1067 réponses à ce sujet

[Sad Dragon]

Crysis I wrote...
bioware have created there own genre of RPG with the mass effect games.

Just have to clearify this cause it stings in my eyes. Mass Effect didnt create a new genre at all. They wherent the first RPG to incorperate shooter mechanics or the first TPS to incorperate story and dialogue.
For a RPG-Shooter see Deus Ex
For a TPS with Dialogue see Outcast.

/TSD

[Crysis I]

Sad Dragon wrote...

Crysis I wrote...
bioware have created there own genre of RPG with the mass effect games.

Just have to clearify this cause it stings in my eyes. Mass Effect didnt create a new genre at all. They wherent the first RPG to incorperate shooter mechanics or the first TPS to incorperate story and dialogue.
For a RPG-Shooter see Deus Ex
For a TPS with Dialogue see Outcast.

/TSD

fair enough but my point was it is still different to 99% of the other stuff out there. i would still put them as their own genre.

[Sad Dragon]

Fair point -nods-

I just get annoyed with all the "Mass Effect is unique" lines i have seen. It was not the first in in hybrid genre nor the best example of its genre. But it is indeed a very limited genre.



Hope i didnt come across to strongly - if so i appologize /bow



/TSD

[Crysis I]

Sad Dragon wrote...

Fair point -nods-
I just get annoyed with all the "Mass Effect is unique" lines i have seen. It was not the first in in hybrid genre nor the best example of its genre. But it is indeed a very limited genre.

Hope i didnt come across to strongly - if so i appologize /bow

/TSD

dont worry mate, but mass effect is unique lol for a good start its one of the only decent games to have come out in recent years something of which is a rarity nowadays. 9/10 of the so called big games that come out every year are over hyped and downright trash. Modern warefare 2 is a prime example. but you are right with what you said.

[Terror_K]

Well, I personally think that ME2 is overhyped. Its still a good game, but its far more flawed and doesn't deserve the 10/10's or even 9/10's its been getting. Far too much was cut down. It still IS an RPG by definition and adheres to the basic requirements, but just because something IS something doesn't mean it does a good job at being it. ME2 is just too shallow and RPG-Lite. Its nowhere near as innovative as people say, it definitely isn't the perfect hybrid of shooter and RPG and the devs took a lot of right steps too far and a lot of wrong steps entirely while making it. ME3 is going to need a lot of added depth if it wants to be a worthwhile RPG. Sadly, I get the feeling that despite BioWare's claims we're still going to end up with something closer to ME2 than to ME1, if only because so many people think ME2 is the better game. I'm a huge BioWare fan, and up until ME2 I considered pretty much every RPG they made to be top class and in a tier out of reach of any other game developers out there (though CD Projekt cam close with The Witcher). ME2, while still a good game, just doesn't feel in that same league as BioWare's previous efforts to me.

[Crysis I]

Terror_K wrote...

Well, I personally think that ME2 is overhyped. Its still a good game, but its far more flawed and doesn't deserve the 10/10's or even 9/10's its been getting. Far too much was cut down. It still IS an RPG by definition and adheres to the basic requirements, but just because something IS something doesn't mean it does a good job at being it. ME2 is just too shallow and RPG-Lite. Its nowhere near as innovative as people say, it definitely isn't the perfect hybrid of shooter and RPG and the devs took a lot of right steps too far and a lot of wrong steps entirely while making it. ME3 is going to need a lot of added depth if it wants to be a worthwhile RPG. Sadly, I get the feeling that despite BioWare's claims we're still going to end up with something closer to ME2 than to ME1, if only because so many people think ME2 is the better game. I'm a huge BioWare fan, and up until ME2 I considered pretty much every RPG they made to be top class and in a tier out of reach of any other game developers out there (though CD Projekt cam close with The Witcher). ME2, while still a good game, just doesn't feel in that same league as BioWare's previous efforts to me.

in my opinion and a few of my fellow gamers we think jade empire was a masterpiece but alot of people shoved it away and said it was trash.

[Terror_K]

I love Jade Empire. I'm really hoping there'll be a sequel announced soon. Not BioWare strongest game, admittedly, but still fantastic all the same.

[Pocketgb]

CatatonicMan wrote...

Whatever Bioware was actually trying to make doesn't matter. All we got at the end is what they actually did make. Lo and behold, people liked it (or didn't like it) for what it was. 

Now we have ME2, which is fundamentally divergent from the original. ME2 may be closer to what Bioware originally intended for ME1 (or it may not be), but again this doesn't matter - only the results do. Some people liked it, and others didn't (which is normal for most things, really). I'd bet that there were not a lot of people who loved both about the same.

The conflict occurs because you have two fundamentally different games that should be fundamentally the same. Maybe it is impossible to achieve the perfect TPS/RPG hybrid (the damned either way scenario), but what Bioware has done by attempting to create essentially two versions of the 'same' game has only compounded the problem.

Now we have two (generally exclusive) groups of people - those who like ME1, and those who liked ME2 - who both have valid expectations for the third game. If it is truly impossible to please both sides (again, the double damned scenario), then ME3 is effectively screwed (at least for one group).

Agree wholeheartedly.
Granted I'm not a terribly picky gamer so I generally enjoy games as long as they're good, but I'm also not me. Bioware has a lot to tackle with ME3, but they just need to keep on the track of adding more variables to combat, leveling, customization, and other systems. I don't want to see Halo Reach have *more* variety than ME3 in this regards!

Terror_K wrote...

To be fair, that list was a bunch of
things that I considered horrible aspects or poor decision making when
it came to ME2 as a whole and not solely RPG stuff. And I personally
feel the game's problems are not solely limited to its RPG factors (or
lack thereof).

Right, but that doesn't help the problem.
If you want to talk about ME2's degraded RPG factors then talk about them, the more people turn it into a personal vendetta of "what I didn't like about the game" the more things get backed up.

Terror_K wrote...

I think you're exaggerating and not giving enough credit to a great number of people who have genuine concerns.

Honestly, I've only seen Catatonic and Sylvius able to do so, even if the later gets side-tracked into a humongous quote war on occassion. They've provided those "genuine concerns" in the most mature, sensible, reasonable, and readable fashion possible - and it pulls through. Hell I should probably bold the post of Catatonic's that I quoted, just to apply more emphasis.

Terror_K wrote...


And ME2 reflects this in its design fully, where it comes across as
almost embarrassed to be an RPG and tries to hide it wherever
possible.

"You've gained experience!"
"You've leveled up!"

These indications are pretty blantant and obvious to see, so I have zero clue what you're saying when you repeatedly state "it's embarassed to be an RPG".

Terror_K wrote...


I'm actually really curious to see where ME3 heads, because BioWare
claims to be a studio that listens to its fans, and yet they screwed up
ME2 quite a bit for a lot of them.

What are you talking about?
All that they've done with ME2 has been because of the fans. People said cover was annoying to get in and out of, they made it less so. People said combat was silly and lame, they made it interesting. People said the inventory was insanely tedious, they focused it up a notch (and just because you can't access your armor or weapon selection on the go doesn't mean there's no inventory!).

If all this was done to "make some monies", they would've cut the dialog, choices, and unlinearity in outcomes by about 110%. Combat is definitely more shooter-focused, but the rest is still off-putting to the "shootah fann".

Modifié par Pocketgb, 11 avril 2010 - 03:57 .

[Sad Dragon]

Pocketgb wrote...

If all this was done to "make some monies", they would've cut the dialog, choices, and unlinearity in outcomes by about 110%...

They did cut down on the dialogue, choices and the unlinerity of the game though. The dialogue can be argues as you now have way more squadmates and as such their dialogues combined would outweight the loss in other sectors. I have stated before in atleast 2 threads that ME 2 felt more railroading then ME1 - hell ill even go so far as to say i have played non-rpg games that where less railroading then ME2. As for choices yes there are choices in ME2 just as there where in ME1. ME2 simply had less grand choices and possibly less options then ME1 over all - i have not gone through every choice in both games and counted them so i cant say for sure.

I am not saying they dumbed it down for the monies however. Personaly i think aspects of the game seemed rushed and content was cut out so all in all i think parts of this can be attributed to the time asspect. Some degisn desisions i have no doubt they made soley for the money but i cant begrudge them for that - i can however be displeased about the end result.

Again - I enjoyed ME2, it was a good game. What ever critisism i have comes from where i saw the game to be lacking. And while the combat can be improved - i have already given some sugestions - the combat was far from the weakest link in ME2 so i do not dewll on it.

The ironic thing to note in discussions as these is that - you might have done everything perfect yet find that no one liked your end result. It may sound strange but that's human nature for you.
Our task, is simply to try and realise why we found one aspect or another lacking and convey that in as civil way as possible. Debating back and forth might help crystalise the "why" so we can move into the "how to fix it" part of the debate - if indeed it is necessary to fix it - which might not always be the case.

/TSD

[Pocketgb]

Sad Dragon wrote...

They did cut down on the dialogue, choices and the unlinerity of the game though...

They only cut down on choices that do not affect the "grand scheme of things", which I'm personally not upset about since moments that may seem insignificant can still be completely and emotionally engaging (ex: Garrus' loyalty mission).

In terms of linearity, what did ME1 have that ME2 doesn't? It follows the same Bioware concept: see overview map (i.e. galaxy map, present in both games), see objectives (ME1: Noveria, Feros, etc - ME2: Recruit Thane, Samara, etc.)

Dialog can be interpreted as a personal taste, but I will say that there is quite a meaty amount of conversation given how many squadmates and other crew members there are.

[Sad Dragon]

Pocketgb wrote...

In terms of linearity, what did ME1 have that ME2 doesn't? It follows the same Bioware concept: see overview map (i.e. galaxy map, present in both games), see objectives (ME1: Noveria, Feros, etc - ME2: Recruit Thane, Samara, etc.)

ME2 forced me down a road, mostly through Cerberus - an organisation i wanted nothing to do with and i would have thrown the whole crew out on their asses at the first port i found and taken the ship if i would have been able to. But the game forces me to dance after TIMs tune. The game more or less overstates to you "Do X and then do Y - because i say so!".

ME1 might have the same formula but the linierity didnt feel as forced. My goal was to stop Saren, i was given clues to where i might find info so naturaly i wanted to go there. Nowhere did i get told to go do X explicitly. I was given a task - a task the game had already built up enough that i wanted to do it regardless.

To me ME2 felt like they removed my sense of freedom and replaced it with a more blunt "todo-list". In short. The formula might be the same Bioware RPG standard we know but the presentation differs between the games - in my opinion.

/TSD

[Pocketgb]

Sad Dragon wrote...

ME2 forced me down a road, mostly through Cerberus - an organisation i wanted nothing to do with and i would have thrown the whole crew out on their asses at the first port i found and taken the ship if i would have been able to. But the game forces me to dance after TIMs tune. The game more or less overstates to you "Do X and then do Y - because i say so!".

ME1 might have the same formula but the linierity didnt feel as forced. My goal was to stop Saren, i was given clues to where i might find info so naturaly i wanted to go there. Nowhere did i get told to go do X explicitly. I was given a task - a task the game had already built up enough that i wanted to do it regardless.

To me ME2 felt like they removed my sense of freedom and replaced it with a more blunt "todo-list". In short. The formula might be the same Bioware RPG standard we know but the presentation differs between the games - in my opinion.

That's part of the premise: you work with Cerberus not solely because the game forces you to - just like how the game forces you to work with the Alliance (something that now ticks off a lot of players) - but because no one else is willing to: The Council completely dismisses the Reapers, and the Alliance doesn't give a rats ass about 'em. Are you going to let your hatred for Cerberus get in the way of saving all those colonists when Cerberus is the one willing to give you most if not all of the tools you need?

[Sad Dragon]

TBH i would rather fly solo then dance to what ever tune Cerberus happen to be playing. Biowares writers just got lazy imho and simply locked you onto the path they wanted. The same premiss could have been used but executed differently to make the railroading less appearant. Instead they simply said:

"No you have no choice - this is our story and you better well play it like we want to - though just in case we removed any chance you could have to go any other path".

Ok they didnt say that - nor do i actualy think that wording would have been found on any of their writers during any point during the development. However thats how the story came across to me - even if im more or less over emphesising it to make it clear for this discussion ^^;



/TSD

[Tirigon]

Sad Dragon wrote...

TBH i would rather fly solo then dance to what ever tune Cerberus happen to be playing. Biowares writers just got lazy imho and simply locked you onto the path they wanted. The same premiss could have been used but executed differently to make the railroading less appearant. Instead they simply said:
"No you have no choice - this is our story and you better well play it like we want to - though just in case we removed any chance you could have to go any other path".
Ok they didnt say that - nor do i actualy think that wording would have been found on any of their writers during any point during the development. However thats how the story came across to me - even if im more or less over emphesising it to make it clear for this discussion ^^;

/TSD

Well, that´s because you´re Shepard and not some random guy who happens to save the world. Shepard doesn´t like Cerberus, but he / she sees it´s the only way to stop the reapers, so he / she is in.

[Pocketgb]

Sad Dragon wrote...

"No you have no choice - this is our story and you better well play it like we want to - though just in case we removed any chance you could have to go any other path".

/TSD

For one they said the same thing in ME1, Dragon Age, and heck most of their other RPGs. In Dragon Age you had to be a Grey Warden no matter what, and fight for the good of them no matter what. In ME1 you had to work with the Alliance regardless of what you do, although you could be a douche to the Council which was fun.

But even if you could turn your back on Cerberus, what would you do? You died. You've been listed as "KIA" for the last two years. Most likely everything you owned had either been transferred or destroyed in the Normandy. You have no contacts, no leads, nor the means to really do anything. And is it really a good idea to turn your back on the Illusive Man when you have next to nothing to use??

[Sad Dragon]

Pocketgb wrote...

For one they said the same thing in ME1, Dragon Age, and heck most of their other RPGs. In Dragon Age you had to be a Grey Warden no matter what, and fight for the good of them no matter what. In ME1 you had to work with the Alliance regardless of what you do, although you could be a douche to the Council which was fun.

For me the main difference is they neither the Gray Warden bit not the work for the alliance bit - in the begining of ME1 - felt forced on me the way i feel the Cerberus part was. Sure i can buy having to play nice for the time being as my options are limited. But as soon as i can bail i would and you can be damned sure I would have tried to gather as much intel on Cerberus as i could so i can use it to destroy them later. But there where hardly any sense of me trying to **** em over - even covertly. Sure there is that one side mission that amounts to next to nothing and the end of course which is more of a "resignation" then anything. Some more integrated resistance would have gone a long way for me to make it feel lessed forced down my throat.

On a side note: If my enemy brings me back to life and hopes it will be all sunshine and roses then they are stupid beyond belife.

/TSD

[Pocketgb]

Sad Dragon wrote...

For me the main difference is they
neither the Gray Warden bit not the work for the alliance bit - in the
begining of ME1 - felt forced on me the way i feel the Cerberus part
was...

Er, how?

The only reason I can see it as being different than being in the Alliance/Council, or being stuck with the Grey Wardens, is that in ME2's case you're actually having to side with the bad guys. It's refreshing and interesting because the people who are actually taking initiative *aren't* the solely good guys. That's part of why I find the Illusive Man a very interesting character.

[Sad Dragon]

Pocketgb wrote...

Sad Dragon wrote...

For me the main difference is they
neither the Gray Warden bit not the work for the alliance bit - in the
begining of ME1 - felt forced on me the way i feel the Cerberus part
was...

Er, how?

The only reason I can see it as being different than being in the Alliance/Council, or being stuck with the Grey Wardens, is that in ME2's case you're actually having to side with the bad guys. It's refreshing and interesting because the people who are actually taking initiative *aren't* the solely good guys. That's part of why I find the Illusive Man a very interesting character.

Because of the build up. Simple as that realy. Take the gray wardens for instance. Every single origin might end with your ending up as a gray warden but untimatly it is a choice made by the character - mostly because its the only way out of the trouble they are in. ME1 its also the means to the goal. I become a specter not only for the honor it bestows upon the humanity but it is also my one way to stop Saren - someone i actualy have had some buildup and the game teaches me to dislike. I can jump through those loops cause without feeling like im being draged through them. Even if in reality i have just as litle choice in the matter as i have in ME2. ME2 however dosnt even offer the illusion of choice. You simply forget all about Cerberus past and have no real conflic with them at all during the game. Which i also view as a wasted oppurtunity.

While i can agree that it is intresting that the bad guys are the only ones who are doing anything about the situation it is hadly enough to make me forgive and forget. They where bad guys in ME1. Hell they already screwed shepard and his squad over if you have the "sole survivor" background and yet there is 0 tension between them? That for me is called railroading and i will never like that type of behaviour from a RPG. If they want to force me down a path atleast fool me into thinking i am doing it by my own choice.



Also:  I would like to take the oppertunity to thank Pocketgb - i have and still am enjoying our little discussion. We might end up having to agree to disagree but atleast i have felt that it has been a good discussion and hope it dosnt die off just yet ^^


Edit: On yet another side note: Good night people and will catch up on the thread tomorrow

/TSD

Modifié par Sad Dragon, 11 avril 2010 - 10:45 .

[Pocketgb]

Sad Dragon wrote...

Because of the build up. Simple as that realy. Take the gray wardens for instance. Every single origin might end with your ending up as a gray warden but untimatly it is a choice made by the character - mostly because its the only way out of the trouble they are in. ME1 its also the means to the goal. I become a specter not only for the honor it bestows upon the humanity but it is also my one way to stop Saren - someone i actualy have had some buildup and the game teaches me to dislike. I can jump through those loops cause without feeling like im being draged through them. Even if in reality i have just as litle choice in the matter as i have in ME2. ME2 however dosnt even offer the illusion of choice. You simply forget all about Cerberus past and have no real conflic with
them at all during the game. Which i also view as a wasted oppurtunity.

That too is a choice. In my first playthrough I made it obviously known - to the Illusive Man, my crew, and especially to myself - that I don't trust Cerberus. You can constantly remind TIM that you don't trust him and that he's not your "buddie", and you can constantly and frequently remind your squadmates and crew who Shep is actually aligned with.

And I agree, it's been good : ) Civil discussion is always good to see.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Arrtis wrote...

On a side note, I would like the next ME to adopt the Oblivion class system.

In theory, Oblivion's system is terrific.  It's raelly more a skill-based system than a class-based system.  Think GURPS rather than D&D.

However, when it's tied to scaled content as Oblivion's is, its just about the worst system possible.  In a game without scaled content (or more intelligently scaled content - perhaps scaled based on the highest single skill level reached rather than some arbitrary class-level designation), I would absolutely support an Elder Scrolls style skill-based leveling system.

Otherwise you end up with the same breakable content scaling Oblivion has, where content scales to your class level, even though your class level says nothing at all about how powerful your character is.

But again, in principle, I would like a skill-based level system.  Fallout 1 & 2 did this really well.

[Mordaedil]

Heck, Oblivion would be even better if they took it one step further and eliminated levels entirely. A skill-based cRPG shouldn't be impossible, considering how they have dumb shooters have more RPG elements now.

[Pocketgb]

Oblivion was still pretty fun despite being pretty breakable. Morrowind wasn't terribly entertaining although the setting was awesome.

Daggerfall got skill-based gaming right, and the freedom is *awesome*. Thank god for Dosbox, cus now I can't wait to get home to play it!

Modifié par Pocketgb, 12 avril 2010 - 02:31 .

[CatatonicMan]

Pocketgb wrote...

They only cut down on choices that do not affect the "grand scheme of things", which I'm personally not upset about since moments that may seem insignificant can still be completely and emotionally engaging (ex: Garrus' loyalty mission).

In terms of linearity, what did ME1 have that ME2 doesn't? It follows the same Bioware concept: see overview map (i.e. galaxy map, present in both games), see objectives (ME1: Noveria, Feros, etc - ME2: Recruit Thane, Samara, etc.)

Dialog can be interpreted as a personal taste, but I will say that there is quite a meaty amount of conversation given how many squadmates and other crew members there are.

The dialogue in ME2 wasn't really as deep or as broad as it probably should have been (or at least could have been). I know that this is at least partially due to the cost of recording dialogue (especially for so many permutations of characters), but I felt that there was a real lack of specialized dialogue that would have really made the game more immersive. Not that this was just an ME2 problem - ME1 was also lacking in this specialized dialogue.

Now, what I mean by 'specialized' dialogue is, for example, dialogue that referenced your class choice. ME2 seems to run dialogue as if your character is a soldier (lacking tech and biotics), and never ever seems to deviate from that even if you are playing the more technical or biotic classes.

Where is the dialogue that only occurs for biotic classes? What about the technically savvy? What about dialogues that occur only for a specific class? These little gems that could have given the experience that extra polish were sadly lacking. I don't think the game really suffered from their absence, but they might have added some extra depth - maybe even enough to make people forget some of the glaring problems ME2 had. There are other places where such 'special' dialogue could be used, but I think I made my point.

As for linearity - well, ME2 was really no more linear than many other Bioware games; it just did a worse job of hiding the fact. Instead of giving the player the illusion of choice, they often just 'forced' the path they were going to make you take anyway.

Modifié par CatatonicMan, 12 avril 2010 - 04:39 .

[IggyD]

What i didn't like too much about ME2 is that it didn't give you the means to please your inner Munchkin. Its equipment upgrade system is shallow and on rails, which made mining for the necessary resources not worth it. It is one of the most basic rules of computer RPGs: reward grinding and busy work with the means to improve your character and his tools as you see fit. I could go on about how they could implement a better inventory system, but instead i'll just send Bioware a copy of Front Mission 3 and leave it at that. Oh, and check out my sigs

PS. I hear they're gonna dump resource mining altogether. My advice? don't. Just tweak it to make it less tedious, or grant more satisfying rewards for bothering with it.

[Tempest]

Oh please. All I am hearing is, "I don't dance to the tune of Cerberus." Are you kidding me? You know who's tune you were dancing to often in ME1? The freaking Alliance. 1/5th of the time, was to the council. Missions the alliance sent you on; Bomb Disposal, Rouge Alliance AI, Mercenary Negotiations, Geth Removal, Destroying Cerberus Bases, etc. And the same BS that is expected of a political party "You may be a Spectre, but your still an alliance Soldier". I hated the alliance for sending me to clean up their ****.

Would I want ME1 to change that if I could? Heck NO! The game had me appreciate what Cerberus was doing. Having a change of pace where even though I was created by Cerberus, at least they didn't send me on missions where they ****ed up like the alliance did. I do not consider ME2 to be lazy story writing. What it did was to allow you to look at the other side of the coin. If you want to be the type of person who puts their fingers in their ears and go "La, la, la, la" than that is all you, not Cerberus.