302 réponses à ce sujet

[Jebel Krong]

glacier1701 wrote...

Well there definetly is a disconnect between what they told us in the past and what they actually did with ME2 and it looks like it will be exactly the same for ME3. Dont really hold up much hope for the game to be anything other than what we got with ME2 which was an average game at best. Casey just does not seem to be able to connect the dots about what made ME1 the game it was and why there seems to be so much dissatisfaction with his handling of the way the game has been progressing. Dont think I'll be pre-ordering ME3 but will wait for the 4 week mark or so and see what the players say about the game.

yeah because all you "armchair critics" could do SO much better... <_<

and no, there wasn't a disconnect between what they told us and delivered. there might have been a disconnect in what YOU were expecting, but that's it. and me2 was anything but average, which is why it's the third highest rated game on 360, ever.

[Samael77]

A: All of the the Mass Effect titles standalone. The beginning of Mass Effect 2 is really meant to let players experience Mass Effect for the first time. We really want to look at Mass Effect 3 as a standalone title where the ending is going to feel satisfying.



We should all expect this as creating ME3 as a true final for a trilogy would most likely reduce sales of the game, at least initially, and EA and BW both aren't going to take a chance at losing money.



You could argue howveer, that if they did make it a true continuation, it would continue to generate sales for both ME1 and 2 due to new player interest in the previous stories.

[Bebbe777]

My dream of Mass Effect was that it was gonna be like Lord of the Rings, one goal, with the same characthers plus adding new ones.



Instead we got a Indiana Jones style which is based on a new goal in each sequel and a mostly new cast.



Mass Effect: One goal: Stop the Reapers

Lord of the Rings: One goal: Destroy the ring

Indiana Jones: No single goal over all movies.



So which one should be applied? The lord of the rings are not standalone, and I dont think Star Wars is either.

[JeanLuc761]

Bebbe777 wrote...

My dream of Mass Effect was that it was gonna be like Lord of the Rings, one goal, with the same characthers plus adding new ones.

Instead we got a Indiana Jones style which is based on a new goal in each sequel and a mostly new cast.

Mass Effect: One goal: Stop the Reapers
Lord of the Rings: One goal: Destroy the ring
Indiana Jones: No single goal over all movies.

So which one should be applied? The lord of the rings are not standalone, and I dont think Star Wars is either.

Well, one could argue it like this.  Using Lord of the Rings as an analogy:

You could theoretically watch Return of the King first and arrive at the same destination, but the journey won't mean nearly as much than if you had watched the first two beforehand.  

[Bebbe777]

JeanLuc761 wrote...

Bebbe777 wrote...

My dream of Mass Effect was that it was gonna be like Lord of the Rings, one goal, with the same characthers plus adding new ones.

Instead we got a Indiana Jones style which is based on a new goal in each sequel and a mostly new cast.

Mass Effect: One goal: Stop the Reapers
Lord of the Rings: One goal: Destroy the ring
Indiana Jones: No single goal over all movies.

So which one should be applied? The lord of the rings are not standalone, and I dont think Star Wars is either.

Well, one could argue it like this.  Using Lord of the Rings as an analogy:

You could theoretically watch Return of the King first and arrive at the same destination, but the journey won't mean nearly as much than if you had watched the first two beforehand.  

And you wouldnt understand that much either. 

[JeanLuc761]

Bebbe777 wrote...

And you wouldnt understand that much either. 

Right.  Newcomers to Mass Effect (which, really, who starts a trilogy at the END?) should be confused on some of the plot points.  Either that, or take the ones from previous games and make them invalid as part of a "default" profile.  

[Sad Dragon]

Jebel Krong wrote...

taking your point - all 3 star wars films are also standalone as well. so it just depends how it's done. i think it's pretty obvious mass effect 2 did this well, i have no doubt 3 will, too.

That is not at all what im saying. I do not think the 3 Star Wars films are standalone. I think you can jump into the final one but you will get punished for it by the narative as the narative dosnt take you into any consideration for doing so. You can still do it and after a while you might get the really basic plots.

Luke = Good, Vader = Bad, Han = Good, Stormtroopers = bad, etc.
You would still miss out on all the other things which means you will not get the full experiance of the story.

Vena_86 wrote...

From a financial point of view this makes
a lot of sense, because fans would probably buy the next game anyway
since they want to see the story continued and expect something similar
as what came before (like the first Mass Effect). But I dont know...I
wouldnt really feel comfortable treating loyal fans as objects and
numbers in a marketing strategy.

As a short term financial point of view maybe. A companys reputation is one of its more valuable assets - how you treat fans would have an impact on said asset which can in the long run have a big impact on your finencial situation.

Not saying Bioware treats its fans like dirt or anything - mearly commenting on the financial point of view of the example as stated.

/TSD

Modifié par Sad Dragon, 17 avril 2010 - 03:48 .

[Jebel Krong]

Sad Dragon wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

taking your point - all 3 star wars films are also standalone as well. so it just depends how it's done. i think it's pretty obvious mass effect 2 did this well, i have no doubt 3 will, too.

That is not at all what im saying. I do not think the 3 Star Wars films are standalone. I think you can jump into the final one but you will get punished for it by the narative as the narative dosnt take you into any consideration for doing so. You can still do it and after a while you might get the really basic plots.

Luke = Good, Vader = Bad, Han = Good, Stormtroopers = bad, etc.
You would still miss out on all the other things which means you will not get the full experiance of the story.

rubbish - the main characters, motives and the bloody great recap at the beginning all set the films up (even a new hope) as standalones. you might not get 100% of the benefit, but then there is alway a bonus for the fans that follow the whole, but with star wars you probably get more than most (using the other example of the thread - lord of the rings, for example - those films were much less standalone).

games are not made that way, however: to grow the franchises, they are always made more standalone to encourage new players to try them out. i don't think me3 will be any more of a problem than me2 was.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 17 avril 2010 - 03:52 .

[this isnt my name]

Vena_86 wrote...

Well, people should not overreact to the whole "standalone" thing. ME3 will continue the story ofcourse.
However, ME2 and interviews like this now show that BioWare focused alot on attracting new customers where fans of the first game or BioWare games in general where of lesser importance. From a financial point of view this makes a lot of sense, because fans would probably buy the next game anyway since they want to see the story continued and expect something similar as what came before (like the first Mass Effect). But I dont know...I wouldnt really feel comfortable treating loyal fans as objects and numbers in a marketing strategy.
http://www.vgcats.co...ages/080722.jpg

Yeah I dislike it I  buy all the ME games (except galaxy) and what do I get, nothing I get forgotten for new fans, m opinion dosent matter aslong as they get the new guys. Good for a quick buck but longterm, not a good move.

Modifié par this isnt my name, 17 avril 2010 - 03:55 .

[Someone With Mass]

Why should the fans suffer because of the newcomers?



So now I have to sit through about 2 hours of conversations, just so the newcomers can catch on at THE END of the trilogy. That's just stupid. And it makes playing through the first two games entirely pointless, because we'll probably just get some weak references from our decisions in ME2.



Ah, the fan in my head makes me so mad and disappointed, I can't even think straight.



Again. Why should someone be interested in the third game if they didn't even bother with the first two? Just scrap that plan, BioWare.

[janeym27]

This is... just awful. You've shipped over 6.6million copies of a central part of a trilogy, and you want to make the 3rd and concluding part of that trilogy STAND ALONE?!



My feeling on trilogies has always been this: if you walk into part 3 without seeing parts 1 and 2, you have to expect to be a little lost. For those of us who have invested in the first 2 parts, there needs to be a payoff. Hell, if it's going to bother people, set the scene with scrolling Star Wars recapping, then move on back into the action. What was the point in spending 40+ hours of gameplay building a team for an epic battle, if come ME3 we are going to be back to square one?



Bioware: I know 'attracting new audiences' and 'marketing to the massess' etc, etc is a part of any business model, but you can do that without shafting your existing fans, can't you? 'Cos if you can't, what's the point in any of us getting invested?



My feeling with ME2 was that as a central part of a trilogy, it had to be a little more constrained in terms of diverging story paths lest ME3 be a confusing mess for all, but my hope was always that for ME3 you would really let loose in terms of actions and consequences changing Shepard's path considerably. Is that really possible if you are making a game which is 'standalone'?



You have a trilogy which has the pefect oppertunity to do something new in gaming, but having a gaming experience which really is the whole of the 3 games, and essentially gives fans a 5 year journey with one hell of a payoff at the end. The replay value for all three games could be amazing (it's already pretty damn skippy) in a way that no other gaming series has achieved yet... it makes me sad to think that such oppertunity may be squandered to satisfy some number-crunching execs.



Couple this with a line in an article (which I can't link to here because it contains spoilers) about the art of ME which basically said that they were yet to nail down the main story of ME3, and the odds of mass disappointment have gone up sharply this week.



OK - I know there is a tendencey with this fanbase to get too excited and hyped up, and some say we are building ourselves up for disappointment, but if we have already ben given 2 stellar games, why should we expect them to drop the ball for the 3rd?

[Jebel Krong]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Why should the fans suffer because of the newcomers?

So now I have to sit through about 2 hours of conversations, just so the newcomers can catch on at THE END of the trilogy. That's just stupid. And it makes playing through the first two games entirely pointless, because we'll probably just get some weak references from our decisions in ME2.

Ah, the fan in my head makes me so mad and disappointed, I can't even think straight.

Again. Why should someone be interested in the third game if they didn't even bother with the first two? Just scrap that plan, BioWare.

idiots making juvenile posts like you should be ignored.

[spacehamsterZH]

LotR is a completely useless analogy, I'm sorry - those movies were based on a trilogy of novels that was actually never intended to be a trilogy. Tolkien always thought of it as one book, it was the publisher that made him break it up into three. The first Mass Effect was obviously done as a standalone game, and ME2 came out of the decision to make a trilogy, i.e. its job was to set up the next part. Kinda like Star Wars, the difference being that because Empire came out eleventy kazillion years ago, people are now able to see that it managed to turn its role as mostly a means to an end into a strength, whereas right now people are complaining about ME2 because it's still too fresh and because there's really no telling what its purpose in the big picture is because ME3 isn't out yet.

[Sad Dragon]

Jebel Krong wrote...

bloody great recap at the beginning

Just wondering if you are talking about the prologue here or something else?

Jebel Krong wrote...
games are not made that way, however: to grow the franchises, they are
always made more standalone to encourage new players to try them out. i
don't think me3 will be any more of a problem than me2 was.

Games have the luxery of being able to be both in actuality. You can make the game standalone as well as not standalone as the user gets more input before the story actualy starts. That would ofc be the optimal solution but a costly one to make two separate beginings.

As for ME2 and the standalone part - It was imho not done as good as it could have been. Personaly i would rather have a LOTR, "pure" trilogy over a set of standalone stories. Though i am not against doing some cleaver recaps for newcommers - make them blend into the game so that both old fan and newcommers alike can benefit from them. Or if they cant think of a way of doing that - make a choice in the begining: Have you played the previous two installments of the series - yes, no. Depending on awnser you get the recap or not.

/TSD

[Bebbe777]

Well then. Might aswell do a suicide run in ME2 since it wont matter in ME3 *Starting new default characther* and erase all my savegames



(Might sound a bit extreme but hey, Im emotional now )

[Jebel Krong]

yes, i was referring to the prologue. i, too, would prefer a "pure" trilogy but the business models of games/franchises do not work that way, as we have seen - every game in a franchise tends to increase sales exponentially.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 17 avril 2010 - 04:08 .

[janeym27]

Sad Dragon wrote...

Games have the luxery of being able to be both in actuality. You can make the game standalone as well as not standalone as the user gets more input before the story actualy starts. That would ofc be the optimal solution but a costly one to make two separate beginings.

As for ME2 and the standalone part - It was imho not done as good as it could have been. Personaly i would rather have a LOTR, "pure" trilogy over a set of standalone stories. Though i am not against doing some cleaver recaps for newcommers - make them blend into the game so that both old fan and newcommers alike can benefit from them. Or if they cant think of a way of doing that - make a choice in the begining: Have you played the previous two installments of the series - yes, no. Depending on awnser you get the recap or not.

/TSD

Or this.

Hmm... nerd rage subsiding. lol

[SnakeHelah]

Yay, so it means that most likely Standalone= Screw ME2's squadmates, etc. Soooo It's gonna be like "HEY GUESS WHAT LET'S RECOLLECT A TEAM AGAIN"

Ah well.

[Sad Dragon]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

LotR is a completely useless analogy, I'm sorry - those movies were based on a trilogy of novels that was actually never intended to be a trilogy. Tolkien always thought of it as one book, it was the publisher that made him break it up into three.

This is true enough -nods-
Should perhaps not have used LotR as an analogy but it became a trilogy and one can agrue that even if it stated out as one big ass book it got published as a trilogy and as such can be used as one point of reference to how a trilogy can be made. You can make a trilogy like LotR after all.

spacehamsterZH wrote...
The first Mass Effect was obviously done as a standalone game, and ME2
came out of the decision to make a trilogy, i.e. its job was to set up
the next part.

Mass Effect was stated as a trilogy before it was even released, so in that regard they knew they where going to be dealing with a trilogy. ME2 was in that regard already planed when ME came out.

/TSD

[ThisIsMadness91]

Vena_86 wrote...

http://www.vgcats.co...ages/080722.jpg

That's exactly how I'm feeling now.

[jlb524]

So ME3's going to be another 'standalone' ME game where previous decisions carry over superficially as news announcements and emails?



Great...



Not surprised though.

[Someone With Mass]

SnakeHelah wrote...

Yay, so it means that most likely Standalone= Screw ME2's squadmates, etc. Soooo It's gonna be like "HEY GUESS WHAT LET'S RECOLLECT A TEAM AGAIN"
Ah well.

No way. Then BioWare might as well flipp off to the fanbase, and say "Haha, we just wanted your money, and there's nothing you can do about it!"

[Someone With Mass]

I just hope they can at least try to have some RPG-elements in ME3. You know. I actually have to THINK to be good. The system in ME2 was a no-brainer.

[Rejoy Skinler]

Meh. Sounds like the ME trilogy may be the biggest disapointment of the generation after all.

What they need to do with ME3 is resolve some of the threads they've started with 1&2, one reboot is enough already.



Obviously reviews will not mention the story once again.

[Jebel Krong]

Someone With Mass wrote...

I just hope they can at least try to have some RPG-elements in ME3. You know. I actually have to THINK to be good. The system in ME2 was a no-brainer.

judging by your troll-like posts so far, i doubt thinking is your forte.