1467 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

Vegos wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

It's an example. Use it as a metaphor to how you should look at the modes.

I don't know, examples tend to be good when they're realistic, not when they're accompanied by so much handwaving it could lift the EA HQ off the ground.

And why is it that I "should" look at th emodes like that? Because it's how you look at them? Because it's how BW expect us to look at them? Because in my past life I signed an until the end of universe contract that I'll be looking at the modes that way once they come around?

Really, there's nothing, not one thing, saying I "should" be looking at them one way or the other, so I'm simply looking at them with my own eyes instead.

Yes, that true, but you tend to warp the consept of what yourlooking at.In truth the other modes are just the rpg mode with things taken out. Taking his out is not extra work. They'r just fliping the off switch on. The rpg mode is the opus.

[Vegos]

dreman9999 wrote...

Yes, that true, but you tend to warp the consept of what yourlooking at.In truth the other modes are just the rpg mode with things taken out. Taking his out is not extra work. They'r just fliping the off switch on. The rpg mode is the opus.

I was talking about dispersion of focus rather than it being extra work. A decathlon athlete will generally lose against the athlete who specialized in one particular discipline if they compete in that oen discipline.

[dreman9999]

Vegos wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Yes, that true, but you tend to warp the consept of what yourlooking at.In truth the other modes are just the rpg mode with things taken out. Taking his out is not extra work. They'r just fliping the off switch on. The rpg mode is the opus.

I was talking about dispersion of focus rather than it being extra work. A decathlon athlete will generally lose against the athlete who specialized in one particular discipline if they compete in that oen discipline.

But making these modes are not extra work. It's just turning things off.

Modifié par dreman9999, 07 novembre 2011 - 03:29 .

[1136342t54_]

dreman9999 wrote...
But making these modes are not extra work. It turning things off.

Hey flipping a switch is exhausting dude.

[Vegos]

dreman9999 wrote...

Vegos wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Yes, that true, but you tend to warp the consept of what yourlooking at.In truth the other modes are just the rpg mode with things taken out. Taking his out is not extra work. They'r just fliping the off switch on. The rpg mode is the opus.

I was talking about dispersion of focus rather than it being extra work. A decathlon athlete will generally lose against the athlete who specialized in one particular discipline if they compete in that oen discipline.

But making these modes are not extra work. It turning things off.

"I was talking about dispersion of focus rather than it being extra work."

Or, in a form you may actually understand:

"I'm not saying it's extra work, I'm saying it's dispersion of focus."

Try again.

Modifié par Vegos, 07 novembre 2011 - 03:28 .

[dreman9999]

Vegos wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Vegos wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Yes, that true, but you tend to warp the consept of what yourlooking at.In truth the other modes are just the rpg mode with things taken out. Taking his out is not extra work. They'r just fliping the off switch on. The rpg mode is the opus.

I was talking about dispersion of focus rather than it being extra work. A decathlon athlete will generally lose against the athlete who specialized in one particular discipline if they compete in that oen discipline.

But making these modes are not extra work. It turning things off.

"I was talking about dispersion of focus rather than it being extra work."

Or, in a form you may actually understand:

"I'm not saying it's extra work, I'm saying it's dispersion of focus."

Try again.

But the focus is still making the best rpg mode they can make. How do you not get this?
 How is make a mode that turns things off make them lose focus on the rpg mode they started making first?

[Vegos]

dreman9999 wrote...
 How do you not get this?

"Get" this? You "get" a math problem.

A personal viewpoint on what seems to be a company's focus based on how they act involves a process a little more complicated than "getting" it.

[dreman9999]

Vegos wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
 How do you not get this?

"Get" this? You "get" a math problem.

A personal viewpoint on what seems to be a company's focus based on how they act involves a process a little more complicated than "getting" it.

But it;s clear they are focus onthe rpg mode.....Due to the beta leak.

[Vegos]

dreman9999 wrote...
the rpg mode.....Due to the beta leak.

For the umpteenth time, no beta, no demo, and no trailer has ever convinced me of anything, and on more than one occasion, it turned out to not be a proper sample of the game or movie it was for. Not saying it's happening now, but it's simply too small. The unseen bits could still go either way, so I got no new information when it was, quote-unquote, leaked.

[dreman9999]

Vegos wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
the rpg mode.....Due to the beta leak.

For the umpteenth time, no beta, no demo, and no trailer has ever convinced me of anything, and on more than one occasion, it turned out to not be a proper sample of the game or movie it was for. Not saying it's happening now, but it's simply too small. The unseen bits could still go either way, so I got no new information when it was, quote-unquote, leaked.

You can have the game and see that your fears is unsounded and still complain. Forget this, I'm done with you.

[Vegos]

dreman9999 wrote...

You can have the game and see that your fears is unsounded and still complain. Forget this, I'm done with you.

I can't have the game for another 4 months, actually. And until then, you can't know just how well-founded my grievances are. Neither can I , of course, but I'm not the one trying to convince me either way.

And you're "done with me", why? Because I refuse to see things your way? Fair enough. Not the first time it happened to anyone.

Modifié par Vegos, 07 novembre 2011 - 04:00 .

[Darji]

slimgrin wrote...

Bioware is the first dev I know of that is willing to literally spend dev resources to altar the genre of their game. Infinity Ward, Larian, Epic, Blizzard, CDPR - no one else does this.

If this isn't the very definition of selling out I don't know what is.

Nintendo did that with their whole console and their concept.

[Swampthing500]

As much as I adhere to the "don't like it, don't use it" rule of gameplay options, a part of me is thinking "Why make an RPG and then include options that make it less of an rpg.

You can't design a product to appeal to everyone, and if you do I believe it dilutes the quality. Do not try to constrict or simplify the gameplay. Stick to the genre (RPG) and make it as deep and meaningful as possible.

That such elements are being included is worrisome. I have a feeling this was mandated by EA executives rather than the staff of Bioware. I remember what happened with EA and Origin (the company started by Richard Garriot). Sure, the initial funding allowed them to produce some excellent games, but corporate management basically gutted Origin of all integrity and creativity, and we endured abominations like Ultima 9. I have the feeling Bioware has already started down this path.

Modifié par Swampthing500, 07 novembre 2011 - 09:35 .

[yoomazir]

Lulz, Bioware, bang up job there, can't wait to see the next announcements to screw even more your games.
BTW, not planning on buying this game anymore, good luck to you guys.

[milena87]

As long as there's the RPG option I'm fine with it. My brother was actually quite pleased when I told him about the action option (he doesn't usually play RPGs, I only convinced him to try ME).

I don't even see how these 2 settings could diminish the rest of the game: they just seems more options, like the auto-level or the powers auto-use. Someone who normally plays RPGs wouldn't use those options, but maybe someone else might.

[Shepard the Leper]

Swampthing500 wrote...

As much as I adhere to the "don't like it, don't use it" rule of gameplay options, a part of me is thinking "Why make an RPG and then include options that make it less of an rpg.

You can't design a product to appeal to everyone, and if you do I believe it dilutes the quality. Do not try to constrict or simplify the gameplay. Stick to the genre (RPG) and make it as deep and meaningful as possible.

Right. Why the heck add graphic options? Who would want to play in lesser quality, or on a 20th century monitor? Why add sound options - only those who lost their sanity don't use a 7.1 audio setup. Why add the option to toggle subs? Why add different difficutly levels? Why add options to change controls? Etc Etc

You cannot design a product everyone likes; you can, however, give the player options to tweak the settings so people can play the game the way they like to. It's beyond my understanding what could possibly be wrong with that, but then again, there are (ignorant and arrogant) folks out here who think the way they (like to) play is the only "true" way and everybody else is part of the CoD-plot to take over the (gaming) world or something.

[Vegos]

Shepard the Leper wrote...

Right. Why the heck add graphic options? Who would want to play in lesser quality, or on a 20th century monitor? Why add sound options - only those who lost their sanity don't use a 7.1 audio setup. Why add the option to toggle subs? Why add different difficutly levels? Why add options to change controls? Etc Etc

You cannot design a product everyone likes; you can, however, give the player options to tweak the settings so people can play the game the way they like to. It's beyond my understanding what could possibly be wrong with that, but then again, there are (ignorant and arrogant) folks out here who think the way they (like to) play is the only "true" way and everybody else is part of the CoD-plot to take over the (gaming) world or something.

Yes, because the number of polygons has a massive impact on the gameplay.

Modifié par Vegos, 07 novembre 2011 - 01:05 .

[Shepard the Leper]

Vegos wrote...

Yes, because the number of polygons has a massive impact on the gameplay.

What impact does a cutscene have on gameplay? Or the story for that matter?

[Vegos]

Shepard the Leper wrote...

What impact does a cutscene have on gameplay? Or the story for that matter?

None, if it's a cutscene in any mode, but if it is, then it has nothing to do with different modes altogether and is thus irrelevant to the issue at hand.

But if it's just a cutscene in one and an interactive conversation in another, well then the "gameplay has been affected" flag rises. Also if it's a cutscene in one and an actual battle in another.

[Dean_the_Young]

So, who is this Vegos and why does he hate ME3?

[Vegos]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

So, who is this Vegos and why does he hate ME3?

I can't hate something that doesn't even exist yet. I'll hate it if it warrants my hate after actually playing it. If I get that far, considering all the mess with Origin.

For now, I just have grievances with some decisions that have been made in the development process. But I understand that's too much for mortal brains to wrap around, so I won't hold it against mortals if they mistakenly believe it's "ME3 hate" talking.

Modifié par Vegos, 07 novembre 2011 - 01:35 .

[Shepard the Leper]

Vegos wrote...

None, if it's a cutscene in any mode, but if it is, then it has nothing to do with different modes altogether and is thus irrelevant to the issue at hand.

But if it's just a cutscene in one and an interactive conversation in another, well then the "gameplay has been affected" flag rises. Also if it's a cutscene in one and an actual battle in another.

Thus far (ME1 and 2) there haven't been any cutscenes or dialogue options that (truly) affected gameplay. You get one or two different dialogue lines or receive an email, but that's about it. Pretty disappointing imho.

Besides, why shouldn't players have the option? I usually play games on the hardest difficulty setting because I like a little challenge. I've no problem with people who don't like to be challenged and play on the easiest difficulty level. I don't understand why they do it, but I don't care as long as I have the option to play the game like I want to.

I'll be playing ME3 with all option toggled on the first (couple) time(s), but I see little point in having to watch cutscenes for the fourth time when the only thing I'm interested in is to test a different class / build / team on a specific mission. I really hated ME2's unskippable intro when testing different facial codes - the option to remove the fuss so I can check whether or not my Shep looks ok would be a blessing - not a curse.

[Sharrack]

I actually like the idea of the action mode as it not only widens the possible audience for this one game, but might even get several rpg firstimers interested in rpgs, starting with action mode and changing to rpgmode later and in the end also playing other rpgs. If i play this mode myself will depend on two things:
1. are the choices made dependent on an imported savegame(sideeffect: every storyline is equaly important, which would also ease some of the problems people seem have with this mode)
2. is the combat good enough to make it worth playing me3 solely because of it (if feeling like playing a storybased shooter instead of a rpg, for example).
That said, even then i probably won't choose it on my first 6 or so playthroughs, so perhaps somewhen in april 2012 (well i'm optimistic concerning the quality of bioware games).

[Shammybaby]

I'll just post what I posted earlier in regards to this subject,

The Devolution of the Mass Effect Franchise began with two. This should be of no surprise to anyone who's nose isn't buried up Bioware's drawers.

In Mass Effect there was a series of different weapons within the field of Pistol, Shotgun, Machine Gun, Sniper Rifle. It felt very nice to throw away the starting assault rifle for a newer, different looking one. I nearly came when I realized, through visiting at least a dozen different star systems, being betrayed and lead on by NPC's, and inserting myself into Citadel politics, I had unlocked the Spectre Master Series weapons. ****, they were so bad ass- who can disagree to that?

When I became a Spectre, the initiation was admittedly a little underwhelming- but it was sudden and very welcoming. Everybody's attitudes visibly changed, and your Spectre status really made you feel like a Judge Dredd- and people knew you had that power too. NPC's sniped at your Spectre status regularly, as if taunting you to give them a whooping.

I had Wrex's race to worry about, a nuclear device immediately after revelations from a Reaper! AND I had to make a choice I hadn't seen in a game in a very long time- one of your original squadmates has to go, which one?

The planet surfaces were relatively the same, sure- but every time you went down there was 3 or four different things to do. You couldn't unlock a part of the prothean story without planetary exploration. Every time I went into a building it was to find some one new, **** up someone new, or stop something sinister. The Moon Base anyone? That **** was fantastic.

The plot flowed very well. It's abrupt halt into the climax didn't feel that way- I was exhausted from exploring every where and pleasing/pissing off everybody in due turn that the final assaults on the Prothean ruins and the Citadel were suitably epic.


***

In Mass Effect 2 I am working for the same company that attempted to use the Thorian to make an army, and shot my commanding officer from the Colony-Wars right in front of my eyes. This is never brought up once.

Shepard's death is entirely needless except to tie him directly to Cerberus- defeating all the hate-on given to the player in ME1. Look at your skill chart in Mass Effect 1. I could never get Saren to off himself because I just didn't have the skills. I had to replay the game to see features locked from that style of play. Certain classes had abilities that others just couldn't have, while being able to wield whatever arsenal they felt was required- regardless of statistic penalty. It was very reminiscent of Baldur's Gate, Deus Ex- franchises most people understand are the standards for solid RPG design.

And never forget that's what Mass Effect is supposed to be- a Role Playing Game. The only thing that is out of your control, supposedly, is your last name. Every thing else comes down to you, the player. It is the developer's responsibility to give you the amount of tools they feel you need to have a unique experience each time you play.

In Mass Effect 2 your choices are more than sliced in half. Your Spectre status means f­uck all- and if you saved the council, and kept relations with aliens and humans relatively the same, there should be reward for that, no? Instead I get to shove a gun down an NPC's throat and say "I am a Spectre. Start talking." Furthermore, the arsenal choices were a wild let down until free DLC fixed this (And this is a personal point- god damn it Bioware where the hell is my Spectre Master Gear? I earned that damn it.)

A Massive prisoner ship is a series of high and low corridors. Totally understandable- it sure as hell felt like a prison. However, so is every other place I visit. Every where- even the 'cities'. Mass Effect 1 was very clever in hiding its constraints. Never once did I actually feel claustrophobic in what is supposed to be me against a galaxy. Level designs in ME2 were undeniably different and needlessly so. It actually took away from combat possibilities- or the chance to avoid them entirely.

There are some things about ME2 that were also clearly better than ME1. Having my original Shepard's face brought into the graphically enhanced world was absolutely amazing. The armor customization felt right- limited, too few pieces, but it felt right. The squad was loveable, hateable, and mysterious. They served their typical RPG niche's that a veteran gamer can detect- but they did it well and it never felt out of place- except with Cerberus.

"Oh Govnah you're a Spectre and I'm a Company Suit and I am genetically perfect yet you're so much better whoop de doop can I tell you anymore boldly that I have daddy issues?" is not solid character development. Not discussing even once what Cerberus had done in the previous game felt more than lazy- it felt irresponsible. "Yeah we basically copied an Alliance prototype while chilling in Alliance space and- don't ask how- made an even better prototype super engine... OH BUT YOU NEED TO UPGRADE IT." is not good story progression- which brings me to my next point.

Mass Effect 1's storyline flowed well- I've touched on that. In Mass Effect 2 the story seems to stop dead in its tracks for absolutely no reason, only to begin again as the credits begin to roll. The Collectors work for the reapers, yes- kidnapping human colonies, yes, to make a T-1000 reaper, yes I understood that. None of this actually has anything to do with rallying the galaxy to stop the impending reaper invasion. It is a perpetual fetch quest. Please solve your squadmate's personal problems so they don't die at the end of the game. Do this eight times. Fly through a gateway using a derelict reaper you just happen to come across (BUT THE GALAXY DOESN'T BELIEVE IN THEM THO RITE? LOLOL) and you blow up a single collector base. Only to come to the conclusion: Oh right. The reapers are still coming.

It felt like an experiment more than a true sequel. It changed enough to be very noticeable- a lack of exploration, more duck-and-cover related corridor combat, less choice- the fundamental requirement in a Galactic RPG.

But, what does all this have to do with Mass Effect 3? It just sounds like a review of someone who clearly enjoyed ME1 more than ME2. Companies change, artistic direction can change. But this is a trilogy. This is not an action game set in the future. This is a Galactic RPG. An Ancient evil has awoken, and it's Humanity's time to either set aside the galaxy's differences and usher in a golden age- or bare the burden alone and keep it us against them. When a franchise changes away from what captivated the original audience- that is the problem. That is what sir-whatever is attempting to say. That's what other people who aren't eloquent enough to say are trying to say. It's good to get new fans to a franchise. You know how that happens? ME3 comes out and friends go "Sweet game."

"Yeah." I say. "It's Mass Effect 3. You should totally get the first two though- you can import your character and all his decisions, looks, and everything come over to each game. They're really good."

Suddenly Bioware sees sales of ME1 and 2 spike slightly as people get into the franchise the right way- by playing the ****ing franchise. and they form their opinions. By making a "Baby's first game mode" which is 'Story' and a "Welcome to Mass Effect, here's a gun." 'Action' mode and a "Oh, are you ME1 and 2 owners still here? Well here's an..." 'RPG' mode, you are effectively shrugging off the previous two games. The thousands of hours of work the teams- all of them, art, writing, level design, sprite animation- and the people who enjoyed and purchased the game are spat on. The third game in a TRILOGY should not be touted as 'a perfectly reasonable point to start in the Mass Effect franchise.'

If I watched Episode 6: Return of the Jedi, I have not had the true experience. I never had the build up. I never paid the company (and I emphasize this for the plebs who keep spouting 'Oh it's a company decision they have to make money.') to see Episode 4 and 5. I never saw the twists, turns, I never got attached to the characters or understood why they were there.

I purchased ME1. I played it many times over. I purchased the collectors edition of ME1 on the first day, hard copy- and yes, I enjoyed my first play through. But the second, and third were so lackluster. I had seen basically everything in the first play through- and no matter whether I chose A or B, there was never a tantalizing option Y or Z- just an opposite of one coin. I did not feel compelled to drudge through the 'tropical paradise' planet that Jacob's dad was living on. I didn't want to go through the sub-par acting on Jacob's Dad's part while the VA for Jacob was trying his hardest to show that the situation around him was ****ed up. I didn't want to go through a reskin of the Prison Jack is in on the Cerberus Facility where she grew up again, there was nothing else to find- no hidden records or tidbits or gear. It took me 3 playthroughs to get enough money in ME1 to unlock Spectre master gear. That **** was awesome.

ME3 will be a devolution of the series. You all may really like it- maybe even love it. You'll buy every bit of DLC and you'll read every update and talk about every possibility- but you'll reinstall ME1 again, down the road. You'll smile as you type in the first name of your Shepard, and you choose his/her background- the fundamental past that made you who you are. You'll have mastered the character design interface and make a Shepard that looks like an actual human being. You'll begin to remember all these random interactions as they appear, the backstabbing, the sanctity of law over the rights of all, the human condition being tested on a galactic stage for the first time in history- and hopefully you'll understand what I'm trying to get across. It may be an alright game, you may 'have fun', but is this seriously what you were expecting when you fell in love with the original two games?

[1136342t54_]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

So, who is this Vegos and why does he hate ME3?

Vegos doesn't hate ME3 but seems to not like the different modes since it will supposedly ruin his or her experience, the very essence of ME series and it diverts too much focus from RPG mode.