Oh shit, if they really are going to do it, i hope that they don't f- it up. And i seriosly hope that you can play as a KROGAN!
BioWare: Mass Effect MMO "Makes Sense"
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
There are plenty of games out there with nearly no dialogue and lots of combat. If you're hurting for action, I suggest you go play one of those. Removing the dialogue would make it something else, and in my opinion, something much less.DragonLord Seth said:
I think that Bioware is great because their stories, derivative as they are, have complexity that is absent in other games, and even many stories from other media. The issues that you face and the decisions you make in their games can, if you're paying attention, teach you a little about dealing with similar themes in real life. Difficult to explain without a wall of text, although there is an Extra Credits episode that touches on the subject, but suffice it to say that I think watering down future Bioware games would be a disservice to the people who experience them.
As I said, you have the choice to not partake in the experience and simply play other games that don't have as much depth and meaning to them. The market is full of them. I think it will be your loss, but I doubt you'll ever understand or care.
One of the choices you can make determines the number of boss fights you will have at the end of the first game.Astalano said:
A long string of choices throughout the second game will determine who you are able to take with you in the final mission.
Your paragon/renegade choices determine how many combat encounters you will experience, both immediately and in the future through your paragon/renegade persuasion abilities.
Certain choices will determine whether you experience entire subplot arcs or not.
I'd say those are meaningful changes to gameplay.
Story does not make an RPG. An RPG is defined by its gameplay. That is why Fallout 1 and 2 are some of the best RPGs of all time: every choice you make has an impact on gameplay.The.Bard said:
So, is Gears of War an RPG because it lets you go on a different path sometimes? Is Bioshock an RPG for giving you alternate endings based on whether you killed or saved Little Sisters?
Whether or not Tali or Garrus are dead means nothing if the core gameplay doesn't change. If I piss off a guy in the Hub in Fallout I might lose access to quests or even to certain items which means I'm forced to seek out other quests that change gameplay. I might go on a stealth mission next or not have access to that sniper rifle I wanted. Also, because Fallout's fights are so difficult, the decision to fight or not feels meaningful. If I avoid a fight with a supermutant, that is gameplay changed. If I'm too stupid to talk to people that also affects gameplay.
In Mass Effect 2, everything you do only affects the story. Who cares if Garrus or Tali die? What difference does that make to you, the player? So what, you don't see one of them in the end cinematic. Oh wow, I get a few less instances of dull dialogue. Oh my, being nice to a guy means I miss out on an easy combat sequence that feels completely meaningless.
Even JRPGs are about character progression and offer some way to shape your character to face difficult opponents, although I'd call some JRPGs action games, rather than RPGs. Mass Effect 2 doesn't even have character progression. Whether you're a biotic or a soldier means nothing when it comes to combat; you're both generally shooting something or using abilities to kill something.
Stories are awesome in games but they have to be tied to the gameplay. If my choices only affect something that I don't take part in, then where is the meaning in that? It's just a cinematic with gameplay tied on. Why don't I answer a little questionnare at the beginning and watch the game play itself and save me all the trouble? Story is almost never tied to gameplay and it certainly isn't in Mass Effect 2. Every choice you make takes place within a story and never affects how you approach the game. It's repetitive and it's dull as an RPG, because no choice I make makes a goddamn bit of difference at the end of the day.
Dragon Age Origins has meaningful combat. Dragon Age Origins has story tightly controlled resources as well as an inventory to help you make important decisions about your character and your party members. Even talking to your party members can affect gameplay (whether you get a gift or they teach you a specialization for instance). Dragon Age Origins has you selecting the progression of your character, from various types of mages to various types of rogues and warriors, each with a different combat style that completely changes the way you approach combat and challenges you to build a balanced party to take on difficult threats. Yes, many of Bioware's games have choices for the story's sake, but they have almost always at least had character development to provide the RPG aspect.
Some RPGs are about exploration, like Risen or Gothic 2. Mass Effect 2 doesn't even have exploration. It is stripped completely of its RPG aspects. It is simply a shooter with dialogue.
It's a shooter. Put it in the right category. I can make a game tomorrow with some dialogue and put in a cutscene and say "character x lives or dies depending on your actions". That doesn't make it an RPG. That just makes it a choice. If that choice results in gameplay changing, then yes, it's an RPG. That is a MEANINGFUL choice that was made that resulted in something that is of significance beyond the purely superficial.
That's because the first game is an RPG.
Only affects story, as you can replace all the characters with one another and it makes only superficial difference to gameplay.
Combat encounters are entirely meaningless and the lack of difficulty or variety makes them repetitive. You might as well be facing any enemy, because as long as you shoot it, it dies. In Dragon Age Origins, each encounter is meaningful and requires gameplay changes. If you're facing 2 mages, your entire strategy has to be altered. That is meaningful combat that requires thought.
Only affects story.
LoL, we have data that shows the popular games sold well and people liked them.Traun said:
This doesn't make it a good idea. They simply said they want a bigger audience and to make more money. Of course they do.
But, seeing as how CoD caters to the most common denominator, and is the most derivative FPS ever made, this is not a good formula to throw on the ME name.
Astalano said:
Oy veyyy, so many incorrect things you have said, I don't even know where to begin. You want us to believe you played ME2 and never even looked to see that you get bonus powers from your allies for gaining their loyalty? Seriously?
This is where I humbly bow out. I wish I could say it has been a pure pleasure, but we are not speaking the same language. I've given you several examples refuting your claims, and you keep shifting your definitions to exclude them. First you wanted choice. Then you wanted gameplay choice. Now you're calling it "meaningful gameplay choice." What's next? "Sword-damage based meaningful gameplay choice"?
Calling a biotic and a soldier the same thing is preposterous; they play nothing alike. The only way that makes any sense is if your soldier ignores 5 weapons/feats and uses ONLY his pistol, and your biotic gives up ALL of his biotic powers for lent. Then yes, as surely as a minivan and a sportscar are the same exact vehicle when they are both driving 20 mph, a soldier and an adept are "identical." I yield.
*sigh* I'm not psychic, so I don't know if you will lose ALL of your squad, but the decision will carry over in a meaninful way, as previously stated. It also affects everything you do in ME2 after the endgame. If you played the game and didn't get everyone's loyalty, you would have seen this immediately...
Everything you have said leads me to the conclusion that you have not played Mass Effect 2. I'm not going to debate with someone who clings to factually wrong data like driftwood for a game he doesn't appear to have played.
Good day, sir! May I suggest you buy DA2 and take advantage of the free copy of ME2 that comes with? You can experience the awesomeness firsthand.
Not every single NPC spoke. And anyway, I think the real reason why Bioware doesn't have visibly different females is because they ran out of time to come up with designs for them.mindlesspuppet said:
Plus, you gotta admit, the thought is hilarious. Imagine. Gaining a batarian squadmate, have this conversation about why you haven't met any females, and she asks you to guess what her gender is. Regardless of her answer, she decides to mess with your head the entire time she's on your team.
Ugh... I'm starting to get sick of the ME-verse. The scale is enormous, don't get me wrong, but I'm eager to get my hands on ME3, have Shep die in an epic sacrifice (my prediction, nothing concrete), and be done with it.
And I'm not a PC gamer, so that's another con.
And I'm not a PC gamer, so that's another con.
I played all of Mass Effect 2 and completed pretty much every mission and side mission, losing only Tali when a rocket hit her face.The.Bard said:
Also, my point with adept and soldier is that the way you play the game is exactly the same; i.e. no threat that can be defeated by a biotic cannot be defeated by a soldier, thus a balanced party is unecessary and no one person has a clear role.
Perhaps it is YOU who should go back and play Mass Effect 2.
Thanks for ignorance and stupidity.
Did you actually read the bit about them wanting to do a CoD style shooter? No? Then of course you have no idea what I'm talking about.Ritalynn said:
-Tabs<3-
Glad someone agrees with me that a Mass Effect MMO would be a baaaaad idea.CosmicCommander said:
-tabs<3-
Yet, I'm not the only one who absolutely hated Mass effect II.... Right, okay.joebear15 said:
-Tabs<3-
True enough, I was just making the point that once an MMO is started, there won't be anything else for that particular IP.Tsaba said:
What I get from that is that, for you, RPGs require rock/paper/scissors combat balance. For me, that's merely one way of many to balance combat... and I like how ME2's party system allows me to pick companions for narrative reasons or to suit a particular play style, and that there's no set formula of party selecton that guarantees success (or failure).Astalano said:
From the rest of your arguments, I conclude that you view RPGs as large puzzles to be solved by optimising mechanics... whereas I'm vastly more interested in the story and setting, and becoming the character (aka "playing the role") as much as possible.
I'm not arguing that my preferences trump yours... just that they're easily within the bounds of what we call "role playing games" even if they differ from yours, and that ME2 fits within those same bounds.
Sorry you didn't enjoy ME2, but that doesn't dampen my enthusiasm for ME3.
-- Steve
Anton P. Nym said:
You cannot justify anything as an RPG just by looking at how the story changes. Gameplay is the meat of any game, even Mass Effect 2. If the gameplay hasn't changed, then there has been no meaningful impact from your choices.
That doesn't mean something like Mass Effect 2 is worse than RPGs like Fallout, but that Fallout is just more of an RPG and it is unfair to developers who work so hard to make the choices in their games matter to justify ME2 as an RPG purely because of some superficial changes. The story is NOT tied to the gameplay. The way the plot unfolds does not, in any way, affect how the game plays. The Witcher, for instance, changes some gameplay as a result of your choices (e.g. you fight a mutant if you don't choose to go to the lab instead of battling the frightener), which is a great way of tying story and gameplay, but whether you help Miranda with her sister, Jackob with his father, etc., doesn't affect anything. Extra powers or abilities your crew get make little difference to the already easy combat and in the end, the story is contained within itself, which is not the way RPGs should be progressing.
If I pick a sniper, I should get missions where I'm tracking a target from hundreds of miles away. That is a meaningful gameplay choice. It doesn't mean I need rock paper scissors to make combat work, I'm just saying that clear lines need to be drawn in areas to make certain classes a lot more valuable than others to highlight the impact of your choices. If you're all soldiers, you should at least experience different, perhaps more intense or up-front combat, busting down walls with heavy weapons and such.
The future of RPGs lies in the world. E.g. what does the world do when you're not there? How do your actions affect people's response to you, in the form of what quests you receive, what factions respect you, etc? How do your abilities allow you to access different areas with different items or gameplay style? Mass Effect 2's world is non-existant.
I'm tired of people saying ME2 is "streamlining RPGs". It's NOT an RPG.