|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » News Comments » Mass Effect 3 - No "meaningless stats"

Default Mass Effect 3 - No "meaningless stats"

May 8th, 2011, 16:12
ME2 wasn't really an RPG. It sure kicked ass though. Bring on the next one!

"For Innos!"
ToddMcF2002 is offline

ToddMcF2002

ToddMcF2002's Avatar
SasqWatch

#41

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boston MA
Posts: 2,226

Default 

May 8th, 2011, 16:54
Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur View Post
People, people… Could be a slippery slope.

Some people seem to think that Bioware was a reference when it came to deliver quality RPGs hence a specific attention dedicated to Bioware's moves and evolution.
Well, Bioware IS a reference point for modern RPGs, on PC or otherwise. At one point, with the possible exception of some JRPGs and a few woefully unappreciated DSA titles in Europe, Black Isle (and Bioware thru their publishing association with said company) were the last, great hope for RPGs. They kept the flag flying through the mid-90s and, with the success of Baldur's Gate, made it possible to like and look forward to RPGs again.

That's why this hurts… because a flag-bearer (note, I didn't say "the" flag-bearer, as there are others) has decided to drop the RPG flag and raise another in its place. I enjoyed Mass Effect as a shooter with RPG elements, but where's my RPG? I thought Dragon Age was the Bioware RPG… well, that didn't work out. So, what's left? And, more importantly, WHO is left? Bethesda? Obsidian? CD Projekt? Piranha Bytes? Larian? Umm…. help me here folks… Don't make me say, Squaresoft… The number of companies producing real, dyed-in-the-wool RPGs is dwindling. And each one of those companies is looking for ways to tap into the FPS/Action market.

Whether we like it or not, Bioware is a leader in the RPG genre. When they move, others will move as well.
Falchor is offline

Falchor

Falchor's Avatar
Watchdog

#42

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Southern US
Posts: 217

Default 

May 8th, 2011, 17:12
Originally Posted by Falchor View Post
Whether we like it or not, Bioware is a leader in the RPG genre. When they move, others will move as well.
That right there is what worries me I dont want every rpg to be only action orientated or be a FPS/RPG hybrid but your right.

"Beware the potato for he is easily angered."- Couchpotato
Couchpotato is offline

Couchpotato

Couchpotato's Avatar
LazyGamer
RPGWatch Team

#43

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Potato Land
Posts: 8,703

Default 

May 8th, 2011, 21:56
BioWaste should just simply stop claiming they make RPGs.
Capt. Huggy Face is offline

Capt. Huggy Face

Capt. Huggy Face's Avatar
Magicky Utok

#44

Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 957

Default 

May 8th, 2011, 23:46
Originally Posted by Capt. Huggy Face View Post
BioWaste should just simply stop claiming they make RPGs.
I agree… If you want to make a shooter, because you think the dollars are there, make a Borderlands clone. I enjoyed Borderlands for what it was and never once felt like I was playing an RPG. They need to just take the RPG moniker off the game covers and advertise the games as Action>Adventure, ala Assassin's Creed. Because that's really what their games have become.
Falchor is offline

Falchor

Falchor's Avatar
Watchdog

#45

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Southern US
Posts: 217

Default 

May 9th, 2011, 06:45
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
No, and it's quite alright that you can't fathom my stance. I can' fathom yours. This is why I don't want to go through a vast debate - back and forth - about why I think they're really quite similar games. It's too much effort for too little gain.

Sometimes, I find that people are so "out of reach" in terms of meeting in the middle - that I don't have the energy required to try.

So, when people start out by saying that KotOR and ME are COMPLETELY different games - I just say: "Ehm, alright - let's drop it."

If you'd said something more reasonable like "They're similar, true, but with key differences." - then I might have debated why I would even contest that - though I do see some natural evolutionary changes - based on technology and the higher focus on cinematics over gameplay.
I was not doing a listing of their similarities and differences, I was saying in general they are very different games… because they are. The main gameplay component in both games is combat, as it is in pretty much every RPG. That is what you will do the majority of the time. Combat in those two games is diametrically opposed… real-time skill-based shooting compared to traditional pause and play dice rolls.

Yes, they are both sci-fi games with similar dialogue setups in the traditional Bioware style. Only an idiot would argue otherwise. That does not mean they are the same though, to the main gameplay component being completely opposite.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
No, you were posting in an open thread - without indicating any kind of audience.

In any case, this isn't about liking ME3 or ME2. I liked ME2 as a shooter, but I didn't like the direction they took it.

This is about trusting Bioware to know what they're doing when they say "we're removing meaningless stats".
I'm not sure what someone who disliked ME2 would have to gain from posting in this thread. I assumed people interested in ME3 were fans of ME2. For example why would I go post in a thread expressing concern about the future of Pokemon when I have never played Pokemon and have no interest in Pokemon? If someone is worried about the future of Mass Effect that tells me they enjoy Mass Effect.

In any case of course ME3 will be more shooter than RPG, just like ME2 was (and arguably ME1 was). This is not news and if you thought ME3 might be a CRPG then I question your sanity.
DoctorNarrative is offline

DoctorNarrative

DoctorNarrative's Avatar
Patroling Written Words

#46

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,825

Default 

May 9th, 2011, 06:48
Originally Posted by Falchor View Post
I agree… If you want to make a shooter, because you think the dollars are there, make a Borderlands clone. I enjoyed Borderlands for what it was and never once felt like I was playing an RPG. They need to just take the RPG moniker off the game covers and advertise the games as Action>Adventure, ala Assassin's Creed. Because that's really what their games have become.
Why does it matter what the media call it? Zelda has been called an adventure game and so has Sam and Max, despite being complete opposites. That label does not harm my enjoyment of either one, and neither do the labels on Mass Effect. It's a game in the end, and a very good one. Take it for what it is and be happier.
DoctorNarrative is offline

DoctorNarrative

DoctorNarrative's Avatar
Patroling Written Words

#47

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,825

Default 

May 9th, 2011, 08:09
Originally Posted by DoctorNarrative View Post
I was not doing a listing of their similarities and differences, I was saying in general they are very different games… because they are. The main gameplay component in both games is combat, as it is in pretty much every RPG. That is what you will do the majority of the time. Combat in those two games is diametrically opposed… real-time skill-based shooting compared to traditional pause and play dice rolls.

Yes, they are both sci-fi games with similar dialogue setups in the traditional Bioware style. Only an idiot would argue otherwise. That does not mean they are the same though, to the main gameplay component being completely opposite.
You don't seem to understand that I have no interest in debating this with you. If you think stating things as fact will make them true - then by all means do do. I just don't agree.

Now, if you REALLY want me to make it clear why I think they're nearly identical in terms of gameplay structure and the overall experience - then I suppose I could. But I honestly don't look forward to hearing "yeah, sure, but all fantasy games have swords - so in a sci-fi game, all those similarities mean nothing."

You can't prove something on a public forum, unless the person you're debating with is nearer your position than yours seem to be to mine.

We'll just go in circles endlessly - defending our position. I have to assume you really mean what you're saying, but there's also the chance that you're just being stubborn like so many others. That's even less motivating.

You know?

I'm not sure what someone who disliked ME2 would have to gain from posting in this thread. I assumed people interested in ME3 were fans of ME2. For example why would I go post in a thread expressing concern about the future of Pokemon when I have never played Pokemon and have no interest in Pokemon? If someone is worried about the future of Mass Effect that tells me they enjoy Mass Effect.
I'm not sure why you're deliberately ignoring that I've said I liked ME2 fine for what it is.

Could you accept that here and now, please?

Beyond that, I don't limit myself to games that I'm a fan of - and I don't intend to ignore every bit of news posted that relates to such games. If I find the debate interesting - I'll join in.

I'm very interested in gaming as a hobby, and as such - the gaming industry and what's happening to it - is of GREAT interest to me.

That's why I like to speak my piece against current trends that I think are harmful to the experience. Just like I spoke against DA2 and what Bioware were doing with it, LONG before release. I clearly recall people saying much the same thing - that I should trust in Bioware and stay the hell out of such threads because I obviously didn't like their stuff.

In any case of course ME3 will be more shooter than RPG, just like ME2 was (and arguably ME1 was). This is not news and if you thought ME3 might be a CRPG then I question your sanity.
The question is whether it's true what we've been hearing about Bioware introducing more CRPG elements in ME3. If that's true, then I might be more interested in ME3 than I thought.

However, when they come out and say things like "we'll remove meaningless stats" - I have to say my lack of faith is restored.

Is that really so hard to understand?
Last edited by DArtagnan; May 9th, 2011 at 09:00.
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#48

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 13,841

Default 

May 9th, 2011, 09:03
Originally Posted by Falchor View Post
I agree… If you want to make a shooter, because you think the dollars are there, make a Borderlands clone. I enjoyed Borderlands for what it was and never once felt like I was playing an RPG. They need to just take the RPG moniker off the game covers and advertise the games as Action>Adventure, ala Assassin's Creed. Because that's really what their games have become.
Trouble is that reputation is capital, reputation is an asset.

Bioware is synonym to quality RPGs. That is the capital they built up.

They are nobody in the sector of action adventure. They can barely market themselves on that ground.

Now, if they manage to get more and more quality action adventure games, more and more quality shooters, they will be able to introduce themselves as they are.
ChienAboyeur is offline

ChienAboyeur

SasqWatch

#49

Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,007

Default 

May 9th, 2011, 09:15
Originally Posted by Dasale View Post
That's not wrong but in what shooter you get living companions, bother equipping your vessel, is doing multiple quests and choose their order, get team fights with some tactical values (positioning, progressing path, and some more), need do few choices that seem important, and some more?


. It's time shooters came back to a deeper design.
+1

And another one for mentioning Marathon, an epic gaming memory.

Shooting flak at ME3 just because some people are disgruntled with the direction taken in DA2 seems to me a waste of energy.

I applaud BW for having the guts to make a space opera, honestly, how much of these have we seen in the last decade?

With that quality and immersion?

I have no idea were they are going with ME3. I loved the open feeling and exploration of iteration #1 (yes, I spent a lot of time in the mako ) but combat was much smoother in #2

To me, it seems like a narrow and rather dull world having rigid criteria to be filled if something is to be enjoyed. "Oh, we cant jump!, this game is teh suxxor and the developers shoot on sight!"

To each his own, but I think you have more fun with games, and life in general if you get rid of preconceptions and take it for what it is.

Who knows, I might even enjoy DA2 when finally buy and play it ( when I'm certain that there will be no more DLC … )

C
Crilloan is offline

Crilloan

Sentinel

#50

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: WGS84 Latitud:59.85 Longitud:17.65
Posts: 350

Default 

May 9th, 2011, 11:25
That's framed.

Equipping a space ship? Not that many shooters are set into space.
Equipping the ship is also a by product from the constraint of the famous suicide mission delivery promise. It is a cheap trick to inflate the number of casualties.

The other points…

Tactical value: first, tactical shooters are a sub genre of the shooter genre. Claiming that ME2 adds to the genre is ludicrous. The tactical value of ME2 is average. Some well designed levels but mostly the action is frontal, with very few redeployments forced on the player due to flanking. Enemies can turn your side if you are careless but they seldom trap you in a pocket of fire. The game leans towards defensive tactics and attrition strategy rather than aggression and mobile fire lines.
An average tactical cover based combat shooter.

Squad based tactical shooteer: was explored by developpers around the 2000s, coming up with more ambitions mechanics than ME2, as those tactical shooters included non frontal action, thus a variety of commands available to teammates.

As online gaming got wide spread, investing into a sensible AI able to assess complicated situation grew a redundant expenditure. Human players tagging along are able to provide higher quality in squad tactics.

Living characters: save the omnipresence of cutscenes to achieve a cinematrophic effect, tactical shooters offered for some characters with a past, a present and a future.

The route taken by Bioware through ME2 is one already explored. 5 or 6 years older tactical shooters offered deeper tactics, squad based actions and turned to online features to move to the next step.

Very little new in ME2.
ChienAboyeur is offline

ChienAboyeur

SasqWatch

#51

Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,007

Default 

May 9th, 2011, 12:08
Originally Posted by Dasale View Post
It's like if Bioware is the messiah deciding the future of RPG.
I think this is hugely based on something which is absolutely irrelevant to modern businesspeople :

Reputation.

Bioware did build up a HUGE reputation - for delivering Baldur's Gate alone !

And for their following ganes, too !

That's why everyone looks kso much at Bioware, I assume.


Modern business people give a BEEEEEEP on reputation.
Sales are much, much, much, much, much more important to them.

“ Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage – to move in the opposite direction.“ (E.F.Schumacher, Economist, Source)
Alrik Fassbauer is offline

Alrik Fassbauer

Alrik Fassbauer's Avatar
TL;DR

#52

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Old Europe
Posts: 15,855

Default 

May 9th, 2011, 12:52
Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer View Post
I think this is hugely based on something which is absolutely irrelevant to modern businesspeople :

Reputation.

Bioware did build up a HUGE reputation - for delivering Baldur's Gate alone !

And for their following ganes, too !

That's why everyone looks kso much at Bioware, I assume.


Modern business people give a BEEEEEEP on reputation.
Sales are much, much, much, much, much more important to them.
The whole business reminds me of an old movie called Jerry Maguire the scence were they say there friends but unless he gets more money its over. Money is all that matters not the customer. Remember the line show me the money thats all they want.

"Beware the potato for he is easily angered."- Couchpotato
Couchpotato is offline

Couchpotato

Couchpotato's Avatar
LazyGamer
RPGWatch Team

#53

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Potato Land
Posts: 8,703

Default 

May 9th, 2011, 14:07
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
You don't seem to understand that I have no interest in debating this with you. If you think stating things as fact will make them true - then by all means do do. I just don't agree.

Now, if you REALLY want me to make it clear why I think they're nearly identical in terms of gameplay structure and the overall experience - then I suppose I could. But I honestly don't look forward to hearing "yeah, sure, but all fantasy games have swords - so in a sci-fi game, all those similarities mean nothing."

You can't prove something on a public forum, unless the person you're debating with is nearer your position than yours seem to be to mine.

We'll just go in circles endlessly - defending our position. I have to assume you really mean what you're saying, but there's also the chance that you're just being stubborn like so many others. That's even less motivating.

You know?
I just want to know how skill-based shooting combat can be the same as dice rolls, really. That is what makes the games so different for me. Explain to me how those become the same or near the same to you and I will shut up.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
I'm not sure why you're deliberately ignoring that I've said I liked ME2 fine for what it is.

Could you accept that here and now, please?
I don't have an issue with that. You said I wasn't speaking to ME2 fans because I posted on a public forum. My response is why would people who disliked ME2 care about ME3?

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
Beyond that, I don't limit myself to games that I'm a fan of - and I don't intend to ignore every bit of news posted that relates to such games. If I find the debate interesting - I'll join in.

I'm very interested in gaming as a hobby, and as such - the gaming industry and what's happening to it - is of GREAT interest to me.
Yeah, same here in a lot of ways. I would not go into a discussion about a game series I don't like and worry about the future of it though. I have no interest in Nintendo games so while I might debate their place in the industry, their sales or why I dislike them I would not go into a debate about what would be best for the next Mario game.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
That's why I like to speak my piece against current trends that I think are harmful to the experience. Just like I spoke against DA2 and what Bioware were doing with it, LONG before release. I clearly recall people saying much the same thing - that I should trust in Bioware and stay the hell out of such threads because I obviously didn't like their stuff.
I just mean you should trust the Mass Effect team to make a good Mass Effect game until we know more information. I don't mean go pre-order it, I mean don't jump to conclusions when the head of EA makes some BS statement to investors.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
The question is whether it's true what we've been hearing about Bioware introducing more CRPG elements in ME3. If that's true, then I might be more interested in ME3 than I thought.

However, when they come out and say things like "we'll remove meaningless stats" - I have to say my lack of faith is restored.

Is that really so hard to understand?
For the record they mean stats with no meaning, they do not mean removing stats because they are meaningless. There is a lot of twisting of that statement going around on RPG forums in order to justify bashing of Bioware.

Anyway, I don't think by more RPG elements they means hardcore CRPG stuff. I would expect it will be ME2 with some ME1 stuff added back in like maybe inventory or persuasion. We shall see though. Whether it is more RPG or not though I have faith it will be a great game.

For now!
DoctorNarrative is offline

DoctorNarrative

DoctorNarrative's Avatar
Patroling Written Words

#54

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,825

Default 

May 9th, 2011, 14:22
When an unstoppable force meets an immovable object…
JDR13 is offline

JDR13

JDR13's Avatar
SasqWatch

#55

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida, US
Posts: 17,454

Default 

May 9th, 2011, 14:25
Originally Posted by DoctorNarrative View Post
I just want to know how skill-based shooting combat can be the same as dice rolls, really. That is what makes the games so different for me. Explain to me how those become the same or near the same to you and I will shut up.
I didn't say the combat systems were identical, I said the games were VERY similar overall.

I said both games have real-time pausable combat systems - though KotOR uses the "under the hood turn-based" approach. For the end-user - both games are real-time pausable.

I have no idea why you think the finer points of the combat system is integral to the overall experience of a game, but suffice it to say we disagree.

If you want me to say that the combat systems are different, then you're absolutely right.

In fact, the combat mechanics behind the systems is one of the problems I had with Mass Effect 1 (from KotOR) - because it went from interesting mechanics, to an utterly simplistic "Skill I rank 1 1% - Skill II rank 2 2%" and "Gun I - 1 dam - Gun II - 2 dam" system. I hated that.

I don't particularly mind the move from a character-based system to more of a player-based system, but the mechanics supporting it should be interesting. They weren't.

To make it clear to you, imagine Fallout 3 as an isometric game - with the same combat system. In that case, I would have considered Fallout 3 VERY similar to Fallout 2 - except that the combat system was different and less interesting.

The only reason I consider Fallout 3 somewhat different in structure to Fallout 2 - is because of the move towards first person perspective. Yet, they're still very similar games. Only, Fallout 3 un-modded is nowhere near as good as the previous games. The devil is in the details, and it's much the same for me with Mass Effect.

I don't have an issue with that. You said I wasn't speaking to ME2 fans because I posted on a public forum. My response is why would people who disliked ME2 care about ME3?
Maybe because they liked ME and heard that ME3 would have more CRPG elements?

Still, I don't see the relevance to the question here.

Yeah, same here in a lot of ways. I would not go into a discussion about a game series I don't like and worry about the future of it though. I have no interest in Nintendo games so while I might debate their place in the industry, their sales or why I dislike them I would not go into a debate about what would be best for the next Mario game.
That's how we differ, though I can't say how much you know about platform game design and your experience with them.

I like shooters and I love CRPGs - which is why I consider it natural to participate in debates orbiting the big ones of the genre.

I just mean you should trust the Mass Effect team to make a good Mass Effect game until we know more information. I don't mean go pre-order it, I mean don't jump to conclusions when the head of EA makes some BS statement to investors.
Not trusting them is based on my experience with them. It's not "jumping to conclusions" because there's the possibility of being wrong. I still prefer to learn from experience, rather than having faith where it's not earned.

For the record they mean stats with no meaning, they do not mean removing stats because they are meaningless. There is a lot of twisting of that statement going around on RPG forums in order to justify bashing of Bioware.
I read it, and as I understand it - they consider stats that have no direct and visible effect on the outcomes - have been removed.

This, coupled with my experience of the direction of Bioware games since KotOR - makes me very, VERY sceptical about what they could possibly mean here.

Anyway, I don't think by more RPG elements they means hardcore CRPG stuff. I would expect it will be ME2 with some ME1 stuff added back in like maybe inventory or persuasion. We shall see though. Whether it is more RPG or not though I have faith it will be a great game.
I'm not sure what you mean by hardcore CRPG stuff. I was mildly intrigued by the mere mention of implementing more CRPG stuff - but until we know exactly what they mean, I can't say for sure.

I just don't trust them to make a decision that will suit me, as they haven't been very good at that lately.
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#56

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 13,841

Default 

May 10th, 2011, 04:58
I wouldn't be surprised if the next game by EAware is Farmville of Duty Effect. Since CoD numbers seem to be going down, guess they'll now try to make all their games like Farmville which is the new black
wolfing is offline

wolfing

wolfing's Avatar
Wonders what SasqWatch is

#57

Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,105

Default 

May 10th, 2011, 05:10
Originally Posted by wolfing View Post
I wouldn't be surprised if the next game by EAware is Farmville of Duty Effect. Since CoD numbers seem to be going down, guess they'll now try to make all their games like Farmville which is the new black
They already have a Dragon Age Facebook game. For real.

http://www.ea.com/dragon-age-legends/media/tag/bioware
Motoki is offline

Motoki

Keeper of the Watch

#58

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 966

Default 

May 10th, 2011, 07:42
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
I didn't say the combat systems were identical, I said the games were VERY similar overall.
That's fine. I think the real issue here is I consider combat to be the central part of the game, so a significant difference in combat means the games are significantly different.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
I just don't trust them to make a decision that will suit me, as they haven't been very good at that lately.
The Mass Effect team have been very good at it in my opinion, so I trust them for now. If you didn't like ME2 as much as ME1 then you're of course free to think otherwise.
DoctorNarrative is offline

DoctorNarrative

DoctorNarrative's Avatar
Patroling Written Words

#59

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,825

Default 

May 10th, 2011, 08:31
Originally Posted by DoctorNarrative View Post
That's fine. I think the real issue here is I consider combat to be the central part of the game, so a significant difference in combat means the games are significantly different.
It IS an important part of the game, but it's not enough to make the entire structure different - in my opinion. I tend to look at combat more as the means to an end - and the key aspect is whether it's entertaining or not.

I've never been one to defend turn-based over real-time, or character-based over player-based. To me, they all work when done well. So, even for my favorite games - they could change the combat entirely without it mattering - as long as the result was better. If not, then why change it?

If it's entertaining - then that's all that matters. For me, a game and its structure is about how everything falls together - and how the game flows and progresses. What features are implemented, and how well they come together as a whole. That, and much much more make up the whole of a game.

If you look at Mass Effect and KotOR, you'll find that they're both "space operas", and they're both about saving the universe. They both feature a LOT of spoken dialogue - and the character interaction takes up a huge part of the gameplay. They both include specific powers to influence dialogue - in very similar ways. They both feature very similar "good/evil - paragon/renegade" systems. They both feature combat systems where you can pause the game and select targets and powers. They both have similar class choices. They both give you a personal ship that functions as your primary "home". They both allow you to explore the ship and investigate the various systems. They both have 4-5 different "hub" locations with a linear structure that make up the main story. They're both relatively open about when you approach those story-locations. They both feature a starting "minor location", intended to make you get your bearings. They're both giving you several companions to choose from, that each have their own background and ways to get them to open up. They both feature romantic options with primary NPCs. They both have a party structure of 3, with very similar skill-sets - as in opening locks, electronic tampering, and so forth. They both have major twists that happen after mid-game. They both feature several cinematic sequences that show the evil dudes doing their thing right after you've done something to combat them. They both have weapon and armor modification with similar effects. They both feature a shit-ton of push-over trash combat - and a select few "challenging" bosses.

I could go on, really.

But I think I've made my point now.

The Mass Effect team have been very good at it in my opinion, so I trust them for now. If you didn't like ME2 as much as ME1 then you're of course free to think otherwise.
I'm free to think otherwise, regardless.

But I take your meaning
Last edited by DArtagnan; May 10th, 2011 at 09:31.
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#60

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 13,841
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » News Comments » Mass Effect 3 - No "meaningless stats"
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 05:53.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch