147 réponses à ce sujet

[JBONE27]

I'm sorry to bring this up again, but the guy is completely ignoring 2 things.
1. They showed that there would be more customization of powers and weapons than in ME2.
2. They stated that the story RPG elements (relationships, choices, plot twists, etc) would be richer than they were in the previous two games. In particular Bioware mentioned that they would now have richer non-romance friendship options (which is awesome), continuing romance (I love my Liri), and a chance to garner allies depending on what decisions you've made in the first and second games.
In short he's basing his opinion solely on the combat parts of the demos, and seems to be ignoring the story and advancement RPG elements.

[Vicex]

Kel_Sjet wrote...

LGTX wrote...

"A great many BioWare fans – myself included – fell in love with games like Mass Effect precisely because they are not Gears of War."

I stopped reading there. I fell in love with Mass Effect because it was Mass Effect, not because it was an "RPG" or "something new" or NOT something else, etc.

To be honest, I think he is making the exact same point you are, that being, that ME was/is unique.

He is lamenting what he sees as the possible 'loss' of this uniqueness. He attributes this with the "because it is not GoW" phrase.

In short, in reality he is saying exactly what you are. The thrust of that particular point of his is not really about GoW, but about ME's uniqueness (which is, from what I understand, also what you like about the game).

Please read the rest, it is very worth it, imho.

I'll disagree on that. The article appears to be written by a disgruntled fan that cannot understand that:

Good Shooter Elements + Good Story = Great Game

You can have both in a game. It's not the combat that makes Mass Effect unique, it never was. It has never been the RPG elements that make Mass Effect unique. It is the story that makes it unique.

Not sure how people that are suppose to know these things for a career keep their jobs....

[Inutaisho7996]

Homey C-Dawg wrote...

TBH even though I've read the Bioware quote that "Me3 will have richer RPG mechanics", I haven't actually heard any mention of what these "richer RPG mechanics" actually are, though I've heard lots and lots about the enhanced gunplay/cover system.

I'm beginning to wonder what these "richer RPG mechanics" actually are. Surely they aren't just referring to the "upgrade each ability multiple times" deal.

The problem is that RPG mechanics don't make good marketing. Would you rather see Shepard fight through a salarian base and save the key to the krogans' fight against the reapers, or Shepard sifting through his inventory comparing weapon stats and turning all but the one useful weapon into onmi-gel?

Bioware has shown all it can of the skill trees and weapons mods. Anything more will be redundant. "This mod does this, that mod does that." "This skill turns into these skills, that skill turns into those skills." And anything adequately showing the deeper character interactions would be filled to the brim with spoilers.

[Homey C-Dawg]

I love character customization and all, and I'm certainly not concerned with our ability to RP Shepard how we want. I'm already quite happy with what they are doing to the combat, but I would like some more info on what actual RPG gameplay mechanics ME3 will have.

• Will it have any stats? Even just listing the tech numbers for weapons/armor in-game would be good.
• Will it have any sort of inventory? Not one where you can carry 300 guns, but maybe one where you can carry small items like medigel and a few in-the-field swappable upgrades.
• Will we be able to buy and sell things at the shops? Stuff I can carry around and maybe sell to other people/shops for different prices?
• Will there be hidden weapons/armor/items that are hard to find and badass to use, instead of all the cool stuff being handed to us on a silver platter (in ME2 you couldn't not pick up guns, if you passed on them they are given to you at mission end anyway).
• Will there be any non-combat powers?

There are certain gameplay mechanics that are considered RPG, which is seperate from RP (which it what we do when we make choices for Shepard). The "G" in RPG refers to mechanics.

As I've mentioned, I couldn't be happier that Bioware is trying to perfect their shooter mechanics, but they are experts at RPG mechanics and have been for a long time. To not keep that aspect of themselves seems like squandered opportunity to me is all.

Modifié par Homey C-Dawg, 07 août 2011 - 11:28 .

[OdanUrr]

I will reserve judgment on ME3 until I have actually played the game. Like Sherlock Holmes said, "I cannot make bricks without clay." The writer may have played a demo for ME3 but demos are always a short preview of what is to come and it would be unfair to judge an unreleased game on a demo.

While he makes a few arguments concerning ME's transition from the first game to the second (which I suppose we all agree reduced the number of RPG elements), I think his argument mostly comes from DAO's transition to DA2, which was far more "visible" and perhaps more than a little unsettling.

Bottom line, from the get go I always knew ME would be an action game with RPG elements, and found that to be a satisfying compromise. But the truth is that FPS and TPS games are continuously incorporating features that allow you to customize weapons and armor (e.g.: Crysis 2), elements that are found in RPGs. They're also trying to deliver more compelling stories in a visually attractive gameplay experience, not to mention the soundtrack. ME however, still retains party dynamics, the dialogue/choice system, and a less linear gameplay experience overall. Will we see FPS/TPS games venturing into Bioware's territory? Possibly, only time will tell.

[I AM CAMACHO]

There are parts of me1 that are better, like all the story missions, but 60 percent of me 1 is driving around on empty planets. I have replayed me2 more times than I can count, I have played me 1 alot too but always dreaded knowing that to get 100 percent I would spend 12 plus hours driving around on empty planets. I recently converted to only having a ps3 from a 360 and must admit I do not miss having to play completly through me1 to set up my character for me2. The interactive comic is just fine for me. I am glad that I got to experience the story of me1 but half the game was boring filler. You could easily play all the good parts of me1 and beat the game in 6 to 8 hours. Me2 is a complete game with the only unenjoyable parts being planet scanning, which really was not even that bad. I am an avid rpg gamer but I believe that me2 is a great game that is not dumbed down. If you need 1 percent more rifle damage go for it, Being able to evolve powers that actually have big effects, Have scientific upgrades, research, ship upgrades, I would dare say you have more rpg elements in me2 than me1.

[Red Son Rising]

skimmed about half the article and lost interest completely. im sure bioware can do wrong but [imo] theyve done right by mass effect so far, i cant wait to see shep in Mass Effect 3

i thought ME2 was a dramatic improvement over the first game and i have no interest in going backwards. i want to play the game, inventory items and menu diving is boring

[Lucifer_Cheney]

I share the same sentiments as the author, but ultimately agree with the first poster on the article's comments section when he/she said:

Biowares “core audience” will never leave bioware they will just play whatever bioware gives them just like most gamers do with most games, especially concerning FPS.

ME3 could be turned into a FPS, MP with characters altered to look similar to those found in GOW and no less than 95% of  BW's core audience would still slurp it up like it was their last meal. It's just the way of things.

Modifié par Lucifer_Cheney, 07 août 2011 - 11:59 .

[Doctorkepler]

Dragon age 2 was a huge mistake no doubt and have left fans alittle scared what will happen to ME3 especially rumours about more "gunplay" and multiplayer.

I am willing to buy ME3 but not before I see non biased gameplay from a source thats not getting its pocket lined by EA's PR department.

[Shotokanguy]

I gave up after the first paragraph. How many times do I have to read that exact viewpoint?

[LiquidLogic2020]

Erani wrote...

[ME3]" shaping up to be more and more like a conventional Gears of War clone"...

I'm sorry but couldn't keep reading past that.

Edit: *kindly points OP towards the DA forums* Criticism shall be found there serah.

The truth is aways hard to swallow, it's okay,

[Gatt9]

The author is 100% correct.  You'd have thought the industry would've learned from the RTS craze,  when every studio was ape-ing Warcraft/Starcraft...and many of them went bankrupt.  Here we are,  10 years later,  and everyone's ape-ing CoD and GoW.  Just because one game sold really well doesn't mean taking your established franchise,  and trying to implement the other game's gameplay,  will let you sell 20 million units too.  It means you're going to tick off your established fans,  you're not going to convert the other series fan's*,  and you're going to get to have the fun of packing up everything in the office for auction.

It's even worse when nearly everything shown at E3 is a Shooter,  and when the publisher of X-com defends making it a Shooter by claiming that RTS won't sell anymore.

It's obvious bull,  they aren't interested in selling a great game,  they're interested in selling blockbuster units.  Rather than make a game so good that everyone buys it,  like Starcraft,  they just ape the game that was.

It's just awe-inspiring that the industry thinks that the only game to make today is a Shooter,  and nothing else is worth doing,  how they can do this without realizing they're just accelerating the industry crash I don't know.  I mean EA's the poster child for how deep the trouble goes,  in order to make their quarter sound good they tacked into the quarterly several million units of DA2 and DS2 they shipped but the stores apparently can't sell.  If those games don't sell,  and it's unlikely they will at this point,  EA's going to have to buy them back** taking a charge on a later quarter,  which may easily be even worse.  The Industry is just burying itself now in it's constant chase for Blockbusters instead of making great games.  

legion999 wrote...

Two of those comments made me facepalm..
As for the article Mass Effect's inventory was a clunky mess. It usually took half an hour to clear it out. Admittedly they could of improved it but I won't shed a tear that it's gone.

As for Dragon Age 2:
1. It wasn't made by the people who developed Mass Effect. Different teams develop different games, companies do it alot.
2. They tried something different but due to the timeframe it didn't work that well. Looking at you recycled dungeons..
3. People make mistakes. Just because they f&£ked up once it doesn't mean every game from now on is going to be mediocre.

1.  You act like the bosses who forced DA2 on the team don't have any effect on the ME team.  It's EA,  they're both getting the same orders.

2.  They tried something different alright,  they tried to make the game more of an action game than an RPG.  They weren't testing things out,  they were told to make the game "Accessible" and "Action oriented",  EA doesn't make RPGs that people might need to read the manual before playing.  The timeframe?  That was Bioware's boss too,  EA.

3.  Yes,  it does.  Because this wasn't a "Mistake",  someone didn't just accidently remove most of the complexity of DAO,  and implement ridiculous over-the-top action,  while accidently removing real dialogue.  This is what EA wanted,  it's what Laidlaw thinks makes a good game,  and Gaider thinks people need less dialogue and more icons so they don't have to be bothered reading.  This is the direction EA wants things to go.  Go read Laidlaw and Gaider's interviews post-DA2,  it's everyone's fault but theirs,  because DA2 is just perfect.

*Mainly because when some series sells 20 million units,  it's just that occasion where word of mouth went viral.  Myst,  Starcraft,  World of Warcraft,  Diablo 2,  CoD,  The Sims,  Pokemon,   the success of these games has never been replicated,  never will be,  because they're just that rare title everyone loves.  Kind of like Pirates of the Carribbean,  or Titanic,  or Harry Potter.  These things just happen.

**The big-name retailers tend to have contracts that explicitly state that if some number of units go unsold for a specified timer period,  the publisher will purchase them back.  It's why crappy games don't pile up in stores,  because after some period of time the publisher's are forced to return a substantial percentage of what the retailer paid and take the copies,  then has to pay to have them disposed.

[Gatt9]

Inutaisho7996 wrote...

Homey C-Dawg wrote...

TBH even though I've read the Bioware quote that "Me3 will have richer RPG mechanics", I haven't actually heard any mention of what these "richer RPG mechanics" actually are, though I've heard lots and lots about the enhanced gunplay/cover system.

I'm beginning to wonder what these "richer RPG mechanics" actually are. Surely they aren't just referring to the "upgrade each ability multiple times" deal.

The problem is that RPG mechanics don't make good marketing. Would you rather see Shepard fight through a salarian base and save the key to the krogans' fight against the reapers, or Shepard sifting through his inventory comparing weapon stats and turning all but the one useful weapon into onmi-gel?

Bioware has shown all it can of the skill trees and weapons mods. Anything more will be redundant. "This mod does this, that mod does that." "This skill turns into these skills, that skill turns into those skills." And anything adequately showing the deeper character interactions would be filled to the brim with spoilers.

Bull.

It worked for 30 years.  Today is no different.  30 years RPGs did quite well by actually showing RPG stuff,  and doing interviews about RPG stuff,  that's how Bioware started.

This whole "Everything has to be a shooter!!!!" phenomenae is going to end very badly,  probably by next year,  because you seriously can only sell the same game so many times before people quit playing it.  As we're about 2 years into "Everything has to be a shooter!" and the NPD reports aren't so hot,  I'd say they're running out of time very quickly.

[littlezack]

And the living proof that criticizing ME3 doesn't get you banned, regardless how invalid or valid the complaints are - Gatt. I rest my case.

[littlezack]

Gatt9 wrote...  As we're about 2 years into "Everything has to be a shooter!" and the NPD reports aren't so hot,  I'd say they're running out of time very quickly.

Just like to address one thing, here - there are a lot of other things, but this one in particular stood out. 

Do you think the NPD reports you speak of have more to do with some shooter trend or the global recession? Because, I'd say the latter is a bigger factor.

[twisty77]

I just want to add my thoughts to the mix: an RPG game and a good third person shooter do not have to be completely seperate games. As long as there is gunplay in ME3, it may as well play like a polished shooter. ME2 was a HUGE step forward from ME1 and it looks like ME3 is going to do the same. I want my game to play well. So what is ME1 was the "pinnacle" of RPG games? It played like crap. Controls were VERY loose and unresponsive.

Maybe this is because I play Call of Duty, but even on the "high" sensitivity setting on ME2, the game still isn't sensitive enough for me(and I only play on a sensitivity of 5 out of 10 on CoD). If there is gunplay, I want it to play well. I have faith that BioWare will put out a game that plays like a polished western RPG as well as snappy combat.

Do not let me down, BioWare...

[LiquidLogic2020]

Inutaisho7996 wrote...

Homey C-Dawg wrote...

TBH even though I've read the Bioware quote that "Me3 will have richer RPG mechanics", I haven't actually heard any mention of what these "richer RPG mechanics" actually are, though I've heard lots and lots about the enhanced gunplay/cover system.

I'm beginning to wonder what these "richer RPG mechanics" actually are. Surely they aren't just referring to the "upgrade each ability multiple times" deal.

The problem is that RPG mechanics don't make good marketing. Would you rather see Shepard fight through a salarian base and save the key to the krogans' fight against the reapers, or Shepard sifting through his inventory comparing weapon stats and turning all but the one useful weapon into onmi-gel?

Bioware has shown all it can of the skill trees and weapons mods. Anything more will be redundant. "This mod does this, that mod does that." "This skill turns into these skills, that skill turns into those skills." And anything adequately showing the deeper character interactions would be filled to the brim with spoilers.

Bethesda disagree (you know, the guys behind two of the best selling games on the 360). Hell the E3 demo for skyrim was pretty much a stroll through the woods a look at the new inventory system and a quick fight through a dungeon.

[littlezack]

LiquidLogic2020 wrote...

Inutaisho7996 wrote...

Homey C-Dawg wrote...

TBH even though I've read the Bioware quote that "Me3 will have richer RPG mechanics", I haven't actually heard any mention of what these "richer RPG mechanics" actually are, though I've heard lots and lots about the enhanced gunplay/cover system.

I'm beginning to wonder what these "richer RPG mechanics" actually are. Surely they aren't just referring to the "upgrade each ability multiple times" deal.

The problem is that RPG mechanics don't make good marketing. Would you rather see Shepard fight through a salarian base and save the key to the krogans' fight against the reapers, or Shepard sifting through his inventory comparing weapon stats and turning all but the one useful weapon into onmi-gel?

Bioware has shown all it can of the skill trees and weapons mods. Anything more will be redundant. "This mod does this, that mod does that." "This skill turns into these skills, that skill turns into those skills." And anything adequately showing the deeper character interactions would be filled to the brim with spoilers.

Bethesda disagree (you know, the guys behind two of the best selling games on the 360).

By that logic, Fable 2 is the pinnacle of RPGness on the 360, since it sold more than Fallout 3 and Oblivion combined.

[K_Tabris]

Bioware deviates slightly from a particular style of rpg game. First with Jade Empire, which was more action-adventure than BG and NWN, then with ME2 and DA2 as rpg hybrids.

I'm hoping these games were just experimental styles, and that future games will remain rpg-heavy, in the tradition of what the core fans love. Is the intent in experimenting with gameplay styles in the design of JE, ME2 and DA2 to expose Bioware games to a broader audience, or to 'do something different for once'?
Either way, devs *are* taking fan feedback into consideration, and we probably will see more rpgs from Bioware in the future that are traditional in style.

As far as ME series go, we are probably going to see more of a ME2 play style with heavier elements, from what we can tell with reveals and developer commentary. For hard-core rpg fans it may be too late for ME3, but certainly not for Dragon Age 3.

I consider myself a 'core fan' Perhaps late to the game, starting with Jade Empire, and not a fan since BG, but that's irrelevant. If Bioware produces games that are not hard-core, traditional rpgs once in awhile, it doesn't bother me in the least. It's nice to change it up once in awhile.

[LiquidLogic2020]

littlezack wrote...

LiquidLogic2020 wrote...

Inutaisho7996 wrote...

Homey C-Dawg wrote...

TBH even though I've read the Bioware quote that "Me3 will have richer RPG mechanics", I haven't actually heard any mention of what these "richer RPG mechanics" actually are, though I've heard lots and lots about the enhanced gunplay/cover system.

I'm beginning to wonder what these "richer RPG mechanics" actually are. Surely they aren't just referring to the "upgrade each ability multiple times" deal.

The problem is that RPG mechanics don't make good marketing. Would you rather see Shepard fight through a salarian base and save the key to the krogans' fight against the reapers, or Shepard sifting through his inventory comparing weapon stats and turning all but the one useful weapon into onmi-gel?

Bioware has shown all it can of the skill trees and weapons mods. Anything more will be redundant. "This mod does this, that mod does that." "This skill turns into these skills, that skill turns into those skills." And anything adequately showing the deeper character interactions would be filled to the brim with spoilers.

Bethesda disagree (you know, the guys behind two of the best selling games on the 360).

By that logic, Fable 2 is the pinnacle of RPGness on the 360, since it sold more than Fallout 3 and Oblivion combined.

How so? Im simply giving an example of a company that doesn't need to show boat loads of action to sell their game. Don't be so glib.

[Sashimi_taco]

Lets just hope ME3 doesn't end up like DA2. I hope it's going to be great but EA certainly ruined the dragon age series.

[Mabase]

I really just wish people would stop crediting ME1 with this epic RPG scale that was lost in ME2. It just wasn't there.

[Leonia]

ME1 was the greatest RPG of all time, of all time!

So was DA:O.

They were perfect.

How dare Bioware sell-out!

Where is the "must read" part of this article that is so heavily based on speculation (negative speculation, at that)?

[C9316]

Just another rant filled with paranoia of how ME3 will be a watered down gears of war, did someone here write this?

From what I've seen of ME3, it still retains what makes an rpg an rpg. It has leveling, detailed character customization, weapon customization, compelling characters, and from what the other games showed us, a deep universe filled with enticing stories. And of course it should be expected that the action aspect will be improved and emphasized, the story in it's entirety is about the galactic war against the genocidal machines known as the reapers. 

Mass Effect has never been a pure rpg, it is a shooter rpg hybrid at it's best, and it will have to compete with the more pure shooters. If that makes it another gears of war for some people then to bad.

[Il Divo]

I'm gonna try to keep this brief and only focus on one of the author's statements:

A case in-point would be the stark differences between Mass Effect’s 1 and 2. In the second game, planet-surface exploration, experience points, inventory management and the buying and selling of equipment were all but done away with – or at least overwhelmingly simplified – meaning that the game was, at least in a gameplay sense, very much unlike an RPG.

The author does mention that Mass Effect's inventory was "awful" but he seems to have missed the point with this paragraph. It doesn't matter how much or how little "RPG" a game is if it handles game mechanics badly. For myself, exploration, inventory management, and the buying/selling were exactly why I consider Mass Effect to be Bioware's worst RPG (excluding Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights). If given the choice between bad mechanics and no mechanics, I will choose the latter every time, which is what Mass Effect 2 does with the above. Do something right, or not at all.

Edit: I should also point out that this is the case with ME2's side quests/"exploration", which was also inferior (but less time-consuming).

Modifié par Il Divo, 08 août 2011 - 12:59 .