1467 réponses à ce sujet

[spirosz]

Terror_K wrote...

Well, part of the problem whenever discussing RPGs here is that everybody has their different definitions. I personally define RPGs by how the rest of the industry does, not on personal preferences or what it means to me personally. My favourite aspect of BioWare games is actually the characters and story too, but I acknowledge they are not factors that actually solely define an RPG, since there are plenty of games that have these factors and aren't, and also plenty of RPGs that don't, but are. In either case, I did state the more cinematic and story-driven nature of AC and Batman AA/AC as contributing factors as much as the statistical progression and upgrades.

My basic point however is this: there are too many of these ill-defined hybrids lately, and that seems to be where 90% of today's AAA titles are either at or heading to. It doesn't mean these games are bad, but it means we're getting a distinct lack of variety and many genres are starting to lose the factors that help shape and define them because they are all getting hybridised and warped into these types of game I mention because of how popular they are. And that's also the reason why RPGs are meaning different things to different people these days. In the days of Baldur's Gate and even as late as KotOR, a gamer's definition of what an RPG was was largely the same. It's only been in the last 6-7 years with the rise if hybrid games that the definition has changed for different people, which is leading us to an era now where a lot of people don't actually know what an RPG is, and prefer to define it by common factors they like in RPGs rather than what actually constitutes an RPG.

Definitons aren't really the point though. The point is that due to the trends of big name titles and the fact there are so many hybrid titles these days borrowing from all genres, the RPG is losing its identity. Again, it's not inherently a bad thing, but the way it's happening where the pure RPG is becoming a rarer and rarer thing is something I'm personally not a fan of. It's leading to genre fatigue, IMO.

True, I see your point.  One factor could be the fact that Bioware is a big company and if they decide to take a risk and not follow certain trends, they'll end up not selling well, or more specifcally, sell to a certain standard in today's industry.  Personally, I believe Bioware has some of the most dedicated fans out there and they should know by now, that we are a very dedicated and vocal group that do love their games. They don't need to sell billions of copies to be sucessfull, but it's really hard these days, concerning money.  Who wouldn't want to have the sucess that Activision is having with their titles, you know?  If it means they have to do certain trends in their future titles, then well, I can only hope that the industry changes it's path.  

I still believe ME3 will have the best parts of ME1 and ME2 combined, but we can only wait and see.  

[Thompson family]

@Terror_K

I see why you're concerned, but don't share the apprehension.

The people who made the blunder with DA2 insist it wasn't a blunder. Denial's nothing new, but the people who run the company say it was a blunder. And, hopefully, the people developing ME3 are saying, "Wow, what a blunder. Let's not do that." And whatever pressure they were under to do that has to account for the blunder.



[quote]Gatt9 wrote...

Strongly disagree.

The assumptions you're making is that...

1.  Action mode will be satisfying.[/quote]

If it was fully satisfying, Gatt9, then I wouldn't be arguing any would be left wanting more.

[quote]2.  People will want to replay the *exact* same things for no other reason than to hear more dialogue.[/quote]

If RPG mode  is the "exact" same thing as Action Mode, that will be a valid point.


[quote]My counter-arguements are...

1.  ME2 was a very bad shooter.  It was claustrophobicly linear,  with horrible AI,  and bland weaponry (In comparison to modern shooters).  I see no reason why a Shooter fan would find ME2 compelling,  and I'm not seeing a reason to expect anything better from ME3 as it has the same engine limitations.[/quote]

My point is that anyone who does play has a chance of becoming interested in the story. If they're only interested in the shooter elements, they won't look beyond Action mode.[/quote]

Your basic point seems to be that action gamers are only interested in action. This apparent crux is strongly stated in your next remark.


[quote]2.  The group we are talking about here,  Shooter fans,  aren't generally known for their desire to hear dialogue.

I contend there really isn't a reason to expect these people (emphasis added),  who gravitate towards CoD,  GoW,  and their kin to find Mass Effect at all satisfying.  I also contend that to expect them to suddenly shift their gaming preference is highly unrealistic at best. [/quote]

None of them? Not any?

That's a pretty broad-brush statement about a whole group of people, Gatt9.

[quote]I also contend it's highly unlikely to grow the RPG audience.  This isn't a new genre,  if people don't like the concepts behind an RPG,  giving them a Shooter mode isn't going to make them suddenly change their minds about the RPG mechanics they just completely ignored.  It's not like this is a new invention,  for anyone under 40 the opportunity to play RPG's has been prevelant,  and people who don't like RPG's already assessed the genre and don't like it.[/quote]

Then what will grow the RPG market, because  budgets for games grow every year. A high level of sales -- or at least the possibility of a high level of sales, is necessary to green-light a project or stick with a series.

The RPG market appears too small. Look at ME1. The only way it got the financing it needed was to make a pact with M$ as an Xbox 360 exclusive.

Modifié par Thompson family, 08 novembre 2011 - 04:37 .

[Vegos]

Batman has an experience system that lets you buy abilities.

There's not much of "urgency of choice" in AA though. You'll have them all way before you get to the end if you keep your eyes open and find some chronicles, trophies, riddle solutions and joker teeth.

[Terror_K]

Thompson family wrote...

Your basic point seems to be that action gamers are only interested in action. This apparent crux is strongly stated in your next remark.

2.  The group we are talking about here,  Shooter fans,  aren't generally known for their desire to hear dialogue.

I contend there really isn't a reason to expect these people (emphasis added),  who gravitate towards CoD,  GoW,  and their kin to find Mass Effect at all satisfying.  I also contend that to expect them to suddenly shift their gaming preference is highly unrealistic at best.

None of them? Not any?

That's a pretty broad-brush statement about a whole group of people, Gatt9.

While I can't speak for him directly, if he's like me when he uses the term "shooter fans" he's referring to those who rarely stray outside the likes of CoD, Gears or perhaps Halo, etc. There's a difference between "shooter fans" and gamers who just happen to list shooters amongst the genres they play and like (me, for instance, since I enjoy the odd shooter myself).

All too often those like Gatt and myself are accused of being "elitist" and the like for them misunderstanding what we're saying and the group we're targeting with such comments. We get call on for personally in****ing forumites where no insult was intended. At least not unless the shoe really fits.

[Vegos]

Admittedly, being accused of being "elitist" here is a from of humble pie for me, since I found myself accusing others of the same thing on different forums for different games when I thought their claims to be outrageous (I still do, mind you.)

[Thompson family]

@Terror_K
In Re: Gatt9

Yeah, there's truth in that. It was probably just a case of unfortunate wording.

Still, I think the RPG genre needs to find a growth avenue or the doom you and Gatt9 will come true.

[Vegos]

Thompson family wrote...
Still, I think the RPG genre needs to find a growth avenue or the doom you and Gatt9 will come true.

It's okay if it finds a growth avenue without drifting away from being a RPG genre.

[Schneidend]

Vegos wrote...

There's not much of "urgency of choice" in AA though. You'll have them all way before you get to the end if you keep your eyes open and find some chronicles, trophies, riddle solutions and joker teeth.

The same can be said of any RPG's progression. "You'll be max level before you know it if you just do the sidequests."

[Vegos]

Schneidend wrote...

Vegos wrote...

There's not much of "urgency of choice" in AA though. You'll have them all way before you get to the end if you keep your eyes open and find some chronicles, trophies, riddle solutions and joker teeth.

The same can be said of any RPG's progression. "You'll be max level before you know it if you just do the sidequests."

Not really, not all of them. Mass effect? Yeah, true, you'll be 50 on your first and 60 on your second playthrough of ME1 if you do the side missions, way before the end. And you'll be 30 in ME2, as well. I'd like to see someone hit max level in DA2 before the end though, or the XP cap in Baldur's gate without use of mods.

[Terror_K]

Vegos wrote...

Not really, not all of them. Mass effect? Yeah, true, you'll be 50 on your first and 60 on your second playthrough of ME1 if you do the side missions, way before the end. And you'll be 30 in ME2, as well. I'd like to see someone hit max level in DA2 before the end though, or the XP cap in Baldur's gate without use of mods.

You also can't unlock every ability/skill/power etc. in BioWare games or most RPGs. Not without cheating anyway.

[Vegos]

Terror_K wrote...

Vegos wrote...

Not really, not all of them. Mass effect? Yeah, true, you'll be 50 on your first and 60 on your second playthrough of ME1 if you do the side missions, way before the end. And you'll be 30 in ME2, as well. I'd like to see someone hit max level in DA2 before the end though, or the XP cap in Baldur's gate without use of mods.

You also can't unlock every ability/skill/power etc. in BioWare games or most RPGs. Not without cheating anyway.

Also true, not enough points to allocate, even at max level.

[ElitePinecone]

Fifty three pages later and it's the same four or five people arguing.

O___o

[ElitePinecone]

Finally, some insight into what Action mode might actually do:

emanziboy wrote....

It doesn't say anything about having choices being made for you. In fact,I was watching a video from the beta leak where someone was playing action mode on the Sur'Kesh mission and they went to talk with (SPOILERS) Major Kirrahe (/SPOILERS). Most of the dialog was automated, but at a certain point, a dialog option came up which allowed the player to ask about Virmire if they wanted to. It seems as though action mode doesn't completely do away with the dialog wheel, and if it came up to see if the player wanted some extra information, then it stands to reason that it will come up when it comes to choices in the story.

It seems as though it's for people who don't want to go through every dialog tree in the game and have conversations be more like cutscenes with back and forth dialog, or for people who have played the game several times and aren't as interested in choosing the same dialog choices in most conversations.

[Bluko]

dreman9999 wrote...

Here's the thing. I understand you point...but the thing you have to understand is that people are really dumb...I mean really really dumb. You think  "oh may god ' they can't be that dumb" but they prove you wrong,they really are that dumb.
On point, what other people do, or dumb people do is their business...Unless their your doctor, or dentist....Then I have to advise you to maybe get  a new doctor or dentist, it might no work out if you stay... Anyway what they do on their own time is no your business. If they want to play the action mode, let them play it. Only care about how you enjoying your time. That's what counts.
But think of it this way, the action mode can work as a gate way drug, the dumb player with look at the other modes in new play though and think,"Dude? What's an rpg?" And select it. And play they rpg part and really ,really love it. Until then, when you get the game, just put it on RPG mode.

Love, DREMAN

Yes, but I think it will fail as a "gateway drug". I'd also like to think of people as semi-intelligent. I really doubt choosing conversation options bothers too many people cause: you could already skip through it when you want. I never heard of anyone saying that they hate a game because it lets them choose dialogue.

Most people do not have the urge to play Mass Effect more then twice. I can't imagine the truly casual audience wanting to play through a game again on a different mode, and with dialogue choices. What would make them want to? They don't know it exists. They click Action Mode thinking the other modes are lame and never know what they are missing out on. 

Bioware's basically putting a blindfold on people new to the series who don't know any better. I think that's wrong. (Especially since it looks to be the default option which impatient people won't bother to look at.)


I generally do mind my own business. I don't care how people play the game, but I believe everyone should still being playing the same game more or less. I wouldn't like an Auto-Combat Mode in Mass Effect for the same reason. You're taking a part of the game away players are suppose to experience. It's just infuriating... It would be like making an "Earth Mode" for people who don't like Sci-Fi so they too can enjoy Mass Effect. You gotta draw the line somewhere. You can't cater to everyone with one game. This is Mass Effect; it's take place in space, you shoot things, you have dialogue choices. If you don't like these things you probably shouldn't be playing this game to begin with.

I mean if people want to use ME3 as a Frisby Disc I can't stop them. Though I will scream at them first.

[lltoon]

I'm all for having more options in games where more people can relate to the gameplay, but having a story mode, action mode and RPG mode is incredibly unwise.

For one thing, to make these three modes requires that you have to divide resources to develop these 3 modes. It's incredibly unfocused and results in a mediocre action mode, mediocre story mode and mediocre RPG mode instead of focusing their resources into making a purely amazing RPG game.

[111987]

lltoon wrote...

I'm all for having more options in games where more people can relate to the gameplay, but having a story mode, action mode and RPG mode is incredibly unwise.

For one thing, to make these three modes requires that you have to divide resources to develop these 3 modes. It's incredibly unfocused and results in a mediocre action mode, mediocre story mode and mediocre RPG mode instead of focusing their resources into making a purely amazing RPG game.

What?

No it doesn't. The different modes just set different default settings to your playthrough. They are all simply tweaked settings of the same content.

[Yuoaman]

lltoon wrote...

I'm all for having more options in games where more people can relate to the gameplay, but having a story mode, action mode and RPG mode is incredibly unwise.

For one thing, to make these three modes requires that you have to divide resources to develop these 3 modes. It's incredibly unfocused and results in a mediocre action mode, mediocre story mode and mediocre RPG mode instead of focusing their resources into making a purely amazing RPG game.

The three modes are the same game - with different settings chosen. These settings can be changed independantly, it's not as if the game modes are wildly different.

[TheGreenAlloy]

111987 wrote...

lltoon wrote...

I'm all for having more options in games where more people can relate to the gameplay, but having a story mode, action mode and RPG mode is incredibly unwise.

For one thing, to make these three modes requires that you have to divide resources to develop these 3 modes. It's incredibly unfocused and results in a mediocre action mode, mediocre story mode and mediocre RPG mode instead of focusing their resources into making a purely amazing RPG game.

What?

No it doesn't. The different modes just set different default settings to your playthrough. They are all simply tweaked settings of the same content.

[ElitePinecone]

^ what those three said.

This would've taken a tiny amount of resources to set up. It's just more settings.

[Bluko]

Phaedon wrote...

Ah, you bunch of ducking hypocrites.

You tell us that Diablo is a true RPG, although it has no "dialogue wheels" in it whatsoever, and that only statistical progression and dice rolls make a game an RPG, you spend months complaining about ME2 "removing weapon and armor customization", while pointing at the the dialogue wheel and stating "Story doesn't make an RPG!".

And then, when a mode is created that removes the dialogue wheels all together and allows you to focus on weapon and armor customization, statistical progression, attribute evolution, etc, etc, you look at it and yell "Herp derp! They obviously want to cater to the shooter fans! The blasted mainstream crowd!"

Diablo is an Action-RPG, just like Mass Effect. I also believe Diablo has some dialogue. But yes your character is mostly the typical silent protagonist. Which I think is pretty cheesy in most games. Unless they're supposed to be mute.

Obviously Mass Effect strives to be a little more then Diablo's Hack-n'-Slash and Level Up. Dialogue has always been a major feature of the game. I don't give a flying turd whether it's an RPG element or not.

I think it's pretty heinous to take out a major game feature or even make it optional to do so. I generally don't like major changes in sequels for this. It's generally what eventually kills most game series. They deviate so much from the original they cease to be fun. If you play any Mass Effect game (at least in this trilogy) you should use the dialogue system. I can understand people being indifferent about it. But I can't understand how any fan could ever possibly recommend or support that anyone play the game on Action Mode.

That's like telling people to not play ME1 or ME2.

[Yuoaman]

The dialog wheel has always been optional - a lot of people just go with the neutral options and don't dig for information - Bioware is just giving these people a chance to avoid the hassle of even bothering with the wheel at all.

I'm not one of these people, just saying.

[TheGreenAlloy]

to long did not read

[Yuoaman]

To short, did not acknowledge.

[Bluko]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Finally, some insight into what Action mode might actually do:

emanziboy wrote....

It doesn't say anything about having choices being made for you. In fact,I was watching a video from the beta leak where someone was playing action mode on the Sur'Kesh mission and they went to talk with (SPOILERS) Major Kirrahe (/SPOILERS). Most of the dialog was automated, but at a certain point, a dialog option came up which allowed the player to ask about Virmire if they wanted to. It seems as though action mode doesn't completely do away with the dialog wheel, and if it came up to see if the player wanted some extra information, then it stands to reason that it will come up when it comes to choices in the story.

It seems as though it's for people who don't want to go through every dialog tree in the game and have conversations be more like cutscenes with back and forth dialog, or for people who have played the game several times and aren't as interested in choosing the same dialog choices in most conversations.

Well that might not be so bad. If some conversations options and the big choices are still presented to the player I'll let it slide. Though that kind of sounds like a bug and this is beta material... (The conversation with Kirrahe is important?)

Truth be told most of the dialogue in these games is inconsequential. So the game speeding through those conversations isn't really a loss.

Although I would say the game deciding to destroy the Collector Base without any player input is harmful. That's namely what I'm concerned about and it seems implied in the description this is what would happen.

[111987]

Bluko wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

Finally, some insight into what Action mode might actually do:

emanziboy wrote....

It doesn't say anything about having choices being made for you. In fact,I was watching a video from the beta leak where someone was playing action mode on the Sur'Kesh mission and they went to talk with (SPOILERS) Major Kirrahe (/SPOILERS). Most of the dialog was automated, but at a certain point, a dialog option came up which allowed the player to ask about Virmire if they wanted to. It seems as though action mode doesn't completely do away with the dialog wheel, and if it came up to see if the player wanted some extra information, then it stands to reason that it will come up when it comes to choices in the story.

It seems as though it's for people who don't want to go through every dialog tree in the game and have conversations be more like cutscenes with back and forth dialog, or for people who have played the game several times and aren't as interested in choosing the same dialog choices in most conversations.

Well that might not be so bad. If some conversations options and the big choices are still presented to the player I'll let it slide. Though that kind of sounds like a bug and this is beta material... (The conversation with Kirrahe is important?)

Truth be told most of the dialogue in these games is inconsequential. So the game speeding through those conversations isn't really a loss.

Although I would say the game deciding to destroy the Collector Base without any player input is harmful. That's namely what I'm concerned about and it seems implied in the description this is what would happen.

Who said Action Mode automatically makes the big decisions for you? It's just dialogue.