|
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 7th, 2011, 11:33
I would agree with Dartagnan here, Mass Effect was pretty much KOTOR without the Star Wars IP and with "stat-based FPS-ish combat" taking the place of the "traditional semi real-time with pause combat"… but the games were very similar, and there's a reason Mass Effect was often considered a spiritual successor to KOTOR. Indeed when I have people asking me for a game "like KOTOR" I immediately recommend Mass Effect.

However I don't feel Mass Effect 2 was drastically different from ME1… it had less stats and combat was obviously more on the TPS side but it still felt very much like ME1 IMO.

Regarding the topic at hand, I think Bioware should take a cue from Obsidian as to how you can… you know… use stats for dialogues and not just combat.

-Sergorn
Sergorn is offline

Sergorn

Watchdog

#21

Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 207

Default 

May 7th, 2011, 11:55
Originally Posted by JDR13 View Post
I don't think it's possible to take a huge step down from KoTOR in terms of game mechanics.
As much as your right I enjoyed both KoTOR. Its the usual Bioware PR create negative hype and hate to promote there games. The surprising thing is it works.

"We must stand strong my fellow watchers against the horde of red trolls."- The Couchpotato
Couchpotato is offline

Couchpotato

Couchpotato's Avatar
LazyGamer
RPGWatch Team

#22

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Potato Land
Posts: 9,562

Default 

May 7th, 2011, 12:36
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
Nah, I'm going to have to go by my experience with Bioware. At this point, they're WAY beyond the benefit of the doubt.

However, if they ever manage to go in the right direction again, I'll be happy to acknowledge it. In fact, I'll be plain happy - as they used to make fantastic stuff.
I don't have any more hope with current Bioware.
Seeing how arrogant they are when they try to teach us what we should like in games…

The fact is that they are very bad at designing game mechanisms, with over-simplistic rules, basic black and white dialogue options (or dark and light grey if we refer to Dragon Age) - I talk about the options, not the dialogues itselves - and so on.

Basically, current Bioware is nothing more than a movie maker.
But personnally, when I want to be told a story with nice scenery and good voice acting, I watch a movie…

Edit: not to mention the infamous DLC-based business model, biasing the content of the main game
Last edited by Nilwarp; May 7th, 2011 at 13:13.
Nilwarp is offline

Nilwarp

Traveler

#23

Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2

Default 

May 7th, 2011, 13:24
I think they should add accessibility options in the main menu. That would be an awesome button.

Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. - John F Kennedy
An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
The world is my country. To do good is my religion. My mind is my own church. This simple creed is all we need to enjoy peace on earth. - Thomas Paine
JemyM is offline

JemyM

JemyM's Avatar
Okay, now roll sanity.

#24

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,028
Send a message via ICQ to JemyM Send a message via MSN to JemyM

Default 

May 7th, 2011, 13:36
Originally Posted by Roi Danton View Post
ME2 is, in my opinion a shooter with rpg elements and story focus. And thats far better than strange RPG/Shooter mix part one was. I always felt that they planned part one to be played like Kotor but then thought that a FPS style would be better and tacked that one.

Now of they would only get rid of that stupid cover system I'd be even more pleased but I highly doubt that. Cover is "DA THING" at the moment.
Yeah I love a lot that cover thing, but I just dislike modern fps and only want some fps design coming back to Doom approach. That said if ME1 got me bored with its covers and general fight approach, it's a point that surprised me in ME2, bringing some tactical feeling through a more static and layout based approach, something I didn't experiment before in fps. For me they just need diversify more but certainly not remove this less common approach.
Dasale is offline

Dasale

SasqWatch

#25

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,096

Default 

May 7th, 2011, 14:25
Mass Effect = KoTOR ? O_o Mass Effect a spiritual successor to KoTOR???? O_o

What the hell are the people smoking here?
azarhal is offline

azarhal

SasqWatch
RPGWatch Donor

#26

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,514

Default 

May 7th, 2011, 14:32
Originally Posted by azarhal View Post
Mass Effect = KoTOR ? O_o Mass Effect a spiritual successor to KoTOR???? O_o

What the hell are the people smoking here?
I do agree, I played only a little part of Kotor1 and fights bored me, but it's just at another level than ME1. And for ME2 it's just another planet so no real comparison point.

And I'm not at all a fan of star wars, for me during 70's it was the awful crap of terribly dumbed down Science Fiction. That opinion never changed much, but to have seen the second movie much much later made me temper a little bit, not much, it's still crap dumbed down science fiction for the masses, but not a that bad movie after all.
Dasale is offline

Dasale

SasqWatch

#27

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,096

Default 

May 7th, 2011, 14:37
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
You're talking about differences in the combat system - and I'm talking about the games overall.

In any case, we'll have to agree to disagree about this. Of all the things likely to be debated, this has to be one of the most surprising - especially from someone like you.
I don't get what you're driving at, the games are pretty different. The main gameplay mechanic of Mass Effect is cover-based shooting almost entirely based on player skill. The main gameplay mechanic of KotOR is stat-based combat based almost entirely on character skill. Those are the two opposite ends of the RPG spectrum.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
I like more than one genre as well. But I prefer some genres over others. In this case, I'm talking about CRPGs - and how I like them. If they want to be making shooters, then fine, but don't go talking about stats in CRPGs as meaningless - unless you're willing to be called on it.

There's a reason you have stats, even if there's no immediately visible result from all of them.

I'm not particularly fond of shooters - and I can take them or leave them.

A good story-driven sci-fi shooter is fine, and Mass Effect 2 would quality as decent. Personally, I'd probably rate it 7 or something like that - that low mostly because they let monkeys design their combat cover setups, and because I wasn't expecting THAT much of a shooter.

Mass Effect 2 done like a proper CRPG, though, would most likely rate 9 or more. Except I didn't care for the story and characters, but then again - I was always a gameplay guy.
And that's your opinion. I don't really see what that has to do with me trusting the Bioware Mass Effect team because I love their work, or me saying most people probably trust the Bioware Mass Effect team since the game found widespread consumer acclaim and almost unanimous critical acclaim. Not everyone liked The Godfather either but I still would have said "let's have some faith in Coppolla" before the premier of Godfather 2.

Of course you're not that excited for a shooter with RPG elements if you don't like shooters much. That's not some kind of revelation.
DoctorNarrative is offline

DoctorNarrative

DoctorNarrative's Avatar
Patroling Written Words

#28

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,825

Default 

May 7th, 2011, 14:55
Originally Posted by DoctorNarrative View Post
I don't get what you're driving at, the games are pretty different. The main gameplay mechanic of Mass Effect is cover-based shooting almost entirely based on player skill. The main gameplay mechanic of KotOR is stat-based combat based almost entirely on character skill. Those are the two opposite ends of the RPG spectrum.
As I pointed out clearly, I think we should agree to disagree. To me, this is like arguing with someone claiming that blue is green. Not worth our time.

And that's your opinion. I don't really see what that has to do with me trusting the Bioware Mass Effect team because I love their work, or me saying most people probably trust the Bioware Mass Effect team since the game found widespread consumer acclaim and almost unanimous critical acclaim. Not everyone liked The Godfather either but I still would have said "let's have some faith in Coppolla" before the premier of Godfather 2.

Of course you're not that excited for a shooter with RPG elements if you don't like shooters much. That's not some kind of revelation.
In the future, when you suggest that people give others the benefit of the doubt - and they then explain to you their position, as in why they won't - you might do well to understand that such an explanation has nothing to do with offering up a revelation or telling you what you should do.
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#29

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,468

Default 

May 7th, 2011, 21:52
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
As I pointed out clearly, I think we should agree to disagree. To me, this is like arguing with someone claiming that blue is green. Not worth our time.
I cannot fathom your stance here, but whatever works for you I guess. Kind of strange that someone who "focuses on gameplay" can't see the massive difference between the two games.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
In the future, when you suggest that people give others the benefit of the doubt - and they then explain to you their position, as in why they won't - you might do well to understand that such an explanation has nothing to do with offering up a revelation or telling you what you should do.
I was speaking to people who enjoyed ME2. The article is about them supposedly removing some stat elements in ME3 compared to ME2. My point was if you liked ME2 have a little faith you will like ME3.

I don't really know what the point of debating ME3 with someone who didn't like ME2 would be. Let me give you a hint: you won't love ME3 either.
DoctorNarrative is offline

DoctorNarrative

DoctorNarrative's Avatar
Patroling Written Words

#30

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,825

Default 

May 7th, 2011, 22:01
I my opinion, the direction is too clear : This game series is growing seriously into a shooter …

“ 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

#31

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Old Europe
Posts: 15,983

Default 

May 7th, 2011, 22:24
Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer View Post
I my opinion, the direction is too clear : This game series is growing seriously into a shooter …
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?

None as far I know. I stop enjoy shooters after few first shooters, after that only few multiplayers shooters got my interest, and it's a huge surprise to see a shooter make a come back in my enjoyment sphere. But for me shooter had not be only shooters, only Doom series succeed make me enjoy that, not even fully Duke Nuken 3D. Few other like Marathon had much more with strong story, objectives, puzzles, secrets, good exploration, and more. It's time shooters came back to a deeper design.
Dasale is offline

Dasale

SasqWatch

#32

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,096

Default 

May 8th, 2011, 08:27
Originally Posted by DoctorNarrative View Post
I cannot fathom your stance here, but whatever works for you I guess. Kind of strange that someone who "focuses on gameplay" can't see the massive difference between the two games.
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 speaking to people who enjoyed ME2. The article is about them supposedly removing some stat elements in ME3 compared to ME2. My point was if you liked ME2 have a little faith you will like ME3.

I don't really know what the point of debating ME3 with someone who didn't like ME2 would be. Let me give you a hint: you won't love ME3 either.
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".

You said we were jumping the gun, and I said I don't think so. Then you went on about why YOU trust Bioware - as if that was relevant to why I don't.

You really need to be more accountable, when it comes to your statements.

It's useless to try and force people to agree with you, because that's not how we work.
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#33

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,468

Default 

May 8th, 2011, 09:21
Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer View Post
I my opinion, the direction is too clear : This game series is growing seriously into a shooter …
Link-http://www.hookedgamers.com/editoria…g_to_show.html
After all, thousands of fans expressed their disappointment in Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3 suffering a similar fate would be devastating to BioWare’s standing in the community. I fear, however, that other reasons are behind the decision. Those reasons can be found in statements made by EA CEO John Riccitiello during EA’s latest 'investors update':

"[Bioware] is adjusting some of the gameplay mechanics and some of the features, which we'll see at E3, that can put this into a genre equivalent of shooter meets RPG, and essentially address a far larger market opportunity than Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2 began to approach."

Oh dear.

We’ve heard similar words before. Dragon Age 2 was promised to be more ‘streamlined’, a word that is now jokingly made synonymous to ‘dumbed down’ and feared today by fans the world over as it is being applied to their favorite franchises. Riccitiello avoided using the word streamlined but it makes you wonder if it isn’t time to update your favorite thesaurus by adding "adjusting" to the ‘dumbed down’ section.



For now it is best to just forget about any multiplayer component and focus on whether Mass Effect 3 will even resemble an RPG on its release. If we are lucky, BioWare will retain some of their storytelling charm outside of all the gunfights. There wasn’t much RPG-ing left after Bioware was done with Dragon Age 2 but I was willing to give them one more chance to redeem themselves as a quality RPG developer.

Now, after hearing the direction they are taking with Mass Effect 3, I just cannot be bothered with them anymore. I hate to be so negative about a game so far off from release, but it is the attitude and development plans that resemble Dragon Age 2's shift in focus that has caused my worry. If anything, Mass Effect 3 is going to be very combat-focused and will function a lot more like a ‘twitchy’ shooter for all of those Call of Duty fans out there.

A nice Little article to read but I'm sure many will disagree. Just remember reality is that when your company has to show a return on a billion dollar investment as quickly as possible, shooters are more viable than traditional role-playing games. Its a proven revenue model with dlc..

Or this from Pcgamer reviewer Desslock

The ones we love always hurt us the most, and the roleplaying genre has, over its many years, inflicted its rabid adherents with a few post-traumatic stress disorder-inducing moments. The most infamous occasion was the 1994 release of Ultima VIII: Pagan, the sequel to one of the most beloved RPGs. It completely abandoned the renowned features of its predecessor, and its reception prompted a written apology by series creator Richard Garriott. The simplified Deus Ex: Invisible War was another PTSD moment, as was Bethesda’s transformation of the Fallout franchise (for isometric perspective turn-based combat fans, at least).

Ultimately, whether or not you’re traumatized by changes to a beloved franchise depends upon how much you personally cared about those specific features that were most mutated. I actually love Fallout 3 as much as its predecessors, and wasn’t remotely turned off by Bethesda’s radical design changes, but other fans felt betrayed. Similarly, many RPG fans are enjoying Dragon Age 2, but for me, its release is very much a Pagan moment.

This is probably my most subjective point, but I really despise the graphical changes in DA2. I love the realistic, gritty artistic style of Dragon Age: Origins. It’s grounded, and doesn’t look like a cartoonish Final Fantasy game or an anime movie. It’s Tolkien, as opposed to World of Warcraft. Dragon Age 2 is the opposite: it’s characters are blindingly colorful, with absurdly disproportionate features, twirling fancifully-oversized and apparently weightless weapons that detonate their cartoonish enemies into fountains of gore. I find it embarrassing to play a game that looks so child-ish. The last thing Dragon Age needs is to look and feel more like God of War. Dragon Age 2’s environments are attractive, but even that’s offset by the fact that they’re also recycled more frequently than in any previous RPG I can name (maybe in any game since Halo), and they’re just as non-interactive and even more relentlessly linear than in Origins.

What annoys me most, though, are the changes to Dragon Age’s combat. The tactical, isometric perspective has been pointlessly removed, characters hop around the battlefield like spastic Spider-Men, and combat is so frenetically paced that it’s needlessly difficult to manage an entire party of characters. To compensate for the design (which seems primarily intended to allow gamers who don’t like messing with details to control a single character) the game has been made incredibly unchallenging. Friendly fire has essentially been removed, since it’s now relegated to an impractical option only available on the highest difficulty level—and it doesn’t even work there, since the game clearly wasn’t designed to accommodate it.

Also lost is Origins’ feeling that each battle is a carefully designed tactical set piece, with enemies sensibly placed to utilize terrain features or otherwise effectively organized. In the sequel, enemies are generally just jumbled together in meaningless masses, and each battle is indistinguishable from the last. Reinforcements haphazardly appear in virtually every fight, often behind your party, rendering tactical placement pointless. The lengthiest combat sequences are just arduous battles of attrition against enemies possessing massive hit point pools, rather than posing more tactical challenges.
At least Dragon Age 2, unlike Pagan, does have some significant strengths, particularly in its storytelling. Additionally, the UI is effectively streamlined, and the new skill trees are an interesting way to shape character development. The look and combat aren’t inherently poor, and would’ve been perfectly worthwhile in a sequel to BioWare’s other experimental action RPG, Jade Empire. As part of the Dragon Age saga, however, this is more like a spin-off than a sequel.
Its just not players anymore even the mainstream reviewers are starting to worry. Bioware's time in the light is darkening.

"We must stand strong my fellow watchers against the horde of red trolls."- The Couchpotato
Couchpotato is offline

Couchpotato

Couchpotato's Avatar
LazyGamer
RPGWatch Team

#34

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Potato Land
Posts: 9,562

Default 

May 8th, 2011, 09:40
Lol, the first guy is totally blind to not have realized that ME2 is already a lot more streamlined than is DA2. And probably that's ME2 that drag DA2 to that path.

And for the second, first pcgamer is never my source for anything related to games, second yeah one more DAO disappointed fan, but who care?
Dasale is offline

Dasale

SasqWatch

#35

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,096

Default 

May 8th, 2011, 09:51
Expanding from ME2 into ME3, delivering a very good shooter is at reach. It would take to refine the AI so they are more efficient at suppression fire, rethink slightly classes so they have more on the spot impact, allowing more aggressive tactics (and not primarly defensive tactics) etc

Absolutely at reach as the leap between ME2 and a superb ME3 shooter is small.

Now, when it comes to turn ME2 to the RPG side, it appears a totally different kind of mountains to climb on.

Wait and see but the path taken by the ME series seems hard to reverse and would probably be a waste as they are two fingers close to deliver an efficient shooter and an ocean wide to provide a good RPG game.

ME3 will be a game to see if Bioware has nearly completed their transformation, while keeping their trademark label for marketing causes (bioware: quality RPG games, quality shooter games, not yet)
ChienAboyeur is offline

ChienAboyeur

SasqWatch

#36

Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,078

Default 

May 8th, 2011, 10:02
I think that some sociologist or some psychoanalyst should analyze the reason of current importance given to Bioware by so many people.

It's like if Bioware is the messiah deciding the future of RPG. Isn't that a bit too much?
Dasale is offline

Dasale

SasqWatch

#37

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,096

Default 

May 8th, 2011, 10:26
At least one article points at a possible reason with
The ones we love always hurt us the most, and the roleplaying genre has, over its many years, inflicted its rabid adherents with a few post-traumatic stress disorder-inducing moments.
But it would require reading the article and secondly, not dismissing people's arguments because they write in this or that forum. Two qualities you seem deprived of.
ChienAboyeur is offline

ChienAboyeur

SasqWatch

#38

Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,078

Default 

May 8th, 2011, 11:05
Lol for you that is an explanation? Can I smile?

That someone hate more something because of disappointment, I can understand it, and what you quote doesn't explain more than this obvious mechanism. That doesn't answer to my question. Ie people are blind enough to believe there's only Bioware to make RPG? That's so ridiculous.
Dasale is offline

Dasale

SasqWatch

#39

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,096

Default 

May 8th, 2011, 11:54
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.
ChienAboyeur is offline

ChienAboyeur

SasqWatch

#40

Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,078
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 02:33.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch