Mass Effect 3

[Rodéric]

Just to be clear, IMO, ME2 main storyline is weak and bad, and any character having the "Sole Survivor" background just breaks it.
If you picked that up, you learnt in ME that Cerberus killed your team... There's NO WAY you wouldn't remind people about that fact when they question you about Cerberus, and the council should remember it too. (And such trust you.)

And yes, ME2 team stories are quite good.

Also in Lair of the Shadow Broker,

Spoiler

having the shadow broker be Bowser in his throne room was laughable...
It could have been way more interesting, if he had been a being in some kind of bacta tank, only barely surviving from a terminal illness inducing a lot of pain, and deciding that it wasn't fair for him/her to die like that and take the galaxy along with him/her. And you'd have the option to kill him/her defensless, try to rally him/her, or just disconnect him/her from the computer to put Liara in charge...

 

[Laa-Yosh]

I dunno, I kinda liked the idea that

Spoiler

this very physical creature killed and replaced the original Broker, it was a nice twist.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

that would have been amazing, like it wakes up and you had a god of war style fight on this giant living reaper.

Yeah, I still hope ME3 will have some kind of "take down a Reaper from inside" action, preferably against Harbinger

 

[Cyan]

The ME2 story gets a bit too much criticism IMHO.

The only really good part in ME1 is the story structure, it's raising the stakes at a very good pace, and there's also a feel of actually chasing Saren through the galaxy (even though there are no timed events and you can spend months browsing around the starmap if you want to).
But the plot itself isn't really original or clever, and a lot of the important revelations are told through long conversations, or even just monologues. The supposedly big emotional moment on Virmire doesn't work that well either, because both characters involved in it are rather boring and most players aren't really attached to them. I'd say that Joker made a far more significant impression, or Tali and Garrus.
And yes, the size of the world was overwhelming, but that also had to do with getting dropped into it after the Eden Prime mission - on the second round, it inevitably felt more familiar and so the sense of wonder had to go away.

The second game's most important problems are that there are too many characters with their own little stories, drawing you away from the main storyline; and that there's no constant threat or main antagonist that you'd get to deal with at the end. I personally think that Harbinger was a good character with its attitude towards every living creature, but I can see why Bioware did not want another fight with a real Reaper. I sure hope Shepard gets to kick its ass in ME3 though

But I really think that some of the individual stories of the team members were better than most of ME1; Mordin and the genophage issue in particular stand out as a really big achievement in video game writing. I also liked the way they elaborated the Quarian storyline: the geth in ME1 were simple mindless robotic monsters rebelling against their creators, but the addition of Legion and the insight to the fleet's politics made it far more complex and interesting. One can even understand the geth fraction that worships the Reapers and hopes to join them, at least to some level.

Garrus becoming the "turian Batman" was also cool, as well as Wrex trying to unite the krogan clans, and Tali becoming a strong, mature person. I also really liked how they developed Liara in the Shadow Broker dlc, the character was pretty annoying in ME1 (pretty much an oversimplified geek ideal of what a girl should be) but now she's one of the best team members and her friendship with Shepard works well even without any romance subplot.

Samara and Thane were interesting too, but their stories were more about talking, I would've liked to see some of the stuff instead. I'm not a big fan of Jack, but I know a lot of people liked her story a lot, too.

On the other hand I felt that Jacob, Miranda and the Illusive Man could have provided for some more depth in exploring Cerberus and humanity's role in the galaxy. After all, that's the biggest underlying theme in Mass Effect, at least in my opinion - how our race tries to find its place in this new, larger world, and how all the aliens view us and relate to us. And of course Shepard's part in it all.

So, in the end I agree with everyone that ME2 has it's flaws as well - they should've cut some of the party members, or combine them together, to have fewer recruitment and loyalty missions, and put more emphasis on the Collector threat and how it's related to the Reapers. And they should've found a better way to integrate the - otherwise interesting - idea of creating a new reaper from humanity's genetic material, instead of just dropping an oversized terminator on top of the player and having a lame boss fight with it.
For example the player could have started inside the thing, exploring around and slowly realizing what it is, so that there would have been some buildup to the fight... The 'embrio' should have looked more alien and disturbing, too, and some communication with it would have been good.

But all in all, the quality of the writing, the characters, the emotional response, were all at least somewhat better, and in some cases, definitely superior, to ME1. That game feels a little cold and more distant, at least to me.

Your post certainly broaden things in my mind, albeit what I didn't like about ME2 story was that it seemed a bit rushed, it wasn't very gradual, in the sense of discovering things.

What I think Silent_Buddha was trying to say is that Bioware is narrowing the RPG features in their games. That's pretty sad for RPG fans.

Silent is right... ME2 is in fact just a 3rd person shooter and not much more.

Your decisions have no consequences whatsoever. Yes, you can be good, neutral or evil, but this won't change the ending, nor the fact that you are some kind of god/goddess for the crew and everyone else. They are like "following robots".

Your followers aren't going to change their attitude towards you when considering your decisions. In Mass Efffect 1 your decisions had an impact in your crew attitude towards Shepard, and it was important to know who to keep happy with you.

If nothing changes for your followers/allies, and they are going to treat you like the greatest thing since sliced bread anyways, then there's no point. A sad day for RPG gamers.

I consider essential in an RPG for your choices to have consequences. A good RPG where decision-making is there to make a difference, is not about providing you with many different stories to choose.

The variety of decisions exists to break the barrier between you and that game, to experience the story of the game in a really personal and very unique way.

Something that makes you feel you would like to be that character -hence ROLEPLAYING game- or shape things based on your real life personality.

Like... what would I do if I were this person in a given situation? Or what would I do in real life if certain situation had arisen?

Then seeing my choices being correctly reflected in the game -in factions, people. it's a real beautiful, great thing to have and experience.

I have Dragon Age Origins. What a great game and RPG. :smile:Your choices truly have an impact to keep your party happy and in the story.

There aren't only good, neutral or bad decision-making. There are shades of gray, options which I often choose, either to know more and ask questions, or because I think that was the correct choice in a PERSONAL level. Sometimes you can be given like 6 or 7 possible answers.

It all depends on one's perspective, doesn't it? DA Origins is a very good definition of what a Roleplaying game really is. WHY it's so important.

Because on a very basic level, your choices really affect the story or even the gameplay -if a character doesn't like he/she might leave you-.

I only played Dragon Age 2 demo. And I am glad it was only the demo. afaik, not only they took away dialogue options, but they also added an icon in the list of possible choices so you know when an option is evil, good, or neutral.

Because people are stupid, right? {SIGH} Come on!! Bioware know they can do better.

They seem to realize their mistakes and said that in the next DA things will change. They said they are going to use Skyrim as an example in some ways.

Sure, decision-making isn't the strong point of Skyrim but it's a fine RPG, with unique features like your skills only increasing with actual use of an item/spell, or training, not because you suddenly want your character to be the best at something regardless the fact your character never used that skill. That's a flaw in ME series -not so much for DA where your builds are much more focused-, not a very important flaw to me, but you can become an amazing character handling submachine guns without ever touching that weapon.

Bioware are unique at storytelling. The backgrounds of your characters in DA Origins are a great example of that.

It's not a very simple gray scale that goes from white at one end to black at the other, but a lot more rich. Even so, lately they aren't at their best and it makes me sad both as an RPG gamer and also because I always loved Bioware.

 

[Rodéric]

That's pretty sad for RPG fans.

Those people play around a table with pens and paper.

Now I'd like to know what makes a computer game a so called "RPG" to you...
(because a few stats and/or levels clearly don't make one.)

 

[Laa-Yosh]

I've never really seen anything about the crew change in ME1 based on Shepard's actions either. The only real difference was with Wrex, but even that was more about how you spent your paragon/renegade points. Everyone still followed you, whereas ME2 had the loyalty issue which could have cost you lives in the final mission.

Also, ME2 is the middle chapter. You can't really change course there unless you're willing to make a dozen different versions of ME3. The role playing element in ME was never really about where you were going, but how you got there. The premise has always been very simple - Shepard has to save the entire galaxy. Your part was in deciding how he did it, whether he was an inspiring leader, or a ruthlessly dedicated killer. These elements were there in ME2 as well.


As for the gameplay, the simplification was certainly necessary, and even Bioware admits that they've gone a bit too far. Weapon and armor mods will be back in ME3, skill trees will get more complex, but I sure hope they keep the loot system simple.

By the way, the main complexity in ME2 was how you selected team members and which skills you've developed to the max on them, and how they were combined with Shepard to minimize weaknesses. There are at least a few dozen good variations, even some non-traditional ones, that can all work. Of course this only makes sense on harder difficulties, especially on Insane, where every enemy has at least one extra layer of protection that you need to remove for biotics to work.

But anyway, it was a good system and provided lots of replay value. A straight soldier with the Mattock rifle, an infiltrator with the Widow, a Vanguard with a big shotgun, or a Sentinel with the combined tech/biotic powers and tech armor, were all very different experiences and also required different team members to balance the team out.
This aspect will undoubtedly get a little reduced in ME3, as there are going to be fewer squad members and so I expect them to become more balanced as well. I also think biotics will get some changes, it's a bit restrictive that you can't do much with an enemy that has two layers of protection.

 

[Cyan]

Those people play around a table with pens and paper.

Now I'd like to know what makes a computer game a so called "RPG" to you...
(because a few stats and/or levels clearly don't make one.)

Well they are called cRPG which stand for Computer Role-playing Games. The style of the RPGs in the early days has changed slightly making them more interactive because of the new computers and consoles possibilities -because artists able to build true worlds without them having to be just text based-, not only transferring numbers, worlds and dungeons from the original "pen and paper" experience into video games.

But anyways, I wrote a couple of posts about what an RPG is, in my opinion, here:

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1598558&postcount=319

and to some extent here too

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1598846&postcount=343

For me an RPG is a game that allows me to experience the story of the game in the most interactive possible way, allowing me to become part of the character, or the character being a reflection of myself. I mean the way you would experience the story if you were the character.

A game that allows you to manifest your personality in the game or the world the developers have shaped, and seeing how the world and people respond to your actions.

For me a good RPG is a game with a branching plot, an element that doesn't mean there should be different stories to choose from, but basically a game which lets you experience yourself in the narrative in a very personal and intimate way.

An interaction with lots of feedback. For instance, I have Crazy Machine Elements, a game based on physics for XBLA....

Think of it as loving to see how physics work in games these days. Your actions providing a response to the player. 'Tis a game that allows you to go on a journey and a story and through it and this journey discover things about yourself, which is what roleplaying is about.

Your character can be unique or remain in your imagination. I wrote the imaginary background of one of my Skyrim characters here:

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

In Skyrim, decision-making is not the strong point of the game -I think this will change when the developers finally get rid of the bugs and focus more on the quests and stuff, polishing the huge world they've built-...

But the world around you recognizes your choices and interact with you accordingly. Either when you complete a quest or you have done different quests. i.e. your character's most leveled up skills are Restoration skills, and some people tell you about it. A guard can come and say; "Hello summoner. Wish you could summon me a warm bed".
Or if you are a Healer and have many points in Restoration skills: . "Hi there healer. Skyrim would need more people like you".

Or after completing many quests in a good way, guards are more helpful with you. Small details like that. Then there are the factions and so on. A complex interaction that would require a more advanced AI or a very complex coding.

Also, there is a quest in particular where if you kill someone, it changes the ending of the game, and also some people stop supporting you...

When it comes to story and decision-making then Dragon Age Origins is the perfect example.

I recently completed a mission where a demon did possess someone and talked to me.

To avoid fighting he offered me a deal, in exchange for him closing a gate forever --a gate other demons used to came through into the world and that tower in particular.

I was given many options, some were dialogue, others were options to attack him immediately if I wanted to. Choices, choices... That's what an RPG is. :smile:

I chose dialogue, out of curiosity, just to know more. The attack options appeared every time just in case I wanted to end any dialogue and attack that demon, so I never ran out of options.

At some point and after knowing what I wanted to know I focused on his deal. There was an option that said: "Tell me about your deal...".

I chose that and he told me that he would close the gate where other demons came through and only him would be in that tower. I gave him an opportunity and fairly enough he honoured his part of the deal and shut that infernal gate forever.

After talking to him I continued in the tower, there were other things to know about.

At some point I found a vial containing a liquid. I took the flask and the game let me choose. Three options:

a. "Drink it's content"

b. "Try to learn more about what it's inside the flask" -don't remember this one well

c. "Leave it"

I drank it, and I saved the game just before doing it, because I thought I could die.

Fortunately my choice was fine. I didn't read any walkthrough -I like to discover things by myself-, and that's why.

Anyway, you can have more info of this amazing quest here, and notice the complexities of an RPG, how your choices determine the consequences and how things can change.

http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Soldier's_Peak_(quest)

In the tower found a mage who had commited many atrocities, who was a Warden too, but did wrong things. He was human and I spent what was like quarter of an hour talking to him, asking away, although I could fight him if I wanted to.I also used a couple of Persuade options.

Finally I decided not to attack or kill him, BUT... there's always a but... my choice didn't make that demon happy because he had asked me to clear the tower out in exchange for him to seal the infernal gate.

SO when I found him again he was truly upset! We talked a bit but he wanted to kill me for my betrayal. So I had to fight him.

I spared the Warden mage life because he was human, although his actions were truly regrettable. What I didn't know is that the demon would rage when letting him live... I didn't consider that option.

Right or wrong, I did it my way. I chose the outcome, and the dialogue with people after I finished the quest changed accordingly.

You wouldn't believe how good you feel when that happens. You wonder... what would happen if I had done this instead of that? That's what makes an RPG great. It's a great feeling to experience and makes you feel good inwardly.:smile:

 

[Cyan]

I've never really seen anything about the crew change in ME1 based on Shepard's actions either. The only real difference was with Wrex, but even that was more about how you spent your paragon/renegade points. Everyone still followed you, whereas ME2 had the loyalty issue which could have cost you lives in the final mission.

Also, ME2 is the middle chapter. You can't really change course there unless you're willing to make a dozen different versions of ME3. The role playing element in ME was never really about where you were going, but how you got there. The premise has always been very simple - Shepard has to save the entire galaxy. Your part was in deciding how he did it, whether he was an inspiring leader, or a ruthlessly dedicated killer. These elements were there in ME2 as well.


As for the gameplay, the simplification was certainly necessary, and even Bioware admits that they've gone a bit too far. Weapon and armor mods will be back in ME3, skill trees will get more complex, but I sure hope they keep the loot system simple.

By the way, the main complexity in ME2 was how you selected team members and which skills you've developed to the max on them, and how they were combined with Shepard to minimize weaknesses. There are at least a few dozen good variations, even some non-traditional ones, that can all work. Of course this only makes sense on harder difficulties, especially on Insane, where every enemy has at least one extra layer of protection that you need to remove for biotics to work.

But anyway, it was a good system and provided lots of replay value. A straight soldier with the Mattock rifle, an infiltrator with the Widow, a Vanguard with a big shotgun, or a Sentinel with the combined tech/biotic powers and tech armor, were all very different experiences and also required different team members to balance the team out.
This aspect will undoubtedly get a little reduced in ME3, as there are going to be fewer squad members and so I expect them to become more balanced as well. I also think biotics will get some changes, it's a bit restrictive that you can't do much with an enemy that has two layers of protection.

Well, maybe I just remembered the interactions with Wrex and thought it also applied to the rest of the crew, it's been a lot of time since I last played ME1, back in the 2007 Chrissie holidays if I remember correctly.

I agree with you that the changes in ME2 gameplay resulted in notable improvements.(something that didn't transfer to Dragon Age Origins, which has a clumsy interface for a console gamer especially. I have a hard time knowing what quest I am involved in or I chose to activate from the quests list, since it is very PC-centric, sometimes a new entry in the codex appears but I don't know which one it is because to get to the options highlighted in white -meaning a new codex entry- I have to go through a lot of other entries I read already and when I get to it I might miss it because once the cursor is over the entry it loses it's white colour as if you read it, which you didn't). Especially the UI and the combat options, but either way for a Bioware game it lacked the depth of their other games.

In ME1 there were very interesting choices, like killing or letting the Rachnid queen die. Maybe that decision has some weight in the upcoming Mass Effect 3.

I didn't try all the builds you mentioned but it is one of the most RPG-ish parts of ME2.

As you say, the simplification of the UI was a good idea. But that doesn't mean you have to simplify the game a lot making it a shadow of its former self or losing its identity in the genre it was meant for.

Warning: I get a little off-topic here.

I know currently games tend to simplify and become more casual, but it's a dwindling trend. This is an industry that has went through confusing times after the success of the Wii. But even casual players know to appreciate the good games.

One of my siblings is the most casual gamer you can ever imagine. He fancies the Wii although he has never had one. I gave him and his girlfriend one spare Xbox 360 I had and I lent him a copy of Forza Motorsport 4 while I am into Skyrim.

You wouldn't imagine how much he likes the game! I chose the options for him and I kept the Driving Line on -no need for him to memorize the tracks, I think-, ABS too, and Traction control, also automatic shifting, other than that everything was at full sim settings.

FM4 in its way is a pretty hardcore game and he is loving it so much. He is a fan of classic cars -he has two Mini cars from the 70s in fact- and he got to know new classic cars because of the game.

He has a BMW 2002 Turbo from 1973 -in the game- and he doesn't stop repeating how stunning it is. And he tried to find info of that car in the internet, and the same can be said about other cars he drove in Forza 4.

Simplifying games isn't the key to make great games -see Dragon Age 2 and how, happily for us, it sold a lot less than Dragon Age, probably the only real Dragon Age game for now- but a comprehensible, easy to use interface, and a intelligent use of it... is. In my opinion...

Casuals used to buy Gran Turismo and Pro Evolution Soccer games, which were pretty hardcore games anyways.

 

[Rodéric]

SO when I found him again he was truly upset! We talked a bit but he wanted to kill me for my betrayal. So I had to fight him.

I'm curious now, does that mean you couldn't tell the demon you'd fix it and go back kill the Warden mage ?

 

[bkilian]

Well... DA is a completely different team and I think they've realized by now that it was a bad idea to rush the sequel and they've probably already spent more time on DA3 because of the bad reception.

ME2 was also a far better gameplay experience altogether, and they've apparently spent a lot of time on expanding the RPG features. ME3 looks like it's going to be a very good game.

Edit: oh and just to clear it up, making a teaser trailer for ME3 won't get me or my employer any royalties from the sales of the game

At the DA panel at PAX, they pretty much apologized for DA2, and said they definately would not be making the mistake of reducing the scope so hugely again.

And I like the idea in ME3 that you can choose the game style you want, RPG/Story/FPS.

 

[Cyan]

I'm curious now, does that mean you couldn't tell the demon you'd fix it and go back kill the Warden mage ?

xDDD it's the demon's fault fro acting in an stereotypical manner. He had an emotional tantrum in public, was frivolous and vain and narcissistic, acting irresponsible and foolishly, the deal had been broken by me after all..., he was a demon and I didn't like him although I wouldn't mind a more diplomatic outcome or letting the demon and the mage solving their own matters.

That's why RPGs are more difficult to program and code. In any other game they tell you to do this and that to complete a mission, and you do this and that, everything is so fine tuned because there aren't choices. In a true RPG the player's personality plays a big part.

Yesterday I played DA some time and there was a situation were a mother wanted to save her kid, but in doing so someone else should be sacrificed --long story. After a long dialogue there didn't seem to be any solution, the woman talked about sacrificing herself.

Then I replied it it was there any other solution -there were like 6 more dialogue options- and nobody said anything about a decisive fix to the situation.

So I insisted -there were dialogue options all the time that allowed me to make things the mother agreed to, sacrificing herself and maybe completing the quest (I truly don't know, I never finished this quest I'm talking about) and replied "Nobody should need to die" or something like that.

When choosing this option someone mentioned a possible solution that involved talking to the Circle of Magi, which meant that I would prolong the quest an hour or more -I don't know, haven't finished it yet-, but it also meant that I got it my own way. :smile:

So yeah, that's why I love RPGs, your personality is intrinsically reflected in your actions.

 

[Acert93]

Can the complete game of ME3 be played in coop multiplayer? How is the MP aspect? /ME newb

 

[Laa-Yosh]

No, there is only one Shepard. Can't really imagine how coop would handle the conversations and choices and team upgrades...
Besides, two players as a team would probably lack the necessary set of combat skills for all situations; and two players with one squad member each would be overpowered.

So the multiplayer is not a part of the main storyline, it's a completely different experience. It's just the combat part and no main characters are involved in it as far as I can tell. Players basically take the roles of all the people trying to hold the line, while Shepard and his team run around the galaxy looking for a way to turn the tide. It's actually a quite clever way to add multiplayer to a story-driven game.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

In ME1 there were very interesting choices, like killing or letting the Rachnid queen die. Maybe that decision has some weight in the upcoming Mass Effect 3.

That's exactly my point. The decision about the queen could not have altered the course of ME2 because then the player might not be able to get to ME3 at all, so all you got was a message at most.
But in the final game the storylines can start to diverge and so there can be more serious consequences. And the same goes for practically every decision the player made in the two games. There are at least a thousand variables that can be carried over.

As you say, the simplification of the UI was a good idea. But that doesn't mean you have to simplify the game a lot making it a shadow of its former self or losing its identity in the genre it was meant for.

I don't really want to go over all of this... let's just say, most of what's been missing in ME2 was selling large piles of looted weapons/armor/mods/ammo and playing dress-up with the six part members you had in the first game. I definitely would not want to do that with up to 12 guys in the second game every time I find a new weapon or mod...

Besides, Bioware payed serious attention to critiques from both the press and the users and they're evidently aiming to find the best combination of the two approaches. Weapon mods are back, skill trees are expanded and I think you also have more equipment choices for the team members as well. It's not like they're trying to kill any kind of complexity in the game.
Sure, they're also trying to add ways to make it accessible to more people but that doesn't mean that they'll cut any features that RPG fans like. They want it to become a hit and they deserve big success, at least in my opinion.

 

[Scott_Arm]

If I had the talent and the technical know-how, I'd make an RPG where you were a knight's squire, and all you'd do is manage your knights inventory for him, sell/buy goods, help him dress and hand him the appropriate weapons in battle. There seem to be enough RPG fans that get off on that kind of thing.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Fantasy Jousting.

 

[(((interference)))]

I for one, definitely do not want to go back to the ME1 model of ludicrously unnecessary micromanagement where you were constantly searching through your inventory trying to figure out if you had a Incendiary Ammo upgrade VIII and so could sell your Incendiary Ammo upgrade VII, and this would be the case for every other upgrade or weapon you picked up.

 

[AlNom]

All they had to do to fix the inventory mess was group the same items under one listing really as well as change the font size so it'd be easier to see all the different items you kept, but that's neither here nor there to worry about anymore...

 

[Laa-Yosh]

You'd still have to micromanage the inventory before and after every battle, you'd need to visit shops all the time (especially as, hey, shops get randomly generated stocks) and you'd still feel silly about the team carrying literally tons of loot after big battles.

Replacing a large part of this with powers was a very good idea.

 

[Rodéric]

Just a few upgrades per weapon, researched on ship, with ability to change it during battle like in Crysis.
Would make the team more versatile, allow you to react to situations a little better, and not be about looting and comparing tonnes of stats. (Which I find to be a distasteful waste of time.)