3223 réponses à ce sujet

[Dangerfoot]

mrcrusty wrote...
It's not a zero sum game. You can have both. The best RPGs do.

But the stats which provide a basic physical/mental construct are layer upon which to establish the character as it's own entity and determine how they interact with the game world.

Like I said, I'm not arguing for this in Mass Effect. But a stat less RPG is an (Action) Adventure game with choices.

I dunno. I see where you're coming from, but it seems like if you are able to create well defined classes, you wouldn't need stats, or at least not visable stats. I could definitely call a game an RPG if it included character personality progression but no stats in the "agi"/"int" sense, as long as character class felt like a well defined choice.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Manic Sheep wrote...

Why do you need a stat to determine how smart you character is? Just because you’re not restricted by stats
doesn’t mean you are playing yourself. If you don't think your character would do something based on personality, intelligence, how charismatic they are, whatever then don't pick that option.

I'd rather have the game react to my choices in the game, as opposed to imposing limits on myself to stay "in-character". That's just bad game design.

Besides, then you'd need like 10 dialog options to properly represent a variety of personalities and skillsets rather than have a baseline 2-3, with an extra 1-2 that are based on how you built the character.

Dangerfoot wrote...

I dunno. I see where you're coming from, but it seems like if you are able to create well defined classes,
you wouldn't need stats, or at least not visable stats. I could definitely call a game an RPG if it included character personality progression but no stats in the "agi"/"int" sense, as long as character class felt like a well defined choice.

To a degree. It can work, but at best it means you're shoehorned into an archetype. A class system with stats, or a classless system gives you a feeling of freedom as you're able to differentiate your character from others with tangible results. At worst, it's like an online FPS. It would depend on how the game handles it.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 01 juillet 2011 - 02:31 .

[Manic Sheep]

mrcrusty wrote...
I'd rather have the game react to my choices in the game, as opposed to imposing limits on myself to stay "in-character". That's just bad game design.

I prefer taking more of an active role in the role-playing than having the game tell me what I can and can't have my character say with stat based restrictions but I suppose that’s personal preference. I don't find it hard to limit myself and just do what I think the character would do. Things like intelligence aren’t a sliding scale anyway. You don't just have this person is smart and this person is dumb. Different people are good at different things and have more knowledge in different areas. Without the restrictions you can make more complex characters IMO.

mrcrusty wrote...

Besides, then you'd need like 10 dialog options to properly represent a variety of personalities and skillsets  rather than have a baseline 2-3, with an extra 1-2 that are based on how you built the character.

Not really, all you would have to do is remove the restriction for the stat based dialogue choices. No extra work. Having restriction on the choices doesn’t give you any more ways to characterise. You would have at least an equal choice than the stat based one.

Modifié par Manic Sheep, 01 juillet 2011 - 02:33 .

[Dangerfoot]

mrcrusty wrote...
To a degree, yes. It can work, but then that means you're shoehorned into an archetype. A class system with stats, or a classless system gives you a feeling of freedom as you're able to differentiate your character from others with tangible results.

Yes, I can see why that would be ideal. I'm kind of looking forward to Skyrim more than ME3 for that reason, the classes in ME are both rigid, and (I feel) pretty ill defined at the same time.

[Tony Gunslinger]

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



Below is the transcription of that video:

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

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

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

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

This is your story. Your adventure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

[quote]Manic Sheep wrote...

I prefer taking more of an active role in the role-playing than having the game tell me what I can and can't have my character say with stat based restrictions but I suppose that’s personal preference.
[/quote] I'm not sure I understand. Taking an active role is entirely dependant on the choices you make in the narrative, not on whether certain options are opened up as a result of skill checks.

There is no stat restriction on you wanting Shepard taking an active role in hunting down Cerberus instead of just waiting for them to attack. On the other hand, his success in defusing a bomb ought to be tied to a stat or skill which represents his expertise in such an area.

[quote]Manic Sheep wrote...
I don't find it hard to limit myself. Things like intelligence aren’t a sliding scale anyway. You don't just have this person is smart and this person is dumb. Different people are good at different things and have more knowledge in different areas.
[/quote]
But then, how would you represent that in a game? Either everyone has the same level of intelligence and the same knowledge in every area imaginable, or some people are more intelligent than others. Neither is accurate, but which is more realistic or believable?
[/quote]

[quote]Manic Sheep wrote...
Not really, all you would have to do is remove the restriction for the stat based dialogue choices. No extra work. Having restriction on the choices doesn’t give you any more ways to characterise. You would have at least an equal choice than the stat based one.
[/quote]
To use a non realistic example. Imagine we were playing a stupid character, why would the dialog options that result in complex philosophical debate still be available to you?

It's bad design.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 01 juillet 2011 - 02:48 .

[Bluko]

Eh I'm a bit divided on this issue at times. Really I have no issue with the depth of the Abilities in ME2, and frankly never did. I'd like to see more depth and diversity of course, but ME1's system was hardly that compelling. My only real problem is some of powers are complete BS and are very much "force powers" given how they work. My issues with ME2 is style has taken complete predence over substance in various forms and to rather ridiculous level. (Currently I don't see ME2 being much better then oh say MK9.)

Loot is something I didn't feel needed to be remove. Most of ME1's problem could have been tweaked by reducing drop rates and the over-abundance of "junk" items. (It's far too easy to get max credits in that game as a result.) Also the inventory itself worked pretty well, though a slightly faster scroll would have been nice. Or they could use a grid system as that's most efficient. I felt the removal of inventory simply belittling or insulting in that the Devs consider it too time consuming. Oh that's why you added PLANET SCANNING? Thanks cause that's such a better time sink.



As I've said loot didn't need to be gutted. Most "good" games I have played have some form of active inventory.  I honestly can't think of a game I've played recently that doesn't have some form of inventory really. And most of them (even the Shooters) have more to offer then ME2 did.

I would take the realism arguement (that it's silly Shepard has an invisible backpack) more seriously if you know ME2 had actually tried to be more realistic. But it doesn't. The fact Shepard survives atmospheric re-entry is troubling even for the softest of Sci-Fi.


I find it funny though one of the biggest frets of Bioware isn't so much Gameplay, but well Characters.

"So we've had a lot of debate over Tali's face, but that's the one we kind of dread a lot."

Amazing that Bioware fears Tali fans more then anything else it seems. (If only Bioware had feared Mako fanboys...) I like the Characters of Mass Effect don't get me wrong, but sometimes I feel Bioware focuses a bit too much on them for their own good. And usually it seems more as fan service then anything else. Which is completely the wrong way to write or create story. It should be what's good for the plot, not what will make a select group of insatiable fans happy.

I will always let gameplay issues go, if, and I stress the IF part it can be shown that it does actually make the gameplay better. Most of what I've seen however is pandering to certain demographics to make the game more "accessible". And for clarification making a game more accessible doesn't make a better game. Making a good game doesn't mean copying other games. It means creating something unique or that plays better then the competition.

For me the problem with Mass Effect now is this: It's trying to hard to fit in with the rest of the crowd, when it should be trying to stand out.

[Jaron Oberyn]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...


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



Below is the transcription of that video:

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

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

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

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

This is your story. Your adventure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry bud, I'm going to have to call you out on that one. In ME2 the dialogue was stripped down, a lot of it was automatic. That's one thing that always bothered me with this series - they came out with this innovative dialogue wheel and fully voiced character, where you can choose what he/she says, yet in the sequel they dumb the dialogue wheel down and opt for shooter/action game auto dialogue/preset character. This is not our story, it's Bioware's story. There may be small differences in how we accomplish the end game, yet the end game is still the same for us all aside from minor deaths of your squad. ME has pretty much converted to a shooter with a few RPG elements and some dialogue "choices" sprinkled here and there. But ultimately they failed to deliver on the unique universe accross each individual claim, as they made shepard a predefined character since ME2.


-Polite

[RPGamer13]

RPGs are all about leveling up and improving skills and stats.

The whole "choose your own adventure story book" style is new to me. I like it, but it's not what defines an RPG.


Regardless, Mass Effect as a series I love and respect the direction they took with ME2 even if it isn't in line with what I expected, it's not my game being made here. It's just, with Mass Effect (1) their vision seemed to be toward the statistical RPG side, but then with Mass Effect 2 it seemed they couldn't decide whether it was an RPG or a action/shooter.

Honestly, now I don't think I would call Mass Effect as a series RPG anything. I would call it an action shooter, somewhere between Devil May Cry and Gears of War.

[Dangerfoot]

Do you feel like you are Commander Shepard? If yes, how so? If not, why?

Do I feel like Shepard is MY character? No. Why? The P/R system. It pretty much railroads you into a red vs blue morality system where your character fits into some vague archetype. How to improve this? Remove the need to be one or the other. Hell remove the whole system and replace it with a system that shows where your loyalties and interests lie.

Is the dialog system dynamic and reactive, and does make you feel like you are more engaged to the story?

No. For the reason above.

Does the gameplay really combines fast-paced action with tactical depth and deep roleplaying systems?

It's an action adventure game with spells that you level and relatively dynamic choices. And it's a fun game, no doubt. Just not much of an RPG.

I am able to deploy my team in real time, squad-based combat?

Again the squad stuff is fine, although the AI can be pretty terrible, but I can't think of a Bioware game where I was satisfied with my teammate AI, so I'm not exactly disappointed. It's not like they balance the game around the idea that your squad will be even somewhat competent.

Modifié par Dangerfoot, 01 juillet 2011 - 02:45 .

[Il Divo]

PoliteAssasin wrote...



[*]Sorry bud, I'm going to have to call you out on that one. In ME2 the dialogue was stripped down, a lot of it was automatic. That's one thing that always bothered me with this series - they came out with this innovative dialogue wheel and fully voiced character, where you can choose what he/she says, yet in the sequel they dumb the dialogue wheel down and opt for shooter/action game auto dialogue/preset character. This is not our story, it's Bioware's story. There may be small differences in how we accomplish the end game, yet the end game is still the same for us all aside from minor deaths of your squad. ME has pretty much converted to a shooter with a few RPG elements and some dialogue "choices" sprinkled here and there. But ultimately they failed to deliver on the unique universe accross each individual claim, as they made shepard a predefined character since ME2.


-Polite

That's strange. I definitely remember choosing the vast majority of my Shepard's responses in Mass Effect 2. I suppose that was only a dream, then? 

I also find your 'end game' argument odd, since every Bioware game has featured a predefined end game. You never see the actual consequences of your decisions.

Modifié par Il Divo, 01 juillet 2011 - 02:47 .

[MrFob]

PoliteAssasin wrote...
*snip*

Sorry bud, I'm going to have to call you out on that one. In ME2 the dialogue was stripped down, a lot of it was automatic. That's one thing that always bothered me with this series - they came out with this innovative dialogue wheel and fully voiced character, where you can choose what he/she says, yet in the sequel they dumb the dialogue wheel down and opt for shooter/action game auto dialogue/preset character. This is not our story, it's Bioware's story. There may be small differences in how we accomplish the end game, yet the end game is still the same for us all aside from minor deaths of your squad. ME has pretty much converted to a shooter with a few RPG elements and some dialogue "choices" sprinkled here and there. But ultimately they failed to deliver on the unique universe accross each individual claim, as they made shepard a predefined character since ME2.


-Polite

To be fair, the diversity in the dialogue wheel in ME1 was a fake quite often.
If you replay the game (which I think you have Polite ) you'll notice that often, although you chose another option, Shep will say the exact same thing or he will change it up to a minuscule amount and will still get the exact same answer from the NPC.
I reckon the instances where your choice really does make a difference is roughly the same in ME1 and 2.
Besides, BW has always made it clear that ME goes more into a cnematic direction than, say, DA:O and the like.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

BioWare has always had a system where a lot of the times where you seemingly have choice, lead to the same conclusion anyway. It's somewhat unavoidable in the Mass Effect series since they're going for series continuity.

Hopefully, that will change in Mass Effect 3.

[Dangerfoot]

mrcrusty wrote...

BioWare has always had a system where a lot of the times where you seemingly have choice, lead to the same conclusion anyway. It's somewhat unavoidable in the Mass Effect series since they're going for series continuity.

Hopefully, that will change in Mass Effect 3.

I remember saying that about DA2. So let's just say I won't be preordering this one.

[slimgrin]

mrcrusty wrote...

BioWare has always had a system where a lot of the times where you seemingly have choice, lead to the same conclusion anyway. It's somewhat unavoidable in the Mass Effect series since they're going for series continuity.

Hopefully, that will change in Mass Effect 3.

I'd bet my left nut it won't, not at this stage, the grand finale of the story. It will be more focused than ever.

[squee365]

I really do hate these forums sometimes.

You guys don't get what Casey is saying is a GOOD thing. ...No, don't try to argue. You're just complaining for the sake of complaining and its quite redundant especially when the game is 8 months away and we've only seen maybe 5% of the game's content. Combat has always been the main part of Mass Effect, its an Action RPG with an emphasis on action, it always has been. If you don't like what you're seeing, well quite frankly, its not going to matter in the grand scheme of things. This game is most likely going to great reviews (based on how ME2 was better received than 1 review wise), and it will sell really well no matter what. If you feel like you're somehow ENTITLED to something because bioware OWES YOU for whatever reason, then you have some nerve. If you love ME1 the best, play ME1. If you love ME2 the best play that. If you don't like either and don't like Mass Effect in general, why are you here?


Bioware is making the game that they want to make, if you don't like it, then don't buy it.

Modifié par squee365, 01 juillet 2011 - 02:57 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

slimgrin wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

BioWare has always had a system where a lot of the times where you seemingly have choice, lead to the same conclusion anyway. It's somewhat unavoidable in the Mass Effect series since they're going for series continuity.

Hopefully, that will change in Mass Effect 3.

I'd bet my left nut it won't, not at this stage, the grand finale of the story. It will be more focused than ever.

I too personally doubt choices will have an impact beyond superficialities, perhaps a few differences in cutscenes in the last 5 minutes and maybe something akin to an epilogue slide.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Well then, let's hope the gameplay is varied and enjoyable enough to make the linear romp worth it.

Which is basically the original point I wanted to make before I got bogged down in the stats argument. At best, statless RPGs are hybrids depending on implementation, at worst, they aren't RPGs at all.

But yeah, variation in gameplay ftw.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 01 juillet 2011 - 02:56 .

[mesmerizedish]

I don't understand the OP. Deep gear progression is... bad?

[Tony Gunslinger]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Sorry bud, I'm going to have to call you out on that one. In ME2 the dialogue was stripped down, a lot of it was automatic. That's one thing that always bothered me with this series - they came out with this innovative dialogue wheel and fully voiced character, where you can choose what he/she says, yet in the sequel they dumb the dialogue wheel down and opt for shooter/action game auto dialogue/preset character.

Can you cite examples and make comparisons between ME1 and ME2 dialogues?

This is not our story, it's Bioware's story. There may be small differences in how we accomplish the end game, yet the end game is still the same for us all aside from minor deaths of your squad. ME has pretty much converted to a shooter with a few RPG elements and some dialogue "choices" sprinkled here and there.

How did ME2 detract from "Mass Effect combines fast action with amazing tactical depth, and deep role-playing systems. You will deploy your team in real time, squad-based combat." Do you think evolving the shooter mechanics to match current standards somehow offset the balance between action and tactial depth/deep roleplaying systems? Can you cite examples and actual experience?

But ultimately they failed to deliver on the unique universe accross each individual claim, as they made shepard a predefined character since ME2.

-Polite

Gatt9 disagrees with you on Shepard being a predefined character:

Gatt9 wrote...

To take on a Role,  you have to have a defined Character,  as an undefined character isn't a Role.  To define a Character,  he has to have intrinisic qualities that affect outcomes independent of You...

Without a defined character,  there is no Role.  Only an Avatar.  At that point,  it cannot be an RPG.  Which is why ME2's a Shooter,  why Oblivion's an Adventure game,  and why ME3 will very likely be a Shooter.

He's saying ME is just a shooter because Shepard is not a defined character. You're saying ME is just a shooter because Shepard is a defined character.

So which is it?

[wizardryforever]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Tony Gunslinger wrote...


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



Below is the transcription of that video:

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

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

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

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

This is your story. Your adventure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry bud, I'm going to have to call you out on that one. In ME2 the dialogue was stripped down, a lot of it was automatic. That's one thing that always bothered me with this series - they came out with this innovative dialogue wheel and fully voiced character, where you can choose what he/she says, yet in the sequel they dumb the dialogue wheel down and opt for shooter/action game auto dialogue/preset character. This is not our story, it's Bioware's story. There may be small differences in how we accomplish the end game, yet the end game is still the same for us all aside from minor deaths of your squad. ME has pretty much converted to a shooter with a few RPG elements and some dialogue "choices" sprinkled here and there. But ultimately they failed to deliver on the unique universe accross each individual claim, as they made shepard a predefined character since ME2.


-Polite

Well you didn't really list any examples or situations in your post here.  All you did was use buzzwords like "dumbed down," and "RPG elements" without actually showing anything but opinion.  How can you say that the dialogue was simplified when it has been objectively shown that there was more dialogue in the second game?  Everything you listed about what made the first game great was still there in the second, you just chose to ignore it.

If you can provide definitive examples backed by numbers, then you might have a point.  Otherwise, I stand by my statement.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

I don't understand the OP. Deep gear progression is... bad?

I think it comes down the apparent notion that gameplay = combat. Which is what the OP and what many others in this thread, don't like to see.

As for the customisation elements, I'm pretty sure just about everyone is happy about those.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 01 juillet 2011 - 03:00 .

[Terror_K]

Dangerfoot wrote...

Man, I never get tired of "RPG fans" speaking for other RPG fans and telling everyone how stats and loot are the key components of RPGs.

You know what I think the biggest part of a Role Playing game is? The Role Playing. I'm a bit off my rocker, I know. But I can personally accept a lack of loot and stats if Role Playing is present in Role Playing games. Did I mention Role Playing?

You do realise that this is exactly what the problem was with the original statements that were the genesis of this topic, right? That the reason this even came up was because Casey Hudson and the others were basically "speaking for other RPG fans" and getting the wrong end of the stick.

They've essentially said, "one of the main things people want for ME3 is more RPG elements, so we're making sure to focus on the RPG elements they weren't even referring to and what we consider to be the important RPG elements." The fans who "wanted more RPG elements" largely wanted more of elements A, B and C, but BioWare are basically saying, "what they wanted was elements D, E and F, because that what we feel matters with RPG gameplay"

We said, "We want more fruit! Specifically oranges, apples and bananas" and BioWare have basically said, "Gotcha, you want more fruit. More mangoes, grapes and pears it is."

[slimgrin]

The mangos, grapes, and pears are likely introductory fruit for the uninitiated.


Seriously though, being more inclusive means bringing in more cash. Bioware has been on this route for a while now.

Modifié par slimgrin, 01 juillet 2011 - 03:07 .

[ADelusiveMan]

I'd like for my choices to have bigger impact in the game, as well as more character interactions and conversations. I'd be fine with that plus some better combat.