32 réponses à ce sujet

[PHGDAL]

 Just use Mass Effect 1 as a template. Seriously just do it. The last thing most of us here want to see is a great franchise turning into some shooter crap.

[Degrees1991]

Agreed too many pure shooters this gen. I think they need to go back to RPG seriously. Plus I think they should let us choose which race we want to be I think most of us want this option.

Personally I don't think Bioware even know where to start which is a shame for such a big universe they made.

[Oni Changas]

PHGDAL wrote...

 Just use Mass Effect 1 as a template. Seriously just do it. The last thing most of us here want to see is a great franchise turning into some shooter crap.

Or blend ME1's storytelling and atmosphere with ME3's gameplay elements. Perfect creation.

[PHGDAL]

What I liked about the first Mass Effect though was that I could choose how to progress. There was no order to do the missions on Feros, Noveria, and Therum. I could choose whichever and whenever.

What happened to that in Mass Effect 2? Why am I forced to recruit Thane, Samara, and Tali last?
The reason that I heard for that was they weren't able to fit the whole game into a single disc for the xbox (so that means that us PC players have to deal with a worse game because the xbox couldn't handle it? Seriously?)

And for Mass Effect 3. Why couldn't I choose to go talk to the Quarians first instead of saving the Primarch on Palaven's moon? Why do I have to do the Tuchanka mission first?
I was just plainly pissed at the lack of player choice.

That is why they should just follow Mass Effect as a template. It was a near-perfect game.

[Degrees1991]

Should be more open-world more enviroments to explore. I'll still have the empty planets to explore ut also full sized and detailed Citadel and Omega.

I haven't played those dlcs yet so if they're decent sizesdalright.

[MegaSovereign]

I actually would not prefer they necro-develop. Too many franchises suffer from this.

I think they should take the existing formula and build off of it.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 13 juin 2013 - 02:40 .

[PHGDAL]

Degrees1991 wrote...

Should be more open-world more enviroments to explore. I'll still have the empty planets to explore ut also full sized and detailed Citadel and Omega.

I haven't played those dlcs yet so if they're decent sizesdalright.

Citadel DLC was tiny in my opinion. I know it's a lot to ask for but I was hoping they made an actual city-sized area to explore with Shepard for each of the wards.


As for the going backwards thing, I just mean an actual RPG experience again. I hated that in Mass Effect 3 when I clicked on a squadmate, most of the time they would just say something without the dialogue wheel popping up.
I wanted the dialogue wheel to pop up every time with every character. They managed in Mass Effect 1 and 2, I don't know why most of the conversations in Mass Effect 3 are without player dialogue. I understand why they did that in some cutscenes where you just couldn't wait because of the events but things like talking to Tali when she was drunk. I wanted to have input on that conversation, maybe even take care of her or something. (Something I hate about the Citadel DLC too, very little dialogue wheel conversations).

[AlanC9]

PHGDAL wrote...
What happened to that in Mass Effect 2? Why am I forced to recruit Thane, Samara, and Tali last?
The reason that I heard for that was they weren't able to fit the whole game into a single disc for the xbox (so that means that us PC players have to deal with a worse game because the xbox couldn't handle it? Seriously?)

 They probably didn't write any NPC lines for scenes that NPC wasn't going to be in. So, yeah, console limitations governed PC gameplay.

I'm not bothered by the more linear ME3 experience, myself. Choosing what order to experience the major quests in diesn't strike me as a big deal. One of those CRPG conventions that isn't worth following, IMO.

Modifié par AlanC9, 13 juin 2013 - 04:56 .

[PHGDAL]

AlanC9 wrote...

PHGDAL wrote...
What happened to that in Mass Effect 2? Why am I forced to recruit Thane, Samara, and Tali last?
The reason that I heard for that was they weren't able to fit the whole game into a single disc for the xbox (so that means that us PC players have to deal with a worse game because the xbox couldn't handle it? Seriously?)

 They probably didn't write any NPC lines for scenes that NPC wasn't going to be in. So, yeah, console limitations governed PC gameplay.

I'm not bothered by the more linear ME3 experience, myself. Choosing what order to experience the major quests in diesn't strike me as a big deal. One of those CRPG conventions that isn't worth following, IMO.

Actually, no, the sad part was that the shipped game actually has the dialogue for those characters. You can mod the game to have Tali and Legion with you when you rescue Garrus. I understand if they wanted to make everyone experience the game, but if that was the case, then Tali should not have been on the second disc. In my mind she is more important than Jack who I haven't heard of before. Tali was there with me when I was fighting Saren, she should have been early like Garrus.

[Sanunes]

PHGDAL wrote...

What I liked about the first Mass Effect though was that I could choose how to progress. There was no order to do the missions on Feros, Noveria, and Therum. I could choose whichever and whenever.

What happened to that in Mass Effect 2? Why am I forced to recruit Thane, Samara, and Tali last?
The reason that I heard for that was they weren't able to fit the whole game into a single disc for the xbox (so that means that us PC players have to deal with a worse game because the xbox couldn't handle it? Seriously?)

And for Mass Effect 3. Why couldn't I choose to go talk to the Quarians first instead of saving the Primarch on Palaven's moon? Why do I have to do the Tuchanka mission first?
I was just plainly pissed at the lack of player choice.

That is why they should just follow Mass Effect as a template. It was a near-perfect game.

Honestly I understand your complaints, but really looking back at Mass Effect 1 and the two sequels, I think the reason for that limitation is because they had to break the game into segements so it would work on the 360.  Some content was locked onto disk 1 and other content was locked onto disk 2.  If they allowed you to pick and choose the order completely on your own there would be just as many complaints if not more about how BioWare is a bad developer because they make you switch the disk so often.  For I would want to pick the Quarian missions before the Krogan ones and be told I have to switch to disk two and then as soon as I was done that mission I go to Grissom Academy and be told I have to switch to disk one.

I do disagree that Mass Effect 1 as a near perfect game, I found it had just as many flaws as its sequels they were just different flaws.

[shodiswe]

PHGDAL wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

PHGDAL wrote...
What happened to that in Mass Effect 2? Why am I forced to recruit Thane, Samara, and Tali last?
The reason that I heard for that was they weren't able to fit the whole game into a single disc for the xbox (so that means that us PC players have to deal with a worse game because the xbox couldn't handle it? Seriously?)

 They probably didn't write any NPC lines for scenes that NPC wasn't going to be in. So, yeah, console limitations governed PC gameplay.

I'm not bothered by the more linear ME3 experience, myself. Choosing what order to experience the major quests in diesn't strike me as a big deal. One of those CRPG conventions that isn't worth following, IMO.

Actually, no, the sad part was that the shipped game actually has the dialogue for those characters. You can mod the game to have Tali and Legion with you when you rescue Garrus. I understand if they wanted to make everyone experience the game, but if that was the case, then Tali should not have been on the second disc. In my mind she is more important than Jack who I haven't heard of before. Tali was there with me when I was fighting Saren, she should have been early like Garrus.

Tali wasn't there because she needed to be involved in her fathers evil mad scientist with collector tech storyline.

[AlanC9]

PHGDAL wrote...


Actually, no, the sad part was that the shipped game actually has the dialogue for those characters. You can mod the game to have Tali and Legion with you when you rescue Garrus. I understand if they wanted to make everyone experience the game, but if that was the case, then Tali should not have been on the second disc. In my mind she is more important than Jack who I haven't heard of before. Tali was there with me when I was fighting Saren, she should have been early like Garrus.

Right. Forgot about that; silly of me, since I've read about that stuff on the wiki. 

I imagine putting Tali on the second disc was quite deliberate. They wanted to space out the returnees. And her appearance does make more sense if there's a delay between Freedom's Progress and Haestrom.

Modifié par AlanC9, 13 juin 2013 - 07:43 .

[PHGDAL]

My point being though, that even though there were some things I disliked about Mass Effect 2, it was still such an amazing game. It still allowed you to choose which characters to recruit first (ignoring the two disc split of course). So I could recruit Mordin without Garrus and so forth. You'll find that in Mass Effect 3 it isn't the case. They literally removed player choice, I felt Mass Effect 3 was a 3rd person shooter, not an RPG.

Which is why I think they should base most of their next Mass Effect game on the original Mass Effect.

[Nikkonito]

PHGDAL wrote...

My point being though, that even though there were some things I disliked about Mass Effect 2, it was still such an amazing game. It still allowed you to choose which characters to recruit first (ignoring the two disc split of course). So I could recruit Mordin without Garrus and so forth. You'll find that in Mass Effect 3 it isn't the case. They literally removed player choice, I felt Mass Effect 3 was a 3rd person shooter, not an RPG.

Which is why I think they should base most of their next Mass Effect game on the original Mass Effect.

Maybe it's just me, but I really feel like part of the problem is that we keep bumping up against the medium.  Unlike a PNPRPG, we don't have the ability to improvise, and the game designers keep having to take into account choices that a given player didn't take.  In a way, Mass Effect appears to have hit the storytelling Uncanny Valley.

[AlanC9]

But ME3 could have been less linear than it was. You'd pay a price for that freedom; ME3 isn't great at developing the Reaper threat over the course of the game, but it's better than DA:O was at handling a similar problem.

Whether that price is worth paying is a matter of personal taste. I come to RPGs from PnP, which may explain why I've got no particular use for nonlinearity.

Modifié par AlanC9, 13 juin 2013 - 04:56 .

[Arcian]

PHGDAL wrote...

 Just use Mass Effect 1 as a template. Seriously just do it. The last thing most of us here want to see is a great franchise turning into some shooter crap.

That boat has already sailed.

[Sanunes]

PHGDAL wrote...

My point being though, that even though there were some things I disliked about Mass Effect 2, it was still such an amazing game. It still allowed you to choose which characters to recruit first (ignoring the two disc split of course). So I could recruit Mordin without Garrus and so forth. You'll find that in Mass Effect 3 it isn't the case. They literally removed player choice, I felt Mass Effect 3 was a 3rd person shooter, not an RPG.

Which is why I think they should base most of their next Mass Effect game on the original Mass Effect.

I could say the same about Mass Effect 1 and 2, for why do I have to recruit Tali before Liara in Mass Effect 1 or in Mass Effect 2 why is Legion at the very end of the game?

If you want to argue that there is less player choice regarding recruitment I would agree, but don't label the entire game has had the option of choice removed.

[tanisha__unknown]

Hmm, I can do with absolute linearity (at least you won't miss anything), without open world exploration and probably without the gazillions of weapons and mods of ME1 (admit it, once you got the spectre gear, your weapon choice was clear, the only variation were themods you would slap on it).

What I would like to see is the storytelling of ME1 combined with the character moments of ME2 and ME3, the dialogue and interrupt options of ME2, combined with the combat mechanics of ME3

Edit: I'd also like the amount of choice as in ME1 and ME2 and to have your decisions matter slightly more. If they took your decisions into account for either further games or early gameplay decisions for late gameplay, I'd rather not have something like the Rachni mission which plays out pretty much the same way, no metter what you did.

Modifié par Jinx1720, 13 juin 2013 - 08:11 .

[daigakuinsei]

Honestly, I thought ME3's combat gameplay was the best. I thought ME1's exploration was the best. I liked the variety a-nd freedom in ME2.

Finally, I liked that ME1 and ME2 played the hero-overcoming-the-odds-with-his-buddies genre straight. I get why some storytellers want to subvert the genre, but that never seemed like Mass Effect to me, and why the ending was particularly jarring.

[PHGDAL]

You're right, there were things like Liara being only recruited later on the game in ME1 and Legion later on in ME2. Those were problems, sure, but they weren't as bad as Tali being recruited late in ME2 and ME3 because I didn't know Liara at the time. I didn't know Legion at the time. I knew and cared for Tali in ME2 and ME3. That made me ask "Where the f*ck is Tali?" throughout the game's entire beginning...

And for the weapon mods, no. I hated ME2 and ME3's weapon choices and designs. I really liked the RPG style of ME1 where you could buy the weapons you chose and you would also need to buy more than one so that you could give them to your squad.

My favourite part of ME1 though was the armour. I mean seriously? Bioware makes us pay for new appearances for our squadmembers now? In ME1 you could buy a new set of armour for Garrus and Wrex and their stats and appearance would change. I miss that.

I do agree with the story-telling of ME1 being better, but I just love the character-interaction of ME2 - it was great. ME3 felt really lacking, I wanted to hang out with my squad more, the Citadel DLC felt rushed and with very little dialogue wheel prompts.

So really, they should just take the good of all three games. But frankly I think the main problem is that Bioware and EA don't know who to target as an audience for this franchise. Originally it was an RPG - that was their audience (and that's is where I am included). Now it seems they want to get as many people as possible by including the Action and Shooter audiences.

EA, do whatever you want, but please pick an audience. If you say it's an RPG, make it so. If not, tell me before release so that I don't even bother with the game... I have better things to do than to wait around for something that will disappoint me.

[daigakuinsei]

I respectfully disagree with making Mass Effect more traditional RPG. Inventory management is annoying and so is worrying so much about stats. I thought ME3 struck a solid balance of letting you improve and modify weapons and improve skills without being tedious. What makes an RPG an RPG to me is the character development and choice impact, not the bean counting.

[Zerorevived]

Something tells me that they are going to go with a prologue. Having the main character be Garrus or the Illusive Man. I hope they don't, ME universe was so special because you had the freedom to create your own character and mold him/her in whatever way you wanted.

[Argent Csero]

Degrees1991 wrote...

Plus I think they should let us choose which race we want to be I think most of us want this option.

Seconded. I had to play as Shepard through one triology, lets have a little more freedom and flexiblity this time around.

[AlanC9]

PHGDAL wrote...
But frankly I think the main problem is that Bioware and EA don't know who to target as an audience for this franchise. Originally it was an RPG - that was their audience (and that's is where I am included). Now it seems they want to get as many people as possible by including the Action and Shooter audiences. 

EA, do whatever you want, but please pick an audience. If you say it's an RPG, make it so. If not, tell me before release so that I don't even bother with the game... I have better things to do than to wait around for something that will disappoint me.

The problem is that people who like RPGs don't agree on what they like about them, or even what defines them.

One of the things that struck me about ME1 is that Bio threw in lots of inventory and exploration, but didn't seems to really believe in those features; at least, not enough to spend much time or thought on them.

Modifié par AlanC9, 14 juin 2013 - 09:12 .

[Cainne Chapel]

I agree with Alan C9 on this.

Even from its inception ME1 was a RPG/TPS hybrid NEVER a pure RPG. And that whole what makes and RPG debate can last forever, as Alan C9 says its such a wide encompassing genre and also one with many types its hard to pin down.

I liked ME1's story and at the time its gameplay, howeveer it has not aged well and I feel the concession made with ME2/3 fit the theme and game better. As ME1 played like a bad RPG/TPS hybrid.