310 réponses à ce sujet

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

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.

Aside from comments BioWare made prior to ME1's release about what Mass Effect was intended to be, along with the fact that if it originally intended to have non-stat-based TPS combat ala ME2 it clearly would have, because it's much easier to put in a simple point'n'shoot standard TPS combat mechanic than create a statistical system for it. You're essentially saying, "BioWare intended to make a mole hill in the first place!" despite the fact that they build a mountain to do it when building mole hills is simple.

Speaking of simple, the answer is that very thing: a whole bunch of players got into Mass Effect expecting a Gears clone because it looked like a Gears clone, then started complaining when it didn't play like one. So BioWare made it so it did. That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

Also, keep in mind that as far as I'm aware from following Mass Effect's progress from about a year before the original released on 360, the terms "Shooter" and "TPS" were never even officially brought up leading to ME1's release. It wasn't until just after GDC and before E3 2009 that BioWare started going on about that.

AlanC9 wrote...

Yes, absolutely. Sometimes when I find out what somebody else likes, all I can do is hope that nobody at Bio listens to him. 

I'm just not quite clear what Terror_K's actually advocating in terms of mechanics.

To whittle it all down and sum it up, what I'm advocating is that when developing a hybrid game you need to either look at other hybrids or look at both genres, then take mechanics from both,, but tweak them to work with each other well and in a manner that fits the game. You can't just almost completely strip one side of the gameplay (i.e. the RPG side) and then copy'n'paste aspects of the other side (i.e. the shooter side) and throw them in there with barely any adjustment as if the game is a pure shooter. ME2 focused far too much on the shooter aspects and resorted to just using shooter aspects for the gameplay outside of dialogue/narrative without properly integrating the RPG side of things.

Alpha Protocol may not have nailed its entire gameplay down, but I believe that while ME2 was an overall better game, AP was a better RPG than ME2 ever was. It even had some aspects that were just hands-down better. It's mini-games and emails were far superior to ME2's equivalent systems, and it at least did allow multiple approaches to situations, both story wise and in the levels themselves. Some of the weapons skills bonus feats such as Chain Shot could have worked well in Mass Effect as an alterative to the ME1 style weapon skills, and overall the system was better than either Mass title. Weapon modding was better, as was equipment overall: inventory existed without being bloated or feeling linear, and you couldn't so easily max everything. There were non-combat skills as well, something ME2 sorely missed. AP was far from perfect, but really was one of those cases of a game that with a bit more care, effort and time could have been really something. At the very least it was trying to be different, while ME2 fell back too much on standard shooter mechanics simply because "they work" without any real innovation. I admit AP was a flawed game, though I do also think its somewhat underappreciated, and isn't as bad as many claim (and that too many just play it like a TPS and unfairly slander it because it doesn't play like one, when it really wasn't meant to).

Again, the point is that the shooter side of things is still being too heavily focused on, and even the RPG improvements we've seen seem more like a cheap bone being thrown to shut us up while BioWare move on and keep going on about their "Action! Action! Action!" and all this pathetic dudebro nonsense about melee attacks and their stupid omni-blade (which is about the epitome of waving the "Rule of Cool" flag to get the Gears and CoD fans to cheer). The fact they were handing inflatable ones out at Comic-Con as if it were more the face of ME3 than even Shepard was is testament to that and the mentality they have right now: latching on to the stupidest, most mindless new aspect of ME3 we've seen thus far and wearing it like a badge of honour in this "Itz so badassss!!1" manner.

And for some reason it's okay for the RPG aspects to suffer at the hands of the shooter ones, but not the other way around. I mean, in some ways ME1 and ME2 were direct opposites: ME1's RPG elements made the shooter ones suffer, and then ME2's shooter ones made the RPG ones suffer. But with ME2 it's okay because... well, it just apparently is. And it shouldn't be.

Modifié par Terror_K, 25 juillet 2011 - 08:33 .

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

Aside from comments BioWare made prior to ME1's release about what Mass Effect was intended to be, along with the fact that if it originally intended to have non-stat-based TPS combat ala ME2 it clearly would have, because it's much easier to put in a simple point'n'shoot standard TPS combat mechanic than create a statistical system for it. You're essentially saying, "BioWare intended to make a mole hill in the first place!" despite the fact that they build a mountain to do it when building mole hills is simple.

Speaking of simple, the answer is that very thing: a whole bunch of players got into Mass Effect expecting a Gears clone because it looked like a Gears clone, then started complaining when it didn't play like one. So BioWare made it so it did. That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

Also, keep in mind that as far as I'm aware from following Mass Effect's progress from about a year before the original released on 360, the terms "Shooter" and "TPS" were never even officially brought up leading to ME1's release. It wasn't until just after GDC and before E3 2009 that BioWare started going on about that.

Yes, you can look it that way too, if you want.

Maybe they did not market shooter side much, can you blame them, because TPS side was never good in ME1. But ME1 had TPS inbuild inside the games main design from start. It was there from start, even the game engine was choosen based need of TPS. They have sayed this. You can't say, they never ment to have TPS combat, when it was even inside ME1. You can't deny it and pretend it doesn't exist. It's right there everyone to see. 

Why so big change between ME1 and ME2 then? Because they tryed to do TPS combat with RPG character stats connections. HUGE MISTAKE to try combinate RPG and TPS that way. So, they seperated combat (TPS) part from rest of the game and desined them seperate ways. This did give player real TPS combat while rest of the game could been what it was. Sure, they made again mistakes, what they are now trying to fix with ME3.

Did we players affect these changes? Of course we did and many other things did affected too, but TPS combat was in ME serie from start. It was just not working well in ME1. You can't combinate character stat skills and player based skills in combat, it just doesn't work, you would get worst from both.

Don't get wrong ME1 combat worked fine, but it was not fine as TPS combat. Also it was not excelent combat in any case. Gameplay in generally was lacking (clumpsy) in ME1, while other stuff was really great.

So, stop denying that ME serie isn't ALSO about TPS combat, because it is, it has allways been. It's one of core component what ME serie has. Like the rest of game is build more cinematic impression based action RPG type.

Modifié par Lumikki, 25 juillet 2011 - 08:49 .

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Yes, you can look it that way too, if you want.

Maybe they did not market shooter side much, can you blame them, because TPS side was never good in ME1. But ME1 had TPS inbuild inside the game main design from start. It was there from start, even the game engine was choosen based need of TPS. They have sayed this. You can't say, they never ment to have TPS combat, when it was even inside ME1. You can't deny it and pretend it doesn't exist. It's right there everyone to see. 

Why so big change between ME1 and ME2 then? Because they tryed to do TPS combat with RPG character stats connections. HUGE MISTAKE to try combinate RPG and TPS that way. So, they seperated combat (TPS) part from rest of the game and desined them seperate ways. This did give player real TPS combat while rest of the game could been what it was. Sure, they made again mistakes, what they are now trying to fix with ME3.

Did we players affect these changes? Of course we did and many other things did affected too, but TPS combat was in ME serie from start. It was just not working well in ME1. You can't combinate character stat skills and player based skills in combat, it just doesn't work, you would get worst from both.

Don't get wrong ME1 combat worked fine, but it was not fine as TPS combat. Also it was not excelent combat in any case.

So, stop denyting that ME serie isn't ALSO about TPS combat, because it is, it has allways been. It's one of core component what ME serie has. Like the rest of game is build more cinematic impression based action RPG type.

Having one aspect of a game doesn't mean that the game is a hybrid of that game. GTA: San Andreas and CoD titles have some RPG aspects to them for instance, but that doesn't them RPG hybrids. I don't think anybody would call Black Ops for instance a "FPS/RPG hybrid" just because it has rank level-ups and weapon stats and customisation. No, it's a Shooter with RPG elements. And just because ME1 had some TPS combat didn't make it an RPG/TPS hybrid, because it wasn't. It was an Action RPG with TPS elements. It wasn't until ME2 came along that BioWare starting dropping the S-Bomb and it became a proper hybrid. ME1 never tried to have the standard shooter elements like skill-based shooting, ammunition, regenerating health, etc. and really the only true TPS element was the fact that it had a third person view and you could shoot. Everything else was an RPG system almost entirely.

But it seems like you can't make a game these days with a third person perspective and the ability to shoot without it being a shooter. I wouldn't be surprised if the new Hitman either becomes a full-on TPS as well, or gets hounded by Gears fans for not playing like it. ME1 and Alpha Protocol were both victims of this misunderstanding.

Also, if you look back on the old forums, you'll actually find more people actually disliked the ME1 skill-based combat system because of the story set-up and who Shepard was more than for the mechanics itself. Quite a few people stated things along the lines of, "if this was a standard RPG 'rags to ritches' style story where you start as a nobody and become a God it would be fine, but Shepard is supposed to be an elite soldier that is part of N7 and up for Spectre status. The fact he/she can't hit the broad side of a barn from three feet away is just not right." And it's a valid point. The system is more a victim of the story and protagonist it was stuck with than because it was necessarily bad. If you started of as some sub-Jenkins Alliance gumby on his first tour then it would have worked... but that wasn't the case.

Inventory and many other aspects were always an issue, but that was never any reason to scrap them. Ammo and regenerating health being added I felt almost cancelled out each other's purpose. Ammo (or Thermal Clips to be technical) were introduced to add tension because the player could no longer just continuously fire without worry, but now Shepard can just hug a waist-high piece of rock for three seconds and be fine, which combined with powers takes away any real tension. I actually liked that I didn't have to deal with ammo in ME1: it was a purely shooter mechanic, and I thought the game was better off by avoiding it. I think a more limited health supply adds far more tension than low gun capacity, and I've never been a fan of regenerating health: it's an overused and weak mechanic, IMO. Same goes with the global cooldowns: completely defeated the purpose. Altered because apparently players would spam attacks at the start of a combat phase, but then be dry for a while. Now the cooldowns are so damn fast, you can just spam the same power over and over. With biotics and other powers curbed (read: nerfed) in ME2 the ability to God-win combat encounters ala ME1 would have been elimated anyway. I often get the feeling that when designing ME2 instead of taking one approach and testing it, the devs simply threw all their ideas at it at once, because many of the ideas would be sound alone, but when combined end up undoing the very thing they had supposedly intended to do in the first place.

[Lumikki]

Yes, ME1 was action RPG with TPS elements. ME2 was action RPG with TPS combat. ME3 will be action RPG with TPS combat.

WHY?

Because TPS is player skill based combat and TPS doesn't work WELL if it doesn't have the player skill. That was ME1 mistake and that's why it's just elements, because Bioware failed. They tryed to keep ME1 as RPG as possible, but RPG did not go well with TPS.

All I see you saying I want RPG, not shooter. ME serie is partly SHOOTER, deal with it.

Modifié par Lumikki, 25 juillet 2011 - 09:12 .

[CuseGirl]

Lumikki wrote...

Yes, ME1 was action RPG with TPS elements. ME2 was action RPG with TPS combat. ME3 will be action RPG with TPS combat.

WHY?

Because TPS is player skill based combat and TPS doesn't work WELL if it doesn't have the player skill. That was ME1 mistake and that's why it's just elements, because Bioware failed. They tryed to keep ME1 as RPG as possible, but RPG did not go well with TPS.

All I see you saying I want RPG, not shooter. ME serie is partly SHOOTER, deal with it.

how its TPS based on the player skill compared to first person shooters or other RPG fighting games like Oblivion (which can be first person OR TPS)?

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Yes, ME1 was action RPG with TPS elements. ME2 was action RPG with TPS combat. ME3 will be action RPG with TPS combat.

WHY?

Because TPS is player skill based combat and TPS doesn't work WELL if it doesn't have the player skill. That was ME1 mistake and that's why it's just elements, because Bioware failed. They tryed to keep ME1 as RPG as possible, but RPG did not go well with TPS.

So now you are admitting that the series changed with ME2 and it was in fact not what Mass Effect was intended to be, but changed because they felt it was better for the gameplay.

All I see you saying I want RPG, not shooter. ME serie is partly SHOOTER, deal with it.

Yes, at least since ME2 came along. It is partly shooter. "Partly" being the key word. Yet BioWare treated ME2 as if the shooter side was the only bit that really matter, and this focus seems the case with ME3 for the most part too. I didn't say I didn't want shooter elements, I said I didn't want them to completely overshadow the RPG ones gameplay wise. Again, why is it alright for the RPG elements to take a back-seat and suffer, but not when its the shooter ones?

[Lumikki]

CuseGirl wrote...


how its TPS based on the player skill compared to first person shooters or other RPG fighting games like Oblivion (which can be first person OR TPS)?

If you don't know answer for that, no-one can help you.
Character skill vs player skill..

Terror_K wrote...

So now you are admitting that the series changed with ME2 and it was in fact not what Mass Effect was intended to be, but changed because they felt it was better for the gameplay.

You see what you want to see, assuming what you want, I see what Bioware did actually do, that is the REAL intend.

Again, why is it alright for the RPG elements to take a back-seat and suffer, but not when its the shooter ones?

Back-seat, REST of game is RPG based, how it's that back-seat?

Or you mean why Mass Effect isn't based statical RPG gameplay.
If you don't know answer for that, no-one can help you.
Character skill vs player skill (TPS combat).

Modifié par Lumikki, 25 juillet 2011 - 10:09 .

[darknoon5]

KaidanWilliamsShepard wrote...

@TerrorK: I agree with every single point you have made, infact, Mass Effect really shoudnt have ever tried to improve on the Shooter Elements in the first place, they probably wouldnt have if it were not for EA, at most, it would have been trivial improvements to cover and movement in combat. I don't know about you, but if i want to shoot things in the third person, i am going to play G.O.W or G.R.A.W everytime...not Mass Effect for god sake. I really don't see why the both of you keep arguing about the addition of ammo in ME2, it was obviously added to make shooter fans feel more at home...simple as that IMO.

@Lumikki: While you may be overly aggressive and sure in your arguments, you make some extremely good points, i may not agree with a thing you have said, but thats only because i am not part of the TPS happy crowd you are arguing for. Very saucy conversation you guys.:-)

Your playing the wrong game. Mass Effect has always been as much shooter as RPG.

Using your reasoning.

"If I want too browse through inventories and equip my squadmates, I'll play KOTOR."

Just because you prefer the RPG side does not mean the shooting side isn't just as important.And yes, ME1 was a mediocre shooter-at best. Where as ME2 is a quite fun and perfectly playable, and moreover more balanced, shooter and overall a better combat experience. Ammo was added with a passable explanation that didn't wreck the lore (though the implementation could've been a bit better, eg. being able to fire till you overheat but losing accuracy/damage until you eject the clip) and overall added to the gameplay. It wasn't added to pander to a crowd, it was added to resolve the ridiculous unlimited ammo. (yes it was unlimited, all you needed was frictionless materials and your weapons nearly never overheat.)

Modifié par darknoon5, 25 juillet 2011 - 10:12 .

[Lumikki]

KaidanWilliamsShepard wrote...

@Lumikki: While you may be overly aggressive and sure in your arguments, you make some extremely good points, i may not agree with a thing you have said, but thats only because i am not part of the TPS happy crowd you are arguing for. Very saucy conversation you guys.:-)

Yeah, I'm sorry about it.

It just annoys me when people keep bringing back same arguments over and over, what is based totally they own desire as what they want the game to be, not what the game is. I don't mind different taste of games, but not be able to accept what ME serie is, that's not good in ME forum.

Modifié par Lumikki, 25 juillet 2011 - 10:14 .

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

So now you are admitting that the series changed with ME2 and it was in fact not what Mass Effect was intended to be, but changed because they felt it was better for the gameplay.

You see what you want to see, assuming what you want, I see what Bioware did actually do, that is the REAL intend.

Look, I have no problem with people who see ME2 as being the better direction and move for Mass Effect, and that it's the way it should go and that BioWare were right to do it. That's an opinion I don't agree with, but I can understand it and respect it, to a certain degree and depending on the reasoning (ME1 was, after all, far from the perfect game, and in many ways ME2 is a tighter, less-flawed product). But to say that that's what BioWare intended from the start... I just can't buy that. At all.

And, no offense, but you seem to be flip-flopping a bit on the issue personally. You claim often that it's what BioWare was going for from the start, and then I throw up some comments to the contrary and you seem to partially agree with the basic assessment, yet still hang onto the idea that BioWare intended that from the start. It can't be both. It's one thing to say it was the right direction to take for them, but another to claim it was their intent from the get-go, while also simultaneously admitting that it wasn't. Which is it?

Back-seat, REST of game is RPG based, how it's that back-seat?

Or you mean why Mass Effect isn't based statical RPG gameplay.
If you don't know answer for that, no-one can help you.
Character skill vs player skill (TPS combat).

Not really. Not with ME2. It's basically a story-driven TPS game with dialogue choices and light RPG elements now. The RPG side has been so gutted and pushed into the background. ME2 seemed embarrassed to be an RPG and tried to hide it at every turn if it could. It felt like an old best friend at a high school reunion you notice suddenly hanging around with the popular crowd you both previously avoided and being standoffish while it tries to ignore your presence. Even the RPG mechanics that do remain seemed shoehorned and twisted to suit the shooter mechanics and fail to stand on their own. It's like somewhere between ME1 and ME2 the Shooter side started a coup, won the war and are now forcing the RPG side of things serve them as slaves without any real chance to flourish or steal the show themselves. It's all about the combat, the action, the shooting, etc. now, and instead of altering the TPS elements to suit the hybrid nature of the game they're completely overpowering it and dominating. Good hybrids like Deus Ex knew that both sides needed to support each other equally and balanced in equal measures, with slight tweaks to help connect them. ME2 just takes TPS elements in their pure form and keeps them that way, with no bending to suit the RPG side.

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

But to say that that's what BioWare intended from the start... I just can't buy that. At all.

I know and that is causing the hole issue.

Let me ask, when you play ME3 and it will be action RPG with TPS combat, do you then believe what the company makes is the direction or do you still gonna live in day dream thinking they accidently change hole serie to be something what it should not been. Sorry about the sarcasm, but when you get it. They intend is shows as what they do, not what they could have done.

And, no offense, but you seem to be flip-flopping a bit on the issue personally.

Not really. Maybe it's my bad english, but you seem to sometimes assume little different than I say (mean).
I ques I do same for you too, so no harm.

ME2 just takes TPS elements in their pure form and keeps them that way, with no bending to suit the RPG side.

They did it because TPS combat connected with RPG stat based characters doesn't work well,  you know this. You may not notice how bad the combat was in ME1, but many other players did. It was at best mediocre combat system and bad TPS system. I think, this is because you focus and interest is just in RPG elements, not in combat it self.

Modifié par Lumikki, 25 juillet 2011 - 10:40 .

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

But to say that that's what BioWare intended from the start... I just can't buy that. At all.

I know and that is causing the hole issue.

Let me ask, when you play ME3 and it will be action RPG with TPS combat, do you then believe what the company makes is the direction or do you still gonna live in day dream thinking they accidently change hole serie to be something what it should not been. Sorry about the sarcasm, but when you get it. They intend is shows as what they do, not what they could have done.

It's not a dream. Were you even keeping an eye on Mass Effect prior to ME1's release, or did you come in somewhere between ME1 and ME2? What Mass Effect is intending to be now I don't dispute, but what it originally intended to be was quite different from what I can tell. Somwhere between ME1 and ME2 BioWare changed their focus and direction when it came to Mass Effect. I have no issues with it if you approve of that and believe that Mass Effect should be as it is now, if only because the majority of the series will have that vision. But that's not how it began.

They did it because TPS combat connected with RPG stat based characters doesn't work well,  you know this. You may not notice how bad the combat was in ME1, but many other players did. It was at best mediocre combat system and bad TPS system. I think, this is because you focus and interest is just in RPG elements, not in combat it self.

Games like Deus Ex and Fallout: New Vegas would beg to differ. Again, proper integration and gelling of RPG and Shooter elements does not necessarily mean in the fashion ME1 went about things. And, again, even if one considers ME1 to have as you put it directly "mediocre combat system and bad TPS system" ME2 has a mediore and bad RPG system." And yet it's okay in that case. TPS elements aren't allowed to suffer, but RPG ones can.

[BatmanPWNS]

How are those shooters cliche? I think the picture that OP showed are the ones that are on top of the shooter lists right now.

Modifié par BatmanPWNS, 25 juillet 2011 - 12:09 .

[Someone With Mass]

I think it's good that BioWare is getting some inspiration from Battlefield.

They're even letting Dice help them with designing the sound effects.

[SalsaDMA]

Terror_K wrote...

Games like Deus Ex and Fallout: New Vegas would beg to differ. Again, proper integration and gelling of RPG and Shooter elements does not necessarily mean in the fashion ME1 went about things. And, again, even if one considers ME1 to have as you put it directly "mediocre combat system and bad TPS system" ME2 has a mediore and bad RPG system." And yet it's okay in that case. TPS elements aren't allowed to suffer, but RPG ones can.

To be perfectly honest, ME2's combat system is mediocre and bad as well, really.

In all fairness, the only thing really keeping up ME2 is the continuation of the story from ME1 (even though it's not very well done) and the fact that you hope to see the effect of all your choices in ME3.

As a standalone titel, in a bubble so to speak, ME2 is a mediocre game that relies on its story to survive.
Take away the story, or connections to ME1 or implied import functionality to ME3, and nobody would have raised a brow at ME2. The actual gameplay in it is weak.

[SalsaDMA]

KaidanWilliamsShepard wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

I think it's good that BioWare is getting some inspiration from Battlefield.

They're even letting Dice help them with designing the sound effects.

Years ago, i am sure people were having arguments about EA buying Dice. hahaha!

Dice were already making games that EA understood. Bioware, not so much.
Instead of trying to understand the games bioware made, they changed the games to something they could understand.

Old republic's reputed cashcow effect is the only reason I can see for EA wanting to take over a company producing games they don't really want to make. I don't think we've seen the last of changes to bioware games into making them more 'streamlined'.

I also found it funny the pr guy mentioned different kinds of shooters, but not a single rpg...