587 réponses à ce sujet

[MinatheBrat]

iakus wrote...

ME 3 pretended what we did mattered, that we had freedom to choose, but we were heavily constrained in what we can say or do, and even the outcomes of what we could affect felt comparatively minor, save in a couple of specific cases.  It got to the point where Shepard stopped feeling like our character, and was just another NPC we were watching.

This is great iakus. I totally felt this! A few times I just sat exasperatedly back and was like, ok, I guess I'm going to watch Shepard do stuff without me now... I remember being irritated on Palaven when all of a sudden I'm dooping along and Shepard gets yanked away to slide down a hill or something. Constant little things like that...where Shepard just says things automatically, does things automatically, etc.

In the other ME games, me, the player was Shepard. In ME3, Bioware kept yanking Shepard away from me and ultimately was like Shepard is ours, player ****** off! (insert glowy eyes and Big H voice if you like)

I should have just waited for the movie or something. At least then I wouldn't have had that expectation that I was in charge of the direction of game.

Modifié par MinatheBrat, 16 janvier 2013 - 04:44 .

[CronoDragoon]

Jassu1979 wrote...
Likewise, it is quite easy to point out that ME3 is more of a TPS than an RPG, and to list specific features in comparison to the first installment of the series that demonstrate this quite concisely:
- a pared-down dialogue wheel
- point-and-click conversations without any player involvement (as well-written as they might be, they do not immerse the player, nor let her participate in the conversation)
- "overheard" side-quests consisting exclusively of scanning
- no exploration
- just one hub
- autodialogue, even in some scenes that involve crucial decisions, and certainly in character-defining moments
- "corridor"-levels designed pretty much exclusively around gunfights, with no potential for detours, exploration or interaction
- a gun that cannot be holstered, etc.

Your list does nothing to show this, since you merely list things ME3 has less of. Arguing that ME3 is less of an RPG than ME1 is different than arguing that ME3 is more of a TPS than an RPG.

1. Dialogue wheels are characteristic of RPGs, so the fact that the structure exists is indicative of an RPG.
2. Point and click conversations are abundant, even ubiquitous, in RPGs. I don't see your point. Enter any RPG town and see how many P&C convos you will find.
3. Side-quests are a feature of RPGs. You don't like their implementation or their content but you are still listing characteristics of RPGs, not TPSs.
4. I can list RPGs that don't have exploration, and I can list non-RPGs that have exploration. If you want to argue that exploration is a necessary component of an RPG and no other genre you will be hard-pressed to show this.
5. Please give an example of a crucial decision that was left up to auto-dialogue. It's impossible for me to argue about "character-defining moments" since it is such a subjective term, but I personally define character-defining moments as the actions you take and decisions you make, but if you are talking about how Shepard reacts to his cup of tea, then I don't really mind.
6. The structure of Mass Effect's shooting gameplay dictates corrider design. I think your primary complaint here should be the lack of alternatives to shooting missions, in which case I agree with you.
7. A gun that cannot be holstered is I assume a joke reason.

"RPG" is a term that no one bothers to give a concrete definition for because exceptions always exist for games that are, despite lacking listed qualities, nevertheless called RPGs.

Still, even if you do manage to show that Mass Effect 3 is less of an RPG than, say, BG2, you still have yet to show that this streamlining of RPG elements doesn't make for a better game. Just because something is more of an RPG doesn't make it a better game.

[Dark_Caduceus]

ZeCollectorDestroya wrote...

What the OP is trying to say is that ME1 had more freedom. ME3 doesn't.

ME1 = Story and atmosphere.
ME2 = Best of both.
ME3 = Combat-geared, the CoD of the trilogy.

A good story... with almost no plot progression(or actual plot at all)? Where retcons are implemented for no reason but convenience or to include silly gameplay/cinematic sequences? I think not.

I'm not sure why people raise ME2 on a pedestal relative to ME1 and ME3; maybe because it was highly character focused and they did away with explanations for the lore and basically just went with "rule of cool"?

What seems to be ignored is the fact that ME3 is a natural outgrowth from ME2; you can't retcon/ignore/damage the established lore while not progressing the story in a meanginful way and expect the final chapter to be satisfying; especially when they wanted ME3 to be a "jumping in" point of the narrative.

[thefallen2far]

Why do people complain about it? I'm thinking because they didn't enjoy it. if they enjoyed it, they'd probably compliment it. I know that's outside of the box thinking, but I'm going there. As for"play something else", who's still playing it? In fact this is the spoiler free area, so I was under the impression everyone who comes here played it... possibly months ago. If you're playing multiplayer there's a different section for that. I wouldn't imagine it would take 10 months to play a game. It was finished a long time ago. We're just talking about it now.

Maybe the board should be split between "I liked it" and "it was a disappointment" sections to have less arguement.

Anyway, there are 3 different RPG directions, open word where you explore the world, customization where you control the the character levels/fightingstyle/story or you control the battles.

Open world.... no there wasn't any. That's just the way of it.
Character customization, no...that wasn't really a concern either. You have different character powers, but most games have that. Mario Bros. 2 was a platformer and each character had different powers, fighting games have different powers, but cutomization and team builds, there wasn't any of that.... or vitality or power bonuses.
Story? There was some, and most agree it was the best part of the game, but most of it was adventure game with linear storyteling. [It was also a reallybad story to boot.]

[twystedspyder]

ME1 wasn't perfect. It certainly needed to be improved upon as we all expected it would be. But instead, the entire gameplay concept of a multi-award winning and much loved game was scrapped for its sequals.

Explorable planet environments weren't big or diverse enough? Don't make better, bigger, more exciting places to explore. Why not just toss out the whole concept and instead just have a bunch of tiny little areas to run around and shoot in?

Vehicle was tough for some people to control in certain environments? Don't refine the mechanics or improve upon level design. Get rid of the idea completely (OK, the Hammerhead, but that was cutting room floor stuff).

Inventory management was a pain? Don't fix it by improving the interface and allowing multiple copies of items to stack, just make a game where you don't have an inventory at all.

So much that was great about Mass Effect 1 was simply abandoned. It had ground breaking ideas that were all just dumped for the sequals.

Now, again. I personally feel that ME2 was a good game. Heck, a great game. It deserves every ounce of praise that it gets. The way they tackled the idea of exploring the galaxy actually worked for me(previous tiny environment comment notwithstanding). Shooty cover based gameplay was fun. I liked the way powers worked(except for the Infiltrator - admitted personal bias). There were even some aspects of the game that DID take concepts from ME1 and improved or added to them: Hacking minigames and Paragon/Renegade interrupts during dialogue being the two that come to mind. Taken on its own and not as a sequal, I have no real complaints. It works and it works well. When you compare it to the ambitious scope of the first game however, it clearly comes of as an inferior vision. Not necessarily bad at all in its own right, but certainly not the expected step forward. It was actualy a step sideways. A complete reimagining of gameplay that wasn't necessary at all.

.... Unless you're trying to bring in a whole new demographic. Which they were. Which they did. Welcome. The rest of us are bitter.

[SimonTheFrog]

Indeed.

It doesn't matter if ME3 is RPG or not. All that matters is if the majority of the players and whoever posts here individually liked the game and the direction the franchise took or not.
RPG is just a stupid label that causes more confusion than is helpful.

What I can sense from going through the posts is that a quite significant amount of people posting here are not happy with the direction that the franchise took.

That is basically all there is to say about this.
So, there you go.

[archangel1996]

The sad thing? My friends who are not RPG/dialogue fans didn't even complete the game....because there were too much dialogues!!!
They tried to get the CoD/BF-shooter fans, and they got a minority who didn't even beta the game once, and in the while they succeded to ****** off a majority of the loyal ones....and yes, the truth hurst, it really really does, but don't worry, you can think that we are just a vocal minority
Haters gonna hate

Modifié par archangel1996, 16 janvier 2013 - 05:23 .

[CronoDragoon]

archangel1996 wrote...
....and yes, the truth hurst, it really really does, but don't worry, you can think that we are just a vocal minority
Haters gonna hate

I await your link to the poll that first establishes an objective definition of "loyal fan" and then polls all of them to show majority/minority opinions.

No one can make claims to minority/majority no matter their opinion of the ending.

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

archangel1996 wrote...
....and yes, the truth hurst, it really really does, but don't worry, you can think that we are just a vocal minority
Haters gonna hate

I await your link to the poll that first establishes an objective definition of "loyal fan" and then polls all of them to show majority/minority opinions.

No one can make claims to minority/majority no matter their opinion of the ending.

It's not a claim to be the majority, it's refutation claim by others that we are the "vocal minority"  Because you're right, no one can truly accurately claim to be the majority.

[nevar00]

I agree. The lack of dialogue wheel, decisions not mattering much either way, no real side quests and whatnot not only hurt the game but replayability. I honestly have played the game once and couldn't get through another playthrough. It's just all too similar... which isn't necessarily bad but when the gameplay itself (in this case shooting) isn't nearly as fun as it is in other games I feel as if I'm not of reasons to replay.

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...
It's not a claim to be the majority, it's refutation claim by others that we are the "vocal minority"  Because you're right, no one can truly accurately claim to be the majority.

They tried to get the CoD/BF-shooter fans, and they got a minority who
didn't even beta the game once, and in the while they succeded to ******
off a majority of the loyal ones....and yes, the truth hurst, it really
really does, but don't worry, you can think that we are just a vocal
minority

That's what I was responding to.

[archangel1996]

CronoDragoon wrote...

archangel1996 wrote...
....and yes, the truth hurst, it really really does, but don't worry, you can think that we are just a vocal minority
Haters gonna hate

I await your link to the poll that first establishes an objective definition of "loyal fan" and then polls all of them to show majority/minority opinions.

No one can make claims to minority/majority no matter their opinion of the ending.

Back in March? social.bioware.com/633606/polls/28989/, this is about the ending but to me the ending is the best example of lack of RPG
Go see youtube or other forums if you don't believe me, and i said a majority of the loyal fans because we are most likely are, this means that i think that there is a minority who is loyal too, but they liked ME3 or even the ending
Sorry if came out as rude, but i am a bit tired of the  vocal minority, silent majority crap

Modifié par archangel1996, 16 janvier 2013 - 05:59 .

[Yate]

if you want to say ME3 isn't a real RPG, I could see that argument

but it's not a decline

RPG doesn't mean the same thing it did back then, which is good

ME3 pushes the boundaries - it's an experiment

whether it failed or not is up to you

but kudos to bioware for not making the same game over and over again either way

[KrazyKiko]

twystedspyder wrote...

ME1 wasn't perfect. It certainly needed to be improved upon as we all expected it would be. But instead, the entire gameplay concept of a multi-award winning and much loved game was scrapped for its sequals.

Explorable planet environments weren't big or diverse enough? Don't make better, bigger, more exciting places to explore. Why not just toss out the whole concept and instead just have a bunch of tiny little areas to run around and shoot in?

Vehicle was tough for some people to control in certain environments? Don't refine the mechanics or improve upon level design. Get rid of the idea completely (OK, the Hammerhead, but that was cutting room floor stuff).

Inventory management was a pain? Don't fix it by improving the interface and allowing multiple copies of items to stack, just make a game where you don't have an inventory at all.

So much that was great about Mass Effect 1 was simply abandoned. It had ground breaking ideas that were all just dumped for the sequals. 

@Twystedspyder: Well said...I found myself agreeing whole heartedly.  The departure away from these key details/aspects of the original's gameplay irritated me greatly, despite my enjoyment playing the series.

Don't forget the elevelators.  Many complaints about how they took too long, etc.  Rather than taking steps to improve load times, they simply abandoned them in favor of the "traditional" Loading screen guised like a schematic of the Normandy or a simmering coffee cup.  I for one enjoyed them especially when I could listen to the announcements, or hear the NPC squadmates discuss specific topics.   A "slight" return in ME3 was a nice touch.

[archangel1996]

Yeah, BW is snyonym of pioneers

Modifié par archangel1996, 16 janvier 2013 - 06:03 .

[Xamufam]

Chris Priestly wrote...

I have worked on every game we've made since the end of Baldur's Gate Throne of Bhaal. EVERY time we make a game, someone complains it isn't as "RPG" as the one previously. NwN wasn't BG, KotOR wasn't NwN, Jade wasn't KotOR, ME wasn't Jade, etc.

RPG is not static, RPG changes and evolves. Fallout 3 is not the same game as Fallout. Dragon Age: Origins is not the same game as Baldur's Gate. There is no hard, set rule as to what an RPG must be (beyond letting you play a role and it being a game, I suppose) or contain. That "YOU" (whoever you is) enjoys XYZ features and "THEY" liek ABC features does not mean that a game that does or does not include those features is any more or less an RPG. Yes, it absolutely may be less of an RPG in the mind of someone who wants ABC features, but gets XYZ features, but that does not change the inherant RPGness of the game.

Now we're arguing about "art" (as a methapor, stick with me here). Is the Mona Lisa art? Sure, it's awesome, historic, beautiful, etc. Is Warhol's Soup art? No! It's simple, childish, ugly, etc. This is the mind of the person perceiving it. They are both art, just different art. BG2 is an RPG, so is ME3. They are different, but they are also the same.

Inside it, what the author relates is 'true': it
accords with the laws of that world. You therefore believe it, while
you are, as it were, inside. The moment disbelief arises, the spell is
broken; the magic, or rather art, has failed. You are then out in the
Primary World again, looking at the little abortive Secondary World from
outside. *

*J.R.R. Tolkien, "On Fairy-Stories" in Tree and Leaf, (London, 1964, 2001) p.37

Modifié par Troxa, 16 janvier 2013 - 06:05 .

[vonSlash]

Chris Priestly wrote...

I have worked on every game we've made since the end of Baldur's Gate Throne of Bhaal. EVERY time we make a game, someone complains it isn't as "RPG" as the one previously. NwN wasn't BG, KotOR wasn't NwN, Jade wasn't KotOR, ME wasn't Jade, etc.

RPG is not static, RPG changes and evolves. Fallout 3 is not the same game as Fallout. Dragon Age: Origins is not the same game as Baldur's Gate. There is no hard, set rule as to what an RPG must be (beyond letting you play a role and it being a game, I suppose) or contain. That "YOU" (whoever you is) enjoys XYZ features and "THEY" liek ABC features does not mean that a game that does or does not include those features is any more or less an RPG. Yes, it absolutely may be less of an RPG in the mind of someone who wants ABC features, but gets XYZ features, but that does not change the inherant RPGness of the game.

Now we're arguing about "art" (as a methapor, stick with me here). Is the Mona Lisa art? Sure, it's awesome, historic, beautiful, etc. Is Warhol's Soup art? No! It's simple, childish, ugly, etc. This is the mind of the person perceiving it. They are both art, just different art. BG2 is an RPG, so is ME3. They are different, but they are also the same.

Priestly is right about how RPGs evolve, and most of the changes we've seen in Bioware games over the years were, in fact, refinements or improvements rather than needless reductionsin "necessary" features. In fact, the only unequivocally negative change in Bioware games has been the increasing efforts to extort additional money from players through microtransactions and "optional" content, and that can be traced to pressure from EA executives rather than Bioware's developers themselves. Therefore, we shouldn't waste time blaming the developers when they've spent most of their time trying to ensure that the RPGs they sell us remain interesting and up-to-date.

[Sanunes]

vonSlash wrote...
Priestly is right about how RPGs evolve, and most of the changes we've seen in Bioware games over the years were, in fact, refinements or improvements rather than needless reductionsin "necessary" features. In fact, the only unequivocally negative change in Bioware games has been the increasing efforts to extort additional money from players through microtransactions and "optional" content, and that can be traced to pressure from EA executives rather than Bioware's developers themselves. Therefore, we shouldn't waste time blaming the developers when they've spent most of their time trying to ensure that the RPGs they sell us remain interesting and up-to-date.

As far as the "extorting" that is very common among all game companies right now, heck BioWare has been doing that since Baulder's Gate with expansions, for all the story DLC included in Mass Effect 2 (Genesis, Arrival, Shadow Broker, Overlord, and Kasumi) cost $35, but the last expansion BioWare released Dragon Age: Awakenings cost $40.  From my experience I got just about the same amount of playtime out of both.

[twystedspyder]

KrazyKiko wrote...

Don't forget the elevelators.  Many complaints about how they took too long, etc.  Rather than taking steps to improve load times, they simply abandoned them in favor of the "traditional" Loading screen guised like a schematic of the Normandy or a simmering coffee cup.  I for one enjoyed them especially when I could listen to the announcements, or hear the NPC squadmates discuss specific topics.   A "slight" return in ME3 was a nice touch.

Ah.  True.

I also never minded the elevators.  I really didn't.  I thought the whole concept was an innovative way to hide load times, which I'm sure Bioware did as well.

But loading screens aren't ever on the top of my list of issues.  I apparently have a high tolerance for them. 
I played through the entirity of Rune:  Viking Warlord on PS2 and I quite literally would read an entire chapter of a book in the time it took to load a new area.

[Zekka]

twystedspyder wrote...

ME1 wasn't perfect. It certainly needed to be improved upon as we all expected it would be. But instead, the entire gameplay concept of a multi-award winning and much loved game was scrapped for its sequals.

Explorable planet environments weren't big or diverse enough? Don't make better, bigger, more exciting places to explore. Why not just toss out the whole concept and instead just have a bunch of tiny little areas to run around and shoot in?

Vehicle was tough for some people to control in certain environments? Don't refine the mechanics or improve upon level design. Get rid of the idea completely (OK, the Hammerhead, but that was cutting room floor stuff).

Inventory management was a pain? Don't fix it by improving the interface and allowing multiple copies of items to stack, just make a game where you don't have an inventory at all.

So much that was great about Mass Effect 1 was simply abandoned. It had ground breaking ideas that were all just dumped for the sequals.

This is where Bioware went wrong and this is why people think ME1 was the best Mass Effect game, all the potential that the game had Bioware just threw it away. What if Bioware did something smart and improved all these parts of the game? A mass Effect game that did all these things right would have been on of the best games ever.

[David7204]

Are you freaking kidding me? Having an inventory is a "ground breaking idea"? Having vehicles to drive is a "ground breaking idea"?

That is just monumentally stupid.

No, stuff like the dialogue interrupts, (not present in ME 1) is where the ground breaking ideas come in.

[Grubas]

David7204 wrote...

Are you freaking kidding me? Having an inventory is a "ground breaking idea"? Having vehicles to drive is a "ground breaking idea"?

That is just monumentally stupid.

No, stuff like the dialogue interrupts, (not present in ME 1) is where the ground breaking ideas come in.

Who needs inventory in ME3? All collectable objects (namely weapons and upgrades) can aswell be organised old id-software-shooter style. 

Also we have a vehicle section in ME3. On Rannoch.

Also dialogue interrupts are infact an idea from ME1, only cut because of time constraint. Succesfully introduced in ME2. Did ME3 add anything to it? ANYTHING?

Modifié par Grubas, 16 janvier 2013 - 09:56 .

[twystedspyder]

David7204 wrote...

Are you freaking kidding me? Having an inventory is a "ground breaking idea"? Having vehicles to drive is a "ground breaking idea"?

That is just monumentally stupid.

No, stuff like the dialogue interrupts, (not present in ME 1) is where the ground breaking ideas come in.

Context, friend.  Context.

No. Having an inventory wasn't groundbreaking.  Don't be silly.  But a game lore that supports weapons that are unique to the setting - Personal weapon systems fully customizable to the user's combat tactics along with effectively unlimmited ammo.  Yes, I'm going to say that was pretty groundbreaking.  For video game rpgs anyway.

The Maco drops?  Exploring solar systems, scanners finding something interesting on a planet, then actually getting out of your ship and exploring that area of the planet?  That's Star Trek level stuff there.  That's awesome.  Again, not perfect in execution, but with a ton of potential.  

ME2 didn't totally forget about this, but the implementation wasn't nearly as ambitious.  Still fun, just nothing exceptional and not nearly as immersive.  ME3 on the other hand?  Scan.  Fuel.  Scan.  War Asset.  Scan.  Run from Reaper icons.  No immersion.  No exploration.  Nothing interesting.  Just a minigame.

Dialogue interrupts weren't exactly groundbreaking in ME2 either.  In fact they were a planned part of the first game that they just couldn't implement in time as is shown in the early gameplay footage.  I already mentioned them as something cool that ME2 added, by the way.

[xeNNN]

I agree with almost everything you put forward, it has indeed declined substantially, and this *sigh* unfortunately is down to the way EA works, I mean look at the C&C franchise, when they pretty much destroyed westwood instead of keeping them on to continue the work they started they instead gutted the franchise in order to make money which from a business stand point makes sense but from a gaming stand point combined with a business stand point it was an extremely stupid thing to do, why gut the franchise when you can keep both the hardcore and casual fans happy?

the same im sad to say has happened here, though not in such a grim way thankfully, ME1 riddled with bugs awful from quite a few view points but the reason people loved it was because it was Literally a prime example of what an RPG should be, ME2 was a great game it had its problems not as bad as ME1 but it was a step in the right direction in terms of game play (the combat mechanics etc the carrying over of the previous part of the story etc), in terms of lore however it was a step in the wrong direction. Then we have ME3 which was a giant step in the wrong direction in everyway, quite frankly if i wanted to play a TPS(third person shooter) id hop on my xbox and play GOW, but that is indeed what it has become, with the removal of the core elements of what RPGs are all about, choices, exploring, tweaking your game & character and there personality and story to your own specs, which quite frankly every single one of those was bypassed for combat & a useless multiplayer which wasn't even needed (more than likely a EA idea impressed on the devs with EA having an alternative motive to just get tons more money out of the game).

yes you can call it an RPG if you want, but only by technicality now is it an RPG as 90% of the core elements have been removed in place for "fluent story telling" which is stupid seeing as you are supposed to decide how the story is told, its mass effect for christ sake. if anything it is now a hybrid RPGTPS, but more a TPS than an RPG.

I dont blame bioware at all, I blame EA and there horrific business mindset, yeah they are a business but destroying franchises to make money that millions across the world loved and enjoyed in there childhood and even in there adult life is pathetic and greedy, the president of EA or at least the ex prezzy now said he wanted to pretty much tax every customer for playing there games in an interview some years ago, that pretty much tells you how disgusting EA really are..

If they did the exact opposite they would be praised beyond belief, but no they'd rather forced devs to rush EVERYTHING just for a stupid deadline that can be changed. I feel sorry for any Dev working with the EA suits, it must be hell sometimes.

[David7204]

No. The Mako was driving around on recycled cookie cutter planets looking for rocks that contribute utterly nothing to the story. That is not fun. That is not groundbreaking. That is not awesome. That is nowhere even close to awesome. That is flat boring. The skies were nice, but the vistas and setpeices in ME 2 and ME 3 were far better. And if you don't like the scanning minigame in ME 3, you can easily complete it all in maybe...one hour, at most? Whereas picking up every artifact in ME 1 would take several hours at least.