283 réponses à ce sujet

[Wussypoo]

Sarevok Synder wrote...
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?

Because you're not talking about being less eager to buy and play Bioware games, or buying a different game with more emphasis on rpg/strategy/story. You'd buy a game with less of everything you say you want, because the you're annoyed at the company's artistic/commercial vision.

You're free to jump ship from a franchise/company at any time. It just seems odd that you say you'll happily jump onto another ship that has less of everything you're looking for. I could've rephrased spite as disappointment, you reckon that's more accurate? (genuine question)

But hey, you're happy to outright conclude that my conclusion of spite is simply because i disagree with your viewpoints in general.

Re: FPS vs TPS. Aiming  in gears of war is different from the say Modern Warfare. Iron sights do not work in a TPS. And the point about platforming is that TPS vs FPS feel different and the perspectives land themselves to different forms of play. There are significant differences, and a champion FPS player isn't going to be king of the hill in a TPS game.

Modifié par Wussypoo, 14 juin 2011 - 01:12 .

[Massadonious1]

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.

Well, enjoy your 6 hour campaigns, faceless Russian/Arab antagonists, and hordes of screaming children insulting your mother when you kill them in a MP match. I'll stick with the games with 30+ hour storylines, intriguing characters, and a (almost) believable sci-fi universe, regardless of how many so called "RPG" features it does or doesn't have.

Modifié par Massadonious1, 14 juin 2011 - 01:06 .

[Sarevok Synder]

Wussypoo wrote...

Sarevok Synder wrote...

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?

Because you're not talking about being less eager to buy and play Bioware games, or buying a different game with more emphasis on rpg/strategy/story. You'd buy a game with less of everything you say you want, because the you're annoyed at the company's artistic/commercial vision.

You're free to jump ship from a franchise/company at any time. It just seems odd that you say you'll happily jump onto another ship that has less of everything you're looking for. I could've rephrased spite as disappointment, you reckon that's more accurate? (genuine question)

But hey, you're happy to outright conclude that my conclusion of spite is simply because i disagree with your viewpoints in general.

Re: FPS vs TPS. Aiming  in gears of war is different from the say Modern Warfare. Iron sights do not work in a TPS. And the point about platforming is that TPS vs FPS feel different and the perspectives land themselves to different forms of play. There are significant differences, and a champion FPS player isn't going to be king of the hill in a TPS game.

No, I'm saying I will buy superior shooters because Biowares shooters are basic. If churning out straight forward shooters is the path they will be taking, then I can't be bothered with their games anymore. It really is that simple. All they have differentiating them from other shooters are the RPG elements. If they go, what's the point sticking around? There is no other reason to purchase a Bioware game. Biowares shooter mechanics aren't up to scratch, so; I won't be buying them. How is that spiteful? It's obvious why you called me spiteful.

I don't care about the difference between individual games. We're talking about the difference between FPS and TPS. Try to stay on topic. The main difference is seeing the PC or not. Simple as that.  

Modifié par Sarevok Synder, 14 juin 2011 - 04:18 .

[Sarevok Synder]

Massadonious1 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.

Well, enjoy your 6 hour campaigns, faceless Russian/Arab antagonists, and hordes of screaming children insulting your mother when you kill them in a MP match. I'll stick with the games with 30+ hour storylines, intriguing characters, and a (almost) believable sci-fi universe, regardless of how many so called "RPG" features it does or doesn't have.

Screaming children are a problem only console players have, very few children have decent PCs. Yes, enjoy running around a generic, basic TPS, shooting things in the face for 30+ hours; rather than a decent shooter for 10 plus hours that has multi-player. To each their own I guess.

Modifié par Sarevok Synder, 18 juin 2011 - 08:02 .

[Paul Sedgmore]

Sarevok Synder wrote...

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 can 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.

Does a wiki link make it official? no. I was linking to it becuase it is the easiest place to link to that compares the two genres. But you are obviously set in your views and have stated them multiple times and are just responding to argue. So I'm going to say good-day and I wish you well in your future arguments. 

[Sarevok Synder]

Paul Sedgmore wrote...

 Does a wiki link make it official? no. I was linking to it becuase it is the easiest place to link to that compares the two genres. But you are obviously set in your views and have stated them multiple times and are just responding to argue. So I'm going to say good-day and I wish you well in your future arguments. 

I know the differences, doesn't take a rocket scientist to know them. Bye!!!

Modifié par Sarevok Synder, 14 juin 2011 - 01:29 .

[Payne by name]

R3MUS wrote...

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!

How could it satisfy when the need to make more money by releasing ever more tantalising DLC means it will never be completely finished and the third game not sold complete.

[streamlock]

Personally I'm worried because every IP I've gotten interested in has somehow, someway been eventually ruined under developer/publisher ignorance, stupidity, and greed-and added to my 'dead IP' list.

Master of Orion
Dragon Age
Wing Commander
Deus Ex
Xcom

The list goes on and on and on.....

There you go, want to know what future games/IP's will get frak'd up, just ask me what I'm getting into-I'll jinx the damn thing every time.

[onelifecrisis]

My concern comes from what I've observed of the series so far. With each new game and piece of DLC there is a clear trend: improve the gameplay, and **** the plot. Add in what we've seen of ME3 so far and my expectations of the story have dropped almost to zero. I don't know if the gameplay, characters, and presentation (all of which are great) will be enough for me to watch them obliterate what's left of the main plot.

I'm particularly concerned about the potential lack of closure. I'm sure we're all aware of the game industry's dependence on franchises. EA need to have their sequels. And from what I've seen of ME3 so far, two things are obvious:

1) The reapers are just as strong as ever i.e. it's very difficult to take down even just one of them.
2) Saving the Earth (not the galaxy) is the focus of the entire game.

This makes me think the galactic war is not going to end in ME3.
If that's the case, I'm definitely not buying the game.

Modifié par onelifecrisis, 14 juin 2011 - 08:56 .