874 réponses à ce sujet

[FutureBoy81]

TJSolo wrote...
*snip*
.

thats where the trouble began, i think you can discard the turned RPG systems back on slide because they never did "turn it back on" lol

Modifié par javierabegazo, 13 mars 2010 - 09:26 .

[Maugrim]

javierabegazo wrote...



You should be careful not to take that out of context though, I can just as easily add the slide where she says "Turned back on RPG systems"


The whole point of that was, BioWare makes good RPG's, but they made the combat too sluggish because of their lack of experience with Shooter combat

Excellent point javier and exactly as I was going to reply except I think you did it a little better than I could.  Also the first side covers any potential issues with the "Make a Great Game" mantra because you can't make a great Bioware game without RPG choices and writing.  So instead I shall post a small video clip that also makes the same point though in a more hilarious manner.

www.youtube.com/watch

Modifié par javierabegazo, 13 mars 2010 - 09:25 .

[exxxed]

OMG! That's the first time i've seen Mass Effect 1's inventory on xbox, dayum now i get where all the complaints were coming from, i can't even imagine how bad was the Mako controls.



Good read, thanks, and i'm glad they're reconsidering the lack of RPG elements and want to make ME3 richer.

They didn't say anything about exploration tho' why would anyone hate exploration and love more spoon-fed linear 5-10 minutes maps? (when i say exploration i didn't mean the ME1 style of it, tho it wasn't that bad even so they could just make the planets more diverse and interesting)

Cheers!

[Chala]

javierabegazo wrote...

TJSolo wrote...





Then there is this that sounds the bells of how the project was approached.

You should be careful not to take that out of context though, I can just as easily add the slide where she says "Turned back on RPG systems"


The whole point of that was, BioWare makes good RPG's, but they made the combat too sluggish because of their lack of experience with Shooter combat

that's right also is their 2° time making a shooter so it's natural that they made some mistakes (in ME was the poor aiming, irreal weapons, etc. But in ME:2 the game lost a big part of rpg elements) but they are always paying attention to these problems, so Ithink that in the next mass effect they will focus in finding the perfect balance between shooter and rpg

[Seanylegit]

MassEffect762 wrote...


It all makes sense now, wish I could've seen this before pre-ordering.

I love how you blatantly ignore to read previous information. Way out of context.

Modifié par javierabegazo, 13 mars 2010 - 09:10 .

[TJSolo]

"You should be careful not to take that out of context though, I can just as easily add the slide where she says "Turned back on RPG systems" "

I'd like you to try and find a slide that states that. There is one RPG element section where the focus was on improvement through reduction.

*ninja's my way into the post*
Here's that slide
http://img534.images...sentation34.jpg

It won't be the end of the ME1 vs ME2, RPG vs Shooter, or depth vs simple arguements. Actually it could provide fuel for a bit of it...

Yes, the slide can be taken out of context but I only offered it as a polar opposite to the person I quoted.
One the whole the presentation is neat and a unique expression from Ms.Norman. I enjoyed it.

Edit: Goodness it has been a long day. I was trying to find that slide before I committed to stating that....

Modifié par TJSolo, 13 mars 2010 - 09:25 .

[Maugrim]

javierabegazo wrote...

MassEffect762 wrote...


It all makes sense now, wish I could've seen this before pre-ordering.

I love how you blatantly ignore to read previous information. Way out of context.

Well to stoop down to their level they obviously don't care about making a great game or quality so long as they hit their arbitrary amount of junk in the inventory required setting to make it an RPG, because we all know what makes an RPG is standardized and has no room for change *nods*

[kmcd5722]

good to see that BioWare came out with their explanations, versus just listening to speculation for so long. it was very interesting, and it neat to see they acknowledged their shortcomings. glad to see they are bringing back richer rpg elements for me3. whew, my faith is restored. now if only they would listen to my comments about bringing back that immersive feeling that ran so deep in me1, then i could die happy.

[Chala]

kmcd5722 wrote...

good to see that BioWare came out with their explanations, versus just listening to speculation for so long. it was very interesting, and it neat to see they acknowledged their shortcomings. glad to see they are bringing back richer rpg elements for me3. whew, my faith is restored. now if only they would listen to my comments about bringing back that immersive feeling that ran so deep in me1, then i could die happy.

faith is the last thing we lost friend.

[Hellhawx]

That was a really good read. I'm happy to see what their approach was and find it to be highly successful. The inventory system in ME1 had its pluses but was very cluttered to where you would constantly be getting rid of the same junk over and over and over. The ME2 armor system is great and and the combat was amazing while the narrative stayed true to its predecessor. ME3 will bridge the gap for sure with better weapon customization I would presume. I like the upgrade system but it lacks depth and I'm sure the gameplay dev team is already looking into that.



I see ME3 topping the charts on Metacritic passing GTA IV's throned possition.

[Endurium]

Fun presentation, once I figured it out. It's not as intuitive as the Minority Report 'desktop' but it's going in the right direction.



Thoughts:



1. Return to Doom ammo system was a non-risk for a shooter formula (thus no complaints). However it is funny to be taken back about 20 years by a modern game.

2. They actually used naked teammates as an excuse for no inventory? (I hope it was in jest.)

[Vaeliorin]

makenzieshepard wrote...
because we all know what makes an RPG is standardized and has no room for change

The thing is, what makes an RPG is standardized and has no room for change.  That's the entire point of having genre distinctions.

Also, the whole "naked teammate" thing is ridiculous.  They're only naked if you want them to be, and honestly, what does it matter if they are?  Not to mention that there are ways around that (you couldn't have a naked team member in ME1, for instance.)

[Omega_Novae]

Good read and great find.



And on naked teammates, given the tone of the presentation, I'm thinking it's a joke.

[pacer90]

ARggg you guys are missing the point of the naked teammates. It's that managing everyone's gear is so cumbersome that it's easier to just make them all naked and put on the equipment you need per mission.



They don't want to have to force people into situations like that.

[JKoopman]

It's interesting, but the presentation really didn't do much in the way of "explaining" why the changes were made so much as it did reinforcing what everyone has been saying since Day 1; namely that ME2 was designed from the ground up first and foremost as a shooter and that combat was the primary focus of development.

Some of the explanations and rationalizations are oversimplified to the point of being downright insulting as well. For example, the Assault Rifle Accuracy video that was supposed to rationalize the switch from stat-based aiming to traditional shooter mechanics shows a player running around outside of cover spastically spraying rounds from an AR without even bothering to aim. Of course accuracy is going to be lousy when you do everything possible to make it so! If that same player were to hunker down behind some cover and use weapon zoom to aim like you're supposed to the video would've shown that there was nothing wrong with weapon mechanics in ME1, so instead they intentionally inflated the "issue" to make their case. That seems rather dishonest.

Another example is the inventory rationalization. While it's true that an ME1-style inventory with 12 characters instead of 6 may have been too complex for it's own good, she offers no explanation for why the inventory system wasn't simply tweaked or limited to Shepard only. Instead the only rationalization provided is "Inventory needs to be simpler! What could be simpler than NO INVENTORY?" That's it? That's all the explanation we get for such a controversial redesign?

Very little in that presentation does anything to explain the "all or nothing" approach BioWare took with tweaking (read: removing) features from ME1. Instead it uses flagrant exaggerations and over-simplifications to make it's case and selectively ignores the real criticisms.

Ironic that the presentation meant to explain the over-simplification of ME2 is itself over-simplified.

Modifié par JKoopman, 13 mars 2010 - 10:01 .

[Dethateer]

This should be fun to watch. Popcorn or waffles, anyone?

Modifié par Dethateer, 13 mars 2010 - 09:48 .

[MassEffect762]

JKoopman wrote...

It's interesting, but the presentation really didn't do much in the way of "explaining" why the changes were made so much as it did reinforcing what everyone has been saying since Day 1; namely that ME2 was designed from the ground up first and foremost as a shooter and that combat was the primary focus of development.

Some of the explanations and rationalizations are oversimplified to the point of being downright insulting as well. For example, the Assault Rifle Accuracy video that was supposed to rationalize the switch from stat-based aiming to traditional shooter mechanics shows a player running around outside of cover spastically spraying rounds from an AR without even bothering to aim. Of course accuracy is going to be lousy when you do everything possible to make it so! If that same player were to hunker down behind some cover and use weapon zoom to aim like you're supposed to the video would've shown that there was nothing wrong with weapon mechanics in ME1, so instead they intentionally inflated the "issue" to make their case. That seems rather dishonest.

Another example is the inventory rationalization. While it's true that an ME1-style inventory with 12 characters instead of 6 may have been too complex for it's own good, she offers no explanation for why the inventory system wasn't simply tweaked or limited to Shepard only. Instead the only rationalization provided is "Inventory needs to be simpler! What could be simpler than NO INVENTORY?"

And again, when she attempts to explain the rationalization for thermal clips, she conveniently glosses over the issues. The rationalizations are "Stops bullet spray" (no it doesn't, at least no more so than weapon overheating did), "Encourages using different weapons" (no, it forces the use of different weapons; there's a difference), "IP explanation: Geth heat sink technology" (the fact that you have an IP explanation doesn't make it any less flimsy and nonsensical), and "No negative comments in reviews" (which is an outright lie as I know I read many reviews that touched on the oddness of the ammo system and that it might not appeal to some fans). That's it? That's all the explanation we get for such a controvercial redesign?

Very little in that presentation does anything to explain the "all or nothing" approach BioWare took with tweaking (read: removing) features from ME1. Instead it uses flagrant exaggerations and over-simplifications to make it's case and selectively ignores the real criticisms.

Ironic that the presentation meant to explain the over-simplification of ME2 is itself over-simplified.

+1 QFT

[Andaius20]

JKoopman wrote...
*Snip*

This gets my QFT +1 as well.

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

JKoopman wrote...
*snip*

+1

Especially for the part about the lead gameplay designer admitting ME2 is a shooter above EVERYTHING else kinda validates every fan like myself thats been saying it since release. As if the game itself wasnt proof enough that is.

Modifié par Dinkamus_Littlelog, 13 mars 2010 - 09:58 .

[AlbertoAquilani]

Well, looks like they do listen to fans:



http://www.joystiq.c...-mass-effect-3/

As with the transition from the first Mass Effect to the second, BioWare is taking these criticisms to heart for the third game, with Norman hoping the third will offer "richer RPG features" and "more combat options." What we can probably expect less of is the mining mini-game, which Norman lamented "nobody liked."

Hey, I'm all for more RPG features, only if they are done tastefully and not anything like ME 1's cluttered approach. Looks like they've gathered all the feedback already.

[-Skorpious-]

Bioware does care!

http://img200.images...852/me3goal.jpg

Modifié par -Skorpious-, 13 mars 2010 - 10:19 .

[JKoopman]

I'm hoping those bullet points were just part of a much larger spoken presentation because if they were meant to rationalize and justify the changes made in ME2 on their own they made a pretty poor job of it.

[JediMB]

A fun read.



While I appreciate many of the improvements in the shooter mechanics, I do hope that the Adept will actually feel like a powerful biotic class again in ME3.

[pacer90]

JKoopman wrote...

It's interesting, but the presentation really didn't do much in the way of "explaining" why the changes were made so much as it did reinforcing what everyone has been saying since Day 1; namely that ME2 was designed from the ground up first and foremost as a shooter and that combat was the primary focus of development.

Some of the explanations and rationalizations are oversimplified to the point of being downright insulting as well. For example, the Assault Rifle Accuracy video that was supposed to rationalize the switch from stat-based aiming to traditional shooter mechanics shows a player running around outside of cover spastically spraying rounds from an AR without even bothering to aim. Of course accuracy is going to be lousy when you do everything possible to make it so! If that same player were to hunker down behind some cover and use weapon zoom to aim like you're supposed to the video would've shown that there was nothing wrong with weapon mechanics in ME1, so instead they intentionally inflated the "issue" to make their case. That seems rather dishonest.

Another example is the inventory rationalization. While it's true that an ME1-style inventory with 12 characters instead of 6 may have been too complex for it's own good, she offers no explanation for why the inventory system wasn't simply tweaked or limited to Shepard only. Instead the only rationalization provided is "Inventory needs to be simpler! What could be simpler than NO INVENTORY?" That's it? That's all the explanation we get for such a controversial redesign?

Very little in that presentation does anything to explain the "all or nothing" approach BioWare took with tweaking (read: removing) features from ME1. Instead it uses flagrant exaggerations and over-simplifications to make it's case and selectively ignores the real criticisms.

Ironic that the presentation meant to explain the over-simplification of ME2 is itself over-simplified.

I couldn't get the video to work, did you? I only saw the bullet points, which traditionally are very simple and not seen as the details of the issue.

Actually did any of you get the whole video working? I'd like to hear the indepth explanation for all of this.

[Meistr_Chef]

JKoopman wrote...

I'm hoping those bullet points were just part of a much larger spoken presentation because if they were meant to rationalize and justify the changes made in ME2 on their own they made a pretty poor job of it.

The presentation isn't just about justifying the changes. You make it seem like the presentation is all about telling us they were right in their decisions with ME2. It's not. It's also about assessing the feedback from the change. If you read the entire presentation there are already indications that Bioware is re-evaluating their approach; most likely a good shooter mechanic will stay for ME3 but they're thinking of beefing up the RPG mechanics too without junking the game up. There was even a part in the presentation showing a screenshot of threads of people like you who were disappointed with the apparent lack of RPG elements.

I can't think of another game company who publish their plans so publicly and have such a connection with their fanbase.