276 réponses à ce sujet

[spirosz]

StreetMagic wrote...

They didn't really service actions fans either, in the end. I mean, the end battle is basically Maurader Shields.

What is an "action" fan?  

[darthrevaninlight]

remydat wrote...

What original goal?  You are imposing your goals on Bioware.  Their goal is to make money.  They decided that for ME3, the best way to do that was to create a game that a newcomer could decide how to play without it impacting any other mode.  Action mode does not impact someone playing Story mode and neither impacts someone playing RPG mode.  I started out playing RPG mode but I play action mode now because I have seen the Story over and over and my only interest in the game now is multiplayer and the Insanity single player game play.

So no it was not a mistake.  Until you can prove one mode impacted another, this is argument makes no sense.

http://www.digitalsp...-rpg-modes.html

 Why are you linking that? I'm aware Bioware made an action mode. I played ME3.

I am not imposing my goals on Bioware. I'm merely observing their larger audience and their common statements.

There are plenty of other ways to make money than making video games. They chose to make video games. And they have a specific legacy regarding video games.

Let's look at the past here. What have we got? A long, clear, and obvious history about RPGs. They have built their entire history and gained renown and name based on these RPGs. What do you hear when you hear about Bioware? "They make the best stories" or something to that effect. "The amazing romances" or whatever. 

So let's be reasonable here. Let's look at this objectively. 

If "Amazing romances" and "good story" are what people praise about Bioware games, what are they buying Bioware games expecting?

The answer is obvious. Therefore, that should be their immediate focus. It's only logical. If they want to continue being able to make money. 

And of course it doesn't affect story mode--you aren't playing action mode after all. But Action Mode is indicative of their focus dwindling when it comes to the RPG. There is a clear and gaping lack of RPG elements in ME3. 

[Dextro Milk]

remydat wrote...

I have no problem continuing this conversation.  You are the one that appears to want to move on but want to get the last word in. 

And your opinion is silly because before the game came out Bioware told you that you could go into Mass Effect for no choices.  Bioware made the game and straight up told everyone that they could play with no choices if they just wanted to enjoy the combat. 

http://www.pcgamer.c...mode-explained/

You keep throwing up that page like it somehow helps? 

I just think it's funny you are trying to say I can't find Action Mode silly. It is silly, you don't play CoD for deep RPG elements, and you don't play Mass Effect for mindless action and no choices.

Cry some more pls, I find your tears to be visually pleasing. 

[darthrevaninlight]

spirosz wrote...

Same, but ME3 did very well in terms of powers and such, where ME2 had the best balance of dialogue input for the player and amount of "auto-dialogue" IMO. 

Personally, I think auto-dialogue is extremely jarring. ME2 was bearable, but I really felt like I was creating Shepard's character in ME1. Me1 definitely had the stronger story presentation and the RPG elements were fantastic.

[spirosz]

As do I, I love any type of game. The whole "COD" fan mindset boggles me. I was a very competitive gamer, back in CS 1.6/Source days, but I still loved my RPGs and anything, really. A good game is a good game, regardless of the genre.

[remydat]

Ryuji2 wrote...

Auto-dialogue had to be put in to allow Action Mode to exist, to a point. Makes things too complicated and the auto-choices wouldn't work out so well.

Source.  The same programming code that makes you cure the genophage and kill General Ariakh in Action Mode could have been used for the random chit chat dialogue options if they existed.

You are stating this as fact as if you have experience programming games or was told by someone who does that it is too complicated. 

[darthrevaninlight]

^
Indeed it does.  Ryuji is a smart man. 

spirosz wrote...

As do I, I love any type of game. The whole "COD" fan mindset boggles me. I was a very competitive gamer, back in CS 1.6/Source days, but I still loved my RPGs and anything, really. A good game is a good game, regardless of the genre.

I completely agree. 

Modifié par darthrevaninlight, 01 juillet 2013 - 04:42 .

[remydat]

Dextro Milk wrote...

You keep throwing up that page like it somehow helps? 

I just think it's funny you are trying to say I can't find Action Mode silly. It is silly, you don't play CoD for deep RPG elements, and you don't play Mass Effect for mindless action and no choices.

Cry some more pls, I find your tears to be visually pleasing. 

No you can find anything silly.  And I can point out that what you find silly is actually good business because it is.  When Bioware tells gamers they can play ME for mindless action and no choices not sure why you think people should accept your opinion on the matter.  They created the game not you.  You are just some random dude on the internet.

[AresKeith]

spirosz wrote...

As do I, I love any type of game. The whole "COD" fan mindset boggles me. I was a very competitive gamer, back in CS 1.6/Source days, but I still loved my RPGs and anything, really. A good game is a good game, regardless of the genre.

I think the mindset actually means abandoning one part of the ME genre for the other

[Dextro Milk]

remydat wrote...


No you can find anything silly.  And I can point out that what you find silly is actually good business because it is.  When Bioware tells gamers they can play ME for mindless action and no choices not sure why you think people should accept your opinion on the matter.  They created the game not you.  You are just some random dude on the internet.

A buisiness move can be silly, Remy. Or are you going to argue that too?

Catering to all genres is silly. Show me proof where catering to the TPS fans actually made a difference in sales. PROOF REMY, LET ME SEE IT. NOA.

[spirosz]

Ah true. I don't know if that was the mindset Bioware had when forcing more auto-dialogue, but I believe they wanted the "flow" more than the ability for us to choose. Though, I wish they didn't have it for ME3 and rather have that type of dialogue for a future ME game, where it's a clean state. That is why I couldn't do a second playthrough of ME3, it felt awkward. Though that can be subjective because I've heard from people that ME3 stayed in tune with the character they developed, which wasn't the case for me.

[remydat]

darthrevaninlight wrote...
 Why are you linking that? I'm aware Bioware made an action mode. I played ME3.

I am not imposing my goals on Bioware. I'm merely observing their larger audience and their common statements.

There are plenty of other ways to make money than making video games. They chose to make video games. And they have a specific legacy regarding video games.

Let's look at the past here. What have we got? A long, clear, and obvious history about RPGs. They have built their entire history and gained renown and name based on these RPGs. What do you hear when you hear about Bioware? "They make the best stories" or something to that effect. "The amazing romances" or whatever. 

So let's be reasonable here. Let's look at this objectively. 

If "Amazing romances" and "good story" are what people praise about Bioware games, what are they buying Bioware games expecting?

The answer is obvious. Therefore, that should be their immediate focus. It's only logical. If they want to continue being able to make money. 

And of course it doesn't affect story mode--you aren't playing action mode after all. But Action Mode is indicative of their focus dwindling when it comes to the RPG. There is a clear and gaping lack of RPG elements in ME3. 

And if you want RPG elements then you play in RPG mode.  Action mode does not impact that.  However, this notion that a company should remain static is simply dumb business.  People's tastes evolve and as a business you either adapt or die. 

I am pretty sure Bioware researches and has demographic information about their audience and you don't.  You are making assumptions about who their audience is while Bioware actually makes decisions not on assumptions but real data on who their gamers and audience are. 

Again you can make all the assumptions you want.  Where is the proof of your claims. 

[AresKeith]

spirosz wrote...

Ah true. I don't know if that was the mindset Bioware had when forcing more auto-dialogue, but I believe they wanted the "flow" more than the ability for us to choose. Though, I wish they didn't have it for ME3 and rather have that type of dialogue for a future ME game, where it's a clean state. That is why I couldn't do a second playthrough of ME3, it felt awkward. Though that can be subjective because I've heard from people that ME3 stayed in tune with the character they developed, which wasn't the case for me.

I couldn't stay in tune with my Shepard either

And IMO the mindset Bioware had was new players in-general because a non-import playthrough makes more sense than an import playthrough

[spirosz]

Well technically remy, RPG lovers tend to be Bioware's audience.

[Dextro Milk]

spirosz wrote...

Well technically remy, RPG lovers tend to be Bioware's audience.

Proof, he needs to see it. Proof pls.

[18 Brains]

darthrevaninlight wrote...

remydat wrote...

*snipped*

No.

Action mode is just not right.

Publilius Syrus, “To do two things at once is to do neither.”

If a game is trying to appeal to TPS players, they should make a game that is geared entirely at that audience. If a game is trying to appear to RPGers then they should make a game geared entirely towards THAT audience. To try to be both games will result in being neither. Nothing within this universe can be two things at once, and to try to do so would be to fail horribly.

So Bioware's action mode was a mistake. To spend anytime programming that rather than moving towards their original goal would be an utter waste of time. RPGers and TPSers want two entirely different things from a videogame. 

So much this.

Bioware's games have been marketed as RPG games for years, and have had a reliable and (up until recent games)  dedicated fanbase that buys those games, and all of the paraphernalia that goes with it (comics, 3D models, figurines, etc.).  To try to market to other genre bases ultimately detracts from the amount of effort and resources that could have been put towards greater use in the game, whether in story, graphics, or gameplay(for example, improving the quest log would have been nice, and probably relatively simple. Regardless, moving on.)

We've seen other games try to market towards "the COD fanbase" or "Shooter" games in general, whether TPS or FPS.  What these companies often fail to realize is that the gamers that they are trying to draw in will most likely stick to their genre, and the gamers who where once engrossed in the franchise suddenly become disillusioned by it due to the changes that lead the game away from the choices that are available in an RPG game to a more on rails TPS.

Ryuji2 wrote...


The fact is that a well established franchise like Mass Effect shouldn't have to change to cater to fans of TPS games. Mass Effect in of itself is a sci-fi RPG that happens to have TPS combat but the main emphasis is the story.

TPS fans want action, original Mass Effect fans wanted more story. Mass Effect 3 tried to cater to both and thus became...less of itself. In other words, the whole idea behind choices and changing the story by your actions is made null just for extra people? Makes sense in terms of making money, but in doing so gives the middle finger to original fans that had story they wanted get cut just so the TPS fans could focus less on story and more on action.

This simply furthers the point.

If you include multiplayer, action mode, gimmick mobile games, etc, while trying to have a strong singleplayer experience, you are dividing your resources that would (and could) have improved said singleplayer, which is what the gamers who were going to buy the game wanted. 

Who knows, though?  Maybe the next game all the consumers will need to be convinced to buy it is a dog.

Modifié par 18 Brains, 01 juillet 2013 - 04:55 .

[Ryuji2]

remydat wrote...

Ryuji2 wrote...

Auto-dialogue had to be put in to allow Action Mode to exist, to a point. Makes things too complicated and the auto-choices wouldn't work out so well.

Source.  The same programming code that makes you cure the genophage and kill General Ariakh in Action Mode could have been used for the random chit chat dialogue options if they existed.

You are stating this as fact as if you have experience programming games or was told by someone who does that it is too complicated. 

I have. You ever seen the algorithms or even flowcharts for games with craptons of choices? The possibilities are ridiculous even for those small chit-chats. It's like looking at a maze where one small slip-up breaks the whole thing.

Trust me, if you can get a code to work without making things too complicated, but just right to where it doesn't bug out every time, then it's like Thanksgiving Day turkey. Meaning it's an amazing feeling.

I could argue and ask for proof that what I said isn't true as well, by the way. But you won't really get solid evidence for either side without someone who worked on ME3's code/story itself.

[remydat]

Dextro Milk wrote...

A buisiness move can be silly, Remy. Or are you going to argue that too?

Catering to all genres is silly. Show me proof where catering to the TPS fans actually made a difference in sales. PROOF REMY, LET ME SEE IT. NOA.

Yes a business move can be silly but what evidence do you have that this one was?  ME3 sold a bunch of games.  ME3 mutliplayer is pretty successful.  No one plays multiplayer for the plot.  They play it because it is a TPS.

Do you have evidence that ME3's multiplayer is unsuccessful?  Because MP is one of the main things that keeps people playing the game including me?

[remydat]

spirosz wrote...

Well technically remy, RPG lovers tend to be Bioware's audience.

And my point is that has been changing.  Things don't stay static forever.  Bioware is moving towards a RPG-TPS hybrid so what evidence do people have that the core audience for ME3 remains RPGers?

[spirosz]

remydat wrote...

spirosz wrote...

Well technically remy, RPG lovers tend to be Bioware's audience.

And my point is that has been changing.  Things don't stay static forever.  Bioware is moving towards a RPG-TPS hybrid so what evidence do people have that the core audience for ME3 remains RPGers?

Well no, the ME team is influenced by that direction, as the first game was trying to be a hybrid.  Bioware as whole, is still falling under the "RPG" group - Dragon Age for example. 

[remydat]

Ryuji2 wrote...

I have. You ever seen the algorithms or even flowcharts for games with craptons of choices? The possibilities are ridiculous even for those small chit-chats. It's like looking at a maze where one small slip-up breaks the whole thing.

Trust me, if you can get a code to work without making things too complicated, but just right to where it doesn't bug out every time, then it's like Thanksgiving Day turkey. Meaning it's an amazing feeling.

I could argue and ask for proof that what I said isn't true as well, by the way. But you won't really get solid evidence for either side without someone who worked on ME3's code/story itself.

Well that is my point.  People are making unsubstantiated claims and passing them off as fact.  There is absolutely no evidence that Action mode was the reason for auto-dialogue.  Those small chit chats were pretty pointless.  Most RPGers don't actually allow you to have small chit chats that actually don't further the story at all. Bioware could have simply decided it was a waste of resources.

[Dextro Milk]

remydat wrote...

Dextro Milk wrote...

A buisiness move can be silly, Remy. Or are you going to argue that too?

Catering to all genres is silly. Show me proof where catering to the TPS fans actually made a difference in sales. PROOF REMY, LET ME SEE IT. NOA.

Yes a business move can be silly but what evidence do you have that this one was?  ME3 sold a bunch of games.  ME3 mutliplayer is pretty successful.  No one plays multiplayer for the plot.  They play it because it is a TPS.

Do you have evidence that ME3's multiplayer is unsuccessful?  Because MP is one of the main things that keeps people playing the game including me?

Proof. Show me. 

Show me how Action Mode improved sales Remy, because that is what I am arguing. You call me out for saying it is silly, and you have no proof to even show that it helped at all to bring more mindless idiots into Mass Effect's fanbase.

[remydat]

spirosz wrote...

Well no, the ME team is influenced by that direction, as the first game was trying to be a hybrid.  Bioware as whole, is still falling under the "RPG" group - Dragon Age for example. 

Well yes I was referring to Bioware's ME Franchise.  They are trying to diversify their product.  They have RPGs, they got into MMORP with the new Star Wars game and they are always had TPS elements in ME.  A pure RPG has more of a Dragon Age combat system.  The ME series always had that TPS element and they have increased that TPS element with each game.