1467 réponses à ce sujet

[Vegos]

1136342t54 wrote...

Vegos wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

Vegos wrote...


Where have I actually said there was a "problem"?

I'm simply in disagreement with the concept because of my personal reasons. I only get cranky when people try to tell me I'm not entitled to think so or that I am wrong if I think so.

If you disagree with the concept then you have a problem with it. What is your disagreement?

Who knows? Could be as simple as "That's not how I would do things". Could be "That's not what should be happening in the Mass Effect franchise." Could be "Why those three modes, but no silly mode where everyone is wearing a silly hat, I'd be totally sold on that!"

I'm ceirtainly not going to write up an essay on it, because my personal experience says nobody would read it anyway.

So basically you disagree with it but you don't know why? Then what is the point of even coming on here and making a complaint? I'm all for complaints as long as they are meaningful and explain things in a way the devs could either assure you on it or find the problem in fix it but this just seems pointless.

Oh, I know perfectly well why I disagree.

I simply picked the option saying "Save yourself a headache" because that's what I'd get if I got into explaining my reasons only to get attacked by another c'n'p'ed post by someone who thinks their way of seeing things is superior.

[Cimeas]

OMTING52601 wrote...

 It seems like the real crux of the argument about the modes boils down to how it affects the RPG elements, not whether or not a player should be able to choose them. 
It isn't that anyone knows, with certainty, that the separate modes cost tons of time or money to create (though in truth, regardless of 'ease' no one knows how many funds(cash or time) were used/diverted to implement them) but the IMPLICATION that Action Mode, with it's pre-set dialog, STRONGLY SUGGESTS a pre-determined story line. A pre-determined, finite, story line is NOT what RPGers want in a game. Players need the illusion of choice, otherwise a game fails(DA 2 is a prime example).

It doesn't matter if Action mode players can switch back to RPG mode because...

If there is, indeed, a pre-set storyline(be it para or rene or one of each) for that mode, it would make sense that those strictly either/or plot lines would be the best developed in the system. It's people worrying that, regardless of an RPG mode, the addition of a pre-determined story will make the RPG elements less deep, less interactive. 

Yeah, there's a lot of 'if you don't want, don't' back and forth, but I've spent the better part of an hour reading this entire thread and ignoring the jabs and snide insults, I can understand the reservation of certain players.

Do I mind the options? No. Can I appreciate that the options may take something away from the game? Yes. 

Completely agree with this actually.

[ODST 5723]

johnxtreeme wrote...

This is like having a toggle in CoD that just auto aims and fires in singleplayer so you can watch badly done cutscenes about a Russian guy's plot for world domination. That wouldn't make it a shooter, so I don't see why people somehow shouldn't complain when playing action mode doesn't make ME3 an RPG.

It doesn't matter if Action mode is a toggle, because it's a toggle that removes a core element of gameplay. Like removing 'story' from Uncharted or 'combat' from Dragon Age or 'stealth' from Deus Ex, simply having it as an option means that some gamers won't play the game Bioware has built.

For decades, even if you play on 'easy mode' you have been able to experience the core gameplay elements of the games you buy, and ME3 is changing that, turning the game from what will hopefully be a pinnacle in digital storytelling to a mediocre shooter.

Mass Effect as a franchise, deserves better.

That is the most blatantly false statement I've heard in a long time.  The decision making is not part of the gameplay.  The gameplay is the exploration and combat.  The conversations take place in a series of interactive cutscenes of varying degrees (assuming that interrupts still occur) which flesh out the story.

ME has been a shooter from Day 1.  It went from being a poor shooter to a serviceable one.  Meanwhile, it's strengths have been the interactive narrative that occurs outside of gameplay.  What we've seen far is a throwback to ME1 style dialogue.  What we haven't seen is how it differs from the other modes beyond a summary and a lot of assumptions.

So before anyone else whines, ****es or moans about how the sky is falling because Bioware's pandering to gamers... obviously like me because I'm a Halo fan... why don't we keep some open minds and see what the strengths and weaknesses are from some actual comparison rather than a bunch of overly premature snap judgements about things we barely have any information about.

I was very happy with what I've seen so far and if that's Action Mode... well then, I can't wait to see RPG mode.

[1136342t54_]

Vegos wrote...


Oh, I know perfectly well why I disagree.

I simply picked the option saying "Save yourself a headache" because that's what I'd get if I got into explaining my reasons only to get attacked by another c'n'p'ed post by someone who thinks their way of seeing things is superior.

Well if you come onto a discussion forum and say you don't like something just because then be sure you will be called on that. If you post a explanation on why you don't like it then expect to be crtic'd by others who disagree. Not everyone think the same way and it is quite possible that you may change your opinion.

[Vegos]

That is the most blatantly false statement I've heard in a long time.  The decision making is not part of the gameplay.  The gameplay is the exploration and combat.  The conversations take place in a series of interactive cutscenes of varying degrees (assuming that interrupts still occur) which flesh out the story.

ME has been a shooter from Day 1.  It went from being a poor shooter to a serviceable one.  Meanwhile, it's strengths have been the interactive narrative that occurs outside of gameplay.  What we've seen far is a throwback to ME1 style dialogue.  What we haven't seen is how it differs from the other modes beyond a summary and a lot of assumptions.

So before anyone else whines, ****es or moans about how the sky is falling because Bioware's pandering to gamers... obviously like me because I'm a Halo fan... why don't we keep some open minds and see what the strengths and weaknesses are from some actual comparison rather than a bunch of overly premature snap judgements about things we barely have any information about.

I was very happy with what I've seen so far and if that's Action Mode... well then, I can't wait to see RPG mode.

I find it amusing how you say "let's keep an open mind" while firmly stating that "ME has been a shooter since day 1".

[VIC1337]

johnxtreeme wrote...

OMTING52601 wrote...

 It seems like the real crux of the argument about the modes boils down to how it affects the RPG elements, not whether or not a player should be able to choose them. 
It isn't that anyone knows, with certainty, that the separate modes cost tons of time or money to create (though in truth, regardless of 'ease' no one knows how many funds(cash or time) were used/diverted to implement them) but the IMPLICATION that Action Mode, with it's pre-set dialog, STRONGLY SUGGESTS a pre-determined story line. A pre-determined, finite, story line is NOT what RPGers want in a game. Players need the illusion of choice, otherwise a game fails(DA 2 is a prime example).

It doesn't matter if Action mode players can switch back to RPG mode because...

If there is, indeed, a pre-set storyline(be it para or rene or one of each) for that mode, it would make sense that those strictly either/or plot lines would be the best developed in the system. It's people worrying that, regardless of an RPG mode, the addition of a pre-determined story will make the RPG elements less deep, less interactive. 

Yeah, there's a lot of 'if you don't want, don't' back and forth, but I've spent the better part of an hour reading this entire thread and ignoring the jabs and snide insults, I can understand the reservation of certain players.

Do I mind the options? No. Can I appreciate that the options may take something away from the game? Yes. 

Completely agree with this actually.

101% agree, that post is the plain true.

Modifié par VIC1337, 05 novembre 2011 - 10:01 .

[Nohvarr]

johnxtreeme wrote...

They built the game with the fact that 'action' is th default option in mind.  Thus they MAY have cared less about branching the story out and more about the combat/one specific story pathway.  

That is a stretch at best, especially when we've already seen how past options can seriously affect the story.That 30 min demo would play out differently if two of the characters in it were gone, which is possible. That demo also showed off an ME 1 side character that is likely dead in a number of games. This is also the final game in the series which the have admited gives them more freedom to change how things go. None of that is invalidated because you can automate paragon/renegade dialogue or choose to only foucs on the story.

[Asenza]

I don't mind what they did- switching between options after 6 or seven playthroughs would be nice as opposed to mashing buttons. It should be fun, depending on people's playing styles.

What I do mind is the reason behind this development.

I don't believe Bioware did it to give fans a way to mix up dialogue options and gameplay modes. I think Bioware did it in a desperate attempt to lure in people who don't give a damn about the story, the universe or the characters, and just want to make things explode.

You know, the people who would have much more fun playing Call of Duty, Halo, Gears of War, or any number of other mindless shooters with a tawdry single player campaign tacked onto the multiplayer mode. The ones who don't want the bother of an interactive story, when interactive means more then just shooting things.

Like many others, I knew where this was going with Multiplayer. I only wish I could say i'm surprised.

Modifié par Asenza, 05 novembre 2011 - 10:05 .

[Vegos]

1136342t54 wrote...

Vegos wrote...


Oh, I know perfectly well why I disagree.

I simply picked the option saying "Save yourself a headache" because that's what I'd get if I got into explaining my reasons only to get attacked by another c'n'p'ed post by someone who thinks their way of seeing things is superior.

Well if you come onto a discussion forum and say you don't like something just because then be sure you will be called on that. If you post a explanation on why you don't like it then expect to be crtic'd by others who disagree. Not everyone think the same way and it is quite possible that you may change your opinion.

Very well.

If I want to play a shooter, I'll go play a FPS.

If I want to play a RPG, I'll go play a RPG.

If I want to play a completely story-driven game, I'll go play interactive fiction VN's.

When I decide what genre I want to play, I want to play a game of that genre, that focuses on being that genre. I don't want a game of genre X with options to be played as Y or Z as well, because if I want to play Y or Z, I'll go and play a game that was developed to be Y or Z. It is also not only my opinion, but experience, that adding Y and Z to a product that is mainly about X, reduces the quality of X. That goes not only for video games, but also other things.

Spreading your focus over several categories simply means you can invest less into each individual one. Now, I'm still saying ME3 is not likely to be a complete flop, hell I enjoyed DA2 with all the flaws it has. But, you know, with that bitter aftertaste of "what could have been".

I don't want a jack of all trades. I want a master of one.

I bet I'll regret having wasted time on posting this in an hour; and I also bet people won't do any
"calling me on it", they'll simply go on with being that first syllable of the word "assumption" with their assumptions. That, again, is experience, and not opinion.

Modifié par Vegos, 05 novembre 2011 - 10:10 .

[ODST 5723]

Vegos wrote...

That is the most blatantly false statement I've heard in a long time.  The decision making is not part of the gameplay.  The gameplay is the exploration and combat.  The conversations take place in a series of interactive cutscenes of varying degrees (assuming that interrupts still occur) which flesh out the story.

ME has been a shooter from Day 1.  It went from being a poor shooter to a serviceable one.  Meanwhile, it's strengths have been the interactive narrative that occurs outside of gameplay.  What we've seen far is a throwback to ME1 style dialogue.  What we haven't seen is how it differs from the other modes beyond a summary and a lot of assumptions.

So before anyone else whines, ****es or moans about how the sky is falling because Bioware's pandering to gamers... obviously like me because I'm a Halo fan... why don't we keep some open minds and see what the strengths and weaknesses are from some actual comparison rather than a bunch of overly premature snap judgements about things we barely have any information about.

I was very happy with what I've seen so far and if that's Action Mode... well then, I can't wait to see RPG mode.

I find it amusing how you say "let's keep an open mind" while firmly stating that "ME has been a shooter since day 1".

Note that I didn't say that it was only a shooter.  i'm glad you picked that out, though.  It wasn't a thinly veiled piece of bait.

ME's gameplay is shooter focused.  It also features a rich RPG experience where decisions matter.  Not all, but many.  And we haven't seen the payoff yet since we know that ME will be importing a lot of past decisions.  Has anyone stopped to consider whether Action Mode take a look at the decisions you've already made in determining what decisions it will automatically make for you?  If so, that could be interesting.

Additionally, do we know the level of the decisions that it will make for you?  If it cuts out some minutia that may not actually affect the end-game while leaving the larger decisions that do up to the player than perhaps it's not the boogeyman that many seem to fear it to be.

Until we have more concrete details, I don't see the need to assume and speculate to a point where I start forming strong positive or negative opinions.

[Asenza]

jreezy wrote...

Asenza wrote...

I don't mind what they did- switching between options after 6 or seven playthroughs would be nice as opposed to mashing buttons. It should be fun, depending on people's playing styles.

What I do mind is the reason behind this development. I don't believe Bioware did it to give fans a way to mix up dialogue options and gameplay modes. I think Bioware did it in a desperate attempt to lure in people who don't give a damn about the story, the universe or the characters, and just want to make things explode. You know, the people who would have much more fun playing Call of Duty, or Halo, or Gears of War, or any number of other mindless shooters with a tawdry single player campaign tacked onto the multiplayer mode. The ones who don't want the bother of an interactive story, when interactive means more then just shooting things.

Like many others, I knew where this was going with Multiplayer. I only wish I could say i'm surprised.

You have your opinion but most games, even Gears of War and COD, aren't mindless. Then again most people that say such things think they're above such experiences for some reason.

What I meant was that single player wasn't the true focus in those games and that the stories for the most part are engineered solely to create a scenario in which tons of people across the globe can get together online and murder each other. I didn't say it couldn't be fun. I just meant that story wasn't the focus.

Modifié par Asenza, 05 novembre 2011 - 10:14 .

[Balek-Vriege]

OMTING52601 wrote...

 It seems like the real crux of the argument about the modes boils down to how it affects the RPG elements, not whether or not a player should be able to choose them. 
It isn't that anyone knows, with certainty, that the separate modes cost tons of time or money to create (though in truth, regardless of 'ease' no one knows how many funds(cash or time) were used/diverted to implement them) but the IMPLICATION that Action Mode, with it's pre-set dialog, STRONGLY SUGGESTS a pre-determined story line. A pre-determined, finite, story line is NOT what RPGers want in a game. Players need the illusion of choice, otherwise a game fails(DA 2 is a prime example).

It doesn't matter if Action mode players can switch back to RPG mode because...

If there is, indeed, a pre-set storyline(be it para or rene or one of each) for that mode, it would make sense that those strictly either/or plot lines would be the best developed in the system. It's people worrying that, regardless of an RPG mode, the addition of a pre-determined story will make the RPG elements less deep, less interactive. 

Yeah, there's a lot of 'if you don't want, don't' back and forth, but I've spent the better part of an hour reading this entire thread and ignoring the jabs and snide insults, I can understand the reservation of certain players.

Do I mind the options? No. Can I appreciate that the options may take something away from the game? Yes. 

There's been some talk of scripts for implementing Action Mode.  It ccould basically boil down to something like this at the beginning of each scripted appearance of a dialogue wheel:

IF AutoConvo Enabled

Pick Dialogue_51_Paragon_Choice_A

ELSE

Open Diaolgue wheel
blablabla (conversation scripting)

Script(s) continue on naturally until next calling up of dialogue wheel.

Not too hard to implement.

As for your point about Action Mode suggesting a pre-determined storyline.  Sure, if you ignored all the other info and news released and the fact that there would be no need for an Action Mode if that was the case.  If scripting auto dialogue is as easy as above, why would adding a few lines of scripting all of a sudden make some options more important and others less fleshed out?  The storyboard/writing comes first then the implementation of scripts governing how the dialogue unfolds.  Action Mode is not "canon" with the rest of the decisions being fluff.  It's just a technical option that disables some choice and trades it in for playthrough speed and simplicity.

Modifié par Balek-Vriege, 05 novembre 2011 - 10:13 .

[1136342t54_]

Vegos wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

Vegos wrote...


Oh, I know perfectly well why I disagree.

I simply picked the option saying "Save yourself a headache" because that's what I'd get if I got into explaining my reasons only to get attacked by another c'n'p'ed post by someone who thinks their way of seeing things is superior.

Well if you come onto a discussion forum and say you don't like something just because then be sure you will be called on that. If you post a explanation on why you don't like it then expect to be crtic'd by others who disagree. Not everyone think the same way and it is quite possible that you may change your opinion.

Very well.

If I want to play a shooter, I'll go play a FPS.

If I want to play a RPG, I'll go play a RPG.

If I want to play a completely story-driven game, I'll go play interactive fiction VN's.

When I decide what genre I want to play, I want to play a game of that genre, that focuses on being that genre. I don't want a game of genre X with options to be played as Y or Z as well, because if I want to play Y or Z, I'll go and play a game that was developed to be Y or Z. It is also not only my opinion, but experience, that adding Y and Z to a product that is mainly about X, reduces the quality of X. That goes not only for video games, but also other things.

Spreading your focus over several categories simply means you can invest less into each individual one. Now, I'm still saying ME3 is not likely to be a complete flop, hell I enjoyed DA2 with all the flaws it has. But, you know, with that bitter aftertaste of "what could have been".

I don't want a jack of all trades. I want a master of one.

I bet I'll regret having wasted time on posting this in an hour; and I also bet people won't do any
"calling me on it", they'll simply go on with being that first syllable of the word "assumption" with their assumptions. That, again, is experience, and not opinion.

The main problem I see with this argument is that you see it as wasting resources when in fact how much resources are really wasted?

The combat isn't changed at all the only thing that is affected is whether you have a choice or not in manual dialog. Bioware just chooses the decisions for you that is it. What time that is wasted on making that mode could be akin to a normal playthrough of ME3 and some devs have stated they have played ME3 many many times.

[Vegos]

1136342t54 wrote...

Vegos wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

Vegos wrote...


Oh, I know perfectly well why I disagree.

I simply picked the option saying "Save yourself a headache" because that's what I'd get if I got into explaining my reasons only to get attacked by another c'n'p'ed post by someone who thinks their way of seeing things is superior.

Well if you come onto a discussion forum and say you don't like something just because then be sure you will be called on that. If you post a explanation on why you don't like it then expect to be crtic'd by others who disagree. Not everyone think the same way and it is quite possible that you may change your opinion.

Very well.

If I want to play a shooter, I'll go play a FPS.

If I want to play a RPG, I'll go play a RPG.

If I want to play a completely story-driven game, I'll go play interactive fiction VN's.

When I decide what genre I want to play, I want to play a game of that genre, that focuses on being that genre. I don't want a game of genre X with options to be played as Y or Z as well, because if I want to play Y or Z, I'll go and play a game that was developed to be Y or Z. It is also not only my opinion, but experience, that adding Y and Z to a product that is mainly about X, reduces the quality of X. That goes not only for video games, but also other things.

Spreading your focus over several categories simply means you can invest less into each individual one. Now, I'm still saying ME3 is not likely to be a complete flop, hell I enjoyed DA2 with all the flaws it has. But, you know, with that bitter aftertaste of "what could have been".

I don't want a jack of all trades. I want a master of one.

I bet I'll regret having wasted time on posting this in an hour; and I also bet people won't do any
"calling me on it", they'll simply go on with being that first syllable of the word "assumption" with their assumptions. That, again, is experience, and not opinion.

The main problem I see with this argument is that you see it as wasting resources when in fact how much resources are really wasted?

The combat isn't changed at all the only thing that is affected is whether you have a choice or not in manual dialog. Bioware just chooses the decisions for you that is it. What time that is wasted on making that mode could be akin to a normal playthrough of ME3 and some devs have stated they have played ME3 many many times.

See, you're doing it again; refusing to take something for what it is. And what it is, is not an argument. That's my point of view, my opinion. It's not the right one, it's not the wrong one, but it's the one that's mine.

I'm not arguing for or against anything with it, I am simply stating my thoughts. I would appreciate if you left my thoughts to me instead of dissecting them.

Modifié par Vegos, 05 novembre 2011 - 10:21 .

[Darji]

Alex_SM wrote...

There won't be any fuss about if that disaster called Dragon Age 2 wasn't their last released game. But it is, and everything they are saying are showing recalls what they said and showed in DA2.

Exactly. Yes It is a different studio BUT. First of all. It is still working under EA and secondly The Dragon Age  Bioware team used alot of mechanics and stuff from the MAss effect team because its the same company. which share the smae visions and ideals.

So dont act like this Team is much different. Its the same company udner the same lead....

[ODST 5723]

If you wanted your thoughts to be left to you then you wouldn't put them into statements you then post on a discussion forum.

Hitting the post button is a decision that invites others to respond, including dissecting them and being able to ask questions or share their opinion as well.

Modifié par ODST 5723, 05 novembre 2011 - 10:25 .

[1136342t54_]

Vegos wrote...

See, you're doing it again; refusing to take something for what it is. And what it is, is not an argument. That's my point of view, my opinion. It's not the right one, it's not the wrong one, but it's the one that's mine.

I'm not arguing for or against anything with it, I am simply stating my thoughts. I would appreciate if you left my thoughts to me instead of dissecting them.

So by posting your explanation of why you dislike the options you see it as keeping your thoughts to yourself? Its a discussion forum if you really don't care about discussing these things then there is little point in posting. You can't just post that you don't like something and not expect someone of a different opinion to call you out on it. 

[Darji]

jreezy wrote...

Darji wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

There won't be any fuss about if that disaster called Dragon Age 2 wasn't their last released game. But it is, and everything they are saying are showing recalls what they said and showed in DA2.

Exactly. Yes It is a different studio BUT. First of all. It is still working under EA and secondly The Dragon Age  Bioware team used alot of mechanics and stuff from the MAss effect team because its the same company. which share the smae visions and ideals.

So dont act like this Team is much different. Its the same company udner the same lead....

Same lead? As in designer? No.

Same company lead of course.

[Giantdeathrobot]

The Total War saga having an ''auto-resolve battle'' button clearly means it's a cheap Civilization knock-off and not a real-time RTS at it's core. Those damnable Creative Assembly sellouts!!

In all seriousness, I am not surprised by the whine over this, but it still makes me a bit sad. The only valid complaint one could have is that it means the game was designed with auto-dialog in mind, which is a ''maybe'' at best, and anyway the Mass Effect franchise rarely had more than Paragon/Renegade options, so just choose one archetype and off you go. People who take that mode probably would not be interested by any sort of third option anyhow, and if they end up with an incomplete story then they deserve it.

Apart from that, I fail to see what evil one could see in this. Oh wait, BSN. All the nice stuff we saw in the demo (health being it's own bar, big ME1 vibe, appearance from several characters from the previous game, great music, to name only that) doesn't matter one bit, no, we must whine endlessly about the one little optional thing that doesn't please the unpleasable fanbase. Not only in this thread, but in others too. It's really beginning to sound like a broken record.

[Vegos]

So by posting your explanation of why you dislike the options you see it as keeping your thoughts to yourself? Its a discussion forum if you really don't care about discussing these things then there is little point in posting. You can't just post that you don't like something and not expect someone of a different opinion to call you out on it. 

1) I didn't "just post it", I posted that because you asked me to post my explanation, don't forget that tiny little detail. I didn't come here seeking attention, and as you know I was pretty cranky about you having asked in the first place. Consider it indulgence.

2) Yes, it is a discussion forum. And the title doesn't say "Discuss Vegos' train of thoughts in this thread", so that's not what I am willing to discuss in it. If you want to challenge my point of view, challenge it with your own point of view, not with what you think is wrong with mine.

So, in conclusion,

3) You're not calling anyone out on anything, you're simply being obnoxious, and quite stupidly so.

Modifié par Vegos, 05 novembre 2011 - 10:33 .

[OMTING52601]

Balek-Vriege wrote...

There's been some talk of scripts for implementing Action Mode.  It ccould basically boil down to something like this at the beginning of each scripted appearance of a dialogue wheel:

IF AutoConvo Enabled

Pick Dialogue_51_Paragon_Choice_A

ELSE

Open Diaolgue wheel
blablabla (conversation scripting)

Script(s) continue on naturally until next calling up of dialogue wheel.

Not too hard to implement.

As for your point about Action Mode suggesting a pre-determined storyline.  Sure, if you ignored all the other info and news released and the fact that there would be no need for an Action Mode if that was the case.  If scripting auto dialogue is as easy as above, why would adding a few lines of scripting all of a sudden make some options more important and others less fleshed out?  The storyboard/writing comes first then the implementation of scripts governing how the dialogue unfolds.  Action Mode is not "canon" with the rest of the decisions being fluff.  It's just a technical option that disables some choice and trades it in for playthrough speed and simplicity.

Bolding is mine. "Could be" is exactly the point. Neither you, nor anyone in point of fairness, has any idea how the pre-set dialogs will be implemented, which is why concern over a pre-determined storyline is valid. To your point of "if you ignored all the other info and news and the fact that there would be no need for an Action Mode if that was the case", well.... The news said there definitely was no chance of MP. The news said the game was "absolutely ready for release" last November(but looking at the beta that seems unlikely). The news said ME 1 decisions would absolutely have an impact on ME 2. What your suggesting isn't "news", it's PR. From what I've read that has been produced by non EA/Bioware affiliated entities, the people in this forum aren't the only ones worried about what all this new content may do to a popular franchise.

Further more, suggesting that a pre-determined storyline would preclude the "need" for Action mode can be turned around on itself. In other words, I can just as easily argue that a pre-determined storyline in fact necessitates an Action mode in order for said pre-determined storyline to play out as intended.

[Darji]

Giantdeathrobot wrote...

The Total War saga having an ''auto-resolve battle'' button clearly means it's a cheap Civilization knock-off and not a real-time RTS at it's core. Those damnable Creative Assembly sellouts!!

In all seriousness, I am not surprised by the whine over this, but it still makes me a bit sad. The only valid complaint one could have is that it means the game was designed with auto-dialog in mind, which is a ''maybe'' at best, and anyway the Mass Effect franchise rarely had more than Paragon/Renegade options, so just choose one archetype and off you go. People who take that mode probably would not be interested by any sort of third option anyhow, and if they end up with an incomplete story then they deserve it.

Apart from that, I fail to see what evil one could see in this. Oh wait, BSN. All the nice stuff we saw in the demo (health being it's own bar, big ME1 vibe, appearance from several characters from the previous game, great music, to name only that) doesn't matter one bit, no, we must whine endlessly about the one little optional thing that doesn't please the unpleasable fanbase. Not only in this thread, but in others too. It's really beginning to sound like a broken record.

Yeah but these autoo resoves option are there to make a game faster. Becasue one of these battles can take like an hour or even more.  restricting something that is normally the core element in an RPG is a total different matter.. With this mode its clear to me that the huge focus in this game is the combat and the story is just a "side product" and is not really that important compared to the combat.

And honestly If I were a storywriter in this Company I would be insulted by not letting you experience all the work these people put into the story and their choices.

[kregano]

Darji wrote...

Yeah but these autoo resoves option are there to make a game faster. Becasue one of these battles can take like an hour or even more.  restricting something that is normally the core element in an RPG is a total different matter.. With this mode its clear to me that the huge focus in this game is the combat and the story is just a "side product" and is not really that important compared to the combat.

And honestly If I were a storywriter in this Company I would be insulted by not letting you experience all the work these people put into the story and their choices.

As a writer, I'd be far more insulted that people quit playing the game half-way through.