308 réponses à ce sujet

[JasmoVT]

I can Hackett wrote...

  I dont think im alone here but im in the middle of a Red Dead Redemption playthrough and im juist realizing thtat ME3 isnt even an RPG I mean not even close, IDK what it is maybe a hybrid between a 3rd ps and a rpg but nothing like me1, omg its just hitting me ...... what have they done?!!

That is like saying I do not consider my kitchen chair to be a very good bed. ME series was neverdesigned as a true RPG, it was always designed,inteneded and promted as a shooter with rpg elements.

[Terror_K]

JaegerBane wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
I don't think that ME3 is a proper Mass Effect game at all, much like DA2 isn't really a proper Dragon Age game if you look at what Dragon Age was originally trying to be. ME3 just removes or cuts back far too much of what made Mass Effect Mass Effect for me personally for the sake of growing its audience, following modern trends and perfecting its TPS combat.

That's largely because, for some reason, you've always believed ME to be something it isn't. That is no-one's problem but your own.

No. What Mass Effect is now and what it was when it started are very different beasts. If ME1 had intended to be like ME3 from the start, it would have been. And that's not even going into the things BioWare said about Mass Effect and what the trilogy was supposed to be before the first game even came out. Heck, even the things they said in the ME3 Game Informer article were vastly different than what ME3 ended up being.

Seriously, do you honestly believe that when they were first developing this series that they originally intended for Mass Effect to be like it is with ME3? That's about as logical as believing George Lucas' "original vision" statements in regards to the prequels and beyond with Star Wars. The only real difference is that Mass Effect was already starting to suffer from Star Wars syndrome only the second game in.

[Terror_K]

JasmoVT wrote...

That is like saying I do not consider my kitchen chair to be a very good bed. ME series was neverdesigned as a true RPG, it was always designed,inteneded and promted as a shooter with rpg elements.

Funny how many people say this despite the fact that leading up to ME1 BioWare always referred to the game as being an "Action RPG" or "Space Opera RPG" and didn't even start using the term "Shooter" until talking about the combat changes leading up to ME2's first E3 outing.

[JasmoVT]

One should keep in mind that of EA's billion dollar intellectual properties, only three are not sports related: Sims, Battlefield and Medal of Honor. One can clearly see the effect of EA having some dicussion around "if you were more like Medal of Honor you would be more successful."

[spirosz]

Rikketik wrote...

Ah, yes, exploration. Well, if being a RPG means "visiting generic planets, driving around and clearing out the occasional generic prefab building" than I don't even want to play a RPG.

The whole trilogy was always intended as a shooter/RPG hybrid. The only thing that has changed in comparison to ME1 is that the shooter elements don't suck anymore. It is true that there is more auto-dialogue in ME3, but then again, it's the final part of the trilogy. It's about the war with the Reapers and finally ending it; the bulk of the character development took place in ME1 and ME2 when there was time for that. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

The bulk of character development? Lol.... 

[Chrillze]

Vampire Bloodlines and Deus Ex are RPG/Shooter hybrids, Mass Effect is more like an interactive 3rd person shooter with decisions that affect the outcome.

[Chala]

I've never considered ME as a true rpg saga...

[Pitznik]

jreezy wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

jreezy wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

jreezy wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
Squaddie's from prior games alive or dead? Doesn't matter, some weak substitute chump steps in and does whatever they did anyway, making their seemingly special nature and uniqueness redundant.)

Funny you should mention this, I found Padok Wiks to be a more enjoyable character than Mordin Solus, especially considering Mordin's character assassination if you supported the Genophage throughout Mass Effect 2.

If you supported the genophage, you can make Mordin change his mind.

Not if Wrex and Eve are alive, which they were my second time through the game..

If Eve is alive, you did NOT support the genophage.

Yeah obviously YOU know why I kept the research data.

That is the strongest action of supporting/not supporting genophage - if your characters talks about genophage being good, but still keeps the research data, you're only making a hypocrite out of Shepard. Game gives you limited ability to support the genophage or not, keeping the data is clear sign you don't support it. Whatever your Shepard's reason was, action speaks for itself, and Mordin is also aware of that.

[Rft552]

The series never was an RPG (Mass Effect 1 may be the exception). Mass Effect 2 & 3 are shooter RPG hybrids.

Also, Red Dead was not a true RPG either.

[zsom]

ME1/2/3 was never an RPG. It was never even advertised as an old school rpg, is was always going to be an action-rpg. Oh and btw. RDR isn't one either.

[Chrillze]

Some people seem to think that just because you can make decisions that affect the outcome this game is a rpg

[PaulSX]

Terror_K wrote...

JasmoVT wrote...

That is like saying I do not consider my kitchen chair to be a very good bed. ME series was neverdesigned as a true RPG, it was always designed,inteneded and promted as a shooter with rpg elements.

Funny how many people say this despite the fact that leading up to ME1 BioWare always referred to the game as being an "Action RPG" or "Space Opera RPG" and didn't even start using the term "Shooter" until talking about the combat changes leading up to ME2's first E3 outing.

The term "Action RPG" does not mean anything. Gothic and Diablo games are advertised as action RPG too, but they are fundametally differernt from ME seires. while I agree that ME2/3 focused more on shooting and ME1 focused on exploration and talky stuff, but even ME1 is not a true RPG.

[spirosz]

All 3 were never true RPGS, in the statistical aspect, but in other aspects of what an RPG may be defined from the individual's standpoint, they might of been RPG's for those players. Who cares, really.

[Masha Potato]

Mass Effect is a hybrid

MY EYES ARE FINALLY OPEN THANK YOU OP

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Terror_K wrote...

JasmoVT wrote...

That is like saying I do not consider my kitchen chair to be a very good bed. ME series was neverdesigned as a true RPG, it was always designed,inteneded and promted as a shooter with rpg elements.

Funny how many people say this despite the fact that leading up to ME1 BioWare always referred to the game as being an "Action RPG" or "Space Opera RPG" and didn't even start using the term "Shooter" until talking about the combat changes leading up to ME2's first E3 outing.

Whatever they may have called it is irrelevant. By design, the game still has a large focus on shooting mechanics, which many considered to be lackluster. If the focus of the game was never shooting things, it shouldn't have been designed in real-time. If ME1 was a true RPG, it was a very bad one.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 21 juillet 2012 - 02:42 .

[wizardryforever]

Oh hey, another "true RPG" thread.  Ugh.  And hey, as usual Terror_K is here with the usual plugline of personal unrealistic expectations.  I swear, some people just aren't reasonable.

For the record, ME3 tried to return to the roots of ME1 in many of the gameplay aspects.  Customization has been amped up, bringing back a lot of the options that were available in the first game without throwing away all the good that was done in the second.  More weapons, the return of mods, more armor pieces, and more intricate skill trees all seem to indicate that this has more of the RPG elements that so many were moaning about not being in ME2 (including Terror_K).  Oh, but now it's not enough to have those things, eh?  Despite some of you making the argument that those things are all that's required to be an RPG?  That's not hypocritical at all.

As far as choices go, ME3 had just as many big choices as ME1 did.  ME1 had the Rachni choice, the Virmire choice (which is more personal, but still a big choice), and the Council choice.  There were several smaller choices as well.  Meanwhile, ME3 has the genophage choice, the Geth/Quarian choice, and the ending choice.  The difference was that ME1 is the first game, and didn't have to deal with imported choices, and ME3 is the finale, and has to wrap up or otherwise deal with pretty much every choice.  It's really not that fair to compare the two.

And come on, there really aren't that many cases of "auto-dialogue" where I felt that a dialogue wheel would have made any difference.  I didn't really see many places where I wish I'd had the option to say something different.   What Shepard says makes sense given the situation, and I'd rather have auto-dialogue than two/three options that say essentially the same thing.  Hell, in ME1, there were several places where all three options did say the same thing.  I'd rather the devs not deceive me with illusions of choice.  If there is no choice to be made, don't try to make it look like there is one.

[incinerator950]

I don't consider ME1 or ME2 true RPGs, so its a fair point I guess.

[Roamingmachine]

ME1 was a true rpg.ME2&3 were straight-up shooters with interactive cutscenes.

[FROST4584]

Roamingmachine wrote...

ME1 was a true rpg.ME2&3 were straight-up shooters with interactive cutscenes.

True. ME2 and ME3 are the same game.

[Aloren]

Terror_K wrote...

Aloren wrote...

Well, to me ME3 is a good compromise between  1 and 2.
Its RPG aspects compare to what was in ME1 (skill tree, weapon mods, decisions...)

I fail to see how. There pretty much were no decisions in ME3, and all the ones you made before were pretty much useless. The game is the same damn thing every playthrough. Nothing you do matters, and it's all about just raising this stupid, arbitrary number rather than your choices having any real meaningful impact. Nobody is special, nothing you do changes anything really, and you still end up with the same lame ending with the same stupid non-sensical choices no matter what you did beforehand. And that's if you even allowed to take control of a character that in ME3 because just as unique and just as much yours or mine as Batman, Nathan Drake, Master Chief, Marcus Fenix or Ezio. Heck, I had more control over Niko in GTA IV than I did over Shepard in ME3!

How is it a good compromise between the two when combat is the only thing that matters and you have as much control over the game as you do over yourself plummeting to the ground with a 2 tonne rock tied around your waist?

And its combat is better than in ME2.

Combat is pretty much the only thing that ME3 did better than its predecessors. And it wasn't worth the cost or losing the stuff that really mattered. ME3's biggest issue overall is that too much focus was put on the combat at the cost of the stuff that truly made ME3 great. What's the point in perfecting what is essentially the icing on a cake if the cake itself is awful because you threw out or skimped on almost all the decent ingredients to do it?

That's the beauty of opinion. YOU fail to see how, I don't. I enjoyed the decisions in ME3, I enjoyed the fact that you may have to kill in cold blood several characters, that you decided the fate of several races, and that ignoring missions for too long had consequences. You didn't like it ? you think it didn't matter ? you still dwell on the ending ? fine. But to me ME3 was not any worse than ME1 (and probably better than 2) when it comes to decisions. 
And Niko ? really ? 

The game is far fom awful. Pretty much all the ingredients were great imo, and I enjoyed the EC. So, yeah, I stand by what I said, ME3 is great, with RPG aspects that are close to 1 and combat that is better than 2.

[RenegadeXV]

wizardryforever wrote...
And come on, there really aren't that many cases of "auto-dialogue" where I felt that a dialogue wheel would have made any difference.  I didn't really see many places where I wish I'd had the option to say something different.   What Shepard says makes sense given the situation, and I'd rather have auto-dialogue than two/three options that say essentially the same thing.  Hell, in ME1, there were several places where all three options did say the same thing.  I'd rather the devs not deceive me with illusions of choice.  If there is no choice to be made, don't try to make it look like there is one.

I noticed this a few times while replaying ME1/ME2 before ME3's release.

There were also times when the character Shepard is talking to has the same response no matter which dialogue option was taken. For example, during the Sovereign conversation, the response is the same no matter what Shepard says (And Shepard's own dialogue is the same during parts of the conversation).

[The_Crazy_Hand]

COGNiTiON 1 wrote...
I noticed this a few times while replaying ME1/ME2 before ME3's release.

There were also times when the character Shepard is talking to has the same response no matter which dialogue option was taken. For example, during the Sovereign conversation, the response is the same no matter what Shepard says (And Shepard's own dialogue is the same during parts of the conversation).

Arrival pulled that with Harbinger.

[JaegerBane]

Terror_K wrote...
Seriously, do you honestly believe that when they were first developing this series that they originally intended for Mass Effect to be like it is with ME3?

Not at all - I've no idea how you managed to get to that. My point is that you've been moaning about how ME isn't going your way ever since the first ME2 trailer rolled, which tells me that what your dislike has less to do with the actual narrative of the story and more to do with the fact that its been edging towards TPS from ME2 onwards.

Which is fine, you don't like TPSs, I get it, everyone gets it - but please, lets not start claiming that its 'deviating' from the 'true ME approach' simply because you don't like shooters. It is what it is - ME has always been an RPG/TPS hybrid and its emphasised combat more and more, but the fundamental model of gameplay - combination of weapons and powers, TPS perspective, squad control, action menu - hasn't changed at all. Its undergone a bit of refinement, nothing more - if you didn't like how things were done in ME2 and 3, you're unlikely to have found ME1 to your tastes either.