378 réponses à ce sujet

[BatmanPWNS]

Well you obviously can't see the romance option, part of the plot, characters, dialogue trees because the game is.. oh I don't know......... 9 months from release!

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Someone With Mass wrote...

In Mass Effect's case, I'm playing them for the story and the dialogues, not so I can find some weapon that's slightly better than the one I'm currently using, because that's such a waste.

But think of all the omni-gel!!!!!!!

[Ace of Dawn]

nhsk wrote...
Perhaps not as much, but it still was a harder game to figure out for some, Tower of Hanoi f.example... "Oh noes, a puzzle, it's to hard, do NOT want in ME2"

I kinda enjoyed it, especially because it was the first time I had seen it in a game so actually took me a little to figure out all while I was cursing I didn't have a 100 spare omnigel.

I actually hate that puzzle in ME1, because it makes zero sense in the context of the story. The VI of the facility is shut down and you have to solve a puzzle in order to reactivate it?

Having puzzles is perfectly fine (Kotor 1 had a similar puzzle, as a test to enter a tomb). Having puzzles simply for having a puzzle is odd. While the bypass and hacking minigames are simple, they make sense. Needing to solve a puzzle to reactivate a criticial system just seems like you managed to anger the guy making the place. But to each unto their own.

gogman25 wrote...

Im not drawing a conclusion, im still rather mixed on what I believe the end product will be.
It's
not much evidence at all, of course it isn't... but a traler is still
designed to imprint an impression and this was the impression I gained
from it.

To some degree, I understand where you are coming from. However, with that said, I have been keeping up with information released by Bioware, I'd say that it will certainly not be stripped of any complexity. It will be on the same level as ME2, if not a little more. Trailers draw interest, interest leads to searching, and from there...

Also, the definition of RPG has become so muddied and fractured, to claim any one thing is central to it is mostly wrong, and completely missing the point. Also, what ME1 had was not involving. It was pathetic. You grabbed a gun and looked at the bars on the screen, if when compared, an important stat had a green bar associated with it, you took that gun. It wasn't even a numbers game. The game gave you visual cues as to when the stat of one gun was superior. And all of this became moot with the master weapons gear. I'd argue the inventory system in ME2 was more complex because you weren't managing superfluous items. Each weapon had different properties and stats, you had to consider them all. Notice that there are more threads discussing weapons in ME2 than in ME1. In ME1, one AR acted exactly like another. In ME2, they all have their advantages.

Items are important in RPGs, but only because of stats. However, bringing that into the mix with guns complicates things. Because they are either simplified (ME1), specialized (ME2), or hectic (a combination, where stats not only come into place, but also various unlisted fucntions, where it becomes more trial and error than understanding).

[Veex]

nhsk wrote...
Why do you play them then? When you just want to make it into another genre?

A big part of the enjoyment for me in DA:O and ME1 was to manage my gear, finding good builds for my team etc to be able do to the higher difficulties.

This is an absolutely valid stance to take. When you start insinuating that players who find managing gear to be tedius are less intelligent than you, as the OP did, then you've gotten into vapid self agrandizing. The ability to manage an inventory and equip party members is not and never has been difficult. It takes elementary math and patience to accomplish that feat.

All AlanC9 is saying is that enjoying inventory management doesn't making you a smarter person, and that BioWare's decision to remove that aspect of the game doesn't dumb it down. It was never hard. It may condense, or streamline, or do whatever other buzzword you'd like to add, but it is not indicative of intelligence in any way whatsoever.

All of that said, they are bringing back some of the weapon customization options so I assume the OP is overjoyed that this game has been "smartened up" for him.

[Alienmorph]

There's surely something here that's continuosly dumbing down. But it's not the game's quality.

[jamesp81]

Why does everyone hate on the trailer?

This is an action/rpg game, with action being an important component. The trailer highlighted that aspect.

Some people here would complain if they won 10 million dollars.

[Ace of Dawn]

jamesp81 wrote...

Why does everyone hate on the trailer?

This is an action/rpg game, with action being an important component. The trailer highlighted that aspect.

Some people here would complain if they won 10 million dollars.

The tax on that would be insane! And what would I even do with all that money? Most of it would go the charity, otherwise I would come off as heartless.

[Praetor Knight]

nhsk wrote...

Why do you play them then? When you just want to make it into another genre?

A big part of the enjoyment for me in DA:O and ME1 was to manage my gear, finding good builds for my team etc to be able do to the higher difficulties.

In DA:O, once I got King Cailan's Arms 'n Armor, I was pretty much set then I'd search for a few other trinkets (and use that Soldier's Peak perk to upgrade that set). But I also liked bring Shale, and a mix of Sten, Dog and/or one or both mages, so less worries anyway.

In ME1, I'd look for the Predator and Colossus Armors, and hope to get the special ones for Garrus and Wrex. And I have the Spectre Gear unlocked, so it was tough not buying them with all of the credits, I'd be floating around with at higher levels.

So, I didn't particularly enjoy, or pay too much attention to equipment after that in those games.

And if you like equipment managing then I'd personally recommend FO:NV with Honest Hearts and Dead Money, I particularly enjoy running around in my Desert Ranger Armor with my Automatic Rifle, my modded .45 SMG, and A Light Shining in Darkness taking out Death Claws!

Modifié par Praetor Shepard, 27 juin 2011 - 09:13 .

[hwf]

gogman25: Maybe it's just me but if these trailers are saying anything I think we've got Gears of War Commander Shepard edition.

Their product is about the Galactic War.
If they're going to cram it full with dialogue people are going to think the game's like the Original Series Star Trek movies right out of the 70s and early 80s.

[sp0ck 06]

nhsk wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

Lol, you guys serious?  You could easily...EASILY beat ME1 without ever changing a single weapon mod.  The only thing you had to "manage" was remembering to vendor trash 99% of the useless crap you were picking up so when you found something with 5 more damage than your old identical rifle, you weren't forced to gel it.

ME2 has its flaws but this was not one of them.  Having to deal with a bunch of useless loot does not make a game "deeper."

Inventory management (yes it was crappy in ME1) is a big part for RPG games, customization of stuff like the look of your team etc. and what weapons to use (there shouldn't have been godmode guns with frictionless materials... I'm looking at you spectre gear)

So yes, it is a big part of the experience for those who want to play what they thought they bought, an RPG.

Right, but I don't think the point of ME series has ever been to be a traditional RPG.  I loved games like Baldur's Gate and Betrayal at Krondor, but I don't want that from ME.  

ME1 to me seemed like an awkward game because it didn't smoothly mesh the best aspects of RPGs and shooters.  It had a great (great!!) story, good dialogue, a great universe, characters, and a lot of player freedom in determining how the story played out.  But it also had clunky shooting, a terrible inventory, boring skill trees, redundant loot that didn't really make sense.  These shortcoming were covered up by the slick presentation and "newness" of the world, but as RPGs go, ME was pretty pitiful.

ME2 sought to reconcile the genres in a more coherent fashion.  It went a little too far in stripping away all the fat, but it was the right thing to do.  Mass Effect isn't about managing your inventory, or leveling up crafting skills.  It's  about a playing your Shepard through a great sci-fi story, learning about the world and the characters, and solid action sequences.  ME2 was more focused from a gameplay persepctive.  It had weapons that were actually distinct, more balanced powers, more distinct classes, and more challenging enemies.  The controls were better.  It was less buggy.  What it lost in the process was the pacing and big story moments of the first.

The point is, if I wanted a old school RPG with big item lists, huge freedom, tons of side quests, etc..I'd play something else like DA:O or Fallout 3 or whatever.  I'd rather ME just focus on what it's good at rather than tacking on RPG elements that aren't really necessary because the devs feel like they have to.

[FrozenShadow]

I wouldn't be too worried. They still have much time to make better trailers.

[Ace of Dawn]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

Right, but I don't think the point of ME series has ever been to be a traditional RPG.  I loved games like Baldur's Gate and Betrayal at Krondor, but I don't want that from ME.  

ME1 to me seemed like an awkward game because it didn't smoothly mesh the best aspects of RPGs and shooters.  It had a great (great!!) story, good dialogue, a great universe, characters, and a lot of player freedom in determining how the story played out.  But it also had clunky shooting, a terrible inventory, boring skill trees, redundant loot that didn't really make sense.  These shortcoming were covered up by the slick presentation and "newness" of the world, but as RPGs go, ME was pretty pitiful.

ME2 sought to reconcile the genres in a more coherent fashion.  It went a little too far in stripping away all the fat, but it was the right thing to do.  Mass Effect isn't about managing your inventory, or leveling up crafting skills.  It's  about a playing your Shepard through a great sci-fi story, learning about the world and the characters, and solid action sequences.  ME2 was more focused from a gameplay persepctive.  It had weapons that were actually distinct, more balanced powers, more distinct classes, and more challenging enemies.  The controls were better.  It was less buggy.  What it lost in the process was the pacing and big story moments of the first.

The point is, if I wanted a old school RPG with big item lists, huge freedom, tons of side quests, etc..I'd play something else like DA:O or Fallout 3 or whatever.  I'd rather ME just focus on what it's good at rather than tacking on RPG elements that aren't really necessary because the devs feel like they have to.

I... I love you.

[irishmandunne]

I say wait till the game comes out, and them make treads like this. As for me Mass 1, it was great. It got me into mass effect as a hole. As fro mass2, it was great I enjoyed it immensely but after 2 run-trues I got board of it, and the DLC didn't impress me much eider, till they broth out, the Lear of the shadow broker, and arivel. As for mass effect 3 I can't Waite and I'm looking forward to it. In short guys, and girls I think it will be fine. Don't worry about it till it comes out

[nhsk]

Praetor Shepard wrote...

In DA:O, once I got King Cailan's Arms 'n Armor, I was pretty much set then I'd search for a few other trinkets (and use that Soldier's Peak perk to upgrade that set). But I also liked bring Shale, and a mix of Sten, Dog and/or one or both mages, so less worries anyway.

In ME1, I'd look for the Predator and Colossus Armors, and hope to get the special ones for Garrus and Wrex. And I have the Spectre Gear unlocked, so it was tough not buying them with all of the credits, I'd be floating around with at higher levels.

So, I didn't particularly enjoy, or pay too much attention to equipment after that in those games.

And if you like equipment managing then I'd personally recommend FO:NV with Honest Hearts and Dead Money, I particularly enjoy running around in my Desert Ranger Armor with my Automatic Rifle, my modded .45 SMG, and A Light Shining in Darkness taking out Death Claws!

I completed FO1, FO2 and FO:NV several times already, without DLC that is but still. And FO3 with all the DLC.

And as much as I love those games, they lack the story telling of BW quality. Well perhaps not with FO1 and FO2.. not quite sure, older games, limited choices and resources on the old computers.

[Praetor Knight]

nhsk wrote...

I completed FO1, FO2 and FO:NV several times already, without DLC that is but still. And FO3 with all the DLC.

And as much as I love those games, they lack the story telling of BW quality. Well perhaps not with FO1 and FO2.. not quite sure, older games, limited choices and resources on the old computers.

Yeah, I agree with you. Bioware is on a whole other level with storytelling.

[nhsk]

In relevance to your DA related part:

Yes at some point you can't get "better" equipment in a computer game, unless you mod in "cheat" items, but with just regular items you couldn't just beat the harder encounters without proper builds on the nightmare difficulty (I'm looking at you Gaxkang)

[Il Divo]

nhsk wrote...

Why do you play them then? When you just want to make it into another genre?

A big part of the enjoyment for me in DA:O and ME1 was to manage my gear, finding good builds for my team etc to be able do to the higher difficulties.

That's great. Part of my dislike of ME1 stemmed from the inventory system, which I consider to be the worst I've ever seen in a game. It's bad enough that the inventory and the exploration are the reasons why I consider ME1 my least favorite Bioware game, barring Neverwinter Nights and Baldur's Gate 1.

Mass Effect's inventory amounted to choosing whichever gun had the largest numbers.

[Praetor Knight]

nhsk wrote...

In relevance to your DA related part:

Yes at some point you can't get "better" equipment in a computer game, unless you mod in "cheat" items, but with just regular items you couldn't just beat the harder encounters without proper builds on the nightmare difficulty (I'm looking at you Gaxkang)

And you can add the Harvester to tough fights on higher difficulties, it took me many hours and many tries, and some research to finally smite that beast!


So to keep on topic, I'm really not worried about ME3 being dumbed down in any important area, especially with some of the early info, and screenshots I've been able to see.

[Il Divo]

gogman25 wrote...

Do you even want to play an RPG or just a third person shooter?

Considering ME1 was marketed as a hybrid, I should be able to play both.

[Sidney]

Ace of Dawn wrote...

I actually hate that puzzle in ME1, because it makes zero sense in the context of the story. The VI of the facility is shut down and you have to solve a puzzle in order to reactivate it?

Having puzzles is perfectly fine (Kotor 1 had a similar puzzle, as a test to enter a tomb). Having puzzles simply for having a puzzle is odd. While the bypass and hacking minigames are simple, they make sense. Needing to solve a puzzle to reactivate a criticial system just seems like you managed to anger the guy making the place. But to each unto their own.).

Not only do most puzzles not fit they're not really good for role playing. Take the Towers of Hanoi, you could have a dumb as bricks character blow through that puzzle because the player is a programmer who had to solve the ToH puzzle but a supposedly smart character will struggle or even fail at it. Same reason I hate the computer hacking in FNV -- I'm lousy at word puzzles and I essentailly skip them because no matter how smart the PC is he's functionally no smarter than the player in that case.

[Sidney]

AlanC9 wrote...

But managing the inventory in ME1 wasn't hard. Unless you don't know which numbers are the bigger ones, that is.

Edit: well, fighting through the stupefying boredom of it is a kind of hard, but I don't think it's the kind you're talking about.

In the end all the complexity people talk about isn't complex or deep, often just the opposite.

Inventory in ME1 was pitful and the guns were happily labeled Gun I, Gun II. There was no doubt which weapon to use and once you got HMWA gear you got the magic best of all worlds gun. ME2 (in fairness really only once you get item packs) offered guns with a difference. The Mattock and the Revenant were VERY different weaspons. Same with the Tempest vs the Locust. What looks like a slimmed down system actually masks greater depth because there are chjoices that matter in the weapons based on trades offs (range, RoF, damage) and that is something that ME1 doesn't offer where the HMWA - X is the only weapon to carry in the assault rifle family.

[AngelicMachinery]

Does the Holo-blade=awesome button?

[Bnol]

I am surprised that you think an E3 trailer 9 months away from the game's launch would include in-game dialogue sequences, inventory management, character skill points, or any other "complex" or "intelligent" aspects of the game.

I fail to see how cutting a poorly implemented aspect of inventory management "dumbs" the game down. I mean the whole inventory UI was terrible it lead to a massive imbalance with Spectre gear and the advanced mods. The imbalance made the game easier at the end than at the beginning. It also made the game exceedingly tedious, and artificially inflated the gametime through an annoying system. Further, the annoying inventory, coupled with massive class imbalance, pushed players into using only two squadmates the entire game.

Neither game was hard, or mentally challenging. But neither was really designed or marketed that way. It was always a third person shooter/rpg with great story and decisions (although each game succeeded and failed in different areas).

[AlanC9]

gogman25 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
I think that's simply wrong. People dislike managing numbers because they find it boring, not because it's too complex for them.

My suggestion for how to improve ME1 is to do it just like ME2, except eliminate shops and credits since Cerberus shoudl have bought all that stuff already.

So the only way to really improve is to just find high quality guns sitting around and scan planets so we can tape iridium to weapons?

I'd just as soon see them cut mining too. Send some other ships to do that.

Do you even want to play an RPG or just a third person shooter?

Depends on how you define "RPG." If you think that RPGs are about loot and inventory, then I don't want to play an RPG. This would mean that while some of my favorite games are RPGs, I like those games despite them being RPGs, not because of them being RPGs.

But if RPGs are actually about role-playing, then I like RPGs just fine. If that's the definition of RPG then I'm objecting to inventory because it means that Shepard has to do things that it doesn't make sense for him to do, and so this "RPG feature" makes the game a worse RPG.

I don't particularly care which definition of RPG we use.

[BlaznZero]

Khayness wrote...

Atleast the trailer didn't involve spiteful moms, neither wanted us to commit sins (yet).

EA can do worse.

Amen.