276 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

Walker White wrote...

Complex levelling choice is a more recent phenomenom that was added as RPGs became more complex.  It has certainly resulted in a narrowing of the hobby.  It has also forced the introduction of the respec; even the most accomplished player is likely to make crippling mistakes in their character build.  If we want the hobby to grow, this is not a good thing.

Sorry, just to make sure you're I'm following you, are you saying that the ability to respec is a bad thing, or the added emphasis on character customization at level up? I ask because one of my larger issues with DnD 2.0 is that minimal emphasis on player choice at level up, which I thought was improved through the introduction of 3.0 feats and the ability to alter ability scores. Just my two cents.

[someguy1231]

Brownfinger wrote...
Says you. I thought the shooter elements in Mass Effect 2 were vastly improved, and looking at the fluidity of the gameplay in Mass Effect 3, I honestly think that it can compete. Multiplayer is implemented in a way that makes sense within the Mass Effect universe, which is exactly what I wanted.

ME2's shooter gameplay was certainly an improvement over ME1's, but ME1's was so poor that's not really saying much. I found the gameplay of Halo Reach, Gears of War 3, and Battlefield 3 to still be far more fun than ME2's. Also, all three of those games were designed strictly as shooters rather than a shooter/RPG hybrid, and were made by studios with alot of experience in shooters. Bioware is still inexperienced when it comes to shooter gameplay, and shooting won't be ME3's only focus (though some RPG players here would like to think otherwise).

As for multiplayer making sense from a lore perspective, that just limits and hinders its capabilities. One of Halo Reach's most popular multiplayer modes is called "Grifball", yet this type of game makes no sense if you look at it from the lore of the Halo Universe. Bungie added it solely because it's fun (and because of Red vs Blue). Similarly, Battlefield 3's first expansion pack includes levels that don't make sense based on the single-player campaign. They're being added solely because they're the best maps from the Battlefield franchise, redone in modern graphics.

Speak for yourselves. If I can have great story immersion in a sci fi universe with engaging characters without having to trudge through clunky gameplay (Mass Effect 1) to get there, then that's pretty fantastic. As angry as multiplayer makes a few people, I'd be willing to bet that most of them will still buy the game. And for the tiny handful of people who are dumb enough to deprive themselves of the final installment in an amazing trilogy because it branched out past their niche, then the punishment fits the crime.

Funny, I could use the exact same words to describe how I feel about Halo or GoW. Agree with you on your second point though. If some people are going to refuse to buy a game solely because it includes an optional feature they don't like, then good riddance (I've made my loathing of romances clear on these boards, but that won't stop me from picking up ME3).