Can someone tell me what RPG elements ME1 actually had?
People say ME2 "stripped the RPGness" out of the Mass Effect series by turning it more in to a shooter, but whenever I try to think of the RPG elements lost my mind goes blank.
Well ME has classes, each with specific class skills. Your basic Warrior/Rogue/Mage is now Soldier/Tech/Psyc.
You went up levels and picked skills to be improved upon leveling.
You equiped your character the way you wanted, be it armor (or armor upgrades in ME2), or weapons (limited by class choice).
So what RPG elements were you missing exactly?
More in line with the OP, I also agree that DA2 is nothing like DAO. I did find many simularities between ME1 and ME2. In fact it's often hard to even tell a screenshot apart between the game. The changes from ME2 from ME1 were all fixes of ME1 problems IMO. ME1 inventory was terrible. The idea of turning things to jelly and then using that jelly to open locks was stupid. So I saw ME2 as a big improvement but the same game. DA2 from DAO seemed the opposite. DA2 removed everything that made DAO great, and then broke the changes they did make.
^
Pretty much everything she just said about ME1 and 2.
However, to stay back on topic, I completely detest the argument that "DA2 is superior to DAO if you aren't a simple-minded gamer who can't immerse yourself and role play as your Hawke."
Really? I get that people do want to go the extra mile and create stories, emotions, choices and reactions in their head, but just because you have an overactive imagination doesn't make the game you are playing any more real.
I can make up an AWESOME story about Pac-Man, where he is attempting to collect fruit for his starving family, but trying to usurp the stereotype of an over-eating culture... but it doesn't mean Pac-Man had a riveting story that most people are just too stupid to get.
I'm not trying to bash the Role-Play crowd. Its your thing and its how you enjoy games - cool.
But don't look down your nose at those of us who actually want to experience a story inside the game without having to make wild leaps of logic in our own head.
Ringo, I just want to say... I've seen your avatar around for a while and EVERYTIME it cracks me up.
Back on topic: I think the devs and project managers over at BW/EA have heard the outcry that was the release of DA2. And, from the good DLC I've seen coming out recently, they are looking to improve things.
People are saying "they are just going back to the exact same things Bioware has done in all their games, its so unoriginal." To which I say - SHUT IT! The formats Bioware has used in the past may be formulaic, but they make for awesome games.
classical music followed set formulas for centuries, where a theme was repeated throughout in predictable patterns. Yet the amount of diversity, originality and genius that was crafted in this tried and true formula endures to this day.
So Bioware has found a formula that works... big deal! The less time they have to devote to trying to devise a new method of storytelling, such as the framed reference in DA2 that received less then desirable responses, the more time they can spend on things like... oh, I don't know... plot, choice, character development, level design... those LITTLE things that you need to tell a good story.
So Bioware... if you're reading this... don't listen to those who are saying going back to the style you made games before makes you stale. If anything, it allows you to work in an environment that has proven in the past to be effective at telling great stories.
/rant
Sorry, I'm usually not the ranting type. I'm having an off day.
Think of it as an expansion. We kind of got used to disappointing DLC for Origins, so this mentality helps. I'll write the IP off if the next game is as mediocre as this one. That's as far as nostalgia can go, I think.
Can someone tell me what RPG elements ME1 actually had?
People say ME2 "stripped the RPGness" out of the Mass Effect series by turning it more in to a shooter, but whenever I try to think of the RPG elements lost my mind goes blank.
Well ME has classes, each with specific class skills. Your basic Warrior/Rogue/Mage is now Soldier/Tech/Psyc.
You went up levels and picked skills to be improved upon leveling.
You equiped your character the way you wanted, be it armor (or armor upgrades in ME2), or weapons (limited by class choice).
So what RPG elements were you missing exactly?
More in line with the OP, I also agree that DA2 is nothing like DAO. I did find many simularities between ME1 and ME2. In fact it's often hard to even tell a screenshot apart between the game. The changes from ME2 from ME1 were all fixes of ME1 problems IMO. ME1 inventory was terrible. The idea of turning things to jelly and then using that jelly to open locks was stupid. So I saw ME2 as a big improvement but the same game. DA2 from DAO seemed the opposite. DA2 removed everything that made DAO great, and then broke the changes they did make.
Well the thing is I thought of all those things you mentioned, but they apply to both ME1 and ME2 so I don't see how ME2 apparently stripped down the RPG elements from ME1.
But yeah, the transition from ME1 > ME2 was a good one (mind you I do miss the massive Citadel and the, well massive maps full stop actually though I'm sure if we had maps on ME2's missions I bet they'd be of a similar size) and that's the kind of evolution I enjoy; gameplay a bit awkward? Improve cover mechanics, sound quality, add new weaponry etc. etc.
That's good. But what we got in DA2 was just ... bleh. Let's remove the armour penetration stat. Lets remove the strenght modifier stat. Lets remove the inherent critical chance percentage in weapons. Let's make combat more "exciting" by throwing wave after wave of paratroopers and introducing over the top animations. Did ME2 have to make over the top animations for anything? Hell no. It's helluva lot more realistic than DA2, just much, much more cinematic, so while maintaining that level of believability it is still able to create extraordinary cinematics (also, DA has a tiny animation library, pls rectify that Bioware) and combat that is fast-paced, fun and exciting.
I have this funny image in my head that if the animators for DA got their hands on ME they'd end up making it so whenever Shepard reloaded a gun he'd twirl it first, and when he fires his AR he just starts waving it around as he does so
Morroian wrote... This sort of comment tells me that you really didn't try or were simply unable to be immersed, there is plenty of role playing through dialogue choices and choices Hawke makes regarding companions and other NPCs.
You have to like the game enough to want to spend that much effort.
If you'd actually done your research you would know they have acknowledged this and fixed the encounter design to a large extent in Legacy.
It's still a valid question as to how they ever let the base game out the door.
Wrong, ME2 is to ME1 as DA2 is to DAO, in fact I'd argue that ME2 is a greater departure because it has almost no role playing elements unlike DA2. People give it a pass because they don't really regard it as an rpg. If you give ME2 a pass but not DA2 then you're not applying the same standard to them.
I always approached ME as a slow shooter, so I agree with this, although ME2 was by every measure a more polished and excitingly cinematic game.
I have this funny image in my head that if the animators for DA got their hands on ME they'd end up making it so whenever Shepard reloaded a gun he'd twirl it first, and when he fires his AR he just starts waving it around as he does so
While that does make for a funny mental image, I hope BW doesn't see that and get any ideas!
I have this funny image in my head that if the animators for DA got their hands on ME they'd end up making it so whenever Shepard reloaded a gun he'd twirl it first, and when he fires his AR he just starts waving it around as he does so
While that does make for a funny mental image, I hope BW doesn't see that and get any ideas!
Is it wrong that I want my Shepard to twirl his pistols now?
I do draw the line at holding them sideways to fire them though.
It doesnt mean it's bad for the audience that likes this sort of thing, but it's bad for the audience that liked the genre DA:O was.
Mass Effect 1 and 2 were essentialy the same game. I very much liked them both, with all their shortcomings, whatever they were. DA:O and DA2 are not the same game.
I cant even say if DA2 is like the ME series, because I actually liked the ME series and will preorder the 3rd installement. DA3 ? Definately not if it's anything like DA2.
Funny, because people on the Mass Effect boards have the exact same criticism of ME2 that you have for DA2, saying it's as different as can be - not even the same genre as the prior game, is dumbed down, etc.
I think that there's a big difference in quality, and a slight change in genre - it doesn't play like the kind of tactical party-based RPG I like to play, anyway - I think it shares much more with Mass Effect than Dragon Age or any other game of its ilk - but without the rather exhaustive attention that has clearly been lavished on those games.
LeBurns wrote...
alex90c wrote...
Can someone tell me what RPG elements ME1 actually had?
People say ME2 "stripped the RPGness" out of the Mass Effect series by turning it more in to a shooter, but whenever I try to think of the RPG elements lost my mind goes blank.
Well ME has classes, each with specific class skills. Your basic Warrior/Rogue/Mage is now Soldier/Tech/Psyc.
You went up levels and picked skills to be improved upon leveling.
You equiped your character the way you wanted, be it armor (or armor upgrades in ME2), or weapons (limited by class choice).
So what RPG elements were you missing exactly?
I absolutely agree that the Mass Effect series have RPG elements (I wouldn't give you 2 figs for the gameplay, but only because they just aren't the kind of game I enjoy playing - the Mass Effect games do seem to each be a labour of love in a way DA2 doesn't at all).
However, if you read back, I think alex90c is really looking for a list of RPG elements in Mass Effect that had been stripped out for ME2, more than just any RPG elements in either game. I could be wrong, it's a little ambiguous.
Yrkoon wrote...
Cyne wrote...
It's not so bad. if you give it a chance and let go of any lingering nostalgia regarding DA1, it can be pretty fun. The combat is much improved.
I approached my second playthrough of DA2 with this mindset. I flat out convinced myself to let go of my DA:O-conceived notions and just let DA2 drive me where it wants to go.
That *DID* help, believe it or not., as I started noticing a few really good things about the game. But at the same time, it was by doing that, that I also began noticing how god-awful and one-dimensional the combat was.
I agree - For my part, I found that the more I put DA:O out of my mind, the more I realised was "projecting" tactical combat onto it, when in fact, the game just had none at all. It was another kind of combat gameplay, skinned to look like Dragon Age.
As I've said before, it struck me as very like ME combat in fact, with spells instead of guns, and zillions of flashy animations added to rifle-slaps.
Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 05 octobre 2011 - 06:07 .
This sort of comment tells me that you really didn't try or were simply unable to be immersed, there is plenty of role playing through dialogue choices and choices Hawke makes regarding companions and other NPCs.
Why is it the fault of the OP if he didn't "try" to be immersed?
I'm not saying it necessarily is if thats the problem, hence why I said " or were simply unable to be immersed", sometimes games and player simply do not click.
Joy Divison wrote...
Why does the OP have to do research on a DLC he doesn't own, didn't play, and doesn;t want to comment on it?
Cause he said: "Honestly, I really hope your developers are spending all the time with Star Wars, cause if that's the best the can come up with..." Without acknowledging that they are aware of it and indeed have improved it in DLC and therefore can come up with better.
Joy Divison wrote...
How is an opinion of a game wrong? Why can't he like ME2 and be disappointed in DA2?
Saying "Mass Effect 1 and 2 were essentialy the same game" is wrong
Fast Jimmy wrote...
However, to stay back on topic, I completely detest the argument that "DA2 is superior to DAO if you aren't a simple-minded gamer who can't immerse yourself and role play as your Hawke."
Good thing no-one has actually said that in this thread then.
It's funny, After replaying DA:O, I am thoroughly dissappointed with it. Crappy game mechanics and boring, dragging quests [Redcliffe, The Fade, The Brecilian Forest before the Ruins, the Deep Roads before Bownammar where it picked up] around an awesome story.
I recently replayed Origins to create a new save for DA2 (and because after 7 plays, it's still awesome), and while it took some getting used to the slower pace, I still found the story and characters of Origins much more appealing.
That said, I don't think that DA2 is a bad game in-and-of itself, it just doesn't compare all that favourably to earlier Bioware games. If DA2 didn't have the DA name, I think we would not judge it as harshly as many people do
However, to stay back on topic, I completely detest the argument that "DA2 is superior to DAO if you aren't a simple-minded gamer who can't immerse yourself and role play as your Hawke."
Good thing no-one has actually said that in this thread then.
I'm glad no one has. Because anyone's argument about the ability to role play for immersion as grounds on whether or not a game can be enjoyed has absolutely zero merit.
The thing is I have not really seen this before on a Bioware forum where most people agreed that they "dumbed down" the game and most of all saying it has a boring story. Bioware is known for story in games and if they decide to let that slide, well they may as well start nailing their own...well you get the idea.
So really, they need to take notice of threads like this one and remember what got them to where they are now and not give in to deadlines, etc, and produce less of a game then they are capable of. It looks to me like in the case of DA2 and ME2, Bioware seems to have done just that, achieved less then they are capable of and that is a real shame.
Modifié par Vansen Elamber, 06 octobre 2011 - 01:42 .
It took me awhile but i have to side with the detractors of DA2. DA3 needs to be like Origins with updated graphics a new story and characters. They have stated that DA3 will be more like Origins than DA2 was. So that's something at least. I still think DA2 is a fun game but i don't want a DA2.5
I'm not saying it necessarily is if thats the problem, hence why I said " or were simply unable to be immersed", sometimes games and player simply do not click.
If the game does not "click" with the player, that is why said player is expressing their discontent in the form of feedback. You are implying the problem is with the OP, not the game.
Cause he said: "Honestly, I really hope your developers are spending all the time with Star Wars, cause if that's the best the can come up with..." Without acknowledging that they are aware of it and indeed have improved it in DLC and therefore can come up with better.
But DA2 was the best they could come up with. You seem fascinated with the idea that the DLC is an intrinsic part of the actual game. It's not. Perhaps the day Bioware gives all us suckers who pre-ordered DA2 this DLC for free to SHOW us they can come up with better it will be.
Saying "Mass Effect 1 and 2 were essentialy the same game" is wrong
Well, yeah, but your point was: "If you give ME2 a pass but not DA2 then you're not applying the same standard to them." Which is nonsense. Why can someone not like ME2 a lot more than DA2? Why must someone subject them to the same standard. It is precisely because DA:O set the bar so high which prompted so much of the negative feedback. Is this fair? Too bad, that's the way the world works. Mom is happy when her C kid gets a B, but mad when the A kid gets a B. As it should be.
But DA2 was the best they could come up with. You seem fascinated with the idea that the DLC is an intrinsic part of the actual game. It's not. Perhaps the day Bioware gives all us suckers who pre-ordered DA2 this DLC for free to SHOW us they can come up with better it will be.
The counterpoint here is that many of the comments and critiques of Dragon Age II were taken into account when making products after Dragon Age II was released. The Legacy and Mark of the Assassin DLC products both show some of the steps we have taken in addressing some player complaints. No, it is not part of the Dragon Age II main game--as that would be impossible unless we had some kinda time machine--but it does indicate change over time. It would be unreasonable, in my opinion, to expect the core game to be 100% perfect before "allowing" us to move on to new products which allow us more opportunity to address core issues.
EDIT: If you want to stamp your feet and cross your arms to say "I won't believe BioWare is listening and changing based our comments unless I see it in the base game," that's your prerogative, i guess. but that's just a tad unreasonable, don't you think? If you don't believe I can juggle 182 babies named Lorenzo, and I tell you I performed my 182 Lorenzo-juggling act live on Letterman, it's a little unfair to say "nope, you're not doing it in front of. That means you can't or won't do it and I'm right."
P.S. I have never claimed I can juggle 182 babies all named Lorenzo. At least one of them has to be named Filbert.
Modifié par Stanley Woo, 06 octobre 2011 - 02:57 .
But DA2 was the best they could come up with. You seem fascinated with the idea that the DLC is an intrinsic part of the actual game. It's not. Perhaps the day Bioware gives all us suckers who pre-ordered DA2 this DLC for free to SHOW us they can come up with better it will be.
The counterpoint here is that many of the comments and critiques of Dragon Age II were taken into account when making products after Dragon Age II was released. The Legacy and Mark of the Assassin DLC products both show some of the steps we have taken in addressing some player complaints. No, it is not part of the Dragon Age II main game--as that would be impossible unless we had some kinda time machine--but it does indicate change over time. It would be unreasonable, in my opinion, to expect the core game to be 100% perfect before "allowing" us to move on to new products which allow us more opportunity to address core issues.
EDIT: If you want to stamp your feet and cross your arms to say "I won't believe BioWare is listening and changing based our comments unless I see it in the base game," that's your prerogative, i guess. but that's just a tad unreasonable, don't you think? If you don't believe I can juggle 182 babies named Lorenzo, and I tell you I performed my 182 Lorenzo-juggling act live on Letterman, it's a little unfair to say "nope, you're not doing it in front of. That means you can't or won't do it and I'm right."
P.S. I have never claimed I can juggle 182 babies all named Lorenzo. At least one of them has to be named Filbert.
I have one point i'd like to make off topic The new KOTOR, MMO'S are the bane of mankind i don't play them my friends don't play them . My friends and i don't play RPG's together we play Madden and games like that. RPG's for me are a solo game so in my opinion the new Kotor was a total waste. Still waiting for a new Kotor RPG for my 360, thank you.
Modifié par The Executioner, 06 octobre 2011 - 03:14 .
I have one point i'd like to make off topic The new KOTOR MMO are the bane of mankind i don't play them my friends don;t play them . My friends and i don't play RPG's together we play Madden and games like that. RPG's for me are a solo game so in my opinion the new Kotor was a total waste. Still waiting for a new Kotor RPG for my 360 thank you.
Another off topic, I've always felt that many of EA's sports games are the most ninja worthy Action RPGs with their "career" modes.
If you open your mind and think of pure game mechanics, they are merely Sports-Themed Action RPG campaigns, good ones in fact.
Create a character using plethora of statistics and variables, catering to a variety of builds and "classes" (team positions). In depth cosmetic customisation which actually matters from a gameplay perspective. The matches themselves and all characters/players adhere to a universal ruleset with their statistics heavily influencing what they can do/how well they can do it. Because of that, it's both heavily randomised and balanced enough to provide for unique experiences and to allow the team with higher stats the victory (on higher difficulty levels). There's elements of character progression, even item and equipment customisation. There's choice/consequence depending on your performance in the matches, resulting in more pay, power ups and drafting to better teams if you do well, and the opposite if you don't. Most games have seasons which don't play out exactly the same which results in totally different opponents in the endgame, meaning that the campaign's direction is dictated by stat-influenced randomisation as well as your own performance.
It's why I've always felt weird when people keep claiming that RPGs are being "dumbed down" to the level of sports games or when people talk about numbers and stats as if they are a scary thing to be hidden because it's too complicated. Because sports games aren't always that "dumb" nor are stats & numbers that "scary". RPGs don't require geniuses to play and you can create very statistics heavy systems without creating significant and/or opaque bloat. There are times I think that there isn't much difference between sport games and RPGs in complexity, or that sports games are already better in areas such as character creation.
Not too shabby for "just" a sports game.
Stanley Woo wrote...
The counterpoint here is that many of the comments and critiques of Dragon Age II were taken into account when making products after Dragon Age II was released. The Legacy and Mark of the Assassin DLC products both show some of the steps we have taken in addressing some player complaints. No, it is not part of the Dragon Age II main game--as that would be impossible unless we had some kinda time machine--but it does indicate change over time. It would be unreasonable, in my opinion, to expect the core game to be 100% perfect before "allowing" us to move on to new products which allow us more opportunity to address core issues.
EDIT: If you want to stamp your feet and cross your arms to say "I won't believe BioWare is listening and changing based our comments unless I see it in the base game," that's your prerogative, i guess. but that's just a tad unreasonable, don't you think? If you don't believe I can juggle 182 babies named Lorenzo, and I tell you I performed my 182 Lorenzo-juggling act live on Letterman, it's a little unfair to say "nope, you're not doing it in front of. That means you can't or won't do it and I'm right."
P.S. I have never claimed I can juggle 182 babies all named Lorenzo. At least one of them has to be named Filbert.
The thing is that the DLC aren't free. While people always want free stuff and giving away DLC for free doesn't work for RPGs unless you're Polish, BioWare is asking for a leap of faith, regardless of how small. It can easily be argued that despite the discouraging lead-in marketing to Dragon Age 2 (button=awesome, the demo, etc), people took that leap of faith anyway and bought the game because of their belief that BioWare would deliver a game that they would enjoy. They (at least some), didn't and that belief in BioWare's ability to make games they like, is lost.
It would then be difficult to turn around and say, "here's a $10 DLC attachment to a game you don't like. It lasts for 2-5 hours and it addresses many of the issues you had with the original, well, it at least addresses some". Purchase of a DLC is heavily dependant on one's feelings on the base game and a level of faith in the developer's ability to create a good addition for that game.
For example, would it be reasonable to purchase Fallout 3 just because of the Broken Steel DLC when they were still at (or close to) full price if you believed that F3 was a slap in the face to the originals? In the same vein, it's not always an accurate indication of future products.
So while BioWare may be working on such areas and it's not fair to expect them to overhaul the main game, you can't expect people who disliked many aspects of the base game to turn around and pickup DLCs or even expansions and look to them as proof that BioWare will do the same things in developing Dragon Age 3. Because something like encounter design (something worked on in Legacy) or puzzles could be the least of a person's issues with Dragon Age 2.
I think in this case, it'll take a miracle expansion (not DLC) to sway people back for Dragon Age 2. Otherwise, we'll just have to wait and see what you guys dish up for Dragon Age 3.
Besides, if expansions and DLCs were an indication of quality in future products, Obsidian would be the undisputed master of RPGs.
Mask of the Betrayer, Dead Money, Old World Blues, possibly Lonesome Road when I get a chance to buy it, even Storm of Zehir for it's gameplay.
I think you missed my point entirely. Go back and read it my point was targeted at MMO's not single player RPG'S or sports games. I love single player RPG's .
Bioware is charging me $10 to see this change over time. I already spent $60 to see their "improvements" over DA:O.
If Bioware is so confident that the DLC is such a step up in improvement over the base game, then they should give it out as a promotion to people who were disappointed over DA2. If their confidence is warranted, I'd actually buy the future DLC and would restore my confidence about DA3.
I would have never bothered with Mass Effect. But they offered the game as a promotion, I played it and liked it enough that I'll probably get ME3.
I think you missed my point entirely. Go back and read it my point was targeted at MMO's not single player RPG'S or sports games. I love single player RPG's .
I know what you said, I just took your point about sports games and single player RPGs and then posted my own thing. In that the two types of games really aren't that different, despite the implication that Madden is a different kind of game.
But BioWare's been working on TOR since like 2005? So, they aren't just going to dump it after all that work. I'd hazard a guess and say that's the single biggest reason why EA paid $700 million for Elevated Partners in the first place. EA is positioning it as a WoW-killer. No matter how you look at it, without TOR, BioWare is not worth anything near $700mil.
I'd personally like an Obsidian KotOR game over a BioWare one. Playing KotOR 2 again with the Restored Content Mod this time really surprised me. More than anything though, I'd love to see a Jedi Knight-esque Action RPG from Obsidian, not a KotOR styled game. In any case, such matters are up to LucasArts, not BioWare.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
