Do you think that the Mass Effect series has lost it's 'touch'?

[Zeraiya]

I was hoping someone would make a thread about this!

I don't think Mass Effect has lost its touch, on the contrary I think it's gotten better. I really enjoyed Mass Effect but I enjoyed Mass Effect 2 about 3 times as much.

However the opinion depends on what you enjoy playing, so I can comfortably say even if I think Mass Effect hasn't lost its sparkle I can understand if someone disagrees. You'll find the majority of people who think Mass Effect has lost its touch is because they feel the RPG elements are being lost to action and combat.

There's no doubt that Mass Effect has become more combat based with it's sequel - and ME 3 seems to be following the pattern. It's morphed into a real action ThPS. For me that doesn't mean it's not a RPG. I feel that the role playing elements are just as strong. I don't see why a game can't be full of action and gunfire and explosions and not be a RPG. I think the role playing is still vitally important. At the end of the day Mass Effect is about the Shepard you create and how you succeed in your mission and how you do it. The choices you make aren't flimsy ones. You have characters to talk to and to form friendships with. Throughout the series that has been kept alive.

In my opinion the 'touch' or the magic of Mass Effect is the emotion, the characters and the morality choices. Those have not been lost through the sequel. More combat and action has been added and some dialogue has been removed, sure, but does that mean Mass Effect is becoming a lesser RPG? I don't think so. The emotional impact the game leaves you with is just as large.

We can't fully answer the question until Mass Effect 3 comes out, that will probably be the biggest test. It looks to be even more full of combat and action and if it can pull off that while still keeping the morality choices, emotional moments and memorable characters well then it most certainly has not lost its spark.

There is nothing wrong with a hybrid. It just depends on the people who don't like the combat/action route that Mass Effect has joined.

 

[mjc0961]

The only "RPG elements" Mass Effect 2 did away with was spending 15 minutes either selling or converting to omnigel all the worthless items you picked up in a level. And this was a good change. Everything else was simply made more efficient, but some people are so full of themselves that more efficient leveling of skills and combat means it's not a pure RPG anymore, even though Mass Effect 1 was never a pure RPG to begin with (it was always a mix of RPG and third person shooter). Suddenly all these people came out of the wood work acting like RPGs are about menus instead of actually playing. I don't know why it's just Mass Effect that did this. Tons of action RPGs are out there and none of them get the hate Mass Effect 2 did simply for letting players spend less time on the pause screen and more time in the actual game.

 

[Savagezion]

Cyysis, is shiney, yo want a game thats all about graphics get that, or you know just walk outside, games can look bad but still be great. If graphics are all that matter play a shallow fps game. Anyone who puts graphics before gameplay is an idiot, ad yes they are lesser rpg fans/gamers if yhey put graphics before mechanics.

You don't understand. Those "idiots" are shelling out the money so the industry is listening to them and making more "shiny" games. "Real gamers" aren't and are instead bitching about boycotting their next title because they are "dumbing it down". Alpha Protocol was right up "real RPGer"s alley and they didn't support it because of cosmetic issues. The only thing to ***** about in AP was the AI problems but it isn't so bad as to completely ruin the whole experience.

Its bllshit, there are more people who buy fps games, look at CoD sales, so what everything should become an fps ?

Reality is Bioware are greedy, they soldout.

Nope, that is bullshit. FPSs are selling high right now and that is why so many shooters are coming out. Saying that every game should be a FPS is hyperbole. People are paying for shooters so game companies are giving them shooters. If anyone sold out it was EA... and tell us something we don't know. My point was, if something sells well, a trend starts that people follow. If something sells bad, it gets avoided. Choice in games, especially 3D games, makes the programming process take longer. The less choice, the more polish a title can get. AP was actually the perfect game to show the industry that if the mechanics are good enough, it can encourage sales by itself. But it didn't so don't be surprised if publishers favor polish over complex player choice consequence models.

Look DAO had good sales, they turned it into an action game hoping for more. Its not an issue of them shelling out money and us not, its the fps crowd is bigger, that dosent justify ruining rpg. They want a shooter they should have made a new game. Its funny Bioware one of the besrpg devs (apparently) loves dumbing down removing the rpg parts, but other non rpg games add them Its pathetic to see an rpg dev insisting it makes an rpg when its an action game.

Once again we are talking EA not Bioware. This is a commonly known fact. EA wanted to push DA2 out the gate because Origins was so hot. It's development cycle was barely a year. EA calls the shots on when Bioware releases its titles. If they say sooner, then sooner it is. Origins had a 5 year development cycle. AT this point you are beginning to tabloid Bioware. Considering they were only allowed a year at most on Dragon Age 2 and it is still a decent RPG, (you can define Hawke exceptionally well) I would say that speaks volumes of how well of a developer they are. In the words of many Mojang fans "Programming is tough, give them some slack." In my words, making a triple A game in a year of your newest IP that you probably would like to refine and have only a bit of lore to go on would be a fucking nightmare come to life. Yet, it wasn't near as disastrous as it could have been.

 

[Altorin]

what is it's "touch"? that's a pretty nebulous idea. It's had 2 games, and it's been pretty consistently awesome

so no, I'd say it hasn't.

 

[humor_involuntario]

. Bioware's games are all about the characters and politics involved to create a good story.

So are Obsidian games, just look at New Vegas.

The whole main quest is about the NCR/Legion war with House and Yes Man on the side, the whole thing is about politics and which one would benefit Vegas and the Mojave.

All of the main factions have their pros and cons and their conflicting interests that cause them to be at odds with each other. How are all of these political matters presented...by the characters.

Just talk to Chief Hanlon, Caesar, Marcus, Cass, Veronica, Arcade, Moore, Hsu, Orion, Julie, the King, the Khans and many other characters and they'll give you their opinion on the political issues of the NCR/Legion war and the pros and cons of each side.

That's a fair point. Alpha Protocol had pretty good characters and politics too. But as I mentioned in that post Obsidian came into existence on the coat tails of Bioware, so a lot of their practices are the similar. Obsidian tends to like deeper mechanics involving choice but, like their old sister company Troika, they have bug issues. I would honestly say that if you like Obsidian, you should give Bioware a look. Obsidian always has cool mechanics that elevate player choice in the game. I honestly would put them in Squares place in this poll.

A yes, the ussual "only fallout New Vegas and 3 exist" argument Mmm... you see, I was tallking about fallout 2 and new vegas, (in the first one it did had a hard focus on the central storyline, yet the world was small and limited by the power of that day's procesors) none of them develped by Bethesda, and no, the main focus on 2 and new vegas is the world, and it does fill rich and vivid, if goofy sometimes (in fallout 2), and they could in NO WAY have followed the storytelling model (for FA 1&2), as I am quite sure they were made before Bioware even (on extra point, Black Isle followed INTERPLAYS footsteps, not Bioware's) existed!

Surely, you can understand why I thought you were leading to Bethesda in this thread. By only saying "Fallout" (Who has 3 developers behind the series) I could only assume. Fallout 2 was back in the day when all kinds of cRPGs were offering choice and open worlds due to the simplicity of the isometric view. (Unacceptable graphics by the kiddies today) At the same time Fallout 1 and 2 were released, we also had Troika out there giving us Arcanum. (It is speculated that they were possibly working on a Fallout title when they closed.) Bioware was starting their DnD binge putting out Baldur's Gate 1&2. This is also when the first Elder Scrolls popped up. But right after that, the video game industry decided 2D was out and 3D was in. Suddenly, magnitude of the content was cut. Bioware went linear story progression with multiple routes through it putting most of its time into character development. Bethesda went large 3D world, that has poor characters and dialogue, but makes up for it by having a vast landscape to explore with a bazillion sidequests.

You can't... Well you can, but I wouldn't advise holding the games today to the games of 2D. They are totally different design modules. Different rules come into play. Speaking in terms of New Vegas, it was ok. Honestly, I put it down and haven't picked it back up after spending a bit of time in Vegas. I got bored because I didn't find the story that entertaining. I can't really say why, honestly. It wasn't bad, I just lost interest. I think roaming a wasteland just isn't my thing, I guess. I liked exploring in Oblivion better but I hated just about everything else in Oblivion.

I can't really say anything in favor of Oblivion, or any of the elder scrolls for that matter, as I haven't played yet, but still, an RPG is STILL an RPG, no matter the period it came out, and maybe that's another point. given the advance in technology and costumer expectations, Isn't the whole RPG genre in a downfall with the rise of 3d?

 

[Mechanix]

I think it's a stupid thing to say really. Mass Effect 1 and 2 both received huge critical acclaim when they were released, there's no reason to say the series is losing anything until a new game is out.

It would be like saying the new Batman series is losing its touch now. Nothing about the series has changed since the Dark Knight's release!

 

[Savagezion]

I can't really say anything in favor of Oblivion, or any of the elder scrolls for that matter, as I haven't played yet, but still, an RPG is STILL an RPG, no matter the period it came out, and maybe that's another point. given the advance in technology and costumer expectations, Isn't the whole RPG genre in a downfall with the rise of 3d?

I think so but I also think it was inevitable. While I would love for some indie titles to come back out with some 2D isometric view RPGs I think that the industry was going to have to make a leap eventually. Better sooner than later as it takes time for a studio to get readjusted to new developing techniques. Now, its just a standard and not such a big endeavor like it once was. 3D just requires a lot more time and resources than a 2D game of the same scale and a lot of times today, the games just aren't given the time. (DA2 is an extreme example - but EA are idiots.)

 

[StBishop]

Nope.

Mass effect 3 is not released yet, is it?

And for the record RPG means ROLE PLAYING GAME, mass effect is an RPG. I challenge anyone out their otherwise.

You challenge me out my otherwise? I accept.

OT: I never considered it much of an RPG. More of a TPS with a fuckload of RPG influence. Making it the best TPS out.

 

[StBishop]

No, the series still touches me quite a bit.

Snigger. *Looks at name* Mass Effect touches my mum? Ewwwwww.

 

[Still Life]

I was hoping someone would make a thread about this!

I don't think Mass Effect has lost its touch, on the contrary I think it's gotten better. I really enjoyed Mass Effect but I enjoyed Mass Effect 2 about 3 times as much.

However the opinion depends on what you enjoy playing, so I can comfortably say even if I think Mass Effect hasn't lost its sparkle I can understand if someone disagrees. You'll find the majority of people who think Mass Effect has lost its touch is because they feel the RPG elements are being lost to action and combat.

There's no doubt that Mass Effect has become more combat based with it's sequel - and ME 3 seems to be following the pattern. It's morphed into a real action ThPS. For me that doesn't mean it's not a RPG. I feel that the role playing elements are just as strong. I don't see why a game can't be full of action and gunfire and explosions and not be a RPG. I think the role playing is still vitally important. At the end of the day Mass Effect is about the Shepard you create and how you succeed in your mission and how you do it. The choices you make aren't flimsy ones. You have characters to talk to and to form friendships with. Throughout the series that has been kept alive.

In my opinion the 'touch' or the magic of Mass Effect is the emotion, the characters and the morality choices. Those have not been lost through the sequel. More combat and action has been added and some dialogue has been removed, sure, but does that mean Mass Effect is becoming a lesser RPG? I don't think so. The emotional impact the game leaves you with is just as large.

We can't fully answer the question until Mass Effect 3 comes out, that will probably be the biggest test. It looks to be even more full of combat and action and if it can pull off that while still keeping the morality choices, emotional moments and memorable characters well then it most certainly has not lost its spark.

There is nothing wrong with a hybrid. It just depends on the people who don't like the combat/action route that Mass Effect has joined.

Glad you and I are on the same page. I'm somewhat astounded that people haven't gotten it through their heads that the ME series has always been a hybrid from the start, and an action oriented one at that. I don't want to see anything shoehorned into genre simply for the sake of convention. If people don't like the direction the series is moving in, then the solution is quite simple: find something else that's suited to your tastes.

I'd also like to point out that there is actually more dialogue in the second game. There are entire sections of the game where dialogue overshadows the action, just like in the first.

I'm pretty excited for ME3.

 

[JamesWebber]

you know this somewhat like that overreaction over Bioware's comment that would remove meaningless stats, simply meaning that stats would have a direct effect on the action rathering than playing behind the scenes. People though that Mass Effect 3 would become Gears of Wars or something but they actually actually added more depth to leveling, you can actually micro-manage your skills where you want put that point you are spending. More action, fluid combat and movement, more RPG elements, probably a larger but not big-Mass-Effect-like inventory. So it is actually a better realized Mass Effect 1 than a further dumbing down from Mass Effect 2.

Bottom Line: Mass Effect was already a hibrid Rpf/Tps from the beginning. Core gameplay is TPS
, rpg elements in form of levels, skills , squad , choices, inventory... though Mass Effect 2 felt a bit dumbed down. But now that we are going back to a Mass Effect 1- like better game, can we please stop this genre wars? even Mass Effect 1, which has tons of levels, skills and inventory is sometimes challenged in whatever it is or not an RPG. It had a many rpg elements
but i think (this is my opinion) that mostly because it featured player skill-based shooter core gameplay among another things it was challenged, not because people werent skilled or didnt like? this type of gameplay but because it didnt felt rpg-like in comparison to other elements of the game.

ME games cant be compared to JRPG or Pokemon (as Ecael cleverly satired on http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/105/index/2791290/1). It cannot even be wholly compared to Elder Scrolls or Fallout, which are also WRPG. ME were never labeled as pure PRG, rather they were labeled as action rpg or tps/rpg hybrids. (excuse me fallout would actually be a good comparison, Elder Scrolls still stands on that matter thought.)

 

[Kargathia]

Since when is it a bad thing when a game doesn't conform exactly to the dictionary definition of their genre?

And for that matter: both the Mass Effect, and Dragon Age series felt like a new genre to me: the kind of game that actually tells a story, as opposed to having some background decoration for shooting stuff. (or, as it's officially an RPG: farming stuff)

 

[Sixcess]

I'm still playing ME2 so I've skipped most of the thread for fear of spoilers.

Still, whilst I'm enjoying the second game it seems... I dunno... shallower than the first game. Combat is undoubtedly better, and I don't miss all the inventory stuff, but it's just as well the combat is better because there's a ton of it. I find myself wishing there were at least one or two plotlines that could be resolved without having to slog through ten rooms of guards beforehand.

And (never thought I'd say this) I miss the Mako.

It also feels very episodic compared to the first game. The end of level summary screens really jerk you out of the flow of the story in that respect. Still good though. I just finished Mordin's loyalty mission, and that's got the best, most interesting writing of the game so far and better than most of ME1.

 

[Simeon Ivanov]

No, in fact I think it's getting better

 

[Omnific One]

ME2 lost it touch, meaning it lost its space feel. But I still loved it.

Hopefully, ME3 will feel like a space opera, instead of Gear of War: Alien Sex Edition.

 

[Tufty94]

I think that Mass Effect 2 felt very different from the first. Probably because BioWare's solution to a problem it to remove the things that didn't work all together instead of fixing them, I still enjoyed the second one a lot though. I wouldn't say the the game lost it's touch though.

However, I'm not in the least bit excited for Mass Effect 3 any more. I have a feeling that Bioware, in an attempt to appeal to a bigger audience, are going to ruin their game with multiplayer. I'm still praying to God that they don't, but either way I will still get the game.