1113 réponses à ce sujet

[DiebytheSword]

DCarter wrote...

Oblivious wrote...

DCarter wrote...

As much as the OPs talk of a "post-skyrim era" makes my balls hurt with anger. He has a point, strip away the interactive cut-scenes and ME3 is a generic third-person shooter.

Strip away the exploration and Skyrim is a generic hack-and-slash.
Strip away the multiplayer and Starcraft is a generic RTS.
Strip away the zombies and Left 4 Dead is a generic FPS.
Strip away the conspiracy plots and Assassins Creed is a generic sandbox.

What's your point? Take away a certain something from the greatest games released this generation and you'll find they're nothing more than generic copies of each other. Starcraft isn't the Korean-equivelant of the superbowl because it's a generic RTS. Left 4 Dead isn't the inspiration nearly every zombie movie/game attempts to copy/parody because it's an FPS. Assassins Creed isn't an international pop culture phenomenon because it's a sandbox.

Likewise, I'm not in love with Mass Effect because it's a "generic" TPS and I don't enjoy Skyrim because it's a hack-and-slash. I enjoy ME because of it's story and Skyrim because of it's exploration. You'll find that if you strip enough games of enough things and they'll all be identical. The difference between a great game and a "generic" game is that the great game tends to specialize in a single area.

Which is true but if you look closely all the parts you suggested stripping away are actual GAMEPLAY ELEMENTS, the interactive cutscenes in mass effect aren't gameplay elements anymore than they are in an interactive movie. Since bioware are so great at making cutscenes why don't they just make movies and leave the game developing to people who care about gameplay? 

Newsflash, dialogue trees and branching dialogue are a part of not only ME, but Skyrim's gameplay as well.  It is an uprecedented increase in player agency that other game companies simply do not have.

You choose how shepard speaks, what he says to whom, how he deals with problems.  Just like you chose how the Courier decided to alter the fate of the New Vegas area, whom he shares power with or gives it to.  Those are very important gameplay element without which niether could truly be called an RPG.

[The Elder King]

jreezy wrote...

hhh89 wrote...



Eh, that's not what I meant. I used to be better in English.

I was joking.

I know, but my post was really misleading and incomplete.

[RoboticWater]

DCarter wrote...

Oblivious wrote...

DCarter wrote...

As much as the OPs talk of a "post-skyrim era" makes my balls hurt with anger. He has a point, strip away the interactive cut-scenes and ME3 is a generic third-person shooter.

Strip away the exploration and Skyrim is a generic hack-and-slash.
Strip away the multiplayer and Starcraft is a generic RTS.
Strip away the zombies and Left 4 Dead is a generic FPS.
Strip away the conspiracy plots and Assassins Creed is a generic sandbox.

What's your point? Take away a certain something from the greatest games released this generation and you'll find they're nothing more than generic copies of each other. Starcraft isn't the Korean-equivelant of the superbowl because it's a generic RTS. Left 4 Dead isn't the inspiration nearly every zombie movie/game attempts to copy/parody because it's an FPS. Assassins Creed isn't an international pop culture phenomenon because it's a sandbox.

Likewise, I'm not in love with Mass Effect because it's a "generic" TPS and I don't enjoy Skyrim because it's a hack-and-slash. I enjoy ME because of it's story and Skyrim because of it's exploration. You'll find that if you strip enough games of enough things and they'll all be identical. The difference between a great game and a "generic" game is that the great game tends to specialize in a single area.

Which is true but if you look closely all the parts you suggested stripping away are actual GAMEPLAY ELEMENTS, the interactive cutscenes in mass effect aren't gameplay elements anymore than they are in an interactive movie. Since bioware are so great at making cutscenes why don't they just make movies and leave the game developing to people who care about gameplay? 

First of all Oblivious mentioned the conspiracy plot in Assassin's Creed which is, at this point, basically the only thing keeping the game afloat. Second of all, it doesn't need to be a gameplay element, you just need to remove core element of a game to ruin it.

[crimzontearz]

actually one cold go the way of Deus Ex and equate skills with Shepard's upgrades...

VI upgrades for targeting bonuses and lock-ons, Omnitool upgrades for new tech effects buffs and powers, skeletal cybenetic upgrades for extra melee damage and stability, Amp upgrades to unlock advanced powers buffs or cool down bonuses, muscolar upgrades for weapon stability and speed

and so on

problem is Mass Effect is so linear in how upgrades work while each upgrade should be a Game Changer





sorry I digress

[Someone With Mass]

DCarter wrote...

What? Every genre and it's derivative forefarther is mixing an rpg style leveling system with it's traditional gameplay. ME2 technically had customiseable weapons and armor but all that every was was picking a nifty paint color for my kestral armor and then ignoring it and spending any of the rescources i had accumalated from missions and scanning "upgrading" my weapons stats. You can command your squad but it's never necessary and the only time i "commanded" them was telling one of them to use pull on an enemy so i could wapr bomb them.

Besides you can create a nifty list of features for just about any game but what maters is how it feels when you're playing it and ME2s core gameplay (shooting stuff in the face) felt like a chore, especially on my repeat playthroughs, which i was just pushing through to get to the cutscenes. Now granted i haven't played ME3 so i could be way off the mark and all the small improvements they're making could combine to make for some stellar third person shooter action that is engaging and fun but i'm feeling cynical at the moment and nothing Biowares doing or saying is reassuring me. 

Okay, I'll put it in a little more detail.

You'll get weapon modifications that can do things like attach tasers or laser sights to your pistols, allow you to shoot through cover, adjust the shotgun spread, make the guns lighter so you won't go over the weight limit, attach blades to shotguns, put on scopes and then there are the pretty standard boosters of damage, accuracy, capacity, etc.
 
Then we have the powers, which you can evolve up to three times and then you can choose between six evolved forms that can do things like give you a temporarly melee boost when you kill someone with your heavy melee or give certain powers like Throw armor-piercing abilities or give the squad more weapon damage.

At last, we have the class exlusive powers that all have some function tied to that specific class, like how Nova depletes your shields, which you can then regain by using Charge or how Lockdown (Infiltrator's power that paralyzes the enemy) only works while you're cloaked.

The squadmates can also do basic melee attacks and roll like Shepard can, as well as boost the whole squad with tech/biotic boosters.

[DCarter]

DiebytheSword wrote...

DCarter wrote...

Oblivious wrote...

DCarter wrote...

As much as the OPs talk of a "post-skyrim era" makes my balls hurt with anger. He has a point, strip away the interactive cut-scenes and ME3 is a generic third-person shooter.

Strip away the exploration and Skyrim is a generic hack-and-slash.
Strip away the multiplayer and Starcraft is a generic RTS.
Strip away the zombies and Left 4 Dead is a generic FPS.
Strip away the conspiracy plots and Assassins Creed is a generic sandbox.

What's your point? Take away a certain something from the greatest games released this generation and you'll find they're nothing more than generic copies of each other. Starcraft isn't the Korean-equivelant of the superbowl because it's a generic RTS. Left 4 Dead isn't the inspiration nearly every zombie movie/game attempts to copy/parody because it's an FPS. Assassins Creed isn't an international pop culture phenomenon because it's a sandbox.

Likewise, I'm not in love with Mass Effect because it's a "generic" TPS and I don't enjoy Skyrim because it's a hack-and-slash. I enjoy ME because of it's story and Skyrim because of it's exploration. You'll find that if you strip enough games of enough things and they'll all be identical. The difference between a great game and a "generic" game is that the great game tends to specialize in a single area.

Which is true but if you look closely all the parts you suggested stripping away are actual GAMEPLAY ELEMENTS, the interactive cutscenes in mass effect aren't gameplay elements anymore than they are in an interactive movie. Since bioware are so great at making cutscenes why don't they just make movies and leave the game developing to people who care about gameplay? 

Newsflash, dialogue trees and branching dialogue are a part of not only ME, but Skyrim's gameplay as well.  It is an uprecedented increase in player agency that other game companies simply do not have.

You choose how shepard speaks, what he says to whom, how he deals with problems.  Just like you chose how the Courier decided to alter the fate of the New Vegas area, whom he shares power with or gives it to.  Those are very important gameplay element without which niether could truly be called an RPG.

So wrong. I recently played through Dark Souls. In Dark Souls there's a point where there was an NPC locked in a cell. I could choose to free him, if i did he game me a reward but later he would assassinate another NPC who happened to be rather useful. So now i had another choice whether to attack and kill the wouldbe assassin or let him carry out his murder and the quest would play out from there. That was a significant choice and none of it involve diologue trees. I'm not saying Dialogue trees are bad entirely, they do add options for the player when talking to npcs. However there are much better ways to enact changes in the world than diologue choices, in bioware game everything is decided through diologue choices and nothing else. 

[DCarter]

Someone With Mass wrote...

DCarter wrote...

What? Every genre and it's derivative forefarther is mixing an rpg style leveling system with it's traditional gameplay. ME2 technically had customiseable weapons and armor but all that every was was picking a nifty paint color for my kestral armor and then ignoring it and spending any of the rescources i had accumalated from missions and scanning "upgrading" my weapons stats. You can command your squad but it's never necessary and the only time i "commanded" them was telling one of them to use pull on an enemy so i could wapr bomb them.

Besides you can create a nifty list of features for just about any game but what maters is how it feels when you're playing it and ME2s core gameplay (shooting stuff in the face) felt like a chore, especially on my repeat playthroughs, which i was just pushing through to get to the cutscenes. Now granted i haven't played ME3 so i could be way off the mark and all the small improvements they're making could combine to make for some stellar third person shooter action that is engaging and fun but i'm feeling cynical at the moment and nothing Biowares doing or saying is reassuring me. 

Okay, I'll put it in a little more detail.

You'll get weapon modifications that can do things like attach tasers or laser sights to your pistols, allow you to shoot through cover, adjust the shotgun spread, make the guns lighter so you won't go over the weight limit, attach blades to shotguns, put on scopes and then there are the pretty standard boosters of damage, accuracy, capacity, etc.
 
Then we have the powers, which you can evolve up to three times and then you can choose between six evolved forms that can do things like give you a temporarly melee boost when you kill someone with your heavy melee or give certain powers like Throw armor-piercing abilities or give the squad more weapon damage.

At last, we have the class exlusive powers that all have some function tied to that specific class, like how Nova depletes your shields, which you can then regain by using Charge or how Lockdown (Infiltrator's power that paralyzes the enemy) only works while you're cloaked.

The squadmates can also do basic melee attacks and roll like Shepard can, as well as boost the whole squad with tech/biotic boosters.

You don't need to give me the marketing spiel i've read it all. The only way either of us is going to know how well these features work is when we play the game so i'm not going to bother debating them.

BlahDog wrote...

DCarter wrote...

Oblivious wrote...

DCarter wrote...

As much as the OPs talk of a "post-skyrim era" makes my balls hurt with anger. He has a point, strip away the interactive cut-scenes and ME3 is a generic third-person shooter.

Strip away the exploration and Skyrim is a generic hack-and-slash.
Strip away the multiplayer and Starcraft is a generic RTS.
Strip away the zombies and Left 4 Dead is a generic FPS.
Strip away the conspiracy plots and Assassins Creed is a generic sandbox.

What's your point? Take away a certain something from the greatest games released this generation and you'll find they're nothing more than generic copies of each other. Starcraft isn't the Korean-equivelant of the superbowl because it's a generic RTS. Left 4 Dead isn't the inspiration nearly every zombie movie/game attempts to copy/parody because it's an FPS. Assassins Creed isn't an international pop culture phenomenon because it's a sandbox.

Likewise, I'm not in love with Mass Effect because it's a "generic" TPS and I don't enjoy Skyrim because it's a hack-and-slash. I enjoy ME because of it's story and Skyrim because of it's exploration. You'll find that if you strip enough games of enough things and they'll all be identical. The difference between a great game and a "generic" game is that the great game tends to specialize in a single area.

Which is true but if you look closely all the parts you suggested stripping away are actual GAMEPLAY ELEMENTS, the interactive cutscenes in mass effect aren't gameplay elements anymore than they are in an interactive movie. Since bioware are so great at making cutscenes why don't they just make movies and leave the game developing to people who care about gameplay? 

First of all Oblivious mentioned the conspiracy plot in Assassin's Creed which is, at this point, basically the only thing keeping the game afloat. Second of all, it doesn't need to be a gameplay element, you just need to remove core element of a game to ruin it.

Ye i edited a phrase in to adress that. I could write a full essay critiquing the assassins creed franchise but i haven't got time. Nevertheless if you took out the conspiracy plot Assassins creed still would be a free roaming parkour, melee combat based game which is hardly generic. Not saying it's good but it's not generic. 

[argonian persona]

One thing you may see implemented more in the post-Skyrim era is the utilization of so-called perks. Mastered by Bethesda in Fallout 3 with Bethesda's formula used by Obsidian in New Vegas and revolutionized in Skyrim, perks enable fun choices in player Skill each time a level is raised without distributing a massive amount of points from a pool. You in essence get a new ability for your character along with a statistical increase, and its clean, simple and fun.

I think more companies will start doing this from now on.

Let's say shooting in Mass Effect was governed by these skills:

-Assault Rifle
-Shotgun
-Heavy Pistol
-Sniper Rifle
-Sub-machine gun
-Heavy Weapons

Each time you level, you could pick any gun to do, instantly, 15% more damage. Up to 3/3.

Other examples of selectable perks each level in the Shooting Skill could include marked increases of 20% greater weapon stability, zoom, reload time increases of 10% (culminating in ultra-fast reload), ammunition carrying increases and chances of critical hits/instant bleedout from non-headshots.

One perk per level. It allows you to specialize if you want and focus on a few weapons and not all of them (I rarely use the shotgun and never the submachine gun) and it allows you to fine-tune your gameplay as you go.

The base shooting ability at the beginning would be like normal shooting as it stands.

This is just shooting. What about Biotics? Biotics charge 10% faster and more powerful (up to 5/5) ? Throw....10% more powerful? Singularity? Biotic Slam? Cooldown times? You could focus solely on slowdown times.

I believe the level cap would have to be lower, but it would overall give more meaning and significance to each character Level.

Perks are the future...and its a rare case of sensible streamlining. It's simplistic, fun and governed by stats.

Modifié par argonian persona, 31 décembre 2011 - 12:20 .

[JeffZero]

This keeps getting richer and richer.

Please, continue.

[Someone With Mass]

That's not done by the marketing, I've seen it.



And read about it in the script. Which has been pretty damn accurate so far.

[slumlord722]

Does it really matter?

Plainscape Torment was a better rpg than both Mass Effect and Skyrim anyway

[DiebytheSword]

DCarter wrote...

So wrong. I recently played through Dark Souls. In Dark Souls there's a point where there was an NPC locked in a cell. I could choose to free him, if i did he game me a reward but later he would assassinate another NPC who happened to be rather useful. So now i had another choice whether to attack and kill the wouldbe assassin or let him carry out his murder and the quest would play out from there. That was a significant choice and none of it involve diologue trees. I'm not saying Dialogue trees are bad entirely, they do add options for the player when talking to npcs. However there are much better ways to enact changes in the world than diologue choices, in bioware game everything is decided through diologue choices and nothing else. 

Player agency =/= unforseen consequences.  Are unforseen consequences awseome?  Hell yes, it makes me happy to see smart writing and a twist.

That in no way invalidates what I said earlier.  Bioware games use dialogue to put you in the pilots chair, it is part of their gameplay.

[DiebytheSword]

argonian persona wrote...

One thing you may see implemented more in the post-Skyrim era is the utilization of so-called perks. Mastered by Bethesda in Fallout 3 with Bethesda's formula used by Obsidian in New Vegas and revolutionized in Skyrim, perks enable fun choices in player Skill each time a level is raised without distributing a massive amount of points from a pool. You in essence get a new ability for your character along with a statistical increase, and its clean, simple and fun.

I think more companies will start doing this from now on.

Let's say shooting in Mass Effect was governed by these skills:

-Assault Rifle
-Shotgun
-Heavy Pistol
-Sniper Rifle
-Sub-machine gun
-Heavy Weapons

Each time you level, you could pick any gun to do, instantly, 15% more damage. Up to 3/3.

Other examples of selectable perks each level in the Shooting Skill could include marked increases of 20% greater weapon stability, zoom, reload time increases of 10% (culminating in ultra-fast reload), ammunition carrying increases and chances of critical hits/instant bleedout from non-headshots.

One perk per level. It allows you to specialize if you want and focus on a few weapons and not all of them (I rarely use the shotgun and never the submachine gun) and it allows you to fine-tune your gameplay as you go.

The base shooting ability at the beginning would be like normal shooting as it stands.

This is just shooting. What about Biotics? Biotics charge 10% faster and more powerful (up to 5/5) ? Throw....10% more powerful? Singularity? Biotic Slam? Cooldown times? You could focus solely on slowdown times.

I believe the level cap would have to be lower, but it would overall give more meaning and significance to each character Level.

Perks are the future...and its a rare case of sensible streamlining. It's simplistic, fun and governed by stats.

There is a creation kit.  If you want more Skyrim in your ME, you can take these easy steps:

1) Purchase the next Fallout game on PC.
2) Gather a team (ME2 style dossier's aren't needed)
3) Make a total conversion of Fallout that has the entire plot of ME3 done in an open world sandbox format.
4) ??????
5) Profit.

Kidding aside, you really do want ME3 to resemble Skyrim and be less of its own unique thing, don't you?

Why can't we have variety?  Its important to have different experiences with different games, not game a being more like game b because game b was somehow superior when both a and b were thoroughly entertaining.

Its like politely asking Star Trek to be more like Star Wars because lightsabers . . . both Trek and Wars could be compared, but shouldn't be, they do their own thing well enough.

Do you really think that Skyrim is the pinnacle of gaming that all other games should endeavor to be?  I can't wait till Sky-fighter IV Turbo Championship Edition, where I can take a Hadouken to the knee, or Call of Dragons where I go through some QTEs to stop dragons from nuking something if I have enough skill points in cutscene.

.

[crimzontearz]

still think Deus Ex had the best idea

[Biotic Sage]

Il Divo wrote...

argonian persona wrote...

Paper thin story???

Lol.

It's a million times better than DAII's story.

I really disagree with this. Skyrim's emphasis on a free world comes at the expense of any kind of focused narrative.

And I really have to agree with you.  Both types of games have their merits.  Player choice can be very empowering; focused narrative / authorial direction can give us a powerful story.  I like both types, but they are really different experiences.  Personally, I usually prefer a game to lean toward the linear side of things but still have elements of player choice (e.g. Mass Effect / KOTOR / Dragon Age).

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 31 décembre 2011 - 12:51 .

[slimgrin]

WTF is this post Skyrim era nonsense? Skyrim is the second coming for RPG's?...could have fooled me. Bethesda used Gamebryo 2.0 for Skyrim as far as I'm concerned. Stiff animations yet again, and poor textures yet again, and some crazy alien looking elves that are even worse than those in DA2. What the f*ck are they, Romulans?. So much of the same clunky sh*t we got from Oblivion and so many people ignore it.

Is it a great game? Yes, but wake me up when Bethesda actually uses a new engine for a game, because the creation engine ain't new.

Modifié par slimgrin, 31 décembre 2011 - 10:20 .

[didymos1120]

jreezy wrote...

argonian persona wrote...

One thing you may see implemented more in the post-Skyrim era is the utilization of so-called perks. Mastered by Bethesda in Fallout 3 with Bethesda's formula used by Obsidian in New Vegas and revolutionized in Skyrim

"Revolutionized"? Let's not get ahead of ourselves while praising the perk trees of Skyrim shall we?

What else would you expect from someone who thinks in terms of "the post-Skyrim era"?

[Gatt9]

argonian persona wrote...

One thing you may see implemented more in the post-Skyrim era is the utilization of so-called perks. Mastered by Bethesda in Fallout 3 with Bethesda's formula used by Obsidian in New Vegas and revolutionized in Skyrim, perks enable fun choices in player Skill each time a level is raised without distributing a massive amount of points from a pool. You in essence get a new ability for your character along with a statistical increase, and its clean, simple and fun.

I think more companies will start doing this from now on.

This is the point where I can tell that you're under 20 years old,  avoid offline RPGs,  and don't play older games.  Do you know how I can say that with confidence?

Perks were mastered by Black Isle in development of Fallout in 1997-1998,  and I believe they were inspired by the GURPS PnP RPG.  The concept was further advanced by Wizards of the Coast with D&D 3.x.  Perks have been around for over 13 years now,  and usually much better done than Bethseda's work,  which really isn't any surprise.

Bethseda is a horrible studio.  Bethseda's been releasing the exact same game,  with fewer features,  for 15 years.  They took Fallout and bolted it onto the TES engine,  rather than making a Fallout game.  They're so blind and inept,  one of their leads was ranting because Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 aren't FPP.  Bethseda makes only 1 game,  and they apparently think every game should be that one game. 

Worse,  they've a history of openly mocking their fans concerns.

I would instal Origins before I installed a Bethseda product,  and I consider Origins to be one of the worst ideas ever.

TBH,  I'd willingly install virii before I installed a Bethseda product,  at least then when money leaves my account I'd know it went to someone who knew how to design.

[Someone With Mass]

jreezy wrote...

argonian persona wrote...

One thing you may see implemented more in the post-Skyrim era is the utilization of so-called perks. Mastered by Bethesda in Fallout 3 with Bethesda's formula used by Obsidian in New Vegas and revolutionized in Skyrim

"Revolutionized"? Let's not get ahead of ourselves while praising the perk trees of Skyrim shall we?

It's not like perks are something new, anyway.

[N7Raider]

argonian persona wrote...

One thing you may see implemented more in the post-Skyrim era is the utilization of so-called perks. Mastered by Bethesda in Fallout 3 with Bethesda's formula used by Obsidian in New Vegas and revolutionized in Skyrim, perks enable fun choices in player Skill each time a level is raised without distributing a massive amount of points from a pool. You in essence get a new ability for your character along with a statistical increase, and its clean, simple and fun.

I think more companies will start doing this from now on.

Let's say shooting in Mass Effect was governed by these skills:

-Assault Rifle
-Shotgun
-Heavy Pistol
-Sniper Rifle
-Sub-machine gun
-Heavy Weapons

Each time you level, you could pick any gun to do, instantly, 15% more damage. Up to 3/3.

Other examples of selectable perks each level in the Shooting Skill could include marked increases of 20% greater weapon stability, zoom, reload time increases of 10% (culminating in ultra-fast reload), ammunition carrying increases and chances of critical hits/instant bleedout from non-headshots.

One perk per level. It allows you to specialize if you want and focus on a few weapons and not all of them (I rarely use the shotgun and never the submachine gun) and it allows you to fine-tune your gameplay as you go.

The base shooting ability at the beginning would be like normal shooting as it stands.

This is just shooting. What about Biotics? Biotics charge 10% faster and more powerful (up to 5/5) ? Throw....10% more powerful? Singularity? Biotic Slam? Cooldown times? You could focus solely on slowdown times.

I believe the level cap would have to be lower, but it would overall give more meaning and significance to each character Level.

Perks are the future...and its a rare case of sensible streamlining. It's simplistic, fun and governed by stats.

I...i just gagged, I literally just gagged.  You wrote a post that is so pretentious I literally had an involutary muscle response.  

[felipejiraya]

Thread of the Post-Year Era.

Modifié par felipejiraya, 31 décembre 2011 - 01:09 .

[slumlord722]

Been casually reading this thread, and even tried to troll once but I didn't get any bites, but I have to say, regardless of Skyrim and Mass Effect 2's differences, the dude has been pretty polite throughout the whole thing. I don't agree with most of what he has been saying, but it hasn't been insulting to read.

However, it seems like the vast majority of the people defending Bioware in this thread have been acting like major ****s running on un-leaded douche fuel. Personal attacks are rampant and it's really a sorry sight. The Mass Effect series is pretty good, and it sucks to see that people can't seem to defend it without harsh personal referencse to the argonian dude.