leXX Posted May 4, 2011 Author Posted May 4, 2011 I'm actually happy about the delay. It shows that Bioware are serious about giving us a more polished product and not a rush job. And two new screenshots:
Lynk Former Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 Well yeah, every developer, not just BioWare should really have the guts to delay their game a little more if it'll make a difference. "A delayed game is eventually good, a bad game is bad forever"- Shigeru Miyamoto He should have taken his own advice with The Wind Waker... though even then it turned out pretty damn good.
mimartin Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 Crap! It's been delayed until 2012. Linky Well aren't you full of good news. Next Rhett you will be telling me Christmas is being delayed too. Don't care just make it good. I don't want a huge delay and then get the game equivalent of the The Phantom Menace.
ChAiNz.2da Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 I'm actually happy about the delay. It shows that Bioware are serious about giving us a more polished product and not a rush job. Same here.. though there is that whole Skyrim 11.11.11. thing too... Game time won't feel so crowded having to choose between the 2
mimartin Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 Same here.. though there is that whole Skyrim 11.11.11. thing too...Sorry ChAiNz, but Skyrim has been delayed too. The next date that fits Bethesda date scheme is 12/12/12. I know what you are talking about, been playing Oblivion getting ready for Skyrim. Also in case you haven't seen this, something Achilles pointed out to me: I'm going back to Morrowind very soon. @Below - Over the president of EA's cold dead body will DLC will be kept to a minimum.
Totenkopf Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 I'm actually happy about the delay. It shows that Bioware are serious about giving us a more polished product and not a rush job. Well, as long as it puts on the polish and keeps the paid for DLC to a minimum (or even better, nonexistent), I'm fine with it.
ChAiNz.2da Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 Sorry ChAiNz, but Skyrim has been delayed too. The next date that fits Bethesda date scheme is 12/12/12. NoooOOOOooOOOOooo.... [/vader] in case you haven't seen this, something Achilles pointed out to me: I'm going back to Morrowind very soon. wow. Guess I know what I'll be installing this weekend.. hehe
Astor Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 And two new screenshots: Is that Earth or the Salarian homeworld?
Primogen Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 It looks like Earth to me from the background buildings, but that huge structure looks like a Reaper construction. It's a lot like the structures on the Citadel. Could also be Asari.
Salzella Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 If i was to guess, I would say the Asari homeworld (Thessia i think?). Looks really cool, whatever it is.
Achilles Posted May 5, 2011 Posted May 5, 2011 I'm actually happy about the delay. It shows that Bioware are serious about giving us a more polished product and not a rush job. According to Eurogamer (quoting EA's John Riccitiello), the reason for the delay is that they want to retool the game for a "wider audience". Linky "One of the things that Ray Muzyuka and the team up in Edmonton have done is essentially step-by-step adjust the gameplay mechanics and some of the features that you'll see at E3 to put this in a genre equivalent to shooter-meets-RPG," he said, "and essentially address a much larger market opportunity than Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2 began to approach. "We're huge believers in the IP and are purposefully shifting it to address a larger market opportunity."
Ser'eck Posted May 5, 2011 Posted May 5, 2011 What ever the reason for the delay it is no bother to me. I thought that releasing it this year was pushing it.
DarthParametric Posted May 5, 2011 Posted May 5, 2011 Oh ye gods. So ME3 is going the DA2 route then. As if it wasn't already watered down and mainstream enough.
Astor Posted May 5, 2011 Posted May 5, 2011 That really worries me. And they might get away with it easier this time, because they know a lot of people will be buying it anyway to see how the story finishes. ME2 was already pretty much a shooter. How much further can they possibly take it and still retain any semblance of an RPG?
Lynk Former Posted May 5, 2011 Posted May 5, 2011 Does that mean Mass Effect 1 was a watered down shooter?
Sabretooth Posted May 5, 2011 Posted May 5, 2011 I imagine that's what Astor meant and if he didn't, it's the truth anyhow. Picture related, gameplay concept art of Mass Effect:
Sabretooth Posted May 5, 2011 Posted May 5, 2011 It just occurred to me that even Space Invaders didn't use a soggy cover system and actually forced you to, you know, move behind and stay in cover.
igyman Posted May 5, 2011 Posted May 5, 2011 Does that mean Mass Effect 1 was a watered down shooter? Nope, it was an RPG with shooter elements. I know this was directed at DarthP, but it's a good opportunity to try to make a point. There is no philosophy involved in what is an RPG in the context of video game genres. Just like there's no philosophy involved in what is a Real-Time Strategy game. In order for a video game to be classified into the RPG genre of video games, it must posses a specific set of gameplay elements. The same applies to RTS games, Shooters (Third and First person), Action games, P&C Adventures and any other genres you can think of. I think the genre confusion can happen when a developer borrows gameplay elements from another genre in order to enrich the gameplay of their game (this is the reason most "modern RPGs" give the player the ability to talk to people like he can in good old LucasArts adventure games). This is especially the case if a game is marketed as belonging to base genre A while borrowing elements from genre B, when in fact it belongs to base genre B and borrows elements from genre A. Since we're talking about RPGs, here are some related examples. Darksiders was an Action Adventure game. There's no doubt about it - it possessed all gameplay elements of such a game, but it also borrowed certain RPG elements to enrich its gameplay. Namely, you had some light progression in the form of primary weapon level ups gained by gathering enough experience (the gathering was done by killing enemies), as well as a limited inventory and weapon upgrades. You could also buy new/upgrade your weapon combos and abilities at Vulgrim's store. So you could say this game was an Action Adventure with RPG elements. A similar example would be the Assassin's Creed game series (specifically ACII and AC:B). On the other hand a more recent example of an action RPG would be Divinity II: The Dragon Knight Saga. This game has all the elements of a classic RPG - inventory with lots of slots, attributes, a bunch of skills (where each skill/spell can be upgraded at least five times), quests, character progression; to name a few. What this game also has is real-time combat (also labeled as button-mashing combat by some) where one click equals one weapon swing (or one arrow shot) and where you have to position your character yourself in order for that swing/shot to count - similarly to the above mentioned Darksiders, or AC, or even Jedi Outcast/Jedi Academy. You can also jump/roll around to avoid enemy attacks, but the damage you deal is calculated based on the equipped weapons and appropriate attributes. After a certain point in the game, you will be able to turn into a dragon at will and fly around and burn stuff like a dragon tends to do. So there's even a flying element in there. A similar example would be Two Worlds II. Keeping all this in mind, it is correct to say that Mass Effect 2 is a Third-Person Shooter with RPG elements, while ME1 is an RPG with shooter elements. And there's nothing wrong with that. Both games have their good and bad sides, just as each genre has its good and bad sides. It is important, however, to differentiate them in order to avoid confusion.
mstr kenobi Posted May 5, 2011 Posted May 5, 2011 ME2 was already pretty much a shooter. How much further can they possibly take it and still retain any semblance of an RPG? I'm having trouble figuring this out as well... What more can they do?
leXX Posted May 5, 2011 Author Posted May 5, 2011 BioWare aims to "enrich" Mass Effect 3's role-playing mechanics without burdening players with heaps of trivial statistics that barely impinge on the action, according to senior designer Christina Norman. "We want to enrich the role-playing aspects of the game, while making sure that they're always meaningful in combat," Norman told OXM when asked whether the threequel's fleet-footed tactical gunplay might clash with its RPG elements. "We don't want to have any meaningless behind-the-scenes stat games, where the output is very minor in combat. Every single thing you do has a real impact in the battle." Fans of Mass Effect 2 might not notice many of the alterations to the combat system at first, Norman went on. "We got combat the way we wanted it for ME2, so you're going to feel right at home straight away. But there are so many subtle improvements that you'll miss them if you go back." Source
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.