Well, hearing this is pushed back is rather disappointing. However, I do trust Bioware. I don't assume that "more mainstream" means "more dumb"...but we'll have to see what's what when the game releases. It's not like I'm not going to get it unless somehow Bioware manages to drop an insane stinker...
Did you read Luder's link? You know, the one on the post above yours....
Quote:
The third game will also incorporate more traditional RPG elements than the second game did, including more in-depth skill trees and weapons customization. Each class now has a dedicated melee attack and the cover system has been refined. Hearing about all of these things makes us very excited, but we've yet to see them in action.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Thats why Flames fans make ideal Star Trek fans. We've really been taught to embrace the self-loathing and extreme criticism.
"Essentially, step by step, [BioWare is] adjusting some of the gameplay mechanics and some of the features that you'll see at E3 that can put this into a genre equivalent of shooter-meets-RPG, and essentially address a far larger market opportunity than Mass Effect 1 did and Mass Effect 2 began to approach."
Justin McElroy at Joystiq seems to think that a multiplayer component may be involved, but I'm thinking it goes beyond that. Bioware has been receiving some flak from the very same RPG fanatics who supported the company from day one. Why? Primarily because of the constant dumbing down seen in Dragon Age 2's design, and prior to that Mass Effect 2. Copies still flew off the shelves though, and despite the "mass appeal" design of Mass Effect 2 it managed to pull average review scores in the mid-90s.
But now we've got Mr. Riccitello discussing more of a "shooter-meets-RPG" and a "larger market opportunity" goal for Mass Effect 3 as a reason for the delay. How much do you want to bet that Mass Effect 3 is going to be even more dumbed down than Mass Effect 2 was? Best we can do is hope that's not the case, but I'm starting to think the folks at Bioware have lost it.
They better not be trying to shoe horn in a multiplayer aspect, but apparently Dragon Age III will have multiplayer, and ME2 was more shooter than RPG IMHO, especially compared to ME1. Im starting to get onto the "EA ruins everything" bandwagon. I'm trying not to freak out lol.
See, this is what I read that I think says "dumbing it down". When they say things like "address a larger market" that usually means dumbing things down.
I pray to god they don't have multiplayer because that means they are just using more resources to add a multiplayer rather than using those resources to make a better single player game.
I really hope EA pisses off and lets Bioware do what they want. And god help us if it was Bioware's idea to dumb the game down.
Right now nothing has been shown so I am holding my judgment, but ME2 really cut down RPG, not sure how much more than can strip down.
Keep in mind that while ME2 was stripped down from ME1, ME1 was the easier of the two.
If it's easy RPG vs. challenging shooter... challenging shooter may hold more appeal to the hardcore fans.
I, however, preferred ME1 for mechanics that were more fun. Ammo conservation and spamming abilities is far less fun than ability conservation and spamming ammo (at the cost of being exposed).
Whatever, I can't wait to fight the Reapers... or maybe even join them?
I'm not sure if any of you follow the comics, but the latest rumors for ME3 have The Illusive Man
Spoiler!
being indoctrinated like Saren, but he has been indoctrinated for a very long time (the comic has Illusive Man getting hit with a wave from a beacon, and half turned into a husk during the First Contact War) if you saved the base at the end of ME2 you could be in trouble, and it explains why Cerberus is after you in the 3rd game. Apparently this is supposedly revealed in this months PC Gamer.
Last edited by Luder; 05-10-2011 at 12:13 PM.
Reason: spelling
I'm conflicted. The trailer makes the game look exactly like Mass Effect 2, which was a good game.
But it doesn't really look like they added anything from ME1 that they took out, except Grenades, those are back.
It will be an excellent game, no doubt about it, but it doesn't look anything like the first, which sucks.
Also, the part where Shep was shooting the Reaper was stupid. Parts on rails are ridiculous and over used and I hate that Bioware went that way for ME3 (at least for some combat parts).
if Bioware ####s this up i will never forgive them. i can look past DA2 as EA pushing them to pump out a sequel as quick as possible, but there will be no excuses if they give the same treatment to ME3
So bad news for people who are proper fans of this game.
Multiplayer has been confirmed for ME3. Was in a Aussie gaming magazine. The new issues of gaming mag's in N. America will have the story for the next issue.
FFS Bioware. Dragon Age 2 and now this. They are slipping HARD.
So bad news for people who are proper fans of this game.
Multiplayer has been confirmed for ME3. Was in a Aussie gaming magazine. The new issues of gaming mag's in N. America will have the story for the next issue.
FFS Bioware. Dragon Age 2 and now this. They are slipping HARD.
I.E. people who agree with your point of view? So if I'd rather wait and see, I'm not a "proper fan"?
Baldur's Gate had multiplayer too - didn't affect that game one bit. Personally I don't care if they add multiplayer or not, as long as the actual game remains awesome. If they want to make the gameplay more action oriented, that's cool with me - but don't screw around with the story telling which is arguably the biggest strength of the ME series.
Mass Effect 1 was a slow moving ponderous gameplay experience fitting the exploratory theme of the game. Mass Effect 3's story is a do or die situation - pumped up nigh panic'd action may well fit the game better.
Dragon Age 2 suffered from being a sub-par story with recycled environments. It's actual gameplay experience was a very nice change from DA1 (preference, though I suppose I'm not a a "proper fan"). If ME3 does the same thing, then yes, Bioware will have slipped - but I very highly doubt this is going to happen.
March 2012... yeesh. World is going to end before I see any of the games I want to play in the future.
Given that your AI squadmates are absolute ######s, maybe this is a good thing? Of course, since I can barely find friends to play Portal2 with, maybe not.
I.E. people who agree with your point of view? So if I'd rather wait and see, I'm not a "proper fan"?
Baldur's Gate had multiplayer too - didn't affect that game one bit. Personally I don't care if they add multiplayer or not, as long as the actual game remains awesome. If they want to make the gameplay more action oriented, that's cool with me - but don't screw around with the story telling which is arguably the biggest strength of the ME series.
Mass Effect 1 was a slow moving ponderous gameplay experience fitting the exploratory theme of the game. Mass Effect 3's story is a do or die situation - pumped up nigh panic'd action may well fit the game better.
Dragon Age 2 suffered from being a sub-par story with recycled environments. It's actual gameplay experience was a very nice change from DA1 (preference, though I suppose I'm not a a "proper fan"). If ME3 does the same thing, then yes, Bioware will have slipped - but I very highly doubt this is going to happen.
March 2012... yeesh. World is going to end before I see any of the games I want to play in the future.
Proper fan as in someone who actually understands the concept of a story driven RPG. If it had co-op (which I wouldn't be totally opposed to), who gets to make the decisions?
It's like adding multiplayer to Skyrim, makes no sense.
Co-op could potentially work, but a versus multiplayer would be ridiculous.
I'll wait until March to reserve my full judgement, but I'd prefer they didn't add multiplayer as that essentially means they used resources they could have used to make a better single player game, and put them into making multiplayer.
I'll reserve judgement only because I was what Ubisoft did with Assassin's Creed Brotherhood which I love the multiplayer element.
Proper fan as in someone who actually understands the concept of a story driven RPG. If it had co-op (which I wouldn't be totally opposed to), who gets to make the decisions?
It's like adding multiplayer to Skyrim, makes no sense.
Co-op could potentially work, but a versus multiplayer would be ridiculous.
I'll wait until March to reserve my full judgement, but I'd prefer they didn't add multiplayer as that essentially means they used resources they could have used to make a better single player game, and put them into making multiplayer.
I'll reserve judgement only because I was what Ubisoft did with Assassin's Creed Brotherhood which I love the multiplayer element.
as far as i understand, the multiplayer component is co-op only, and they will control your squadmates. if you host, then you're Sheppard and you make all the decisions, they're just there to tag along and provide superior backup than an AI team mate
assuming all that is true, i don't see it impacting the story or how ME3 plays at all. look at a game like Gears of War where the co-op is very fluid and doesn't change the story at all. if Bioware follows the same model then it should be a good thing
EDIT: nevermind, after looking at the details i see that it's a stand alone co-op element that will have no effect on the single player story itself. it does affect the "galactic readiness" in the main campaign, but only in a positive way apparently
Proper fan as in someone who actually understands the concept of a story driven RPG. If it had co-op (which I wouldn't be totally opposed to), who gets to make the decisions?
It's like adding multiplayer to Skyrim, makes no sense.
Sounds like someone who has never played a multiplayer Bioware RPG.
I guess Baldur's Gate, Baldur's Gate 2, and Neverwinter Nights were before your time.
Those also happen to be some of the greatest Bioware RPGs ever made as well and they were all fine.
Sounds like someone who has never played a multiplayer Bioware RPG.
I guess Baldur's Gate, Baldur's Gate 2, and Neverwinter Nights were before your time.
Those also happen to be some of the greatest Bioware RPGs ever made as well and they were all fine.
I played the Bulder's Gate games, but to me they're entirely different then what kind of a game Mass Effect is. Like I said, I'll reserve judgement until I play it as I have been wrong before (AC multiplayer example, etc.)
