587 réponses à ce sujet

[Obitim]

RedCaesar97 wrote...


Do you remember when Bioware first started out and the level of RPG they created? No.

Who remembers Baldurs Gate and BG 2? Never played them. - try them

Who played through Neverwinter Nights with a variety of character types? Never played it. - try it

Who remember Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic? Never played it. - Try it

Who blitzed through Jade Empire? Loved that game. I must have played it about a dozen times. thy the ones before, you may enjoy them!

Who remembers ME 1 and DA:O? I have played ME1 about 2 dozen times. Never played any Dragon Age games.

Who remembers when ME2 came out and thought the following:
 - Why can't I pick armour for Sheperd and my team? Never thought that for a moment.
 - Why are there so few weapons to pick up? Never thought that for a moment. Fewer weapons, but each weapon was unique and most were balanced and viable.
 - What happened to all those weapon mods I could add? So glad those were removed. -  I liked these, I was able to customise my weapons how I wanted, like ME3 I suppose!
 - How come I only have about 6 skills I can progress? in ME 1 there were at least twice that many. Twice as many skills in ME1, but only two builds per class. That ME1 skill tree was intimidating if you did not know what you were doing, and no way to reset or respec your skills. All builds end up looking the same.  - There's only 2 builds in ME3 and ME2...if you mean the class specialisations then thre were 2, but you could build a different character with those 12 skills...as mentioned before, do you want a soldier who can use pistold and shotguns?  or Assault Rifles and a sniper rifle?

Compare this to ME2 where you may have fewer skills, but you can evolve those skills to one of two evolutions. Also, with fewer skill points to spend than powers, you have more unique builds and playstyles. And you could respec your points to try out different builds and playstyles. The classes were more balanced and with the introduction of class-unique powers, it made each class feel unique. Compare that with ME1 where Infiltrator could be a better Soldier and/or Engineer, and Vanguard could be a better Adept.

The class unique powers were pretty good and I liked them but ME1 also had them, just that it was per clas, ie adept had a different skill set to engineer.


Who thought that ME3 would change these missteps when it was said customisation would be back? What missteps?

What happened to the dialogue wheel? It is still there. - But there is way too much autodialogue

Why can't I still upgrade the armour for my squad and instead only change the colour and about 2 maybe 3 bonus' that it gives? Because it still allows squadmates to maintain an individual personality than just "Squadmate in Colossus armor. - But less customisation...

Why can I no longer do a bit of exploration while stopping the reapers? (People say that the galaxy is at war but DA:O managed to accomplish this with the dark spawn?) Oh yes, please wait while I do some sightseeing while the Reapers destroy the entire galaxy. That is sarcasm.- this is not helpful, as I said, they managed it in DA:O

Why can't the multiplayer upgrades be included in the main game?  I'd love to do a couple of missions around earth (even if it's just defence or seek and destry like the current Mp maps). What upgrades are you talking about? The weapon mods have been introduced in the Leviathan and Omega DLCs. With DLC, the Single Player has more weapons. Only multiplayer has more powers, but they are hardly game-changing. But what about the extra maps, Rio and Vancouver/

I suppose the big question I'm asking is do you think that since EA has taken over this fine firm, has quality dipped for them?  Are we seeing corners being cut in order to hit a deadline?  Are the things which made the games from this firm unique being taken out and 'streamlined' in order to appeal to the COD/GOW crowd? No, No, and No. - Can you justify these? Not being snarky, just want to know how you can say that?

Mass Effect 2 is currently my favorite game of all time. Mass Effect 3 had a lot of unfulfilled potential, but for me it is for different reasons than for you. All companies have deadlines, some things must suffer for those deadlines. And oh yeah, the original release date for Mass Effect 3 was pushed back a few months to give it more completion time. - but do you think it was enough time for completion?

I feel that the last 'true' Bioware game that I played was DA:O.  ME2 was a great game, but it wasn't a game created by the Bioware that I grew up with.

I appreciate that companies have to change with the times in order to keep going, but there's plenty of demand for RPG's out there so wht did Bioware decide to create 3rd person shooters and hack and slash action RPG's? BioWare, and every other game company, cannot keep making the same games otherwise they become stale oever time. BioWare has continued to try to evolve their series and games to experiment and try new things. Sometimes those changes work out, sometimes they do not, but I like that BioWare has tried to continue to evolve their games instead of just Game B = Game ! reskinned.

Some good points, shame about the negativitiy and sarcasm you felt the need to use...

I don't have a problem with change, however, Bethesda managed to bring out a game with changes from Oblivion to Skyrim but didn't lose the core of th game as I feel has happened with the ME franchise.

Incidently you can see the evidence of the cut corners in autodialogue and the ingame cut scenes with incorrect weapons (Shepard definitely doesn;t carry and avenger round all game!)

[Dragoonlordz]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Seival wrote...

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.

I've been waiting for such official response for so long.

Thank you.

ME3 is indeed role playing game (just like ME1 and ME2). I don't really understand people who say otherwise.

Uh because it's not.

People have to at least agree that ME3 was more shooter than it was an RPG.

No videogame is or ever will be a pure RPG. An RPG (imho) as a genre is just a collection of elements that expand on your ability to customise your character or different ways to play your character(s). Those RPG elements are what people attribute to any game that has the word RPG attached and as such it is subjective the quantity of RPG elements that are acceptable to an individual to become classed by them as a RPG.

To me ME3 just like ME1 and ME2 is an RPG but it is first and foremost it is a third person shooter with RPG elements just like Dragon Age is first and foremost a 3rd person action (Sword and Spell) game with RPG elements. This is my definition of RPG. Others consider playing any role or character to be an RPG regardless of those elements I consider required to affix the RPG title to the description. That other idiology I do not agree with because in that description or definition every game is an RPG and therefore loses any defining differences between genres, making filtering between what to buy too random for my liking.

But all the same it is still subjective down to the individual to decide what is and what is not an RPG to them however in being subjective it means you cannot force others to follow the same rules as you do whether thats other fans or developers.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 14 janvier 2013 - 10:07 .

[Dr_Extrem]

i have to shake my head in disbelieve.

there are aktually people out there, who think that spending points on skills make a game a rpg.

rpgs are not about loot, talents or armor customisation - this is useful fluff. a rpg is about becoming part of a world, that reacts to you and you playing a role in the worlds advancement. it is about becoming a part of something bigger, by "slipping into the clothes" of your avatar and giving your avatar a certain personality.

it is about immersion.

[elitecom]

Obitim wrote...

Morning all,

Who remember Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic?

Who remembers ME 1?

Who remembers when ME2 came out and thought the following:
Why can't I pick armour for Sheperd and my team?
Why are there so few weapons to pick up?
What happened to all those weapon mods I could add?
How come I only have about 6 skills I can progress? in ME 1 there were at least twice that many.

Who thought that ME3 would change these missteps when it was said customisation would be back?
What happened to the dialogue wheel?
Why can't I still upgrade the armour for my squad and instead only change the colour and about 2 maybe 3 bonus' that it gives?
Why can I no longer do a bit of exploration while stopping the reapers? (People say that the galaxy is at war but DA:O managed to accomplish this with the dark spawn?)
Why can't the multiplayer upgrades be included in the main game?  I'd love to do a couple of missions around earth (even if it's just defence or seek and destry like the current Mp maps)

I suppose the big question I'm asking is do you think that since EA has taken over this fine firm, has quality dipped for them?  Are we seeing corners being cut in order to hit a deadline?  Are the things which made the games from this firm unique being taken out and 'streamlined' in order to appeal to the COD/GOW crowd?

ME2 was a great game, but it wasn't a game created by the Bioware that I grew up with.

I appreciate that companies have to change with the times in order to keep going, but there's plenty of demand for RPG's out there so wht did Bioware decide to create 3rd person shooters and hack and slash action RPG's?

I sure do remember Star Wars Knight of the Old Republic and Mass Effect. And I did ask myself the questions you have posed when I played Mass Effect 2 for the first time. I also thought that custimisation would be back and a lot of other features removed from ME1 in ME3, since Bioware said that they might have gone a "bit" overboard with ME2. After playing ME3(a TPS rather than a RPG) I must certainly say that Bioware's classical(or perhaps it should be dubbed Bioware's Bioware era) era is over. But it didn't start with ME3, it began with ME2 as you said.

Overall I must say that you've written a great post, voiced many of the questions and concerns that I myself have done and continue to do, and whether EA is responsible or not? Difficult to say but it sure is a bit suspicious that Bioware changed direction to such an extent after EA acquired them. The same can be seen with DICE too.  

Obitim wrote...Why can I no longer do a bit of exploration while stopping the reapers? (People say that the galaxy is at war but DA:O managed to accomplish this with the dark spawn?)

This is an excellent question and the whole "galaxy at war" is probably one of the biggest excuses that people use. But that excuse limits my freedom to roleplay the way I want to and yours to. Allow me to explain by using a response I made for someone arguing that ME3 got it right with its linear story progression:


I really think Mass Effect 1 got it right with its non-linear story progression, something which Bioware used to be proud of. So what's so good with the setup in Mass Effect 1? Not only does it stay true to the plot and the role which you as the player inherit, but it also allows for a great deal of freedom.
You are a Spectre and the mission is yours to go about and complete in the way you want to. If you want to rush through Therum, Feros, Noveria, and Virmire in order to have a sense of urgency, you can do that. If you want to complete the mission differently and take your time you can do that. In the end you are the Spectre and it is your mission. This is a good gameplay concept for a roleplaying game because it really allows you to roleplay.

What many of you who thinks that a sense of urgency is needed and that sidequests should be marginalised to their ME3 state argue for is a gameplay system which limits my freedom to complete the mission in the way I want to. In other words I have to play your version of how you would complete the mission, that is with a lot of urgency in mind. I don't like to have your way of playing the game forced upon me, just as I'm sure that you wouldn't like to be forced to play it my way. But I'm arguing for a gameplay system in which you have the freedom to choose, and that is the sign of a well designed roleplaying game.

[Dragoonlordz]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

i have to shake my head in disbelieve.

there are aktually people out there, who think that spending points on skills make a game a rpg.

rpgs are not about loot, talents or armor customisation - this is useful fluff. a rpg is about becoming part of a world, that reacts to you and you playing a role in the worlds advancement. it is about becoming a part of something bigger, by "slipping into the clothes" of your avatar and giving your avatar a certain personality.

it is about immersion.

An RPG is not defined by immersion at all to me, you can be immersed in any game of any ganre but it does not make all genres RPG's to me. There are two ways to define an RPG (imho) either through the principle of your playing a "role" in which case any character based game is a RPG even god games you are playing the role of god.

Or there is the elements method of defining it, which is about the features and functions or mechanics of the game that allows you to alter or effect both the world around your character and the persona or making the character what you want it to be including their clothes, their weapons, the way they view and interact with the world and effect it, choices and consequences, exploration, customisation of equipment or handling loot or crafting, skills and statistics.

These things allow your character to branch out into multiple paths of action and consequence, persona or perception of the world and the world of you whether it's minor or major in affect. All RPG's are a subset or part of other genres, those RPG elements just makes those game more or less of an RPG experience to people. BG is not an RPG, it is a game with RPG elements as is the case too with ME3 and DA and ME3 had more RPG elements than ME2.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 14 janvier 2013 - 10:46 .

[Iakus]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

i have to shake my head in disbelieve.

there are aktually people out there, who think that spending points on skills make a game a rpg.

rpgs are not about loot, talents or armor customisation - this is useful fluff. a rpg is about becoming part of a world, that reacts to you and you playing a role in the worlds advancement. it is about becoming a part of something bigger, by "slipping into the clothes" of your avatar and giving your avatar a certain personality.

it is about immersion.

Indeed.

In Civilization V, my soldiers earn xp by winning battles and can use them to purchase certain bonuses.  Apparantly that's now an rpg.

In Starcraft 2, you can purchase technology upgrades by gathering zerg and protos tech.  I guess that makes it an rpg too.

Ezio can purchase upgrades to his weapons and armor.  I guess that makes Assassin's Creed games rpgs...

[Nykara]

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.

I mean no offense at all to anyone directly. I just feel as a long time Bioware customer and fan ( since KOTOR ) that Bioware's games are not as good as they used to be. Yes, everything evolves but the same basic principles that made Biowares games in the past so awesome still remains - the story writing, the characters and the quests or missions along the way. It feels as if the same care and attention that once went in to this games is no longer there. The games are having that 'rushed to get out on the shelves' feeling that they didn't have before.

I get that you guys are going to feel defensive over the games you make, maybe it's even part of your jobs. However, with so many fans pointing out that Bioware games are not as good as they used to be there has to be something in that. If you guys have any control what so ever over it maybe you should look in to it. Just a thought.

[Faust1979]

Nykara wrote...

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.

I mean no offense at all to anyone directly. I just feel as a long time Bioware customer and fan ( since KOTOR ) that Bioware's games are not as good as they used to be. Yes, everything evolves but the same basic principles that made Biowares games in the past so awesome still remains - the story writing, the characters and the quests or missions along the way. It feels as if the same care and attention that once went in to this games is no longer there. The games are having that 'rushed to get out on the shelves' feeling that they didn't have before.

I get that you guys are going to feel defensive over the games you make, maybe it's even part of your jobs. However, with so many fans pointing out that Bioware games are not as good as they used to be there has to be something in that. If you guys have any control what so ever over it maybe you should look in to it. Just a thought.

Bioware games still have the same amount of care and polish in them, maybe it's because you're just nostgalic for the past. Heck Mass Effect 3 was inproduction at the same time as ME2 was how can you call that rushed out the door? you can't expect all Bioware games to play the same exact way and contain the same exact things that would be boring.  Bioware still puts out incredible stories in their games all their games have memorable characters and great lines

[Faust1979]

iakus wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

i have to shake my head in disbelieve.

there are aktually people out there, who think that spending points on skills make a game a rpg.

rpgs are not about loot, talents or armor customisation - this is useful fluff. a rpg is about becoming part of a world, that reacts to you and you playing a role in the worlds advancement. it is about becoming a part of something bigger, by "slipping into the clothes" of your avatar and giving your avatar a certain personality.

it is about immersion.

Indeed.

In Civilization V, my soldiers earn xp by winning battles and can use them to purchase certain bonuses.  Apparantly that's now an rpg.

In Starcraft 2, you can purchase technology upgrades by gathering zerg and protos tech.  I guess that makes it an rpg too.

Ezio can purchase upgrades to his weapons and armor.  I guess that makes Assassin's Creed games rpgs...

when I was a kid RPGs barely had story lines and if they did you didn't have any choices in the story it just about the loot and levelling up there was no face creator. There were no in game cinematics. You might get to choose what a character says to someone (depending on the game) if you were lucky you got to choose how to apply points to your character. The RPG's of today the ones that Bioware puts out far out class anything that I grew up playing in the 80s and early 90s RPG fans of tdoay have no idea how sweet they got it

Modifié par Faust1979, 14 janvier 2013 - 10:43 .

[Dr_Extrem]

when i was young, we played rpgs in our kitchen - with pencils, character sheets and a gamemaster, that encouraged us, to find creative solutions with our characters. we created cities, persons and intersting stories. we danced in teverns to make money or we traveled the land to find adventures or bandits.

rpgs are more than cold stats and loot.

[ld1449]

Faust1979 wrote...

Nykara wrote...

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.

I mean no offense at all to anyone directly. I just feel as a long time Bioware customer and fan ( since KOTOR ) that Bioware's games are not as good as they used to be. Yes, everything evolves but the same basic principles that made Biowares games in the past so awesome still remains - the story writing, the characters and the quests or missions along the way. It feels as if the same care and attention that once went in to this games is no longer there. The games are having that 'rushed to get out on the shelves' feeling that they didn't have before.

I get that you guys are going to feel defensive over the games you make, maybe it's even part of your jobs. However, with so many fans pointing out that Bioware games are not as good as they used to be there has to be something in that. If you guys have any control what so ever over it maybe you should look in to it. Just a thought.

Bioware games still have the same amount of care and polish in them, maybe it's because you're just nostgalic for the past. Heck Mass Effect 3 was inproduction at the same time as ME2 was how can you call that rushed out the door? you can't expect all Bioware games to play the same exact way and contain the same exact things that would be boring.  Bioware still puts out incredible stories in their games all their games have memorable characters and great lines

Actually ME2 had 2 or 2 1/2 years dev time (don't recall)

Deduct the DLC time for ME2 to ME3 release and you're only looking at 1 1/2 dev time at most with the full team on ME3 and not half of them working on ME2 DLC.

Add to that the fact that they scrapped their entire script halfway through the game due to a leak...yeah....lack of polish is evident.

[Faust1979]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

when i was young, we played rpgs in our kitchen - with pencils, character sheets and a gamemaster, that encouraged us, to find creative solutions with our characters. we created cities, persons and intersting stories. we danced in teverns to make money or we traveled the land to find adventures or bandits.

rpgs are more than cold stats and loot.

I used to run Shadow Run games in my highschool days with my friends but a game can't take into account everything a game master can try and take into account all the things and can change a story on the fly if need be. A video game can't. It needs to tell a story and have an illusion of choice. All Bioware games are pretty good at this

[Wayning_Star]

I'd venture to sugest, OP, about the 'interactivity' and immersion with ME is better in a RPG sense, as the grumpy posts reflect. We're all Shepards in a strange place with limited answers and a big decision to make. Cannot role play any more'n that. It's making it harder, for me anyways, to play other RPG's without the immersive qualities of ME... but I'm old and impressionable.

[MegaSovereign]

"Bioware games are not as good as they use to be"

With all due respect, really erm...passionate... fans say that about any of their favorite developers. Not saying that there isn't some merit behind those statements, but I digress. The "dumbing" down from ME1 was not necessarily the result of Bioware wanting to reach out to the casual audience. ME1 fans and critics were very vocal about some of its objectively flawed game mechanics (some of which are now considered a delicacy to the critics of the later installments).

A bunch of fetch quests and an inventory does not make an RPG a great game. ME2, IMO, offered the best role-playing in the series despite all the critics' claims. More than any other game in the series, your character's user-controlled responses directly affected the personality and attitudes of your squamates. ME2 did dialogue better than ME1 or ME3. It had the least amount of auto-dialogue and it used the Paragon/Renegade interrupts liberally.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 14 janvier 2013 - 10:52 .

[ld1449]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

when i was young, we played rpgs in our kitchen - with pencils, character sheets and a gamemaster, that encouraged us, to find creative solutions with our characters. we created cities, persons and intersting stories. we danced in teverns to make money or we traveled the land to find adventures or bandits.

rpgs are more than cold stats and loot.

Then you must still be young;)

[Nykara]

Faust1979 wrote...

Nykara wrote...

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.

I mean no offense at all to anyone directly. I just feel as a long time Bioware customer and fan ( since KOTOR ) that Bioware's games are not as good as they used to be. Yes, everything evolves but the same basic principles that made Biowares games in the past so awesome still remains - the story writing, the characters and the quests or missions along the way. It feels as if the same care and attention that once went in to this games is no longer there. The games are having that 'rushed to get out on the shelves' feeling that they didn't have before.

I get that you guys are going to feel defensive over the games you make, maybe it's even part of your jobs. However, with so many fans pointing out that Bioware games are not as good as they used to be there has to be something in that. If you guys have any control what so ever over it maybe you should look in to it. Just a thought.

Bioware games still have the same amount of care and polish in them, maybe it's because you're just nostgalic for the past. Heck Mass Effect 3 was inproduction at the same time as ME2 was how can you call that rushed out the door? you can't expect all Bioware games to play the same exact way and contain the same exact things that would be boring.  Bioware still puts out incredible stories in their games all their games have memorable characters and great lines

They added something to mass efffect 3 that wasn't in mass effect 2 and something that bioware has not done before - multiplay that means, if it was only in production as long as mass effect 2 was there was not as much time and care put in to the actual story and single player game in 3 as there was in 2. It showed. Not to mention budget.

Having a partner who works in game programming I can say you can have 30 people working on a game over that time and come with an awesome, polished and unrushed game due to the number of staff working on it. Produce another game over the same amount of time with only 15 people working on it you get a rushed game with far less story. In fact only half the game as the one before. The time taken means nothing if the number of staff is greatly decreased you still get a rushed game.

There is also the issue of disk space and trying to keep the game to 2 disks for shipping. You take a big chuck of that space to put in multiplayer your single player game IS going to suffer. Lines of dialogue far more then the previous games are going to be cut due to lack of disk space to keep them in. Mass Effect 3 had far more stock lines in it then previous games - lines that were reused and far less character driven direction for conversations. Auto-dialogue meant that they didn't have to put in as many different voice acting lines because the player couldn't choose if Shepard said A B or C, it was just A no matter what.

[Dragoonlordz]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

when i was young, we played rpgs in our kitchen - with pencils, character sheets and a gamemaster, that encouraged us, to find creative solutions with our characters. we created cities, persons and intersting stories. we danced in teverns to make money or we traveled the land to find adventures or bandits.

rpgs are more than cold stats and loot.

If that is your counter to my reply to your comment above then it does not change my response. It does not even back up your original statement RPGs being about immersion and in reality backs up my stance of RPG elements being what defines an RPG. In your example you used character sheets and pencils which recorded loot, stats, persona, equipment and skills. All these things are RPG elements. A gamemaster to set the stage, situations, managed consequencs of your actions, use of items or skills aka your attributes and abilities.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 14 janvier 2013 - 10:59 .

[Dr_Extrem]

Faust1979 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

when i was young, we played rpgs in our kitchen - with pencils, character sheets and a gamemaster, that encouraged us, to find creative solutions with our characters. we created cities, persons and intersting stories. we danced in teverns to make money or we traveled the land to find adventures or bandits.

rpgs are more than cold stats and loot.

I used to run Shadow Run games in my highschool days with my friends but a game can't take into account everything a game master can try and take into account all the things and can change a story on the fly if need be. A video game can't. It needs to tell a story and have an illusion of choice. All Bioware games are pretty good at this

at some points, me3 is a bad rpg, because i loose control over my character. autodialogue and ooc-dialogue were a step back. mass effect 1&2 handled it by far better than me3.

shepards reaction after thessia is one example. a good rpg does not kick you out of character, because the story demands it.

[Dr_Extrem]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

when i was young, we played rpgs in our kitchen - with pencils, character sheets and a gamemaster, that encouraged us, to find creative solutions with our characters. we created cities, persons and intersting stories. we danced in teverns to make money or we traveled the land to find adventures or bandits.

rpgs are more than cold stats and loot.

If that is your counter to my reply to your comment above then it does not impress me or change my response. It does not even back up your original statement and in reality backs up my stance of RPG elements being what defines an RPG. In your example you used character sheets and pencils which recorded loot, stats, persona, equipment and skills. All these things are RPG elements. A gamemaster to set the stage, situations, managed consequencs of your actions, use of items or skills aka your attributes and abilities.

did i quote you? i bet your ego needs a second place on the bus.

[Iakus]

Faust1979 wrote...

when I was a kid RPGs barely had story lines and if they did you didn't have any choices in the story it just about the loot and levelling up there was no face creator. There were no in game cinematics. You might get to choose what a character says to someone (depending on the game) if you were lucky you got to choose how to apply points to your character. The RPG's of today the ones that Bioware puts out far out class anything that I grew up playing in the 80s and early 90s RPG fans of tdoay have no idea how sweet they got it

Don't presume you're my elder 

As to the rest:  Any action game nowadays can boast a good storyline or cinematics.  And yes, what Bioware puts out (or used to, anyway) outclasses any other rpg out there.  But lately they've been regressing.  Less player choice.  And those choices we do get being swept aside.   Fewer dialogue options.  Fewer customization options both for companions and for the protagonist.  More and more, the player is just along for the ride.  Like any other action game.  

Dragon Age:  Origins was the last truly great rpg to come out of Biwoare, where I felt my character was my own.  That I wasn't simply an obsserver looking over that character's shoulder.

[Faust1979]

Nykara wrote...

Faust1979 wrote...

Nykara wrote...

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.

I mean no offense at all to anyone directly. I just feel as a long time Bioware customer and fan ( since KOTOR ) that Bioware's games are not as good as they used to be. Yes, everything evolves but the same basic principles that made Biowares games in the past so awesome still remains - the story writing, the characters and the quests or missions along the way. It feels as if the same care and attention that once went in to this games is no longer there. The games are having that 'rushed to get out on the shelves' feeling that they didn't have before.

I get that you guys are going to feel defensive over the games you make, maybe it's even part of your jobs. However, with so many fans pointing out that Bioware games are not as good as they used to be there has to be something in that. If you guys have any control what so ever over it maybe you should look in to it. Just a thought.

Bioware games still have the same amount of care and polish in them, maybe it's because you're just nostgalic for the past. Heck Mass Effect 3 was inproduction at the same time as ME2 was how can you call that rushed out the door? you can't expect all Bioware games to play the same exact way and contain the same exact things that would be boring.  Bioware still puts out incredible stories in their games all their games have memorable characters and great lines

They added something to mass efffect 3 that wasn't in mass effect 2 and something that bioware has not done before - multiplay that means, if it was only in production as long as mass effect 2 was there was not as much time and care put in to the actual story and single player game in 3 as there was in 2. It showed. Not to mention budget.

Having a partner who works in game programming I can say you can have 30 people working on a game over that time and come with an awesome, polished and unrushed game due to the number of staff working on it. Produce another game over the same amount of time with only 15 people working on it you get a rushed game with far less story. In fact only half the game as the one before. The time taken means nothing if the number of staff is greatly decreased you still get a rushed game.

There is also the issue of disk space and trying to keep the game to 2 disks for shipping. You take a big chuck of that space to put in multiplayer your single player game IS going to suffer. Lines of dialogue far more then the previous games are going to be cut due to lack of disk space to keep them in. Mass Effect 3 had far more stock lines in it then previous games - lines that were reused and far less character driven direction for conversations. Auto-dialogue meant that they didn't have to put in as many different voice acting lines because the player couldn't choose if Shepard said A B or C, it was just A no matter what.

I don't know how you've been playing Bioware games for but Bioware has used multiplayer in the past in several games Baldur's Gate 2 had multiplayer as well as Neverwinter Nights, I don't care if it had more auto dialog, because I grew up with that stuff so it doesn't bother me, the story was still amazing and it allowed for choices to be made and affect how things played out

[RocketManSR2]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

i have to shake my head in disbelieve.

there are aktually people out there, who think that spending points on skills make a game a rpg.

rpgs are not about loot, talents or armor customisation - this is useful fluff. a rpg is about becoming part of a world, that reacts to you and you playing a role in the worlds advancement. it is about becoming a part of something bigger, by "slipping into the clothes" of your avatar and giving your avatar a certain personality.

it is about immersion.

As much as I hate to say it, that post really shows that nobody really knows what an RPG is anymore. I've become immersed in many a game over the years. I'm talking about the kind of game where you look up and 12 hours have passed. Batman: Arkham City is one such game, and I certainly wouldn't categorize it as an RPG. However, Chris is wrong, so very wrong. If he can't see that BioWare games have done a 180 then I pity him and anybody else that can't see it. The Mass Effect series has slowly but surely moved towards generic shooter and away from what put the company on the map, great RPG gameplay like Knights of the Old Republic and Jade Empire. I shudder to think what will become of ME4 under the same devs that made Omega and the MP.

- The change towards action didn't start until EA got it's hands on BioWare. Imagine that.

Modifié par RocketManSR2, 14 janvier 2013 - 11:06 .

[Meltemph]

What an RPG IS, is a very vague term... You can use Extra Credits explanation, but that leaves a lot up to interpretation(like it should be). However, I'm not sure why it matters what "you" consider them to be, what is most important is to grade them on what they are doing, with what they have.

Arguing about what "is" an RPG or what genre(an its specifics) you like the most do nothing, but take away from the subject of the game itself.

[Faust1979]

RocketManSR2 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

i have to shake my head in disbelieve.

there are aktually people out there, who think that spending points on skills make a game a rpg.

rpgs are not about loot, talents or armor customisation - this is useful fluff. a rpg is about becoming part of a world, that reacts to you and you playing a role in the worlds advancement. it is about becoming a part of something bigger, by "slipping into the clothes" of your avatar and giving your avatar a certain personality.

it is about immersion.

As much as I hate to say it, that post really shows that nobody really knows what an RPG is anymore. I've become immersed in many a game over the years. I'm talking about the kind of game where you look up and 12 hours have passed. Batman: Arkham City is one such game, and I certainly wouldn't categorize it as an RPG. However, Chris is wrong, so very wrong. If he can't see that BioWare games have done a 180 then I pity him and anybody else that can't see it. The Mass Effect series has slowly but surely moved towards generic shooter and away from what put the company on the map, great RPG gameplay like Knights of the Old Republic and Jade Empire. I shudder to think what will become of ME4 under the same devs that made Omega.

- The change towards action didn't start until EA got it's hands on BioWare. Imagine that...

Jade Empire (an action RPG) and Mass Effect 1 would like a talk with you also they made MDK 2 and Shattered Steel a Mech game

Modifié par Faust1979, 14 janvier 2013 - 11:07 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

did i quote you? i bet your ego needs a second place on the bus.

You can believe that if you wish, I posted a counter point to your stance, a challenge to your way of thinking. You were left with two choices (imho) to either respond to myself for pointing what I saw as potential inaccuracies in your stance which could further a discussion on the subject or ignore it to avoid having to answer that challenge, do not wish to defend your position or unable to counter what was said. I would of preferred you picked the first option but if you do not wish to then I shall not force you to do so and leave it at that.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 14 janvier 2013 - 11:09 .