310 réponses à ce sujet

[Halo Quea]

LilyasAvalon wrote...

At a glance, yes, but at least it's not a total and complete rip off. Let's face it, in today's society, there's NOTHING original about ANYTHING. Everyone's a thief deep down, they've stolen something from someone. My literature teacher taught me that.

You and I must have had the same professor.  lol

He was found of talking about The Myth of Originality.   That writers are inspired BY stealing from each other.

[jtsherrard]

those examples you use OP are the more blatant evidence for your accusations i assume. However, you forget that for decades the energy blade has been a defining element of a scifi story. the design of the turret you show is a basic design used and in no way can be taken as anything other than that. Riot Shields have been in use in one form or another for centuries. Mechs are the staple future tech sub boss design since your dealing with a walking tank and has been featured in numerous games (not all are shooters). I cannot even begin to understand why the sliding thing is being used to compare mass 3 to other shooters. and ever since the famed Mr. T walked onto the pilot of the A-Team, mohawks and muscles have conveyed a sense of bad@55ery that we cant even fully understand why.

TLDR: I cannot make a completed connection from Mass 3 and every other shooter except that they all have bullets and they all kill things. The game IS a shooter, but nothing the "Cliche Shooters" is necessarily original either.

[Il Divo]

marshalleck wrote...

I think it would be prudent for Bioware to rein in his enthusiasm for slighting the previous games, for future interviews. If ME3 is going to rock, great. It can and should do so on its own merit, without slagging off ME1 or ME2 in the process. If you can only make ME3 look good by trash talking the others in the series, perhaps it's not all you're making it out to be.

The problem isn't necessarily that Silverman is slagging ME1/ME2. With gaming sequels, it's pretty typical for the developers to be more blunt about what they did right/wrong with previous installments, since this allows them to build hype for their latest product. The main issue I have with his latest statements is that Bioware games have always emphasized the story, in their marketing as well. Silverman's comments about LIs in ME downplays one of the most popular aspects of Mass Effect and (imo) does a pretty weak job of building up any shooting aspects.

[Varen Spectre]

Well if the question is "Is Bioware taking too much inspiration from cliche shooters for ME3?" as the headline would suggest... My personal opinion would be "No"...  and I am convinced that Mass Effect is, indeed, borrowing a lot from other games (e.g. once I posted side by side comparison of moves in ME3 and GoW3, though the purpose was to convince more forum members to give Epic more credit for making them, not to discredit ME3).

The reason that makes me think this way is that most of the borrowed ideas are really good, can enrich gameplay a lot and (this is my personal reason) I don't play games too much nowadays to really experience the repetitiveness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the question / main topic is "your reactions to CVG article" as the rest of OP's posts suggest, my answer would be similar to my answer on this topic in previous thread about it, since I haven't read any new information or opinion that would convince me to change my mind:

- Even though I am fan of many traditional RPG elements (traditional inventories, loot, "stats", XP per kill, non-combat skills) I don't panic because a) I think Mass Effect games are excellent even without them, we have seen improvements in many areas...





- I think that games that developers mention as sources of inspiration do not mean that much and the fact, that CD Projekt RED, the developer of an excellent and highly regarded RPG Witcher 2, mentioned among them games like Arkham Asylum or Heavy Rain, only assures me to thinks so.

- I thought that the rest of the points in the article were either pure marketing (Bioware's best game, the best game to start the series with:?) or David Silverman's peronal opinion (who cares about love in war times:blink:). And since he is not a developer but marketing director... It's not the big deal for me.

Of course, should new interesting information or developer's opinion arise, I may reconsider my own.     

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

ME1 had allmost ZERO TPS side. You think this is what balance is?

And yet you're always claiming that BioWare had meant for it to be like ME2 from the start. Despite evidence to the contrary. :innocent:

Yes and No, but there is no conratory evidence, only your own rebel agaist what Bioware does.
Balance between RPG gameplay vs TPS combat and what ME serie should have been from start. There is no conflict there.

You assumption is based TOTALLY what ME1 was, not what Bioware wanted the serie to be. If it would been so how you see situation, then there would NEVER have been point to change the balance or combat style between ME's. So, you assumption is wrong. Only correct assumption is that Bioware wanted TPS combat in ME serie, but they failed make it good at in ME1. Then with ME2 they over simplifyed RPG side, while they got TPS side working. Because every evidense as what Bioware has done support this conclusion.

I'm not complaining here what Bioware does, YOU are.

I'm complaining you complain as not having base. Don't get me wrong I support "your complain" increase RPG aspects in ME serie. Because I support improving ME serie and it's balance, even Bioware agrees with you in this. I don't how ever support you vision what you think ME serie is, because it's wrong one. It's you personal dream vision what you wanted ME series to be, not what IT REALLY IS, defined by BIOWARE.

So, you idea of balance is based failed excecution of game features. Point been ME1 failed totally in TPS side and ME2 over simplifyed RPG features. ME3 is trying to fix the issue.

Modifié par Lumikki, 24 juillet 2011 - 02:16 .

[Someone With Mass]

@OP:
Find me a game that haven't borrowed anything from any other kind of fiction, and I might just start to give a damn.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 24 juillet 2011 - 01:54 .

[Arppis]

Thats human mind for you. If we don't conciously "borrow" something, we will do it subconciously.

[Eurhetemec]

A) I love the idea that "cliche shooter" is like a genre of shooter. Made me laugh irl.

The OP's post is cute but he shows how the entire thread is pointless - he said "I hope we can all agree that improved shooter mechanics are a very good thing.". Yes, we can! Are we done now? Also, what's interesting is that ME3 is "stealing" from like eight different games - surely that actually means it's relatively clever/original? If it was just ripping of MW2, or just ripping off Halo, or just ripping off GoW, I'd think that was lazy and stupid, but stealing the best bits from a bunch of different games? Seems cool to me!

[Giantdeathrobot]

 Marketing department trying to appeal to the broadest range of people? Very strange indeed, considering it's their damn job. When will folks here learn to differenciate marketing speech (which is by definition bull****, I know, I work in that branch) from actual information? We know RPG elements are coming. Weapons mods are back with a more significant impact, a seemingly pretty good character building system replaces the inane one the two previous games had (oooooohhhh 1% more damage! I feel so hardcore gamer right now) is being built, and we are told choices would have more consequences (which is still unsure, mind you). Why all the damn doom and gloom about ''they ar make a bad bad shooter!''? This isin't like DA2 where pretty much all available info supported that theory, here we already know first-hand ME3 has more significant RPG elements than even the first game.

[Han Shot First]

No.

The combat portions of the Mass Effect games should play out like the best shooters on the market. The Mass Effect games would blow if the combat used RPG mechanics where stats are calculated and even head shots fail to cause much damage to enemies far above your level, or where your character is determined to have missed even though you've got the sights lined up on the enemy you are firing at.

And before someone accused me of being some mindless COD drone that hates RPGs, most of my favorite games are RPGs and I don't play a lot of the shooters on the market. Mass Effect should have a lot of RPG elements, but those elements should be implemented everywhere else *except* combat.

Customizable player character and party members? Check.

Non-linearity and multiple solutions to quests/missions? Check.

Varied and customizable inventory? Check.

Emphasis put on a strong story and character development? Check.

Experience and levelling system, where the player allocates points into skills or abilities? Check.

Traditional stat-based/dice roll RPG combat? Fvck no.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 24 juillet 2011 - 03:06 .

[PXXL]

javierabegazo wrote...

I think that out of boredom and lack of info, a few users spend their time cherry picking to make issues out of things that simply aren't.

I feel like a user like you, with your posting history, must feel like any game that falls into a shooter genre obviously must not have any redeeming qualities, or anything that can be used to inspire better design in other games, regardles of Genre. That by virtue of being dubbed shooter, they're only meant for "Lower lifeforms of Video Gamers"

Thanks 

[ShepardTheMetalhead]

GunMoth wrote...

Every third person shooter is a "rip off" of Resident Evil 4.

Huh???? Resident Evil 4 is a "rip-off" of every TPS that came before it. RE4 is nowhere near the first TPS buddy.

[AlanC9]

So the question isn't whether ME3 will rip off other games, the question is whether it's ripping off the wrong games

[Cipher1989]

@ ShepardTheMetalhead: I think GunMoth meant that every popular TPS today borrows RE4's over-the-shoulder camera. When RE4 came it, the game was groundbreaking.

[Bnol]

Terror_K wrote...

On top of that I think they're looking too much at other shooters and action titles (especially evident given Silverman's recent comments to CVG) and not enough at other RPGs. Even most of the RPG elements that are coming back for ME3 tend to be the type of customisation you'd see more in a shooter for instance. It's not bad, but the game needs more than just this, IMO. For recent examples, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Fallout: New Vegas and Alpha Protocol seemed to "get it" when it came to mixing shooter and RPG, and I'm not sure the Mass Effect camp do any more, or even want to. They seemed to when making ME1, but not so much now.

Deus Ex and Fallout are completely different games from ME.  They have non-combat alternatives to be able to complete main storyline quests and that is at the core of the gameplay.  Sure, combat is forced at certain times and is genrally rewarded more because of kill xp/loot (which is a reason I dislike per kill XP), but there are still ways to avoid it in most situations.  ME1 did not have this.  The only way through the game was combat.  Sure you could avoid a few fights with persuasion and on Ilos you could hack armatures to fight for you, but they were so few and far between that it isn't the core of the gameplay, even the non-combat skills of electronics/decryption have combat applications and are prerequisites to combat skills. 

ME gameplay has been about combat from the beginning.  Thus, it makes sense to focus on games in which combat is the focus of gameplay and to have the customization focus there as well.

[javierabegazo]

Terror_K wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

ME1 had allmost ZERO TPS side. You think this is what balance is?

And yet you're always claiming that BioWare had meant for it to be like ME2 from the start. Despite evidence to the contrary. :innocent:

If I am an author, and I believe that in my book, a certain character dies at a certain event, somehow, no matter what I say, whoever was that character's greatest fan will always call that action NOT OF MY OWN DECISION but obviously that of the overlords "in charge of me".  

It's this phenomena that I feel is the primary factor in statments like yours.

[Candidate 88766]

Lumikki wrote...

ME1 had allmost ZERO TPS side. You think this is what balance is?

It had much more than that. All the moving and shooting were based on TPS gameplay. And all you do in the game is move, shoot and talk so that is much than zero TPS. ME1 and ME2 were very similar in the amount shooter gameplay, its just that ME1 had more to do when you paused the game to either use powers or upgrade powers/weapons. The fundamental gameplay is that of a TPS with RPG stuff complementing the combat.

[Vanni127]

To be honest, yes. I do think they're taking far too much from the cliche shooters on the market. Last I checked ME as a series was an RPG first.

Improving the shooting elements of the game so those sections are fun and not tedious is a good thing. Focusing on those elements at the expense of good RPG mechanics isn't.

Also I think most people are against all of it because of the really bad "We want CoD's audience." No Bioware...you want their money...you really really don't want that fanbase. Trust me.

[alex90c]

Sometimes I really wonder if David Silverman has ever actually played any of Bioware's games.

[Il Divo]

alex90c wrote...

Sometimes I really wonder if David Silverman has ever actually played any of Bioware's games.

Probably not. I remember his comments about Origin's level of detail for the Mage background. Apparently details like making a realistic setting by adding book-cases, etc, are unimportant.

Modifié par Il Divo, 24 juillet 2011 - 05:45 .

[Lumikki]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

ME1 had allmost ZERO TPS side. You think this is what balance is?

It had much more than that. All the moving and shooting were based on TPS gameplay. And all you do in the game is move, shoot and talk so that is much than zero TPS. ME1 and ME2 were very similar in the amount shooter gameplay, its just that ME1 had more to do when you paused the game to either use powers or upgrade powers/weapons. The fundamental gameplay is that of a TPS with RPG stuff complementing the combat.

Maybe little bit, but not much. I got better "shooter" experience in RPG based mmorpg (Tabula Rasa) than in ME1.

Only thing what made ME1 feel little like shooter was that player needed to aim, but even that was clumpsy as hell. Problem was that there was shooter side, but in lower level it did not work so well because RPG stats affecting it badly. In higher level high armors and weapons just removed a lot of need of cover and hole combat changed rush based. TPS modern warfare combat is not based high defence as taking hits in armors, but avoiding been hit.  In simple way sayed, TPS was there, but it did not work well at all. Even weapons feeled wrong, like example pistol feeled like some machine gun.

If you compare weapon based combat in ME2, it's like night and day, totally different story. It's actually is TPS combat, not some clumpsy who knows what combat what ME1 had.

Modifié par Lumikki, 24 juillet 2011 - 06:51 .

[KingNothing125]

The only noteworthy thing in this thread is that the Gears turret has bayonets affixed to it. Bayonets. On a stationary piece of equipment.

[IndigoWolfe]

KingNothing125 wrote...

The only noteworthy thing in this thread is that the Gears turret has bayonets affixed to it. Bayonets. On a stationary piece of equipment.

The guns can be detached and used independently.

[Anakronist]

They could make me fight, in melee, as a vanguard, with pink umbrellas and roses, I would still play the game.

Yes this game is borrowing from other games, no it's not a bad thing. ME's originality is not in one aspect of the game, its the game itself. I haven't played a game that felt like ME, ever. So, bioware, keep borrowing from other games and putting your own touch on what you borrow, it'll be sweet.