140 réponses à ce sujet

[SurfaceBeneath]

Nolenthar wrote...
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.

Don't misunderstand me. My other favorite game in the last 10 years was Dragon Age: Origins. I still love that traditional tactical RPG style of gameplay and Dragon Age does that perfectly. So why does Mass Effect need to do that too? Bioware shouldn't get caught in the stagnation that gripped the Final Fantasy series (and JRPGs in general) for decades. They have two IPs currently running, soon to be a third. Bioware should diversify and release the story and character driven games they are famous for to a diverse audiance so they can appreciate those kinds of games over the brainless run and gun gameplay of GoW or Halo. And they're all still cleverly designed as RPGs, despite what "traditionalists" say. Here's a repost from another thread I posted in since I think it encapsulates my point on the whole "is or is not ME2 an RPG" topic.

SurfaceBeneath wrote...
Again, this is a problematic discussion because the very definition of an RPG is so murcurial to escape definition in any genre discussion. Roleplaying has always been an act of inserting yourself in the role of the character. A Roleplaying game is that in which the game gives you tools to make that character a representation of yourself or a character of your design through the game, and which presents you opportunities to actualize this on the story. If we look at RPG video games as an extention of their PnP counterparts, then we see that the "Mechanics" of the RPG that most people refer to in this argument stem from a tradition of importing certain PnP rulesets into the games, not because those rulesets were inherently a part of roleplaying games. Compared to the sheer variety of PnP roleplaying games out there, the absolute chokehold people put on what "elements" make an RPG game an RPG are, to be frank, ludicrous. There are many, many, many PnP roleplaying games out there that do not include inventory, loot, or leveling. Why is it that those -specific- tropes that were arbitrarily selected to be a part of RPG video games back in the late 80s and 90s now required for a game to be an RPG when it was all just supposed to be a virtual medium for the PnP experience which contains permutations far beyond those systems that we are most familiar with? There is no reason besides familiarity. The Mechanics were only there to provide an abstraction for things that players at a PnP player could not physically do at the table.

Take these two scenarios: In one game I have to select an enemy on my screen, press the fire gun ability, and then my character fires their gun and a dice is rolled behind the screen that determines whether or not it hits. In the second game, I manipulate my character's aim in order to fire at an enemy and press the fire button to attack them. Both are abstractions that the video game provides us to simulate something that our character is doing. Which one is inherently more "Roleplay-ey" than the other? Neither, because both merely exist to provide a simulation of gunplay through abstract rules.

Tradition is obviously an important factor, and obviously language itself might be the limiting factor in this discussion. Just as Kleenex has become synonymous with facial tissue, the term RPG has come to symbolize more than one could argue it inherently is. And as someone who adores the RPGs of 1998-2000 (Planescape:Torment and Baldur's Gate 2 are my top two favorite games of all time), I certainly cannot invalidate the appreciation players have for those specific mechanics and who are upset that they are not present, or at least not strongly so, in Mass Effect 2. Especially given that Bioware has long been a bastion of those kinds of games in a video game landscape when such games are exceedingly rare. However, I think with Dragon Age: Origins, Bioware has established a franchise which honors those traditional values. That's awesome and they should continue in that direction with Dragon Age. With Mass Effect, they should be given the leeway to experiment with the genre and to create games which seek to honor less the tradition of RPGs and instead their spirit while allowing Bioware to develop different kinds of games. Is dictating on them what kind of game they are "allowed" to make fair or sensible? Hell no.

NOTE: I am not opposed to further RPG elements being added to ME3. In fact I would welcome it. I just prefer those to be RPG elements we don't see in many games rather than RPG elements that have been used for the past 25 years. Mass Effect should be about progressing the genre. Leave the Dragon Age IP for being a more traditionalist approach.

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 12 mars 2010 - 06:48 .

[SurfaceBeneath]

Terror_K wrote...

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.

What evidence do you want me to provide? There are strategy guides all over the internet. You can go to the DA:O strategy boards here and ask how ridiculous mages are compared to Rogues and Warriors. You have the games and are free to play them yourself. Better yet, provide me a situation found in any of these games in which a party of all Mages is not the best solution. You're not interested in discussion. You're not interested in my point. There was no convincing you Mass Effect 2 was actually a very complex game from the start because you've already made up your mind regardless of any evidence thrown at your feet, since you won't look anyway.

So yes. This is a pointless discussion and a thread of which you have nothing to contribute. So instead of wasting both our time, why don't you go to one of the threads complaining about the game and leave this one that is congratulatory to others of a different opinion?

[TJSolo]

"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?"



The only thing right about it is from my experiences are Kotor and DAO.

Being that a team full of Jedi or Mages are so easy it breaks the mechanics of the respective games, making them simplistic. It is a strictly min-max strategy, which to devs is beyond the scope of intended game play tactics.

[Meistr_Chef]

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.

Well the negativity has started to set in hasn't it? I'm quoting you, but there has been quite a few of the same replies in the last day popping up here so I'll address the group generally.

Boldness can be viewed many ways. I find it bold that Bioware dares to make a game that changes the way an RPG-influenced platform to play faster and flow better, yet maintaining its spirit. It's like distilling the essence the game. Some call it selling out because it's now further than ever from the well-known quantity that is the traditional cRPG.

I've always found most exploration and role-playing mechanics in cRPGs more statistical in nature than truly role-playing. And rather empty when you come to think of it. It's +2 this, -5 that...all wrapped in the appearance of freedom via several storyline branches. That and some measure of grind. That said, I have allowed myself in the past to get addicted to this kind of gameplay. And then forget about it once I'm done. With ME1 and ME2 I am finding that Bioware is making something different, to develop more storyline decision based consequences than statistical manipulations. Some call this "GOW with dialogue trees." Fine but I disagree considering GOW has no interesting ideas to start with. It takes balls to possibly alienate the traditional fanbase doing something they think will serve this experiment. And from Bioware's pov, all the better if it also attracts the "dumb" people to buy their game.

Some of you mention that Bioware should make ME3 "harder to get into" presumably to keep the "dumb" people out. This is bad game design and a selfish thought. It is my opinion that role-playing, at its core, shouldn't really require more than a willingness to inhabit a role and make decisions as you see fit given the bounds of the writing/story. It's much better for a game to appear easy and simple, and yet be significantly impactful and unexpectedly profound at times. Here's why: before Mass Effect 1 and 2, I have not found any role-playing aspects in any cRPG I've played over the last 10 years to be anything meaningful from a thought provoking sense. Deciding whether I want to kill a person that has no real bearing past the next 10 minutes or whether I want to be a certain warrior with N % damage ability with Y% intelligence and the ability to sneak attack is not thought provoking; it becomes a numbers game as you juggle compromise mostly in terms of advanceable abilities. Contrast that to deciding whether a race should survive or die (or altered vs dead in ME2), not knowing what it would transpire a few years down the line in the next game.

To me, Mass Effect 2 feels like a tighter game sticking to it's guns and perhaps enforcing the bounds of its story loses some of the traditional RPG "open endedness" but feels signficantly more focused. For example, you might not want to work with Cerberus, but you do what you can in the mean time, and so the game forces you out of the comfort zone (if you'd been able to "refuse" straight off). Don't get me wrong though, if Bioware had given you a choice at the beginning the game development and make it meaninful it would be AWESOME but the workload would probably have been an order of magnitude more complex...so I realize that, accept it and judge the game accordingly. Given such a contrainst, the next best thing is to wring a more focused experience out of this, possibly pissing some people off. And I think that's great. So we come back to the previous paragraph's initial argument. This "keep it exclusive" mindset is not uncommon; it's been speculated some feel the need to feel special in liking a fringe title. But let me be clear...yes there are lots of mindless mass entertainment product that becomes popular, but occasionally something truly special that deviates from familiar patterns also gets embraced by the masses.

Modifié par Meistr_Chef, 12 mars 2010 - 07:28 .

[Terror_K]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

What evidence do you want me to provide? There are strategy guides all over the internet. You can go to the DA:O strategy boards here and ask how ridiculous mages are compared to Rogues and Warriors. You have the games and are free to play them yourself. Better yet, provide me a situation found in any of these games in which a party of all Mages is not the best solution. You're not interested in discussion. You're not interested in my point. There was no convincing you Mass Effect 2 was actually a very complex game from the start because you've already made up your mind regardless of any evidence thrown at your feet, since you won't look anyway.

Okay... let's just say that for a moment I take your word for this and agree with you, or at the very least accept this as a factor of these games, all this says to me is that mages in these games are overpowered and broken and you (and others) who have chosen this route have merely exploited a factor in the game that favours a mass of one particular class over other options. That doesn't mean the game isn't complex, it just means its got a loophole or a single means of simplifying things that otherwise wouldn't be so simple. It's like calling a game simple for finding the "God Mode" cheats, except that this is a case of something within the game that's not a cheat.

In either case, this still fails to explain why ME2 is more complex and a better RPG. Pointing out the weaknesses of other games doesn't inherently point out the strengths of ME2. About the only thing you've said in this regard is that you couldn't just spam a single class at the enemy and win on Insanity, but that just means they've done a better job of patching "the mage hole" for lack of a better term, and this is probably because the Mass Effect equivalent of the mage is the biotic, who simply isn't as strong as they were in ME1 and need some help to drop the defenses.

So yes. This is a pointless discussion and a thread of which you have nothing to contribute. So instead of wasting both our time, why don't you go to one of the threads complaining about the game and leave this one that is congratulatory to others of a different opinion?

Because I don't think BioWare should be praised for a bad move, since all that will encourage is more dumbing down and oversimplifying of the final part, and perhaps any future games they may decide to make.

You say that you welcome more RPG elements being introduced into the game so long as they bring something new to the table and don't fall back on standard RPG cliches, tropes and the like, but that's not what ME2 did. If BioWare had replaced the systems they scrapped in ME2 with something fresh and innovative and yet still very much RPG I'd have welcomed it too, but they didn't. They simply fell back on standard shooting mechanics in most cases or nothing at all in others. While this may mean that ME2 isn't quite the cliche as the original and doesn't rely on RPG mechanics you feel don't fit, it doesn't automatically make it a bolder, more complex RPG... just one less tied to traditional RPG factors.

Modifié par Terror_K, 12 mars 2010 - 08:52 .

[Jebel Krong]

Seriously, TerrorK you really need to get over the fact that mass effect was never an isometric turn-based tactical rpg masterpiece you seem to think it was. the biggest things Bioware changed between 1&2 were the refining of the combat and stripping out of some of the more superfluous elements (like constant party upgrade/armour management - can you even consider how tiresome it would be to be doing that for c.8 squaddies?).

Mass Effect has always been a hybrid of the 3rd person shooter genre and rpg - in the first game it wasn't as well implemented as the second, but it's a learning process, i'm sure #3 will be even better. the upgrade system, whilst not well-explained, does a good job of levelling your weapons without intensive micro-management being required, the important game elements - plot, characterization, conversations etc are just as good, if not better than #1 - the critics (and you cannot dismiss every one as being paid off/lacking in standards) and fans alike seem to agree, given the sales figures.

Mass Effect is not really comparable to Dragon Age or any of their previous games, it's a broadening of horizons on Bioware's part, and one for the better come the future. i get the distinct inpression you simply want them to regress into just refining a single rpg-type concept to a dwindling audience who have (except you) moved on to bigger, better and more complex ideas about what a game should be.

btw i also read your review, posted here, and you were a lot more positive then - seems like you have regressed backwards again since.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 12 mars 2010 - 10:02 .

[Nolenthar]

Jebel, not only Terror_K does complain about ME2.

What most of you seem unable, or unwilling to understand is that making ME2 a simpler game than ME1 doesn't make it a better game. More popular, maybe, I'm not even sure. Better rated, yes, but Assassin's Creed was well rated also (rated 19 out of 20 here !!! for the biggest immersion breaker crap ever).



ME2 is a great game because the combat is more intense than it was in ME1. It's more tactical also. That is a very good point. No one's complaining on this.

Improving the combat does it mean you should make everything simpler ? Getting rid of the bad inventory in ME1 does it mean you should remove it completely, and just put money or research in lockers and terminals ?

Making your party easier to manage does it mean you should give 2 different appearances (just colors actually) to your teammate and no customization at all ?

We all agree that there was way too much items in ME1, so much items it was really hard to micro manage your group. But does it mean you have to go from White to Black, without finding any grey ?

Do we really need to make a shield/armor/health system and to create non-coherent limit (this power doesn't work on armor, this one on shield) to make it tactical ?

Do we really need to remove the planet exploration to make better environment for N7 missions and not only clone environment ?



You got it. This thread is about the risk Bioware has taken. It's about how Bioware has been bold with ME2.

They created a shooter with strange mechanism and a very intense narration. This intense narration is why this game is so well rated, nothing more.

ME2 is still one of the best game since the early 2000s, but if you remove this intense narration, the great companions you have and only keeps the gameplay mechanism, you have a kind of a poor game, not better than Fallout 3 for its gameplay only.

[Jebel Krong]

the point you are missing is that streamlined =/= simpler. the game is just as complex as before, even if the options are not all there on the surface/in the menus. crap like armour changing and gun upgrades is still there, the mechanism has just changed so you don't have to continually sort through inventory, manually upgrade your gun - is that a bad thing? is it "dumbed-down" as a result? no of course it's not - you can still manually equip any part member with any gun they can use, and the upgrades are designed to affect all the intended weapons/armour.

2 appearances is limited, but other than the geth armours for wrex, all the other armours in mass effect 1 were all the same, with different colour schemes. you can still highly customise shepard and the new squad armours are individually designed for them - making it more personal if anything. why the hell would you "dress" your squad anyway? are they incapable of deciding what to wear? arguing against this change is completely retarded.

ironically the shiled/health/armour power limit is one thing i would definitely originates from the strict rpg-class roots BW has - i agree it's slightly ridiculous but it's one of those "conform to rpg trappings" that people like you and TerrorK like so much.

as for the environments, i'd say definitely yes - it's the price of distinctly different planets, one of the things everyone was crying for after me1. do i think they are linear? yes - disappointingly so, but you have to take into account technical limitations, especially disc-space regarding this - me2 is already leagues above pretty much every other game in sheer variety, but BW can only do so much realistically. hell i didn't miss the mako once, given how tailored the currrent game-design is in me2, but i was still disappointed that some of the level-design didn't allow more exploration.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 12 mars 2010 - 11:10 .

[SurfaceBeneath]

Terror_K wrote...
Because I don't think BioWare should be praised for a bad move, since all that will encourage is more dumbing down and oversimplifying of the final part, and perhaps any future games they may decide to make.

Except they already have been praised by every critic out there, the game sold extremely well, is generally extremly well received by those who purchased it, and it stands a pretty good chance at winning game of the year. You think that by butting in on a thread congratulating Bioware that you're actually accomplishing anything besides presenting yourself as a scorned fanboy who can't accept change? Seriously, ask yourself what you're accomplishing here if you aren't in any way interested in discourse.  Ask yourself if Bioware didn't already consider that Mass Effect 2 wouldn't fall squarely towards their typical fans when they made the decisions they did. Do you think that they don't think it's worth it? Hell, never mind, don't ask yourself anything, why don't you just let David Gaider tell you himself?



But, you know, obviously you know more about RPGs and what is best for the genre than he does

By the way, I'm pretty sick of your attitude as RPGs for "smart people" while other genres are "dumbed down" and thus for idiots and any mixing of genres is also going to somehow ruin the purity of this little master race genre you've created for yourself. It's that unwarranted elitism that honestly is just going to defeat your argument before you ever have a chance to present it.

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 12 mars 2010 - 12:37 .

[SurfaceBeneath]

Nolenthar wrote...
ME2 is still one of the best game since the early 2000s, but if you remove this intense narration, the great companions you have and only keeps the gameplay mechanism, you have a kind of a poor game, not better than Fallout 3 for its gameplay only.

Actually, it's getting extremely high ratings for its very stellar combat and very high production values as well.

I personally enjoy the combat more than a "full fledged shooter" such as Gears of War precisely because the RPG level and progression elements make it so that each class plays radically different from one another... sometimes a class plays distinctly from itself if just built slightly differently. Plus, combat has a unique flow that Gears of War doesn't have... sure Gears of War has its own flow, but I just do not find it anywhere near as compelling as that in ME2

[Terror_K]

Kind of funny considering DAO is one of the most classic and deepest RPG's since Baldur's Gate II that the writer of it would say that. I agree fully with his final statement, from both perspectives actually. It's getting harder and harder to find RPGs with depth not simply because developers are "moving with the times" but because the tastes of the average gamer these days have changed a lot, and there are a lot more of them. Back in the days of Baldur's Gate and even as late as the original NWN, video games were mostly a nerd thing. Tastes have changed and its the simpler and less cerebral games that are generally the most popular these days.



Now, you can go ahead and call me "elistist" or whatever for saying that, but its a fact: the numbers show it. And I'm not saying that everybody who likes and plays these games are stupid, because I enjoy playing some CoD4 and Gears of War myself now and then. Hell, my favourite game of all time is Unreal Tournament and that's not even an RPG at all: its pure shooter. Who I'm attacking aren't people who like these games amongst others but the mass mainstream out there who do, i.e. the extreme shooter fanboys who don't play much else. You may be sick of my feelings towards most shooter fanboys, but I've dealt with these people before and they ARE idiots. And there's a saying: you'll never go broke appealing to the lowest common denominator. Not everybody who watches Pro-Wrestling are idiots, but the yokels who think its real are, and it's the same principle here. The reason shooters are the most popular genre out there are because they're simply and visceral and don't require much in the way of thought for the most part (there are exceptions, but said exceptions tend to be nowhere near as popular as the more basic shooters). So of course ME2 is going to sell well and be praised because that's the type of game people lap up these days.



I'm not expecting Mass Effect 3 to be D&D in space here, and I'm sick of people saying that I am just because I complain that there aren't enough RPG elements in ME2. The original Mass Effect wasn't exactly deep in the RPG department either compared to Baldur's Gate, Fallout, NWN, KotOR and DAO, but it was still a very enjoyable game for me and I thought it had the balance pretty much dead on (my only real gripe as far as that went was I wanted a tad more dialogue and a tad less shooting). I'm not expecting ME3 to become a top-down isometric Baldur's Gate II in space... I just think that ME2 needed more RPG factors than it had and that it was watered down. Heck, despite initial concerns about it, I actually approve of the removal of the Cone of Death now and the more shooter-oriented combat in that sense: I just don't approve of most of the other gameplay choices and streamlining to the point of simplicity.

[AntiMatterHero]

Im not going to lie but ME1's combat system was a thing of beauty once you got into it.

[Nolenthar]

Jebel Krong wrote...

ironically the shiled/health/armour power limit is one thing i would definitely originates from the strict rpg-class roots BW has - i agree it's slightly ridiculous but it's one of those "conform to rpg trappings" that people like you and TerrorK like so much.

Hum, I've never seen it in a RPG. Never in a RPG I had to destroy an armor before I could be able to harm an ennemy. Armor protects from damage, but it decreases them, it's not a shield. This mechanism is 100% action game, beat em all, whatever, but not RPG. 

As for David Gaider's message, we now know which niche they have chosen. And I now know which games I won't buy.

Modifié par Nolenthar, 12 mars 2010 - 01:57 .

[InvaderErl]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
Because I don't think BioWare should be praised for a bad move, since all that will encourage is more dumbing down and oversimplifying of the final part, and perhaps any future games they may decide to make.

Except they already have been praised by every critic out there, the game sold extremely well, is generally extremly well received by those who purchased it, and it stands a pretty good chance at winning game of the year. You think that by butting in on a thread congratulating Bioware that you're actually accomplishing anything besides presenting yourself as a scorned fanboy who can't accept change? Seriously, ask yourself what you're accomplishing here if you aren't in any way interested in discourse.  Ask yourself if Bioware didn't already consider that Mass Effect 2 wouldn't fall squarely towards their typical fans when they made the decisions they did. Do you think that they don't think it's worth it? Hell, never mind, don't ask yourself anything, why don't you just let David Gaider tell you himself?



But, you know, obviously you know more about RPGs and what is best for the genre than he does

By the way, I'm pretty sick of your attitude as RPGs for "smart people" while other genres are "dumbed down" and thus for idiots and any mixing of genres is also going to somehow ruin the purity of this little master race genre you've created for yourself. It's that unwarranted elitism that honestly is just going to defeat your argument before you ever have a chance to present it.

Definitely this and I am quoting that pic for future use. Gaider is teh man.

[Vena_86]

People are so focused on shoving games into genres and are forgetting what is good for a game. As soon as someone would like some features that can be definded as "RPG-elements" all the shooter fan-boys scream "DERP DERP I dont want isometric Baldursgate in SPACe!!!11! DERPI DERP DERP". And BioWare obviously isn't much better than that.

I play almost every kind of genre for many, many years. I have seen the evolution of gaming and have seen where RPGs started. I have played competative shooters in clans, with success.

Mass Effect is a game that spans a rich universe. Things like more immersion, exploration and customization are elements that only make sense within the theme of the game. Just like it makes sense to put cheese on a burger.

And things like these would not hinder action focused, well presented combat in any way. As that also fits into the theme.

Why does everyone have to be so freakin onesided! Guess Im in a minority for enjoying many gaming-genres and appreciating classical music as well as deathcore. But a proud minority that is.

Modifié par Vena_86, 12 mars 2010 - 02:58 .

[Habelo]

Vena_86 wrote...

People are so focused on shoving games into genres and are forgetting what is good for a game. As soon as someone would like some features that can be definded as "RPG-elements" all the shooter fan-boys scream "DERP DERP I dont want isometric Baldursgate in SPACe!!!11! DERPI DERP DERP". And BioWare obviously isn't much better than that.

I play almost every kind of genre for many, many years. I have seen the evolution of gaming and have seen where RPGs started. I have played competative shooters in clans, with success.

Mass Effect is a game that spans a rich universe. Things like more immersion, exploration and customization are elements that only make sense within the theme of the game. Just like it makes sense to put cheese on a burger.

And things like these would not hinder action focused, well presented combat in any way. As that also fits into the theme.

Why does everyone have to be so freakin onesided! Guess Im in a minority for enjoying many gaming-genres and appreciating classical music as well as deathcore. But a proud minority that is.

yes it is unfortunate that people are idiots and do not know what they like. However what is more unfortunate is when they get what they "want" and then **** and whine about how they failed in influencing the devs.