3223 réponses à ce sujet

[lovgreno]

I don't want a simpler game in terms of inventory and stats, I want it to be a challenge to choose the right thing. Complicated is good in this case and it's what made ME1 different from the standard shooter. Different skills guns, powers and upgrades was good for different situations and I had to think twice to create and adapt Shepard and the whole crew. And for those who thought it was boring there was always the option to use the auto level function.

I'm not saying this can't be improved and for the sequells to sell they had to try for something new. But when it comes to build your character in a rpg I think less is not more. I want more of more so I can more easily screw up my choices.

[Cainne Chapel]

Actually truth be told, they probably shouldnt even listen to the boards at all, as the most vocal people on the boards tend to be the most "selfish" when it comes to matters of gameplay.

Mass Effect 1 was a hit, Mass Effect 2 was an even bigger hit, and I expect Mass effect 3 to beat them both, especially if they hit a sweet spot.

As with anything froma business, it behooves them to make the game as good as possible and attract as many people as possible does it not? Cant do that if the game is truly terrible. So I have no doubt in my mind that Mass effect 3 will be a great game.

Will it be everything to everyone? Heck no. But nothing is or ever will be. Some will love it, some wont. Just like some love ME1 and hate ME2, some love ME2 and cant stand ME1,a nd so on, there will be just as many naysayers, detractors, lovers, and zealots for every game out there.

[Cainne Chapel]

lovgreno wrote...

I don't want a simpler game in terms of inventory and stats, I want it to be a challenge to choose the right thing. Complicated is good in this case and it's what made ME1 different from the standard shooter. Different skills guns, powers and upgrades was good for different situations and I had to think twice to create and adapt Shepard and the whole crew. And for those who thought it was boring there was always the option to use the auto level function.

I'm not saying this can't be improved and for the sequells to sell they had to try for something new. But when it comes to build your character in a rpg I think less is not more. I want more of more so I can more easily screw up my choices.

ME1's loot system wasn't complicated... that was the problem. it was tedious.  Heck I could playthrough the whole game with a Raikou II pistol if I wanted too and it wouldnt effect me drastically.

Different ammo and mods did give slightly different effects yeah, but the inventory was FAR...FAR from complicated.  Also..there really is no way to "Screw" up a character in ME1 or ME2.  

[littlezack]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

lovgreno wrote...

I don't want a simpler game in terms of inventory and stats, I want it to be a challenge to choose the right thing. Complicated is good in this case and it's what made ME1 different from the standard shooter. Different skills guns, powers and upgrades was good for different situations and I had to think twice to create and adapt Shepard and the whole crew. And for those who thought it was boring there was always the option to use the auto level function.

I'm not saying this can't be improved and for the sequells to sell they had to try for something new. But when it comes to build your character in a rpg I think less is not more. I want more of more so I can more easily screw up my choices.

ME1's loot system wasn't complicated... that was the problem. it was tedious.  Heck I could playthrough the whole game with a Raikou II pistol if I wanted too and it wouldnt effect me drastically.

Different ammo and mods did give slightly different effects yeah, but the inventory was FAR...FAR from complicated.  Also..there really is no way to "Screw" up a character in ME1 or ME2.  

Well, you can try to have sex with Morinth...

[Dangerfoot]

If they want to keep making shooting games with the absolute bare minimum of JRPG talent customization and Call of Duty weapon upgrades, they absolutely can. I'm not saying that's a bad thing.

There's just nothing about those things that constitutes calling it a role playing game.

[Cainne Chapel]

Well technically that could be said about ME1 and ME2 Danger.

Both were essentially shooting games with RPG elements, and depending on who you talk to, both had negative and positive elements to each as well.

Now if they can make three with the great shooting elements from 2 and great RPG/customization elements from 1 and expand and make both better.

Well I'm all for it.

and really i'm not gonna argue what makes and doesn't make RPGs anymore as most games nowadays straddle SOO many genres... its not even worth the time and effort to argue sides anymore.

I mean really genre labels now adays I think are become rather outdated as a whole as more and more developers are taking bits and pieces from other genre staples and including them in their games.

Modifié par Cainne Chapel, 01 juillet 2011 - 07:51 .

[Terror_K]

In Exile wrote...

... but it's the same content. You're doing the same thing over and over. Eventually you run out of unique maps just like you run out of unique enemies, and it repeats.

Yeah, but again, it doesn't feel exactly the same. On a UNC world I can drive where I want. In an ME2 world it's like being on a train track. It's about the experience in this case.

So, really, you just like the content. You prefer driving the mako to the 3rd person shooter content.

No, I never said that. You make it sound like I'm a massive fan of The Mako and UNC worlds. I like them okay, but they're by no means my favourite aspect of Mass Effect. Not by a long shot. I merely missed the basic nature and feeling that UNC planets gave me when playing ME2. Without them everywhere just felt too manufactured and fake. Everywhere seemed like a class M world, and it didn't help that until Overlord came along we didn't really get a decent open area. Even the more natural places didn't feel that natural. They felt like levels, not environments.

No. I'm asking you to compare one repetitive gameplay feature (the combat) to another reptitive gameplay feature (the driving).

Okay. Personally I felt ME2 combat itself could have used more to it than just "run ahead until you find waist-high cover, deal with ambush at predictable locale, run ahead until next waist-high cover area or cutscene, rinse and repeat." If Mass Effect wants to start doing proper TPS combat, it should at least do it properly and change things up a bit. The Gears series manages to keep TPS combat interesting by creating different scenarios and incorporating interesting puzzles and bossfights into things, as well as more interesting environments that allow you to try things out a little differently. Admittedly some of the ME2 DLC did this a bit better than the vanilla game, and ME3 is looking promising so far (silly Resistence 3-esque crab tank on-the-rails section aside).

This is exactly what ME1 is. No quest have multiple approaches, but some quests are exclusive. All the levels are linear, except for the empty mako driving, and that content is identical across all the worlds.

Funny, I recall being able to handle several quests multiple ways in ME1. Such as getting the garage pass on Noveria. Or getting to Benezia at Peak 15. Or dealing with the Feros colonists. Or helping Kirrahe and his men or not. Dealing with the Hanar preacher. Samesh Bhatia's quest. etc.

And the levels weren't just linear: Noveria had multiple places at Port Hanshan to visit, and Peak 15 itself also branched. Virmire had several ways in, The Citadel was very sprawling, and Feros had at least three completely optional areas that branched off from the main beaten path. ME2 has pretty much no places that branch off: aside from the hub worlds of Omega and Illium, pretty much everywhere was a straight-line. Even ME2's Citadel was basically linear areas joined by staircases.

Like I said - it just sounds like you liked ME1 more. There's nothing wrong with that, but so far you haven't pointed to anything that made ME1 feel like an experience that was unique to it beside the barren worlds, which were certainly an "experence" but more like how a coffee enema would be an "experience" (IMHO).

For the record, I want to point out you used the world "feels" 6 times. It's clear that one game resonated with you more, but I don't see a feature outside of the UNC to point to that's ME1 exclusive.

I admit, it's a very personal thing. But I could lose myself in ME1 and its universe and ME2 just didn't do that for me. I gave my reasons, and if you don't understand them or agree with them that's fine, but that's just how it is. Too many factors in ME2 just pulled me out of the game. The places didn't feel real, the gameplay was just too gamey and repetitive, squaddies running around in stupid outfits was jarring, giant pop-ups, loading screens and the Mission Complete screen constantly kicked me out of any semblance of immersion I may have had. Everything was always in the same location in every playthrough. The research/upgrade system was linear and didn't let me tweak with it at all. N7 missions lacked polish and depth. etc. The list goes on.

[AlanC9]

whywhywhywhy wrote...

Yeah save the galaxy front sentient flying battleships with epic ground battles when the reapers should be bombarding our butts to the stone age. So makes a lot of sense to erase rpg elements to focus more on that........or does it? If I want a fps I'd pick up call of duty or Battlefield any other shooter!

BW tempts fate by doing this if the majority of the fans leave because they change the game into fps genre, the temporary fans will move on to the next faster then they can blink an eye and they will have successfully killed the ip. I know I've gone from being on the fence because how poorly me2 turned out to definately not preordering, now I don't even know If I'll buy the game now.

Is anyone here actually asking for ME3 to be an FPS? I'm not sure if I shoudl call straw man or poor reading comprehension here.

[AlanC9]

Terror_K wrote...

I admit, it's a very personal thing. But I could lose myself in ME1 and its universe and ME2 just didn't do that for me. I gave my reasons, and if you don't understand them or agree with them that's fine, but that's just how it is. Too many factors in ME2 just pulled me out of the game. The places didn't feel real, the gameplay was just too gamey and repetitive, squaddies running around in stupid outfits was jarring, giant pop-ups, loading screens and the Mission Complete screen constantly kicked me out of any semblance of immersion I may have had. Everything was always in the same location in every playthrough. The research/upgrade system was linear and didn't let me tweak with it at all. N7 missions lacked polish and depth. etc. The list goes on.

I'm puzzled by something. If immersion is so important to you, why are you a supporter of traditional RPG gameplay? That's as gamey as anything you mention here. Worse for me, since what breaks immersion for me is having to think about something silly like item progression.

Also, if pop-ups break immersion for you, how did you tolerate ME1, which has them up the wazoo for kill XP and loot. Or do only large pop-ups break your immersion?

[CannotCompute]

I hope the stats we've seen in the ME3 demo (weapon stats, squad menu stat bars) will still be in the final game though. Pretty important for me. ME2 seriously lacked informative overviews.

And loot makes me want to explore and sidequest more, so I don't see why incorporating more of it would be a bad thing. It doesn't need to be a Diablo loot-fest, but some available loot will surely be warmly welcomed by most people.

Modifié par CannotCompute, 01 juillet 2011 - 11:31 .

[hwf]

ME2 was awesome on multiple fronts while the item loot management in ME1 rapidly moved from tedium into annoyance and I'm glad it's gone and stays gone.

What most folks harp on that ME2 "stopped being an RPG" is that we lost the numbers game.
Numbers, stats and skills and there to force both strengths and weaknesses in the character that you roleplay.
In ME2 there are stats and numbers, yes, but it is a simple linear progression; stats of "+better" on each item makes it fully automatic and requires no thought. It just happens. Which is quite dissatisfying, to me at least.
It's kind of like what Harvey Smith, project director for both Deus Ex 1 & 2 mentioned in a post-mortem lecture, people like the illusion of choice; people like to build "their character" - be it a stealth specialist, an "aquatic guy" or a gun specialist. This was absolutely absent from ME2. You were a "guy with a gun". "Gal with a gun", whatever - same difference.

While I'm absolutely ecstatic what they're attempting to do with gun modding in ME3, I am concerned that they're making the same mistake. You get to see a barrel mod being attached to a gun in the E3 demo, but all it does is add a "+better" number.
What I would've liked to see is that it didn't just add damage, but also subtracted accuracy (let's say, added mass makes it harder to aim the gun). You apply this dual bonus and malus concept to every piece that you can fit on the gun and have a very complex problem to solve or optimize.

That's where CRPG players, munchkins or powergamers get their kicks from.
You don't have to mold a Bioware game into a loot generator game like Diablo for it to have a numbers game; you can easily have both.

HTTP 404: I want bioware to make their game, not ours.

That might be hard, since they like to listen to and even implement our feedback

[AlanC9]

hwf wrote...
It's kind of like what Harvey Smith, project director for both Deus Ex 1 & 2 mentioned in a post-mortem lecture, people like the illusion of choice; people like to build "their character" - be it a stealth specialist, an "aquatic guy" or a gun specialist. This was absolutely absent from ME2. You were a "guy with a gun". "Gal with a gun", whatever - same difference.

Absent in ME2, but it was there in ME1?

If anything, I thought ME2 was slightly superior in this aspect since you couldn't max all the powers and had to choose how to evolve the top power rank. But both games were pretty weak there overall

[Han Shot First]

 To us, the RPG experience isn't
necessarily about stats and loot. It's about exploration and combat and
making a good character-driven story and good progression.

I agree.

Spending 10 or 15 minutes managing your loot before the next mission (upgrading, equpping, selling stacks, ect) isn't fun, it is mind-numingly boring. It is also pretty ridiculous when you think about it. How exactly is Shepard running around with stacks of assault rifles and shotguns, for example?

ME2's inventory system wasn't perfect but it was a step in the right direction. ME3 should have more weapons/armor options though and more room for the weapons locker customization of Shep and the squadmates.

[Candidate 88766]

If you think an RPG is only about loot and numbers and stats then you'd love Call of Duty. It may not be an RPG but it has a ridiculous amount of stats to study and the equipment system is massive. And I'm only being mildly sarcastic - stats and loot fit a game like Call of Duty far better than a game like Mass Effect despite the genre labels attached to them.

This article is spot on - the deeper RPG experience should be about the story, the characters and the choices. That is what Mass Effect is and has always been about. Just because most hardcore RPGs have layers of stats doesn't mean they're needed for Mass Effect. ME1 wasn't the hardcore RPG some people here seem to be demanding. And it wasn't the loot system or the small amount of stats that made ME1 good (these features were generally slated in reviews); it was the story and the characters, so quite rightly these should be the focus of the game.

Yes Bioware has made hardcore RPGs in the past, but why should we begrudge them a chance to spread their wings so to speak. They've tried to mix genres with ME1 and ME2, and while I don't think either have got it quite right I think they are on the right track - I don't think Mass Effect would even work as a hardcore RPG as it often relies on its fast pace. The choices, the non-linear approach to the story, the customization, the levelling, the character interaction - all of these RPG features help make Mass Effect good. It doesn't need every staple feature of the genre to be good as it isn't a full RPG, it is a hybrid between an RPG and a third person action game.

Besides, we've already seen some RPG stuff being brought back in the very first round of marketing. If that isn't enough to please people for the time being then frankly I don't know what will short of revealing the entire game to them almost a year early.

[Elanareon]

EternalPink wrote...

Inventory and stats do not make a RPG

Dawn of war 2 has both of those yet i most certainly wouldn't call it a RPG

In RPG games like baldurs gate you had a large inventory with a large item database and the more unique items had there own story (right click to access as i recall) and in a few cases were upgradeable (tho there were mods to add more craftable items) which helped to immerse you in the game by providing back story.

The back story part of todays RPG's seems to be carried out by codex's/journals (ME,DA,Witcher) so the story about the items is still there, just not tied to the item itself, so really have we lost anything?

DA2 sucked monkey nuts in my opinion not for the stats or the lack of a involved inventory but for the repetive use of maps, the end story being the same regardless of what you choose and the lack of ability to talk to companions except in certain locations ( i could go on but i won't)

HEH, but that is the exact reason why they called DoW2 an RTS with RPG elements...

Loots and stats doesn't make an rpg.. But it is an element of it, an ELEMENT, without it there is no RPG. Just as removing decisions and story makes a game not an RPG...

Modifié par Elanareon, 01 juillet 2011 - 09:38 .

[sbvera13]

AlanC9 wrote...

I'm puzzled by something. If immersion is so important to you, why are you a supporter of traditional RPG gameplay? That's as gamey as anything you mention here. Worse for me, since what breaks immersion for me is having to think about something silly like item progression.

For us long-time RPG fans, we are fans  of the genre because we like to think.  Studying stats means studying our character, evaluating what and who we want it to be, building that mental connection to the game and how we play.  Now, stats and whatnot are only one way to build that connection, but it's a tried and true method.  Taking that away- or "Streamlining" it -means taking away that connection.   Hybrids are fine; they are fun as all get out.  But to take all the mechanics away and put nothing in it's place, like ME2 did, kills that connection and kills our interest in the game. The game becomes nothing more then any other shooter.  Many games do that better then ME2 did it, and it's not what brings us to RPG's or Bioware.

BW has a long history of amazing RPGs- "long history" and "amazing" both being rare where this genre is concerned.  It's very disconcerting and worrying to see BW start treading the Mass Appeal path.  Glad to see they are apparently working back to their roots; I sincerely hope it works.  If they can find new, non-stat-building mechanics to develop that player/character connection, I'm all for it.

Also, a not insignificant point, people like us have been playing RPG's for so long that item progression and experience grinds are second nature.  We tune it out.  I think this is a flaw when evaluating genre-crossing games, because I think we also tend to forget that it's not the mechanics themselves that we enjoy, but how the mechanics connect us to the game.

Modifié par sbvera13, 01 juillet 2011 - 09:50 .

[Gunderic]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

If you think an RPG is only about loot and numbers and stats then you'd love Call of Duty. It may not be an RPG but it has a ridiculous amount of stats to study and the equipment system is massive. And I'm only being mildly sarcastic - stats and loot fit a game like Call of Duty far better than a game like Mass Effect despite the genre labels attached to them.

This article is spot on - the deeper RPG experience should be about the story, the characters and the choices. That is what Mass Effect is and has always been about. Just because most hardcore RPGs have layers of stats doesn't mean they're needed for Mass Effect. ME1 wasn't the hardcore RPG some people here seem to be demanding. And it wasn't the loot system or the small amount of stats that made ME1 good (these features were generally slated in reviews); it was the story and the characters, so quite rightly these should be the focus of the game.

Yes Bioware has made hardcore RPGs in the past, but why should we begrudge them a chance to spread their wings so to speak. They've tried to mix genres with ME1 and ME2, and while I don't think either have got it quite right I think they are on the right track - I don't think Mass Effect would even work as a hardcore RPG as it often relies on its fast pace. The choices, the non-linear approach to the story, the customization, the levelling, the character interaction - all of these RPG features help make Mass Effect good. It doesn't need every staple feature of the genre to be good as it isn't a full RPG, it is a hybrid between an RPG and a third person action game.

Besides, we've already seen some RPG stuff being brought back in the very first round of marketing. If that isn't enough to please people for the time being then frankly I don't know what will short of revealing the entire game to them almost a year early.

Perhaps I would love Call of Duty.  I'm not much of a competitive online shooter type of player, even though I enjoyed the nice touches of character customization and sense of progression in Team Fortress 2. As it stands, I played World at War and didn't find it all that remarkable, but it's very possible I never gave it a fair enough try, but again, I don't play online shooters that frequently.

You seem to be of the opinion that people requesting more roleplaying elements get giddy everytime they see or roll a dice, deadset on requesting "vanity statistics" which are "absolutely pointless" and "don't affect the game at all", or loot "which makes inventory management a pain" and "prevents me from heading straight into the action"; not to imply you suggested all of the above, but this is more or less what I've seen from a few posters here on these forums. I don't think this is entirely the case

There is nothing wrong with a more action-oriented RPG hybrid with shooter elements per se: this is what Mass Effect 1 was intended to be from the beginning, and I suspect that no amount of RPG elements or extra features BioWare will add at this point has the ability to change that.

People are more often not so pleased with the systematic removal of features, which were present in the first game to begin with -- hence the complaints over the shift in the series' focus. BioWare's version of "spreading its wings" over the last couple of years has decidedly involved removing various aspects from their game series the further they capitalize on their franchises' successes.

More or less implying something along the lines of "nothing's perfect" or "not everyone can be pleased" does not directly address any complaints raised as to the current state and future direction of the series.

At present, the series has experienced a devolution into what I would describe as "a cover-based corridor shooter with roleplaying game elements", as opposed to a RPG/TPS hybrid. I certainly don't consider myself oblivious to Mass Effect 1's flaws either, though.

Modifié par Gunderic, 01 juillet 2011 - 10:21 .

[fchopin]

If you don’t want to make an rpg game then take the rpg out of the title and call the game action shooter.

Saying you will up the rpg elements for ME3 does nothing for me unless you stop talking and start doing.

No rpg elements then no money from me. Stop making promises unless you can deliver.

[Majin Paul]

I don't have a problem with what he says, as long as I have a lot of control over how my character develops, I don't see any problem with it.

[Lumikki]

What's the real problem here is. What type of game Mass Effect serie is?

Mass Effect serie is NOT classic statical RPG. Still some people think that Mass Effect requires classic RPG feature to be RPG. Problem is classic RPG features would DESTROY Mass Effect style totally and turn it to classic RPG. You can't put alot of classic RPG features in to action RPG games without turning it to classic RPG.

What's the point of Bioware even try to do cinematic action RPG with TPS combat, if you people wanna turn it to classic RPG. There is no point it that, it's idiotic.

So, when does these RPG fans who likes classic statical RPG gameplay understand that you can't change style of Mass Effect without destroying totally what Bioware is trying to do. You are trying to mold RPG's in one format. You are trying to destroy diversity of RPG to be just one define style what you self like. There is a lot of RPG fans here and as you all can see we don't agree how something should be done. How ever not every game has to be classic statical RPG and Mass Effect was nerver that. You know it, so why you people try to destroy it?

If you don't like Mass Effects RPG style then don't, but don't try to change hole games RPG style just because you like some different RPG style better.

If you are statical RPG fan then that's fine, I also love play those games too, but Mass Effect is not classic statical RPG, it's cinematic action RPG with TPS combat. When that goes in your big skulls? RPG has variety too, not just one type of RPG. If you self as RPG fan have so narrow taste of RPG that you can't accept anything else than classic statical RPG as RPG, then how is you limited taste of RPG our other RPG fans problem, who can like different kind of RPG's too?

Modifié par Lumikki, 01 juillet 2011 - 11:06 .

[Terror_K]

AlanC9 wrote...

I'm puzzled by something. If immersion is so important to you, why are you a supporter of traditional RPG gameplay? That's as gamey as anything you mention here. Worse for me, since what breaks immersion for me is having to think about something silly like item progression.

sbvera13 covered my own response to this fairly well: I love the mechanics of an RPG. I love crafting my character, not just through roleplaying, but statistically too. I like to tweak and build my character and gear and progress it. When playing P&P RPGs as much as I love the roleplaying aspects themselves during the game, I also love when I gain enough experience to level-up and/or get that next skill/ability/talent or whatever and my character's abilities and capabilities improve, and I get to craft them further. It's one of the major milestones I look forward to, because the more I can do it and hone my character the more capable I become and the more I get to craft my character and make it my own. Same with finding new items. These mechanics justify, define and form your character just as much as any moral and/or dialogue choice, IMO, and without them all you have is an interactive movie or action game that's a bit more story-driven. Choices define what your character will do, but stats define who and what they are. They set the boundaries, strengths, weaknesses and guidelines for your character in a set framework governed by the rules of the game.

Also, if pop-ups break immersion for you, how did you tolerate ME1, which has them up the wazoo for kill XP and loot. Or do only large pop-ups break your immersion?

The ones in ME1 were small and subtle, giving you just the right amount of info you needed as you needed it in the most simple manner. No more no less. They are so small as to be easily ignored, but also there if you want to check via a quick glance. The pop-ups in ME1 are about as subtle as a truck-load of bricks to the face: Not only do they take up what seems like almost the entire bottom right corner, but they make a loud noise, often come in packs and have a massive, useless image attached to them along with far more info that you really need. They're quite simply too in-your-face. They're as bad as the big red veins when you're close to death.

Like a lot of ME2 they feel like part of a children's pop-up book or something, which is another factor I don't like about them: they feel like they're condescendingly babying me. Many of the interfaces and the "Mission Complete" screens suffer this issue too (not to mention those "Press and Hold (F) to End Mission" prompts) . Much of the game feels like a constant tutorial and that the developers are always holding my hand, like I've never seen an RPG before, let alone played one.

@Lumikki: I'm still of the opinion that the development team changed what Mass Effect was supposed to be when approaching ME2. Sure, it was never supposed to be a pure RPG, but I don't for a second think that ME2 was naturally where the team originally wanted Mass Effect to go. IMO that's a product of them wanting to shift the focus to appealing to a larger audience and mainstreamlining the trilogy. Aside from the fact that the dev team pretty much admitted this going into ME2, I fail to see why they'd start the trilogy off with an RPG-based combat system that's far more complicated if they had intended to do standard TPS combat from the beginning. It would clearly be easier to just make standard TPS combat from the start rather than the convoluted RPG stat-bases system the original had.

Modifié par Terror_K, 01 juillet 2011 - 10:47 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Meh. I just want varied gameplay. The whole RPG argument is really a secondary one to me. Though, varied gameplay does enhance the roleplaying aspects of the game.

[this isnt my name]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...


In 2006, BW introduced footage of their upcoming game Mass Effect to the public for the very first time:



Below is the transcription of that video:

You are commander Shepard, the tip of the spear of humanity on the galactic stage. Your actions -- whether generous or ruthless -- will determine the fate of the entire universe. You have a starship called the Normandy, and will command its crew as you venture through the galaxy. You will travel the vastness of space, and explore uncharted worlds, unraveling mysteries on a galactic scale. From distance stars and alien planets and derelict spaceships, it’s a place of boundless possibility.

Mass Effect sets the bar for next-generation digital characters. You will have conversations with characters with unprecedented realism. Characters are alive, right down to the smallest details, such as wrinkles, reflections in their eyes, and subtle changes in their expressions.

For Mass Effect, our goal is to create the most reactive and dynamic dialog system ever seen in a video game. Conversations are fluid and realistic, creating an emotionally charged experience. The realism of the characters will draw you deeper into the story than ever before.

Mass Effect combines fast action with amazing tactical depth, and deep role-playing systems. You will deploy your team in real time, squad-based combat. Modify your weapons for a huge range of awesome effects. Incinerate, freeze, or paralyze enemies for maximum damage. There is an enormous array of weapons, armor, and abilities, which allows you to fully customize your power and your appearance. You’ll command specialized squad members, and apply their unique skills in battle. Develop your ability to harness dark energy, and unleash it on your enemies with devastating results.

This is your story. Your adventure.

This was what you got when you paid $50 back in 2007, this is what you got when you paid $50 in 2009, and this what you will be getting when you pay $50 in 2012. ME has never lost sight of its original vision.

- If you think ME is just a shooter or if you think ME should be stat- and loot-driven grinder, then you've lost sight of what ME is really about.

- If you don't accept its vision and its intended goals to begin with, then play something else, because you're trying to shoehorn ideas that don't fit into its direction.

- If you are going to judge ME, then judge it based on whether or not it has been accomplishing its original vision. ie:

• Do you feel like you are Commander Shepard? If yes, how so? If not, why?
• Is the dialog system dynamic and reactive, and does make you feel like you are more engaged to the story?
• Does the gameplay really combines fast-paced action with tactical depth and deep roleplaying systems?
• I am able to deploy my team in real time, squad-based combat?

If yes/no in the above examples, then elaborate and cite actual examples and situations. But from what I've read so far, it's been an endless mess of biased rhetoric that follows this loop:

- If the game gives you direction, you complain about the lack of choices.
- If the game gives you choices, you complain about the lack of freedom.
- If the game gives you freedom, you complain about the lack of direction.

You can do this forever, or, you can take a step back and accept what ME is about, and then make assessments based on a higher level beyond loot, ammo, cooldowns, and stats, because those things are just executions, not the ideas that drive the game.

I see you bold the parts that support ME2 is swtill the same, let me underline how it isnt. Sorry bue ME is jsut gears with dialouge at this point, Thier definition of an rpg could mean assassins creed or farcry 2 could be rpgs, but we know they arent. Its nice to see only bioware can actually lower the bar and make it so action games are rpgs. Were this any other dev it would be filled with posts of "its not an rpg", "its a damn shooter" people sure wouldnt be defending it.
[*](how the hell do I get rid of these bullet points.)

[Phaedon]

Gunderic wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

BioWare enough dumbing down.

Of your community that is.

Role-playing games are obviously not about the role-playing, you silly Casey Hudson. Just because you co-develped KOTOR and BG, it doesn't mean that you are anything but a fanatic streamliner. Admit it.

Never mind about:

Modern shooters having more 'passive' stats than 'old-school' RPGs. (Selectively old-school of course, because everyone thinks that stats just got born instantly along with RPGs)

Simulation games have more active, modifiable stats than RPG will ever have. Therefore they are better RPGs, along with shooters.

Silly, BioWare, thinking that RPGs are about roleplaying.

PS: Will everyone stop using "action/adventure" as a genre?
Action RPGs are a subgenre of RPGs, while shooter games are a subgenre of action games.

Adventures have as much to do with shooters and RPGs as...

nevermind, I can't think of genres that could be further apart.

This post gave me cancer.

What a brilliant rebuttal.

People are more often not so pleased with the systematic removal of features, which were present in the first game to begin with -- hence the complaints over the shift in the series' focus. BioWare's version of "spreading its wings" over the last couple of years has decidedly involved removing various aspects from their game series the further they capitalize on their franchises' successes.

RPG Elements

Skill trees to be larger. [30]
Powers to evolve more times than once. [30]
Weapon mods to make a return. Not all guns can support all kinds of mods. [30] [ESP] [86]
classes can wield all weapons, but only Soldiers can have all of them at once. The rest of the classes will have limited slots. [30]
You start out with the basic powers from ME2. [GI]
New banter systems have been introduced [47]
You will be able to equip of remove helmets. [48]
Every weapon can be customized with up to five modifications. [XW]
You get to keep the weapons that you pick up, like ME2. [60]
The powers of squadmates evolve as well. [71]
Interrupts are back, but with new "tech and methods". [72]
Graphical display of bars and values to the different attributes of weapons and abilities. [91]
Ammo powers will stay as 'powers' a la ME2. [91]
Squad weapons can be selected and customized. [73]
Ammo is fully replenished after every mission. [74]
New ability shown in one of the squadmates' talents tree called Proximity Mine. [91]
The Soldier class has a grenade power. [91]
You will be able to change the colour and camo of your weapons. [91]
The Engineer can build turrets, which will distract but not 'decimate' the enemy. [ESP,PS3M]
There will be more items to loot [ESP]
In a few flame attack, Shepard uses his omni-tool to inflict a burn to the enemy. [PS3M] [86]
There will be a one-hit-kill melee attack, depending on your class. The engineer uses the aforementioned flame attack.[PS3M][PCG]
A tech-blade is the unique killing blow for Soldiers. [84]
"Blades of psionic energy" are the unique killing blow for Adepts. [84]
You can change the colour and camoflage of weapons. [OXM]
The power pre-reqs in the form that you guys have seen at E3 aren't around anymore. They're level based unlocks now, but from what I understand it's fairly generous in that most of the abilities unlock over the first handful of levels or so. [114][*]

[/list]Not sure if serious.

[Bostur]

Varied gameplay is always nice.

But why even discuss this. Does it matter if game X belongs to genre Y? Can't we just agree that is should be a "Good Game TM."?


I think it matters, at least to some extent. Taste varies a lot in terms of gameplay. Some people like specific genres, some people like specific genres in specific situations.
Personally I think long 'brainy' games are good for weekends, especially lazy Sunday afternoons.

I like twitchy quick games when I have a short moment, but I certainly don't like them when I have a hangover.


Genres are an important part of product information. Unfortunately there is sometimes an unfortunate trend that some genres become trendy and get used for marketing purposes. Or they get washed out due to cross genre innovations.

But maybe we need new definitions, or more specific ones. Thats a modest plea from me to Bioware and other developers. Try to be more specific in your terms, or even invent new ones when the need arises. Oh and the genre "Awesome" doesn't count, neither does "Adventure" because that genre died a decade ago.