378 réponses à ce sujet

[FluffyScarf]

Uh oh. You're going to try and argue with G9? You would have more success moving a mountain with your bare hands than swaying that anorak's mind.

[RoboticWater]

FluffyScarf wrote...

Uh oh. You're going to try and argue with G9? You would have more success moving a mountain with your bare hands than swaying that anorak's mind.

I have no intention to sway his mind but to respond to his reasonable argument with my own and inform possible readers of both sides. I would hate for people to be only partially informed.

Modifié par BlahDog, 28 juin 2011 - 03:55 .

[AlanC9]

FluffyScarf wrote...

Because I like the story and characters? I'm not an anorak like G9 or TK or TST who thinks argh-pee-gees are the holy grail of games.

You know you've been hanging around here too much when you know exactly who those three abbreviations refer to.

[Il Divo]

AlanC9 wrote...

You know you've been hanging around here too much when you know exactly who those three abbreviations refer to.

Without even needing to think about it. I need a break from these forums.

[AlanC9]

Gatt9 wrote...
Go back a few years and you'll find games were intended to challenge you,  and keep you engaged for weeks.  Not like today's disaster where you're supposed to play for 8 hours,  finish it easily,  and toss it aside to move onto the next one as fast as possible.  This generation of games is disposable,  meant to keep you shelling out $60 as fast as you can,  not to provide you with any kind of satisfaction.  Go buy Fallout New Vegas,  that's how games used to be designed,  same with DAO.  Then compare it to ME2 or most shooters today.

Huh? ME2 wasn't any less challenging than DAO. And while it was shorter, it certainly wasn't 8 hours. 

You really should stop letting your rhetoric run away with you like that.

Honestly, I don't remember games being "challenging" past 1995 or so. Unless I'm just that awesome at playing them, but I don't think that's the case.

When will it be enough?  With all due respect,  if you're going to put RPG on the box,  then you'd better put an RPG in the box.

Not only an RPG, but an RPG as Gatt9 classifies RPGs, right? 

Never mind the fact that we've already leveled Shepherd up to max twice now,  and apparently he's got Alzheimers,  because he keeps forgetting how to put the cylindrical object into the round hole too.

Now this, I agree with . Bio should have done away with progression in ME2 and 3, and just left Shepard at max level.

Modifié par AlanC9, 28 juin 2011 - 04:11 .

[darklordpocky-san]

Yeah, in the case of "looks too good to be true" I learned better from the DA2 debacle.

but, I really think ME3 looks like it will be an all around better game than ME2. What they showed us was how the combat has changed (i.e. the 70% of what you will be doing in the game), and held off on story and decision bits because they want that to be fresh when you pop the blue-ray, DVD, whatever in your machine.

from what I can tell, this is not going to be another DA2.

[Destroy Raiden_]

Gatts I've resigned myself to having to lower my expectations of games and their challenges as well as their plots. It seems no one has the attention spans for 100hr games.

[FluffyScarf]

More like normal, sensible people have other, more productive things to do. Who the hell has 100 hours to waste playing some dumb game involving pixels with work/school/families to take care of? Still waiting for expert social commentary on how 'society is ruined now that we don't sit on our asses for 100 hours to play boring argh-pee-gees.'
Thank goodness those tedious traditional games are gone.

Modifié par FluffyScarf, 28 juin 2011 - 04:30 .

[Il Divo]

AlanC9 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...
Go back a few years and you'll find games were intended to challenge you,  and keep you engaged for weeks.  Not like today's disaster where you're supposed to play for 8 hours,  finish it easily,  and toss it aside to move onto the next one as fast as possible.  This generation of games is disposable,  meant to keep you shelling out $60 as fast as you can,  not to provide you with any kind of satisfaction.  Go buy Fallout New Vegas,  that's how games used to be designed,  same with DAO.  Then compare it to ME2 or most shooters today.

Huh? ME2 wasn't any less challenging than DAO. And while it was shorter, it certainly wasn't 8 hours. 

You really should stop letting your rhetoric run away with you like that.

Pretty much this. It took me ~36 hours to beat ME2 and ~60 to beat DA:O, over the span of two and three days respectively. And neither gave me a significant challengeI'm curious as to how Origins was meant to represent some elite-standard in games.

Edit: Just looked at my Origins save. It was 54, not 60 hours long.

Modifié par Il Divo, 28 juin 2011 - 04:32 .

[Massadonious1]

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

So as long as you can classify it correctly, that's okay with you?

Stupid mechanics are stupid regardless of what genre it belongs to. If something like inventory management can't be done right, then I'd rather see it completely stripped instead of left in it's bloated form just for the sake of playing an "RPG"

[AlanC9]

FluffyScarf wrote...
 Who the hell has 100 hours to waste playing some dumb game involving pixels with work/school/families to take care of? 

Liberal arts majors? No labs, little homework, no real expectations. I should know; I was one. Though I understand things are even more slack nowadays, since teachers can't afford to get bad evaluations by being tough graders.

Or just make like Il Divo and power straight through it.

Modifié par AlanC9, 28 juin 2011 - 04:48 .

[Iakus]

gogman25 wrote...

Many people have suspected this and even though many fears have been laid to rest, I still remain skeptical.
For example, compare the combat trailer for Mass Effect 3 (Explosions, rock music, not really any dialogue, all action, no real interaction) to the Mass Effect 2 Launch Trailer (Epic space opera, endurance, determination, courage, love, romance).

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

While I'm skeptical also, I wouldn't put a lot of stock in what's put in the trailer.  It's what marketing wants to show off to attract customers with how AWESOME! it is, not necessarilly what the game will look like.  For that, I'd look more at demos and interviews.

Case in point,  the  DAO E3 trailer:   

Pretty similar to the ME 2 & 3 trailers,  wouldn't you say?

So be skeptical.  But don't lose hope yet.

[littlezack]

I'm honestly starting to believe some people won't be happy until the game is a turn based RPG.

[Massadonious1]

AlanC9 wrote...

FluffyScarf wrote...

Because I like the story and characters? I'm not an anorak like G9 or TK or TST who thinks argh-pee-gees are the holy grail of games.

You know you've been hanging around here too much when you know exactly who those three abbreviations refer to.

Maybe it's because I took a break right around when DA2 was released, but who is "TST"?

[Wolfborn Son]

littlezack wrote...

I'm honestly starting to believe some people won't be happy until the game is a turn based RPG.

And then complain that the turn-based system used is too close to jRPGs!

Also, what really defines a game as being "dumbed down"?  Baldur's Gate II doesn't have a skill system, but its combat is far more tactical and challenging than modern games.  Like-wise, at its surface a "simple" jRPG like Pokemon has nowhere the complexity of a game like Dragon Age: Origins, but has a much more complex metagame even if the main quest is simple.

Are games really being "dumbed down"? Or it simply code for "**** I don't like"?

[snfonseka]

 OP compares a combat trailer against a launch trailer .

[DarthCaine]

Why don't you try comparing the E3 ME2 trailer to the E3 ME3 trailer, instead of comparing a COMBAT trailer to a LAUNCH trailer.

It's like comparing a CGI trailer to a gameplay walktrough

[Terror_K]

I've come to the conclusion that I'd personally rather see bad teasers and trailers aimed at the mainstream, younger gamer than see the game itself being dumbed down.

For example, prior to DAO coming out I (and many others) lambasted the whole "This is the new s#1t!!1" teasers and trailers that were being put out for DAO, because we thought it made the game look awful and like a mindless hack'n'slash affair (ironic given the sequel) with too much focus on blood, violence and ****** in a really immature manner. It turned out this was just the advertising and the final game ended up being really great.

So, yeah... if BioWare really do want to try and bring in a more mainstream audience into their games, I'd rather they do it via advertising alone (ala DAO) rather than actually dumbing the games down themselves (ala ME2 and DA2). At least ME3 looks like its coming back somewhat, albeit not quite as much as I'd probably like. I'm done with the Dragon Age IP though. They just messed too much deliberately and saboutaged that property, and as far as I'm concerned its damaged beyond repair. Sure, they finally admitted to DA2's problems recently, but that doesn't avoid the fact that they didn't make mistakes with DA2: they deliberately futzed with it intentionally. It's like they're guilty of murdering Dragon Age but they're trying to plead manslaughter. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

ME2 was somewhat the same, but it was never quite supposed to be a full-on, hardcore RPG in the first place, and was more guilty of overcorrection than anything else.

[Admoniter]

To be fair as un-impressed with ME2 as I was; a launch trailer released about a week before the game =/= an E3 gameplay reveal. In-fact it should be obvious that E3 trailers are all about the action and explosions. Expecting anything different from E3 is ridiculous and judging a game from E3 footage only is just as asinine.

Modifié par Admoniter, 28 juin 2011 - 06:59 .

[Wolfborn Son]

Terror_K wrote...
 At least ME3 looks like its coming back somewhat, albeit not quite as much as I'd probably like. I'm done with the Dragon Age IP though. They just messed too much deliberately and saboutaged that property, and as far as I'm concerned its damaged beyond repair. Sure, they finally admitted to DA2's problems recently, but that doesn't avoid the fact that they didn't make mistakes with DA2: they deliberately futzed with it intentionally. It's like they're guilty of murdering Dragon Age but they're trying to plead manslaughter. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

One of these days, someone will tell me how DAII is actually dumbed down in comparison to its predecessor.  

Combat? It was more or less the same, just more responsive.

Skills? Baldur's Gate didn't have skills and is leagues about Origins.  

Dialogue? I'd almost be willing to give you this, if not for the fact most of the conversations you have with your companions were basically codex entities.

Being able to equip armor? Because making sure that your companions had drakeskin/dragonbone armor was really complex? 

"I didn't like way Dragon Age II turned out" is a lot different that "Dragon Age II is dumbed down".  I wish people would admit that.

[/rant]

I guess I'm just disappointed, to this day, that the game (Origins) advertised as a "spiritual  sequel" to the Baldur's Gate saga just felt like a better version  of NWN.

[littlezack]

My only beef is with people who act like ME1 and DA:O were the epitome of perfection and roleplaying. You can argue with me all day about the improvements made, but don't tell me they didn't need improving.

[Wolfborn Son]

littlezack wrote...

My only beef is with people who act like ME1 and DA:O were the epitome of perfection and roleplaying. You can argue with me all day about the improvements made, but don't tell me they didn't need improving.

This, basically. 

Hell, I perfer ME1 over the second, but will admit that ME2 plays better in its most important element - shooting.  I felt the ME2 skills were a little bare bones, sure... But considering that I spend the majority of my time in either game gunning down the enemy, I'd much rather have that aspect be better than the "role-playing" aspect.  (Which as nothing to do with role-playing and more to do with number crunching.)

[nhsk]

Shrayev wrote...

I'm sorry, I couldn't make it past this.

Oh look, it made a spelling mistake while it was rather tired. Now its opinion is not valid and the other feels superior for pointing that out. The other should realize it only has English, as a second language and may be prone to mistakes while exhausted.

But of course, this ones opinion is now worthless. This one will excuse and make amends.

This one is sorry it made a mistake, at a forum, at nighttime... Clearly this ones opinion is now third grade.

Or GTFO...

[Dangerfoot]

As someone who loves RPGs, it always irks me when people argue that inventory management is the identifying/best part of the RPG genre. You might as well say that picking up ammo is the identifying/best part of FPS games.

[Nightdragon8]

Ok this was my personal experince playing ME1 then ME2 then going back to ME1.

ME1 was fun loved the choices even the virmire choose who dies was well done.

Fast forward to ME2, I to thought it was lame that I didn't get the large amount of gun choices I got in ME1 in fact there where hard choices to wither which sniper rifle was better (Viper or defualt) because I didn't have any stats I was like umm... I dunno, found out Viper was better overall more ammo for the headshots to do more damage. Completed ME2 wanted to make a "new" sheperad different backgrounds (maybe no LI the first time around)

This time in ME1 I felt I was accutly bogged down from having to do inventory stuff. I felt it did slow the game down at least compared to ME2, While yes the different armors mattered The peice system of ME2 was much better because I could "customize" for what I want to min-max

Now the only thing I think I truely missed was the weapon mods (yes yes blah blah "god weapon" ) I did feel that the ammo powers where sort of a ripoff. its something that will help in game but had to use. While in ME1 could have different options for differnt guns. I mean a level where I'm fighting Organic Enamies I got a gun for that with the correct mods, or i can change the mods.

My favortie mods I was trying to make was the shield pentrating snipe rrifle. Was always fun killing things that still had plenty of shield left.

To be truely honest this is a FPSRPG. and really I don't want too many RPG elements in my FPS. Now I do what full RPG when it comes to diologe and stuff. And to be honest I loved the Rengade, Paragon actions. I just wish there wher more paragon options. I mean saving a dieing bataran or salarian, or volus is ok, imo didn't really need to be "on demand" actions. And with the first paragon action, hacking/pausing the consoles where cool. I thought I would be able to do more stuff like that. But it was rather useless, Tali's hug was probably the greatest moment for the paragon interrupts.

The shadowbroker DLC had a ton right after another, which made some sense but still it seemed off.

EDit: As for DA:O I do thing its better in many ways than DA2, but DA2 is better in someways than DA:O The big problem is that if they every make a DA3 they aren't going to get alot of buyers because of what happened with DA2. THey don't think so but I'm pretty sure they wont. I mean look what happened to the RTS sequals

, C&C2 was "ok"  C&C3 ran badly, C&C4 imo was just to finsh off the series to kill it. Also look what happened to C&C Red alert 3 I was hyped after RA1 and RA2, IMO RA2 was a clear improvment and was fun. RA3 ... I honestly don't know what happened

Also Warhammer 40k the first one was fun, easy build but the second one was I grant more like the board game but IMO its not doing as hot (for one we lost all the races we gained from WH40K by the end I think 7 sides to choice from

Modifié par Nightdragon8, 28 juin 2011 - 08:18 .