10273 réponses à ce sujet

[CatatonicMan]

Lumikki wrote...

You are right in my opinion. In ME2 they did solved some Bioware games problems, but also removed a lot what what's problem in first place. What did not make ME2 better in bigger picture. It's more different direction than better. ME2 is even worst in some stuff than it's previous games, but it did improve also some areas too.

One step forward, two steps back, three steps to the right, climb two steps down the ladder, and then spin in a circle.

[Terror_K]

Y'know what game didn't have massive inventory issues? Doom.



You also know what game didn't have long elevator rides or repetitive mineral gathering? Doom.



Oh, and there was a game that didn't have a planet exploration vehicle that you landed on repetitive worlds. It was called Doom.



And, what game had better combat and shooting mechanics than ME1? That's right... Doom.



Why don't we just turn Mass Effect 3 into Doom then? Because that's pretty the same basic principle and method they went about to make ME2 what it is today.

[bjdbwea]

Yes, some players apparently won't be happy until nothing more is left than yet another pure and simple shooter. It's like they think that they're entitled to it once a game has guns in it. Or how else can these complaints about the game "wasting their time" with things other than shooting be explained?

Modifié par bjdbwea, 02 septembre 2010 - 02:26 .

[kinedave]

Please provide examples of these players that won't be happy until it's nothing more than a pure shooter. Where are the complaints about the game 'wasting their time'? Genuinely intrigued here.

[Lumikki]

There is different between assuming what you want to assume, what others mean and what other person really means. This was for bjdbwea.

Terror_K, who has asked Doom here? Don't be so bitter with this over reaction to my writing, just because someone disagree little bit with you. I actually have many same opinions you do, not all but many.

kinedave wrote...

Where are the complaints about the game 'wasting their time'? Genuinely intrigued here.

I think he/she means my writing where I talk about how much player is wasting time when inventory is full and player has to manualy select every loots items. In my opinion this shifts little too much games focus in looting, items and management of inventory, than actual playing the games story.

Modifié par Lumikki, 02 septembre 2010 - 03:03 .

[Kai Hohiro]

bjdbwea wrote...

Yes, some players apparently won't be happy until nothing more is left than yet another pure and simple shooter. It's like they think that they're entitled to it once a game has guns in it. Or how else can these complaints about the game "wasting their time" with things other than shooting be explained?

Yes people want to take away your RPGs. Obviously everyone else beside you and your 1337 partner Terror_K is too simple minded to understand written word and the complex maths behind calculating one's THAC0.

You're a joke. You and the other same three people who keep going on in this thread are a joke. 
You have honest to god nothing better to do than rant about one single game for months to no end. You are a crazy  fanatic.

With that said, enjoy the next months ranting in this thread, rant more when ME3 comes out and the game is still like ME2. 

But what's said about you is not how you spend your time, that's not really my business. It's sad how you somehow believe in your little mind you enjoy more complex stories and games than other people. You really seem to consider yourself some kind of RPG connoisseur. But all your posts demonstrate is that you don't actually have the faintest clue about good gameplay or storytelling.

Modifié par Kai Hohiro, 02 septembre 2010 - 02:43 .

[bjdbwea]

kinedave wrote...

Please provide examples of these players that won't be happy until it's nothing more than a pure shooter. Where are the complaints about the game 'wasting their time'? Genuinely intrigued here.

You have such a complaint right on the previous page of this thread. That poster doesn't say that the game should be turned into a pure shooter, but you do see the (wrong) assumption that all the RPG elements are "useless" anyway and a "waste of time".

And if you look at the complaints about the RPG elements in ME 1 and the praise for the dumbing down of said elements in ME 2, it's obvious that a lot of shooter fans and casual gamers do want this series to be made more like the (pure action) games they're used to.

[spernus]

Terror_K wrote...

While I'd rather have real depth, I'd still rather have a facade and illusion of depth over no depth whatsoever and just pure simplicity. Even options with little meaning are better than no options, and limited choice is better than no choice. Especially in a game series that was supposed to primarily be about choice.

And again, the ME1 method is not the only way. Just because I (and the others who aren't happy with ME2's system) prefer it over the second games doesn't mean we don't see its flaws and want ME3 to bring it back in full force. I'd prefer a little bit of both, with a good deal of neither. ME1's method wouldn't have been so bad with better item balancing, better sorting and less junk, just like ME2's wouldn't have been so bad if it had modding/customisation, more items and less linearity. There's got to be a good middle ground which combined with some things neither system has would result in a decent system. Both systems are broken and bad in different --in fact, almost opposite-- ways, so there should be a good middle ground there that's better than both.

I don't trust Bioware staff enough to come up with a perfect algamation of ME 1 and 2 systems.

What annoy me about wrpg in general is how long it took them to graduate to pro status.You look at alpha protocol and marvel at how unpolished and how badly it is coded and animated.Despite being rich,Bethesda still struggle with proper polish,animation,basic gameplay notion,etc.We also know that Bioware still struggle badly with UI or gameplay in all shape and form.

It seems to me that wrpg developers invested all of their budget in writers and d&d specialists while neglecting elite programmers,animators,gameplay system gurus,etc.

[Lumikki]

bjdbwea wrote...

kinedave wrote...

Please provide examples of these players that won't be happy until it's nothing more than a pure shooter. Where are the complaints about the game 'wasting their time'? Genuinely intrigued here.

You have such a complaint right on the previous page of this thread. That poster doesn't say that the game should be turned into a pure shooter, but you do see the (wrong) assumption that all the RPG elements are "useless" anyway and a "waste of time".

And if you look at the complaints about the RPG elements in ME 1 and the praise for the dumbing down of said elements in ME 2, it's obvious that a lot of shooter fans and casual gamers do want this series to be made more like the (pure action) games they're used to.

I'm sorry bjdbwea, but you are making wrong assumption from what I sayed. It's more what you wanted my opinion to be than it actually is. Because it fits better in your own assumption that I'm agaist you and because that I have to be wanting games to be shooters.

I'm RPG fan and I hate FPS shooters. So, think again what I really sayed, don't assume direction of the meaning what I sayed.

Modifié par Lumikki, 02 septembre 2010 - 02:59 .

[bjdbwea]

Lumikki wrote...

I'm sorry bjdbwea, but you are making wrong assumption what I sayed. It's more what you wanted my opinion to be than it's actually is. Because it fits better in your own assumption that I'm agaist you and because that I has to be wanting games to be shooters.

I'm RPG fan and I hate FPS shooters. So, think again what I really sayed, don't assume what I sayed.

Okay. If I assumed something that you didn't mean, I'm sorry.

But you did say that the RPG elements are useless. So what you mean is that the RPG elements made little difference in ME 1? I disagree, I think the differences were very noticeable when you improved the skills of your player character in ME 1.

But let's assume they did not make a difference. Therefore it's an improvement that ME 2 doesn't bother you with these meaningless RPG elements anymore? But is that really a good solution? Wouldn't it be better if the game, you know, provided RPG elements that do make a difference? Isn't that what we should expect from a successor and from BioWare? But instead you seem intent on defending their decision to simply cut features out, as if it's a logical step of evolution. Even though that in effect turns the game into little more than a common shooter, a genre that you say you don't like. There seems to be a contradiction. Again, if I misunderstood you, I'm sorry.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 02 septembre 2010 - 03:08 .

[Lumikki]

I was mostly talking inventory stuff not every RPG elements. Example if You look ME1 items and remove all versions (I, II, III IV and so on.), then count how many items are left. That's what I mean by illusion of variety. Bad item/customation related thing what ME2 removed was, armor, weapon and ammo modification, because it was good customation in ME1.

Now how ever, I get feeling that you are talking more general ways RPG elements.

I'm not talking to cut all RPG elements off, many of them have good reason to exist, even just for impression point. How ever, there is some elements what change too much focus of game what doesn't fit in style what Mass Effect series is.

Example if You would put DAO combat system in Mass Effects, hole game would be totally different style. Not worst or better, but style would be different.

In my opinion, your opinions are too much based that everyting in traditional RPG is good and something different has to be bad. I don't see situation like that. I look more does this element fit style of the game or make gameplay better. Sometimes some good element what works well in some game, can turn the focus of on some other game in wrong direction, it just doesn't fit well. Like not every gameplay or element makes game in total ways better. Also there is many different ways to arrive same goals.

It's like how you see Mass Effect serie. I don't see Mass Effect serie as traditional RPG or some FPS shooter. I see it more like cinematic action adventure game what has TPS  combat and some RPG elements.

Modifié par Lumikki, 02 septembre 2010 - 03:41 .

[tonnactus]

kinedave wrote...

Please provide examples of these players that won't be happy until it's nothing more than a pure shooter. Where are the complaints about the game 'wasting their time'? Genuinely intrigued here.

Ok,i give one example of a shooter fan:
http://www.amazon.co...0&pageNumber=10
Great graphics...poor game play, 19 Mar 2010


By Scifi king (US) - See all my reviews


Fun: 


This review is from: Mass Effect 2 (Xbox 360) (Video Game)


The graphics, sound and visual effects in Mass Effect 2 are outstanding
and I do not think I have seen a game with human/alien behaviour and
movement modelled to this level of detail before. There is a story
behind the game which is reasonably well thought out and the baddies are
really bad and some missions do invoke a sense of tension in an
"Aliens" type manner. The detail in the design of the aliens is
excellent and there has clearly been a lot of thought put into how they
interact and behave with each other.



So why have I rated this game so poorly? Well, all the time and
effort must have been put into the graphics and plot lines because it
certainly wasn't put into the gameplay. Heres my list of issues and
frustrations I endured on the route to finishing this game:



1. The number one issue with Mass Effect 2 is that you spend more
time watching cut scenes or listening to tiresome dialogue than you do
actually playing the game. To all intensive purposes ME2 is an
interative book sprinkled with sessions of killing bad guys or doing a
random AI character a good turn. That may be fine for very young
children, but for the audience (I think) this game is intended for it is
very tedious.

2. It is difficult to play this game for short durations. Yes you
can save as you progress through the story but with ME2 it takes (what
seems like) a lifetime to get through each cut scene, load interval, or
lengthy dialogue making this a difficult game to play in short burst.

3. Next up, the missions and sub plots can be managed in a number
of ways but the progression through the game is effectively linear and
very predictable.

4. The gameplay on the missions with regards to weapons and powers
works fine. However, I found ME2 quite limited because you can barely
interact with the environment other than to open doors, pick stuff up,
take cover or jump over certain items on the floor. Having just played
Battlefield 2/Modern Warfare/Assassins Creed 2 which are highly
interative with the environment I found ME2 quite frustrating.

5. In the missions the characters are forced along a predefined
route (much the same way as "force unleased") with the characters unable
to climb over anything other than cover items...and this game is
another "you hit an invisible trigger" and baddies or an action
occur...come on EA this is so behind the times!

6. Characters can "level up" in an RPG style and gain greater
powers. The powers look great in action which is cool but the game
itself is so easy to finish that you don't need the powers to achieve
this objective; so why bother gaining the powers or levelling up at all?
More to the point, this game isn't an RPG so why have a level system at
all? This game is just to easy. Compared with Gears (which is similar
in some respects) this game is way to easy...Gears on hardest setting
was very challenging.

7. Here comes my biggest pet hate with this game; in order to obtain
some of the upgrades you need resources and this involves scanning lots
of planets for resources. This is incredibly tedious and whilst it no
doubt adds to the gameplay time it is boring beyound belief. Come on EA
- this is appalling! Spending hours scanning spheres endlessly for
four "resources" to upgrade!? Totally naff.

8. Last but not least - a list of minor gripes...pointless crew
members who don't do anything, emails that are of no consequence and
upgrades for the spacecraft which never come into use. Oh, and I had to
restart the game on at least 4 occasions because the lead character
became "stuck"...maybe he was so bored of the gameplay he couldn't be
bothered going on either.



So all in all...great visual impact but disappointing gameplay. I
wonder if EA knew exactly what sort of game they were trying to
make...did they want to make an RPG or an FPS? If they were trying to
combine the elements they ended up with a game that is good at neither
and has random elements in it which are boring beyond belief.


Funny,isnt it? The guy even agree with some complaints of rpg players.

[Epic777]

Lumikki wrote...

I was mostly talking inventory stuff not every RPG elements. Example if You look ME1 items and remove all versions (I, II, III IV and so on.), then count how many items are left. That's what I mean by illusion of variety. Bad item/customation related thing what ME2 removed was, armor, weapon and ammo modification, because it was good customation in ME1.

Now how ever, I get feeling that you are talking more general ways RPG elements.

I'm not talking to cut all RPG elements off, many of them have good reason to exist, even just for impression point. How ever, there is some elements what change too much focus of game what doesn't fit in style what Mass Effect series is.

Example if You would put DAO combat system in Mass Effects, hole game would be totally different style. Not worst or better, but style would be different.

In my opinion, your opinions are too much based that everyting in traditional RPG is good and something different has to be bad. I don't see situation like that. I look more does this element fit style of the game or make gameplay better. Sometimes some good element what works well in some game, can turn the focus of on some other game in wrong direction, it just doesn't fit well. Like not every gameplay or element makes game in total ways better. Also there is many different ways to arrive same goals.

It's like how you see Mass Effect serie. I don't see Mass Effect serie as traditional RPG or some FPS shooter. I see it more like cinematic action adventure game what has TPS  combat and some RPG elements.

I agree

[FataliTensei]

tonnactus wrote...

kinedave wrote...

Please provide examples of these players that won't be happy until it's nothing more than a pure shooter. Where are the complaints about the game 'wasting their time'? Genuinely intrigued here.

Ok,i give one example of a shooter fan:
http://www.amazon.co...0&pageNumber=10
Great graphics...poor game play, 19 Mar 2010


By Scifi king (US) - See all my reviews


Fun: 


This review is from: Mass Effect 2 (Xbox 360) (Video Game)


The graphics, sound and visual effects in Mass Effect 2 are outstanding
and I do not think I have seen a game with human/alien behaviour and
movement modelled to this level of detail before. There is a story
behind the game which is reasonably well thought out and the baddies are
really bad and some missions do invoke a sense of tension in an
"Aliens" type manner. The detail in the design of the aliens is
excellent and there has clearly been a lot of thought put into how they
interact and behave with each other.



So why have I rated this game so poorly? Well, all the time and
effort must have been put into the graphics and plot lines because it
certainly wasn't put into the gameplay. Heres my list of issues and
frustrations I endured on the route to finishing this game:



1. The number one issue with Mass Effect 2 is that you spend more
time watching cut scenes or listening to tiresome dialogue than you do
actually playing the game. To all intensive purposes ME2 is an
interative book sprinkled with sessions of killing bad guys or doing a
random AI character a good turn. That may be fine for very young
children, but for the audience (I think) this game is intended for it is
very tedious.

2. It is difficult to play this game for short durations. Yes you
can save as you progress through the story but with ME2 it takes (what
seems like) a lifetime to get through each cut scene, load interval, or
lengthy dialogue making this a difficult game to play in short burst.

3. Next up, the missions and sub plots can be managed in a number
of ways but the progression through the game is effectively linear and
very predictable.

4. The gameplay on the missions with regards to weapons and powers
works fine. However, I found ME2 quite limited because you can barely
interact with the environment other than to open doors, pick stuff up,
take cover or jump over certain items on the floor. Having just played
Battlefield 2/Modern Warfare/Assassins Creed 2 which are highly
interative with the environment I found ME2 quite frustrating.

5. In the missions the characters are forced along a predefined
route (much the same way as "force unleased") with the characters unable
to climb over anything other than cover items...and this game is
another "you hit an invisible trigger" and baddies or an action
occur...come on EA this is so behind the times!

6. Characters can "level up" in an RPG style and gain greater
powers. The powers look great in action which is cool but the game
itself is so easy to finish that you don't need the powers to achieve
this objective; so why bother gaining the powers or levelling up at all?
More to the point, this game isn't an RPG so why have a level system at
all? This game is just to easy. Compared with Gears (which is similar
in some respects) this game is way to easy...Gears on hardest setting
was very challenging.

7. Here comes my biggest pet hate with this game; in order to obtain
some of the upgrades you need resources and this involves scanning lots
of planets for resources. This is incredibly tedious and whilst it no
doubt adds to the gameplay time it is boring beyound belief. Come on EA
- this is appalling! Spending hours scanning spheres endlessly for
four "resources" to upgrade!? Totally naff.

8. Last but not least - a list of minor gripes...pointless crew
members who don't do anything, emails that are of no consequence and
upgrades for the spacecraft which never come into use. Oh, and I had to
restart the game on at least 4 occasions because the lead character
became "stuck"...maybe he was so bored of the gameplay he couldn't be
bothered going on either.



So all in all...great visual impact but disappointing gameplay. I
wonder if EA knew exactly what sort of game they were trying to
make...did they want to make an RPG or an FPS? If they were trying to
combine the elements they ended up with a game that is good at neither
and has random elements in it which are boring beyond belief.


Funny,isnt it? The guy even agree with some complaints of rpg players.

And these are the type of people Bioware want to be their new market

[Revan312]

shootist70 wrote...

I don't see it as a nit-picky reason at all. What you're saying is the equivalent of a sci-fi writer thinking that because his work requires suspension of disbelief then it also excuses the use of intrusive mechanics like infodump, plotdump and other clumsy exposition devices. And that's essentially all character/skill/inventory screens are: clunky use of infodump of the sort that decent storytellers wrinkle their nose at. It's a mechanical way of simulating character and story progression that doesn't need the sheer skill required to tie it into a story narrative.

Item/skill progression isn't a part of the true character and narrative progression that keeps a player compelled by conventional storytelling methods. It relies on intrinsic reward compulsion instead, and it's interesting that you brought up WoW on another post, as that's been criticised for its rat-maze reward gameplay to keep players addicted. Traditional RPG's suffer from the same problem - weak story and roleplay that can't keep a player compelled on their own merits so instead fall back on 'hunt the item/increase the skill' to keep a player going.

Stripping out reliance on item/skill based intrinsic rewards leaves the developer forced to focus on story and character driven roleplay instead to keep a player compelled. Just as stopping reliance on exposition devices forces a writer to write more powerfully. It's a good thing, honestly

Oh I completely agree, RPG's have used the same mechanics to keep players interested for years and years and those mechanics are realism breaking, but, it is a game, and games rely on interaction to provide the entertainment as opposed to amazing story telling.. The problem I find with ME2 however is that although Bioware has attempted to streamline and minimize the impact of inventory screens, level up screens and anything else that takes the player out of the experience and causes a break in the narrative, they don't have a good narrative to keep me interested..

It had good intentions, but ultimately it lost any semblance of tight storytelling. You mentioned that writers wrinkle their noses at infodump, but they also wrinkle their noses at pointless character resurrection and contrived, thread bare plot devices that serve no purpose beyond having a giant skeleton to fight at the end of the story...

You mentioned that stripping away reward based systems of compulsion forces the writer to be more responsible, but I argue only if the writer cares, and it's obvious they didn't in ME2.. The writing isn't more powerful or robust or plot/character driven, in fact it's less in relation to the first game's, and it used inventory and level up screens.

The difference in my mind is work load and time limitations. ME1 took far longer to make and didn't have nearly as concrete of a deadline as ME2, if they would have kept most of the previous system in tact with only minor changes or modifications, that would have left much more time for grandiose story/plot/character progression rather than a scrambling in the development and bug testing of a nearly completely reinvented gameplay system.

That's why I think that arguing about the merits of the new system is pointless as that is simply a subjective preference. Everyone can agree on some points such as the wish for more customization or a more in depth upgrade system, but there will always be a section that hates the gameplay system and a another that likes it. The point of an RPG though is to tell an interactive story and without a proper foundation for the gameplay to sit upon, it's all for naught imo. The foundation (plot/story) that ME2 structures itself on is shallow, boring, contrived and ultimately pointless within the scheme of the overarching story, therefor, the gameplay is a redundant interaction as going through the motions holds no meaning.

If ME3 has the same gameplay mechanics of Superman 64 yet tells a story with the quality of Brave New World, I'll be happy, but if it has amazing gameplay but the story of something like Twilight I'll be sorely disappointed. That's why I enjoy RPG's, narrative, and if one can't handle the reins of story progression without resorting to Michael Bay tropes than I hope it disappears into the $5 dustbin at your local Walmart..

Modifié par Revan312, 02 septembre 2010 - 05:55 .

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...
The ME1 system was definitely flawed, but to me it was a decent system with potential let down in its execution
and the items themselves.

I disagree. Traditionality didn't suit ME1 since it was far from traditional in the first place, topping it off with a developer who has had an extremely rough time make deep and balanced mechanics of their own.  The 'new' system was intriguing and it'd be interesting to see what could happen to it with more depth.

That's what it comes down to. Neither 'system' required a lot of brain power. The decision for 'what is best' is left up to the players, and there is sadly a great divide..

Terror_K wrote...
There's nothing special at all about any of the items when each one is just as useful as the others and there's nothing worthless in the game.

I'm having trouble trying to answer to this because I'm trying hard to figure out why this is a 'bad' thing...

Terror_K wrote...
Why don't we just turn Mass Effect 3 into Doom then?

Do you think the mechanics in all of Bioware's recent games are good enough to stand on their own? 

[FataliTensei]

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
Why don't we just turn Mass Effect 3 into Doom then?

Do you think the mechanics in all of Bioware's recent games are good enough to stand on their own? 

I think you missed the point all together

[shootist70]

Revan312 wrote...

Oh I completely agree, RPG's have used the same mechanics to keep players interested for years and years and those mechanics are realism breaking, but, it is a game, and games rely on interaction to provide the entertainment as opposed to amazing story telling.. The problem I find with ME2 however is that although Bioware has attempted to streamline and minimize the impact of inventory screens, level up screens and anything else that takes the player out of the experience and causes a break in the narrative, they don't have a good narrative to keep me interested..

Good post, Revan. I've had a go at ME2's plot and storytelling in a fair bit of detail on this thread before, so I'm in agreement there. And yep, I think that if Bioware had got it right then nobody would be sitting here lamenting the loss of the legacy RPG mechanics.

I don't think it's all down to subjective preference, though. Clearly recognisable, conventional story telling tradition is always going to have a far more powerful impact on the player when you free it from exposition mechanics that aren't universally recognisable.  Distilling that sort of storytelling onto a technological medium that can offer active roleplaying through choices of narrative is going to have more impact if you remain closer to authentic conventions and not rely on contrived devices.

That's what I see ME2 as trying to do. It IS trying to be fictive roleplaying in a way that would appeal to anybody that is familiar with drama, and not just people who are familiar with traditional RPG's. That's not the 'dumbing down' that a lot of folks here seem to mistake it for. And yes, ME2 is good, but if a game is going to try and take a genre  in a new direction then it has to be more than good. It has to do it in a convincingly brilliant manner. Sadly I don't think ME2 manages to do that,  and that has left some folks wondering if it's such a great new direction to go in at all. That's unfortunate, because personally I think that direction is just what the genre needs.

Modifié par shootist70, 02 septembre 2010 - 07:15 .

[Pocketgb]

FataliTensei wrote...

I think you missed the point all together

I may not have caught on to who Terror was replying to (if anyone) but Bioware's 'gameplay' part of their games has always left a lot to be desired.

[Revan312]

shootist70 wrote...

Revan312 wrote...

Oh I completely agree, RPG's have used the same mechanics to keep players interested for years and years and those mechanics are realism breaking, but, it is a game, and games rely on interaction to provide the entertainment as opposed to amazing story telling.. The problem I find with ME2 however is that although Bioware has attempted to streamline and minimize the impact of inventory screens, level up screens and anything else that takes the player out of the experience and causes a break in the narrative, they don't have a good narrative to keep me interested..

Good post, Revan. I've had a go at ME2's plot and storytelling in a fair bit of detail on this thread before, so I'm in agreement there. And yep, I think that if Bioware had got it right then nobody would be sitting here lamenting the loss of the legacy RPG mechanics.

I don't think it's all down to subjective preference, though. Clearly recognisable, conventional story telling tradition is always going to have a far more powerful impact on the player when you free it from exposition mechanics that aren't universally recognisable.  Distilling that sort of storytelling onto a technological medium that can offer active roleplaying through choices of narrative is going to have more impact if you remain closer to authentic conventions and not rely on contrived devices.

That's what I see ME2 as trying to do. It IS trying to be fictive roleplaying in a way that would appeal to anybody that is familiar with drama, and not just people who are familiar with traditional RPG's. That's not the 'dumbing down' that a lot of folks here seem to mistake it for. And yes, ME2 is good, but if a game is going to try and take a genre  in a new direction then it has to be more than good. It has to do it in a convincingly brilliant manner. Sadly I don't think ME2 manages to do that,  and that has left some folks wondering if it's such a great new direction to go in at all. That's unfortunate, because personally I think that direction is just what the genre needs.

Precisely, the direction they took the actual technicalities of the game were experimental and a step forward imo as far as the theory behind those changes goes.  But as you said, they couldn't back up the removal of the traditional mechanics with a more indepth narrative. The whole thing hinged on having an engrossing and properly realistic interaction between characters, plot and universe as all good stories should.

Portal is a perfect example of changing the entire structure and expectations of a genre while mixing it with an interesting and approachable premise/plot.  I absolutely loved that game because of its ability to both redefine it's FPS roots and immersing you in a world that grabs you and doesn't let go.  There's one "weapon", no items, no level up, no experiance, no skills or abilities beyond the portals and yet it stayed engrossing.  It was short, but then it didn't need to be DA:O in length, it was the perfect package imo and to this day I have yet to play a AAA game in the last 10 years that breaks away from the same idioms and cliches the entire idustry has used ad nausium.

I respect Bioware for trying to somewhat break away, but the whole game came off as a stereotypical TPSer simply because there was a general lack of role playing and proper narrative momentum, and what was there was cringe worthy in its execution.

Bioware just needs to slow down a bit I think, EA's input might be to blame, but ultimately Bioware are the ones that can most likely dictate what is and isn't ready for public consumption.  They rushed ME2 and it looks as though they're going to rush DA2 and most likely they will rush ME3. It seems as though they have grand ideas of where to take the genre but then, when it comes game time and they actually have to implement said idea, they quickly push it into development in an attempt to meet a deadline that is there out of fear of the public's growing disinterest in the franchise.  But Bioware is a massive company that makes games that are widely known and bought.  People aren't going to simply not buy a title because it's been more than a year, if it's well made and a revolutionary game, people will buy it regardless.

Bioware has taken a risk in trying to balance a TPS with an RPG but as most critics of the game point out, it does neither very well and ultimately it just comes off as sort of slammed together and sloppy.  The heart is there but the soul isn't and I just hope that Bioware doesn't let massive, unwarrented and overly hyperbolic praise go to their heads or else they'll end up like Lionhead.

[CroGamer002]

ALMOST 400?!

OH MY GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWD!!!!!

[tonnactus]

shootist70 wrote...
Sadly I don't think ME2 manages to do that,  and that has left some folks wondering if it's such a great new direction to go in at all. That's unfortunate, because personally I think that direction is just what the genre needs.

What indicates that this is the right direction? classic rpgs like fallout and oblivion have far higher sales then the Mass Effect series.

[bjdbwea]

Revan312 wrote...

Bioware just needs to slow down a bit I think, EA's input might be to blame, but ultimately Bioware are the ones that can most likely dictate what is and isn't ready for public consumption.

Hm, I don't think so. Is it coincidence that what happened to ME 2 and what seems to happen to DA 2 only started to happen after they sold out their company? What would have stopped BioWare from already doing with ME 1 and DA 1 what they now - suddenly - see as the one and only way to go? The truth is, they invested a lot of time, effort and dedication into ME 1 and even more time into DA. Wouldn't they, at some point, probably sooner rather than later, already have come to the conclusion that "streamlining" and speeding up development is the thing they need to do? Answer: Probably not, because they were always following a "by gamers, for gamers", "RPGs are worth producing" and "quality first" approach. And, importantly, for all we know, they were still always making a profit with that approach. Apparently, that's not enough anymore though.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 02 septembre 2010 - 10:37 .

[Epic777]

bjdbwea wrote...

Revan312 wrote...

Bioware just needs to slow down a bit I think, EA's input might be to blame, but ultimately Bioware are the ones that can most likely dictate what is and isn't ready for public consumption.

Hm, I don't think so. Is it coincidence that what happened to ME 2 and what seems to happen to DA 2 only started to happen after they sold out their company? What would have stopped BioWare from already doing with ME 1 and DA 1 what they now - suddenly - see as the one and only way to go? The truth is, they invested a lot of time, effort and dedication into ME 1 and even more time into DA. Wouldn't they, at some point, probably sooner rather than later, already have come to the conclusion that "streamlining" and speeding up development is the thing they need to do? Answer: Probably not, because they were always following a "by gamers, for gamers", "RPGs are worth producing" and "quality first" approach. And, importantly, for all we know, they were still always making a profit with that approach. Apparently, that's not enough anymore though.

I would lay off the conspiracy theories for the moment. Both me1 and me2 has were commercial and critical successes. me1 was received well. I doubt the mass effect developers are being controlled by an evil CEO (EA). I like RPG as much as anyone but I will not lie, RPGs like all genres need to adapt to survive. I dismiss the idea that gamers outside the RPG realm are too stupid to appreciate said genre. If the Bioshock can sell well whose story has roots in ayn rand philosophy, then proves its not impossible, even FPS games have evolved from paper thin stories with the player shooting a zombie in a corridor.

Modifié par Epic777, 02 septembre 2010 - 11:15 .

[Bourne Endeavor]

tonnactus wrote...

kinedave wrote...

Please provide examples of these players that won't be happy until it's nothing more than a pure shooter. Where are the complaints about the game 'wasting their time'? Genuinely intrigued here.

Ok,i give one example of a shooter fan:
http://www.amazon.co...0&pageNumber=10
Great graphics...poor game play, 19 Mar 2010


By Scifi king (US) - See all my reviews


Fun: 


This review is from: Mass Effect 2 (Xbox 360) (Video Game)


The graphics, sound and visual effects in Mass Effect 2 are outstanding
and I do not think I have seen a game with human/alien behaviour and
movement modelled to this level of detail before. There is a story
behind the game which is reasonably well thought out and the baddies are
really bad and some missions do invoke a sense of tension in an
"Aliens" type manner. The detail in the design of the aliens is
excellent and there has clearly been a lot of thought put into how they
interact and behave with each other.



So why have I rated this game so poorly? Well, all the time and
effort must have been put into the graphics and plot lines because it
certainly wasn't put into the gameplay. Heres my list of issues and
frustrations I endured on the route to finishing this game:



1. The number one issue with Mass Effect 2 is that you spend more
time watching cut scenes or listening to tiresome dialogue than you do
actually playing the game. To all intensive purposes ME2 is an
interative book sprinkled with sessions of killing bad guys or doing a
random AI character a good turn. That may be fine for very young
children, but for the audience (I think) this game is intended for it is
very tedious.

2. It is difficult to play this game for short durations. Yes you
can save as you progress through the story but with ME2 it takes (what
seems like) a lifetime to get through each cut scene, load interval, or
lengthy dialogue making this a difficult game to play in short burst.

3. Next up, the missions and sub plots can be managed in a number
of ways but the progression through the game is effectively linear and
very predictable.

4. The gameplay on the missions with regards to weapons and powers
works fine. However, I found ME2 quite limited because you can barely
interact with the environment other than to open doors, pick stuff up,
take cover or jump over certain items on the floor. Having just played
Battlefield 2/Modern Warfare/Assassins Creed 2 which are highly
interative with the environment I found ME2 quite frustrating.

5. In the missions the characters are forced along a predefined
route (much the same way as "force unleased") with the characters unable
to climb over anything other than cover items...and this game is
another "you hit an invisible trigger" and baddies or an action
occur...come on EA this is so behind the times!

6. Characters can "level up" in an RPG style and gain greater
powers. The powers look great in action which is cool but the game
itself is so easy to finish that you don't need the powers to achieve
this objective; so why bother gaining the powers or levelling up at all?
More to the point, this game isn't an RPG so why have a level system at
all? This game is just to easy. Compared with Gears (which is similar
in some respects) this game is way to easy...Gears on hardest setting
was very challenging.

7. Here comes my biggest pet hate with this game; in order to obtain
some of the upgrades you need resources and this involves scanning lots
of planets for resources. This is incredibly tedious and whilst it no
doubt adds to the gameplay time it is boring beyound belief. Come on EA
- this is appalling! Spending hours scanning spheres endlessly for
four "resources" to upgrade!? Totally naff.

8. Last but not least - a list of minor gripes...pointless crew
members who don't do anything, emails that are of no consequence and
upgrades for the spacecraft which never come into use. Oh, and I had to
restart the game on at least 4 occasions because the lead character
became "stuck"...maybe he was so bored of the gameplay he couldn't be
bothered going on either.



So all in all...great visual impact but disappointing gameplay. I
wonder if EA knew exactly what sort of game they were trying to
make...did they want to make an RPG or an FPS? If they were trying to
combine the elements they ended up with a game that is good at neither
and has random elements in it which are boring beyond belief.


Funny,isnt it? The guy even agree with some complaints of rpg players.

This here is something Bioware should read, reread, glance over a third time, absorb every single word and read through once more. It is the basis of the shooter mindset. They do not desire the length of depth and dialogue that we RPGers yearn for. To them it is an impediment to gameplay, a design flaw. They wish for quick paced action, trigger happy gun flair and a quick storyline, riddled with horrendous cliches and stereotypes just so long as it is complying enough to warrant attention. ME2 is not remotely at the level of Call of Duty, Gears of War and etc however it is approaching that direction unless Bioware grabs the clutch and pulls fast to turn this flagship around.

ME2 was definitely a good attempt at branching into a different area and at the core the gameplay is thorughly entertaining. As I have said previously, if they offer more customization and open up the skill section again, this will be a truly rewardinng experience. What they have to accept is they will never appeal to the FPS crowd unless the RPG elements are stripped away completely. There are certainly a large variety of hybrid gamers - I myself was a huge Halo fan back with Halo 2 - however we are generally the exception, not the norm. Example, my cousin raves about CoD, yet when I mentioned ME2 the first words out of his mouth was "too much talking."

If Bioware progresses further into the FPS scene they are in immediate danger of alienating their original fanbase and still not appealing to the FPS crowd. They would be better suited doing a turn around and giving to the RPG crowd and make a seperate Mass Effect title for the shooter fans, if there desire is to lure them over. You know, a spin off game that is just combat, just battling. Make it about the Rachni wars or Krogan rebellion for all I care. They need to focus on one direction for the main series and unless they are prepared to completely trash the dialogue, it is wasteful to push ahead for the FPS group because ME2 is as close as it will get.