3223 réponses à ce sujet

[armass]

When you press a button, something awesome has to happen, button=awesome connected now in ME3?

Modifié par armass, 03 juillet 2011 - 09:08 .

[sp0ck 06]

Gatt9 wrote...

sighineedname wrote...

Symji wrote...

My biggest gripe with the whole ME combat system is it's moving away from RPG type combat to shooter type combat. What I mean by this is simple, in rpg style combat, the success/effectiveness of your attacks relies entirely on your character's stats, where as in shooter type combat, the success part of the attack is separated from the effectiveness, and now depends completely on the player.

And as for my opinion on what a shooter rpg could be like, I think that if somehow we could get Bioware and Bethesda together to make an rpg combining the best aspects of Mass Effect (presentation, voice acting and storytelling) and Fallout (open world exploration, skills and stats) it would truly be a thing to behold, and i'd wager a game that wouldn't be equaled for a long, long time.

I think the combat system ME2 has is what this genre will be, roughly, for the forseeable future. I would guess you are in the minority when you want combat to be determined by gear, rather than the player. More and more this approach seems to be left to the MMORPGs rather than action RPGs.

The problem with the debate between more and less RPG elements is it's completely opinion. You can debate good versus bad RPG elements and good versus bad FPS/TPS elements, but it's very difficult to compare a shooter approach versus a RPG approach. I personally enjoy playing ME2 a lot more than ME1. I get more enjoyment about doing things when I had to do something rather than my gear having to do something. Even on insanity in ME1 I feel like I am cheating in combat.

I doubt it will be what this genre will be for the foreseeable future honestly.

The first reason is that these are mislabelled games,  ME2 was a TPS,  just because Bioware put RPG on the box for marketing reasons doesn't mean the entre genre is now different,  an RPG is still an RPG,  still requires fundamental basis in character based skill.  Bioware cannot change what an RPG is,  nor can Bethseda,  through mislabelling their product,  no more than I can change what a Corvette is by misbadging a Mitsubishi Eclipse.

The second reason is,  there are still studios making RPGs.  Iron Tower's "Age of Decadance",  Double Bear's "Dead State",  even Blizzard's "Diablo 3".  They all have their basis in the character based skill that defines the genre. 

RPG's aren't changing,  they can't change,  because they're emulations of a real world thing and neither Bioware nor Bethseda have the power to change that,  no matter how many games they mislabel. 

I'm not sure if it's your ideas or just your writing that's muddled up. Sure, RPG fans are a majority of the fanbase. And yet these same RPG fans seem to have preferred ME2's gameplay by a pretty wide margin. Or are you saying that the professional reviews, user revieews, and sales figures are all lying, and lying in the same direction?

You're a smart guy,  you know better than this.

We already know the professional reviews are motivated by the desire to aquire preview copies,  and break review embargo in exchange for positive reviews,  in order to get traffic,  so they get paid.  There's not an honest site out there these days.   After DA2,  I don't know how you would assert the reviews hold any weight.

We also have some pretty compelling evidence that EA and Bioware will review their own games as "Users" and not disclose their affiliation.  Once again,  DA2 has shown us this.  So why would we consider those to have any weight?  We can be pretty certain it exists,  the question is to what extent now.

As far as the sales figures go...

ME - 2 million units
ME2 - Between 1.6 million units and 2.5 million units depending on which site you like.
DAO - 3.2 million units.

So I would venture that the other post is likely correct.  A significant number of those sales likely did come from people like myself,  who bought the sequel expecting that the sequel to an RPG would be an RPG,  and ME2 really didn't do all that well.  That 6.6 million number that floats around was a misspeak,  uttered only once,  even the fanatics recognized it as such in the very thread on these boards when it was made.  Coincidently,  sharing relationship to the first set of numbers for ME2.  Plus,  EA's publicly held,  they'd have put it in their financials if it did that well,  that they made no comment is very telling.

http://social.biowar...index/7145086/1
http://www.firingsqu...?searchid=23784
http://en.wikipedia....360_video_games
http://gamrreview.vg.../mass-effect-2/
http://social.biowar...index/2586260/1
http://social.biowar...ndex/2583138/11

So basically what you're saying is that Bioware and Bethesda, despite being developers of noted RPGs for many years, are "not allowed" to call their games an RPG, for the simple reason that people like you disagree with them?

You then imply that the overwhelmingly positive feedback garnered by ME2 is a lie.  You link "evidence" that either doesn't support your claims (wiki: ME1 1.6mil, ME2 1.6mil so...?) or is completely irrelevant (Duke Nukem Forever?).  Really?  I guess Baldur's Gate and Morrowind were also "rigged" and are actually terrible games, I just "think" they're good because they have good scores?  Give me a break...

Honestly, I think the reason for the viewpoint on ME2 espoused by you and others is because you simply hate that ME (and Bioware games in general) have become popular to a variety of gamers.  You want Mass Effect to be this elite, "hardcore" series that only "true" fans can appreciate.  Because of course, any game with decent shooting mechanics is stupid and shallow, and any game with an inventory or stat based combat is automatically "smart" and requires ungodly intelligence to play.  Is this it?  Or are you just rubbish at real time combat?  I also find it amusing how you claim "Diablo 3" will be more of an RPG than ME.  This goes to show how far the RPG fans really have fallen.

News flash:  as far as traditional RPGs go, ME1 was at best medicore.  It was never meant to be Baldur's Gate in space.  ME1 had that "new car" smell to it, and a great story covered up its flaws in terms of gameplay.  In ME2 the devs focused the series on what it's good at: an engaging, player controlled story, great characters, cinematic set pieces, and solid action.  ME2 didn't get high scores because its shallow or lolCoD.  It's a better game.  I don't play Mass Effect to collect tons of loot and crunch numbers to min/max a character.  I play it to control Shepard's story, learn about the world, meet the characters, and kick Geth ass.

 

Modifié par sp0ck 06, 03 juillet 2011 - 09:10 .

[the_one_54321]

sp0ck 06 wrote...
You want Mass Effect to be this elite, "hardcore" series that only "true" fans can appreciate.  Because of course, any game with decent shooting mechanics is stupid and shallow, and any game with an inventory or stat based combat is automatically "smart" and requires ungodly intelligence to play.  Is this it?  Or are you just rubbish at real time combat?

No, it's more along the lines that like 20 Shooters are made every year and some of the biggest annual blockbusters are shooters. Conversely, like 2 genuinely good "oldschool" RPGs are made every year and only be like 2 different companies. If BioWare stopped making Shooters (I'm not really sure why they started to begin with) it would be no big loss. But if they stopped making games like DA:O (and it seems they very well may already have) then we're out half of the AAA old fashioned RPGs available.

I like shooters. I play them regularly. I'm good enough to hold my own in multiplayer even. Same goes for RTSs. This is not all an issue of "I don't like your kind of game." But for the other side, it is definitively an issue of "I don't like your game." So drop the hypicrisy.

BioWare used to not make anything like shooters. Then they made one. Then the group of fans from that side of the fence come over and they start telling us how what we like in RPGs is elitist and we should stop being so full of ourselves and just learn to like what everyone else likes. Screw that.

[Cainne Chapel]

actually the_one, the point from the very beginning of ME was it was a Hybrid of a TPS and an RPG. Even ME1 itself wasn't a straight by the numbers RPG and therefore... I dont see why people are complaining its not a Full old school style RPG.

It was never one to begin with, it was never even marketed as such.

and just because there is a glut of shooters from random companies here and there, doesn't invalidate a good one. Just like because there's a ton of crappy JRPGs doesn't mean it invalidates good ones like Persona 4 or White Knight Chronicles or even a Tales of...

I mean if your argument is going to be bioware doesnt need to make such and such game, because all the other companies make such and such game... well we'd never get any games now would we?

Besides, dont you think complaining about an action rpg.... BEING an action rpg and how its not a legit rpg anymore and yada yada yada, I have proof (opinion) of this and my word is right and yours isnt.... on either side of the fence, dont you feel that is being elitist? I do.

Trying to impress ones OWN opinion on everyone else and saying its "right" and theirs is "wrong" even from said company that creates said product...is being elitist.

and I've played RPGs for 20+ years and I feel that way. I love RPGs Love em, still play em to this day, yet I feel no need to turn Mass effect (which I also love) in to something its never been. and quite frankly, I enjoy the steps they took with number 2 and hope 3 is even better.

[rt604]

Someone With Mass wrote...

I'm glad they got rid of the weapon skills, because they made no sense. For being in the military since he was eighteen, one would think Shepard can be effective with any weapon. But nope, it's restricted to some slot I must waste points on in order to be able to hit the broadside of the Citadel with a sniper rifle. Which in its turn makes no sense either, since the weapons have targeting computers to help the user aim.

Skills don't have to necessarily make sense entirely, maybe the proficiency where weapon accuracy and damage went up didn't make sense to a certain standard.  If your character is a specialist as a soldier he can unlock skills, that other classes don't have the ability to duplicate.  A soldier is a master at weaponry, if you are an adept or engineer could mean you are proficient with weapons but you couldn't pull out more potential with that gear because you didn't put as much time into weapons training becacuse you were practicing biotics or tech powers.  That would be like applying the theory where a soldier could have adept powers because he was in the N7 training program.

Modifié par rt604, 04 juillet 2011 - 05:28 .

[RyuGuitarFreak]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

But a good RPG won't simply up a weapon or item from just +2 to +3. It'll have that, but also one weapon will have effect A and another will have effect B, or one will have two minor bonus effects and the other one slightly better effect. Then the player has to decide which one is actually better, because it's not as clear cut when you have things like that. Sometimes the +3 weapon is not always better than the +2 one when the +2 one has better effects or merely effects that better suit your character and/or playstyle or simply what the situation your in dictates.

For example, you could have a weapon that's technically stronger than another in Mass Effect, but the slightly weaker weapon does bonus damage to synthetic enemies and you know you're going to be fighting a bunch of geth or mechs in the current or next section. That changes things, and the "better on paper" weapon overall is not the better weapon at the moment.

You mean like: Widow vs. Viper? Shuriken vs. Tempest vs. Locust? Katana vs. Scimitar vs. Evi vs. Claymore vs. GPS? Vindicator vs. Revy? Shotgun vs. SR specialization?

Please. ME2 requires next to no thinking. It's "Fisher Price: My First RPG" for crying out loud. It either babies you with everything, tells you what to do or does all the work for you. That was the problem with most of what was left of its RPG systems. It felt like a big brother was coming along to wrestle control from you and saying, "you're doing it wrong!" and then it just setting things on autopilot half the time.

How does ME2 babies me, tells me what to do or does all the work for me?

Admittedly ME1 wasn't rocket science either, but at least you could make mistakes there. You could bork your characters and make bad builds, choose poor weapons and mods, etc. ME2 is mindless.

In ME1, how do you make bad builds when there was no difference between Advanced and Master versions of a skill, and in the end, you can max 8.5 of the 10 combat skill trees? No matter what you do, everybody ends up with the same build.

In ME2, you can actually make different builds with different power evolutions, weapon specializations, and bonus powers, and they play in completely different styles.

lulz, exactly. In ME1 you barely had a worthy different experience with different weapons of the same type.

On my first playthrough I was pleasently surprised when I saw the bonus power feature exactly thinking about different builds I could make. The "reset" is not a negative, on the contrary. It was well handled. You just have it on the middle of the game and it wastes eezo, which is a little rare to find. This way the players could solve some issue they had, and tweak whatever he/she wanted for the tougher battles.

My experience. On my first Mass Effect 2 playthrough I was initally confused about "armors", this new "concept" on the gameplay. Weirdly Overload wasn't weakening it, krogans and the vorcha with the flamethrower were kicking my ass. Oh no. Why didn't the magical hand of today's games explained me this? Too bad I had to look it on the menus. (?)
They never explained about the global cooldown and how it was best to use your powers in sequence with squadmates, I was playing just like ME1. Too bad I had to learn to play differently and not as a n00b by reading the forums and by experience. (?)

And...The game also never teached about how the Insanity was much harder than its ME1 counterpart.

Terror K please stop posting random statements about your frustrated experience with the game and provide examples within it to support your affirmations. This way it seems you're just getting stuff out of your ass.

[Savber100]

It's hilarious how moronic people can get when they can't understand that a game can be GREAT even if it's not close to their tastes.

Mass Effect 2 sold over 2 million in THE FIRST WEEK, Check all the major sites and that's the number you'll get.

Oh no, it must be rigged! That will totally ruin the argument I just put out! What can I say!?

Ah yes, it was rigged. Bioware/EA must have bought this people out and now I'll start pulling random numbers from my arse to support my claim!

It's really facepalm worthy... Do any of you guys that say this stuff actually work in the industry?

[AlanC9]

the_one_54321 wrote...
No, it's more along the lines that like 20 Shooters are made every year and some of the biggest annual blockbusters are shooters. Conversely, like 2 genuinely good "oldschool" RPGs are made every year and only be like 2 different companies. If BioWare stopped making Shooters (I'm not really sure why they started to begin with) it would be no big loss. But if they stopped making games like DA:O (and it seems they very well may already have) then we're out half of the AAA old fashioned RPGs available.

But is anyone else making hybrids like ME2? There damn well aren't twenty of those a year.

Modifié par AlanC9, 03 juillet 2011 - 10:28 .

[the_one_54321]

Cainne Chapel wrote...
I mean if your argument is going to be bioware doesnt need to make such and such game, because all the other companies make such and such game... well we'd never get any games now would we?

Beside the fact that your assertin there is inaccurate, (you can create new things an innovate within an established framework, the notion that you can't is a lie that BioWare marketing has perpetuated in an attempt to justify DAII) that wasn't really my argument to begin with. My argument was "stop being a hypocrite." 

To sum up a lot of the support for the ME style: "you're an elitist for trying to make me enjoy a game that is specifically what you want. Now enjoy this game that is specifically what I like. Or else you're an elitist." ME can continue to be ME. In fact ME2 was better as a shooter than ME was as an RPG. That is to say both were mechanically fairly mediocre.

AlanC9 wrote...
But is anyone else making hybrids like ME2?

Don't buy into the hype. There is no such thing. There are only broken attempts to mix game mechanics that are specifically contradictory.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 03 juillet 2011 - 10:33 .

[Il Divo]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Don't buy into the hype. There is no such thing. There are only broken attempts to mix game mechanics that are specifically contradictory.

There is no such thing as hybrids?

[the_one_54321]

Il Divo wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Don't buy into the hype. There is no such thing. There are only broken attempts to mix game mechanics that are specifically contradictory.

There is no such thing as hybrids?

I suppose if you want to be pedantic about it, then yes there are hybrids. Just that they are by default mechanically awful. You can't have aim and shoot based on point and click like a shooter and have accuracy based on stats like in an RPG. Or, you can, but it will result in nothing but a lot of very frustrated players.

[Mir5]

The problem about abandoning the rpg approach is that it usually means that devs are making a rollercoaster ride instead of a game. Games are supposed to be dynamic and as free as possible, not interactive movies. Well if it's just shooting then in a linear corridors, the enemy AI better be ****ing amazing.
I apologize for my cynicism, but I hardly can imagine Bioware succesfully competing with shooting mechanics against something like Halo. I hope that they don't compete with Gears of War, because that game is boring.

Modifié par Mir5, 03 juillet 2011 - 10:56 .

[Someone With Mass]

rt604 wrote...

Skills don't have to necessarily make sense entirely, maybe the proficiency where weapon accuracy and damage went up didn't make sense to a certain standard.  If your character is a specialist as a soldier he can unlock skills, that other classes don't have the ability to duplicate, A soldier is a master at weaponry, if you are an adept or engineer could mean you are proficient with weapons but you couldn't pull out more potential with that gear because you didn't put as much time into weapons training becacuse you were practicing biotics or tech powers.  That would be like applying the theory where a soldier could have adept powers because he was in the N7 training program.

Yeah, but holding the rifles steady so the shots aren't flying all over the place or so the guy can take the shot in the first place is something that's not so demanding or stressful. Shooting with long range rifles is like basic training for most military factions.

It's really sad when some dirty pirate sniper can get a better shot off than Shepard.

[Gatt9]

AlanC9 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
No, it's more along the lines that like 20 Shooters are made every year and some of the biggest annual blockbusters are shooters. Conversely, like 2 genuinely good "oldschool" RPGs are made every year and only be like 2 different companies. If BioWare stopped making Shooters (I'm not really sure why they started to begin with) it would be no big loss. But if they stopped making games like DA:O (and it seems they very well may already have) then we're out half of the AAA old fashioned RPGs available.

But is anyone else making hybrids like ME2? There damn well aren't twenty of those a year.

ME2 isn't a hybrid.  There's no RPG mechanics.  You kill the same exact things at level 1 as you do level 30 so the levelling is irrelevant and there's no real character progression.  Just because a game has a story that takes more than the back of the box to tell it doesn't make it an RPG.

None of your choices matter.  A 100% paragon and a 100% renegade get all of the exact same things,  the exact same companions,  the exact same outcomes to almost all of the quests,  There's no choice.

There's no consequence for your actions.  A 100% paragon can kill someone in cold blood,  by pushing 'em off a roof,  and...nothing.  Game ignores it. 

There's no character based skill,  levelling is irrelevant,  no real choice,  no real consequence.  So whether you use your definition or mine of an RPG,  either way,  ME2's still doesn't have any elements at all.

Which leaves it as it is,  a TPS.

There is no such thing as hybrids?

No,  there isn't,  never has been.  It's a marketing buzzword just like "Immersive,  evolutionary,  revoluationy". 

An RPG is defined by Character based skill,  you're taking on a Role,  you have to have a Character to do so,  the Character must be defined independent of you and your skills or you're just doing self-insertion.

A Shooter is defined by Player based skill.  All that matters is your skill with the mouse. 

It's two opposing fundamental basis.  You cannot have character based player skill.  It makes no sense.

All these games do is intentionally cripple the Shooter interface,  and use experience and leveling to incrementally progress it to a full Shooter interface.  Once the Player is able to overcome the handicap in the interface with his own skill,  the "RPG" aspect is completely eliminated. 

As I said above,  having a story isn't an RPG mechanic,  nor is talking to people,  many many different types of game include stories and dialogue.

[Bnol]

Gatt9 wrote...

An RPG is defined by Character based skill,  you're taking on a Role,  you have to have a Character to do so,  the Character must be defined independent of you and your skills or you're just doing self-insertion.

So your definition of an RPG is only turn-based combat.  Good to know, I guess few games qualify as an RPG to you.

[Jaron Oberyn]

Bnol wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

An RPG is defined by Character based skill,  you're taking on a Role,  you have to have a Character to do so,  the Character must be defined independent of you and your skills or you're just doing self-insertion.

So your definition of an RPG is only turn-based combat.  Good to know, I guess few games qualify as an RPG to you.

Where did he say turn based combat? I don't get how you people conjure up a response to something that's not there at all.

Edit: I've got to agree with Gatt, ME2 is not a hybrid, it's a pure shooter. If you consider it an RPG, then you must also consider Assassins Creed an RPG.

-Polite

Modifié par PoliteAssasin, 04 juillet 2011 - 01:14 .

[TheKillerAngel]

None of your choices matter.  A 100% paragon and a 100% renegade get all of the exact same things,  the exact same companions,  the exact same outcomes to almost all of the quests,  There's no choice.

There's no consequence for your actions.  A 100% paragon can kill someone in cold blood,  by pushing 'em off a roof,  and...nothing.  Game ignores it.  

Absolutely not. All those choices will come around full force by the end of ME3. 

An RPG is defined by Character based skill,  you're taking on a Role,  you have to have a Character to do so,  the Character must be defined independent of you and your skills or you're just doing self-insertion.

A Shooter is defined by Player based skill.  All that matters is your skill with the mouse.  

Based on how you define RPG gameplay mechanics, I think this game is right up your alley.

[AngelicMachinery]

I never thought stat were particularly important to the RPG experience, I always thought it was more about the story telling than anything else. I thought most fans thought the same, but, it seems a game requires stats, piles of weapons and armor, and numbers appearing over someone's head to be an RPG.

[RyuGuitarFreak]

Gatt9 wrote...
...

[JayhartRIC]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Bnol wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

An RPG is defined by Character based skill,  you're taking on a Role,  you have to have a Character to do so,  the Character must be defined independent of you and your skills or you're just doing self-insertion.

So your definition of an RPG is only turn-based combat.  Good to know, I guess few games qualify as an RPG to you.

Where did he say turn based combat? I don't get how you people conjure up a response to something that's not there at all.

Edit: I've got to agree with Gatt, ME2 is not a hybrid, it's a pure shooter. If you consider it an RPG, then you must also consider Assassins Creed an RPG.

-Polite

If ME2 is a pure shooter, so was ME1.

[The Spamming Troll]

Someone With Mass wrote...

I'm glad they got rid of the weapon skills, because they made no sense. For being in the military since he was eighteen, one would think Shepard can be effective with any weapon. But nope, it's restricted to some slot I must waste points on in order to be able to hit the broadside of the Citadel with a sniper rifle. Which in its turn makes no sense either, since the weapons have targeting computers to help the user aim.

really? i thought you hated choice.

the same applies to a classes. take the adept for example who is born with biotics. i have a few issues with the decisions to shoehole me into playing with only those abilties. why do i have to learn pull in order to learn throw? why cant i learn stasis AND barrier? how come singularity will be locked in ME3?

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 04 juillet 2011 - 01:30 .