2915 réponses à ce sujet

[TheRevanchist]

izmirtheastarach wrote...

orpheuslupus wrote...

I still maintain, however, that the trial and going in depth on Vega's history with Shephard would have been terrible for story pacing.

Why is it that people seem to think there is no way to include some part of the trial, and keep the pace up? It's not like we're talking about a courtroom procederal. Just some quick yelling back and forth.

As I said before, if Shep has been called into that room so they Alliance brass could pass sentence on him, and then the Repears invade, that would be fine. Simple change.

I also fully understand Dragoonlordz' point about this. Why do we need a crazy breakneck pace right from the first moment? Could we not have built up to that?

ppl obviously just wana get to the esplosions and pew pews...they dont gots time to waste on all that talking stuff.

[BackstageManiac]

I RATHER BE IN DENIAL! MY DENIAL WORLD IS SO MUCH BETTER

[txgoldrush]

orpheuslupus wrote...

RSX Titan wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

Another thing that bothers me...ppl seem to think the dialogue, characterization, choosing your responses. That all of these things and more are not "the game." that all of that is "pointless crap" that keeps us from "the game" aka the pews pews....so I think we can safely ignore this crowd...as it's obvious what they think "the game" is.

This is what Bioware wants. Even though the fans wanted an RPG with Shooter elements, we got a wannabe shooter with RPG elements instead. What they fail to realize is that no one, at least that I've ever met, plays ME for the combat. If I want action, I play Halo or COD.

Who has even said any of those things?

That's the thing that amazes me about these arguments.  I have never seen anyone say "YOU KNOW WHAT?  MASS EFFECT SHOULDN'T DIALOGUE AND CHARACTERIZATION".  No one wants or is trying to make Mass Effect  a "mindless shooter" other than people who wouldn't play Mass Effect anyway.  This of course doesn't mean that the action elements should suck; I liked ME1's story to some extent but found it a absolute slog to play through most of the time to be honest, and had no plans to buy ME2 at the time because of it.  And I'm a huge RPG fanboy (to clarify, I would have also been happy if ME2 had just been a point and click game.  Either more shooter or more RPG would have been an improvement to me; that...weird hybrid thing they had going on wasn't really all that fun.)

I still maintain, however, that the trial and going in depth on Vega's history with Shephard would have been terrible for story pacing.  I don't mean "because we wouldn't get to the action" so much as it simply doesn't seem to me to be the time to do that.  Long discussion on the ship later, sure.  As bits of conversation here and there through the opening levels, sure.  Long expostion trial right at the beginning where you have to hook people, some of which will inevitably be new and will have to think of justifications for actions right then that they have no context about whether you like it or not ?  Terrible for the type of story they're trying to tell.


EDIT:  Fixed typos.

And to add, many RPGs do not start out with big exposition cutscenes, they start with straight action or a quick exposition leading to action, including almost all Bioware games. Take the Narshe attack by Terra in FFVI, it starts with straight action with overpowered abilities and develops Terra far later. Same with the attack on the Mako reactor in FFVII (boy does that game falter when it gets way too cutscene heavy). Look at Skyrim, it starts fast. Both Witcher games, yep. Hell even Ultima VII started fast, after seeing the murder scene you can walk out of town and hack bad guys. No 10-15 minute talk-a-thon.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 14 février 2012 - 05:03 .

[Dragoonlordz]

txgoldrush wrote...

And to add, many RPGs do not start out with big exposition cutscenes, they start with straight action or a quick exposition leading to action, including almost all Bioware games. Take the Narshe attack by Terra in FFVI, it starts with straight action with overpowered abilities and develops Terra far later. Same with the attack on the Mako reactor in FFVII (boy does that game falter when it gets way too cutscene heavy). Look at Skyrim, it starts fast. Both Witcher games, yep. Hell even Ultima VII started fast, after seeing the murder scene you can walk out of twon and hack bad guys. No 10-15 talk-a-thon.

For someone who recently moaned about copy and pasting from one title to the next tropes and idiologies you seem to be very much contradicting yourself by suggesting that they should do it same way as other games have done it in your very own examples.

[izmirtheastarach]

kylecouch wrote...

ppl obviously just wana get to the esplosions and pew pews...they dont gots time to waste on all that talking stuff.

It would be totally weird to have a lot of talking in a game like Mass Effect 3. I mean, it's not like there are tens of thousands of lines of recorded dialogue, or something.

[Dragoonlordz]

izmirtheastarach wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

ppl obviously just wana get to the esplosions and pew pews...they dont gots time to waste on all that talking stuff.

It would be totally weird to have a lot of talking in a game like Mass Effect 3. I mean, it's not like there are tens of thousands of lines of recorded dialogue, or something.

Nah did you not hear? They crammed all those 40k extra dialogue lines into a single hour long dialogue marathon at the end of the game. It certainly is not present in the slightest at the beginning and thats if was not PR propaganda to sell more games in first place where in reality they (those lines) don't or might not exist. If they do exist there is no evidence that any or much of it is spoken by your character, not if the demo is anything to go by plus also going by the demo it indicates most of it will probably be scripted and completley out of character personality wise to the one you carried over for past two games.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 14 février 2012 - 05:11 .

[Gemini1179]

txgoldrush wrote...

Lets make our standards consistant...

In Baldur's Gate, you go from being triumphant over your defeat of Saaverok at the end of the first game, to being in Irenicus's prision at the very beginning of BGII...and no one complains.

I never played either Baldur's Gate game.

That said. Would it have really been so difficult to add even a cut scene for imported games.

- One for if you were Paragon and wanted to go back to the Alliance showing Shepard surrendering her/himself and the Normandy to the Alliance THEN cue the text bringing you up to speed on the next 6 months.

- One for Renegade Shepards backing Cerberus trying to sneak into an Alliance base looking for intel and being betrayed by TIM only able to allow Shepard's companions to escape. Fade to text.

- One for those Shepards who were anything in between so they had gone to the Alliance to try and rally them against the Reapers only to be forced to surrender once again. Allies are allowed to go free. Fade to text.

Seriously, would something like that would not have taken up so much effort. The rest I can deal with. Even the lack of a trial and a chance to defend your actions against something that Hackett and his old pal Dr. Kensen were ultimately responsible for. Let's face it, had she not been indoctrinated, she was planning on blowing up the relay anyway. I'm not speculating on whether or not she would have warned the Batarians and what 'might' have happened. (likely that the Batarians would have tried attacking the asteroid and she'd have been forced to fly it into the relay killing them all anyway) Fate forced Shepard's hand. 300k or 100 trillion, you choose. That's what Shepard has to face in his/her line of work.

What's done is done and I'll wait until I get my CE and play through before I pass "final judgment".

[RSX Titan]

txgoldrush wrote...

RSX Titan wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

Another thing that bothers me...ppl seem to think the dialogue, characterization, choosing your responses. That all of these things and more are not "the game." that all of that is "pointless crap" that keeps us from "the game" aka the pews pews....so I think we can safely ignore this crowd...as it's obvious what they think "the game" is.

This is what Bioware wants. Even though the fans wanted an RPG with Shooter elements, we got a wannabe shooter with RPG elements instead. What they fail to realize is that no one, at least that I've ever met, plays ME for the combat. If I want action, I play Halo or COD.

And why should the ME series have clunky combat? Why not have a great story with great action. And really, the time of RPG combat sucking in the West is over. Not only ME is proving action combat works in RPGs, games like Kingdoms of Amalur, The Witcher 2, Deus Ex Human Revolution, and Dark Souls prove this as well.

It was hilarious watching Alpha Protocol flop because they made the exact same mistakes ME1 did with its combat (but much worse).

You are missing my point. Its not that the ME games have  to have clunky combat, its that Bioware's core competency is something different. Combat in ME2 was light years better than in ME1 but it was nowhere near Halo, COD, or Gears. Its inevitable that other areas of a game will suffer when you spend the majority of your time on combat, especially when its something your studio isn't known for.

[txgoldrush]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

And to add, many RPGs do not start out with big exposition cutscenes, they start with straight action or a quick exposition leading to action, including almost all Bioware games. Take the Narshe attack by Terra in FFVI, it starts with straight action with overpowered abilities and develops Terra far later. Same with the attack on the Mako reactor in FFVII (boy does that game falter when it gets way too cutscene heavy). Look at Skyrim, it starts fast. Both Witcher games, yep. Hell even Ultima VII started fast, after seeing the murder scene you can walk out of twon and hack bad guys. No 10-15 talk-a-thon.

For someone who recently moaned about copy and pasting from one title to the next tropes and idiologies you seem to be very much contradicting yourself by suggesting that they should do it same way as other games have done it in your very own examples.

They should not do it the same way...the Witcher 2 for example starts out with you being an attacker and not the attacked. Some games just throw you out to the world immediately after a short but meaningful exposition, like the Ultima games, which all begin in wildly different ways. The problem Bioware runs into is that its the same opening...the player has to respond to a life altering attack by the bad guys in almost every game.

Starting fast is not the same as repeating the same story ideas or clcihes.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 14 février 2012 - 05:12 .

[txgoldrush]

RSX Titan wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

RSX Titan wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

Another thing that bothers me...ppl seem to think the dialogue, characterization, choosing your responses. That all of these things and more are not "the game." that all of that is "pointless crap" that keeps us from "the game" aka the pews pews....so I think we can safely ignore this crowd...as it's obvious what they think "the game" is.

This is what Bioware wants. Even though the fans wanted an RPG with Shooter elements, we got a wannabe shooter with RPG elements instead. What they fail to realize is that no one, at least that I've ever met, plays ME for the combat. If I want action, I play Halo or COD.

And why should the ME series have clunky combat? Why not have a great story with great action. And really, the time of RPG combat sucking in the West is over. Not only ME is proving action combat works in RPGs, games like Kingdoms of Amalur, The Witcher 2, Deus Ex Human Revolution, and Dark Souls prove this as well.

It was hilarious watching Alpha Protocol flop because they made the exact same mistakes ME1 did with its combat (but much worse).

You are missing my point. Its not that the ME games have  to have clunky combat, its that Bioware's core competency is something different. Combat in ME2 was light years better than in ME1 but it was nowhere near Halo, COD, or Gears. Its inevitable that other areas of a game will suffer when you spend the majority of your time on combat, especially when its something your studio isn't known for.

And you are missing the point...as a game, the game must have good gameplay. And really sacrificing too much for story is a bad thing. If the game is not fun, so much for playing through the story.

[izmirtheastarach]

txgoldrush wrote...

They should not do it the same way...the Witcher 2 for example starts out with you being an attacker and not the attacked. Some games just throw you out to the world immediately after a short but meaningful exposition, like the Ultima games. The problem Bioware runs into is that its the same opening...the player has to respond to a life altering attack by the bad guys in almost every game.

Starting fast is not the same as repeating the same story ideas or clcihes.

There we go with the other games again. Can't make a logical argument, so lets just confuse the whole thing by talking about the Witcher. Then no one will notice that I'm all over the map, and my arguments are contradicting themselves from one page to the next.

Modifié par izmirtheastarach, 14 février 2012 - 05:12 .

[txgoldrush]

izmirtheastarach wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

They should not do it the same way...the Witcher 2 for example starts out with you being an attacker and not the attacked. Some games just throw you out to the world immediately after a short but meaningful exposition, like the Ultima games. The problem Bioware runs into is that its the same opening...the player has to respond to a life altering attack by the bad guys in almost every game.

Starting fast is not the same as repeating the same story ideas or clcihes.

There we go with the other games again. Can't make a logical argument, so lets just confuse the whole thing by talking about the Witcher. Then no one will notice that I'm all over the map, and my arguments are contradicting themselves from one page to the next.

And why can I not bring other games that start fast into this discussion? Is their some rule you made up?

I am basically contradicting everyone who thinks that an RPG can't get into an action right away and if ti does, its style over substance. It may take using OTHER EXAMPLES to do this.

[Dragoonlordz]

txgoldrush wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

And to add, many RPGs do not start out with big exposition cutscenes, they start with straight action or a quick exposition leading to action, including almost all Bioware games. Take the Narshe attack by Terra in FFVI, it starts with straight action with overpowered abilities and develops Terra far later. Same with the attack on the Mako reactor in FFVII (boy does that game falter when it gets way too cutscene heavy). Look at Skyrim, it starts fast. Both Witcher games, yep. Hell even Ultima VII started fast, after seeing the murder scene you can walk out of twon and hack bad guys. No 10-15 talk-a-thon.

For someone who recently moaned about copy and pasting from one title to the next tropes and idiologies you seem to be very much contradicting yourself by suggesting that they should do it same way as other games have done it in your very own examples.

They should not do it the same way...the Witcher 2 for example starts out with you being an attacker and not the attacked. Some games just throw you out to the world immediately after a short but meaningful exposition, like the Ultima games, which all begin in wildly different ways. The problem Bioware runs into is that its the same opening...the player has to respond to a life altering attack by the bad guys in almost every game.

Starting fast is not the same as repeating the same story ideas or clcihes.

Then let me ask you this. Would it kill you to have shown 5 minutes of patience playing through a trial which almost every single person in this thread said would of liked given you will end up spending the next 40-120 hours in your game play through shooting things to your hearts content? Is 5 minutes of your life so hard for you to give up for the happiness of a huge amount shown here who would of enjoyed something you could skip your way through at supersonic speed spamming dialogue choices if was so offensive to you? Or are you just so selfish that everyone else can burn in hell for liking and wanting something you do not want, for that period of 5 minutes out of 40-120 hours?

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 14 février 2012 - 05:17 .

[izmirtheastarach]

txgoldrush wrote...

And why can I not bring other games that start fast into this discussion? Is their some rule you made up?

I am basically contradicting everyone who thinks that an RPG can't get into an action right away and if ti does, its style over substance. It may take using OTHER EXAMPLES to do this.

You are the very definition of the BDF. No matter what someone's problem is, you have an answer. Everyone who has any issue with a Bioware game is wrong.

Look, other games do it! So that makes it good, right? You keep falling back on that utterly ridiculous argument.

Modifié par izmirtheastarach, 14 février 2012 - 05:18 .

[TheRevanchist]

izmirtheastarach wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

They should not do it the same way...the Witcher 2 for example starts out with you being an attacker and not the attacked. Some games just throw you out to the world immediately after a short but meaningful exposition, like the Ultima games. The problem Bioware runs into is that its the same opening...the player has to respond to a life altering attack by the bad guys in almost every game.

Starting fast is not the same as repeating the same story ideas or clcihes.

There we go with the other games again. Can't make a logical argument, so lets just confuse the whole thing by talking about the Witcher. Then no one will notice that I'm all over the map, and my arguments are contradicting themselves from one page to the next.

Not to mention they keep insisting that the story is not part of the game...its -only- story...and that the game is only the pew pews and the esplosions.

[izmirtheastarach]

kylecouch wrote...

Not to mention they keep insisting that the story is not part of the game...its -only- story...and that the game is only the pew pews and the esplosions.

Yeah, somehow a game that is being sold as being full of story can't show any of it in the first 15 minutes. Let's hide all the story.

[RSX Titan]

txgoldrush wrote...

RSX Titan wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

RSX Titan wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

Another thing that bothers me...ppl seem to think the dialogue, characterization, choosing your responses. That all of these things and more are not "the game." that all of that is "pointless crap" that keeps us from "the game" aka the pews pews....so I think we can safely ignore this crowd...as it's obvious what they think "the game" is.

This is what Bioware wants. Even though the fans wanted an RPG with Shooter elements, we got a wannabe shooter with RPG elements instead. What they fail to realize is that no one, at least that I've ever met, plays ME for the combat. If I want action, I play Halo or COD.

And why should the ME series have clunky combat? Why not have a great story with great action. And really, the time of RPG combat sucking in the West is over. Not only ME is proving action combat works in RPGs, games like Kingdoms of Amalur, The Witcher 2, Deus Ex Human Revolution, and Dark Souls prove this as well.

It was hilarious watching Alpha Protocol flop because they made the exact same mistakes ME1 did with its combat (but much worse).

You are missing my point. Its not that the ME games have  to have clunky combat, its that Bioware's core competency is something different. Combat in ME2 was light years better than in ME1 but it was nowhere near Halo, COD, or Gears. Its inevitable that other areas of a game will suffer when you spend the majority of your time on combat, especially when its something your studio isn't known for.

And you are missing the point...as a game, the game must have good gameplay. And really sacrificing too much for story is a bad thing. If the game is not fun, so much for playing through the story.

Who said its not fun? The point is that the combat is not the main reason I, or anyone I know, play the ME games. I would love to play a game rich in both story and combat. Sadly in this age of gaming, that would cost half a billion to make.

[bluewolv1970]

txgoldrush wrote...

RSX Titan wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

RSX Titan wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

Another thing that bothers me...ppl seem to think the dialogue, characterization, choosing your responses. That all of these things and more are not "the game." that all of that is "pointless crap" that keeps us from "the game" aka the pews pews....so I think we can safely ignore this crowd...as it's obvious what they think "the game" is.

This is what Bioware wants. Even though the fans wanted an RPG with Shooter elements, we got a wannabe shooter with RPG elements instead. What they fail to realize is that no one, at least that I've ever met, plays ME for the combat. If I want action, I play Halo or COD.

And why should the ME series have clunky combat? Why not have a great story with great action. And really, the time of RPG combat sucking in the West is over. Not only ME is proving action combat works in RPGs, games like Kingdoms of Amalur, The Witcher 2, Deus Ex Human Revolution, and Dark Souls prove this as well.

It was hilarious watching Alpha Protocol flop because they made the exact same mistakes ME1 did with its combat (but much worse).

You are missing my point. Its not that the ME games have  to have clunky combat, its that Bioware's core competency is something different. Combat in ME2 was light years better than in ME1 but it was nowhere near Halo, COD, or Gears. Its inevitable that other areas of a game will suffer when you spend the majority of your time on combat, especially when its something your studio isn't known for.

And you are missing the point...as a game, the game must have good gameplay. And really sacrificing too much for story is a bad thing. If the game is not fun, so much for playing through the story.

except that Bioware's sucessful past history literally contradicts this theory...

[AcidGlow]

I really wish they had the trial... I would love nothing more then to see the judges constantly through heat at shepard untill a reaper busts into the trial and shepard would just say.

"You should have listened to reason."

Modifié par AcidGlow, 14 février 2012 - 05:23 .

[Il Divo]

RSX Titan wrote...

Who said its not fun? The point is that the combat is not the main reason I, or anyone I know, play the ME games. I would love to play a game rich in both story and combat.

Hey man, Dark Souls came out back in October.

[TheRevanchist]

Il Divo wrote...

RSX Titan wrote...

Who said its not fun? The point is that the combat is not the main reason I, or anyone I know, play the ME games. I would love to play a game rich in both story and combat.

Hey man, Dark Souls came out back in October.

If it's anything like Demon's Souls...story is basiclly absent.

[izmirtheastarach]

Perhaps a valid port here is the "combat" is not synonymous with "gameplay".

[TheRevanchist]

bluewolv1970 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

RSX Titan wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

RSX Titan wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

Another thing that bothers me...ppl seem to think the dialogue, characterization, choosing your responses. That all of these things and more are not "the game." that all of that is "pointless crap" that keeps us from "the game" aka the pews pews....so I think we can safely ignore this crowd...as it's obvious what they think "the game" is.

This is what Bioware wants. Even though the fans wanted an RPG with Shooter elements, we got a wannabe shooter with RPG elements instead. What they fail to realize is that no one, at least that I've ever met, plays ME for the combat. If I want action, I play Halo or COD.

And why should the ME series have clunky combat? Why not have a great story with great action. And really, the time of RPG combat sucking in the West is over. Not only ME is proving action combat works in RPGs, games like Kingdoms of Amalur, The Witcher 2, Deus Ex Human Revolution, and Dark Souls prove this as well.

It was hilarious watching Alpha Protocol flop because they made the exact same mistakes ME1 did with its combat (but much worse).

You are missing my point. Its not that the ME games have  to have clunky combat, its that Bioware's core competency is something different. Combat in ME2 was light years better than in ME1 but it was nowhere near Halo, COD, or Gears. Its inevitable that other areas of a game will suffer when you spend the majority of your time on combat, especially when its something your studio isn't known for.

And you are missing the point...as a game, the game must have good gameplay. And really sacrificing too much for story is a bad thing. If the game is not fun, so much for playing through the story.

except that Bioware's sucessful past history literally contradicts this theory...

Again...they are clearly implying that story is -not- part of the game. Only the shooting and exsplosions are the game apparently. Story just gets in the way of "the game"

[Il Divo]

kylecouch wrote...

If it's anything like Demon's Souls...story is basiclly absent.

Well, yes and no. Dark Souls is more in the style of Shadows of the Colossus; the narrative is not really thrust into the player's face, but it is there if the player is willing to explore. Having seen the storyline laid out in full, it's extremely well-designed and detailed. Perhaps story isn't the right word. "Mythos" would probably fit better.

Modifié par Il Divo, 14 février 2012 - 05:31 .

[Il Divo]

izmirtheastarach wrote...

Perhaps a valid port here is the "combat" is not synonymous with "gameplay".

That's pretty much how I see it. I spent about half my time playing KotOR in dialogue. Am I really supposed to believe that all that time I wasn't really playing the game? Sounds a bit absurd.