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

[Savagezion]

what I was going with my point was exactly that! you see, in mass effect, the choice is so minuscule that you ussualy end up siding the same people, saying the same things and even doing the same things as another shepard, even if you chose a different class!. The choice in mass effect is present, I know. you can kill characters you don't like and you can customize your character to fight as you want him to fight, but that's it. You can't even chose his middle name! (I know it is so that NPC greet you by name, but still, they could have thought of another way!)
now, the Halo comparison was just to show how ridiculus your statment was, I, as well as anyone sane in their mind, would not call Halo an RPG (but it was going to be one for some time...), yet still, I think that mass efect falls short as an RPG, but I am not saying it is not an RPG, nor that it is not a great game, just not that much of an RPG as say... Fallout.

I had a feeling Bethesda would be coming up here shortly. But see, in Fallout you have the same thing from a different angle. In Bethesda games, if you focus only on the main quest, the game is dry and downright horrible. In mass effect, dicking around is dry and horrible. However, both games give you a sense of urgency to the main quest. In Mass Effect this has merit due to the game's development being mostly focused on the main story. In Bethesda games, they tell the player "hurry" but all the fans say "that isn't how you are suppose to play it." The conversation choices in Mass Effect that all go down the same road are actually more about atmosphere than anything else. It isn't about choice beyond what 'tone' your Shepard greets the worlds scenarios with. I know a lot of people have a hard time with that not being an "outcome altering the story" type of choice but it is a "character altering" type of choice. Bioware's games are all about the characters and politics involved to create a good story. Bethesda's games are all about exploration over a vast landscape to create an adventure. Obsidians games are all about different gameplay mechanics interlinking to spawn various results like a user input 'mixer'. Additionally, their story models try to follow the Bioware system probably due to previous experience with the studio through Black Isle and the fact that when they started up, they were riding on Bioware's coat tails.

 

[Lordmarkus]

People really didn't ***** about this at all when Mass Effect 2... you know, actually came out. Everyone heralded it as a mass(ive) improvement on the original. This is a new fad, it seems.

It only really started when DA2 set off a bombshell. Take from that what you will.

That's because people believed Dragon Age would be their traditional back-to-basics RPG. I heard that multiple times on this very forum. When, however, everyones darling Bioware releases two very simplified (stat-wise) RPGs then there was suddenly hell to pay. The question is however, which game will reinvigurate Bioware's status as the king of hardcore RPG's? That is, if they ever go back from doing playable movies that's all the rage these days.

OT: Lost their touch? Nah, their just lost their touch to Baldur's Gate. I'll buy it, I'll cherish it.

Also:

because sicktit? sickitit? What the fucking fuck?

 

[Mr. Omega]

There were two games. It doesn't even have a "touch" yet.

 

[LarenzoAOG]

As long as ME3 still has good writing, and good charecters I don't care what kind of game it is.

 

[violent_quiche]

Having played through ME1 three times and ME2 more time than I can count (the combat improvements added immensely to the replay value), so no. The dlc was a mixed bag- Arrival & Firewalker were poor, Kosumi & Zaeed ok and Overlord & Shadow Broker were superb. The weaker story in ME2 is a fair criticism- and there were some dubious plot choices- however the middle story of any trilogy tends to be transitional rather than climactic, so I expected a degree of padding.

Combat wise, I'm expecting ME3 to be ME2 with a few customization elements thrown back in and a couple of extra moves, but to be honest I'm most concerned about Bioware fashioning a satisfying conclusion to a solid trilogy.
-are the Reapers defeated or simply driven away until the next cycle?
-do the quarians and geth negotiate peace?
-do the quarians claim a homeworld?
-assuming you let them live, what role do the Rachni play?
-if Shepard died in ME2, who leads the charge?
etc

With so many major plot threads to be potentially mishandled, I'm less concerned about the degree of customization. And I'm saying now: if it the conclusion is simply "ok you win, kthanxbai", Bioware will owe me a new flatscreen after I mail them the shattered remains of my old one. It doesn't have to be LOTResque, but I would like to spend some time after the climax celebrating with the characters and finding out what happens to them.

 

[Ghengis John]

Mass effect still has the touch my friends. It's different than what it was when it started, but it's still an RPG. Change isn't always a bad thing. Sometimes it's only as bad as we imagine it to be. I notice that a lot of the escapist staff seems to have the idea that an rpg needs stats and dice and inventories and all of those old trappings. But that's selling RPG's short I say, there's room to evolve. Now, the first thing that popped into my head:

There were two games. It doesn't even have a "touch" yet.

This guy does make a valid point.

 

[Savagezion]

Yo were talking about me I assume. Then those arent rpg gamers, those are just people who care moe about graphics than gameplay. I dont give a shit about peoples oppinion when its, "I prefer X becuase its shinier".

Ok like I said about metro 2033, replace halo with Metro 2033. My Artyom is different to yours, you can say its not but it is.

My point was simply to illustrate that Alpha Protocol came out and RPG fans castrated Obsidian over it because of a few cosmetic bugs. Nobody backed the game really. Only 700k copies were sold in its first 2 months of release. I think it is estimated to be at ~1.5 million to date. Not many people supported this game, so cosmetics obviously matter to more people than will admit. Whos to say they aren't RPG gamers? Maybe they are RPG gamers that graphics matter to them. Does liking good graphics make you less of a gamer than one who doesn't care? All my statement says is that a game being "shiny" alone will make you more money than good choice mechanics alone. If RPG'ers want to see the industry favor them, time to pony up the dough and vote with their dollars. Imagine if AP had sold like hotcakes. The industry would probably spend more money and time on the sequel and it would show that game mechanics can win over gamers as much as "shininess".

I haven't got to play Metro 2033 beyond the first level where you are attacked by those flying things. It is possible though and I actually might agree. But I can't really comment due to lack of experience with the title. But I consider most Rockstar Games RPGs moreso than the Final Fantasy series.

 

[ChupathingyX]

. 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.

 

[humor_involuntario]

what I was going with my point was exactly that! you see, in mass effect, the choice is so minuscule that you ussualy end up siding the same people, saying the same things and even doing the same things as another shepard, even if you chose a different class!. The choice in mass effect is present, I know. you can kill characters you don't like and you can customize your character to fight as you want him to fight, but that's it. You can't even chose his middle name! (I know it is so that NPC greet you by name, but still, they could have thought of another way!)
now, the Halo comparison was just to show how ridiculus your statment was, I, as well as anyone sane in their mind, would not call Halo an RPG (but it was going to be one for some time...), yet still, I think that mass efect falls short as an RPG, but I am not saying it is not an RPG, nor that it is not a great game, just not that much of an RPG as say... Fallout.

I had a feeling Bethesda would be coming up here shortly. But see, in Fallout you have the same thing from a different angle. In Bethesda games, if you focus only on the main quest, the game is dry and downright horrible. In mass effect, dicking around is dry and horrible. However, both games give you a sense of urgency to the main quest. In Mass Effect this has merit due to the game's development being mostly focused on the main story. In Bethesda games, they tell the player "hurry" but all the fans say "that isn't how you are suppose to play it." The conversation choices in Mass Effect that all go down the same road are actually more about atmosphere than anything else. It isn't about choice beyond what 'tone' your Shepard greets the worlds scenarios with. I know a lot of people have a hard time with that not being an "outcome altering the story" type of choice but it is a "character altering" type of choice. Bioware's games are all about the characters and politics involved to create a good story. Bethesda's games are all about exploration over a vast landscape to create an adventure. Obsidians games are all about different gameplay mechanics interlinking to spawn various results like a user input 'mixer'. Additionally, their story models try to follow the Bioware system probably due to previous experience with the studio through Black Isle and the fact that when they started up, they were riding on Bioware's coat tails.

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!

 

[Rpground]

lets see...regenerating health,enemy shields dont recharge. just to name a few...also i dont really consider Mass Effect to be an RPG at all :/

so yeah i guess its lost its "touch" i guess but not in the way your describing it...

 

[Kheld]

I enjoyed both ME1 and 2, both had good/points.

The ME1 Xbox inspired inventory system was a foul, evil, sick, disgusting thing to inflict on PC players. Burn in hell whatever bastard came up with it.

The class power options did seem limited in ME2, id say the streamlining was a bit too much, but considering most gamers are youngsters with poor education it was probably done for them.

I miss the MAKO ground missions, (though not the horrible spiky terrain). Whizzing along flat ground blowing the shit out of Geth/turrets was fun imho.

I also liked the concept of the planet scanning minigame. Wasnt it always interesting to find an anomaly? If the planets had had actual continent landmasses to scan it might have been more immersive than waving a mouse over a ball.

I think of the two games I prefer ME2. Assembling the team, getting to know them, then taking them through the FINAL MISSION (Possibly the greatest designed ending ever!)

 

[Slash Dementia]

I liked both Mass Effect titles a lot, and they both had their flaws, but even with those flaws, they were both fun in their own way. Some things were dumbed down, other things flourished. Even if they change lots of what made the last two games, I don't think Mass Effect 3 will lose what the other games had. I think that it will be on the same level as the rest.

 

[Volafortis]

Well, BioWare has stated that they're adding more of the stuff from ME1 back into ME3, meaning ME3 will be "closer to it's roots" than ME2 was, so, No.

 

[spartandude]

ME2 was fun, but not as good as ME here's why I think so:

1 - Leveling, 5 abilities and a weird points system, nuff said.
2 - Planet mining. The Mako was fun, the controls werem't as bad as people said.
3 - Story, Mass Effect brought you into a galaxy threatened by an immediate enemy, each mission mattered, and you were a spectre, which was cool. You made derisions and Mass Effect 2 was just preparation, more preparation, and then you fight some aliens. Oh, and you're working for Cerberus, which sucks.
4 - Characters, Liara was basically a nerd, Ashley was a soldier to the core who was xenophobic, Garrus was a renegade cop who wouldn't play by the rules, Kaiden was a bit lacking in depth, but he was still cool, Tali was curious bubbly genius. In ME2, Liara is a ***** all of a sudden, Ashley stays the same, Garrus never talks, Kaiden suddenly acts like a woman and then you've got a bunch of crappy characters(Aside from Grunt, Kasumi, Zaeed and Jacob).
5 - Paragon means illogical in many parts of the game, any favour for the genophage is somehow renegade? "Don't hide behind statistics!" has to be the stupidest line I've ever heard in a game. And not destroying the human reaper makes sense, it should be studied, and the collector base has valuable tech that could be used against the collectors.
6 - I just preferred the soundtrack in Mass Effect.


Once they remove planet mining and make the levelling more like the first game ME3 will be great. Also, more characters like Zaeed, he's awesome.

100% completely agree

 

[Savagezion]

. 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.

 

[Savagezion]

Yo were talking about me I assume. Then those arent rpg gamers, those are just people who care moe about graphics than gameplay. I dont give a shit about peoples oppinion when its, "I prefer X becuase its shinier".

Ok like I said about metro 2033, replace halo with Metro 2033. My Artyom is different to yours, you can say its not but it is.

My point was simply to illustrate that Alpha Protocol came out and RPG fans castrated Obsidian over it because of a few cosmetic bugs. Nobody backed the game really. Only 700k copies were sold in its first 2 months of release. I think it is estimated to be at ~1.5 million to date. Not many people supported this game, so cosmetics obviously matter to more people than will admit. Whos to say they aren't RPG gamers? Maybe they are RPG gamers that graphics matter to them. Does liking good graphics make you less of a gamer than one who doesn't care? All my statement says is that a game being "shiny" alone will make you more money than good choice mechanics alone. If RPG'ers want to see the industry favor them, time to pony up the dough and vote with their dollars. Imagine if AP had sold like hotcakes. The industry would probably spend more money and time on the sequel and it would show that game mechanics can win over gamers as much as "shininess".

I haven't got to play Metro 2033 beyond the first level where you are attacked by those flying things. It is possible though and I actually might agree. But I can't really comment due to lack of experience with the title. But I consider most Rockstar Games RPGs moreso than the Final Fantasy series.

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.

Yep, GTAS IV is more of an rpg than some games, even mass effec 2t, the game so many rabidly defend.

I wouldn't say GTA 4 is more RPG than Mass Effect 2 but I will say they are practically neck and neck.

 

[Babitz]

Mass Effect was never an RPG, so I don't see the problem in it being a 100% shooter with a couple of dialogues because that's what it was always.

And to those who claim it's an RPG - you have two preset characters and your actions don't have any short or long term consequences. Hardly role playing. Deus Ex is a much better RPG, yet no one considers it one.
Alpha Protocol > Mass Effect in being an RPG.

Meaningless RPG elements and meaningless choices. We really could have done without it. I see no problem in linearity in ME since we had fake non linearity before and no one complained about it before.

And yeah, I'd replay AP any day over ME2.

 

[Cheery Lunatic]

Nope. ME 2 was better than the first game on every conceivable level.

I don't give a shit if I lose the ability to carry around eleventy trillion tonnes of arbitrary weapon mods.

This times infinity.
I hated (HATED) having to manage everyone's gear all the time.

I don't see how being more or less RPG typical is something to get up in arms about.

In fact, I think it's awesome how ME is a motley of genres. I'm really excited ME3 will be more TPS, gameplay wise.