140 réponses à ce sujet

[Ocelot83]

Meistr_Chef wrote...

- Make our decisions throughout the games truly matter without us knowing we are going to get the full rainbow or the purgatory ending. What I'm saying is, being a full paragon may mean your utter compassion may come back to bite you in the ass in some places thus complicating certain scenarios. Or, being a full renegade might mean that some of your potential allies etc may have been lost thus making parts of the game harder. For the gray areas, a mix of the two between depending on your decisions. Some of that time-based consequences in ME2 were a real surprise to me; keep it up and expand on it without limiting experimentation too much!

This is the one I would really like to see, and preferably that even as paragon you couldn't be "friends" with every faction.

[Meistr_Chef]

Cool, it's good to see that many of you also feel the Mass Effect series deserves to forge its own identity.

I also want to add that I always feel that quality of the content counts more than the quantity. Sure most of us here are Mass Effect fans so we want more but again taking into account the finite resources available to the development team it's much better to focus their efforts on unique experiences that make an impression. For me, and this might ****** off some people, the recent Bethesda games have irked me because of their slavish adherence to quantity over quality. I have tried to finish Oblivion at least 5 times but never did because the abundant quests are so cookie-cutter and the voice acting abysmal. I didn't care about caves that I'd bump into every 5 minutes; they looked the same and played the same. I had the same problem with Fallout 3; terribly boring quests, terribly boring conversations, terrible animation (the game world looked decent though).

Bioware apparently knew this and excised all the infamous side mission level design from ME1; now things feel more unique...like the Normandy crash site or the series of related mech side quests. Adding 'more' unique side missions may appease some of the fans looking for quantity but I don't feel strongly about it; as long as they're high quality sure but keep the carbon copy levels far away. Another thing to consider is that when there are too many side missions, the urgency of the main mission takes a hit; because if Bioware allows you to roam the universe with no consequence it doesn't feel like a universe in danger as much.

In reply to a few folks:

How is removing sex scenes because Fox News ****ed you over, bold?

Yeah I noticed the sex scenes in ME2 seemed are tamer, but it didn't irritate me too much. As long as they can keep all the important parts of the game high quality, this is something I can forgo. But sure I understand on principle it might be akin yielding to public pressure. But hey Bioware dropped a bunch of F bombs in this game though; that didn't happen in ME1.

Hmmm. The boldness of the Thresher Maw's are gone as well. Only a single Thresher fight in all of Mass Effect 2.

I remember finding the Thresher Maw a mere annoyance in ME1. It was a simple strafing run with the Mako, but occasionally you'd get an unlucky hit from its puke and die. I also seem to recall conversations in ME1 referring to the rarity of the Thresher Maw...while I'd encountered a bunch by the time I heard that conversation. This time the Thresher Maw feels more like a mythical creature that doesn't just appear on random barren planets.

Modifié par Meistr_Chef, 10 mars 2010 - 03:56 .

[-Skorpious-]

ME:3 needs more "open" environments like Jacob's loyalty or Tali's recruitment missions . I felt ME:2 suffered from having too many cramped indoor missions; especially with the majority of significant N7 missions taking place indoors (most outdoor N7 missions were only 5 or so minuets long at most).



Plus, I really miss the toxic environment/space missions from ME:1. Despite being eyecandy however, most of ME:1's missions were pretty bland and generic. I guess you would say that I would prefer a combination of ME1's and ME:2's systems - the beauty and exploration of the original, combined with the unique N7 missions of the sequel.

[Octorox]

 The OP gets it.

[RoninOmega]

I can agree with some stuff, but in all honesty, I feel me3 deserves more rpg elements that me2 lacked

Modifié par RoninOmega, 10 mars 2010 - 07:04 .

[Tasker]

How is removing everything that made ME1 unique and turning it into - what's the phrase others have used? oh yes -  "Gears of War with conversation trees", being bold?


ME3 should go back to what Bioware does best, there are already far to many and much better 'shooters' on the market, and we don't need another one.

Modifié par Orkboy, 10 mars 2010 - 07:20 .

[Tazzmission]

-Skorpious- wrote...

ME:3 needs more "open" environments like Jacob's loyalty or Tali's recruitment missions . I felt ME:2 suffered from having too many cramped indoor missions; especially with the majority of significant N7 missions taking place indoors (most outdoor N7 missions were only 5 or so minuets long at most).

Plus, I really miss the toxic environment/space missions from ME:1. Despite being eyecandy however, most of ME:1's missions were pretty bland and generic. I guess you would say that I would prefer a combination of ME1's and ME:2's systems - the beauty and exploration of the original, combined with the unique N7 missions of the sequel.

i agree but id love to see some mosters on these planets like in me1

[SurfaceBeneath]

Orkboy wrote...

How is removing everything that made ME1 unique and turning it into - what's the phrase others have used? oh yes -  "Gears of War with conversation trees", being bold?


ME3 should go back to what Bioware does best, there are already far to many and much better 'shooters' on the market, and we don't need another one.

Ironically enough, Mass Effect 2 is Bioware's highest rated game ever. So there is a pretty good argument to pose that this game might be what Bioware does best now if one were trying to make that point

[FlyingWalrus]

"Gears of War with conversation trees" is a facetious oversimplification of the game's system that does not do justice to the improvements that were made to the game, which were many and numerous. Did those obnoxious epithetists even play Gears of War?



Anyway, I do sign with the OP's remarks. They are agreeable. I dare to wonder how many people hurr hurr'd at the idea of a science fiction RPG with real-time shooting combat instead of cosmetically obscured turn-based trudgery like Neverwinter Nights or KotOR or Dragon Age's. I liked all those games a lot, mind you, but BioWare sure took a BOLD DIRECTION with Mass Effect, didn't they?

[Meistr_Chef]

Orkboy wrote...

How is removing everything that made ME1 unique and turning it into - what's the phrase others have used? oh yes -  "Gears of War with conversation trees", being bold?


ME3 should go back to what Bioware does best, there are already far to many and much better 'shooters' on the market, and we don't need another one.

Actually, considering the main gameplay mechanic is probably shooting...it's worth it to get it right. Unless you'd rather Bioware turn ME3 into a Biotic/Tech only game. The shooting is going to stay, so make it as exciting as possible. And in that sense I think ME2 fares much better than ME1.

I'm interested to read what the important things that made ME1 unique are now lost with ME2.

edit: I have played Gears of War 1 and 2. Terribly storytelling all over...really just pathetic macho posturing all around. I don't care for any of the characters in those games, or what they say. The only redeeming thing about GOW 1 and 2 is the semi fun shooting mechanic which ME2 has sorta copied and does just as well now (or even better due to some of the flexibility/variability offered by its RPG elements), only in a universe much more compelling to me.

Modifié par Meistr_Chef, 10 mars 2010 - 08:06 .

[LoweGear]

Agree with OP on all points: It may not be perfect, but damn if Mass Effect 2 isn't one of the best games I've played for the past decade.



And Bioware may be more receptive of their fans than many other game companies out there, but in the end only their design decisions matter in the long run. It may not please everyone, but so far the majority of their decisions for ME2 have led to a game that I actually find... FUN, which is what gaming should be about. Hence I have faith that whatever new direction they intend to take the Mass Effect trilogy for its ultimate conclusion, it'll be one that's in the best spirit of the series.



Ending my post with a story that's stayed with me since my younger days on the issue of criticism:

The Parable of the Old Man, The Boy, and The Donkey



There was an old man, a boy and a donkey. They were going to town and the boy was riding the donkey, with the old man walking alongside.



As they rambled along, they passed some old women sitting in the shade. One of the women called out, ''Shame on you, a great lump of a boy, riding while your old father is walking."



The man and boy decided that maybe the critics were right so they changed positions.



Later they ambled by a group of mothers watching their young children play by the river. One cried out in protest, "How could you make your little boy walk in the hot sun while you ride!"



The two travellers decided that maybe they both should walk.



Next they met some young men out for a stroll.



"How stupid you are to walk when you have a perfectly good donkey to ride!" one yelled derisively.





So both father and son clambered onto the donkey, deciding they both should ride.



They were soon settled and underway again. They next encountered some children who were on their way home from school.



One girl shouted, "How mean to put such a load on a poor little animal."



The old man and the boy saw no alternative. Maybe the critics were right. They now struggled to carry the donkey.



As they crossed a bridge, they lost their grip on the confused animal and he fell to his death in the river.

There will always be people that will be displeased by your decisions Bioware, but know that there are many of us who have faith in the direction you're taking Mass Effect in.

[Sadja]

LoweGear wrote...
There will always be people that will be displeased by your decisions Bioware, but know that there are many of us who have faith in the direction you're taking Mass Effect in.

That is why I think BioWare should just carry out their vision of Mass Effect. It's theirs to create and I (personally) have faith that they will pull it off to the best of their abilities. And it will shine. It will shine all pretty and I'll be fan-girling over it for years to come.

Listening to fans is one thing, changing your vision because of them another.

Modifié par Sadja, 10 mars 2010 - 07:42 .

[Meistr_Chef]

FlyingWalrus wrote...

"Gears of War with conversation trees" is a facetious oversimplification of the game's system that does not do justice to the improvements that were made to the game, which were many and numerous. Did those obnoxious epithetists even play Gears of War?

Anyway, I do sign with the OP's remarks. They are agreeable. I dare to wonder how many people hurr hurr'd at the idea of a science fiction RPG with real-time shooting combat instead of cosmetically obscured turn-based trudgery like Neverwinter Nights or KotOR or Dragon Age's. I liked all those games a lot, mind you, but BioWare sure took a BOLD DIRECTION with Mass Effect, didn't they?

You make a good point there. While I loved KOTOR for what it is (was) at the time, it now feels dated because of how clunky the combat was.

When I first played Mass Effect 1, I was surprised at the seemingly simple levelling system. Over time I grew to like it and found it a lot less complicated than some of the earlier D&D based systems were (put X points into wisdom and get more points etc; I could be wrong here as I am no RPG expert). Point is Mass Effect was something different from the earlier Bioware beasts.

Then Mass Effect 2 came out and I actually gasped in horror at first sight of the squad levelling page...it looked so barren! And what happened to all the weapons? Then I realize more options opened up over time, and although there are still less "knobs" to turn than ME1, each change/choice is more meaningful forcing me to adapt and compromise while simultaneously reducing the time I'd spend at the squad levelling screen. The weapons are now all different enough from each other to make me choose carefully (yes I admit a couple more armor pieces and guns per type would help significantly to mask the appearance of "no loot" in the game). The result was more playtime, less deadtime "planning the uber build". It was then I finally appreciated the value in the new system. I also knew it was going to ****** off some RPG purists. It has room for improvements but I largely appreciate the thought that went into the system and the gameplay benefit for someone like me.

[Nolenthar]

I would say that first post is from a console gamer who doesn't really like RPG. No offense however but it's what I feel



I would also say there is nothing you request that is not in ME2. Once again, no offense.



I won't quote your text because it's a lot but.



1. I don't really understand what you want when you say : refining the hybrid genre ?

ME2 is a RPG with real time action component. The combat system is great and reactive (and for instance, if you compare to another real time combat system in a RPG, like Fallout 3, a lot better). I still assume they could do more realistic level (there is no reason I can find cover everywhere) but I don't really see what they can refine so far ? More open environment ? more immersion ? I'm sure it's not what you're requesting ...

2. They already forgot RPG tradition but the only one that really count : dialogues and character creation. But you can't deny they could have had more specificity to your group. A Tech is not supposed to be "just a character with offensive tech power". He/She should also be useful for hacking terminals, for instance (and not just on the final mission).

3. I haven't seen a lot of action game tradition in this game. One boss (well incorporated in the story), maybe 2 if you count Grunt's loyalty mission.

4. Humm, I see your point, even if I could always recruit that specific companion you're talking about. The problem is that if they explained each of your decision when the results occur, is that you wouldn't have to try by yourself for your second playthrough. Note this system already exists in The Witcher (if my first guess is right, you couldn't have played it yet). It's quite good, but you surely know which decision generate that result.

5. I really think it will be the case in ME3. I'm quite sure some of us will have to start a new game in ME2 in order to get the end they want. Maybe it was advert, but they clearly say (during the loading screen, one part of the game that should be improved) : your decisions in ME2 will have a consequence, sometimes critical, in ME3 (that's a translation from my French version, so they might say it a different way). I'm quite sure we will be held responsible for the death of million people.

6. ok.



I won't say I don't agree with you. I'm just saying I see nothing that doesn't already exist in ME2.

[Massadonious1]

Kalfear wrote...

Not signed but pointed at in mocking laughter

Stop pointing at your mirror, Kalfear.

[Meistr_Chef]

Nolenthar wrote...

I would say that first post is from a console gamer who doesn't really like RPG. No offense however but it's what I feel

I'll have to go to bed soon and maybe reply to the rest of your post tomorrow but you are so wrong on the console gamer part.

I am a huge PC gaming fan. Been one since 1995. I do not like consoles. I use my PS3 to play blurays mostly, and my Xbox 360 hasn't been turned on for 3 months now. These are my first console purchases. For what it's worth, I have the PC edition of Mass Effect 1 and 2. And the Xbox 360 version of ME1 which I do not care for any longer.

I am not as well versed in the hardcore traditional RPGs but I do like some of them; I played a little Diablo here and there, but then Diablo was more of a loot game than anything else I think. I really got into Morrowind because it was such an expansive game. I played KOTOR 1 and 2 and liked them a lot. I suppose part of the reason is that most RPGs stick with the Tolkien-esque fantasy setting which I don't like that much. Oblivion and Fallout 3 left a sour taste in my mouth because of the totally pointless deluge of lame missions, lousy characters, ****e dialogue, and general clunkiness. I probably will not buy another Bethesda game. Anyway, you see I have missed a lot of Bioware's earlier efforts and even some other classics like Fallout 1/2.

Mass Effect appealed to my heavy science fiction leanings. And it offered enough RPG elements to satisfy my light RPG requirements. The dialogue, settings and atmosphere were sufficiently well thought out, mature and interesting. Since battle is central to just about any part of an action game or even RPG, I thought it was interesting that Bioware moved from the purely stats based "click and see what happens" approach to putting more realtime control in the player's hands. So it's not like I do not like RPGs, it's just that I think a more action oriented flavor suited the Mass Effect series. I like my RPG elements more from dialogue and meaningful choices in the game; note meaningful...sifting through 200 weapons and worrying over 20 stats is not my definition of meaningful.

To me, Mass Effect allowed Bioware to create something in a story genre that I love in a way I have never seen done quite like this before. I mean, which RPG so far has allowed you to carry your savegames from one game to another? Sure the much hyped choices in general are mostly superficial, but they maintain a type of consistency unique to you and you only, and certain choices in the game really made me think. That's more than any of the RPGs I have played have ever done; they don't usually challenge my viewpoints. I was pleasantly surprised when some of my teammates really were in danger and some died the first time I played through, thwarting my attempts at beating the system based on my preconceived notions of the first game. This to me is worth more than the swathe of character stat or item options from a typical traditional RPG.

In this light I give Bioware major kudos for moving away from some of the tried-and-true methods, and I'm hoping they can deliver on the "meaningful choices" part by the 3rd game. Of course, if they deviated so far from the RPG, gave us a hint at the potential of this series and fail to truly capitalize on it then I would be somewhat disappointed in the end. But it would still have been a worthy effort. I truly feel that sometimes fortune favors the bold.

edit: btw I read your point-to-point discussion and you have many valid points. Will reply tomorrow.

Modifié par Meistr_Chef, 10 mars 2010 - 09:18 .

[Killian Kalthorne]

I play RPG games. I like playing RPG games. That is the only genre of game I like to play. If what is suggested here happens, I will not like to play ME3. I barely liked to play ME2. So, if Bioware does this, well that is their prerogative but I won't be buying the game.

[Keymonk]

I agree with most of the points. Only the endgame one I disagree slightly with. The lack of a powerful boss in the end would make it feel anticlimatic to just solve everything, I reckon. It may, as you said, just be tradition, but I don't think it'd be taken well.

[Vena_86]

Agreed on most things. But I totally disagree that ME2 kept the sense of wonder (and size) of ME1. Or in other words, sense of immersion. And exploration is pretty much gone.

These are actually quite the biggest negative points of ME2 over ME1, so I can't really see where you are comming from with your conclusion.



But the rest is quite accurate.

[ObserverStatus]

Dear Blizzard: I don't like Diablo 3's color palette

'fraid you campaign is going to go the same way as the Unicorn free diablo campaign.

[Keymonk]

Killian Kalthorne wrote...

I play RPG games. I like playing RPG games. That is the only genre of game I like to play. If what is suggested here happens, I will not like to play ME3. I barely liked to play ME2. So, if Bioware does this, well that is their prerogative but I won't be buying the game.

Science fiction does not go well with traditional RPGs. Traditional RPGs are based on turn-based rules systems such as D&D, which does slow down the pace considerably. However, science fiction has a tendency to be more fast-paced, due to the inclusion of for example guns (since dodging a bullet or laser beam is very much harder than a sword, looking from a logical standpoint). Therefore, a hybrid genre is necessary, in my opinion, and Mass Effect does it well to make faster paced playing. 
If you like traditional RPGs, you should probably go for Final Fantasy or somesuch.

Just my viewpoint.

[Rivercurse]

Orkboy wrote...

How is removing everything that made ME1 unique and turning it into - what's the phrase others have used? oh yes -  "Gears of War with conversation trees", being bold?

I'm utterly fed up with this ludicrous comparison.

Edit - and these disingenuous assertions ;-)

Modifié par Rivercurse, 10 mars 2010 - 09:46 .

[Gatt9]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Orkboy wrote...

How is removing everything that made ME1 unique and turning it into - what's the phrase others have used? oh yes -  "Gears of War with conversation trees", being bold?


ME3 should go back to what Bioware does best, there are already far to many and much better 'shooters' on the market, and we don't need another one.

Ironically enough, Mass Effect 2 is Bioware's highest rated game ever. So there is a pretty good argument to pose that this game might be what Bioware does best now if one were trying to make that point

Of course,  one could also simply realize that ME2 is one of the first major releases under EA,  and EA's advertising dollars pay the bills at pretty much every gaming review site.

Cause and effect.  It's already pretty well established that gaming journalism is not on the consumer's side,  through a series of high-profile leaks.  Doesn't take much to figure out where the review scores came from.

As far as the OP goes,  strongly disagree.  Mass Effect is supposed to be an RPG,  not a shooter.  There's no middle ground.  RPG's absolutely require the skill to be based upon the character,  shooters absolutely require the skill to be based on the player,  they're polar opposites.  You can't mix them.  One of those two systems has to go,  and once it does,  you've lost the genre.

It's the difference between a Role and an Avatar,  so I'll explain it the way people here will likely understand best.

The blue guy the human became in James Cameron's Avatar was an Avatar,  it was the human's skill that took precedence,  as shown when he was training.  If the human had taken on the Role of the blue guy,  he wouldn't have to train,  his skill would be immaterial,  it would be the blue guy's skill that mattered.

It's a key difference,  and it's the defining line between an RPG and a Shooter,  which is exactly why ME2 is not a RPG.

[FlyingWalrus]

Okay, wise guy. Let's see you go through the game without upgrading a single character skill or weapon. Not even on allies. On Insanity. Let's see just how not-an-RPG ME2 actually is.