443 réponses à ce sujet

[Someone With Mass]

didymos1120 wrote...

It's not like ME1 wasn't something of a war story itself.  It even did the whole "officer gives big inspirational speech" thing more than once, and four of the major sequences (Eden Prime, Feros, Virmire and the endgame Citadel) were set in straight-up warzones.  Plus, you know, the whole "you're in the military" thing.

That too.

[Anthropophobic]

Mass Effect 2 was a little disappointing for me, so I'm worried about this.

Also, I think it'll be tough for BioWare to top last year's Deus Ex and Elder Scrolls games. Yes, I know everyone here thinks Skyrim is overrated. Frankly, I love exploration, non-linearity, etc. Mass Effect 2 felt like a collection of random third-person corridor shooter scenarios, and I'm worried Mass Effect 3 will be that again.

[xentar]

Someone With Mass wrote...

How one couldn't count on a war with the Reapers at the end of ME1 is beyond me.

I tend to prefer conspiracy theories and resolving all the threats behind the scenes while the world functions normally. There could be a lot of interesting ways to resolve the problem without large scale conflicts. And, besides, at the end of ME1 I thought it could be centuries, not years before they arrive.

[Terror_K]

Graunt wrote...

James Vega is a waste of space when the
roster size is so small.  He appears to be nothing more than a male
Ashley clone.  In general, the currently kown roster is pretty laughable
with waste of space characters, with only so far one of the known six
of eight having anything interesting about them.

It's funny... I remember Vega once being referred to as respresenting the "new guy" on the scene and being somewhat compared to new players coming into ME3 who hadn't played the previous two. After looking at him I can see the comparisons: he really does look like the kind of guy BioWare are primarily aiming Mass Effect at these days.

Gunderic wrote...

From what I observed Mass Effect 3 looks to be the following:

-- Dumbed down, with stripped out RPG elements in favour of Gears of War style combat.

I pretty much agree with the rest of your list, but I don't think this one is entirely accurate. ME3 does look to actually be a little deeper and stronger on the RPG side of things than ME2 was, IMO. They do at least appear to be adding some more RPG depth to the title and reversing some of the quite-frankly braindead decisions they made in ME2's immediate predecessor. However, I do agree that there's too much focus on the TPS side of things and I'm not entirely sure that there's enough RPG elements brought back, and overall whether they've actually done a good job of melding the two genres together this time. My main question is: are the TPS elements in ME3 actually attuned and modified to suit the RPG nature of the game, or is it another case of them feeling far too dominant and removed from the RPG side of things to really work?

Overall, given what they've shown, it still appears far too "dudebro" overall. I guess we'll see come March, but it isn't looking terribly good, IMO. I'd be nice to think that BioWare learned from their mistakes, but certain decisions seem to indicate otherwise. They certainly haven't on the Dragon Age side of things, so it's hard to believe they will here, especially with so much evidence to the contrary.

Modifié par Terror_K, 15 janvier 2012 - 05:30 .

[Genshie]

Redcoat wrote...

- Multiplayer affecting single-player: I wouldn't give a damn about multiplayer if it were completely separate (though I would take issue with time and money wasted implementing it) from the single-player experience, but it isn't. Instead, we have to play it to gain enough war assets in order to gain the desired ending, or do some as-of-yet-unspecified amount of work to make up for not playing MP. This is terrible design, thrown in for no other reason than to entice used game buyers to purchase EA Online Passes.

 Waaaaaaaa I have to put effort into a game. Waaaaaaaaaaa. Really? It is there to give you an option. The game is all about choices and choosing to play multiplayer or not is your choice. It in no way is needed to get what ending you want. Also they are releasing more ways to get war assets with mobile devices and so on.

If it really bugs you that much play the game on the easiest settings to breeze right through. Love it how people **** about having to do the extra side missions and so on when they have no idea what they are how much they have to do. Bioware has basically done this: Don't want to do said effort option to gain "X" amount of assets then do this option. If you don't want to do any of the options well then good luck. They aren't just going to give you everything that easily unless you set it up that way yourself.

Modifié par Genshie, 15 janvier 2012 - 05:37 .

[nelly21]

Redcoat wrote...

I wouldn't give a damn about multiplayer if it were completely separate (though I would take issue with time and money wasted implementing it) from the single-player experience, but it isn't. Instead, we have to play it to gain enough war assets in order to gain the desired ending, or do some as-of-yet-unspecified amount of work to make up for not playing MP. 

 

So what you're saying is, that you hate the multiplayer because skipping it forces you to do more single player?

I don't understand what the problem is.

[xentar]

sonsofanarchy10 wrote...

WTH? Being here alone I think implies deep down you are looking forward to this game. wow.

If you mean getting the story over with, than yes.

[xentar]

Genshie wrote...

Bioware has basically done this: Don't want to do said effort option to gain "X" amount of assets then do this option.

Prooflink, please. And I don't mean the one where Chris Priestly states that you "don't need multiplayer to achieve the best ending". This kind of statement is way too vague to be drawing such conclusions.

[Genshie]

xentar wrote...

Genshie wrote...

Bioware has basically done this: Don't want to do said effort option to gain "X" amount of assets then do this option.

Prooflink, please. And I don't mean the one where Chris Priestly states that you "don't need multiplayer to achieve the best ending". This kind of statement is way too vague to be drawing such conclusions.

How is that vague? Casey himself has said this as well several times over interviews and videos. You don't need multiplayer to achieve your wanted ending.  They have also mentioned that they will be implementing other applications that will help with the process sort of like what they are doing with DA2 with Dragon Age Legends. In fact I think they mentioned it in the multiplayer announcement video itself that it is just a another way to achieve the wanted ending.

Modifié par Genshie, 15 janvier 2012 - 05:53 .

[xentar]

Genshie wrote...
Casey himself has said this as well several times over interviews and videos. You don't need multiplayer to achieve your wanted ending. 

This statement is not equivalent to this one:

Genshie wrote...
Bioware has basically done this: Don't want to do said effort option to gain "X" amount of assets then do this option.

 
Besides, I have been hearing about "optimal", not "wanted" ending.

[Genshie]

xentar wrote...

Genshie wrote...
Casey himself has said this as well several times over interviews and videos. You don't need multiplayer to achieve your wanted ending. 

This statement is not equivalent to this one:

Genshie wrote...
Bioware has basically done this: Don't want to do said effort option to gain "X" amount of assets then do this option.

 
Besides, I have been hearing about "optimal", not "wanted" ending.

You do know what optimal means right? Most desirable or satisfactoy: In other words your defintion of what you want. How much effort you are going to put in to achieve your most desired ending. What you considered is satisfying may it be that everyone dies or everyone lives. (Or some or none at all) Its what the suicide mission for ME2 if I want to change up certain things I may have purposely put someone in a role they can not fill so they purposely die so I can have a different portion for ME3, may it be that they are not there or some other effect (like someone wants me dead since I lead them to their death or a race hates me because I let said character die).

Modifié par Genshie, 15 janvier 2012 - 06:29 .

[xentar]

Genshie wrote...
You do know what optimal means right? Most desirable or satisfactoy: In other words your defintion of what you want. How much effort you are going to put in to achieve your most desired ending. 

Actually, optimal doesn't necessarily mean what you want. It might as well mean what a particular developer thinks will be the best one.

[Genshie]

xentar wrote...

Genshie wrote...
You do know what optimal means right? Most desirable or satisfactoy: In other words your defintion of what you want. How much effort you are going to put in to achieve your most desired ending. 

Actually, optimal doesn't necessarily mean what you want. It might as well mean what a particular developer thinks will be the best one.

You are being really anal and picky about this. This is a game so of course there is going to be some kind of thing that you can not totally control. What do you consider desireable or satisfactory? That is your oppinion of what is the best ending even if it is with everyone dying.

[Anthropophobic]

People are so butthurt about this multiplayer thing.

Some of the best games in history had tacked-on multiplayer. Did anyone actually do the multiplayer in Deus Ex? Half-Life (2)?

[xentar]

Genshie wrote...
You are being really anal and picky about this. This is a game so of course there is going to be some kind of thing that you can not totally control. What do you consider desireable or satisfactory? That is your oppinion of what is the best ending even if it is with everyone dying. 

I'd have to know the plot details to be specific.

As for the difference, optimal is a more objective term, even though, it can have subjective conditions in its definition for a particular case. For example, we could define the optimal ending as one containing the lowest amount of deaths, but if this ending includes a death of your favorite character, you might want to go for a a sub-optimal one where more people die but your favorite character survives.

As for my personal tastes, I strongly dislike the bittersweet "victory at a great sacrifice" endings which should probably explain my concerns about the game. I would either have one where I could, pretty much, prevent anyone I don't want to die from dying, or have the opportunity to refuse to make a sacrifice and potentially have Reapers win because of it (as long as there is sufficient warning present and no other way to succeed).

Modifié par xentar, 15 janvier 2012 - 06:48 .

[IliyaMoroumetz]

Why won't I give ME3 a chance?

Origin.

That is all.

[Someone With Mass]

Anthropophobic wrote...

People are so butthurt about this multiplayer thing.

Some of the best games in history had tacked-on multiplayer. Did anyone actually do the multiplayer in Deus Ex? Half-Life (2)?

I have seen some of the multiplayer in Half-Life 2. Looks fun.

[someguy1231]

Terror_K wrote...
However, I do agree that there's too much focus on the TPS side of things and I'm not entirely sure that there's enough RPG elements brought back, and overall whether they've actually done a good job of melding the two genres together this time. My main question is: are the TPS elements in ME3 actually attuned and modified to suit the RPG nature of the game, or is it another case of them feeling far too dominant and removed from the RPG side of things to really work?

Why must TPS elements be "modified" or "attuned" solely because they're part of an RPG? Bioware tried that with ME1, but it just resulted in a broken combat system that encouraged laziness and tediousness. It makes perfect sense they'd implement a shooter system like that seen in strictly shooter games, since the entire point of those games is to have enjoyable shooter gameplay. You may say that it made ME1 "unique" but unique =/= better. Besides, other shooter-RPG hybrids like Deus Ex, Fallout, and Borderlands also have ammo systems, but no one (aside from a few stubborn elitists) have questioned whether they deserve to be called RPGs. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Personally, I think the real reason you want the TPS elements "modified" for an RPG is because you can't tolerate seeing an RPG taking inspiration from a *shudder* shooter game.

Modifié par someguy1231, 15 janvier 2012 - 01:01 .

[NINJAinTIGHTS]

Either way any heated disscusions on the matter of ME3: TPS or Action RPG is wasted breath (or keyboard types in this case) at this point. We should all wait until the game, you know, actually releases before opening flaming floodgates. Speculation is all fine and dandy until it turns a whole forum into a proverbial clusterBLAM. Keep calm people its only another 2 months.

[ttchip]

xentar wrote...

Genshie wrote...
You do know what optimal means right? Most desirable or satisfactoy: In other words your defintion of what you want. How much effort you are going to put in to achieve your most desired ending. 

Actually, optimal doesn't necessarily mean what you want. It might as well mean what a particular developer thinks will be the best one.

lets consider endings with maximum amounts of renegade/paragon-choices to be optimal.
it has been said in a multitude of occasions that you are able to achieve the most optimal ending without having to play MP. this leads directly to being able to achieve EVERY possible ending without having to play MP, thus making the argument of "having to play MP for *insert desired ending*" invalid.

[Exia001]

ttchip wrote...

xentar wrote...

Genshie wrote...
You do know what optimal means right? Most desirable or satisfactoy: In other words your defintion of what you want. How much effort you are going to put in to achieve your most desired ending. 

Actually, optimal doesn't necessarily mean what you want. It might as well mean what a particular developer thinks will be the best one.

lets consider endings with maximum amounts of renegade/paragon-choices to be optimal.
it has been said in a multitude of occasions that you are able to achieve the most optimal ending without having to play MP. this leads directly to being able to achieve EVERY possible ending without having to play MP, thus making the argument of "having to play MP for *insert desired ending*" invalid.

Plus BW have stated many many times that MP is a completely optional side activity.

[XEternalXDreamsX]

I've posted on this topic awhile back, but I still have something I am worried about. I am getting the game regardless if it has a tracker program like Origin. If it takes stats like overall use of certain battle areas, races, classes, ect to fully understand where they went wrong and right. Casey said something about adding on more things to multi-player as time went on depending on the reception. Upgrade your weapons, maybe unlock more race skins, ect? Reminds me of things in Black Ops online. If it works to where the only way I can access on my game is THROUGH a program (like steam) and cannot run the game unless in off-line mode after logging online first or having to access the internet-they can screw themselves. But I highly doubt it.

I have been playing Mass Effect recently and noticed alot of RPG elements not in the second game. Like going through equipment, you chose what you think looks nice, stats to your playstyle, sell what you don't need for money to buy other things (which most of the time; the only items I bought were the Spec. gear). The second game removes the whole system, which was 'a mess' to some but if you sold your gear after each mission, you had a clean inventory. In ME2, you don't sell anything..which seemed like a RPG-feel customization of choice even though it is superficial in a way. Since they added the fact you can wear what you want on ship, and color your armor plus select a few armors for stats - I didn't think twice about ME1 equipment at the time. Now, with DLC, I don't even look forward to even getting new weapons or armors. RPGs usually start you with lower-grade equipment and as you near the game- you feel that evolution of getting badass. When I saw new equipment and I didn't see anything for my type of character, that store was useless. Even without DLC, I only looked forward to maybe three armor purchases, tops.

It starts to feel more and more like a shooter with magical/futuristic abilities tacked on. I am not bashing either game because I like both of them. I just noticed what direction they are going in..more action or more RPG elements?

If they keep dialogue options, choices that make a difference, Shep-look customization, ability choices and upgrades, the new upgrade equipment to your specs they added, and party/team choices of who comes on missions..than I see the ME2 transitioning toward a new step in RPG type of games.

Of course, with endings, I believe that depending on choices throughout ME3 with past game choices somewhat influencing the difficulty of obtaining certain endings that I'll be satisfied. If you do everything REALLY good than you deserve a better ending, if you half-ass it, expect a half-ass ending. Paragons can lean toward a 'good' ending but I believe Renegades should get a "good" ending to their specs like Reapers defeated while varying races eliminated, ect so that Renegades don't get screwed just because they chose the only different route. They deserve a "good" ending but in a renegade point of view.

I may be wrong but the class system seems less like an RPG to an extent. With already losing most of the RPG things for equipment, you have stat points for which upgrades do you want 'first'. I liked the whole split of the skill once fully developed to add some kind of variance to a class. So it removes alot of abilities within a skill but instead adds an incentive for going all the way which I guess evens it out.

[brfritos]

Terror_K wrote...

I pretty much agree with the rest of your list, but I don't think this one is entirely accurate. ME3 does look to actually be a little deeper and stronger on the RPG side of things than ME2 was, IMO. They do at least appear to be adding some more RPG depth to the title and reversing some of the quite-frankly braindead decisions they made in ME2's immediate predecessor. However, I do agree that there's too much focus on the TPS side of things and I'm not entirely sure that there's enough RPG elements brought back, and overall whether they've actually done a good job of melding the two genres together this time. My main question is: are the TPS elements in ME3 actually attuned and modified to suit the RPG nature of the game, or is it another case of them feeling far too dominant and removed from the RPG side of things to really work?

Actually all the three games are constructed around the "normal" RPG system we are used to, regarding the way story and missions progress.
The second game lacks other aspects of RPG, like extreme customization of your gear, the character progression, the way you gain XP, all of these were streamlined.

I like the way Bioware handled the minor characters and references from the two games until now. You have Grunt discussing the female Warlord Shiagur, in wich you find her planet in the first game; the human discussing with the Turian salesman in the markets, like you have a human discussing with a salarian in the Wearhouse; or for example how Shiala behave in the second, based on what decisions you make regarding Feros (if you spared her, of course).
Actually Shiala is the BEST example of how Bioware should handle the big decisions, because you have two different outcomes, one of them affecting you in the future.

So, do you hear me Bioware? I want my Shiala blue, happy and in a bikini!  
Ok, just happy and blue is enough, otherwise the female crowd will jump at my throat. 

But when talking about big or plot decisions you should have something similar, but you don't, wich is very sad.
There's a difference killing or not Wrex, for example? None whatsoever.
And they even promissed - again! - that there will be repercutions in the third game if you cheated your LI, when in fact we saw this didn't a slight difference in LoSB.

The player did a decision in wich a portion of the game isn't displayed and another route is presented, being good or bad?
That's the player decision, the player should account for!
Is this sort of thing that make me very cautious regarding the third and final episode of our beloved Shepard's saga.

someguy1231 wrote...

Why must TPS elements be "modified" or "attuned" solely because they're part of an RPG? Bioware tried that with ME1, but it just resulted in a broken combat system that encouraged laziness and tediousness. It makes perfect sense they'd implement a shooter system like that seen in strictly shooter games, since the entire point of those games is to have enjoyable shooter gameplay. You may say that it made ME1 "unique" but unique =/= better. Besides, other shooter-RPG hybrids like Deus Ex, Fallout, and Borderlands also have ammo systems, but no one (aside from a few stubborn elitists) have questioned whether they deserve to be called RPGs. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Personally, I think the real reason you want the TPS elements "modified" for an RPG is because you can't tolerate seeing an RPG taking inspiration from a *shudder* shooter game.

Yes, but in the first ME and in FNV, for example, they have logical weapon systems.
What I'm about to say will appear that I'm nitpicking, but don't take this way, please: there's absolutelly no logic whatsoever for ammo and grenades being a "power", based on the lore of the game's universe.
There's a Galactic Enciclopedia - the Codex - explaining this, they are equipment and should be availble to everyone, regardless the class.

Actually making ammo a power is MORE laziness, because save yourself to create a "rule" system, like they did in ME1.
And this also applies to tech/biotic in the second game.
What is the reason for your biotic power not affecting enemies protected with shields, but the enemy's biotic affecting you and trespassing yours?
Oh, I get it. Is a game, not a experience...

Regarding the combat in the first game there's one thing I didn't seet discussed much around here: the entire game is less responsive and not only in combat.
Take a look at the dialogs, for example, there's a delay in most of them before the character reply or say something.
So the problem is the combat or the code?

Also, the tatics didn't changed that much. If you look at a Infiltrator in the first game and look it again in the second, you will see they didn't changed too much regarding strategy. Infiltrators don't charge into battle, otherwise they are killed fast, even with all your powers at level 4 or using Spectre gear.
Now Soldiers? I pretty much spawn Immunity and Adrenaline Burst and make short work of those Geth Destroyers, Armatures, Juggernauts and Primes.
In the second is the same thing, Hardened Adrenaline Rush and Shock Trooper make Harbinger, Scions and Praetorians beg for mercy.

So if you really look at it, the combat system is not THAT different, but is more simplier in the second, even regarding the use of squad mates.

Also, there could be more missions in wich you aren't required to combat at all - there's only two in ME2 - and even if you have to engage in battle, you should be able to talk yourself out if there's a possibility.
 

Modifié par brfritos, 16 janvier 2012 - 04:32 .

[Terror_K]

someguy1231 wrote...

Why must TPS
elements be "modified" or "attuned" solely because they're part of an RPG? Bioware tried that with ME1, but it just resulted in a broken combat system that encouraged laziness and tediousness. It makes perfect sense they'd implement a shooter system like that seen in strictly shooter games, since the entire point of those games is to have enjoyable shooter gameplay. You may say that it made ME1 "unique" but unique =/= better. Besides, other shooter-RPG hybrids like Deus Ex, Fallout, and Borderlands also have ammo systems, but no one (aside from a few stubborn elitists) have questioned whether they deserve to be called RPGs. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Funny that last sentence... considering the amount of things in ME1 I considered not broken that were changed. Not everything admittedly, but a few things.

Regarding your first sentence, the reason is because Mass Effect is supposed to be an RPG at its heard, albeit an action-based one with TPS elements. The basic point is, you can't just copy'n'paste standard TPS elements from a standard TPS over into an RPG and pretty much leave it at that. ME2 felt like a half-assed Frankenstein's monster of a game that wasn't sure what it really wanted to be. Its combat is too generic and half-assed to be a really good TPS, and it's RPG elements are almost non-existent and far too dumbed-down and linear to really be satisfying on that side of things. They just don't really gel at all. BioWare just ported them over from the likes of Gears of War, Army of Two, etc. and slapped them in like they belong as-is. It's okay to look to other games for inspiration, but there's a difference between that and just stealing their elements and using them directly, especially when your game is supposed to be another genre.

And yes, ME1 was more unique. Or perhaps, more accurately, ME2 was less unique. Most of the elements it adopted in ME2 were very by-the-book and done-to-death, particularly in this day and age. It may have brought something new to the table for Mass Effect, but as a game overall it brought almost nothing new to the table at all. The three examples of RPG-Shooter hybrids you listed above all do a better job than ME2 did, at least as far as the core gameplay goes. ME2 only really trumps them in the cinematic/story areas.

Personally, I think the real reason you want the TPS elements "modified" for an RPG is because you can't tolerate seeing an RPG taking inspiration from a *shudder* shooter game.

I like shooters. Some of my favourite games are shooters. Doesn't mean every game out there has to become generic and the same.

brfritos wrote...

Actually all the three games are constructed around the "normal" RPG system we are used to, regarding the way story and missions progress.
The second game lacks other aspects of RPG, like extreme customization of your gear, the character progression, the way you gain XP, all of these were streamlined.

Incorrect. When Christina Norman herself outright said that ME1's gameplay system was completely stripped and gutted, and instead of having an RPG base with ME2 they created a TPS base and then slapped what little RPG elements they had onto it afterwards. And as far as I'm concerned, that method of going about it is where ME2 largely failed and fell down. They threw out the baby with the bathwater and put too much focus on what should have been the secondary aspect of the gameplay.

That's part of the reason ME2 wasn't "streamlined" at all, but instead was "dumbed down" and oversimplified. Too much was left out, overautomated, made incredibly linear and simple or was simply lacking or clumsy. Granted, ME1 had clumsy RPG elements too, but that was largely due to their execution more than the concepts behind them. Some of the ideas in ME2 had me wondering what kind of paint the game designers were drinking. ME1 had flaws, but most of them made me go, "Okay, that didn't work, but I can see what you were going for or how some tweaks would make it better." With ME2 I was often going, "WTF?!! Who thought that was even a good idea?!!"

Actually Shiala is the BEST example of how Bioware should handle the big decisions, because you have two different outcomes, one of them affecting you in the future.

Not really. Not when killing her results in nothing but a cheap substitute with the same exact mission. That's, IMO, how you don't handle big decisions and choices and consequences. Gianna Parasini would actually be my example of the BEST way a decision has been handled thus far in the series. Her content is at least meaningul, have several outcomes based on both games and feels somewhat natural. Shiala could have been good had she not simply been replaced by a generic human upon her death. The mission should either not have been there, or at least been quite a bit different.

Modifié par Terror_K, 16 janvier 2012 - 07:37 .

[someguy1231]

Terror_K wrote...
Regarding your first sentence, the reason is because Mass Effect is supposed to be an RPG at its heard, albeit an action-based one with TPS elements. The basic point is, you can't just copy'n'paste standard TPS elements from a standard TPS over into an RPG and pretty much leave it at that.

You can if it's an RPG-TPS hybrid (and that is what ME has always been). More on this later...

Terror_K wrote...
ME2 felt like a half-assed Frankenstein's monster of a game that wasn't sure what it really wanted to be. Its combat is too generic and half-assed to be a really good TPS, and it's RPG elements are almost non-existent and far too dumbed-down and linear to really be satisfying on that side of things. They just don't really gel at all. BioWare just ported them over from the likes of Gears of War, Army of Two, etc. and slapped them in like they belong as-is. It's okay to look to other games for inspiration, but there's a difference between that and just stealing their elements and using them directly, especially when your game is supposed to be another genre.

If you think the combat in ME2 was "generic" and "half-assed", then I think the problem isn't that it tried to be like Gears of War, but that it wasn't like Gears of War enough. And regardless of what you personally think of GoW, it is widely recognized as having the best TPS combat for this gen of gaming.

Terror_K wrote...
And yes, ME1 was more unique. Or perhaps, more accurately, ME2 was less unique. Most of the elements it adopted in ME2 were very by-the-book and done-to-death, particularly in this day and age. It may have brought something new to the table for Mass Effect, but as a game overall it brought almost nothing new to the table at all.

Again, "unique" doesn't automatically equal "better". Nor does "by-the-book" automatically equal "worse". ME1 tried to have a "unique" combat system, and the result was that most people hated it, so Bioware threw in the towel and implemented a system like that seen in other shooter games. Not perfect, I'll freely admit, but it still made for more enjoyable shooter gameplay IMO.

(Oh, and before you mention the whole "breaking lore" argument, I actually agree with that. I would've preferred Bioware simply pretend thermal clips had always been in use and retcon the overheating system away, rather than trying to write the change directly into the story. But in the end, fun gameplay trumps consistent lore.)

Terror_K wrote...
The three examples of RPG-Shooter hybrids you listed above all do a better job than ME2 did, at least as far as the core gameplay goes. ME2 only really trumps them in the cinematic/story areas.

And do you know why that is? Because those other three games all did pretty much import their FPS mechanics from the most popular FPS games of their time. Same first-person camera view, same ammo systems, same "point and shoot" mechanics,
same reload mechanics, same "bad guys drop ammo" system, same damage bonus to headshots, etc. They knew that trying to change them in a misguided attempt to be "unique" would likely be poorly received. They recognized that FPS mechanics had been firmly established in the minds of most gamers, so if they were going to make a successful FPS/RPG hybrid, it would still have to feel like an FPS, except one based on both character skill and player skill.

I went into each of those three games having already played plenty of FPS games, and immediately felt right at home. I couldn't say the same after going from GoW to ME. GoW2 to ME2, on the other hand, felt much smoother.

Modifié par someguy1231, 16 janvier 2012 - 09:06 .