So who else here is pre-ordering Mass Effect 3?

[SLU Aequitas]

I canceled my pre-order that I had since November.

Why? Because of the way EA/Bioware/Dice treats it's customers.

First straw was with Origin.

As much as I resent steam sometimes and hate the lack of customer service(No phone Number? WTF!?), I'm happier with it. I'm happy having all my PC friends in one place. If EA was quicker to the punch with origin and provided better social networking than steam then Yes I would jump ship to origin. But steam is so ingrained that even game developers who 2 years ago would never think of integrating steamworks into their games have jumped on the bandwagon.

So you hate Origin, but provide no evidence as to why you hate Origin. Excellent reasoning. You then go on to state that Origin came after Steam...cookie? Origin as a download service/game library works just as well as Steam, and there's nothing holding you back from using both. Again, all I see is some frothing at the mouth.

Second straw is with BF3.

This should be good...

The game is awful. Just freaking Awful. EA/Dice lied. BF2 fans like myself got milked out of our money for the sequel we've been waiting for 6 years. And what does Dice have to say about it? F*** You! They got our money they don't care. BF3 is a broken laggy Piece of S**t on all three platforms. That solely exists to steal marketshare from Call of Duty. If I want Call of Duty I'll play Call of Duty.

Where did they lie? They were pretty open with their goals/development. Logical fallacy, assuming that your view = everyone's view, or that you representation of BF2 fans is accurate. BF3 runs beautifully on my PC, my friend's PC, my friend's friend's PC, which, without even trying, already gives me a two point advantage in evidence. It also runs well (as can be expected) on the 360, although I can't say anything in regards to the PS3. As to the last part...well, I suppose if you want to rant, more power to you.

Oh, and what exactly does a DICE game have to do with a Bioware game? They're from the same publisher, but you're criticizing the *development* of one game to criticize the marketing choice of the second...

The final straw is with Bioware and Jennifer 'Hamburger' Hepler.

I loved Dragon Age Origins, I loved Mass Effect 1. But I hated Dragon Age 2. Why? Because that Talentless hack of a fat bitch known as Hamburger Hepler keeps interjecting her YAOI sexual fantasies into the stories. She's a horrible writer plain and simple. Have you guys read her book M.I.T.H.? It is some of the worst writing I have ever come across. I mean a middle-schooler can write a more cohesive and entertaining story. I forced myself to read the first half. After that, I couldn't pick the book up again. It's absolute trash. And yet Bioware decides to hire this Fat Lard No talent Lard Ass as a writer for Bioware? One of the best RPG makers? How the hell? But no that's not what made me cancel my origin pre-order. It's how Bioware insulted it's fans. Calling them entitled little brats. Paying off slowtaku and other publishers to defend them.

F**k You Bioware. F*** You EA. And F*** You Jennifer 'Hamburger' Hepler!

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/public/heart/hbp/hbp_low/hbp_low.pdf

LOL.

As for ME3, think I'll wait a wee bit before buying it, let others test out the waters. I'm more apprehensive about the plot issue I've brought up before than having to fork out $10 more. Not happy with the latter, but $10 isn't make/break for me. Having to wonder how I'm finding the time to take multiple weeks to build up a fleet while I should still expect there to be any reasonable chunk of humanity left...that's a much bigger issue.

 

[irishScott]

I really, really don't get the origin hate. You load the program, press the picture of the game you want to play, then...you play it. Not sure why this is so terrible.

Having used Origin for a few days I actually like it better than Steam as an interface. A lot more clean and intuitive IMO. Also loads a good deal faster. Complaining about Origin for its own sake and saying Steam should be the only one allowed is like saying Ford should have a monopoly on 4-wheeled cars. It's a stupid opinion when cast under the most elementary logic.

I think most of the reasoning (or lack thereof) is the fact that EA's behind it and since we're talking EA they've obviously programmed it in pure EVIL++ for INSIDIOUS industry wrecking EVIL deeds that.. no one, can, really, describe but they're EEEEEEEEVIL!

Fact is EA has as much right to compete as anyone, and they are making tons of money so despite them being a shitty, EEEVIL company millions of people are obviously happy with their purchases. How is more competition on the market a bad thing here?

 

[georgec84]

Actually I just realized I'm not supporting EA or Origin any more so that simplifies my choice greatly.

Good for you. I feel this way about Origin AND Steam.

I really, really don't get the origin hate. You load the program, press the picture of the game you want to play, then...you play it. Not sure why this is so terrible.

Horrible customer service, lots of problems with activating/playing games, extremely buggy client software, etc.

Digital distribution is a great platform, but right now there is a huge monopoly. I was almost rooting for Origin to challenge Steam, but their customer support is awful from what I've seen and read.

Everyone always asks, "Can I activate it on Steam?" There will come a day when most people are upset with Steam, and they'll wonder what happened and how the company they loved began to focus more on profitability and less on serving customers. Hint: when your customers are rabidly, irrationally loyal and don't question you at all, that's a good start.

GOG is the only real digital download service worth a damn because the games lack DRM and are actually yours to own.

With Steam and Origin, you don't own the games.

And I haven't even talked about the real nasty DRM (e.g. SecuROM).

The bottom line is that people complain about DRM, but they'll still buy the games because they must have them anyway. Many people seem to hate Origin and EA but that won't stop them from buying Battlefield 3, Mass Effect 3, etc.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Intel17
I really, really don't get the origin hate. You load the program, press the picture of the game you want to play, then...you play it. Not sure why this is so terrible.

Horrible customer service, lots of problems with activating/playing games, extremely buggy client software, etc.

Digital distribution is a great platform, but right now there is a huge monopoly. I was almost rooting for Origin to challenge Steam, but their customer support is awful from what I've seen and read.

Everyone always asks, "Can I activate it on Steam?" There will come a day when most people are upset with Steam, and they'll wonder what happened and how the company they loved began to focus more on profitability and less on serving customers. Hint: when your customers are rabidly, irrationally loyal and don't question you at all, that's a good start.

GOG is the only real digital download service worth a damn because the games lack DRM and are actually yours to own.

With Steam and Origin, you don't own the games.

And I haven't even talked about the real nasty DRM (e.g. SecuROM).

The bottom line is that people complain about DRM, but they'll still buy the games because they must have them anyway. Many people seem to hate Origin and EA but that won't stop them from buying Battlefield 3, Mass Effect 3, etc.


Yea this is where I struggle. Steam will be like Walmart at the rate it's going. Bump everyone else out then raise prices, however the other part of me really doesn't want 15 different "launch" marketing platforms to run games. It's counter productive. Personally if a game is good, I'd buy it regardless if it's EA, Ubisoft, on Steam, whatever. However, I've lost faith in many companies these days. Capitalism is fine, but greed is at an all time high. It hasn't been about quality (anywhere) for a long time. At some point peoples laziness and need for immediate satisfaction is going to bring everything crashing down when there are no longer options and the companies laugh all the way to the bank. The rules need to change plain and simple and people need to quit defending corrupt business. These companies are NOT your friends. They are only out to please stockholders.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Good for you. I feel this way about Origin AND Steam.



Horrible customer service, lots of problems with activating/playing games, extremely buggy client software, etc.

Digital distribution is a great platform, but right now there is a huge monopoly. I was almost rooting for Origin to challenge Steam, but their customer support is awful from what I've seen and read.

Everyone always asks, "Can I activate it on Steam?" There will come a day when most people are upset with Steam, and they'll wonder what happened and how the company they loved began to focus more on profitability and less on serving customers. Hint: when your customers are rabidly, irrationally loyal and don't question you at all, that's a good start.

GOG is the only real digital download service worth a damn because the games lack DRM and are actually yours to own.

With Steam and Origin, you don't own the games.

And I haven't even talked about the real nasty DRM (e.g. SecuROM).

The bottom line is that people complain about DRM, but they'll still buy the games because they must have them anyway. Many people seem to hate Origin and EA but that won't stop them from buying Battlefield 3, Mass Effect 3, etc.

I agree the rabid, irrational loyalty to Steam on these forums mystifies me as well, and I have gotten severely critizcized for posting complaints about Steam, or even expressing the opinion that it is not the fault of the user every time when there is a problem with Steam.

However, I think a couple of your points need to be addressed.

First, about the ownership issue. I am not a copyright expert, but technically I believe even if you purchase a DVD you do not really own the game. You just own a right to use the software. Granted you can sell the disk, or give it away, which gives you more flexibility than Steam, but with online activation for nearly everything now, you cannot really create a new account if the game changes hands, so you are really quite limited if you sell or gift the game.

Secondly, I believe securom comes from the publisher of the game not Steam. It would be nice if Steam forced the publisher to remove this, since Steam is a form of DRM in itself, but I dont really blame steam for this.

 

[georgec84]

On the first point, yes what I mean is that when you own a physical copy of something you can trade or sell it to someone. It's YOURS to do with as you wish. With Steam (or something like iTunes) the media is permanently tied to your account.

This might be a morbid example, but let's take a person who is nearing death. In the old days that person could pass his/her musical records, VHS tapes, etc. onto a family member. Can't do that with digital distribution. Your account dies with you. If there were some way to designate beneficiaries for these types of digital platforms, that would be nice.

On the second point, I wasn't implying or suggesting Steam implements SecuROM. I'm saying that as much as I dislike client DRM (e.g. Steam), that's nothing compared to what nasty software like SecuROM does. I was making a comment on the gaming industry as a whole and the utter disregard by some publishers for their paying customers.

I boycott any game that has that type of DRM. It means I haven't played some popular titles like Batman: Arkham Asylum/City, Mass Effect, Dragon Age: Origins, etc. Oh well, not a huge loss. I'd rather stick up for what I believe in than sacrifice it to play a game.

 

[Grooveriding]

With all the magnificent streamlining of the Mass Effect franchise, lucky ME3 players will only require this new ME3 specific controller to play their way through this epic new title.

 

[irishScott]

With all the magnificent streamlining of the Mass Effect franchise, lucky ME3 players will only require this new ME3 specific controller to play their way through this epic new title.

Specifically the whaaa-they-took-out-all-the-RPG-elements-that-most-people-hated-and-then-added-some-back-in-mbulance.

 

[StinkyPinky]

I used to love Steam, but then something happened to me that pissed me off.

I moved house and had no internet for a week. Offline mode had worked fine previously, but one day I loaded it up and it simply refused to work ranting on about some corrupted cache. So I was locked out of my 100 or so games. Unacceptable.

 

[surfsatwerk]

Specifically the whaaa-they-took-out-all-the-RPG-elements-that-most-people-hated-and-then-added-some-back-in-mbulance.

No worries EA will install "DRM" that monitors the happiness level of gamers. The instant you experience dissatisfaction with your EA product you will be banned from playing it.

 

[gorcorps]

With all the magnificent streamlining of the Mass Effect franchise, lucky ME3 players will only require this new ME3 specific controller to play their way through this epic new title.

Maybe it speaks to my nerdiness, but the A button isn't red.

 

[irishScott]

No worries EA will install "DRM" that monitors the happiness level of gamers. The instant you experience dissatisfaction with your EA product you will be banned from playing it.

Meh, just frustrates me when people judge a shooter like an RPG. Mass Effect has, since its inception, been a TPS shooter first, RPG second. I arrived at this miraculous conclusion because the vast majority of the gameplay, even in the first game, revolves around taking cover and shooting things; and acquiring items to help you shoot things better. Even taking into account the powers and classes, what do they do? Allow you a large variety of ways to shoot things or stay alive to keep shooting things. At most it's a 60/40 split between shooter/RPG respectively, and most of that is due to the in-depth story and conversation options.

So when I hear people complaining about how a shooter should play more like their favorite RPG, I wonder if they also complain about how sedans should handle like pick-ups.

 

[Grooveriding]

Maybe it speaks to my nerdiness, but the A button isn't red.

()

For the record I'm not trolling that game that seriously. I don't really care about what the game is, or is not like, as I didn't enjoy ME1 or the little I played of ME2. I won't be bothering with 3 at all.

Just thought these were funny as the games have all felt like console ports to me.

 

[TakeNoPrisoners]

I'm not. I'm interested in the game. But, I know it will be way cheaper later as it does not have CoD in the title.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

Meh, just frustrates me when people judge a shooter like an RPG. Mass Effect has, since its inception, been a TPS shooter first, RPG second. I arrived at this miraculous conclusion because the vast majority of the gameplay, even in the first game, revolves around taking cover and shooting things; and acquiring items to help you shoot things better. Even taking into account the powers and classes, what do they do? Allow you a large variety of ways to shoot things or stay alive to keep shooting things. At most it's a 60/40 split between shooter/RPG respectively, and most of that is due to the in-depth story and conversation options.

So when I hear people complaining about how a shooter should play more like their favorite RPG, I wonder if they also complain about how sedans should handle like pick-ups.

Under such a definition, there has never actually been a computer RPG. Baldur's gate and it's kin are RTSes. Fallout is a TBS, as is a whole host of misnomered "RPG"s back to the Commodore 64.

 

[SparksIT]

Meh, just frustrates me when people judge a RPG like an Shooter. Mass Effect has, since its inception, been a RPG first, TPS shooter second. I arrived at this miraculous conclusion because the vast majority of the gameplay, even in the first game, revolves around taking a character, building, and playing it to your style of gameplay; and acquiring items to help you build your character better. Even taking into account Guns, what do they do? Allow you a to play your character one of the large variety of ways. At most it's a 60/40 split between RPG/shooter respectively, and most of that is due to the fact using guns is one ways to play the game.

So when I hear people complaining about how a RPG should play more like their favorite shooter, I wonder if they also complain about how pick-ups should handle like sedans.

 

[Soccerman06]

So no me3 on steam? Guess Ill wait for a ce for $20 deal...

 

[irishScott]

Meh, just frustrates me when people judge a RPG like an Shooter. Mass Effect has, since its inception, been a RPG first, TPS shooter second. I arrived at this miraculous conclusion because the vast majority of the gameplay, even in the first game, revolves around taking a character, building, and playing it to your style of gameplay; and acquiring items to help you build your character better. Even taking into account Guns, what do they do? Allow you a to play your character one of the large variety of ways. At most it's a 60/40 split between RPG/shooter respectively, and most of that is due to the fact using guns is one ways to play the game.

So when I hear people complaining about how a RPG should play more like their favorite shooter, I wonder if they also complain about how pick-ups should handle like sedans.

And this is where your argument falls apart. There is only one form of combat in ME1: cover based shooting. Yes you can throw biotics/tech into the mix, but all they are is a special gun that takes forever to reload.

Take an actual RPG like Diablo II, there are a number of classes to choose from, each with massively different playing styles even within the class. What happens when your character enters combat in Diablo II? Can't say for sure. Maybe you're a necro and summon a bunch of zombies. Maybe you're a barbarian and whirlwind straight into your enemies. Maybe you're an Amazon and run all over the place shooting magical arrows, the possibilities are extremely wide and varied.

Now what happens when your character enters combat in ME? I don't care what class you are, the first thing you do is take cover. The 2nd thing you do is shoot. Whether you're shooting a gun, a biotic, or a tech, you are shooting at enemies from behind cover. You only break cover if they charge you or if you're playing as Vanguard with charge, and even then, all you're doing is running around and shooting whatever you have until they die.

The core gameplay in ME is cover-based shooting, there is no escaping it and no way to play without it. Ergo it is a cover-based shooter, plain and simple.

 

[irishScott]

Under such a definition, there has never actually been a computer RPG. Baldur's gate and it's kin are RTSes. Fallout is a TBS, as is a whole host of misnomered "RPG"s back to the Commodore 64.

Not at all, RPGs simply have more emphasis on character development/options. See my last post.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

Not at all, RPGs simply have more emphasis on character development/options. See my last post.

All you've done is ignore all the options that actually present themselves in Mass Effect, but not the options that present themselves in Diablo.

I could do the same for D2 as you've done for ME. What happens when you enter combat in Diablo 2? You click on an enemy. Either your character walks over to it and hits it, or shoots some kind of projectile. And that's it. Maybe you're a barbarian, and you more spin then walk over to the enemy. Maybe you're a necromancer, and your projectile is a skeleton instead of a fireball. But it's still walk or fire projectile - and that's all there is.

The core gameplay in Diabo is "Click on enemy". It's not an RPG, it's whack-a-mole.

 

[Anteaus]

All games have a particular area of focus that tends to define the developers intentions. With Mass Effect, that focus is primarily story driven and less about gameplay, although gameplay is important. RPG "elements" (stats, gears, etc) provide a secondary role in displaying progression, however they aren't necessary to increase of the game. People who tend to love Mass Effect (all reliterations) are attracted to the story, lore and overall emotional impact and not so much about gameplay (of course it still matters!). Mass Effect is not a Id shooter, nor is it meant to be some deep RPG. People tend to criticize it for not being either one, but I don't understand why they need to criticize it all. It is neither a shooter first nor a RPG first. It is a story delivery device, and in that sense it does it's job extremely well. It is both highly thematic and extremely well written. You don't have to like the subject matter, but what is there is well done in any case. Yes it might be very "choose your own adventure" in some ways and "easy mode" in others, but isn't the overall experience what matters? Also, I don't understand that some people criticize games that are often in categories they avoid in the first place. For example, if your a gamer that loves core FPS games and enjoy tight gameplay, 1-0 weapon keys, crappy storylines and great multiplayer, what makes you think you'd necessarily like ME? You might not enjoy it, but that doesn't make it a bad game. Yet alas, some people feel like their opinion is the only right one and thus we have controversy in what are ultimately benign situations.

Bioware/EA definitely deserves some criticism on the way they handle business, and I am very supportive of anyone that votes with their dollar in choosing not to buy any of their games, including Mass Effect 3. I just think we should judge the games on their own merit and not on whether we dislike the developer/producer.

 

[darkewaffle]

This thread is even sillier than expected lol

And for what it's worth, I think a role playing game is about the 'role' you play. If you're invested in a story and care about what's happening and take up the mantle of your character; it's an RPG. I don't think there's one particular style of gameplay or use of game mechanics that are required. Any game can be an RPG.

 

[frozentundra123456]

This thread is even sillier than expected lol

And for what it's worth, I think a role playing game is about the 'role' you play. If you're invested in a story and care about what's happening and take up the mantle of your character; it's an RPG. I don't think there's one particular style of gameplay or use of game mechanics that are required. Any game can be an RPG.

I agree with you basically, and I like Mass Effect for the "role" you play as Shepard. And for the epic "save the universe" storyline.

However, I must admit that the cover based mechanic of Mass Effect seems really artificial and gets old after a while.

 

[M0oG0oGaiPan]

What about the hentai rpg games? Those are pretty basic also.

 

[irishScott]

All you've done is ignore all the options that actually present themselves in Mass Effect, but not the options that present themselves in Diablo.

I could do the same for D2 as you've done for ME. What happens when you enter combat in Diablo 2? You click on an enemy. Either your character walks over to it and hits it, or shoots some kind of projectile. And that's it. Maybe you're a barbarian, and you more spin then walk over to the enemy. Maybe you're a necromancer, and your projectile is a skeleton instead of a fireball. But it's still walk or fire projectile - and that's all there is.

The core gameplay in Diabo is "Click on enemy". It's not an RPG, it's whack-a-mole.

Actually no you can't, at least not like that, as I never referenced human interface. If you want to go that far then all PC games are Keyboard-Mousers with the occasional joysticker or controller..er and no genres as we know them exist. I don't go that far. I simply state that, at least in my mind, a game whose gameplay revolves around cover-based shooting to the point where said element is impossible to avoid regardless of any option chosen. is, gameplay-wise, primarily a shooter.

And what options have I ignored? I've played as all but one of the classes (engineer). Show me a playthrough on hardcore or insanity where the player never takes cover and shoots.