587 réponses à ce sujet

[Killdren88]

clarkusdarkus wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Should we expect DA3 to be all automated and we can't even choose our specs or stats?

[RiouHotaru]

Chris' statement is 100% accurate. The term "RPG" is extremely modular. It's not a static genre like FPS, or hack-n-slash, or platformer.

And really, ME3 offered MORE than ME1 did, and even moreso than ME2 did. That this gets missed in favor of fixating and using tunnel vision on a few of it's subjectively negative aspects blows my mind. Did everyone forget:

- ME1's comparatively awful loot-wheel system by which weapons were all palette/model swaps of each other with the only actual difference being stats, often which only mattered in terms of numerical advantage?
- The skills, which were all a straight linear progression with the only difference between one skill level and the next being an increment of 1-2%, a progression that made any actual gameplay difference invisible to the player? Or the individual cooldowns which actively encouraged nothing but mass spam for any of the caster classes?
- The ridiculous number of mods, of which close to 75-85% of which were utterly useless or redundant past a certain level, at which point you simply stopped bothering to use them save a few specific combinations?
- The combat, where cover was sticky, obtuse, and often useless to the player. Where enemies that weren't Geth, Rachni, or Husks spammed Immunity and became bullet sponges which ruined any semblance of difficulty. Or the fact that Pistols were numerically and mechanically the best DPS in the game? Where the Infiltrator Commando was hands-down the best class period thanks to permanent Marksman and Immunity?
- A story where the beginning and middle were wonderfully paced and executed, but whose middle dragged on and on with a ridiculous plethora of sidequests that pretty much all boiled down to the same thing over and over again?

ME2 and ME3 are marked improvements, ending or no.

[MrStoob]

RPG means playing a role, taking that character and getting into their psyche. A bunch of skill trees and numbers are just progression of abilities, not motivations, which is what RPGs are supposed to be about.

As a dice and paper RPG player in my youth, there was no 'dialogue wheel', you had to decide what you were going to do based on your role and would be penalised if you didn't stay 'in character' for your decisions.

In ME1 and ME2, this was simplified to 'paragon' and 'renegade'. If you didn't evolve your Shepard along these defined routes, it became hard to have enough of either to be able to use them. Like a penalty almost for being wishy-washy in your character's motivations.

[twystedspyder]

Sigh.  Apologies for the long winded word vomit that follows.  This is one topic that I'm actually passionate about but I've skipped my coffee this morning.  *Edited for spacing issues.

"Decline" is harsh, at least when you apply the term to the "Game" part of Bioware's RPGs.
ME3 is pretty darn fun.  The combat is as slick a shooter as I've ever played and the customizable powers make it a helluva lot more fun than Gears of War.  So, "Decline" may not really be fair.  And I'm sure that many of Bioware's current fans are more than content with the level of customization and interaction they are presented with in games like ME3.

Even the term "Role Playing Game" is suspect and basically meaningless when talking about the video game market.  That term has been thrown around to describe all sorts of games that I wouldn't really consider RPGs in the traditional sense at all.

You can call a straight-up shooter like Halo a Role Playing Game, using its broad definition.  Players are taking the role of a character in a narrative and interacting with the imagined world.

The real point here is that Bioware's current string of RPGs are clearly moving away from the more traditional cooperative storytelling experience that their earlier video games were trying to emulate.  Either due to development time or a overall change of creative direction.  Deny it all they might, the PR campaign for ME3 and DA2 shows that they understand what a true RPG experience entails, and are perfectly willing to tease expectations in order to retain those existing players who know as well.  Though I think Dragon Age II sufferred more from what I feel was a forced and compressed development cycle paired with a narrative gimmick crafted to try and create the "feeling" of epic storytelling within the acknowledged limitations.  Also, I like Varric.

I personally am saddened to see Bioware making games that appear to be directed more towards the "lowest common denominator", though that descriptor is unnecasarily insulting in this instance.  A fun game is a fun game, after all.  It's even understandable when considering that they need to deliver a profitable product within a realistic timeframe that both appeals to existing fans and promotes growth of the brand name amongst new players.   They are turning from the admitedly more ambitious and outright difficult process of trying to create an experience that comes close to the level of epic interactive storytelling that the table top RPG potentially delivers.  However, if people keep buying the games they make, regardless of how much classic "RPG" elements remain, then I'm sure the trend will continue.  Whinging probably wont accomplish much. 

You've still got a brain, easy access to pencils, paper and a flat surface of some sort and an internets worth of like-minded people willing to get together personally or virtually to roll some dice for the sake of the galaxy.

It's worth nothing that in my opinion, a Gears of War/Dating Sim hybrid isn't technially a bad thing to have out there, either.

Modifié par twystedspyder, 14 janvier 2013 - 05:57 .

[Postman778]

Chris Priestly wrote...

[...]

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.

The different between ME3 and The Mona Lisa or Warhol´s Soup Art are the interactivity. We can watch upon the ML or the Soup, but we cannot alter it. We can discuss about the creators intention, the style, why he used that colour or what else.
Mass Effect was NOT announced as art, we can watch. It was announced as our story, we can create and not as Mr. Hudsons vision of Shepard we HAVE to watch.

[RionVasNormandy]

Still thinking that ME1 is superior to ME2 and ME3 in every department. Choices, loot, customization, combat system where did all that gone? Sad.

Still like the universe and story though.

[Fixers0]

RiouHotaru wrote...
- ME1's comparatively awful loot-wheel system by which weapons were all palette/model swaps of each other with the only actual difference being stats, often which only mattered in terms of numerical advantage?

Better guns have better stats, not seeing a problem here beyond the lack of visuals.

RiouHotaru wrote...
- The skills, which were all a straight linear progression with the only difference between one skill level and the next being an increment of 1-2%, a progression that made any actual gameplay difference invisible to the player? Or the individual cooldowns which actively encouraged nothing but mass spam for any of the caster classes?

That's actually better as it actually an incitement to carefull point distribution on the players side, rather then simplisic system of the later two games.

RiouHotaru wrote...
- The ridiculous number of mods, of which close to 75-85% of which were utterly useless or redundant past a certain level, at which point you simply stopped bothering to use them save a few specific combinations?

They're numbered for a reason you know.

RiouHotaru wrote...
- The combat, where cover was sticky, obtuse, and often useless to the player. Where enemies that weren't Geth, Rachni, or Husks spammed Immunity and became bullet sponges which ruined any semblance of difficulty. Or the fact that Pistols were numerically and mechanically the best DPS in the game? Where the Infiltrator Commando was hands-down the best class period thanks to permanent Marksman and Immunity?

That's an issue of poor tactics on your side, and general balace on Bioware's sides not of the system, which was endlessy more dynamic then what happens in Mass Effect 2 and even more then Mass Effect 3.

RiouHotaru wrote...
- A story where the beginning and middle were wonderfully paced and executed, but whose middle dragged on and on with a ridiculous plethora of sidequests that pretty much all boiled down to the same thing over and over again?

I don't get this, what is the middle supposed to be?

Modifié par Fixers0, 14 janvier 2013 - 06:09 .

[draconian139]

Obitim wrote...


The skills that are used are shooter skills, whereas I;ve always thought that the RPG is based on the skills that your character has or has developed through the course of the game, hence in ME 1 a soldier could decide to focus on different firearms or armour, or an infiltrator could be more technical or more of an assassin, ME2 and ME 3 don't give you those options.

Well my Shepard says different.  I rarely fire my weapon at all, biotic explosions ftw.

[deatharmonic]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Chris' statement is 100% accurate. The term "RPG" is extremely modular. It's not a static genre like FPS, or hack-n-slash, or platformer.

And really, ME3 offered MORE than ME1 did, and even moreso than ME2 did. That this gets missed in favor of fixating and using tunnel vision on a few of it's subjectively negative aspects blows my mind. Did everyone forget:

- ME1's comparatively awful loot-wheel system by which weapons were all palette/model swaps of each other with the only actual difference being stats, often which only mattered in terms of numerical advantage?
- The skills, which were all a straight linear progression with the only difference between one skill level and the next being an increment of 1-2%, a progression that made any actual gameplay difference invisible to the player? Or the individual cooldowns which actively encouraged nothing but mass spam for any of the caster classes?
- The ridiculous number of mods, of which close to 75-85% of which were utterly useless or redundant past a certain level, at which point you simply stopped bothering to use them save a few specific combinations?
- The combat, where cover was sticky, obtuse, and often useless to the player. Where enemies that weren't Geth, Rachni, or Husks spammed Immunity and became bullet sponges which ruined any semblance of difficulty. Or the fact that Pistols were numerically and mechanically the best DPS in the game? Where the Infiltrator Commando was hands-down the best class period thanks to permanent Marksman and Immunity?
- A story where the beginning and middle were wonderfully paced and executed, but whose middle dragged on and on with a ridiculous plethora of sidequests that pretty much all boiled down to the same thing over and over again?

ME2 and ME3 are marked improvements, ending or no.

ME3 offered more in terms of what? All the things you listed don't particularly make a game an rpg, a lot of those infact can be found in fps's and hack 'n slashes. when I think of an rpg I think: To what extent does this game give me the power to role play? Thats arguably the most important dynamic, To what degree can you play the role of the character you want to?

ME1 gave you a decent amount of agency, in ME2 the integration of interrupts added a good dynamic to build on the agency of ME1, dispite the stripping of other elements. Now ME3, The interrupts were reduced (I think?) and the autodialogue further restricted maneuverability.

[sharkboy421]

stonbw1 wrote...

sharkboy421 wrote...

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?

Yes I was quite pleased in ME2 I could be a complete ass to TIM every time we talked and make it clear I hated him.  Would I have prefered the ability to tell him to ****** off and go back to the Alliance right away? I definitely would have but I get that there have to be some limitations.  Even if its an illusion and just clever presentation, that is important in a game. 

For instances, at the end of The Witcher 2 (spoilers here), in Chapter 3 you have a major choice of do you help Roche or Iorveth (who ever you sided with in Chp 1) or do you go save Triss?  Well which ever one I don't pick the other thing still happens.  If I save Triss, Roche still resuces Anais only Dethmolt gets away.  But If I help Roche then someone else still resuces Triss.

For me, Mass Effect always had a pretty set overall story arc that you could could flavor with your own personal touches.  And that is fine by me; I really loved how it worked in ME1 and 2.  In 3 something just felt off.  Its a bit harder for me to pin down as the auto-dialogue was very close to how I imagined my Shepard responding in most cases.  However, I still think I'd rather pick my own response even if it ends up being the same thing as what is already there.

I suppose I am just easy to please but I can accept that the storyline is going to have some fixed moments no matter what happens as long as you give me (or at least the illusion of) control over my character who can influence and impact the story in some meaningful manner. 

[AlanC9]

RiouHotaru wrote...

- ME1's comparatively awful loot-wheel system by which weapons were all palette/model swaps of each other with the only actual difference being stats, often which only mattered in terms of numerical advantage?
- The skills, which were all a straight linear progression with the only difference between one skill level and the next being an increment of 1-2%, a progression that made any actual gameplay difference invisible to the player? Or the individual cooldowns which actively encouraged nothing but mass spam for any of the caster classes?
- The ridiculous number of mods, of which close to 75-85% of which were utterly useless or redundant past a certain level, at which point you simply stopped bothering to use them save a few specific combinations?
- The combat, where cover was sticky, obtuse, and often useless to the player. Where enemies that weren't Geth, Rachni, or Husks spammed Immunity and became bullet sponges which ruined any semblance of difficulty. Or the fact that Pistols were numerically and mechanically the best DPS in the game? Where the Infiltrator Commando was hands-down the best class period thanks to permanent Marksman and Immunity?
- A story where the beginning and middle were wonderfully paced and executed, but whose middle dragged on and on with a ridiculous plethora of sidequests that pretty much all boiled down to the same thing over and over again?

I'll back pretty much all of this, except that my main problem with ME1's plot was the huge plot holes rather than the pacing.

Note that I never liked loot-focused RPG gameplay in the first place. I consider D&D to have been a pretty bad RPG system; I play D&D because of Bioware, not the other way around

Modifié par AlanC9, 14 janvier 2013 - 06:39 .

[Renmiri1]

I thought Baldur's Gate was nothing special and BG2 has been languishing in my shelf every since i got it for $5 at the discount bin. Never played KOTOR, Jade Empire...

My first BW game was ME2, this last year, I bought ME3 and Me2 together.

I like Me2 so much that I bought every dLC and ME1.. then was foolish enough to try ME3. Now can't even look at the cases.

[RiouHotaru]

Fixers0 wrote...

Better guns have better stats, not seeing a problem here beyond the lack of visuals.

The fact that the guns basically all acted the same.  A gun with a 3-point difference (positive or negative) in it's firing rate was a difference that while mechanically was different (because the game calculates mathematically that yes, this gun IS firing faster or slower) it's a difference that's so subtle as to be invisible to the player.  The only the player would notice a visible difference is when the stat difference was 15-20+ points.

That's actually better as it actually an incitement to carefull point distribution on the players side, rather then simplisic system of the later two games.

I disagree, even in ME2, it was possible for two people with the same powers to have different builds based on the evolution choices of those powers, even if the number of different builds was small due to only having 2 evolutions per power, but it's still greater than ME1 where progression was strictly linear.  ME3 added MORE builds by having virtually ever power past rank 3 have a series of different upgrade selections

They're numbered for a reason you know.

That doesn't invalidate my point.  It was Diablo 2's Runestone system all over again.  A huge number of options of which the vast majority were pointless or useless.

That's an issue of poor tactics on your side, and general balace on Bioware's sides not of the system, which was endlessy more dynamic then what happens in Mass Effect 2 and even more then Mass Effect 3.

No it's not.  Ask anyone who's played ME1 on Hardcore or Insanity and you'll hear about how much of a chore it was thanks to Immunity spam.  And really, the combat was FAR more dynamic in 2, and then improved further in 3.  Tactics actually MEAN something in 3.

I don't get this, what is the middle supposed to be?

Everything after becoming a Spectre and before Ilos is the "middle"

[Loreshield]

EDIT: Nevermind.

Modifié par Loreshield, 14 janvier 2013 - 06:49 .

[Someone With Mass]

RiouHotaru wrote...

No it's not.  Ask anyone who's played ME1 on Hardcore or Insanity and you'll hear about how much of a chore it was thanks to Immunity spam.  And really, the combat was FAR more dynamic in 2, and then improved further in 3.  Tactics actually MEAN something in 3.

Oh god, so much this.

I f**king hated playing ME1 on Insanity because of the ridiculous regeneration rates.

[Meltemph]

I dont think it is much of a stretch to say that Bioware is focusing on other genre's, more so then the RPG elements in their games, at least as much as RPG's... But that inst really a bad thing in terms of what it is. However, to call ME3 a RPG in the same vein as something similar to DA:O or BG, well no.

That all said, ME is the best gameplay(in terms of quality) that BW has ever put together, imo. This to me says that Bioware isnt as good with RPG combat mechanics near as much as Third Person/Action Mechanics. So maybe they should switch focus on genres?

[crimzontearz]

People complained that the NWOD was not as complex as the OWOD in its systems....which was silly but as Chris said it always happens

Yet I do agree some RPG depth was needlessly stripped from ME 2 and only PARTLY reintroduced in ME 3 albeit not in the same form as we saw it before

It is also to be noted DA2 went at the whole "streamlining" deal VERY heavy handedly

[Mogsam_]

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.

No one wants to talk about art. Art shouldn't live on this forum or relating to anything ME related. Even metaphors. I think this forum has had enough of that word. You should use metaphors about puppies. People might take it more seriously than the word art.

ME3 is every bit an RPG as ME1 - it was just a worse game. The difference? Appearence and expectation. ME1 had several events in it that looked like they were going to pay off in the long run. Rachni! Wow! They'll come back and help or hinder. Council! Same. But they didn't. Infact in ME3 we barely saw any of the allies we spent the entire first two games collecting in action. So it makes it seem less like an RPG.

Yeah, you saved the Rachni queen, let the council die and killed the Geth. Have this visual of the allied fleets in the massive climax of your 100 hours. We cut out the one of the geth and put some Quarians in but it's what you achieved. Nah it's not totally different if you change everyhing next time.

ME1 might not have had more choices mechanically, but they were better and had longer lasting effect on the players expectation.

If RPG's are going to stop showing the consequences of the games choices then I think I might go find a new game to like. If even Final Fantasy can manage decent displays of consequences these days and a reliable company like Bioware can't...

[Gixxer6Rdr]

OP is spot-on, soap box speakers are just that, BioWare has taken a sharp decline since KoTOR. In fact, they've gone from my must buy, to 'I'll wait and see.'

That is quite a decline because I will never buy a new BioWare game. And the company's behavior and comments have only served to reinforce my opinion. *shrug* in the long run it will be their loss not mine.

[wright1978]

Bioware's RPG's have always changed and change doesn't have to be bad. I do worry though that the core of what has been at the appeal of Bioware games for me from BG2 through to and including ME2 is being eroded. Developments like the stripping down and out of the dialogue wheel, large amounts of characterising auto-dialogue etc coinciding with the ability to play the game without most of the dialogue choice(action mode) worries me. Feels like they are chasing an ever wider demographic and you can't straddle 2 horses going in different directions, something has to give.

[archangel1996]

Mogsam_ wrote...
No one wants to talk about art. Art shouldn't live on this forum or relating to anything ME related. Even metaphors. I think this forum has had enough of that word. You should use metaphors about puppies. People might take it more seriously than the word art.

ME3 is every bit an RPG as ME1 - it was just a worse game. The difference? Appearence and expectation. ME1 had several events in it that looked like they were going to pay off in the long run. Rachni! Wow! They'll come back and help or hinder. Council! Same. But they didn't. Infact in ME3 we barely saw any of the allies we spent the entire first two games collecting in action. So it makes it seem less like an RPG.

Yeah, you saved the Rachni queen, let the council die and killed the Geth. Have this visual of the allied fleets in the massive climax of your 100 hours. We cut out the one of the geth and put some Quarians in but it's what you achieved. Nah it's not totally different if you change everyhing next time.

ME1 might not have had more choices mechanically, but they were better and had longer lasting effect on the players expectation.

If RPG's are going to stop showing the consequences of the games choices then I think I might go find a new game to like. If even Final Fantasy can manage decent displays of consequences these days and a reliable company like Bioware can't...

This....

[Mathias]

Someone With Mass wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

No it's not.  Ask anyone who's played ME1 on Hardcore or Insanity and you'll hear about how much of a chore it was thanks to Immunity spam.  And really, the combat was FAR more dynamic in 2, and then improved further in 3.  Tactics actually MEAN something in 3.

Oh god, so much this.

I f**king hated playing ME1 on Insanity because of the ridiculous regeneration rates.

Not to be rude but i have to really disagree with the both of you on this. ME1 was way more tactical than ME3, and I honestly don't know how you could think the other way.

I can blow through ME3, without my squaddies (if i could), on insanity difficulty. Why? Because ME3 is more TPS than it is an rpg. Your strategy on the battlefield is to get to cover and shoot. That's it. ME1 was more complicated than that if you played it on Insanity. If you had a tough time with it, it's honestly because it was your fault. You didn't use the proper equipments, powers, squaddies, etc to handle the situation properly. You had to actually make sure you were fairly prepped before going on a mission, and chose the right squadmates. I had a hard time on insanity in ME1, until i started using that thing called the brain, and started going into situations appropriately.



As for ME3 being an rpg, ME3 is NOT an rpg. It has RPG elements in it, but so does Far Cry 3, does that make FC3 an rpg? Not to mention Shepard was more streamlined in this game and we had more control taken away from him and in certain situations. ME3 is a Third Person Shooter with rpg elements. That's it.

Modifié par Mdoggy1214, 14 janvier 2013 - 07:13 .

[Shepard Drake Marston]

While i didn't find ME1's combat quite as clunky as I'd been lead to believe (being a PS3 user, I came to it after 2 and 3), it certainly improved in ME2 and further in ME3. Nor did I find it more strategy based than the later games, really. I think RiouHotaru has many valid points.

I like all three games, myself. I think all have a certain charm of their own, and various strengths (and weaknesses, admittedly).