285 réponses à ce sujet

[UniformGreyColor]

But they made videogames some people didn't like. Obviously that is the gravest of sins.

 

I seriously was laughing at this.

 

This is kind of where I'm at.  While their games have slowly, steadily gotten worse (IMO) in the qualities I look for in a good game, they've done enough in the past that I liked to make me hold out hope they might "get it" once again.

 

Also, I actually didn't mind the DLC that Bio Montreal worked on for ME3.  Not very RPG-heavy, but then again I'm not expecting EA or Bio to bring the ME franchise back to its RPG roots.  It's a shooter with a good story and minimal RPG elements now.

 

I just hope they don't do "open world" like they did with Dragon Age Inquisition.  Fun enough story, great companion characters, but most of the open world content was boring as all hell.

 

I am confident, near sure we will be seeing open world in ME:A in one form or another. Someone earlier said open world is all the rage and that is very true. Companies are going to continue to do what works across the board and ME:A will be no exception. Plus, if you watch what the devs had to say about the game they basically said fans wanted "new worlds" in other words, open world in a new setting.

[BaaBaaBlacksheep]

How successful a franchise is has nothing to do with quality or content. Call of Duty sells tens of millions, doesn't mean the franchise is perfect and innovative. And the writing in Assassin's Creed is so weak at times. They have no idea what to do with the "modern day" plot. Graphics are comparable to DAI, and BW will get better, because they cut old gen and got more comfortable with developing under Frostbite. Gameplay has many terrible elements (tower defense, trinket collection, empty missions). They definitely don't have more passion than BW. Their formula is not making better games, but pump out however many they can without changing anything, and then react if people complain. The fact that they're making 2-3 AC games at the same time is a clear sign of that.
And EA would never sell Ubi their only RPG division. Even if Ubisoft could afford it.

I never said the game is supposed to be perfect nor developers supposed to be perfect neither, all games have flaws, strengths, and weaknesses, it's just some games and developers have flaws more than others. But the thing that I liked about Ubisoft games is that their game's replay value is high and their series are always better than their previous games, but I think that BioWare should learn from Ubisoft is to work on their style of gameplay, quests, combat designs, and their open world level designs for starters.

[SlottsMachine]

It doesn't matter what EA does, they aren't developing the game.

 

While I wouldn't say that is completely true, I agree that the success or failure of ME:A (or any BioWare game) mostly rests with BioWare. 

[Biotic Apostate]

I never said the game is supposed to be perfect nor developers supposed to be perfect neither, all games have flaws, strengths, and weaknesses, it's just some games and developers have flaws more than others. But the thing that I liked about Ubisoft games is that their game's replay value is high and their series are always better than their previous games, but I think that BioWare should learn from Ubisoft is to work on their style of gameplay, quests, combat designs, and their open world level designs for starters.

Great, you obviously like Ubisoft. But don't go telling fairy tales about how better BW would be under Ubi than EA. I would stop playing BW games if they turned into Assassin's Creed with spells, so I'm glad any BW takeover will never happen. 

[Il Divo]

I always loved wreaking havoc with Colonel Burton. He truly was the best.

 

 

Well Mass Effect was always partially an action based game. I can't blame them for wanting to polish up that part of the game considering it was pretty weak in ME1.

 

As much as we'd love to blame EA for the shift to cinematic stuff we really started seeing it in BioWare starting with Knights of the Old Republic, long before EA got their hands on them. EA may have accelerated that shift, but it's pretty clear that's where BioWare wanted to go.

 

Also, Mass Effect 2 is not a Gears clone. Using that logic, every cover based shooter is just an Operation Winback clone.

 

This can't be emphasized enough, I think. Trying to parse Mass Effect into this deep, meaningful RPG while relegating its successors to "Gears of War" clones doesn't work. 

 

ME1 falls into the same action-RPG category, only it failed utterly at the RPG mechanics....and the tps mechanics. 

 

And as you mentioned, since KotOR we've seen a consistent emphasis on cinematic presentation that's been present in every Bioware game since. On the other hand, the RPG-based gameplay had been seeing decreased emphasis as early as KotOR. 

[Iakus]

This can't be emphasized enough, I think. Trying to parse Mass Effect into this deep, meaningful RPG while relegating its successors to "Gears of War" clones doesn't work. 

 

ME1 falls into the same action-RPG category, only it failed utterly at the RPG mechanics....and the tps mechanics. 

 

Mass Effect was never an overly deep RPG.  But I would argue that it's rpg mechanics got steadily worse as the trilogy went on, even if the tps mechanics improved (and I do admit that aspect did get better).

 

I'd say we got a good view of where that path led...

 

 

And as you mentioned, since KotOR we've seen a consistent emphasis on cinematic presentation that's been present in every Bioware game since. On the other hand, the RPG-based gameplay had been seeing decreased emphasis as early as KotOR.

There's nothing wrong with augmenting storytelling with cinematics.  It can greatly add to a game.  But Bioware has grown increasingly dependent on it.  To the point of using it as a crutch for storytelling rather than a way to reinforce it.

[Giantdeathrobot]

Mass Effect was never an overly deep RPG.  But I would argue that it's rpg mechanics got steadily worse as the trilogy went on, even if the tps mechanics improved (and I do admit that aspect did get better).

 

I'd say we got a good view of where that path led...

 

There's nothing wrong with augmenting storytelling with cinematics.  It can greatly add to a game.  But Bioware has grown increasingly dependent on it.  To the point of using it as a crutch for storytelling rather than a way to reinforce it.

 

ME3 had the best RPG elements if you ask me. Weapon mods, exclusive power upgrades, and a nice diversity of abilities made it the strongest title, gameplay wise, by far IMO. Certainly a way better foundation moving forward than the clunky mess that was ME1 or the overly stripped down ME2.

 

Let me put it this way, had ME3's multiplayer used ME1's gameplay, I can guess, nay, I can assure you it would never have been as surprisingly popular.

[Kabraxal]

Given hiw awesome DA:I is and the reveals so far.... I see no reason to think ME:A will be anything but awesome. Hell, even with the terrible ending, ME3 as a package was awesome. Especially with the new en.. I mean DLC in Citadel making it easier to ignore the ending.

[LinksOcarina]

ME3 had the best RPG elements if you ask me. Weapon mods, exclusive power upgrades, and a nice diversity of abilities made it the strongest title, gameplay wise, by far IMO. Certainly a way better foundation moving forward than the clunky mess that was ME1 or the overly stripped down ME2.

 

Let me put it this way, had ME3's multiplayer used ME1's gameplay, I can guess, nay, I can assure you it would never have been as surprisingly popular.

 

It depends on implementation, really.

 

Mass Effect 1 is very stat-spreadhseet heavy, very rooted in tabletop ideals.

 

Mass Effect 3 is more abstract and immediate, but has depth because everything in-game is given stats and different, tactile feel.

 

People tend to conflate changes in structure to be "dumbing down" role-playing elements or gameplay, but the truth is it's just different from how it was implemented. Mass Effect 2 dumbed it down by giving us fewer options. Mass Effect 3 corrected it, and hopefully continues the trend, although part of the reason it was corrected, I figure, was due to multiplayer incentive to have guns with personality.

[Quarian Master Race]

Not very original, but it does have the expected condescending ring to it.

It's always funny to see the shills religiously defending a company that the best thing that can be said about it is that it is possibly not the worst.

Not quite as funny as the frothing at the mouth, groupthink afflicted internet populists who religiously hate EA as if it were run by Hitler himself, when the worst thing that can be said is that their pricing structure responds to the market forces of inflation and spiraling development costs of their products.

Seriously, a video game publisher managing to beat companies who do things like this and literally ruin the lives of millions in a most hated company award....
http://www.reuters.c...N0O42PJ20150519
just proves that the internet is a haven for self important retarded neckbeards, who don't understand nor care about the world outside their moms' basements.

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

Nothing. Not a damn thing. But I've posted in 3 dozen threads and not one has new replies, meanwhile this game's section is the only one with activity. So I'm here.

[LinksOcarina]

Nothing. Not a damn thing. But I've posted in 3 dozen threads and not one has new replies, meanwhile this game's section is the only one with activity. So I'm here.

 

threads on what, exactly?

[Il Divo]

 

 

Mass Effect was never an overly deep RPG.  But I would argue that it's rpg mechanics got steadily worse as the trilogy went on, even if the tps mechanics improved (and I do admit that aspect did get better).

 

 

 

 

I think that's giving Mass Effect's RPG elements a little too much credit. A good RPG system requires a good foundation, which Mass Effect in many ways did not possess. It had arguably the worst inventory in RPG gaming, which more often than not was at odds with its tps elements, overly elongated skill trees, and while it attempted to replicate non-combat skills, other than charm/intimidate, everything translated into "more inventory/omnigel". 

 

This is why, despite ME2 seemingly gutting the skill trees, it at least provided a better tps template which ME3 was then able to add a RPG mechanics to augment. 

 

Mass Effect 1, for all its inventory and point slots, the basic gameplay still attempted to emulate that of a shooter. It was always far closer to Gears of War than it was to Baldur's Gate, despite efforts to portray otherwise. Hence why efforts to conflate ME2 and 3 with GoW are inaccurate. 

 

There's nothing wrong with augmenting storytelling with cinematics.  It can greatly add to a game.  But Bioware has grown increasingly dependent on it.  To the point of using it as a crutch for storytelling rather than a way to reinforce it.

 

 

The point though is that people want to tackle Bioware as the developer who gave in to cinematics. Pre-EA indicates that this was opposite the case: they increasingly shifted away from DnD-style gameplay, provided a voice-protagonist, while retaining (and increasingly emphasizing) cinematic-based story-telling. 

 

We could definitely talk about over-emphasis on cinematics, but trying to pin that as an EA-phenomenon wouldn't really be accurate in this instance. 

[LinksOcarina]

I think that's giving Mass Effect's RPG elements a little too much credit. A good RPG system requires a good foundation, which Mass Effect in many ways did not possess. It had arguably the worst inventory in RPG gaming, which more often than not was at odds with its tps elements, overly elongated skill trees, and while it attempted to replicate non-combat skills, other than charm/intimidate, everything translated into "more inventory/omnigel". 

 

This is why, despite ME2 seemingly gutting the skill trees, it at least provided a better tps template which ME3 was then able to add a RPG mechanics to augment. 

 

Mass Effect 1, for all its inventory and point slots, the basic gameplay still attempted to emulate that of a shooter. It was always far closer to Gears of War than it was to Baldur's Gate, despite efforts to portray otherwise. Hence why efforts to conflate ME2 and 3 with GoW are 

 

 

The point though is that people want to tackle Bioware as the developer who gave in to cinematics. Pre-EA indicates that this was opposite the case: they increasingly shifted away from DnD-style gameplay, provided a voice-protagonist, while retaining (and increasingly emphasizing) cinematic-based story-telling. 

 

We could definitely talk about over-emphasis on cinematics, but trying to pin that as an EA-phenomenon wouldn't really be accurate in this instance. 

 

Although for BioWare that has been their focus.

 

 

This interview with Weekes actually discusses the shift in "screenplay" style of narrative versus "novel" narrative. So the over-emphasis on cinematics is now part of that storytelling for BioWare.

 

Whether or not they are good cinematics is another story. But that seems to have been the goal before EA even got involved, it seems. 

[Giantdeathrobot]

Not quite as funny as the frothing at the mouth, groupthink afflicted internet populists who religiously hate EA as if it were run by Hitler himself, when the worst thing that can be said is that their pricing structure responds to the market forces of inflation and spiraling development costs of their products.

Seriously, a video game publisher managing to beat companies who do things like this and literally ruin the lives of millions in a most hated company award....
http://www.reuters.c...N0O42PJ20150519
just proves that the internet is a haven for self important retarded neckbeards, who don't understand nor care about the world outside their moms' basements.

 

Yeah, anytime someone brings up EA ''winning'' those awards as if it was worth anything, I just want to stop the conversation and walk away. It's such a shining example of short-sighted internet temper tantrums.

[Iakus]

I think that's giving Mass Effect's RPG elements a little too much credit. A good RPG system requires a good foundation, which Mass Effect in many ways did not possess. It had arguably the worst inventory in RPG gaming, which more often than not was at odds with its tps elements, overly elongated skill trees, and while it attempted to replicate non-combat skills, other than charm/intimidate, everything translated into "more inventory/omnigel". 

 

Even if ME1's rpg mechanics weren't great, they still existed.  ME2 was almost nonexistent.  ME3 brought back the ability to mod weapons, but at the expense of what little control we had over Shepard to begin with.

 

 

This is why, despite ME2 seemingly gutting the skill trees, it at least provided a better tps template which ME3 was then able to add a RPG mechanics to augment.

THis is the problem:  the RPG elements seem to be relegated to "extra stuff, if we have time for it"

[Iakus]

Although for BioWare that has been their focus.

 

 

This interview with Weekes actually discusses the shift in "screenplay" style of narrative versus "novel" narrative. So the over-emphasis on cinematics is now part of that storytelling for BioWare.

 

Whether or not they are good cinematics is another story. But that seems to have been the goal before EA even got involved, it seems. 

Interesting that he talks of using a merging of gameplay and cinematics to develop trust with the players.

 

That's one thing Mass Effect really has to work on.

[Il Divo]

 

Even if ME1's rpg mechanics weren't great, they still existed.  ME2 was almost nonexistent.  ME3 brought back the ability to mod weapons, but at the expense of what little control we had over Shepard to begin with.

 

 

 

Existence does not imply quality. If we are going to make an RPG-TPS hybrid and we fail at both the RPG and the TPS elements, as well as their hybridization, then we are not engaging in effective game design. 

 

It would have been awesome if ME2 had good RPG mechanics to add to the picture. But we're not comparing to the alternate version of ME2, we're comparing ME2 (decent TPS, weak RPG) to ME1 (weak TPS, weak RPG).  

 

THis is the problem:  the RPG elements seem to be relegated to "extra stuff, if we have time for it"

 

 

I would support this if ME1 had halfway decent RPG mechanics to begin with. A game that employs good TPS mechanics and weak/non-existent RPG mechanics will be better (in regards to gameplay) than a game that has bad TPS and RPG mechanics. 

 

And regardless of their history as RPG veterans, given that Bioware did commit to making a hybrid, the overall gameplay shouldn't suffer just to meet the RPG checklist. To a large extent, that's what gave us the ME1 inventory in the first place.  

[saladinbob]

 

True, although in some cases the developers shoot themselves in the foot.

 

Westwood studios is a prime example, when half of the development team quit when EA purchased the studio. That team was also working on Tiberian Sun at the time, so they left it half-complete. 

 

EA did put restrictions on them, but when half of your studio quits before they even get into the door...i'm all for developers doing their own thing and living stress free but you at least finish your contracted job before looking for work elsewhere. Quitting mid-way caused more damage for the people who stayed.

 

It was after that they tightened the reins, although that was mostly under Larry Probst who was notorious for some terrible practices, the EA spouse did come from his oversight. 

 

 

You should read up on your history, friend because you talk utter nonsense. EA interfered with the development of Tiberian Sun throughout the process, forcing Westwood to release it ahead of schedule leaving Westwood with insufficient time to finish development. There were many planned features that were either implemented half finished or omitted entirely as a result of studio interference, only to then be released in a paid for expansion. 

 

Sound familiar? Leaving out content for it to be wrapped up in and sold as purchasable DLC is something EA have a track record of. I don't think EA are the big evil corporate they're made out to be but they sure as hell aren't saints either and have messed up more than one game due to their interference. 

 

 

 

What has EA done in the past couple of years that gives me hope for ME:A ?

 

Mass Effect (1) and Dragon Age: Origins.

 

Those two games are always, and will always be the two games I look back to and think "That was BioWare's highest points". If they made those two games, they can make anything (good). That, I believe, is what gives me hope. More realistically, however, I'd say that specifically for ME:A what gives me hope is that 1) it's the team responsible for ME3's multiplayer (which I absolutely love, and I do refer only to multiplayer here), and 2) it has a different lead writer (to put it softly).

 

Dragon Age origins was an evolution of Neverwinter Nights and Mass Effect was developed prior to BioWare's take over by EA. Since being owned by EA, BioWare have ceased to innovate, preferring to iterate each title on its predecessor. What I would like from MEA is quite simple: BioWare to get back to being the innovative developer they once were. What we'll probably get is combined iteration on ME3 and DAI.

[Cyonan]

Dragon Age origins was an evolution of Neverwinter Nights and Mass Effect was developed prior to BioWare's take over by EA. Since being owned by EA, BioWare have ceased to innovate, preferring to iterate each title on its predecessor. What I would like from MEA is quite simple: BioWare to get back to being the innovative developer they once were. What we'll probably get is combined iteration on ME3 and DAI.

 

 

We are talking about the developer that has barely deviated from their core formula since long before EA got their hands on them, right?

 

They're no Bethesda, but BioWare is hardly the pinnacle of innovation. They stick to what works for them.

[Catastrophy]

We are talking about the developer that has barely deviated from their core formula since long before EA got their hands on them, right?

 

They're no Bethesda, but BioWare is hardly the pinnacle of innovation. They stick to what works for them.

Maybe it's just me, but I see a very clear evolution in the combat gameplay in ME.

[Iakus]

 

 

Existence does not imply quality. If we are going to make an RPG-TPS hybrid and we fail at both the RPG and the TPS elements, as well as their hybridization, then we are not engaging in effective game design. 

 

It would have been awesome if ME2 had good RPG mechanics to add to the picture. But we're not comparing to the alternate version of ME2, we're comparing ME2 (decent TPS, weak RPG) to ME1 (weak TPS, weak RPG).  

 

By the same token, if you are going to make an RPG/TPS hybrid, and leave out most or all of the RPG elements, that's not good game design either.  I'm sure those who prefer TPS games to begin with prefer ME2.  But to those of us who came at the series from the RPG angle can say "At least ME1 had RPG elements"

 

 

 

I would support this if ME1 had halfway decent RPG mechanics to begin with. A game that employs good TPS mechanics and weak/non-existent RPG mechanics will be better (in regards to gameplay) than a game that has bad TPS and RPG mechanics.

And regardless of their history as RPG veterans, given that Bioware did commit to making a hybrid, the overall gameplay shouldn't suffer just to meet the RPG checklist. To a large extent, that's what gave us the ME1 inventory in the first place.

As I said, it's entirely dependent on whether you care about TPS elements to begin with.  Frankly, I don't.  Which is not to say I dislike them, but that's not what draws me to a game.  It's RPG elements that get me interested.  Whether the game is first person, third person, or isometric , shooter, roguelike, open world, etc are all details.

 

So yeah, an TPS/RPG hybrid should work on both aspects.  BEcause it's a hybrid.  YOu don't "improve" a car with poor gas milage by removing the gas tank.

[LinksOcarina]

 

 

 

 

You should read up on your history, friend because you talk utter nonsense. EA interfered with the development of Tiberian Sun throughout the process, forcing Westwood to release it ahead of schedule leaving Westwood with insufficient time to finish development. There were many planned features that were either implemented half finished or omitted entirely as a result of studio interference, only to then be released in a paid for expansion. 

 

Sound familiar? Leaving out content for it to be wrapped up in and sold as purchasable DLC is something EA have a track record of. I don't think EA are the big evil corporate they're made out to be but they sure as hell aren't saints either and have messed up more than one game due to their interference. 

 

 

 

Yeah, that's not how it happened.

 

The features on the cutting room floor were both before and after the mass exodus from employees. EA rushing the title for release either happened during this exodus, or is a response to it, we'll never know. I know people working at Westwood have talked about EA interfering with things after they got in, but the part folks leave out is still the fact that team members quit in protest to their buyout.

 

It also didn't help the fact that budget problems were already occurring with Westwood, I remember an interview during the pre-release of the Firestorm pack talking about a lot of technical issues pushing them overboard for the main game, which plagued production even further, that likely exacerbated things and made cuts inevitable. Once again I should point out cut content doesn't mean it was good content though, nor is it vindictive of publisher interference. That's dangerously close to a no true scotsman claim. 

 

The Firestorm DLC kind of gave them the carte-blanche to release some of that content that had been cut though, mainly because most of the assets were finished so the expansion would have been easier to make. Not to mention a 36 month development process; EA sort of rushed the final stages, hence why it was a buggy game on release from what I remember. 

 

Plus, the part that people forget is Tiberium Sun was still successful. The biggest issue were technical glitches from reviews and fan reaction it was pretty positive, although it felt the technical glitches for sure and some grumbled over lack of new features. The increasing control after that is the downward slide though, but Westwood was bleeding out when folks left the company in the first place.

 

Not that EA are saints. Criticize them for total control after the buyout, it was pretty bad mostly due to Larry Probst and his policies from 1998 to 2007, but realize Westwood employees made their bed by not playing ball either. It's a bit rose-colored notion to depict the developers as wholly innocent in this case, at least when measuring the evidence that is public out there. 

[Cyonan]

Maybe it's just me, but I see a very clear evolution in the combat gameplay in ME.

 

The gunplay of ME did improve, though I was more referring to the whole "cinematic storytelling while you walk around with 2-3 companions who banter in between cutscenes" thing that sums up basically every BioWare game from 2003 onward.

 

There's plenty of things one can say BioWare is great at, but innovation has never really been much of their thing.

 

I do also think some people put too much value on innovation for innovation's sake. Sometimes a formula actually is solid and doesn't need major changes.

[Il Divo]

By the same token, if you are going to make an RPG/TPS hybrid, and leave out most or all of the RPG elements, that's not good game design either.  I'm sure those who prefer TPS games to begin with prefer ME2.  But to those of us who came at the series from the RPG angle can say "At least ME1 had RPG elements"

 

Again, provide us with this version of ME1 which had good RPG elements and then we can talk about a loss with respect to ME2. "At least it had RPG elements" isn't a defense. There are a million terrible games which have RPG elements. They're not saved by their terrible inventory systems either. 

 

 

As I said, it's entirely dependent on whether you care about TPS elements to begin with.  Frankly, I don't.  Which is not to say I dislike them, but that's not what draws me to a game.  It's RPG elements that get me interested.  Whether the game is first person, third person, or isometric , shooter, roguelike, open world, etc are all details.

 

 

From your perspective, that's reasonable. From Bioware's? As I pointed out, ME1 has far more in common with Gears of War than it ever did with Baldur's Gate and as a foundation lacks any sort of in depth RPG mechanics of any kind. It's only slightly deeper than Jade Empire, which is about as RPG-lite as it gets. 

 

It's not incorrect to point out a hybrid should succeed at both. But succeeding at one still results in a net win over failing at both.