Savber100 wrote...
Silverman is a great guy but he tries too hard to please newcomers of the franchise. Hence why he uses fancy terms like "cool" and "awesome" while showing games that people have (I admit) ENJOYED like Halo, COD, GOW. Metal Gear Solid 4, and Uncharted. I admit it's a little pretentious here and there but this guy knows how to draw people that aren't fond of RPGs and have them enjoy games like ME.
Or he can just please us by mentioning Planescape Torment, Baldur's Gate 2 etc of which I'll ask what's the point of marketing when he's just appealing to us, the regular Bioware fan? Let him do his job and just remind ourselves that he's not talking to US; he's talking to potential customers. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/sideways.png[/smilie]
I hope you're right, I really do. But given what happened to Dragon Age 2, I'm worried that it's more than that. Yes, DA2 was made by a different team, but I'm concerned that it shows a trend. After all, as a major publisher whose word affects what millions of people, all with differeing taste, play, it's EA's job, as a company with a large market, is to standardise and use the lowest common denominator as a target.
So basically, on the other hand to what you're saying, David Silverman represents EA's systematic grinding down of the soul of what Bioware once stood for as a true innovator in the field of RPGs.
Disclaimer: personally, I think it's a bit of both.
Terror_K wrote...
My answer is both "yes" and "no" actually.
I think they should be looking at what works in these other games to improve their combat, but I also don't think they shouldn't just rip the mechanics straight out of them and just jam them into ME3 as-is. Mass Effect is not a straight-up shooter, and just like so many people make it known that it's not a pure RPG whenever RPG elements being lacking is brought up, I feel this also needs to be brought up as a point that the game is in danger of being too much of a shooter.
The devs should be looking to these games to a certain degree, but then adapting them to suit an RPG and a cinematic game more, as well as coming up with some fresh, original approaches rather than just a case of "monkey see, monkey do" as many elements in ME2 were (thermal clips, regenerating health, "Bloody screen! (So reeeal!)", etc.).
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.
I completely agree. (Well, as an aside, I don't think it's disputable to say that AP's shooting system was broken, but that's a debate for another time.)
There's a major difference between using other games as inspiration, and directly mimicking the latest fashion when it comes to games. For example, yes, games have done shields before, but in MW2 it was pretty key to at least portions of the game. The argument that shields have been around as a valuable tool for millennia so they aren'y cliche doesn't hold water, because we're talking about a piece of media entertainment, which, as media, is highly subject to fads and tropes and the like.
What I'm trying to say is, someone made the decision to put shields into ME3,
not because someone remarked on the inherent usefulness of shields and their continued use in modern times, but because it's current in vogue. This is just an example though, as OP has said, the pictures aren't his creation.
Also, as an aside, On-Rails shooting sections are never a good thing.
Lumikki wrote...
In general ME1 was excelent game. It just had few mistakes, like all games have. Even when people and I say here that TPS combat was bad in ME1, that doens't mean combat system did not work fine. It did the job just fine, but it wasn't really as someone could say good TPS. As for inventory and looting, it was more like in every normal RPG had, every item was induvidual. What cause player to do a lot of micro-management. It's not so bad in RPG perspective, but as cinematic action RPG perspective, it wasn't so good. Little like two different style conflicting each others.
How ever, some stuff in ME1 was even better than in ME2. Like story was more epic. Also ME1 had more impression details, what made game world feel more real. It also had few other gameplay variety like driving Mako. Maybe the driving wasn't the best, but as variety for gameplay it worked well.
So, weapon combat is better in ME2, but many other area ME1 did also do very well.
I couldn't agree more. Well, I guess I disagree with your estimation of ME1's shooting mechanics. I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that they didn't work well.
In general, I would say that The perfect ME game, for myself and I suspect for others, would basically be ME1 with ME2's shooting.
AlanC9 wrote...
Rolling dice != deep moral decision making.
I dunno, dice represent the element of chance, which is a major factor in, well, everything, not the least of which is combat. I'm not saying we should be rolling dice in ME3, but some element of chance would be nice.
Modifié par Vengeful Nature, 25 juillet 2011 - 06:08 .
. Great game, great story ... why do you have to retouch the damn combat system!?!?
Retour en haut
