1067 réponses à ce sujet

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

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".

What... so you haven't noticed that the game makes every effort to hide stats and numbers whenever it can? You haven't noticed there's half the skills or the original game? You haven't noticed that stats and skills don't play a role in anything outside of combat any more? You haven't noticed that the guns and armour are completely devoid of stats entirely and can no longer be compared? You haven't noticed that there's no real inventory whatsoever, or different levels of items? That the upgrade system is also devoid of any true customisation and is just a linear research as you go model also devoid of any stats? That earning XP and such is all lumped into a single screen at the end of each mission that thus fails to indicate that you're earning XP as you go and why you're even earning it, while making sure that its not there reminding players they're not playing a shooter? That you can't customise your squad any more to make them more resilient to damage? That The Hammerhead has gone from exploration to a tacky little action game? That the HUD is as unclear and basic as possible? That the entire game is presented more like an action shooter than an RPG?

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".

I just think its funny how many things were changed from ME1 for ME2 based on what official reviewers and newcomers who expected Mass Effect to play like Gears of War compared to the amount of things actual fans and BioWare flunkies wanted. Most of the fans on the boards wanted things improved, but essentially the same... it was almost only the media reviewers and shooter fans who came in and went "WTF?" that called for the complete scrapping of these things, and there were a lot of complaints that BioWare just seemed to miss the point of (e.g. elevators, The Mako, the inventory). I saw far more calls on the old boards for things like a better character creator, spacebar not selecting dialogue as well as skipping it, gay romances and more squadmate banter than I ever saw calls for the scrapping of The Mako and elevators, the inventory going entirely and an elimination of non-combat skills. And yet ME2 had none of the former and all of the latter.

[Kalfear]

Pocketgb wrote...

Kalfear wrote...

Im sorry, but that slide show was a joke from page 1.
Norman made a astonishing number of guesses where she and her team magically got credit for things they not remotely involved in.
Whole thing was a joke so for anyone to claim it was informative is nonsence. It was rehashed problem control because of (at the time) massive amounts of negativity about the game!

Interesting example of what I was talking about, really, but I don't think we need to go there when that thread in question already went there dozens and dozens of times.

That's all that's worth commenting on in that post.

ahhh your one of THOSE whiners, so sorry for breaking your illusion with some reality!

As for your elitist behavior child, it never stops amazing me how little children like Pocketpool mouth off online and you just know if this little boy and I were ever to meet in person he would be "yes sir" "no sir" "Im sorry for my existance sir".

So go ahead little one, get as mouthy and dismissive as you want here, 9 pm rolls around and your parents hopefully put you to bed before you have bad dreams of the boogieman!

(holds up 1 finger) see that, I have more knowledge and gaming experience in that one finger then you will ever have in your life. Something to think about the next time you try to ACT superior child.

But hey, keep talking like you have any clue what your talking about! Personally im surprised Terror even lowering herself to speak with the likes of you!

Modifié par Kalfear, 12 avril 2010 - 08:44 .

[FlintlockJazz]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

I agree completely, that system has alot of potential but it also needs some serious work to sort important issues out.  I personally think they need to remove levelling completely from that game or at least remove/fix the stat bonuses you got for not using the skills your character was supposed to be using (since it encouraged taking your primary skills as minor ones to avoid levelling up until you had gained the maximum stat bonus for that level).  Then again, I always liked permanent attributes that were really hard to improve (with additional skills which were the things you actually improved instead) since it provides a level of consistency to characters and prevents stat inflation (take DAO, by the end of the game you end up with attributes that are triple that of what you started with, which breaks immersion for me since it means that the mean muscley man was not actually as muscley as you thought at the start or he has become three times stronger than most muscley men in the world...).

All personal opinion of course, but I love the reference to GURPS, awesome system that is so heavily misunderstood but which imho is probably one of the best systems around.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Kalfear wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

Kalfear wrote...

Im sorry, but that slide show was a joke from page 1.
Norman made a astonishing number of guesses where she and her team magically got credit for things they not remotely involved in.
Whole thing was a joke so for anyone to claim it was informative is nonsence. It was rehashed problem control because of (at the time) massive amounts of negativity about the game!

Interesting example of what I was talking about, really, but I don't think we need to go there when that thread in question already went there dozens and dozens of times.

That's all that's worth commenting on in that post.

ahhh your one of THOSE whiners, so sorry for breaking your illusion with some reality!

As for your elitist behavior child, it never stops amazing me how little children like Pocketpool mouth off online and you just know if this little boy and I were ever to meet in person he would be "yes sir" "no sir" "Im sorry for my existance sir".

So go ahead little one, get as mouthy and dismissive as you want here, 9 pm rolls around and your parents hopefully put you to bed before you have bad dreams of the boogieman!

(holds up 1 finger) see that, I have more knowledge and gaming experience in that one finger then you will ever have in your life. Something to think about the next time you try to ACT superior child.

But hey, keep talking like you have any clue what your talking about! Personally im surprised Terror even lowering herself to speak with the likes of you!

Terror's a man unless they are a liar.

[Big Mabels Diet-Plan]

Terror_K wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

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".

What... so you haven't noticed that the game makes every effort to hide stats and numbers whenever it can? You haven't noticed there's half the skills or the original game? You haven't noticed that stats and skills don't play a role in anything outside of combat any more? You haven't noticed that the guns and armour are completely devoid of stats entirely and can no longer be compared? You haven't noticed that there's no real inventory whatsoever, or different levels of items? That the upgrade system is also devoid of any true customisation and is just a linear research as you go model also devoid of any stats? That earning XP and such is all lumped into a single screen at the end of each mission that thus fails to indicate that you're earning XP as you go and why you're even earning it, while making sure that its not there reminding players they're not playing a shooter? That you can't customise your squad any more to make them more resilient to damage? That The Hammerhead has gone from exploration to a tacky little action game? That the HUD is as unclear and basic as possible? That the entire game is presented more like an action shooter than an RPG?

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".

I just think its funny how many things were changed from ME1 for ME2 based on what official reviewers and newcomers who expected Mass Effect to play like Gears of War compared to the amount of things actual fans and BioWare flunkies wanted. Most of the fans on the boards wanted things improved, but essentially the same... it was almost only the media reviewers and shooter fans who came in and went "WTF?" that called for the complete scrapping of these things, and there were a lot of complaints that BioWare just seemed to miss the point of (e.g. elevators, The Mako, the inventory). I saw far more calls on the old boards for things like a better character creator, spacebar not selecting dialogue as well as skipping it, gay romances and more squadmate banter than I ever saw calls for the scrapping of The Mako and elevators, the inventory going entirely and an elimination of non-combat skills. And yet ME2 had none of the former and all of the latter.

They've excised all the tedious bull **** that makes alot of RPGs asspergers magnets, like weapom stats and min/maxing. Those things don't define an RPG and their absence does not make this game Mass Effect Galactic Warfare 2. Hell, Bordelands has those things in abundance but that isn't an RPG.

A Role Plaing Game is characterised by the fact that you're plaing a role and Mass Effect allows you to do this in a myriad of ways from moral based decision making to maintaining non-lineratiy throughout.
Quit acting like the absence of mundane boring aspects of too many RPGs is some great loss and the game has betrayed convention. People like ou are even lampooned in the game at the games kiosk where the clerk moans about RPGs not forcing ou to eat and drink and travel for five hours real time to get somewhere in the game.
Mass Effect 2 is a nuaced marriage of action and traditional RPG, get over it.

[Onyx Jaguar]

This thread was better when Sylvius was the main one making a point.



From what I have seen in this thread so far from all these debates makes one thing very certain: what makes a game an RPG for people is totally random.



I like the bringing up of D&D and GURPS as they are relevant to the conversation.



Now I personally really enjoy the fact that there are some people in this debate that are claiming to know what I as a Bioware fan and as a RPG fan want. This amuses me. Such generalization in a topic that should be based on technical aspects is priceless.

[IggyD]

An RPG isn't just playing a role, it's ALSO the manipulation of "mundane, boring aspects" and their impact on the narrative and gameplay.

[Sad Dragon]

Pocketgb wrote...

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.

Here is my question to you though. Does your 'hostility' ammount to anything at all or is it that as soon as the dialogue line goes away you are back where you where before the dialogue?

Look i dont mine linerity, hell i expect it from storydriven games. But they could atleast present me with the illision that my choices matter. I personaly never got that feeling in ME2. The mission based system with the mission complete screen also added to the feel that i was just moving through a path set out befor me. While this is more or less what you always so - though some games are more multilinier then others - the delivery makes alot for how it is percived. And in my honest opinion I personaly thing that ME2s delivery left something to be desired.

Terror_K wrote...

I saw far
more calls on the old boards for things like a better character creator,
spacebar not selecting dialogue as well as skipping it, gay romances
and more squadmate banter than I ever saw calls for the scrapping
of The Mako and elevators, the inventory going entirely and an
elimination of non-combat skills. And yet ME2 had none of the former and
all of the latter.

I thank you ever so much Terror_K i thought i where the only one who was getting anoyed with that me Dialogue-Selecting-Key was also the Dialogue-Skipping-Key. Its bad in sooo many ways. Can we please have that fixed, please -sad puppy eyes- or should that be sad dragon eyes, not sure which would be the most effective...

The Elevators wherent all that fun in ME1 but removing them just removed more then what was added sadly. Elevators might not have been fun but neither are loading screens. Elevators atleast added banter between squadmates something loading screens dont.

The Mako - or rather the uncharted worlds - had their share of problems. Though in my oppinion the problem was not the mako but the worlds themselves. It was one giant heightmap filled with nothing. I would rather have kept the Mako in ME2, taken down the size of the world and puppulated it with some forests rivers and what not - in addition to some minerals and a mission base - and made fewer worlds. The Hammerhead while mildly entertaining is just a big minigame that felt more like an arcade shooter then a part of the game. Though the veichle itself i liked. So those smaller exploration worlds with the Hammerhead maybe?

The Inventory needed a rework - it needed to be streamlined. I wouldnt go so far as to say it needed elimination all together but it needed work just like the new system does imho. I will have to return to the inventory system later as i will have to destil my thoughts on that subject before going forward with a sugestion for improvment.

I for one would like non-combat skills. Hell for me non-combat skills are more important then combat skills, not when implementing a game mind you but when im playing it. Maxing out all the NCS usualy means alternative solutions to problems become availiable, new and 'unique' dialogue tied to the skills and what not. For me NCS usualy adds flavour to the generic game. The game might be fun as hell without them but the added flavour adds alot even for such a fun game.

Squad-banter was cut down and we have already seen posts and whole threads come and go wanting the banter to make a return. It adds personality to the characters and - if done right - can even give a deeper understanding for the nature of the character. The latter mostly due to the fact that banter can be spontaneous something the ship dialogue never really is.

As for Same-Sex-Romance, that 'fight' is still going strong. I may not be gay but tbh i think in this question anyones sexual orientation should be irrelevant. I support their 'fight'. How to implement it is a more interesting discussion - a discussion for another time too, and one im sure is already being discussed in their, i hesitate to say big thread as i have seen the Tali threads in the spoiler section.

/TSD

[Sad Dragon]

Kalfear wrote...

Im sorry, but that slide show was a joke from page 1.
Norman made a astonishing number of guesses where she and her team magically got credit for things they not remotely involved in.
Whole thing was a joke so for anyone to claim it was informative is nonsence. It was rehashed problem control because of (at the time) massive amounts of negativity about the game!

Seems i have missed something here - so quick question, what did i miss?

/TSD

[Tawg]

Terror_K wrote...

What... so you haven't noticed that the game makes every effort to hide stats and numbers whenever it can? You haven't noticed there's half the skills or the original game? You haven't noticed that stats and skills don't play a role in anything outside of combat any more? You haven't noticed that the guns and armour are completely devoid of stats entirely and can no longer be compared? You haven't noticed that there's no real inventory whatsoever, or different levels of items? That the upgrade system is also devoid of any true customisation and is just a linear research as you go model also devoid of any stats? That earning XP and such is all lumped into a single screen at the end of each mission that thus fails to indicate that you're earning XP as you go and why you're even earning it, while making sure that its not there reminding players they're not playing a shooter? That you can't customise your squad any more to make them more resilient to damage? That The Hammerhead has gone from exploration to a tacky little action game? That the HUD is as unclear and basic as possible? That the entire game is presented more like an action shooter than an RPG?

I get the feeling your intentions aren't malicious, but gosh, when you say it like that it just seems so negative;

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".

I just think its funny how many things were changed from ME1 for ME2 based on what official reviewers and newcomers who expected Mass Effect to play like Gears of War compared to the amount of things actual fans and BioWare flunkies wanted. Most of the fans on the boards wanted things improved, but essentially the same... it was almost only the media reviewers and shooter fans who came in and went "WTF?" that called for the complete scrapping of these things, and there were a lot of complaints that BioWare just seemed to miss the point of (e.g. elevators, The Mako, the inventory). I saw far more calls on the old boards for things like a better character creator, spacebar not selecting dialogue as well as skipping it, gay   homosexual romances and more squadmate banter than I ever saw calls for the scrapping of The Mako and elevators, the inventory going entirely and an elimination of non-combat skills. And yet ME2 had none of the former and all of the latter.

While they did change a lot of things, almost to the point where they pretty much started from scratch, I'm not so sure how much you can blame them;
They would have gotten just as much (If not more) if they simply released a 'polished' version of ME1 for ME2 (As per 'fixes' the BioFlunkies wanted);  Sure the people who liked the 'RPG' aspects better got screwed pretty hard, I imagine they have more influences than just the reviews/Forum user suggestions.
Granted I know nothing about the exact processes that a game has to go through till it's finally released, I'm sure there are at least some people who are in charge of pushing the games towards larger audiences, or to try increasing potential sales figures.  As unfortunate as it is, there isn't much in life that is free; and most people don't do what they do simply because they love it, they're usually trying to make money.  So as lovely as it is to think any company could respond only to the athorities that matter (The people who care about their games, the die hard fans), I don't think that's really possible.  Especially not now that information is traded so freely, and some peoples opinions matter more than others (I'm sure there are sales figures somewhere that can prove reviews by certain magizines or sites affect sales, how ever much);

All I'm saying is, not that you need to stop 'complaining' or something like that, just that, society is a bit larger than us and dictates far more than anyone's desires to serve their core gamers needs (Or music fans, I'm sure television has it just as bad).  I doubt any of us, for all our love and compassion, could do much better.
Honestly it's a rather fatalistic view point, but I'm pretty sure it's how things end up working, especially when such grand amounts of money are involved.


P.S. I don't disagree with you.  Most of the issues you state are the ones that pain me the most;  and I can't say with any certainty that what we discuss here on the forums isn't something they consider most importantly, although I am pretty sure this is not their highest concern.  I hate the lack of invo, at least while it's replaced by the new 'gun' system, and GOD! how hard could it have possibly have been to give guns numbers to them (I never even knew if a new gun was in any way better, I just assumed 'tech up, better obv' which is a sham).  Although their lack of numbers never struck me as them being 'ashamed' of the RPG aspect of the game, but I think we just view the world quite differently.  I'm not one to get outraged is all, and I view ME2 as just as well off as the first even with any of it's short comings, I prefer to think it wasn't a choice to f#*< us on their part.


P.P.S. I conceed the point of 'RPG's though I dislike that the mechanics are what matter, not the story.  I fully accept that if someone handed me a game and said 'rpg!' I would instantly think of at least level progression if not items, invo, or any other such.  I rescind my previous arguement.

Modifié par Tawg, 12 avril 2010 - 09:47 .

[FlintlockJazz]

IggyD wrote...

An RPG isn't just playing a role, it's ALSO the manipulation of "mundane, boring aspects" and their impact on the narrative and gameplay.

What about freeform RPG?  There are many tabletop games that utilise it and are actually quite a lot of fun.  And systems are considered bad if they are bogged down with overly-complicated systems.  For some people, the stats are the be all and end all of the game, for others its the portraying of a role, and for others its the experience of making choices, RPG is a very broad term that really needs sub-genres to help people to understand what the game they are getting actually is, for instance Diablo is an Action-RPG, it has very little if any actual roleplaying but it has all the stats, and so the sub-genre Action-RPG works well to warn people who want to play a game with meaningful choices that they are not going to get it from this game.

Essentially, if you are upset that the game does not contain the stat-based gameplay you were looking for, fine complain about that (I personally think there are stats in the game and the work fine with the system as it is, but always willing to hear alternatives), but I think the debate as to whether ME2 is a RPG is a meaningless one since its down to what one is personally looking for in an RPG, and should rather be used as an example of why cRPGs need sub-genres and definitions as opposed to a binary "It is/It isn't" system people seem to be using at the moment.

Modifié par FlintlockJazz, 12 avril 2010 - 09:34 .

[Tawg]

Thank you FlintlockJazz; I don't think I could have ever said something so genius considering how late it is I'm usually on here xP

By the way: http://en.wikipedia....e-playing_game; Most 'RPG's like Diablo aren't referred to as RPGs in my experience, more like 'Hack and Slash'

But I could be wrong on that point (I guess that Wkik-entry is about 'Action-RPG's after all).

[Onyx Jaguar]

Hack and Slash games get really blurred when you take in console games into the equation. Diablo very much plays like an ironed out version of the Gold Box games or even a real time version of a roguelike, you can some heritage from both but some could make the case for it being dumbed down even though from a stat perspective you still have quite a bit of control over your character, and the setup of the game is quite reminicent of a rogue-esque game. You put it on a console though and it would feel like Blood Omen for instance.

Modifié par Onyx Jaguar, 12 avril 2010 - 09:53 .

[Tawg]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Hack and Slash games get really blurred when you take in console games into the equation. Diablo very much plays like an ironed out version of the Gold Box games or even a real time version of a roguelike. You put it on a console though and it would feel like Blood Omen for instance.

Yeah, that's always true; I'm not even sure what I would call a game like Blood Omen off hand, I guess just an Action game?

Or Free-roam games with level progressions like Prototype of Assassin's Creed (Which even includes the inventory to a limited respect);  I would never call any of those RPG's so it is an... extremely blury line to try walking..

[FlintlockJazz]

Tawg wrote...

Thank you FlintlockJazz; I don't think I
could have ever said something so genius considering how late it is I'm
usually on here xP
By the way:
http://en.wikipedia....e-playing_game; Most 'RPG's like
Diablo aren't referred to as RPGs in my experience, more like 'Hack and
Slash'
But I could be wrong on that point (I guess that Wkik-entry
is about 'Action-RPG's after all).

Heh yeah, the advantages of having a slow day at work means more time to forum post I find.   Your link shows why sub-genres are really needed and need to be refined, since many of the games listed there are so different from one another, I mean is Fable, Deus Ex and Diablo really that related to each other?  I really don't know to be honest, but I do think the classification needs work.

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Hack and Slash games get really blurred when you take in console games into the equation. Diablo very much plays like an ironed out version of the Gold Box games or even a real time version of a roguelike, you can some heritage from both but some could make the case for it being dumbed down even though from a stat perspective you still have quite a bit of control over your character, and the setup of the game is quite reminicent of a rogue-esque game. You put it on a console though and it would feel like Blood Omen for instance.

Right, and when you include JRPGs into the mix things get really convoluted (are JRPGs really RPGs or are they more interactive novels with minigames in them?).  JRPG works well as a sub-genre for JRPGs, though I'm sure there are many examples that prove me wrong that I haven't thought of.  Blood Omen is a good example, its one game that never really knew what kind of game it was I felt.

[Terror_K]

I just want to add that I don't think BioWare painted the game in such an anti-RPG light to intentionally ****** off the old fans so much as not scare off the newcomers. They fully admitted with ME2 that they were attempting to appeal to a wider audience, particularly in the marketing, and while I can understand this I also think this mentality and approach is actually the main cause of a lot of ME2's problems. I think they tried to please both camps as best they could, but in doing so were too concerned about bringing in their new audience and didn't take enough care keeping their old one. And it's a shame because the game really does feel like its trying to hide itself by exposing as little RPG as possible. I hope with ME3 that BioWare stops caring so much about branching out to the mainstream gamer and focuses far more on their existing fans. If they want to branch out and feel they need to for profit reasons, then create a new IP with a new series of action-RPG's or even pure story-driven action games if that's what they want. The original Mass Effect was a game that suited nerd culture, and the second comes along trying to be mainstream as if the devs didn't realise that most of the things nerds like they like because they're NOT the same mainstream stuff that everybody else is doing. The fact is, shooter-oriented action games are a dime-a-dozen these days (Modern Warfare 2, Gears of War 2, Battlefield Bad Company 2, Uncharted 2, Just Cause 2, BioShock 2, Bayonetta, Halo ODST, AvP, Army of Two: The 40th Day, The Saboteur, Splinter Cell Conviction, etc.) and ME2 really did head in a far more generic direction by becoming more like them. I'm not saying all these titles I've just listed are bad games... just that they're everywhere and the dominant genre these days.

[bip78]

Got to admit the improvement over ME1 are a step up. I do miss the landing on various planets and the ease of map travel. Those are my only 2 down points on ME2 - The time consuming mining (even with the updated scanner) and the now need to refuel when you travel between clusters.



Yes I know the fuel thing is a required but it was one of those things which under ME1 was taken care of. And the new scanning of EVERY planet and lets face it with future DLC something tells me theres going to be even more!!! It just eats up alot of time and pulls you away from the awesome story. Fair enough scan the planets for random bases or bits n bobs but sit the mining as a EDI assited option so everytime you visit a planet EDI does all that for ya and you can crack on with the mission in hand.



I know Bioware popped it in there to lengthen the game but come on talk about overkill!!

[Mister Mida]

Terror_K wrote...

I just want to add that I don't think BioWare painted the game in such an anti-RPG light to intentionally ****** off the old fans so much as not scare off the newcomers. They fully admitted with ME2 that they were attempting to appeal to a wider audience, particularly in the marketing, and while I can understand this I also think this mentality and approach is actually the main cause of a lot of ME2's problems. I think they tried to please both camps as best they could, but in doing so were too concerned about bringing in their new audience and didn't take enough care keeping their old one. And it's a shame because the game really does feel like its trying to hide itself by exposing as little RPG as possible. I hope with ME3 that BioWare stops caring so much about branching out to the mainstream gamer and focuses far more on their existing fans. If they want to branch out and feel they need to for profit reasons, then create a new IP with a new series of action-RPG's or even pure story-driven action games if that's what they want. The original Mass Effect was a game that suited nerd culture, and the second comes along trying to be mainstream as if the devs didn't realise that most of the things nerds like they like because they're NOT the same mainstream stuff that everybody else is doing. The fact is, shooter-oriented action games are a dime-a-dozen these days (Modern Warfare 2, Gears of War 2, Battlefield Bad Company 2, Uncharted 2, Just Cause 2, BioShock 2, Bayonetta, Halo ODST, AvP, Army of Two: The 40th Day, The Saboteur, Splinter Cell Conviction, etc.) and ME2 really did head in a far more generic direction by becoming more like them. I'm not saying all these titles I've just listed are bad games... just that they're everywhere and the dominant genre these days.

This.
EDIT: oh and this:
http://www.oxm.co.uk...le.php?id=18111
http://www.joystiq.c...-mass-effect-3/

Modifié par Mister Mida, 12 avril 2010 - 02:32 .

[Tawg]

It's just like reality TV Terror; Stupid people think it's good, stupid people eat it up, they make more for the stupid people (No offense to any of those games, just saying what sells sells).

But I would have to say, I think the point that always drew me to ME (And luckily, in my opinion, ME2 didn't loose out on this) was the story and choices for you to make. It's the one thing I loved most, and the one thing they didn't Fubar. The game play made dramatic changes but, it didn't kill what I hold dear, so I understand feeling like BioWare betrayed who they should not have, since game play is generally the reason people play games..

Modifié par Tawg, 12 avril 2010 - 10:44 .

[bip78]

Tawg wrote...

It's just like reality TV Terror; Stupid people think it's good, stupid people eat it up, they make more for the stupid people (No offense to any of those games, just saying what sells sells).

But I would have to say, I think the point that always drew me to ME (And luckily, in my opinion, ME2 didn't loose out on this) was the story and choices for you to make. It's the one thing I loved most, and the one thing they didn't Fubar. The game play made dramatic changes but, it didn't kill what I hold dear, so I understand feeling like BioWare betrayed who they should not have, since game play is generally the reason people play games..

I agree, just the few tweeks they did do interupted with the story line imo. Aside from that the story, dialog, character interaction etc etc is stunning!

[yoomazir]

Mister Mida wrote...
This.
EDIT: oh and this:
http://www.oxm.co.uk...le.php?id=18111
http://www.joystiq.c...-mass-effect-3/

OMG, all hope isn't lost yet for ME3...

[EternalWolfe]

yoomazir wrote...

Mister Mida wrote...
This.
EDIT: oh and this:
http://www.oxm.co.uk...le.php?id=18111
http://www.joystiq.c...-mass-effect-3/

OMG, all hope isn't lost yet for ME3...

Something that just occured to me, looking at the slide in the second link - it says on the part with 'Things we should keep' 'Same Team'.  I wonder if she meant dev team or character team.

[Sylvius the Mad]

EternalWolfe wrote...

Something that just occured to me, looking at the slide in the second link - it says on the part with 'Things we should keep' 'Same Team'.  I wonder if she meant dev team or character team.

Dev team.

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

What... so you haven't noticed that the game makes every effort to hide stats and numbers whenever it can?

Like it mattered? Weapon/armor stats in ME1 meant nothing, because there was zero indication of how each worked. All you really had to do was make sure the things you were equipping had the biggest numbers.

You haven't noticed there's half the skills or the original game?

Of many things that determine the depth of a game, the number of spells aren't one of them. DA is a good example.

You haven't noticed that the guns and armour are completely devoid of stats entirely...

They're not.

You haven't noticed that there's no real inventory whatsoever, or different levels of items?

See above: we have different pieces of armor, and different weapons to choose from. What's a "real inventory"?

That earning XP and such is all lumped into a single screen at the end of each mission that thus fails to indicate that you're earning XP as you go and why you're even earning it, while making sure that its not there reminding players they're not playing a shooter?

You're earning XP for missions, i.e. quests. I don't see how one method is more "RPG" than the other. Not to mention that there isn't any ever XP anymore in the Elder Scrolls series.

That the entire game is presented more like an action shooter than an RPG?

Kind of like their first game, at least until you started playing it.

Terror_K wrote...


I just think its funny how many things were changed from ME1 for ME2 based on what official reviewers and newcomers who expected Mass Effect to play like Gears of War compared to the amount of things actual fans and BioWare flunkies wanted.

That's not the proper route to go. We're all Bioware fans here. Not all of us expected the same thing from ME1. Bioware branced out with JE, and a lot were expecting the same. You can be upset, but segregating needlessly is one of the very things making matters worse.

Here's
a fine example:

Kalfear wrote...

ahhh your one of THOSE whiners...

If you want to advocate for "civilized discussion", then this isn't helping.

Sad Dragon...

Here is my question to you though. Does your 'hostility' ammount to
anything at all or is it that as soon as the dialogue line goes away you
are back where you where before the dialogue?

I'd guess not, but I don't think that's something my Shepard personally wants to happen - which is an interesting situation with the way they've delt with ME2: there is a *lot* of hate for Cerberus, but Bioware also can't allow you to do anything.
I don't like Cerberus either, but as I see it they *are* the only ones willing to do anything about it. The Illusive Man, although disagreeable, is one of the most resourceful allies you could find. He's the only one pointing you towards the Collectors, providing you with where to find the galaxy's best. While you have a chance to do so on your own, know that you're fighting time here: how fast do you think Shepard could stop the Collector's without anyone's help (which is another part of the problem: the Alliance speaks out against you and the Council won't lift a damn finger) as opposed to with Cerberus' help?

Modifié par Pocketgb, 12 avril 2010 - 09:41 .

[Sad Dragon]

Pocketgb wrote...

I'd guess not, but I don't think that's something my Shepard personally wants to happen - which is an interesting situation with the way they've delt with ME2: there is a *lot* of hate for Cerberus, but Bioware also can't allow you to do anything.

This - the bolded section - is what i define as railroading. They may have painted themselves into a corner and had to use that term. They may have been so blided by "we whant this to be the empire strikes back" mentality that they seem to have has - a bad mentality in the first place, make the story how the story fits trying to shoe horn it will simply make it suffer. Though im not sure they ever had the bad way of thinking about it but it was mearly hyped that way.

Either way - they could still have railroaded the players but at the same time throwing them a bone - some small hope that they has controll over the situation. The end result could have been the same - but the railroading would have felt less railroady. Simply put i think they failed in the execution of it.

/TSD