Quantcast
Bioware really needs to play more action games before making Mass Effect 3

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Bioware really needs to play more action games before making Mass Effect 3

rocketpig said:
Solid_Raiden said:
rocketpig said:
Solid_Raiden said:
I've been attacked for saying basically the same thing. I don't understand why a TPS/RPG can't be amazing at both aspects. Instead most of RPG hybrids, Mass Effect 1 and 2 included, sacrifice on aspects of both when they merge them. It's not impossible to make an rpg/shooter hybrid that would stand as both a great shooter and a great RPG even if most people say otherwise. I'm having massive amounts of fun with Mass Effect 2 because of the characters, worlds and story but it is severely lacking in both being a TPS and an RPG.

Your last sentence is confusing me. How on Earth do you consider the RPG elements in ME2 lacking? It offered the most flawless RPG experience I've ever seen... BioWare completely streamlined out the typical RPG nonsense and let the player dive into the story, controlling even some of the smallest aspects of the game through very intuitive dialogue trees. And that's not even bringing up the game imports, which have taken RPGs to an entirely new level.

And not to beat a dead horse, but some of you need to realize that this is primarily an RPG game. You can't expect BioWare to add a TPS component like Gears of War, otherwise the RPG elements will start to suffer by turning it into a non-stop action game. I think too many of you take of the attitude of "Let them have cake" without thinking over just what sacrifices might have to be made to the entire franchise just to suit your personal opinion of what the game should be.

Oh, and I do find it mildly funny that someone rocking a Raiden avatar would be bitching about the shooter elements in an RPG game... One could say the exact same thing about MGS4 if they chose to completely ignore that it's primarily a STEALTH game, not a Gears-type TPS.

So you can't see how it is lacking as an RPG? It's missing most of the things which destinguish RPGs as being RPGs. Or rather it has them, but watered down to almost nothing. Looting has been almost completely taken away, you no longer find weapons or armour which is one of the most fun things about RPGs. Instead now you randomly find minerals or scan planets to upgrade what you have. There is a rare exception to finding other weapons but I've played for 20 hours and have only found 2-3 variations on three weapon types. In addition, you have less customization when leveling up. There is a small level gap and the only thing that you raise stats in are a select few powers. A very select few. The dialouge system is amazing but has little to do with being an RPG. Unless Demon's souls is no longer an RPG, and Indigo Prophecy is. I don't think you understand what makes a game an RPG. Go do some research on Dungeons and Dragons (The father of all RPGs) and then come back and talk to me about something you know about. Because you obviously know NOTHING about what being an RPG means. I agree that the conversation sytem is amazing, if I forget about the fact that all the choices are laid out as either blatantly good and bad with very little gray.

Also, if they are going to make the game more of a tps then an RPG then they at least could have made it a stronger TPS. I'm not the only one who thinks this either, go look at the majority of reviews. They state the same thing. But honestly, I don't see how you can't have a strong RPG that could hold it's ground as a strong TPS. But it's because of fools like  you who refuse to believe its possible that we get games that are only good at each (at best) and not amazing. If they couldn't make mass effect a great shooter when they decided to add those elements into the game they should have left it out.

Finally, I understand why they allowed MGS4 to be played as a shooter. To attempt to draw in new players. But as a long time MGS fans, they never altered the controls to where the game could not be played as the older ones. If you have ADD and played it like gears of war then more power to you. But I played a STEALTH game, and I played it stealthly in the same way I had played each previous iteration, only with a much needed streamlined control. That being said. It fails Just as bad, if not worse, at being a great TPS as Mass Effect 2. The reason for this was to allow the game to play just like the older games to the real fans, which I am very happy for. You could also play the game as an FPS but it failed at that too. All of those things were tacked on to appeal to kids with add but it still plays like an mgs game which makes me happy. A better example of Stealth and TPS coming together is Uncharted 2. That game was on the right track. The game was a great tps action game which allowed the use of stealth. It wasn't perfect and stealth couldn't always be used, but for a majority of the game it could and it worked. And that was just an added feature, it wasn't a tps action/stealth hybrid so much as it was a small implemented feature. If Borderlands had a great story it would have been an amazing FPS/RPG. It could stand on it's own as either.

After all of this, I would like to point out that I'm having great fun with Mass Effect 2 and it currently might rank in my top 3 360 games. I'm loving it. I'm just not blind. The reasons why I love it has nothing to do with it being a great RPG, or even a great TPS. It's only good at either. It's because of the characters, story and the conversation wheel (though lacking depth, is still greatly entertaining). All of those things are what you expect with a great RPG although they do not define an RPG at all. Those aspects are top notch however. If only it was a great rgg, and a great TPS action game then it could have truly been the best of both worlds. And probably the best game ever made.

First off, I'm about 98% sure I've spent far more time playing pen-and-paper RPGs than you have but nice way to make the assumption I don't know anything about D&D, Star Wars, Palladium, Rifts, Robotech, TMNT, Ninjas & Superspies, Feng Shui, Bureau 13, or the dozens of other pen-and-paper RPGs I've played over the years. Good job at making yourself look like an ass, though. Kudos.

Second, if you don't see the folly in your statement "The dialouge system is amazing but has little to do with being an RPG." I don't know what to say. By its very definition, that system is the CORE of being an RPG. See, you believe that RPGs are defined by combat where I believe the exact opposite. A good role-playing game is about the moments between combat when the player gets to choose his or her fate, not the moments when a player is grabbing more shit from dead orcs.

You imply that I'm blind to Mass Effect when I'm convinced you're the one who is blind to it because it doesn't fit your preconceived notion of what an RPG "should" be. You can argue the merits of BioWare's choices all you want and I'll respect that but to say that it's "watered down" or "weak" just because they shed parts of the traditional system in favor of immersing the player in non-stop gaming while remaining true to the actual core of what defines an RPG is foolish.

I don't see why you feel the need to insult me rather then talk about your misconceptions. But ok. Refer to my last post please. I want to see if this is really your perception of what an RPG is, although that hardly means it truly defines it, which would be fine by me still. Or if you for some strange reason just absolutely want Mass Effect 2 to be an RPG.




PS3 Trophies

 

 

Around the Network
rocketpig said:
I haven't played Heavy Rain. If I play it and think the game is about "role-playing", then sure, it has RPG elements. I'll admit that.

I love how you can't even seem to understand what "ROLE-PLAYING GAME" means. This isn't rocket science. Just because Mass Effect ditched some of the typical RPG elements you enjoy doesn't mean that it's any less of an RPG... it's just different. Why can't you seem to get that through your head?

Have you played Indigo Prophecy then?

You know what, a better question. Do you believe that Adventure games are RPGs? They usually give you the same kind of freedom that you so firmly believe make a game an RPG. So I'm curious. Are those adventure games considered RPGs by you? And why then are they not called RPGs?




PS3 Trophies

 

 

You're the one who started it by assuming you know what I have or have not played in the past.

Anyway, I'm done with this conversation. If I can't get you to acknowledge what "role-playing" means by its very definition (I'm not going to argue with Webster but you obviously have no problems doing so), I see no point in continuing.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

rocketpig said:
Scoobes said:
rocketpig said:
Solid_Raiden said:
I've been attacked for saying basically the same thing. I don't understand why a TPS/RPG can't be amazing at both aspects. Instead most of RPG hybrids, Mass Effect 1 and 2 included, sacrifice on aspects of both when they merge them. It's not impossible to make an rpg/shooter hybrid that would stand as both a great shooter and a great RPG even if most people say otherwise. I'm having massive amounts of fun with Mass Effect 2 because of the characters, worlds and story but it is severely lacking in both being a TPS and an RPG.

Your last sentence is confusing me. How on Earth do you consider the RPG elements in ME2 lacking? It offered the most flawless RPG experience I've ever seen... BioWare completely streamlined out the typical RPG nonsense and let the player dive into the story, controlling even some of the smallest aspects of the game through very intuitive dialogue trees. And that's not even bringing up the game imports, which have taken RPGs to an entirely new level.

And not to beat a dead horse, but some of you need to realize that this is primarily an RPG game. You can't expect BioWare to add a TPS component like Gears of War, otherwise the RPG elements will start to suffer by turning it into a non-stop action game. I think too many of you take of the attitude of "Let them have cake" without thinking over just what sacrifices might have to be made to the entire franchise just to suit your personal opinion of what the game should be.

Oh, and I do find it mildly funny that someone rocking a Raiden avatar would be bitching about the shooter elements in an RPG game... One could say the exact same thing about MGS4 if they chose to completely ignore that it's primarily a STEALTH game, not a Gears-type TPS.

Some people enjoy that "RPG nonsense" though. I know I miss having more detailed character customisation and having a greater control over my weapons and gear all the time. Not too bothered about the lack of loot. These are both aspects of RPGs that are missing or reduced in Mass Effect 2. The story aspect has been done brilliantly but if you only have the story aspects, it stops becomming an RPG and is really an Adventure game like Heavy Rain, Little Big Adventure or Zelda.

Some of you need to think outside the box for a moment. Just because to this point RPG games have generally been loot/XP/grind/weapon upgrade heavy does not mean those things DEFINE an RPG. After all, it's called "role-playing". No game in history has filled that definition better than Mass Effect. It puts the story in the hands of the player and allows the player to define their world like no other game in history. Now THAT is role-playing. Just because BioWare didn't use the traditional aspects of RPG games (unnecessary aspects, IMO) doesn't mean the RPG element is "lacking", it just means they went for a kind of role-playing that doesn't suit your preferences. Personally, I think it's the most engaging form of actual role-playing that I've ever seen in a game.

This really does come down to what defines an RPG. Those factors are essential in an RPG, or are they? I would say they are but then JRPGs don't adhere to this formula 9 times out of 10. Is Heavy Rain an RPG? Or Farenheit (Indigo Prophecy to some)? By your definition they'd be more an RPG than any of the Final Fantasy games. You might think the traditional aspects are unnecessary, but they are what has defined RPGs for a very longtime now, and are actually what makes the game more fun for certain people. The "stats" are less of an issue in a game like Mass Effect 2 where shooting is very important as it's more about the player's shooting ability than improving your characters stats and overall strategy, but some people still want them.



Solid_Raiden said:
rocketpig said:
I haven't played Heavy Rain. If I play it and think the game is about "role-playing", then sure, it has RPG elements. I'll admit that.

I love how you can't even seem to understand what "ROLE-PLAYING GAME" means. This isn't rocket science. Just because Mass Effect ditched some of the typical RPG elements you enjoy doesn't mean that it's any less of an RPG... it's just different. Why can't you seem to get that through your head?

Have you played Indigo Prophecy then?

You know what, a better question. Do you believe that Adventure games are RPGs? They usually give you the same kind of freedom that you so firmly believe make a game an RPG. So I'm curious. Are those adventure games considered RPGs by you? And why then are they not called RPGs?

I have not played Indigo Prophecy but there are dozens of other games that contain RPG elements... Grand Theft Auto, for example. Do I consider a linear action game an RPG? Absolutely not. There's no choice given to the player and the entire story is strictly defined by the developer. There's not much of a "role" involved in that kind of game.

Just because games have RPG elements do not necessarily mean they are an RPG. To me, the focus of the game has to be on "role-playing" for it to be an RPG... which Mass Effect obviously does. The primary component in the game is the dialogue system and player choice. Therefore, it's an RPG. Shit, I don't even consider some JRPGs to truly be RPGs. They're just grind/lootfests. That doesn't do it for me but obviously, others like it so, sure, call them RPGs. I don't really care.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Around the Network
Scoobes said:
rocketpig said:
Scoobes said:
rocketpig said:
Solid_Raiden said:
I've been attacked for saying basically the same thing. I don't understand why a TPS/RPG can't be amazing at both aspects. Instead most of RPG hybrids, Mass Effect 1 and 2 included, sacrifice on aspects of both when they merge them. It's not impossible to make an rpg/shooter hybrid that would stand as both a great shooter and a great RPG even if most people say otherwise. I'm having massive amounts of fun with Mass Effect 2 because of the characters, worlds and story but it is severely lacking in both being a TPS and an RPG.

Your last sentence is confusing me. How on Earth do you consider the RPG elements in ME2 lacking? It offered the most flawless RPG experience I've ever seen... BioWare completely streamlined out the typical RPG nonsense and let the player dive into the story, controlling even some of the smallest aspects of the game through very intuitive dialogue trees. And that's not even bringing up the game imports, which have taken RPGs to an entirely new level.

And not to beat a dead horse, but some of you need to realize that this is primarily an RPG game. You can't expect BioWare to add a TPS component like Gears of War, otherwise the RPG elements will start to suffer by turning it into a non-stop action game. I think too many of you take of the attitude of "Let them have cake" without thinking over just what sacrifices might have to be made to the entire franchise just to suit your personal opinion of what the game should be.

Oh, and I do find it mildly funny that someone rocking a Raiden avatar would be bitching about the shooter elements in an RPG game... One could say the exact same thing about MGS4 if they chose to completely ignore that it's primarily a STEALTH game, not a Gears-type TPS.

Some people enjoy that "RPG nonsense" though. I know I miss having more detailed character customisation and having a greater control over my weapons and gear all the time. Not too bothered about the lack of loot. These are both aspects of RPGs that are missing or reduced in Mass Effect 2. The story aspect has been done brilliantly but if you only have the story aspects, it stops becomming an RPG and is really an Adventure game like Heavy Rain, Little Big Adventure or Zelda.

Some of you need to think outside the box for a moment. Just because to this point RPG games have generally been loot/XP/grind/weapon upgrade heavy does not mean those things DEFINE an RPG. After all, it's called "role-playing". No game in history has filled that definition better than Mass Effect. It puts the story in the hands of the player and allows the player to define their world like no other game in history. Now THAT is role-playing. Just because BioWare didn't use the traditional aspects of RPG games (unnecessary aspects, IMO) doesn't mean the RPG element is "lacking", it just means they went for a kind of role-playing that doesn't suit your preferences. Personally, I think it's the most engaging form of actual role-playing that I've ever seen in a game.

This really does come down to what defines an RPG. Those factors are essential in an RPG, or are they? I would say they are but then JRPGs don't adhere to this formula 9 times out of 10. Is Heavy Rain an RPG? Or Farenheit (Indigo Prophecy to some)? By your definition they'd be more an RPG than any of the Final Fantasy games. You might think the traditional aspects are unnecessary, but they are what has defined RPGs for a very longtime now, and are actually what makes the game more fun for certain people. The "stats" are less of an issue in a game like Mass Effect 2 where shooting is very important as it's more about the player's shooting ability than improving your characters stats and overall strategy, but some people still want them.

And that's fine if you like those components. I have no problems with that. Personally, I don't... where I disagree is how some of you are saying Mass Effect is "not an RPG" or it's "watered down" simply because BioWare chose not to use those components in favor of going a different route with ME2. It doesn't make it less of an RPG, it just makes it different. And some of you don't like that difference. More power to you but don't go around trying to diminish its role-playing elements just because it doesn't suit your preferences.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

I certainly hope Desolitude was not banned for his participation in this thread. That would be a catastrophic error on DKII's part, but I don't know if that's the case. The way I see it, half the people who joined this thread just to bash him for having an opinion should be banned. Half the comments on the first page are trolling..would you mods like me to point all of them out?

I haven't played ME2 yet, but my friend is really into the whole ME deal, so I might check it out. I've been somewhat interested in this game the more I hear about it, which is why I decided to read here. This won't deter me from trying to game at all, but it will make me pay attention more closely when I do.



I agree with Rocketpig.

My fiancee really wants to play the Mass Effect series. However, she is an RPG vet - plays tons of RPGs, and isn't big on TPS games. I want her to be able to enjoy it. ME1 is a better example of whats do-able in the series since the action elements aren't as huge. But for ME2, I worry a little because of the whole limited ammo issue.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

rocketpig said:
Scoobes said:
rocketpig said:
Scoobes said:
rocketpig said:
Solid_Raiden said:
I've been attacked for saying basically the same thing. I don't understand why a TPS/RPG can't be amazing at both aspects. Instead most of RPG hybrids, Mass Effect 1 and 2 included, sacrifice on aspects of both when they merge them. It's not impossible to make an rpg/shooter hybrid that would stand as both a great shooter and a great RPG even if most people say otherwise. I'm having massive amounts of fun with Mass Effect 2 because of the characters, worlds and story but it is severely lacking in both being a TPS and an RPG.

Your last sentence is confusing me. How on Earth do you consider the RPG elements in ME2 lacking? It offered the most flawless RPG experience I've ever seen... BioWare completely streamlined out the typical RPG nonsense and let the player dive into the story, controlling even some of the smallest aspects of the game through very intuitive dialogue trees. And that's not even bringing up the game imports, which have taken RPGs to an entirely new level.

And not to beat a dead horse, but some of you need to realize that this is primarily an RPG game. You can't expect BioWare to add a TPS component like Gears of War, otherwise the RPG elements will start to suffer by turning it into a non-stop action game. I think too many of you take of the attitude of "Let them have cake" without thinking over just what sacrifices might have to be made to the entire franchise just to suit your personal opinion of what the game should be.

Oh, and I do find it mildly funny that someone rocking a Raiden avatar would be bitching about the shooter elements in an RPG game... One could say the exact same thing about MGS4 if they chose to completely ignore that it's primarily a STEALTH game, not a Gears-type TPS.

Some people enjoy that "RPG nonsense" though. I know I miss having more detailed character customisation and having a greater control over my weapons and gear all the time. Not too bothered about the lack of loot. These are both aspects of RPGs that are missing or reduced in Mass Effect 2. The story aspect has been done brilliantly but if you only have the story aspects, it stops becomming an RPG and is really an Adventure game like Heavy Rain, Little Big Adventure or Zelda.

Some of you need to think outside the box for a moment. Just because to this point RPG games have generally been loot/XP/grind/weapon upgrade heavy does not mean those things DEFINE an RPG. After all, it's called "role-playing". No game in history has filled that definition better than Mass Effect. It puts the story in the hands of the player and allows the player to define their world like no other game in history. Now THAT is role-playing. Just because BioWare didn't use the traditional aspects of RPG games (unnecessary aspects, IMO) doesn't mean the RPG element is "lacking", it just means they went for a kind of role-playing that doesn't suit your preferences. Personally, I think it's the most engaging form of actual role-playing that I've ever seen in a game.

This really does come down to what defines an RPG. Those factors are essential in an RPG, or are they? I would say they are but then JRPGs don't adhere to this formula 9 times out of 10. Is Heavy Rain an RPG? Or Farenheit (Indigo Prophecy to some)? By your definition they'd be more an RPG than any of the Final Fantasy games. You might think the traditional aspects are unnecessary, but they are what has defined RPGs for a very longtime now, and are actually what makes the game more fun for certain people. The "stats" are less of an issue in a game like Mass Effect 2 where shooting is very important as it's more about the player's shooting ability than improving your characters stats and overall strategy, but some people still want them.

And that's fine if you like those components. I have no problems with that. Personally, I don't... where I disagree is how some of you are saying Mass Effect is "not an RPG" or it's "watered down" simply because BioWare chose not to use those components in favor of going a different route with ME2. It doesn't make it less of an RPG, it just makes it different. And some of you don't like that difference. More power to you but don't go around trying to diminish its role-playing elements just because it doesn't suit your preferences.

The real problem isn't people calling it a watered down RPG. By the definition of an RPG which has been established by the majority for a very long time, it is watered down. The problem is that you have made your own definition of what an RPG means and have passed it on as fact. But I suggest a compromise. When I stated that it was a watered down RPG I was referring to those elements which define what an RPG is to the majority of people. I had no idea you would have your own idea of what an RPG is and then use that perception to assume that what I was talking about was somehow the same as your own perception. I suggest that you assume when others are talking about an RPG, they are specifically talking about these factors from which we have discussed and I shall do the same for you and all two other people on planet earth which might hold the same perception. Deal? :)




PS3 Trophies

 

 

Fair enough. By "traditional" standards, it is a watered-down RPG. But that's a big step from it being a "watered-down RPG", period. To me, it fills the true meaning of RPG and I know there are loads of people that agree with me on that (and ironically, this group is heavily populated with pen-and-paper traditionalists). To us, "role-playing" is about your character and his/her choices within a game realm. It's not about inventory, loot, or gear, which my friends and I find to be an evil necessity of pen-and-paper gaming, not its pinnacle. The meat of role-playing to us is interaction, decision-making, and choice, three things Mass Effect does better than any other game I've played. In that regard, it's actually CLOSER to pen-and-paper RPGs than anything else on the market.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/