Mass Effect 3 being further dumbed down

you know i play mass effect not for the gameplay but the amazing story, as long as the story remains bad ass the game should be fine

part one is not the best gameplay wise but its story was super amazing part 2 story was almost as good as the frist but the gameplay was alot better, I will still be buying part 3 day 1
 
Well my optimism on the delay lasted a whole three hours. Fool me once....
 
Savi said:
you know i play mass effect not for the gameplay but the amazing story, as long as the story remains bad ass the game should be fine

part one is not the best gameplay wise but its story was super amazing part 2 story was almost as good as the frist but the gameplay was alot better, I will still be buying part 3 day 1
Click to expand...

So, I'd LIKE to agree...but I can't. ME1 felt massive. It had tons of side stuff, no time limits. ME2 had scanning (comfirmed in ME3) and a total lack of vehicles (also confirmed not there in ME3?) Sooo...what are they doing? They're making it more of a shooter. As if ME2 wasn;t that already.

Look, you want story and don't care for gameplay, go play COD, or watch a movie. Those of us looking for a GAME will demand that they stay true to the spirit of ME1....of KOTR....of DA:O....of RPG shooters. Not shooter RPGs, RPG Shooters.
 
Wow, if true then that theory that Bioware learned from DA2's failure is wrong.
 
So if it's multiplayer like the article suggests, that dumbs down the single player how exactly?
 
Since I love the ME series so much, I am going to hold my opinions until I see what they are actually going to change. I doubt it even matters for me in the end...I'm sure ME3 will still be a day 1 purchase for me regardless of what Bioware changes. At this point, I just want to finish the story, and as long as the story is still awesome, I will still be playing.

edit: Here's to hoping they just add multiplayer like the article suggests. Hell, I'd actually be interested in ME multiplayer...especially if that includes co-op!
 
Anyone stop to think they're pulling resources to go work on SWTOR? Or even that they just don't want to compete with themselves for holiday dollars? Or maybe the feedback from DAII makes them want to make ME3 have even stronger RPG elements?

EA tries to put a good spin on the delay for their investors, and you guys run in here like Chicken Little saying the sky is falling. Unbelievable.
 
eh, they are going to further collapse the partner control same as they did with DA2. Multiplayer is already saturated, new games cannot get any traction. I imagine if they go that way it will be more wasted resources that could be spent on SP.
 
Altering the game to make it more action-oriented is not "dumbing-down" in any manner, so that perspective doesn't make any sense.

Unless, of course, they removed so much of the RPG element, that it became basically just a shooter, and I highly doubt they're going to ditch the game's depth to "replace" it with action. Instead, probably just tweaking things that bring more action into the mix.

What they are doing, is being money/marketing whores, outright stating that they want to appeal to a larger crowd, through making the game a bit more action-oriented which, just for the sake of "appealing to a larger audience", I feel is bullshit, and the antithesis of what art and creating is about.

Games are truly an art, and "interactive art", and if someone wants to create a great experience, then they should just do what they do, and not having a larger audience even being a factor in what they're creating.

Yes, that's me being a "purist" in regards to art, because while I understand developers do this for a living and need to make money, it's still about creating good art, and making the best game possible.

But, on the "flip side" here, if what they're doing doesn't effect the quality of the game or the experience, and they manage to attract a larger audience, then good for them, more power to 'em. Mass Effect is an amazing franchise, and I thought ME2 was fantastic; it was akin to "playing a movie", as far as I'm concerned. If they can add more action, though I cant say I agree with their reasoning for doing so, to bring in a larger audience who might just appreciate the other in-depth aspects of the game itself, then great.

But, if they fuck it up, well, then it will truly be an overt sign of the direction of the industry, and that more developers continue to fall into the category of no longer creating predominantly for the sake of creating, but it's now equally for the sake of lining their pockets.

I guess we'll find out when the game is released.
 
if they want to make it interesting then make the support characters be playable in coop mode. don't need any MP bullshit to be added.
 
Gordroth said:
Altering the game to make it more action-oriented is not "dumbing-down" in any manner, so that perspective doesn't make any sense.

Unless, of course, they removed so much of the RPG element, that it became basically just a shooter, and I highly doubt they're going to ditch the game's depth to "replace" it with action. Instead, probably just tweaking things that bring more action into the mix.

What they are doing, is being money/marketing whores, outright stating that they want to appeal to a larger crowd, through making the game a bit more action-oriented which, just for the sake of "appealing to a larger audience", I feel is bullshit, and the antithesis of what art and creating is about.

Games are truly an art, and "interactive art", and if someone wants to create a great experience, then they should just do what they do, and not having a larger audience even being a factor in what they're creating.

Yes, that's me being a "purist" in regards to art, because while I understand developers do this for a living and need to make money, it's still about creating good art, and making the best game possible.

But, on the "flip side" here, if what they're doing doesn't effect the quality of the game or the experience, and they manage to attract a larger audience, then good for them, more power to 'em. Mass Effect is an amazing franchise, and I thought ME2 was fantastic; it was akin to "playing a movie", as far as I'm concerned. If they can add more action, though I cant say I agree with their reasoning for doing so, to bring in a larger audience who might just appreciate the other in-depth aspects of the game itself, then great.

But, if they fuck it up, well, then it will truly be an overt sign of the direction of the industry, and that more developers continue to fall into the category of no longer creating predominantly for the sake of creating, but it's now equally for the sake of lining their pockets.

I guess we'll find out when the game is released.
Click to expand...

Outside of small indie studios it has NEVER been creating for the sake of creating. Since the early days of the game industry it has been about making money. Nothing more, nothing less. Games may be art, but so are movies and most of them are made for the sole purpose of making money.
 
Derangel said:
Outside of small indie studios it has NEVER been creating for the sake of creating. Since the early days of the game industry it has been about making money. Nothing more, nothing less. Games may be art, but so are movies and most of them are made for the sole purpose of making money.
Click to expand...

The movie industry is a terrible example, many great movies are made for art with the owners of studios being those that want the money....
 
huxley said:
The movie industry is a terrible example, many great movies are made for art with the owners of studios being those that want the money....
Click to expand...

The studios fund them and release them for the money, even if the people doing the work are doing it for the art. Works well enough for the relationship between publisher and developer.
 
alienate said:
They sold out, what can you say.
Click to expand...

Indeed. This is what happens when a large soulless profit hungry business like EA buys a small but flourishing developer like Bioware that has so many quality titles. Bioware swore up and down that EA wouldn't be influencing there game design and that they would have artistic freedom over development and timelines.

ME2 in my opinion was an evolution in the right direction. ME1 was fantastic but there were some parts of the game that were dragged down by developer ambition and lack of execution. The RPG style elements (like character armor , weapons and what not) felt completely like after thoughts and were a chore in ME1. The longer loading times and elevator rides (I fucking hated those) also sucked but being able to land on more worlds and use the hog right off the bat (instead of a DLC stripped down version) was better than mineral raping .. I'm sorry I mean "scanning" planetary bodies for goodies.

ME2 made a shit ton of money and was given rave reviews by both critics and gamers alike (which is rare) so EA started to take a deeper interest in Bioware games and stepped in with "suggestions" (meaning "we own you now , so fucking do it") on DA2 and look how messy that turned out.

BUT the team that did DA2 and the team that does ME are two completely different teams so its not fair to judge them in the same sense. I'm hoping that if the original ME team has any dignity left that they will hold there ground on these "mass appeal" changes and not fuck with the gameplay in a way that deviates from ME2 much. I personally don't think ME3 will be a mess but maybe I'm just a optimist ..
 
Godmachine said:
Indeed. This is what happens when a large soulless profit hungry business like EA buys a small but flourishing developer like Bioware that has so many quality titles. Bioware swore up and down that EA wouldn't be influencing there game design and that they would have artistic freedom over development and timelines.

ME2 in my opinion was an evolution in the right direction. ME1 was fantastic but there were some parts of the game that were dragged down by developer ambition and lack of execution. The RPG style elements (like character armor , weapons and what not) felt completely like after thoughts and were a chore in ME1. The longer loading times and elevator rides (I fucking hated those) also sucked but being able to land on more worlds and use the hog right off the bat (instead of a DLC stripped down version) was better than mineral raping .. I'm sorry I mean "scanning" planetary bodies for goodies.

ME2 made a shit ton of money and was given rave reviews by both critics and gamers alike (which is rare) so EA started to take a deeper interest in Bioware games and stepped in with "suggestions" (meaning "we own you now , so fucking do it") on DA2 and look how messy that turned out.

BUT the team that did DA2 and the team that does ME are two completely different teams so its not fair to judge them in the same sense. I'm hoping that if the original ME team has any dignity left that they will hold there ground on these "mass appeal" changes and not fuck with the gameplay in a way that deviates from ME2 much. I personally don't think ME3 will be a mess but maybe I'm just a optimist ..
Click to expand...

Small but flourishing? Bioware Pandemic wasn't remotely small.
 
Derangel said:
Small but flourishing? Bioware Pandemic wasn't remotely small.
Click to expand...

But it wasn't exactly EA in size now was it? It was flourishing in the sense that the developers were putting out quality games. Now with DA2 being a total mess and ME3 being pushed back to further its "appeal to the masses" who knows how bad it could be?
 
Godmachine said:
But it wasn't exactly EA in size now was it? It was flourishing in the sense that the developers were putting out quality games. Now with DA2 being a total mess and ME3 being pushed back to further its "appeal to the masses" who knows how bad it could be?
Click to expand...

DA2 would have been a good game if it wasn't rushed. The mechanics were good, the way the story was told was interesting, the progression of the story had potential. The game killer was the recycled areas and disjointed jumps in time. As long as ME3 isn't rushed it should be fine.
 
Godmachine said:
Indeed. This is what happens when a large soulless profit hungry business like EA buys a small but flourishing developer like Bioware that has so many quality titles. Bioware swore up and down that EA wouldn't be influencing there game design and that they would have artistic freedom over development and timelines.

ME2 in my opinion was an evolution in the right direction. ME1 was fantastic but there were some parts of the game that were dragged down by developer ambition and lack of execution. The RPG style elements (like character armor , weapons and what not) felt completely like after thoughts and were a chore in ME1. The longer loading times and elevator rides (I fucking hated those) also sucked but being able to land on more worlds and use the hog right off the bat (instead of a DLC stripped down version) was better than mineral raping .. I'm sorry I mean "scanning" planetary bodies for goodies.

ME2 made a shit ton of money and was given rave reviews by both critics and gamers alike (which is rare) so EA started to take a deeper interest in Bioware games and stepped in with "suggestions" (meaning "we own you now , so fucking do it") on DA2 and look how messy that turned out.

BUT the team that did DA2 and the team that does ME are two completely different teams so its not fair to judge them in the same sense. I'm hoping that if the original ME team has any dignity left that they will hold there ground on these "mass appeal" changes and not fuck with the gameplay in a way that deviates from ME2 much. I personally don't think ME3 will be a mess but maybe I'm just a optimist ..
Click to expand...

If you preferred ME 2 (which I did too) then I do not see why you would be concerned about these speculated changes. The article states that ME 2 was more in the direction that they want to take compared to ME 1. Certain "purists" are however complaining that ME 2 is considered "dumbed down" and that ME 3 will be along those lines.
 
rampantandroid said:
Look, you want story and don't care for gameplay, go play COD, or watch a movie. Those of us looking for a GAME will demand that they stay true to the spirit of ME1....of KOTR....of DA:O....of RPG shooters. Not shooter RPGs, RPG Shooters.
Click to expand...

As if the planet scanning was any worse than the god-awful, interminable Mako driving in ME. And it's not like ME1 was some sort of hardcore RPG, it was a simple, story-driven action game with nominal upgrade systems tacked on. I think you're seriously overstating the depth of its gameplay. And it was nothing like DA:O; if it had been I probably would have liked DA more. ME2 did some things better and some things worse.

ME was all about story, just like ME2. If you don't care for that, you've been playing the wrong games. That's also why any attempt at bolting on some kind of multiplayer would inevitably suck balls.
 
Hope for the best, expect the worst. That's the only way I've not been super disappointed with the state of games over the past 5 years, and doubt i will change that outlook anytime soon.
 
rampantandroid said:
So, I'd LIKE to agree...but I can't. ME1 felt massive. It had tons of side stuff, no time limits. ME2 had scanning (comfirmed in ME3) and a total lack of vehicles (also confirmed not there in ME3?) Sooo...what are they doing? They're making it more of a shooter. As if ME2 wasn;t that already.

Look, you want story and don't care for gameplay, go play COD, or watch a movie. Those of us looking for a GAME will demand that they stay true to the spirit of ME1....of KOTR....of DA:O....of RPG shooters. Not shooter RPGs, RPG Shooters.
Click to expand...

it is true me 2 did lose some stuff that made part 1 great, but every thing part 2 did it did amazing just blew my mind I have played part 2 more than part 1 by now, i have at least 6 or 7 full playthroughs of part 1 alone. And when bioware made this game they ment it to be a EPIC Sci-fi Story which i think they have done it is a amazing game and i totaly belive they will give us a great 3rd game long as they dont totaly change every thing the way they did with DA:O and DA 2 it should be good

Just so you know i still belive part to does live up to ME 1 and even kotr but thats somthign to talk about in a defrent thread lol
 
Litfod said:
That's also why any attempt at bolting on some kind of multiplayer would inevitably suck balls.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why people feel this way. There was a lot of negative reaction from what I remember before when a discussion about Mass Effect coop was brought up on these forums as well.

But the combat element in Mass Effect to me seems perfectly suited for a coop multiplayer mode, which can be seamlessly integrated into the game. The engine itself should actually have the capabilities for this already (it is used in other games) and really would not be very development resource intensive to implement.
 
How is it possible to dumb down mass effect 2?

Are there no bends in the single long corridor this time?
 
limitedaccess said:
I don't understand why people feel this way. There was a lot of negative reaction from what I remember before when a discussion about Mass Effect coop was brought up on these forums as well.

But the combat element in Mass Effect to me seems perfectly suited for a coop multiplayer mode, which can be seamlessly integrated into the game. The engine itself should actually have the capabilities for this already (it is used in other games) and really would not be very development resource intensive to implement.
Click to expand...

The ME trilogy is and should be a singe player experience. I don't understand why people want to force every game to have MP. Let developers make the games they want. There are more than enough MP games without damaging good SP games. If Bioware is going to make a multiplayer game in the ME universe it should be a game built from the ground up for it.
 
Derangel said:
The ME trilogy is and should be a singe player experience. I don't understand why people want to force every game to have MP. Let developers make the games they want. There are more than enough MP games without damaging good SP games. If Bioware is going to make a multiplayer game in the ME universe it should be a game built from the ground up for it.
Click to expand...

If you want to play it as single player you can, if you want to do the combat sections in coop you can. If you look at how the combat in ME 1 and ME 2 is setup, it basically can already work this way with no other changes other then adding the code required to support, which is demonstrated on many other Unreal 3 based titles. The game play would not change in any other way. My point isn't that it has to be coop, but if a multiplayer element is added in the form of coop, it can be done with no negative effect or the change the game at all.

I bring this up because in the other discussion about this, a ton of people were more supportive of TES games being instead designed around coop. Yet to rework a TES style game to fit a coop type mode would be much more difficult and require extensive work to do so, and would likely require many significant changes to core aspects of the game.
 
Dumbing down a console game? Is there a joke in there somewhere?:confused:
 
Meh, I'll wait to hear about gameplay mechanics from Bioware, not some 2-bit EA moron.

I am very afraid though, after Dragon Age 2. :(
 
As some others have said, I don't know how deeply to read into these comments. It's a broad enough statement for people to read a lot of things into.

I had already pretty well assumed that ME3 was not going to be my perfect ME game. But I'm probably in the minority, so they can't sell games based on my wants.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I thought that ME2 was a big improvement in nearly every area other than core gameplay. Looks, characters, writing, cutscenes, story, etc. all were an improvement on ME1. Going to a cover-based shooter model with some minimal RPG gameplay elements was not a step forward. There are plenty of other cover-based shooters that actually have better gameplay if you want an FPS game.

Then again, can always go back to the old standby of raging on Xbawks mouth-breathers. Everything is their fault, always and forever. Can only imagine what ME3 might be like if it weren't their wallets EA was most concerned with catering to.

Edit: To be clear though, I'm still buying it, and ultimately don't care if it's not my perfect game, so long as it's fun, the story and dialogue are good, and I don't feel like my time was wasted at the end of it.
 
Last edited:
So... Bioware delays a game so they can tweak some elements to reach a wider market, and that upsets you? They made no mention of what they were wanting to work on. And the multiplayer comment was not from Bioware, it was from a speculative blog writer.

Two things:
1) Mass Effect has always been about the story. They could release this part of the series in a comic book and people would still buy it. Yiu cant complain about speculative changes in gameplay with a game like this. ME1 was great, ME2 was even better, and ME3 will be the best in the series without a doubt.

2) Yes it sucks it was delayed, but if that means they are improving something then that's a good thing.

If that tiny announcement discourages you from playing ME3, you probably aren't much of a fan of the series.
 
Savi said:
you know i play mass effect not for the gameplay but the amazing story, as long as the story remains bad ass the game should be fine

part one is not the best gameplay wise but its story was super amazing part 2 story was almost as good as the frist but the gameplay was alot better, I will still be buying part 3 day 1
Click to expand...
I thought the story telling took a big step down in ME2.

ME1 was the first game in a long time to leave me sad when the credits rolled. Maybe it was the Faunts song. But I was straight up bummed that the adventure was over. No more Garrus, no more Tali, no more Wrex, no more scissoring with my blue babe Liara.

ME2 was just... whatever. Game over, now onto the DLC.
 
I too thought that ME2 was a vast improvement over ME1. The ability to import your ME1 character into ME2 and have dialog that went along with the choices made in the first game was a nice way to reward/build customer loyalty.

I am looking forward to ME3 whenever it arrives but at the same time it will not be a Day 1 purchase for me. In fact, I feel that it's really not very [H] to buy a game at full retail (or 10% off during pre-sales).
 
RIPATI said:
I thought the story telling took a big step down in ME2.

ME1 was the first game in a long time to leave me sad when the credits rolled. Maybe it was the Faunts song. But I was straight up bummed that the adventure was over. No more Garrus, no more Tali, no more Wrex, no more scissoring with my blue babe Liara.

ME2 was just... whatever. Game over, now onto the DLC.
Click to expand...

I hear you, but by the same token, how much of that was because ME1 was, well, ME1? ME2 is a continuation of that adventure, so it's already going to be lacking some of that new adventure smell.

I do think ME1 had a much more theatrical, epic story, so it was easier to get invested in saving the galaxy. ME2 made it very clear from the outset that you're working behind the scenes and that no one will ever know exactly what you've done.

But at the same time, even if the story in ME2 is less grandiose, it certainly did a better job of the mechanics of telling it. The dialogue, the characters, and the interrupt system all were big improvements over the original.

If they can merge the two for ME3, they'll have a big winner from a story perspective.
 
The side stories in ME2 were fantastic. But the main plot in the game sucked compared to ME1. It didn't help that the antagonists were lame and only three-ish of the 40 some missions were dedicated to advancing the meager main plot. I bet when all is said and done you could completely ignore the plot of ME2 and just look at it as ME1 -> ME3 and it would make complete sense. The whole second game felt like a diversion.

The gameplay was indeed better in the second game, but I'm always amazed when someone says that planet scanning is better than the Mako missions. To each their his/her own, but the latter is at least a game, albeit repetitive and poorly executed. Planet scanning is pure filler with less potential for fun than an algebra test.

Oh and Bioware has already confirmed that there will not be multiplayer in ME3. Thank goodness.
 
drako said:
The gameplay was indeed better in the second game, but I'm always amazed when someone says that planet scanning is better than the Mako missions. To each their his/her own, but the latter is at least a game, albeit repetitive and poorly executed. Planet scanning is pure filler with less potential for fun than an algebra test.
Click to expand...

I think of it in exactly the opposite terms. Mako missions were total fillers where you had to drive around for 20 minutes to explore each map. Scanning took less than 5 seconds per planet. Approach the planet, check whether there is an anomaly or whether it is rich, if neither then move on. In addition the percentage of completion made it a lot easier to keep track of things.
 
limitedaccess said:
I don't understand why people feel this way. There was a lot of negative reaction from what I remember before when a discussion about Mass Effect coop was brought up on these forums as well.

But the combat element in Mass Effect to me seems perfectly suited for a coop multiplayer mode, which can be seamlessly integrated into the game. The engine itself should actually have the capabilities for this already (it is used in other games) and really would not be very development resource intensive to implement.
Click to expand...

It's the RPG elements holding back any co-op. It's about being able to co-ordinate your team, customise each member's abilities/stats/equipment, as well as a degree of open-world (or open-"galaxy") freedom. That is all compromised if you include co-op since you'll lose direct control over your teammates and what you can do in the game.

If a future Mass Effect dropped the RPG elements and became a pure shooter, then co-op would be a logical inclusion.
 
Thuleman said:
I think of it in exactly the opposite terms. Mako missions were total fillers where you had to drive around for 20 minutes to explore each map. Scanning took less than 5 seconds per planet. Approach the planet, check whether there is an anomaly or whether it is rich, if neither then move on. In addition the percentage of completion made it a lot easier to keep track of things.
Click to expand...
Man I did something wrong if it only took you five seconds. Of course, I was doing it based on the notion that I should try to find all of the large resource anomalies on every planet. It wasn't till I hit Ilium that I realized resources weren't that important and I was actually very low on money because I had spent a lot on fuel and probes.

Don't get me wrong, the Mako missions were far from perfect. But I enjoyed driving the thing around and really you didn't have to explore the entire map as it hinted to you where the important things were (of course I explored the entire maps anyway). And fighting the Threshers was fun. My biggest beef with the Mako missions is that the side missions on the planets were all cookie cutter cave sections with the same assortment of enemies and level designs. They did a much better job with the side missions in ME2. I just wish they'd get rid of planet scanning entirely. Why is a commander collecting resources anyway?
 
I don't see how it's possible to make ME3 more action oriented than ME2. That's like 100% falcon punch, now with 5% more falcon punch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top