1113 réponses à ce sujet

[mybudgee]

I apologize. By true RPG I mean any game that has a fanbase who appreciates "old-school' role playing, pacing, plot development and cinematic battles and developers who will not compromise their creative vision to sell a few extra copies.

[crimzontearz]

actually.....as seen in the new screens ME3 has more of an old school approach to progression than Deus Ex or Skyrim

I have good hopes for the RPG features in ME3 actually

I am not so sure about the pacing....or the endings

[The_11thDoctor]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

To OP

I dont get it... If you like SR, go play it. I HATE SR and dont understand why anyone would play it... It bored me to no end and I thought the art style was very bland and mediocre, much like the gameplay Well I thought the GP was poor and not even mediocre. Yes they have tons of hrs worth of gameplay, but when you dont like the gameplay... If you like playing a game from 10 years ago, then more power to you, but I like innovation. I hate the comparrison due to feeling the skyrim is inferior. Let's not even get on the fact that it's unplayable on PS3...

Modifié par aang001, 31 décembre 2011 - 02:25 .

[argonian persona]

I know many people who have it on PS3 and love it to pieces. Are there problems? Sure. But for the statistical majority it wasn't unplayable.

PS3 users are lucky to have ME. Give us Uncharted, now.

[argonian persona]

I introduced a friend to Skyrim on PS3 and he says its the best game he ever played. He was a Fallout fan and never played a TES game before.

Must not be unplayable.

[argonian persona]

Something I would like to see is this: a return to open planet exploration. With Skyrim-esque environmental detail.

[Feanor_II]

¿POST SKYRIM ERA?

I haven't played it (yet) but Bethesda has been making games with a similar formula for sometime.

[ArkkAngel007]

argonian persona wrote...

I introduced a friend to Skyrim on PS3 and he says its the best game he ever played. He was a Fallout fan and never played a TES game before.

Must not be unplayable.

Since TES took quite a bit from Fallout and vice versa, that's not a big surprise.

Look, I have friends who prefer open world games.  TES, Fallout, Minecraft...they hate being trapped on a few paths and want to be part of another world where they can choose to do whatever they want.  There isn't a problem with that and I enjoy all those games.

But Mass Effect 3 is a third-person RPG space opera where there is a set plot path.  And it works in the context of the story.  You do have choices, but they all have to sync up with the plot, and the developers can't create several different games in one disc to pacify all those wanting drastic outcomes to their decisions (TES can get away with it because the plot is so loose that it can allow for changes it doesn't have to account for).  

Bethesda/Obsidion games are notoriously buggy.  Oblivion won't read DLC anymore on my 360, Skyrim on PC has missions that can't even be started until a patch comes out, and New Vegas was like the Stephen King circus of bugs.  Part of that is expected when developing open worlds, but the other part is just rushing the game out to meet a deadline.  The ME trilogy has its bugs too, especially the outsourced and adapted PC versions, but the amount and severity are nothing compared to what Bethesda/Obsidion release.

And you're basing your Dragon Age 3 effect rumor on where someone from BioWare was quoted saying that they keep an eye out for things that would help them make a better game after being asked about if they would take anything from Skyrim.  That doesn't mean Skyrim will have a direct effect.  Dragon Age II, in retrospect, was a good game.  It wasn't the quality of Origins and had some issues, but it was still a quality game.

As for multiplayer, you're probably another individual who hates the idea of it (odd, since RPGs have their roots in multiplayer).  I don't care for your reason for it, but here is this:  If you don't want to play mp, then don't.  It doesn't affect how you play the campaign unless you play the mp.  If you ignore it, you don't lose out on anything except on playing the mp.  It doesn't affect the development quality of the game at all.

I want you to take a step back and look at what we have here.  You come in a Mass Effect 3 forum, with a username alluding to TES, and post a thread with something as ridiculous as "post-Skyrim-era."  You say you are a fan of the ME series, yet your problems with what you've seen for ME3 can be applied to all the past games, ME2 especially.  You cut other members on here down with age jibes and snark comments, while following up with questions that are obviously meant to inflame.

Lastly, the fan backlash isn't because of that ME3 is a pure shooter.  It's because many, such as yourself, refuse to be logical and realize that it's going to be a Mass Effect game with all the fixens, and then some.  The other part of the backlash is the inclusion of mp, which again is due to lack of using the 500 million brain connections available to them, assuming they are at least 20 years of age.  So when you come in, say you understand and stand with the fan backlash, yet don't seem to have a clue what the real issue is and keep ranting on the holy greatness of the open world RPG master race, I gotta say I have to question your true intentions.

Enjoy the read, and good day.

Edit (Credit to Gatt9): I regretfully forgot to expound on why mp being included is an issue, so here's the bit I left out that Gatt pointed out.  

The inclusion of mp is an issue to many due to the assumption that it is required for the optimum ending in the game.  

The devs, not coyly but blatantly, have said it is not required, and that it is just an alternative.  So if the player goes through the campaign and make the "wrong" choices, the player can go through multiplayer and still get the optimum ending if it means that much to the player.

Modifié par ArkkAngel007, 31 décembre 2011 - 06:13 .

[Gatt9]

argonian persona wrote...

I know many people who have it on PS3 and love it to pieces. Are there problems? Sure. But for the statistical majority it wasn't unplayable.

PS3 users are lucky to have ME. Give us Uncharted, now.

I'm calling shenanagins.

It's a 6Mb bug,  as soon as the save file hits 6 megs,  the game becomes unplayable.  It's not a "Maybe" thing,  it's a guarantee.  Since the metacritic rating on Skyrim for the PS3 is now 5.2,  I can absolutely guarantee you're not telling the truth.

Lastly, the fan backlash isn't because of that ME3 is a pure shooter. It's because many, such as yourself, refuse to be logical and realize that it's going to be a Mass Effect game with all the fixens, and then some. The other part of the backlash is the inclusion of mp, which again is due to lack of using the 500 million brain connections available to them, assuming they are at least 20 years of age. So when you come in, say you understand and stand with the fan backlash, yet don't seem to have a clue what the real issue is and keep ranting on the holy greatness of the open world RPG master race, I gotta say I have to question your true intentions.

I respectfully suggest that you aren't understand what the problem is for many regarding multiplayer.  It's not that multiplayer is present,  it's that multiplayer is tied to obtaining the optimal ending,  for no valid reason.

Multiplayer didn't bother anyone with the Fable series,  because it's not mandatory.  Since Online Pass is being implemented,  and Bioware's being dodgy,  it's very likely it is mandatory in ME3.

That's the problem with it.

[staindgrey]

I think reviewers are going to be much more critical of the ME formula's flaws this time around. I have an example:

Resident Evil 4 was crowned GOTY by almost every major publication when it came out. No one had a single bad thing to say about it, because it was so revolutionary. It was the best looking game to date, with plenty of length, unlockables, charm, etc. Everybody ignored the fact that it was kind of clunky, or that the story was horrendous, or that it wasn't survival horror at all, or that it was a very linear game in total... None of this came up, because OMG IT'S RE4!!

Then RE5 came out. It improved upon RE4 in almost every single way possible: it controlled better with dual-analogs, it boasted more content, better graphics (arguably the best on this generation's consoles at that point in time), longer campaign, online versus and co-op modes, a slightly more "RE" story, etc. But now, because the reviewers have been separated from RE4 for so long, suddenly RE5 gets bashed for the things RE4 did as well. RE4 is treated like a gem, but RE5 gets trashed for being too linear, a goofy story, clunky to control, not survival horror... Every fault given to RE5 can be attributed to RE4, but RE4 is given a pass because it came first.

Likely, ME3 will capitalize on all the good will ME2 got, and will enhance what reviewers loved. In the meantime, they'll ignore the faults ME2 had (lousy decision consequences, little to no RPG elements, lackluster overarching plot for the sake of more companion quests, poor portrayal of the Reapers, linear shooter-fests on nearly every mission) because the reviewers ignored them too. Then, all of a sudden, ME3 reviews will pop up and people will be complaining about stuff already present in ME2, while saying that ME3 couldn't live up to its predecessor.

It happens all the time; nostalgia kills sequels. We remember what we want to remember, and blame the new product for not living up to our unfair expectations. It'll happen. I guarantee it.

[daftPirate]

This one hears wisdom in ArkkAngel007's words.

argonian persona wrote...

Something I would like to see is this: a return to open planet exploration. With Skyrim-esque environmental detail.

About this, I can't confirm anything for ya, but dev videos have shown planets that have multiple points of interest to visit (the most I saw was three). It could be that each is a more linear mission, or there could be a mission, a city/settlement area for buying/selling/getting intel, and an open world space for vehicle exploration. Did they say they were using the hammerhead?I don't remember...

[ArkkAngel007]

Gatt9 wrote...

argonian persona wrote...

I know many people who have it on PS3 and love it to pieces. Are there problems? Sure. But for the statistical majority it wasn't unplayable.

PS3 users are lucky to have ME. Give us Uncharted, now.

I'm calling shenanagins.

It's a 6Mb bug,  as soon as the save file hits 6 megs,  the game becomes unplayable.  It's not a "Maybe" thing,  it's a guarantee.  Since the metacritic rating on Skyrim for the PS3 is now 5.2,  I can absolutely guarantee you're not telling the truth.

Lastly, the fan backlash isn't because of that ME3 is a pure shooter. It's because many, such as yourself, refuse to be logical and realize that it's going to be a Mass Effect game with all the fixens, and then some. The other part of the backlash is the inclusion of mp, which again is due to lack of using the 500 million brain connections available to them, assuming they are at least 20 years of age. So when you come in, say you understand and stand with the fan backlash, yet don't seem to have a clue what the real issue is and keep ranting on the holy greatness of the open world RPG master race, I gotta say I have to question your true intentions.

I respectfully suggest that you aren't understand what the problem is for many regarding multiplayer.  It's not that multiplayer is present,  it's that multiplayer is tied to obtaining the optimal ending,  for no valid reason.

Multiplayer didn't bother anyone with the Fable series,  because it's not mandatory.  Since Online Pass is being implemented,  and Bioware's being dodgy,  it's very likely it is mandatory in ME3.

That's the problem with it.

It isn't required for the optimum ending.  Just another way of doing so.  For example, lets say you need the Turian's support but muck it up somehow in the main game.  You can go into the mp and still get their support.  That may not be the exact function of it, but it works in a similar way.

I apologize for I though I had put that in there to expound on why the inclusion of mp was an issue.  Thanks for pointing it out.  Will be editing it.

[daftPirate]

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...


I respectfully suggest that you aren't understand what the problem is for many regarding multiplayer.  It's not that multiplayer is present,  it's that multiplayer is tied to obtaining the optimal ending,  for no valid reason.

Multiplayer didn't bother anyone with the Fable series,  because it's not mandatory.  Since Online Pass is being implemented,  and Bioware's being dodgy,  it's very likely it is mandatory in ME3.

That's the problem with it.

It isn't required for the optimum ending.  Just another way of doing so.  For example, lets say you need the Turian's support but muck it up somehow in the main game.  You can go into the mp and still get their support.  That may not be the exact function of it, but it works in a similar way.

I apologize for I though I had put that in there to expound on why the inclusion of mp was an issue.  Thanks for pointing it out.  Will be editing it.

I don't think that's how it will work. That sounds a little too "required" for those already opposed to MP. "Fail to gain a species' support? MP or deal with it!"? I think MP will be even less entangled than that. Call me guillible(I know I'm setting myself up for it) but if Bioware says its completely optional, it won't influence you unless you seek it out.

[ArkkAngel007]

daftPirate wrote...

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

It isn't required for the optimum ending.  Just another way of doing so.  For example, lets say you need the Turian's support but muck it up somehow in the main game.  You can go into the mp and still get their support.  That may not be the exact function of it, but it works in a similar way.

I apologize for I though I had put that in there to expound on why the inclusion of mp was an issue.  Thanks for pointing it out.  Will be editing it.

I don't think that's how it will work. That sounds a little too "required" for those already opposed to MP. "Fail to gain a species' support? MP or deal with it!"? I think MP will be even less entangled than that. Call me guillible(I know I'm setting myself up for it) but if Bioware says its completely optional, it won't influence you unless you seek it out.

I don't see how it would be a requirement.  It's not like it is heavily interwoven in the sp experience.  More than likely the game checks your progress in mp and goes from there.  Granted, I hate that, as I'd rather not have the temptation to undo my consequences, but if it's there I will just do my best to ignore it on my main playthroughs.

It all depends on how war assets are calculated, whether it's by species and tech or it's just a numerical value.  That's my understanding.  Whether that makes us gullible or not is up to BioWare.
 

[daftPirate]

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

daftPirate wrote...

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

It isn't required for the optimum ending.  Just another way of doing so.  For example, lets say you need the Turian's support but muck it up somehow in the main game.  You can go into the mp and still get their support.  That may not be the exact function of it, but it works in a similar way.

I apologize for I though I had put that in there to expound on why the inclusion of mp was an issue.  Thanks for pointing it out.  Will be editing it.

I don't think that's how it will work. That sounds a little too "required" for those already opposed to MP. "Fail to gain a species' support? MP or deal with it!"? I think MP will be even less entangled than that. Call me guillible(I know I'm setting myself up for it) but if Bioware says its completely optional, it won't influence you unless you seek it out.

I don't see how it would be a requirement.  It's not like it is heavily interwoven in the sp experience.  More than likely the game checks your progress in mp and goes from there.  Granted, I hate that, as I'd rather not have the temptation to undo my consequences, but if it's there I will just do my best to ignore it on my main playthroughs.

It all depends on how war assets are calculated, whether it's by species and tech or it's just a numerical value.  That's my understanding.  Whether that makes us gullible or not is up to BioWare.
 

Heh, well said, that does make it sound more reasonable.

[log1x_dr4g0n]

argonian persona wrote...

I know many people who have it on PS3 and love it to pieces. Are there problems? Sure. But for the statistical majority it wasn't unplayable.

PS3 users are lucky to have ME. Give us Uncharted, now.

I would like to have Uncharted too. lol

[argonian persona]

That's another aspect of the post-Skyrim era. The empirical proof that a game, especially an rpg, doesn't need lame, tacked-on multiplayer to sell immensely well.

The sales statistics of Skyrim is demonstrative of that.

[didymos1120]

argonian persona wrote...

That's another aspect of the post-Skyrim era. The empirical proof that a game, especially an rpg, doesn't need lame, tacked-on multiplayer to sell immensely well.

The sales statistics of Skyrim is demonstrative of that.

I disagree.  That's clearly an aspect of the post-Arkham City era.

[argonian persona]

I went and looked at Skyrim's PS3 metacritic...the first two media reviews I saw both said "100".

I also went and looked at The Old Republic user scores on metacritic....it was very low. First DA2 and now TOR getting very low user scores.

[Sgt Stryker]

argonian persona wrote...

I went and looked at Skyrim's PS3 metacritic...the first two media reviews I saw both said "100".

I also went and looked at The Old Republic user scores on metacritic....it was very low. First DA2 and now TOR getting very low user scores.

You do realize that you're comparing media reviews for one game with user scores for others, right?

[aridor1570]

argonian persona wrote...

I went and looked at Skyrim's PS3 metacritic...the first two media reviews I saw both said "100".

I also went and looked at The Old Republic user scores on metacritic....it was very low. First DA2 and now TOR getting very low user scores.

What's going on with SWTOR is something that's been going on for years in the MMO market, look at WoW, high metacritic scores from reviewers but a very low score from users,  most of those users are players who have never even played it, mostly WoW fanboys that fear the fact that there's a game that is better than the game they're already playing, this has happened to every other MMO in the past except for GW, but that was never a true MMO.

I can also guarentee it's going to happen with Guild Wars 2, the game is getting positive feedback from reviewers and players who have played the demos in different conventions, but from the WoW and SWTOR forums I see players who don't know **** about the game already calling it bad, I can give you a few examples right now from a thread that just opened up in the SWTOR forums, someone called out the game bad because it's going to be like the first game, which is just wrong, you can't get more wrong than that, or someone who has said the game didn't even make it into the Alpha stage, which is again wrong, the game entered Closed Beta two weeks ago, THEN the same guy said he is testing the game right now in CB, which is impossible because ArenaNet are keeping the closed beta CLOSED.

My point is, the user score on SWTOR is not by players who have played it and say it's bad, it's from haters who never even touched the game and said it's bad.

[stysiaq]

So whats this post-Skyrim era anyway? It wasn't any kind of breakthrough, in any field. Just quite nice mountains.

We're here rather to discuss viable questions, such as:

- the children cartoons in post-pony era
- games in post ME trillogy era

and so on :-)