337 réponses à ce sujet

[GuardianAngel470]

egervari wrote...

hitorihanzo wrote...

@ OP: I would have quoted your post, but I'm using my IPhone. I still own KOTOR. Matter of fact, i just dusted off the old XBox and played a dark sider. Getting my Star Wars fix since i dont own SWTOR. I didn't play BG- not my thing. I tried NWN- didn't really like it. I played Jade Empire, and thought that it was ok. My point being, I have known BioWare for YEARS, and for YOU, a random nobody, to define to ANYONE as a long-term fan or not is extremely arrogant. The kind of arrogance that implies that you are not a very confident, or mature person because you can't FATHOM how anyone who is a long term fan of BioWare could possibly like ME2 or 3 if you don't.

Excuse me? Bioware's first game was in 1996. Their first big release was in 1998. You did not play 7 of their games/expansions between Baldur's Gate and Knights of the Old Republic. You've been a fan from 2003 to 2012 - so that's 8-9 years. The company has been in existence for the last 16 - almost double.

So how am I in error for simply not considering that long-term, when it is basically mid-term? That's not arrogant - that is just using simple math.

You're right, that is simple math.

Too bad you're using it to justify an arrogant position. What really makes you better than him? That you played some of Bioware's first titles? Do you even know how many Bioware employees that worked on those titles still work at Bioware? Are you being loyal to the brand or the product at this point?

Let me ask you this: Can you still play Baldur's Gate 2? Have you tried installing it on a modern operating system? Because a lot of older games like that don't play well on modern systems. Are you then going to claim you're superior because you are old enough to have played it at release way back then?

[egervari]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

Quick sales are very important if you know what I mean by quick. If a game sells a lot of copies over 5 years it matters a heck of a lot how many of those sales were made in the first year. Look at Crysis 1 as an example. That game was not truly profitable because, while it sold millions, those sales were made over a long period of time and thus Crytek didn't receive a return on their investment when they needed it. They were millions of dollars in the hole for years because they didn't sell enough quickly enough.

Last time I checked, EA was not in this position, so your reasoning doesn't make sense given the proper context. We are not talking about Crytek - we are talking about EA and Bioware.

Also, Bioware games COULD be played on medicore hardware too. This stuff has to run on the 360 after all, so that isn't a very good argument either.

Modifié par egervari, 17 février 2012 - 10:17 .

[GuardianAngel470]

egervari wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

Quick sales are very important if you know what I mean by quick. If a game sells a lot of copies over 5 years it matters a heck of a lot how many of those sales were made in the first year. Look at Crysis 1 as an example. That game was not truly profitable because, while it sold millions, those sales were made over a long period of time and thus Crytek didn't receive a return on their investment when they needed it. They were millions of dollars in the hole for years because they didn't sell enough quickly enough.

Last time I checked, EA was not in this position, so your reasoning doesn't make sense given the proper context. We are not talking about Crytek - we are talking about EA and Bioware.

Also, Bioware games COULD be played on medicore hardware too. This stuff has to run on the 360 after all, so that isn't a very good argument either.

So does that mean you agree with my point about Silent marketing or did you conveniently delete that part of the comment?

Because otherwise it just looks like you're intentionally ignoring valid rebuttals to your complaint. Which is the definition of ignorant.

[MakeMineMako]

While I understand your concerns OP, don't throw in the towel just yet.

Marketing has been too half-hearted, in my opinion. But their hands are tied up in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

The fan reaction to the amount of details given for Mass Effect 2 has made them overcautious about what they reveal. The end result is that even minor spoilers will throw half of BSN in epileptic seizures, because everybody has their own definition of what constitutes TMI.

So, what else is there to dangle before us besides minor details, combat, and cheesy gimmicks (like the weather balloon scheme). And many take away possible wrong impressions based on bits and pieces. I feel like they could have revealed more details about the story driven, RPG aspects. It would have killed the souls of the "NO SPOILERS AT ALL!!!" crowd, but would have, in my opinion, killed a good portion of the complaints of Call of Duty In SPAAAACCCEE!!!!.

Modifié par MakeMineMako, 17 février 2012 - 10:23 .

[withneelandi]

Thank you OP. After reading this thread it's become clear to me that i'm not a proper fan of bioware games, RPG's and that my oppinions are less valid because I have not played every game published by bioware.

You see, the first Bioware game I played was Dragon Age: Origins, I think Mass Effect 2 was a better game than Mass Effect 1 and, shock horror, sometimes I like to play other types of games. Sometimes I even like to play evil things like sports games.

Crazy as it may seem OP you will find that majority of peole that love games are like me, we just like playing good games. I may not have played every bioware game but I've been playing video games for over 20 years, since the days of games on tape and the ZX spectrum, Elite, Manic Miner, right through to the NES, Dreamcast and so on. I like games like Dragon Age, Mass Effect and sometimes I even like the more heavy end of the RPG spectrum ,games like Dark Souls.

Sometimes though, I like to run around and shoot things online, with my friends in Co-op COD, there I said it. It's not my favourite game in the world but I value the social aspect of having fun with my friends more than the feeling of being an "elite" RPG fan, sometimes Ilike to go round a friends house and have a few beers and play FIFA.

The other day I spent a few hours playing Sonic the Hedgehog Tennis. It was fun. If you think that for those reasons Bioware shouldn't have people like me in mind when making games or that I am less important than you, I would respectfully suggest you are mistaken.

You know the only restriction I will ever put on the sort of games I play? Good ones, as long as Bioware make games I enjoy, I'll keep buying them. The minute they stop making games I enjoy, i'll play something else instead.

I didn't think Dragon Age 2 was a very good game, and as a result, there will be no pre orders from me fro Dragon Age 3 when it appears, no matter what super exciting DLC swords and armour I can get, I'll wait till I see proper reviews from journalists I trust or even better my friends before I spend money on it. Thats all that needs to be said though, no arguing with people online, venting at the develors or any other negativity, find a game you actually like.

I mean this in the nicest way possible OP, but if you feel that alienated by the direction bioware is taking then stop venting on the bioware forums, and try and find someone that makes games that you actually enjoy, your time is better invested finding a game that gives you what you want.

There are loads of indie developers out there, invest the time in finding someone that makes games that make you smile, not that make you angry. Games should never make you angry they should make you smile.

For what its worth, unless the games stop being good, i'll keep buying bioware RPG's (or action RPG's whatever you want to call them) but I make no appology for also playing platform games, FP shooters, football games and anything else that is good fun.

People like me, who are passionate about playing good games of any kind, are not the problem with modern gaming.

[egervari]

FemaleMageFan wrote...

egervari wrote...

FemaleMageFan wrote...

DO you realize that by bioware doing this they making more people interested in rpgs and giving the genre more attention?? oh wait let me guess bioware makes games specifically for you and only you. OP with all do respect if i could get more exposure in producing a product i would definitely go for it. It's good for the genre and good for business too. Wait...what i'm i doing? Trying to speak sense on the BSN? impossibru.....let me join the hoard. I do not like femshep's finger nails!!!!!

I try not to bother responding to posts like this. You're not the first. If you track all of the pages, I've avoided all the sarcastic, childish, etc. comments and I only responded to the sincere and serious ones.

Having said that, you can't be all things to all people. When you take away from one aspect of the game to draw another audience in, it's going to weaken the draw that the original audience once had. Do this enough, and you water down the game for both audiences, making something that people may accept or enjoy, but will never consider the best possible version of the game - one side will want it more one way than the other, so it comes off as oddly mediocre. It is very hard to blend two genres together so that completely opposite gamers will love the game as much as they would have loved it if it was directly suited for them.

Essentially, these are trade-offs that the game designers have to make. It is not necessarily no-brainer decisions here, because you don't always get the best of both worlds. Adding one mechanic often destroys or minimizes another. So if the goal is to include a wider audience to increase sales, the devs have to ask one simple question: At what cost?

They tried to do this Dragon Age 2, as I explained many times (please, just re-read my posts on this for more detail). It failed. That's it in a nutshell.

That doesn't mean the same fate is set in stone for ME3, but I have never seen the marketing and pandering done so badly as it has been done for ME3.

Honestly, I think it is very hard to make a 30-40 hour RPG with a deep, thoughtful story and setting to be appealing to gamers who want more condensed, action-oriented gameplay. Sure, they add "missions" into the game, which makes it more accessible to the FPS players... they like that gameplay split into smaller chunks... but it destroys the more cohesive, non-linear and patient gameplay the original fans liked. You can't have your cake and it eat too.

That is the whole point of what I'm talking about.

I get where you are coming from OP but have some faith. The thing is Bioware emulate heavily. They have come out in the open and said this many times. Improving certain aspects of the game by emulating games from different genres does not make it bad. Mass effect, great great game. My favourite game ever. As much i liked it i had to admit that the combat was terrible. Bioware emulates and improves the combat system right? That is the type of stuff i am talking about. All bioware is doing is emulating. With bioware's current system they could make an rpg about anything and still make it enjoyable. "cooking rpg", "dancing rpg". If i am trying to bring certain settings into the rpg genre shouldn't i try to make certain gameplay aspects on par with other genres that normally produce them? I would so that even though someone who is not really an rpg gamer they could pick it up and maybe say "wow, any more similar games like this?" <--- introducing them into this same genre and i was like that. 

I doesn't matter that they invent or emulate - better questions to ask are, "What are they emulating?" "Why are they emulating it?", and "What does this new emulated addition take away from that we had before?"

The whole idea that they are emulating is pretty irreelvant. You can choose from good and bad games, or just different games. Why not emulate Fallout 3 then? That would certainly make RPG fans happier. The combat with guns is much more refined and polished when compared to Mass Effect 1, and it would (probably) satisfy twitch gamers.

As I said in my previous posts, I know family members who are huge into FPS games, but they hate RPGs. It is very hard to get them to play an RPG, even a good one that got game of the year.

But you what? Fallout 3 and Oblivion were games played by my cousin. He won't touch any other RPG... but those? He is right there, playing them for 200 hours a pop. And those are even more RPG-like than Mass Effect! Way more!

So the solution isn't necessarily to make the game more like Halo or Gears of War. A better question is, Why  emulate those games at all, and why can't we just do our own thing to be successful?

[egervari]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

egervari wrote...

hitorihanzo wrote...

@ OP: I would have quoted your post, but I'm using my IPhone. I still own KOTOR. Matter of fact, i just dusted off the old XBox and played a dark sider. Getting my Star Wars fix since i dont own SWTOR. I didn't play BG- not my thing. I tried NWN- didn't really like it. I played Jade Empire, and thought that it was ok. My point being, I have known BioWare for YEARS, and for YOU, a random nobody, to define to ANYONE as a long-term fan or not is extremely arrogant. The kind of arrogance that implies that you are not a very confident, or mature person because you can't FATHOM how anyone who is a long term fan of BioWare could possibly like ME2 or 3 if you don't.

Excuse me? Bioware's first game was in 1996. Their first big release was in 1998. You did not play 7 of their games/expansions between Baldur's Gate and Knights of the Old Republic. You've been a fan from 2003 to 2012 - so that's 8-9 years. The company has been in existence for the last 16 - almost double.

So how am I in error for simply not considering that long-term, when it is basically mid-term? That's not arrogant - that is just using simple math.

You're right, that is simple math.

Too bad you're using it to justify an arrogant position. What really makes you better than him? That you played some of Bioware's first titles? Do you even know how many Bioware employees that worked on those titles still work at Bioware? Are you being loyal to the brand or the product at this point?

Let me ask you this: Can you still play Baldur's Gate 2? Have you tried installing it on a modern operating system? Because a lot of older games like that don't play well on modern systems. Are you then going to claim you're superior because you are old enough to have played it at release way back then?

I never said I was better.

I can still play Baldur's Gate 2. It works on Windows 7 - I know because I beat it again (for like the 7th time I think) in 2011.

[egervari]

MakeMineMako wrote...


While I understand your concerns OP, don't throw in the towel just yet.

Marketing has been too half-hearted, in my opinion. But their hands are tied up in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

The fan reaction to the amount of details given for Mass Effect 2 has made them overcautious about what they reveal. The end result is that even minor spoilers will throw half of BSN in epileptic seizures, because everybody has their own definition of what constitutes TMI.

So, what else is there to dangle before us besides minor details, combat, and cheesy gimmicks (like the weather balloon scheme). And many take away possible wrong impressions based on bits and pieces. I feel like they could have revealed more details about the story driven, RPG aspects. It would have killed the souls of the "NO SPOILERS AT ALL!!!" crowd, but would have, in my opinion, killed a good portion of the complaints of Call of Duty In SPAAAACCCEE!!!!.

I bolded the part I most certainly agree 100% with. Why not do that? It would have prevented 7 pages (or whatever) of discussion today

[GuardianAngel470]

egervari wrote...

I doesn't matter that they invent or emulate - better questions to ask are, "What are they emulating?" "Why are they emulating it?", and "What does this new emulated addition take away from that we had before?"

The whole idea that they are emulating is pretty irreelvant. You can choose from good and bad games, or just different games. Why not emulate Fallout 3 then? That would certainly make RPG fans happier. The combat with guns is much more refined and polished when compared to Mass Effect 1, and it would (probably) satisfy twitch gamers.

As I said in my previous posts, I know family members who are huge into FPS games, but they hate RPGs. It is very hard to get them to play an RPG, even a good one that got game of the year.

But you what? Fallout 3 and Oblivion were games played by my cousin. He won't touch any other RPG... but those? He is right there, playing them for 200 hours a pop. And those are even more RPG-like than Mass Effect! Way more!

So the solution isn't necessarily to make the game more like Halo or Gears of War. A better question is, Why  emulate those games at all, and why can't we just do our own thing to be successful?

Fallout 3's combat was terrible, even for someone who enjoyed turnbased systems like the one in KOTOR. VATS was a pain to use and not fun at all to me. You could try and play the game straight but it was utterly pointless.

I would much rather have something like KOTOR than Fallout 3.

[egervari]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

egervari wrote...

I doesn't matter that they invent or emulate - better questions to ask are, "What are they emulating?" "Why are they emulating it?", and "What does this new emulated addition take away from that we had before?"

The whole idea that they are emulating is pretty irreelvant. You can choose from good and bad games, or just different games. Why not emulate Fallout 3 then? That would certainly make RPG fans happier. The combat with guns is much more refined and polished when compared to Mass Effect 1, and it would (probably) satisfy twitch gamers.

As I said in my previous posts, I know family members who are huge into FPS games, but they hate RPGs. It is very hard to get them to play an RPG, even a good one that got game of the year.

But you what? Fallout 3 and Oblivion were games played by my cousin. He won't touch any other RPG... but those? He is right there, playing them for 200 hours a pop. And those are even more RPG-like than Mass Effect! Way more!

So the solution isn't necessarily to make the game more like Halo or Gears of War. A better question is, Why  emulate those games at all, and why can't we just do our own thing to be successful?

Fallout 3's combat was terrible, even for someone who enjoyed turnbased systems like the one in KOTOR. VATS was a pain to use and not fun at all to me. You could try and play the game straight but it was utterly pointless.

I would much rather have something like KOTOR than Fallout 3.

That's not the point. The point is that Fallout sold 4.7 million, and a lot of those players were not RPG fans, yet it was still a pretty hardcore RPG.

You don't have to make a Gears of War clone with light RPG elements to make a successful game. That's the point. You can make a damn RPG an RPG.

Modifié par egervari, 17 février 2012 - 10:34 .

[GuardianAngel470]

egervari wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

egervari wrote...

hitorihanzo wrote...

@ OP: I would have quoted your post, but I'm using my IPhone. I still own KOTOR. Matter of fact, i just dusted off the old XBox and played a dark sider. Getting my Star Wars fix since i dont own SWTOR. I didn't play BG- not my thing. I tried NWN- didn't really like it. I played Jade Empire, and thought that it was ok. My point being, I have known BioWare for YEARS, and for YOU, a random nobody, to define to ANYONE as a long-term fan or not is extremely arrogant. The kind of arrogance that implies that you are not a very confident, or mature person because you can't FATHOM how anyone who is a long term fan of BioWare could possibly like ME2 or 3 if you don't.

Excuse me? Bioware's first game was in 1996. Their first big release was in 1998. You did not play 7 of their games/expansions between Baldur's Gate and Knights of the Old Republic. You've been a fan from 2003 to 2012 - so that's 8-9 years. The company has been in existence for the last 16 - almost double.

So how am I in error for simply not considering that long-term, when it is basically mid-term? That's not arrogant - that is just using simple math.

You're right, that is simple math.

Too bad you're using it to justify an arrogant position. What really makes you better than him? That you played some of Bioware's first titles? Do you even know how many Bioware employees that worked on those titles still work at Bioware? Are you being loyal to the brand or the product at this point?

Let me ask you this: Can you still play Baldur's Gate 2? Have you tried installing it on a modern operating system? Because a lot of older games like that don't play well on modern systems. Are you then going to claim you're superior because you are old enough to have played it at release way back then?

I never said I was better.

I can still play Baldur's Gate 2. It works on Windows 7 - I know because I beat it again (for like the 7th time I think) in 2011.

You've stated that Bioware are betraying long-time fans as if long-time fans deserve preferential treatment to mid-time fans. That was your whole point in bringing up long-time vs mid-time.

The amount of years following Bioware is completely and utterly irrelevant. They make a game and you either like the game or don't. There's nothing owed to someone who has played everything since Baldur's Gate 2 just as there's nothing owed to someone who stepped in at Mass Effect 1.

Bioware made a conscious business decision to focus more on real-time action-focused gameplay. You can dislike that fact as your opinion on the new focus is perfectly valid. But you can't justify your dislike by claiming Bioware is betraying long-time fans as if they owe you more than they owe everyone else.

Personally I love RPGs. I love leveling things up, looting corpses and chests, and making story decisions. But I also love shooter combat so I'm perfectly alright with ME's focus. Where did you fall on my polls?

[GuardianAngel470]

egervari wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

egervari wrote...

I doesn't matter that they invent or emulate - better questions to ask are, "What are they emulating?" "Why are they emulating it?", and "What does this new emulated addition take away from that we had before?"

The whole idea that they are emulating is pretty irreelvant. You can choose from good and bad games, or just different games. Why not emulate Fallout 3 then? That would certainly make RPG fans happier. The combat with guns is much more refined and polished when compared to Mass Effect 1, and it would (probably) satisfy twitch gamers.

As I said in my previous posts, I know family members who are huge into FPS games, but they hate RPGs. It is very hard to get them to play an RPG, even a good one that got game of the year.

But you what? Fallout 3 and Oblivion were games played by my cousin. He won't touch any other RPG... but those? He is right there, playing them for 200 hours a pop. And those are even more RPG-like than Mass Effect! Way more!

So the solution isn't necessarily to make the game more like Halo or Gears of War. A better question is, Why  emulate those games at all, and why can't we just do our own thing to be successful?

Fallout 3's combat was terrible, even for someone who enjoyed turnbased systems like the one in KOTOR. VATS was a pain to use and not fun at all to me. You could try and play the game straight but it was utterly pointless.

I would much rather have something like KOTOR than Fallout 3.

That's not the point. The point is that Fallout sold 4.7 million, and a lot of those players were not RPG fans, yet it was still a pretty hardcore RPG.

You don't have to make a Gears of War clone with light RPG elements to make a successful game. That's the point. You can make a damn RPG an RPG.

Yeah, and they can also make an action focused shooter/RPG hybrid with quite extensive shooter and RPG elements instead of copying Fallout 3. It was a design oversight/business decision/creative desire.

As I said you can dislike the new focus but you can't claim that you are owed anything. I think the ME series still has strong RPG elements but that it has chosen to emphasize the dialog and decision making aspects over the leveling and looting ones. My opinion is as valid as yours.

[egervari]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...
You've stated that Bioware are betraying long-time fans as if long-time fans deserve preferential treatment to mid-time fans. That was your whole point in bringing up long-time vs mid-time.

No... I have maintained that they set a precesdent with their previous games as well as ME1 that Mass Effect was an RPG series, not a shooter series. The reason I brought up the whole long-term vs mid-term point was to suggest that maybe, just maybe, I had a bit more perspective on this first point than someone who just started becoming a fan of Bioware with Mass Effect 1. Given that information at the time, do you not think someone who has played all the previous games might have slightly different expectations? Do you not think that it's rational to question why the target audience has changed when RPG gamers were the target audience for over a decade in the past?

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

Bioware made a conscious business decision to focus more on real-time action-focused gameplay. You can dislike that fact as your opinion on the new focus is perfectly valid. But you can't justify your dislike by claiming Bioware is betraying long-time fans as if they owe you more than they owe everyone else.

If they made Mass Effect 1 a shooter with light RPG elements, I would never have made this post. That is not how they defined the brand with the first entry in the franchise.

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

Personally I love RPGs. I love leveling things up, looting corpses and chests, and making story decisions. But I also love shooter combat so I'm perfectly alright with ME's focus. Where did you fall on my polls?

One problem with the game, really, is that the dialog has been dumbed down - at least from what we can see from the demo. It has been reduced to the sort of thing that casaul gamers and casual movie-goers seem to enjoy - not the intelligent and thoughtful dialog we've come to expect.

Another problem I have is the linearity and the mission-based design of the series, and how that also doesn't seem to have changed. I don't want the game to hand-hold me. I want exploration and discovery thrown back into the game, like the first game had, and like all of the other Bioware titles had - even the consolized ones. I don't expect Baldur's Gate or Skyrim type of open-world, but the narrow corridors is a little too clausterphobic (and not to mention brain dead game design) for my taste. I don't think I'm alone here. Mass Effect had at least some freedom, but they decided to axe almost all of it all entirely. The demo hasn't done anything to improve my expectations here.

Lastly, the game seems to be more "run and gun" than ever. The way the interviews with bioware press state this... fan sites that release videos on youtube state this... and the demo verifies this. Again, I hope all of this information is just stupidly wrong and it turns out that the abilities and the use of your squadmaters is integral to success and it provides a lot of deep gameplay. But for some reason... and call me paranoid or highly skeptical... I don't think it will. All the information being releases paints a bad picture for me.

[egervari]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

Yeah, and they can also make an action focused shooter/RPG hybrid with quite extensive shooter and RPG elements instead of copying Fallout 3. It was a design oversight/business decision/creative desire.

As I said you can dislike the new focus but you can't claim that you are owed anything. I think the ME series still has strong RPG elements but that it has chosen to emphasize the dialog and decision making aspects over the leveling and looting ones. My opinion is as valid as yours.

I never said that they had to copy fallout 3. I just pointed out that if you're going to emulate, like the other person suggested, that doesn't necessarily mean you have to emulate halo or gears of war - there were other options to maintain the style of gameplay that was a lot more predominant in the first game - i.e. the RPG aspects to the game.

They could have evolved the combat to the level of ME2, but never axed the level of customization, the sense of discovery and exploration, and other elements that RPGs typically have. But they did.

And yes, I know ME3 has more customization... but to be honest, it feels a lot more like god of war type of customization... like in an action game... and a lot less like that in an RPG. I don't think you can call Mass Effect an RPG anymore. The elimination of the more open-world gameplay and non-linearity is a huge part of what makes an RPG an RPG, and that's been gone since ME2 and doesn't seem to have returned in ME3.

Hell, even Bioshock is more of an RPG actually compared to Mass Effect these days. I mean, when you really look at the design, I think it's a pretty easy thing to say that Bioshock fulfilless more RPG criteria than Mass Effect... and that's like... wow.

Modifié par egervari, 17 février 2012 - 11:48 .

[Ostagar2011]

withneelandi wrote...

I mean this in the nicest way possible OP, but if you feel that alienated by the direction bioware is taking then stop venting on the bioware forums, and try and find someone that makes games that you actually enjoy, your time is better invested finding a game that gives you what you want.

That's our problem as "core" RPG fans - the genre is dying because there are "only" 2 million or so fans of that kind of game. But EA wants MOAR!! So it quietly retires RPG elements (under a blaze of misleading, cinematic, marketing) and slowly morphs all its games into lite shooters/adventures etc. Other than BioWare and Bethesda there is nowhere to go for cerebral/tactical games with a sophisticated story and mature themes. If you don't like the direction that a driving game or sports IP is going, you have a dozen alternatives per year. If one of your only source of RPG goodness is selling out to the 'button-awesome' crowd (and even failing at that, lol, as seen with DA2), slowly abandoning a genre you prefer over all others, the only thing you can do is "vent" on the forums. So its understandable why the OP is doing this.

[teh_619]

Il Divo wrote...

OP, do us all a favor: shut up.

Who the *** asked you about it?

[BatmanPWNS]

All I heard was "BLAH BLAH BLAH".

[dragon_83]

BatmanPWNS wrote...

All I heard was "BLAH BLAH BLAH".

Learn to read, maybe that way you will understand what he wrote.

[GuardianAngel470]

egervari wrote...

No... I have maintained that they set a precesdent with their previous games as well as ME1 that Mass Effect was an RPG series, not a shooter series. The reason I brought up the whole long-term vs mid-term point was to suggest that maybe, just maybe, I had a bit more perspective on this first point than someone who just started becoming a fan of Bioware with Mass Effect 1. Given that information at the time, do you not think someone who has played all the previous games might have slightly different expectations? Do you not think that it's rational to question why the target audience has changed when RPG gamers were the target audience for over a decade in the past?

And I'm saying that perspective is irrelevant and your expectations meaningless. Bioware did away with only those RPG elements fans found cumbersome. Inventory was crap because it didn't group weapons and mods logically. Leveling was crap because there were several extraneous powers that were almost completely useless and each individual power upgrade was almost imperceptible. Loot was ridiculously pointless as you found hundreds upon hundreds of the same weapons and mods scattered throughout the game. Dialog was mildly broken since there were many identical lines in various conversations. Exploration in ME1 was also pretty bad since the terrain the mako was given to drive over was terrible beyond measure.

The only thing Bioware is guilty of is overcompensating. A mistake they already appear to be correcting.

If they made Mass Effect 1 a shooter with light RPG elements, I would never have made this post. That is not how they defined the brand with the first entry in the franchise.

Mass Effect 1 is only guilty of failing to do what Bioware wanted it to do. The only reason to make a shooter/rpg is to attract a wider fanbase. As such the crappy shooter combat in ME1 is its weakest point, not its strongest. Cover was thoroughly broken, weapons all felt the same to use, and enemy/squad AI was terrible.

And don't even get me started on biotics. No, ME1's combat was a failure, not a success. A failure Bioware corrected mostly in ME2 and one they have completely put to rest in ME3.

One problem with the game, really, is that the dialog has been dumbed down - at least from what we can see from the demo. It has been reduced to the sort of thing that casaul gamers and casual movie-goers seem to enjoy - not the intelligent and thoughtful dialog we've come to expect.

Another problem I have is the linearity and the mission-based design of the series, and how that also doesn't seem to have changed. I don't want the game to hand-hold me. I want exploration and discovery thrown back into the game, like the first game had, and like all of the other Bioware titles had - even the consolized ones. I don't expect Baldur's Gate or Skyrim type of open-world, but the narrow corridors is a little too clausterphobic (and not to mention brain dead game design) for my taste. I don't think I'm alone here. Mass Effect had at least some freedom, but they decided to axe almost all of it all entirely. The demo hasn't done anything to improve my expectations here.

Lastly, the game seems to be more "run and gun" than ever. The way the interviews with bioware press state this... fan sites that release videos on youtube state this... and the demo verifies this. Again, I hope all of this information is just stupidly wrong and it turns out that the abilities and the use of your squadmaters is integral to success and it provides a lot of deep gameplay. But for some reason... and call me paranoid or highly skeptical... I don't think it will. All the information being releases paints a bad picture for me.

It is entirely possible that your claim that the dialog has been dumbed down is true. Just like it is entirely possible that it is false. Neither of us knows what the truth is since the game isn't out yet.

As for the linearity, it is again utterly pointless to get worked up about it until you have played the game in its entirety. The demo lasts all of an hour and we already know that an entire exploration and conversation heavy section on Sur'Kesh is missing. All this emotion, all this anger and disappointment, could be entirely in vain. It could be justified, but it could be in vain. Completely wasted emotions. Why do you feel the need to get so worked up about this before the game is even here? 

In terms of bieng run and gun, I disagree. I played the demo on hardcore and I needed to use my squad's powers to defeat the bad guys. I need to place them out of harms way but in a position to help out. I needed to use my own powers extensively. I have no idea what I would have done without my Cloak and Incinerate. 

Higher octane action is not the same as run and gun. I see it more like Starcraft 2 than Call of Duty. You need to manipulate the battlefield. You need to make use of extra-ballistic methods. You need to command your squad.  

[egervari]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

And I'm saying that perspective is irrelevant and your expectations meaningless.

Well, if that's the case, I guess there is no point to reading your posts and having a discussion with you. Good day.

[GuardianAngel470]

egervari wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

And I'm saying that perspective is irrelevant and your expectations meaningless.

Well, if that's the case, I guess there is no point to reading your posts and having a discussion with you. Good day.

Good day.

[Sapienti]

OP is completely ridiculous and borderline idiotic. For starters, you don't market your game to long term fans, that's just stupid and it wastes money. When you go to market a game you try and appeal to the hard sells. People outside of your usual pull range and markets you haven't tapped yet. They know that for long term fans all they have to do is show a trailer, but for other markets you have to go out and try and appeal to different tastes. You want to appeal to shooter fans? Why not attach your game to a popular shooter. Doing so doesn't mean anything else other than them wanting to appeal to that market.

I'll reiterate, when you market something, you don't market it to people you already know are watching closely. You create buzz and get the attention of other people to do other wise wastes money and time.

egervari wrote...
I never said that they had to copy fallout 3. I just pointed out that if you're going to emulate, like the other person suggested, that doesn't necessarily mean you have to emulate halo or gears of war - there were other options to maintain the style of gameplay that was a lot more predominant in the first game - i.e. the RPG aspects to the game.

They could have evolved the combat to the level of ME2, but never axed the level of customization, the sense of discovery and exploration, and other elements that RPGs typically have. But they did.

And yes, I know ME3 has more customization... but to be honest, it feels a lot more like god of war type of customization... like in an action game... and a lot less like that in an RPG. I don't think you can call Mass Effect an RPG anymore. The elimination of the more open-world gameplay and non-linearity is a huge part of what makes an RPG an RPG, and that's been gone since ME2 and doesn't seem to have returned in ME3.

Hell, even Bioshock is more of an RPG actually compared to Mass Effect these days. I mean, when you really look at the design, I think it's a pretty easy thing to say that Bioshock fulfilless more RPG criteria than Mass Effect... and that's like... wow.

You don't think you can call ME an RPG anymore because you what? Lost a bad inventory system? Take out the copy pasted bland worlds you rove around in? Far be it from me to think ME is an RPG for having deep choices that actually matter in the story. To play a role in a game and be able to level up, customize my build and my character look, decide where I want to go when I want to.

Reading your posts I've come to the conclusion you're a well spoken person who really has no idea what they are talking about. Prove me wrong.

[TomY90]

To be honest RPG games will not die off its rather they will fuse together with other genres whether it be third person shooters (Mass Effect), puzzle games (Catherine... sort of), adventure games (Fable, Kingdom of amalur), MMO's (Star Wars - The old Republic)

Just got to look at games like Final Fantasy XII-2 that franchise is dying off because its too hard core and they are having to add game elements from other genres to lure people back to the game. (they have tried to implement dialogue decisions like you get in bioware games)

I do think this generation of RPG's do play a lot better than the previous generations which tended to be very clunky to play and slow paced at times. Whereas nowadays they have greater usability and you should not complain about it being more mainstream rather think of it being a good thing because it means it will get better funding and development time than traditional RPG games get.

and you can't say I only became a fan of bioware because of mass effect which I actually fell in love with Star Wars - Knights of the old republic originally.

Too be honest the advertising campaign so far has been really well done at this point with the cinematic scenes and showing not too much about the story rather letting us discover it for ourselves. I would say at the pace EA games are going with it I think it will sell extremely well and should have a constant stream of sales.