3223 réponses à ce sujet

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

@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.

I know what you mean and i can understand you point of view from classic RPG perspective. But what you say is basicly that you don't accept Bioware's Mass Effects design direction, because you don't like it.

You say Bioware admitted wanting larger audience. So, why would that be bad thing? Because you assume that it means something what you don't like. Does this mean game is gonna be bad or it's not just fiting your taste of games?

What you say here, listen your own words what I bolded. YOU don't believe something what Bioware is doing. Still the evidence is front of you, in ME2 and becoming ME3. Listen words what they sayed about stats and loot. If they did not want to do these changes, did God force them to do it or was it BIG bad wolf called EA who did it?

Or could explanation be so simple that you assume wrong and this is what Bioware wanted for Mass Effect serie?

I'm sorry that you did not get game serie what was all you wanted. But there is still a lot of RPG fans here who have wider taste of RPG. So, we don't have same issues you do. I loved both ME1 and ME2 and will very likely also love ME3. All of them will have bad and good points, because nothing is ever perfect.

Modifié par Lumikki, 01 juillet 2011 - 11:45 .

[wright1978]

I personally like Casey Hudson's statement on the issue. I for one don't want to go back to being the foremost owner of useless weaponry & armor in the galaxy like i was in ME1.

[hwf]

hwf: People like to build "their character" [...] This was absolutely absent from ME2. You were a "guy with a gun". "Gal with a gun", whatever - same difference.
AlanC9: Absent in ME2, but it was there in ME1?

Well in Mass Effect 1 you could at least customize each character to an extent; regeneration prevention, freeze damage, knockdown damage or cooldown increase. This simple cRPG element was removed and made rigid in Mass Effect 2.

Overall though, as a game, I felt the second game was a major improvement over the first one - due to cinematography, narrative, characterization as well as several key moral decisions that needed to be made. All that on top of the massive improvement of it's third person shooter aspect.

As Bostur mentioned - it should be a "Good Game™".
That doesn't stop me, however, from wanting some number play in the game; it would make a good game even better.
Yes, that's an opinion and is subjective! 

Modifié par hwf, 01 juillet 2011 - 11:57 .

[Eduadinho]

Terror_K wrote...

It is kind of annoying how BioWare's definition of "RPG elements" not only differs from my own (to a certain degree), but also what their own definition used to be a few years ago (which was more in line with my own). It's like they've changed their own definition to suit themselves lately, and it's kind of frustrating that what they considered important now isn't the same as they did back in the day. Sure, what they emphasize now (essentially story-driven stuff and choices, etc.) was always important and always part of their overall style, but it's narrowed down to only those aspects rather than the overall RPG package.

This said, I really don't like it when they seem to treat the more statistical RPG elements I love as if they're some embarrassing, dirty thing that causes a nasty rash or something. It's like they're ashamed of using them in their past titles the way they talk sometimes, along with this whole aspect where they seem to want to put words in our mouths with what we want sometimes. Many of us asked for "more/better/stronger RPG elements" in ME3, but from the way they talk it's like they've just taken the comments at face value and put their own spin on what we want rather than really reading what we want. That's not necessarily actually true, but the comments here in question indicate that this is the case.

"It absolutely makes me sick when game developers have different opions than mine I wish that they would build a game specifically for me rather than the people that might want an overall better game. Screw them and their lack of loot, I want unneccesary crap in my game. I don't care if it's a critically aclaimed game that did much better for getting rid of unnecessary features I want them back and I'm going to scream at the top of my disgruntled lungs at anyone who will listen that I and two other people (eg in rage language this somehow means everyone) are right.

By the way I was being sarcastic!".

Their game, their choice. Don't like it, Don't play it. The majority of people like the more logical game that we were given that does away with many "RPG FEATUREZ".

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

I know what you mean and i can understand you point of view from classic RPG perspective. But what you say is basicly that you don't accept Bioware's Mass Effects design direction, because you don't like it.

You say Bioware admitted wanting larger audience. So, why would that be bad thing? Because you assume that it means something what you don't like. Does this mean game is gonna be bad or it's not just fiting your taste of games?

What you say here, listen your own words what I bolded. YOU don't believe something what Bioware is doing. Still the evidence is front of you, in ME2 and becoming ME3. Listen words what they sayed about stats and loot. If they did not want to do these changes, did God force them to do it or was it BIG bad wolf called EA who did it?

Or could explanation be so simple that you assume wrong and this is what Bioware wanted for Mass Effect serie?

I'm sorry that you did not get game serie what was all you wanted. But there is still a lot of RPG fans here who have wider taste of RPG. So, we don't have same issues you do. I loved both ME1 and ME2 and will very likely also love ME3. All of them will have bad and good points, because nothing is ever perfect.

No. I don't accept it because it doesn't make sense. It contradicts earlier statements made when the original game was still in development. And if they had planned to make it as they had with ME2 they would have, because it's far simpler to make it in that manner than it would have been to do it how they did ME1. You're essentially saying that the devs always intended to build a small wooden bridge, despite the fact they started using stone slabs, iron and cement in the beginning, or that they intended to build a simple pedal bicycle when they had a motorcycle engine and gas tank on the original items list. That's illogical.

If they hadn't intended to add loot, stat-based combat, "ammo" mechanics, etc. then they wouldn't have put it in in the first place. I'm not ignoring the evidence here; you are. What they are saying now and what they said leading up into ME2 is not what they were saying when the trilogy was beginning. The terms "shooter" and "TPS" and "hybrid" and the like didn't even start coming up until just prior to ME2's E3 reveal just under a year before it released. ME1 and the ME trilogy was always referred to as an "action RPG" before then. I have to ask: did you even follow Mass Effect from the start, Lumikki? Or are you a fairly recent fan who came in after ME1?

Also, whenever any game developer says they want to "branch out" and "bring in a new audience" and "make it more accessible" and "streamline" etc. it almost always results in a watered-down, oversimplified product. Mass Effect 2 did the same thing Deus Ex: Invisible War did, but it go praised for it, largely due to a change in the times and a bigger audience of gamers today who like games like that. I sometimes do myself: I enjoy Gears of War now and then, as well as other shooters. I even enjoyed Duke Nukem Forever recently, more than most did apparently. But that's not what got me into Mass Effect, what Mass Effect was at the start and what I want to see from it. I don't go to Mass Effect for Gears of War style hijinks, just like I don't go to a resturant and expect dessert as the main course. That doesn't mean I don't like the dessert, it just means it's not what I'm after. And as far as I'm concerned a gaming series --especially a trilogy-- should remain consistent.

@Eduadinho: *clap clap* Well done, Eduadinho. It's comments like that that just reinforce where the gaming industry as a whole is going and why. Way to just prove exactly why mainstreamlining occurs these days, why the gaming industry is becoming a shallow, samey brown mush and why the RPG is slowly dying. With fans like you, who needs enemies. <_<

I'm only surprised you didn't spout something like "haters gonna hate" and used the term "elitist" and/or "whiner" actually.

Modifié par Terror_K, 01 juillet 2011 - 12:10 .

[Gunderic]

*disregard*

Modifié par Gunderic, 01 juillet 2011 - 12:21 .

[Gunderic]

Gunderic wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

Gunderic wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

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.

Not brilliant. I usually try to stay constructive, but I think my reply was the result of subsequent impressions remaining largely similar to my intial one at the time.

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.

[*]

Not sure if serious.

Well aside from "more X" being pretty vague in itself without actually having played/seen more of the game and, despite that exceeding Mass Effect 2's implementation of roleplaying game specific elements not exactly sounding like a novel achievement, I was not, in fact, referring to Mass Effect 3. I'm pretty sure we'll see "more of X" roleplaying game specific element(s), regardless of how they'll hold up, if any of Mass Effect 2's criticisms are to be regarded by BioWare. 

Also, no mention of different armour types for companions?

Modifié par Gunderic, 01 juillet 2011 - 12:20 .

[Lumikki]

So, basicly you are at "war" agaist Biowares game design direction. It has nothing to do will game be good or bad, you assume that if it doesn't follow sertain design path it very likely lead in bad games and more important not sertain type of RPG's.

Modifié par Lumikki, 01 juillet 2011 - 12:14 .

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

So, basicly you are at "war" agaist Biowares game design direction. It has nothing to do will game be good or bad, you assume that if it doesn't follow sertain design path it very likely lead in bad games and more important not sertain type of RPG's.

I don't like the recent direction BioWare has chosen to take, no. I'll fully admit that. Previously I loved pretty much every game they made and the first disappointment was ME2. Why? Because it dumbed things down, mainstreamlined and moved away from what I loved about the original. The second disappointment was Dragon Age 2. Why? Because it dumbed things down, mainstreamlined and moved away from what I loved about the original.

It's about consistency and sticking with how you began, rather than retooling things more to bring in a new audience than to actually improve things and make it better for the existing one. It's about doing what's best for the game itself rather than doing what's best for your pockets. Jade Empire was a lesser RPG in a statistical hardcore sense than both ME2 and DA2, but that's okay it set out to be what it was from the start. It didn't decide to retool itself for today's target demographic partway through. Something Mike Laidlaw the the DA2 team pretty much admitted to doing, btw. Even the ME2 team did, albeit in a more subtle, indirect way.

Prior to ME2 and DA2 BioWare games felt like a finely crafted sculpture made with care and love. Now they just feel like the cold result of a formula that's been cooked up in a lab to be the "perfect" game.

Simply put: ME1 and DAO were made for me. And I mean really made for me. Two of my favourite games ever. As a fan of the originals shouldn't it therefore make sense that the sequels should also appeal to me?

Modifié par Terror_K, 01 juillet 2011 - 12:25 .

[Phaedon]

Gunderic wrote...
Also, no mention of different armour types for companions?

No, because Hudson and Watamaniak were still discussing the armour customization system less than 2 months ago.

[Eduadinho]

Terror K you are acting like the game should be made for you. You suggest that no loot stats is bad, even though ME2 clearly had stats. You get angry when a game isn't made to your specifications why am I not allowed to suggest that your opinion is incorrect without being what I am sure you a thinking a "streamlined, dumbed down gamer". Nowhere in RPG does it say anything about stats or loot.

I think people need this one spelled out RPG= ROLE PLAYING GAME. Not STAT/LOOT BASED ADVENTURE GAME=SLBAG..

PS if the game industry is leaving troglodytes like you behind good riddance.

Modifié par Eduadinho, 01 juillet 2011 - 12:35 .

[Gunderic]

Terror_K wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

So, basicly you are at "war" agaist Biowares game design direction. It has nothing to do will game be good or bad, you assume that if it doesn't follow sertain design path it very likely lead in bad games and more important not sertain type of RPG's.

I don't like the recent direction BioWare has chosen to take, no. I'll fully admit that. Previously I loved pretty much every game they made and the first disappointment was ME2. Why? Because it dumbed things down, mainstreamlined and moved away from what I loved about the original. The second disappointment was Dragon Age 2. Why? Because it dumbed things down, mainstreamlined and moved away from what I loved about the original.

I don't think some fans realize that a significant number of other people seem to feel that way too.

[InvaderErl]

In the case of ME2 the disappointment was very clearly a minority. We only need to contrast the reception ME2 received with DA2 both critically, with gamers abroad and even on this forum.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 01 juillet 2011 - 12:34 .

[Varen Spectre]

Lumikki wrote...

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.

*snip

I am not sure if I understand your first two paragraphs (mostly the bolded sentences) correctly, but the presumption that somebody wants to add some RPG features to Mass Effect 3 for the sake of being able to call it RPG is most probably incorrect.

It's much more likely that particular person wants to add / not remove specific feature because he / she actually enjoyed it in other (maybe previous ME) games. Than it is up to discussion to determine whether other forum members agree or not and why.

Currently the most prominent features were "stats" and "looting things" because their role was especially mentioned in the article provided, but I guess, any other feature can be discussed as well. 

So, IMO, it is better to argue about usefulness of particular feature than Bioware's development direction and consumers' ability to interfere in it.  

[Phaedon]

I personally believe that the 'weapon stats' and the stats in general were a disappointment in ME1.

For starters, all of the weapons feel the same.

Also, the fact that the advantages of new weaponry are obvious, the weapon selection system is not complicated, and you can't create any builds based on weapons. unlike ME2.

It's one of the things that ME2 did very well, and I'd like to see it expanded in ME3.

[Phaedon]

Varen Spectre wrote...
I am not sure if I understand your first two paragraphs (mostly the bolded sentences) correctly, but the presumption that somebody wants to add some RPG features to Mass Effect 3 for the sake of being able to call it RPG is most probably incorrect.

It's much more likely that particular person wants to add / not remove specific feature because he / she actually enjoyed it in other (maybe previous ME) games. Than it is up to discussion to determine whether other forum members agree or not and why.

Currently the most prominent features were "stats" and "looting things" because their role was especially mentioned in the article provided, but I guess, any other feature can be discussed as well. 

So, IMO, it is better to argue about usefulness of particular feature than Bioware's development direction and consumers' ability to interfere in it.  

We have seen diverse power evolution, were promised a larger economy and better loot, as well as evolving powers.

So I don't see the problem.

[Gunderic]

InvaderErl wrote...

In the case of ME2 the disappointment was very clearly a minority. We only need to contrast the reception ME2 received with DA2 both critically, with gamers abroad and even on this forum.

Okay, but it's most likely because of that minority's feedback are we seeing a somewhat vague attempt from BioWare of re-incorporating features that Mass Effect 1 had, and the second game lacked.

[Phaedon]

Gunderic wrote...

InvaderErl wrote...

In the case of ME2 the disappointment was very clearly a minority. We only need to contrast the reception ME2 received with DA2 both critically, with gamers abroad and even on this forum.

Okay, but it's most likely because of that minority's feedback are we seeing a somewhat vague attempt from BioWare of re-incorporating features that Mass Effect 1 had, and the second game lacked.

Nope.

Just because it's a minority -a very vocal one, I may add- that was disappointed with ME2, it doesn't mean that the rest of us can't see and point out some of it's flaws.

The same applies to professional reviewers and developers.

Modifié par Phaedon, 01 juillet 2011 - 12:47 .

[InvaderErl]

Gunderic wrote...

InvaderErl wrote...

In the case of ME2 the disappointment was very clearly a minority. We only need to contrast the reception ME2 received with DA2 both critically, with gamers abroad and even on this forum.

Okay, but it's most likely because of that minority's feedback are we seeing a somewhat vague attempt from BioWare of re-incorporating features that Mass Effect 1 had, and the second game lacked.

I agree that they're responding to feedback but what it seems to me Bioware is doing is they're taking a look at some concepts they had in ME1 and rather than reincorporating them back in they're re-invisioning them using the design philosophies that they picked up from ME2.


That is to say it looks like weapon mods are less about Frictionless Materials 1<Frictionless Materials 2 etc. and more: this barrel does 25% more damage as opposed to this one which does X. It'll be less about rummaging through loot rather than making clear and distinct choices right off the bat.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 01 juillet 2011 - 12:52 .

[Gunderic]

Phaedon wrote...

Gunderic wrote...

InvaderErl wrote...

In the case of ME2 the disappointment was very clearly a minority. We only need to contrast the reception ME2 received with DA2 both critically, with gamers abroad and even on this forum.

Okay, but it's most likely because of that minority's feedback are we seeing a somewhat vague attempt from BioWare of re-incorporating features that Mass Effect 1 had, and the second game lacked.

Nope.

Just because it's a minority -a very vocal one, I may add- that was disappointed with ME2, it doesn't mean that the rest of us can't see and point out some of it's flaws.

The same applies to professional reviewers and developers.

Not necessarily those who were disappointed with Mass Effect 2, but those who wanted the Mass Effect series to have more in-depth roleplaying elements in general.

Modifié par Gunderic, 01 juillet 2011 - 12:53 .

[Phaedon]

Everyone in their right mind wants more in-depth roleplaying and shooter elements.

The problem is that no one agrees as to what is more in-depth, and there are also the people who are obsessed with sticking a genre label over anything they find.

Modifié par Phaedon, 01 juillet 2011 - 12:55 .

[Raxxman]

Phaedon wrote...

I personally believe that the 'weapon stats' and the stats in general were a disappointment in ME1.

For starters, all of the weapons feel the same.

Weapons, yes, there where mainy pointless weapon reskins in the game, but mods changed that (I mean in game weapon mods not tweeking the files)

You could make a sniper rifle that delivered one high powered shot that did a tonne of damage and knocked a guy on his ass before going into overheat, or you could make a rapid fire sniper rifle for sustained shooting.

Same goes for all weapons

Also, the fact that the advantages of new weaponry are obvious, the weapon selection system is not complicated, and you can't create any builds based on weapons. unlike ME2.

This isn't true, I had an Infiltrator with AR training who had a sniper rifle set up for one shot before overheat single hit take downs, a shotgun equiped to knock people back (but not really do damage), and an AR for general purpose sustained combat.

First time round before AR training I had the sniper rifle set up to be the main dps weapon, the shotgun was used the same way, to make sure people didn't get too close to me, but because I didn't have the AR training I used the Sniper rifle as a sharp shooter, not key personal elimination.

My solider had a different setup as well, with the AR set up with explosive X rounds, for short bursts in combat.

It's one of the things that ME2 did very well, and I'd like to see it expanded in ME3.

ME2 does do this well, I agree, but the addition of the workbench is exactly what is needed for ME2's weapon system.

Personally I feel ME1's weapon system had large areas of redundancy, you don't need 10 itterations of 20 weapons where the biggest difference is the colour they are (that said it was nice to have colour coordinated weapon sets). The mods made the biggest difference, and it really should of been left like that.

[kregano]

Terror_K wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

I know what you mean and i can understand you point of view from classic RPG perspective. But what you say is basicly that you don't accept Bioware's Mass Effects design direction, because you don't like it.

You say Bioware admitted wanting larger audience. So, why would that be bad thing? Because you assume that it means something what you don't like. Does this mean game is gonna be bad or it's not just fiting your taste of games?

What you say here, listen your own words what I bolded. YOU don't believe something what Bioware is doing. Still the evidence is front of you, in ME2 and becoming ME3. Listen words what they sayed about stats and loot. If they did not want to do these changes, did God force them to do it or was it BIG bad wolf called EA who did it?

Or could explanation be so simple that you assume wrong and this is what Bioware wanted for Mass Effect serie?

I'm sorry that you did not get game serie what was all you wanted. But there is still a lot of RPG fans here who have wider taste of RPG. So, we don't have same issues you do. I loved both ME1 and ME2 and will very likely also love ME3. All of them will have bad and good points, because nothing is ever perfect.

No. I don't accept it because it doesn't make sense. It contradicts earlier statements made when the original game was still in development. And if they had planned to make it as they had with ME2 they would have, because it's far simpler to make it in that manner than it would have been to do it how they did ME1. You're essentially saying that the devs always intended to build a small wooden bridge, despite the fact they started using stone slabs, iron and cement in the beginning, or that they intended to build a simple pedal bicycle when they had a motorcycle engine and gas tank on the original items list. That's illogical.

If they hadn't intended to add loot, stat-based combat, "ammo" mechanics, etc. then they wouldn't have put it in in the first place. I'm not ignoring the evidence here; you are. What they are saying now and what they said leading up into ME2 is not what they were saying when the trilogy was beginning. The terms "shooter" and "TPS" and "hybrid" and the like didn't even start coming up until just prior to ME2's E3 reveal just under a year before it released. ME1 and the ME trilogy was always referred to as an "action RPG" before then. I have to ask: did you even follow Mass Effect from the start, Lumikki? Or are you a fairly recent fan who came in after ME1?

From what I understand, the reason why the so-called RPG elements you love were in ME1 was because Bioware had no idea how else to implement RPG elements that affect combat performance within the Unreal 3 engine and just stuck with what they usually did. It's not surprising that it was ditched in ME2 because let's be honest: Mass Effect 1 was a technical culsterfrak. It was a massive failure in terms of expandability, since only two bits of DLC ever came out for it despite Bioware's intentions to bridge ME1 and ME2 with DLC, and fixability, since Bioware couldn't fix the PC version's low texture Garrus face without a massive multigigabyte patch. ME2 turned out to be a far superior game because Bioware managed to learn from their experience with ME1 and basically rebuilt the game from the ground up, keeping some models and art assets.

[Phaedon]

This isn't true, I had an Infiltrator with AR training who had a sniper rifle set up for one shot before overheat single hit take downs, a shotgun equiped to knock people back (but not really do damage), and an AR for general purpose sustained combat.

First time round before AR training I had the sniper rifle set up to be the main dps weapon, the shotgun was used the same way, to make sure people didn't get too close to me, but because I didn't have the AR training I used the Sniper rifle as a sharp shooter, not key personal elimination.

My solider had a different setup as well, with the AR set up with explosive X rounds, for short bursts in combat.

I was referring to weapon models, not types.

[wolfennights]

Honestly, I never really used upgrades unless it was something that made some huge impact on my weapon. Squadmates didn't get upgrades either.

Inventory was a hassle in the first game. Vehicle transportation was awesome on the main missions, but not on side quests. Would have been nice if they had refined both of these things rather than straight up taking them out.