587 réponses à ce sujet

[spirosz]

If it was really up to the player to decide how the story went, then wouldn't there be an option to join Cerberus, ignore the Alliance, go rogue like Saren?

Probably not.

[spirosz]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Notice all the games you asked if we remembered were all before EA bought Bioware. Secondly, ME3 was a huge step up in the customization department compared to ME2.

Say what you want about ME3, but ME2 is easily the worst when it comes to customization and RPG elements.

Well, personally, I found that ME2 Shepard was truly "My Shepard", ME3 threw him out the airlock. Though, the typical, pick your armor, inventory and RPG element thing is true, but I could care less about that stuff, personally .

[Iakus]

spirosz wrote...

But tha'ts the thing, it was never truly "a role playing" experience in the typical sense.  There were always going to be limitations and defined aspects of your character which you can't control or RP and it doesn't help that certain actions you took as a player, were muted by what Bioware had in mind, you know what I mean? 

Don't get me wrong, I had many Shepard's throughout the series, that I headcannoned a lot of different aspects that "define" them, but I realized going into ME2, Shepard was always going to be "Bioware's hero", not ours. There are too many limiations still in gaming, especially with the trilogy ambition in mind.  

Not buying that.  Not after DAO.  And certainly not after they repeatedly told us that our actions shape the story, that these are our Shepards and there was no canon. 

If you're going to claim these things, you after to acknowledge that players will want a voice in their characters.

[spirosz]

iakus wrote...

spirosz wrote...

But tha'ts the thing, it was never truly "a role playing" experience in the typical sense.  There were always going to be limitations and defined aspects of your character which you can't control or RP and it doesn't help that certain actions you took as a player, were muted by what Bioware had in mind, you know what I mean? 

Don't get me wrong, I had many Shepard's throughout the series, that I headcannoned a lot of different aspects that "define" them, but I realized going into ME2, Shepard was always going to be "Bioware's hero", not ours. There are too many limiations still in gaming, especially with the trilogy ambition in mind.  

Not buying that.  Not after DAO.  And certainly not after they repeatedly told us that our actions shape the story, that these are our Shepards and there was no canon. 

If you're going to claim these things, you after to acknowledge that players will want a voice in their characters.

I think the first mistake is taking their PR to heart.  It worked though, right?  We bought the trilogy and I don't regret it, but look back at the PR for ME1 and look at how we're doing today, haha. 

Also, what do you mean about Dragon Age? 

Modifié par spirosz, 14 janvier 2013 - 04:55 .

[Chris Priestly]

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.

[archangel1996]

My Shepard is a rude son of a **** who gets mad with mercs and batarians quite easily but who cares about his people, in ME3 a Shep like mine can be a goodie goodie, let's cry about a children on garrus/Liara/everyone whenever i can or a ruthless son of a **** who kills his friends...good
Can't care less about armor and weapons, i care about the dialogues, they were supposed to be the centre of everything in ME3, i don't play the Citadel level on ME1 for killing the geth, i play it to talk with Saren, same with Virmire and Sovereign/Saren, i don't play the Garrus' loyalty mission in both ME1-2 to kill random people, i do them to confont with Sidonis/Saleon/Harkin
Sure combat is funny, but it wasn't supposed to be the centre of everything
So, yes ME3 is a RPG, but it's a bad one

[LucasShark]

From where I sit as an RPG player the progression is pretty clear:

ME1 and Dragonage Origins: RPGs
ME2: RPG TPS hybrid, leaning on the shooter side
Dragonage 2: Lipservice RPG
ME3: Third person shooter with RPG elements here and there

[SimonTheFrog]

"ABC features" is a bit of a volatile expression here in BSN...

[sharkboy421]

spirosz wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

Notice all the games you asked if we remembered were all before EA bought Bioware. Secondly, ME3 was a huge step up in the customization department compared to ME2.

Say what you want about ME3, but ME2 is easily the worst when it comes to customization and RPG elements.

Well, personally, I found that ME2 Shepard was truly "My Shepard", ME3 threw him out the airlock. Though, the typical, pick your armor, inventory and RPG element thing is true, but I could care less about that stuff, personally .

I agree completely spirosz.  In ME2 Shepard was still the character I created.  And as you said the other typical, inventory, weapons, armor stuff is very meh to me.  If I had to pick between one or the other, I'll gladly take ME2's bare bones customizations if it means I get to have a large degree of control over my character and her actions and responses.

[spirosz]

sharkboy421 wrote...

spirosz wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

Notice all the games you asked if we remembered were all before EA bought Bioware. Secondly, ME3 was a huge step up in the customization department compared to ME2.

Say what you want about ME3, but ME2 is easily the worst when it comes to customization and RPG elements.

Well, personally, I found that ME2 Shepard was truly "My Shepard", ME3 threw him out the airlock. Though, the typical, pick your armor, inventory and RPG element thing is true, but I could care less about that stuff, personally .

I agree completely spirosz.  In ME2 Shepard was still the character I created.  And as you said the other typical, inventory, weapons, armor stuff is very meh to me.  If I had to pick between one or the other, I'll gladly take ME2's bare bones customizations if it means I get to have a large degree of control over my character and her actions and responses.

Same! 

[Iakus]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Notice all the games you asked if we remembered were all before EA bought Bioware. Secondly, ME3 was a huge step up in the customization department compared to ME2.

Say what you want about ME3, but ME2 is easily the worst when it comes to customization and RPG elements.

I don't disagree with anything you say here, but ME3 was still extremely lite on the customization area.  ME2 didn't exactly set a high bar.

What I wouldn't give just to put Ash in a real Alliance uniform...

[macrocarl]

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.

Luike +10

[archangel1996]

spirosz wrote...

sharkboy421 wrote...

spirosz wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

Notice all the games you asked if we remembered were all before EA bought Bioware. Secondly, ME3 was a huge step up in the customization department compared to ME2.

Say what you want about ME3, but ME2 is easily the worst when it comes to customization and RPG elements.

Well, personally, I found that ME2 Shepard was truly "My Shepard", ME3 threw him out the airlock. Though, the typical, pick your armor, inventory and RPG element thing is true, but I could care less about that stuff, personally .

I agree completely spirosz.  In ME2 Shepard was still the character I created.  And as you said the other typical, inventory, weapons, armor stuff is very meh to me.  If I had to pick between one or the other, I'll gladly take ME2's bare bones customizations if it means I get to have a large degree of control over my character and her actions and responses.

Same! 

Yep

[Iakus]

spirosz wrote...

I think the first mistake is taking their PR to heart.  It worked though, right?  We bought the trilogy and I don't regret it, but look back at the PR for ME1 and look at how we're doing today, haha. 

Also, what do you mean about Dragon Age? 

Dragon Age allowed a great deal of customization, in class builds, in appearance, in personality, and in ability to help/screw over other people. 

The Mass Effect series promised even more than that, to have this stuff all carry over across an entire trilogy.  But by Me3 we're reduced to "Nice" and "Mean" dialogue options.  One or two per conversation.

Modifié par iakus, 14 janvier 2013 - 05:12 .

[spirosz]

Well, that's my point - don't take everything they say to heart. I've limited my expectations greatly for their next game and I'm waiting to see how fans take it, before I consider anything.

[Iakus]

spirosz wrote...

Well, that's my point - don't take everything they say to heart. I've limited my expectations greatly for their next game and I'm waiting to see how fans take it, before I consider anything.

My point is up until the last couple of years I could take what they said to heart.  Now I have to be much more cautious.  It really hurts to have your trust taken advantage of like that.

[Kel Riever]

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.

Total copout. 

If you want to say rpgs are different but there are some common traits associated with each, inside of which not all are the same, fine.  But you mutate a game enough, and eventually, it isn't an rpg by anyone's definition anymore.  I'll still give ME3 credit for trying to be inside the borders of being a video rpg, but if you take fan feedback in any way seriously, there are enough people complaining about it not being one that you can bet it is heading to the 'sidelines' on whatever those common traits are.

Modifié par Kel Riever, 14 janvier 2013 - 05:16 .

[shepskisaac]

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.

Action adventure games (GTA, Assassin's Creed, Batman Arkham series) has become more and more complex in the past generations, offering more and more tools, systems, freedom, mechanics and gameplay oppurtunities for players to have fun with and customize their experience. Meanwhile, ME2 removed the majority of gameplay systems & customization from ME1, which only partially got fixed in ME3. The fact that RPG genre evolves, as does every other gaming genre, does not really justify making games simplier.

[spirosz]

iakus wrote...

spirosz wrote...

Well, that's my point - don't take everything they say to heart. I've limited my expectations greatly for their next game and I'm waiting to see how fans take it, before I consider anything.

My point is up until the last couple of years I could take what they said to heart.  Now I have to be much more cautious.  It really hurts to have your trust taken advantage of like that.

I know how you feel.  It's actually changed the way I view purchasing future games now.  

[stonbw1]

sharkboy421 wrote...

spirosz wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

Notice all the games you asked if we remembered were all before EA bought Bioware. Secondly, ME3 was a huge step up in the customization department compared to ME2.

Say what you want about ME3, but ME2 is easily the worst when it comes to customization and RPG elements.

Well, personally, I found that ME2 Shepard was truly "My Shepard", ME3 threw him out the airlock. Though, the typical, pick your armor, inventory and RPG element thing is true, but I could care less about that stuff, personally .

I agree completely spirosz.  In ME2 Shepard was still the character I created.  And as you said the other typical, inventory, weapons, armor stuff is very meh to me.  If I had to pick between one or the other, I'll gladly take ME2's bare bones customizations if it means I get to have a large degree of control over my character and her actions and responses.

Question: if that control doesn't translate to consequences/different results/etc... what good is control?  For instance, were you satisfied that you could choose dialogue that effects para/rene, but that para/rene really didn't mean anything in ME2?

[HolyAvenger]

Paulomedi wrote...

I would buy it.  Imagine a game with ME1 feel, ME2 dialogue and "coolness", and ME3 combat system? It would be costly, It would be lenghty, but I would buy without thinking.

Not enough people would to make it profitable, unfortunately.

[dreamgazer]

HolyAvenger wrote...

Paulomedi wrote...

I would buy it.  Imagine a game with ME1 feel, ME2 dialogue and "coolness", and ME3 combat system? It would be costly, It would be lenghty, but I would buy without thinking.

 

Not enough people would to make it profitable, unfortunately.

Ay, there's the rub.

[clarkusdarkus]

Seboist wrote...

[Kel Riever]

brilliant Seboist. It really says it all. Nicely done.

Modifié par Kel Riever, 14 janvier 2013 - 05:42 .