I think the key here is that Casey is just wistfully dreaming... it took Blizzard 7 yrs before they were willing to cannibalize their WoW subscriber base with Titan or whatever it's called.
There is no way Bioware is even in a dreaming phase for a Mass Effect MMO. Not after all they're spending on TOR.
I think he's just messing with y'all. The alternative is too scary to contemplate.
Knights of the Old Republic was supposed to have a 3rd installment. It got canned in favor of an MMO. They'll release ME3, but if they do an MMO after that, there won't be an ME4.
I'd hate to rain on your parade, but, I don't think they are going to make a ME4, that wouldn't make any sense, unless it was a raising the children that you had with all those alien races you slept with simulator. But, if they did do a continuation of the story I think a MMO would be the way to go. I would hope it would be a couple of years down the line after they learn some lessons from Knights of the Old Republic.
Awesome! Mass Effect 2 removed the fun of an RPG by stripping out all RPG aspects and what better way to continue this trend by removing any fun the combat had!
Am I safe in assuming the RPG aspects you refer to are convoluted and bulky inventory systems, equipment management, and their ilk? If so, can we collectively please please please stop pretending that these things are:
a) fun
b) essential in a ROLE PLAYING GAME
They streamlined ME2. The age of turn-based JRPGs with 15 gazillion stat pages is a dying breed. ME2 is the vanguard of its destruction. It focuses on immersing you in playing the role of Shepard. You research improvements, you level up, you make choices.
It's totally cool if you prefer all of that other stuff, but don't go calling the Mass Effect series less of an RPG for not having it. It's a silly argument.
But for fuck's sake Bioware, put less fucking dialouge! Yes I know an immersive RPG should be heavily story-based, but when I'm sucking up to the chick in my party 80% of the time I play, with the rest evenly divided between walking and fighting, the game needs mroe combat!
Gotta disagree tbh, ME2 felt fantastic in combat/dialogue balance. I'd say it's a matter of personal preference and ME franchise is aimed at people who like dialogue and story more than to those who just like shooting things.
OT: MMO could be great. Only problem I see is lack of factions seeing as species pretty much live in peace with Reapers being the only/main threat, though I suppose not every MMO needs them (I am somewhat partial to there being at least two, makes a lot of sense for PvP). I suppose they could also port us to another time where there's a conflict between 2+ factions as well. Either way, the IP certainly has potential.
If I were in their shoes though, I wouldn't go for the standard hotkey MMO as they've got that going with SWTOR and at best they'd be splitting their fanbase for the most part. I'd say either go with the MMORPG with changing combat towards a 3rd person shooter or perhaps an MMOFPS. Both would add variety to the market and imo pull a lot of extra customers their way.
Awesome! Mass Effect 2 removed the fun of an RPG by stripping out all RPG aspects and what better way to continue this trend by removing any fun the combat had!
Am I safe in assuming the RPG aspects you refer to are convoluted and bulky inventory systems, equipment management, and their ilk? If so, can we collectively please please please stop pretending that these things are:
a) fun
b) essential in a ROLE PLAYING GAME
They streamlined ME2. The age of turn-based JRPGs with 15 gazillion stat pages is a dying breed. ME2 is the vanguard of its destruction. It focuses on immersing you in playing the role of Shepard. You research improvements, you level up, you make choices.
It's totally cool if you prefer all of that other stuff, but don't go calling the Mass Effect series less of an RPG for not having it. It's a silly argument.
Both types must have an impact on gameplay. NOTHING you do in ME2 has an effect on gameplay in any other way other than purely superficial at best.
An inventory system gives you choice of equipment and has you making MEANINGFUL decisions regarding the handling of your equipment your finances in general.
Stats are archaic, but completely removing the effects of stats or simplifying it is stupid as well.
Streamlining doesn't mean stripping out RPG aspects. It means making them simpler and more efficient WITHOUT sacrificing depth.
how exactly does a mass effect MMO make sense? you havent even released the one you have planned, yet you want to do what not even blizzard, king of MMOs, has done yet? even blizzard is smart enough to tie in their new MMO project to WoW in some yet-to-be-revealed way.....what is casey hudson smokin? that is a seriously ballsy idea you have there; hopefully you pursue it, fail miserably, then realize 2 MMOs overtaking your entirely single player game series was a stupid, stupid idea. you know that once they make an MMO, they arent doing a damn thing else with the franchise.
Can a developer, even one as big as Bioware, really support two MMOs at once? Especially two space-based MMOs? And surely, if Star Wars flops, which it might, then can they really justify beginning the development cycle of ANOTHER MMO?
UGH NO Make a real game please. One with an ending, one with a story, one with meaningful characters and gameplay. Making a MMOG out of Mass Effect would be just like a dog dragging its backside on the Persian rug (in this metaphor the Persian rug is all of the meaning and built up mythos of the Mass Effect world and the dog is another trite, grindy, pointless game made for the express purpose of wringing a few more dollars out of a franchise).
Ah, MMORPGs, the "Direct to Video" of the videogame industry.
Good, create a place for all those people who liked Mass Effect II to go, then focus on making a decent single player experience like back in the first game.
Go on and create your CoD ripoff, sell out like you know you want to, Bioware.
Then after all this retarded money grabing you might actually make Mass Effect III good, rather than that travesty of an expansion you guys called a sequel and made me pay $120 for.
-Tabs<3-
I'm endorsing this statement 200% of the way. I love to BioWare, but the EA overlords have made your products as populist as fuck. Remember how Mass Effect I had an intelligent, engaging plot AND solid characters? How it explored concepts and ideas? Yeah, I think everyone who still has a third of their brains functioning prefers that to "Contrived-Plotless-Stupid-Explosion-Effect" II.
Dragon Age didn't deserve the sequel it got. BioWare, I love you, but you need to do what you do best- go back to being intelligent.
Ok call it paranoia or whatever, but everything bioware does in regard to the mass effect franchise, seems to be scientifically designed to kick me in the balls. Between the shoddy, and inhumanly overrated games, bioware seems to be trying to test how far the blind eyed imbeciles who enjoyed the game, can be squeezed to make money come out their pores. No need to worry though, Wow will have crushed this little upstrat in a week
Hudson said, "We haven't yet come up with a way to do that, so we don't have anything to announce at this time, but obviously multiplayer is something we want to do more of in the future as a company."
I think this definition would eliminate the entire Final Fantasy series, and a good chunk of other RPGs, as well. Hilariously, Mass Effect 2 fits quite nicely into this definition of an RPG. =D
NOTHING you do in ME2 has an effect on gameplay in any other way other than purely superficial at best.
Have you actually played Mass Effect 2? Or more than 10 seconds of it? I don't mean to sound derogatory, but you're going out of opinion land and into factual territory. Every choice you make is superficial? That's like saying Mario Mario is a bearded frog who eats asparagus to get bigger. Inaccurate statement. Makes me question your knowledge. I could rattle 10 things off the top of my head that are radically different in ME2 based on your choices, but it would require a major spoiler alert, and when you finally do play the game I wouldn't want to ruin the experience. If you play the game twice, you'll really see how the plot starts splintering with your decisions.
An inventory system gives you choice of equipment and has you making MEANINGFUL decisions regarding the handling of your equipment your finances in general.
Stats are archaic, but completely removing the effects of stats or simplifying it is stupid as well.
Not removed... streamlined. No more 10 hrs of sifting for better weapons; you simply research upgrades for them. Beyond that, you choose how to evolve powers, and decide on weapon loadouts. Shep's armor is now slotified, so you get to decide which augmentations to roll with. And I'd say the RPG choices on this end are more difficult, because you're pulling visual harmony into the mix. "The stats on these gauntlets are awesome, but they don't look as cool as the other ones." (First time I've rolled with the weakest equipment piece simply because it FELT right.)
Again, I understand if some people prefer finding a billion guns and taking 5 hrs to sell them. But don't tell me that ME2 has removed the system. It's all still there, just with less time consuming suckage.
Streamlining doesn't mean stripping out RPG aspects. It means making them simpler and more efficient WITHOUT sacrificing depth.
Above you referred to the "RPG Aspects" as "World Choices" and "Character Choices." I reiterate that ME is more focused on these than any other RPG out there today. It's the only series I know of that rolls over 1000 decisions from the first game right into the second, and god knows how many roll into ME3. You can't have a single conversation without making choices. If you can give me one game that does a better job of this, I'd love to hear it.
But it sounds to me (please correct me if I'm wrong) that you're just griping because they didn't copy/paste the same tired system everyone else is using. Now go play ME2; you might have fun.
Okay, name ONE choice that changes gameplay in a meaningful way.
I'm not questioning whether someone can find the game fun, but DON'T, just DON'T call it an RPG, because it isn't. No choices you make have any effect in the way the game plays, only the story.
Okay, name ONE choice that changes gameplay in a meaningful way.
I'm not questioning whether someone can find the game fun, but DON'T, just DON'T call it an RPG, because it isn't. No choices you make have any effect in the way the game plays, only the story.
Ok, now I'm confused. You're saying an RPG is a game that doesn't involve STORY choice, just GAMEPLAY choice? Not only are you hedging the definition to try and cookie-cutter ME2 out of it, but you're ignoring one of the major RPG innovations Mass Effect brings to the table... dynamically "directing" the story with choices that carry from game to game. How can you say an RPG is all about choice, and then say "but not story choices."? That's preposterous. Discounting it based on whether it's changing the actual gameplay alone seems... illogical, at best, and completely erroneous, at worst. Every single defintion of RPG I can find on the internet backs me up on this. I like wikipedia's best:
A role-playing game (RPG) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting, or through a process of structured decision-making or character development. Actions taken within the game succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.
Is there a reason why you want to only include one aspect, and not the two in tandem? I can find no support for your changing definition of an RPG, but I'll humor your question with an answer, anyway.
Forgetting the many and varied story-based decisions you make, I stand by the upgrade statement. Upgraded weapons and armor for Shepard directly impacts the gameplay, just like an inventory system would, but without the sifting/selling. Better weapons kill things betterer.
For anything else, I must claim MEGA UBER SPOILER ALERT...
1) Killing Legion or taking him with you provide drastic changes to both story and gameplay (he joins your party and gives you potential access to his bonus power, or he's jettisoned into space).
2) Gaining the loyalty of your crew or not. Loyal crew members get new powers, impact the endgame, and grant you access to their bonus powers, which, again, changes gameplay.
3) Your upgrade and tactical decisions in the end game can result in your entire squad getting killed. Imagine that. You go down with your party, and whoops, you didn't upgrade the Normandy's shielding, and Garrus just got killed. Can't bring him in your party anymore. Oh, you let Tali get killed in the air ducts? Can't pick her for the next part of the mission. This amounts to HUUUUUUGE changes in gameplay. And beyond that, assuming you manage to make it out alive with Shepard, that save game will continue into ME3, with all of your crew being dead. Or none. I have yet to play any other RPG with this depth of control over gameplay. Every single one of your crew is EXPENDABLE.
At this point, you can call the game an RPG or not. Using your own (evolving) definition, I've given evidence to qualify it. Beyond that, it's just silly that people are still whining about the lack of bogged down inventory equaling "not an RPG". Bioware, the ESRB, every online retailer, every game review site I've seen, and every definition of RPG that I can find, disagrees strongly. It's hard to qualify for "Best RPG of 2010" if, ya know, it's not an RPG.
But by all means, cling to your oddly restrictive definitions. I hear FF13 gets good 26 hours in.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
