290 réponses à ce sujet

[p.W]

Ryanianmc wrote...

What exactly is your argument?  That because its the first game in the series one should "accept defeat" and wait till more "perfected" combat mechanics are implemented?

I feel the complete opposite.  Its the nature of the first game that make its a "dimond in the rough" that demmands attention.  It does not conform to ME2 definition of gameplay, but thats not a bad thing at all.  Learn to adapt and learn and you will find a rewarding experience.

My argument is very simple. You said that ME3 is "action-oriented" and this is apparently a bad thing and anti-RPG. But the qualities in a game that I associate with RPG - story, atmospheric immersion, character development - are better served by embracing action elements and discarding obsolete RPG conventions like heaps of loot that you have to wade through, or slow paced "tactical" combat.

[Texhnolyze101]

AlanC9 wrote...

Ryanianmc wrote...

What exactly is your argument?  That because its the first game in the series one should "accept defeat" and wait till more "perfected" combat mechanics are implemented?

No. People should go ahead and play it -- ME1's not bad or anything. We just shouldn't  pretend it's better than ME2 or ME3.

^ I take offense to that mainly because i Play ME1 more than i do ME2 and ME2 bores me honestly and ME3 will bore me eventually to unlike ME1 which IMHO is better than ME2 and ME3.

[Epic777]

AlanC9 wrote...

Epic777 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
It's understandable that it's worse in party-based games. You've got to be able to equip a lot of characters, and every time you get a better item something on someone becomes vendor trash. Not to mention that if there are several reasonable choices at any particular power level -- and if there aren't choices then inventory is really worthless -- you've got all those extra items kicking around too.

My point is most inventories party based inventories are usless fot that reason. Usully there is no argument for the best items, think the spectre weapons for me1

Well, that's a little unfair to the genre. ME1 had one of the worst item progressions ever. Almost bad enough to be a TES game.

And the question isn't so much about the best items as what happens through the midgame. By the time you've got the best items the game's almost over anyway.

Having said that, I mostly agree with you. In the end the obvious loadout is obvious.

Thats why I said for party based RPGs. Inventory in single player based RPGs are fine. Think Deus EX 1, System Shock 2 and Deus Ex: HR.  The item progression in those games goes like this:

different item -> different item -> different item

The classic RPG item progression goes :

better item -> better item -> better item

Combined with smaller inventories, a "real choice is force" in most single player RPGs.

[p.W]

101ezylonhxeT wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Ryanianmc wrote...

What exactly is your argument?  That because its the first game in the series one should "accept defeat" and wait till more "perfected" combat mechanics are implemented?

No. People should go ahead and play it -- ME1's not bad or anything. We just shouldn't  pretend it's better than ME2 or ME3.

^ I take offense to that mainly because i Play ME1 more than i do ME2 and ME2 bores me honestly and ME3 will bore me eventually to unlike ME1 which IMHO is better than ME2 and ME3.

Don't take offense. Not everything we like we like because it's objectively good.

I like Diablo 2. Why? Because it's addicting, because it's familiar, etc. Does that make it the model after which all future RPGs should be designed? Good lord, I hope not, because then the gaming medium is going to be stuck forever in 1998 instead of evolving as every single medium is naturally wont to do.

[Vapaa]

p.W wrote...
 
or slow paced "tactical" combat.

ME1 isn't even tactical; the classes hardly stands out from each other, the powers are redundant.....ME1 is more a mindless shooter than ME2

[ElementL09]

E-Type XR wrote...

They already have.

It was called ME2.

This pretty much, granted it didn't include certain elements from the previous ME1, it was a vast improvement over ME1.

Mass Effect 3 feels like Mass Effect 1 and 2 combined, like the best qualties of each in one game.

[Ryanianmc]

p.W wrote...

Ryanianmc wrote...

What exactly is your argument?  That because its the first game in the series one should "accept defeat" and wait till more "perfected" combat mechanics are implemented?

I feel the complete opposite.  Its the nature of the first game that make its a "dimond in the rough" that demmands attention.  It does not conform to ME2 definition of gameplay, but thats not a bad thing at all.  Learn to adapt and learn and you will find a rewarding experience.

My argument is very simple. You said that ME3 is "action-oriented" and this is apparently a bad thing and anti-RPG. But the qualities in a game that I associate with RPG - story, atmospheric immersion, character development - are better served by embracing action elements and discarding obsolete RPG conventions like heaps of loot that you have to wade through, or slow paced "tactical" combat.

This is where we have a fundamental differance of opinion.  Mass effect has lost its RPG soul, instead catering to a more "action" crowd.   As such my orginal statement stands.  ME1 is and will always be the best RPG Mass Effect game.

[Texhnolyze101]

p.W wrote...

101ezylonhxeT wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Ryanianmc wrote...

What exactly is your argument?  That because its the first game in the series one should "accept defeat" and wait till more "perfected" combat mechanics are implemented?

No. People should go ahead and play it -- ME1's not bad or anything. We just shouldn't  pretend it's better than ME2 or ME3.

^ I take offense to that mainly because i Play ME1 more than i do ME2 and ME2 bores me honestly and ME3 will bore me eventually to unlike ME1 which IMHO is better than ME2 and ME3.

Don't take offense. Not everything we like we like because it's objectively good.

I like Diablo 2. Why? Because it's addicting, because it's familiar, etc. Does that make it the model after which all future RPGs should be designed? Good lord, I hope not, because then the gaming medium is going to be stuck forever in 1998 instead of evolving as every single medium is naturally wont to do.

Well imo ME is int evolving into anything i would consider fun for future installments.

[Candidate 88766]

Why can't people on BSN just accept that some people prefer ME1 and some people prefer ME2?

[Texhnolyze101]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Why can't people on BSN just accept that some people prefer ME1 and some people prefer ME2?

I have :] i haven't bashed anyone for liking ME2 or ME3 because i don't

[shadowkiller74]

p.W wrote...

Ryanianmc wrote...

What exactly is your argument?  That because its the first game in the series one should "accept defeat" and wait till more "perfected" combat mechanics are implemented?

I feel the complete opposite.  Its the nature of the first game that make its a "dimond in the rough" that demmands attention.  It does not conform to ME2 definition of gameplay, but thats not a bad thing at all.  Learn to adapt and learn and you will find a rewarding experience.

My argument is very simple. You said that ME3 is "action-oriented" and this is apparently a bad thing and anti-RPG. But the qualities in a game that I associate with RPG - story, atmospheric immersion, character development - are better served by embracing action elements and discarding obsolete RPG conventions like heaps of loot that you have to wade through, or slow paced "tactical" combat.

By that arguement Deus Ex Human Revolution, and Bioshock are RPGs. They aren't, so lets not pretend Mass Effect still is.

[SomeKindaEnigma]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Why can't people on BSN just accept that some people prefer ME1 and some people prefer ME2?

Won't matter when ME3 comes out and is better than both 

[Texhnolyze101]

SomeKindaEnigma wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Why can't people on BSN just accept that some people prefer ME1 and some people prefer ME2?

Won't matter when ME3 comes out and is better than both 

Yet il still play ME1 more than both

Modifié par 101ezylonhxeT, 28 février 2012 - 09:39 .

[ref]

But..but.. ME3 will have such awesome epic features like the awesome epic omni-blade, ME1 doesn't have that! The super epic for the win Omni-Blade totally is more awesome then a realized and well written plot with good pacing and RPG features!

To me, ME3 will try to do 2 things well, being an RPG and being Gears of War, and in my opinion I believe, ME1 will do everything RPG better and Gears of Wars everything TPS better. You have no idea how happy I'd be if I'm wrong

Modifié par Refara, 28 février 2012 - 09:48 .

[Ryanianmc]

I am def not saying I won't like me3. I just give ME1 a greater "nod" to greatness then anything else. Now after I play 300 hours of me3 and feel my statements are invalid I will def eat my words

[WvStolzing]

[snip] too many edits. sorry.

Modifié par WvStolzing, 28 février 2012 - 09:59 .

[SomeKindaEnigma]

101ezylonhxeT wrote...

SomeKindaEnigma wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Why can't people on BSN just accept that some people prefer ME1 and some people prefer ME2?

Won't matter when ME3 comes out and is better than both 

Yet il still play ME1 more than both

You don't know that yet 

[p.W]

shadowkiller74 wrote...

p.W wrote...

Ryanianmc wrote...

What exactly is your argument?  That because its the first game in the series one should "accept defeat" and wait till more "perfected" combat mechanics are implemented?

I feel the complete opposite.  Its the nature of the first game that make its a "dimond in the rough" that demmands attention.  It does not conform to ME2 definition of gameplay, but thats not a bad thing at all.  Learn to adapt and learn and you will find a rewarding experience.

My argument is very simple. You said that ME3 is "action-oriented" and this is apparently a bad thing and anti-RPG. But the qualities in a game that I associate with RPG - story, atmospheric immersion, character development - are better served by embracing action elements and discarding obsolete RPG conventions like heaps of loot that you have to wade through, or slow paced "tactical" combat.

By that arguement Deus Ex Human Revolution, and Bioshock are RPGs. They aren't, so lets not pretend Mass Effect still is.

I don't know, last I checked those games' wikipedia articles and marketing materials said they were RPGs. I think I'm gonna take the word of people within the industry over yours on this one, just to be on the safe side.

Ryanianmc wrote...

p.W wrote...

Ryanianmc wrote...

What
exactly is your argument?  That because its the first game in the
series one should "accept defeat" and wait till more "perfected" combat
mechanics are implemented?

I feel the complete opposite.  Its the
nature of the first game that make its a "dimond in the rough" that
demmands attention.  It does not conform to ME2 definition of gameplay,
but thats not a bad thing at all.  Learn to adapt and learn and you will
find a rewarding experience.

My argument is very
simple. You said that ME3 is "action-oriented" and this is apparently a
bad thing and anti-RPG. But the qualities in a game that I associate
with RPG - story, atmospheric immersion, character development - are
better served by embracing action elements and discarding obsolete
RPG conventions like heaps of loot that you have to wade through, or
slow paced "tactical" combat.

This is where we
have a fundamental differance of opinion.  Mass effect has lost its RPG
soul, instead catering to a more "action" crowd.   As such my orginal
statement stands.  ME1 is and will always be the best RPG Mass Effect
game.

You still haven't explained what your definition of "RPG" is. I said what it is for me. What is it for you? Is it long talent trees filled with +0.5 buffs to skill X or Y? Blizzard's been doing that for years, and don't seem to be getting tired, so they're a better bet than BioWare. Is it endless exploration of a vast world you could get lost in? That's Bethesda's thing. Is it inventory management? Try Bethesda again, or Eidos with their Deus Ex. Is it customizing each and every one of the characters in your party with a wide array of spells and items? Square does that.

You know what BW does better than all of those guys? A dramatic narrative with complex characters. So let them do that, and get better at doing that. Moving stuff around an inventory screen isn't conductive to that experience.

Modifié par p.W, 28 février 2012 - 09:58 .

[Vapaa]

shadowkiller74 wrote...

By that arguement Deus Ex Human Revolution, and Bioshock are RPGs. They aren't, so lets not pretend Mass Effect still is.

By your logic ME has never been an RPG in the fist place

Modifié par Vapaä, 28 février 2012 - 10:02 .

[Kuriiiiiii]

here's the only thing they have to top.

Battle for the Citadel and the music. Nothing else. Aslong as they nail the right music, the sounds and the connection you have to the game, it'll be great.

[string3r]

Mass Effect has lost it's soul.

[Ghost Rider LSOV]

I liked both ME1 and ME2 very much.

ME1 had this broader scope. Showing you this world in space. I admit it had some nice views on some planets that I missed in ME2. Although the Mako could become annoying at 2-3 planets (if you didn't take the path ), it was fun to have your ground assault/exploration vehicle.

In ME2, I liked how it became more personal, more about the people. You got to meet and understand more cultures and people.

And both had excellent music too.

I don't know what ME3 will be like, but I hope I will enjoy it as much.

[WvStolzing]

 

NY ASS4551N wrote...
You know, I used to think that way, until I took off my nostalgia glasses and replayed ME1, only to realize how bad it is compared to ME2 and ME3. 

First, ME1 had a terrible combat system if you really think about it. Since there was infinite ammo and the A.I was pretty dumb, all you had to in combat was just stay back from the enemy and shoot them one by one. 

One top of that, the menu system was cluttered and clunky, especially since your inventory would get filled so much, that you would spend 1/4 of the game just sorting it out. The graphics were bland. Armor and weapon varieties are actually higher in ME2 and ME3, since most armor and weapons in ME1 reacted the same.

I could go on and on, but my point is that ME2 and ME3 mostly improves on ME1, and it would be foolish to think otherwise.

I completely agree with this (I too 'took off my nostalgia glasses, and re-re-replayed ME1 the other day).

I like the music in ME1 better, though.

About the blandness of the graphics: Some of these are nothing short of atrocities. Feros and Noveria are made up of slabs of concrete joined together, and mountain ridges in many of the planets are a bit too obviously fractal-generated.

On the other hand, several planet surfaces are beautifully done, and I remember being especially impressed about the atmospheres. I've always been fascinated by the satellites of Jupiter, the acid rains in Venus, and so forth; some of those planet designs were an excuse for me, to pretend that this was bona fide science fiction, after all. It's too bad ME2 scrapped that entire dimension of the game.

I'd really, really like to see the weights on each planet adjusted with respect to the planet's size, though. I doubt they'll ever do this.

[Arrtis]

I replayed ME1 today.
Still like it.
Even though the game is like a decade old and I have played it 100 times from start to finish already.
It just has what I like.
A nice story with plenty of extras to do if I wish to.

[Poison_Berrie]

shadowkiller74 wrote...

By that arguement Deus Ex Human Revolution, and Bioshock are RPGs. They aren't, so lets not pretend Mass Effect still is. 

DX:HR was like it's predecessor not really concerned with fitting directly into a singular category. So I can't actually place it solely into the RPG category without doing it a disservice. That said it's definitly for a large part an RPG, enough that it can be considered as much RPG as FPS.

Let's not pretend that RPG isn't a vague and wide genre.