3223 réponses à ce sujet

[Cainne Chapel]

Well to be fair I dont think Drew left, he got moved over to do the story for The Old Republic if I recall. So he got "shifted" not left.

Plus if i recall Casey... or Jesse, dont remember which, pretty much said Drew left the framework for the remaining story to be accomplished (as the series was originally planned as a trilogy).

But if all of you are complainng about the story in ME2 (which was worked on by Drew) wouldnt you draw the conclusion that ME3 would be terrible story wise as well?

Naw but I dont think we have anything to worry about in terms of the direction of the game as I dont think Bioware would of shifted drew to a new game if they didn't feel ME3 was well in hand.  

Dont forget ME3 started ramping up as ME2 was shipped so i'm sure they've had plenty of time to work out that move over.

Modifié par Cainne Chapel, 04 juillet 2011 - 02:12 .

[sympathy4saren]

I would be fine with combat if the rpg elements got the same attention and focus as combat has received.

Then, it could be labeled a true hybrid, and that would be great.

[Someone With Mass]

Terror_K wrote...

Exactly. Once again we have the irony of a bunch of us saying, "ME2 was dumbed down for the masses" and a bunch of people going, "But ME2 was more popular and liked by more people!"

Well, duh! That's what happens when you cater a game FOR THE MASSES! <_<

Yeah, how dare they try to appeal to more people and try to make more of a profit like any company in the world would! 

[littlezack]

We could literally bounce this off till the end of time, and with nine months ago, I'm sure this argument will come up many, many more times. So. I'll just say this.

RPG. Shooter. Hybrid. It's Mass Effect. Labeling it is really pointless - it won't make it any more or less what it is. So. I just play.

[this isnt my name]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

Well to be fair I dont think Drew left, he got moved over to do the story for The Old Republic if I recall. So he got "shifted" not left.

Plus if i recall Casey... or Jesse, dont remember which, pretty much said Drew left the framework for the remaining story to be accomplished (as the series was originally planned as a trilogy).

But if all of you are complainng about the story in ME2 (which was worked on by Drew) wouldnt you draw the conclusion that ME3 would be terrible story wise as well?

Naw but I dont think we have anything to worry about in terms of the direction of the game as I dont think Bioware would of shifted drew to a new game if they didn't feel ME3 was well in hand.  

Dont forget ME3 started ramping up as ME2 was shipped so i'm sure they've had plenty of time to work out that move over.

I hated the story anyway (illogical actions, and seems "inspired" by revelation space). Just prefered ME1 writing to ME2 writing. (the books sound good, but I just dont like the idea of the games being so similar)

This thread is about gameplay though.

[this isnt my name]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Exactly. Once again we have the irony of a bunch of us saying, "ME2 was dumbed down for the masses" and a bunch of people going, "But ME2 was more popular and liked by more people!"

Well, duh! That's what happens when you cater a game FOR THE MASSES! <_<

Yeah, how dare they try to appeal to more people and try to make more of a profit like any company in the world would! 

You know who likes the way you think
http://t3.gstatic.co...bESIeZ3-AmNOibn

I understand wanting a profit, but they need to draw a line, unless everyone wants to be like kotick who would suck innovation and fun out of gaming just for greed.

I would rather the insane peter molyneux than kotick, peter makes bad decisions, but ihe tries new things, instead of seeing games and mimicing the one selling the most.

[sbvera13]

If Mass Appeal and profit is the issue, then they need to take a stand- watering things down and mixing them to the point that gameplay elements are indistinguishable just loses your market edge. If your product doesn't stand out, it doesn't sell. As mentioned, all the big name games are quickly becoming very close to the same.

[Terror_K]

Praetor Shepard wrote...

Well, I've got a poll about gameplay and I've seen a few other polls that seem to point to many on these forums preferring ME2 gameplay over ME1, so I'm getting a sense that the fanbase / playerbase stuff is simply splitting hairs, IMHO. (Here's my poll: http://social.biowar...64/polls/13038/)

Yeah, but that's related to one specific form of gameplay: the combat. And even I admit that the way ME2 went about combat was largely better than ME1. I even agree that replacing stat-based combat with skill-based combat was better for the game, though I felt that there still should have been more skills and/or stats related to weapons somehow. Since Alpha Protocol was brought up recently, it's actually a good example of how it could be done: certain skills and abilities related to the weapons you're using. Kind of a case of, "you don't need to level up your weapon skill to use the weapon fully, but it helps to do so by giving you additional weapon-specific skills that'll help a lot."

I can't comment on the DA2 stuff cuz I don't have a copy of the game, but isn't there separate dev teams working on the two games / IPs? So I don't think that there is a fair comparison there, with such statements / positions.

While both are different teams, both essentially took the same approach to their respective sequels, and both seem indicative and representative of BioWare's overall recent change of direction, IMO: the fact that they're going more for the casual audiences than for the nerd sect. I wouldn't have a problem with overall concept if they choose to branch out with new IPs designed to aim at the mainstream gamer from the start, but they're not; they're sabotaging their existing IPs and twisting them towards the mainstream. That involves taking out RPG elements that scare off most casual gamers and introducing more action and simplification overall.

And with what I've seen in the Known Features thread and other sources, ME3 will have more for players than ME2 so I wouldn't write Bioware off and label them prematurely as ignoring the original fanbase (which I like to think I'm a part of since I like the first game too).

I don't think they're completely ignoring the original fanbase at all. I think they want to have their cake and eat it too. As I've said before, they're not solely going for the mainstream audience; they're trying to find that perfect blend of game that can appeal to both sides to get as big an overall audience as possible. They want the GoW and CoD crowd and the Baldur's Gate and NWN ones, and everybody inbetween. And they either don't seem to realise or don't care that to do this they have to introduce and cull factors that both sides like, thus losing parts of the audience in the process. They probably don't care as long as they get that meaty middle-ground though. And that's another issue I have with BioWare's approach lately: it's making their games seem like this cold, heartless forumula designed to be that genetically "perfect" game rather than a work of sculpted art that is made with love and naturally formed to be the best at what it's supposed to be.

And I'd rather believe they are doing their best to make the best game possible, regardless of labels like RPG, TPS and any other label / category that we can think of. But if we want a label I submit this potential candidate for consideration: iconoclast.

Exactly. And that's not a good thing, IMO. Christina Norman said something along those lines regarding their design of Mass Effect 2 actually: that they weren't worrying about labels and just setting out to make the best game they could. And as a result, Mass Effect 2 just ended being that and little more: a game. Not an experience, not a work of art. Just another game in a sea of other generic games out there.

[sbvera13]

Terror_K wrote...

Praetor Shepard wrote...

And I'd rather believe they are doing their best to make the best game possible, regardless of labels like RPG, TPS and any other label / category that we can think of. But if we want a label I submit this potential candidate for consideration: iconoclast.

Exactly. And that's not a good thing, IMO. Christina Norman said something along those lines regarding their design of Mass Effect 2 actually: that they weren't worrying about labels and just setting out to make the best game they could. And as a result, Mass Effect 2 just ended being that and little more: a game. Not an experience, not a work of art. Just another game in a sea of other generic games out there.

Insightful... I hadn't thought of that, but so terribly true.  Games are art, whether for it's cultural sake or for entertainment's sake, they follow the same creative process and ultimately tie into the same psycological need.  Good art need vision, direction, and determination to make it so.

[Terror_K]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Yeah, how dare they try to appeal to more people and try to make more of a profit like any company in the world would! 

If they want to do that, then they should do so with new IPs designed to appeal to the masses from the start, like perhaps a story-driven modern military action game with mild RPG elements. Instead they're taking their existing IPs and warping them for the sake of mass appeal. Hell... maybe that's what the title should be changed to instead: Mass Appeal.

Again, this type of approach is just making their games feel like a cold formula designed for profit than a product made by people who really care. And I'm sure plenty will note that this only became an issue around the same time that EA took the reins. We already know from a few sources that it was EA that was pushing for DA2 to come out sooner rather than later and they're largely responsible for the product being rushed (not that it was DA2's only fault).

[Il Divo]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

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

How can you not understand why turn-based combat is the conclusion?

Gatt defines an RPG as character-based skill. Any system in which the player's skill (in other words, any system which is not turn-based) by his definition is not an RPG. It's that simple.

Edit: Oh, and to address your point. If you consider Mass Effect an RPG, then you must also consider Assassin's Creed an RPG. You see how easy that was?

Modifié par Il Divo, 04 juillet 2011 - 02:44 .

[sbvera13]

EA has a long standing reputation for doing that.

[Someone With Mass]

littlezack wrote...

We could literally bounce this off till the end of time, and with nine months ago, I'm sure this argument will come up many, many more times. So. I'll just say this.

RPG. Shooter. Hybrid. It's Mass Effect. Labeling it is really pointless - it won't make it any more or less what it is. So. I just play.

Probably the best comment in this whole thread. 

I'll play ME3 regardless, since I'm more interested about the characters and the story (which I also think is a more important part about an RPG than the stats) and I'll most likely enjoy it the same way I enjoyed ME2.

[Il Divo]

Gatt9 wrote...

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.

I'm wondering if you've ever played a Bioware game, based on these statements.

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

Mass Effect. Deus Ex. Alpha Protocol Shall I keep going? 

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

Again, Mass Effect. Deus Ex. Alpha Protocol. Every real-time system in existence says you're wrong. Character-based skill relies on the character. Real-time games (even Morrowind) still rely on player skill. It doesn't matter how high my marksman skill is. As the player, I still have to physically hit the target.

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.

And I'd define  them as RPGs, much like when I played pen and paper.

Modifié par Il Divo, 04 juillet 2011 - 02:49 .

[Symji]

Il Divo wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

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

How can you not understand why turn-based combat is the conclusion?

Gatt defines an RPG as character-based skill. Any system in which the player's skill (in other words, any system which is not turn-based) by his definition is not an RPG. It's that simple.

Edit: Oh, and to address your point. If you consider Mass Effect an RPG, then you must also consider Assassin's Creed an RPG. You see how easy that was?

The VATS system in Fallout allows for stat based combat in a FPS/TPS game. Even though it does slow time down, it does not relegate it to turn based as your enemies still attack you at the same time. In FO3 they attacked slower and did less damage in VATS, but in FO:NV those protections have been removed.

[this isnt my name]

Terror_K wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Yeah, how dare they try to appeal to more people and try to make more of a profit like any company in the world would! 

If they want to do that, then they should do so with new IPs designed to appeal to the masses from the start, like perhaps a story-driven modern military action game with mild RPG elements. Instead they're taking their existing IPs and warping them for the sake of mass appeal. Hell... maybe that's what the title should be changed to instead: Mass Appeal.

Again, this type of approach is just making their games feel like a cold formula designed for profit than a product made by people who really care. And I'm sure plenty will note that this only became an issue around the same time that EA took the reins. We already know from a few sources that it was EA that was pushing for DA2 to come out sooner rather than later and they're largely responsible for the product being rushed (not that it was DA2's only fault).

Its funny, Microsoft is considered a greedy publisher, yet they made an rpg, under EA it turned it into a gears clone.

Allthough I feel its not EAs fault. Its Biowares. Look up a game called Kingdoms of Amalur : Reckoning. It looks like it will be a pretty good game imo (its published by EA). BW also has control, its thier fault just as much as EAs that ME became what it did. I highly doubd the devs in interviews are being made to say this stuff becuase EA have thier family hostage.

Them changing existing IPs is what bothers me. Its a middle finger to fans, the fans who got them this far.

[Il Divo]

Symji wrote...

The VATS system in Fallout allows for stat based combat in a FPS/TPS game. Even though it does slow time down, it does not relegate it to turn based as your enemies still attack you at the same time. In FO3 they attacked slower and did less damage in VATS, but in FO:NV those protections have been removed.

I should have been more clear: any system which relies on real-time combat would have to be excluded. Fallout 3 does have vats (where player skill is irrelevant), but real-time combat is reliant on player skill.

That's where the character-based argument begins to weaken. My point with turn-based systems (KotOR, for example) is that there is absolutely no player skill involved. I tell my PC to swing a sword, but whether he hits is based on a dice roll. But even something like Diablo has elements of player skill involved because the game is dependent upon my reflexes, or ability to click.

Modifié par Il Divo, 04 juillet 2011 - 02:54 .

[sbvera13]

Someone With Mass wrote...

littlezack wrote...

We could literally bounce this off till the end of time, and with nine months ago, I'm sure this argument will come up many, many more times. So. I'll just say this.

RPG. Shooter. Hybrid. It's Mass Effect. Labeling it is really pointless - it won't make it any more or less what it is. So. I just play.

Probably the best comment in this whole thread. 

I'll play ME3 regardless, since I'm more interested about the characters and the story (which I also think is a more important part about an RPG than the stats) and I'll most likely enjoy it the same way I enjoyed ME2.

I felt the same... and ME2 was still a huge let down. 12 or so short character vignettes, that take about 30 minutes each, does not an epic story make.  Very well written vignettes, true, but the overall story tie-in was weak and the game was very poorly focused.  I felt like I was haphazardly meandering my way through the backstory, not the central focus of the plot.  I never once felt like I was saving the galaxy- even the collector plotline builds slowly to an easily predictable anticlimax, then just throws Shepard at it and makes it explode.  The suicide mission was fun as all get out, gameplay wise, but story wise it was extremely weak.

[Dangerfoot]

I see RPG as a story telling genre, not as a gameplay genre.

If I played a game where I actually felt like I was shaping my character and his environment, I'd call it an RPG regardless of whether I'm shooting in real time or he's fighting for me. Unfortunately I haven't really seen a game like that. Even Alpha Protocol, which sacrificed basically every aspect of its gameplay to be an RPG, doesn't feel a fraction as dynamic as an RPG should.

[Praetor Knight]

Terror_K wrote...

I don't think they're completely ignoring the original fanbase at all. I think they want to have their cake and eat it too. As I've said before, they're not solely going for the mainstream audience; they're trying to find that perfect blend of game that can appeal to both sides to get as big an overall audience as possible. They want the GoW and CoD crowd and the Baldur's Gate and NWN ones, and everybody inbetween. And they either don't seem to realise or don't care that to do this they have to introduce and cull factors that both sides like, thus losing parts of the audience in the process. They probably don't care as long as they get that meaty middle-ground though. And that's another issue I have with BioWare's approach lately: it's making their games seem like this cold, heartless forumula designed to be that genetically "perfect" game rather than a work of sculpted art that is made with love and naturally formed to be the best at what it's supposed to be.

And I'd rather believe they are doing their best to make the best game possible, regardless of labels like RPG, TPS and any other label / category that we can think of. But if we want a label I submit this potential candidate for consideration: iconoclast.

Exactly. And that's not a good thing, IMO. Christina Norman said something along those lines regarding their design of Mass Effect 2 actually: that they weren't worrying about labels and just setting out to make the best game they could. And as a result, Mass Effect 2 just ended being that and little more: a game. Not an experience, not a work of art. Just another game in a sea of other generic games out there.

Well I felt that ME2 was a fine experience, but I can see how it does not leave one with the type of satisfaction that ME1 gives when you complete the first game.


Going with a work of art idea, one thing about art is that there is a great variety of art and individuals can have different opinions on art and art styles. Personally I'm in awe of some styles like pointillism, but I really don't get Modern Art Stuff.

And I'd guess that there was love in making ME2, but with the H1N1 outbreak that hit Bioware's offices, it was a miracle that the game was finished on time. And maybe the game should have been pushed back because of all the hours lost. (Here's the article where I read that: The Making of Mass Effect 2).

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

RPG combat, like most RPG elements work on a typical - player initiates an action, character determines it's success model.

While this more naturally sets itself up for turn based combat, it can work in real time. BioWare have straddled the line with their Real Time with Pause model. It is fully real time but combat sequences work out in rounds between player and enemies, with the option to pause.

It can work in real time though, as long as the principle remains the same. Hence the skills affecting accuracy component. Now, I do think that in Mass Effect, it's probably not the best idea as combat is relatively fast paced and it's a corridor cover shooter. But there are other areas which skills can make a difference and determine success. Critical hits/failures, reload speed, weapon spread (though that gets close to accuracy), damage, extra abilities and so on. For the most part, Mass Effect 2 refines on the model from Mass Effect 1 and removes much of it's clunkiness, though the level it Streamlined it to and whether it was a positive step is debatable. What's not debatable is the fact that it can still be expanded on greatly.

An area I would like to see in Mass Effect 3 would be skills determining what modifications you can use and how effective they end up being, for example. So, the best customisations won't be available unless you have the highest skills, or due to your lack of expertise, you won't be able to get the most out of the upgrades.

I see RPGs personally as both a gameplay and story telling genre.

Because doing cool stuff (gameplay) is always apart of a good story. Creative thinking to solve logical puzzles, catering to wholly different playstyles and character concepts through unique content and open ended gameplay. It's good for the game and good for the story as it allows the player to better express their character and interact with others through their actions.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 04 juillet 2011 - 03:28 .

[Bnol]

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 you have any sort of movement, or any other action elements you are playing the character and inserting your skill into it.  Only turn based RPG doesn't implant your "skill" and only your decisions. 

[sbvera13]

Even turn-based choices are skill... like chess. Nobody has ever said that no skill is involved in that.

I think people are confusing real-time action with what the word "skill" actually means.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

sbvera13 wrote...

Even turn-based choices are skill... like chess. Nobody has ever said that no skill is involved in that.

I think people are confusing real-time action with what the word "skill" actually means.

Chess plays itself, man.

[AlanC9]

Gatt9 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
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.

This would all seem really plausible if I hadn't actually played ME2. But I have, and it isn't.

I can tell the differentce between ME2 and shooters. Are you actually telling me that you can't? Or are you saying that you don't think the difference amounts to a difference in genre?

If it's the latter, I don't care. Genre definitions are of no interest to me. I was only going there because the_one_54321 was using the terms.

If it's the former, which other shooters would give me an equivalent experience?

Modifié par AlanC9, 04 juillet 2011 - 03:39 .