3223 réponses à ce sujet

[littlezack]

Terror_K wrote...

Garrison2009 wrote...

lol, I've acutally been reading it this whole time. It's excellent. Really got a feel for the ME universe there.

Ah. Thanks. I try.

littlezack wrote...

Hey, I'm not the one who thinks the world is full of idiots just because they don't share my taste in videogames.

That's not the reason at all. The world has always been full of idiots, long before video games were around. My issue is that developers these days seem to just be targeting the one same audience instead of making different games for different people. Everybody wants the same large pie and all the bakers want to make the same large pie. Ip integrity and consistency seem to too easily be tossed down the drain for the sake of success, and those who are getting the pie don't care about it so long as they enjoy the pie.

I'm not expecting the games, movies, shows, etc. that don't appeal to me now to be altered to suit me. They are for other people who like those things. So why is it that the games, movies, shows, etc. that do appeal to me have to be altered to suit them, simply because there is more of them? Why can't anything be made these days that just sticks to its guns and stays true to itself? Why does it always have to get twisted to suit the majority?

Because that's the way life works. 

[Lumikki]

Seems that we need to bring the topic back to it's orginal purpose.

What was more like how does stats and loot improve Mass Effect serie?

PS: ME series is not normal RPG, but action RPG with TPS combat, so the question is NOT how they fit in RPG.

Modifié par Lumikki, 13 juillet 2011 - 05:52 .

[In Exile]

Edit:

This is my last post on the subject - feel free to reply, but I won't derail the thread further. 

Terror_K wrote...
Hey, I hated DA:O's marketing as much as anybody. I was on the forums railing against it directly, and expressing my concern for what it meant for DA:O itself. 

What you have to ask yourself, though, is what does that say about Bioware in putting it foward? This is where you start to get closer to the answer re: when the design shift changed. It's not that Bioware didn't shift gears with the DA franchise - obviously they did that. The real issue is when they did it. What I'm trying to get across it was after DA:O became a sunk cost but way before it was released.

But it turned out to be highly unrepresentative of the final product and ended up pretty much being just that: marketing. I think that DA:O by that point was too finished to be meddled with by EA, Laidlaw or anybody else after Dan Tudge left and that marketing blitz started pretty much directly following that. 

It wasn't just marketing. It was an entire philosophy. Bioware had devs. leave just because of creative differences. Bioware released ME1 to critical acclaim and had a team built on the back of KoTOR and (to a lesser extent) JE. 

Trying to blame Mike Laidlaw or EA is just really missing the forest for the trees. ME was developed as an action RPG way before EA. JE too. 

After all, the PC version had been technically finished by that point (Tudge left right after it had) and it was basically sitting there getting bug-tested while Laidlaw took over and hammered out the console versions and others finished off Shale.

And as much as I hated that marketing, I think I'd rather BioWare take that approach and make their games merely look like little more than over-the-top blood, sex, action and violence than have them actually end up that way.

You have a right to evaluate products however you want. All that I am saying is the DA team switched gears long before it came time to sell DA2. It wasn't even the same team (in terms of the core lead development) that gave you DA2 as a successor to DA:O. 

Modifié par In Exile, 13 juillet 2011 - 06:09 .

[Mwames]

When I think of an RPG (even an action-RPG like Mass Effect), I think of a game that let's you make it your own experience. Something lthat allows you to decide how you want to play. I know you specifically said the question is NOT how they stats and loot fit into an RPG in general, but I think that point needs to be brought up when it comes to talking about how they fit into a certain game (being Mass Effect).
Stats and loot allow you to decide what you want your gameplay (and your squadmates' gameplay) to be like. Now I'm not saying that I want all the junk loot from ME1. Let's put it this way. The ME2 system (both stats and loot) is like an accordian, but it's totally closed up. If they could stretch it out, they could potentially create something beautiful.

[In Exile]

Here's a controversial claim:

You can only have reactivity when you radically reduce customization.

Examples:

1) To have useful items, you have to have very few and very different items. 
2) To have a reactive plot, you need a highly defined character to write the plot around.

Discuss. 

[Terror_K]

In Exile wrote...

What you have to ask yourself, though, is what does that say about Bioware in putting it foward? This is where you start to get closer to the answer re: when the design shift changed. It's not that Bioware didn't shift gears with the DA franchise - obviously they did that. The real issue is when they did it. What I'm trying to get across it was after DA:O became a sunk cost but way before it was released.

I don't disgree. It's no coincidence that the first time I really got mad with BioWare and a decision they made was as soon as they first delayed the PC version just to make the console versions and have a simultaneous platform release. Not long afterwards it was their marketing. And this was just after EA had taken control too. Ironic that the very concerns I expressed about DA:O as soon as console ports were announced and that devs assured weren't the case at all were the very concerns that came true with DA2.

It wasn't just marketing. It was an entire philosophy. Bioware had devs. leave just because of creative differences. Bioware released ME1 to critical acclaim and had a team built on the back of KoTOR and (to a lesser extent) JE. 

Trying to blame Mike Laidlaw or EA is just really missing the forest for the trees. ME was developed as an action RPG way before EA. JE too.

And I enjoyed Mass Effect and Jade Empire for what they were. DA:O was, after all, a return to their roots for a reason; it couldn't be if they had completely stuck to PC-centric fantasy RPGs only up until that point. They were never trying to be anything else in the first place. I have no problems with BioWare developing action-RPGs. My problem is them completely turning their backs on hardcore RPGs in the process, and warping their existing IPs for the sake of mass appeal. If they want to branch out, that's fine... do it with new IPs. Or spin-offs even. But don't intend for a series to start off as one thing and then completely reboot it and (as you said) change your philosophy the next. The problem is consistency and remaining true to the original source.

You have a right to evaluate products however you want. All that I am saying is the DA team switched gears long before it came time to sell DA2. It wasn't even the same team (in terms of the core lead development) that gave you DA2 as a successor to DA:O. 

Again, I don't disagree with this. I'm saying I think it's wrong to switch gears like that and they shouldn't have. And to bring things back on-topic, the same should apply to Mass Effect as well. It may not have been a pure RPG like Dragon Age started out as, but it wasn't as watered down as ME2 was. It was still an Action RPG, and not just a TPS with light RPG elements like the sequel seemed to be. Both games' sequels suffered from the fact that BioWare were more concerned about branching out and appealing to the mainstream than they were about properly fixing the issues of the first game for the existing fans.

Modifié par Terror_K, 13 juillet 2011 - 06:29 .

[Lumikki]

In Exile wrote...

Here's a controversial claim:

You can only have reactivity when you radically reduce customization.

1) To have useful items, you have to have very few and very different items.

I agree.

When I play even normal RPG, my goal is never collect junk items, but usefull items. So, what's wrong to design game so that player get less junk and more usefull different kind of items. In my opinion looting should be part of exploration, where player has some small change to find something usefull. Not collect every junk every where.  While looting is rewarding, it should not become main purpose of the game. As related customation, while loot can be used customation, most the time there has allways been two different route for it. Loot and shops. What's bad think give more customation for shops? That's how it happens in real life.

2) To have a reactive plot, you need a highly defined character to write the plot around.

Discuss.

Not sure about this.

While what you say is  in my opinion true. It's not so that it's good or bad thing. It's just affect different kind of way to tell stories. I mean more stronger story you have more it restrict players freedom, but it also can create more emotional connection to story. If you give player a lot of freedom it can cause situation where player starts wonder what I'm suppose to do here. Like how much story does guide players to correct direction. Some may feel like strong story feels like you are hand held and they want more freedom. But when you give more freedom, story becomes weaker. I ques it's different between player creating it's own story and someone else telling they story to you.

But that isn't really stat related.

I think stat issue is more related three things. TPS combat, what is agaist stats, lack of non-combat skills what is also agaist stats and then there is character progression what is both agaist and for dependign players own needs. TPS combat is there to stay, so that's it. Non combat skills would be nice to have, but that would actually require non-combat gameplay content too. What can be pretty hard thing, consider we are in last story of Shepards, what is the end WAR.

Progression as how much it is good for game is just everyones own opinion, as when it comes so strong that it starts to pull focus from gameplay to statical game. This is way too personal opinion to answer, so it's more about game developers to deside where they games focus is. RPG players likes usually deeper character development, while some other may feel like it's taking too long just define character, when we should be playing the game. Playing the game isn't same as just combat, so don't over simplify this meaning. Because playing game is experiencing the story though gameplay and dialogs.

Modifié par Lumikki, 13 juillet 2011 - 06:46 .

[In Exile]

Terror_K wrote...
 My problem is them completely turning their backs on hardcore RPGs in the process, and warping their existing IPs for the sake of mass appeal. If they want to branch out, that's fine... do it with new IPs. Or spin-offs even. But don't intend for a series to start off as one thing and then completely reboot it and (as you said) change your philosophy the next. The problem is consistency and remaining true to the original source.

But what does it mean to be consistent with the source? To keep this on topic, let's look at the shift from ME1-ME2. I think ME2 is essentially a re-hash of al the crucial elements of ME1. Spirit, design, setting, characters, etc. All of it is the same type of game. What do you think makes a game deviate from that?

 And to bring things back on-topic, the same should apply to Mass Effect as well. It may not have been a pure RPG like Dragon Age started out as, but it wasn't as watered down as ME2 was. It was still an Action RPG, and not just a TPS with light RPG elements like the sequel seemed to be.

ME1 was very bad at trying to be any sort of game. It tried to copy the literal wording of what it meant (to most) to have RPG features (dialogue options, loot, character customization, stat-basd combat, power trees) and what it meant to most to have 3rd person shooter mechanics (i.e. an aiming reticule and a cover system). 

ME2 did the same thing - it had the essence of what it meant to have an RPG (character progression, XP awarded for achievements and not for murder, varied rewards, more direct and impactful skill systems, reactive item choice, power progression) and 3rd person shooter mechanics. 

I think ME2 did a much better job of having RPG features and a lot worse job at showing that it did have them.

Both games' sequels suffered from the fact that BioWare were more concerned about branching out and appealing to the mainstream than they were about properly fixing the issues of the first game for the existing fans.

ME2 did fix the issues for existing fans. I followed ME ever since I heard it announced as a spiritual succesor for KoTOR. And it had a lot of flaws; useless lot, pointless exploration, bad FPS mechanics, power progression that was all flash and no substance... 

... and ME2 then went out and addressed them. You're confusing an 'existing fan' with an 'a fan who shares your tastes'. 

Modifié par In Exile, 13 juillet 2011 - 06:53 .

[In Exile]

Lumikki wrote...
When I play even normal RPG, my goal is never collect junk items, but usefull items. 

I collect trash, but because it's vedor trash. Many RPGs keep you from buying good items if you lack the $$, and you get $$ from collecting garbage and hocking it.

So, what's wrong to design game so that player get less junk and more usefull different kind of items. In my opinion looting should be part of exploration, where player has some small change to find something usefull. Not collect every junk every where.  While looting is rewarding, it should not become main purpose of the game.

Having spent a bit reflecting, I think loot is only a reward when it actually has tangible customization benefits, i.e. it is an item you will want to equip to get a + to power versus vendor trash, and only when it's a novel item.

Not sure about this. 

Let the debates begin!

While what you say is  in my opinion true. It's not so that it's good or bad thing. It's just affect different kind of way to tell stories.

Keep in mind when I say reactive, I mean that you have more consequences and branching content that responds directly to the choices you make.

I mean more stronger story you have more it restrict players freedom, but it also can create more emotional connection to story. If you give player a lot of freedom it can cause situation where player starts wonder what I'm suppose to do here. Like how much story does guide players to correct direction. Some may feel like strong story feels like you are hand held and they want more freedom. But when you give more freedom, story becomes weaker. I ques it's different between player creating it's own story and someone else telling they story to you.

It's more than that. A player can try to invent his or her own story... but the game has to have content for it. Multiple quest paths, at least. The problem with a very 'free' design is that you can't overlap quests without having the player go 'WTF, my character would never agree to this?' You can avoid that by having the situation force the character to do things... but then the plot essentially gets

But that isn't really stat related. 

But it is ME related, and RPG related, because I'm saying Shepard with VO is the path to a better RPG.

TPS combat is there to stay, so that's it. Non combat skills would be nice to have, but that would actually require non-combat gameplay content too. What can be pretty hard thing, consider we are in last story of Shepards, what is the end WAR. 

I just haven't seen non-crap non-combat gameplay, to be honest. I'm not opposed to skills... they've just always sucked.

Progression as how much it is good for game is just everyones own opinion, as when it comes so strong that it starts to pull focus from gameplay to statical game. This is way too personal opinion to answer, so it's more about game developers to deside where they games focus is. RPG players likes usually deeper character development, while some other may feel like it's taking too long just define character, when we should be playing the game. Playing the game isn't same as just combat, so don't over simplify this meaning. Because playing game is experiencing the story though gameplay and dialogs.

I agree with you, depending on what you mean about character development. Which makes me want to ask, what do you mean about character development?

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

Again, I don't disagree with this. I'm saying I think it's wrong to switch gears like that and they shouldn't have. And to bring things back on-topic, the same should apply to Mass Effect as well. It may not have been a pure RPG like Dragon Age started out as, but it wasn't as watered down as ME2 was. It was still an Action RPG, and not just a TPS with light RPG elements like the sequel seemed to be. Both games' sequels suffered from the fact that BioWare were more concerned about branching out and appealing to the mainstream than they were about properly fixing the issues of the first game for the existing fans.

I disagree. (ME part, not DA part)

Issue here is because you like RPG style, you feeled like ME1 was something you can enjoyed, because when you played it, it feeled like action RPG, but it had a lot of normal RPG feeling. How ever, Mass Effect serie was design to have TPS combat. Hole graphics engine was choosen based TPS combat needs. ME1 failed in that part, that's why ME1 feeled like more normal light way RPG. So, you got wrong impression what ME serie was, because failed ME1 game design. This was because Bioware wasn't really good as making TPS combat.

Now make difference between what ME serie should have been and what you want it to be, as what you like. If you step back and look situation. You know that ME1 failed in TPS side, because if you don't know, then you have no clue what TPS combat really is. As it's player skill based combat.

You have all this time define ME serie based ME1, that has been you issue and you know it. You just can't let go the idea that ME1 wasn't what Bioware wanted ME serie to be, they did best what they could that time they made ME1, but it was not what they wanted. Even as how many time Bioware have to say it or just looking ME2 and ME3 design direction. This isn't Biowares failure to understand, this is yours. Because you are living dream what IF, there is no if, but only what it really is. You even "blame" Bioware as trying to please masses, but that was even the orginal goal. Why TPS combat at all, if it wasn't?

PS: DA series design direction, I actually I agree with you, because DAO was design to be true RPG.

Modifié par Lumikki, 13 juillet 2011 - 09:30 .

[Bnol]

In Exile wrote...

ME1 was very bad at trying to be any sort of game. It tried to copy the literal wording of what it meant (to most) to have RPG features (dialogue options, loot, character customization, stat-basd combat, power trees) and what it meant to most to have 3rd person shooter mechanics (i.e. an aiming reticule and a cover system). 

ME2 did the same thing - it had the essence of what it meant to have an RPG (character progression, XP awarded for achievements and not for murder, varied rewards, more direct and impactful skill systems, reactive item choice, power progression) and 3rd person shooter mechanics. 

I think ME2 did a much better job of having RPG features and a lot worse job at showing that it did have them.

This right here, I didn't feel I had any less customization in ME2 than in ME1, while granted neither game had a ton of real customization choices. 

In ME1 the skill choices didn't really matter as long as you put points into one weapon skill and your primary defensive skill you could beat any difficulty with any class with whatever you did with the rest of your points, and the only significant differences were between the classes and not within the classes.  ME2 was just the same, you had a couple ideal builds and little variation, but different playstyles between the classes. 

In terms of loot in ME1, there were obvious choices, and as soon as you have Spectre weapons, which were really easy to get, there was no choice whatsoever to what you use for weapons, and armor choices were fairly obvious throughout.  At least in ME2 the weapons still had a use and you could tailor them to your playstyle as you could with the armor, it was just unfortunate that the armor piece differences were so minor though.  You still had loot in the form of picking up weapons, finding upgrades and purchasing upgrades and armor in stores.  The best part about the ME2 loot system was you didn't have to deal with trash loot which is a huge plus.  Again, they are addressing some of the deficiencies of the ME2 system in terms of customization in loot.

It was obvious that numbers were being crunched under the hood during combat.  I really didn't need to see them on the weapons quite honestly, because I still could figure it out either from the description or a bit of trial what worked for my playstyle.  I know numbers would not have made my experience worse, but an accuracy # wouldn't really show me the spray of the revenant when compared to another AR, I would still need to test and see.

While I don't think they made changes to ME2 just because of the masses, I am quite tired of that argument.  Developers are making games to make money, certainly they love making games, but they need to eat.  So many video game fans act like music fans that complain about their band selling out.  Many times the creative change is not because of selling out and, even if it is, they owe you nothing and most people would do the same thing in a heartbeat to improve their and their family's lives.

[Phaedon]

Gatt9 wrote...
Because a game that is aimed at "Mass Market" generally has a number of characteristic features removed,  because the new target audience finds them unappealing.

Heh, I'll just quote my original post here to show how self-contradictive your post is:

Phaedon wrote...

I'll just post this here instead of making a triple post... What is with sticking the term "generic" to games liked by the "masses"?

I personally find it a bit funny, because you know, I thought that the argument was that "ME1-3 are not RPGs unless they have the following elements of the RPG formula" and that they would rather see "ME3 play like KOTOR or DA:O".

And well, aren't BG1 and 2, and KOTOR and NWN, and DA:O, etcetera etcetera, liked by the masses? Does that make them generic or mainstream? Or that they are dumbed down?

I googled "generic" and that's the closest definition to your own that I have found: 

c[/i] :[/b] having no particularly distinctive quality or application

Let's see now, is the so called, very debatable removal of elements that makes generic games, or is it to create a game based on a specific features on a formula?

I'll answer this question for you.
At least pure RPGs that are watered down are different than their predecessors because they have in fact change.

You have compiled a very narrow list of features than a game must have to be an RPG, leaving room for creativity only over story (and that's still debatable). Not only do WCRPGs have offered little to no innovation gameplay-wise in the past few years, but their stories are essentially copy/pastes, all based on an epic quest, and a journey from drags to riches. With some exceptions of course.

For an RPG,  the first thing to go is pretty consistently the "To hit" roll.  Because the masses have a long standing tendency to not understand the concepts of dodging and deflection.  Usually the next thing to go is diplomacy skills,  because the masses don't understand why their options for talking should be limited by the Character's qualities.  From there,  you generally end up with Bethseda,  remove anything that even remotely resembles an RPG mechanic.

Is that from your factbook again? Because it is baseless.

Most games don't just have a DPS stat, they also have either an ACC or AGI stat, or both at the same time, which create the "MISS MISS MISS MISS" effect.

You think that those don't exist on shooters, but you are wrong.

Although the agility of the character tends to be set to a regular standard for balance purposes in some shooters, the accuracy stat is not. It changes according to your weapon, or your "stance".

If you attempt to set your crosshair over a target, and fire, you will still get the "MISS MISS MISS MISS" effect due to the accuracy modifier (crouch, sprint, etc) as well as the accuracy stat of every weapon.

It's not limited to RPG's though.  You'll find it in Strategy,  where turn-based thinking style is rapidly axed for RTS "Click as fast as you can! And just aim a large mob at the other guy!" style.  You'll see it in FPS/TPS where health packs,  and limited ammo are removed.  Every genre has it to a degree.

What you end up with is "Generic".  Anything with any complexity is removed to reduce the game to only it's most fundamental characteristics.

It's most fundamental characteristics? For whom? You?

TBSs and RTSs are two different sub-genres, with different mechanics.

To me it looks like you don't like RTSs, because you suck at macro and micromanagement, when you do them at the same time.

And for your information, the strategy games that are considered by most to require most skill are RTSs.

ME2 and maybe 3 fit that bill.  ME2 had most of the RPG elements axed (All IMO),  Exploration,  Loot,  complicated things like areas that weren't a straight corridor,  grenades,  it avoided implementing ammo in a sensical way.  It was reduced to the most fundamental characteristics,  all complexity completely eliminated,  such that it was really nothing more than a straight TPS with dialogue.

Exploration is an RPG element? You surprise me, Gatt. In any case, you still did sidequests and mined planets, during which you could discover anomalies.

Loot? Such as what, finding things such as Minerals, upgrades, armour parts and weapons in random places? Whoops.

You are losing me from there on.
"complicated things like areas that weren't a straight corridor,  grenades,  it avoided implementing ammo in a sensical way"

Grenades make true RPGs!

Complexity completely eliminated? That's funny.
I don't think that anyone thought that ME1's inventory or loot was complex. Just annoying. It definitely didn't require intelligence. Unlike ME2's, where all of the weapons had their pros and cons. ME1's inventory essentially had one stat that changed progressively.

Straight TPS with dialogue?
Heh, you are obviously not the old DnD player then.
You do realize that the only real difference between the original DnD models and Chainmail, a strategy game is the interactive storytelling, right?

There's a reason why they're not common,  they're bad design.  The premise behind them is inherently flawed.  All you have is an FPS/TPS with it's UI intentionally crippled to tack on a "Leveling system".  All the system does is progressively decrease the crippled UI to full FPS/TPS.  Once the player has "Leveled" enough,  they can overcome the handicap,  and the entire leveling system is rendered completely redundant.

ME2 didn't have that problem though,  it wasn't a hybrid.  It was a straight up TPS,  as the leveling system was completely redundant from the word "Go".  As I've said,  you kill a YMIR at level 2,  and he's equivalent to any and every "Big boss" in the game,  so since you can kill him,  you can kill all of them,  which is a characteristic of a Shooter.

ME3 remains to be seen.

Exactly. ME2 did the exact opposite.

Instead of crippling the player learning/skill curve, it rewarded you through upgrades, which could only be bought once. Sounds familiar.

Modifié par Phaedon, 13 juillet 2011 - 09:44 .

[Phaedon]

Terror_K wrote...
I don't want your pity. And I'm not sad... I'm angry. Angry at the entertainment industry as a whole for catering to the same mindless sheep over and over, and angry at the mindless sheep for lapping it up to willingly. It's easy to be content and fine with everything when things are great for you because it all caters to you.

Don't pity me. I pity humanity. And I pity the future. Not just for the gaming industry. Just in general.

Get off your high horse and stop the melodrama.

CRPG players have been served the same copy/pasted feces for decades. But they are obviously not the mindless drones, are they.

Even if RPGs required extra intelligence to play, your attitude is still unjustifiable and extreme.

God forbid people want to have fun when playing video games! How dare they not be intellectuals that prefer much more refined entertainment!

Modifié par Phaedon, 13 juillet 2011 - 11:08 .

[Cainne Chapel]

I say Terror K.....

I think you take Mass Market/Mass Media things WAY too seriously or have a tremendous chip on your shoulder towards "Popular" things.

Some things that are popular... ARE complete and utter trite crap. That is true, BUT... and thats a big BUT, some things that are popular as well... aren't.
Its really something that cant be decided without having experienced said thing/product/what have you.

But I understand your sentiment... but as I said, you either take things that bother you... or yourself way to seriously.

Personally, I never try to take anything seriously enough that it bothers me to the point of ranting about it... unless its something that has personally effected me on a very serious level.

But as for popular culture... i just tend to ignore most of it... unless I of course enjoy something and then i'm all the happier that a lot of people enjoy it... it means more of "it" for me

[Phaedon]

In other words,

Justin Bieber is popular and he sucks.
Does that mean that the Beatles suck because they were popular?

[Cainne Chapel]

Phaedon dont you dare blaspheme against the Biebster. He single handedly saved the music industry... what with his catchy tunes and hot style.

Ok i couldnt type that without laughing and wanting to punch myself.

Bieber is terrible if you have any sense of music.

Oddly enough as great as the beatles are...I cant stand their music either. But then i've always been....eccentric as my wife says

[Phaedon]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

Phaedon dont you dare blaspheme against the Biebster. He single handedly saved the music industry... what with his catchy tunes and hot style.

Ok i couldnt type that without laughing and wanting to punch myself.

Bieber is terrible if you have any sense of music.

Oddly enough as great as the beatles are...I cant stand their music either. But then i've always been....eccentric as my wife says

Actually, that's exactly my point.

Taste differs.

You can't objectively say that something sucks because everyone but you likes it.
Many underage girls think that the Beatles suck and that Bieber rocks. I think he sucks. 

It doesn't make me wrong or right, but it certainly makes this wrong:

"Oh, no, it's mainstream, it must be dumbed down and it must suck!"

Modifié par Phaedon, 13 juillet 2011 - 11:07 .

[Cainne Chapel]

That is true. Though on an artist level, MOST music nowadays sucks Rather, you have to sift through a LOT of crap to get to the good stuff.

For instance, I LOVE LOVE LOVE Cee-Lo Green. Been Listening to him since the Goodie Mob days.

and I am tremendously happy that he now has his voice heard in the mainstream music media. Because I think he is one of best right now and I am happy more people get to experience his unique music.

Does that mean everyone likes him? no of course not, and has he made mainstream stuff? Yes he has, some have been better than others. But just like with bioware they'll keep on keeping on and i'm sure i'll like more than I dont like if history stands to reason.

(To be honest I didnt even hate DA2 either, but *shrug* I'm not hard to please honestly when it comes to games, I'm even guilty of buying yearly EA titles....and wrestling games...)

[daemon1129]

Phaedon wrote...

Cainne Chapel wrote...

Phaedon dont you dare blaspheme against the Biebster. He single handedly saved the music industry... what with his catchy tunes and hot style.

Ok i couldnt type that without laughing and wanting to punch myself.

Bieber is terrible if you have any sense of music.

Oddly enough as great as the beatles are...I cant stand their music either. But then i've always been....eccentric as my wife says

Actually, that's exactly my point.

Taste differs.

You can't objectively say that something sucks because everyone but you likes it.
Many underage girls think that the Beatles suck and that Bieber rocks. I think he sucks. 

It doesn't make me wrong or right, but it certainly makes this wrong:

"Oh, no, it's mainstream, it must be dumbed down and it must suck!"

Something mainstream doesn't mean it is dumbed down and suck, you are correct.  But things get dumb down because of it being mainstream.  What is the best way to appeal to all types of auidence? Dumb it down.  Make it simple and fun. Streamlining annoying interface controls and stuff into something anyone can use without a hassle.  Remove medkits and backtracking and replace with recovernig health and on rail action.  Remove HUDs that gives information to the player because the player doesn't need to care about anything but mash buttons.  Health bar?  Gone.  Mana Bar?  Cooldown.   Inventory?  Too time consuming.  Crafting with loots?  Not everyone wants to spend that much time farming for loots.

When you are trying to make something mainstream, the end product will always end up "dumbed down" compare to what you started with.  It's inevitable, but also a shame if you ask me.

[Foolsfolly]

In Exile wrote...

Here's a controversial claim:

You can only have reactivity when you radically reduce customization.

1) To have useful items, you have to have very few and very different items.

I agree. Otherwise items are just different by small percentages of stats. They mean nothing because in two hours you'll have different weapons and armor. Every mission you'll replace something. Unless it's ME1 in which case once you get Predator X armor and Spectre X weapons you're pretty much done.

Unless you like Colossus X armors better...which I sometimes do because I enjoy the look of the armor more.

2) To have a reactive plot, you need a highly defined character to write the plot around.

Discuss.

Alpha Protocol and New Vegas are rather reactive plots. Mike Thorton's a rather static character, you can pick his dialogue choices but his mission and drive are never in question. The Courier is anyone you want it to be, although the next two DLCs will give the Courier backstory. Still the Courier's whatever voice you want. You can support any of three factions in a shallow plot, but all three factions are very different, have their pros and cons, and have at least three separate endings each.

I think the less complex the character, the more reactive the plot can be, seems to be true.

Shepard's not complex, he's a lot like Mike Thorton. You know exactly what Shepard's personality is and what Shepard's goal is. The past is left to your imagination, and the manner in which Shepard behaves is up to you...but Shepard has drive and a single goal without the player deciding those things.

[Phaedon]

daemon1129 wrote...
Something mainstream doesn't mean it is dumbed down and suck, you are correct.  But things get dumb down because of it being mainstream.  What is the best way to appeal to all types of auidence? Dumb it down.  Make it simple and fun. Streamlining annoying interface controls and stuff into something anyone can use without a hassle.  Remove medkits and backtracking and replace with recovernig health and on rail action.  Remove HUDs that gives information to the player because the player doesn't need to care about anything but mash buttons.  Health bar?  Gone.  Mana Bar?  Cooldown.   Inventory?  Too time consuming.  Crafting with loots?  Not everyone wants to spend that much time farming for loots.

When you are trying to make something mainstream, the end product will always end up "dumbed down" compare to what you started with.  It's inevitable, but also a shame if you ask me.

Replace every "dumbed down" in your post to "streamlined" and take a look at it again.

More mainstream games can require skills as well (for example ME2's insanity was more difficult than ME1's).

Streamlining isn't fundamentally wrong. In fact, I'd argue that streamlining is fundamentally good.
The problem is that during this process of streamlining, some mistakes may be done, and the overall quality of the game, may instead of being improved, become worse.

That did happen to some areas in ME2. No one denies that.
But I think that most people would agree that streamlining (as in, making better and with less redundant things) helped ME2 a lot, overall.

Streamlining just means easier access. 
I don't think that anyone can claim that the inventory and loot in ME1 made the game more complex, but rather complicated.

[Phaedon]

Foolsfolly wrote...
Mike Thorton's a rather static character

His facial hair, however is not.

C'mon, how could you possibly not love him changing facial features during a single interrogation scene?

It's called dynamic retcon. 

Modifié par Phaedon, 13 juillet 2011 - 11:50 .

[Foolsfolly]

I will admit I loved going from clean shaven in the interrogation scene to the Fidel Castro beard in the next scene.

[whywhywhywhy]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

Umm..or a game delay is because the developers care about making the game as good as it can be and are willing to take the time to do so?  See: Valve, Blizzard.  It doesn't mean BIG MISTAKES were made.  Where did you get that from?

That's PR talk, reality is delays = increase in development cost period, even if the intent by BW was as you say(I don't believe that's the story, not entirely).  BW is owned by EA if you know anything about EA's past game development practices you'd understand what I meant. 

I can point this out to you from your point of view.  Let's say your correct the game is all about being the best, look at how close it was to it's launch date.  What happened that requires a year delay to release the game so close to it's original launch date and why close to a year delay ?  What could they possible be changing ? It would have to be significant to require such a long extension.  After all if it was minor and just bugfixes a 3-4 or 6month delay would suffice.  So the delay was to either to add or change something significant something that was missing from the game if it released on it's original launch date.

Keep in mind the timing of the delay matters greatly a delay a few months out from launch is bad but manageable, but a few weeks from launch ?  It's strong indicator.

Maybe it would be more believable if EA didn't own BW and ME2 in the context of it's new direction was complete. Do you feel me2 was as good of a game as it could have been ?  I ask this not
from my perspective but yours it requires honesty to answer.  For me even if I sit aside my bias that answer is no.  To be clear not adding changes that would increase dev time and continuing with it's new approach me2 could have been a better me2 then what it was.  

Back to
the point, a simplified answer is delays increase costs, delays are
avoided like you'd avoid swimming in a piranha infested river as it
effects the bottom line.  The suits(the dev's bosses) mostly see the
bottom line profit, they don't care about a perfect game only profit and
are responsible for many cookie cutters and imo ruined games.

sp0ck 06 wrote...
Why not continue with the sci-fi FPS style play completely?  Well, its not a first person shooter at all, for starters.

I Never claimed it was read it again carefully, my point is a sequel is meant to surpass the original.  If me2's direction is correct why are they compromising it ?  Why not full on sci-fi based fps STYLE(<--important word) gameplay if it's what the fans want ?  Why are gameplay functions returning from me1 improved when they were discarded for me2 ?  Why weren't those functions from me1 taken and improved for me2 if me1 will be borrowed from for me3 ?

sp0ck 06 wrote...
 Secondly, maybe because...um...the game isn't a TPS?  Never was.  Its an action RPG from the start.

who claimed it was fps or tps for that matter ?  For the record tps is a game engine function, people are trying to coin a buzz word for it towards the current trends but it existed as functionality in FPS's as a camera toggle.  Thus it's a function of FPS's, I reject the idea of it as a genre and historically it can only be seen at best as a game engine bulet point or subgenre of the FPS genre.  Thus it can be sufficiently described as a FPS(umbrella term) regardless of camera perspective so long as the game play matches the genre.

sp0ck 06 wrote...
  To me, it seems like they trimmed too much fat from the game in ME2, and now they're taking everything that was great in ME2 and beefing it up with more of what fans want.

LOL, not all fans

sp0ck 06 wrote...
I don't understand what you're trying to prove.  Seems to me like you just didn't like ME2.  If thats the case you're in the minority from BW's point of view and be prepared for a similar experience in ME3.

That's because you missed the beginning statements and jump in at the end.  I'm simply stating that I feel this new direction is a mistake much like the departure from DA:O gameplay resulted in DA2's gameplay and fans didn't like it.  It's no different to me only the themes differ and I feel once again this dev direction for me3 is a mistake as it will divide the gamers.  alanc9 took issue with my position but as of yet can't discredit it, this entire thread and others like it are proof of what I'm saying.  Furthermore those who don't bother with forums are the true silent majority and who knows what side they fall on.  Too many people say rpg gamers are dying out and given that ME was billed as a RPG I say it's more likely the fps action element crowd is the minority not vice versa.

sp0ck 06 wrote...
How did
ME1 play like a sci fi RPG compared to ME2 playing like a "poor FPS".
 First off, its not an FPS.

Why do you equate my saying me2 has fps elements in it to me saying me2 is a fps ?  Where are you getting this ?  Please stop honing in on words that trigger a reaction that causes you to take everything else out of context.  me2 has fps elements you cannot deny this.  If I'm referring to the gameplay as a poor fps how is it not valid ?  Or are you claiming me2 is more of a RPG ?  Here's a interesting tidbit When mass effect was presented at e3 the demo vid ended with RPG in the center of the screen.  When me2's demo vid aired at e3 it lacked those three little letters. furthermore how much is combat talked about in this video ?

sp0ck 06 wrote...
 I could see how you might argue that ME1
"felt" like more of a sci fi flick due to atmosphere, music, etc.

yes all of this added to the gameplay experience, which cannot be one singular thing.  Everything plays a role.

sp0ck 06 wrote...  But
in terms of gameplay?  ME2's combat is vastly superior in every way to
ME1's, in terms of actual mechanics.  ME1 had horrendous combat.

In everyway ?  Let me discredit that statement, how superior is me2's ui to me1's ?  You know the one I can actually tell how much heath/shields my teammates have at a glance vs the "improvement" in me2.

I obviously disagree that me2's combat is vastly superior but feel free to elaborate obviously wit bugs and glitches aside me2 as a sequel would and should feel smoother but something was lost in the transition. A ME1 successor in the same spirit of the first game would be vastly superior to me2.

sp0ck 06 wrote...
I
often felt like the action was a chore, something to be done with as
fast as possible in order to get to the juicy story bits.

Because you have to aim in ME1.  Seriously if me1 was a choir to you I have no idea how you enjoyed me2.

sp0ck 06 wrote...
Explain
how ME1's gameplay was "better".  Loot ?  Stats?  Because I do not
understand how you can possibly make that argument.

very simple me2 leans towards weapon combat and heat chip clips while me1 uses a heat discharge system changes gameplay dramatically.  I'm not looking for ammo from fallen enemies and aliens with vastly superior tech who someone how have these chips I can use.  I budget my shots, shields and health not my ammo. Also Biotics play such a larger role in the first game as one would expect of a sci fi game, me2 neutered those abilities.  With the changes in me2 it becomes a single strongest power spamfest, in me1 I'm mixing various combos or layered attacks and/or abilities independent of my biotics and healing. 

Changing my ammo type affected my gameplay a ability absent in me2.  In me2 using a ability or biotic power causes a gcd so I'm shooting my gun (fps style) a whole lot more then I am using my sci-fi biotics.  Me2 even took away my bombs.   In short ME1 had various styles of play that heavily favored biotics and survival(the sci fi element) me2 took that away it became more about weapon combat with ammo management a gameplay aspect of shooters.  (even your super strong biotic types samara, jack and etc use weapons)

Understand what this really means if you take ME with all of it's flaws and bugs correct/update them I feel you have a better game then me2.  If you progress the story of the first game on top of that you'd have a true sequel to the first game.  Me2 feels more like a spinoff then a sequel it's definately a sci-fi themed game me1 with all that is was a sci fi rpg game.

[whywhywhywhy]

Il Divo wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...

 unjustified and unjustifiabe assumption towards what  ?  Of my opinion that bioware is making a mistake ?  That me2 is a horrible sequel ?  That this new direction is bad ?  I have plenty.

I don't know if you know of game development but delays are bad, the later a delay the more expensive.  So for a delay to happen so late and to be delayed so long indicates that their are BIG problems and BIG mistakes were made.  Just because they have extra time to rectify the problem(not that we'd ever get a straight answer to what that is) doesn't mean it will be fixed.

Despite how well ME2 sold or didn't sell(depending on your view) how many people bought me2 because it was a sequel ?  A reasonable educated guess would be the majority with new fans being drawn in by advertisements.  How many were expecting a sequel ?  I'm sure many might of had no complaints, some a few and others irate.  But let's say for argument sake those not satisfied with me2 number within 500k, based on the choices made for me3 500k people could potentially walk away from that game.  Now that's a made up number but it could be right, lower or maybe even higher I don't know but what we do know is that not everyone who bought me2 is happy with me2 and that will effect me3. 

Sequels are meant to surpasse their predecessors yet me3 will be adding stuff back in from me and improving it in the way that me2 was suppose to do.  If all is truly well why are they taking these steps ?  Why not continue on with the sci fi FPS style play completely ?  This has to indicate the rpg fanbase is significant.

It could all turn out well but it's not Guarenteed.
unjustifiable ?  To you maybe but I know more then you.

Ah, what a wonderful argument. "I know more than you". Yes, you clearly showed him the error of his ways!

I find it interesting you responded to one fragment of my post rather then the entirety of my statement.
Cheers.