383 réponses à ce sujet

[tetrisblock4x1]

Genshie wrote...

squee365 wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Genshie wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Of course, those smaller developers and lesser budgets have usually produced games with less polish, less famous voice actors, and more bugs.

Just saying. Balances.

Gears of War, Metal Gear Solid 3 and Red Dead Redemption were made by large developers with equally large budgets and have more C&C.

Hold it. Gears of War has no dialogue choices and neither does Metal Gear Solid 3. Both of those games are not even rpgs. Great job on bringing up an apples and oranges comment. Your comment is neither productive or relevant at all. The only thing even remotely worth anything in that comment is RDR and that is even pushing it. Mass Effect franchise is a hybrid shooter/rpg while Gears of War has always been a pure third person shooter and Metal Gear Solid has always been a third person/stealth shooter.

Gears of War: In the "road to ruin" mission I can choose to go stealth or go guns blazing. Each of these two paths have unique gameplay and areas exclusive to each other unlike in ME where it's the same popamole shooting gallery each and every time.

Metal Gear Solid 3: I can choose to bomb a parked attack helicopter to prevent it from appearing later on(the enemy uses hovering platforms instead) or ammunition/food stores to weaken enemy troops but at the cost of alerting them due to the explosion. Once again, unlike in ME where it's the same popamole shooting gallery each time.

Red Dead Redemption:  A balanced karma meter that has pros and cons and a real impact on the gameplay unlike ME's space jesus/space troll system that amounts to nothing.

But in the end you still get to the same ending with no changes in Characters and story. We weren't talking about varied choices in gameplay, we're talking about varied choices in the story. 

Gears of War is not an RPG period and neither is Metal Gear Solid. Nice try but they are not. Just because you have a very SMALL portion where you can choose how you go about a mission with the SAME result REGARDLESS of what you do doesn't make them similar, the same, or even related to Mass Effect's choice in how the story begins and ends at all.

That's right. Gears of War has more varied gameplay (also known as emergent gameplay) than your favourite RPG posers. How does it feel? Linear plot or not, at least in Gears lets you choose between two different ways of getting the same result which is an advantage over Mass Effect, and to top it off Epic aren't hiding their lazy attitude behind genre lables in order to be accepted by gamers as something that they are not. Gears isn't an RPG, but neither is Mass Effect. The difference been that one of the developers just happens to be honest about it.

Modifié par tetrisblock4x1, 04 janvier 2012 - 11:49 .

[angry_peon]

Pleasureslave wrote...

Varhjhin
Nope. Humans got one of the strongest fleets in the Uviverse. So if you don't sacrfice the Council - you get weaker human fleet on your hands, meaning the same handicap, but at human expense this time.
So human domination is as viable agenda as united Council. Besides, other races got no choice but to side with each other as Reapers will exterminate everyone. plot-wise, that simply changes disposition of forces - Alliance fleet is mainly stationed at Arcturus and not destroyed during Earth invasion anyway.

Is that so?
According to Shepard (when saving the council) the Turians lost 20 cruisers and the Alliance lost 8. That is a lot (or is it, see below), but compared to the loss of the whole (or almost) Citadel Fleet (that is said to be able to be able to guard the whole Attican Traverse, if the council whished so)  containing the most powerful ship in the galaxy (with a gun that at least looks like it can one-shot an unshielded Reaper), and, I figure, at least some Alliance cruisers it is a good trade off.
Anyway, I was more speaking about the political aspect. The Reapers are, as Shepard well knows by then, very good at indoctrinating people, utilizing divide and conquer and psychological warfare, and it it is easier to turn allies against each other, if they do not trust each other. 
If that happens in ME3 or not, is not the point, but Human-Shep is taking a huge risk by assuming that damaging the stability of the galactic community is not a bad thing.
It also strikes me as wrong to allow a Reaper to kill the galactic leadership, when Shepard already knows that this is the very reason the Reapers built the Citadel and attack there first. Even when considering that there is enough time to form a new government.
Which leads me to the next thing. If letting the council get killed is made from a pro human instead of a "let's make sure this Reaper dies now" stance, how could Shepard possibly know that the new council would be completely human?
A plot choice that never really convinced me, by the way. Even if the others are thankful that humanity saved the day and has now the best fleet (again see below), I find it highly unbelievable that they (especially Turians) just said: "Ok you saved us, take over the political  leadership and rule us".

Fleet power:
I think against Reapers Dreadnoughts might not be all that bad, tactical unflexibility aside. And in that regard humanity is still miles behind the others with 8 compared to 37+ 20+ and 16 of the other Races. And seeing those numbers shoulden't there be several hundred cruisers in each fleet, making the losses at the Citadel and the shift of power pretty small in scale? But this just as a side note.

Modifié par Varhjhin, 04 janvier 2012 - 12:18 .

[Arcadian Legend]

Splinter Cell 108 wrote...

AgitatedLemon wrote...

Logan Cloud wrote...

It'll probably be somewhat better than just getting an Thank You e-mail like in Mass Effect 2 (Which was still phenominal.)

Mass Effect 1 got really good reveiws. Mass Effect 2 was a hell of a sequel, and got pretty much perfect reviews. Mass Effect 3 is going to do the same.

Not on BSN.

Here, it's going to be-

WTF BIOWARE Y U NO MAEK GOO GAEM. Y U SUK @ RPG MAEK SDFADGQERHWEFH

Honestly I don't think this community is as bad as it looks. I've seen worse from other places, yes BSN has people who make assumptions all the time but at least it is not filled with blind fools who will keep arguing even when they're proven wrong. 

I think I know what place you are talking about. 

As for me I'm in the excited camp. I haven't read the leak myself though I wouldn't go jumping to conclusions over it like so many seem to be. It'd be nice to look at after beating the game several times though.

[NightAntilli]

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...
That's right. Gears of War has more varied gameplay (also known as emergent gameplay) than your favourite RPG posers. How does it feel? Linear plot or not, at least in Gears lets you choose between two different ways of getting the same result which is an advantage over Mass Effect, and to top it off Epic aren't hiding their lazy attitude behind genre lables in order to be accepted by gamers as something that they are not. Gears isn't an RPG, but neither is Mass Effect. The difference been that one of the developers just happens to be honest about it.

Really? What about the arrival DLC? That one allows you to go guns blazing or stealth as well. And Mass Effect is a shooter-RPG hybrid and not just a shooter, whether you like it or not. There's more to the combat in Mass Effect than just aiming well, and I don't even need to mention the story +choices here.. 

Haters gonna hate. 

Modifié par NightAntilli, 04 janvier 2012 - 01:06 .

[BounceDK]

Bioware spoiled half the game just before ME2 .. I'm hoping they don't make the same mistake and so far so good.

[Pleasureslave]

Varhjhin
Hmm, let me explain. Imagine Gragon Age 2 , all 10 years of the game you side with mages, help mages and hinder templar's plans, even better if you are a mage too. And then you are forcibly sided with Templars with no choice to refuse. You are celebrated as a great killer of mages that helped Templars to purge mages from Kirkwall.
That may clarify why some people are upset by revealed storyline.

[angry_peon]

I will not spend several hours trying to write an Essay about the differences in ME vs DA plot.
In short: It's two completely different situations because in ME you are not taking part in a conflict between two factions, but try to use two different paths to achieve a similar goal (stopping the Reapers).
One of the paths proved to be a (as I said a quite obvious one, at least to me) trap. You made that choice, now live with it.
It is like in Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines. You sided with the Kuejin, you get betrayed and die. Your choice, your problem.

[AlexXIV]

Just that Cerberus was an illegal organisation known for ruthless experiments before. So it was your choice to **** up.

[Pleasureslave]

Different plots, the same principle.

[Bismth]

 well i heard that vega and cortez have gay buttsex on the normandy after drinking too much

[Dean_the_Young]

Dave of Canada wrote...

I don't really understand the argument, if one doesn't like the content of the script then they certainly won't like the application of said script in the game.

There's certainly enough script to shape an opinion on it as a whole, things like companions / endings and the like could be pulled off in the most cinematic way imaginable but the whole thing comes from something which I find to be poor quality.

For example, reading the script that Aragorn dies because he broke his neck while climbing some stairs would be rather poor. I don't need to see it in action to know it.

On the other hand, if Aragorn died because he felt out of a woman's window being chased by her irate husband, that would be good almost regardless of execution.


But seriously, the execution of an idea doesn't change the underlying basis of it, and you can get that from scripts. If your problem with ME2's story, for example, is that you could tell from the script that none of the companions had any real relation or involvement with the colony abductions... no matter how the script is executed, it's still not going to tie in the characters to the nominal plot.

Structural analysis, and structural criticisms, can be seen from the foundations of a work even before it's finished.

[Dean_the_Young]

Phaedon wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
I disagree. While Cerberus supporters are vocally unhappy about a key part of it, that's hardly the only field of complaint. 

I don't know, Dean. There seems to be a pretty obvious corellation between Cerberus supports/morals/beliefs and level vocality/complaints, even if the subject is irrelevant to Cerberus.

Which... isn't disagreeing with my disagreement.

That said, I am pretty happy that we'll have Cerberus and TIM as an antagonist. They were set to be that way since the ending ME2 (especially after keeping the base and noticing the pretty obvious foreshadowing), and I was worried that we wouldn't have a human enough enemy to fight. Fighting mindless husks can get rather boring, fast.

I'm not for Cerberus being an antagonist, but the villainy treatment they get in the spoilers is not how I feel it should have been done. I've always extended the caveat that changes to the script could completely validate their attempts, but judging from the script that doesn't seem to be Bioware's mindset.

What I can criticize, even from the script, is the abandonment of the Batarian subplot. Besides the Bring Down the Sky, when Balak warned of the upcoming Batarian Rebellion, the Arrival DLC all but stressed that the Batarians were a hairs breath from duking it out with the Alliance.

The Batarians would have made excellent Reaper proxies in lieu of Cerberus as presented. They've wanted to fight the Alliance. As a faction they've been universally antagonistic and eviler than Cerberus ever was. They've got the assets, size, and scope to justify being a determined threat in a way Cerberus was being pushed away from by the reduction of Cerberus in ME2 (nearly bankrupted by Lazarus) and Retribution (cut down once again). Throw in a mix of arrogance at seeking to take advantage of the Reapers, irrational hatred towards Humans and Citadel space for past treatment, and a touch of indoctrination, and they could have easily justified the Hegemony police state siding with the Reapers...

...and then offered up a new opportunity for the lore by introducing a Batarian plotline and/or character. A 'good' Batarian, working with Batarians who might not like Humanity but hate the Reapers, for a good Batarian faction. We could actually explore Batarian culture past the superficial 'dem slavers', get another viewpoint from a traditional foe, and actually had to deal with the prospect of making alliances with people we don't like to beat the Reapers. Unifying a galaxy, even those we don't like.


Cerberus could easily fill a smaller, less pure-villainy opportunistic role. Taking advantage of the chaos for their own ends, but also a potential questionable ally (or, if you choose, something to be stomped).


Instead, the Batarians are killed offscreen before the story begins, and Cerberus becomes bigger than it ever was no matter what happened to it before.



I think it could have been done better.

If someone has actually kept up with the info of ME3 and is still disappointed, I don't think that they should invest in the product at all. The demo will allow the consumers to see if the gameplay is up to par. For choices, consequences, story and whatnot, we'll have to wait for the reviews before getting swept up by the hype, or just adapting an overly pessimistic stance.

I don't speak for others, but my attitude is this:

ME3 is going to be fun. It's going to have great gameplay, and a number of good levels. There will be interesting characters, and I look forward to seeing how Bioware has improved various systems. I'm even leaving the door open for presentation to rise above the script.

But it's also going to be dragging some underlying weaknesses at the start. Maybe some people won't care: a lot of people call ME2 ideal. I won't be prevented from having a good time, but it will be despite the flaws.

[Dean_the_Young]

Genshie wrote...

squee365 wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Oh please, the 18k page file is without a doubt 95-98% of the product we'll be getting come March.

So the game is a text file? Then I AM cancelling my preorder! What a rip off!

And just like how these people are just saying "LEAKED SCRIPT!!" I can counter and say "LOL PLAIN TEXT NO CONTEXT". It is an endless cycle until the actual game's release. Its their own fault for reading the damn thing and their own fault for assuming everything before its completion.

A script is the context of the game. It's kind of hard to say it's unrelated, since the game is built around it.

There are parts of the script that are subject to change, such as the Virmire Survivor, but there are large parts of the script that aren't going to be changed much if at all. The leak gave us the skeleton of what the game would be: bits may be fleshed out, but the framework was already well established long ago. Companions, story mission settings, key plot devices: these are things that won't change. They are the context: the voice acting will just give voice to the plain text, and the graphics will just give color to the setting already established.

The difference between a movie and a book of the movie is style of execution, not premise. If a premise is flawed, execution of it won't change the flaw.

[Dean_the_Young]

Genshie wrote...

But in the end you don't know this is 100% correct or not. You are just assuming it is a 100% real and you have no idea how it will be presented except beyond text.

Most people aren't even 100% correct about the games that are out. There are still people who occassionally argue that TIM was responsible for Shepard's death.

In what field of anything has 100% accuracy been needed to make an overall judgement of worth? Even mathematical analysis of engineering disciplins accepts deviations and intrensic inaccuracies.

[Dean_the_Young]

didymos1120 wrote...

Seboist wrote...

It's not just an issue of Cerberus turned evulz either but them being turned into a reaper alied superpower that completely contradicts the established lore and the Arrival plot buildup of the Batarians being the major non-reaper enemy in ME3.

Why is everyone on this "Shoulda oughta been the batarians" kick?  'Cause I thought the main take-away from Arrival on that score was that the batarians were screwed.

In a galaxy where relays mean that the space empires aren't continuous but follow the galaxy-hopping relay paths, why should they have been?

Most of the Batarian space we've ever come across was in the Terminus, on the north-west* side of the galaxy. The Alpha Relay was not only on the far south-east, but it was also destroyed: why should there be any intrensic reason to believe that the rest of Batarian space is right there as well?



*Yes, I'm aware no cardinal direction. Please work with me here.

[angry_peon]

Batarians would make boring antagonists for people who have neither played BdtS nor Arrival, which are both optional DLCs mind you (and to be completely honest, I never really felt they were that interesting, but that's just me). Betrayal by the faction you spent an entire game with will produce much more awe for a much broader audience.

[Dean_the_Young]

Varhjhin wrote...

I still would like to know, what people expected completely pro human/anti alien decisions to lead to...
A galactic human dominated Empire with a huge ass fleet that can single-handedly take on the reapers?
And all this in the short time-span of a few years?

I don't speak for others, but I didn't.

What I would have looked for was a less stable, but more proactive Human led autocracy that had the virtue of the reactionary-conservatism of the beuracratic Council. ME1 was casting Humanity as a more proactive species compared to the conservative Asari and Turians, and I would have looked for that as a strategic advantage.

The old Council has a commission meticulously plan how to build a new Citadel fleet over the next two years before it votes for approval? A Human beuracrat says 'get this done', and two months later ships are being built. The Paragon Council votes against an anti-piracy campaign to defend an allied species being hounded by Batarian slavers for fears of riling the Terminus? An Alliance fleet is sent in. The Council negotiates a new galactic tax hike that every species agrees to, with the proceeds going to the war effort? The Alliance dictates who pays how much, and forces everyone to pay.

Initiative over caution. Assertion over compromise. Stomping on toes in the process of getting things done, rather than treading softly and carrying a big stick. Less European Union, more Pax Americana.


Both approaches have their strengths, and have their weaknesses. In Mass Effect, two years is actually a lot of time for a military buildup (at least by the Alliance timeline of colonization).



Of course, I never metagame the creation of a Human council in the decision making process of the Council decision in the first place. I don't let the Council die to strengthen Humanity: I do it because Sovereign may well win if I don't attack him with everything I've got.

The Human-dominated Council was Udina's initiative as a consequence of my separate priorities.

You guys spent 2 games making the galaxy weaker all in the name of "strengthening" humanity, something I totally do not see btw, as all you did was creating (justified) concerns amongst the council races for politically taking over the government, without making humanity all that much stronger militarily (as I said it is pretty much impossible to achieve in this time span, even without considering political problems).

Most Renegade choices of note aren't even about strengthening Humanity, nor do they come at the cost of the galactic good. The Renegade actually has a pretty conservative-establishment view in many respects, and the only ME1 choice that weakens the other races is the Destiny Ascension decision... which can be just as much about saving the galaxy as anything else.

On top of that you likely wiped out the Rachni, the true Geth and prevented the Krogans from getting strong (and with Wrex as a leader, likely to be at least temporarily trustworthy and thankful) allies.

And yet, oddly enough those aren't even about being pro-Human. Killing Wrex isn't even Renegade.

All three of those choices are in line with the established Council point of view towards such potential threats. The reasons to trust the Rachni are dubious, the Heretic influence on the Geth is questionable, and the genophage won't actually make the Krogan stronger for the Reaper war.

It's like (and I am sorry to make this allegory, I try not to get too much in Godwin territory):

Since your analogy is horribly inept, we'll move past it.

And quite frankly, you would deserve to get your butts kicked (yeah let's say "kicked") by the Reapers for trying.

You'd wish the genocide of billions and the re-enactment of a galactic extinction cycle simply because some people don't trust others and sacrifice themselves for others as much as you think they should?

You are remarkably petty.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 04 janvier 2012 - 04:22 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Varhjhin wrote...

Batarians would make boring antagonists for people who have neither played BdtS nor Arrival, which are both optional DLCs mind you (and to be completely honest, I never really felt they were that interesting, but that's just me). Betrayal by the faction you spent an entire game with will produce much more awe for a much broader audience.

Well, minus the trust to be betrayed.

It's more of like if you broke up with your sex friend under bad terms, and then find out later that they've slept with someone you really hate. Annoying, sure, but the reason to believe they'd just hop back in bed isn't there.

[Genshie]

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

Genshie wrote...

squee365 wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Genshie wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Of course, those smaller developers and lesser budgets have usually produced games with less polish, less famous voice actors, and more bugs.

Just saying. Balances.

Gears of War, Metal Gear Solid 3 and Red Dead Redemption were made by large developers with equally large budgets and have more C&C.

Hold it. Gears of War has no dialogue choices and neither does Metal Gear Solid 3. Both of those games are not even rpgs. Great job on bringing up an apples and oranges comment. Your comment is neither productive or relevant at all. The only thing even remotely worth anything in that comment is RDR and that is even pushing it. Mass Effect franchise is a hybrid shooter/rpg while Gears of War has always been a pure third person shooter and Metal Gear Solid has always been a third person/stealth shooter.

Gears of War: In the "road to ruin" mission I can choose to go stealth or go guns blazing. Each of these two paths have unique gameplay and areas exclusive to each other unlike in ME where it's the same popamole shooting gallery each and every time.

Metal Gear Solid 3: I can choose to bomb a parked attack helicopter to prevent it from appearing later on(the enemy uses hovering platforms instead) or ammunition/food stores to weaken enemy troops but at the cost of alerting them due to the explosion. Once again, unlike in ME where it's the same popamole shooting gallery each time.

Red Dead Redemption:  A balanced karma meter that has pros and cons and a real impact on the gameplay unlike ME's space jesus/space troll system that amounts to nothing.

But in the end you still get to the same ending with no changes in Characters and story. We weren't talking about varied choices in gameplay, we're talking about varied choices in the story. 

Gears of War is not an RPG period and neither is Metal Gear Solid. Nice try but they are not. Just because you have a very SMALL portion where you can choose how you go about a mission with the SAME result REGARDLESS of what you do doesn't make them similar, the same, or even related to Mass Effect's choice in how the story begins and ends at all.

That's right. Gears of War has more varied gameplay (also known as emergent gameplay) than your favourite RPG posers. How does it feel? Linear plot or not, at least in Gears lets you choose between two different ways of getting the same result which is an advantage over Mass Effect, and to top it off Epic aren't hiding their lazy attitude behind genre lables in order to be accepted by gamers as something that they are not. Gears isn't an RPG, but neither is Mass Effect. The difference been that one of the developers just happens to be honest about it.

What are you on? Seriously.  Mass Effect is an rpg shooter hybrid and has always been an rpg shooter hybrid and you saying its not doesn't make not. Cause customizing how you level your abilities, upgrading your weapons, upgrading your ship, talking to shopkeepers, and choosing how you react to a said response is not anything pulled from D&D or any other standard rpg at all.....

[Dean_the_Young]

That's not what aspect they were referring to, but hey.

[N7Raider]

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

Genshie wrote...

squee365 wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Genshie wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Of course, those smaller developers and lesser budgets have usually produced games with less polish, less famous voice actors, and more bugs.

Just saying. Balances.

Gears of War, Metal Gear Solid 3 and Red Dead Redemption were made by large developers with equally large budgets and have more C&C.

Hold it. Gears of War has no dialogue choices and neither does Metal Gear Solid 3. Both of those games are not even rpgs. Great job on bringing up an apples and oranges comment. Your comment is neither productive or relevant at all. The only thing even remotely worth anything in that comment is RDR and that is even pushing it. Mass Effect franchise is a hybrid shooter/rpg while Gears of War has always been a pure third person shooter and Metal Gear Solid has always been a third person/stealth shooter.

Gears of War: In the "road to ruin" mission I can choose to go stealth or go guns blazing. Each of these two paths have unique gameplay and areas exclusive to each other unlike in ME where it's the same popamole shooting gallery each and every time.

Metal Gear Solid 3: I can choose to bomb a parked attack helicopter to prevent it from appearing later on(the enemy uses hovering platforms instead) or ammunition/food stores to weaken enemy troops but at the cost of alerting them due to the explosion. Once again, unlike in ME where it's the same popamole shooting gallery each time.

Red Dead Redemption:  A balanced karma meter that has pros and cons and a real impact on the gameplay unlike ME's space jesus/space troll system that amounts to nothing.

But in the end you still get to the same ending with no changes in Characters and story. We weren't talking about varied choices in gameplay, we're talking about varied choices in the story. 

Gears of War is not an RPG period and neither is Metal Gear Solid. Nice try but they are not. Just because you have a very SMALL portion where you can choose how you go about a mission with the SAME result REGARDLESS of what you do doesn't make them similar, the same, or even related to Mass Effect's choice in how the story begins and ends at all.

That's right. Gears of War has more varied gameplay (also known as emergent gameplay) than your favourite RPG posers. How does it feel? Linear plot or not, at least in Gears lets you choose between two different ways of getting the same result which is an advantage over Mass Effect, and to top it off Epic aren't hiding their lazy attitude behind genre lables in order to be accepted by gamers as something that they are not. Gears isn't an RPG, but neither is Mass Effect. The difference been that one of the developers just happens to be honest about it.

ok ya know what dude, I've been playing Gears straight for the past 3 1/2 months, I can say it does not have more varied gameplay.  Just because you can occasionally choose between going on the roofs or attacking straight fromt the streets does not mean it has more varied gameplay.  

[Il Divo]

Gatt9 wrote...

Let me preface this with,  I have not read the leak and have not formed a opinion...

...I just have to point out that I've read your posts around 1,000 times now in defense of games that had made obviously bad design choices.  Most recently with DA2.

"All of you people are wrong for basing your opinions on the demo,  when the real game releases you'll all see how everything is 100% perfect with this game!"

"Just wait until DA2 comes out,  and then judge it!  You can't tell anything from (reading interviews,  previews,  or the demo)"

Just sayin',  the "Wait and you'll see it's all perfect" posts are usually a death knell.  Not always,  but more often than not.

I gotta agree and disagree with this.

I think the idea that DA2's gameplay would change substantially from the demo is itself flawed. The only thing likely to change between then and release would be balancing gameplay and polish. Complaints with DA2 regarding how Hawke jumps around like a ninja and that it was too fast-paced were more reliant on the foundations of the gameplay system.

On the other hand, having not read the leaked script, I don't know how comprehensive it is, whether it includes every detail of plot, etc. I also don't know how much exposition Bioware may have added on any particular plot point. Another issue to consider is the change in medium; a script is meant to be read, while a game is meant to be interactive/visual. Some ideas will always be bad, regardless of their implementation. But especially when you cross genres, some things work better within a certain context. Ashley's Virmire letter in ME2 is a perfect example; it sounds very weak/cheesy when read, but when spoken I thought it was perfect.

[Genshie]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

That's not what aspect they were referring to, but hey.

 He clearly stated that it wasn't an Rpg at all. What did I miss? He also said that Gears of War 3 has more variety than Mass Effect which is makes me go

[Dean_the_Young]

Genshie wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

That's not what aspect they were referring to, but hey.

 He clearly stated that it wasn't an Rpg at all. What did I miss? He also said that Gears of War 3 has more variety than Mass Effect which is makes me go

There are many different things people consider as being part of RPGs, one of them being the ability to approach problems from different directions: fighting vs. hacking vs. persuasion vs. sneaking vs. bribing vs. etc. Even games that aren't RPGs occassionally offer diverging paths to accomplish the goals.

Seboist wasn't saying Mass Effect wasn't an RPG at all, he was criticizing that it's gameplay is pretty linear and shooting-fixated. While his rhetoric is as straight as a corkscrew, he does bring up a valid point in one respect: ME2 is effectively one linear shooting gallery after another. There's only one way to go, and that's straight through the enemies. No matter your choices, it's the same route: the closest you get to a different experience is a very few Renegade interrupts to knock off some enemies.

Even games without RPG story elements have provided more gameplay variation than Mass Effect has offered. Diverging paths, multiple routes, etc.. House of the Dead, for example, is a rail shooter where you don't even get to choose to move forward... but has an entire tree of possible routes based on how you play it. An utterly non-RPG from the arcade generation has more variability in execution than Mass Effect.

Bioware doesn't make choose-your-own-path RPGs like Fallout, where you usually get at least three ways to solve any problem (fighting, speach, or finding scavenge). Mass Effect, for all its claims to choices and consequences, has precious little differentiation in output in the first two games, and many parts of the ME3 script show less-than-ideal differentiation later.