340 réponses à ce sujet

[DarthReavus]

Terror_K wrote...

DarthReavus wrote...

If Mass Effect has used that system you could bet your backside that it would be a niché game for devoted RPG gamers and not a massively popular game that is already generating tons of excitement and anticipation worldwide.

Umm... I'd actually prefer it that way, to be honest. Niche games tend to get made more for their fans and not so much retooled to suit and appeal more to the mainstream.

If BioWare made exclusively niché games to pander to their hardcore fans then they'd go out of business.  Games cost too much money to make to just be made for a niché corner of the market.  Something on the scale and cost of Mass Effect is BioWare's crowning glory in my opinion.  A game that appeals to gamers of all kinds, not just the hardcore few RPG purists.

ME2 wouldn't be generating even a tenth of the anticipation or excitement that it is generating if it was simply a pureblood RPG, not a chance.  It also wouldn't be as good due to the fact the budget would be smaller as financial sales projections would be fairly low.

The Mass Effect trilogy is an astounding achievement for BioWare, one they could not have achieved if they'd stuck their hand in the sand and stuck with traditional RPG purism.

[Murmillos]

Terror_K wrote...



I know! The way some people talk you'd think Mass Effect was one of the biggest flops and worst designed games in history.

WE DO NOT!.



It was a great game, with a lot of little flaws that can be easily (as have been shown) to be fixed.



The lore, story, characters, atmosphere are all excellent reasons we keep playing ME.



The actual game-play, while not broken, had many elements which did not work well. Not that it was ever bad - because it was never broken and never got in the way of playing the game, but many of those aspects needed (and have) been improved.



You take a simple "Combat was a bit lacking than expected." into "THE GAME WAS SO BROKEN NOBODY COULD HAVE EVER LIKED IT!!!!"

[Terror_K]

Shady314 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
Oh, you mean if one were to go to a Gears of War or Halo forum? Or to any generic gaming forum? Because you're probably right that there were loads of players out there who expected ME to be a shooter who were disappointed in the mechanic. Rather than those at the official ME boards who were primarily RPG fans back in those days, since they mostly consisted of people who were already there and had lists of several colourful BioWare RPG names listed beneath their own. Because we all know that the minority is always wrong and that the masses of potential players are more important than the fans.

No you're right of course. All that matters are the old fans. Anyone that hasn't seen the light by now is a filthy heathen that should be burned at the stake. Never mind that those dirty casual fans are crucial to the continued existence of Bioware. You think the forum posters constitute a large enough sole consumer base to finance the multimillion dollar investment games have become?

Please just listen to yourself.

*sigh* I knew this would happen... 

Why does elitism only work one way, I ask? Why is it that it's perfectly fine for one group to say "Too much RPG stats are boring go back to D&D!" but as soon as the other group even slightly mentions shooter fans as being honed into a group we get called "elitists" and then somebody starts linking a bunch of TVTropes links?

Look... all I'm saying is, that if people come into a game and get the wrong idea as to what it's supposed to be about, I don't see why the game should have to change to suit them. They played X and expected Y, so X suddenly becomes Y to make up for it? That's not how things should be. The point is, Mass Effect was designed to have a stat-based shooting system and that didn't jibe with a bunch of players who came in expecting to play a shooter and it not "working right." I know this because I remember seeing the odd shooter fan pop into the original ME forums and start complaining about this aspect, and then they were usually put in their place and shoo'ed away.

Shooters are the popular genre these days, and most of the biggest selling titles tend to be shooters, so of course you're going to have loads of people playing Mass Effect and expecting it to act like the big selling titles they bought. But that doesn't mean it should.

Loads of people say that BioWare needs to bring in this market more, but they didn't really in the past, so I don't see why they do now. I think that they've seen the way the wind has shifted and that the big-selling titles are the Gears and the Halos and the Call of Duty's, so that's the market they're going after now, more than they are they're current fans. Sure... some of their current fans love these games. I even love some of them. But that's not what I want from Mass Effect. And if they really want to chase that audience, why don't they do it with an original IP and game series rather than altering and molding an existing IP to suit them more?

[DarthReavus]

So far this thread seems to me to be elitist RPG purist snobs versus the moderates with the elitists sounding increasingly stuck up and the moderates not being able to get through.

EDIT: For the umpteenth freakin' time...stat based shooting makes no logical sense in a video game!  For me and many others (who do enjoy stat based RPGs ala KotOR & Dragon Age) it takes away a sense of realism which also helps break the immersion.

Modifié par DarthReavus, 18 janvier 2010 - 01:13 .

[Terror_K]

Murmillos wrote...

It was a great game, with a lot of little flaws that can be easily (as have been shown) to be fixed.  

The lore, story, characters, atmosphere are all excellent reasons we keep playing ME.

The actual game-play, while not broken, had many elements which did not work well. Not that it was ever bad - because it was never broken and never got in the way of playing the game, but many of those aspects needed (and have) been improved.

And we come back to the main issue: the fact that these little flaws, despite being so easy to fix, have instead for the most part been axed, replaced or twisted beyond recognition for Mass Effect 2. Removing is not improving, or at least not improving on the initial concept. Throwing something out is not fixing something.

[Darth_Shizz]

 

Terror_K wrote...
The fact was the old combat system was one that RPG fans could easily tolerate and ignore for the most part. To many the combat stuff was just filler between story and dialogue and doing missions. Now it's a factor that's not as easy to ignore

Felt the need to quote it again...

[SurfaceBeneath]

DarthReavus wrote...

So far this thread seems to me to be elitist RPG purist snobs versus the moderates with the elitists sounding increasingly stuck up and the moderates not being able to get through.

Well, it really has nothing to do with Mass Effect 2's status as an RPG vs its status as a Shooter.

We've basically got two camps: One that feels that Mass Effect 2 is being dumbed down because the removal of some of the more redundant and flawed mechanisms in ME1, and the other camp that doesn't know what the other camp is smoking because everything that is being removed was an inherently flawed mechanisms and besides that there is so many new RPG components being included in this new game that easily makes the game more RPGish than ME1.

[Shady314]

Terror_K wrote...

Shady314 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
Oh, you mean if one were to go to a Gears of War or Halo forum? Or to any generic gaming forum? Because you're probably right that there were loads of players out there who expected ME to be a shooter who were disappointed in the mechanic. Rather than those at the official ME boards who were primarily RPG fans back in those days, since they mostly consisted of people who were already there and had lists of several colourful BioWare RPG names listed beneath their own. Because we all know that the minority is always wrong and that the masses of potential players are more important than the fans.

No you're right of course. All that matters are the old fans. Anyone that hasn't seen the light by now is a filthy heathen that should be burned at the stake. Never mind that those dirty casual fans are crucial to the continued existence of Bioware. You think the forum posters constitute a large enough sole consumer base to finance the multimillion dollar investment games have become?

Please just listen to yourself.

*sigh* I knew this would happen... 

Why does elitism only work one way, I ask? Why is it that it's perfectly fine for one group to say "Too much RPG stats are boring go back to D&D!" but as soon as the other group even slightly mentions shooter fans as being honed into a group we get called "elitists" and then somebody starts linking a bunch of TVTropes links?

Look... all I'm saying is, that if people come into a game and get the wrong idea as to what it's supposed to be about, I don't see why the game should have to change to suit them. They played X and expected Y, so X suddenly becomes Y to make up for it? That's not how things should be. The point is, Mass Effect was designed to have a stat-based shooting system and that didn't jibe with a bunch of players who came in expecting to play a shooter and it not "working right." I know this because I remember seeing the odd shooter fan pop into the original ME forums and start complaining about this aspect, and then they were usually put in their place and shoo'ed away.

Shooters are the popular genre these days, and most of the biggest selling titles tend to be shooters, so of course you're going to have loads of people playing Mass Effect and expecting it to act like the big selling titles they bought. But that doesn't mean it should.

Loads of people say that BioWare needs to bring in this market more, but they didn't really in the past, so I don't see why they do now. I think that they've seen the way the wind has shifted and that the big-selling titles are the Gears and the Halos and the Call of Duty's, so that's the market they're going after now, more than they are they're current fans. Sure... some of their current fans love these games. I even love some of them. But that's not what I want from Mass Effect. And if they really want to chase that audience, why don't they do it with an original IP and game series rather than altering and molding an existing IP to suit them more?

Because when RPG purists talk about the shooter group they can't seem to help dismissing them as unnecessary philistines. As if it was their fault they bought ME expecting a better TPS. I followed ME from Day 1! and I expected a better TPS!

The stat based shooting didn't jibe with fun. Do I need to pull out my RPG credentials or something here? I play PnP RPGs for gods sake. I could not be a nerdier geekier RPG lover. You don't have a monopoly on being an RPG fan.

You mean back when Bioware made 2d games? Yeah back then you did not have to sell as many games to be profitable. That has changed in a BIG way. Their core customer base is a valuable asset but it alone is not enough anymore.

[Terror_K]

DarthReavus wrote...

So far this thread seems to me to be elitist RPG purist snobs versus the moderates with the elitists sounding increasingly stuck up and the moderates not being able to get through.

Excellent timing: once again proving that it's perfectly fine to call somebody an "elitist RPG purist" but it's not okay to even give the slightest whiff of a hint that somebody who plays shooters a lot might not be quite as bright as the standard RPG player.

[Shady314]

Terror_K wrote...

Murmillos wrote...

It was a great game, with a lot of little flaws that can be easily (as have been shown) to be fixed.  

The lore, story, characters, atmosphere are all excellent reasons we keep playing ME.

The actual game-play, while not broken, had many elements which did not work well. Not that it was ever bad - because it was never broken and never got in the way of playing the game, but many of those aspects needed (and have) been improved.

And we come back to the main issue: the fact that these little flaws, despite being so easy to fix, have instead for the most part been axed, replaced or twisted beyond recognition for Mass Effect 2. Removing is not improving, or at least not improving on the initial concept. Throwing something out is not fixing something.

Actually sometimes it is. Like I've said many times before. You can't improve crap. You flush it.

[Shady314]

Terror_K wrote...

DarthReavus wrote...

So far this thread seems to me to be elitist RPG purist snobs versus the moderates with the elitists sounding increasingly stuck up and the moderates not being able to get through.

Excellent timing: once again proving that it's perfectly fine to call somebody an "elitist RPG purist" but it's not okay to even give the slightest whiff of a hint that somebody who plays shooters a lot might not be quite as bright as the standard RPG player.

You're proving the stereotype through your actions as we speak. But notice we still don't call you stupid. Whereas you have just implied it should be perfectly acceptable to say anyone that has ever played and enjoyed a shooter must not be as bright as yourself. See the difference?

[DarthReavus]

Darth_Shizz wrote...

 

Terror_K wrote...
The fact was the old combat system was one that RPG fans could easily tolerate and ignore for the most part. To many the combat stuff was just filler between story and dialogue and doing missions. Now it's a factor that's not as easy to ignore

Felt the need to quote it again...

QFT.  It seems to me that some people were able to fit Mass Effect into what they expected it to be by ignoring a major element of the game.  Now that said element has been brought up to par with the rest of the game and cannot be ignored it's breaking the spell for those who ignored it first time around.  They can't ignore it so suddenly ME2 is not the game they wanted it to be as it's "totally different" to ME1.  Hate to break it to you but it's not totally or radically different at all, it's just that the element of the game you ignored has been brought up to scratch with the rest of the game so it can't be ignored.  It's still the same game.

[Terror_K]

Shady314 wrote...

You mean back when Bioware made 2d games? Yeah back then you did not have to sell as many games to be profitable. That has changed in a BIG way. Their core customer base is a valuable asset but it alone is not enough anymore.

I actually also meant the likes of NWN and KotOR. They were hardly massive disappointments or financial failures. Funnily enough, I suspect Jade Empire is probably BioWare's lest popular game, and it's probably their least stat-driven and least RPG title in recent history. I still like it personally, and I could be wrong, but it never did quite seem to get the following and attention that their other titles have.

[DarthReavus]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

DarthReavus wrote...

So far this thread seems to me to be elitist RPG purist snobs versus the moderates with the elitists sounding increasingly stuck up and the moderates not being able to get through.

Well, it really has nothing to do with Mass Effect 2's status as an RPG vs its status as a Shooter.

We've basically got two camps: One that feels that Mass Effect 2 is being dumbed down because the removal of some of the more redundant and flawed mechanisms in ME1, and the other camp that doesn't know what the other camp is smoking because everything that is being removed was an inherently flawed mechanisms and besides that there is so many new RPG components being included in this new game that easily makes the game more RPGish than ME1.

QFT - this indeed seems to be the entire crux of this thread, with neither camp willing to give an inch of ground.

[Shady314]

Terror_K wrote...

Shady314 wrote...

You mean back when Bioware made 2d games? Yeah back then you did not have to sell as many games to be profitable. That has changed in a BIG way. Their core customer base is a valuable asset but it alone is not enough anymore.

I actually also meant the likes of NWN and KotOR. They were hardly massive disappointments or financial failures. Funnily enough, I suspect Jade Empire is probably BioWare's lest popular game, and it's probably their least stat-driven and least RPG title in recent history. I still like it personally, and I could be wrong, but it never did quite seem to get the following and attention that their other titles have.

NWN did not do that well. BTW its single player aspect was one of the worst RPGs I've ever played. I would have returned it if not for it's toolset/community. KOTOR was riding on the Star Wars name and got to be the first Star Wars RPG ever. Of course it did well. Are you saying you want Bioware to make other people's games for eternity?

JE is a perfect example of this. No DnD or Star Wars name behind it. Just the Bioware name. And it did quite poorly. Which is sad. Like ME the combat it attempted to emulate was highly flawed but it had such promise.

Modifié par Shady314, 18 janvier 2010 - 01:28 .

[Terror_K]

Shady314 wrote...

You're proving the stereotype through your actions as we speak. But notice we still don't call you stupid. Whereas you have just implied it should be perfectly acceptable to say anyone that has ever played and enjoyed a shooter must not be as bright as yourself. See the difference?

That would be ironic and hypocritical if that were the case, since I play shooters, are regularly. I'd be insulting myself.

Okay, the thing is, when I say "shooter fans" (and this is probably the case when most people use the term or something similar) I don't mean people who have played shooters, or do play shooters, or enjoy shooters reguarly amongst other game types. What I am referring to is that group who pretty much only exclusively play shooters. The Halo and Gears of War fanboys who rarely touch any other genre of game and constantly go on about how "Mast0r Chi3f iz teh awesumz!!1" and the like. I'm talking about extremists and a generally shooter-oriented core audience and not those who enjoy a wide variety of genres that include shooters. It's just quicker and easier to say "shooter fans" instead of being that specific every single time.

[Darth_Shizz]

DarthReavus wrote...

QFT.  It seems to me that some people were able to fit Mass Effect into what they expected it to be by ignoring a major element of the game.  Now that said element has been brought up to par with the rest of the game and cannot be ignored it's breaking the spell for those who ignored it first time around.  They can't ignore it so suddenly ME2 is not the game they wanted it to be as it's "totally different" to ME1.  Hate to break it to you but it's not totally or radically different at all, it's just that the element of the game you ignored has been brought up to scratch with the rest of the game so it can't be ignored.  It's still the same game.

That last part rings especially true, which begs the question; are they even sure that "technically", the original Mass Effect was a game they should have been enjoying? I'm not sure how you can attempt to ignore what makes up quite a bit of the game, yet still defend the statement, that it apparently lent to Mass Effect being the great RPG it was.

Modifié par Darth_Shizz, 18 janvier 2010 - 01:34 .

[Shady314]

Terror_K wrote...

Shady314 wrote...

You're proving the stereotype through your actions as we speak. But notice we still don't call you stupid. Whereas you have just implied it should be perfectly acceptable to say anyone that has ever played and enjoyed a shooter must not be as bright as yourself. See the difference?

That would be ironic and hypocritical if that were the case, since I play shooters, are regularly. I'd be insulting myself.

Okay, the thing is, when I say "shooter fans" (and this is probably the case when most people use the term or something similar) I don't mean people who have played shooters, or do play shooters, or enjoy shooters reguarly amongst other game types. What I am referring to is that group who pretty much only exclusively play shooters. The Halo and Gears of War fanboys who rarely touch any other genre of game and constantly go on about how "Mast0r Chi3f iz teh awesumz!!1" and the like. I'm talking about extremists and a generally shooter-oriented core audience and not those who enjoy a wide variety of genres that include shooters. It's just quicker and easier to say "shooter fans" instead of being that specific every single time.

You mean your referring to a stereotype... like the RPG purist stereotype.... Should I say RPG players when I really mean the extremists at NMA and people like them?

[AngryFrozenWater]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
To me the game's changes are radically different. I can only compare what I know and what has been confirmed so far. Those changes range from party members to game mechaniscs. Those are not assumptions. Those are fact.

You obviously didn't like the combat system. I really enjoyed it. That doesn't mean it cannot be improved, but to me it sure was not sub-par. I cannot state that I don't like the new changes, because I haven't played it (and otherwise I would make assumptions), but you haven't played it either and can make the assumption that it is better. You sir, make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

First off, I'll ignore your last statement that I was making assumptions because I feel in a particularly not-trolly mood.

Second off at the core of Mass Effect's combat, is being changed for the worse? Phrase your response as specifically and objectively as you possibly can. I want to see you say exactly what changes are made, and how those changes are going to make the gameplay worse or less complex?

You don't like it when I point out that your opinion is based on assumptions? And your troll reference... I am used to how people like you discuss. So, I will ignore it for now.

But I am bait (pun intended)...

ME is an RPG around the story of Shepard and his crew defeating the Reapers.

About the RPG... Most party members from ME1 are not returning as crew in ME2.You can argue that it doesn't have to be a big deal if you are not connected to those characters. I was. I felt ME1 was a good introduction to them and the game gave me a lot of background info. This is a good thing for the first part of a story. Now that we have that out of the way, let the story around these characters unfold. I am also very interested to how my love interest from part 1 develops in part 2.

The above began to crumble down slowly after BioWare began to release information about it.

You may not like RPGs, but I do. And I am used to the stats mechanics that I need to level up to become better in skills and talents. I don't need instant gratification to make it a point-and-click adventure or a third person shooter. BTW: I am a FPS/TPS fan. I really love them and have a large collection of them. But ME1 was more an RPG with guns than a TPS with a great story.

And guess what? ME1 game along. A cool RPG in a SF setting and I was sold.

However, there aren't much from the old stats left in ME2. They aren't even compatible anymore. It is even so radically different that the game cannot import the stats of ME1 characters.

The ME1 character import is rather important. It was fundamental to the game. It was marketed as a feature. Decisions made in the trilogy would impact the story as it evolved. And I was in awe.

Of course the most important decisions I made involved the crew and the main story. If we are lucky the main crew gets a cameo and that cuts significantly in the decision tree. One of the most important decisions at the very end isn't even saved in the game.

So yes... I am not in awe anymore. I am going to play this game as a new independent title in the franchise. I will not make the mistake to attach myself to the characters (but use them as disposables to reach my goal instead) and gamble that I like the new game mechanics.

Does that mean that I don't like any of the new changes. No. Of course not.

Edit: This how I feel about it. Subjective. True. But gaming is subjective.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 18 janvier 2010 - 01:55 .

[Terror_K]

Shady314 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Shady314 wrote...

You're proving the stereotype through your actions as we speak. But notice we still don't call you stupid. Whereas you have just implied it should be perfectly acceptable to say anyone that has ever played and enjoyed a shooter must not be as bright as yourself. See the difference?

That would be ironic and hypocritical if that were the case, since I play shooters, are regularly. I'd be insulting myself.

Okay, the thing is, when I say "shooter fans" (and this is probably the case when most people use the term or something similar) I don't mean people who have played shooters, or do play shooters, or enjoy shooters reguarly amongst other game types. What I am referring to is that group who pretty much only exclusively play shooters. The Halo and Gears of War fanboys who rarely touch any other genre of game and constantly go on about how "Mast0r Chi3f iz teh awesumz!!1" and the like. I'm talking about extremists and a generally shooter-oriented core audience and not those who enjoy a wide variety of genres that include shooters. It's just quicker and easier to say "shooter fans" instead of being that specific every single time.

You mean your referring to a stereotype... like the RPG purist stereotype.... Should I say RPG players when I really mean the extremists at NMA and people like them?

I dunno. But if you can come up with a better term for me to use that doesn't get me in trouble every time I type the words "shooter fans" I'm all for it. I mean... "Shooter Purists" doesn't really sound right.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Double post. Sorry. Dleted.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 18 janvier 2010 - 01:48 .

[Shady314]

Terror_K wrote...

I dunno. But if you can come up with a better term for me to use that doesn't get me in trouble every time I type the words "shooter fans" I'm all for it. I mean... "Shooter Purists" doesn't really sound right.

Shooter fanatics. Shooter h4xors. Shooter Extremists. 
I think any term would be better at expressing your feelings toward a more specific group. Shooter fans is a very large group many would consider themselves a part of. I'm not very good at naming. It'd make a good forum topic.

[sinosleep]

Terror_K wrote..

I dunno. But if you can come up with a better term for me to use that doesn't get me in trouble every time I type the words "shooter fans" I'm all for it. I mean... "Shooter Purists" doesn't really sound right.

I have to go back and read what I missed on the way home from work (yes, I post from work  ) but yes, shooter purists would be better than shooter fans. A shooter fan is by definition anyone that is a fan of shooters. And it's why people have jumped down your throat in past threads. Many of us feel insulted almost immediately when entering these threads because there's always mention of 13 year olds, dim witted cavemen, and all manner of other childish insults. When the fact of the matter is that I'd wager my mortgage payment that most any gamer plays games from practically every genre. I know personally I'm just as likely to play madden as I am to play Dragon Age, Starcraft, Borderlands, Diablo, Star Craft, Gears, COD, or ME.

[DarthReavus]

How about Shooter Nerds?

EDIT: About the only game type I don't really play are driving or sports games.  Give me a good RTS or certain TBS and I'll be happy.  Give me a good FPS or TPS and I'll be happy.  Give me a good RPG and I'll be happy.  As long as the game is good, fun and enjoyable I'm happy.

Modifié par DarthReavus, 18 janvier 2010 - 01:57 .