3223 réponses à ce sujet

[Lumikki]

Same people like allways complaining ME2/DA2 and praising ME1/ DAO.
Yeah, we know allready that you people like classic traditional RPG, nothing new there.
We are in Biowares ME3 forum sections, not in DA's, DA2's, ME2's or general for other games.

When you actually start talking about ME3?

Modifié par Lumikki, 04 juillet 2011 - 07:16 .

[Lunatic LK47]

Terror_K wrote...


But then, there are so many that always claim they're not giving Activision any more money and that they think Bobby Kotick is a gigantic money-grubbing douchebag, and yet each new CoD does better than the last one.

For the record, I outright avoided Black Ops like the plague after seeing the ****fest that was Call of Duty 3 (oh look, it's the same studio that did that game, and World at War.). I already got bored with Modern Warfare 3's E3 demos and was right in thinking Infinity Ward is already down the tubes now that the veteran developers left/got fired/both no thanks to Kotick being greedy. If for some off-chance I want to play the game, I'll either borrow from a friend or buy the game used at a $9.99 price tag.

[shadowreflexion]

Darji wrote...

Next time I'll post before a thread grows 30 pages long. Any idea how long it takes to read everyone's views? I mean damn. Anyway, what a lot of this comes down to are to very simple questions. "Is the ME series an RPG? Or is the ME series an A/A? 

For me, just because it has an interesting story doesn't qualify the series as an RPG simply because many RPG elements are missing. When I look at the RPG's I've played through the years like Dragon Warrior, Gothic 3, Chrono Trigger, Xenogears, Dark Cloud and a host of others. I realize that when I try to find similarities with ME, they just aren't there. Then when I turn around and remember Kya Dark Lineage, Castlevania, Metroid, Blue Stinger, and many more. (I spend way too much money on games.) ME is more in line with those.

Now could it be an ARPG? Maybe, it does have the features of an ARPG.  For myself it was an epic A/A. I would go into detail about the pros and cons of the matter but then my reply would be about 3 walls of text that many may not want to read and that I wouldn't want to type. I had this same exact discussion on another forum and one of my friends was kind enough to remind me what RPGs will truly have in order to make it an RPG. I'll post the link when I'm done. Even though ME is a great series, to me it isn't an RPG. Yes it has story and discovery. Yes it has stats and lots of weapons. And yes you can make choices that can have far reaching effects on your gameplay experience but it's missing true RPG elements.

Some make the mistake of believing that a story driven game has to qualify it for an RPG and that's fine. But does it really make it one? In all honesty, as much as I respect BW and enjoy their games, ME is a TPS A/A with a damn good story. But to me, ME is as much an RPG as BG is a shooter.

I would like to see Casey take the game in the direction he feels would be best. Just as HTTP 404 stated, "I want Bioware to make their game, not ours." Pretty much sums it up.

The things found in the majority of RPGs are found here. There are 192 of them on one page each with a short summary of what makes an RPG an RPG. If you read even some it, then draw your own conclusions if ME is an RPG, ARPG, or an epic A/A?

Here's the link for those interested. 

project-apollo.net/text/rpg.html

[Lumikki]

KaidanWilliamsShepard wrote...


What?

We are in ME3 forum section talking about "deeped RPG mechnics" related ME3.

If you start arguing and complaining about other games, you lose side what's really talked in this topic.

Modifié par Lumikki, 04 juillet 2011 - 07:23 .

[Gatt9]

Terror_K wrote...

I personally think that publisher's and developers aren't giving the gaming community enough credit either. I think many gamers want variety and fresh, different games. If they didn't, Portal 2 would have flopped. Same with other titles trying to actually be different like Heavy Rain, L.A. Noire, etc. The problem is that a lot of publishers are looking at what sells well and simply saying, "gamers want more of that!" and are going with all the safe options they know will sell, rather than putting out something a little more different and risky on the chance it may not perform.

To be honest though,  they really don't have much choice in the matter,  they've gotta work like that now.

There's two forces at work...

1.  Our friend above touched upon one of them,  the extreme cost of making games as our rendering abilities have far exceeded our generating abilities.  We can render incredible detail,  but our tools are so primitive that it takes a mammoth effort to achieve it.  The only option is brute force at present.

2.  Continual mismangement in the Industry.  Little known fact is that games that sell well get certain people bonuses,  in some cases big ones.  IIRC,  the ID teams were getting 5 and 6 figure bonus checks through the Quake series.  So the Suits in charge want the bonuses,  which means they're only going to be interested in the games with the highest margin,  which means anything not the largest seller generally gets bypassed.  This has generated an onslaught of Shooters,  RTS,  and whatever sold really well in the last 2 years.  So Gamer's are playing the same couple games over and over,  and eventually they start getting jaded.  First the "Average" (Shooter/RTS/Fad) stops selling,  then the "Good" ones don't sell as well,  finally only the very best sell. 

So what's happened is that we have an Industry driven entirely by targeting the highest margin instead of making a quality product,  and generating the games take sizeable amounts of investment.  Couple this with the fact that no small amount of the game's expense is for people who contribute nothing to it's development,  a Suit does nothing for the game's development,  but his associated cost is not small.  In other words,  a sizeable amount of the expense is for people who produce no work.

This is starting to reach critical proportions where nearly everyone in the Industry is one bad year away from bankruptcy,  except for SOE,  Activision,  and Microsoft,  every publisher and studio is living on a knife blade.  So they've forced themselves into a position where they literally can't take risk,  because if they do and it doesn't pan out,  they're jobless.  So they just push out the same game over and over hoping to survive one more year.

Which is exactly why the 20% drop projected for 2011 is industry-shaking,  and why the probability that 2012 won't be any better is a prophecy of doom.  Odds are very good by the end of 2012,  the Industry will be alot smaller and some big names will have fallen.

[Eduadinho]

Gatt9 how many of those statistics that you failed to quote when putting into that rant of yours were pulled out of your ass?

Modifié par Eduadinho, 04 juillet 2011 - 07:23 .

[mumatil]

Lumikki wrote...

Same people like allways complaining ME2/DA2 and praising ME1/ DAO.
Yeah, we know allready that you people like classic traditional RPG, nothing new there.
We are in Biowares ME3 forum sections, not in DA's, DA2's, ME2's or general for other games.

When you actually start talking about ME3?

There wasn't a lot of choice in ME2 stat  and item wise.  I haven't played either of the dragon ages, all we had in ME2 was 4 bar levels that did nothing inbetween level up until you got the points while ME1 allowed you to have more seperate units.

Also we had light, medium, heavy armours which allowed for more distinction between classes.  and turned ammo types into powers which makes no sense really.  Also I don't understand how biotic powers cause tech powers to have to be cooled down.

There was some things I liked about ME2 but not many.

Modifié par mumatil, 04 juillet 2011 - 07:28 .

[Gatt9]

Lumikki wrote...

KaidanWilliamsShepard wrote...


What?

We are in ME3 forum section talking about "deeped RPG mechnics" related ME3.

If you start arguing and complaining about other games, you lose side what's really talked in this topic.

Not really,  the thread of debate went from just ME3 to the scope of RPG mechanics,  it's the direction the debate has (Predictably) gone as the topic generally gets a response of "This is what RPG mechanics are now!".

Plus,  you can pretty much use ME2 and ME3 interchangably at this point,  since it's been revelated the difference is marginal,  nothing more than upgrading weapons.  It's pretty much the same game.

Modifié par Gatt9, 04 juillet 2011 - 07:28 .

[Gatt9]

Eduadinho wrote...

Gatt9 how many of those statistics that you failed to quote when putting into that rant of yours were pulled out of your ass?

None of them.  Google's your friend.

I learned many years ago not to post anything that 3 seconds with Google doesn't prove.

Edit:  Occur's to me that it took you longer to type out a post to insult me than it would've taken to use Google to discover that there's plenty of resources to demonstrate what I've said.

Modifié par Gatt9, 04 juillet 2011 - 07:30 .

[Lumikki]

mumatil wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Same people like allways complaining ME2/DA2 and praising ME1/ DAO.
Yeah, we know allready that you people like classic traditional RPG, nothing new there.
We are in Biowares ME3 forum sections, not in DA's, DA2's, ME2's or general for other games.

When you actually start talking about ME3?

There wasn't a lot of choice in ME2.  I haven't played either of the dragon ages, all we had in ME2 was 4 bar levels that did nothing inbetween level up until you got the points while ME1 allowed you to have more seperate units.

Also we had light, medium, heavy armours which allowed for more distinction between classes.  and turned ammo types into powers which makes no sense really.  Also I don't understand how biotic powers cause tech powers to have to be cooled down.

There was some things I liked about ME2 but not many.

Yeah, but you aren't talking classic traditional RPG serie here, when we talk ME serie. While all you (including others) complains are based on that ME serie is classic RPG. That's the issue here.

We allready even know that ME3 gonna improve customation as making some RPG features little deeper than before.

Modifié par Lumikki, 04 juillet 2011 - 07:35 .

[Eduadinho]

i don't have any proof that needs to be backed up you on the other hand do.

[mumatil]

Lumikki wrote...

mumatil wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Same people like allways complaining ME2/DA2 and praising ME1/ DAO.
Yeah, we know allready that you people like classic traditional RPG, nothing new there.
We are in Biowares ME3 forum sections, not in DA's, DA2's, ME2's or general for other games.

When you actually start talking about ME3?

There wasn't a lot of choice in ME2.  I haven't played either of the dragon ages, all we had in ME2 was 4 bar levels that did nothing inbetween level up until you got the points while ME1 allowed you to have more seperate units.

Also we had light, medium, heavy armours which allowed for more distinction between classes.  and turned ammo types into powers which makes no sense really.  Also I don't understand how biotic powers cause tech powers to have to be cooled down.

There was some things I liked about ME2 but not many.

Yeah, but you aren't talking classic traditional RPG serie here, when we talk ME serie. While all you (including others) complains are based on that ME serie is classic RPG. That's the issue here.

We allready even know that ME3 gonna improve customation as making some RPG features little deeper than before.

Yes but one thing that is key to an RPG is choices of the character your roleplaying.  Even though I like more emphasis on combat and story.  I felt a great lack of choice in weapons, armour, skill trees, and such.

Even though i don't cosider ME much of an RPG I still preferred its complex stats from ME1.  I likedthat combat was more fluid in ME2 though so it gets a point in that. 

[Lumikki]

KaidanWilliamsShepard wrote...

But while we are on the subject, this forum is about Casey Hudsons comments about what he believes fans want, and how (or what) RPG mechanics will be in Mass Effect 3.

Sorry, I'm not attacking you, but trying to direct  discussion back to topic.

Actually no. Casey Hudsons did not say, what he belieaves fans want, but he sayed what Bioware believes.  There is big different there. Bioware doesn't believe stats and loot makes ME series RPG better.

Modifié par Lumikki, 04 juillet 2011 - 07:47 .

[Lumikki]

mumatil wrote...

Yes but one thing that is key to an RPG is choices of the character your roleplaying.  Even though I like more emphasis on combat and story.  I felt a great lack of choice in weapons, armour, skill trees, and such.

Yes, but there is many ways to create choises. Stats and loot aren't the only way.

That's what Bioware is talking. Bioware doesn't seem to want very complex game. I think it's because they believe too complex is not what wider audiense wants. So, they are looking compromize, as what's enough, but not too little.

Even though i don't cosider ME much of an RPG I still preferred its complex stats from ME1.  I likedthat combat was more fluid in ME2 though so it gets a point in that. 

Not much to say, because it's you personal opinion.

Modifié par Lumikki, 04 juillet 2011 - 07:56 .

[sbvera13]

Nor is it a futile battle,  because when these companies fail,  and
they will fail,  likely by the end of 2012 at the rate we're dropping
revenues,  people will know why.  So when the penduleum swings back to
PC Gaming starting in late 2012,  there'll be a marked difference.  It
will swing,  the Industry is cyclical,  but I'm not going to elaborate
here on that as this post is already long enough.

I've been in gaming long enough to have personally seen at least two major cycles just like this, and a number of smaller genre-specific ones.  The first in the late-mid 90's, as the Doom and Quake clones flooded the market exactly as Gatt9 described, "niche" games like RPG's and strategy died out, and companies folded right and left.  In their place came innovators like Thief and Deus Ex, and groups Bethesda and BioWare that resurrected dead genre's for a market that was always there but had no products to buy.  <-this is important to understand when marketing entertainment.  Game publishers have repeatedly demonstrated they don't understand this.

Second was early 00's.  For a while every game had a twist, something new, or trying to be new, which often ended badly.  Partly they were trying to be the next breakout, but mostly I think the advance of console hardware and the awkward merging of the console and PC market just left designers wondering where to go.  The market turned to the mega-developer, who could turn out something straightforward but amazingly well done, birthing games like Halo and CoD.

I think Gatt9's right, and the current batch of mega-developers are gonna drop soon.  They are all losing their loyal fanbase- to use BW as an example, the RPG market may not be huge, but it's constant.  By budgeting and marketing to that market they could easily sustain through an industry downturn.  Instead they are busy alienating their established base while trying to gain sales from the fickle "what's hot this week?" crowd.  What BW aand EA are doing is simply history repeating itself.  As the Cylon said, "All this has happened before. All this will happen again."

[mumatil]

Lumikki wrote...

Yes, but there is many ways to create choises. Stats and loot aren't the only way.

That's what Bioware is talking. Bioware doesn't seem to want very complex game. I think it's because they believe too complex is not what wider audiense wants. So, they are looking compromize, as what's enough, but not too little.

I never said they were.  But they definately help define your character in their abilities.

Thats a vision I'm hating more and more about this idustry(Much like the cinema industy).  It only wants to reach the widest of audiences, trying to only appeal to the masses and simplifying things to a degree where it becomes very stale.

I hope the story will redeem itself in this aspect however and have our choices in the main scheme of things matter.
 

[Praetor Knight]

I gots no idea how this game fits, but thinking about games in the 90's brought me to remember Iron Storm. And I remember having fun playing that game

Edit: googling that game shows me as being way off with when it was available, but it was still fun.

Modifié par Praetor Shepard, 04 juillet 2011 - 08:09 .

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Actually no. Casey Hudsons did not say, what he belieaves fans want, but he sayed what Bioware believes.  There is big different there. Bioware doesn't believe stats and loot makes ME series RPG better.

Actually, it was a bit of both. The quote in question was...

"People really want us to deepen the RPG aspect of the experience. We interpret that as being about the kind of intelligent decision making around how you progress. 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."

Note the part in bold: "we interpret that as being, etc."

If you're trying to improve your game by listening to the fans and giving them what they want, you should be actually listening to the fans and giving them what they want, and not just taking the comment at face-value alone. This was also BioWare's problem going from ME1 to ME2. This was the same issue they had when fans asked for a proper ME2 art book and they responded to it by merely blowing up the CE one and putting it for sale, rather than actually listening to the fact that what fans wanted was a larger art book akin to the original one. It's like they read the basic request, but never properly delve into the specifics.

Simply put, they shouldn't be merely "interpreting" what fans want in their own way and putting their own twist on it aligned with their own values: they should fully know what the fans want by actually reading the specifics of it. Especially take the fact that Casey mentions "combat" of all things amongst that list. Combat was one of the factors many fans thought was too focused on in ME2 as it was, and the way he speaks its as if they've ignored that entirely and that they've "intepreted" it as meaning, "fans want deeper RPG aspects, so want more combat!"

What we've essentially got here is a mistransation due to lack of proper attention, because what BioWare has "interpreted" as being key is not actually what the fans who wanted the RPG aspects improved were mainly asking for. Their interpretation was dead wrong. The other alternative situation is that they know this full well, but have simply decided to twist the interpretation on purpose to suit their own agenda; to make it sound like they're answering the issues fans had with ME2 by essentially claiming X to be Y, if X is what the fans want it to be and Y is what they want the game to be about.

Modifié par Terror_K, 04 juillet 2011 - 08:08 .

[AlanC9]

Gatt9 wrote...
Not really,  the thread of debate went from just ME3 to the scope of RPG mechanics,  it's the direction the debate has (Predictably) gone as the topic generally gets a response of "This is what RPG mechanics are now!".

More accurately, the response should be that this is what RPG mechanics can be. There's no development going on --all these ideas were in RPGs decades ago. Though I guess they're new to CRPGs

Or folks could stick with me and not give a damn if something is an RPG mechanic or not.

Modifié par AlanC9, 04 juillet 2011 - 08:16 .

[Lumikki]

mumatil wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Yes, but there is many ways to create choises. Stats and loot aren't the only way.

That's what Bioware is talking. Bioware doesn't seem to want very complex game. I think it's because they believe too complex is not what wider audiense wants. So, they are looking compromize, as what's enough, but not too little.

I never said they were.  But they definately help define your character in their abilities.

Yes, they do, but they also have very negative affect agaist cinematic gameplay as trying to create impression based role-playing. So, while it increase players ability define role-playing character, it also lower players impression based role-playing. Because they break impressions with interupting role-playing gameplay.

Thats a vision I'm hating more and more about this idustry(Much like the cinema industy).  It only wants to reach the widest of audiences, trying to only appeal to the masses and simplifying things to a degree where it becomes very stale.

I hope the story will redeem itself in this aspect however and have our choices in the main scheme of things matter.

People are afraid that Bioware is in general going direction of wider audience. Could happen or not, isn't really our choise. How ever, it doesn't give anyone rights to bash Biowares game, just because they are not anymore the target audience. I'm not saying that you are doing, but as general comment what some people are doing here. It's understable be afraid and express consern. How ever, basking they games because of it, is just bad behavior, nothing else. This how ever, if off topic here..

How ever, ME serie is design to reach wider audience from start. When they desided to go more hybrid game design and make RPG elements lighter than classic RPG has.

Modifié par Lumikki, 04 juillet 2011 - 08:20 .

[AlanC9]

Terror_K wrote...
Their interpretation was dead wrong. The other alternative situation is that they know this full well, but have simply decided to twist the interpretation on purpose to suit their own agenda; to make it sound like they're answering the issues fans had with ME2 by essentially claiming X to be Y, if X is what the fans want it to be and Y is what they want the game to be about.

Once again, I must protest your use of "fans" to mean a particular subset of the fans. I don't mind you marginalizing me, but I find the sloppiness offensive. 

As for the point, I wouldn't overthink anything Casey posts. It's mostly propaganda. He's not actually going to say that Bio doesn't give a damn about people who want feature X, Y, or Z. That isn't the job.

[Terror_K]

AlanC9 wrote...

Once again, I must protest your use of "fans" to mean a particular subset of the fans. I don't mind you marginalizing me, but I find the sloppiness offensive. 

Apologies. I thought given the context of the sentence the implication was clear, and that "fans" in this case was referring to the fans who specifically had issues with regards to ME2's RPG features, and not fans overall. Still, I'll try to be more careful, even if it means having to be over-specific repeatedly.

As for the point, I wouldn't overthink anything Casey posts. It's mostly propaganda. He's not actually going to say that Bio doesn't give a damn about people who want feature X, Y, or Z. That isn't the job.

While there is a certain degree of truth to this (especially when it comes to the doctors speaking), this is the same type of thing that lead to planet exploration pretty much disappearing entirely, along with weapon-modding and other factors that many ME1 fans simply wanted improved that were instead culled, stripped of all complexity or replaced with overly simple alternatives. One of the most common overall complaints with ME2 before it even came out came down to what basically amounted to, "I wanted you to make it better, not get rid of it entirely!"

[AlanC9]

Sure, those are the common complaints. Which proves.... what, exactly? If they had kept the ME1 systems, we'd have had the ME1 complaints again. Change to ME2 and you get these complaints instead. Do a different design from either and you'll get a different set of complaints from either.

Obviously, you end up with different people complaining with different designs, but there would always be somebody.

Edit: actually, I'm not sure about that part. As a long-time CRPG player, I expect lots of bad CRPG traditions to show up in games that I put up with despite those features. I doubt there's any amount of CRPG traditionalism that could turn me into a professional ME2 critic the way you have been. Assuming I'm fairly typical, a more traditionalist ME2 design might very well have produced somewhat less squawking.Though it would have been a worse game, of course.

And yes, that last line was IMO.

Modifié par AlanC9, 04 juillet 2011 - 08:36 .