33 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >
 |
| 33. |
Re: Mass Effect Multiplayer? |
Jun 1, 2010, 18:29 |
VoodooV |
|
|
nutshell makes an excellent point about ME2.
Many times throughout the game, I would look ahead and see this spot where there were a bunch of CHW that looked really out of place and I thought to myself, "gee, I wonder if something will happen there and ill need to fight.
ME1 was obviously a hybrid shooter/RPG and I applaud that. I think hybrid games are the future. In ME1, in my opinion, the game was more of an RPG and the shooter aspect wasn't as developed. Pinnacle Station highlighted that fact more than anything.
ME2 definitely developed the shooter side of things, but IMO, at the expense of the RPG aspect. It felt like it was the exact opposite of ME1 The shooter aspect was the primary focus and it was the RPG parts that seemed just tacked on or nonexistent. Quite honestly, I just wish they didn't mess with the formula a whole lot and just provide enhancements since it's a trilogy. ME1 and ME2 are so completely different games that I don't feel like it's part of a trilogy anymore. They should have just taken ME1, improved the graphics, fixed the inventory system problems, improved combat and otherwise just make refinements...but no...they practically redesigned the game from scratch and that pisses me off a bit.
And well...whoever thought planet scanning would be a good idea needs to be fired. How the hell did that make it past QA???
This comment was edited on Jun 1, 2010, 18:34. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 32. |
Re: Mass Effect Multiplayer? |
May 31, 2010, 09:24 |
Verno |
|
|
| I really don't want Mass Effect to have multiplayer shoe horned into it just for the sake of having multiplayer. I can't really see how they would make a compelling multiplayer experience when they are still struggling to provide a decent singleplayer shooting experience. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Playing: Super Mario 3D Land, Tales of Graces F, Fire Emblem 3DS
Watching: Hannibal, Community, Life |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 31. |
Re: Mass Effect Multiplayer? |
May 30, 2010, 22:40 |
Linksil |
|
|
I'm sorry I did write that kinda early. But yes a general def of RPG's does cover a lot more genre's then most other games. Also most games started from those simple table top and go from there. I hate to say it really but for me some of the BEST rpg's were the ones that just removed 1/2 the choices(like how your character is to act) and let me do the choices of skills/inv. I don't want to overly simplify the RPG catagory, but I hate all these people saying an RPG isn't an RPG without this whole being able to change the game world. Like everyone just wants clones of a sandbox game, or being forced into a choice(usally good or bad)
I think this is were we came up with JRPG and WRPG terms. To help define how much choices we have and in what they fall into. I'm just getting really really sick of people saying XXX rpg wasn't any good just because it didn't include every new type of choice in the game. You see this a lot in Western mags reviewing JRPGs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Munching Threw: Fire Emblem 3DS, Chaos on Deponia, NS2, FF13-2 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 30. |
Re: Mass Effect Multiplayer? |
May 30, 2010, 18:14 |
Jerykk |
|
|
At the core and RPG is just you playing a roll inside a game.
Your logic is flawed. If the only requisite for RPGs was that you play a role, then almost every game ever made would considered an RPG. Mario Kart? RPG. God of War? RPG. Call of Duty? RPG. Command & Conquer? RPG.
I do believe that RPGs don't have to have loot and leveling. However, they absolutely do need to have choice, as choice is the foundation of RPG.
In those games, you had established characteristics of gameplay, such as leveling, inventory, skill points, etc.
This is true. However, things like loot and leveling have become so ubiquitous these days that they can no longer be considered a defining element of RPGs. You can't throw a rock without hitting a game that has loot or leveling. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 29. |
Re: Mass Effect Multiplayer? |
May 30, 2010, 14:31 |
Trashy |
|
|
| If it's done kind of like Borderlands, I can see it being fairly successful. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 28. |
Re: Mass Effect Multiplayer? |
May 30, 2010, 14:18 |
ForgedReality |
|
|
Linksil wrote on May 30, 2010, 12:07:
I hate to say it, but this is why you'll always have people arguing over RPG's. Because everyone expects something different from what an RPG "IS". People forget that RPG's are Role Playing Games. You don't have to have leveling, you don't have to have choices, you don't have to have loot gathering to the ends of the earth. All of those are design choices that changes what Type of RPG the game is. ME is an Action RPG. It's an RPG with more action and Dialog centered design.
I hate people complaining about FF games and other RPG's just because they were excepting this big open ended game. At the core and RPG is just you playing a roll inside a game. How much you play the roll and how much you can change that roll is 100% up to the designers. Please stop trying to compare games that are different design element focused like they arn't. But the problem with that is that players of RPGs expect certain elements to be present in the game's design. The RPG genre started before videogames were really even an option--in the days of the classic table-top nerdfests like Warhammer, Magic, and DnD. In those games, you had established characteristics of gameplay, such as leveling, inventory, skill points, etc. This is where the term RPG stems from, and many of the characteristics from those early games are still often applied to the games that we have today falling under that umbrella.
The other part of the problem with your way of thinking is that you seem to be over-generalizing. If you define a genre too loosely, then you can apply it to any game you want. From your definition, it sounds like you could call Quake, TF2, Bejeweled, and Thief RPGs. In each of those games, you play a role... okay maybe not Bejeweled, but it wouldn't take much loosening up for it to apply there as well. 
My point is, the general definition of a genre seems to come from the way the majority think of it. You might have a different idea from someone else of what kinds of things an RPG should include, but the fact remains that the industry defines a genre based on what has traditionally been included in that genre in the past. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 27. |
Re: Mass Effect Multiplayer? |
May 30, 2010, 12:07 |
Linksil |
|
|
I hate to say it, but this is why you'll always have people arguing over RPG's. Because everyone expects something different from what an RPG "IS". People forget that RPG's are Role Playing Games. You don't have to have leveling, you don't have to have choices, you don't have to have loot gathering to the ends of the earth. All of those are design choices that changes what Type of RPG the game is. ME is an Action RPG. It's an RPG with more action and Dialog centered design.
I hate people complaining about FF games and other RPG's just because they were excepting this big open ended game. At the core and RPG is just you playing a roll inside a game. How much you play the roll and how much you can change that roll is 100% up to the designers. Please stop trying to compare games that are different design element focused like they arn't. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Munching Threw: Fire Emblem 3DS, Chaos on Deponia, NS2, FF13-2 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 26. |
Re: Mass Effect Multiplayer? |
May 30, 2010, 05:05 |
Charlie_Six |
|
|
| I hope the multiplayer is really innovative. To me, it seems like multiplayer gaming has been stagnant for nearly a decade. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 25. |
Re: Mass Effect Multiplayer? |
May 30, 2010, 04:57 |
Charlie_Six |
|
|
I think co-op ME3 could work like how Old Republic is gonna work. Each player is able to interject with dialogue. Not just the party leader.
It really has that pen-and-paper feel.
I'm surprised Old Republic is the first game to try this system. It's such a common conversation system in every day human life. You walk up to a group of people and they often talk back to you as a group!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 24. |
Re: Mass Effect Multiplayer? |
May 30, 2010, 02:32 |
ForgedReality |
|
|
Creston wrote on May 30, 2010, 01:19:
The only part of this game that translates well to multiplayer — the shooting — is kind of the most uninteresting part about ME in general. So I'm not sure why they think that going MP is such a good idea.
As long as this is an idea for games AFTER ME3, I don't really care. I just hope they're not gonna fuck up ME3...
Creston I concur. But you know, they could do something like special mp missions where you play as co-op and it could maybe be up to four players or something, similar to the campaigns in L4D2. ..Maybe. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 23. |
Re: Mass Effect Multiplayer? |
May 30, 2010, 01:19 |
Creston |
|
|
The only part of this game that translates well to multiplayer — the shooting — is kind of the most uninteresting part about ME in general. So I'm not sure why they think that going MP is such a good idea.
As long as this is an idea for games AFTER ME3, I don't really care. I just hope they're not gonna fuck up ME3...
Creston |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 22. |
Re: Mass Effect Multiplayer? |
May 30, 2010, 01:04 |
Akuinnen |
|
|
| Here I thought Entropy was the greatest force in the Universe, it instead it seems to be mediocrity. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 21. |
Re: Mass Effect Multiplayer? |
May 29, 2010, 22:45 |
Jerykk |
|
|
So breaking up the entire Quarian fleet into opposing factions wasn't a meaningful consequence of a choice? What exactly would a meaningful consequence be?
Something that has an impact on the player, the main story or perhaps repercussions in ME3? All of the big choices you made in ME1 ended up being footnotes in ME2. Forgettable and anticlimactic cameo appearances (or e-mails), really.
A good example of a meaningful consequence would be the annihilation of the Necropolis in FO1. If you killed the Super Mutants occupying the town, they would later retaliate by killing all the ghouls, which in turn removed any quests they would have provided you.
How has Mass Effect ever compared itself to any of those games?
By calling itself an RPG?
How exactly would gameplay like that fit into Mass Effect? Your character is a war veteran and trained soldier. You think it would be feasible for him/her to turn into some kind of whimpy mastermind?
I think that's kind of the point. A true RPG wouldn't force you to be a war veteran and trained soldier. Those would simply be some choices amongst many others. You'd decide the role you want to play. Ideally, you'd be able to choose the race as well.
The roleplaying centers on the type of character you want your hero to be. And there are neutral options in conversations as well. The roleplaying aspect strongly encourages you to choose either paragon or renegade courses of action, but there is nothing stopping you from doing whichever one more suits your concept of your hero. Or even doing nothing and letting things take their own course.
Neutral options are completely and utterly worthless in ME2. The game very clearly wants you to be either 100% Paragon or Renegade, as that's the only way to unlock the best dialogue options. Neutrality provides no benefits whatsoever. However, even the supposedly stark opposite choices you can make have the same results. For example, if a party member is angry at you, you get three choices:
1) Paragon: Be nice/sympathetic and persuade the companion to chill out.
2) Neutral: Try and fail to persuade the companion to chill out.
3) Renegade: Be tough/mean and persuade the companion to chill out.
At no point in ME2 did I ever have to actually stop and think about my choices. I was playing a Paragon character so I always chose the blue option. That's the inevitable result of using a binary morality system and offering benefits to sticking to one side.
Just because there aren't 6 or 7 choices for every dialogue branch, doesn't mean that the game is any less entertaining. And in the end, that's what I want. Entertainment.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I thought ME2 was entertaining too... as an action/adventure game. But if I were to judge it as an RPG, it would be pretty terrible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 20. |
Re: Mass Effect Multiplayer? |
May 29, 2010, 21:49 |
Slashman |
|
|
While I agree that leveling and inventories are not a necessity for RPGs, ME2 was still a pretty lousy RPG. There really wasn't much roleplaying. You could be nice or mean. That's about it. None of your choices have any meaningful consequences.
So breaking up the entire Quarian fleet into opposing factions wasn't a meaningful consequence of a choice? What exactly would a meaningful consequence be?
The best RPGs are the ones that have ambiguous choices with both short and long-term consequences. They also let you approach any given situation in a multitude of ways, typically divided into one of the following areas: combat, stealth, diplomacy. In ME2, you have to go with combat 99% of the time.
The shooter part of it's gameplay is a major aspect of it. After all that dialogue and story...I'd like to shoot some stuff myself.
Fallout, Planescape: Torment, Arcanum... those were great RPGs because there were so many different ways to solve any problem and so many ways to play the game.
How has Mass Effect ever compared itself to any of those games? I never played Mass Effect expecting it to mimic those games. It is its own setting with its own style of gameplay and I thought 2 was a big improvement over 1. I played ME expecting a certain kind of cinematic experience with well done story elements and some decent shooter elements. I wasn't disappointed. And most people I know who play all kinds of games(even hardcore shooter fans) thought the game was great.
When I played Arcanum, my character was completely worthless in combat but extremely charismatic and persuasive. As a result, I had many followers (consisting of several half-ogres) who would do my dirty work when my smooth-talking ways failed.
How exactly would gameplay like that fit into Mass Effect? Your character is a war veteran and trained soldier. You think it would be feasible for him/her to turn into some kind of whimpy mastermind?
In ME2, the roleplaying is limited to how you kill your enemies.
That's crap. The roleplaying centers on the type of character you want your hero to be. And there are neutral options in conversations as well. The roleplaying aspect strongly encourages you to choose either paragon or renegade courses of action, but there is nothing stopping you from doing whichever one more suits your concept of your hero. Or even doing nothing and letting things take their own course.
Just because there aren't 6 or 7 choices for every dialogue branch, doesn't mean that the game is any less entertaining. And in the end, that's what I want. Entertainment.
Bioware still makes more traditional RPGs with lots of ambiguous choices. Dragon Age was that kind of game. But they have stated that they want to tell a very specific story with the Mass Effect trilogy and so far I'm enjoying it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 19. |
Re: Mass Effect Multiplayer? |
May 29, 2010, 21:25 |
HoSpanky |
|
|
personally, I liked ME2. I liked the varied environments, the lack of 100 identical planets to land on, and the too-streamlined-but-better-than-ME1 inventory system.
What I didn't like was the primary story. Yes, I actually liked all the recruitment/loyalty quests. But ME2's overall story felt...weak. honestly, the *story* felt more like an addon than a full, epic, holy shit story.
I'm trying to put this in a way that doesn't spoil it for those who haven't played through it. because it's still worth playing through, you just won't feel like the savior of the universe this time around. that's what bothered me...you're such an amazing badass and the entire galaxy sees it in the first. In the second one...not so much.
Nor do you get to decide the fate of an entire species, as you did in the first (and which has hints, during the second game, of maybe being something *actually* important for the 3rd game). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 18. |
Re: Mass Effect Multiplayer? |
May 29, 2010, 20:45 |
Jerykk |
|
|
I don't get why people think RPGs have to include inventory and granular leveling. It's perfectly possible to have an RPG without any leveling at all. There's also no hard and fast law that says that conflict resolution has to be clunky. If you can make a butter-smooth shooter for combat, why the hell not?
While I agree that leveling and inventories are not a necessity for RPGs, ME2 was still a pretty lousy RPG. There really wasn't much roleplaying. You could be nice or mean. That's about it. None of your choices have any meaningful consequences.
The best RPGs are the ones that have ambiguous choices with both short and long-term consequences. They also let you approach any given situation in a multitude of ways, typically divided into one of the following areas: combat, stealth, diplomacy. In ME2, you have to go with combat 99% of the time. Fallout, Planescape: Torment, Arcanum... those were great RPGs because there were so many different ways to solve any problem and so many ways to play the game. When I played Arcanum, my character was completely worthless in combat but extremely charismatic and persuasive. As a result, I had many followers (consisting of several half-ogres) who would do my dirty work when my smooth-talking ways failed. In ME2, the roleplaying is limited to how you kill your enemies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 17. |
Re: Mass Effect Multiplayer? |
May 29, 2010, 19:47 |
nutshell42 |
|
|
The problem with ME1's level design is that there WAS no level design in ME1. You had a few unique areas that were related to the main story, but every other place was a copy-pasta affair
There was a lot of main story.
But you're right I mostly ranted about ME2 because too many posts here were about how ME2 is soooo much better than ME1. So I couldn't resist to list all the crap that's wrong in ME2.
At least in ME2, all the places you go feel unique and identifiable.
The *wallpapers* feel unique and identifiable. The places are identical. A long string of corridors with rooms full of CHW like beads. Had they combined ME1's level design (level design as in designed. You're absolutely right that the sidequests weren't) with ME2's mission design (some were great. Tali's recruitment especially, and I don't even like her) it would have been a sight to behold.
Same for the side quests: 1 had the fluff, the talks with the people in despair, some missions that could be solved without shooting rows and rows of mercenaries, and then basking in the gratitude of the guy you helped. 2 had the meat in that the actual side quest missions weren't created with c&p.
That's perhaps the reason I can get so worked up over ME2. For every thing they fixed from ME1 they completely ruined something else for no real reason. I hope they have good lawyers because I think Games Workshop's got that patented.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 16. |
Re: Mass Effect Multiplayer? |
May 29, 2010, 19:41 |
MattyC |
|
|
Acleacius wrote on May 29, 2010, 15:35:
Plus there is NO crouching or jumping maybe the dumbest Shooter design, since cliffy the coop killer was given lead.
Um what? As a huge fan of co op gameplay, Gears of War, for all its faults, was some of the best co op in recent memory. If you want to rant about Cliffy B at least try to have the rant be somewhat relevant...  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 15. |
Re: Mass Effect Multiplayer? |
May 29, 2010, 19:06 |
ForgedReality |
|
|
nutshell42 wrote on May 29, 2010, 18:52:
- Did I mention that the ME2 level design was shit? Too much backtracking is boring but strictly linear design is boring, too. In this respect, too, ME1 was superior. The problem with ME1's level design is that there WAS no level design in ME1. You had a few unique areas that were related to the main story, but every other place was a copy-pasta affair. Land on a planet, find a portable trailer park, get inside, run around in the same exact predictable pattern, kill a few dudes, loot a few containers, leave. At least in ME2, all the places you go feel unique and identifiable.
But that won't change because they want us to buy outfits for $3 apiece. What? You didn't get this game to play Barbie Dress-Up? Bioware thinks you did. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 14. |
Re: Mass Effect Multiplayer? |
May 29, 2010, 19:01 |
Sepharo |
|
|
nutshell42 wrote on May 29, 2010, 18:52:
In ME2 OTOH gameplay was sterile. There's a reason everyone and his dog puts loot into their games. All you were doing was stealing money and the idiotic upgrade system (which forced you to mine. Thanks a lot Bioware)
Those 3 sentences pretty much explain why I haven't got back into playing ME2.
However I would like to watch someone else play if just for the story. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [I'm not trolling I'm just] tossing stuff like that in there only to get your panties all bunched up. -TrollinThundr |
|
|
|
|
| |
33 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >
|
|
Twitter 
