No "Meaningless Stat Games" in Mass Effect 3

[uc.asc]

Wow, knee jerk reactions much? I wasn't aware "No meaningless stat games" equals "we're Gears of War 4". I think what they're doing is good, I want the combat to flow according to MY actions not an invisible die being rolled in the games mechanics.

I also like that my upgrades will actually have an effect instead of only improving my accuracy or whatnot by about 0.05 each time I put a point into it. I hated that in Mass Effect 1 my Sole Survivor badass Infiltrator that was brought up on the mean streets of Earth could barely hit a barn door with a sniper rifle at the beginning. I'm sorry, why is he being pegged as a Spectre again? He should be shipped off back to boot camp.

It's because in games with levels you start weak and become strong. Hope this helps.

Which would be fine if Shepard was a fresh recruit but considering he's supposed to be the best humanity has to offer and is ready to join the Spectres at the START of the game the fact he can't shoot straight just never made sense to me. Which leads back to my original point that I dislike an invisible die dictating my actions instead of me. I shouldn't have to grind my way through half the game just so my bullets follow the cross hair.

So you are complaining how a RPG isn't a FPS.....
Are you even sure you are playing the right game?

No, I'm complaining how the narrative is at odds with the game play and the logic behind the skills effects on game play. While I'm perfectly fine with your Sniper Skill effecting how much your scope sways (thats logical) while aiming how does your accuracy with a gun effect the direction the bullet leaves the barrel? Seriously, how does your accuracy make the bullet veer off at a 20 degree angle when the sights are on the enemies head? Especially when the Infiltrator class description says your pretty much an expert with a Sniper.

While wind and gravity have an effect on normal bullets the in game codex says the guns of Mass Effect are essentially all rail guns/magnetically accelerated. The rounds are traveling at such high speeds that there shouldn't be time for wind and gravity to have an effect and even if they still did does maxing out your sniper skill somehow give you dominion over wind and gravity? THATS what I mean by an invisible die dictating things, sometimes to the point it defies logic.

The only explanation I can think of is that Shepard's been using wonky sights for the beginning of the first game. Which supports my earlier Back to Boot Camp claim because the best humanity has to offer is apparently a fresh faced new recruit instead of the Sole Survivor of Akuze or the War Hero of Elysium or the Ruthless commander at Torfan.

I still enjoy the Mass Effect series don't get me wrong, this is just me over thinking slight niggles I have with the game.

Wait, what?

That doesn't make sense. ME 1 literally does not do that. I've done half a dozen infiltrator playthroughs with new characters, and the sniper has never missed when the reticle was over an enemy. Not even at the beginning.

...did you find a way to scope while sprinting or something?

 

[NickCooley]

Man I know right? You're supposed to be all badass and stuff, so you should start at level 60. And when you join the specters they should give you all the level 10 specter gear, because that would be much more realistic. We play games to be invincible and instantly kill everything in sight, not because we want a challenge or anything.

You know what else has been bothering me? Dragon age. How do the characters get recruited into the gray wardens at like level two? Is the guy like "oh yeah, this dude does seven damage so he'd do awesome against an archdemon" or what?

You're misunderstanding me. I don't expect to start at a high level. But I DO expect that a character ready to join an elite force with who also has plenty of military achievements and history in his belt at the start of a game should be able to shoot straight.

 

[Hyper-space]

So my dear Escapists, an RPG is not defined by how much it resembles an accountant's work, but if there is character progression (this can manifest itself in many ways), cause remember: RPGs should be about choice, not min-max'ing and problems. So Bioware is not getting rid of the RPG elements, but are advancing them, taking them from their non-visual past and bringing them into visual future. Crying over stuff like this is the same as crying over cars no longer having to use that old-timey handle on the front.

PS: future posters, please do not try to make yourself look superior by insinuating that you somehow have higher standard, for one you are wrong and two it makes you look like an elitist dick.

Nice troll

So you dislike the things which define an RPG and obviously don't enjoy them in their pure form ("accountant's work"). You see RPG conventions as being the equivalent of ealy 1900s starting handles. Well, that's your opinion - if you don't like the genre this much and just want a pure twitch shooter, then just buy one. No-one is forcing you to buy RPGs. Mass Effect is a sweet middle ground between an RPG and Shooter. The balance was fine in ME1/2 - I disagree in equal measure with people who want to add RPG elements to ME3 and those who want to remove them.

And anyway, why the hate for people who ask for a little thinking challenge in their game? I mean come on - ME2 hardly needs a Doctorate to play. Really dude, this rant against anything that needs a brain to play makes you look just a bit insecure. I mean, people here asking for one game, just one game a year that does not test solely your twitch reflex makes them "elitist dicks"?

Did you even read the other thread? did you even try to contain your knee-jerk reaction? an RPG is not about numbers, its about character progression and being able to make your own choices in where said progression leads, its being able to shape the outcome of events, an RPG is NOT FUCKING NUMBER-CRUNCHING ONLY.[sub]also, do you know what a troll is?[/sub]

The first "RPG" (in a sense that you could make your own character and such) were the tabletop games, such as DnD. There the entire world was calculated using systems, that is numbers, because as there were no visuals (or anything to properly represent all the gameplay elements) to tell if you were successful or not. So, numbers were not there as a preference, but as a necessity, thus the formula went like this: player action -> dice roll/stats/ -> outcome (nota bene).

But then the computer RPG came to be, at first it wasn't that different from the tabletop ones, except that you had a DOS interface. But as processing power became more and more, suddenly developers could do ALL sorts of stuff (visually that is). Suddenly they could have visual representations of the actions the player took. This shift in how we view RPG elements meant that as more and more visual representations became possible, the less we had to use numbers. So the formula has been slowly going this way: player action -> visual representation -> outcome. Now, instead of an dice roll and stats, we had visual cues.

Now, like many RPG developers (such as Bethesda) who have caught on to this logical next step, Bioware noticed that "hey! instead of just having stats determine whether or not your succeed at hacking/salvagin, we can have the player actually hack the terminal, using a mini-game that represents the process of hacking/salvaging!", and they did so with a lot of other stuff. Now, nothing was removed here, hacking and salvaging is still there, but yet there were no longer any numbers. What happened?

Well, now they put the responsibility of succeeding in the players hands, no longer is failure determined by some assortment of numbers. Now the control is in your hands, now you need skills to succeed!.

Now this has pissed off a lot of players, players that grew up with the archaic system of no visual representations, where there was no skill involved and you only had to know what numbers were higher. And just as you demonstrated in your post, superiority without having to prove it with skills is just what you are looking for, you even said it yourself.

So when Bioware says that they are no longer bothering with meaningless stat games, its because stats is an archaic system, and instead they can replace it with a dynamic system where the control is in your hands, where instead of problems (where there is only one solution) you have choice (where there is no right answer).

So please, stop using "troll" as a buzz-word and stop with this fucking elitism. I like RPGs because they give me a choice, they allow me to create my own character and let me shape the story, i actually put thought into discussions about RPGs, where as you just accuse people of trolling and "not wanting to play RPGs".

 

[bombadilillo]

I see all your points. But come on its a game. We could start everyone at level 40 and put the max at 90 if you like? I can see Dragon Age better like, your a level 1 Grey Warden, as in you are the suckiest of the Grey Wardens that exist. I find it harder to believe in ME2 that the poeple that can RESSURECT YOU, dont have the funds to equip you with state of the art armor and weopons from the start. We spend 800Billion on the new spaceship/bringing you back to life, and 14.95 on a robe and a peashooter. Btw technology took a huge jump backwards and you need ammo now, BYE!

Also putting hacking as a minigame and not a stat...everything like that weakens the game imo. In a game like this there should be different viable routes to make a character. If I want a hacker I can make my character one, if everyone can do everything wtf is the point of having rpg elements at all?

 

[NickCooley]

Wow, knee jerk reactions much? I wasn't aware "No meaningless stat games" equals "we're Gears of War 4". I think what they're doing is good, I want the combat to flow according to MY actions not an invisible die being rolled in the games mechanics.

I also like that my upgrades will actually have an effect instead of only improving my accuracy or whatnot by about 0.05 each time I put a point into it. I hated that in Mass Effect 1 my Sole Survivor badass Infiltrator that was brought up on the mean streets of Earth could barely hit a barn door with a sniper rifle at the beginning. I'm sorry, why is he being pegged as a Spectre again? He should be shipped off back to boot camp.

It's because in games with levels you start weak and become strong. Hope this helps.

Which would be fine if Shepard was a fresh recruit but considering he's supposed to be the best humanity has to offer and is ready to join the Spectres at the START of the game the fact he can't shoot straight just never made sense to me. Which leads back to my original point that I dislike an invisible die dictating my actions instead of me. I shouldn't have to grind my way through half the game just so my bullets follow the cross hair.

So you are complaining how a RPG isn't a FPS.....
Are you even sure you are playing the right game?

No, I'm complaining how the narrative is at odds with the game play and the logic behind the skills effects on game play. While I'm perfectly fine with your Sniper Skill effecting how much your scope sways (thats logical) while aiming how does your accuracy with a gun effect the direction the bullet leaves the barrel? Seriously, how does your accuracy make the bullet veer off at a 20 degree angle when the sights are on the enemies head? Especially when the Infiltrator class description says your pretty much an expert with a Sniper.

While wind and gravity have an effect on normal bullets the in game codex says the guns of Mass Effect are essentially all rail guns/magnetically accelerated. The rounds are traveling at such high speeds that there shouldn't be time for wind and gravity to have an effect and even if they still did does maxing out your sniper skill somehow give you dominion over wind and gravity? THATS what I mean by an invisible die dictating things, sometimes to the point it defies logic.

The only explanation I can think of is that Shepard's been using wonky sights for the beginning of the first game. Which supports my earlier Back to Boot Camp claim because the best humanity has to offer is apparently a fresh faced new recruit instead of the Sole Survivor of Akuze or the War Hero of Elysium or the Ruthless commander at Torfan.

I still enjoy the Mass Effect series don't get me wrong, this is just me over thinking slight niggles I have with the game.

Wait, what?

That doesn't make sense. ME 1 literally does not do that. I've done half a dozen infiltrator playthroughs with new characters, and the sniper has never missed when the reticle was over an enemy. Not even at the beginning.

...did you find a way to scope while sprinting or something?

I was exaggerating slightly but there has been plenty of times that I've lined up the shot, fired and the bullet veers off. Unless I'm just terminally unlucky.

 

[Continuity]

They can do what they like with the game just so long as its good. I'm an RPG fan for sure but not every game has to be an RPG or have RPG elements for it to be good.

HOwever if they strip stuff out and actually make it worse then I may have a few choice words for them in some pointless forum rant at some point.

Besides, if its purely "behind the scenes" stuff they are changing then why even bother to tell us? "Behind the scenes" implies there the will be no visible change but just a change in the impact of the mechanisms they already have in place.

 

[Njdevil1288]

(PREPARE FOR WALL OF TEXT) I will start this off by saying this will probably be the only time i post on this site since i will most likely not be getting any kind of cohesive feedback. First off to all the Call of Duty haters, how many of you have actually sat in front of the TV and played COD Multi (single is pretty shallow and dumb i know) but i would LOVE COD style customization on ME, Some of the boys at bioware said something along the lines of COD being similar to an RPG, while the story isnt even 1/1000 of your typical RPG the multi is filled with customization, allow me to point out the similarities between typical RPG stat tinkering and COD Black OPS.
leveling up? yeah they both got that, Unlocking new powers/perks that have an actual effect on the gameplay? hmmm CHECK!! Customizable weapons / an assload of weapons? Check. Silencers, variable zooms, red dot sites m203 attachments,rapid fire, grip, claymores COD points = mana, new swords new powers, armors, guns xp, spells, enchantments w.e. So as much as you like to bash it COD does have some minor RPG elements, its not Halo where u get an assault rifle and a gun and never tinker with your armory and there are no meaningful benefits to ranking up.
On to "Elitism" yes u guys are spouting alot of it.......RPG PLAYERS ARE VIRGINS WHO SIT IN THERE PARENTS BASEMENTS PLAYING WITH STATS ALL DAY BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO SKILLS AT ANY KIND OF SPORTS OR TWTICH SHOOTERS" thats me generalizing, how is that any different than "Halotards" "frat boy morons" "lowest common denominator" and all that other garbage you guys are spouting. You playing RPG's does not make you smarter, just for assuming that playing one type of video game genre makes u smarter you are no better then the dumb 12 year old on the MW2 lobby shouting stupid things. Its elitism plain and simple. If you dont like shooters thats fine and dandy but don't talk down to those who do with this false sense of grandeur.
On to Mass Effect, I have faith that bioware will not screw this up, people seem to have already forgotten the Game Informer article that clearly shows they intend to bring back more RPG features. If you thought that ME1 combat system was better then ME2 thats fine but if i had to rate it solely on combat it would probably score no higher then a 6 outta ten. Only thing that stops me from giving it a lower score is that i liked the power wheel a bit more in ME1. I doubt they will do a complete 360 on all the things they laid out in the GI article.

 

[Therumancer]

I think they just did some major damage to their own game and it's probably reception among the core audience of RPG gamers.

To explain this to some people:

Do you have to post the exact same post in every Mass Effect thread? Newsflash: nobody cares about the 'core audience of RPG gamers' but themselves.

It does however never ceases to amuse me how people can get so hung up on the icredibly inane question of whether Mass Effect is an RPG or not. It's one of the most pointless arguments I've ever seen and it only exists because there are these incredibly annoying 'purists' who act incredibly elitist and think they're entitled to all sorts of things. I sincerely hope that group of people finally realise nobody is going to releases a game that will 'rise' to their standards and just give up gaming.

The issue will exist as long as people keep trying to label games as RPGs when they are not. In general I find people who object to what I'm saying to be people who are hung up over seeing what they see as a sacred cow being publically flayed. If this was such a non-issue to you, I doubt you would have bothered to respond.

That said, if you've actually read all my posts on this type of subject, you'd know that overall I really don't give a crap about the game industry creating shooters and catering to that market. My basic attitude is that no game is for everyone, and as long as people like me get our RPG games directed at us, I don't really care if there are other games directed at other audiences.

The problem we're seeing is that increasingly your not seeing any actual RPGs being developed. Rather you see the "RPG" label stamped onto products that are not RPGs for a variety of reasons I've covered on other posts.

When it comes to "Mass Effect", it's an RPG franchise, the first installment of which was an RPG game. They have decided to make it so it's not an RPG anymore, yet continue to label it as such.

Right now there are plenty of science fiction shooters for people that like shooters. We have Halo, we have Gears Of War, those games are out there. Mass Effect was supposed to be a science fiction game for the RPG crowd, not another shooter in the long line of shooter franchises out there covering the same basic material and gameplay style.

You'd be correct in your accusations if I was jumping on say "Halo" and saying that they should have itemization, loot, and stat based combat and gameplay. That would be entitled elitism since I'd be saying that there should be no shooters, with me going after a franchise that was defined right from the beginning as a shooter, and markets itself as one. "Mass Effect" however is a differant animal as is an RPG franchise, being billed as an RPG franchise, and which was designed around RPG mechanics, that has been turned into a shooter, and yet is still being marketed as an RPG.

Basically, leave mine alone, I'll leave yours alone. In this case though, mine is not being left alone, and that's why there is an issue... and I'm more than willing to call both the company and the users out on that.

To be blunt, I'd probably be a lot more laid back if there were more actual RPGs out there on the market, however there really aren't. Despite a large fan base, there are far more people playing shooters... a result of the lowest human denominator being lowered into gaming, and more money to be made from catering to the shooter crowd. Tons of money can be made from RPG games, but MORE money can be made from shooters, so as a result we RPG gamers are not getting what we want.

These fights recur, because it's not like RPG gamers are small in number, if we were a tiny minority of players it would be one thing, but we're not, we're a HUGE market, and one that largely kept gaming alive before shooters even became viable, and that market existed to be catered to. We "lose" only through comparison and not being the biggest possible market. Bioware which is a company that has become successful by producing RPG games for RPG gamers has gotten big enough where it feels that it's viable to stab the fan base that made it in the back and go after bigger profit margins, while at the same time trying to deny what it's doing. Needless to say it's slotting off a not-inconsiderable group of people. Millions upon millions of people being pissed at you is not a group that is going to quietly allow itself to be swept under the rug.

I'll also be honest, if you wanted to get into the entire entitlement thing, then yes, RPG gamers *ARE* kind of entitled when it comes to certain companies. Arguements about the fans that made a group being entitled whiners are typically made by hypocrits who have gotten big enough where they feel they can stab people in the back and get away with it. The attitude we're seeing from a lot of game companies right now, especially RPG producing game companies, is very similar to music bands who get big, and then turn to soulless pop garbage because they can make more money, faster, by selling out. It doesn't matter how they justify it, the people doing it are still being thankless scumbags with no respect for the people who made them. Of course we have yet to see many situations where these game companies have undergone a hard fall, and then tried to appeal to their old fans only to get kicked while they are down. Given time that will happen, and be something to point to, but like the music industry I kind of expect things have gotten big enough, and sleazy enough, where the guys riding high at the top aren't going to believe it could happen to them until it does.

Basically Bioware is being a bunch of self-righteous punks who are stabbing their fans in the back, and either denying it or acting like it doesn't matter. A lot of people mince words, I don't. I'm not going to defend them as an RPG producer when they aren't an RPG producer. When they lie about what kind of games they are making in their marketing, I'm going to call them liars. Even if it's an uphill battle, there is always that oh-so-small chance that Bioware will be one of the rare exceptions that realizes "okay, this isn't where we should be going" and gets itself back on track. I'll have a crazy amount of respect for them if they can pull that off, but right now that's not where we're at with them. Right now we're looking at the standing over the corpse of their fanbase, bloody knife in hand, counting their money while lying to everyone about what their product is.

 

[Fanboy]

He has a very good point. You have to draw the line somewhere. ME2 was not a RPG. The only reason it got labeled as such was the dev behind it, Bioware. Explain to me what made it a RPG. Not trying to be mean, I'm just trying to spark discussion.

Let's see... You customize a character, you pick a class, you gather party members, you complete quests, you earn experience and level up, you gain new items and abilities, you make choices based on your character's alignment, you explore a universe filled with rich lore...

Nevermind, I forgot you do all those things in Gears of War. I guess it isn't an RPG after all.

Customizing a character's appearance isn't a RPG element, you stopped earning individual experience points and get them at the end of a "mission", leveling was butchered (less abilities, half the level cap, you can max out everything except one slot by end game), oh yes the handful of guns you pick up totally qualifies as looting, you have a point here (still how many RPGs let you do this? Is it really a element?), and what game world doesn't let you experience the world it has created?
In conclusion, a shooter with RPG elements.

Customizing a character's appearance isn't a role-playing element? This is a single player game, what other point does it have? Why does it matter whether you gain exp kill by kill or in lump sums at the conclusion of a quest? The amount of levels is irrelevant, since it still takes the majority of the game to reach 30. There are actually MORE abilities, but they are divided amongst squadmates in order to discourage favoritism. Even though you can max most abilities by the end of the game, you still have to choose which skills to progress first. As for the guns, the handful you pick up are still more varied than Mass Effect's arsenal - Especially the heavy weapons. "Letting you experience the world it has created" is an entirely different thing from having a "rich lore." All those codex entries aren't there to look pretty, and those descriptions over every planet are for flavor text. Not every game fleshes out the culture of the games' inhabitants.

It is an RPG, it's just not your standard fare.

 

[Cowabungaa]

I'm so glad that my love of leveling, looting, and tactics is now relegated to "meaningless stat games".

Assuming they mean that with "meaningless stat games". I think they're talking more about fidgeting around with 1% increase in...whatever. Scans of a Game Informer ME3 article [http://gamingeverything.com/?p=3178&pid=1137] did have a part titled "Return of the RPG". And when I read it, I get the feeling that we'll see more of ME1's customisation return.

And I too say that that's a good thing. While I don't really care whether it gets the label RPG or not, I liked it in ME1. Yes it was cumbersome and bloated, but ME2 cut just a bit too much to streamline it. I hope ME3 can find the perfect middle road.

 

[Continuity]

RPG PLAYERS ARE VIRGINS WHO SIT IN THERE PARENTS BASEMENTS PLAYING WITH STATS ALL DAY BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO SKILLS AT ANY KIND OF SPORTS OR TWTICH SHOOTERS

OK, I think maybe you're not 100% serious with that comment given the context but even so... I'm and RPG fan and and FPS fan, the two things are not mutually exclusive. I love RPG because it creates a fantasy, and alternate reality where you can play the role of someone (or something) else and thats great, thats escapism in a nutshell. Shooters are great too, because they make for highly skilled and enjoyable competitive and cooperative games, plus guns are always cool (in fiction/games).

The "virgin in parents basement" thing is often a missile aimed at gamers in general, I don't think we really need to be firing it amongst ourselves too.

 

[bombadilillo]

ME1 was cumbersome but it didnt detract to the game imo. I just ignored a lot of the stuff and made it through fine. Like in DA1, never crafted a thing. But it was there if you wanted it. Why do you have to strip deeper layers to appeal to a wider base?

 

[uc.asc]

I was exaggerating slightly but there has been plenty of times that I've lined up the shot, fired and the bullet veers off. Unless I'm just terminally unlucky.

Hurm. We can probably get a definitive answer with a couple of minutes and a blank wall, so I'll see if I can replicate the effect next time I start a playthrough.

 

[PhoenixVanguard]

Everyone here IS aware that RPG stands for ROLE PLAYING GAME, right? And that invisible stats and digital dice roll in no way have anything to do with what defines that? Traditionally, RPGs had a myriad of stats, chance hits, and the like because they derive from tabletop Roleplaying games like Dungeons and Dragons. And Dungeons and Dragons only has those stats because if you didn't, everyone would sit around a table blocking, dodging, parrying, or just plain withstanding everything that came their way because people just don't like losing. So, in order to stop that, you come up with stats that assign them to everything a person can do, then roll to see how successful they are at it. It was a balancing mechanism that came from necessity.

Video games don't currently have that problem. You can now map all the attacking, dodging, ducking, and so on to a simple button press, or, if there are a number of commands, a quick access menu (It could even be radial, hrmn...). It can happen in real time and my success and failure is based on whether I, and this might blow your mind, successfully perform the intended action or fail to do so. Simple as that. The idea that being able to sit around and scroll through menus as being more strategic is at best misguided and at worst an excuse for people with piss poor decision making and reflexes. Having my perfect strategic plan foiled by a 5% or less chance to hit is a triumph for chaos and poor programming, not strategy and good game play.

Roleplaying is being put in a role and being able to make choices. And Bioware does that. Is the system limited? Yes. Perfect? Far from. But it's fun to play, and allows me to alter the dialogue, how individual scenarios play out, and the order in which I do things, even the ending is usually the same or very similar. I am in the role of Commander Shepard, and if THAT is less roleplaying to you than say...Final Fantasy XIII,which has stats based nonsense, but is linear, full of boring, static characters I barely control, and has a dull plot with no replayability, then I'm sorry, but you're just plain wrong. End of story.

 

[Njdevil1288]

RPG PLAYERS ARE VIRGINS WHO SIT IN THERE PARENTS BASEMENTS PLAYING WITH STATS ALL DAY BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO SKILLS AT ANY KIND OF SPORTS OR TWTICH SHOOTERS

OK, I think maybe you're not 100% serious with that comment given the context but even so... I'm and RPG fan and and FPS fan, the two things are not mutually exclusive. I love RPG because it creates a fantasy, and alternate reality where you can play the role of someone (or something) else and thats great, thats escapism in a nutshell. Shooters are great too, because they make for highly skilled and enjoyable competitive and cooperative games, plus guns are always cool (in fiction/games).

The "virgin in parents basement" thing is often a missile aimed at gamers in general, I don't think we really need to be firing it amongst ourselves too.

agreed i used that line to prove my point on how stupid it is to assume all FPS fans are dumb neanderthals. I often ask myself why is there so much hate in the gaming community its bad enough everyone else thinks were cooped up losers with no social lives now but we also gotta deal with the hate from other gaming genres.

 

[bombadilillo]

Everyone here IS aware that RPG stands for ROLE PLAYING GAME, right? And that invisible stats and digital dice roll in no way have anything to do with what defines that? Traditionally, RPGs had a myriad of stats, chance hits, and the like because they derive from tabletop Roleplaying games like Dungeons and Dragons. And Dungeons and Dragons only has those stats because if you didn't, everyone would sit around a table blocking, dodging, parrying, or just plain withstanding everything that came their way because people just don't like losing. So, in order to stop that, you come up with stats that assign them to everything a person can do, then roll to see how successful they are at it. It was a balancing mechanism that came from necessity.

Video games don't currently have that problem. You can now map all the attacking, dodging, ducking, and so on to a simple button press, or, if there are a number of commands, a quick access menu (It could even be radial, hrmn...). It can happen in real time and my success and failure is based on whether I, and this might blow your mind, successfully perform the intended action or fail to do so. Simple as that. The idea that being able to sit around and scroll through menus as being more strategic is at best misguided and at worst an excuse for people with piss poor decision making and reflexes. Having my perfect strategic plan foiled by a 5% or less chance to hit is a triumph for chaos and poor programming, not strategy and good game play.

Roleplaying is being put in a role and being able to make choices. And Bioware does that. Is the system limited? Yes. Perfect? Far from. But it's fun to play, and allows me to alter the dialogue, how individual scenarios play out, and the order in which I do things, even the ending is usually the same or very similar. I am in the role of Commander Shepard, and if THAT is less roleplaying to you than say...Final Fantasy XIII,which has stats based nonsense, but is linear, full of boring, static characters I barely control, and has a dull plot with no replayability, then I'm sorry, but you're just plain wrong. End of story.

I see your point and thats all well and good but you ahve to realize that ME started as a stat heavy more traditional RPG. So when it becomes COD with a dialog wheel people get pissed. Im sure plenty of people would want to play that but this is not what ME is about and fans are understandably pissed at it.

 

[Savber]

No "meaningless stat games" does not equate no stats. Just wanted to throw that out there.

 

[Shadesong]

snip

First of all, congratulations on your first post, sorry that it will probably be lost in the sea of this presumptuous bile.

Now, on to the main course. I'm sure it must be some form of elaborate suicide to read through these posts, because some of them truly make me feel like my brain is desperately trying to die from the sheer incomprehensible stupidity that some individuals are showing. Could someone, for the love of Christ, point out where they said they were removing all RPG elements and turning this into a GoW clone? I'm genuinely starting to doubt my ability to read now, because I didn't notice anywhere in this:

We don't want to have any meaningless behind-the-scenes stat games

Where it says that they're stripping away every RPG element in the game. The fact that some people are managing to infer so much information from this single, incredibly vague statement, is a testament to either their incredible psychic potential or their overwhelming idiocy.

They've said they want to remove 'meaningless stat games', this could mean any number of things, but to assume from that statement that Bioware have suddenly become the physical incarnation of the Shit God who sold his soul to the devil and must be burned at the stake as a heretic is a mighty far stretch. For all we know, Bioware are actually improving the stats so that everything plays a major part in the game. Do I know that they're actually improving the game in this way? No, and it would be stupid of me to claim that I do; equally stupid as some folk claiming that Bioware has become the Antichrist while screaming "HURR DURR! It's Gears of War IN SPACE!"

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheyChangedItNowItSucks
I'm just going to leave this here.

Edit:

No "meaningless stat games" does not equate no stats. Just wanted to throw that out there.

Thank you so much for being able to read, it seems that there are so very few people around here who actually can.

 

[Njdevil1288]

Everyone here IS aware that RPG stands for ROLE PLAYING GAME, right? And that invisible stats and digital dice roll in no way have anything to do with what defines that? Traditionally, RPGs had a myriad of stats, chance hits, and the like because they derive from tabletop Roleplaying games like Dungeons and Dragons. And Dungeons and Dragons only has those stats because if you didn't, everyone would sit around a table blocking, dodging, parrying, or just plain withstanding everything that came their way because people just don't like losing. So, in order to stop that, you come up with stats that assign them to everything a person can do, then roll to see how successful they are at it. It was a balancing mechanism that came from necessity.

Video games don't currently have that problem. You can now map all the attacking, dodging, ducking, and so on to a simple button press, or, if there are a number of commands, a quick access menu (It could even be radial, hrmn...). It can happen in real time and my success and failure is based on whether I, and this might blow your mind, successfully perform the intended action or fail to do so. Simple as that. The idea that being able to sit around and scroll through menus as being more strategic is at best misguided and at worst an excuse for people with piss poor decision making and reflexes. Having my perfect strategic plan foiled by a 5% or less chance to hit is a triumph for chaos and poor programming, not strategy and good game play.

Roleplaying is being put in a role and being able to make choices. And Bioware does that. Is the system limited? Yes. Perfect? Far from. But it's fun to play, and allows me to alter the dialogue, how individual scenarios play out, and the order in which I do things, even the ending is usually the same or very similar. I am in the role of Commander Shepard, and if THAT is less roleplaying to you than say...Final Fantasy XIII,which has stats based nonsense, but is linear, full of boring, static characters I barely control, and has a dull plot with no replayability, then I'm sorry, but you're just plain wrong. End of story.

I see your point and thats all well and good but you ahve to realize that ME started as a stat heavy more traditional RPG. So when it becomes COD with a dialog wheel people get pissed. Im sure plenty of people would want to play that but this is not what ME is about and fans are understandably pissed at it.

I'm asking with respect and it would be nice to get a respectdful answer back........Have you played any of the COD games (Im referring to the single player this time) please point out how mass effect 2 is similar to it.

 

[PhoenixVanguard]

I see your point and thats all well and good but you ahve to realize that ME started as a stat heavy more traditional RPG. So when it becomes COD with a dialog wheel people get pissed. Im sure plenty of people would want to play that but this is not what ME is about and fans are understandably pissed at it.

Some fans, yeah. But I've been a fan since ME1 as well. Hell, I've loved Bioware since Baldur's Gate. And I don't feel pissed in the least. When was the last time any of you played ME1? Or another popular RPG-Shooter...Deus Ex? Because I played both earlier this year, and you know what was frustrating? Having perfect aim, firing in bursts, taking my time...making every logical step to make a shot, and have a fight devolve into drawn-out bullet fests because everything I'm doing means dick if the game decides I'm going to miss no matter where I place my reticle. In blending two genres, you have to take what's best about both and make them into one coherent product, not a game that feels like there are two engines in conflict with one another. Even with ME1 and Deus Ex, by the time you get to the end, all of your guns are pinpoint accurate and they're INFINITELY more fun to play. Why should you have to grind through half a game to get to that? How is a random element shaped by stats a more valid, strategic, or fun approach than actually being placed in the situation in real time?