891 réponses à ce sujet

[Gothfather]

Quite simply it's a topic that interests me. As someone who enjoys a wide category of games,  I'm interested in  why someone want's to just play strict RPG games.

 

imo Bioware has been under performing of late,  it was not meant to be an anti EA rant.

There is no fraking thing as a "strict" rpg, "True" rpg or "real" rpg. These are elitist gamer BS titles designed to enshrine personal subjective opinion as objective fact and thus pointless because EVERYONE is right on a subjective position, they just don't hold the same position as yourself or whomever.

[nfi42]

There is not fraking thing as a "strict" rpg, "True" rpg or "real" rpg. These are elitist gamer BS titles designed to enshrine personal subjective opinion as objective fact and thus pointless because EVERYONE is right on a subjective position, they just don't hold the same position as yourself or whomever.

 

Regardless of "titles" ,  I'm curious as to why people think ME1 is better than ME2 & 3  or though not addressed in my OP, why someone chooses never to play a game with a set protagonist.  Games with and without set protagonists can still be good.  I liked all 3 ME's though preferred the last 2  because they were better games.

 

Yes, I know a subjective opinion which is true for me, but not someone else.

[malloc]

Good game, good as t what it does.

Age of decadence is bad game design btw

[wright1978]

Regardless of "titles" ,  I'm curious as to why people think ME1 is better than ME2 & 3  or though not addressed in my OP, why someone chooses never to play a game with a set protagonist.  Games with and without set protagonists can still be good.  I liked all 3 ME's though preferred the last 2  because they were better games.

 

Yes, I know a subject opinion which is true for me, but not someone else.

 I'm sure people that preferred ME1 missed the RPG features that were cut out. Personally i preferred ME2 because i felt the core RPG features i valued most were still there and refined and those that were cut had been rather clunkily implemented in ME1

 

ME3 attacked the core roleplay foundation of the illusion it being my character with its cut down dialogue options and vast levels of characterising auto-dialogue at odds with my character. Hence why i heavily dislike it despite readily admitting aspects like combat that i value less were improved.

[BloodyMares]

Regardless of "titles" ,  I'm curious as to why people think ME1 is better than ME2 & 3  or though not addressed in my OP, why someone chooses never to play a game with a set protagonist.  Games with and without set protagonists can still be good.  I liked all 3 ME's though preferred the last 2  because they were better games.

 

Yes, I know a subject opinion which is true for me, but not someone else.

Well, plot and exploration aside, I felt that ME2 lobotomized my Shepard and made him do stupid stuff without my say in it. I know this sounds stupid, Shepard is Bioware's character, not mine etc but at least ME1 succeeded to sell its premise to me. It made me care enough to expose Saren, it was a pleasant surprise to become a Spectre, I wanted to pursue Saren etc. I was immersed in the story and my Shepard's behavior, aside from his emotional ourbursts in front of the Council, didn't feel out of character (probably because I defined his character, not the railroading). ME2 is completely different in that regard because of its premise. My Shepard would never work with Cerberus. But you can see that it's the bad premise, not the lack of RPG elements. In the RPG department I felt like it was on par with ME1, even better in some instances. Although I admit, I enjoyed stat-based combat of ME1 more (because I don't like shooters that much). And then ME3 happened with its autodialogue...Why bother giving me any choices if I'm just a witness of Shepard's adventures, not the actual person participating in these adventures? At least in ME2 I could headcanon Cerberus out and the game gave me plenty of freedom to say things that I want, to do things that I want and to generally go about my business as I see fit. ME3 didn't really have that. I couldn't shape my character (which is the most important feature of RP games IMO), I could only make decisions in his name but I didn't feel connection to my Shepard anymore. He gained sentience and was his own character so I just turned off RPG elements completely because why bother controlling a defined character?

[The Elder King]

Based on how DA:I handled the open world, i fear we won't get that treatment, same for side quests.

Well, I'd say it's best to keep expectations low, but it's not like Bioware can't improve on DAI open world. They didn't say that the latter was perfect for them or that their following games would work in the same way.
Again, it'd be best to not expect a complete overhaul, but I do think that in MEA and DA4 the open world system will be better then in DAI.

[UpUpAway95]

You get a quest called race against time in ME1 and you can literally so the most inane things while the plot stands still for you. That's awful. Even DAO was awful with things like the Circle tower trip. That's the biggest problem from an RPG point of view with Bioware's open design - it undermines the very idea of RP by removing any weight from your decision. All you're left with is headcanon.

 

That's precisely my point... no consequence.  In ME3, you could still juggle the order of the missions around quite a bit, but not without consequence.  In ME1, however, you are not able to do the missions in any order you want either.  For example, you could not do all of the side missions before doing any of main missions, because parts of the galaxy map don't show up until after you do Feros and other different parts don't show up until after you do Noveria.  It wasn't a case of there being a consequence, it was a case of just not being able to do them until after the main question unlocked that area of the map.  Still, ME1 leaves the impression with players that mission order is completely open and ME3 leaves the impression that the mission order is almost completely sequenced... while neither impression is completely accurate.  Flipping the order around in ME3 actually has quite a bit of influence on the "role play" aspects of the game... moreso than the dialogue options (which I agree with everyone that there is significantly more autodialogue in ME3)... but a lot of different dialogue is triggered by simply doing the missions in a significantly different order (and accepting some of the consequences of changing up that order). 

 

In ME3, I think Bioware wanted to move away from the strict Paragon/Renegade dialogue alignment issues that were present in ME2.  Many people seem to be very afraid of straying into the middle P/R ground in ME2... which again can be freely done by the player, but comes with consequences... and the players complained about that. 

 

ME1 allowed players to again freely "alternate" between paragon and renegade dialogue with very little consequence.  In fact, one can play the game to unlock both the Paragon and the Renegade alignment quests by the end of the game (without glitching).  I've intentionally done it by carefully metagaming and selecting dialogue options to maximize both the paragon and renegade points... and recording everything on a spreadsheet.  In that playthrough, my second alignment quest (the Paragon one) unlocked just as I accessed the galaxy map to go to Ilos.  It was the only playthrough where I point blank refused one of Hackett's requests.  However, I went back into the save later and replayed it from a point just before the lockdown and did the Beseige Base quest on my way to Ilos (just to prove to myself that I could) and there were no consequences reflected (i.e. absolutely no difference in dialogue options or gameplay options) during the Ilos mission.

 

Having no consequences, however, detracts from "role playing" IMO... and I actually feel less able to role play in ME1 than in ME2 or even ME3; that is, in the sense of having my PC reflect the possible consequences of being of a particular type of character or making a particular choice).  Yes, in ME2 and ME3 the possible consequences are posited by the developers (not the players)... but the developers are, in reality, the "directors" of the game and they need to retain that agency in order to produce a coherent story.  My PC is just an actor in that story; and as Gothfather stated earlier, actors in movies have very little agency and they can still play a role (i.e. role play).

 

Can Bioware do more to give players more agency... probably yes; and I expect they will keep trying some different approaches to do so until they find one the players are happier with.  Will we ever get complete agency? That's about as likely as actually going ot Andromeda IRL.  If it comes down to a choice about sacrificing story and cinematics to give players agency, I'd prefer to keep the story and the cinematics.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Are you saying you didn't like the consequences to delaying the suicide mission in ME2 by fitting in more missions between the collector abduction of the crew and going through the relay???

You don't want consequences to actions????

No, I did like that. That was excellent.

I want to avoid a design where we don't get that choice. ME3 didn't let us go do other things out of order. There was basically nothing to do that wasn't on the critical path, and the critical path had to be followed in sequence.

Even if the game doesn't support consequences, we should still be allowed to do the thing. BioWare didn't write negative consequencesconsequences for delaying the treatment of Connor in DAO, but we were still allowed to do it.

The moment you cite in ME2 is the rare example of there actually being consequences, which is terrific, but even in the absence of consequences the choice should exist.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The best thing ME:A can probably do since it wants to bring back exploration to the series is avoid having a main questline that is time sensitive from the word go. You can do what ME2 does and have a forced timer at the very end, but don't do what ME1 did and have NPCs telling us about how we need to hurry at the same time they set us loose on the galaxy.

This is exactly right. Narrative urgency is incompatible with player agency.

[Sylvius the Mad]

ME2 had a disk issue. They had a set order because of how they loaded out the content as I recall.

So it was a console limitation.

That doesn't make it better.

[Sylvius the Mad]

It is the loss of agency to avoid the consequences that is (I believe) the sticky point. The player feels they have 'no choice' but to act in X manner to avoid Y consequences and because so many gamers feel agency = role playing anytime they lose agency they feel they can't role play how they want.

I think it all bollocks, agency isn't roll playing. Agency is its own device/feature independent from RPGs. Western RPGs have traditionally given the player far more agency than JRPGs but really it was just a different take on development. Bioware I believe merge the Character identity of western RPGs with the strong narrative story telling of JRPGs to create the Bioware story based RPG experience they are known for. (Very simplistic comparisons and delineations in a the aforementioned genres above.)

I never thought JRPGs were RPGs at all. I think they got the label because they superficially resembled RPGs from the outside, but the gameplay experience was very different.

In FF7, the player has effectively no control over Cloud's personality or how he deals with his companions. His relationship with Tifa always follows a pre-defined path. If you play FF7 multiple times, you can't make Cloud be a different person.

And that's what RPGs allow. You create a character within the rules and that character is yours. And if you play again, you can make a very different character.

Traditionally, western RPGs dropped the character you created into the world with little or no guidance. There might be a story there somewhere, but it was up to you to find it.

To me, the fun in CRPGs is in creating different characters across multiple playthroughs to see how the results differ. But with these tightly written narratives, they don't. Shepard always does basically the same things for basically the same reasons (this last part is the big problem).

BioWare's earlier games didn't have this problem. Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights allowed us tremendous freedom to craft our character's personality. So did KotOR, BioWare's first cinematic game. So did DAO. And so does DAI.

But I can't make Shepard that different from playthrough to playthrough.

[capn233]

So it was a console limitation.

That doesn't make it better.

 

Eh, it might have been cooler to have every recruitment mission available at the beginning, but the way it worked out in the end wasn't that bad.  You still had some freedom in the order you could approach things.

 

To the original topic, I would rather the game be good than throw in convoluted rpg mechanics for the sake of rpg.  ME2 is my favorite overall in the series, and although I like ME1, I don't see the need to have a goofy equipment system where you have a bunch of variations of iron Predators going up through synthdiamond Predators where they are all practically the same accept for marginal stat changes.  I don't need to have "crafting" just for the sake of a cliche rpg element.  I don't need to have a bunch of running around gathering quarian-root and potassium to extend the length of the game.

[Jaron Oberyn]

My problem with the original trilogy was that it started out as an RPG where you have control over your character, and progressed into a shooter with an automatic character. I don't have an issue with the latter, but I do have an issue with us starting out with character control only for it to continually be stripped away in favor of a more default character. Going into ME:A I expect it to be no better than ME:3, lots of auto dialogue and little character control. At least I won't be disappointed midway.

[Cyberpunk]

Make it the best game in the world! I don't care how. 

[wright1978]

My problem with the original trilogy was that it started out as an RPG where you have control over your character, and progressed into a shooter with an automatic character. I don't have an issue with the latter, but I do have an issue with us starting out with character control only for it to continually be stripped away in favor of a more default character. Going into ME:A I expect it to be no better than ME:3, lots of auto dialogue and little character control. At least I won't be disappointed midway.

 

If this turns out to be true i think i'll probably pass on the game, i've no desire to play a FPS without the core element of player characterisation.

[Monk]

My problem with the original trilogy was that it started out as an RPG where you have control over your character, and progressed into a shooter with an automatic character. I don't have an issue with the latter, but I do have an issue with us starting out with character control only for it to continually be stripped away in favor of a more default character. Going into ME:A I expect it to be no better than ME:3, lots of auto dialogue and little character control. At least I won't be disappointed midway.

 

I think this falls under normal evolution of a game. The question i wonder is, is BioWare asking themselves what they want to make at the end of the day? It's one thing to make a shooter with RPG elements but it's another if it seems to be just another shooter. I expect quality up and beyond what companies like EA normally produce. If it's a shooter, it either should be the best damn shooter out there, or better still, like a Porsche, be a shooter with an obvious BioWare stamp on it. No matter how it evolves over time, it should still be unmistakenly a BioWare game.

[AlanC9]

ME3 didn't let us go do other things out of order. There was basically nothing to do that wasn't on the critical path, and the critical path had to be followed in sequence.

Isn't "basically nothing to do" a bit overstated? I make it about 75% optional content with no DLC, although two optional missions must be done in order to trigger critical path timers.

Even if the game doesn't support consequences, we should still be allowed to do the thing. BioWare didn't write negative consequences for delaying the treatment of Connor in DAO, but we were still allowed to do it.

Shouldn't this depend on the situation?

[AlanC9]

This is exactly right. Narrative urgency is incompatible with player agency.

I'm not convinced that this is a problem. Sometimes being in the position of the hero means not having all that much agency.unless you're willing to let terrible things happen.

[UpUpAway95]

No, I did like that. That was excellent.

I want to avoid a design where we don't get that choice. ME3 didn't let us go do other things out of order. There was basically nothing to do that wasn't on the critical path, and the critical path had to be followed in sequence.

Even if the game doesn't support consequences, we should still be allowed to do the thing. BioWare didn't write negative consequencesconsequences for delaying the treatment of Connor in DAO, but we were still allowed to do it.

The moment you cite in ME2 is the rare example of there actually being consequences, which is terrific, but even in the absence of consequences the choice should exist.

 

So, now it seems, like you're upset about there being a lack of pure filler in ME3.  You could do the N7 missions as they came up... or you could wait to do all of them near the end of the game (there were some consequences).  You could do both Attican Traverse and Turian Platoon/Turian Bomb after doing Rannoch (again, there were consequences).  The game did make you aware of things in such a way that one would perhaps naturally follow the suggested story line... but there were ways that you could do those missions in different orders... and unlike ME1, if you did juggle the order, it resulted in consequences that affected the main story line (apparently causing you to believe that they were part of the critical story rather than the optional side missions they actually were).

 

ME1 actually gave you very little room to juggle the main storyline and, where you could, it had so little consequence to the main story that it was really not worth bothering about.  You could, for example, do Therum, Feros and Noveria in any order... but did it really make any difference at all to the story or how the NPCs responded to Shepard's character?  No.  You could do Therum after Virmire, which did change Liara's reaction to being rescued - a very little bit... and that was about the extent of it.  A fully Renegade Shepard could save the council just as easily as Paragon Shepard and both successfully took down Saren in virtually the same way... no matter what they did prior in the game.

[Drakoriz]

i want a good ME game, ME trilogy isnt the best RPG games i find out there, so no i dont think ME A need to be a good RPG (really fail to see where the OP is trying to go with that)

 

I just want ME A to be a good ME game that all.

[Cyonan]

This is exactly right. Narrative urgency is incompatible with player agency.

 

I don't know as I would say they're incompatible since agency is just giving the player choice and consequences, and you can do that in a linear story which allows for urgency to be used.

 

What it's incompatible with is narrative urgency combined with side quests, which I don't imagine as many of us would want to completely eliminate side quests just to have narrative urgency that makes sense on top of the fact that BioWare has already said they want to focus on exploration again.

 

Which means there should be quite a bit of side content.

[Odintius]

I hope they don't go full blown fps it one of the reason I like mass effect it introduce shooter in a different way like fallout. If I want to play a fps I got tons to chose from already. I hope they do add armor and weapon mods and hopefully go all in on the crafting system with multiple way of getting materials. I would like multiple upgradeable gears/ weapon sets and the inventory and storage system to come along with it. Give me a reason to do a nightmare run were I need to think gear/weapon specs and please increase the radius of how far enemies follow and distance your squad in hold position so i can do a proper trap/ambush that my 2 cent take it as you will.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Eh, it might have been cooler to have every recruitment mission available at the beginning, but the way it worked out in the end wasn't that bad. You still had some freedom in the order you could approach things.

To the original topic, I would rather the game be good than throw in convoluted rpg mechanics for the sake of rpg. ME2 is my favorite overall in the series, and although I like ME1, I don't see the need to have a goofy equipment system where you have a bunch of variations of iron Predators going up through synthdiamond Predators where they are all practically the same accept for marginal stat changes. I don't need to have "crafting" just for the sake of a cliche rpg element. I don't need to have a bunch of running around gathering quarian-root and potassium to extend the length of the game.

But it would be good to have options as to how to approach challenges. Fire fight vs. Infiltrate, for example. If we choose fire fight, do we charge in the front door or look for another entrance?

Even if that second entrance doesn't exist, being able to look for it offers more roleplaying opportunities than simply being funnelled toward the front door. If we look at the level design in ME3, there was usually only one way to go. We never had decisions to make about which path to take. Even if only one path works, the others should still be there. The world seems less real if the only place we can go is the place we need to go.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Isn't "basically nothing to do" a bit overstated? I make it about 75% optional content with no DLC, although two optional missions must be done in order to trigger critical path timers.

That's not my recollection, but I only played ME3 once and pretty much hated it the whole time, so I could be wrong.

Shouldn't this depend on the situation?

No. I don't think it should.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm not convinced that this is a problem. Sometimes being in the position of the hero means not having all that much agency.unless you're willing to let terrible things happen.

What if we are? What if we have a different definition of "terrible things"?

Being forced to be heroic is part of the problem. Even if we do heroic things and play the part of the hero, actually being heroic and having heroic motives shouldn't be a requirement.