597 réponses à ce sujet

[shepskisaac]

kalle90 wrote...

DA2 sold tons with the hype but I doubt DA3 will sell as much at launch because players are more wary.

DA2 didn't sell "tons". Initial sales were very good thanks to hype, pre-orders and success of Origins. But once awful word-of-mouth got out, DA2 pretty much stopped selling, it has no legs and will never come even close to what DAO sold. You're right though about DA3 sales. Will be much worse during the debut because of DA2. But if it gets great reviews, then it will convince people to give the series another try.

[Shepard the Leper]

Gatt9 wrote...

Are you aware that your checklist there pretty much ends up describing Adventure Game mechanics through it's elimination of RPG mechanics?

In an adventure game you create a character at the begining and have no progression of skills other than unlocking stronger abilities at specific points.

Equally important,  before you start making the claim of "Illusion of progression",  you need to deal with the whole concept of improving from learning from experiences,  which is the whole reason why the word for leveling progression is "Experience".  I've gotta level with you though,  you're not going to succeed,  the concept does exactly what it's meant to do and does it well.

So you're saying a leveling system which only purpose is to force the player to spend a lot of time in those screens with no real benefit but to keep doing what they were doing before is somehow the pinnacle of RPG-gaming?

When I start a game with ****** poor powers and equipment; and to kill an enemy I have to use my (****** poor) weapons/powers X times. And when I'm close to finishing the game, have evolved all my powers and carry epic equipment it still takes X times to kill an enemy - nothing has changed at all. All progression has been completely pointless since my character cannot do anything (s)he couldn't at the beginning. That's a waste of time and effort.

RPG gaming / gameplay for me is about choosing a character with different strengths and weaknesses and to learn how best to use all available means. When I select a Rogue/Thief/Infiltrator character, I like to play like a Rogue/Thief/Infiltrator. Having to wait for half the game before becoming capable to do the stuff those characters are supposed to do is ridiculous and has absolutely nothing to do with RPGs. You gain more experience by using your abilities because you learn how best to use them. Blocking access to abilities only reduces gameplay options for a long period which defeats the purpose of RPG completely. A Thief who isn't able to steal anything before reaching / unlocking level Y isn't a Thief at all (up to that point).

Um,  I respectfully suggest you might want to reconsider that position.  As I've said before....

-You kill a YMIR at level 2 with starter weapons in the first real mission.
-The YMIR is what you'll be fighting at level 30 as the end boss to missions
-Which means that all of the weaponry and levels in ME2 are completely unneccessary,  since you could already kill the hardest critter in the game without them.

Every item in ME2 is redundant.

The YMIR you face at level 2 has only a fraction of the HP they have at level 30. There isn't much difference between taking down a YMIR at level 2 or 30. The YMIR has become stronger / tougher and so has Shepard.

A better system would give the player access to (almost) all gameplay options right from the start and gradually increase the difficulty by throwing more and more powerful enemies at the player. That forces the player to adapt, to make the most out of his/her abilities, to figure out new tactics and strategies etc etc. That's about actual gameplay - not pointless stat-screens. Unfortunately, most so-called RPG games are about grinding and collecting items for most parts of the game, instead of actually mastering a specific style of gameplay. That sucks.

Items are not redundant in ME2. The Adept is relatively weak in the beginning of ME2 coz their powers and weapons suck. Things change dramatically after you've researched the CD reduction upgrade, have a couple fully evolved powers and a nice (bonus) weapon at hand. The relatively weak Adept becomes one of the most deadly fighters in the ME universe.

But I dare you to try and finish ME with nothing but starter weapons and armor.

What does this have to do with RPG elements? You can say the same thing about Duke Nukem. Try to beat the game with your starting pistol only - good luck.

P.S. You can easily finish both ME games with you starter weapons and armor only. In ME1 weapons and armor are irrelevant. They only speed up the killing process. Instead of one cycle of using one or two abilities followed by 30 seconds of shooting. You will need multiple cycles. Harmless enemies remain harmless regardless what weapons you're carrying.

In ME2 most classes start with everything they need. You can easily complete the game (on Insanity) with only the powers and weapons you receive at the beginning. There are, in fact, a couple classes in ME2 that become weaker over time. A level 5-10 Soldier will kill a lot faster than a level 25-30 Soldier

[someguy1231]

We need to keep in mind that we here at BSN are a very tiny minority of the game's buyers as a whole. I'd be surprised if the entire forum population of regular posters reached even 1% of ME's total number of buyers. I remember when ME2 came out these forums were practically flooded with complaints and disappointments about it. One would have the impression that the game was a massive letdown. Yet a visit to Metacritic or any video game user review site outside of BSN would quickly tell you otherwise. Visiting other forums dedicated to ME can be like visiting another planet sometimes.

Also, ever hear the phrase "Birds of a feather flock together"? It means people tend to associate with people with similar tastes and views as their own. It can also give them a false impression that they're far more numerous than they actually are. This is especially the case on the internet.

As for this thread's original question, I highly doubt the addition of MP will cost them so many fans. Frankly, if some people are really so butthurt (there's that word again) over the mere existence of MP even if it plays well and doesn't detract from the SP, then all I have to say to them is "Good Riddance!"

[BeefoTheBold]

No Snakes Alive wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...

No Snakes Alive wrote...

Dear whiners,

-snip-

Haters gonna hate, I guess, right?

Your a self-labeled hater aparrently.  Anyway the topic is about Bioware's decline.  Or how I like to say, Complete absorbtion into EA.

Lol the decline? Even though, of their first two Mass Effect games, the second was CLEARLY superior? And even though there's no indication whatsoever that they aren't continuing to attempt to progress the series in ways that makes sense with their third game? You sure this thread isn't about your "waaaahhhh mp is for casual cod newbs bioware is EA's slave for even considering it waaaahhhh" elitist attitudes?

Sure seems that way to me! I mean you're talking about the decline of s company that's bigger than ever and whose most recent game in this series is widely considered to be one of the best games of this generation. Herp derp.

Faulty premise. 

The second one had clearly superior shooter mechanics, it was clearly INFERIOR as an overall game from a storyline and character development perspective, despite not having to create the entire universe like the first one did.

Better selling game does not equate to better quality game. Last I checked The Sims was one of the best selling games of all time.

[BeefoTheBold]

someguy1231 wrote...

We need to keep in mind that we here at BSN are a very tiny minority of the game's buyers as a whole. I'd be surprised if the entire forum population of regular posters reached even 1% of ME's total number of buyers. I remember when ME2 came out these forums were practically flooded with complaints and disappointments about it. One would have the impression that the game was a massive letdown. Yet a visit to Metacritic or any video game user review site outside of BSN would quickly tell you otherwise. Visiting other forums dedicated to ME can be like visiting another planet sometimes.

Also, ever hear the phrase "Birds of a feather flock together"? It means people tend to associate with people with similar tastes and views as their own. It can also give them a false impression that they're far more numerous than they actually are. This is especially the case on the internet.

As for this thread's original question, I highly doubt the addition of MP will cost them so many fans. Frankly, if some people are really so butthurt (there's that word again) over the mere existence of MP even if it plays well and doesn't detract from the SP, then all I have to say to them is "Good Riddance!"

Another faulty premise.

You're assuming it doesn't detract from the SP and that Bioware wouldn't miss those fans even if they are "butthurt". I get the impression Bioware WANTS to keep both the shooter/COD gamers and their original core group. You see this in things like Casey Hudson's twitter claiming that coop won't be what people are "afraid" of.

You see this in Peter Moore's presentation about "popular demand" driving their decisions and how it doesn't necessarily have to mean that they can't appease both core and casual gamers.

Basically, Bioware is WELL aware of how polarizing their new strategy/change of direction has been and just how much they've annoyed those "butthurt" gamers that BUILT THEM TO WHERE THEY ARE TODAY IN THE FIRST PLACE. And it does bother them, just, apparently, not enough for them to actually change prioritizing the COD gamers.

Look, we already know that the inclusion of multiplayer will impact SP. How do we know? Galactic readiness. The amount of stuff you need to do to get the optimum ending just got artificially increased because if you aren't doing the MP segment you are FORCED to do more of the SP segment if you want to get the best ending. You've now indirectly made either doing the MP or doing more side quests in the SP mandatory.

[Melchiah109]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Faulty premise. 

The second one had clearly superior shooter mechanics, it was clearly INFERIOR as an overall game from a storyline and character development perspective, despite not having to create the entire universe like the first one did.

Better selling game does not equate to better quality game. Last I checked The Sims was one of the best selling games of all time.

Well if consumers would stop showing that mediocrity sells well, the industry quality would probably go back up.

Anyone else remember a time when you could get a game that worked, as advertised, just by putting the disc in your drive? Now it's "Let's release a half-finished product, with the promise to fix it later, and it'll still sell 2 million copies." or just rehashing the same game every year and getting GOTY because of the rabid fanbase that considers it an amazing game.

[BeefoTheBold]

[quote]Melchiah109 wrote...

[quote]BeefoTheBold wrote...

Faulty premise. 

The second one had clearly superior shooter mechanics, it was clearly INFERIOR as an overall game from a storyline and character development perspective, despite not having to create the entire universe like the first one did.

Better selling game does not equate to better quality game. Last I checked The Sims was one of the best selling games of all time.

[/quote]

Well if consumers would stop showing that mediocrity sells well, the industry quality would probably go back up.

Anyone else remember a time when you could get a game that worked, as advertised, just by putting the disc in your drive? Now it's "Let's release a half-finished product, with the promise to fix it later, and it'll still sell 2 million copies." or just rehashing the same game every year and getting GOTY because of the rabid fanbase that considers it an amazing game.


To be fair, Mass Effect 2 WAS a very good game overall. It bugged a few people because it was much more of a shooter and much less of an RPG than Mass Effect 1, but it's not like it was a bad game. I thoroughly enjoyed it. It just wasn't what a lot of people wanted.

They wanted MORE RPG and not less. Bioware did listen. You can see that with their promises to build in increased player choice, more consequences, deeper branching skill sets, etc. Just like they have promised to scale back some of the complete crappage that they tried in Dragon Age 2.

I don't think they don't care completely about their RPG fans. I just think that if they have to choose between them, they'll pick shooter fans over RPG fans every time. They may feel a bit guilty and want to avoid alienating core RPG fans that built them to where they are today, but they don't feel THAT guilty to the extent that they'll pick us over their new target market if they have to choose.

I may hate that, but that's where Bioware is right now in their corporate strategy.

[shepskisaac]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Faulty premise. 

The second one had clearly superior shooter mechanics, it was clearly INFERIOR as an overall game from a storyline and character development perspective, despite not having to create the entire universe like the first one did.

Better selling game does not equate to better quality game. Last I checked The Sims was one of the best selling games of all time.

Story-wise ME2 aimed at something completly different than ME1. The characters were the story. I get that someone may not have like character stories anyway, but I would question if ME1 was better overall in this departement. The writing was superior in many areas in ME2.

As for The Sims, the fact it's a sim game and tons of casual play doesn't make it a 'lesser/inferior' game than any other. In its league & genre, Sims is an amazing game. Just like Angry Birds is a great game in its own spectrum. Sure sales don't equal quality, but the Sims do deserves great sales.

[BeefoTheBold]

Melchiah109 wrote...


Well if consumers would stop showing that mediocrity sells well, the industry quality would probably go back up.

Anyone else remember a time when you could get a game that worked, as advertised, just by putting the disc in your drive? Now it's "Let's release a half-finished product, with the promise to fix it later, and it'll still sell 2 million copies." or just rehashing the same game every year and getting GOTY because of the rabid fanbase that considers it an amazing game.

To be fair, Mass Effect 2 WAS a very good game overall. It bugged a few people because it was much more of a shooter and much less of an RPG than Mass Effect 1, but it's not like it was a bad game. I thoroughly enjoyed it. It just wasn't what a lot of people wanted.

They wanted MORE RPG and not less. Bioware did listen. You can see that with their promises to build in increased player choice, more consequences, deeper branching skill sets, etc. Just like they have promised to scale back some of the complete crappage that they tried in Dragon Age 2.

I don't think they don't care completely about their RPG fans. I just think that if they have to choose between them, they'll pick shooter fans over RPG fans every time. They may feel a bit guilty and want to avoid alienating core RPG fans that built them to where they are today, but they don't feel THAT guilty to the extent that they'll pick us over their new target market if they have to choose.

I may hate that, but that's where Bioware is right now in their corporate strategy.

Modifié par BeefoTheBold, 15 octobre 2011 - 05:51 .

[Phaedon]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Faulty premise.

The second one had clearly superior shooter mechanics, it was clearly INFERIOR as an overall game from a storyline and character development perspective, despite not having to create the entire universe like the first one did.

Better selling game does not equate to better quality game. Last I checked The Sims was one of the best selling games of all time.

"Clearly" is a very interesting word to use, seeing as ME2 was received better from critics and the market.

Besides, ME1 has more clumsily done plot devices than the "Clumsily Done Plot Device" Factory Co.

Gameplay-wise? I wouldn't give the "game" a 6. The fact that it is made up of seven main missions and then horribly generic sidemissions is enough, even if we don't get to look into the mechanics.

Character development? I am surprised you think that some specific characters in ME1 had a personality to develop.

Modifié par Phaedon, 15 octobre 2011 - 05:57 .

[JeffZero]

IsaacShep wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Faulty premise. 

The second one had clearly superior shooter mechanics, it was clearly INFERIOR as an overall game from a storyline and character development perspective, despite not having to create the entire universe like the first one did.

Better selling game does not equate to better quality game. Last I checked The Sims was one of the best selling games of all time.

Story-wise ME2 aimed at something completly different than ME1. The characters were the story. I get that someone may not have like character stories anyway, but I would question if ME1 was better overall in this departement. The writing was superior in many areas in ME2.

I will second this. I play these two games frequently (no surprise there) and every time I try a little bit more to get into the minds of those who feel like the actual writing itself is stronger in ME1. With few exceptions sprinkled throughout, I just never see it.

Whether or not someone likes the "more personal" approach to ME2 -- and yes, I just used a BioWare buzz term for the game while it was still in development as it's actually true -- well, that's on them. If ME2 were the finale I'd like its approach a lot less but as a middle entry I think it's fantastic.

[BeefoTheBold]

IsaacShep wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Faulty premise. 

The second one had clearly superior shooter mechanics, it was clearly INFERIOR as an overall game from a storyline and character development perspective, despite not having to create the entire universe like the first one did.

Better selling game does not equate to better quality game. Last I checked The Sims was one of the best selling games of all time.

Story-wise ME2 aimed at something completly different than ME1. The characters were the story. I get that someone may not have like character stories anyway, but I would question if ME1 was better overall in this departement. The writing was superior in many areas in ME2.

As for The Sims, the fact it's a sim game and tons of casual play doesn't make it a 'lesser/inferior' game than any other. In its league & genre, Sims is an amazing game. Just like Angry Birds is a great game in its own spectrum. Sure sales don't equal quality, but the Sims do deserves great sales.

Why it's an inferior story is because of a few factors:

1. It doesn't really do much to advance the story from ME1. You're basically in the exact same spot at the end of ME2 as you are in ME1. The Reapers are coming and you have to stop them.

2. The character dialog trees are not particularly deep. It's basically a game of side quests. The entire purpose is to recruit people and then do essentially loyalty missions and two main quests. (Boarding the Collector Vessel and going through the Mass Relay)

This is a story that lacks a whole bunch of focus and just jumps around haphazardly and wherever. The bad pacing and writing doesn't stand out as much because the universe created in the first game is so very interesting.

3. There's not a lot of character choices here.

You ARE working for Cerberus. Period. End of discussion. No option to ditch them and go back to work with the Human Alliance fleet. No options to do pretty much anything. Remind you of Dragon Age 2 at all?

Now, like I said, Mass Effect 2 balanced some of these shortcomings out by it's good qualities. Better visually, tighter gameplay, improved side quests, etc.

But it was, without a doubt, inferior to ME1 from a storyline perspective.

With regards to other game genres, a game can be a decent representative of it's genre and still be a pretty lousy game in my opinion. Farmville is, I'm sure, a decent enough representative of it's genre even if I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.

And this is what bothers some of Bioware's current gamers. They want a particular genre and they feel a completely different one is slowly but surely encroaching further and further and eating up more and more of the genre that THEY want Bioware to produce. To them, it doesn't matter if Bioware's slow shift eventually results in a VERY GOOD game of the new genre type. They don't like the other genre.

Obviously there are degrees with this. It's not like Mass Effect 3 is turning into The Sims overnight. But the fans who don't like Bioware's new direction feel:

1. They've already shifted their RPGs too much in the wrong direction and
2. They seem to be shifting them further and further in that same wrong direction

Basically, they dislike, as an example, the inclusion of coop not just because of it's impact on ME3, but also because they fear the slippery slope that things like coop and kinect are going to have a deeper and deeper impact on future games that Bioware comes out with.

It's like when you know a relationship is slowly failing and you're trying as hard as you can to salvage it but can still feel it gradually slipping away.

[Shepard the Leper]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

To be fair, Mass Effect 2 WAS a very good game overall. It bugged a few people because it was much more of a shooter and much less of an RPG than Mass Effect 1, but it's not like it was a bad game. I thoroughly enjoyed it. It just wasn't what a lot of people wanted.

May I ask why you play games?

I play games to entertain myself. I want to have fun and enjoy the game. Whether some lunatic calls it a RPG, a SHOOTER or whatever is completely irrelevant to me.

[hecksard]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Basically, Bioware is WELL aware of how polarizing their new strategy/change of direction has been and just how much they've annoyed those "butthurt" gamers that BUILT THEM TO WHERE THEY ARE TODAY IN THE FIRST PLACE. And it does bother them, just, apparently, not enough for them to actually change prioritizing the COD gamers.

The faulty premise here is clearly: the idea that Bioware is prioritizing those gamers rather than simply catering for them as well. 

Look, we already know that the inclusion of multiplayer will impact SP. How do we know? Galactic readiness. The amount of stuff you need to do to get the optimum ending just got artificially increased because if you aren't doing the MP segment you are FORCED to do more of the SP segment if you want to get the best ending. You've now indirectly made either doing the MP or doing more side quests in the SP mandatory.

And this is really chop logic.  To reduce to essentials: a certain number of SP missions are needed to get the 'best ending' (whatever this may mean). Let's assume that this is the baseline.  Now you can skip some of those if you wish by playing MP.  This can only be construed as 'forcing' anyone to complete 'extra' SP missions if you argue that baseline = (all SP missions) - ('extra' missions) or baseline = (all SP missions ) - (equivalent MP missions). There's no basis at all for such an assumption.

It also implies a reductio ad absurdum: that Bioware including fewer SP missions and no MP is a good thing for gamers compared with adding 'extra' missions alongside extra content in the entirely optional MP.

Modifié par hecksard, 15 octobre 2011 - 06:07 .

[GMagnum]

if u like da game, play it, if u dont, dont play it, fk what everyone else thinks
y is dis so hard to comprehend

[BeefoTheBold]

JeffZero wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Faulty premise. 

The second one had clearly superior shooter mechanics, it was clearly INFERIOR as an overall game from a storyline and character development perspective, despite not having to create the entire universe like the first one did.

Better selling game does not equate to better quality game. Last I checked The Sims was one of the best selling games of all time.

Story-wise ME2 aimed at something completly different than ME1. The characters were the story. I get that someone may not have like character stories anyway, but I would question if ME1 was better overall in this departement. The writing was superior in many areas in ME2.

I will second this. I play these two games frequently (no surprise there) and every time I try a little bit more to get into the minds of those who feel like the actual writing itself is stronger in ME1. With few exceptions sprinkled throughout, I just never see it.

Whether or not someone likes the "more personal" approach to ME2 -- and yes, I just used a BioWare buzz term for the game while it was still in development as it's actually true -- well, that's on them. If ME2 were the finale I'd like its approach a lot less but as a middle entry I think it's fantastic.

Let me put it this way. Here's the things that Shepard accomplishes in the first game.

1. He discovers Saren's guilt on Eden Prime
2. He proves it on the Citadel
3. He becomes the first human Spectre
4. He either completely kills off the Rachni or manages to bring them back from the brink of extinction
5. He finds out about indoctrination
6. He either saves or finishes off a human colony
7. He prevents the return of a Krogan army fully controlled by Saren
8. He discovers how the Reapers have done the galactic extermination thing EVERY TIME PREVIOUS by discovering the location of the conduit and then following Saren through it and preventing the beacon from being activated that would have instantly brought the entire Reaper invasion fleet in
9. He either saves or sacrifices the council
10. He kills Saren and prevents the first Reaper from destroying everyone and everything

I could go on. But you get the drift. All of these things are accomplished in the first game DESPITE needing the first game to introduce the entire setting and galaxy.

What happens in the second game?

Um...well...he builds a new team and, well, he makes them like him a whole lot. And I guess he rescues a few colonists and ends up in the exact same spot as before: The Reapers are coming, nobody believes him, and he still needs to stop them.

[Phaedon]

By the way, the core crowd BioWare has today was created by titles such as KOTOR, Mass Effect 1,2 or Dragon Age:Origins.

Seeing as BG was released in 1998 and the game had an M rating, the minimum age of what people naively consider a core fan, would be early 30s. It's ridiculous to even imply that you can survive by just catering to that crowd 15 years later.

Modifié par Phaedon, 15 octobre 2011 - 06:08 .

[BeefoTheBold]

hecksard wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Basically, Bioware is WELL aware of how polarizing their new strategy/change of direction has been and just how much they've annoyed those "butthurt" gamers that BUILT THEM TO WHERE THEY ARE TODAY IN THE FIRST PLACE. And it does bother them, just, apparently, not enough for them to actually change prioritizing the COD gamers.

The faulty premise here is clearly: the idea that Bioware is prioritizing those gamers rather than simply catering for them as well. 

Look, we already know that the inclusion of multiplayer will impact SP. How do we know? Galactic readiness. The amount of stuff you need to do to get the optimum ending just got artificially increased because if you aren't doing the MP segment you are FORCED to do more of the SP segment if you want to get the best ending. You've now indirectly made either doing the MP or doing more side quests in the SP mandatory.

And this is really chop logic.  To reduce to essentials: a certain number of SP missions are needed to get the 'best ending' (whatever this may mean). Let's assume that this is the baseline.  Now you can skip some of those if you wish by playing MP.  This can only be construed as 'forcing' anyone to complete 'extra' SP missions if you argue that baseline = (all SP missions) - ('extra' missions) or baseline = (all SP missions ) - (equivalent MP missions). There's no basis at all for such an assumption.

It also implies a reductio ad absurdum: that Bioware including fewer SP missions and no MP is a good thing for gamers compared with adding 'extra' missions alongside extra content in the entirely optional MP.

Not really. By adding in a "optional" MP that counts towards the single player ending that you get, it forces gamers to either play that MP or do more SP stuff to get the best ending.

HOW MUCH more is not really known at this point, which means HOW LARGE of an impact is not really known, but the very fact that the MP counts towards the SP ending means that it IS impacting the SP experience because gamers need to either play the MP to get those galactic readiness points or do an unknown amount of additional SP side stuff to get the GR points.

[WizenSlinky0]

Shepard the Leper wrote...
So you're saying a leveling system which only purpose is to force the player to spend a lot of time in those screens with no real benefit but to keep doing what they were doing before is somehow the pinnacle of RPG-gaming?

When I start a game with ****** poor powers and equipment; and to kill an enemy I have to use my (****** poor) weapons/powers X times. And when I'm close to finishing the game, have evolved all my powers and carry epic equipment it still takes X times to kill an enemy - nothing has changed at all. All progression has been completely pointless since my character cannot do anything (s)he couldn't at the beginning. That's a waste of time and effort.

RPG gaming / gameplay for me is about choosing a character with different strengths and weaknesses and to learn how best to use all available means. When I select a Rogue/Thief/Infiltrator character, I like to play like a Rogue/Thief/Infiltrator. Having to wait for half the game before becoming capable to do the stuff those characters are supposed to do is ridiculous and has absolutely nothing to do with RPGs. You gain more experience by using your abilities because you learn how best to use them. Blocking access to abilities only reduces gameplay options for a long period which defeats the purpose of RPG completely. A Thief who isn't able to steal anything before reaching / unlocking level Y isn't a Thief at all (up to that point).

The YMIR you face at level 2 has only a fraction of the HP they have at level 30. There isn't much difference between taking down a YMIR at level 2 or 30. The YMIR has become stronger / tougher and so has Shepard.

A better system would give the player access to (almost) all gameplay options right from the start and gradually increase the difficulty by throwing more and more powerful enemies at the player. That forces the player to adapt, to make the most out of his/her abilities, to figure out new tactics and strategies etc etc. That's about actual gameplay - not pointless stat-screens. Unfortunately, most so-called RPG games are about grinding and collecting items for most parts of the game, instead of actually mastering a specific style of gameplay. That sucks.

Items are not redundant in ME2. The Adept is relatively weak in the beginning of ME2 coz their powers and weapons suck. Things change dramatically after you've researched the CD reduction upgrade, have a couple fully evolved powers and a nice (bonus) weapon at hand. The relatively weak Adept becomes one of the most deadly fighters in the ME universe.

What does this have to do with RPG elements? You can say the same thing about Duke Nukem. Try to beat the game with your starting pistol only - good luck.

P.S. You can easily finish both ME games with you starter weapons and armor only. In ME1 weapons and armor are irrelevant. They only speed up the killing process. Instead of one cycle of using one or two abilities followed by 30 seconds of shooting. You will need multiple cycles. Harmless enemies remain harmless regardless what weapons you're carrying.

In ME2 most classes start with everything they need. You can easily complete the game (on Insanity) with only the powers and weapons you receive at the beginning. There are, in fact, a couple classes in ME2 that become weaker over time. A level 5-10 Soldier will kill a lot faster than a level 25-30 Soldier

Unfortunatly for your arguments, RPG's having come from the days of table-top games, are very much about those "Tedius screens" where you mull over which stats to pump things in. A better way to streamline would be to allow for a more detailed autolevel (Specifically tell the game, everytime I level up, I want you to throw 2 points here and 1 point here. If you don't do it I fry your motherboard!). By allowing you to map out your plan of growth in one screen sitting, you detract less from the fluidity of the game.

Throwing more powerful enemies at you is another problem most RPG's already have. Why aren't you encountering these things beforehand? Why do your enemies insist on throwing enemies that are continuously at your level, like they are tracking your stats and sitting in a command room going 'Alright, he's strong enough for our next unit now.' So no, that is not a 'better system'. It's a system that has been in use for a long time and still has its flaws.

You should really start with more abilities (even if you're less experiences, 9 times out of 10 you're supposed to be this super experienced soldier). And those abilities should gain strength as you learn to use them over time. But saying over the course of a galaxy saving adventure you don't gain new abilities, usually through improvising, would be somewhat silly.

It would be far better for a happy medium of having weaker versions of most of your basic and advanced abilities, with room for growth in those skills, and a few more advanced skills you pick up as the game goes on.

[BeefoTheBold]

Phaedon wrote...

By the way, the core crowd BioWare has today was created by titles such as KOTOR, Mass Effect 1,2 or Dragon Age:Origins.

Seeing as BG was released in 1998 and the game had an M rating, the minimum age of what people naively consider a core fan, would be early 30s. It's ridiculous to even imply that you can survive by just catering to that crowd 15 years later.

By that logic, no 17 year old ever gets into an R rated movie by things like parents not minding if they see R rated movies, ticket seller not caring, etc.

It IS possible to have played an M rated game in 1998 and not be of the "recommended" age.

[Someone With Mass]

Gatt9 wrote...

Um,  I respectfully suggest you might want to reconsider that position.  As I've said before....

-You kill a YMIR at level 2 with starter weapons in the first real mission.
-The YMIR is what you'll be fighting at level 30 as the end boss to missions
-Which means that all of the weaponry and levels in ME2 are completely unneccessary,  since you could already kill the hardest critter in the game without them.

Every item in ME2 is redundant.

But I dare you to try and finish ME with nothing but starter weapons and armor.

Yeah, God forbid that one can play the game based on his/her preference when it comes to weapons and armor, right? No, let's have those old systems that haven't changed since the 80's which anyone can play in their sleep.

Oh, and if the starter weapons are so lousy that they can barely kill the first enemies of the games, and then you stumble upon a weapon that's better than them by miles, that's not exactly what I would call a good and varied gameplay design.

Because once you get the strongest weapons and armor (which can happen very early), there's no reason for you to keep the rest. Especially when the weapons you have are simply just juiced up versions of the crappy ones. There's no real difference between them.

By the way, I could probably run through ME1 with the starter weapons too. I just don't see a reason to do so, as that would just waste my time.

Nor do I see the reason in giving the player a weapon that's complete garbage so he/she can't kill anything with efficiency and is forced to waste time on killing enemies just to get better stuff, only to get to a point where he/she gets one of the best weapons in the game. AKA: Tedious grinding.

[No Snakes Alive]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

No Snakes Alive wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...

No Snakes Alive wrote...
E
Dear whiners,

-snip-

Haters gonna hate, I guess, right?

Your a self-labeled hater aparrently.  Anyway the topic is about Bioware's decline.  Or how I like to say, Complete absorbtion into EA.

Lol the decline? Even though, of their first two Mass Effect games, the second was CLEARLY superior? And even though there's no indication whatsoever that they aren't continuing to attempt to progress the series in ways that makes sense with their third game? You sure this thread isn't about your "waaaahhhh mp is for casual cod newbs bioware is EA's slave for even considering it waaaahhhh" elitist attitudes?

Sure seems that way to me! I mean you're talking about the decline of s company that's bigger than ever and whose most recent game in this series is widely considered to be one of the best games of this generation. Herp derp.

Faulty premise. 

The second one had clearly superior shooter mechanics, it was clearly INFERIOR as an overall game from a storyline and character development perspective, despite not having to create the entire universe like the first one did.

Better selling game does not equate to better quality game. Last I checked The Sims was one of the best selling games of all time.

Talk about faulty premises. Nice strawman argument there considering I never even almost gave the slightest indication that I think sales equates to quality in a game. They do mean something though, and certainly more than your minority-opinion, even when you do present it as fact. How about the universal critical acclaim that sides on ME2's superiority over ME also? Nice failure to mention that.

Opinions are opinions though, and if you think ME2 only got the shooter aspects better and did worse at the rest, then that sounds like a personal problem that won't be swayed by a million opinions of neither critics nor new purchasers, and certainly not fellow forum members who call you out on your bull****. And for the record, in my opinion the character development was superior in ME2; far more characters and a greater percentage mattered more to me. Hell in ME the only reason I had a tough time deciding who to sacrifice at Virmire was because I wanted them both dead.

The majority opinion, based on sales, critical acclaim, and the like, seems to be that ME2 is the superior game overall. I'm not using that to discount your opinion if you happen to disagree, but it should be good enough reason for you not to present YOUR own opinion as fact and discount everyone else's. If you think Bioware is on the decline then lol one less game for you to buy this March and goodbye to you. But rallying the few troops won't change the direction Bioware is headed and most people are glad for that no matter how vocal a minority you try to be.

Modifié par No Snakes Alive, 15 octobre 2011 - 06:27 .

[Phaedon]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

By the way, the core crowd BioWare has today was created by titles such as KOTOR, Mass Effect 1,2 or Dragon Age:Origins.

Seeing as BG was released in 1998 and the game had an M rating, the minimum age of what people naively consider a core fan, would be early 30s. It's ridiculous to even imply that you can survive by just catering to that crowd 15 years later.

By that logic, no 17 year old ever gets into an R rated movie by things like parents not minding if they see R rated movies, ticket seller not caring, etc.

It IS possible to have played an M rated game in 1998 and not be of the "recommended" age.

That doesn't help your argument at all. In fact, it breaks it.

Even if the core crowd BioWare had today was 10 or 15 year olds jumping at anything DnD related, including BG, the copies that BG sold at release are to be considered a financial failure today, and even if it wasn't one, those 10 year olds would be considered a very small community for a modern game. That is assuming that most of them didn't grow away from games, either due to older social standards or losing interest.

If that was even close to truth, BioWare would have gone out of business by 2005, and that's being optimistic.

[hecksard]

BeefoTheBold wrote...
Not really. By adding in a "optional" MP that counts towards the single player ending that you get, it forces gamers to either play that MP or do more SP stuff to get the best ending.

HOW MUCH more is not really known at this point, which means HOW LARGE of an impact is not really known, but the very fact that the MP counts towards the SP ending means that it IS impacting the SP experience because gamers need to either play the MP to get those galactic readiness points or do an unknown amount of additional SP side stuff to get the GR points.

Simply restating your argument in exactly the same terms doesn't make it any less absurd.  The MP doesn't need to be played, and its impact on the SP can therefore be zero: this has been stated repeatedly. Therefore the baseline for achieving the 'best' ending is the max number of SP missions that can be played. Given these facts, there can be no meaningful concept of 'extra'or 'additional' SP missions here.

Modifié par hecksard, 15 octobre 2011 - 06:17 .

[Ghost-621]

Phaedon wrote...

By the way, the core crowd BioWare has today was created by titles such as KOTOR, Mass Effect 1,2 or Dragon Age:Origins.

Seeing as BG was released in 1998 and the game had an M rating, the minimum age of what people naively consider a core fan, would be early 30s. It's ridiculous to even imply that you can survive by just catering to that crowd 15 years later.

It's ridiculous to even imply that you can't. They chose a big-name publisher because they thought I would bring in more $$$. However, thanks to EA's influence, Bioware has been pissing all over what originally raised them to their high position, their fans.