74 réponses à ce sujet

[Garuda One]

Well it looks so far that the new MMO BioWare is making is getting some good feed back and my boner just grew another two feet.



http://www.gamesrada...021163120143024

[TheMufflon]

You're right, those videos do have some excellent advice for BioWare: Don't ever hire that guy to do VOs.

[TheSeventhJedi]

Yeah, ragging on the Star Wars prequels never gets old... 

My two cents.  You didn't like something.  Fine.  You know what?  I liked the prequels, Episode I included, and I've been a DIE HARD Star Wars fan since I saw Return of the Jedi at 2 years old.  (Yes, that is one of my earliest memories.)  I saw Ep I 17 times in the theatre, and I don't get why people complain.  It's the exact same movie as Jedi except with gungans instead of ewoks. 

The real problem people have in sequels is that you can't recapture that feeling you got the first time you get something.  People didn't like the prequels, not because they were inherently worse than the originals (because, even as a fan, I can tell you all the ways that the originals were HORRIBLE,) but because they were pissed off that it wasn't the good ol' days of Han and Chewie flying around in the Falcon.  People don't want change, but you can't have a sequel without it.  People will ALWAYS hate sequels.  People hated the 2nd and 3rd parts of The Matrix, of Pirates of the Caribbean, you name it, it's never as good as the first. 

Well, maybe I have a super-power.  Maybe I just love all stories.  When I watch a movie, or play a game, and it's related to previous installments, I can like it - even if it's different.  (For the record, I liked Pirates 3, Matrix 2, and especially Indiana Jones 4.)  The doom and gloom is so pointless.  Nobody thinks you're smarter because you have the critical know-how to not like sequels.  The world hasn't stopped churning them out, and it won't - because people actually have fun with them.  I'm not saying they're always great, but I am saying that they're not nearly as horrible as people make them out to be.  I actually think that Mass 2 was an improvement to Mass 1, and I say, bravo Bioware!  PLEASE continue in your current direction!

[Conman013]

HolyMoogle wrote...

Meh.

Star Wars fans have the thickest pairs of rose-tinted glasses of any fandom.

That, good sir, we do.

[TheMufflon]

TheSeventhJedi wrote...

People will ALWAYS hate sequels.  People hated the 2nd and 3rd parts of The Matrix, of Pirates of the Caribbean, you name it, it's never as good as the first. 

T2 was better than The Terminator. The Dark Knight was better than Batman Begins (and every other Batman movie). Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was better than Star Trek. Superman II was better than Superman. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was better Raiders of the Lost Ark. Road Warrior was better than Mad Max. Dawn of the Dead was better than Night of the Living Dead. I could go on, but I think I've made my point: Sequels can not only be as good as the first, but they can be better even to  the most rabid fans of the original.

Oh, and The Empire Strikes Back was way better then A New Hope.

Modifié par TheMufflon, 14 avril 2010 - 07:17 .

[Vena_86]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

Vena_86 wrote...
The value of real meaningfull art is not as obvious as commercial success but so much more rewarding on a higher level than capitalist, materialist needs.

You can't make videogames at the level of ME without a lot of financial resources, though, and game developers like to eat too. It's an eternal conundrum. If you only want to play games by developers who are 100% uncompromising in their vision, you need to go download some freeware stuff. Bioware has to make money off their games. That doesn't mean it can or should be the only concern, and like I said, most successful franchises have a heart and soul somewhere that goes beyond focus testing and commercial appeal, but it's still a factor.

The Witcher was the debut of a bunch of people that are true RPG fans and openly admit that they dont care for trends but only try to make the best possible RPG they can. Eventhough the game lacks the instant gratification, non-stop explosions and super polished outer values of typical mainstream titles it had the depth to sell more than 1.5 million copies as a PC only game (and the platform is dying right?) while costing arround 7.5 million Euro including the license and all that stuff. So there you have a commercial success and a fan base that was just waiting for this kind of game that has become so rare. And Dragon Age? Didnt do so bad either, by following BioWares true tradition and show what they are best at. It does have numbers and complicated game mechanics but big surprise, there are people that want just that, something that challanges their mind a bit and not only their trigger finger. There are obviously enough people that are willing to finance the work of the developers that create games with depth. Their number only shrinks because less games of that kind are actually released. And if your bottle of water is empty then you have to find something else to drink.

It is a choice really which kinds of friends you choose.
The ones with more money that wear sun-glasses indoors, laugh about every fart joke, only think of sex and violence, dont know the meaning of emotion and imagination, think books are for losers, judge women by their looks only and have a need of expressing their status through materialist possessions because they have nothing else to offer
OR
those nerds with less capital that are not covered in bling-bling and thus appear less attractive but have meaningfull conversations and a unique personality to offer when you get to know them.

Ofcourse these are extremes but the essence is not so far from the truth...

[AngryFrozenWater]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Make sure we don't create something that breaks box office records and makes millions upon millions of dollars in just the release weekend? Make sure we don't make something that's talked about everywhere? Make sure people don't come out of experiencing our product with wonderment and awe, to the point of feeling disappointed that the real world can't measure up? Make sure that our products are only critically successful rather than commercially successful?

A successful title that makes you all filthy rich will be soon forgotten. But a title that raises the company to cult status and throws you in the gutter will make you immortal. It's your choise!

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 14 avril 2010 - 08:18 .

[Gizmodian]

I loved Mass Effect 2, in all honesty. Yes, it was different than the Mass Effect, but nevertheless, it still had that pure sci-fi feeling that makes it Mass Effect. It's not the game mechanics that make the game... but the world in which it is set.



The real gem to the game was the characters. I've always loved intricate character companions. It was that which drew me to the first Baldur's Gate, way back when.



Then, I keep coming back to Bioware, because of the epic stories and where they take you.



I have come to trust the quality that Bioware always has. Somehow, I doubt they'll let us down so easily.

[Corehaven22]

ME 2 was inferior to ME 1 in a lot of ways. I think mainly because they took so much out instead of improving it. Content was lacking in comparison.



On the flip side of that if this game had been released without ME 1 to compare it too we'd all be clapping our hands anyways. Its like winning a million bucks in the lottery and then you win again only winning 500k and get ticked off that it wasnt as good as the first time.



ME 2 is not crap. Far from it. But no, it was not as intricate, well written, or as "large" as the first game. Of course thats debatable. Thats just my opinion thats shared by many and disagreed with by just as many folks.



I hope ME 3 makes up for ME 2 lacking somewhat in comparison to the first one. I really do. But I have yet to see Bioware put out a BAD ME game. So Im thankful for that at least.

[javierabegazo]

Gizmodian wrote...



The real gem to the game was the characters. I've always loved intricate character companions. It was that which drew me to the first Baldur's Gate, way back when.

This was it for me. There are so many memorable minor characters like Thax and the Presidium Groundskeeper

[Garuda One]

javierabegazo wrote...

Gizmodian wrote...



The real gem to the game was the characters. I've always loved intricate character companions. It was that which drew me to the first Baldur's Gate, way back when.

This was it for me. There are so many memorable minor characters like Thax and the Presidium Groundskeeper

Jayveair we gotta chill agian man

[Homey C-Dawg]

I love ME2!!! I don't think Bioware will do to the ME universe what Lucas did to Star Wars.

That said, I can see what OP is saying. He's not saying they are doing anything bad, he's saying he wants them to keep it that way.
I've noticed a lot of "Bioware is doing good for now" posts. I'd like to be optimistic about Bioware's future, but I won't deny I have some concerns based purely on past observation. I've seen EA make their developers do stupid things in the name of increased profits then blame the developers for their lack of success (Westwood and now EALA come to mind, devs have stated that they designed C&C4 like it was because EA wanted something new/different, then most of the team gets laid off when it didn't work).

I certainly hope Bioware has the level of independence as a studio that they claim, since they already seem to be on board with this "project $10" DLC thing. Also I haven't forgotten that when it first came out, ME1 had as bad of a DRM as Spore did (they were the two "contriversal" DRM games of 2008 (talking bout PC versions obviously).
I'm pretty sure ME3 will rock the house, since even if Bioware loses it's soul to EA, it still won't be till after ME3. Beyond the trilogy I'm not too concerned, but hopefully they get to keep their IP real and not sell out too much. My only concern right now is hoping this "always online" DRM trend will die before it's release (I'd have bought C&C4 on principle if not for that), since I want to play through ME3 on my gaming PC, not a friends 360. I know DRM is a seperate issue but it illustrates the "sell out" aspect which Bioware has been subject to ever since they sold themselves.

EDIT: I did, however, forget to give Bioware extra credit for reducing the DRM on ME2 to a simple CD-check. Nice to see that they understand the concept of going backwards to go forwards. If EA stops freaking out about piracy, hopefully they'll let Bioware release ME3 with no DRM at all so they can see for themselves that it would still sell millions of copies.

My two cents, you may continue arguing.

BTW, that comment from Mr. Woo was pretty patronizing, I am disappoint.

/rant sorry it's been a long day.

Edit2 for clarity, I'm tired

Modifié par Homey C-Dawg, 14 avril 2010 - 09:49 .

[jlb524]

vhatever wrote...

Can anyone name me a bioware sequel that wasn't better than the original?

ME2.

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

jlb524 wrote...

vhatever wrote...

Can anyone name me a bioware sequel that wasn't better than the original?

ME2.

The only other sequel Bioware have done is BG II, so its a 50/50 record so far for many of us.

Of course BG II kept focus, ME2 shifted it.

Modifié par Dinkamus_Littlelog, 14 avril 2010 - 09:58 .

[ArmedChimp]

What's the problem ME 2 is critically acclaimed and commercially very successful.

ME 2 scores a 96 on Metacritic with 96 registered reviews
ME 1 scores a 91 on Metacritic with 74 registered reviews.

So whilst having a larger pool of critics ME 2 still scores higher then ME 1, so Bioware actually has improved and yet people here are spouting doom and gloom. Looks to me you people are just ****ing over nothing.

[TheMufflon]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

vhatever wrote...

Can anyone name me a bioware sequel that wasn't better than the original?

ME2.

The only other sequel Bioware have done is BG II, so its a 50/50 record so far for many of us.

Of course BG II kept focus, ME2 shifted it.

Actually, MDK2 is, as the "2" implies, a sequel to MDK. It was a pretty good sequel too, if I'm not mistaken. Though I migh be since it's been a long time since I played either of them.

Also, ME2 was better than ME1. Just sayin'

[ratzerman]

GamerFSS86 wrote...
Try to be Positive "FOR NOW AT LEAST" and give BioWare the Chance to prove themselves. Their not done with the ME Series yet. and if BW screws this up then----- By all means; be pessimistic, optimistic About it.

I was optimistic that Bioware woud create a truly groundbreaking sequel, in which things like romances and decisions carried over in meaningful and emotionally engaging ways.  I got a heartless cameo and news reports instead.  From now on.... I'd rather assume the worst.

[goldenbender]

I think it's funny you use Star Wars as an example when Bioware is the one that gave us KOTOR, one of the best entries in the Star Wars franchise since the original trilogy.

[Corehaven22]

ArmedChimp wrote...

What's the problem ME 2 is critically acclaimed and commercially very successful.

ME 2 scores a 96 on Metacritic with 96 registered reviews
ME 1 scores a 91 on Metacritic with 74 registered reviews.

So whilst having a larger pool of critics ME 2 still scores higher then ME 1, so Bioware actually has improved and yet people here are spouting doom and gloom. Looks to me you people are just ****ing over nothing.

Yea this is one area I wouldnt listen to critics for anything.  

If ME 2 scored higher than ME 1 there has to be one simple reason for that.  Some of the critics that gave ME 1 a bad review turned around and gave ME 2 a good one.   Why?  Because they're idiots to begin with.  

If you gave ME 1 a bad review you're an idiot.  Plain and simple.  You wouldnt know a good game if ALL the other reviews claimed it was good and it sold millions of copies and was critically acclaimed.......oh wait.  Well....I guess that IS what woke them up.   And so of course then they give a GOOD review to the sequel because well......they should.  Because......yea.  

ME 2 didnt deserve any horrible reviews.  As a reviewer you have to judge it by itself.  And by itself its just a fantastic game.  Just like ME 1.   However when you compare the two one is lacking and the other is not.  ME 2 is not as big of a game as ME 1 was.  But thats no reason to give it a bad review.  

I have a pipe dream that ME 3 will be better than ME 1 and 2.   That would be awesome.  And I hope its a BIG game.   That would be great.  Until then I'll just have to be optimistic.  

[FutureBoy81]

actually this dude's voice sound remarkably similar to ted levine's from the movie 'bullet'

www.youtube.com/watch -check it out ..

Modifié par FutureBoy81, 14 avril 2010 - 11:37 .

[spacehamsterZH]

Corehaven22 wrote...


If ME 2 scored higher than ME 1 there has to be one simple reason for that.  Some of the critics that gave ME 1 a bad review turned around and gave ME 2 a good one.   Why?  Because they're idiots to begin with.  

If you gave ME 1 a bad review you're an idiot.  Plain and simple.  You wouldnt know a good game if ALL the other reviews claimed it was good and it sold millions of copies and was critically acclaimed.......oh wait.  Well....I guess that IS what woke them up.   And so of course then they give a GOOD review to the sequel because well......they should.  Because......yea.  

ME 2 didnt deserve any horrible reviews.  As a reviewer you have to judge it by itself.  And by itself its just a fantastic game.  Just like ME 1.   However when you compare the two one is lacking and the other is not.  ME 2 is not as big of a game as ME 1 was.

The problem being that it just doesn't work like that. Any review of ME1 would have to take into account its obvious glaring technical and gameplay flaws. The combat is poorly explained, the cover system essentially broken, the inventory is a complete mess, the framerate is, erm... all over the place, if we're charitable, and the textures apparently all have Kasumi's "now you see me, now you don't" power. Of course it's still a great game on the strength of its engrossing story and art direction alone, but any reviewer will have taken points off because it sometimes plays like the beta version of an even better game.

ME2, conversely, if you look at it just by itself, is fairly successful at everything it seems to attempt to do. The combat works, there are few technical issues, and the heavily character-driven story succeeds because the characters that drive it are mostly interesting. No reviewer is looking at this primarily asking how it stacks up against ME1.

So basically, ME2 gets better reviews because it does what it seems to try to do better than ME1 did. It's just that some fans think ME1 aimed a lot higher than ME2, and while it ultimately didn't quite get where it wanted to get, it still ended up being better, but that's not how reviews work, and frankly, I don't think they should.

Me, I think they're both f**king awesome.

[AngryFrozenWater]

ArmedChimp wrote...

What's the problem ME 2 is critically acclaimed and commercially very successful.

ME 2 scores a 96 on Metacritic with 96 registered reviews
ME 1 scores a 91 on Metacritic with 74 registered reviews.

So whilst having a larger pool of critics ME 2 still scores higher then ME 1, so Bioware actually has improved and yet people here are spouting doom and gloom. Looks to me you people are just ****ing over nothing.

You want to split hairs? In that case also take the PC and user scores into account...

Mass Effect 1 Metacritic score: 89 (45 ratings), User score: 8.4 (258 ratings) (PC).
Mass Effect 1 Metacritic score: 91 (74 ratings), User score: 8.7 (625 ratings) (360).
Mass Effect 2 Metacritic score: 94 (52 ratings), User score: 8.9 (458 ratings) (PC).
Mass Effect 2 Metacritic score: 96 (96 ratings), User score: 9.0 (1400 ratings) (360).

Let's split some more hairs...

Mass Effect 1 Press score: 8.9 (23 ratings), User score: 9.0 (1102 ratings) (PC).
Mass Effect 1 Press score: 9.1 (62 ratings), User score: 9.1 (8873 ratings) (360).
Mass Effect 2 Press score: 9.1 (70 ratings), User score: 9.2 (487 ratings) (PC).
Mass Effect 2 Press score: 9.4 (108 ratings), User score: 9.1 (3118 ratings) (360).

Draw your own conclusions.

[Terror_K]

All that proves is that the game is more mainstream than anything else, and if anything that just further proves that BioWare is selling out and appealing to the masses, hence why ME2 is such a shallow and watered down RPG compared to the original. The more complex something is, the more there is to go wrong with it, and the simpler something is the more likely it'll be less technically flawed. A less flawed game doesn't mean a deeper or better game (one could say Pong is less flawed than most games that came after it for instance) and a good game doesn't mean a good RPG. For instance, look at the 360's overall top 10:-

1 Grand Theft Auto IV
2 BioShock
3 Orange Box, The*
4 Mass Effect 2
5 Gears of War
6 Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, The
7 Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
8 Halo 3
9 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2
10 Braid
 
Notice something about the games I've bolded... numbers 5, 8 and 9 in particular?

* = Not that I think a compilation should ever be considered as a single game, and I'm sick of seeing this getting treated as such... it makes no sense. In either case, this is mostly filled with the same genre.