443 réponses à ce sujet

[Terror_K]

someguy1231 wrote...

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.

I actually like Gears of War. I own the first... would probably own the other two had Cliffy B not thrown a hissy fit because PC gamers didn't praise him as a God and continued the series on PC too.

In some ways I agree: ME2 fell down with its combat because it lacked a lot of what Gears of War had: variety to the combat, varied battlefields with multiple approaches, well integrated puzzles and non-TPS gameplay mechanics incorporated into the core gameplay without deviating from it, interesting set-ups and boss-fights, etc. It took the basics and that's it, and that's part of the reason it fell on its butt. Gears of War managed to at least change things up and keep things different and interesting throughout, while ME2 felt like a repetitive corridor shooter of rinse and repeat.

That said, it still also fell down because it came across as basically a poor man's TPS with the only real link to the RPG elements being the powers.

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,

I think "hated" is such a strong word. I think many thought it could have done with some work, but if it was so hated then Mass Effect would never have been popular in the first place. I personally think a lot of people didn't get it because it was different, and that doesn't mean it was bad, or that it didn't have merit. I definitely saw a lot of people come to the forums in ME1's wake who hadn't played BioWare games much before complaining that it wasn't enough of a TPS because that's what they were expecting. The combat looked like Gears and was kind of like Gears, but didn't play like Gears. I don't think it was supposed to: if it had been, it would have been far easier to do that from the start rather than introduce the RPG-based systems like the skill-based reticule, etc. In fact, some of the earliest demos show ME1 playing more like a traditional TPS, and then changing to the more RPG stat-driven method they used in the end. So instead of just letting people deal with the fact ME1 was different, they changed its sequel to be more what TPS players were expecting, most likely because that's the audience they wanted to snag. Which you seem to admit in your next sentence...

so Bioware threw in the towel and implemented a system like that seen in other shooter games.

They "threw in the towel" as you said, rather than tweak the system further and keep the RPG nature of it.

Not perfect, I'll freely admit, but it still made for more enjoyable shooter gameplay IMO.

Sure... if you're after shooter gameplay. Of course ME2 has better shooter gameplay when the original wasn't really going for standard TPS gameplay in the first place thanks to its stat-based system. That doesn't mean just because ME2 did a better job of doing something ME1 wasn't really trying to do that it was good overall. Compared to most TPS combat in pure TPS titles, it was weaksauce. That might have been fine had the RPG side been strong enough to compensate... but it wasn't.

(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.)

For me that depends whether the gameplay was worth the sacrifice of the lore and how hard it kicks it in the groin. Personally, I thought the introduction of "ammo" was trite and preferred the game without it. And any sense of urgency that the Thermal Clips was supposed to introduce was instantly neutered by the regenerating health anyway.

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.

No, the reason is because all of those games knew how to properly integrate and meld their Shooter and RPG elements properly. They felt like they were bred from the two: with a Shooter father and RPG mother. Mass Effect 2 felt like instead of breeding them, they cut two really different people in half to make one person instead. When in combat in ME2 it feels so completely removed from the rest of the game, like all the focus is on the combat and the shooter stuff. The RPG stuff is weaksauce at best, and what's there is pushed to the side almost entirely. With Fallout, Borderlands and Deus Ex I can feel the weight of the RPG elements as a constant presence influencing the gameplay at every turn, even in the combat. ME2 never feels that way at all. I never really feel the progression over time or the RPG stuff working away in the background. ME2 is like driving an electric car with the windows up vs. the petrol-fuelled V8 engines in a convertible feeling those other games have: you just don't feel or hear the mechanics at all. The combat is just too isolated from the RPG, and the RPG is likely so quiet because its so very weak. If the RPG elements had some weight to them and felt substantial it might have worked, but they don't. Too often the game seems almost embarrassed about its RPG leanings: trying to push them aside as much as it can for as long as it can, trying to hide as many things as it can and automating others so they never make the player have to think beyond who is next to kill.

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.

Again, Mass Effect wasn't supposed to just be "Gears of War with dialogue" in the first place. People who seem to point out "but Mass Effect wasn't never a pure RPG in the first place and was always a hybrid" don't seem to see things from the other side of things either: Mass Effect was never a pure TPS in the first place either. Why is it not okay when the RPG elements get in the way of the Shooter stuff, but it's all perfectly fine when the TPS elements get in the way of the RPG stuff? How come there's such a thing as adding "too much RPG" to Mass Effect, but never any such thing as "too much Shooter" to it?

Simply put: with ME2, the Shooter elements have dominated the game far too much. And ME3 looks to be suffering the same issues thus far. For every RPG element that's returned or been improved, there's even more pure TPS elements infesting it too. The idea is for the RPG and TPS to try and come together, but it seems that while one side is trying, the other is moving away.

[xentar]

ttchip wrote...
lets consider endings with maximum amounts of renegade/paragon-choices to be optimal.

What?! I prefer to play neutral characters, that's definitely not what I want.

ttchip wrote...

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.

The fact that you can achieve one ending (see distinction between globally optimal and wanted) does not mean you can achieve every one.

Basically, unless a developer states that:
1) You can reproduce exactly the same results without using multiplayer as those you can achieve with it;
2) There can never ever be a situation that, due to a combination of choices is impossible to resolve in single player but is fixable with multiplayer.
I will consider myself at a disadvantage due to flawed gameplay design.

[brfritos]

Terror_K wrote...

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?!!"

You know, you have a point regarding the gameplay system: what your squad mates serve for?
That's right, you don't need those two jackasses consuming resources and your med-gel, specially if you play as a soldier or sentinel, because they don't serve for almost nothing.
They can't hold a line, they can't take good cover by themselves, they don't know how to use their powers and they are utterly suicidal.
You are not a combatant, you are a baby sitter, that's what really annoyed me.

The so hated Miranda is one of the few that actually adds something regarding combat.

Terror_K wrote...

brfritos wrote...

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.

OK, my fault for not explaining this in detail.

You are right regarding the substitute for Shiala, is a cheap filler with the purpouse of saying "hey, your decision on Feros mattered" and extremelly tasteless, just like that bunch of mails you receive. But Shiala is a better example than Gianna because she reacts about what you did on Feros.
Saving the colonists leads to one conclusion and killing them to another.
Gianna on the other hand doesn't, if you were a jerk and screwed her on Noveria she doesn't have any reason at all for trust you, yet she does. Why?

The point is, your decison regarding Feros influence how Shiala behaved, how she treat you and what outcome you get. It doesn't matter if you are paragon, renegade, polite or whatever at that moment, the final outcome is based on what decision you did before. And there's more, even the "good" outcome has different ends depending of your answer before saying goodbye to each other.
Gianna is much more black and white, although is a nice touch remembering Noveria.

So you see, you have a lot of possibilities and diferent ends based on your past/present decisions and replies.
But what other decisions in the game has this? Mostly none!
The very first time I put my shoes on Tuchanka I've felt cheated.

So that's the big decision regarding Wrex, you are treated "cold" by other krogan?
Give me a break...
 

[mybudgee]

Damn.. remind me not to debate Terror K!

[StephanieBengal]

mybudgee wrote...

Damn.. remind me not to debate Terror K!

It's a wasteful debate to start with, but it's highly humorous to watch. Everyone has their opinion and preferences. You can't talk people into thinking they're wrong and you're right. 

[someguy1231]

Terror_K wrote...

I actually like Gears of War. I own the first... would probably own the other two had Cliffy B not thrown a hissy fit because PC gamers didn't praise him as a God and continued the series on PC too.

In some ways I agree: ME2 fell down with its combat because it lacked a lot of what Gears of War had: variety to the combat, varied battlefields with multiple approaches, well integrated puzzles and non-TPS gameplay mechanics incorporated into the core gameplay without deviating from it, interesting set-ups and boss-fights, etc. It took the basics and that's it, and that's part of the reason it fell on its butt. Gears of War managed to at least change things up and keep things different and interesting throughout, while ME2 felt like a repetitive corridor shooter of rinse and repeat.

That said, it still also fell down because it came across as basically a poor man's TPS with the only real link to the RPG elements being the powers.

We agree here, for the most part. But since Gears never tries to be anything but a shooter it can focus like a laser on that. Not something ME can claim.

Terror_K wrote...
I think "hated" is such a strong word. I think many thought it could have done with some work, but if it was so hated then Mass Effect would never have been popular in the first place. I personally think a lot of people didn't get it because it was different, and that doesn't mean it was bad, or that it didn't have merit. I definitely saw a lot of people come to the forums in ME1's wake who hadn't played BioWare games much before complaining that it wasn't enough of a TPS because that's what they were expecting. The combat looked like Gears and was kind of like Gears, but didn't play like Gears. I don't think it was supposed to: if it had been, it would have been far easier to do that from the start rather than introduce the RPG-based systems like the skill-based reticule, etc. In fact, some of the earliest demos show ME1 playing more like a traditional TPS, and then changing to the more RPG stat-driven method they used in the end. So instead of just letting people deal with the fact ME1 was different, they changed its sequel to be more what TPS players were expecting, most likely because that's the audience they wanted to snag. Which you seem to admit in your next sentence...

I don't see how it's relevant whether someone has played Bioware games before ME or not. Remember that ME was the first game by Bioware where combat put a heavy emphasis on shooter gameplay. Previous games focused primarily on melee combat. Even KOTOR heavily encouraged the player to grab a lightsaber as soon as they can simply by having projectile weapons that cause nothing but frustration.

As for the combat, go back and read reviews for the original ME for 360. Barely any reviews highlight the combat as a strong point, and some even call it one of its weakest points. There are plenty of games that become very popular despite having a very obvious flaw. Oblivion, for example, had a broken leveling system that often punished you for leveling, but that didn't stop it from being a huge seller.

I haven't seen any demos of the original ME, but if what you say is true, then Bioware has no one to blame but themselves for players complaining their combat system isn't enough like a TPS.

Terror_K wrote...
They "threw in the towel" as you said, rather than tweak the system further and keep the RPG nature of it.
.
Sure... if you're after shooter gameplay. Of course ME2 has better shooter gameplay when the original wasn't really going for standard TPS gameplay in the first place thanks to its stat-based system. That doesn't mean just because ME2 did a better job of doing something ME1 wasn't really trying to do that it was good overall. Compared to most TPS combat in pure TPS titles, it was weaksauce. That might have been fine had the RPG side been strong enough to compensate... but it wasn't.

So you admit that ME2 has improved shooter gameplay. Then Bioware achieved what they were aiming for. And yes, Bioware was after shooter gameplay. As for whether it was "good" overall, it call comes down to whether it was more fun. And the consenus of many, both fans and critics, is that it was.

Terror_K wrote...
For me that depends whether the gameplay was worth the sacrifice of the lore and how hard it kicks it in the groin. Personally, I thought the introduction of "ammo" was trite and preferred the game without it. And any sense of urgency that the Thermal Clips was supposed to introduce was instantly neutered by the regenerating health anyway.

I found ME2 on Insanity more difficult than ME1 on Insanity, even with regenerating health. The reason they introduced the latter is simple: to make enemies more lethal. I've heard all the arguments that regenerating health in shooters somehow makes them "too easy". I have the hours of frustration and countless deaths to prove them wrong.

Terror_K wrote...
he combat is just too isolated from the RPG, and the RPG is likely so quiet because its so very weak. If the RPG elements had some weight to them and felt substantial it might have worked, but they don't. Too often the game seems almost embarrassed about its RPG leanings: trying to push them aside as much as it can for as long as it can, trying to hide as many things as it can and automating others so they never make the player have to think beyond who is next to kill.

It's starting to sound like the root of our disagreement is the role RPG elements should play in combat. I personally feel they should be limited to things like character class, weapon customization and biotic/ammo powers. When most players point a gun in a game and pull the trigger, they expect it to hit their target, rather than being dependent on stats. This, along with the introduction of an ammo system, are primarily why I think ME2's combat is better than ME1's. If you consider that to be "too isolated from the RPG", then RPG-based shooter combat wouldn't be nearly as fun.

Terror_K wrote...
Again, Mass Effect wasn't supposed to just be "Gears of War with dialogue" in the first place. People who seem to point out "but Mass Effect wasn't never a pure RPG in the first place and was always a hybrid" don't seem to see things from the other side of things either: Mass Effect was never a pure TPS in the first place either. Why is it not okay when the RPG elements get in the way of the Shooter stuff, but it's all perfectly fine when the TPS elements get in the way of the RPG stuff? How come there's such a thing as adding "too much RPG" to Mass Effect, but never any such thing as "too much Shooter" to it?

Simply put: with ME2, the Shooter elements have dominated the game far too much. And ME3 looks to be suffering the same issues thus far. For every RPG element that's returned or been improved, there's even more pure TPS elements infesting it too. The idea is for the RPG and TPS to try and come together, but it seems that while one side is trying, the other is moving away.

I've always viewed RPG elements as primarily referring to non-combat elements, such as the choices you make and the reputation you gain from those choices. Planescape: Torment can be played through with practically no combat engagement at all, and it's considered one of the best RPGs ever. As far as combat goes, as I said earlier, it should only refer to things like character class, weapon customization and the Biotic/ammo powers. The two biggest gripes people had with ME1's combat was stat-based accuracy, and the infinite ammo/overheating system, so Bioware removed those in ME2. RPG in combat should only affect what you can use, rather than how well you can use them. Players like to feel they're in control in combat-based gameplay, rather than beholden to the Random Number God.

We can debate about the proper place of RPG elements in combat until the universe implodes, but in the end, what matters most is that the combat gameplay is fun. And you yourself admit that ME2 had improved shooter gameplay. Yes, Bioware accomplished that by "throwing in the towel", but that was Bioware's own fault for trying to "fix" what wasn't broken to begin with.

[Terror_K]

someguy1231 wrote...

I don't see how it's relevant whether someone has played Bioware games before ME or not. Remember that ME was the first game by Bioware where combat put a heavy emphasis on shooter gameplay. Previous games focused primarily on melee combat. Even KOTOR heavily encouraged the player to grab a lightsaber as soon as they can simply by having projectile weapons that cause nothing but frustration.

My basic point was that Mass Effect wasn't intended to be a pure TPS game from the get-go, but a bunch of TPS players came in expecting it to be one and complaining, simply because it was kind of a wolf in sheep's clothing. Essentially, they didn't really get the game, but instead of BioWare simply going, "too bad" and continuing with that they simply caved in and tuned the game more for the complaining TPS players than for those who were largely happy with the game or at least didn't think it needed such a drastic gameplay overhaul as it got.

Incidentally, this is why I find it ironic and funny whenever people such as myself are called "whiners" (or something similar) for complaining about ME2 (and being sceptical of ME3)... because ME2 basically came about because BioWare decided to cater to a bunch of "whiners" who "whined" about ME1 not being a strong enough TPS and how they felt its combat sucked. ME2's changed direction to a stronger TPS game and a weaker RPG one was kind of the first step in many of BioWare's basic new direction of, "pander and try to appeal more to mainstream and possible new fans than to the existing ones."

Granted, much of the stuff that went from ME1 was stuff that was also universally complained about, both by fans of the game and by not-really-fans as well, but many fans felt some of it still had merit, and many were not happy with BioWare's policy of basically cutting many of these elements entirely and either replacing them with something incredibly simple or not bringing them back at all. It's like BioWare didn't even look further into the complaints themselves to see what the issues were, and instead just treated them like a cancer to be removed. Things like the Mako being replaceed by the Hammerhead, exploration being virtually non-existent and loading screens replacing elevators are just  a few examples where it seems BioWare simply just didn't "get it" when it came to the issues with these things. Rather than fix them and make them work and actually look into the problems directly, their answer was to just cut them.

As for the combat, go back and read reviews for the original ME for 360. Barely any reviews highlight the combat as a strong point, and some even call it one of its weakest points. There are plenty of games that become very popular despite having a very obvious flaw. Oblivion, for example, had a broken leveling system that often punished you for leveling, but that didn't stop it from being a huge seller.

I haven't seen any demos of the original ME, but if what you say is true, then Bioware has no one to blame but themselves for players complaining their combat system isn't enough like a TPS.

Again, I don't think a lot of people "got it" when it came to ME1 and it's combat. I'll admit it wasn't brilliant, but it's sad to see it get replaced with such a dull, done-to-death copy and paste from every other TPS as an answer instead of actually trying to make it work as an RPG. It's also how I largely felt about Alpha Protocol getting a bad name when it came out: it had its flaws too, but judging from many of the reviews it seems most of these issues stem from people trying to play it like a standard TPS just because it shared many elements with one and looked like one. That's where the issue lies, IMO. Too many people were like, "it looks like a TPS, and walks like a TPS... it MUST be a TPS!"

But it wasn't. And neither was ME1. They weren't victims of being "bad" but instead victims of being too different in a time when players were expecting the same, and looking too much like those expectations. Maybe it is BioWare's fault that they made ME1 look and walk too much like a TPS, but that doesn't mean that that's what it was supposed to be, even if that's what it ended up becoming.

So you admit that ME2 has improved shooter gameplay. Then Bioware achieved what they were aiming for. And yes, Bioware was after shooter gameplay. As for whether it was "good" overall, it call comes down to whether it was more fun. And the consenus of many, both fans and critics, is that it was.

I admit that ME2 had improved shooter gameplay. But that's not an admission that I believe that it was good for the game. If Portal 3 came along and had "improved shooter gameplay" over Portal 2 that may sound good at first glance, but then there's the point that Portal was never supposed to be a shooter, even if it kind of looked like one and could be confused for one at first glance. Portal 3 having "improved shooter gameplay" would not mean a better Portal game, and I kind of feel the same way about Mass Effect. Yes, the shooter gameplay was better in ME2... but was that better for Mass Effect? That's the question.

Personally, I actually believe that the direction BioWare took with ME2 was technically the right one, but that it was taken far too far. What should have been a step in the right direction was too many steps that way and thus really steps in the wrong direction. They overshot, by a long way.

Changing the basic system from stat-based to skill-based (i.e. going from points and a reticule that strinks to a purely player skill system) was a good move, but that doesn't mean weapon skills couldn't have taken on a different form. Regenerating health was not a good move, IMO. Nor was introducing an "ammo" system. Nor was taking away proper armour and armour classes, skimming non-combat skills, taking away biotic amps and omni-tools, taking away mods, changing what were mods to powers, etc.

The point is, while the RPG may have dominated the basic TPS combat in ME1 too much to the point of taking away or curbing the elements that make TPS combat work, by the end of ME2 there was almost no RPG left in the system at all, and we were left with an entirely TPS model with only a few shallow remnants of RPG left. The TPS side became too dominant and wasn't linked to the RPG nature the game was supposed to have at all really. Combat really did just become "Gears of War with Powers" when it came down to it.

Regarding whether it was more fun, that's very subjective. It personally isn't for me, but that's due to many reasons across the board, and not simply ME2's combat vs. ME1's. ME1 I've played dozens of times, and could play again quite easily despite this. Beyond my first two times playing ME2, I find it hard to go through the game in one-sitting any more. I find my Shepards getting to various stages into the game and the me stopping as it becomes tedious. Again, this is due to many factors. Immersion being broken all the time. The feeling that too many changes are purely cosmetic. The lack of builds between classes. All kinds of things.

The fact is, ME2 just grinds on me faster than ME1 did. Had some of the levels been better designed to feel both more natural and less linear and had the core gameplay had more to it than just "run to obvious ambush area, kill guys, find next obvious ambush area or cutscene and rinse and repeat" and been more like Gears as far as variety goes, then perhaps I could find the journey a bit more pleasant. I've still got outcomes I haven't even seen yet: I haven't romanced some characters, seen all the outcomes of my choices, got every squaddie killed or even recruited Morinth in a playthrough yet. But ME2 often just ends up being a slog to me, and ME1 just never was.

Again though... it's not just one thing, but several contributing factors. And that's my problem with ME2 overall. ME1 had some big glaring gameplay faults, but overall was still so much of an experience and felt more than the sum of its parts. Even when it failed, I could see what it was trying to be, and could roll with that. I could quite simply lose myself in the original game. ME2 simply has dozens upon dozens of issues that constantly bug me, and they just annoy me and take me out of the game so much that it never feels like an experience and/or more than the sum of its parts. It feels like... a game, like any other game I play, and the original didn't to me. ME1 has bigger, more noticable flaws, but I can work with them. ME2 has too much that annoys me, frustrates me and seems to be almost designed to deliberately be that way.

Put it this way: ME1 is a Play Doh pencil holder made my by 4 year old nephew and given to me at Christmas. It's lobsided, the pencils fall out, it can't hold vary many items and it wobbles on my desk. Despite that, it has my name on it, even if one of the letters is backwards, along with a crudely drawn face of my favourite cartoon character and is in my favourite colours. It's not brilliant, but it feels made for me and crafted with care. ME2 feels like a jacket given to me from the same nephew 10 years later, who should know me, but doesn't. It looks okay, but it's from a place I'd never go, is something I wouldn't want to buy, looks awful, has a picture of somebody I don't like on it, and it's not even my size. It's technically better and more functional than the pencil holder, but feels hollow.

I found ME2 on Insanity more difficult than ME1 on Insanity, even with regenerating health. The reason they introduced the latter is simple: to make enemies more lethal. I've heard all the arguments that regenerating health in shooters somehow makes them "too easy". I have the hours of frustration and countless deaths to prove them wrong.

They also pussified Shepard too though: he/she can't take as many hits as in ME1 before going down. Seems for a badass cyborg Shepard has the worst gear and can't take a hit compared to everybody he faces. Regenerating health is a cheap cop-out most of the time, and most games that use it and remain hard tend to use cheap tactics to get you killed as well (unlimited spawning enemies, omniscient AI, constant overwhelming, too-fast enemies with cheap abilities, etc.).

It's starting to sound like the root of our disagreement is the role RPG elements should play in combat. I personally feel they should be limited to things like character class, weapon customization and biotic/ammo powers. When most players point a gun in a game and pull the trigger, they expect it to hit their target, rather than being dependent on stats. This, along with the introduction of an ammo system, are primarily why I think ME2's combat is better than ME1's. If you consider that to be "too isolated from the RPG", then RPG-based shooter combat wouldn't be nearly as fun.

My main issue is that A) BioWare just copy'n'pasted elements straight from other TPS games without really trying to integrate them into the RPG aspect of the game, and that you never feel the RPG gears turning in combat. There's no real sense of progression or the RPG stuff driving the combat behind the scenes. The closest thing to this is the upgrades, but they're so linear, automated and God-moddy in the end that they might as well have just had them in the background entirely. ME2 just jumps too suddenly from almost pure TPS in combat to interactive dialogue moments, and there's no real in-between and no real sense of the other aspects of the gameplay present in each part. It's the equivalent of playing Gears of War for five minutes, then switching to Heavy Rain for a a couple, then switching to Gears again. BioWare is trying to tell me I've got a flying car, and all I can say is, "No I don't. I have the front of a car with a plane's tail and some wings stuck to it."

I've always viewed RPG elements as primarily referring to non-combat elements, such as the choices you make and the reputation you gain from those choices. Planescape: Torment can be played through with practically no combat engagement at all, and it's considered one of the best RPGs ever. As far as combat goes, as I said earlier, it should only refer to things like character class, weapon customization and the Biotic/ammo powers. The two biggest gripes people had with ME1's combat was stat-based accuracy, and the infinite ammo/overheating system, so Bioware removed those in ME2. RPG in combat should only affect what you can use, rather than how well you can use them. Players like to feel they're in control in combat-based gameplay, rather than beholden to the Random Number God.

ME2 doesn't really even offer any of that PS:Torment stuff though. That's where the likes of Fallout and Deus Ex also trump ME2: they offer not only non-combat skills and ablitities, but allow you to take alternate routes, through either them or dialogue, etc.

We can debate about the proper place of RPG elements in combat until the universe implodes, but in the end, what matters most is that the combat gameplay is fun. And you yourself admit that ME2 had improved shooter gameplay. Yes, Bioware accomplished that by "throwing in the towel", but that was Bioware's own fault for trying to "fix" what wasn't broken to begin with.

ME2 still only had the bare bones of TPS combat, and had none of the flare that the likes of Gears has with actually pulling it off. ME2 is, at best, "Vanilla TPS" when it comes to it's core gameplay. And again, I don't really agree that it was the best move for the series, even if it's "technically" better from that standpoint. "Better Shooter" gameplay doesn't automatically mean a better game. Mass Effect is not solely a shooter, and thus should not be designed like one. I don't see it so much as BioWare trying to "fix something that wasn't broken" but trying to create something different and a bunch of people saying, "Just use that. That works." So they just did in the end.

[habitat 67]

I don't like ravioli in a can, but I dont sit around on the ChefBoyArDee forums for hours a day to tell them that their ravioli in a can tasted soooooooooooo much better in the seventies.

[count_4]

Sweawm wrote...
When it comes to Mass Effect 3, everyone seems to be a pessimist.

Dragon Age 2 taught us well, I guess.

Personally I expect ME3 to be better executed than DA2 (which for me was still a good game) but not as good as ME1 storywise.
So no pessimism for me. Just realism.

Modifié par count_4, 17 janvier 2012 - 12:32 .

[Terror_K]

habitat 67 wrote...

I don't like ravioli in a can, but I dont sit around on the ChefBoyArDee forums for hours a day to tell them that their ravioli in a can tasted soooooooooooo much better in the seventies.

That would all be very well if the people with complaints here were never fans of it in the first place, but that's not the case. There's a difference between actively complaining about something you straight up don't like and never did, and complaining about something you did like, but was then changed to the point where you no longer do (or, at least, not as much).

Personally, I got into Mass Effect largely because it avoided many of the aspects ME2 has since embraced. And it looks like ME3 is continuing that too. When I love something because it has lots of A and very little B, it's rather annoying when the people behind it decide to change it up and reduce the A for lots more B.

[Kakita Tatsumaru]

count_4 wrote...
Personally I expect ME3 to be better executed than DA2 (which for me was still a good game) but not as good as ME1 storywise.

Actually a ME3 which would be as bad as DA2 would sign Bioware's death for a lots of players, the same as many players doesn't care about squaresoft anymore after FFXII and FFXIII and their slow, boring story (where story is something easier done in a J-RPG and in a western style RPG).

[someguy1231]

Terror_K wrote...
Again, I don't think a lot of people "got it" when it came to ME1 and it's combat. I'll admit it wasn't brilliant, but it's sad to see it get replaced with such a dull, done-to-death copy and paste from every other TPS as an answer instead of actually trying to make it work as an RPG. It's also how I largely felt about Alpha Protocol getting a bad name when it came out: it had its flaws too, but judging from many of the reviews it seems most of these issues stem from people trying to play it like a standard TPS just because it shared many elements with one and looked like one. That's where the issue lies, IMO. Too many people were like, "it looks like a TPS, and walks like a TPS... it MUST be a TPS!"

But it wasn't. And neither was ME1. They weren't victims of being "bad" but instead victims of being too different in a time when players were expecting the same, and looking too much like those expectations. Maybe it is BioWare's fault that they made ME1 look and walk too much like a TPS, but that doesn't mean that that's what it was supposed to be, even if that's what it ended up becoming.

In my experience, the whole "reviewers just don't get it!" card regarding poor reviews of a game are the last resort of deperate gamers. I remember when DA2 came out some of the game's defenders made the same claim, and I've seen it pretty much anytime a game a certain gamer likes gets poor reviews. It's all a bunch of bunk and here's why: a truly good gameplay system needs to be well-received regardless of what gamers expect it to be.

I know alot of FPS fans who went into the Portal games expecting it to be like one of those. And yet almost all of them loved the games anyway. Know why? Because Portal's gameplay is fun and rewarding in its own right. I also know many RPG players who went into the Diablo games expecting a Baldur's Gate-like RPG, but they still loved the game because its own unique brand of hack-and-slash, dungeon-crawling, looting and co-op made for an enjoyable experience. My point is, if ME1's combat system was really as good as you claim it is, this difference in expectations would not have mattered. Gamers aren't as picky and intransigent as you seem to think they are. They'll accept gameplay that differs from what they expect as long as it's fun in its own right. They didn't think ME1's gameplay was fun, no matter how they approached it, so they did not accept it.

Terror_K wrote...
I admit that ME2 had improved shooter gameplay. But that's not an admission that I believe that it was good for the game. If Portal 3 came along and had "improved shooter gameplay" over Portal 2 that may sound good at first glance, but then there's the point that Portal was never supposed to be a shooter, even if it kind of looked like one and could be confused for one at first glance. Portal 3 having "improved shooter gameplay" would not mean a better Portal game, and I kind of feel the same way about Mass Effect.

Apples and oranges. Portal was never meant to be a shooter at all. It's a puzzle game, albeit one with a first-person perspective and involving a "portal gun". The original Portal had no weapons aside from the Portal gun, and that technically wasn't a "weapon" in the sense of an FPS. 

Terror_K wrote...
Yes, the shooter gameplay was better in ME2... but was that better for Mass Effect? That's the question.

Really? You're asking that in all seriousness? ME has been a shooter-RPG hybrid from the start, as you yourself admit. Just because it's also an RPG is no excuse for poor or half-assed shooter gameplay. How would you feel if someone made a similar argument against improved RPG elements in ME3? Frankly I'm baffled any ME fan could think improved shooter gameplay could be a bad thing  for ME, unless they just dislike shooters in general (and in that case, I'd question why they became an ME fan to begin with).

They also pussified Shepard too though: he/she can't take as many hits as in ME1 before going down. Seems for a badass cyborg Shepard has the worst gear and can't take a hit compared to everybody he faces. Regenerating health is a cheap cop-out most of the time, and most games that use it and remain hard tend to use cheap tactics to get you killed as well (unlimited spawning enemies, omniscient AI, constant overwhelming, too-fast enemies with cheap abilities, etc.).

I didn't notice much difference on Insanity, as far as Shepherd's health goes. Also, remember that ME1 technically had regenerating health too, with the shield. I've never found the tactics cheap, as long as the player knows the right counter-tactics. For example, I was able to beat Halo Reach on Legendary in only two days, simply cause of hours of practice against human opponents from the multiplayer.

And if you're going to complain about Shepherd being "pussified", I found starting the game with all skills reset was far more "pussifying" than regenerating health or decreased hit points. And yet many RPG players want just that in the game.

My main issue is that A) BioWare just copy'n'pasted elements straight from other TPS games without really trying to integrate them into the RPG aspect of the game,

And as I've said before, it makes perfect sense they'd do that, since the entire point of those other TPS games is to have enjoyable shooter gameplay.

ME2 still only had the bare bones of TPS combat, and had none of the flare that the likes of Gears has with actually pulling it off. ME2 is, at best, "Vanilla TPS" when it comes to it's core gameplay. And again, I don't really agree that it was the best move for the series, even if it's "technically" better from that standpoint. "Better Shooter" gameplay doesn't automatically mean a better game. Mass Effect is not solely a shooter, and thus should not be designed like one. I don't see it so much as BioWare trying to "fix something that wasn't broken" but trying to create something different and a bunch of people saying, "Just use that. That works." So they just did in the end.

If it's a shooter-RPG hybrid, then yes it does. Granted, we have different ideas on how that hybrid should be implemented (then again, pretty much everyone here differs on that), but I tend to view the shooter gameplay as distinct from the RPG elements (dialogue choices, reputation, customization, etc) so improvements in one is considered an improvement overall. In the end, all that matters from Bioware's view is that gamers think the game is fun to play. Yes, "fun" is subjective, but Bioware decided, correctly in my view, that the best way to improve the shooter aspects is make it more like a strictly shooter game. Yes, it's still not as good as a dedicated shooter games, but Bioware is still new to the shooter genre, and you yourself admit it's an improvement, so Bioware would probably think it was worth it in that case.

Modifié par someguy1231, 17 janvier 2012 - 03:57 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

someguy1231 wrote...


In my experience, the whole "reviewers just don't get it!" card regarding poor reviews of a game are the last resort of deperate gamers. I remember when DA2 came out some of the game's defenders made the same claim, and I've seen it pretty much anytime a game a certain gamer likes gets poor reviews. It's all a bunch of bunk and here's why: a truly good gameplay system needs to be well-received regardless of what gamers expect it to be.

You good sir, act as if you are new to the internets. :D

Interents is full of self-entilted, snotty, irritable people who take everything personally and put their expectations above everything else.

If we were to judge purely on gameplay mechanics, half the games wouldnt' have the score they have now.

[Il Divo]

someguy1231 wrote...

If it's a shooter-RPG hybrid, then yes it does. Granted, we have different ideas on how that hybrid should be implemented (then again, pretty much everyone here differs on that), but I tend to view the shooter gameplay as distinct from the RPG elements (dialogue choices, reputation, customization, etc) so improvements in one is considered an improvement overall. In the end, all that matters from Bioware's view is that gamers think the game is fun to play. Yes, "fun" is subjective, but Bioware decided, correctly in my view, that the best way to improve the shooter aspects is make it more like a strictly shooter game. Yes, it's still not as good as a dedicated shooter games, but Bioware is still new to the shooter genre, and you yourself admit it's an improvement, so Bioware would probably think it was worth it in that case.

Pretty much this. If you're purposely designing an RPG-TPS hybrid, then improving the shooting mechanics can only be seen as a positive, though what constitutes an improvement and at what cost can be disputed. The problem is that if you're going to fail at shooting mechanics, then what was the point of making a hybrid in the first place? In ME's case, I can't even say that the RPG mechanics were up to my standards, with the one of the worst inventories I've seen and the lackluster leveling system. From a gameplay perspective, I thought ME1 had failed on both halves of the coin.  

[someguy1231]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
You good sir, act as if you are new to the internets. :D

Interents is full of self-entilted, snotty, irritable people who take everything personally and put their expectations above everything else.

If we were to judge purely on gameplay mechanics, half the games wouldnt' have the score they have now.

True enough, although I was mainly referring to professional reviewers (the kind that appear on Metacritic, etc) in my original post. Believe me, I know the internet will never be free of snotty, irritable people.

[Lotion Soronarr]

someguy1231 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
You good sir, act as if you are new to the internets. :D

Interents is full of self-entilted, snotty, irritable people who take everything personally and put their expectations above everything else.

If we were to judge purely on gameplay mechanics, half the games wouldnt' have the score they have now.

True enough, although I was mainly referring to professional reviewers (the kind that appear on Metacritic, etc) in my original post. Believe me, I know the internet will never be free of snotty, irritable people.

You mean the professionals that showered DA2 with perfect scores?

Or you mean the kind that gave games like DNF or DA2 1's and 0's, just because it wasn't what they wanted?

[Lambchopz]

 I'm an ancient astronaut from the planet Namek, and I want you all to know that I am always more correct then any of you measily earth humans by default.

That said, even I don't know the correct answer to how Mass Effect should be developed, and I personally believe arguing about it before ME3 even comes out is pointless. Arguing about a game pre-release is also against the 3rd tenet of the Namekian Church of 9000+, as our home planet Namek was destroyed due to a dispute concerning a video-game pre-release between two powerful military dictators. The dispute got so heated that they decided to nuke the planet out of existence.

Modifié par Lambchopz, 17 janvier 2012 - 05:16 .

[Spanky Magoo]

Ive seen parts of the leak, parts reguarding certain ME2 characters and thus I am pessimistic.

And dont even get me started on the "permanent squad" in me3. No ME2 squadmembers? really? What was the point of putting together the team to begin with if none of them are around when the stuff actually hits the fan? Here I was thinking how cool it would be having Miranda/Jacob on an alliance ship or Samara interact with Liara just something to connect the ME1 and ME2 squads.

Im going to keep expecting to be dissapointed from what ive read, that way all I can do is be pleasantly surprised or get exactly what I already expect.

[Terror_K]

someguy1231 wrote...

In my experience, the whole "reviewers just don't get it!" card regarding poor reviews of a game are the last resort of deperate gamers. I remember when DA2 came out some of the game's defenders made the same claim, and I've seen it pretty much anytime a game a certain gamer likes gets poor reviews. It's all a bunch of bunk and here's why: a truly good gameplay system needs to be well-received regardless of what gamers expect it to be.

I know alot of FPS fans who went into the Portal games expecting it to be like one of those. And yet almost all of them loved the games anyway. Know why? Because Portal's gameplay is fun and rewarding in its own right. I also know many RPG players who went into the Diablo games expecting a Baldur's Gate-like RPG, but they still loved the game because its own unique brand of hack-and-slash, dungeon-crawling, looting and co-op made for an enjoyable experience. My point is, if ME1's combat system was really as good as you claim it is, this difference in expectations would not have mattered. Gamers aren't as picky and intransigent as you seem to think they are. They'll accept gameplay that differs from what they expect as long as it's fun in its own right. They didn't think ME1's gameplay was fun, no matter how they approached it, so they did not accept it.

I'll admit that both ME1 and Alpha Protocol's gameplay needed work... no question. But I don't think that ME1's combat system had been originally intended to be the pretty much "purely TPS" combat that the sequel had. Again, if it had, why did BioWare go to the trouble to implementing stat-based accuracy and the like? I distinctly remember them saying they put in an overheat system because they wanted to get away from the reliance on ammo other shooters had and not burden players with it, but then they just throw it into the sequel with the Thermal Clip system. It was an experiment to try something different, but it didn't quite work, so instead of working on it further they just (to reuse a common term here) "threw in the towel" and fell back on the tried and true TPS mechanic.

The problem here is, they didn't really seem to do much more than bring in a bunch of bare bones systems and put no real effort in properly integrating it into the RPG side of the game. It was the easy, quick way to handle the issue, IMO. ME1's gameplay was flawed but at the very least different. ME2's gameplay was tighter, but bland and uninspired.

Apples and oranges. Portal was never meant to be a shooter at all. It's a puzzle game, albeit one with a first-person perspective and involving a "portal gun". The original Portal had no weapons aside from the Portal gun, and that technically wasn't a "weapon" in the sense of an FPS.

And Mass Effect wasn't supposed to be a pure TPS either. Yet the combat and core gameplay pretty much acts like the game is.

Really? You're asking that in all seriousness? ME has been a shooter-RPG hybrid from the start, as you yourself admit. Just because it's also an RPG is no excuse for poor or half-assed shooter gameplay.

And yet its shooter gameplay is poor and half-assed. Granted in a different way than ME1's was, but still...

How would you feel if someone made a similar argument against improved RPG elements in ME3?

People do it all the time, even if it's indirectly, when they're defending BioWare for almost every change from ME1 to ME2. There's an overall feeling when it comes to ME2's defenders that "it's not okay for the RPG elements to dominate the game and get in the way, but it's perfectly fine for TPS elements to dominate and drown out the RPG ones."

Frankly I'm baffled any ME fan could think improved shooter gameplay could be a bad thing  for ME, unless they just dislike shooters in general (and in that case, I'd question why they became an ME fan to begin with).

Aside from the fact that I didn't get into Mass Effect to play another Gears of War or Army of Two, I don't think improved shooter gameplay is inherently a bad thing for Mass Effect. What I do think is a bad thing is when the developers add in gameplay elements treating the game like it's a pure TPS when it's not. Just like certain elements of the RPG side of things need to be either be sacrificed or bent to suit the TPS side of the game in order to make the game work as a hybrid, certain TPS elements need to either sacrificed or bent to suit the RPG side as well. My issue is that this isn't happening: the RPG side of the game is the one doing all the bending and sacrificing in order to allow the TPS free rein.

I'm not really saying that "improved shooter gameplay" is bad for Mass Effect so much as I'm saying "gameplay that is better for pure shooters in its purest form with no changes being directly ported to Mass Effect as if the game is a pure TPS" is bad for Mass Effect. Yes, BioWare and the ME development team should be looking to good TPS games that do it right like Gears for inspiration for their combat. But they shouldn't just be porting them over and damn near leaving it at that. And that is my issue.

And if you're going to complain about Shepherd being "pussified", I found starting the game with all skills reset was far more "pussifying" than regenerating health or decreased hit points. And yet many RPG players want just that in the game.

Funny... I remember most people being annoyed at being reset at the start of ME2, but it needed to be done given the vastly different leveling and progression system (and the fact an ME1 Level 60 Shepard was a God). Many are happy that ME3 is at least importing your progression with minimal changes.

And as I've said before, it makes perfect sense they'd do that, since the entire point of those other TPS games is to have enjoyable shooter gameplay.

And those other TPS games aren't RPGs as well. And that's the whole point. Mass Effect needs to have enjoyable gameplay, but that gameplay shouldn't just be pure TPS gameplay when the game isn't a pure TPS.

If it's a shooter-RPG hybrid, then yes it does. Granted, we have different ideas on how that hybrid should be implemented (then again, pretty much everyone here differs on that), but I tend to view the shooter gameplay as distinct from the RPG elements (dialogue choices, reputation, customization, etc) so improvements in one is considered an improvement overall. In the end, all that matters from Bioware's view is that gamers think the game is fun to play. Yes, "fun" is subjective, but Bioware decided, correctly in my view, that the best way to improve the shooter aspects is make it more like a strictly shooter game. Yes, it's still not as good as a dedicated shooter games, but Bioware is still new to the shooter genre, and you yourself admit it's an improvement, so Bioware would probably think it was worth it in that case.

It's interesting that you say that you, and I quote, "tend to view the shooter gameplay as distinct from the RPG elements" because that's actually at the heart of my issue with the core gameplay change from ME1 to ME2: that the shooter gameplay was too distinct from the RPG elements. It was too seperated from it. Like I said earlier, you couldn't feel the RPG gears turning in the background during combat. ME2 was essentially a Jekyll and Hyde game when it should have been far more balanced and normal.

Again, I agree that the basic concept and direction of making ME2 somewhat stronger on the TPS side was the right move, but that BioWare took it too far. ME1 didn't pull it off, but it had the right formula: an RPG system with TPS layered onto it. ME2's big issue was that instead of merely fixing what didn't work and building on the same frame, they threw it all out and built a new formula entirely: a TPS system, with the RPG layered onto it. It may have worked had the TPS side not dominated and had the RPG stuff not been so weaksauce and lacking... but that wasn't the case.

The thing in the end though is this, who is the game fun to play for: fans of the original, or drifting Gears, CoD and Halo fans? Don't get me wrong... appealing to the latter and making it fun for them isn't a bad thing as such, but it shouldn't come at the expense of alienating a good portion of your original fans in the first place. The game shouldn't have to become something else entirely to the point where some fans feel it's not even made for them any more to do so. I actually question BioWare's decision to up the TPS side of the game. I don't think they actually did it to improve Mass Effect and make it a better game... I just think they did it to branch out and make it a more appealing and popular game to the shooter fans out there. I don't think they went in asking, "what's best for Mass Effect?" but instead were thinking, "what's going to get us more sales and players?"