EA: Mass Effect 3 to be dumbed down

[s44]

How can they dumb down ME2 anymore? Will not buy if this is true.

That's right. What takes real brains is sorting through pages and pages of trash loot after every quest.

 

[H54]

That's right. What takes real brains is sorting through pages and pages of trash loot after every quest.

I hope you're being sarcastic. 150 items max (ME1) is hardly unmanageable.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

It is when they lack basic features like stacking similar items or effective sorting. Mass Effect 1's inventory system was simply bad by every meaningful use of the word.

 

[Fenixgoon]

I hope you're being sarcastic. 150 items max (ME1) is hardly unmanageable.

ME1's inventory system didn't make it easy

 

[Zenoth]

Wait, so ME3 was delayed for approximately four or five months from its intended release period (Holidays 2011, now supposedly going to be released sometime during early Q2 of 2012) to be simplified? I don't get it. It should be released by now with such EA mentality behind its development (or lack thereof). I don't believe it's going to be worse than ME2's "steamlining", it'd honestly be very hard to accomplish, at worst it will be the exact same, and they (BioWare) already confirmed on various occasions that ME3 won't be ME2's mirror, it will have some returning "RPG elements" that didn't make it in ME2 in favor for "streamlining".

Don't get me wrong, I hate EA, in general (some rare exceptions exist), but there is no feasible way that ME3 could end up "more streamlined" than the mess that ME2 became (in comparison to ME1, but on its own without comparison I still think that ME2 is a good game, in fact much better than most of the crap out there since the recent years). And again I repeat it, ME3 has just been delayed, I don't think they delayed it just so their coders and various artists could have more free-time outside of development, a game's delay under EA's watch is rare, very rare, it can only help the situation for ME3.

I have hope... I do have hope.

 

[Red Hawk]

^^I think this is appropriate to that mindset: (from Christina Norman's Twitter): "I've been asked if we increased our dev time for ME3 to dumb it down, if we were dumbing it down wouldn't we need less time?"

 

[drebo]

^^I think this is appropriate to that mindset: (from Christina Norman's Twitter): "I've been asked if we increased our dev time for ME3 to dumb it down, if we were dumbing it down wouldn't we need less time?"

I think they realized what a flop DA2 was (although they probably don't realize WHY) and decided to make ME3 a complete FPS with a token level and item system that doesn't really mean anything. They'll abandon the RPG elements entirely, except in name, because they think that's what people hated about DA2.

This will require more dev time if they have to redo stuff.

 

[Red Hawk]

No, they've said they are not overhauling the combat engine between ME2 and ME3 to the extent they did between ME1 and ME2.

Or are you just trolling?

 

[motsm]

To be honest, I don't really need to read statements from EA or Bioware to expect ME3 to be dumbed down, it's just what happens more often than not now a days. Evidence that fits the mold of either side normally turns out to be false information or just speculation anyway. So until the trend of games becoming dumbed down, simplified, and streamlined stops, I pretty much expect it from every mainstream game. Sadly, it's very rarely a misguided assumption.

Of course I would love the assumption to be wrong and misguided, I have been waiting years for it to be proven wrong.

 

[kamikazekyle]

I guess I'm in the "wait and see" camp. A good game can be a good game regardless of it's genre, so long as it's not trying to be sold as something it's not.

In my personal opinion, ME1 was a good RPG -- a little light on the statistics and character skill development compared to the old school RPGs that I used to play, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a good game. It had a solid story, your decisions seemed to matter and make a difference, you could connect with your character and NPCs, and overall it was a pleasing RPG.

ME2 heavily emphasized combat and stripped away a lot of the customization and RPG elements. I found that doing the dialogue equivalent of button mashing to go from one planet (and combat area) to another led to me not feeling like I missed any of the plot. There was little incentive to explore. My skill choices seemed largely marginalized, and the overall story just felt weak. It was hard for me to play at first, and took two attempts before I finally got into the game. When I did start playing more than a few hours in, it was due to me playing it as a Gears of War clone vice a more traditional RPG. To me, treating it as a 3rd person shooter made the game kinda fun, except about halfway through even the combat became a chore since it wasn't too terribly deep.

If they can integrate a good story where your decisions really make a difference and slap on a decent inventory and skill system, ME3 will be a good game to me. But if they keep it anywhere like ME2, I won't really feel compelled to buy it. Again, all this is just my personal opinion and prefrences. What doesn't appeal to me doesn't mean it won't appeal to someone else.

Anywho, at this point it's still a lot of speculation. It is entirely possible for a game to expand its audience without hampering core elements so long as it's properly adaptable. I believe it's certainly a more challenging avenue vice appealing/developing stictly to a core audience, though it's not to say it's impossible.

 

[komatta]

Mass Call of Halo Effect Duty 3 of Honor

 

[Arg Clin]

The whole dumbing down route EA/Bioware seems to be seems like a rather idiotic and short term move.

Yes they will probably boost their sales a bit, with a title like DA2 that sold well because of a huge fanbase in awe over DA:O, and also reach out to the more casual gamer audience. I think it's safe to assume that a significant part of their core audience will be more critical next time. I think they're forgetting what's bread and butter here.

I fully understand it will seems very tempting to try dipping into the casual gamer audience, which (excuse my bluntness) generally will pay premium for almost no creative content at all. However, there are many trying to dip into that market, and many do it better than Bioware. (much less content + much higher profiles/brands)

EA should let Bioware stay in the "quality RPG market" I think they could even increase the price premium if they were giving the fans more stuff of the DAO caliber.

 

[dust]

Mass Call of Halo Effect Duty 3 of Honor Crysis

Fixed it for ya!

 

[gothamhunter]

Mass Call of Halo Effect Duty 3 of Honor

Hey don't copy my post style from the EA hate forum!

"Mass Effect 7 Crisis Core: Dirge of Cerberus's Advent Children"

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

I hope you're being sarcastic. 150 items max (ME1) is hardly unmanageable.

They were all the same with slightly different stats. I had 100 of each weapon, and only used one of each. A lot of the ammo types were very similar too.

 

[Bateluer]

They were all the same with slightly different stats. I had 100 of each weapon, and only used one of each. A lot of the ammo types were very similar too.

ME1 had a very console-lizd inventory system designed to be used with a controller, not a mouse. Even today, I'm mystified why they never implemented any kind of stacking or sorting. Had the inventory system had those, it wouldn't have even been a issue at all.

ME2's solution was to completely remove the inventory altogether, along with most weapons, ammo, and items. Completely overkill.

 

[H54]

They were all the same with slightly different stats. I had 100 of each weapon, and only used one of each. A lot of the ammo types were very similar too.

That is true but you could outfit you squad with the best of what you have and sell the rest on the ship or to a dealer for good money. I much prefer collecting and selling inventory items than scanning planets.

I concede that the system was a little cumbersome but they should have improved it rather than scrap it for what was used in ME2.

 

[Red Hawk]

Well this is relevant:

http://twitter.com/#!/CaseyDHudson

Casey Hudson, project director for the Mass Effect games, just joined Twitter, and his very first tweet is to say, "[Christina Norman's] original quote said it all - we're making the RPG elements matter more to the game, not less." So stop with the paranoia and naysaying.

Also, a recent twitter post from Christina, "I was misrepresented in an article recently, which made it sound like I wanted to remove RPG elements and stats from combat. What I actually said was, I wanted RPG progression to have a more meaningful impact on combat, but that was misrepresented as "cutting rpg stats" we actually have more stats in me3 that affect combat, and the overall impact of rpg progress on combat is greater."

 

[DangerAardvark]

Well this is relevant:

http://twitter.com/#!/CaseyDHudson

Casey Hudson, project director for the Mass Effect games, just joined Twitter, and his very first tweet is to say, "[Christina Norman's] original quote said it all - we're making the RPG elements matter more to the game, not less." So stop with the paranoia and naysaying.

Also, a recent twitter post from Christina, "I was misrepresented in an article recently, which made it sound like I wanted to remove RPG elements and stats from combat. What I actually said was, I wanted RPG progression to have a more meaningful impact on combat, but that was misrepresented as "cutting rpg stats" we actually have more stats in me3 that affect combat, and the overall impact of rpg progress on combat is greater."

That's good. The combination of a lack of weapons/weapon upgrades and the stat system being stripped down to 6 skills made combat feel too much like a shooter with minor RPG elements tacked on.

 

[gothamhunter]

Well this is relevant:

http://twitter.com/#!/CaseyDHudson

Casey Hudson, project director for the Mass Effect games, just joined Twitter, and his very first tweet is to say, "[Christina Norman's] original quote said it all - we're making the RPG elements matter more to the game, not less." So stop with the paranoia and naysaying.

Also, a recent twitter post from Christina, "I was misrepresented in an article recently, which made it sound like I wanted to remove RPG elements and stats from combat. What I actually said was, I wanted RPG progression to have a more meaningful impact on combat, but that was misrepresented as "cutting rpg stats" we actually have more stats in me3 that affect combat, and the overall impact of rpg progress on combat is greater."

Good, can everyone stfu now?

 

[69Mach1]

I wish John Riccitiello was raped by a pack of wild gorillas.

Now, Now, a pack of rabid wild gorillas. If you're going to do something do it right. I was really looking forward to this, if they dumb it down any more than ME2 I just won't bother.

 

[paperfist]

^^I think this is appropriate to that mindset: (from Christina Norman's Twitter): "I've been asked if we increased our dev time for ME3 to dumb it down, if we were dumbing it down wouldn't we need less time?"

Doesn't matter what she says as she is not the boss. I heard the same shit from the Civ V crew and look at the dumb mess that game launched with. What she is spewing is hyperbol to keep sales in place.

Besides you think it's easier for smart people to make dumb stuff?

 

[Red Hawk]

Christina Norman is the gameplay designer and Casey Hudson is the project director/executive producer. I'm sure they know a whole lot more about the game than a CEO whose job is to oversee the business, not produce, program, and design.

 

[Fayd]

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?

i want the ability to spec my character highlight his most powerful skills.

i had an adept with a 9 second recharge on throw. there's no way to do that in ME2, and definitely won't be in ME3.

it's not because it was particularly powerful. the power scaled with the difficulty. extreme specced characters were NECESSARY for the highest difficulty.

that was dumbed down in ME2. and will be further dumbed down in ME3. it makes me sad.

 

[KaOTiK]

It's called damage control, we've seen it from plenty of other studios. They whistle the tune the players want to hear regardless of how true it is or not (note I'm not saying Bioware is or is not doing this, this is more of a general thing for the industry now). It is all about those first couple of weeks of sales for a game nowadays. They will tell you damn near anything to stem your fears if it means you'll buy the game at launch.

Personally, I trust the CEO talking to shareholders more then the higher up devs working on a project, and I don't trust CEO's at all. So few studios retain anytime real autonomy once they are bought out. In EA's case we know they don't leave well enough alone when they buyout a development house.