280 réponses à ce sujet

[BeefoTheBold]

JeffZero wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

You're already playing a third-person shooter whether you like it or not. You have been since ME1 whether you like it or not. You can completely disregard the multiplayer if you don't like it. You don't have to pretend you've been thrown under a bus. That's your prerogative.

Jeff, I like you but that's a load of doog dung.

Yes, the gameplay for combat has been been third person shooter, but to say that a shift away from story missions, character development, deeper dialog, to a greater emphasis on combat is  not a change at all is not the case.

Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2 both had shooter parts to them, but the shooter in ME2 was DRAMATICALLY larger than ME1. Otherwise, what would be the point to Bioware promising to bring back more RPG elements into ME2?

Nobody is arguing that there isn't shooter elements to the ME series. HOW MUCH of them is the pertinent question.

What Bioware has promised is that ME3 would reverse the trend of ME2 and be less shooter/combat focused.

What all recent announcements indicate is the exact opposite.

I don't think that BioWare has ever promised ME3 will be less shooter/combat-focused at all. That's not what I've taken from all the PR. What I've taken from the PR is that the shooter/combat focus will feature much richer customization paths than what was present in ME2. I feel bad for those that took something else away from the PR, I really do, but it's just not something I read.

"More RPG elements" has never fully translated to me as "less combat elements" because Mass Effect has, in my interpretation, always pinned combat as a centerfold piece of the series. It's not like ME1 had intricate crafting or anything; bringing back some more of the customization from the first game while continuing ME2's level of shooting was precisely what I was expecting. None of these recent batches of news have altered my opinion one way or the other on it. If you were actually anticipating less shooter combat in ME3 then again I'm sorry but it's not something I'd have ever held my breath on.

Then we've definitely gotten different interpretations of what Bioware has promised.

E3 talked a lot about adding in more RPG features. The features thread on this very forum has an entire section devoted to improved RPG features.

Essentially, there has been a LOT of talk about how ME2 went too far down the shooter route and how Bioware had listed and would be building back in/beefing back up the RPG elements for ME3.

[JeffZero]

DrunkenMonkey wrote...

As the RPG fellow is saying, Remove what makes ME ME and you get a very shallow thrid person shooter.
There are no choices in Co-op, no speech options, nothing that makes ME special is in that co-op mode, and as we have seen (from a review standpoint) with games like BF3, a weak mode can really damage review scores.

Indeed.

I still don't see any evidence that what makes ME ME has been removed though. I won't see it for sure until March -- unless of course a barrage of information that actually states in my eyes what your fellows believe suddenly emerges. Until then. /tips hat

Modifié par JeffZero, 28 octobre 2011 - 01:59 .

[DrunkenMonkey]

JeffZero wrote...

DrunkenMonkey wrote...

As the RPG fellow is saying, Remove what makes ME ME and you get a very shallow thrid person shooter.
There are no choices in Co-op, no speech options, nothing that makes ME special is in that co-op mode, and as we have seen (from a review standpoint) with games like BF3, a weak mode can really damage review scores.

Indeed.

I still don't see any evidence that what makes ME ME has been removed though. I won't see it for sure until March -- unless of course a barrage of information that actually states in my eyes what your fellows believe suddenly emerges. Until then. /tips hat

We will find out when the demo comes out in january.

Modifié par DrunkenMonkey, 28 octobre 2011 - 02:01 .

[JeffZero]

BeefoTheBold wrote...
Then we've definitely gotten different interpretations of what Bioware has promised.

E3 talked a lot about adding in more RPG features. The features thread on this very forum has an entire section devoted to improved RPG features.

Essentially, there has been a LOT of talk about how ME2 went too far down the shooter route and how Bioware had listed and would be building back in/beefing back up the RPG elements for ME3.

Maybe I'm failing to make myself clear. I'd blame the beer if it weren't so weak.

I'm not arguing that what you're saying here isn't the case. Perhaps what I'm arguing is the notion that one cannot have both a shooter and a richer RPG experience without toning down on how much combat was present in ME2. I don't feel as though there is a direct link between the amount of pure combat in ME1 and ME2 and the relative lack of rich customization in ME2. The lack of rich customization options -- RPG elements, really -- stems from eradicating the inventory, reducing the level cap and number of points spent, no longer having the ability to modify one's arsenal in multiple ways, so on and so forth.

Perhaps you feel it means something else. To me, ME3's aim is to combine the combat of ME2 (refined further, of course) with a greater level of customization-related RPG elements than what was seen in ME1. That has been my interpretation of the announcements since E3. That continues to be my interpretation and all the co-op hoopla hasn't really changed that.

[JeffZero]

DrunkenMonkey wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

DrunkenMonkey wrote...

As the RPG fellow is saying, Remove what makes ME ME and you get a very shallow thrid person shooter.
There are no choices in Co-op, no speech options, nothing that makes ME special is in that co-op mode, and as we have seen (from a review standpoint) with games like BF3, a weak mode can really damage review scores.

Indeed.

I still don't see any evidence that what makes ME ME has been removed though. I won't see it for sure until March -- unless of course a barrage of information that actually states in my eyes what your fellows believe suddenly emerges. Until then. /tips hat

We will find out when the demo comes out in january.

Maybe you will but good or bad, I won't take that demo as meaning much. ME2's demo didn't exactly establish the game in full either; demos don't really do that. Not to me, anyway.

[Someone With Mass]

JeffZero wrote...

Maybe you will but good or bad, I won't take that demo as meaning much. ME2's demo didn't exactly establish the game in full either; demos don't really do that. Not to me, anyway.

That's pretty much why they're called demonstrations.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 28 octobre 2011 - 02:05 .

[OhHiDoggy]

RocketPropelledGrenade wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

You're already playing a third-person shooter whether you like it or not. You have been since ME1 whether you like it or not. You can completely disregard the multiplayer if you don't like it. You don't have to pretend you've been thrown under a bus. That's your prerogative.

Come March I will not only disregard the multiplayer, I will disregard this entire game. It is a bastardization of a great series.

And there is a stark difference between a third person RPG and a third person shooter. In RPG's, unlike TPS', you assume absolute control over your character. His morales are whatever you want them to be. His choices are what you want them to be. And these echoe throughout both the game world and the story. 

In order for an RPG to actually be good, it obviously requires a lot of attention. Game development time is not an unlimited resource. Any time spent on kinect controls, or co-op mode, or now multiplayer is time not spent on the only part of the game most fans of the series actually care about.

I agree with you so much it hurts.
I like the idea of floating through space more or less on my lonesome. Even though I am a 42 year old man I like to put green glow in the dark stars on my ceiling and then turn the light off and stare at them while quietly humming Space Oddity.

Now, instead, I'm gonna be in a party full of 12 year olds who question my sexuality 40 times a game. I didn't go to 'Nam for this crap.

[AdmiralCheez]

JeffZero wrote...

Perhaps you feel it means something else. To me, ME3's aim is to combine the combat of ME2 (refined further, of course) with a greater level of customization-related RPG elements than what was seen in ME1. That has been my interpretation of the announcements since E3. That continues to be my interpretation and all the co-op hoopla hasn't really changed that.

Yeah, that's what I've been getting, too.

[Leonia]

I still laugh at the "but the resources could have been spent better" argument.

Bioware. Freaking. Montreal.

Seperate studio, seperate budget.

You can have RPG elements and shooter elements in the same game, get off your elitist high horses and come to terms with the facts.This debate is getting really old.

Best I can understand from everything we have seen so far? We're getting the best of both worlds, the good stuff from both ME1 and ME2. Stop being so pessimistic you guys, seriously, do you WANT Bioware to let you down or something?

Modifié par leonia42, 28 octobre 2011 - 02:09 .

[JeffZero]

Someone With Mass wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

Maybe you will but good or bad, I won't take that demo as meaning much. ME2's demo didn't exactly establish the game in full either; demos don't really do that. Not to me, anyway.

That's pretty much why they're called demonstrations.

Right, I agree. It's a taste. I mean, hell, I remember not being all that impressed with the level of choice offered in ME2's demo overall. But I knew then that it wouldn't directly correlate to the full experience. And earlier portions of the games do tend to lend themselves a bit less to bigger, more impressive choice-making by virtue of their placement in the narrative.

No doubt there are those who feel otherwise but ultimately ME2 satisfied me as much as ME1 in that department. The demo alone would never have convinced me of such.

Modifié par JeffZero, 28 octobre 2011 - 02:08 .

[JeffZero]

OhHiDoggy wrote...
Now, instead, I'm gonna be in a party full of 12 year olds who question my sexuality 40 times a game. I didn't go to 'Nam for this crap.

Then ignore the component entirely.

[Leonia]

JeffZero wrote...

OhHiDoggy wrote...
Now, instead, I'm gonna be in a party full of 12 year olds who question my sexuality 40 times a game. I didn't go to 'Nam for this crap.

Then ignore the component entirely.

But, but, that's like suggesting we can skip any optional content.. even same-sex romance conversations! How dare you imply I can SKIP content that I do not want to partake in.

[JeffZero]

leonia42 wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

OhHiDoggy wrote...
Now, instead, I'm gonna be in a party full of 12 year olds who question my sexuality 40 times a game. I didn't go to 'Nam for this crap.

Then ignore the component entirely.

But, but, that's like suggesting we can skip any optional content.. even same-sex romance conversations! How dare you imply I can SKIP content that I do not want to partake in.

Yes, I do seem to get that a lot lately. 

[BeefoTheBold]

DiebytheSword wrote...
  Nothing stops you, or any other playing from RPing during the event other than you won't have a dialogue wheel, you'll need to use your mouth.

I never realized that games like Gears of War, Uncharted, Call of Duty, Rainbow Six, Halo, etc. were all RPGs in disguise given that nothing was stopping the 14 year old screaming the N word on the phone from RPing during the session!

Yes, you're right. Simply saying that people CAN RP if they want TOGETHER obviously means that ALL MP is RP based at heart.

*sips tea*

Yes, it all becomes so clear in the light of your patronizing wisdom.

Your rebuttal is logically flawed - even setting aside your condescension - because you are trying to say that nothing is PREVENTING a group of people from deciding to have an impromptu D&D session over the lan line while they gun down hordes of spawning enemies ala Dragon Age 2.

By that logic, ANY game with an online coop is an RPG.

I also take issue with your argument that it fits within the story. Once again, it all boils down to whether you are making an incredibly tenuous connection that any fifth grader can see through or whether or not you are TRULY INCORPORATING WHAT IS HAPPENING into the storyline.

Sure you can toss out a one-liner, "BTW, you're fighting a horde of bad guys that Shepard's too busy to personally gun down. After all, there are millions of bad guys and only one Shepard." Technically, yes, that is tying the MP into the story.

It's also complete crap.

Tying the MP into the story necessitates WRITING MORE STORY. In other words, it requires more than, "Here's a different group of gun toting idiots. Shoot them." It actually needs to say what the tie is, how this is effecting Shepard, the motivations of whomever your character is shooting them down, etc.

Otherwise, no, you're essentially an identity lacking Master Chief shooting an identity lacking alien.

[OhHiDoggy]

JeffZero wrote...

OhHiDoggy wrote...
Now, instead, I'm gonna be in a party full of 12 year olds who question my sexuality 40 times a game. I didn't go to 'Nam for this crap.

Then ignore the component entirely.

Son, now I dunno if you've had much to do with women but if ME3 was a woman, and for 20 years she had been faithful, and then outta the blue she became "multiplayer", YOU'D BE MAD TOO

[Leonia]

Don't like MP? Don't play it.

[AdmiralCheez]

@BeefoTheBold: Red v. Blue.

[BeefoTheBold]

JeffZero wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...
Then we've definitely gotten different interpretations of what Bioware has promised.

E3 talked a lot about adding in more RPG features. The features thread on this very forum has an entire section devoted to improved RPG features.

Essentially, there has been a LOT of talk about how ME2 went too far down the shooter route and how Bioware had listed and would be building back in/beefing back up the RPG elements for ME3.

Maybe I'm failing to make myself clear. I'd blame the beer if it weren't so weak.

I'm not arguing that what you're saying here isn't the case. Perhaps what I'm arguing is the notion that one cannot have both a shooter and a richer RPG experience without toning down on how much combat was present in ME2. I don't feel as though there is a direct link between the amount of pure combat in ME1 and ME2 and the relative lack of rich customization in ME2. The lack of rich customization options -- RPG elements, really -- stems from eradicating the inventory, reducing the level cap and number of points spent, no longer having the ability to modify one's arsenal in multiple ways, so on and so forth.

Perhaps you feel it means something else. To me, ME3's aim is to combine the combat of ME2 (refined further, of course) with a greater level of customization-related RPG elements than what was seen in ME1. That has been my interpretation of the announcements since E3. That continues to be my interpretation and all the co-op hoopla hasn't really changed that.

And my view is that, IN THEORY, this is possible.

In practice it is damned unlikely.

Everything we've seen, from the E3 presentation to all the announced new features, has been geared towards pleasing a particular customer segment.

It isn't like one week we've seen, "Hey COD players...check out why you want to play our game!" and the next it has been "Hey hardcore RPG fans, see what we're giving YOU GUYS!"

It's all been the former in terms of what is being announced and shown paired with, "And we're beefing up the RPG. PROMISE! TRUST US!"

[AdmiralCheez]

OhHiDoggy wrote...

Son, now I dunno if you've had much to do with women but if ME3 was a woman, and for 20 years she had been faithful, and then outta the blue she became "multiplayer", YOU'D BE MAD TOO

You married a videogame?

[JeffZero]

OhHiDoggy wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

OhHiDoggy wrote...
Now, instead, I'm gonna be in a party full of 12 year olds who question my sexuality 40 times a game. I didn't go to 'Nam for this crap.

Then ignore the component entirely.

Son, now I dunno if you've had much to do with women but if ME3 was a woman, and for 20 years she had been faithful, and then outta the blue she became "multiplayer", YOU'D BE MAD TOO

I'm happy engaged, sir. Thus far my significant other has not cheated on me to the best of my knowledge; thus far Mass Effect has remained, erm, faithful enough.

[Leonia]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...
Then we've definitely gotten different interpretations of what Bioware has promised.

E3 talked a lot about adding in more RPG features. The features thread on this very forum has an entire section devoted to improved RPG features.

Essentially, there has been a LOT of talk about how ME2 went too far down the shooter route and how Bioware had listed and would be building back in/beefing back up the RPG elements for ME3.

Maybe I'm failing to make myself clear. I'd blame the beer if it weren't so weak.

I'm not arguing that what you're saying here isn't the case. Perhaps what I'm arguing is the notion that one cannot have both a shooter and a richer RPG experience without toning down on how much combat was present in ME2. I don't feel as though there is a direct link between the amount of pure combat in ME1 and ME2 and the relative lack of rich customization in ME2. The lack of rich customization options -- RPG elements, really -- stems from eradicating the inventory, reducing the level cap and number of points spent, no longer having the ability to modify one's arsenal in multiple ways, so on and so forth.

Perhaps you feel it means something else. To me, ME3's aim is to combine the combat of ME2 (refined further, of course) with a greater level of customization-related RPG elements than what was seen in ME1. That has been my interpretation of the announcements since E3. That continues to be my interpretation and all the co-op hoopla hasn't really changed that.

And my view is that, IN THEORY, this is possible.

In practice it is damned unlikely.

Everything we've seen, from the E3 presentation to all the announced new features, has been geared towards pleasing a particular customer segment.

It isn't like one week we've seen, "Hey COD players...check out why you want to play our game!" and the next it has been "Hey hardcore RPG fans, see what we're giving YOU GUYS!"

It's all been the former in terms of what is being announced and shown paired with, "And we're beefing up the RPG. PROMISE! TRUST US!"

Everything we've seen is the ME dev team cleverly avoiding story spoilers and revealing the game mechanics that they can safely reveal without talking about the story. Something they learned from promoting ME2. You can read more into that as you like but there's no reason RPG fans can't be fans of shooters or vice-versa. Stereotyping players isn't going to give you a solid foundation for an argument.

Modifié par leonia42, 28 octobre 2011 - 02:16 .

[BeefoTheBold]

JeffZero wrote...

DrunkenMonkey wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

DrunkenMonkey wrote...

As the RPG fellow is saying, Remove what makes ME ME and you get a very shallow thrid person shooter.
There are no choices in Co-op, no speech options, nothing that makes ME special is in that co-op mode, and as we have seen (from a review standpoint) with games like BF3, a weak mode can really damage review scores.

Indeed.

I still don't see any evidence that what makes ME ME has been removed though. I won't see it for sure until March -- unless of course a barrage of information that actually states in my eyes what your fellows believe suddenly emerges. Until then. /tips hat

We will find out when the demo comes out in january.

Maybe you will but good or bad, I won't take that demo as meaning much. ME2's demo didn't exactly establish the game in full either; demos don't really do that. Not to me, anyway.

Did you play DA2's demo?

I did. And in retrospect I'm kicking myself for buying the game. The demo made DAMN CLEAR that it was a different game than DAO and a far worse one. I bought it anyway because it was Bioware.

The saying, "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" applies.

[OhHiDoggy]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

OhHiDoggy wrote...

Son, now I dunno if you've had much to do with women but if ME3 was a woman, and for 20 years she had been faithful, and then outta the blue she became "multiplayer", YOU'D BE MAD TOO

You married a videogame?

I'm not a one video game kind of guy.

[Leonia]

If you were expecting DA2 to play like DA:O after playing the demo then that doesn't speak very highly of your intelligence. Did you expect Bioware to produce something completely different from the demo after how late they were in the development cycle?

Modifié par leonia42, 28 octobre 2011 - 02:18 .

[BeefoTheBold]

leonia42 wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...
Then we've definitely gotten different interpretations of what Bioware has promised.

E3 talked a lot about adding in more RPG features. The features thread on this very forum has an entire section devoted to improved RPG features.

Essentially, there has been a LOT of talk about how ME2 went too far down the shooter route and how Bioware had listed and would be building back in/beefing back up the RPG elements for ME3.

Maybe I'm failing to make myself clear. I'd blame the beer if it weren't so weak.

I'm not arguing that what you're saying here isn't the case. Perhaps what I'm arguing is the notion that one cannot have both a shooter and a richer RPG experience without toning down on how much combat was present in ME2. I don't feel as though there is a direct link between the amount of pure combat in ME1 and ME2 and the relative lack of rich customization in ME2. The lack of rich customization options -- RPG elements, really -- stems from eradicating the inventory, reducing the level cap and number of points spent, no longer having the ability to modify one's arsenal in multiple ways, so on and so forth.

Perhaps you feel it means something else. To me, ME3's aim is to combine the combat of ME2 (refined further, of course) with a greater level of customization-related RPG elements than what was seen in ME1. That has been my interpretation of the announcements since E3. That continues to be my interpretation and all the co-op hoopla hasn't really changed that.

And my view is that, IN THEORY, this is possible.

In practice it is damned unlikely.

Everything we've seen, from the E3 presentation to all the announced new features, has been geared towards pleasing a particular customer segment.

It isn't like one week we've seen, "Hey COD players...check out why you want to play our game!" and the next it has been "Hey hardcore RPG fans, see what we're giving YOU GUYS!"

It's all been the former in terms of what is being announced and shown paired with, "And we're beefing up the RPG. PROMISE! TRUST US!"

Everything we've seen is the ME dev team cleverly avoiding story spoilers and revealing the game mechanics that they can safely reveal without talking about the story. Something they learned from promoting ME2. You can read more into that as you like but there's no reason RPG fans can't be fans of shooters or vice-versa. Stereotyping players isn't going to give you a solid foundation for an argument.

Looking at the Bioware recent releases does.

It isn't like we've had a release from Bioware that screams, "We made this specifically for RPG fans!"

Quite the opposite. The last true RPG fan releases from Bioware were DAO and ME1. Both were in development pre-acquisition.

2+2.