Aller au contenu

Photo

Would you enjoy a Mass Effect FPS?


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
85 réponses à ce sujet

#51
incinerator950

incinerator950
  • Members
  • 5 617 messages

The Night Mammoth wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

Roguekad wrote...

ImmortalAegis wrote...

NoirLegend wrote...

No, If i want a FPS i play Cod o Battlefield.


So even if it had excellent story telling you still wouldn't like it?


I think they've shown us they can't do both on their budgets with ME3. In my mind excellent storytelling it dramaticc and dialogue driven like in films. ME1 & 2 did this fantasticly, ME3.... not so much, especially when most of the dialogue was auto. To paraphrase GameInformer to a fan letter when ME2 came out, if I wanted to play a FPS I'd have bought Halo.


Doesn't have to be excellent storytelling.  It needs to be good.  ME is the Eragon of Sci-fi, its remarkable people still think that the plot skeleton ME 3 uses is completely ignored in that it mimics ME 1 more then ME 2 did.  


Yes, it does. 

And plot skeleton? I'd like to know two things there.

One, explain the term and then how it applies to ME1-ME3. 

Two, explain why that's a good or bad thing. 


First you start off on a small mission.  Then it accidentally explodes into a severe accident.  Then you go to the Citadel to plea a case, which gets ignored.  You span around the Galaxy looking for things to help you, futher discovering about your enemy.  Then at the end of the game, you find a Prothean VI who tells you everything you need to know about the enemy and an instant win button.  Then you stumble onto the Citadel, open the arms, and a cinematic ends the game for you with the variation of the ending being a few things explode more, or not.  Then a Bigger explosion happens, followed by more talking that doesn't actually make a difference.  

The biggest parts being Vigil and Vendetta, giving you everything you need to know well into the late stages of the game and telling you how to win.  Only reason why it is overlooked in ME 1 is because you win, you live, everyone is happy (except the corpses, but no one listens to fish heads anyway).  Also, its amazing how you think ME 1, the Eragon of Sci-fi, is still amazing in writing and story.

Modifié par incinerator950, 30 avril 2012 - 04:29 .


#52
Barbarossa2010

Barbarossa2010
  • Members
  • 2 404 messages

ImmortalAegis wrote...

Thoughts on this anyone? It seems like alot of game these days have a 3rd person cover based fighting system would you like to see a ME game with a first person perspective?


And there are a lot of FPS these days OP (probably outnumbering TPSs by a magnitude of ten).  Honestly, of the TPSs that exist, there are barely a handful that have an efficient cover/move/run/vault/aim/melee system imo.  The system should be perfected and polished in my view, in order to provide a quality alternative shooter experience to the WAY overdone FPS perspective.

Mass Effect should return MORE to it's 3rd person roots and stay away from a steep re-learning curve, where others are already miles ahead of them.  ME has bigger issues, and Bioware should worry more about fixing what's actually broke in Mass Effect than about it's camera perspective (something that is completely serviceable and currently not broke).  They've made great strides in improving TPS gameplay mechanics since ME1.  They should stick with it and continue that trend.  

Just my opinion though.

#53
danteliveson

danteliveson
  • Members
  • 910 messages
Only during romance scenes.

#54
Dot.Shadow

Dot.Shadow
  • Members
  • 401 messages
I'd prefer an RTS.

#55
ImmortalAegis

ImmortalAegis
  • Members
  • 73 messages

danteliveson wrote...

Only during romance scenes.


LOLOLOLOLOL

#56
Broham

Broham
  • Members
  • 119 messages
No, I would not.


Syndicate series(1993)
- an isometric real-time tactical game series --> *Syndicate(2012) - first-person shooter

Fallout series(1997) - a turn-based, open-world RPG series --> *Fallout3(2008) - open-world RPG, first-person shooter / third-person shooter

X-COM series(1993) - a turn-based squad game series. --> *XCOM(2012)* - "In April 2010, 2K Marin announced to be working on re-imagining of X-COM, relabeled as XCOM,to be released for the PC, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. It is described as a tactical and strategic first-person shooter supposed to combine elements from the original X-COM..."


These are just three series I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more that have been "converted".

I thoroughly enjoyed these games at the time and probably still would if I were to play them today. I really don't understand why every game need be a FPS these days... Now in all fairness, Fallout 3 (in my opinion) was ok. And supposedly a company is re-making  XCOM: Enemy Unknown . I'm looking foward to XCOM: Enemy Unknown, not XCOM

Kinda hoping that once the market becomes over-satuated with FPS, the genre will scale back greatly.

#57
Eain

Eain
  • Members
  • 1 501 messages

ImmortalAegis wrote...

NoirLegend wrote...

No, If i want a FPS i play Cod o Battlefield.


So even if it had excellent story telling you still wouldn't like it?


Well I liked Halo for this reason...

But then Halo stayed true to its own story to the very end.

#58
Bob Walker

Bob Walker
  • Members
  • 369 messages
Hell no.

#59
httinks2006

httinks2006
  • Members
  • 190 messages
no

#60
Froswald

Froswald
  • Members
  • 277 messages
 Only if it doesn't try for a story whatsoever. And if the story team isn't put to work on it.

I happily embrace any quality product related to the ME franchise, just keep the distinction between RPG and FPS (DON'T MIX THEM)

#61
The Night Mammoth

The Night Mammoth
  • Members
  • 7 476 messages

incinerator950 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

Roguekad wrote...

ImmortalAegis wrote...

NoirLegend wrote...

No, If i want a FPS i play Cod o Battlefield.


So even if it had excellent story telling you still wouldn't like it?


I think they've shown us they can't do both on their budgets with ME3. In my mind excellent storytelling it dramaticc and dialogue driven like in films. ME1 & 2 did this fantasticly, ME3.... not so much, especially when most of the dialogue was auto. To paraphrase GameInformer to a fan letter when ME2 came out, if I wanted to play a FPS I'd have bought Halo.


Doesn't have to be excellent storytelling.  It needs to be good.  ME is the Eragon of Sci-fi, its remarkable people still think that the plot skeleton ME 3 uses is completely ignored in that it mimics ME 1 more then ME 2 did.  


Yes, it does. 

And plot skeleton? I'd like to know two things there.

One, explain the term and then how it applies to ME1-ME3. 

Two, explain why that's a good or bad thing. 


First you start off on a small mission.  Then it accidentally explodes into a severe accident.  Then you go to the Citadel to plea a case, which gets ignored.  You span around the Galaxy looking for things to help you, futher discovering about your enemy.  Then at the end of the game, you find a Prothean VI who tells you everything you need to know about the enemy and an instant win button.  Then you stumble onto the Citadel, open the arms, and a cinematic ends the game for you with the variation of the ending being a few things explode more, or not.  Then a Bigger explosion happens, followed by more talking that doesn't actually make a difference.  


Fair enough, although the route taken and the actual beginning are pretty different, but I can see your point. 

The biggest parts being Vigil and Vendetta, giving you everything you need to know well into the late stages of the game and telling you how to win.  Only reason why it is overlooked in ME 1 is because you win, you live, everyone is happy (except the corpses, but no one listens to fish heads anyway).


And because it makes sense, was interesting to listen to, and was an actual conversation you could participate in. Oh, and this was only the first game of what was to be continuing story. The building blocks of something much bigger.

Also, its amazing how you think ME 1, the Eragon of Sci-fi, is still amazing in writing and story.


You presume much. ME1 starts off interesting, meanders around not doing anything in a hugely disconnected middle section that only keeps any sort of decent pace if you complete Virmire last, builds up to a pretty explosive finale that to be honest, whilst exciting, feels out of place, and finishes on a terrible boss fight. ME1 was enjoyable for the universe it establishes and how damn open and expansive it was.

ME2 likewise lacked focus around the middle at times, but did a better job by giving you a clear objective interluded with mandatory story missions. It's finale was also incredibly fun, even though its boss battle was lackluster and just outright strange at the time in concept. It kept some of the previous game's expansive nature, giving you a brace of pretty unique hubs, levels, and characters. It sacrificed a lot of that open world feel though, and almost all of its RPG elements 

ME3 should have an advantage with an already pre-determined direction: muster the the galaxy, fight the Reapers. But BioWare tried too hard to introduce side elements to this, like Cerberus. Sometimes it works, like early on when the possibility remains for the Illusive Man's lackeys to stay small in number, if highly skilled, only taking on missions of high importance. Tuchanka is a pretty large part of the game, and to me its the pinnacle of Mass Effect. There's nothing lacking in that entire segment. Pointless middle section breaks up until Rannoch, which comes second to Tuchanka, since Legion pretty much has a character reversal at the end.  Thessia is a high point, but everything just seems kind of pointless after that, and lets not even get into that deflating baloon pissing around the hallway that is the ending. 

So yeah, TL;DR, ME1 doesn't really have a good story for the most part in hindsight, and even though ME3 beats it in that respect, ME2 still comes out trumps overall. 

#62
someguy1231

someguy1231
  • Members
  • 1 120 messages
Halo already has the "sci-fi FPS" genre locked down. To a lesser extent there's also Deus Ex and Killzone.

#63
The Angry One

The Angry One
  • Members
  • 22 246 messages

Broham wrote...

I thoroughly enjoyed these games at the time and probably still would if I were to play them today. I really don't understand why every game need be a FPS these days... Now in all fairness, Fallout 3 (in my opinion) was ok. And supposedly a company is re-making  XCOM: Enemy Unknown . I'm looking foward to XCOM: Enemy Unknown, not XCOM


Not just any company, but Firaxis. So I'm cautiously optimistic.
Also, yeah. Screw "XCOM". Most ridiculous "remake" I've ever seen in my life.

#64
LucasShark

LucasShark
  • Members
  • 3 894 messages

Eain wrote...

ImmortalAegis wrote...

NoirLegend wrote...

No, If i want a FPS i play Cod o Battlefield.


So even if it had excellent story telling you still wouldn't like it?


Well I liked Halo for this reason...

But then Halo stayed true to its own story to the very end.


No offense mate: but what story?

If you cut all the action out of Halo 3 and just left the story section you'd have something about 4 minutes long... half of it filer as the prophet of truth dies halfway through to be replaced by a far more contrived threat.

#65
sammysoso

sammysoso
  • Members
  • 913 messages
Sure, I'd be game. It would be good for a FPS to have a good story with believable characters.

This is assuming the extended cut solves the debacle of the ending.

#66
OGWS

OGWS
  • Members
  • 489 messages
I would play battlefield 2185. It would have to be battlefield though, or battlefield-like, with vehicular combat and destruction. I wouldn't want it as a replacement for a true Mass Effect game though, just like a spin off.

#67
Pottumuusi

Pottumuusi
  • Members
  • 965 messages
No.

#68
I am Sovereign

I am Sovereign
  • Members
  • 421 messages
No.

#69
ShepnTali

ShepnTali
  • Members
  • 4 535 messages
No fps here. Don't change the formula that isn't broken. Change the ones that are.

#70
IElitePredatorI

IElitePredatorI
  • Members
  • 1 750 messages
Like everyone else has said:

No.

#71
The Edge

The Edge
  • Members
  • 612 messages
After being pleasantly suprised by the ME3 multiplayer, I could see an FPS working out IF they did something different than the usual.

With the ME3 ending controversy (as well as simply being under EA), making an FPS now would only upset fans.

#72
incinerator950

incinerator950
  • Members
  • 5 617 messages

Flextt wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

Roguekad wrote...

ImmortalAegis wrote...

NoirLegend wrote...

No, If i want a FPS i play Cod o Battlefield.


So even if it had excellent story telling you still wouldn't like it?


I think they've shown us they can't do both on their budgets with ME3. In my mind excellent storytelling it dramaticc and dialogue driven like in films. ME1 & 2 did this fantasticly, ME3.... not so much, especially when most of the dialogue was auto. To paraphrase GameInformer to a fan letter when ME2 came out, if I wanted to play a FPS I'd have bought Halo.


Doesn't have to be excellent storytelling.  It needs to be good.  ME is the Eragon of Sci-fi, its remarkable people still think that the plot skeleton ME 3 uses is completely ignored in that it mimics ME 1 more then ME 2 did.  


Yeah, from the actual structure it is pretty basic and rather cliché, but they manage to get you highly engaged and invested. FPS cannot do that equally, otherwise it will end up being a mixture of RPG and shooter like it is now.


My borderlands idea that I posted pretty much went against that.  The problem with Mass Effect is that it has a high threshold for power based skills.  It would be in poor taste because the majority of people playing would remember why there were so many Engineers and Biotics shooting you with Mass Effect Fields and lightning, and you are forced to use your guns and wits instead of choosing to.

Not a bad settup, but unfortunately you're going to be cutting into a lot of places.  A ME FPS would be like playing Bioshock without...I can't remember the name.  Like a lot of things its fleeting in memory.

You should get the idea, ME is set up to have power support.  Republic Commando or Rainbow six are set in the limitations of the background they are written as well. 

#73
azerSheppard

azerSheppard
  • Members
  • 1 279 messages
If it's an rpg, sure.

#74
BatmanPWNS

BatmanPWNS
  • Members
  • 6 392 messages
Wouldn't mind. Though I think Bioware would just butch it up.

#75
Hogge87

Hogge87
  • Members
  • 676 messages

ItsNotMyProblem wrote...

ImmortalAegis wrote...

NoirLegend wrote...

No, If i want a FPS i play Cod o Battlefield.


So even if it had excellent story telling you still wouldn't like it?



LOL Excellent story telling doesn't mean anything if the ending is the equivalent of the asari consort ripping a nasty fart when you're making out.

We have to disagree there.
I don't like the ME3 ending, but I started playing through the whole trilogy like three days after I finished ME3.


I'm not sure I'd play an ME FPS. I've stated previously that I won't preorder the next ME if it doesen't contain the old cast. Same applies here. If the game mechanics are good, if the story is good and if the singleplayer campaign is on par with the current one in length and quality, then maybe. But if they meet all these requirements, I must ask why it should be in first person.

If it turns out to be 5 hours of enemies with zero AI, characters you never see or care about (like in CoD), then no thanks.

Modifié par Hogge87, 30 avril 2012 - 05:33 .