I lost SO much faith in Bioware for Dragon Age 2. Wouldn't be surprised if they crapped all over Mass Effect as well.
Stolen Pixels #257: The Electronic Artists
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
Er, no.bootz said:
Let's start on the most basic, fundamental level. Those games are FIRST person shooters. Mass Effect is a THIRD person shooter. Got that? Good.
Now, please, tell me in what possible way any of those games can compare to the lore, story, characterisation and universe of Mass Effect? Are you seriously trying to tell me that Half-Life, Crysis and Brink (a game that doesn't even really have a single player component) can possibly compare to the world of Mass Effect? Good freaking lord.
You're basically saying that "You're not good enough to enjoy what we enjoy because you refuse to accept combat mechanics. Go back to more simplistic games, because what you want is trivial and less important than what we want." Does that not strike you as terribly self-centered?
Are you honestly trying to tell me that you didn't think the original Mass Effect's combat was cumbersome? The reason ME2 had to change to be more fast paced, is that you can't do it half and half. You either have to make it properly turn based or make it free fast paced action. Let me give you an example. Remember Knights of the Old Republic? Well, the way guns were handled in that, were that you would simply target the enemy to attack, and then your character would spend forever aiming and then auto-attacking with a single shot, and the enemy would do the same and it operated just like an MMO style fight, complete with skills in the hotbar for things like "rapid fire" which had cooldowns. That's great, i have no problems with that, because it's a one hundred percent RPG system. But if you try to mesh it with live action, it becomes horribly bogged down under its own weight. Pointless engagements that lasted far longer than they should because it's all based on numbers rather than specific tropes of location specific damage and damage types in the form of ammunition that was specifically useful in each given situation. Not only that, but regardless of your stance on the "Roleplaying Shooter", the inventory system was, i'm sorry to say, a terrible mess that was easily cluttered and far too reliant on the player to act as a janitor to clean out the junk every time you cleared a room. No-one wants to be doing that. Getting gear is nice, but it shouldn't be a chore to sort out your shit after every single engagement. With ME2, you had no junk, and the few times you did get a new gun or armour it felt like a meaningful upgrade and was readily accessible. No need to compare stats or sift through a lofty inventory with items that may or may not be useful.
I think you are conflating my distaste for RPG combat mechanics with other elements of the RPG genre such as narrative and storytelling and i think it speaks volumes about you if you think for one second that the story told in something like Mass Effect can even remotely compare to something as trivial as "homefront" and other games you listed and i think it says even more about you when you try to push other gamers away who are dissatisfied with certain aspects of other things they might enjoy and say "Why don't you entertain your simple mind with something else instead, this isn't for you".
The first picture (frame?) made me really LOL
But honestly Shamus, IMHO you're (intentionally?) misunderstanding what EA and Bioware have been saying. It doesn't sound to me like ME3 will be any less of an RPG than ME2 was. But time will tell I suppose.
But honestly Shamus, IMHO you're (intentionally?) misunderstanding what EA and Bioware have been saying. It doesn't sound to me like ME3 will be any less of an RPG than ME2 was. But time will tell I suppose.
Actually Shamus, you're a bigger asshole drawing conclusions without any conclusive facts leading to said conclusions.
It comes off as a fanboy crying because they think they can't have their favorite ball.
I honestly wouldn't have any problem with this if you didn't immediatly pass judgement before thinking things through (kind of like a certain article you wrote on ME2's story where 95% of the things you wrote were wrong).
It comes off as a fanboy crying because they think they can't have their favorite ball.
I honestly wouldn't have any problem with this if you didn't immediatly pass judgement before thinking things through (kind of like a certain article you wrote on ME2's story where 95% of the things you wrote were wrong).
That's a bit harsh. Are you actually trying to incite moderator wrath?Warachia said:
I read that article on ME2's plot. Shamus did make a couple of mistakes but I thought the gist of his article was spot on. Just saying.
If the developers of Max Payne said Max Payne 2 would not focus on story then I would be pissed and rightfully so.Ephraim J. Witchwood said:
In E.A's defense, I don't believe by shifting I.P they are rewriting it for mass appeal, rather finding existing elements they can use to bring in a wider audience, I.E : This plot is cool, it would make a great novel we don't have time to address in a full on game.
The whole shooter/rpg thing is also too much of a blanket statement. You're viewing shooter and rpg as too very separate, disparate things, black and white as games.
I believe Mass Effect is striving to create something new which isn't a shooter or rpg, but has elements of both. From what I've read of three, they are bringing the A.I up to the level of other 3rd person shooter titles. The changes to customisation seem unique in a way which won't turn the game into a under the hood numberfest with your character needing to loot every level for your inventory.
It's a long shot, but from reading the articles of those who have played it, Mass Effect 3 looks like it could redefine gaming.
The whole shooter/rpg thing is also too much of a blanket statement. You're viewing shooter and rpg as too very separate, disparate things, black and white as games.
I believe Mass Effect is striving to create something new which isn't a shooter or rpg, but has elements of both. From what I've read of three, they are bringing the A.I up to the level of other 3rd person shooter titles. The changes to customisation seem unique in a way which won't turn the game into a under the hood numberfest with your character needing to loot every level for your inventory.
It's a long shot, but from reading the articles of those who have played it, Mass Effect 3 looks like it could redefine gaming.
Or you know it could come off as being really confused as to why a prominent RPG developer, one of the biggest as well, wants to start making shooter games the likes of which we have all seen a million times in favour of having RPG elements, has people in management LYING to either us or investors, making them liars either way and statements about trying to reacha wider audience, which at this point is stupid because by the third game your audience has already been firmly established, you won't get more.Warachia said:
But you know the fanboy argument works as well.... if your stupid
Are you saying that uncharted doesn't exist or gears of war or metriod prime.Gralian said:
Half life 2 and brothers in arms had a better story than me2.
ME1 was perfect except two things. 1. The cover system was way too wonky. 2. Too much mako
ME2 took away choice. Imagine how powerful Jack would be if she wore armor.
ME3 has a chance to stand out and all you want it is be be like every other game out there.
I'm not trying to incite moderator wrath, I just hate it when people don't give something a chance because they've made their minds up before hand (for big offenders, see Movie Bob), the articles that were written talk about changing aspects of the game, and immediately people assume it is going to be changing into something else altogether without even giving Bioware a chance to show what they mean.Guy Jackson said:
You're right in that I was too harsh, but I'd also like to point out I was no harsher than his article. I like some stuff Shamus writes, which is why I get extra disappointed when I see biased articles.
I must have missed the RPG elements that drove HL2, Uncharted, and Metroid Prime, I must have missed how giving only the best of something available was a conscious player customization choice, I must have missed how "Every other game out there" was also a third person shooter that takes place in a galactic setting, with many races, interacting with one another in the face of an oncoming threat. (I won't go into story as that is more of a personal preference.)bootz said:
Just because something is similar to something, in no way does that make it identical.
So we'd rather be having RPG's that we've already seen a million times before? Honestly, I liked Dragon Age, but it was really only the best generic storyline. I thought the whole point of the ME series was to make shooter games the likes of which we haven't seen before (which seems to be working well enough). It was already explained in a previous argument that you CANNOT have a halfway point between shooter and RPG, the closer you are, the less the gameplay will flow.AsurasFinest said:
Also, it isn't under the control of a company if the company managing them starts lying about their game, and I wasn't using the fanboy argument, I just said you shouldn't jump to an immediately biased mindset based on very little information.
I'm not really seeing the appeal of 'gee, I wonder what happens when I add 20 to this skill instead of that one.' Weapon mods and ammo were kind of fun, but the way you got them was clumsy and boring. Having a million different weapons that all did essentially the same things didn't add anything to mass effect 1. It absolutely needed streamlining. Having a choice between disruption ammo and inferno ammo is cool. That's a cool choice. Picking up various qualities of disruption ammo 30 times and selling it or converting it to omni-gel isn't.
If "getting rid of meaningless stat upgrades" means they're taking away different ranks of abilities in favor of just having qualitatively (rather than merely quantitatively) different equipment or skills, then that's good. It also "makes it less of an RPG." But honestly, Mass Effect was never an incredibly interesting game as far as character-building and equipping. I'd rather have a selection of weapons that feel different (the various assault rifles in ME2, for example) than ones that feel pretty much exactly the same except for how much the hitpoint bars of targets move (and to a lesser degree, how fast inaccuracy grows with repeated shots.) Pistol or shotgun is an interesting choice. Rank 2 Pistol or Rank 3 Pistol isn't. Viper versus Widow is a very interesting choice-- 60 relatively weak (for a sniper rifle) shots that you can fire semi-auto versus 13 very high powered ones that require a reload each time. That's a much more interesting choice than "well, this one has 20 less accuracy but 9 more damage and 1.4 shots before overheating instead of 1.3". I have trouble understanding the kind of person who could prefer the second.
In the first place, Mass Effect has always been about telling a story. I wouldn't expect that to change in the third installment, and that's almost all that matters about it. If you could tell the same story except all the cover-based combat was replaced by flying the Normandy like you were playing X-Wing vs TIE Fighter, it'd still be just about as good a game. I think people just like speculating and complaining and, most especially, missing the point.
If "getting rid of meaningless stat upgrades" means they're taking away different ranks of abilities in favor of just having qualitatively (rather than merely quantitatively) different equipment or skills, then that's good. It also "makes it less of an RPG." But honestly, Mass Effect was never an incredibly interesting game as far as character-building and equipping. I'd rather have a selection of weapons that feel different (the various assault rifles in ME2, for example) than ones that feel pretty much exactly the same except for how much the hitpoint bars of targets move (and to a lesser degree, how fast inaccuracy grows with repeated shots.) Pistol or shotgun is an interesting choice. Rank 2 Pistol or Rank 3 Pistol isn't. Viper versus Widow is a very interesting choice-- 60 relatively weak (for a sniper rifle) shots that you can fire semi-auto versus 13 very high powered ones that require a reload each time. That's a much more interesting choice than "well, this one has 20 less accuracy but 9 more damage and 1.4 shots before overheating instead of 1.3". I have trouble understanding the kind of person who could prefer the second.
In the first place, Mass Effect has always been about telling a story. I wouldn't expect that to change in the third installment, and that's almost all that matters about it. If you could tell the same story except all the cover-based combat was replaced by flying the Normandy like you were playing X-Wing vs TIE Fighter, it'd still be just about as good a game. I think people just like speculating and complaining and, most especially, missing the point.
Choices are cool. Character development is cool.Seanchaidh said:
What we're worried about is getting a corridor shooter with levels loosely tied together by a shallow hub-world. (Mass Effect 2 already started us down that path, good though it was.)
Hide the numbers behind story elements, for sure. I've long been a fan of that. Removing the numbers altogether will remove the very thing that makes the game re-playable.
Two big signs of fanboyism in this quote:rickynumber24 said:
#1 Not being able to recognize the obnoxiousness of your own side. Fanboys often don't see the big deal with personally attacking people for criticizing their game/company. It's what makes them fanboys.
#2 Confusing being vehement with being rude and obnoxious. If you don?t understand that you can be the former without being the later, you?re probably the later.
My comment wasn't about the comic. It's about the comments he puts in WITH it. Both here and on his website, he's stated multiple times that ME3 will be no good, and he will defend the stance that he can hate on it before it comes out. He did it yesterday on his site. Which is totally within his right. As it is within mine to call him on it for being STUPID.Crimsane said:
Here is a direct quote from Shamus 7 months into the future:
"Now I've played Mass Effect 3. I think it sucked."
Do you see now?!?! Go visit his site if you don't believe me. Dude's a TIME TRAVELING HATER!
Anyway, the main thrust of my irritation with him is he misquotes frequently. The internet is a game of telephone, and the mutated beast that lands in his lap is often the one he uses; he doesn't bother to google his sources all the time. I don't think a comic can really be funny if the quotes it's based on aren't even accurate.
See the one he did on metacritic a few weeks back. I don't remember it offhand, but it's the one where the Homefront guy said games can't be boiled down into numbers, and that his game therefore couldn't be labeled as a 74. Shamus had the quote listed as him saying it was "way higher" than a 74 or something, and made a comic that relied on the accuracy of that quote. I don't care enough to look it up. Either way, the comic failed for me because it's making fun of the guy for something he never really said. Same situation here.