1467 réponses à ce sujet

[xentar]

SpiffySquee wrote...

I really don't understand some of you. Explain how giving these options hurts the game in any way. Are you honestly trying to tell me that the simple fact they allow you to concentrate on one aspect of the game means the whole game is worse? Was spider-man 2 a worse game simply because you could pick a simplified version of web slinging? Did that somehow make regular web slinging not as good? Was total war less of a game because you could auto resolve battles? Did that somehow mean the battle mechanics were not as god just because you could skip them? By your logic, ME is a worse game because it gives you the option to turn the difficulty down to casual. 

Given the fact that you can still play the game exactly the way you thought you would be able to two days ago, please explain how these modes hurt you in any way. Well... Any way more substantial than you just crying that bioware does not agree that your way of playing a game is the best way of playing a game.

See my previous post. Adding more options might spread the developers' resources and abilities too thin, and we might get a worse overall result than what we could have had, if the game was more specialized. Besides, trying to please everyone makes the game feel a bit more generic and could have an effect of blending souffle and canned fish together.
This is all speculation, however, we will have to see the final product to make a final decision.

[Wittand25]

Ixalmaris wrote...

Homey C-Dawg wrote...

People who don't like this seem to be tunnel-visioning in on the "action mode". Story mode is almost nothing but pure role playing, and RPG is what we're already use to. This is a simple addition that doesn't detract from the game development at all.

I don't see a problem.

ROFL no.

Story mode is not "pure role playing" its the same dumbed down rpg you get in the other modes coupled with super easy mode. The rpg aspect of the game does not get better at all.

What people (willfully?) fail to understand is that every feature comes at the exclusion of an ohther feature. Time and money are limited resources. Also, the game picking the "correct" answers for you means that this main path will be concentrated upon in development and the decisions you can make in rpg mode either don't matter as you can't really deviate from the main path much or that other paths are simply not as developed as the main one as they expect that a lot less people play them as the main one thanks to this feature.

Story mode is not something new it is just the same that you would get if you set the difficulty to easy and enable autolevel in ME1 or 2.
ActionMode will most likely result in fluff dialog being handled automatically as cutscene and only needing player input at points when you make an actual decision. As example in ME1 after the fight with Liara`s mother the dialog with Benezia and the queen does not really matter the only really important bit is when you decide to release the acid or not. So every dialog choiche before that could be handled automatically and only the final resolution needing actual player input. 

[Candidate 88766]

xentar wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

I really don't understand some of you. Explain how giving these options hurts the game in any way. Are you honestly trying to tell me that the simple fact they allow you to concentrate on one aspect of the game means the whole game is worse? Was spider-man 2 a worse game simply because you could pick a simplified version of web slinging? Did that somehow make regular web slinging not as good? Was total war less of a game because you could auto resolve battles? Did that somehow mean the battle mechanics were not as god just because you could skip them? By your logic, ME is a worse game because it gives you the option to turn the difficulty down to casual. 

Given the fact that you can still play the game exactly the way you thought you would be able to two days ago, please explain how these modes hurt you in any way. Well... Any way more substantial than you just crying that bioware does not agree that your way of playing a game is the best way of playing a game.

See my previous post. Adding more options might spread the developers' resources and abilities too thin, and we might get a worse overall result than what we could have had, if the game was more specialized. Besides, trying to please everyone makes the game feel a bit more generic and could have an effect of blending souffle and canned fish together.
This is all speculation, however, we will have to see the final product to make a final decision.

Including the option to automate dialogue is not going to use enough developer time to have any impact - and that is the only thing that is new to this system. ME1 and ME2 allow automatic point distribution.

[LilyasAvalon]

I personally think it's a great idea. It gives options and expands the potential market for ME3, which means more money, which means more great games in the future.

Besides, it isn't as if they're FORCING me to choose story over combat or combat over story and isn't as if they're 'dumbing it down'. They're adding different options that will effect difficulty/story to allow it to appeal to a larger audience.

Like, I know a lot of people who are just AWFUL at shooters, but love the story some of the games have to offer. Likewise, I know some people who like to just skim WAY past the story and right into the battlefield.

But here's an idea for all the haters, you don't like the feature? Don't use the feature.

[CroGamer002]

How is Bioware wasting money and resources on Action Mode?

Only think they do is to deny player any option of dialogue and probably makes it shorter.
In other words, cutting stuff we will have in RPG mode.

That's it!
Only thing they possibly "waste" is few hours of development for cutting that. And I'm probably exaggerating on few hours.

[LilyasAvalon]

xentar wrote...
See my previous post. Adding more options might spread the developers' resources and abilities too thin, and we might get a worse overall result than what we could have had, if the game was more specialized. Besides, trying to please everyone makes the game feel a bit more generic and could have an effect of blending souffle and canned fish together.
This is all speculation, however, we will have to see the final product to make a final decision.

Judging by what we've seen so far, I disagree. ME3 was getting a lot of attention while ME2 was still hitting the shelves, people are expecting a lot from the ME triology ending, which means a lot of people will be buying it, so EA is giving Bioware pretty much whatever it needs/wants for the game in terms of resources. Besides, how much resources could they possibly be wasting by setting automatic dialogue answers or turning difficulty up/down?

And yes, trying to expand your audience is part of marketting. Get over it. At the end of the day, the most important thing about a game is how much money it brings it, and it'll bring a LOT more in if you make it appealing enough for a larger audience.

Modifié par LilyasAvalon, 05 novembre 2011 - 12:40 .

[Shepard Lives]

This sounds unbelievably dumb, but eh. It's not like it's going to damage my experience. If people want to disregard the story in a Bioware game, fine by me. I recommend that they get some air holes drilled into their skulls though.

[Dominus]

I understand the mentality in this. It has no effect on my particular gameplay style, so it's hard to complain. I don't really see a purpose for Story mode, if putting it on casual is already easy as is. Both achieve essentially the same goal, it's merely a more obvious label. Action mode, on the other hand, is a specific mechanical change.

Got to get that Cod audience.

It's snarky, but it's true. I'm not that surprised on the newfound existence of action mode. I'm not opposed, but I can guarantee I won't be touching that with a 10-foot hanar tentacle.

[Arcadian Legend]

This sounds like a brilliant idea, and can help make it enjoyable for everyone.

[ElitePinecone]

DominusVita wrote...

I understand the mentality in this. It has no effect on my particular gameplay style, so it's hard to complain. I don't really see a purpose for Story mode, if putting it on casual is already easy as is. Both achieve essentially the same goal, it's merely a more obvious label. Action mode, on the other hand, is a specific mechanical change.

Got to get that Cod audience.

It's snarky, but it's true. I'm not that surprised on the newfound existence of action mode. I'm not opposed, but I can guarantee I won't be touching that with a 10-foot hanar tentacle.

It sounds like it could be aimed at new players to the series. 

There are a lot of people who genuinely find combat in games boring (or intimidating), and want to play them for the hours and hours of dialogue and interactive storytelling that they represent. 

If they pick up ME3, having a giant option at startup that says "hey, click here, all the enemies will be laughably easy and you can focus on the story!" might be a really good idea. 

Plus, if you have 16 Shepards to import into ME3 (I've seen people with that many!) a 'Story' option is a good way to see the outcomes of decisions without bothering with combat. You're right, though, in that I think it's just as easy to adjust the difficulty setting from the options menu. 

[FluffyScarf]

16 Sheps? They are the truly enlightened ones.

[Terror_K]

To be perfectly honest, I'm more pissed off with the mentality of BioWare and the ME3 development team for even considering adding this than the actual inclusion of it itself. It's the principle and reasoning behind it more than anything that's the issue for me.

That's the same reason I gave up on Dragon Age and basically consider that IP of BioWare's dead to me now: not so much because it was a bad game, but because of the intent and mentality of the main people behind it, and the fact they decided to twist it more to try and bring in new fans than to appeal to the ones who came in on the ground floor. Quite frankly this whole need to make their games so over-accessible and overly simplistic is turning out these mediocre, wishy-washy products. How can a game have depth and complexity that's anything more an an illusion if it can be simply turned off so easily?

[FluffyScarf]

You and your principles. That explains the 60 page thread on Origins.

[ElitePinecone]

Terror_K wrote...
How can a game have depth and complexity that's anything more an an illusion if it can be simply turned off so easily?

You don't know what Action turns off, though. 

Why not wait a bit and see what it does? 

With all due respect I think you're holding Bioware to an impossible standard of purity. No corporation is going to turn down more customers. 

[wright1978]

My worry about action mode is that surely they will have had to design all the in game rpg choices/decisions around this mode's simplistic extremes(paragon-renegade).

[Terror_K]

ElitePinecone wrote...

With all due respect I think you're holding Bioware to an impossible standard of purity. No corporation is going to turn down more customers. 

Which is why every AAA title and game developer these days is making the same Neopolitan ice-cream. It's not technically a bad flavour, but I'm getting sick of it being almost the only thing on the plate these days. And everything has to be so simple. "More streamlined" and "more accessible" are just fancy buzz-terms these days for "dumbed down for the masses" when it comes down to it.

People who say Baldur's Gate would fail in this day and age are right, but not for the reasons they probably think. They're right because the average gamer is a freakin' moron these days, and they want all action with as little thought or as little mechanics getting in the way of that action as possible. Putting aside its dated looks and the control issues that would plague a console version of the game, if Baldur's Gate came out today looking next-gen and with a control scheme that suited the 360 and PS3, but was largely otherwise the same gameplay wise, most gamers today would either give up on it because it was "soooo boring!" or because they simply wouldn't be able to deal with things such as level drain, being charmed, petrified, etc. that a game like that throws up. They're used to games that baby them and make sure there's no situation they can't handle.

[Phaedon]

Sounds like a waste of time.

If you don't like the combat, just turn the difficulty as low as possible.
If you don't like the dialogue, just push the spacebar repeatedly.

That's all that there is to it, really. "RPG Mode" should definitely be the first option, though.

[FluffyScarf]

That's exactly it Phaedy, yet there has to be a 'complaint of the week' topic on BSN. This will be it for now.

[CroGamer002]

^Well I'm getting sick of tapping space bar all the time and sometimes reloading save since I choose wrong dialogue option do to repetitively tapping space bar in my 20th playthrough.

[Nohvarr]

My worry about action mode is that surely they will have had to design all the in game rpg choices/decisions around this mode's simplistic extremes(paragon-renegade).

You mean decisions like kill/save the Rachni or Keep/destroy the collector base?

most gamers today would either give up on it because it was "soooo boring!" or because they simply wouldn't be able to deal with things such as level drain, being charmed, petrified, etc. that a game like that throws up. They're used to games that baby them and make sure there's no situation they can't handle.

Yeah that’s why Demon Souls and Dark Souls tanked so spectacularly.[/sarcasm]

[Phaedon]

Mesina2 wrote...

^Well I'm getting sick of tapping space bar all the time and sometimes reloading save since I choose wrong dialogue option do to repetitively tapping space bar in my 20th playthrough.

I just think that it wasn't worth it, unless very little dev effort was put into it. I'd rather I got more hillarious Manveeir Heir tweets than a mode selection system.

[SpiffySquee]

what mentality? The mentality of putting in a few extra hours of work to automate some dialog and appeal to a larger audience without sacrificing any elements of the original game? What company would ever want to do that?

Player: The cup is blue!

Bioware: actually, you can now get it in green as well.

Player: What! You sellout! The cup was supposed to be blue!

Bioware: ... Then get the blue one... It's still the same blue.

Player: But now I don't feel special because you are trying to say people who like the cup green are just as valid as I am!!

How can a game have depth and complexity that's anything more an an illusion if it can be simply turned off so easily?

A better question is how does the simple fact that something has an off switch mean it can't have depth and complexity? A stealth bomber has an off switch. That does not make it a paper airplane.

[FluffyScarf]

It's not being turned off. It automates responses, most likely defaulting to Paragon decisions to minimize story management. Nowhere in the description did it mention turning off all cut scenes. The big choices will still probably be left to player control.

Modifié par FluffyScarf, 05 novembre 2011 - 01:29 .

[CroGamer002]

Phaedon wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

^Well I'm getting sick of tapping space bar all the time and sometimes reloading save since I choose wrong dialogue option do to repetitively tapping space bar in my 20th playthrough.

I just think that it wasn't worth it, unless very little dev effort was put into it. I'd rather I got more hillarious Manveeir Heir tweets than a mode selection system.

Well only thing Bioware has to do is to cut options you'll have in RPG Mode.

That can't be hard nor big time sink.

[Phaedon]

Mesina2 wrote...
Well only thing Bioware has to do is to cut options you'll have in RPG Mode.

That can't be hard nor big time sink.

I am not saying that it is, but I don't think that it's that useful either.

Still surprised why people are debating on this, though.