10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

Halo Quea wrote...

I can respect that II Divo, my main gripe is being constantly told that the RPG formula must be thrown out  when it is a system of elements that works quite well for this genre.

Very understandable. By all means, if someone makes a statement you disagree with about the RPG formula, rip him apart. I'll watch, laugh out loud, and applaud as appropriate. I'm just saying, when comments like 'deep RPG fans' , etc, are made they imply (even indirectly) that I (and all Mass Effect 2 fans) somehow lack depth. Then misunderstandings occur and suddenly we're fighting each other when before I was just reading a forum post.

Just be careful with word choice is all.

Modifié par Il Divo, 10 août 2010 - 03:57 .

[shootist70]

Or would they do what forum members like myself and others here have done, make the case for RPG games and why role playing elements work for this genre and are worthy to preserved in whatever new directions developers decide to take them?

If that's the case, why does everyone expect RPG fans to capitulate?

I don't think it's a case of expecting RPG fans to capitulate, I think it's more a case of game developers adhering to the rigours of other creative genres to open up the medium to a general audience, not just FPS button-mashers. Bioware want to sell 10 million copies of ME3, so it's going to target a general audience. The demands there are for pace and slick story-telling, rather than simply dumbing it down for the masses. It's not that RPG mechanics are seen as overly complex in themselves, they're seen as something that arrests story progression, and such things tend to be dealt with ruthlessly by editorial demand.

That's not my personal preference. I enjoy a deeper experience, but I do think the whole concept of 'RPG' needs an overhaul, and seriously needs to move away from summing up your character development on stats/inventory screens.

[bjdbwea]

Xeranx wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

One day, the engine that allows Bioware and Bethesda to meet in the middle will be built and we will have amazing open living worlds, cinematic game play, strong stories, deep characters and immense modability all in one game. I just want it now.

I would be willing to pay double price for that game. But then, I'd be willing to pay double price for a true successor to ME 1 too. Too bad such a game is not available.

I know it's a nitpick, but I seriously hate seeing comments like this.  If the quality is supposed to be there already why-oh-why would you, a sane individual, want to pay twice as much when the quality that should be there already is added in?  It really boggles my mind and angers me as I feel people who sell their products feel even more entitled to give you a weak product and charge you for upgrades later.  If I'm going to look for an apartment I don't want to pay 500 a month because the landlord tells me it's ready to go and then I find that there's no hot water running and he/she tells me hot running water is an extra 200.  Or go to a car dealership and pay thousands of dollars for a car and then get told that I'll need to call a tow truck to get it off the lot or pay an extra 4k for an engine and the keys to start the car.  It's called the bait-and-switch and for some reason we have foolishly accepted this philosophy and have not called service providers (whatever service they may be soliciting) on the mat for unfair practices.

This might surprise you, but I agree with you. The thing is, in comparison to most other games, ME 1 offered me more than double the entertainment. And of course most of the changes in ME 2 that I dislike are in the end due to profits: Shortened development time, attempt to cater to a larger audience. And don't forget that retail prices have remained static for years now.

So, conclusion: If they were to make the game proper and would have to charge the double price as a result, I for one would be willing to pay it. But as I said, of course only if the renowned BioWare quality is already there. If ME 3 would be more of the same of ME 2, I'd probably wait until the price drops to half before purchasing it.

I also do not support this outsourcing of content into DLC, nor the ripping off of customers with it. I didn't purchase the second DLC for ME 1, and I surely won't buy all these mini DLCs for ME 2.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 10 août 2010 - 09:37 .

[haberman13]

If ME3 reviews like ME2, I will absolutely wait until the price drops to half. I still haven't finished ME2, I lol-rage-quit after realizing what the game had become. Loading screens, removal of gear, and planet scanning did me in (and actually seeing the Citadel for the first time was the tipping point).



Alternatively, I would wait and buy a ME1/2/3 pack that had all DLC a few years after ME3.

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

haberman13 wrote...

If ME3 reviews like ME2, I will absolutely wait until the price drops to half. I still haven't finished ME2, I lol-rage-quit after realizing what the game had become. Loading screens, removal of gear, and planet scanning did me in (and actually seeing the Citadel for the first time was the tipping point).

Ill be watching the information, and if it doesnt look good, Ill just skip the ending to this series.

ME2 was too much of an experience I WASNT looking for, as opposed to ME1 which was an experience I was looking for with one that I wasnt added as a seperate element of the game.

If ME3 can make me feel like Im not being forced to play linear gears of war style missions, but an expansive and intricate RPG story, Ill gladly buy it. However, if cover based third person shooting is what Im going to have to deal with for the majority of the game again, Bioware can get their money from the fans they clearly want to cater to, rather than me.

[haberman13]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

If ME3 reviews like ME2, I will absolutely wait until the price drops to half. I still haven't finished ME2, I lol-rage-quit after realizing what the game had become. Loading screens, removal of gear, and planet scanning did me in (and actually seeing the Citadel for the first time was the tipping point).

Ill be watching the information, and if it doesnt look good, Ill just skip the ending to this series.

ME2 was too much of an experience I WASNT looking for, as opposed to ME1 which was an experience I was looking for with one that I wasnt added as a seperate element of the game.

If ME3 can make me feel like Im not being forced to play linear gears of war style missions, but an expansive and intricate RPG story, Ill gladly buy it. However, if cover based third person shooting is what Im going to have to deal with for the majority of the game again, Bioware can get their money from the fans they clearly want to cater to, rather than me.

I also don't understand the attraction to cover based TPS, having never played a TPS before (ME2 was my first), and about half way through the game I realized how dull the mechanic is.

Walk into room, 20+ half walls (gee what will happen here), duck, pew pew, regen, pew pew, duck, regen, pew pew... ugh.  No strategy, no real action.  ME2 could have been a flash game really.

Meh, maybe I'm just an "elitist PC gamer" spoiled by fun games.

The cutscenes in ME2 were cool though.

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

haberman13 wrote...

I also don't understand the attraction to cover based TPS, having never played a TPS before (ME2 was my first), and about half way through the game I realized how dull the mechanic is.

Walk into room, 20+ half walls (gee what will happen here), duck, pew pew, regen, pew pew, duck, regen, pew pew... ugh.  No strategy, no real action.  ME2 could have been a flash game really.

Meh, maybe I'm just an "elitist PC gamer" spoiled by fun games.

The cutscenes in ME2 were cool though.

Ive got not problem with the game having the mechanic, it was there in ME1 to an extent (I agree, "whacking moles" tedious and boring), ME2 just brought it more up to standard with the games that focus on it (at the expense of most everything else IMO). I just dont want the game forcing it on me like ME2 does nearly all the time.

Or at least if they are going to do that, own up to the fact that its an almost completely flat out shooter and stop with these ridiculous defenses that its "still an RPG". Even if the stuff people claim makes ME2 an RPG got "streamlined" and minimised in ME2.

Modifié par Dinkamus_Littlelog, 10 août 2010 - 05:05 .

[bjdbwea]

Not all TPS are as repetitive and simple though. The JK series, while often called FPS, could be played as TPS as well. And there you have combat with weapons and powers, and it works really well. Combat in Fallout 3 can also be played as a TPS, and it's also far from being as bland as ME 2. There are certainly countless other examples as well.

[haberman13]

bjdbwea wrote...

Not all TPS are as repetitive and simple though. The JK series, while often called FPS, could be played as TPS as well. And there you have combat with weapons and powers, and it works really well. Combat in Fallout 3 can also be played as a TPS, and it's also far from being as bland as ME 2. There are certainly countless other examples as well.

Right, those games don't force you to duck behind a wall.  You have no option but to duck behind walls in ME2.

I would say the other games you mentioned were more FPS/RPG with third person cameras.

ME2 is a corridor TPS cover shooter, the aforementioned games were more expansive so you didn't have a 5' left/right limitation.

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

I think its pretty widely acknowledged that the Fallout 3/Oblivion third person view is crap, and is more about vanity, not about actual gameplay.



I understand your point though, but I just think its obvious that ME2 wasnt going for that kind of style, it was going for the Gears of War style, where it is just repetative cover based shooting.



Makes me laugh when people talk about the RPG genre stagnating, and looking to a genre thats basis has simply "been point and shoot" for so long as the great wind of innovation. "LULZ, WEZ TEH PUT DAH SHOOTA IN R GAEM! IT R ORIJJYNAL NAO!"

[bjdbwea]

But why do many people seem to like that simple, repetitive, linear cover-based shooting gameplay so much? Mass Effect or not, it gets boring quickly. Especially when there are little to no scripted surprises and nothing.

[haberman13]

bjdbwea wrote...

But why do many people seem to like that simple, repetitive, linear cover-based shooting gameplay so much? Mass Effect or not, it gets boring quickly. Especially when there are little to no scripted surprises and nothing.

No clue, delusion?

Console games as a reference point maybe?

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

bjdbwea wrote...

But why do many people seem to like that simple, repetitive, linear cover-based shooting gameplay so much? Mass Effect or not, it gets boring quickly. Especially when there are little to no scripted surprises and nothing.

Normally because its inextricably tied to multiplayer, and its just an easy competative arena to face off against other people. Its not normally used to support just a single player campaign.

Its probably why there are strong indicators that ME is going multiplayer.

Gears of War without the multiplayer wouldnt have been as well recieved as it was, you can be sure of that.

[tonnactus]

haberman13 wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

But why do many people seem to like that simple, repetitive, linear cover-based shooting gameplay so much? Mass Effect or not, it gets boring quickly. Especially when there are little to no scripted surprises and nothing.

No clue, delusion?

Console games as a reference point maybe?

Gears at least have vehicle combat(even different vehicles) as an alternation and some interesting bossfights.So if they copy gears,they
should do it right at least.

[bjdbwea]

tonnactus wrote...

Gears at least have vehicle combat(even different vehicles) as an alternation and some interesting bossfights.So if they copy gears,they should do it right at least.

Indeed. But since they didn't, it's probably not a big surprise that the shooter fans didn't buy the game in as large numbers as BioWare/EA certainly hoped. The big question is whether they're going to dumb down and shooterize ME 3 even more and maybe even multiplayerize it as a result.  <_<

[Jebel Krong]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

Makes me laugh when people talk about the RPG genre stagnating, and looking to a genre thats basis has simply "been point and shoot" for so long as the great wind of innovation. "LULZ, WEZ TEH PUT DAH SHOOTA IN R GAEM! IT R ORIJJYNAL NAO!"

stagnation is more than about popular mechanics, sometimes it because the entire genre has become inward-looking and withdrawn, and sales are flatlining as a result: see traditional rpgs over the last 10 years. you only have to look at the elistist-fanboy uproar when any developer tries to change any of the "traditional" rpg mechanics and try something new these days....

[Jebel Krong]

bjdbwea wrote...

Indeed. But since they didn't, it's probably not a big surprise that the shooter fans didn't buy the game in as large numbers as BioWare/EA certainly hoped. The big question is whether they're going to dumb down and shooterize ME 3 even more and maybe even multiplayerize it as a result.  <_<

i'd love to know where you get your numbers from (probably the same place you seem to pull everything else from: your ****), because last i heard mass effect 2 did meet expectations and far exceeded #1.

[tonnactus]

Jebel Krong wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

Indeed. But since they didn't, it's probably not a big surprise that the shooter fans didn't buy the game in as large numbers as BioWare/EA certainly hoped. The big question is whether they're going to dumb down and shooterize ME 3 even more and maybe even multiplayerize it as a result.  <_<

i'd love to know where you get your numbers from (probably the same place you seem to pull everything else from: your ****), because last i heard mass effect 2 did meet expectations and far exceeded #1.

http://social.biowar...index/2586260/4

[Megami Uzume]

Furthermore:

http://majornelson.c...60-numbers.aspx

Over 45 days, Mass Effect sold 1.6M

http://online.wsj.co...1063997848.html

Over 65 days, ME2 sold the same.

Of course, I have no idea whether these figures are entirely accurate nor what they are now, but considering one came from Microsoft, and the other from EA...

This is interesting, as I thought Mass Effect 2 sold more over a similar amount of time. Oh well.

Modifié par Megami Uzume, 11 août 2010 - 12:58 .

[bjdbwea]

You don't dumb down a game so much and make it appealing to the shooter mainstream to be satisfied with about the same number of sales as the predecessor. Of course the changes also decreased development time and costs, but you could do that and still maintain some depth. No, of course they had to expect it would also gather a significant increase in sales. I'm almost glad that it apparently didn't, but of course there's nothing won if as a result the next game is even worse.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 11 août 2010 - 01:17 .

[Jebel Krong]

Megami Uzume wrote...

Furthermore:

http://majornelson.c...60-numbers.aspx

Over 45 days, Mass Effect sold 1.6M

http://online.wsj.co...1063997848.html

Over 65 days, ME2 sold the same.

Of course, I have no idea whether these figures are entirely accurate nor what they are now, but considering one came from Microsoft, and the other from EA...

This is interesting, as I thought Mass Effect 2 sold more over a similar amount of time. Oh well.

seeing as how me2 sold over 1 million in it's first week, and me1 sold about 2 million in TOTAL i highly doubt any sales figures other than EA/BWs own internals are reliable. 3rd party sources never are because they don't take into account certain stores/regions etc. btw pc sales figures (incl. STEAM, DD etc) have never been released/accounted for anywhere that i have seen.

[catabuca]

I can't see the point in these debates about which game sold more. We're not starting with a level playing field. ME1 was the first game in the franchise. It had, effectively, nothing behind it other than marketing and Bioware's rep to make people go out and buy it. A portion (probably a significant portion, but I have no idea) of ME2 sales occurred because people had played ME1 and wanted to buy the next.

That makes number crunching pretty meaningless, since a good portion of ME2 sales would have happened regardless of how good the game was, simply because people who loved ME1, or heard all the hype of ME1, pre-ordered or bought on release day/week. That skews the results.

It really doesn't form a good basis for any argument, from either side, since there are so many variables.

[catabuca]

Anyway, to change the direction of the thread for a moment, some of the disillusion with ME2 comes from people who wish their ME1 LI figured more prominently in this game. I was thinking, a really neat, and easy/cheap way to 'solve' this would have been to make the LI photo in Shepard's cabin interactive. Rather than just looking at it, Shepard could have picked it up and have it triggered a flashback montage of sorts. For example, with some sweet music or whatever you could have seen a couple of scenes from ME1, like the two of you having a conversation, fighting side-by-side, and a short snippet from the love scene. It would really only have meant importing some of the scenes from ME1 and not a great deal of extra work, and would have acted as a nod towards all the shippers of the old LIs. It could 'replay' the montage every time you picked up the photo, so you could do it as many times as you want. Might have been a really quick and simple way to appease a lot of people.

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

Jebel Krong wrote...


stagnation is more than about popular mechanics, sometimes it because the entire genre has become inward-looking and withdrawn, and sales are flatlining as a result: see traditional rpgs over the last 10 years. you only have to look at the elistist-fanboy uproar when any developer tries to change any of the "traditional" rpg mechanics and try something new these days....

As opposed to the elitist fanboy uproar from shooter fans when a simple weapon gets tweaked? Or when their multiplayer methods are changed? Give me a break.

Video games is a big money industry now. It was only a matter of time before corperate scumbaggery and greed took over as the driving force behind decision making. If you dont like the fact that the shooter genre is unoriginal and mediocre mass appeal spewed out again and again, its not my problem.

Look at Modern Warfare 2. What was that? A tweaked COD4 expansion? Yeah, thats real outward thinking and not being withdrawn there. Total innovation (as opposed to devs just salivating at the sales figures).

Its about money and greed, not about stupid made up "problems" with the RPG genre as opposed to the shooter genre.

[bjdbwea]

While you're right that the way BioWare/EA sidelined and trashed the ME 1 LIs was a disgrace and completely unnecessary, that is not the reason I'm disappointed with a lot of other things as well. Still able to separate these things. But instead of doing what you propose, first and foremost they should've written the in-game scenes properly. And while they were at it, the rest of the story too.