• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

EA: Mass Effect 3 to be dumbed down

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Dialog involves decisions, replace interactive dialog with cut scenes.
Stats / levels require math, replace them with auto-aim.
Quests (especially side-quests) require lists of objectives, too complex, streamline to one objective at a time given to you on the fly (like by a talking voice inside your helmet that tells you where to go and what to do)
Equipment customization requires decisions, limit customization to a choice between a rifle, pistol, shotgun or rocket launcher with only one suit of armor.

this armor...
Master_Chief_in_Halo_3.png
 
Red Storm said:
Do you not realize what "address a much larger market opportunity than Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2 began to approach" means?
Click to expand...

Yeah, it means making a game that will appeal to a broader audience, i.e making it more FPS for the FPS crowd and more RPG for the RPG crowd.

Oh, was I supposed to automatically infer that it meant they were going to dumb it down so 5 year olds can play? Sorry that I have faith in this game instead and trust their decisions for the ME universe.

and ME2 wasn't dumbed down. They just stripped out all the useless fluff. Or did you want to pick up 40 billion pieces of the same useless equipment again?
 
He didn't say the game is going to sell well. He said it's aiming to appeal to a broader audience, which can only be done by simplifying the game further. You can't appeal to a broader audience by specializing, you do the opposite (this is true for every product, not just games). I'm not quite sure why you think this isn't so, it's not like it hasn't been going on forever.

Edit: You can't make it both "more RPG" and "more FPS" at the same time. They are not the same type of game play, going one way obviously detracts from the other.
 
Last edited:
Red Storm said:
He didn't say the game is going to sell well. He said it's aiming to appeal to a broader audience, which can only be done by simplifying the game further. You can't appeal to a broader audience by specializing, you do the opposite (this is true for every product, not just games). I'm not quite sure why you think this isn't so, it's not like it hasn't been going on forever.
Click to expand...

You make it appealing to a broader audience by making it more things. ME2 was the segway from RPG to shooter; I'm guessing they're trying to expand on that so it will appeal to more of the shooter crowd since the RPG crowd is already drawn in from the franchise.
 
Red Storm said:
He didn't say the game is going to sell well. He said it's aiming to appeal to a broader audience, which can only be done by simplifying the game further. You can't appeal to a broader audience by specializing, you do the opposite (this is true for every product, not just games). I'm not quite sure why you think this isn't so, it's not like it hasn't been going on forever.
Click to expand...

Appealing to a broader audience implies better sales. And it doesn't imply losing the original audience. Improvements across the board can attract more people.

Edit: You can't make it both "more RPG" and "more FPS" at the same time, they are not the same type of genre, so going one way obviously detracts from the other.
Click to expand...

Why not? Let's say the game adds class-specific melee moves and adds mechanics like rolling and climbing ladders, while expanding the amount of skills you can customize. (all of which the developers have said they are doing) Both the shooter side and the RPG side are being improved. How does that hurt the other?
 
Red Hawk said:
Appealing to a broader audience implies better sales. And it doesn't imply losing the original audience. Improvements across the board can attract more people.
Click to expand...

It is generally assumed in this sort of situation that your original audience will buy the game on name recognition alone. Add in some money for marketing to buy a few good reviews, and you can make it into a copy of The Sims and you will keep a significant portion your original audience, because of:
"Stop being paranoid. Christina Norman, gameplay designer for ME3, tweeted on no uncertain terms that they are improving both the RPG gameplay and the shooter gameplay. " "idc itll be a day 1 purchase for me " "I don't see anything in there saying it'll be dumbed down or simplified. To me it sounds like they're trying to better bridge the gap between FPS and RPG. Ya'll need to calm down."

A lot of gamers will buy it no matter how bad it is and EA knows this.

Why not? Let's say the game adds class-specific melee moves and adds mechanics like rolling and climbing ladders, while expanding the amount of skills you can customize. (all of which the developers have said they are doing) Both the shooter side and the RPG side are being improved. How does that hurt the other?
Click to expand...
FPS players want to jump into and out of the action with out having to read any dialog or make any choices, they want twitch control with large explosions.
RPG players want to take their time and be told a story, they want to make decisions that effect that story, they want the opertunity to geek out on the numbers.
These things are mutually exclusive.
 
SMOGZINN said:
It is generally assumed in this sort of situation that your original audience will buy the game on name recognition alone. Add in some money for marketing to buy a few good reviews, and you can make it into a copy of The Sims and you will keep a significant portion your original audience, because of:
"Stop being paranoid. Christina Norman, gameplay designer for ME3, tweeted on no uncertain terms that they are improving both the RPG gameplay and the shooter gameplay. " "idc itll be a day 1 purchase for me " "I don't see anything in there saying it'll be dumbed down or simplified. To me it sounds like they're trying to better bridge the gap between FPS and RPG. Ya'll need to calm down."

A lot of gamers will buy it no matter how bad it is and EA knows this.
Click to expand...

Because we have no reason to think it will be bad. All I've read can be taken as the game will be better than the other two. In fact, Ricitiello didn't specify just what broader audience it is going for. It could be expanding upon both the shooter audience and RPG audience. You're being paranoid and reading too much into this.

The one sign that the RPG experience might be compromised is if multiplayer was added. BioWare has categorically denied that. That's a sign that they are not, in fact, abandoning the RPG side for more sales.

FPS players want to jump into and out of the action with out having to read any dialog or make any choices, they want twitch control with large explosions.
RPG players want to take their time and be told a story, they want to make decisions that effect that story, they want the opertunity to geek out on the numbers.
These things are mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

FPS players can breeze through the dialog and auto-level up. Again, things that improve one side of the experience don't necessarily need to detract from the other side.
 
Udgnim said:
pretty sad to see EA ruining Bioware

still have Valve and Blizzard at least
Click to expand...

I dont like the direction any of bioware's games are going either, but I think that you have to hold Bioware at least partially responsible too. Nobody put a gun to their head and made them sell out (literally and figuratively) to EA.

I have had a serious grudge against Bioware since they turned KOTOR into an MMO.
 
frozentundra123456 said:
I dont like the direction any of bioware's games are going either, but I think that you have to hold Bioware at least partially responsible too. Nobody put a gun to their head and made them sell out (literally and figuratively) to EA.

I have had a serious grudge against Bioware since they turned KOTOR into an MMO.
Click to expand...

They either make the games EA wants or be out of a job. They basically have to dumb them down.
 
This is about the same thing that they said about DA2, and we all see how that turned out 🙂
 
Schadenfroh said:
Dialog involves decisions, replace interactive dialog with cut scenes.
Stats / levels require math, replace them with auto-aim.
Quests (especially side-quests) require lists of objectives, too complex, streamline to one objective at a time given to you on the fly (like by a talking voice inside your helmet that tells you where to go and what to do)
Equipment customization requires decisions, limit customization to a choice between a rifle, pistol, shotgun or rocket launcher with only one suit of armor.

this armor...
Master_Chief_in_Halo_3.png
Click to expand...

Sounds like DA2 😛
 
Dumac said:
This is about the same thing that they said about DA2, and we all see how that turned out 🙂
Click to expand...

Actually, what happened with DA2 is more like what happened with Mass Effect 2. The problem there is that BioWare didn't realize what works for one series doesn't necessarily work for the other. Seeing how Mass Effect 2 already forged the path that DA2 followed and was met with success, I don't think Mass Effect 3 is in danger of similar failure.
 
SMOGZINN said:
FPS players want to jump into and out of the action with out having to read any dialog or make any choices, they want twitch control with large explosions.
RPG players want to take their time and be told a story, they want to make decisions that effect that story, they want the opertunity to geek out on the numbers.
These things are mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

No, not really.

A game can have the FPS element (lots of shooting and 'splosions) while "On mission", but it can ALSO have the RPG element (dialog trees, storylines, far-reaching decisions, stats, levels and skills) while "off mission"

The "missions/quests" are the FPS while the "not mission/quest" is the RPG. Basically, just like ME2, but maybe with both moar pewpew/splosions AND deeper character development (stats/levels/skills).
 
Last edited:
Civilization V tried to appeal to a broader audience too....gone are the days of complex PC RPG games by big time developers... 🙁
 
Red Hawk said:
Actually, what happened with DA2 is more like what happened with Mass Effect 2. The problem there is that BioWare didn't realize what works for one series doesn't necessarily work for the other. Seeing how Mass Effect 2 already forged the path that DA2 followed and was met with success, I don't think Mass Effect 3 is in danger of similar failure.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with this at all. What ruined DA2 was:
- recycled environments
- Unlike DA:O, which was an epic journey, DA2 takes place almost entirely inside one boring & lifeless city
- Most of the game consists of doing generic, boring sidequests

DA2 was like an experiment to see how little effort and content they could put into a game.

Anyway Red Hawk, I really hope you're right about ME3, but I'm not getting my hopes up. We've seen countless examples of great gaming studios that got ruined by EA. And, we've seen a surprisingly low-quality game from Bioware. The odds do not look good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top