No "Meaningless Stat Games" in Mass Effect 3
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
I understand that and I think ME2 started off in a good direction. You didn't have levels of guns but you had a gun for every type. Semi auto sniper, and the Holy right hand of God one etc. I think you can spin that in game in a way that makes sense out of traditional RPG tropes. Or upgrades being like Black Ops in that they are cosmetic as far as not changing stats but changing how the gun is used.Jumplion said:
In the end, I think what all of us, or at least most of us, want is for Bioware to come out with more concrete details about what they are changing, so we can stop fretting over possibilities and vagues statements and instead make clear which parts of what they are actually doing we do/don't approve of.
Of course, I'm sure there are some people here who just like complaining for complaining's sake but even they wouldn't mind more concrete statements, it would just make it easier to latch onto something to complain about.
In an ideal world I'd like Bioware to come out and say "Here's what we were planning on doing, here's what EA is making us do," but I recognize that we aren't in an ideal world so I'll settle for some more concrete, blame-free statements about what they're doing.
Of course, I'm sure there are some people here who just like complaining for complaining's sake but even they wouldn't mind more concrete statements, it would just make it easier to latch onto something to complain about.
In an ideal world I'd like Bioware to come out and say "Here's what we were planning on doing, here's what EA is making us do," but I recognize that we aren't in an ideal world so I'll settle for some more concrete, blame-free statements about what they're doing.
I enjoyed ME2's story, but we're both entitled to our opinions.Agayek said:
As for DA2, that was an entirely different team, so it's fairly irrelevant IMO.
Considering how we don't really have any details at this point anyway, everything is complete conjecture. Also, in general I don't like judging a game based on its developer's past performance, rather, I judge the game based upon its own merits.
lol this is the exact mental image I had when I read the article. At first I thought everything would be okay when ea bought bioware but after dragon age 2, their game's quality seems to be dropping.Agayek said:
This accurately summarizes my feeling on this issue. Why the hell do RPG developers keep removing the RPG from their games?
Plus the likable characters, interesting story and less machismo. Comparing Mass Effect to Gears of War is like comparing Assassin's Creed to God of War.Arehexes said:
People are acting as if they said they'll remove the conversations, the choices, the likable characters, the space exploration, the powers acquired through leveling and the awe-inspiring environments. When did Gears of War have all that? Did you all play some enhanced edition or something?
I don't know how to take this. On one hand I'm worried they'll end up cutting too much out rather than actually streamline it. On the other hand, it sounds like they're actually learning from their previous games and are working to add it all together to make a good balance between taking out too much and leaving it all cluttered.
When is Bioware going to stop talking about the combat and start talking about the things people actually look to Bioware games for: character development, dialogue, and story? And now this? Why don't they just remove the skill systems entirely, have Shepherd grunt at everyone like a cave(wo)man, and stop with the whole pretense of ME3 still being an RPG.
The only thing that was "meaningless" in ME2 were the tedious, repetitive "hacking" and "unlocking" minigames that you had to sit through a thousand times just to score a few hundred credits.
The only thing that was "meaningless" in ME2 were the tedious, repetitive "hacking" and "unlocking" minigames that you had to sit through a thousand times just to score a few hundred credits.
I felt that the choice of weapons in ME2 were pretty subpar. I ended up using the same crappy starting SMG, hearing the same "rattata-rattata-rattata-clink" whenever I fired and reloaded, until I FINALLY found a newer one. It felt like I was firing a peashooter the entire time, not a hefty weapon that shreds through steel. The weapons only fit specific specific playing styles, and there was no reason to alternate different types of the same weapon as the next one was always a complete upgrade over the previous one.sneakypenguin said:
I felt that the modifications in ME1, like acid/combustion rounds, or increasing rate of fire, provided more diversity in the weaponry even if the models never changed (and my god, were snipers completely useless in ME1).
ha ha sooo true. I guess the Bioware forums are right...Mass effect 3 will be just like Dragon age 2...Traun said:
ZeZZZZevy said:
the bit where Shepard boards the Collector ship requires at minimum TIM, EDI, Shepard and Joker to all act like complete morons.
And that the whole "Harvest humans to make a baby Reaper" thing is more than a bit stupid. It would be several orders of magnitude easier, faster and more efficient (all things logical machines should be aiming for) to simply build a standard ship and throw a Reaper AI into it, or indoctrinate a slave and have it activate the Citadel relay.
And that the existence of the Collectors themselves is just dumb. There's literally no reason for the Reapers to have kept them alive for the last 50,000 years. It was a waste of resources (again, something nothing that follows logic as computers/AI must would do), especially since they almost certainly would have no need/use for them.
And the fact that Shepard is "the Chosen One!" for some utterly arbitrary reason. There's literally nothing Shepard can do that someone else couldn't. There is no magic desiny/prophecy or whatever the hell else is usually used as the excuse for these plotlines. Thus, there's absolutely no reason for TIM to spend 4 billion credits resurrecting him.
I could keep going all day, but you get the idea.
And that the whole "Harvest humans to make a baby Reaper" thing is more than a bit stupid. It would be several orders of magnitude easier, faster and more efficient (all things logical machines should be aiming for) to simply build a standard ship and throw a Reaper AI into it, or indoctrinate a slave and have it activate the Citadel relay.
And that the existence of the Collectors themselves is just dumb. There's literally no reason for the Reapers to have kept them alive for the last 50,000 years. It was a waste of resources (again, something nothing that follows logic as computers/AI must would do), especially since they almost certainly would have no need/use for them.
And the fact that Shepard is "the Chosen One!" for some utterly arbitrary reason. There's literally nothing Shepard can do that someone else couldn't. There is no magic desiny/prophecy or whatever the hell else is usually used as the excuse for these plotlines. Thus, there's absolutely no reason for TIM to spend 4 billion credits resurrecting him.
I could keep going all day, but you get the idea.
Yea, I'd much rather judge the game on its own merits, but there's no way to do that. And in that case, it's not unreasonable to take a look at a creator's previous work and extrapolate how their current project will turn out. It's the same thing for any producer, be it for cars, music, movies, whatever.
I'll take M. Night Shamalamalakum as the perfect example. He made a couple really good movies, and he was awesome. Then he made nothing but crap for the last decade. Judging by his past performance, it's not unreasonable to conclude whatever movie he's making now is going to suck, just like the last 4-5.
PS - While I was writing this, I definitely realized just how apt this comparison is. Bioware really is the M Night Shyamalan of the games industry.
Edit: Your partially right about the whole different teams thing, but again, you can generally judge a future product of a company/person/group by their previous work, and Bioware's has been getting steadily worse.
Yep that killed all hype for that game. I WANT an RPG with useless stats, its up to the player if they want to go that route. On my infiltrator, all can be used in certain situations. Played on insane difficulty, same scenario.
The combat is gonna be dumbed down so much that its a shooter with "perks". Not RPG stats.
The combat is gonna be dumbed down so much that its a shooter with "perks". Not RPG stats.
So, am I the only one who thought that the original "points" system in ME1 was garbage? The bonuses were hardly noticeable except at the first and last ranks, and it didn't even matter because half the abilities/weapon proficiencies were useless anyways. It was more of a chore to level up than a reward.
I understand how it is easy to interpret it that way, but I think that the point this statement was trying to make is quite the opposite from what you're thinking. I will concede my next statement as appearing optimistic, but I feel I have good reason to say it.RedEyesBlackGamer said:
What Christina Norman is probably trying to say, is that all the things you already love are not "meaningless numbers", and that they will be implemented in a way that has a noticeable impact. For example, adding points into a biotic pull in ME2 had the useful effect of suspending the enemy in the air for a longer period of time as well as pulling them with more force, quickly changing the unit's position.
No, plenty of us agree that ME2 was a vast improvement over ME1, why do people keep thinking we're comparing these announcements to ME1? Whatever changes Bioware is making are changes from what ME2 had to offer, and if ME2's level up system was a "meaningless stat game," then I'm afraid to know what they think a reasonable level up system looks like.OrdinaryGuy said:
Maybe. She could have been more helpful. It seems that their goal is to make ME3 as vague and slightly threatening as possible.Jabberwock King said: