Tin Man said:
Therumancer said:
Well, I think the first responder got it right as this is exactly the kind of news that is getting Bioware flamed. The basic point seems to be that they are continueing the trend of dumbing things down, by removing even more variables from the game by letting you have less options to customize your squad through having less availible characters. Instead they are putting in more cartoons (ie cut scenes with dialogue selection options) and claiming that this makes for "deeper role-playing" when in reality this game isn't even an RPG anymore given that they have removed pretty much all the combat stats, and most of the itemization
It was literally at this point I stopped reading this fucking MASSIVE text wall, because its, frankly, wrong. They've upped the itemisation by adding customisable weapons again, and they've specifically said they're making MORE battle effective stats.
Bioware were ALWAYS going for a shooter with an RPG flavour, and NOT the other way round.
I'm sure I could've picked apart the rest of the post, but yeah, I don't have an hour to spare here mate...
Actually, no, they aren't adding itemization. Thinking that weapon mods amount to itemization is wrong. Action games have had weapon mods involved in them for a long time, and there has been an entire article on The Escapist about how Bioware mentioned that they weren't putting the stats back into combat.
Restoring itemization would involve putting tons of differant weapons with differant stats and foibles into the game, along with things like "accuracy" which influances whether you hit or miss with a weapon when combined with your character's selected skills, rather than your abillity to point and shoot. Itemization also involves things like being able to collect and wear armor. One of the problems with Mass Effect 2, was that Shepard was the only character who could wear/change/collect armor.
The existance of weapon mods doesn't make the game any more of an RPG than say "Army Of Two: The 40th Day"... which was flat out a shooter.
They have stated they are NOT putting stats into combat (to repete it again) what they have said is that they plan to have powers that evolve more than one time. Meaning that instead of say having a choice after filling up 4 levels of a skill of say having it do more damage, or affect multiple targets, every so many points you'd have the abillity to add a differant enhancement to the power. This however doesn't fundementally alter the nature of how the combat is working with the player having to aim their weapon with their own reflexs, and line up the shots for those power activations. There are no real die rolls or anything being made to determine the outcome.
You are also DEAD wrong about the initial intent of the Mass Effect series, the whole point of the game was to have a game that was an RPG but looked like a shooter. This is why you had things like weapon skills in the first game. If you weren't skilled with a weapon you were not going to be able to hit anything with it that had too much in the way of defense stats, no matter how well you as a player aimed. This could amount to running up to something with a weapon you have no skill with, putting the muzzle up against the side of it, pulling the trigger, and missing (even if that's an extreme situation, and you could alter it somewhat by say using accuracy mods on the weapon to compensate for low, or eve non-existant skills). Likewise, with a lot of skill, precise aiming wasn't really nessicary, aiming in the
general area was usually enough in most cases. With the Sniper Rifle there was a bit of an exception since skill largely influanced scope drift as opposed to the shot itself, it being a mini-game of sorts on a lot of levels.
You couldn't have picked the rest apart because I'm right. Being the internet that's not all that relevent though, like everything it always comes down to having to agree to disagree, and the only thing in question is whether it ends with someone flaming, or the the conversation ends peacably.
To be honest, other people have commented on the length of my posts, but in general it comes down to the suggestion that I don't condense them, because in doing so I leave out a lot of information. Typically in my posts there isn't a lot to say in disagreement because I typically head off most arguements people would make before they can even make them (which is beneficial, but infuriating to some people. It does save a lot of time though). In general if you don't want to actually read on a subject, you probably shouldn't be on a message board to begin with.
While it has nothing to do with you directly (as you've been fairly resonable, despite being wrong, other than your comments about post length and dismissive attitude) I'll be honest in saying that one of the reaosns why a lot of people kind of wish I would write shorter points is because by summarizing a lot of what I have to say in a few sentences or paragraphs without explaining myself would turn me into something akin to an attention seeking troll, given that I am so frequently on the less-popular side of debates. For example when it comes to things like "Mass Effect" the bottom line is that there are far more shooter fans out there than there are RPG players, and that's at the core of why these changes are taking place. More fans for shooters, means more sales to shooter players, and more money for the company. Shooter fans of course like the changes made to games like "Mass Effect" as it fits their tastes, and of course will defend it. RPG players like me take the attitude that there are already plenty of shooters out there, and game developers should leave RPGs alone given that there are few enough of them as it is, rather than trying to change all of them to tap into action-gaming markets and missing the point of what makes them what they are in the process. I don't go into "Gears Of War" forums and badmouth the game for not being stat driven and insist it should be, and I really kind of appreciate the favor when people don't start screaming that making RPGs twitch based doesn't change what they are or the point of them. I tend to only get nasty when that's what people do. In this case "Bioware" is pretty much selling out to a bigger market, even if the RPG market is still really profitable, it's the temptation of say making a hundred million in profit as opposed to ninety million in profit, they want the extra ten million in their pocket, as opposed to being content to making the huge ninety million dollars in profit and support a loyal audience. They figure "well someone else can do that, we want to be where the few extra bucks are". Needless to say as a member of the audience being stabbed in the back, I'm not happy about it. Also I *DO* get that shooter fans don't like being called less intelligent, however there is no way to really mince words when the central issue here is that the shooter fan doesn't like RPGs because they dont want to have to think, and can't find any real joy in the menus, items, stats, and numbers. They don't want indirect control, and can't get their minds around that to enjoy it and derive satisfaction. RPGS fans enjoy it from an intellectual position and derive satisfaction from understanding and controlling the variables (and the depper the better). Shooter fans will say this themselves, and talk about RPGs making their heads hurt and gripe about all the aspects that are the very point of that style of game. There isn't much reason to mince words when the situation is broken down that clearly, and when your typical "I love shooters, but hate RPGs" player basically makes a "proud to be dumb" arguement about immediate gratification, he kind of brings it on himself.