Aller au contenu

Photo

Biowares Take on on deeper RPG mechanics. "Forget about stats and loot. More combat.


3223 réponses à ce sujet

#2676
SalsaDMA

SalsaDMA
  • Members
  • 2 512 messages

Lumikki wrote...

What are you arguing?

PnP RPG, D&D in 1974
Text based cRPG, Zork in 1977
Graphical cRPG, Dragon Warrior (Dragon Quest) in 1986


Eh... http://en.wikipedia....ing_video_games has some other dates you might want to check out ;)

It's an interesting read, really, especially this and other parts:

Controversy
Within the RPG community, some have criticized JRPGs for not being "true" RPGs due to heavy usage of scripted cut scenes and dialogue, and due to many of them having a lack of branching outcomes.[61][Turner][55] Likewise, some have criticized recent Western RPGs for "becoming less RPG-like and more [like] true action games" due to the "removal of numbers and rules" that make "the genre an RPG."[56]
Japanese RPGs are also sometimes criticized for having relatively
simple battle systems in which players are able to win by repetitively
mashing buttons,[61][Turner] though it has been pointed out that Japanese RPG combat systems such as in Final Fantasy X and Xenosaga
have become increasingly complex over the years, with more of an
emphasis on strategy and timing, and with each new game often
introducing their own rules and systems.[61][Nutt][62][Note 2]
In contrast, Western RPGs' greater control over the development and
customization of playable characters has, according to some, come at the
expense of plot and gameplay, resulting in generic dialogue, lack of
character development within the narrative, and poor battle systems.[61][Nutt]
Lastly, it has been argued that Western RPGs tend to focus more on the
underlying rules governing the battle system rather than on the
experience itself, and that Western RPGs as a whole are generally not as
finely tuned and polished as their Japanese counterparts.[61][Nutt]
As a result, Japanese-style role-playing games are held in disdain by
some Western gamers, leading to the term "JRPG" being held in the
pejorative.[64][52] Likewise, it is not uncommon for Western RPGs to be called "crap games" by Japanese players,[49] where the vast majority of console role-playing games originate,[65] and where Western RPGs remain largely unknown.[66]
Further, there is a belief among some—particularly in the West—that
Japanese RPGs are stagnating or declining in both quality and
popularity, including remarks by BioWare co-founder Greg Zeschuk and writing director Daniel Erickson that JRPGs are stagnating—and that Final Fantasy XIII is not even really an RPG;[67][68][69]
criticisms regarding seemingly nebulous justifications by some Japanese
designers for newly changed (or, alternately, newly un-changed)
features of recent titles;[70] calls among some gaming journalists to "fix" JRPGs' problems;[71][72][73][74] as well as claims that some recent titles such as Front Mission Evolved are beginning to attempt—and failing to—imitate Western titles.[75]
Finally, one recent advertisement by Obsidian Entertainment in Japan
openly mocked Japanese RPGs' traditional characteristics in favor of
their own Western title, Fallout: New Vegas.[76]


And in regards to action rpgs, this is from http://en.wikipedia....e-playing_game:

While Western computer developers continued to explore the possibilities of real-time RPG gameplay to a certain extent,[11]
Japanese developers, with their recently aroused interest in the RPG
genre, tweaked the formula to create a new brand of action/RPG. The
company initially at the forefront of this was Nihon Falcom,[1] whose Dragon Slayer series is regarded as the progenitor of the action RPG genre,[12] abandoning the command-based battles of previous RPGs in favour of real-time hack and slash combat that requires direct input from the player, alongside puzzle-solving elements.[1] The original Dragon Slayer, released for the NEC PC-88 computer in 1984,[13] is considered to be the first action-RPG. In contrast to earlier turn-based roguelikes, Dragon Slayer was a dungeon crawl RPG that was entirely real-time with action-oriented combat.[14] The game also featured an in-game map to help with the dungeon-crawling, required item management due to the inventory being limited to one item at a time,[13] and introduced the use of item-based puzzles which later influenced The Legend of Zelda.[12] Dragon Slayer's overhead action-RPG formula was used in many later games.[15] Another early action RPG, The Tower of Druaga, was an arcade game released by Namco the same year. Both Dragon Slayer and The Tower of Druaga laid the foundations for future action RPG series such as Hydlide, Ys, and The Legend of Zelda.[13]



#2677
EternalPink

EternalPink
  • Members
  • 472 messages
I was just looking at the FPS wiki myself

http://en.wikipedia....-person_shooter

And while there were games that had elements we now consider FPS the first true FPS is considered to be wolfenstein 3D which was 1992

"Wolfenstein 3D (created by id Software and released in 1992) was an instant success and is generally credited with inventing the first-person shooter genre proper."

So i'm disputing all genre's had been created 30 years ago

Wolfenstein was sweet though, especially how your little character graphic use to get beat up as you lost HP

Modifié par EternalPink, 16 juillet 2011 - 04:48 .


#2678
Someone With Mass

Someone With Mass
  • Members
  • 38 560 messages
Just because it's old doesn't mean it's good.

#2679
Lumikki

Lumikki
  • Members
  • 4 239 messages
As for defination what is RPG. There is no answer it has been argued forever...

If you mean graphical cRPG's?

Sure, it depense how you define it. Many games used graphics even before, like Ultima serie it self.
Also I remember playing in Amiga one of first 3D, was it "Dungeon Master" in 1987? Hard to remember that old stuff..

Modifié par Lumikki, 16 juillet 2011 - 04:55 .


#2680
Sarevok Synder

Sarevok Synder
  • Members
  • 967 messages

EternalPink wrote...

I was just looking at the FPS wiki myself

http://en.wikipedia....-person_shooter

And while there were games that had elements we now consider FPS the first true FPS is considered to be wolfenstein 3D which was 1992

"Wolfenstein 3D (created by id Software and released in 1992) was an instant success and is generally credited with inventing the first-person shooter genre proper."

So i'm disputing all genre's had been created 30 years ago


Ah Wolfenstein..Image IPB Stop the nostalgia is killing me! I'm pretty sure he didn't mean all genres were created 30 years ago. You won't find me arguing that they were.

Modifié par Sarevok Synder, 17 juillet 2011 - 11:43 .


#2681
AlanC9

AlanC9
  • Members
  • 35 755 messages

Lumikki wrote...

What are you arguing?

PnP RPG, D&D in 1974
Text based cRPG, Zork in 1977
Graphical cRPG, Dragon Warrior (Dragon Quest) in 1986


Isn't Zork typically classed as an adventure game rather than an RPG?

Not that RPGs came along much later. See Gamasutra's history of CRPGs. I actually played some of the early mainframe CRPGs back in 1979 or so.

Modifié par AlanC9, 16 juillet 2011 - 04:58 .


#2682
Lumikki

Lumikki
  • Members
  • 4 239 messages

AlanC9 wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

What are you arguing?

PnP RPG, D&D in 1974
Text based cRPG, Zork in 1977
Graphical cRPG, Dragon Warrior (Dragon Quest) in 1986


Isn't Zork typically classed as an adventure game rather than an RPG?

Not that RPGs came along much later. See Gamasutra's history of CRPGs. I actually played some of the early mainframe CRPGs back in 1979 or so.

Yeah, but first ones was text based, not graphicals.  As for Zork been RPG or adventure, I quest.. it's taste again?

Modifié par Lumikki, 16 juillet 2011 - 05:06 .


#2683
AlanC9

AlanC9
  • Members
  • 35 755 messages
I'm not sure it it's taste. I'm going to give Gatt9's p.o.v. some credit here -- adventure games typically do have very different mechanics and gameplay experiences from RPGs. Grim Fandango has cutscenes and dialogue that wouldn't be out-of-place in a Bio game, but the gameplay experience is quite different.

Actually, I guess you could call Zork a hybrid CRPG/adventure game, since it does have a rudimentary experience and combat system. But that's projecting future classifications back into the past, since of course those genre definitions didn't exist in 1974.

#2684
Bnol

Bnol
  • Members
  • 239 messages

Gatt9 wrote...
Bioware doesn't define gaming,  and I don't have to define gaming.  It's been defined for,  in most cases,  nearly 30 years.  Long before Bioware was around. 


Because definitions have never changed in the history of language and hybrids don't exist.  I mean how would you describe ME2 accurately to someone and encompass the entire range of gameplay.  A TPS would not convey the game as well as TPS/RPG.

Slapping "RPG" on the box of a Shooter doesn't mean that's what RPGs are now.  It means Bioware's mislabelling their games.  An RPG is an RPG,  the same thing it was 30 years ago,  the same thing it is today.  Bioware doesn't have the power to define RPG now equals Shooter,  not anymore than I have the power to define Chrysler equals Corvette.

Except Bioware didn't slap RPG on the box.  The only thing the box says about combat/gameplay is "Wage intense shooter combat with a wide range of devastating weapons, tech attacks, and biotic powers customizable for each team member.  Similarly the game info on the ME 2 website doesn't state anything about RPG

As far as the art question goes,  you're assuming that Bioware is in control of the direction of development,  they're not,  and it's *really* obvious at this point.

Look at DA2,  Bioware had so little control over it that one of their best Dev's left.  Look at ME3,  Bioware has so little control over it that they're adding Kinect voice control to it,  despite the fact that it's obviously a worthless feature.  It adds nothing to the game,  doesn't improve it in any way.

Then there's the high probability that they're adding multiplayer to a single player RPG that has no capacity for multiplayer.

Because I mean seriously,  how is the gaming experinece really improved by reading the screen out loud,  to then hear Shepherd say something completely different?  How is it improved by adding multiplayer to a heavily narrative driven game?

I don't have any facts or knowledge as to the true situation at Bioware and the control they have.  You don't really have too much to go on outside of speculation either. 

Kinect is also allowing squad commands to be given through voice instead of using the D-pad.  This allows you to keep full control of Shepard while activating squad powers, allowing you to activate them and give commands on the move.   This also means that those who don't like the pausing aspect of the game can also utilize all of the squadmates powers, instead of just the one power that could be set to the D-pad.  It also allows for the potential to have Shepard's powers to be mapped to the d-pad so that adepts/sentinels/engineers can use their full complement of abilites without having to pause, although I doubt that will happen.  Squadmates also don't always stay on the same side between missions, so this avoids the left and right d-pad mix-up on activation of powers.  So it is more than the just simply saying lines of dialogue.

In terms of multiplayer, it does not have to be Player versus Player.  Multiplayer can be co-op, and instead of having a squad you just have 2-3 player characters.  The co-op could be as simple as GoW 2 horde mode and still be fun and add to the game.

E3 showed very,  very,  clearly that gaming has ceased to be art.  "Shooter,  Shooter,  Shooter!",  it's not art when everyone's doing the exact same thing. 


This is just not true and just to quote my own post:

Bnol wrote...

Here is just a list of the games EA had at E3, with the genre afterwards.  Yes I am risking classifying games that might not be RPGs.

Electronic Arts
Battlefield 3 <Shooter>
FIFA Soccer 12 <Sports>
Kingdoms
of Amalur: Reckoning <RPG, maybe it isn't but it has the stats/skills, loot, open world, exploration, crafting.  But it does have action style combat so maybe not.  Might have to see for yourself to give it the RPG seal of approval, >
Madden NFL 12 <Sports>
Mass Effect 3 <For argument's sake, PURE SHOOTER!!!>
NCAA Football 12 <Sports>
NHL 12 <Sports>
Need for Speed: The Run <Racing>
SSX <Sports>
Star Wars: The Old Republic<MMORPG>
The Sims 3: Generations <Social game?>

So it looks like EA is doing mostly sports, which is obvious.  But with RPG it has one single player title and then an MMORPG.  For shooters it has Battlefield and ME3.  Which means it is about a 2-1 shooter to RPG if you don't consider an MMORPG within the RPG realm or consider Kingdoms of Amalur not to be an RPG.  I would rather not go through the whole list of games.  But if you want to it is here. I do see a quite a few non-shooter titles in that list so I don't buy this whole the entire industry is creating shooters argument.


I decided to actually go through the list and take down the genres.  To note, if the game said action RPG I placed it in the action category.  Action/adventure is given its own category.  RPGs include MMORPGs, which were like half of them so you can cut the number in half.  Anyways here is the breakdown:

Shooters: 28 (20%)
Action:27 (19%)
Motion Games: 12 (8%)
Racing: 12 (8%)
Other: 12 (8%)
RPG/MMORPG: 11 (~8%)
Adventure: 10 (7%)
Sports: 9 (6%)
Action/Adventure: 6 (4%)
Strategy: 4 (~3%)
Fighting: 4 (~3%)
Platformer: 3 (2%)
Flight: 2 (1%)

Total:140

Sure, there might not be a ton of RPGs being produced.  But there are sports, racing, action, adventure, platformers, motion control games, fighters.  Shooters might predominate (not for the evil corporation that is EA though) but some genre is going to predominate and shooters can integrate a lot of different playstyles.  Still shooters are only 20% of what was shown at E3, and action is only 1 title behind.  Far, from what you make it seem. 

Modifié par Bnol, 16 juillet 2011 - 05:59 .


#2685
Phaedon

Phaedon
  • Members
  • 8 617 messages

Gatt9 wrote...
Ironically,  the only thing that is new in ME2 is the interrupts,  *everything* else in the game has been done before.  So basically what you're saying is that the demo should've been all about interrupts and nothing else?

Unlike ME1, right? What exactly did that one invent? The (power) wheel? :D I am kidding with the example, of course ME1 didn't invent the power wheel. Sometimes innovation is about seeing things from a different angle, and much to your apparent dismay, ME2 took the liberty and did that on some aspects.


So you're saying that the only way to get people to buy games today is to show them a Shooter?

Which results in the conclusion that the only game to make today is a Shooter?

As much as a 2 minute discussion with a terrible mini-plot may seem enticing to you, it definitely doesn't give incentive for players to play the game.

The story? Not only do they not know if the story is actually good or not, but the mini-plot we were given in the demo was terrible.

The levels? We only saw the docking bay and Flux. Somewhat interesting, but nothing that would sell the game to anyone.

The gameplay? Shepard walking with a horrible animation and picking dialogue options doesn't sell games to anyone either. They didn't even show the cinematic direction which ME1 improved in comparison to older games.


Or is the problem that Bioware is mislabelling Shooters as RPG?

No, it's you trying to force your definitions to other people.

Ironically,  you guys love tossing around the word "Cinematic",  and yet so many movies manage to have trailers that focus only on dialogue,  and sell very well. 

Bioware doesn't define gaming,  and I don't have to define gaming.  It's been defined for,  in most cases,  nearly 30 years.  Long before Bioware was around.

Elitist quote of the week, basically.

Even if RPGs were defined 30 years ago, every contribution to the gaming industry enrichens it and defines it. Otherwise, we'd be stuck to Pong, because everything else wouldn't be a true video game.

Or "Moon" wouldn't be considered sci-fi, because it didn't introduce any unbelievable concept or cosmic rays. Or 50 meter tall gods from ancient mythology being discovered by men wearing tight clothing. 

And, you really think that PnP, let alone DnD define RPGs? That they started the genre and said. "Okay, nobody f****g move, you will only make true games of this genre if you copy/paste our products. Do you think that JRPGs are defined by DnD?

That's the equivalent of text adventure fans calling Loom, I don't know, a shooter? Genres evolve all the time.

And here's something for you, Wizards of the Coast explains DnD as "interactive storytelling". Their initial ruleset was not original at all, if you do some research. And yet you have DMs telling a story, and players describing the actions of their characters, but noooo, RPGs are about stats. The stats that were originally borrowed by somewhere else, but *cough* let's conveniently forget what new was actually brought to the table.

Slapping "RPG" on the box of a Shooter doesn't mean that's what RPGs are now.  It means Bioware's mislabelling their games.  An RPG is an RPG,  the same thing it was 30 years ago,  the same thing it is today.  Bioware doesn't have the power to define RPG now equals Shooter,  not anymore than I have the power to define Chrysler equals Corvette.

If you are going to copy/paste arguments, you might as well reply to the counter arguments first.

BioWare never claimed that ME1-3 were Corvettes or Chryslers. They said that they made a great car out of Corvette and Chrysler parts. And the best part is, that ME2 does in fact apply to that checklist of yours, or at least most of it's features.

Powers? Yep, yep.
Statistical Progression? It's still there.
Stats? Most games have stats, and ME2 is no exception.
Inventory? If you define inventory as a list of equippable items, then yes, and it's quite deep.
Loot? What, like picking minerals, credits, armour parts, research projects and weapons from crates and random places? Hmm.

As far as the art question goes,  you're assuming that Bioware is in control of the direction of development,  they're not,  and it's *really* obvious at this point.

Look at DA2,  Bioware had so little control over it that one of their best Dev's left.  Look at ME3,  Bioware has so little control over it that they're adding Kinect voice control to it,  despite the fact that it's obviously a worthless feature.  It adds nothing to the game,  doesn't improve it in any way.

Then there's the high probability that they're adding multiplayer to a single player RPG that has no capacity for multiplayer.

This has long since ceased to be art,  and is nothing more than someone checking off a list of a Suit's bullet points of "Must have features".  They certainly aren't trying to make the most memorable product ever,  not when they're tossing in features that don't do anything at all towards improving the game experience.

Because I mean seriously,  how is the gaming experinece really improved by reading the screen out loud,  to then hear Shepherd say something completely different?  How is it improved by adding multiplayer to a heavily narrative driven game?

These are all of course, true facts, Gatt, with proof that you can show to us. I am sure that CEOs decide the artistic direction, because, deep inside, they are artists.

Creation is the same, be it businesses or games.

If you didn't realize it already, I am sarcasm-ing, so hard over that part.

E3 showed very,  very,  clearly that gaming has ceased to be art.  "Shooter,  Shooter,  Shooter!",  it's not art when everyone's doing the exact same thing

That's a classic, since you think that an exact formula can describe a genre. I'd add it to my signature, but I am keeping that space for intentionally funny quotes.

Modifié par Phaedon, 16 juillet 2011 - 06:27 .


#2686
SalsaDMA

SalsaDMA
  • Members
  • 2 512 messages

Lumikki wrote...

As for defination what is RPG. There is no answer it has been argued forever...

If you mean graphical cRPG's?

Sure, it depense how you define it. Many games used graphics even before, like Ultima serie it self.
Also I remember playing in Amiga one of first 3D, was it "Dungeon Master" in 1987? Hard to remember that old stuff..


Hehe, yeah. It had a sequel too way later on, but that one I never really got into.
I played Bloodwych alot with one of my friends, though (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodwych) which was alot more fun with a friend tagging along with his own merry party than when you went through there solo...

(insert evil vague comment about multiplayer):whistle:

#2687
konfeta

konfeta
  • Members
  • 810 messages
Random fact of the day for Phaedon and the gang:

If you look at the ME2 credits, you will see the number of people it took to make the weapon/armor packs. It's 24. Most where in the artistic section, IIRC.

#2688
AlanC9

AlanC9
  • Members
  • 35 755 messages

Bnol wrote...
Because definitions have never changed in the history of language and hybrids don't exist.  I mean how would you describe ME2 accurately to someone and encompass the entire range of gameplay.  A TPS would not convey the game as well as TPS/RPG.


Well, definitions obviously do change. But I suppose it's possible for the definitions of "TPS" and "RPG" at some instant to be mutually exclusive, in which case hybrids couldn't exist.

The problem, as you point out, is that those definitions would be bad. They wouldn't do the job that classification systems are there to do.

Except Bioware didn't slap RPG on the box.  The only thing the box says about combat/gameplay is "Wage intense shooter combat with a wide range of devastating weapons, tech attacks, and biotic powers customizable for each team member.  Similarly the game info on the ME 2 website doesn't state anything about RPG.


However,  retailers do flag ME2 as an RPG. So do customers, as we see from ME2's user tags on Amazon.

Gatt9's problem is that pretty much nobody else classifies games the way he'd like to see them classified..  (Phaedon, that's what I was getting at a couple pages back; I meant to talk about how we classify games, not games themselves)

#2689
Phaedon

Phaedon
  • Members
  • 8 617 messages

AlanC9 wrote...
Gatt9's problem is that pretty much nobody else classifies games the way he'd like to see them classified..  (Phaedon, that's what I was getting at a couple pages back; I meant to talk about how we classify games, not games themselves)

Gotcha. I am not a developer, and I don't work for BioWare (many have claimed so, but I tell you, I am innocent. :innocent:), but I wouldn't really care about how people classify my game.

I'd care about how they perceived it though. Was it bad, was it good? And if so, which parts of it were lacking, and which were the most interesting ones?

I wouldn't really take any genre formulas and make a game out of them either. I would probably take elements from games I like and mix them into one product.

Plus, if you ask me to deliver game concepts, I will always end up with "messed up" games, that would give a stroke to people who would try to classify them.

Again, I can't speak for BioWare, but I think that their attitude is somewhat similar. Then again, they may be making games just for money. That's not the impression that I got from Twitter, however.

#2690
SalsaDMA

SalsaDMA
  • Members
  • 2 512 messages
I still remember when a shooter classified games like Xenon, SWIV, Delta and R-Type... :(

#2691
Phaedon

Phaedon
  • Members
  • 8 617 messages

SalsaDMA wrote...

I still remember when a shooter classified games like Xenon, SWIV, Delta and R-Type... :(

Unfortunately, these have been "demoted" to mere shoot 'em ups, for the exact opposite reason ME2 is demoted by some as "a simple shooter".

Making exclusive definitions if always bad, you either don't let games evolve, or you only allow them towards only one specific direction.

Modifié par Phaedon, 16 juillet 2011 - 07:19 .


#2692
Giantdeathrobot

Giantdeathrobot
  • Members
  • 2 945 messages
 ME2 didn't invent interrupts either, they were already in Assassin's Creed 2 before it. Not to diminish the game or prove anything, just a quick info, I doubt Bioware actually stole the idea from Ubisoft.
Also, for how many pages must these kinds of discussions continue? ''My definition of RPG beats your definition of RPG, shooter noob!!'' and similar responses from the other side ad nauseam. I agree with Phaedon, way too much over-simplification and rage over small matters here.

And it's just not true that ''gaming has ceased to be art'' (haha what presumption, seriously) or that everything is a shooter. It's the dominant genre of the North American market, certainly, but far from the only one. The Sims is still the most popular game franchise of all times, and it's not exactly a shooter.

#2693
Phaedon

Phaedon
  • Members
  • 8 617 messages

Giantdeathrobot wrote...

 ME2 didn't invent interrupts either, they were already in Assassin's Creed 2 before it. Not to diminish the game or prove anything, just a quick info, I doubt Bioware actually stole the idea from Ubisoft.
Also, for how many pages must these kinds of discussions continue? ''My definition of RPG beats your definition of RPG, shooter noob!!'' and similar responses from the other side ad nauseam. I agree with Phaedon, way too much over-simplification and rage over small matters here.

And it's just not true that ''gaming has ceased to be art'' (haha what presumption, seriously) or that everything is a shooter. It's the dominant genre of the North American market, certainly, but far from the only one. The Sims is still the most popular game franchise of all times, and it's not exactly a shooter.

It distinguishes character from player, has stats and stat. progression, character customization, party interaction, chances for different events to happen, the fighting skill's effectiveness is derived from an upgradable stat....


OH DEAR.

Modifié par Phaedon, 16 juillet 2011 - 07:39 .


#2694
marshalleck

marshalleck
  • Members
  • 15 645 messages

SalsaDMA wrote...

I still remember when a shooter classified games like Xenon, SWIV, Delta and R-Type... :(


Those are still shooters, you just forgot to preface it with "side-scrolling" (or top-scrolling as some orient it, either way, the playfield scrolls along as you shoot)

Also, R-type was one of my favorite arcade side-scrollers.

Modifié par marshalleck, 16 juillet 2011 - 07:42 .


#2695
Bnol

Bnol
  • Members
  • 239 messages

AlanC9 wrote...

Except Bioware didn't slap RPG on the box.  The only thing the box says about combat/gameplay is "Wage intense shooter combat with a wide range of devastating weapons, tech attacks, and biotic powers customizable for each team member.  Similarly the game info on the ME 2 website doesn't state anything about RPG.


However,  retailers do flag ME2 as an RPG. So do customers, as we see from ME2's user tags on Amazon.

Gatt9's problem is that pretty much nobody else classifies games the way he'd like to see them classified..  (Phaedon, that's what I was getting at a couple pages back; I meant to talk about how we classify games, not games themselves)


Yeah, I agree.  The point was that customers and retailers classifying Bioware/EA's game in a certain way is not proof that Bioware/EA classifies their game that way.  Nor is it proof that Bio/EA is trying to actively mislead their customers.  I guess for Gatt9 Bio/EA should tell all the retailers not classify it as an RPG and return all the RPG awards and say, we can't accept/advertise these because we aren't an RPG.

#2696
Pulletlamer

Pulletlamer
  • Members
  • 858 messages

Giantdeathrobot wrote...
The Sims is still the most popular game franchise of all times, and it's not exactly a shooter.

You can't say things like that. It's just wrong and it doesn't make any sense nor it's backed up by anything.

It's like comparing Messi with Maradona. You simply can't compare it. Different times.

Gaming wasn't the same 5,10,20 years ago. Global population wasn't the same. Consoles weren't the same. Technology wasn't the same....

Don't come here with the plain statistics saying that Sims was played by 3086866 people. I don't care.

Modifié par Pulletlamer, 16 juillet 2011 - 07:44 .


#2697
Phaedon

Phaedon
  • Members
  • 8 617 messages

Pulletlamer wrote...

Giantdeathrobot wrote...
The Sims is still the most popular game franchise of all times, and it's not exactly a shooter.

You can't say things like that. It's just wrong and it doesn't make any sense nor it's backed up by anything.

It's like comparing Messi with Maradona. You simply can't compare it. Different times.

Gaming wasn't the same 5,10,20 years ago. Global population wasn't the same. Consoles weren't the same. Technology wasn't the same....

Don't come here with the plain statistics saying that Sims was played by 3086866 people. I don't care.

Relax. The Sims is an example that the masses play different games as well, not just shooters.

And the Mario games are really popular even today. And there's Pokemon. And well, you know, sports and driving games.

#2698
SalsaDMA

SalsaDMA
  • Members
  • 2 512 messages
the sims is just a newer version of the game I played on my old c64 called "Little computer people"

http://en.wikipedia....Computer_People

#2699
Phaedon

Phaedon
  • Members
  • 8 617 messages

SalsaDMA wrote...

the sims is just a newer version of the game I played on my old c64 called "Little computer people"

http://en.wikipedia....Computer_People

The original Sims is mostly about designing a house and less about a "life simulator". They then realized the potential and released a ton of Expansion Packs.

#2700
Iakus

Iakus
  • Members
  • 30 398 messages

Il Divo wrote...

iakus wrote...

Guess they shoulda paid attention to the shooting and biotic demonstrations in the second half...


It was there, for about 50 seconds. But I think it's pretty clear that the combat/biotics was given background treatment, which as a Bioware fan I think is fine, but I don't think anyone else would be too impressed at that point in the demo. Nothing that Bioware showed in that presentation made the gameplay seem altogether impressive, primarily because they were focused on introducing the new universe and the dialogue wheel.


And in the ME3 demo it looked like the entire upgrade system was given the background treatment.  Pretty much everything else I saw, from the shooting to the omniblade to the Cerberus Atlas, was stuff you'd see in any sci-fi action game.  If it wasn't a Mass Effect game, and thus, a Bioware game, I'd walk right on by without a second glance.  Seen it all before.

Only two parts of the demos grabbed my attention:

A)The child in the vent scene in the Fall of Earth demo, which smacked of actual role-playing opportunity
B) The all too brief look at the leveling system and the workbench, which did little more than show that they existed

Oh, and Ashley in her bizzarre blue uniform, but that didn't get my attention in a good way :P

Everything else was pretty much Shepard shooting, stabbing, or blowing up people or creatures.  Nothing that we haven't seen in countless demos in countless action games before.  If they wanted to show us what's different about Mass Effect 3, maybe we should have seen something different.

Of course, this may all just be marketing appealing to the widest possible audience  I can hardly see weapon customization or leveling mechanics being a minor aspect of a game.  But as a person who's an rpg player first and foremost, I find this "hide the rpg mechanics from the masses" behavior in Bioware, of all companies. troubling.