333 réponses à ce sujet

[Someone With Mass]

Oh no. They used a similar system that exists in another game. It's now ruined forever, since no other game has ever borrowed something from other games ever.

Seriously. Get real.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 04 septembre 2011 - 09:30 .

[azerSheppard]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Oh no. They used a similar system to another game. It's now ruined forever, since no other game has sever borrowed something from other games ever.

Seriously. Get real.

I don't get it either, better to steal something great, than come up with something halfassed. I'm glad for the gears additions, the way epic handles tps is amazing. Getting my LE on the 20th. xd:ph34r:

[AmstradHero]

azerSheppard wrote...
This part is simply wrong. I find the gears of war ip far more interesting than the ME ip.

Personal preference does not constitute a fact unless you are making the second statement above.

I would argue that Gears of War revolves manly manly men being manly and shooting their manly gun in a manly fashion at ugly enemies while commenting on how manly they all are and saying "Oh, I have a wife, I'm not gay, even though I love hanging out with my manly manly men buddies" in a really manly way.

Okay, being serious, I like Gears of War. I've had a lot of fun playing it.  The story is okay, but the characters are pretty much one dimensional cardboard cutouts. Comparing Mass Effect and Gears of War in the regard is like comparing say... The Belgariad to A Song of Fire and Ice. Both might be enjoyable in their own right, but there's obviously one that has more depth.

azerSheppard wrote...
No matter how you look at it, powers are not nearly as important as shooting in ME2. 50% of the players play as soldier.

That's like saying "50% of players don't use the shotgun therefore it's not important.

azerSheppard wrote...
We know ME3 will have improved RPG features, but the shooting part, that's coming straight out of gears.

It's a combat mechanic. It's like saying "every single shooter is like Doom". BioWare saw the potential to implement the third person shooter combat mechanic in an RPG. Maybe Jade Empire ripped off Devil May Cry because it adopted the beat-em-up combat mechanic?

Just because two games share a similar mechanic does not mean they are the same. Gears of War revolves entirely around its combat mechanics, Mass Effect does not. Because of this, blanket comparisons between Mass Effect and Gears of War are utterly ridiculous. End of story.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 04 septembre 2011 - 09:34 .

[Someone With Mass]

What's next? Are we going to complain about DICE helping BioWare with the sound designs, because BW's sound designers really liked the sound effects in the Battlefield games?

[Tony Gunslinger]

azerSheppard wrote...
I advice you to play the mass effect 3 demo, or watch it. Now play some gears2. You will notice how similarly the shooting aspect is handled. The combat roll, upclose cinematic melee, cover swats, optional cinematic points of interest.

We know ME3 will have improved RPG features, but the shooting part, that's coming straight out of gears.

You should take into context of how Gears get their own ideas in the first place. They were not the first game to implement the cover system we know today, as they themselves were influenced by other games.

Here's a short reference.

Besides the cover system, any game that has a 3rd person perspective and guns these days more or less incorporates all the things Gears has: acrobatics, melee moves, spinting, etc. Look at GTA, Splinter Cell, Rainbow Six, Alpha Protocol, MGS, Uncharted, Deus Ex. At the end of that linked article, there's a list of games with cover systems. There are 148 games in that list.

No matter how you look at it, powers are not nearly as important as shooting in ME2. 50% of the players play as soldier. Each and every class does most of their dmg with weaponsfire. I can do a weapon only play without upgrading my char, i have done so already with an infiltrator equiped with AR. The combat remains effective and fluint, but try doing one with only powers, don't shoot, don't let your squadmates shoot. Your dps will be so low it'll make you go mad from all the wating for the cooldown. And again, the power difference is due to genre difference.

Maybe actually play GOW before you dismiss the similarities.<_<

Did you do your weapon-only run with NO skill points invested, and what difficulty? Passives and ammo powers count as powers. If you did, then I'm impressed.

[Tommy6860]

[quote]Someone With Mass wrote...

[quote]Tommy6860 wrote...

[quote]Someone With Mass wrote...

[quote]Gatt9 wrote...

*Experience in ME2 is completely irrelevant.  You can do an incredibly difficult side mission and get 50xps out of it,  do an incredibly easy story mission and it hands you a level pretty much everytime.  It's obvious that the intention was to only give a level or *maybe* two to those who did side missions,  but give everyone skill points for every story mission.  It doesn't care how many critters you kill,  or how you resolve the mission,  everyone gets the same thing no matter what.  At that point,  it ceases to be an Experience system and becomes "Do a story mission,  get points!",  which is very anti-RPG.

**Levels are irrelevant.  You kill a YMIR at level 2 with starter weapons,  he's about as hard as it gets.  So at that point,  you can kill everything in the game if you could see it.  As such,  the levels perform no real function,  if you can already do everything at the very begining,  then there's no difference between level 2 and level 30.

***You can hear Shepherd say something nice,  or hear him say something mean,  but in almost every instance,  everyone gets the same results,  and no one reacts to the personality you're demonstrating,  even when it conflicts with their own.  Contrast this to earlier Bioware games where the NPC's would conflict with you if you didn't mesh with their personalities.  Now you can do whatever you want without consequence.

****Just because there's different types of weapons doesn't mean they're relevant.  Since the starter weapons kill what's pretty much the hardest thing you face in the game,  the weapons are essentially irrelevant.  Grab whichever one looks best to you and you'll be perfectly fine.  The armor is even less relevant,  all of the bonuses are completely insignificant.[/quote]

Also, when you have Colossus armor, your "customization" time in ME1 is pretty much over. That's not the case in ME2, since ME2 plays on preference.[/quote]

Huh?? Care to elaborate? ME is by far more customizeable than ME2 and not only that, restrictions are in place so that the customization isn't any type fits all in armor. I didn't like that ME2 took away that aspect, and forced the player to find elements (like planet scanning was a near deal breaker for me) to be able to get upgrades, and it never changed.
[quote]

ME2 didn't have the situations where Shepard said the exact same thing regardless of your dialogue choice and then gave you Paragon/Renegade points if it happened to be one of the corner options, either.

[/quote]

Unless I am misunderstanding you, Shep did no such thing in ME. Both games paraphrase the choice and answer combos. I will say that the P/R system with Charm and Intimidate was the better system in ME though, because it actually made a difference. But I still didn't like it, because if I choose to have a mean answer, it doesn't reflect on me in the game, everything to pans out the same. Both ME and ME2 were faulty in this aspect, IMO.
[quote]

Just to top it off, I don't like grinding and backtracking, which I had to do a lot in ME1, just because I didn't have enough Electronics in some places, because I wanted to actually be able to kill things with spending fifteen minutes shooting them in the face at point blank range.[/quote]

So? That was how the game played out in the missions, it isn't like you had to backtrack, unless you really wanted it. Since the game focused on multiple playthroughs like ME2, you build up your talents would allow for this aspect, otherwise, you bring a squadie along that has that ability. Seems to me you want just combat, and that's fine, ME2 did that and that is what disappointed me about it.
[quote]

ME3 seems to improve a lot on both experience (since I don't need to upgrade one power to unlock another, which is a huge improvement if you ask me) and combat, since there are weapon mods that are actually doing more than just upgrading the accuracy, time for overheat and damage.
[/quote]
How do you know how ME3 plays already?

[/quote]


1. The only armor worth a damn in ME1 is Colossus. The rest is pretty much there for show. While you could add different things, it was pretty much always optimal to go with the health regeneration instead of something like the melee damage boosters, since engaging enemies in melee is just clunky and not smooth at all.
[/quote]

This is not in any sense true. All armor ranks up as one levels up, that's how ME worked. Colossus armor was only available when you made a certain level (as with all armor and weapon ranges). By the time you reach that level, you are already powerful enough as it is. Colossus armor also wan't the best as the Predator line was also very effective.

[quote]

I had no problem with the planet scanning. Beat the hell out of driving the Mako for fifteen minutes only to get Incendiary Ammo II or some crap like that.

[/quote]

Planet scanning was tedious and not very profitable. At least with planet exploration, you not only found elements that were worth credits, but also artifacts and codex that would give experince points while lending some descriptions to the items in the game and their history. I don't know about you, but I like codex and the reading.

[quote]

ME2 also gave the player upgrades instead of new weapons that were a slightly better version than the one you're currently using, like HMWA IX instead of HMWA VIII while they also upgraded all weapons in that category.
[/quote]

So? But they were more powerful, and diverse because the ammos changed as did their effects as well. I got the feeling that I was acquiring a whole new weapon and a new model, instead of just a few upgrades to the same
weapon using the same ammo I had. The only thing I liked about ME2 weapons more, were the need to acquire ammo. I thought the infinite ammo in ME was a bad idea, because the cooldowns between over-firing the weapons was too fast and I just could hide, shoot and cooldown without having to worry about running out of ammo..

[quote]

2. I'm pretty sure the conversation with Sovereign ends with "You're just a machine, and machines can be broken" (Ugh) regardless of your dialogue choice. I might be wrong.

[/quote]

Except you didn't just mention this one quote. You made a blanket statement that the dialogue in ME was the exact same as the choice one makes from the dialogue tree. The dialogue is paraphrased, that's a fact.

[quote]

4. I've seen tweets and gameplay of ME3 which showed these improvements.

https://twitter.com/...156013835001857

The powers are also unlocked via level requirement this time.

[/quote]

Remains to be seen how that makes out to your previous claim,

"ME3 seems to improve a lot on both experience (since I don't need to upgrade one power to unlock another, which is a huge improvement if you ask me) and combat, since there are weapon mods that are actually doing more than just upgrading the accuracy, time for overheat and damage."

This tweet doesn't come close adding up to this quote from you in your previous reply.

Modifié par Tommy6860, 04 septembre 2011 - 11:16 .

[Dunmer of Redoran]

Until Egoraptor releases an "Awesome" short for Mass Effect, I think it's got a leg up on GoW.

[aridor1570]

DaftArbiter wrote...

Until Egoraptor releases an "Awesome" short for Mass Effect, I think it's got a leg up on GoW.

I WANT an "Awesome" short for it.

[Phaedon]

Simply, we can -and we should- just ignore the snobs who try to repost their bad arguments everywhere, abandon debates when they want to, and proceed to create a new thread/rant/post for them next week/month. Because that's exactly what makes this community bad.

All of the silly comparisons to other genres and games is simply to satisfy their elitist attitude of "Hurr durr, X shooter is bad, all shooters are bad, I am much smarter for playing Y, which is an arr pee gee"

[Dionkey]

Enigmatick wrote...

Dionkey wrote...

 I don't consider ME3 an RPG any more, so it's not a big deal in my books.

Do you really have to remind people that you think that in nearly all of your posts?

Every thread like this. 

[Dunmer of Redoran]

aridor1570 wrote...

DaftArbiter wrote...

Until Egoraptor releases an "Awesome" short for Mass Effect, I think it's got a leg up on GoW.

I WANT an "Awesome" short for it.

Hell, he'd probably just recycle the Street Fighter one.


Garrus: "Would anybody like some calibrations?!?!"

Shepard: "I'D LIKE SOME CALIBRATIONS!"

[The Spamming Troll]

111987 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

Akrylik wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

 They're just silly; here's why.

The two games share four similarities: Guns (shooting), Aliens... 

Im afraid your arguement is invalid now.

Gears focuses on combat, Mass Effect focuses on story, i don't expect either to shine in what they were not solely created for. That being said ME's combat is not terrible.

If i wanted to play a TPS for the combat, i would play Gears. If i wanted to play a game for the story, it would be ME, the fact that they share a superficially similar combat system is a pointless observation when both games are intended to be played for different reasons.

ME2 focused on combat,  not story.  Almost every problem in the game is solved by combat,  and the few that weren't?  "I want a fish!".

I'm trying to think of some primary mission that didn't end up in combat,  and drawing a complete blank.  There was maybe 1 discoverable mission that wasn't complete combat?  Maybe 1 DLC,  and I think that one only had a segment that wasn't combat.  From there,  all we're left with is "I want a fish".

I would seriously argue that ME2's primary focus isn't combat,  simply because everything revolves around it.

Just wanted to point out the following non-combat missions:

3 Assignments (YMIR Mech mission, Solar Flare mission, Crashed Alliance Ship mission)
Thane Loyalty Mission
Samara Loyalty Mission
:happy:

those missions were made without combat, not made to give the player a choice in combat, or not. your missing his point, entirely. its just seams extremely weak and irrelevant to me.

im getting the impression most of the posters in here have their noses stuck so far up biowares butt theyre unable to actually form an opinion that isnt in line with biowares direction, no matter what direction bioware went.

i also wanted to mention i agree with gatt on alot of the things hes said in here. its easier to say that, then rebuttle everything someones saying with similar replys. 

[AmstradHero]

Dionkey wrote...

Enigmatick wrote...

Dionkey wrote...

 I don't consider ME3 an RPG any more, so it's not a big deal in my books.

Do you really have to remind people that you think that in nearly all of your posts?

Every thread like this. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/grin.png[/smilie]

RPGs aren't RPGs. RPG snobbery is ridiculous and is getting old really fast.

The Spamming Troll wrote...

111987 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

ME2 focused on combat,  not story.  Almost every problem in the game
is solved by combat,  and the few that weren't?  "I want a fish!".

Just wanted to point out the following non-combat missions:

3 Assignments (YMIR Mech mission, Solar Flare mission, Crashed Alliance Ship mission)
Thane Loyalty Mission
Samara Loyalty Mission
:happy:

those missions were made without combat, not made to give the player a choice in combat, or not. your missing his point, entirely. its just seams extremely weak and irrelevant to me.

im getting the impression most of the posters in here have their noses stuck so far up biowares butt theyre unable to actually form an opinion that isnt in line with biowares direction, no matter what direction bioware went.

i also wanted to mention i agree with gatt on alot of the things hes said in here. its easier to say that, then rebuttle everything someones saying with similar replys. 

Ah right, so when someone says: "The game is all about combat" and is proven wrong, the argument then changes to "you can choose between combat or something else"? Nice way to construct an argument with moving goalposts. When an example of that is brought up, will the demand then be "oh, but you can't use combat, talking or space hamster juggling to solve the quest"?

I don't have my nose stuck up anyone's butt, I just detest seeing arguments without any substance that don't stand up to any sort of logic or scrutiny. Please, by all means deliver a "rebuttle" (sic), but do so with reasoned arguments and rationale that is more comprehensive than "I don't like it".

I can quite happily say what I don't like about DAO, DA2, ME1 & ME2, and bucketloads more games besides, but more importantly, I can say why. I can point out the design issues that are problematic rather than simply complaining "it's dumbed down" or "it's not an RPG" or "it's not like (insert favourite game here)" or "it's like (insert hated game here)". Those are all pathetic arguments that hold absolutely no weight whatsoever.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 04 septembre 2011 - 01:17 .

[Terror_K]

Someone With Mass wrote...

What's next? Are we going to complain about DICE helping BioWare with the sound designs, because BW's sound designers really liked the sound effects in the Battlefield games?

Well... to be honest... I do have to wonder why futurustic weapons that use mass effect technology now sound more like modern day weapons with clunky moving parts and why they each sound different when they're all essentially the same technology at play.

[Dionkey]

AmstradHero wrote...
RPGs aren't RPGs. RPG snobbery is ridiculous and is getting old really fast.

I've argued against this more times than I can count, I've just given up at this point. What defines an RPG to a person is what immerses them in the experience more. I have gone on record to say that full customization in terms of a wide variety of stats, equipment and appearance is what does it for me. Some people say choices affect whether something is an RPG or not, I disagree upon the basis that rail-roading someone into two paths are not choices at all and just a different tweak. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, though.

[The Spamming Troll]

AmstradHero wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

111987 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

ME2 focused on combat,  not story.  Almost every problem in the game
is solved by combat,  and the few that weren't?  "I want a fish!".

Just wanted to point out the following non-combat missions:

3 Assignments (YMIR Mech mission, Solar Flare mission, Crashed Alliance Ship mission)
Thane Loyalty Mission
Samara Loyalty Mission
:happy:

those missions were made without combat, not made to give the player a choice in combat, or not. your missing his point, entirely. its just seams extremely weak and irrelevant to me.

im getting the impression most of the posters in here have their noses stuck so far up biowares butt theyre unable to actually form an opinion that isnt in line with biowares direction, no matter what direction bioware went.

i also wanted to mention i agree with gatt on alot of the things hes said in here. its easier to say that, then rebuttle everything someones saying with similar replys. 

Ah right, so when someone says: "The game is all about combat" and is proven wrong, the argument then changes to "you can choose between combat or something else"? Nice way to construct an argument with moving goalposts. When an example of that is brought up, will the demand then be "oh, but you can't use combat, talking or space hamster juggling to solve the quest"?

I don't have my nose stuck up anyone's butt, I just detest seeing arguments without any substance that don't stand up to any sort of logic or scrutiny. Please, by all means deliver a "rebuttle" (sic), but do so with reasoned arguments and rationale that is more comprehensive than "I don't like it".

I can quite happily say what I don't like about DAO, DA2, ME1 & ME2, and bucketloads more games besides, but more importantly, I can say why. I can point out the design issues that are problematic rather than simply complaining "it's dumbed down" or "it's not an RPG" or "it's not like (insert favourite game here)" or "it's like (insert hated game here)". Those are all pathetic arguments that hold absolutely no weight whatsoever.

i just agree with what im reading from gatt, and not you.

sorry that youve found another person that disagrees with you.

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 04 septembre 2011 - 02:10 .

[Someone With Mass]

Terror_K wrote...

Well... to be honest... I do have to wonder why futurustic weapons that use mass effect technology now sound more like modern day weapons with clunky moving parts and why they each sound different when they're all essentially the same technology at play.

They do?

It's like saying that a 9mm Beretta and a .50 Desert Eagle should sound the same simply because they're both using the same technology to fire the bullets. They don't.

[habitat 67]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Well... to be honest... I do have to wonder why futurustic weapons that use mass effect technology now sound more like modern day weapons with clunky moving parts and why they each sound different when they're all essentially the same technology at play.

They do?

It's like saying that a 9mm Beretta and a .50 Desert Eagle should sound the same simply because they're both using the same technology to fire the bullets. They don't.

Players expect their weapons to sound and feel different. It heightens gameplay excitement.

[Geth_Prime]

Show the smudboys they won't get their way!

Seriously, OP, I love you for making this thread. These complaints are beyond stupid.

[azerSheppard]

AmstradHero wrote...

azerSheppard wrote...
This part is simply wrong. I find the gears of war ip far more interesting than the ME ip.

Personal preference does not constitute a fact unless you are making the second statement above.

I would argue that Gears of War revolves manly manly men being manly and shooting their manly gun in a manly fashion at ugly enemies while commenting on how manly they all are and saying "Oh, I have a wife, I'm not gay, even though I love hanging out with my manly manly men buddies" in a really manly way.

Okay, being serious, I like Gears of War. I've had a lot of fun playing it.  The story is okay, but the characters are pretty much one dimensional cardboard cutouts. Comparing Mass Effect and Gears of War in the regard is like comparing say... The Belgariad to A Song of Fire and Ice. Both might be enjoyable in their own right, but there's obviously one that has more depth.

azerSheppard wrote...
No matter how you look at it, powers are not nearly as important as shooting in ME2. 50% of the players play as soldier.

That's like saying "50% of players don't use the shotgun therefore it's not important.

azerSheppard wrote...
We know ME3 will have improved RPG features, but the shooting part, that's coming straight out of gears.

It's a combat mechanic. It's like saying "every single shooter is like Doom". BioWare saw the potential to implement the third person shooter combat mechanic in an RPG. Maybe Jade Empire ripped off Devil May Cry because it adopted the beat-em-up combat mechanic?

Just because two games share a similar mechanic does not mean they are the same. Gears of War revolves entirely around its combat mechanics, Mass Effect does not. Because of this, blanket comparisons between Mass Effect and Gears of War are utterly ridiculous. End of story.

The "that's wrong" refers to aliens in Gears. If you consider the locust aliens, than so are marcus and dom.

1. Epic hired kill switch lead designer to incorporate the cover system. They combined it with the RE4 over the shoulder view, which later became a formula for TPS. 
Over the shoulder cover based shooter with swat turns and/or combat rolls. There are ****loads of games that copied exactly that. (not to mention kill switch had an unpolished feel to the cover system, gears was not the first to it, but arguebly the first to do it right)
ME didn't copy this formula, they did however incorporate it into the 3rd installment.

2. Homophobic childish critique, SS is in ME3, atleast there is no man on man action in GOW, unless you fantasize it up yourself. Maybe Marcus ought to go around ask if people need forged id's and need fish. That would make sense during an apocalyptic war.

3. Characters "depth" can be argued with, all the squadmates in ME2 where tropes up the ass. Bat**** crazy prisoner, assassin monk, spy scientist, genetic super soldier, token black guy.... etc. 
I find Alenko the only char worth mention when it comes to depth.

4.I never said powers weren't important, i said not AS important as the shooting, lore wise or gameplay wise.

5. We can't say every single shooter is like doom, but we can say heretic and hexen are doom clones, DN3D is heavily inspired by doom, uses almost the exact engine.

6. The combat in DMC is fast stylish-action oriented around sleak combos and platforming, JE is an adventure action"rpg", their combat mechanics are no where near one another. JE is more of a combo of KOTOR and Star Ocean.

Look at GOW, it's core combat mechanic are overbased combat, swat turns and combats rolls. Now look at ME3, it's core gameplay mechanics are power usage, cover shooting, swat turns and combat rolls. 3 of the 4 Major parts of the combat are IDENTICAL.

Tony Gunslinger wrote...
Did you do your weapon-only run with NO skill points invested, and what difficulty? Passives and ammo powers count as powers. If you did, then I'm impressed.

It was a lvl 3 char (import bonus), without any skillpoints added aside from the ones that are forced, i played on hardcore. It's nigh impossible to do it on insanity, since me is made to be done in squad combat, the things is, the AI can't get a kill to save their lives.

I have over 30 complete playtroughs so far 20 some on xbox, 10 on pc. all insanity, except the first, and the 0 RPG one. I like a decent challenge; infact i was one of the first few to do a complete 122333

[Gorosaur]

Dionkey wrote...

But the gameplay is straight out of Gears of War, at least the combat is. I don't consider ME3 an RPG any more, so it's not a big deal in my books.

I love people who have this attitude of elitism because they play RPGs. Therefore, they are classier and more sophisticated than the rest of the gaming population. 

[Ostagar2011]

Gorosaur wrote...

Dionkey wrote...

But the gameplay is straight out of Gears of War, at least the combat is. I don't consider ME3 an RPG any more, so it's not a big deal in my books.

I love people who have this attitude of elitism because they play RPGs. Therefore, they are classier and more sophisticated than the rest of the gaming population. 

No, that's your insecurities talking. They are different styles of strength. Someone may be good at sudoku but bad at tennis. Another person is good at tennis but bad at sudoku. Neither is 'superior' and I think you are misinterpreting a preference for one game as some claim to superiority. It's just that the people who are good at tennis are trying to keep 'their' game going (because it tests their strengths), when all around them games appear to be becoming like sudoku.

We all know that ME is great because it is a fine blend of RPG and shooter. BioWare seems to be forgetting that, and really focussing increasingly on the shooting side. This is evidenced by the changes made from ME1 to ME2. And by the announcement that ME3 features more 'RPG elements' simply by virtue of having a few extra mods to guns and a couple of sub skill-trees. Also all demos of ME3 are of combat, and none are of quests and interactions, story etc.

This is why people start these 'gears of war' threads - not to contrast locusts versus turians, but to try to point out that ME is great because is was not GoW. It was more than 'just' a shooter. BioWare seems to want it to become GoW with minimal added dialogue and romance. That would be something I would not want. Maybe others do?

[111987]

Ostagar2011 wrote...

Gorosaur wrote...

Dionkey wrote...

But the gameplay is straight out of Gears of War, at least the combat is. I don't consider ME3 an RPG any more, so it's not a big deal in my books.

I love people who have this attitude of elitism because they play RPGs. Therefore, they are classier and more sophisticated than the rest of the gaming population. 

No, that's your insecurities talking. They are different styles of strength. Someone may be good at sudoku but bad at tennis. Another person is good at tennis but bad at sudoku. Neither is 'superior' and I think you are misinterpreting a preference for one game as some claim to superiority. It's just that the people who are good at tennis are trying to keep 'their' game going (because it tests their strengths), when all around them games appear to be becoming like sudoku.

We all know that ME is great because it is a fine blend of RPG and shooter. BioWare seems to be forgetting that, and really focussing increasingly on the shooting side. This is evidenced by the changes made from ME1 to ME2. And by the announcement that ME3 features more 'RPG elements' simply by virtue of having a few extra mods to guns and a couple of sub skill-trees. Also all demos of ME3 are of combat, and none are of quests and interactions, story etc.

This is why people start these 'gears of war' threads - not to contrast locusts versus turians, but to try to point out that ME is great because is was not GoW. It was more than 'just' a shooter. BioWare seems to want it to become GoW with minimal added dialogue and romance. That would be something I would not want. Maybe others do?

If you seriously think Mass Effect 2, or Mass Effect 3 is just Gears of War with 'minimal dialogue and romance', then you have clearly never played either game.

[Gorosaur]

Ostagar2011 wrote...

Gorosaur wrote...

Dionkey wrote...

But the gameplay is straight out of Gears of War, at least the combat is. I don't consider ME3 an RPG any more, so it's not a big deal in my books.

I love people who have this attitude of elitism because they play RPGs. Therefore, they are classier and more sophisticated than the rest of the gaming population. 

No, that's your insecurities talking. They are different styles of strength. Someone may be good at sudoku but bad at tennis. Another person is good at tennis but bad at sudoku. Neither is 'superior' and I think you are misinterpreting a preference for one game as some claim to superiority. It's just that the people who are good at tennis are trying to keep 'their' game going (because it tests their strengths), when all around them games appear to be becoming like sudoku.

We all know that ME is great because it is a fine blend of RPG and shooter. BioWare seems to be forgetting that, and really focussing increasingly on the shooting side. This is evidenced by the changes made from ME1 to ME2. And by the announcement that ME3 features more 'RPG elements' simply by virtue of having a few extra mods to guns and a couple of sub skill-trees. Also all demos of ME3 are of combat, and none are of quests and interactions, story etc.

This is why people start these 'gears of war' threads - not to contrast locusts versus turians, but to try to point out that ME is great because is was not GoW. It was more than 'just' a shooter. BioWare seems to want it to become GoW with minimal added dialogue and romance. That would be something I would not want. Maybe others do?

It's more the fact that I often see RPG players openly insult those that play other genres for being unintelligent. It really does border on snobbery at times. Now I was wrong in my earlier statement in pinning on that on a specific member, but I HAVE met many RPG gamers that try to use their preferences for stats as some kind of ego boost to their intelligence.

Personally, I search for games that carry a good experience through story telling. Mass Effect to me is still satisfying. 

[Someone With Mass]

Gorosaur wrote...

Dionkey wrote...

But the gameplay is straight out of Gears of War, at least the combat is. I don't consider ME3 an RPG any more, so it's not a big deal in my books.

I love people who have this attitude of elitism because they play RPGs. Therefore, they are classier and more sophisticated than the rest of the gaming population. 

Or it's because they're too stupid to look for any information about the game and are just going for baseless assumptions instead.

Seriously.

If you have such a hard-on for the RPG elements, then just look for info about it, because as of right now, ME3 will have better power and weapon customization than the previous games. The powers are unlocked based on the level and can evolve a total of six times. The weapon can be customized in five different categories and then some, like attachable scopes that gives a x2/x4 zoom or laser sights for the pistols.

Stating that ME3 is not an RPG but ME1 is, is just stupid.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 04 septembre 2011 - 05:22 .