239 réponses à ce sujet

[Varen Spectre]

Savber100 wrote...

But my point remains. 

CD Projekt RED strives to create a great RPG first and foremost where the story is integral (which I mentioned in my previous post). They emphasize more the role-playing and recognize the value of a good story to drive that role-playing. 

Bioware strives to create a great story-driven game, where RPG mechanics is only a convenient tool to tell it. They emphasis more on the writing and a compelling story while recognizing the value of good RPG mechanics to help drive the story. 

(Sorry for longer post, but I was not able to put it in simpler way )  

Well maybe,... but in my opinion, the provided article is too vague to prove it...

I mean, in the beginning of the first paragraph you quoted, the developer from CDPR describes the start of the thought process, that the team probably had in early stages of Witcher's development (e.g. We believe the time has come to really think about what an RPG game should look like). Than relatively thorough description of that process follows (We sort of … ‘factorized’ the genre, put it into pieces. etc.).

IMO, this was the point where they were comparing and assessing various RPG features and discussing how to put them in the game. I would say they were kind of trying to find a perfect formula for their game.

However, as the third paragraph suggests, they have found what they have been looking for. - And here are the results of our considerations. The crucial elements of the game should be: the storyline, combat system, freedom and non-linearity, character equipping and development. At the same time, all the aforementioned issues should be most intuitive and easy-to-use for the gamers. We have tried to match the structure of the game according to the rules specified above, so to sum up:...    

Now the way I understand it is, that at this point, the process was actually finished. The team finaly knew what were the key elements of their future game and those were:
- the storyline
- combat system
- freedom and non-linearity
- character equipping and development

Now, when I compare it with Casey's priorities:
- interactive story (the storyline)
- compelling progression (not sure about this one - character equipping and development?)
- intense combat (combat system)
- exploration (not exactly similar but closely related to freedom and non-linearity?)

They look pretty similar to me (at least on paper) and they become even more similar after reading individual descriptions.

So, I can't see enough differences in this article alone, to make a final claim that "CD Projekt RED strives to create a great RPG first and foremost"  while "Bioware strives to create a great story-driven game, where RPG mechanics is only a convenient tool to tell it."

I mean, yes, the article described how long and difficult process it was to find the perfect formula for Witcher, so that one could easily see CD Projekt as a studio that was searching for perfect RPG framework, but as long as that final formula turned out to be so similar / close to Bioware's one (at least in this artcile), it does not matter. 

Based on this article and article in the OP, it seems that both studios follow the same (similar) principles and one can't simply say, that for example CD Projekt is focusing less on story (or other elements) than Bioware, simply because in interviews CDPR representatives talk more about the process of how they reached their perfect game formula instead of talking more about individual aspects of the game as Bioware's representatives tend to do.

So to sum up my perception of the article, the only differences that I could find in this interview in comparison to most of interviews with Casey or anyone else from Bioware, were:

- CD Projekt representative provided very detailed description of the process behind CDPR's "redefined" RPG formula in comparison to Bioware representatives, who except for maybe Christina Norman, do not use to go into details about the actual processes of coming to conclusions (but I am pretty sure they would be able to tell very similar stories). But since the result of that process was not that different from Bioware's one, it does not matter. 
- The studios presented their formulas in different ways. While CD Projekt described it as a "redefintion" of RPG genre and wished everyone to acknowledge it that way, Bioware developers simply said they do not consider themselves as RPG developers too much, but focus on making games with those elements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for other guys' discussion, well, I do not follow it that much. So I can't render my judgment yet.
EDIT: sorry for editing after being quoted, I did not change content at all, but I thought that I need to rewrite few things in more understandable way. 

Modifié par Varen Spectre, 04 août 2011 - 10:38 .

[Ianamus]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Shepard's story could finish its arc in Mass Effect 3. Do you think it will be the last we see of him? 

I know the precise answer to that, but can’t tell ya.

Direct sequel confirmed right there, people.

And thanks for posting this bit of news, Jav.

It could mean that Shepard dies, so we have no chance of seeing them again. Or that a sequel is planned that will take place in the distant future, so gain, no chance of Shepard.

Modifié par EJ107, 04 août 2011 - 09:26 .

[Malanek]

Brenon Holmes wrote...
On the gameplay side, we learned a lot in the attempts to improve on ME1's gameplay... in retrospect we made some mistakes, however it's all a learning experience... and I think it's fairly safe to say we learned a *lot* during ME2. :happy:

I hope you don't feel the need to change too much in terms of gameplay. ME2 had amazing gameplay IMO. I've played it to death and still keep going back to it. Although I'm extremely excited about ME3, there is quite a bit of trepidation that the game will not play as well.

[Savber100]

Varen Spectre wrote...
(Sorry for longer post, but I was not able to put it in simpler way )  

Well maybe,... but in my opinion, this article is too vague to prove it...

I mean, in the beginning of the first paragraph you quoted, the developer from CDPR describes the start of the thought process, that the team probably had in early stages of Witcher's development (e.g. We believe the time has come to really think about what an RPG game should look like). Than relatively thorough description of that process follows (We sort of … ‘factorized’ the genre, put it into pieces. etc.).

IMO, this was the point where they were comparing and assessing various RPG features and discussing how to put them in the game. I would say they were kind of trying to find a perfect formula for their game.

However, as the third paragraph suggests, they have found what they have been looking for. - And here are the results of our considerations. The crucial elements of the game should be: the storyline, combat system, freedom and non-linearity, character equipping and development. At the same time, all the aforementioned issues should be most intuitive and easy-to-use for the gamers. We have tried to match the structure of the game according to the rules specified above, so to sum up:...    

Now the way I understand it is, that at this point, the process was actually finished. The team finaly knew what were the key elements of their future game and those were:
- the storyline
- combat system
- freedom and non-linearity
- character equipping and development

Now, when I compare it with Casey's priorities:
- interactive story (the storyline)
- compelling progression (not sure about this one - character equipping and development?)
- intense combat (combat system)
- exploration (not exactly similar but closely related to freedom and non-linearity?)

And they become even more similar after reading individual descriptions.

So, I can't see enough differences in this article alone, to make a final claim that "CD Projekt RED strives to create a great RPG first and foremost"  while "Bioware strives to create a great story-driven game, where RPG mechanics is only a convenient tool to tell it."

I mean, yes, the article described how long and difficult process it was to find the perfect formula for Witcher, so that one could easily see them as a studio that was searching for perfect RPG framework, but as long as that final formula turned out to be so similar / close to Bioware's one (at least in this artcile), it does not matter. They are following same (similar) principles and one can't say for example that CD Projekt is focusing less on story than Bioware, simply because it might have taken them longer to find the same (similar) conclusion or because they are talking more about the process through which they found it...

Your point is duly noted and I understand where you're coming from. However, in stating said goals, I believe that it was the EXECUTION of these goals that depicted the difference of Bioware and other RPG developers because of their fundamentally different approach. 


Yes, both CDPR and Bioware touched upon similar/same principles of creating a good game but due to different mindsets, they had different executions and results. 

Look at the difference in regarding each new principle: 

1. Story/Freedom/Linearity

Bioware: In Dragon Age, KOTOR, and Mass Effect, Bioware tends to go for the linear route with some various differences in the details. Why? Simply because of the concept that it's extremely difficult totell a compelling story with too many variables. Hence, because of Bioware's emphasis on story, they tend to limit the amount of differing choices to create a stronger narrative. Note that I'm not saying a multiple-diverging story is bad but that it's difficult hence why Bioware's emphasis on story have led them to prefer a more linear route. 

CD Projekt RED: They see story as a mechanic for role-playing. So what's the result? We get choices that leads to branching narratives. In the Witcher 2, the story split into two different directions and hundreds of other variables based on your choices. If you went one way, you would never learn of the secrets of the other which is what Bioware would avoid. Why? Bioware wants to create a compelling, focused narrative of telling someone what THEY want to tell or share. Too much choices makes it difficult to allow Bioware to tell the story it wants. 


Result: CDPR strives to make a RPG where you can do as much as you can to create your own story (with admittedly some limitations) while Bioware strives to make a game where you experience their story (hence why there's no branching narratives). 


2. Combat: 

Here's is where the two companies seem to agree. 

Bioware - To Bioware, the old DnD system is no longer the best system in immersive gameplay etc. Instead, real-time is the way to go hence the release of Jade Empire and Mass Effect where the combat is more or less not based on stats. 


CDPR- In The Witcher 1, CDPR focused on a more stat-driven combat. It was more or less based on the amount of skill upgrades you placed in tree rather than a player's actions. They tried to involved the player with the timed attacks but it proved to be rather unsuccessful among more mainstream audiences. Hence in the Witcher 2, they switched tactics and took a page from Bioware where they went real time while still allowing pauses to change spells just like in Mass Effect. 

Result: CDPR, in aiming for a better RPG experience, decided that more or less the system in The Witcher 1 didn't work. They wanted better and more intense combat and came to the same conclusion as Bioware. Real-time gameplay is the way-to-go unlike stat-driven gameplay for best immersion. Seeing those dices roll is no longer something that makes you feel enthralled during an intense fight. 

3. Character Equipping / Progression 

Bioware - They seem to care a lot about signature look nowadays as seen in Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age 2. We see character equipping no longer as important with character progression being toned down. Why? It's because Bioware wants these characters to be recognizable like Han Solo wearing his black vest or Darth Vader wearing his suit armor. But why would you care about these "character signatures" if you just want maximum role-playing? It's simple because Bioware wants to create a story with recognizable characters like in a movie. An unchanging hero that everyone can go "OOOHHH, that's Commander Shepard!" 

CDPR - They don't care. Geralt is Geralt. Changing his weapons to whatever the player wants is fine because Geralt is YOU. You're not playing Geralt; you are Geralt. So customize away...  Although I would point out that customization of characters are still pretty limited in comparison the other Bioware games like DA:O. 

So, Bioware and CDPR sets out with different goals, come to similar conclusions, but execute them differently due to different goals.

There are some elements where they are almost on the same page as the other like in regards to combat but in terms of story, C&C, and non-linearity, they've vastly diverged due to their different goals.   

Edit: Whoa... I can't believe I just wrote all that. 

Modifié par Savber100, 04 août 2011 - 10:42 .

[Varen Spectre]

Savber100 wrote...

Your point is duly noted and I understand where you're coming from. However, in stating said goals, I believe that it was the EXECUTION of these goals that depicted the difference of Bioware and other RPG developers because of their fundamentally different approach. 

Yes, both CDPR and Bioware touched upon similar/same principles of creating a good game but due to different mindsets, they had different executions and results. 

Look at the difference in regarding each new principle: 

1. Story/Freedom/Linearity

Bioware: In Dragon Age, KOTOR, and Mass Effect, Bioware tends to go for the linear route with some various differences in the details. Why? Simply because of the concept that it's extremely difficult totell a compelling story with too many variables. Hence, because of Bioware's emphasis on story, they tend to limit the amount of differing choices to create a stronger narrative. Note that I'm not saying a multiple-diverging story is bad but that it's difficult hence why Bioware's emphasis on story have led them to prefer a more linear route. 

CD Projekt RED: They see story as a mechanic for role-playing. So what's the result? We get choices that leads to branching narratives. In the Witcher 2, the story split into two different directions and hundreds of other variables based on your choices. If you went one way, you would never learn of the secrets of the other which is what Bioware would avoid. Why? Bioware wants to create a compelling, focused narrative of telling someone what THEY want to tell or share. Too much choices makes it difficult to allow Bioware to tell the story it wants. 


Result: CDPR strives to make a RPG where you can do as much as you can to create your own story (with admittedly some limitations) while Bioware strives to make a game where you experience their story (hence why there's no branching narratives). 


2. Combat: 

Here's is where the two companies seem to agree. 

Bioware - To Bioware, the old DnD system is no longer the best system in immersive gameplay etc. Instead, real-time is the way to go hence the release of Jade Empire and Mass Effect where the combat is more or less not based on stats. 


CDPR- In The Witcher 1, CDPR focused on a more stat-driven combat. It was more or less based on the amount of skill upgrades you placed in tree rather than a player's actions. They tried to involved the player with the timed attacks but it proved to be rather unsuccessful among more mainstream audiences. Hence in the Witcher 2, they switched tactics and took a page from Bioware where they went real time while still allowing pauses to change spells just like in Mass Effect. 

Result: CDPR, in aiming for a better RPG experience, decided that more or less the system in The Witcher 1 didn't work. They wanted better and more intense combat and came to the same conclusion as Bioware. Real-time gameplay is the way-to-go unlike stat-driven gameplay for best immersion. Seeing those dices roll is no longer something that makes you feel enthralled during an intense fight. 

3. Character Equipping / Progression 

Bioware - They seem to care a lot about signature look nowadays as seen in Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age 2. We see character equipping no longer as important with character progression being toned down. Why? It's because Bioware wants these characters to be recognizable like Han Solo wearing his black vest or Darth Vader wearing his suit armor. But why would you care about these "character signatures" if you just want maximum role-playing? It's simple because Bioware wants to create a story with recognizable characters like in a movie. An unchanging hero that everyone can go "OOOHHH, that's Commander Shepard!" 

CDPR - They don't care. Geralt is Geralt. Changing his weapons to whatever the player wants is fine because Geralt is YOU. You're not playing Geralt; you are Geralt. So customize away...  Although I would point out that customization of characters are still pretty limited in comparison the other Bioware games like DA:O. 

So, Bioware and CDPR sets out with different goals, come to similar conclusions, but execute them differently due to different goals.

There are some elements where they are almost on the same page as the other like in regards to combat but in terms of story, C&C, and non-linearity, they've vastly diverged due to their different goals.   

Edit: Whoa... I can't believe I just wrote all that. 

Well now that you put it that way...  I haven't played all those games so... I can't... neither confirm nor deny your statements but they quite fit for those games I did. So I guess you are correct with the rest of them too.

Anyway, interesting discussion.
 

[Terror_K]

Il Divo wrote...

And Mass Effect 2 took Bioware games into even more cinematic territory. Remember, KotOR completely removed the Vancian casting system, eliminated the ability to multi-class (other than becoming a Jedi once), and restricted the total # of class options. The streamlined JE and ME I don't think I need to explain to you. How you're justifying Bioware's direction is irrelevant. What matters is that they clearly were on a new path of story-telling, since KotOR began and that became their primal focus.

Yeah, I agree with this. I'm not disputing that. But the tone and style of these games still felt very mature and like they were aimed at RPG fans and fans of sci-fi and fantasy, etc. They still felt like more geek-oriented games (KotOR was Star Wars for instance). I never got the sense that these games were aimed at teenagers and the mainstream and were trying to branch out to the "herp derp" audience as well too much and be all "dudebro" etc. That didn't start to come into play until EA seemed to take the reigns and we had ME2 come along and DAO's console version announcments and awful advertising campaign.

I know a bunch of people will probably start screaming about be being "elitist" and feeling "entitled" but the fact of the matter is there's enough games out there for those people, and this is the kind of stuff I try to avoid, and I got into BioWare games and loved them because they avoided all this pathetic pandering and felt unique and different. Now their games no longer do: ME2 in particular felt very generic gameplay wise and seemed to fall back on too many action/shooter elements that seemed wedged in there with little to no thought about whether they suited the game's style or not. As I said in another topic recently, many of the shooter elements in ME2 were just pure shooter elements that I feel weren't shifted or adapted enough to suit the RPG nature of the game, much like in ME1 there were too many RPG elements that didn't quite suit the game (and I fully admit that) or weren't executed in a matter that did. In many ways ME1 and ME2 are opposites when it comes to overall design, with both being clumsy and unbalanced in opposite ways.

But again being an original title doesn't matter. Jade Empire still indicated a completely new direction for Bioware, as did Mass Effect, as did KotOR.

I love Jade Empire, despite the fact it's technically BioWare's least-RPG RPG to date. Again, it was what it was from the start, and wasn't trying to warp an existing IP to something else to merely branch out. It also never felt like it was pandering. Again, a lot of the issues lately relate to style, execution and approach. ME2 for instance felt like it was trying its hardest to hide its RPG roots as if an embarrassment, while also coming across as a massive tutorial that babied the player and tended to include more over-the-top and immature attempts to be badass and gritty, like most modern entertainment. I've recently started actually wishing that BioWare simply took the more DAO route and merely use advertising to branch out, but ME2 suffered in the way it was presented and executed within the gameplay itself.
 

And I think, based on this, you're a little too invested at this point. You're claiming that we should all be able to see Bioware's new direction of games, yet you're relying entirely on subjective interpretations to do it, none of which I share. I don't regard a single Bioware game as a "labor of love", but simply as an enjoyable gaming experience. I happened to enjoy Mass Effect 2 more than every other Bioware game, excluding KotOR. Your labor of love argument does not convince me of this change in direction.

Sorry, but I just think its glaringly obvious. To me it just seems that ME2 and DA2 were products of BioWare trying to make these methodical, perfect hyrbid titles to appeal to as many as possible. They felt cold compared to their previous titles, which really did seem like labours of love to me. They really did feel like BioWare were simply making the games they wanted to regardless of how big an audience they wanted to snag. It really did feel like a case of "games made by nerds, for nerds" pretty much. Now it just seems they have dollar signs in their eyes and are pumping out these cold machines of attempts at "the perfect game" to just snag a larger audience, and don't seem to care that its alienating some of their old fans. They seem more concerned about making games for potential players they don't have yet than to please existing ones, probably with the mindset that they already have their existing playerbase and they won't leave.

Well newsflash: you lost me on the Dragon Age side of things with the abominable approach you took to DA2, BioWare. I went from somebody who got the CE and every piece of DLC and the expansion as well as buying David Gaider's first two novels to somebody who has entirely put the IP behind me and written it off as completely frelled. And I get the strong feeling that ME3 will be my last BioWare purchase unless the company gets their act together.

[Savber100]

Varen Spectre wrote...

Well now that you put it that way...  I haven't played all those games so... I can't... neither confirm nor deny your statements but they quite fit for those games I did. So I guess you are correct with the rest of them too.

Anyway, interesting discussion.
 

Indeed. 

So how's your discussions going, Il Divo and Terror_K? 

[sympathy4saren]

I wish Casey would focus his mindset on making Mass Effect the holy grail of rpgs. My consumer demand is for rpgs.

[MrFob]

Shepard's story could finish its arc in Mass Effect 3. Do you think it will be the last we see of him?

I know the precise answer to that, but can’t tell ya.

Awww, you gotta love a good teaser .

This is an interesting discussion in this thread.
@ Terror: I agree with you on most parts. I actually have the exact same sentiment as you concerning the DA franchise and I also agree on the whole "BW going mainstream" point of view.
However, I wouldn't be too quick to get strong feelings about ME3 yet though. I still hope we have been through the worst of it with DA2. Besides, the "mainstreaming" of ME2 did not only have negative impact on the game IMO. In fact I like that ever since BG2 BW never tried to make "the same game twice". Sometimes they change things and we don't like it and sometimes they hit it. You can already see that just by looking at the (big) ME2 DLCs but they definitely listen to fan feedback and what material I have seen so far of ME3 makes me quite optimistic.
Oh and to the whole thing about the "labor of love" and ME2: Any game, where characters like Mess Sgt. Gardner or Engineers Ken and Gaby are created by passionate BW employees in their free time (you read the thread in the ME2 forums) I think still qualifies as a labor of love.

[squee365]

sympathy4saren wrote...

I wish Casey would focus his mindset on making Mass Effect the holy grail of rpgs. My consumer demand is for rpgs.

You're also probably in a group thats only 2% of the marketshare :\\

[Savber100]

sympathy4saren wrote...

I wish Casey would focus his mindset on making Mass Effect the holy grail of rpgs. My consumer demand is for rpgs.

Hey we got CD Projekt Red and the occasional good Obsidian game. Bethesda isn't the worst ever either. How bad can it be? 

[slimgrin]

I wish the ME devs would get more into the nuts and bolts of making an rpg like Gaider and company did prior to DA2. Hudsen always seems like he's spouting pr speak. Gaider personally told me 'I'm not your b*tch' when I insisted they introduce female Qunari in DA2.

Two different approaches there.

Modifié par slimgrin, 05 août 2011 - 05:53 .

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

Sorry, but I just think its glaringly obvious. To me it just seems that ME2 and DA2 were products of BioWare trying to make these methodical, perfect hyrbid titles to appeal to as many as possible.

Why you have so big issue with this. I mean I can understand you point with DA2, but not with ME2.

Meaning DAO -> DA2 did change the style little bit, even if it's still more traditional RPG than ME1 ever was. DA1 to DA2 change was like adding action RPG into traditional RPG, so it was small direction change. Also DA2's issues where also in many other areas, like in story, quality of game and so on.

ME1 -> ME2 changes was difference, they did not change the style but balance of combat, even if it feels like it. Both games where action RPG and even RPS from start. Yeah, I know that ME1 had badly done RPS, but ME1 was still action RPG like ME2 too.  Just because Bioware did little bit over do some changes in other areas too, you should not bark agaist them as like it was end of world. ME2 has no same issues than DA2 has, because all ME series games are the way they should be, so why you categorise them same as DA2?

So, my point is ME serie has been Action RPG from start. How ever, you have tangled this like simplifying game design is same as pleasing majority, like it's bad thing. Some of this simplifying in ME serie is there because they are trying to do cinematic action RPG and not some slow traditional RPG, like DAO is.

I ques I'm trying to say is that ME and DA serie are different category games. So, while you don't like direction and design changes in DA2,  with good reasons, you have no point in ME2, because it is where it should be. Just because Bioware did little bit over do some changes in ME2, does justify this big reaction. So, similarities in design what you see in them are "different", because what they are justifyed in ME serie, but not in DA serie, because they are different type of games from base design.

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 août 2011 - 08:44 .

[Icinix]

jreezy wrote...

It seems a lot of people think they know what's best for BioWare games. Key phrase being think they know.

Yep.

They should have kept elevators, the mako, the inventory, the stats - rather than listening to everyone who complained about them.

[True Zarken]

Icinix wrote...

jreezy wrote...

It seems a lot of people think they know what's best for BioWare games. Key phrase being think they know.

Yep.

They should have kept elevators, the mako, the inventory, the stats - rather than listening to everyone who complained about them.

Yep, yep, yep.

[Lumikki]

Icinix wrote...

jreezy wrote...

It seems a lot of people think they know what's best for BioWare games. Key phrase being think they know.

Yep.

They should have kept elevators, the mako, the inventory, the stats - rather than listening to everyone who complained about them.

I disagree.

But just in inventory and the stats part. Depending what stats you mean? How ever, inventory was issue in ME1 and so was character stats progression affect to combat side. Those where two major issue in ME1.

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 août 2011 - 08:49 .

[MrFob]

Ok, maybe this is not the right thread for this but I have to ask: Why do so many people say that the RPG/Shooter mix was so badly executed in ME1? I thought it was great. You have a couple of weapon types you can train, the more you train the smaller your little aiming circle becomes and basically you know you'll hit what is in that aiming circle (very simplified) -> the more points you put in the skill the more effective you are (and you get a visual indication that tells you how things are at the moment). What's everyone problem with that? Is it a console thing (I only played the PC version) I had trouble with the inventory menu structure but certainly not with the RPG-shooter aspect.
Sorry if this is too much off topic.

[Lumikki]

Like above sayed shooter is player aim based skill. Meaning player it self is aiming the gun. Other thing in my opinion is also that shooter combat is based avoiding damage, not redusing enemy hits with high armor. It's style difference how combat is played.

Bad thing in ME1 was that character stats affected badly to this player aiming. You will notice this best when trying example sniper rifle in ME1 in lower levels. Even how hard you try to aim to enemy, you have hard time to hit anything, because character stats are preventing it.

Point is that in shooter side, this player aiming is MUST to have. You can't have any shooter without it. It would be like RPG without character.

Players in ME1 are basicly forced to play combat like RPG, but anyone who tries to play the combat like shooter is like WTF. Now this aiming isn't the only issues what is there, but also armors and weapons affect to combat too. All this togather, made the "shooter" combat none existence. While ME1 still had mediocre combat system what did the job just fine, but it was never actually that good.

Specially this is issue, because ME serie is suppose to have shooter combat. It's same thing what people here have saying that RPG in ME2 to be too simplifyed. Same thing with shooter experience in ME1, it was way too light, too much affected by RPG side.

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 août 2011 - 12:55 .

[Chromie]

Best shooting aspect in an rpg Deus Ex. Bioware should have taken a cue from those guys.

[Therefore_I_Am]

Whoever said that RPG mechanics scare away the majority, they are right. Many people do not want mass effect to revolve around stats, skills and turn based combat like Fallout. It is about interaction, control over your character, and customization. Mass Effect is not just for the geeks anymore.

stats and skills do NOT make an RPG!

[crimzontearz]

I almost feel shallow for refusing to play DA 2 because it confined me to kirkwall and did not have NG+ while still putting emphasis on progression

no...wait...I don't

[lolnoobs]

Therefore_I_Am wrote...

Whoever said that RPG mechanics scare away the majority, they are right. Many people do not want mass effect to revolve around stats, skills and turn based combat like Fallout. It is about interaction, control over your character, and customization. Mass Effect is not just for the geeks anymore.

stats and skills do NOT make an RPG!

Agreed, story and character interaction is what makes an RPG. Stats and skills are boring, who wants to pay attention to a spreadsheed while playing a role playing GAME. It's boring.

Bioware has always been one of the best RPG developers out there. And they still are.

[Therefore_I_Am]

crimzontearz wrote...

I almost feel shallow for refusing to play DA 2 because it confined me to kirkwall and did not have NG+ while still putting emphasis on progression

no...wait...I don't

DA2 was bad because the story, characters (with the exception of Varric) and limited enviroment was bad. Nothing to do with the mechanics except maybe the animation.

Modifié par Therefore_I_Am, 05 août 2011 - 03:14 .