Role-playing games and shooting games. Two genres that have found solace in one another's arms, despite their differences. Mass Effect 2's action sequences showed the creative partnership at its strongest, Mr Shooter handling the punch-lines while Mrs Role-Playing Game kept everything ticking behind the curtain.
But as the third of BioWare's sci-fi epics takes shape in the public sphere, something seems to be out of kilter. Have Mass Effect's role-playing subsystems and tropes been crushed beneath the accumulated weight of guns and frag grenades? Let's discuss all the info now in circulation.
Fans were displeased by these ruminations, seeing in them BioWare's final capitulation to twitchy, ticklish action gaming audiences, but we'd argue their ire is misguided. If you go by genre precedent, ensuring that every skill, ability or trait makes a distinct and significant contribution to combat is no more than what an RPG should be doing anyway. Role-players may be more calculating than action titles, but they're no less bloodthirsty.
On the face of it, then, there's nothing wrong with the idea of stripping away dead wood. Where BioWare needs to watch its step is in cutting back too far, streamlining that crucial element of choice out of existence - and on this front, we're relieved to say that the omens are good.
Classes are better distinguished, with new special powers like the Engineer's fiery Omni-wrench swipe, or the Adept's stunning biotic pulse takedown. Those abilities can be upgraded further too: slap some levels on a Vanguard's Charge move and you'll hit harder, do more damage and cool down quicker.
Weapons are more customisable, with a welter of barrels, magazines, ammunition types and scopes to choose between. Cryogenic ammo, for instance, allows you to freeze opponents solid before polishing them off with the vanilla variety.
Expanded level layouts and a slew of new enemy types will oblige you to make more effective - dare we say it, creative - use of your abilities and weapons. Shield-bearing foes will rebuff frontal fire, and Cerberus operatives in rocket boots will stop you turning turtle.
We're expecting the presence of Reaper-flavoured Asari, Krogan and Rachni troops to lift Mass Effect well clear of number one and two's occasional moments of lock-and-pop drudgery. The Rachni "converts" take a few cues from Dead Space, riddled with weeping sacs which vomit streams of angry maggots when blasted.
The Krogan Reapers have thick detachable bio-mechanical armour - strip it away with a barrage, and they'll grow understandably cautious, shielding their dripping blue guts as they advance. One of the later, higher-level foes is capable of siphoning the dwindling life energies from nearby corpses. Bopping these icky cyborg horrors will take more than mere reflexes - you'll need to plan your assault carefully, drawing on each and every one of your secondary abilities.
There's a lot more to say about Mass Effect 3, and Log's the man to do it. Pick up a copy of issue 73, on shelves now, for an eight-page blow-out.
And don't forget our online feature, "10 reasons Mass Effect 3 will be the best in the trilogy".
8 comments so far...
Bezza89 on 18 May '11 said:
Depends on your definition of an RPG really. I personally view mass effect as an Action RPG series, and in the first game I found the action part pretty substandard from the absolute quality from the rest of the game and this was sorted in its sequel, but some things took from that made it more of a shooter, but they're both 10/10 to me.
From what I have heard, all the good bits from 1 are returning, the new mako missions are returning in some form after experimentation with overlord, weapon mods as you say are back.
The only thing missing (or I should say I haven't heard about) is armour wise, and I reckon they'll stick with incredibly limited armour changes for crew (a rendering thing I would assume) but I did read the crew size is being made smaller, down from 12, maybe there are inferences to be made from this - to allow customisation perhaps.
msbhvn on 18 May '11 said:
I know the story of ME3 will be really well written, from the quality of the later ME2 DLC, and after a little culture shock, improving the shooter combat makes sense.
What worries me, though, is EA's interference in BioWare's recent output. ME2 was the first game that suffered for it, yet managed to be great nonetheless. Dragon Age II had so many problems I won't go into them here, but suffice it to say it's a game I won't be replaying in a hurry. Now with ME3, the delay to next year is a good sign, all this talk about improving it as a shooter isn't.
I hope I won't be disappointed with ME3, but there's a sense of dread when I think about what EA might have done to it. The amount of cynical money-grabbing that accompanied DA2 was sickening, and I don't see that they'll change their tune with ME3.
Maverick_McCool on 18 May '11 said:
I have to agree with msbhvn with regards to the whole EA situation , although looking for a silver lining here , EA already KNOW that 90% of people with a Sheppard on their hard drive will buy this game regardless ( I know I will , but not a day one purchase , ME2 burnt me too much for that. ) so hopefully they will just let Bioware get on with it.
The weapon customisation sounds promising , I'm still dubious about the Levelling up aspect though , guess we'll have to see if it isn't just tacked on like ME2.
For me though , what the game really needs is a killer story. The first one had it in spades , the second ( unless you were willing to spend an extra 10-15 quid on DLC ) was terrible , I have high expectations with this being the final part of the saga. ( I refuse to call it a trilogy now that EA have got their claws in )
Bezza89 on 19 May '11 said:
I don't know, whilst EA are definitely an influence... I just think this was biowares doing, personally as you know I love both games, I prefer the second one in nearly every way, with the first games story pipping it.
I don't look back saying oh I wish I could have put Garrus in some green armour, I look back on the story, and how much fun I had whilst playing. Core RPG wise, ME1 wins, but as a game ME2 wins.
CunningSmile on 19 May '11 said:
I see the regular Bioware fan club have convened, so I'd better join in
Sorry Bezza but I agree with Maverick and msbhvn. ME2 had a terrible story after ME1's corker and I feel it was the weaker game as a result. The lack of real customisation felt like a step back and the over large party made the whole thing feel like a soap opera rather then a space opera. You spent far to much time assembling the squad for the plot to seem important. All these just out weighed the improvements that I agree they made.
I do agree with Bezza though that I don't think EA are entirely to blame. Yes they are a business that wants to make money (sort of the definition of a business) but they bought Bioware knowing what to expect, and why would they try to change them? You don't buy a goose that lays golden eggs so you can eat it. DA2 was a terrible game that I feel no desire to play a second time (seriously, who thinks siding with or opposing genocide is a choice?) but I'd be interested to find out if the rush job was Bioware trying to raise money for ME or if it was EA driven.
Bezza89 on 19 May '11 said:
I agree with everyone on story, with my pipping comment before. I think my love for shooters makes me enjoy the second game a lot more than other people.
The story for 3 sounds like Dragon Age Origins though, uniting the different races against the big evil reapers. I think this is the story they were always going to tell when writing the first one. The second game was just filler really.
I'm hoping ME3 balances both 1+2 together, then it will be perfect. We've got weapon mods back, here's hoping for more armour mods.
To summarise, I agree with this article so much.
(PS DA2 - I played it twice, my second time as a mage who hated mages was quite interesting and raised a few good moments, but after that I haven't been back to the game. Was three short stories rather than an epic tale, I heard the Bioware DA:O head guy resigned before development started, so could be biowares fault again.)
sebierski on 19 May '11 said:
I'm not worried about Mass effect 3. In a good way. I don't see how it is possible for bioware to mess this up.
I agree with Bezza89 on this. Sure the story on mass 1 was far superior, but the improvements in gameplay made up for that. In fact my only disappointment with number 2 was that the original crew weren't all there. obviously we had Joker, Tali and garus and a cameo from either Kaiden or ashley, and in parts liarra, but the mass 2's cast was largely un-inspiring. I did love the geth character though and I hope he has a pivotal role in mass 3. Character continiuty would have been better. spending more time with original guys would have set up more emotion for the third game, especially considering its certain some of the central characters will die, in some kind of pulling-on-the-heart-strings kind of way!
If they can take the best gameplay bits from mass 1&2, and improve on them, all will be great.
cyclekarl on 28 Dec '11 said:
Good comment,well said and I happen to agree with you.