Mass Effect 3

This is the only forum that I'm on where people start with the insults, even the mods throw insults at you.

If you follow the trend to Mass 1-3, it gets more shooter focused because that's the habit of the players. In fact, I fully expect the next game to not even have dialogue trees, it will be straight cut scenes like the Uncharted games and it might even feature a competitive multiplayer mode and we might finally get proper cover mechanics that work. In fact, you can bet on it.
 
Why isn't there a class that let's you dual wield pistols. Aren't they basically recoil-less now with mass effect fields?
 
Soldier is the default choice, it's also the quick start choice. Yes, ME2 moved a bit more towards a shooter as it removed some of the RPG type elements of customization and inventory. I doubt Bioware will ever move away from RPG as story is their strength. And I'd love for them to improve on all aspects of the game, but I don't want it to be just another shooter, if it is, then for me I'll probably just buy gears or COD.
 
Soldier is the default choice because most people play the game as a shooter, most people don't even care about customizing their avatar and use the default male Shepard. The people that care about the "RPG elements" is so minuscule it's not even funny how irrelevant they are. Most people just want to play a cool space combat shooter in 3rd person.
 
The hell it wasn't broken. There were a lot of serious problems with the combat in ME1, making the game incredibly annoying when you try to re-play it after ME2.



See, that is where you're wrong.

RPG style combat does not work with a real-time third person approach as a start.
You have certain expectations, that when the game expects you to aim with a crosshair then the bullets will actually fly to the place you're pointing at (a little spread and kickback in full auto mode is acceptable though).
The game will require a certain level of player skill at third person shooting even if everything works fine, ie. you have the best possible weapon with the best mods and the highest skill level. But if this player skill is artificially ruined by introducing negative modifiers on lower levels, then the main gameplay loop becomes frustrating and the player loses any kind of enjoyment.
In games like X-com 1, the dice roll based combat works because no player skills are involved. You point at the target, the game does some math, and you either hit the target or not, based on the squad member's abilities. You can save in every round if you want to, and you can counter the squad's weakness in accuracy through various means, like walking closer to the enemy, or reserving action points for multiple characters to have several backup shots in case the first guy misses. In short you have many tactical options
.

But in ME1, you peek out of cover, try to shoot at something, and you see your shots miss all the time, and the realtime combat and the lack of precise control over squad members does not give you enough options to compensate for that. Later through the game, an Adept may have enough biotic power to disable most enemies - but for most of the other classes the main method of offense was shooting (and it's the most effective in general). So the intentionally broken shooter gameplay inevitably lead to frustration.


Then there are the other issues: enemy AI, level design, class based restrictions, poorly considered skill system.

As an example, on my latest playthrough I decided to go with a Sentinel, so that I can import it into ME2 and try Insanity mode. The game presented me with the best possible example for its set of problems at the boss fight in Liara's rescue mission.
- the area was poorly designed, there were no safe areas with cover, I always got surrounded by the geth and the krogan; and due to the poor cover mechanics and camera control, I usually didn't even see who shot me and from where
- squad members were silly and got killed in seconds most of the time
- the krogan almost always charged me, incredibly quickly, and the sentinel was of course unable to stand up to the damage
- the offensive powers failed to do any serious damage, the guns missed all the time, usually because by the time I was able to actually execute something, the targets have moved away
- also, the skill system was flawed because the gameplay required your team to be good at several things at once - you couldn't open crates to get loot for the equipment upgrades if you didn't have electronics and decryption skills, you couldn't use weapons and armor if you didn't have proper skills, you couldn't use certain powers if you didn't have certain skills, and you didn't get paragon/renegade options if you didn't spend skill points on that too... so you either became a jack of all trades, or you were locked out of some part of the game (loot / equipment use / conversation options / powers etc.)

All in all, here was a very tough battle that could have been won by carefully positioning party members, combining powers, and concentrating fire. But this could only be done in an isometric view, with turn-based gameplay!
But in ME1, enemies either hide so well you can't see or hit them, or they charge you so fast you have nowhere to run and melee you to death; and you can't even rely on simple shooting because unless you maxed out skills, your character can't hit anything. In the end I got through by pure luck on like the 20th try and almost broke my controller in frustration several times. This is by no means good gameplay, this is fundamentally flawed by trying to be two things at once and failing at both.



No, ME2 actually fixed the gameplay by making the main game loop of running and gunning actually enjoyable. You only get frustrated if you're bad at the actual shooting - but if you're bad at that kind of gameplay mechanics, then you were frustrated by ME1 just as well, even after you leveled up everything.

Again - in a shooter, if you get a crosshair, you want the game to put the bullets to the point where you're aiming at.
Well, that's the whole point of an RPG. You start humble and with a knowledge and experience you become very good, sometimes even overpowered at some difficulty settings.

I don't remember all those gameplay mechanics well, because I completed ME1 during 2007 Chrissie holidays... But I remember when I had my first go at it and how I felt overwhelmed by the codex and how I loved the story. I hold it in high regard and to me it is the best Mass Effect to date.

Back in the time the game was pretty revolutionary in some ways, like the possibility of having a romance, as trivial as it seems. And the story was completely fascinating. Every new discovery in the storyline seemed more jaw dropping than the previous one.

That's what basically made me go from liking the game to thinking the game sucked. Up until the point people started to shoot at you it was great. Some light shooting to up the drama wouldn't have been bad. The outright shooters everywhere trying to force you to engage in combat just ruined it. And rather than liking the game as I did at first, I ended up hating the game.




Except you don't. If you, the player, have even mediocre shooter skills there's absolutely no need to counter anything in the game or pick any of the fluff skills in ME2. Even the most difficult combat is easily handled with bog standard ammunition, non-upgraded weapons, and just a dash of shooting skill.

At no point do you ever feel like you're playing anyone but yourself as every single character is equally good (or bad, if you aren't good at shooters) at every single weapon if you take control of them. Something I will always find incredibly vomit inducing anytime I play a shooter trying to masquerade as an RPG. Most of the time I can overlook this as the game franchise was designed that way (Borderlands for example). For ME, I cannot ignore it no matter what as I'm always comparing it to the far surperior RPG combat in ME1.

And at no point did I ever feel the ammunition or combat skills made any difference what-so-ever. The relatively bad cover system made the game more difficult than any of the fluff they put in to try to make the game seem like it still had any sort of RPG influence on the combat.

Play it like the shooter that it is and it's just a Gears clone (combat) with worse cover implementation and a better storyline.

Regards,
SB
Borderlands.... sigh, "that game". I tried, I really did but playing it made me want to puke. I always disliked the game for some reason.

Actually its Bioware's stats, but not 70-80, but 65%

8e364abf342fb2bfeb60c294dc5fd6db.jpg
That's pretty interesting data. I think most people choose the Soldier because it's the first class Bioware puts in the list and so people thinks it may be the most balanced, which isn't necessarily true.

If players were provided with an alphabetical list those stats might have changed slightly.

I'm going to guess that other 30% is split between classes which play closer to Solider but has some interesting powers and I'm going to guess that's Vanguard and Infiltrator about covers the rest. You are going to get all you are going to need out of the class system playing those 3 classes. You play through it once as Solider, than you might want to use some of the tech or force powers so you pick a class which plays closer to Solider anyway. It's so funny really, most people play this game as a shooter. In fact, they put action option in ME3 because most people SKIP all the dialogue and just want to get straight to the gameplay. Quite the inverse of what people on the forums tell it's all about the story, characters and choices they are going to remember forever and that jizz.
But then players craving depth and the ability to make real choices will be out of luck... There are pretty good shooters out there like Crysis 2, GeoW, etc, and their mechanics are so perfected and sophisticated that the genre is perfectly well assorted and stocked that Mass Effect can't compete.

There is no accounting for taste, but depth is why games like Dragon Age 1 or Skyrim have had such success.
 
If you follow the trend to Mass 1-3, it gets more shooter focused because that's the habit of the players. In fact, I fully expect the next game to not even have dialogue trees, it will be straight cut scenes like the Uncharted games and it might even feature a competitive multiplayer mode and we might finally get proper cover mechanics that work. In fact, you can bet on it.
Making a shooter out of an RPG is hardly evolution.

I have to admit that they might improve parts of the gameplay doing that but how do you know a healer in Skyrim, or a vamp using stealth isn't many times more fun to play than Marcus or some characters in an FPS?

The difference is the way every one play the game and how people think of their characters. Example:

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1598233&postcount=301
 
Making a shooter out of an RPG is hardly evolution.

I have to admit that they might improve parts of the gameplay doing that but how do you know a healer in Skyrim, or a vamp using stealth isn't many times more fun to play than Marcus or some characters in an FPS?

The difference is the way every one play the game and how people think of their characters. Example:

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1598233&postcount=301

Besides the bugs, what's Skyrim's biggest complaint? The combat. I use to be a big ES fan but now I can't be assed to put 300 hours in Skyrim to get the most out of it, when the combat just isn't there.

In multiplayer on Gears, I don't even play as Marcus, I play as the female, Anya, she has cooler lines when you start blowing heads off and away. :p

Also another thing, the people who make ES are never trying to ape anyone else and has always been it's own thing. Mass Effect wants to be a shooter but hasn't figured how to do it yet.
 
I just made a Fem shep adept and they really need to do something about the hair. That's the one thing I want from next gen, better hair. I haven't played FFXIII-2 but at least the hair on the main girl looks good. What's the deal with the flat hair textures six years into UE3?
 
most people don't even care about customizing their avatar and use the default male Shepard.

Is that the reason the list up there says 83% does change the look of Shepard?

The people that care about the "RPG elements" is so minuscule it's not even funny how irrelevant they are. Most people just want to play a cool space combat shooter in 3rd person

You are not most people. It's clear that Bioware and EA wanted to please the shooter crowd with the sequels in hopes of more sales and gold, but your claims have zero base. I always play as a soldier and certainly don't play ME-games for their shooting mechanics or want it to be just "cool space combat shooter"

Like you said there are far better shooters out there and I have zero faith/expectations that Bioware is ever going to catch them in that aspect.

edit:

Just wanted to add some things. Do you actually realise where Bioware has come from, what sort of games they've made and thus what sort of fan base and following they have? Are people who enjoyed for example the Knights of the Old Republic also just "dudes who liked to see only some lightsaber swinging"?

If we ever get stats on how players have chosen in ME3 as for the style between Action/RPG/Story, do you expect the RPG choice to be so "miniscule it's not even funny how irrelevant they are"? What sort of percentage in your mind qualifies for that?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is that the reason the list up there says 83% does change the look of Shepard?



You are not most people. It's clear that Bioware and EA wanted to please the shooter crowd with the sequels in hopes of more sales and gold, but your claims have zero base. I always play as a soldier and certainly don't play ME-games for their shooting mechanics or want it to be just "cool space combat shooter"

Like you said there are far better shooters out there and I have zero faith/expectations that Bioware is ever going to catch them in that aspect.

edit:

Just wanted to add some things. Do you actually realise where Bioware has come from, what sort of games they've made and thus what sort of fan base and following they have? Are people who enjoyed for example the Knights of the Old Republic also just "dudes who liked to see only some lightsaber swinging"?

If we ever get stats on how players have chosen in ME3 as for the style between Action/RPG/Story, do you expect the RPG choice to be so "miniscule it's not even funny how irrelevant they are"? What sort of percentage in your mind qualifies for that?

Since you play the Solider which gameplay as a Solider features heavy shooting mechanics (it's all you do as that class) than you would definitely enjoy the gameplay more if it were of the same pedigree of Gears of War. Yes, their game would likely sell more copies if the game featured more competent mechanics seeing as Solider is played more than every other class combined.

Wasn't it like 20% of people skipped the dialogue in the main events and the numbers were much higher in the hub worlds? Why would they put the Action option in there if there weren't a significant number of people who simply didn't care about picking red or blue choices? It's a trend they noticed and even called into question how much they spend on digital acting. I'm sure EA is giving them a mouth full. I'm thinking the "RPG" choice will be in the 20-30% range. I'm thinking people never had a choice to skip the "RPG" parts of the game and now they are given that option and it will represent the playership.

It doesn't matter where you come but where you're going; where the trend leads. You know, Naughty Dog use to make kiddy platformers, now they are making full time interactive movies. You are either ahead of the curve or behind it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Since you play the Solider which gameplay as a Solider features heavy shooting mechanics (it's all you do as that class) than you would definitely enjoy the gameplay more if it were of the same pedigree of Gears of War. Yes, their game would likely sell more copies if the game featured more competent mechanics seeing as Solider is played more than every other class combined.

Wasn't it like 20% of people skipped the dialogue in the main events and the numbers were much higher in the hub worlds? Why would they put the Action option in there if there weren't a significant number of people who simply didn't care about picking red or blue choices? It's a trend they noticed and even called into question how much they spend on digital acting. I'm sure EA is giving them a mouth full. I'm thinking the "RPG" choice will be in the 20-30% range. I'm thinking people never had a choice to skip the "RPG" parts of the game and now they are given that option and it will represent the playership.

It doesn't matter where you come but where you're going; where the trend leads. You know, Naughty Dog use to make kiddy platformers, now they are making full time interactive movies. You are either ahead of the curve or behind it.

I don't disagree with you on the points of ME gameplay lacking significantly to more full fledged shooters out there. I myself were hoping in the past that ME mechanics would become more like in the Dead Space series. I also know that there are plenty of people who skip cut scenes and will prefer the action setting.

What I had a problem is you trying to marginalise us who want more from ME than just a shooter. Just because they are trying to reach a higher percentage of gamers, don't mean that the old base or demand for RPG's is gone. 20-30% would hardly fit the words you said earlier, I personally expect it to be higher than that with people perhaps having additional runs with other settings.
 
I wonder how many people would skip the dialogue if there weren't subtitles. I know I skipped them a lot more in ME2 than in ME1 because I turned them on (speed reading). I just wanted to blow through the 35 hours and find out the story as fast as possible.
 
Played the demo yesterday, Was thoroughly underwhelmed. RPG ultra light that plays like a fairly crappy cover based tps. And what happened to the faces? I don't remember them looking quite this bad in ME2. Animation is pretty poor as well (facial or otherwise)
 
I'd chalk it up to being old. A lot of the material was already in demonstration since E3 2011, and that probably took a fair bit of time out of the development schedule. The only stuff that'd be new (on the single player side, since MP is being done by another company) would be the character creation/femshep and updates to weapon stat balance and the sort.
 
Soldier is the default choice because most people play the game as a shooter, most people don't even care about customizing their avatar and use the default male Shepard. The people that care about the "RPG elements" is so minuscule it's not even funny how irrelevant they are. Most people just want to play a cool space combat shooter in 3rd person.

Well obviously the RPG fans will be in the minority for ME2 as Bioware spit on all the RPG fans. Why in the world would I, as an RPG fan, even want to play ME2 if I had known ahead of time that it was a shooter rather than an RPG like ME1?

Now that I know ME3 is basically still going to ignore the RPG roots of the franchise, I'm not even going to bother with it. Bioware continues to be a dead company to me that has spit and shat on the players that made them into a big company.

I'm willing ot bet there were far more RPG centric people playing ME1.

Besides the bugs, what's Skyrim's biggest complaint? The combat. I use to be a big ES fan but now I can't be assed to put 300 hours in Skyrim to get the most out of it, when the combat just isn't there.

Obviously. If you aren't a fan of RPGs you aren't going to want to play an RPG. Although I have problems with Skyrim (that mostly has to do with how they've deviated so much from what used to make TES games so great).

Likewise I wouldn't expect Shooter fans to like ME1. For shooter fans having RPG style combat was infuriating. For RPG fans, the combat in ME1 was absolutely FANASTIC. My whole group of RL friends and aquaitances loved ME1 even with its flaws (the horrible inventory implementation and long ass elevator rides for instance). We had great hopes that Bioware would fix that and release a better ME2.

But nope what ended up happening is that Bioware gave a big F-U to RPG afficianado's and only a small group of us ended up playing ME2 because we foolishly pre-ordered the game expecting another RPG centric game and not yet another gdamn shooter. The rest of the people just didn't bother to buy it.

For ME3, I only know of one person (out of the 20-25 of us that played ME1) that's going to play ME3.

Obviously this doesn't represent the X360/PS3 demographic. This circle of friends is highly RPG centric and doesn't much care for shooters in general. Hence why almost all of us universally hate Bioware right now. Enough that although roughly half of us like MMORPGs, I think only 3 or 4 were willing to give Bioware money for Star Wars the Old Republic.

Yes, ME 2+3 are definitely YAS (Yet Another Shooter), but I doubt many of the people that loved ME1 (and it's RPG centric combat) are happy with the direction it went.

Obviously people that liked ME1 but wanted a shooter are probably happy with the direction as evidenced by the console centric crowd in this thread. Hence I'm not surprised that shooter centric classes are more popular in ME2 and will probably be even more popular in ME3.

Regards,
SB
 
Played the demo yesterday, Was thoroughly underwhelmed. RPG ultra light that plays like a fairly crappy cover based tps. And what happened to the faces? I don't remember them looking quite this bad in ME2. Animation is pretty poor as well (facial or otherwise)

Same here, add low res textures for me too. (Because I play on PC ;p)
And worse controls. (a single key/button to do everything or almost ?!)
 
Back
Top