10273 réponses à ce sujet

[CatatonicMan]

cachx wrote...

A lot of great games praised by critics are commercial flops. Beyond Good and Evil or Okami, for example.

Broadening the appeal of the game is not "pandering to the lowest denominator". Streamlining is not "dumbing down". Though I understand if it's hard to see from that very high horse you're sitting on.

Not exactly. Broadening appeal isn't necessarily the same as pandering to the lowest denominator, and streamlining isn't necessarily the same as dumbing down. They can certainly be if the developer isn't careful with broadening the appeal and streamlining.

I don't think Bioware was nearly careful enough.

[Kappa Neko]

bjdbwea wrote...
Too bad nothing of it occurs in ME 2. The mechanics don't allow for any progression. Shepard can shoot perfectly from the very beginning - even though waking up after two years - and can shrug off even a direct hit from a missile. I don't have that RPG feeling that you described, that my character has come a long way and is much stronger at the end, easily dealing with enemies that annoyed me at the beginning. But that's exactly one thing that adds replayability to RPGs.

That is true. Starting as a wimp and saving the world as a strong hero is a cruical factor of an RPG to me, too. The excitment of acquiring more powerful skills. Running into enemies too strong for me and running for my life... the satisfaction of coming back to these enemies later and finally managing to beat them.
The Final Fantasy series had all that. And I used to be a huge fan as a teenager. But the games were very linear. You couldn't control the character's actions. You couldn't influence their personality. Which seems to be something a lot of people seem to find important. If you see it that way, ME fits that vangue defintion of an RPG a lot better than Final Fantasy, the hallmark of that genre for a long time...
There really is little point in arguing about what an RPG is.

And what's even worse, there's also no progession in personality or character. Throughout the game, I don't have the feeling that Shepard learns anything or thinks about anything (not even about the death and resurrection thing) or grows character-wise in any meaningful way.

You don't like ME2 much, do you? I agree, though. The lack of character development is a good example of lazy developers. They could have done so much with the characters. Could have provided real opportunities to identify with certain beliefs and morals. The only choice you are ever given is to be either a ruthless killer or an over the top good guy. Shepard does not show emotions like fear or doubt. No spiritual or atheist side. No background information that forms his personality. It doesn't matter whether he grew up poor on earth or a spacer. I know that providing this level of individualization means pouring a lot more money into the game. Why do this when most people are satisfied being the cool renegade and shooting people. On the other hand, is it realy that big a deal to add some conversations about what's going on in Shepard's mind during the mission? He or she is a human being and must feel something!
So yeah, I understand your anger at missed opportunities to make this game great.
Not making the most of a good idea is something that's been frustrating me for years. I've played many games that could have been great but ended up being mediocre because the developers seemed to have lost interest halfway through the development process. The game starts with a promising story and creative ways of interaction and combat und ends up in a mess.Leaves me thinking I could have come up with something better in 10 minutes.

Maybe this discussion shouldn't be about what Mass Effect is or isn't but about what we as gamers want it to be. (Which is already being done in the ME3 wishlist thread, I guess) What does it matter if it fits a genre or not? All I want is to experience something new. If I can't get new because developers don't want to take risks, at least I want it to be fun. Mass Effect is a bit of new plus the usual done very well. That's better than most of what has been thrown on the market lately. Still, can't hurt to voice complaints in the futile hope somebody cares.

[William Adama]

Its just a game. I stopped treating this universe as fanboy lovable and classic after I finished ME2 the first time. Its not a star wars or BSG, its a videogame universe created by comp sci PH.Ds, not academy award winning writers and ILM animators.

[Lumikki]

Yes, but if it's not academy award winning monument, is not gonna be good enough these players.

[bjdbwea]

Kappa Neko wrote...

The Final Fantasy series had all that. And I used to be a huge fan as a teenager. But the games were very linear. You couldn't control the character's actions. You couldn't influence their personality. Which seems to be something a lot of people seem to find important. If you see it that way, ME fits that vangue defintion of an RPG a lot better than Final Fantasy, the hallmark of that genre for a long time...

They never were the hallmark of the genre to me. Of course controlling the actions of the player character is important. Non-linearity too. BG 2 is the hallmark of RPGs in my opinion. And other previous BioWare games.

Mind you, I never expected the ME series to be like the BG series. ME 1 delivered something new, but it was still developed with the same effort and dedication to the important things that I was used to from BioWare. Can't say the same about ME 2, unfortunately.

Kappa Neko wrote...

I know that providing this level of individualization means pouring a lot more money into the game. Why do this when most people are satisfied being the cool renegade and shooting people. On the other hand, is it realy that big a deal to add some conversations about what's going on in Shepard's mind during the mission?

No, it would not be a big deal. They already have a certain amount of dialogue they've got to record voice-overs for. So what good writers would do is make that dialogue more meaningful. Make Shepard's answers more diverse and distinct, allow the players too choose from answers that actually give their Shepard personality. If people want to explore what it means for Shepard to have been resurrected from death, let them. If they want an awesome! action! dude who's too cool to care, let them have that option too. All that doesn't require much more recording of voice-overs, and therefore in fact doesn't increase costs, it just requires better writing that puts the available amount of voice-overs (the number of sentences allowed by the budget and the space on a DVD) to better use.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 26 août 2010 - 03:21 .

[FataliTensei]

Lumikki wrote...

Yes, but if it's not academy award winning monument, is not gonna be good enough these players.

And if it's anything half-way decent it's too complicated for the other players.

[cachx]

bjdbwea wrote...
Too bad nothing of it occurs in ME 2. The mechanics don't allow for any progression. Shepard can shoot perfectly from the very beginning - even though waking up after two years - and can shrug off even a direct hit from a missile. I don't have that RPG feeling that you described, that my character has come a long way and is much stronger at the end, easily dealing with enemies that annoyed me at the beginning. But that's exactly one thing that adds replayability to RPGs.

The shooting makes a ton of sense from a gameplay standpoint, seeing as the combat is action oriented. If I line up a perfect shot and shoot I expect to hit the target, if the number-crunching says "oh no, you dont!" then it's just ****** poor design. (This is one thing that ME1 didn't got right, and it's mistake that Alpha Protocol repeated, and got a lot of flak for it).

ME2 cut a lot of the redundant passive skills "leaving it up to the player" instead. (Though I will admit they went overboard for the squadmates). The sense of progression is there thanks to the evolved skills and the upgrade system, maybe you didn't feel it, but for me was really different fighting Harbinger during Horizon, than it was during the final mission (meaning I didn't freak out when I heard "Assuming direct control" ).

The only thing I have against ME2 in this regard is that the difficulty seems unbalanced, because (a) The import bonuses are way too generous, and ( DLC weapons being instantly avaliable .

And what's even worse, there's also no progession in personality or character. Throughout the game, I don't have the feeling that Shepard learns anything or thinks about anything (not even about the death and resurrection thing) or grows character-wise in any meaningful way.

Can't argue with that, but ME1 was the same in this regard. For me Shep is just a vehicle I use to see and interact with the other characters that do feel something. (and to say cool one-liners).

[Fhaileas]

Il Divo wrote...

So you're implying that playing DnD without DnD rules is still... DnD? How would you distinguish that from free-form roleplaying then? Pray tell.

Let me home in on three very important points in your post.

1) You were not just providing a definition for Dungeons and Dragons, you were providing a definition for what constitutes role-playing games. I provided an example from Dungeons and Dragons (a role-playing game) which states that it is possible for me to role-play without combat being a main focus (or even die rolls) in the least. Would you not say that free-form role-playing is a style of "role-playing game"?

2) Statistics can still have some relevance even if they are not the main focus of a DnD campaign. Yes, it's possible to go an entire adventure without die rolls, but players (and DMs) should take into account their attributes when role-playing their characters' personalities to an extent. A fighter with a 6 Intelligence will likely act differently from a fighter with a 13 intelligence. Likewise, a DM's NPC is likely to receive a Paladin with a 20 Charisma far better than he is to receive a Wizard with a 10 Charisma. Obviously, no ruling is perfect.

3) It's also important to take into account d20 systems. I didn't give you a definition from some SPLAT book, it came from the Dungeon Master's Guide but let me ask you this: Let's say two groups are engaging in "Deep Immersion Storytelling" styles of play. One group happens to use the standard 3.5 setting while another uses Call of Cthulhu. Both include their own separate rules systems. Would you not say that each provides its own distinct styles of play, even if rules are used to a much lesser extent?

1) No, since role-playing "game" implies "playing" within the parameters of a system governed by a set of rules, as opposed to mere "free-form" roleplaying. 

2) No problem there; character abilities in RPGs are nearly always governed by statistics -- a notable aspect of the dumbing down ME2 was afflicted with.

3) You are describing two insular systems and gaming environments with their own prescribed rules which would obviously lead to distinct forms of gameplay unrelated to each other.

Modifié par Fhaileas, 26 août 2010 - 07:17 .

[Iakus]

Lumikki wrote...

Yes, but if it's not academy award winning monument, is not gonna be good enough these players.

I prefer the phrase "If the material is not of the quality to which I have become accustomed"

Trilogy of games with imported saves and promises of "consequences"

Hundreds of decisions recorded

From the company that made Baldur's Gate, KOTOR, and Dragon Age

Yeah there were expectations.  Pardon me for setting them too high, but then shame on Bioware for spending a decade raising them in the first place.

[ExtremeOne]

Lumikki wrote...

Yes, but if it's not academy award winning monument, is not gonna be good enough these players.

  


No game will ever reach that level 

[Iakus]

[quote]cachx wrote...

The shooting makes a ton of sense from a gameplay standpoint, seeing as the combat is action oriented. If I line up a perfect shot and shoot I expect to hit the target, if the number-crunching says "oh no, you dont!" then it's just ****** poor design. (This is one thing that ME1 didn't got right, and it's mistake that Alpha Protocol repeated, and got a lot of flak for it).[/quote]

Umm, I've played quite a bit of both, and never had that happen.  Yes in ME 1 the sniper rifle gets a lot of sway at low levels, but the bullet goes where the barrel's pointed.

And in AP you don't even have weapon "skills" as such, but weapon accuracy.  Different weapons and weapon models can be more or less accurate, which can be further affected by mods.  Most of the bonuses you got from putting points into weapon skills are stuff like faster reload, unique attacks, and greater ammo capacity.

[quote]
ME2 cut a lot of the redundant passive skills "leaving it up to the player" instead. (Though I will admit they went overboard for the squadmates). The sense of progression is there thanks to the evolved skills and the upgrade system, maybe you didn't feel it, but for me was really different fighting Harbinger during Horizon, than it was during the final mission (meaning I didn't freak out when I heard "Assuming direct control" ).[/quote]

Harbringer was boring before my first playthough of Horizon was done.  SCions were scarier.  Half the time he never hit the ground after "assuming direct control"

Harbringer: "Assuming direct contr-"

Shepard: BLAM!

Harbringer: "...irk..."


[quote]And what's even worse, there's also no progession in personality or character. Throughout the game, I don't have the feeling that Shepard learns anything or thinks about anything (not even about the death and resurrection thing) or grows character-wise in any meaningful way.
[/quote]

Can't argue with that, but ME1 was the same in this regard. For me Shep is just a vehicle I use to see and interact with the other characters that do feel something. (and to say cool one-liners).
[/quote]

This is swhere ME 2 actually hurts ME 1.  Since this is a trilogy, it was assumed (by me at least) that what we saw was essentially the first third of the game.  It's would continue in ME 2 (with all those hundred of decisions recorded)  And you would be able to continue developing yur Shepard.  Alas, all those choices were for naught,  at least as far as ME 2 is concerned.

[ExtremeOne]

iakus wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Yes, but if it's not academy award winning monument, is not gonna be good enough these players.

I prefer the phrase "If the material is not of the quality to which I have become accustomed"

Trilogy of games with imported saves and promises of "consequences"

Hundreds of decisions recorded

From the company that made Baldur's Gate, KOTOR, and Dragon Age

Yeah there were expectations.  Pardon me for setting them too high, but then shame on Bioware for spending a decade raising them in the first place.

   


Bioware spent 10 years making video games that were good. its the gaming media and fans that hyped all their games up. They told everyone that Mass Effect 2 was going to be different from Mass Effect 1. and people still are pissed at them. so what the hell is a developer suppose to do. you tell people something will be different and they still b*tch about it . maybe if Bioware had of come out and said yeah ME 1 's game play mechanics sucks so we are changing it and the only choice is either you can buy or not buy it.  Bioware did the right thing with ME 2 

[Iakus]

ExtremeOne wrote...

Bioware spent 10 years making video games that were good. its the gaming media and fans that hyped all their games up. They told everyone that Mass Effect 2 was going to be different from Mass Effect 1. and people still are pissed at them. so what the hell is a developer suppose to do. you tell people something will be different and they still b*tch about it . maybe if Bioware had of come out and said yeah ME 1 's game play mechanics sucks so we are changing it and the only choice is either you can buy or not buy it.  Bioware did the right thing with ME 2 

If Casey Hudson sat down and told me:

"Here's the deal:  We're going to go through and remake the Mass Effect 2 story to be a more direct sequel to Mass Effect 1.  We'll redo some of the dialogue to make more sense and provide better continuity.  We'll put in more squad interactions, dialogue, and a much deeper story about the Collectors while we're at it.  However.  Everything else stays the same.  Inventory, skills, squad, combat mechanics.  All gameplay remains the same.  Do we have a deal?"

I'd jump at it in a heartbeat.   I'm a little annoyed at the gameplay changes.  But that's all they are: annoyances.  The way they screwed with the story is my major problem.  But you don't need me to tell you that.  I've posted plenty about that.

[PHub88]

ME3 has canceled the leveling system and the dialogue...Its now called COD ME2...hope your happy...

[shootist70]

PHub88 wrote...

ME3 has canceled the leveling system and the dialogue...Its now called COD ME2...hope your happy...

*Yawn*...it all seems so rhetorical after a while.

[kalle90]

iakus wrote...
I'd jump at it in a heartbeat.   I'm a little annoyed at the gameplay changes.  But that's all they are: annoyances.  The way they screwed with the story is my major problem.  But you don't need me to tell you that.  I've posted plenty about that.

Got to agree. As simple games MEs are 3/5 material IMO, even 2/5 at points. However the story and world were the things that made ME1 feel like a perfect 5/5 start. ME2 is also magical at best (Tali's loyalty mission being the best), but there were also many issues that make this game worth 4/5 at most

The good thing is that Bioware seems happy with ME2 so they probably won't redo everything and can focus on the solid story and character importing. I rather play the tedious planet probing as it is in ME2 between epic missions than have a "revolutionary" probing system with uneven story

[Il Divo]

Fhaileas wrote...

1) No, since role-playing "game" implies "playing" within the parameters of a system governed by a set of rules, as opposed to mere "free-form" roleplaying. 

2) No problem there; character abilities in RPGs are nearly always governed by statistics -- a notable aspect of the dumbing down ME2 was afflicted with.

3) You are describing two insular systems and gaming environments with their own prescribed rules which would obviously lead to distinct forms of gameplay unrelated to each other.

1) Really? So let's say I'm role-playing a Paladin and I make it my goal to persuade the evil king to let all his prisoners go using diplomacy. Am I not "playing" the game, because I'm not rolling a d20? I have a clear goal. There are various strategies I may use in meeting that goal. Explain to me your definition of the verb 'to play'. 

2) Again, if you want to talk about the "dumbing down" of statistics, you're going to have to look back alot farther than Mass Effect 2. Dragon Age aside, Kotor was the last game Bioware made where you really had to pay attention to what you were doing with your statistics.

3) So obviously, if I can engage in both Dungeons and Dragons and Call of Cthulhu and still recognize both as two 'distinct forms" of gameplay without focusing on dice rolls, then DnD is still DnD.

[sevach]

iakus wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...

Bioware spent 10 years making video games that were good. its the gaming media and fans that hyped all their games up. They told everyone that Mass Effect 2 was going to be different from Mass Effect 1. and people still are pissed at them. so what the hell is a developer suppose to do. you tell people something will be different and they still b*tch about it . maybe if Bioware had of come out and said yeah ME 1 's game play mechanics sucks so we are changing it and the only choice is either you can buy or not buy it.  Bioware did the right thing with ME 2 

If Casey Hudson sat down and told me:

"Here's the deal:  We're going to go through and remake the Mass Effect 2 story to be a more direct sequel to Mass Effect 1.  We'll redo some of the dialogue to make more sense and provide better continuity.  We'll put in more squad interactions, dialogue, and a much deeper story about the Collectors while we're at it.  However.  Everything else stays the same.  Inventory, skills, squad, combat mechanics.  All gameplay remains the same.  Do we have a deal?"

I'd jump at it in a heartbeat.   I'm a little annoyed at the gameplay changes.  But that's all they are: annoyances.  The way they screwed with the story is my major problem.  But you don't need me to tell you that.  I've posted plenty about that.

I would jump on this too

[tonnactus]

cachx wrote...


The shooting makes a ton of sense from a gameplay standpoint, seeing as the combat is action oriented. If I line up a perfect shot and shoot I expect to hit the target, if the number-crunching says "oh no, you dont!" then it's just ****** poor design.

Yes.Ammo mods as powers restricted in a way that not every class could use them make so much more sense then stat based shooting. Right. Aside from the fact that shepardt now is to dumb to use different ammo without having points in it.
That is ****** poor design.
Stat based shooting was only a problem when it comes to sniper rifles anyway.Assault rifles,pistols and shotguns hit where the player aim them.

Modifié par tonnactus, 26 août 2010 - 09:30 .

[cachx]

(was going to harp on AP some more, but that's a bit offtopic).

tonnactus wrote...
Ammo mods as powers restricted in a way that not every class could use them make so much more sense then stat based shooting. Right. Aside from the fact that shepardt now is to dumb to use different ammo without having points in it.

Actually, it does make more sense gameplay-wise that combat-based classes have exclusive powers for shooting (and you're given the option to share it to the group at the expense of individual power loss, funny dat skill system uh?).
Maybe you're looking for a lore based reason for them? like "Shepard concetrates all his awesome to imbue the bullets with FIR3!! ". Sci-Fi equivalent of a magic/flaming sword, if you will.

Gameplay and Story Segregation, people. Next we will be asking why isn't the whole team wielding Cains or why Wrex can be killed with a shotgun blast in a cinematic when he can eat rockets to the face in-game.

[bjdbwea]

I completely agree, they can keep their precious new combat system for all I care. But the story, writing and presentation need to improve significantly.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 26 août 2010 - 10:55 .

[Fhaileas]

Il Divo wrote...

Fhaileas wrote...

1) No, since role-playing "game" implies "playing" within the parameters of a system governed by a set of rules, as opposed to mere "free-form" roleplaying. 

2) No problem there; character abilities in RPGs are nearly always governed by statistics -- a notable aspect of the dumbing down ME2 was afflicted with.

3) You are describing two insular systems and gaming environments with their own prescribed rules which would obviously lead to distinct forms of gameplay unrelated to each other.

1) Really? So let's say I'm role-playing a Paladin and I make it my goal to persuade the evil king to let all his prisoners go using diplomacy. Am I not "playing" the game, because I'm not rolling a d20? I have a clear goal. There are various strategies I may use in meeting that goal. Explain to me your definition of the verb 'to play'. 

2) Again, if you want to talk about the "dumbing down" of statistics, you're going to have to look back alot farther than Mass Effect 2. Dragon Age aside, Kotor was the last game Bioware made where you really had to pay attention to what you were doing with your statistics.

3) So obviously, if I can engage in both Dungeons and Dragons and Call of Cthulhu and still recognize both as two 'distinct forms" of gameplay without focusing on dice rolls, then DnD is still DnD.

1) Did you pass a persuasion check? Are you "playing" by DnD "rules" or aren't you?

2) Very true, but I was talking about the dumbing down in ME2 relative to ME1.

3) DnD is a gaming system which has a complex rules set governed by dice rolls; if there is a clause within the guidelines of gameplay that you may choose to disavow the rules of said system for "free-form" role-playing purposes you are effectively venturing outside the frame of that rule governed gaming system, whereby you are no longer playing a DnD role-playing game yet are still "role-playing".

[MassEffect762]

William Adama wrote...

Its just a game. I stopped treating this universe as fanboy lovable and classic after I finished ME2 the first time. Its not a star wars or BSG, its a videogame universe created by comp sci PH.Ds, not academy award winning writers and ILM animators.

LOL.

First time after beating ME1 I imagine I felt like the young lads that went to see Star Wars on the big screen when it  first came out.

First time after beating ME2 I felt like I had just played an ordinary game.

[Epic777]

NewMessageN00b wrote...

I don't see any point in shooting nor any other part of such generic gameplay. What is the point of even trying to shoot, when you'll be always hitting, always at your best? Just assign a kill button and hit it on sight. An important part of game missing here.

There's a lot of ideas going to waste. I certainly won't get over it. Can only suggest the rest does that... but uses a time machine and shuts itself up before they decided anything for ME2.

I disagree, me2 is where you aim is where shoot but like real life you can aim and miss the target especially when you factor in your trying to avoid damage and the target is moving. My point is your not always hitting, you aim at a collector, it moves, you end up hitting nothing.