPS I use Ctrl to cover. I don’t suffer from motion sickness, so any issues you have in that area don’t apply to me.

TPS and FPS play very differently. Aiming is different, taking cover is different... there's a reason platformers are largely third person in perspective rather than firstperson. There's a reason cover based shooting got emphasized to a far greater extent in TPS than FPS. Theres a reason iron sights don't get much look in with TPS.

Aiming is different? How so? You just point and shoot. I addressed cover. Funny, I use cover a lot in FPS. What, you just run and gun? Platformers have different game-play mechanics to TPS. First and foremost, they aren't shooters. Try again. Oh, and you can Zoom in TPS as well as use sights. Heck ME2 had sights.

While the two genres are very closely releated they are two distinct genres read this section to see why http://en.wikipedia....person_shooters

Modifié par Paul Sedgmore, 14 juin 2011 - 12:58 .

[RoninOmega]

zeoduos wrote...

I noticed that several people on this forum are a little bothered that ME3 might end up being like DA2.

Now, I have never played DA2. I have seen gameplay videos and such, and I can somewhat understand what fans are bothered about.

My question is: Aren't there two different teams of devs for ME and DA?

They're different, but many or some have connected Da2's fate with Me2's fate.  Albeit Da2 fared way worse, there was still a significant number of people dissapointed with Me2, mostly gameplay wise.

Why do you need to ask?  Of course they're going to get worried, it's not like you can develop Me3 again.  They definitely are paying much more attention now.  It doesn't matter if the dev teams aren't the same, many have felt that Me2 could've done a much better job, and want to make sure that these certain areas are covered or fix.


And as for the first couple posters who are putting down these people, why not you just respect their opinions?  Or better yet, follow your own advice and quit whining about them, they have good reason to be worried.

[Sarevok Synder]

Paul Sedgmore wrote...

Sarevok Synder wrote...

Wussypoo wrote...

Sarevok Synder wrote...
Are you taking the ******? The only difference is being able to see the PC or not. Behind you? TPS has your view point a couple of meters behind the PC. You STILL have to turn around to see what's behind the PC. The game-play is practically identical, and it's game-play that I was talking about. I don’t play TPS any differently to FPS. The only difference is hitting space to take cover; in FPS I use Ctrl to cover. I don’t suffer from motion sickness, so any issues you have in that area don’t apply to me.

TPS and FPS play very differently. Aiming is different, taking cover is different... there's a reason platformers are largely third person in perspective rather than firstperson. There's a reason cover based shooting got emphasized to a far greater extent in TPS than FPS. Theres a reason iron sights don't get much look in with TPS.

Aiming is different? How so? You just point and shoot. I addressed cover. Funny, I use cover a lot in FPS. What, you just run and gun? Platformers have different game-play mechanics to TPS. First and foremost, they aren't shooters. Try again. Oh, and you can Zoom in TPS as well as use sights. Heck ME2 had sights.

While the two genres are very closely releated they are two distinct genres read this section to see why http://en.wikipedia....person_shooters

I've already addressed those differences. Why are you giving a wiki link? Does that make it more official? Also this all came about because someone criticised me for saying I would rather play BF3 than some generic shooter in space. I really don't give a crap about the minor differences between TPS and FPS.

Modifié par Sarevok Synder, 14 juin 2011 - 01:39 .