106 réponses à ce sujet

[Steelcan]

This discussion is so boring because for me that is a simple question to the answer 'which type of game Bioware should do?'. And that is, the: 'the best game they can'. If to make the best game they hvae to put more traditional RPG elements, they should. If not, they should not. 

Mass Effect 2 is widely regarded by both critics and fans as the best game in the trilogy and it's not because it has more or less RPG elements, it's because they fit perfectly with the game (along with many other reasons of course). ME3 also achieve a good balance, ME1 was a utter disaster. 

ME3 had no balance for RP'ing

 

it was an abysmal entry based on that criteria

[SNascimento]

ME3 had no balance for RP'ing

 

it was an abysmal entry based on that criteria

Well, I was thinking more about just gameplay, so no dialogue and character progression.

[Nomen Mendax]

Mass Effect 2 is widely regarded by both critics and fans as the best game in the trilogy and it's not because it has more or less RPG elements, it's because they fit perfectly with the game (along with many other reasons of course). ME3 also achieve a good balance, ME1 was a utter disaster. 

I liked ME1, it was a bit rough around the edges, but I'd never characterize it as an utter disaster. As far as I'm concerned ME2 was the weakest in the trilogy. Bioware's stated objective of discussing as little as possible of what happened in ME1 made the beginning absurd ("we're spending billions of credits to bring you back to life because you're so awesome"), and it was also the most immature of the three titles.

[SNascimento]

I liked ME1, it was a bit rough around the edges, but I'd never characterize it as an utter disaster. As far as I'm concerned ME2 was the weakest in the trilogy. Bioware's stated objective of discussing as little as possible of what happened in ME1 made the beginning absurd ("we're spending billions of credits to bring you back to life because you're so awesome"), and it was also the most immature of the three titles.

As I said in my previous post, I'm thinking only in terms of gameplay. I certainly don't think ME1 is a disaster as a game, but its gameplay is really bad. 

[Nomen Mendax]

As I said in my previous post, I'm thinking only in terms of gameplay. I certainly don't think ME1 is a disaster as a game, but its gameplay is really bad. 

Fair enough - although I'd argue its gameplay wasn't that bad. ME2 was definitely more polished, but certainly had its flaws. For example its control mechanics for dealing with cover aren't much better than ME1s. I also liked that being in cover in ME1 didn't give you complete protection - I always find it odd in ME2 when what appears to be a centimetre of plexiglass can protect you from missiles!

[The Heretic of Time]

ME3 was th best game in terms of gameplay. I want ME:A to be like ME3 but with more TPS mechanics such as destructable cover and blindfire. If we get that then I'm happy.

[Seboist]

I love how split the ME fanbase is. Half want it to be more RPG (guilty and proud) and the others want it to be more of a pure shooter.

To the shooter group, do we really need ANOTHER one in the already shooter dominated gamescape? Wouldn't that take away from what made ME unique (though I'm not saying it was the absolute first of its kind)?

 

Mass Effect hasn't been an RPG since the first game, so you should take your gripe up with Bioware and no, playing barbie dress up in CC and throwaway dialogue options do not a roleplaying experience make.

[AlanC9]

What does make for a roleplaying experience, then? Strict adherence to CRPG conventions?

[The Heretic of Time]

Mass Effect hasn't been an RPG since the first game, so you should take your gripe up with Bioware and no, playing barbie dress up in CC and throwaway dialogue options do not a roleplaying experience make.

 

I wouldn't pay too much attention to the LARPers who think RPGs are all about dialogue options and making faux choices. These are the same people who think point-n-click adventure games such as the Telltale games or Life is Strange are "proper RPGs".

[Seboist]

What does make for a roleplaying experience, then? Strict adherence to CRPG conventions?

 

At the very least it should have proper stat based gameplay, not like ME2 where a starting weapon is viable until the end of the game.

[SNascimento]

At the very least it should have proper stat based gameplay, not like ME2 where a starting weapon is viable until the end of the game.

Now that's a scary thought. Luckly there is no way in hell Mass Effect will return to that kind of combat. 

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

At the very least it should have proper stat based gameplay, not like ME2 where a starting weapon is viable until the end of the game.

 

The Avenger was pretty **** though.

[The Heretic of Time]

 

At the very least it should have proper stat based gameplay, not like ME2 where a starting weapon is viable until the end of the game.

 

 

Now that's a scary thought. Luckly there is no way in hell Mass Effect will return to that kind of combat. 

 

You two do realize ME3 returned to stat-based gameplay right? The main difference is that in ME3 most of the stats now come from the weapons and weapon-mods instead of on Shepard himself. Every weapon in ME3 has stats that can be improved by upgrading the weapon and adding weapon-mods. I liked that and I hope this makes a return to ME:A.

[Nomen Mendax]

At the very least it should have proper stat based gameplay, not like ME2 where a starting weapon is viable until the end of the game.I

I don't see a starting weapon being viable as relevant to whether or not something is an RPG (or CRPG). Even if your definition of what is an RPG is very mechanics based (which mine isn't) there are lots of games where the leveling is mainly in the characters abilities rather than the equipment. A +3 sword in Baldur's Gate is more effective than a regular sword, but a high level character with a non-magic sword is still pretty effective.

[SNascimento]

You two do realize ME3 returned to stat-based gameplay right? The main difference is that in ME3 most of the stats now come from the weapons and weapon-mods instead of on Shepard himself. Every weapon in ME3 has stats that can be improved by upgrading the weapon and adding weapon-mods. I liked that and I hope this makes a return to ME:A.

 

From that point of view, every game has a stat-based gameplay. In ME2 for example, weapons had damage stats that could change with skill and upgrades. 

This is completely different from, say, Dragon Age. Where you have weapons who are equal in everything but stats. Which was the case in ME1. 

[rashie]

Now that's a scary thought. Luckly there is no way in hell Mass Effect will return to that kind of combat. 

ME1 was a clumsy game that had severe design flaws even for an rpg, whether you are able to miss or not being stat driven while featuring manual aiming at the same time isn't a good idea. That however doesn't mean you should exclude things like stats and perks increasing weapon damage among other possible ways to do things (they also partly did this in ME2/ME3 by ammo powers).

[The Heretic of Time]

From that point of view, every game has a stat-based gameplay. In ME2 for example, weapons had damage stats that could change with skill and upgrades. 

This is completely different from, say, Dragon Age. Where you have weapons who are equal in everything but stats. Which was the case in ME1. 

 

Euhm no, not every game has stat-based gameplay. But I do see your point.

 

Anyway, from all 3 ME games I prefer ME3. In my opinion that game has the best balance between TPS elements and RPG elements.

[Quarian Master Race]

I love how split the ME fanbase is. Half want it to be more RPG (guilty and proud) and the others want it to be more of a pure shooter.

To the shooter group, do we really need ANOTHER one in the already shooter dominated gamescape? Wouldn't that take away from what made ME unique (though I'm not saying it was the absolute first of its kind)?

How would Mass Effect staying a shooter take away from what makes ME unique? It didn't in ME1, 2 or 3. If more people like the shooter format for combat and progression, and that sells more games (which, judging by comparing ME to contemporary RPG's it does), than that is the way it should remain.

There's a reason these games are so popular, it's because they don't have lots of the completely boring and tedious RPG mechanics that make many of those games so awful to play for the majority of people who aren't LARPer types. I love this series, its setting, lore and gameplay (ME1 notwithstanding). I've probably 25+ trilogy playthroughs and over a thousand hours in ME3's multiplayer. However, if they made ME:A into Dragon Age in space I probably wouldn't play it, because staring at inventory screens and performing 90 hours of fetch quests with skilless, stat based combat doesn't interest me at all. I don't imagine I'm alone in that opinion.

Fortunately, I don't think there is all that much chance of that happening if EA/Bioware is intelligent from a business standpoint and knows who ME's real fanbase is (i.e not BSN extremist "RPG" loyalist malcontents).

[Iakus]

What does make for a roleplaying experience, then? Strict adherence to CRPG conventions?

IMO:

 

In a word: reactivity.

 

In its most basic form, that takes the form of being able to build your own character.  From being able to choose between playing a warrior or a wizard to skill selection to deciding what weapons or armor to equip.

 

As games get more sophisticated, that extends to dialogue choices, the ability to resolve quests in a particular way, 

 

And taking that further, having the game react to this personalization of the game.  Be it through unique dialogue, branching missions, exclusive content, alternate endings, etc.  

 

Thus in a role-playing game, I expect to play a role.  One that is as much of my own making as possible. 

 

ME2 might have had good shooting mechanics, but was rather poor at that. I mean limited skills, negligible equipment selection, and a railroaded plot left me feeling very constrained as far as being able to RP goes.

[Iakus]

 
Fortunately, I don't think there is all that much chance of that happening if EA/Bioware is intelligent from a business standpoint and knows who ME's real fanbase is (i.e not BSN extremist "RPG" loyalist malcontents).

SO I guess I'm no true Scotsman, eh?

[Quarian Master Race]

SO I guess I'm no true Scotsman, eh?

You mean of the product as it is as opposed to what you wish it were? Yes. 

As for your misuse of informal fallacies in relation to the quoted statement, cry me a river. I didn't make a universal claim, so stop looking for reasons to be butthurt about everything.

[Mdizzletr0n]

How would Mass Effect staying a shooter take away from what makes ME unique? It didn't in ME1, 2 or 3. If more people like the shooter format for combat and progression, and that sells more games (which, judging by comparing ME to contemporary RPG's it does), than that is the way it should remain.

There's a reason these games are so popular, it's because they don't have lots of the completely boring and tedious RPG mechanics that make many of those games so awful to play for the majority of people who aren't LARPer types. I love this series, its setting, lore and gameplay (ME1 notwithstanding). I've probably 25+ trilogy playthroughs and over a thousand hours in ME3's multiplayer. However, if they made ME:A into Dragon Age in space I probably wouldn't play it, because staring at inventory screens and performing 90 hours of fetch quests with skilless, stat based combat doesn't interest me at all. I don't imagine I'm alone in that opinion.

Fortunately, I don't think there is all that much chance of that happening if EA/Bioware is intelligent from a business standpoint and knows who ME's real fanbase is (i.e not BSN extremist "RPG" loyalist malcontents).

You make good points here. I realize that the combat will still mostly (or completely) be that of an TPS. ME would be a total different game as a hard RPG, maybe still great, but it may be an insult to a big part of the fanbase. However, I'd like for them to return to the balance and allowing us to actually have multiple builds that we could take. Maybe you want a more rogueish stealth based build? Or a full on tank? Maybe cross class? Which yes, would require a stat based customization and micro-managing every skill/power/specialization (maybe not quite to the depth of pen & paper). I also know that that's boring for some people but isn't that what auto level ups are for? That way, you can just skip all the micromanagement and just play. That said, I know a lot of you may hate that but it never hurts to discuss it amongst the like minded rpg fans and the knuckle draggers. Lol I kid I kid.

Sure the ME games (especially later on) had some of this but alot of it was multiple things in one stat.

[Kappa Neko]

ME2 was the most shooter of the trilogy. It forced you to use your weapon almost exclusively because of the power cooldowns were ridiculously long. I loved ME2's combat a lot at first. But when ME3 came out, i realized how boring it was. Duck and shoot, duck and shoot. Over and over. no need to change position. Powers were useless.

A friend of mine called ME2 a rail shooter. And that's pretty much what it was... ME1's combat was pretty bad. I enjoyed ME2 a LOT more, but it was NOT good gameplay. It was extremely repetitive and boring. I guess that's why I got good at it so fast, lol.

 

ME3 let me play a biotic god who never had to fire her weapon. Now THAT is good roleplaying to me, even if the game mechanics are shooter. Finally the game lived up to what it told about biotics. Very immersive.

ME3 was a shooter one didn't have to play like one. Perfect! ME2 was almost a pure shooter. In retrospect, I resent how much they crippled biotics.

 

Speaking of combat alone, I never want to go back to ME2, polished as it was.

[StealthGamer92]

Your class is only part of the game. Doesn't make or break it as a role-playing game.

 

By definition, a role playing game is one where you take on the role of character (Shepard) in a fictional setting. All three games have this. You still were able to equip gear which gave you bonuses in ME2. Even more so in ME3 with the re-introduction of mods. You could even walk up to someone and talk to them and learn stuff. Although in ME3, it's more passive. They tell you the story if you're around that character.

 

Can't really do that in a pure shooting game like the Unreal Tournament series.

So why then can't I role play anything other than a personality in ME2, or in ME3's case I can RP anything I want as long as it's not a Infiltrator? There is no role playing if you chose an Infiltrator since game two even though they detailed what his talent's were and then never gave you the ability to role play "that guy" in the game. You can blindly defend this game as role play all you want but the fact there is a class in the game that you cannot role play as advertised will alway's prove ME is not a role playing game post ME1. The Infiltrator has really been neglected worse and worse since game one, though in ME1 he could have some good moment's BECAUSE of the RP element's that allowed me to better customize him and the actual uses of situation's he was designed for. I'm Sorry but this game is roleplay by developer label only, and unless real RP is added I'll stand by that statement. AND no RP does not mean loot and inventory system as some mistakenly believe, RP is allowing a much more personally customized character than ME allow's stats wise(you can not make an Infiltrator that doesn't wind up feeling like a frontline soldier which is allready a class so fail) and that's the single important thing needed to be RPG.