236 réponses à ce sujet

[andy6915]

I finally figured out the main reason I find ME1 to be the worst in the series. The game didn't know what it wanted to be. It was a game that wasn't sure if it wanted to be an RPG or a shooter, and so it tried to do both at maximum and ended up falling short of both. He who chases 2 hares catches neither, jack of all trades, good at everything but amazing at nothing. Its RPG elements weren't as good as Dragon Age's or SW Knights of the Old Republic's or something, and its shooter elements were far from good and there were average third person shooters last gen that did better at it (GUN, Metal Arms Glitch in the System, Max Payne 1&2). Its attempt to do both made it fall short of both.

Which left Bioware with a choice, do it again and once again make a game that fails at both genres, or diminish one side and focus on the other. Bioware chose to focus on the shooter side and diminish the RPG side, that was the path they took. And if you ask me, that ended up working for the best because ME2&3 felt more focused in their game design because the series finally got focused on what kind of game it wanted to be.

Now it could be argued that it was the wrong path, and that they should have diminished the shooter elements while focusing on the RPG side. But that is a what-if, we don't know how that would have turned out. I suspect it would have ended up like DA:O was when using a bow, mostly just a lot of standing around and letting auto attack do all thw work while constant digital dice rolls determined your hit rate and stuff. Or like Valkyria Chronicles gameplay set in the ME universe, except characters wouldn't die if left untreated and the movement stamina was removed. Or like Resonance of Fate with less insane anime acrobatics and gun-fu. I assume those because DA:O is a Bioware game and Bioware likes to use similar gameplay styles if they can help it, and the other 2 are RPGs where everyone uses guns and are clearly RPGs with shooter elements instead of the other way around. If any of those had been the case for how it would have turned out, I'm glad they instead focused on the shooter elements instead because that would have made ME less interesting to me. Don't get me wrong, I like every game mentioned there, but I don't think they would have been good for ME (series, not the pronoun) or have fit the series lore or style.

And before anyone brings up how awesome ME1's rpg elements were because of Noveria... No. Noveria was awesome, I admit. It had probably a dozen ways to accomplish your goals. Just getting a garage pass had tons of ways, you could tell the corrupt admin about the Hanar smuggler, tell him his secretary was an internal affairs spy, blackmail Lorik, make Lorik testify, or give the admin Lorik's evidence. 5 ways just to get a freaking pass is amazing, lots of options. But that was not all ME1 was, Noveria was unique unto itself. No other part of the game was like Noveria, every other place was totally linear and to the point. If every part of the main quest of ME1 was like Noveria, that place would be a good argument. But no where else was like that place, and so it's kind of moot to bring up.

[AlexMBrennan]

Yes, you like ME2/3 gameplay more. That is a valid opinion. However, I do not like bovine excrement.

He who chases 2 hares catches neither, jack of all trades, good at everything but amazing at nothing

Wow, did you eat a dictionary? Yes, these idioms do exist but that does not mean they are necessarily always correct.

I suspect it would have ended up like DA:O was when using a bow, mostly just a lot of standing around and letting auto attack do all thw work while constant digital dice rolls determined your hit rate and stuff.

Yes, well, that's how traditional P&P games like D&D work and virtually ever RPG since. Clearly this is inferior and CoD is our salvation.

Its RPG elements weren't as good as Old Republic's

Funny you should say that because SWTOR is ME with auto attack.

And before anyone brings up how awesome ME1's rpg elements were because of Noveria

Linearity has nothing to do with it - you can make a non-linear shooter (Hitman) and linear RPGs (e.g. BGEE Black Pits campaign)

[andy6915]

Wow, did you eat a dictionary? Yes, these idioms do exist but that does not mean they are necessarily always correct.

No, but they made the point get across. Do you need to be so condescending?

Yes, well, that's how traditional P&P games like D&D work and virtually ever RPG since. Clearly this is inferior and CoD is our salvation.

And just where did I mention Call of Duty? Oh right, no where. You read "shooter" and your logical side of your brain shuts down and assumes "COD casual crappy aghh!". I've never even played a COD game before, or ANY war shooter before. I wasn't even thinking of that series when I made that post. The condescending tone is worsening with every post you made...

Funny you should say that because SWTOR is ME with auto attack

I meant more in terms of actually being an RPG, not just the combat system.

Modifié par andy69156915, 19 mai 2013 - 10:29 .

[andy6915]

Right... I'm just not going to respond anymore to the people who want to act like asses. Post seriously and without a stick up your ass and I'll actually pay attention to your post.

I think I'm remebering why I left this board for months:?.

Modifié par andy69156915, 19 mai 2013 - 10:37 .

[Brovikk Rasputin]

All three games are messy as hell, to be fair. That's what makes them good.

[Brovikk Rasputin]

andy69156915 wrote...

Right... I'm just not going to respond anymore to the people who want to act like asses. Post seriously and without a stick up your ass and I'll actually pay attention to your post.

I think I'm remebering why I left this board for months:?.

Some people on here are wearing some very rose tinted glasses when it comes to ME1&2. Just ignore them. They're often wrong anyway.

[KiwiQuiche]

[spam image removed]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

Some
people on here are wearing some very rose tinted glasses when it comes
to ME1&2. Just ignore them. They're often wrong anyway.

love your assumption that anyone who likes ME1 can't seen any flaws in it at all, Brovikk.

Modifié par Ninja Stan, 21 mai 2013 - 10:55 .

[andy6915]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

All three games are messy as hell, to be fair. That's what makes them good.

Yeah, one game tried to do too much, another separated itself too much from the last game and made a plot that didn't really matter much in the end and focused more on character quests then main story, and another with an ending so bad that it needed patched and has the by-far worst animations in the series and has the least variation in enemy types. Not sure if that stuff exactly made each game good though, I think the actually good aspects made those games good... Not the messy parts.

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...
Some people on here are wearing somevery rose tinted glasses when it comes to ME1&2. Just ignore them. They're often wrong anyway.

Yeah, I am officially ignoring those people as of my last post. They're not worth responding to if they don't want to say anything real or without being a dick about it. Frankly, if they don't care then they should just skip the thread and not come in and act like a jerk. But that would take actual maturity, so of course that's far too much to expect from people on this board. I should have seen it coming.

Modifié par andy69156915, 19 mai 2013 - 10:47 .

[jstme]

Can aRPG ever be focused on 1 thing when it by design is a mix of "a" and RPG?
Combat in ME1 was indeed bad,but to say that you think it is worse in the trilogy because of that only means that you like "a" aspects more then RPG ones since RPG factor in ME1 is much better then in 2 and 3.
Nothing bad in that. I disagree with you though.

[BiO]

I suspect they took the 'shooter' path because they wanted to explore what they can do with that genre. BioWare has always focused on RPG side of their games, and given ME1's success, ME2 was the perfect ground for such an experiment. But that's strictly speaking in terms of gameplay mechanics. At their core, all Mass Effect games are RPGs, for what they represent.

Reason ME1 was such a success, despite its clunky gameplay design, is because it introduced us to this new complicated world, which offered huge potential. It also introduced the idea of choices that affect future events in the game, and even though they didn't affect much in ME1, it was promised they would in ME2 and eventually 3. Nostalgic factor is what makes so many fans defend ME1 these days, when if you compare ME3 to ME1, without any prejudice, ME3 is leaps ahead of ME1.

That's not to say ME1 is a bad game. It just falls short to it's sequels, as it should be.

[andy6915]

jstme wrote...

Can aRPG ever be focused on 1 thing when it by design is a mix of "a" and RPG?
Combat in ME1 was indeed bad,but to say that you think it is worse in the trilogy because of that only means that you like "a" aspects more then RPG ones since RPG factor in ME1 is much better then in 2 and 3.
Nothing bad in that. I disagree with you though.

And that's fine. I don't mind disagreeing with me so long as you post seriously and maturely. I would disagree that I truly like shooting aspects more though (at least in general terms), DAO is my favorite Bioware game. Thing is DAO focused on RPG elements exclusively, and the quality of those elements turned out very well. It knew what it wanted to be, and it set out to do and... And did it damn near perfectly. ME1 wasn't RPG enough for me, and wasn't shooter enough for me, it ended up not being enough of either. I prefer a game that knows what it wants to be and sets out to do it like DAO did, not one that tries to do both and has both genre styles suffer for it.

[andy6915]

BiO_MaN wrote...

I suspect they took the 'shooter' path because they wanted to explore what they can do with that genre. BioWare has always focused on RPG side of their games, and given ME1's success, ME2 was the perfect ground for such an experiment. But that's strictly speaking in terms of gameplay mechanics. At their core, all Mass Effect games are RPGs, for what they represent.

Reason ME1 was such a success, despite its clunky gameplay design, is because it introduced us to this new complicated world, which offered huge potential. It also introduced the idea of choices that affect future events in the game, and even though they didn't affect much in ME1, it was promised they would in ME2 and eventually 3. Nostalgic factor is what makes so many fans defend ME1 these days, when if you compare ME3 to ME1, without any prejudice, ME3 is leaps ahead of ME1.

That's not to say ME1 is a bad game. It just falls short to it's sequels, as it should be.

I agree, ME1 isn't bad... Just not as good as the others. I'm doing a run through ME1 right now as I type this (the game is paused 10 feet away), so it's good enough for repeat playthroughs, which is definitely something.

And yeah, I agree that it certainly would have been preferable for the series to have factored in previous choices in a more meaningful way. I prefer more choices over less choices... Why wouldn't I?

[Ajensis]

If that explains it to you, then that's good. I'm not sure how broadly it applies, though. For me, it doesn't, at least. But you have some valid points - they just don't have as much of an impact on my experience than it seemingly does on yours.
Mass Effect 2 and 3 worked well as action-RPGs with an emphasis on the 'action' part. It's just a shame for the few of us who loved Mass Effect that we got this kind of game and then had the sequels distance themselves so much from it.

I'm hoping the next game will try to strike a better balance between action and RPG. I don't personally believe it's an effort that's doomed to fail :-) but I think it's more realistic we'll get the ME2 & 3 kind of game.

[Gewehr_fr]

You're focusing too much on the gameplay... yes it was kind of crappy to be honest but what makes the game special is its unique atmosphere, its story, the old 70s sci-fi feeling and the freedom to explore the galaxy, as opposed to the nearly 100% linear levels of ME2 and ME3. I love the gameplay of ME3 though so they certainly improved for the better in this area.

[Synergizer]

So it's not worth even trying to make something special, something that takes RPG elements and combine them with solid shooter gameplay?

What made Mass Effect a good game was what it tried to be. Add more diverse locations, more solid combat and it would have been better. You're suggestion is they just shouldn't have tried in the first place.

[andy6915]

Well for me, gameplay is always the most important aspect. Games are for gameplay first and foremost, everything else is secondary. ME's gameplay being the worst definitely brings it down a few notches for me compared to its better-gameplay siblings.

Synergizer wrote...

So it's not worth even trying to make something special, something that takes RPG elements and combine them with solid shooter gameplay?

No, it is worth it. But you need to do it right. I think ME2&3 do this goal better then ME1.

Modifié par andy69156915, 19 mai 2013 - 11:07 .

[Synergizer]

Totally agree with you

Gewehr_fr wrote...

You're focusing too much on the gameplay... yes it was kind of crappy to be honest but what makes the game special is its unique atmosphere, its story, the old 70s sci-fi feeling and the freedom to explore the galaxy, as opposed to the nearly 100% linear levels of ME2 and ME3. I love the gameplay of ME3 though so they certainly improved for the better in this area.

[KiwiQuiche]

Gewehr_fr wrote...

You're focusing too much on the gameplay... yes it was kind of crappy to be honest but what makes the game special is its unique atmosphere, its story, the old 70s sci-fi feeling and the freedom to explore the galaxy, as opposed to the nearly 100% linear levels of ME2 and ME3. I love the gameplay of ME3 though so they certainly improved for the better in this area.

Damn straight.

It kinda went backwards as ME2 and ME3 came out- ME3 was best in terms of the actual fighting and whatnot, while it lost it's spark, that unique atomosphere as you said.

ME2 was a balance- you could still land and explore strange worlds with their own quests and have better fighting (barring the retarded thermal clips) though it was still as you said linear.

[Synergizer]

I kinda get where you're coming from, trying to be good at everything can sometimes mean not being good at any. But Me2 and 3 are "better" at the cost of cutting back on RPG elements. Unless you count eves-dropping on random conversations 

andy69156915 wrote...

Well for me, gameplay is always the most important aspect. Games are for gameplay first and foremost, everything else is secondary. ME's gameplay being the worst definitely brings it down a few notches for me compared to its better-gameplay siblings.

Synergizer wrote...

So it's not worth even trying to make something special, something that takes RPG elements and combine them with solid shooter gameplay?

No, it is worth it. But you need to do it right. I think ME2&3 do this goal better then ME1.

[anillee]

Different strokes for different folks, I guess. The very thing you're complaining about was, to me at least, a very refreshing breath of air. I liked having the shooter and RPG aspect combined. My chief complaint about 1 would be actual gameplay. If 1 had 3's mechanics and variety (which would probably be a bit more difficult to do seeing as it came out in 2007), it'd be beyond amazing.

[NeonFlux117]

From a combat, movement and control point of view ME1 is very, very far behind. BOTH, it's predecessors. I think ME3 has the best combat, movement and controls. However, the jump wasn't nearly as much as it was from ME1 to ME2. ME3's combat is basically ME2's system with tighter controls, weight system, cover to cover, combat rolls, and a little quicker and more "shooter" or "Action" that ME2, but it's learning curve is nothing compared to what it was from ME1 to ME2.

Now about ME1 being weak. Yeah.... That's just wrong. ME1 is easily. Easily. The best RPG and story of the bunch. And if you were to remake ME1 and give it the combat, controls and movement of ME3. Then not only would have the best game of the series, but quite possibly the best single player game of this generation.

All three games are fantastic.

Modifié par NeonFlux117, 19 mai 2013 - 11:16 .

[KingZayd]

ME1's only problem was its combat.

[jstme]

DA:O is a brilliant RPG game. I just finished main campaign ,hunting the witch now so my impressions are really fresh. In my opinion it is brilliant game because talented people had lots of time to make it such.
Comparing any game of ME trilogy to that is pointless though because Dragon Age had much longer development time so they all will appear undercooked.

[NeonFlux117]

KingZayd wrote...

ME1's only problem was its combat.

Yeap. And really, the combat. Is. ME1's only problem. Everything else is stunning. There are nick picking things like the inventroy or the mako, but those are not that big of deal. ME1 was nearly flawless.