301 réponses à ce sujet

[The Executioner]

I play ME for the story and characters as long as that's great i'm in . Gameplay was never the reason i played ME though the gameplay has been good in both games. ME3 is still an unknown but i'm going to hope for the best. As far as RPG elements ME was never a deep RPG, it's an action shooter with RPG elements. There's no doubt the dumming down of RPG's is a bad thing but that's the trend unfortunatly. 

Modifié par The Executioner, 20 février 2012 - 12:06 .

[AdmiralCheez]

ME3's gear and skill modifications are definitely miles ahead of ME1's pick-the-thing-with-the-best-stats. There's actually some strategy involved in creating your loadout and making the best use of it in combat. It also eclipses ME2 in terms of combat. So the gameplay, at least, has not been "dumbed down."

As for the story bits? The brief sample we got in the demo and that mess of a half-finished script are by no means enough information to make a fair call on how "dumbed down" the final chapter in Shepard's story is. That stuff is subjective as hell anyway, but in my opinion it still carries the same emotional and philosophical weight of the other two. Can't tell you about conversations or decisions or anything like that because, god damn it, I haven't played the game yet. Wait two and a half weeks, would ya?

[The Executioner]

SNascimento wrote...

ME2 > ME1.
.
Fact.

 Opinion and a bad one.

[Draconis6666]

The only dumbing down is the people who continue to rant how much more stuff ME 1 had that the others dont, when all it really has is a skill system that makes no sense to the story, (lol I R elite soldier but i cant shoot yet cus got no skillz), the "awesome exploration" of the same planet 45 times with slightly different geography which amounts to 4 hours of trying to drive up mountains in the mako to get to something, The "Awesome customization" of having 20 armors and 20 different guns that all look the same but have different names and levels! Lets also include into this the awesome customization of having tons of weapon and armor mods (50% of which are pointless and suck anyway). The story in ME 1 is just as railroaded as ME 2, peoples nostalga does not change that no matter how much they think it does. And finally of course the awesome ability to spend 2 hours managing your inventory to get rid of your 10 copies of the same thing that you dont want anyway.

Just because things are removed is not "dumbing down". It is not "dumbing down" to remove or simplify things that are horribly done to the point of being over complex or just plain pointless. Mass effect never has been and never was intended to be a true RPG if thats what you want then your playing the wrong game.

[AgitatedLemon]

The Executioner wrote...

SNascimento wrote...

ME2 > ME1.
.
Fact.

 Opinion and a bad one.

I wasn't aware opinions could be "bad".

Please, explain.

[The Executioner]

AgitatedLemon wrote...

The Executioner wrote...

SNascimento wrote...

ME2 > ME1.
.
Fact.

 Opinion and a bad one.

I wasn't aware opinions could be "bad".

Please, explain.

 No.

[thatguy212]

AgitatedLemon wrote...

The Executioner wrote...

SNascimento wrote...

ME2 > ME1.
.
Fact.

 Opinion and a bad one.

I wasn't aware opinions could be "bad".

Please, explain.

"twilight is a good book"

[Palathas]

From what I've read of the "known features" threads and what I've seen in the demo ME3 will be halfway between ME1 and ME2 with a few bits thrown in with regard to features. We also can't forget that there is an optional and integrated multi-player side to the game as well!

Modifié par Palathas, 20 février 2012 - 12:53 .

[AgitatedLemon]

The Executioner wrote...

AgitatedLemon wrote...

The Executioner wrote...

SNascimento wrote...

ME2 > ME1.
.
Fact.

 Opinion and a bad one.

I wasn't aware opinions could be "bad".

Please, explain.

 No.

Compelling evidence you bring forward.

Don't ever enter a subjective discussion again.

[The Executioner]

AgitatedLemon wrote...

The Executioner wrote...

AgitatedLemon wrote...

The Executioner wrote...

SNascimento wrote...

ME2 > ME1.
.
Fact.

 Opinion and a bad one.

I wasn't aware opinions could be "bad".

Please, explain.

 No.

Compelling evidence you bring forward.

Don't ever enter a subjective discussion again.

 GFY.

[littlezack]

thatguy212 wrote...

AgitatedLemon wrote...

The Executioner wrote...

SNascimento wrote...

ME2 > ME1.
.
Fact.

 Opinion and a bad one.

I wasn't aware opinions could be "bad".

Please, explain.

"twilight is a good book"

To be fair, a good chunk of the people who make fun of Twilight haven't actually read it.

And there is such a thing a poorly formed opinion. For instance, if I said cardboard tastes good. You can't really disprove that, and I might very well think that, but the general consensus is that it doesn't taste good. So.

Mass Effect 1 and 2 are a more gray than that. Mass Effect 2 is not completely flawed and Mass Effect 1 isn't completely perfect; there are good, valid reasons to like or hate both of them, and it all depends on the player. So, saying that Mass Effect 2 is better than Mass Effect 1 isn't a fact, but it's not a 'bad' opinion. You can find quite a few people who feel that way.

[incinerator950]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

ME3's gear and skill modifications are definitely miles ahead of ME1's pick-the-thing-with-the-best-stats. There's actually some strategy involved in creating your loadout and making the best use of it in combat. It also eclipses ME2 in terms of combat. So the gameplay, at least, has not been "dumbed down."

As for the story bits? The brief sample we got in the demo and that mess of a half-finished script are by no means enough information to make a fair call on how "dumbed down" the final chapter in Shepard's story is. That stuff is subjective as hell anyway, but in my opinion it still carries the same emotional and philosophical weight of the other two. Can't tell you about conversations or decisions or anything like that because, god damn it, I haven't played the game yet. Wait two and a half weeks, would ya?

Admiral, they already have time machines and are judging the game by not giving you an illusional choice as often!

[slimgrin]

Cheeze speaks the truth about combat in ME3. It looks to eclipse ME2 and for a shooter/RPG, I've always thought ME2 was among the best out there, a perfect blend of twitch and tactics. And now we get mods back, a better health regeneration system, new weapons, etc. Combat is what will save ME3.

[hitorihanzo]

The Dumbing Down Effect? The title alone implies that you are not as smart as you think that you are. I love how everyone on the interwebz has an I.Q. of 180, a 12" ****, and can tie cherry stems in knots with their tongues.

[Toyou4you]

I guess I'm too dumb for these threads, cause I don't see the dumbing down.

[Oblivious]

Draconis6666 wrote...

The only dumbing down is the people who continue to rant how much more stuff ME 1 had that the others dont, when all it really has is a skill system that makes no sense to the story, (lol I R elite soldier but i cant shoot yet cus got no skillz), the "awesome exploration" of the same planet 45 times with slightly different geography which amounts to 4 hours of trying to drive up mountains in the mako to get to something, The "Awesome customization" of having 20 armors and 20 different guns that all look the same but have different names and levels! Lets also include into this the awesome customization of having tons of weapon and armor mods (50% of which are pointless and suck anyway). The story in ME 1 is just as railroaded as ME 2, peoples nostalga does not change that no matter how much they think it does. And finally of course the awesome ability to spend 2 hours managing your inventory to get rid of your 10 copies of the same thing that you dont want anyway.

Just because things are removed is not "dumbing down". It is not "dumbing down" to remove or simplify things that are horribly done to the point of being over complex or just plain pointless. Mass effect never has been and never was intended to be a true RPG if thats what you want then your playing the wrong game.

Smartest... person.... ever!

[Sidney]

Lee T wrote...

Inventory like many things in RPGs are about choices. There was almost none in ME2. Each character load-out was predefined and almost each gun you found was better than the previous one (DLC ones being the worst offenders). The economy was built so that you could buy everything (I emptied each store in the game before the end in each of my play-through), again no choice in the stores except for prioritizing your purchases.

They weren't. The Mattock is my favorite gun but then again I can't manage the Reveant and hit anything. I know folks who love that ripper of a gun. That's a trade off of equals. The Locust is my favorite SMG but the second SMG, not the starter, is a viable weapon as well if you are working short range and want a killer ROF to pound shields. All the shotguns have viability. I hate the second sniper rifles so it isn't a clear choice of X is later than Y ergo X is better than Y.  Now I will say that it is the DLC that rounds out your choices to be more useful sadly.

In ME1 where there is no reason to take V when you have VI of a gun and since the Spectre guns are both faster, more accurate and do higher damage there's no choice there just like in DAO there's no real choice in the top end weapons and armor. By the end of the game you all have the same weapons and armor. IN ME2 my loadout in terms of armor and weaponry might look very different than yours.

That is what I want from an inventory system that "makes me think". Shuffling tons of crap to get the handful of good nuggets isn't it.

[Lucy Glitter]

I'm hoping they correct the mistake of, "MISSION, TALK A BIT, KILL PEOPLE. NORMANDY. LOOP." problems with ME2 in ME3. It seems there is more exploration in 3 but I can't say I know for sure... I mean, the opening mission/intro is always the hook.

[Mx_CN3]

They took out a few bloated number systems (armors, weapons, mods, skill points), so that's dumbing it down? In ME2, you didn't have the numbers for rate-of-fire, clip size, etc displayed to you in a convenient little stat box, but the stats were still there. You just had to use them to get a feel for them. Instead of having 60 different shotguns that differed only in their numbers, you had 5 shotguns which were each very unique, and if you polled 5 different players about which was the best, you'd get 4 answers (because let's face it, nobody liked the Katana). How is having to make your own judgements based on your playstyle on things dumbing anything down?

Conversely, what was "smart" about ME1? The overall story was better, sure. The Mako was driving a tank didn't give a damn about OUR laws of physics through incredibly bland terrain for hours on end, often involving incredibly frustrating cliffs. Then you get to run into the same bunker 80 times and shoot the place up, then leave. Any time you looted a box, you ended up omni-gelling everything in it 98% of the time, because you had your convenient little spreadsheet to tell you exactly what you should do.

The ideas of ME1 (planet exploration, armor/weapon mods) were good, their implementation is awful. Sorry, but ME2 was streamlined (with a few oversights), not dumbed down.

[GuardianAngel470]

Sidney wrote...

Lee T wrote...

Inventory like many things in RPGs are about choices. There was almost none in ME2. Each character load-out was predefined and almost each gun you found was better than the previous one (DLC ones being the worst offenders). The economy was built so that you could buy everything (I emptied each store in the game before the end in each of my play-through), again no choice in the stores except for prioritizing your purchases.

They weren't. The Mattock is my favorite gun but then again I can't manage the Reveant and hit anything. I know folks who love that ripper of a gun. That's a trade off of equals. The Locust is my favorite SMG but the second SMG, not the starter, is a viable weapon as well if you are working short range and want a killer ROF to pound shields. All the shotguns have viability. I hate the second sniper rifles so it isn't a clear choice of X is later than Y ergo X is better than Y.  Now I will say that it is the DLC that rounds out your choices to be more useful sadly.

In ME1 where there is no reason to take V when you have VI of a gun and since the Spectre guns are both faster, more accurate and do higher damage there's no choice there just like in DAO there's no real choice in the top end weapons and armor. By the end of the game you all have the same weapons and armor. IN ME2 my loadout in terms of armor and weaponry might look very different than yours.

That is what I want from an inventory system that "makes me think". Shuffling tons of crap to get the handful of good nuggets isn't it.

Yeah I never did like the Revenant either. I even tried to mod it to have halfway decent accuracy but never got it to work right.

The tempest for me was my favorite. The thing you had to do was not hold the trigger. You had to fire in bursts. If you did that it was accurate enough at medium range and could still decimate enemy shields and health. I had much more fun using it than the Locust.

[Chromie]

slimgrin wrote...

Cheeze speaks the truth about combat in ME3. It looks to eclipse ME2 and for a shooter/RPG, I've always thought ME2 was among the best out there, a perfect blend of twitch and tactics. And now we get mods back, a better health regeneration system, new weapons, etc. Combat is what will save ME3.

Aye. Gameplay has improved while writing has become worse. I expect a ton of fanserver in Mass Effect 3.

[GuardianAngel470]

Ringo12 wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Cheeze speaks the truth about combat in ME3. It looks to eclipse ME2 and for a shooter/RPG, I've always thought ME2 was among the best out there, a perfect blend of twitch and tactics. And now we get mods back, a better health regeneration system, new weapons, etc. Combat is what will save ME3.

Aye. Gameplay has improved while writing has become worse. I expect a ton of fanserver in Mass Effect 3.

I would argue that the writing has gotten better while the storytelling has gotten worse. Look at all the most memorable (in a good way) lines there have been in this series. Look at some of the most intense and emotional dialog there has been in it.

For me, the vast majority of the best lines and sequences are from the second game. All of Joker and EDI's antics, Shepard's amazing renegade lines, Tali's trial, Jack's redemption (and in fact all her character development), and a whole host of really great moments.

Then look at the narative aspect of ME2. The Collectors were a poorly developed and executed threat. The prothean reveal was completely worthless because there was no lead up to it and no gradual revelation. As has been noted many times the game seems almost meaningless to many people because of this.

Bioware's loyalty missions and characters were amazing but they didn't tie those great experiences into a larger narative very well.

The cause of this shift has been blamed on many, many different things. Some say it's EA's influence and dication. Others claim it's the fact that Bioware are selling out/have sold out as a developer and that they no longer make great games. Still others ignore it and claim there was nothing wrong with the game.

If we were going on just hours spent playing, then Mass Effect 2 would be my favorite game of all time. Ignoring all the hours I've spent discussing it on forums, ignoring all the money I've spent on the game, ignoring all the time I've spent talking about it with family and friends, and ignoring all the effort I've exerted troubleshooting, optimizing, and modding it this game is my favorite game of all time when just counting hours spent playing.

It's my personal belief that ME2's main plot and overiding narative failed not because of EA (for reasons I explain here) and not because Bioware are selling out (for virtually the same reasons as the former) but because they had too many great characters. Because of the dirty dozen design concept they went with, Bioware had 2 years to fix all the problems in that thread AND create, from scratch (relatively) 8 new squadmates as well as each of their loyalty missions.

With just a rudimentary concept of what it takes to make this stuff that to me sounds like a hell of a lot of work. You need to write the sequences, storyboard the sequences, develop the artwork, design the levels, script the sequence, balance the combat, and troubleshoot glitches, script failures, and so on for each mission (of which there were ten during main development).

Once you've done that, to me it seems reasonable that they ran out of time for everything else. Is it a fact that this is how it happened? I've no idea. Facts are hard to come by when it comes to the development process in almost all major games. To date I only know of one developer that makes a point to be relatively transparent about the development process and only because VALVe has commentary nodes in their games.

[slimgrin]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

I would argue that the writing has gotten better while the storytelling has gotten worse

O_o ???

[GuardianAngel470]

slimgrin wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

I would argue that the writing has gotten better while the storytelling has gotten worse

O_o ???

For me storytelling is all about structure. Its the thing you have in your notes before writing anything. Its the thing you make flow charts of. Its the logical progression of events from the introduction to the conflict to the climax and the resolution.

The writing is how you convey those events. What words and phrases you use, what imagery you utilize, the symbolism (if any), what lines you have your characters speak.

A story can have excellent imagery, dialog, and description but still be a rushed mess, ending abruptly or not resolving certain plot threads.

[Sidney]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

For me storytelling is all about structure. Its the thing you have in your notes before writing anything. Its the thing you make flow charts of. Its the logical progression of events from the introduction to the conflict to the climax and the resolution.

To me the structure of ME2 > ME1 maininly because they dealt with time. ME1's structure stunk because while it was a race vs time to stop Saren I'm dinking about doing work for Admiral Hacket or looking for mineral, Asari books and Turian trinkets. That has always made me cringe. ME2 at least gave you a reason for the "downtime" - you were waiting for the next collector attack, waiting for decryption of data...something anything that makes doing the side missions seem possible and not just gamey.  Time is always an element that feels so wrong in most games, the fact that the world stops for you and only you always gets to me.