100 réponses à ce sujet

[KitsuneRommel]

Gemini1179 wrote...

Jack didn't work? Jack is one of the best characters in terms of depth. Miranda is clear eye-candy- so I guess she "worked"... man alive it would be nice to hear from someone who actually knows what the feedback from the people who bought the game is.

Obviously only your opinion is right and the rest of us can't see how brilliant Jack was.

[Beastfoot]

This proves that Bioware really does listen to their fans - the ones that pleases them!

....scanning strangely addictive and therapeutic, yeah right.



"I'll have what she's having"

[KitsuneRommel]

slimgrin wrote...

Wow. So people truly enjoy planet scanning. My mistake. Let's have more of it in ME3.

The world is not black and white. While it's possible to not hate scanning it doesn't mean there has to be more of it.

[Thompson family]

I never was a collector of junk. ME1's vast array of slightly different weapons and armor mainly went to the omni-gel vat in my games.



However, the interview talked about how apparently conflicting views might not conflict at all.



For instance, ME2 has a much more manageable and robust inventory system — with a lot less inventory to manage. Therefore, it should be a simple matter to give loot lovers a lot more items in ME3.

[Ecael]

Beastfoot wrote...

This proves that Bioware really does listen to their fans - the ones that pleases them!

....scanning strangely addictive and therapeutic, yeah right.



"I'll have what she's having"

They're not going to exactly start badmouthing their game in the press when practically every critic will not.

The fact that they released a patch to speed up planet scanning three-fold suggests that they do listen to their fans.

[Ecael]

slimgrin wrote...

Please...are you just playing devil's advocate here? Do you really feel that strongly about Planet scanning?

I can't believe people want this back in ME3.

The point is some of us don't feel strongly about some issues.

Planet-scanning will not return

Okay.

Planet-scanning will return

Okay.

If pointing out some of the similarities between both games (ones that make people hate only one of the games for no logical reason) means playing Devil's Advocate, then so be it.

I try to be on BioWare's side, not BioWare-2007's side or BioWare-2010's side.

[MajesticJazz]

Can someone copy & paste the interview for me? Videogamer.com seems to not be working for me.



Thanks

[SkullandBonesmember]

Q: Thanks for talking with us Casey. Mass Effect 2 received pretty much universal acclaim. It's even managed some ten out of ten review scores. Did the team know it would be received so well?



Casey Hudson: I think it's tied for the second highest Metacritic of all time.



Q: Did you think it had a chance at that? How did you feel about that?



CH: Well you can never really predict how a game is going to be reviewed but we knew that… I mean the first Mass Effect was really well received. We knew this one was a lot better. We thought it was. So, that's really the best we could do, is improve in every way that we are aware of based on our feedback and what we want to do.



Q: Were there any aspects of the game or specific features that could have ended up better?



CH: Well, really when we release a game… we won't release a game unless we're happy with everything. It doesn't mean we wait until everything is perfect. But we wait until we know that we're comfortable with everything. But there's a difference though in that than when you turn it over to millions of people who play it and come to a consensus about different aspects of it. That's where you learn a lot about how the game plays from fresh eyes. So with the benefit of feedback and hindsight there are things we would change which will therefore become part of the design for the next game.



Q: Any areas you have identified?



CH: Yeah. Obviously there's a lot of great, really positive feedback. But the stuff I think people have commented on that we'll take to the future are things like the amount of emphasis we had on mini-games, the mining mini-game. Obviously the game being really well received I think reinforces the decisions we made in terms of the way the interface works and the inventory, stuff like that. But there are a lot of people that were happy with the amount of depth that was there, but people that wanted to see it as an RPG versus an action RPG or whatever, I think felt that it needed more depth in terms of your choices for inventory and stuff like that. That's certainly something we can do in the future. We can only create a balance that we believe makes sense.



Q: You can't please everyone of course. If you make Mass Effect a more accessible cover based shooter, the hardcore RPG fans start moaning. But then if you hadn't done that, others would moan about something else. Does it do your head in trying to cope with everyone's demands?



CH: What it means is we have to really think about how we interpret feedback. Quite often feedback that appears to be conflicted is, if you think about it, quite often both sides are right, and there's a way to resolve those things in a way that both sides can be right. So in terms of the inventory issue, for example, I don't think anyone's arguing that the changes to the interface and whatnot were not good. It comes down to kind of a separate thing which is, it's always good to have a better interface that's easier and more intuitive and whatnot. But a separate question is how much depth is in there once you do that. We had a lot of depth there, but there's more that we can do.



Q: You mentioned the mining mini-game. I found that strangely therapeutic, almost addictive, despite how long it took.



CH: The feedback we had prior to releasing the game was generally exactly that. It was like, 'It's strangely addictive. It's kind of therapeutic'. But there were different personality types, too. And one of the personality types that we hadn't encountered was there were a lot of people that when they know that they can go and get resources through something like that, they literally want to mine the entire galaxy that night. And then, yeah, when you spend eight hours in a mini-game, it does become… there's only so much too it. And we never expected that it'd be played that way. We thought people would noodle in it a bit, get a few resources to get an upgrade, and then go back and do the rest of the game.



Q: Are you ditching it completely for the third game?



CH: No. Again, when you look at the feedback, there are things that people liked about it, and functionally it serves a purpose. I don't think there's a problem with any of those. I think it's the way people relied on it, and the way we relied on it maybe too much in parts of the story. And also just when you think about the speed of it.



Q: I remember when I got the upgrade that made the scanning reticule faster, it felt like the greatest upgrade I'd ever got in a game, because it cut so much time out of the process. Another observation I had was that I didn't identify with a singular evil bad guy. There was the leader of the Collectors, but I didn't identify with him in the same way I identified with Saren from the first game. I also felt like the end boss came out of nowhere. Is that feedback you've found elsewhere? Are you taking that on board?



CH: We were happy with the way it came together. Structurally it was a different kind of story. There are good things about the way that structure worked. It was kind of tied in with the fact that we had a suicide mission story, and that allowed us to make the character stories part of the main plot. Even if their loyalty mission is something that's not combat-oriented or whatever, it could be something that affects the way the whole mission goes in the end. The fact that there's all mystery around that end mission is really a cornerstone for the whole structure of the story. But it also means that when you reveal the mystery, there's always a risk in holding a mystery until the end and then revealing it. For a lot of people they love the ending. It just comes down to different types of players and personality types. One of the reasons why we made an ensemble cast of characters is because we know everybody identifies with different people. We don't even know who the most popular characters are. But even more importantly, for every different kind of person, there are different kinds of people in the game that you identify with, and they become your best pal in the game.



Q: Of the party members, who worked best and who worked least well?



CH: For me it was one that a lot of people say they didn't like, which is Jack. And for a reason that is opposite from what a lot of people say about her. A lot of people want to think the worst and they'll say, 'Oh she's a marketing gimmick'. For me she is totally the opposite. I think she was one of the most authentic characters. I know people liked her. She has her guard up, and the reason she has her guard up is because on the inside she is afraid. If you ever get to that soft inside, she's revealed something sensitive to you that you don't want to hurt. It's an interesting dynamic that I think comes across in a really authentic way if you're open to that being a real character.



Q: That's interesting.



CH: But there are people who are totally in love with Miranda. She was a simpler character I think, but a lot of people really responded to her. I'm always amazed at the way people respond to different characters. One of the most reproduced moments in fan art that I've seen is characters female Shepard with Garrus in the end of their romance. It's not even a love scene. They kind of hug and put their heads together. Obviously for a lot of people that meant a lot to them because there are hundreds and hundreds of paintings out there that people have done of that moment that they're sharing.



Q: Looking to the future, you have new downloadable content coming out soon. For how long will you release DLC for Mass Effect 2? How long before it stops and attention turns to Mass Effect 3? Or will you support Mass Effect 2 right up to the launch of Mass Effect 3?



CH: It's hard to say. We have a bunch of packs that are in the works right now. So, for the time being there's going to be a continued stream of DLC for people. We'll start to have packs that'll tell the story between Mass Effect 2 and 3. But beyond that we kind of have to see how people are responding to what we have and go from there.



Q: Do you know when you'll be ready to talk about Mass Effect 3? Is it far off, or are we looking at a similar time frame between 2 and 3 as there was between 1 and 2?



CH: It probably won't be for quite a few months that we talk about Mass Effect 3.

[Nomen Mendax]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...
...

CH: No. Again, when you look at the feedback, there are things that people liked about it, and functionally it serves a purpose. I don't think there's a problem with any of those. I think it's the way people relied on it, and the way we relied on it maybe too much in parts of the story. And also just when you think about the speed of it.
...

It being planet scanning.  This is just such a strange reply from Casey for two reasons.

• It doesn't serve a purpose, the only reason to scan planets is to scan planets.  Yes, I know it gives us resources to buy upgrades but as soon as you are able to scan planets (i.e. as soon as you have a ship) you could go and mine as many resources as you'd need for every single upgrade.  It's completing missions where you find upgrade technology and money that acts as a brake on what upgrades you can get, not planet scanning.
• And I've no idea what "the way we relied on it maybe too much in parts of the story" means, I didn't notice the story relying on planet scanning at all.

Confusing.

Modifié par Nomen Mendax, 21 mai 2010 - 11:10 .

[Anwarddyn]

And I've no idea what "the way we relied on it maybe too much in parts of the story" means, I didn't notice the story relying on planet scanning at all.

Without going into too much detail in a "No Spoliers" section, I will say that if you are doing a first playthrough without alot of the import bonuses from 2nd and 3rd runs.. and you want your people to survive the Suicide Mission.. then you MUST get resources in quantities that cannot be found in missions. Sounds like the story relies on planet scanning to me.

[Nomen Mendax]

Anwarddyn wrote...

And I've no idea what "the way we relied on it maybe too much in parts of the story" means, I didn't notice the story relying on planet scanning at all.

Without going into too much detail in a "No Spoliers" section, I will say that if you are doing a first playthrough without alot of the import bonuses from 2nd and 3rd runs.. and you want your people to survive the Suicide Mission.. then you MUST get resources in quantities that cannot be found in missions. Sounds like the story relies on planet scanning to me.

Right that makes sense - I was thinking of it more directly than that and failing to think how the story tied into scanning planets!

[edit to avoid double post]

But the point I'm trying to make here is that it doesn't seve any useful game purpose in that it is is disconnected from the missions and doesn't fit into the plot.  And as you are immediately able to scan as much as you need it doesn't serve as a limited resource that prevents you from getting upgrades.  So, like I said, it's only game purpose is to let you scan planets - which is fine if you enjoy it.

Modifié par Nomen Mendax, 21 mai 2010 - 11:30 .

[MarginalBeast]

The planet scanning wasn't that bad, they just need to make it faster and less critical to success. And I do hope that they give more depth to the RPG elements of the game. There's really no reason they can't add more RPG stuff without taking away from the shooter aspect.

foilpainter wrote...

I think he was mistaken that , well at least for me, that we liked Garrus touching heads with femshep...we wanted more than a head bump!! I am glad they updated the scanning but I never took the time to scan every planet but just enough for what I needed for the ships upgrades!!

I loved the headbump and so did many others. I really don't need "more", since I do the romance for the emotional aspect and not the physical, though I suppose I can't blame anyone who wishes the scene were longer.

[Shotokanguy]

It's a shame he mentions mining and inventory as things that need work. I'd much rather have them continue improving combat, and there wasn't anything mentioned of that.



Though I'm sure they know it's not perfect and will continue working on it.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

slimgrin wrote...

Wow. So people truly enjoy planet scanning. My mistake. Let's have more of it in ME3.

ONE OF US ONE OF US ONE OF US.


:-)

 It was *tolerable* and mini-games are practically required these days, that's all.

[Ecael]

EDIT: Wrong thread.

...

Modifié par Ecael, 22 mai 2010 - 02:31 .

[Dan the Man with a Plan]

rawr

[KitsuneRommel]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Wow. So people truly enjoy planet scanning. My mistake. Let's have more of it in ME3.

ONE OF US ONE OF US ONE OF US.


:-)

 It was *tolerable* and mini-games are practically required these days, that's all.

Both games went a little overboard with the minigames though. I don't know why you had to play Frogger just to mark up some minerals or to search someones corpse.

[Gemini1179]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

Gemini1179 wrote...

Jack didn't work? Jack is one of the best characters in terms of depth. Miranda is clear eye-candy- so I guess she "worked"... man alive it would be nice to hear from someone who actually knows what the feedback from the people who bought the game is.

Obviously only your opinion is right and the rest of us can't see how brilliant Jack was.

*sigh* I wasn't going to respond to this, but your response is so ignorant, I decided to elaborate a bit on what I was originally saying.

A: "Jack is one of the best characters in terms of depth"- this is not only an opinion, but it is backed up in the game via story and dialogue. I won't go into it here as this is a "Spoiler free" forum. Regardless of how one feels about Jack personally, her character is more often an oscar winner (see: Angelina Jolie) than a Miranda.

B: Miranda's character (whether one "likes" her or not) has no solid motivation for being who she is. There is this fairy tale myth in our culture that says that all those raised in riches long for the simple life. I've known too many of these people to know that this is simply that, a myth. There is nothing solid in terms of story and character development to explain why Miranda is the way she is.

Don't misunderstand me, I don't hate Miranda and LOVE Jack. But in terms of story, and character depth, Jack has more- and it's backed up in game, not just my "opinion".

Anyway, my original post was more a reaction to CH's cookie-cutter and almost spoon-fed responses to the questions. Just once would I like to read an interview where the person being interviewed was completely honest and not continually trying to spin everything said into a positive light.


I bet Barbara Walters could make him come clean....

[jojon2se]

Gemini1179 wrote...
...
Jack didn't work? Jack is one of the best characters in terms of depth.

Umm, that's what he said. He liked her and her depth, although many forumites express disgust.
Me; I disliked her teaser trailer presentation, but found her very (here comes the c-word) compelling in the actual game. I only wish there was a way to get close to her without getting physical - why can't I gain her trust while truly not trying to get something out of her? (..even though I do understand there is giving and committing with the taking.)

EDIT: Oh and the forehead-touching is the perfect place to end a certain Garrus scene - it has all the emotion, respect and kindred-spirit sort of thing that just about any more sex-oriented one lacks.

Modifié par jojon2se, 22 mai 2010 - 09:00 .

[Caihn]

Gemini1179 wrote...


*sigh* I wasn't going to respond to this, but your response is so ignorant, I decided to elaborate a bit on what I was originally saying.

A: "Jack is one of the best characters in terms of depth"- this is not only an opinion, but it is backed up in the game via story and dialogue. I won't go into it here as this is a "Spoiler free" forum. Regardless of how one feels about Jack personally, her character is more often an oscar winner (see: Angelina Jolie) than a Miranda.

B: Miranda's character (whether one "likes" her or not) has no solid motivation for being who she is. There is this fairy tale myth in our culture that says that all those raised in riches long for the simple life. I've known too many of these people to know that this is simply that, a myth. There is nothing solid in terms of story and character development to explain why Miranda is the way she is.

Don't misunderstand me, I don't hate Miranda and LOVE Jack. But in terms of story, and character depth, Jack has more- and it's backed up in game, not just my "opinion".

Not just your opinion ?
In fact it's not mine, and it's not the opinion of many people I know.

If you don't understand Miranda's character I suggest you play the game again, or look at Miranda's thread where people talked about her personnality and her story. And there are a lot of things that have been said and explained about her.
Now, if you're too lazy, you can always go to the wiki and read the story of Miranda.
http://masseffect.wi.../Miranda_Lawson

[SkullandBonesmember]

Shotokanguy wrote...

It's a shame he mentions mining and inventory as things that need work. I'd much rather have them continue improving combat, and there wasn't anything mentioned of that.

Though I'm sure they know it's not perfect and will continue working on it.

......... 
<_<

Modifié par SkullandBonesmember, 23 mai 2010 - 01:12 .

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

KitsuneRommel wrote...


Both games went a little overboard with the minigames though. I don't know why you had to play Frogger just to mark up some minerals or to search someones corpse.

If there was =no= mini-game in ME3, I'd be happy as hell.  More story, more funtimes on missions and I'm happy.  However, that's just not happening.  So.  I can tolerate the planet scanning.  

slimgrin wrote...

In the interview, Hudsen says he
expected the players to "noodle" around with it a bit. To get all the
necessary upgrades takes quite a bit of noodling from my
experience.

We can totally brofist on this.  I want to launch 12 probes for resources, max, the whole game.

[mi55ter]

Rive Caedo wrote...

Ecael wrote...
Casey Hudson and Christina Norman didn't mind planet-scanning that much because they knew that you should scan one Rich planet before every mission (considering your missions take you all over the place AND provide half of your upgrades). That alone would cover everything by the time you've completed all missions with import bonuses. People thought they could take the timesink and do it all in one go - a problem that occurs when they can participate in the timesink at any time.

This is a very good point I hadn't considered. If ME2 planet scanning had gone this way instead, my own and other people's opinions of it might be higher:

EDI: "Shepard, it is recommended that we scan this planet for anomalies that could pose hazardous to yourself or the shuttlecraft before landing. Additionally, Cerberus crew will be able to extract valuable minerals that you detect while you are conducting your mission."

One planet per mission would have felt like a minigame rather than a chore.

Great idea. Really keeps in with the lore and is even more believable than what it is at present.