Hardly. The shooter industry calls for competition: a lot of games available, big offer.
Bioware is nobody in the shooter industry. They cant rely on their reputation, recognized how to do and all.
In the rpg sector, it is another story. Advertized as a shooter, ME2 is one among many, from a low profile developper.
Advertized through the angle of RPG, it is another story. They managed to attract RPGers to FPS while doing so and hoped to attract shooties. They did not manage that much for the latter. What would have happened if they started straightly with shooter label? Would they have managed to attract RPGers?
As to going into the RP story, it was done before by others. People do not spend all their days and nights redefining what a dog is.
RPG name did not come up like that and it did end with a name like big decisions games for some reason apparently.
Hahaha. I find this post amusing, no offense. The people who have made Mass Effect a success are Xbox shooter fans. If they went even more shooter they would attract many more of these people then they already have.
You do realize shooters are more successful sales-wise than RPGs right? Bioware is not calling it an RPG to get higher sales. Calling it a shooter might get higher sales… if they came out tomorrow and said "we're going to focus on making it more of a blockbuster shooter" they would probably be doing themselves a favor, not the opposite.
They call it an RPG because to them story choice defines an RPG. They have said this many times. You can of course disagree with their definition, but then we get into the whole "what is an RPG?" thing again which is tired and pointless.
You obviously love there version then I have lost faith in anything this company does anymore. With every new game that comes out you hear the dreaded word streamlining to appeal even more. The cycle repeats itself and people still praise them for basically cutting what doesnt work instead of improving the game.
This has been talked about many times and quite frankly it amazes me how people can just roll over and accept everything they do.
I look forward to as stated the cracks get deeper as more fans loose faith maybe they will listen to there customers more and not shrug off well founded criticism. Instead they listen to the teen demographic for feeedback and you see what happens.I would hate to see a company I loved in the past follow the way of other studios who lost there way.
I doubt it will happen though since most of there fanbase love everything this company's does. That is the sad part no expects bioware to improve there fine with every game that's released and if you have a problem your just a hater or an rpg elitist. This current attitude of this generation toward games just has me shaking my head in shame. Nothing will change it will get worse.
Now more news has come out that your squad will be smaller now so you can build a better relationship with them. Just come out and say we dont have the time or resources to do the job right. Staring to smell like DA2 with its rushed development cycle.
I really loathe this aspect of Bioware lately. Ever since EA they have become BS artists. Every corner they have to cut suddenly is spun as some great advantage that they intentionally did to make a better game!
I am not unreasonable. I know developers, even the large ones, have time and money limitations and concessions need to be made. So just say so. Or just don't mention that part but focus on what you think your game truly does well. Don't lie to me though or give me unrealistic expectations.
Advertized through the angle of RPG, it is another story. They managed to attract RPGers to FPS while doing so and hoped to attract shooties. They did not manage that much for the latter. What would have happened if they started straightly with shooter label? Would they have managed to attract RPGers?
Whatever segment of their RPG audience who didn't buy any ME games got it for free recently with DA2 so it does seem that they are trying hard to push ME and the hybrid style on the standard RPG audience.
The cynic in me wonders if they are perhaps trying to wean their audience off of standard RPGs since it is not something they will be making in the future and they would obviously rather keep their customers than have them go elsewhere.
I really loathe this aspect of Bioware lately. Ever since EA they have become BS artists. Every corner they have to cut suddenly is spun as some great advantage that they intentionally did to make a better game!
I am not unreasonable. I know developers, even the large ones, have time and money limitations and concessions need to be made. So just say so. Or just don't mention that part but focus on what you think your game truly does well. Don't lie to me though or give me unrealistic expectations.
Yes I agree they cut features instead of improving them then we get a bullshit pr speech on how it will improve the game. Then everyone says there fine with it. Its baffling.
You obviously love there version then I have lost faith in anything this company does anymore. With every new game that comes out you hear the dreaded word streamlining to appeal even more. The cycle repeats itself and people still praise them for basically cutting what doesnt work instead of improving the game.
This has been talked about many times and quite frankly it amazes me how people can just roll over and accept everything they do.
I think you need to get off the soapbox and stop preaching to me. I don't love everything they do, I thought Dragon Age 2 was a pretty crappy sequel and a below-average game through and through.
The difference between Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age 2 was that Mass Effect was about shooting to begin with. Yes the original had some more RPG elements but at the end of the day Mass Effect was about shooting dudes and a strong narrative, and ME2 does both those things better. The problem with Dragon Age 2 was that the original was a real tactical RPG and the sequel was just badly made, not good at what it tried to do OR what Dragon Age did.
And none of this has anything to do with what you quoted from me, which is that calling ME3 a shooter would probably INCREASE their sales, not lower them. They are not trying to put one over on anyone by calling it an RPG, they just genuinely believe that ME2 was an RPG because of how they define the term, which is different from how you define the term.
My point is thats why it shouldn't be labeled as a Rpg. We can disagree but in the end its a TPS with rpg features. I dont care about there vision just stop mislabeling the game for what its not. Its misleading and doesn't represent the product.
My point is thats why it shouldn't be labeled as a Rpg. We can disagree but in the end its a TPS with rpg features. I dont care about there vision just stop mislabeling the game for what its not. Its misleading and doesn't represent the product.
My point is thats why it shouldn't be labeled as a Rpg. We can disagree but in the end its a TPS with rpg features. I dont care about there vision just stop mislabeling the game for what its not. Its misleading and doesn't represent the product.
Now more news has come out that your squad will be smaller now so you can build a better relationship with them. Just come out and say we dont have the time or resources to do the job right.
From the magazine the article in your link is based on:
"Twelve was a big number in Mass Effect 2 - almost too big", Hudson concedes. "We're focused on a smaller squad with deeper relationships and more interesting interplay in Mass Effect 3", he explains. "We're not going to have twelve again but we are going to do more with the characters on your squad including Liara, and Kaidan or Ashley. And we're bringing everyone back - every main character is in Mass Effect 3 somewhere"
From other sources, these characters were confirmed to be permanent squad members so far:
Liara, Kaiden/Ashley, Garrus (if alive), Tali (if alive) and that new James dude
All companions from previous games will most probably be in ME3 if they were alive at the end of ME2 and some are quite likely to be potential temporary party members for specific occasions, plus there may be few not yet confirmed permanent ones as well.
This is doing the job right, at least on paper.
Mass Effect 2 was about characters first and getting to know more about various "factions" second and I think it largely succeeded in these regards, however when stripped out of all the recruitment/loyalty stuff (which also included a lot of those "faction" moments, like genophage, geth or quarians), the main plot was really, really bare bones and the whole game had very episodic feel.
Even though I´ve found the "main main plot" underwhelming and underdeveloped, I enjoyed the overall structure of the game, but only because it was the middle chapter.
In my opinion, Mass Effect 3 absolutely needs to deliver more tightly knitted, less scattered narrative on one side and more reactive experience in general on the other if it´s to be a satisfactory conclusion to the series.
In other words, it demands different proportions between main plot, "faction" stuff and companion aspects. Cutting down the number of squad mates obviously cuts down the resources, but, again at least on paper, it should shift the overall flow in a more adequate direction and provide more fitting narrative experience, especially if the companions from previous two games who won´t be part of the permanent squad will play vital roles in some of the main (sub)scenarios.
As for the game being more or less RPG, that´s just pointless semantics by now.
It´s quite clear Bioware pushes the take which is the most favorable for them from the marketing standpoint and it´s not exactly exhaustive take at that, but at the end of the day this just boils down to what the roster of features will be like.
From what I´ve gathered, they intend to make character development and resource aspect more customizable (bigger/longer ability scheme with more opportunities to develop abilities in certain directions, weapon mods) and combat more dynamic and more diverse in what player can do (climbing ladders, jumping, more accent on locational damage, diversity in melee attacks, less rigid cover system).
If implemented sensibly, these alone would comprise a solid improvement over Mass Effect 2, whether it´s "deeper RPG mechanics" or not.
I don´t think any info on non-combat skills has been given yet.
This is all on theoretical level as it´s the actual execution which matters, but from the conceptual standpoint most of the changes mentioned seem for the better in my book.
Anyway, personally I rather don´t give a shit how RPG-y ME3 will be, with one big exception and that´s the overall level of reactivity of the game. Consequences need to have weight and be sensible, cop out free.
I also have my doubts about the quality of the story, especially after playing through Arrival.
I thought Dragon Age 2 had strong odor of suckage right from the moment first infos went public, but the team behind Mass Effect 3 seems to be quite on the right track so far to me, at least, for the third time, on paper.
I give up since people will always kiss bioware ass for anything they do. I'll move on to other company's that haven't passed there prime.I will be playing a rpg called the witcher 2 maybe Bioware should take notes sine there last offerings are lacking. And JemyM love the pic and your obvious sarcasm. Keep playing your interactive movies people.
You really need to separate what I am saying with what Bioware is saying. My definition of RPG is probably much different from yours and there's both. My only point was that they are not calling the ME series RPGs for sales reasons.
Instead of attempting making us NOT play some game, why not for a change try attempt make us, poor ignorants, play a game we can't know because of our short views?
I give up since people will always kiss bioware ass for anything they do. I'll move on to other company's that haven't passed there prime.I will be playing a rpg called the witcher 2 maybe Bioware should take notes sine there last offerings are lacking. And JemyM love the pic and your obvious sarcasm. Keep playing your interactive movies people.
I don't really know what people want anymore when they bash some action RPGs and then praise others. When the requirement to be an RPG for some games is radically different from others. It seems pretty artificial to be honest.
I just play good games in my chosen genres. Sometimes good games are isometric and turn-based like Fallout. Sometimes good games are 3D first-person and partially reflex-based, like Deus Ex. Sometimes good games are linear as hell like No One Lives Forever. Sometimes good games are wide open like Gothic 2. Sometimes they are shooters, sometimes they are RPGs, sometimes they are something else.
So a game should not be a RPG because it is in 3D while a game should be because it is in isometric 2d? Makes no sense at all.
RPGs are quite simply games whose main focus is RP. They can come under multiple forms, with multiple means but their focus is to serve and allow RP.
If indeed people start to list requirements that are induced by the settings as the requirements to be a RPG, it leads to no where.
RP can take place in a fictional world where people do not know theft. Looting has no sense in such a universe. Claiming that RPGs must feature looting to be RPGs makes no sense.
Money drives the world, doesnt it? As gamers buy more and more games that are less and less RPGs, the natural consequence is that the genre is destroyed. If people support a transformation from RPG genre into shooter genre on basis of their tastes, why not? But denying that the RPG genre is destroyed in the doing is non sense.
Money drives the world, doesnt it? As gamers buy more and more games that are less and less RPGs, the natural consequence is that the genre is destroyed. If people support a transformation from RPG genre into shooter genre on basis of their tastes, why not? But denying that the RPG genre is destroyed in the doing is non sense.
I've seen in the Star Wars collecting field that not buying something seemingly led Hasbro to the result of overall cutting and reducing a/the whole line of collectables - instead of improving the criticised things (through Q&As to Hasbro).
Money drives the world, doesnt it? As gamers buy more and more games that are less and less RPGs, the natural consequence is that the genre is destroyed. If people support a transformation from RPG genre into shooter genre on basis of their tastes, why not? But denying that the RPG genre is destroyed in the doing is non sense.
But I WANT shooter/RPG hybrids. I WANT action RPGs and turn-based RPGs both.
The problem of course is that large companies concentrate on the largest profit, so if action RPGs make the most money they completely ignore turn-based ones. This is not exclusive to the gaming industry... every company does it. Thankfully we also have smaller companies making games to suit niches, because that is their way to make money. There is always an audience out there, you just need to find it and cater to it. EA have the money to cater to a larger audience than Spiderweb, but they're both doing the same thing.
In the Bioware forum, in the registered game owners forums for DA2, I think?, there's a comment on how someone thinks that the adventure gamers themselves brought their own demise. The year is 1999, I think?, and the third Gabriel 3 game is just about to be released. It is in 3D....oh noes, cried the adventure gamers back then. We don't want (full) 3D in our games, we want the genre to stay the way it was back in the 1980s with the King's Quest games. And, according to the OP in that that thread this, among other things, brought the demise of the adventure games as people knew them way back then. And GK3 ended in a cliffhanger....because noone bought the game..or not enough people did buy the game back then...in the 1999...were everyone and their cousin in the gaming industry either went the 3D way or had gone the 3D some years before...
As for game length, I really don't get the point about complaining about a game, an rpg etc. that are 25 or 40 hours long in their main quest, when adventure games are way shorter; Pendulo's Studio's new game 'the next big thing' can apparently be completly in 10 hours or less...
The point of all this is to say that if the rpg genre doesn't evolve, then it'll be dead and gone, and on livesupport like the adventure game industry has been now for over a decade. The problem is just this; How is the genre, the rpg, going to evolve? Will it go the way of the gameplay, the story, or the dialogue, or improved combat e.g. more responsive combat.
To me, Bioware seems determined to set out to answer this question...
As for game length, I really don't get the point about complaining about a game, an rpg etc. that are 25 or 40 hours long in their main quest, when adventure games are way shorter; Pendulo's Studio's new game 'the next big thing' can apparently be completly in 10 hours or less…
Well the point is if you pay say $60 for 40 hours of gameplay and then the sequel comes out with only 20 hours of gameplay but still $60, you are basically playing the same for less content. Of course the feeling is exacerbated in the case of a sequel because people probably expect to get more or less the similar amount of content as the original so the reduction is more noticeable than say a completely different game.
As for the the length of the next big thing, it is about 10-12 hours. Then again, it only costs about 249 Kr. (45 € or so) And some of the other adventure games did only cost
about 149 kr. (20 € or so). So this makes at least some sense, I find.
Back in 1998 or 1999 when I first started getting into gaming for real, the price for games was around 50 or 60 US dollars. Now, nearly 14 years after, games still are about 50 or 60 US dollars. The prices we pay for them today should at least have gone up with about 25%-30% (or more) compared to 14 years ago.
