140 réponses à ce sujet

[Nolenthar]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

I can see where the different input devices would dictate certain differences in game design - sure. But there have always been deep and complex RPGs and strategy games for consoles in Japan, it's only the Western market where this mindset that consoles are for action games exists, and as someone who's been a console gamer all his life, it doesn't make a lick of sense to me. Obviously it's possible to make these games work with a console controller, it WAS possible with the frickin' Mega Drive controller that had four buttons and a d-pad, it's just not being done.

You're right too. Would it be a niche problem ? Bioware considers console players are more action-oriented and does not offer them the same amount of tactics ? I hope not ! I also read DAO is worse on console but I don't really know why.

[AngryFrozenWater]

The OP is full of hopeless ideas. If any of that stuff makes it then ME3 will have become a mindless adventure with TPS elements.



Certainly not signed.

[phatpat63]

There is a sad irony to this thread.
Mass Effect was an amasing, ground-breaking game. It took the unique skill and experience that Bioware has gained after more than a decade of building RPGs and combined it with shooter combat in an origonal sci-fi universe. Furthermore it was only the first act in a personal story that would be told accross 3 games. It was incredibly bold, no one had ever attempted anything quite like it, and for all its many flaws it delivered an experience that can be found in no other game to date.
If there was one word to decribe the changes made from ME1 to ME2 it would NOT be bold. There is barely a change that the phrase "slimed down" wouldn't describe better. Management of items, squad members, and skills has been drastically trimmed to make the game more accessable. The missions have been partitioned into smaller, more self contaned chunks while the main plot has been made simpler and easier to follow so that the game is easier to digest for casual gamers.
Bioware is owned by EA, and the money hats at EA only really care about how many copies a game sells. Games like Halo and Gears of War sell more copies than a game with the depth of Mass Effect, alot more. Buffing down a Mass Effect 2 to give it more mainstream appeal is anything but bold.

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.

I could not agree more.
Sure, "Gears of War with conversation trees" is hyperbolic, but maybe those of us who didn't actually shell out $60 for GoW or GoW2 could be forgiven for not knowing the diffrence. Some of us don't much care to bother with games that have the depth of a puddle, where the action is the only point and feature. Ubiquitous as those games are, it should come as no surprise that many of us who enjoyed ME1 in large part because of its depth and complexity, not inspite of it, resent this shift made by one of the only developers who has consistantly dilivered high quality games of the type we like to play. Bioware has become the best RPG developer out there, and just like Michael Jordan should never have tried to play pro baseball, Bioware shouldn't try to make Halo.
But EA exist to make money. So if a GoW or Halo style game with "lite" RPG elements hits your sweetspot Meistr_Chef, then more power to you, you'll most likely get what you want.
But don't call it bold, that's just bull****.

Modifié par phatpat63, 11 mars 2010 - 11:02 .

[nzag1971]

Signed.

I also like that the sentence you choose as an option for your characters is not the exact sentence your character will say/speak.

Modifié par nzag1971, 11 mars 2010 - 11:15 .

[Habelo]

bump?

[Terror_K]

Nolenthar wrote...

You're right too. Would it be a niche problem ? Bioware considers console players are more action-oriented and does not offer them the same amount of tactics ? I hope not ! I also read DAO is worse on console but I don't really know why.

DAO on the console fails due to console limitations and not due to being made more action-oriented. It lacks the isometric, top-down camera and mouse control because there's no real way a console version could do this well. As  PC player I'm actually happy that its the console version that got dumbed down: usually PC gamers suffer and have a game lacking in depth because it can't be too different from the console versions. Thankfully DAO was PC game first rather than a cheap port, so it doesn't suffer this.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Orkboy wrote...

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 ../../../images/forum/emoticons/wizard.png

This is true, but how many people bought it off the back of playing ME1? 

I for one, bought ME2 expecting the game to at least resemble ME1 but with the few flaws it had ironed out.
 
I didn't expect those easily fixed flaws to be ripped out and to be presented with a game that had the sophistication and innovation of a tin of canned Tuna.

As I keep saying, ME2 is quite a good game, but it's a poor excuse for a sequel to ME1.

Even if you're going to ignore critical reviews on the matter... according to user reviews on pretty much any major gaming website, it's higher reviewed than the first game so.... I would say that the great majority of those who bought it off the back of playing ME1 were completely satisfied. In any case, this may not be the thread for you then. This thread is supporting the bold direction of ME2, the risks Bioware is taking to make the perfect blend of RPG and shooter, and for those not fooled by the illusion of complex design but the genius of complex design with the appearance of simplicity.

[TJSolo]

A person paid to review games or a user review are nothing more than brief insights of what a game offers.

I couldn't careless about what rating someone else made about a game as their rating will not mean I enjoy a game any more or less.



The feelings Orkboy and others have are valid for them and they don't some reviewer to support their opinions.



In regards to this thread. ME2 took steps in taking out RPG elements and increasing the shooter aspect. That is not bold in this market which is already ripe with shooters that have some RPG elements.

[Terror_K]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Even if you're going to ignore critical reviews on the matter... according to user reviews on pretty much any major gaming website, it's higher reviewed than the first game so.... I would say that the great majority of those who bought it off the back of playing ME1 were completely satisfied.

Yes. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the great majority of Halo, Gears of War and Modern Warfare 2 players out there who decided to pick up Mass Efffect 2 and just treat the thing like another shooter. The same people who avoided the first game because it was too involved and there were slow periods where one had to regard screens and manage inventory and couldn't be shooting all the time. ME2 is simply a more mainstream game made for today's "gamers" who don't want depth and just want to go around blasting things.

In any case, this may not be the thread for you then. This thread is supporting the bold direction of ME2, the risks Bioware is taking to make the perfect blend of RPG and shooter, and for those not fooled by the illusion of complex design but the genius of complex design with the appearance of simplicity. 

:lol::lol: 

Seriously, dude... get over yourself and get your tongue out of BioWare's ass. The only risk BioWare is taking is alienating their existing fanbase. And while I'm sure you'll say you're part of said fanbase, that you're not being alienated and that you approve of their changes, there are a lot more old-school RPG fans out there who are unhappy with many of the changes made for ME2 and feel the game has been dumbed-down. Cutting out RPG factors that needed fixed in favour of falling back on sub-standard shooter elements is neither being bold, nor complex design, nor is it going towards making the "perfect blend of RPG and shooter" in any way. ME2 went in the opposite direction of making the perfect blend and became less complex and is hardly bold at all beyond daring to ****** off (some of) the fans. I think you're the one being fooled by the illusion of a so-called complex design in ME2. ME2 is simple... it's OVER simple. Even you yourself admitted that complexity doesn't even come into things unless you play on Insanity, and even then I'd hardly call making enemies a bit tougher by doing things like giving Husks extra protection they lacked before complex simply because you *gasp* have to change your party to something more sensible!

[phatpat63]

Terror_K wrote...

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Even if you're going to ignore critical reviews on the matter... according to user reviews on pretty much any major gaming website, it's higher reviewed than the first game so.... I would say that the great majority of those who bought it off the back of playing ME1 were completely satisfied.

Yes. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the great majority of Halo, Gears of War and Modern Warfare 2 players out there who decided to pick up Mass Efffect 2 and just treat the thing like another shooter. The same people who avoided the first game because it was too involved and there were slow periods where one had to regard screens and manage inventory and couldn't be shooting all the time. ME2 is simply a more mainstream game made for today's "gamers" who don't want depth and just want to go around blasting things.

In any case, this may not be the thread for you then. This thread is supporting the bold direction of ME2, the risks Bioware is taking to make the perfect blend of RPG and shooter, and for those not fooled by the illusion of complex design but the genius of complex design with the appearance of simplicity. 

:lol::lol: 

Seriously, dude... get over yourself and get your tongue out of BioWare's ass. The only risk BioWare is taking is alienating their existing fanbase. And while I'm sure you'll say you're part of said fanbase, that you're not being alienated and that you approve of their changes, there are a lot more old-school RPG fans out there who are unhappy with many of the changes made for ME2 and feel the game has been dumbed-down. Cutting out RPG factors that needed fixed in favour of falling back on sub-standard shooter elements is neither being bold, nor complex design, nor is it going towards making the "perfect blend of RPG and shooter" in any way. ME2 went in the opposite direction of making the perfect blend and became less complex and is hardly bold at all beyond daring to ****** off (some of) the fans. I think you're the one being fooled by the illusion of a so-called complex design in ME2. ME2 is simple... it's OVER simple. Even you yourself admitted that complexity doesn't even come into things unless you play on Insanity, and even then I'd hardly call making enemies a bit tougher by doing things like giving Husks extra protection they lacked before complex simply because you *gasp* have to change your party to something more sensible!

Indeed, saved me some time with that.

[Jaysonie]

phatpat63 wrote...

Indeed, saved me some time with that.

Im actually waiting for Surface to come back to save me some trouble to. Ah the power of laziness.(not you, me)

[SurfaceBeneath]

Terror_K wrote...
Yes. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the great majority of Halo, Gears of War and Modern Warfare 2 players out there who decided to pick up Mass Efffect 2 and just treat the thing like another shooter. The same people who avoided the first game because it was too involved and there were slow periods where one had to regard screens and manage inventory and couldn't be shooting all the time. ME2 is simply a more mainstream game made for today's "gamers" who don't want depth and just want to go around blasting things.

Oh I'm sorry, are those people not possessing the brain necessary for determinging whether a game is good or not? I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that those monkeys have an opinion equal to yours or the other RPG Master Race on this board.

Also:
>Implying you don't spend more time in dialogue in ME2 than you do in ME1.

Which still doesn't change the fact that Critical opinion of ME2 is by degrees even MORE positive about ME2 in relation to the first game.

:lol::lol: 

Seriously, dude... get over yourself and get your tongue out of BioWare's ass. The only risk BioWare is taking is alienating their existing fanbase. And while I'm sure you'll say you're part of said fanbase, that you're not being alienated and that you approve of their changes, there are a lot more old-school RPG fans out there who are unhappy with many of the changes made for ME2 and feel the game has been dumbed-down. Cutting out RPG factors that needed fixed in favour of falling back on sub-standard shooter elements is neither being bold, nor complex design, nor is it going towards making the "perfect blend of RPG and shooter" in any way. ME2 went in the opposite direction of making the perfect blend and became less complex and is hardly bold at all beyond daring to ****** off (some of) the fans. I think you're the one being fooled by the illusion of a so-called complex design in ME2. ME2 is simple... it's OVER simple. Even you yourself admitted that complexity doesn't even come into things unless you play on Insanity, and even then I'd hardly call making enemies a bit tougher by doing things like giving Husks extra protection they lacked before complex simply because you *gasp* have to change your party to something more sensible!

For someone accusing someone for have their tongue up Bioware's butt, you sure do white knight more of their games than I do. See now Terror_K, I used to be willing to actually argue points with you. Now you're just showing yourself to be a douchebag child who doesn't actually care about the opinions of those who posts on these forums, you just post to pathetically validate yourself and your own opinions towards the game when the entire rest of the world disagrees with you. If that's the case, I'll just drop all pretense of respect towards you and just start >implying and reactionface.jpging all of the absolutely absurd drivel you post.

Also I argued that ME2 on insanity is the ONLY instance so far in which Bioware has composed a game that requires critical thinking from the player and is balanced in any way as to promote diversity. A point you have not only utterly failed to refute, but which you obviously gave up on because you do not have an answer besides "LOL ME2 R STUPID BECUZ NO INVENTORIEZ".

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 12 mars 2010 - 01:03 .

[Terror_K]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Oh I'm sorry, are those people not possessing the brain necessary for determinging whether a game is good or not? I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that those monkeys have an opinion equal to yours or the other RPG Master Race on this board.

Because of course whenever somebody on this board brings up shooters and shooter elements and says they are shallow compared to RPGs and RPG elements, they must be elitists. Clearly anybody who wants depth in their RPG's is an arrogant elitist who is automatically wrong to do so. How dare an RPG fan want their favourite genre of games to not be watered down and simplified!

Which still doesn't change the fact that Critical opinion of ME2 is by degrees even MORE positive about ME2 in relation to the first game.

Oh please... <_<

Official game reviewers, be they at websites or in magazines, have been going downhill for years now. 9's and 10's are practically given out, and it's rare to see a game these days get anything less than a 5/10, which is ridiculous given that 5 is supposed to be the middling average; these days the average is closer to 8. Who knows how much money is changing hands just to get high review scores these days. I don't trust the media at all any more, and get my views from players rather than a bunch of idiots who think everything is great. Modern Warfare 2 is a classic case: so many rave reviews, and yet so many players I've spoken to who were massively disappointed in it. ME2 isn't much different: rave media reviews, but many complaining on the boards. Let's not forget that media reviewers are evaluating ME2 as a game overall and not necessarily as an RPG, and thus are not necessarily expecting it to be an RPG. One could easily view ME2 as one of the deepest shooters out there just as easily as one could view it as one of the shallowest RPGs. Its a matter of perspective, and reviewers who look at a game overall in general are more likely to simply evaluate it however they see it and not necessarily even compare it to the original game.

For someone accusing someone for have their tongue up Bioware's butt, you sure do white knight more of their games than I do. See now Terror_K, I used to be willing to actually argue points with you. Now you're just showing yourself to be a douchebag child who doesn't actually care about the opinions of those who posts on these forums, you just post to pathetically validate yourself and your own opinions towards the game when the entire rest of the world disagrees with you.

When the rest of the world disagrees with me? Isn't that statement a little hypocritical now? You speak as if the rest of the world sides with you and your opinions and that I'm the lone wolf howling about ME2 being watered down, when this is not the case and there a lot of fans out there who are unhappy with the direction BioWare took ME2. There are dozens and dozens of topics I haven't even posted in reflecting this displeasure. What I simply don't like is people claiming that ME2 is a step towards RPG/Shooter-Hyprid perfection as if its fact and saying that those who complain are too stupid to see what only your perfect eyes see as a complex and deep game that BioWare apparently haven't achieved before. That's more arrogant and douchebaggery than anything I said above.

Also I argued that ME2 on insanity is the ONLY instance so far in which Bioware has composed a game that requires critical thinking from the player and is balanced in any way as to promote diversity. A point you have not only utterly failed to refute, but which you obviously gave up on because you do not have an answer besides "LOL ME2 R STUPID BECUZ NO INVENTORIEZ".

I did refute it earlier, by simply not agreeing. It only requires critical thinking in that you can't take too many biotics with you and leave yourself short on squaddies with abilities to penetrate their additional defenses.  This is no more deep or complex than choosing to mod one's guns in the original against synthetics or organics depending on what one was about to face, or choosing which balms to apply in DAO before facing a boss character or large battle. Of course, you claim said depth doesn't exist in those games and one can just cruise through them without thinking or planning, so... yeah...

As for the lack of an inventory screen in ME2, I personally don't care that much to be honest, though I think simply scrapping it wasn't the best solution to a problem that was related more to the items themselves and less to the concept which I felt was sound. My problem with ME2 with regards to inventory is the complete lack of it, the fact that the guns have no visible statistics and what we have now is hardly different from playing CoD4 and finding new guns as you play (except it happens far less and there's far less choice). I'd be happy for ME3 to stick with a simple Weapons Loadout, ala ME2 to be honest... as long as we actually got a decent selection of items that were moddable rather than a simple shooter mechanic.

[SurfaceBeneath]

>Implying I am going to bother arguing with or read Terror_K's posts now

[Terror_K]

Sweet! I win then! If you can't even back up your arguments and resort to childishly posting silly images what's the point in even trying to have a debate.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Terror_K wrote...

Sweet! I win then! If you can't even back up your arguments and resort to childishly posting silly images what's the point in even trying to have a debate.

>Implying you once addressed the core points of my arguments earlier in this thread instead of just making circular regressive restatements of your original thesis.

[TheConfidenceMan]

I find it pretty incredible that anyone would consider ME2 to be bold. It's pretty much the exact opposite; designed to be safe, feel familiar, to be as digestable to the mainstream as possible.



Mass Effect 1 was a bold fusion of styles and ideas, that's why fans appreciated it despite how rough it was in places.

[Terror_K]

Your only core points were that you thought BioWare's previous offerings didn't require any complex thought or planning to succeed and you could just stack mages (or Jedi in KotOR's case) and that ME2 on insanity was the first game where you had to choose your party carefully. I simply disagreed and don't know how you came to the conclusion that warrors and rogues aren't really needed, but at the same time I've never tried the mage stacking technique, and thus have to take your word for it that its that successful. Beyond that you yourself haven't even given a logical reason as to how falling back on old shooter mechanics is being bold, complex or makes a better RPG/Shooter hybrid, instead just saying that you feel it does. In that sense you yourself haven't addressed the core points of those on the other side of the fence.

[MassEffect762]

TheConfidenceMan wrote...

I find it pretty incredible that anyone would consider ME2 to be bold. It's pretty much the exact opposite; designed to be safe, feel familiar, to be as digestable to the mainstream as possible.

Mass Effect 1 was a bold fusion of styles and ideas, that's why fans appreciated it despite how rough it was in places.

+1

[Nolenthar]

SurfaceBeneath wrote ...

TerrorK wrote ...

:lol::lol: 

Seriously, dude... get over yourself and get your tongue out of BioWare's ass. The only risk BioWare is taking is alienating their existing fanbase. And while I'm sure you'll say you're part of said fanbase, that you're not being alienated and that you approve of their changes, there are a lot more old-school RPG fans out there who are unhappy with many of the changes made for ME2 and feel the game has been dumbed-down. Cutting out RPG factors that needed fixed in favour of falling back on sub-standard shooter elements is neither being bold, nor complex design, nor is it going towards making the "perfect blend of RPG and shooter" in any way. ME2 went in the opposite direction of making the perfect blend and became less complex and is hardly bold at all beyond daring to ****** off (some of) the fans. I think you're the one being fooled by the illusion of a so-called complex design in ME2. ME2 is simple... it's OVER simple. Even you yourself admitted that complexity doesn't even come into things unless you play on Insanity, and even then I'd hardly call making enemies a bit tougher by doing things like giving Husks extra protection they lacked before complex simply because you *gasp* have to change your party to something more sensible!

For someone accusing someone for have their tongue up Bioware's butt, you sure do white knight more of their games than I do. See now Terror_K, I used to be willing to actually argue points with you. Now you're just showing yourself to be a douchebag child who doesn't actually care about the opinions of those who posts on these forums, you just post to pathetically validate yourself and your own opinions towards the game when the entire rest of the world disagrees with you. If that's the case, I'll just drop all pretense of respect towards you and just start >implying and reactionface.jpging all of the absolutely absurd drivel you post.

Please, this thread has been full of respect so far and those last ones were insulting.

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Oh I'm sorry, are those people not possessing the brain necessary for determinging whether a game is good or not? I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that those monkeys have an opinion equal to yours or the other RPG Master Race on this board.

It's not what was meant. All players are free to determine a good game. It doesn't eventually mean this good game is a good RPG, or even doesn't mean this good game is bold. It just means this game is popular. We all know GOW2 is more popular than ME1, or even DAO. Does it mean it's a better game than DAO ?

SurfaceBeneath wrote...
Also I argued that ME2 on insanity is the ONLY instance so far in which Bioware has composed a game that requires critical thinking from the player and is balanced in any way as to promote diversity. A point you have not only utterly failed to refute, but which you obviously gave up on because you do not have an answer besides "LOL ME2 R STUPID BECUZ NO INVENTORIEZ".

Not exactly, you argued that ME2 on insanity is the ONLY instance so far in which Bioware has composed a game that requires critical thinking during combat. 

Now, you also proved by your several posts that you want combat, more than anything else and in very wide proportion (as ME2 is your best game ever since the early 2000's). It's your opinion and it's not worse than ours, it's different. With your requirements, ME2 is a great game. With my requirements, it's a great game that lacks RPG elements (the one you call arbitrary). For TerrorK, it's a good game really lacking a lot of elements. None of us has an opinion that can make the consensus (as Legion would advise us). Do we have to insult for this ?
No

With the TPS released, your game's preference has changed, and it seems that you now love shooter, ready to sacrifice RPG elements to them. You call it bold, you call it clever changes. We don't.

Modifié par Nolenthar, 12 mars 2010 - 06:16 .

[SurfaceBeneath]

Terror_K wrote...
In that sense you yourself haven't addressed the core points of those on the other side of the fence.

Surface: ME2's combat is actually Bioware's most complex to date

Terror_K: I disagree. It is simple.

Surface: <Gives examples of how previous Bioware games were absurdly simplistic>

Terror_K: I don't know if those examples are correct, even though I could easily look it up or try for myself, but I disagree with you.

Surface: whatthe^$%amIlookingat.jpg

Yes, you're right. It sure is easy to argue someone when you just flat out ignore all of the evidence they've been providing while simply restating your thesis in every thread you post without addressing your opponent's points. There is literally nothing I could provide you to prove that Bioware's previous games had broken and simple combat, because you just won't look for yourself. I've even given clear examples which you just say, "Well I don't know about that hurp". Which makes this "debate" a pointless waste of my time.

[Terror_K]

I'm not going to play through the entirety of Baldur's Gate 2, NWN and Dragon Age with a party full of mages and KotOR with a party of only Jedi just to satisfy you in a petty forum discussion. You say I "ignore the evidence" but I don't actually see any concrete evidence beyond your claims. That and there's a difference between evidence on something and somebody opinion on it. I've played all these games you mention (in fact I OWN them all) as having "broken and simple combat" (several times over in fact) and I simply don't see it throughout my experiences.



Rather than that, let me ask others on this board this: is SurfaceBeneath right about these previous games in your opinons and have you found the same thing?



If others start stating the same thing that you've claimed, then I'll be willing to look at your claims and this so-called "evidence" as more than just your isolated experience with the bunch of games I've played and experienced a lot differently personally. Maybe you're just better at these games than me, but I've found not creating a balanced party quite often bones me, or at least makes things harder.



And I've still yet to see a decent example of how ME2's combat is now so complex and bold and closer to RPG perfection beyond a claim that "it's better than previous BioWare games" and "I had to choose my party wisely in Insanity"