110 réponses à ce sujet

[lazuli]

Gatt9 wrote...

Hence why we've got everything is a Shooter,  mislabelled games,  and massive fighting inside of the gaming community that actually was once united.

The halcyon days of yore weren't as perfect as you'd like to recall.  Genre definition is as old as the hills.  If it seems worse now, it's probably due to exposure.

Modifié par lazuli, 04 septembre 2011 - 07:43 .

[Tommy6860]

Phaedon wrote...

We Should Improve:

"Richer RPG Features": The level up system, visual weapon customization, power evolution, the new XP system, the unique heavy melee powers and promises for more loot seem to hint towards meaningful statistical progression, which was the issue with ME2, so far, though it remains to be seen how the game will play in the end.

It's obvious that ME3 is going to focus on combat even more, and that's disappointing, they did enough already with ME2. Anyway, I'd like to know how you extrapolate what you did for this one particular category; was there info in that presentation that gave a gist to these elements you added (I didn't see them)?

That presentation wasn't very good to be honest and I seriously get the feeling that Christina should work for Activision and or stick ith action games. The presentation even got the squad count wrong for ME1.

This is what I would like to see; RPG elements and more to be added back into ME3 that were in ME1. Real character interactions and choices that have an impact on the plots and story.  Combat is combat and they can do what they want with that, but RP has to have some meaningful reason to be part of the game outside of what seems to be turning into an even more action type game.

[Kusy]

I remember how this presentation pissed me off when I saw it. With the "split up combat and RPG mechanics"... you either make RPG mechanics that influence combat or leave them out entirely except for customization, and instead of proudly calling it RPG, you call it customization.

It was like... that presentation explained to me why Mass Effect 2 combat was so archaic and bad... and got me pissed because it showed up it was a conscious choice, not a misshappening.

Modifié par Mr.Kusy, 05 septembre 2011 - 02:27 .

[Dragoonlordz]

I have yet to see how the RPG elements have had any more focus and improvement than ME2 for one siimple reason the only demos and dialogue people and devs spend all their time talking about is mere combat, skills, weapons and classes.

That isn't for me RPG elements and the only clues we have is heresay and rumours about what RPG'esque elements are back in game or improved upon. While RPG means different things to different people, to me it has little to do with combat and guns and skills and more to do with narrative, plot, choices; depth of customisation and such like skills too is part of it but not the big part to me and as it stands right now the only footage and such has been about the latter aspects.

Understandable to a degree since the former would possibly entail spoilers but all the same I haven't seen those RPG system improvements (imho) as of yet because of that issue of potential spoilers. All people seem to talk about on here is whats skills does X or Y have, what weapons can X or Y use, can class X charge or use combo <insert name>, what about omni-weapon etc. Those to me are all combat and not the RPG elements I wish to know about. I can't ask [or more precisley] get answer about the RPG elements I want to know about because they might contain spoilers so I have to assume the RPG elements have been improved rather then know they have.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 05 septembre 2011 - 02:46 .

[Tommy6860]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I have yet to see how the RPG elements have had any more focus and improvement than ME2 for one siimple reason the only demos and dialogue people and devs spend all their time talking about is mere combat, skills, weapons and classes.

That isn't for me RPG elements and the only clues we have is heresay and rumours about what RPG'esque elements are back in game or improved upon. While RPG means different things to different people, to me it has little to do with combat and guns and skills and more to do with narrative, plot, choices; depth of customisation and such like skills too is part of it but not the big part to me and as it stands right now the only footage and such has been about the latter aspects.

Understandable to a degree since the former would possibly entail spoilers but all the same I haven't seen those RPG system improvements (imho) as of yet because of that issue of potential spoilers. All people seem to talk about on here is whats skills does X or Y have, what weapons can X or Y use, can class X charge or use combo <insert name>, what about omni-weapon etc. Those to me are all combat and not the RPG elements I wish to know about. I can't ask [or more precisley] get answer about the RPG elements I want to know about because they might contain spoilers so I have to assume the RPG elements have been improved rather then know they have.

This^

The one time I got touchy-feely again for the ME series was when Casey Hudson made a statement awhile back to the effect that ME3 will bring back much the RPG aspects of ME1. That was shot down shortly thereafter when he commented more on how the combat will be even more expansive with more action than ME2 ( along with another similar statement made by EA head John Rittiecello shortly after Casey's backtrack), arrrggghhhh!

But I agree with you on the RP aspects as I said in my previous post. Combat is combat and they can make all the stats they want for weapons and powers, just give me character interaction great story and choices that have impact; and oh yes, character customization.

[Terror_K]

I have to ask this: have we seen any indication whatsoever that there are going to be multiple ways to actually handle situations in ME3 at all? I mean, aside from just running and gunning to the end where perhaps an A or B choice is made right at the end of that mission? Is there actually going to be anything even remotely close to Noveria where entire sections and battles could be bypassed or handled differently?

On top of that, while many of the levels do look larger, seem more real and genuine, bring back the scale much of ME2's levels missed and have more verticality, they still seem rather linear from what we've seen thus far. So are there any real indications yet that places aren't just an A to B pathway?

[Epic777]

Terror, why bother with a series that is obviously dead to you? Do you hope against hope?

[Tommy6860]

Epic777 wrote...

Terror, why bother with a series that is obviously dead to you? Do you hope against hope?

Perhaps Terror is still interested enough because of the first game, that maybe there may just be much to like in ME3, but nothing is mentioned to entice those not bent on all action and combat all of the time.. Still, almost all of the media events, tweets and speculation has been all about the combat, really nothing else. What about the RP elements? I think that is a valid request for those at Bioware to least give some of us a bite of what is to come.

Modifié par Tommy6860, 05 septembre 2011 - 05:41 .

[Terror_K]

Epic777 wrote...

Terror, why bother with a series that is obviously dead to you? Do you hope against hope?

It's not dead to me. Dragon Age is, but that's another story. Not that both BioWare IPs haven't suffered from similar issues mind you.

I got into Mass Effect more for the universe than anything, and I still really like it for the most part (even if a few cracks have begun to show). I still think that ME3 will be better than ME2 was and be a decent game overall, but that doesn't mean I don't think that it could be better and that it couldn't do with more depth and less over-the-top mainstream pandering BS.

My main overall issue is that with after both ME2 and DA2 we have BioWare people saying, "we've learned from our mistakes" but despite said claims I see more indications that they really haven't. They're still trying to pander too much and have their cake and eat it too. There's still too much focus on action, accessibility and streamlining, etc.

[Mister Mida]

Funny how everyone is pretty much ignoring Holmes, even though what he says makes more sense than everybody attributing all those brilliant changes to ME2 to Norman.

[Biotic Sage]

@ Terror_K and Tommy6860

People are asking for proof that we are going to see a real payoff for all the choices we've made and that there will be a deep, branching narrative in ME3. They aren't going to get it. All of this falls into the realm of spoilers, so whether or not this actually is a major aspect of the game, arguing about it before March 6, 2012 is irrelevant.  If after ME3 comes out and all of Bioware's claims about deep RPG elements don't hold up, then you have every right to complain.

When the game releases, we'll either see the RPG elements or we won't, but until then quit b!tching.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 05 septembre 2011 - 06:45 .

[Terror_K]

I don't see how saying, "Yes. There will be multiple paths to objectives" is exactly a spoiler of anything except for whether there will be multiple paths to objectives.

[Biotic Sage]

Terror_K wrote...

I don't see how saying, "Yes. There will be multiple paths to objectives" is exactly a spoiler of anything except for whether there will be multiple paths to objectives.

They have said this, and things to this effect, many times on Twitter and at events.  Obviously the real issue is that you don't have examples and evidence, and like I said, you aren't going to get it until the game is released.

I'm not even blindly claiming it will be there like an indoctrinated fanboy, I'm just saying we don't know either way right now.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 05 septembre 2011 - 06:49 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Mister Mida wrote...

Funny how everyone is pretty much ignoring Holmes, even though what he says makes more sense than everybody attributing all those brilliant changes to ME2 to Norman.

Exactly. From what Brenon Holmes describes it's more of an organic process than one person telling everone else what to do.

[Terror_K]

jreezy wrote...

Streamlining does not always mean simplification.

No, it doesn't. In fact, it really shouldn't. At least not overall. Again, the point of streamlining is to simplify complexity while still retaining functionality. ME2 didn't do this: it just make things simple and lost any complexity at all in the process, even going so far as to automate a bunch of stuff so that half the work was done for the player, rather than letting the player do it for themselves.

The basic point is that while, yes, streamlining does not always mean simplification as you say, when it came to ME2 that seemed to be the case, and has often been the case for many games lately when developers have used terms like "streamlining" and "more accessible" etc.

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Exactly. From what Brenon Holmes describes it's more of an organic process than one person telling everone else what to do.

I don't think it's being ignored, but more a case of her being the lead combined with comments along the lines of "simpler is better, and what could be simpler than no inventory" and her expressing confusion as ME1's stats/abilities screen lead people to believe that she was very much a major voice behind the overall oversimplification of ME2 as a whole. Her being the Lead doesn't make her the only factor and one responsible, but she is the one overall honing the direction of the gameplay and rubber-stamping it. Overall though, one could also just as easily blame Casey Hudson for rubber stamping things using that logic I guess.

Modifié par Terror_K, 05 septembre 2011 - 07:29 .

[Someone With Mass]

Eh, nothing in ME1 had any complexity to begin with.

[Terror_K]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Eh, nothing in ME1 had any complexity to begin with.

*sigh* Not this again.

I think you're confusing "complexity" with "being complex" which happens all too often in this place.

[Someone With Mass]

Tommy6860 wrote...

It's obvious that ME3 is going to focus on combat even more, and that's disappointing, they did enough already with ME2. Anyway, I'd like to know how you extrapolate what you did for this one particular category; was there info in that presentation that gave a gist to these elements you added (I didn't see them)?

That presentation wasn't very good to be honest and I seriously get the feeling that Christina should work for Activision and or stick ith action games. The presentation even got the squad count wrong for ME1.

This is what I would like to see; RPG elements and more to be added back into ME3 that were in ME1. Real character interactions and choices that have an impact on the plots and story.  Combat is combat and they can do what they want with that, but RP has to have some meaningful reason to be part of the game outside of what seems to be turning into an even more action type game.

I'm so sick of seeing this argument.

Look at the story of ME3. The galaxy is at war. Of course it will focus more on combat. That's pretty much guaranteed in a time of war, unless it's a cold war, which I highly doubt ME3 is going to be.

[Someone With Mass]

Terror_K wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Eh, nothing in ME1 had any complexity to begin with.

*sigh* Not this again.

I think you're confusing "complexity" with "being complex" which happens all too often in this place.

They mean roughly the same thing, so...

[Bcuz]

I have seen very little, so my opinion may be completely invalid, however, I think they've done pretty damn well so far if the confirmed features thread is to be believed.

[Terror_K]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Eh, nothing in ME1 had any complexity to begin with.

*sigh* Not this again.

I think you're confusing "complexity" with "being complex" which happens all too often in this place.

They mean roughly the same thing, so...

Okay, what I mean by complexity is things like item management, mods, upgrades, progression, customisation, choices, etc. Stuff that the average action/shooter games don't have as much of (though, ironically, that's changing more as time goes on). I don't mean complexity in the sense that it's complex and possibly confusing, but in that it adds more layers to the gameplay and game overall. Things like the inventory pretty much disappearing entirely rather than being made simpler, skill factors like decryption/electronics effecting tech ability in non-combat scenarios being reduced to an "anybody can do it now" solution, the complete disappearance of omni-tools and biotic amps, modding going the way of the dodo in favour of an automated God-modding linear upgrade system with no trade-offs and thus no real customisation at all, etc. are examples of complexity just being torn out for pure simplicity rather than retaining its functionality and complexity with only the methods and interfaces, etc. being simplified.

[Bcuz]

Terror_K wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Eh, nothing in ME1 had any complexity to begin with.

*sigh* Not this again.

I think you're confusing "complexity" with "being complex" which happens all too often in this place.

They mean roughly the same thing, so...

Okay, what I mean by complexity is things like item management, mods, upgrades, progression, customisation, choices, etc. Stuff that the average action/shooter games don't have as much of (though, ironically, that's changing more as time goes on). I don't mean complexity in the sense that it's complex and possibly confusing, but in that it adds more layers to the gameplay and game overall. Things like the inventory pretty much disappearing entirely rather than being made simpler, skill factors like decryption/electronics effecting tech ability in non-combat scenarios being reduced to an "anybody can do it now" solution, the complete disappearance of omni-tools and biotic amps, modding going the way of the dodo in favour of an automated God-modding linear upgrade system with no trade-offs and thus no real customisation at all, etc. are examples of complexity just being torn out for pure simplicity rather than retaining its functionality and complexity with only the methods and interfaces, etc. being simplified.

I believe the ME2 item system was great, though lacking in choices. Unlike ME1 where all the weapons where better or worse, the weapons in ME2 actually had some variety, I could use the claymore heavy shotgun and kill whomever I charge pretty much instantly, or I could use the scimitar shotgun and take down the defenses of every enemy in the area. Inventory is irrelevent if what you're left with is a compeling arsonal of firepower to chose from.

[Someone With Mass]

ME3 will have mods (better than ME1's mods from the looks of it, since there will be scopes that you can actually use and laser sights for pistols and more), customization, progression (more so than ME1, since powers are unlocked through the level system) and there will even be a reason to sell stuff.