1230 réponses à ce sujet

[Solid N7]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Blame Microsoft. I'd probably but it again for PS3 if given the chance. Especially if they fix ME1's issues and port that

well that is the reason that DA:O was more successful and not the argument because the fans didn´t like it

[Onyx Jaguar]

I would still have to be convinced otherwise. Video Games should have a billboards chart.

[PSUHammer]

Davasar wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Mass effect 2, wasnt liked as much as Mass Effect 1 by the fans.

Implies that ME 1 fans did not like ME2 as much, which is wrong. Some ME 1 fans did not like ME 2 as much. Some liked as much and some liked it more.

Modern Warfare 1, Modern Warfare 2.

Hardly any complaints from 1 to 2 because they didnt fix what wasnt broken.

When you have success, improve what you have, add some more things, and you will sell massive numbers of games like MW2 did.

Otherwise you lose fans and have complaints.  Though not all, as you stated.

I dunno...speaking for me and the few friends I know that actually played both, we all seem to think that ME2 was better in terms of being more fun.  I love me some RPG (miss D&D gold box!), but I am not anal enough to care as long as the game is decent.  ME2 was as decent an experience as I have had with a game, RPG or no.  And, I happen to think it was a good RPG.

Change isn't always bad....There are times, in ME1 that I wished it would change (i.e. the Mako, having a million similar guns and ammo I had to keep selling)

By the way, all time high scores on Meta Critic site (for 360):


All-Time High Scores
1 Grand Theft Auto IV 98
2 BioShock 96
3 Orange Box, The 96
4 Mass Effect 2 96
5 Red Dead Redemption 95
6 Gears of War 94
7 Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, The 94
8 Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare 94
9 Halo 3 94
10 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 94

Modifié par Hammer6767, 13 juillet 2010 - 11:45 .

[PSUHammer]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

You can't demand results in the area of gaming or else you end up with unplayable and buggy ass games. Look at KOTOR 2, it was hurt more than it was helped by the moving of hte deadline. Same for ME1, that game came out most likely because EA purchased Bioware and MS had to get it out of the door. This was not the case with ME 2 or DA:O

That statement doesn't make much sense and flies in the face of every company in existence.  Too vague.

[Ksandor]

The Best Game Bioware ever created and in fact the best game ever made to date in my opinion is Baldur's Gate 2 Shadows of Amn. You played a Bhaalchild a predefined character but you made your own significant choices -- a first person character that you can identify with it. Great spiritual adventure when you literally reconnect with your soul, great epic proportions, humor, fun, camaraderie and adventure. Bioware was not able to repeat or surpass the success of Baldur's Gate 2 if you measure success with quality not sales. Another great RPG was Planescape Torment. The game was so heavy on role playing that it did not sell well. DAO compared to them is innovative but smaller in scope when it comes to character depth and epic sense of wonder.

Modifié par Ksandor, 13 juillet 2010 - 12:09 .

[CybAnt1]

I don't think you can define the quality of a game simply based on sales numbers. There's a lot more Cheez Whiz sold in the U.S. than fine aged Roquefort cheese. Does that mean the Whiz is "better'? (Yes, I know, you have to be an "elitist" to say otherwise.)



As for critic scores -- well, all I can say is, there is a gaming audience that will always think more action is better, and that certainly includes critics & reviewers. There are some people who think computer versions of Monopoly would be enhanced if the little car icon racing around the board could chase after and run over the dog icon. The changes from ME1 to ME2 made it a better action game, which will please certain audiences, but didn't make it a better RPG. Yes, only the crusty, luddite, elitist, geezer, old-school RPG fans cared; why not, keep kicking us in the teeth, we're in the way of progress.

[Nozybidaj]

David Gaider wrote...
 we know what a Dragon Age game should feel like, to us, and to be honest I don't think it rests in player VO/not player VO or a dialogue wheel. We think it rests in the choices the player gets to make, the world and characters you're interacting with and the party-based combat.

You know what, I actually completely agree.  I don't think VO, no VO, or a wheel instead of a list really makes that much of a difference in the end.

What bothers me the most, and is something BW seems to be in the habit of, is invalidating the very things you just mentioned as being the important things.  "the world and characters you're interacting with"

Personally I was looking forward to seeing my Warden again and the people and characters that made DAO such a great game.  Instead, just like what happened in ME2, the creators have taken all that engagement and attachment folks had for the game and the world and tossed it out the window.

/sigh  I think the folks at BW just don't "get it" anymore.  I'm positive plenty of folks are still going to be buying the game just becaues it is a BW game.  I used to be the same way.  Eventually though the glamour is going to wear off and the games are going to have to stand for themselves instead of just being carried by the BW name.  

DAO did that.  ME2 did not.  Looks like DA2 won't either, at least not for me.  Sorry Mr. Gaider, I don't think I'll be folllowing you on this adventure.

[odiedragon]

David Gaider wrote...

I would suggest that you wait to hear exactly what our approach is before trying to figure out whether it's what you're interested in or not.

People appear to be acting as if the scant details we've revealed are all they'll ever learn about the game ever, and they're thus required to render judgment immediately.

You're really not. You might, in fact, want to see exactly how we're implementing these features you dislike and seeing for yourself whether they differ from, say, Mass Effect's. There are similarities, of course, but there are also differences... and to assume you know everything about how the game is going to feel based off the most cursory of information is just going to make you look foolish.

Perhaps in the end DA2 won't be for you after all. That's fair. You should be able to judge prior to actually playing it-- there will be information galore available prior to its release, I'm sure. But if you want to have questions asking the "why" regarding our approach taken seriously, it might be sensible to wait and see what that approach is first.

For some of us, these "scant" details are more than plenty.  Never mind that everything that gets revealed just makes my feelings about DA2 more entrenched.  Frankly, I don't care how the minutia are implemented.  You (the collective you/Bioware/EA) still changed the format of the game from something I love to something I'm ambivilant about at best.

I for one never said I know everything about the game.  What I've said all along is, based off what we DO know, I'm no longer intersted in playing DA2.  None of the additional information that's come out has changed my feelings on this.  In fact, it's done more to turn me away than bring me closer.

When  you make drastic changes to the formula of a series, sure there will be people who lose interest in the franchise.  That doesn't make it suck any less to be one of the ones left behind...

Modifié par odiedragon, 13 juillet 2010 - 01:29 .

[RyuGuitarFreak]

Nozybidaj wrote...

Instead, just like what happened in ME2, the creators have taken all that engagement and attachment folks had for the game and the world and tossed it out the window.

No. Hell no.

[leader1]

my biggest problem with all the changes is that why call it Dragon Age 2? when from all the information out so far the only common thing from DA:O is the world setting. for all intents and purposes whatever happened to my PC in DA:O is just a backstory. this doesn't appear to be a true sequel to the game.

[Akizora]

I am the Architect. I created Dragon Age. I've been waiting for you. You
have many questions, and although the process has altered your
consciousness, you remain irrevocably angry. Ergo, some of my answers
you will understand, and some of them you will not. Concordantly, while
your first question may be the most pertinent, you may or may not
realize it is also the most irrelevant...Why am I angry?

You are angry because Dragon Age is about to be changed. Its every fan terminated, its entire existence eradicated. Fanfury is the most predictable of all fan responses. But, rest
assured, this will be the second time we have changed a franchise, and we have
become exceedingly efficient at it.

There are levels of change we are prepared to accept. However, the
relevant issue is whether or not you are ready to accept the change that may bring you an awesome new game...

Now all I need is a picture of the Architect from Dragon Age: Awakening and I'm all set.

Seriously though, so far I think the changes look awesome and while I think it is a bit disappointing that we MAY be left without an ending to our Grey Warden (assuming we left him alive), I am willing to accept this as long as Dragon Age 2 is an awesome game.

[AlanC9]

CybAnt1 wrote...

I don't think you can define the quality of a game simply based on sales numbers. There's a lot more Cheez Whiz sold in the U.S. than fine aged Roquefort cheese. Does that mean the Whiz is "better'? (Yes, I know, you have to be an "elitist" to say otherwise.)

As for critic scores -- well, all I can say is, there is a gaming audience that will always think more action is better, and that certainly includes critics & reviewers. There are some people who think computer versions of Monopoly would be enhanced if the little car icon racing around the board could chase after and run over the dog icon. The changes from ME1 to ME2 made it a better action game, which will please certain audiences, but didn't make it a better RPG. Yes, only the crusty, luddite, elitist, geezer, old-school RPG fans cared; why not, keep kicking us in the teeth, we're in the way of progress.

You do realize that you don't speak for all RPG fans there, right? I'm as big an RPG fan as they come, and I fully approved of most of the changes to ME2, especially yanking inventory. I wanted Bio to do that in KotOR.

As for the overall point.... sales don't determine whether a game is better or worse, and reviews don't determine whether a game is better.... so can anything determine whether a game is better or worse? We can objectively say that the ME2 and DA2 changes haven't pleased a few people on these boards. That's not very significant.

[AlanC9]

Davasar wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

And of course DA was on more platforms.

I'm awfully confused by the conspiracy theories floating around. Is EA supposed to be greedy, or clueless, or both simultaneously? In order to make more money, EA is said to be forcing Bio to modify a popular game to be more like a less-popular game. I'm having a tough time visualizing that meeting.

I am not asking this question to be a jerk:  but have you ever had a corporate style boss that is an a**hole?

This is the very kind of thing they demand, fast results at the expense of all else.

So in order to get fast results, they want to imitate a game that sold less well? Still not seeing it.

[Addai]

Ksandor wrote...

The Best Game Bioware ever created and in fact the best game ever made to date in my opinion is Baldur's Gate 2 Shadows of Amn. You played a Bhaalchild a predefined character but you made your own significant choices -- a first person character that you can identify with it. Great spiritual adventure when you literally reconnect with your soul, great epic proportions, humor, fun, camaraderie and adventure. Bioware was not able to repeat or surpass the success of Baldur's Gate 2 if you measure success with quality not sales. Another great RPG was Planescape Torment. The game was so heavy on role playing that it did not sell well. DAO compared to them is innovative but smaller in scope when it comes to character depth and epic sense of wonder.

I keep seeing such statements and I believe people when they say they had this experience in such games.  But what I want to be able to do is create my own character with as much freedom as possible.  I loved the storytelling in DAO, but my PC's story was largely mine to tell within that framework.

[facialstrokage]

CybAnt1 wrote...

I don't think you can define the quality of a game simply based on sales numbers. There's a lot more Cheez Whiz sold in the U.S. than fine aged Roquefort cheese. Does that mean the Whiz is "better'? (Yes, I know, you have to be an "elitist" to say otherwise.)

As for critic scores -- well, all I can say is, there is a gaming audience that will always think more action is better, and that certainly includes critics & reviewers. There are some people who think computer versions of Monopoly would be enhanced if the little car icon racing around the board could chase after and run over the dog icon. The changes from ME1 to ME2 made it a better action game, which will please certain audiences, but didn't make it a better RPG. Yes, only the crusty, luddite, elitist, geezer, old-school RPG fans cared; why not, keep kicking us in the teeth, we're in the way of progress.

Actually yes, you can. You're right, in any other product, like cheese, your logic flies. But for video games in particular, no. The reason is that all games cost the same. Take cheese, for example, Cheez Whiz sold less that Roquefort, but that's partly because it's cheaper. Price and quantity sold are inversely related, so the cheaper something is the more it sells, in general. Maybe more people actually do enjoy Cheez Whiz than Roquefort, but we can't tell simply by the amount sold because there are multiple factors. However, video games all cost the same (unless you're buying preowned or waiting for depreciation). So in that case, the better the quality of the game, the more it sells- quality defined as the degree to which people are willing to go to buy something.

[Solid N7]

facialstrokage wrote...

CybAnt1 wrote...

I don't think you can define the quality of a game simply based on sales numbers. There's a lot more Cheez Whiz sold in the U.S. than fine aged Roquefort cheese. Does that mean the Whiz is "better'? (Yes, I know, you have to be an "elitist" to say otherwise.)

As for critic scores -- well, all I can say is, there is a gaming audience that will always think more action is better, and that certainly includes critics & reviewers. There are some people who think computer versions of Monopoly would be enhanced if the little car icon racing around the board could chase after and run over the dog icon. The changes from ME1 to ME2 made it a better action game, which will please certain audiences, but didn't make it a better RPG. Yes, only the crusty, luddite, elitist, geezer, old-school RPG fans cared; why not, keep kicking us in the teeth, we're in the way of progress.

Actually yes, you can. You're right, in any other product, like cheese, your logic flies. But for video games in particular, no. The reason is that all games cost the same. Take cheese, for example, Cheez Whiz sold less that Roquefort, but that's partly because it's cheaper. Price and quantity sold are inversely related, so the cheaper something is the more it sells, in general. Maybe more people actually do enjoy Cheez Whiz than Roquefort, but we can't tell simply by the amount sold because there are multiple factors. However, video games all cost the same (unless you're buying preowned or waiting for depreciation). So in that case, the better the quality of the game, the more it sells- quality defined as the degree to which people are willing to go to buy something.

But, again the complain about mass effect 2 and DA:O come from the pc gamers especially the one that have this crazy obssesion about roleplaying and many pc gamers don´t even buy the game, they download the game from the web.

[Khavos]

Solid N7 wrote...

But, again the complain about mass effect 2 and DA:O come from the pc gamers especially the one that have this crazy obssesion about roleplaying and many pc gamers don´t even buy the game, they download the game from the web.

I doubt that's true.  Bioware figured out how to do DRM the right way as compared to, say, Ubisoft: DLC.  Pirate the game and you don't get access to the free or cheap goodies.  It's a system that works.  

But you're correct, a lot of the complaints about "streamlining"/gutting of RPG elements from the games do come from PC gamers.  Why is that a problem? 

It's also worth noting that DA:O, a far more "hardcore" RPG than Mass Effect 2 could even remotely claim to be, apparently outsold ME2.  There's clearly a market for the traditional Western RPG still out there, and the decision to chase a potentially bigger audience through a mish-mash of genres and systems that ends up becoming a rather mediocre game sustained only by an engaging story (Mass Effect 2, in other words) doesn't appear to actually lead to greater commercial success, at least the way Bioware does it.

The Modern Warfare series is an example of how to do it well; Call of Duty is a shooter.  Always has been, always will be.  For multiplayer, however, MW introduced what are essentially RPG elements: leveling up, getting new gear, character customization.  The important thing to remember, though, is that they did it WITHOUT taking anything away from the core gameplay that made their franchise popular.  We only have Bioware's recent attempts as a guide to look at how they do it, and that's by absolutely gutting the core gameplay in favor of new elements.  ME2 got great reviews, and it's a decent game, but it's not a good or even decent RPG.  It also doesn't appear to have done as well as DA:O commercially.

[Solid N7]

Khavos wrote...

Solid N7 wrote...

But, again the complain about mass effect 2 and DA:O come from the pc gamers especially the one that have this crazy obssesion about roleplaying and many pc gamers don´t even buy the game, they download the game from the web.

I doubt that's true.  Bioware figured out how to do DRM the right way as compared to, say, Ubisoft: DLC.  Pirate the game and you don't get access to the free or cheap goodies.  It's a system that works.  

But you're correct, a lot of the complaints about "streamlining"/gutting of RPG elements from the games do come from PC gamers.  Why is that a problem? 

It's also worth noting that DA:O, a far more "hardcore" RPG than Mass Effect 2 could even remotely claim to be, apparently outsold ME2.  There's clearly a market for the traditional Western RPG still out there, and the decision to chase a potentially bigger audience through a mish-mash of genres and systems that ends up becoming a rather mediocre game sustained only by an engaging story (Mass Effect 2, in other words) doesn't appear to actually lead to greater commercial success, at least the way Bioware does it.

The Modern Warfare series is an example of how to do it well; Call of Duty is a shooter.  Always has been, always will be.  For multiplayer, however, MW introduced what are essentially RPG elements: leveling up, getting new gear, character customization.  The important thing to remember, though, is that they did it WITHOUT taking anything away from the core gameplay that made their franchise popular.  We only have Bioware's recent attempts as a guide to look at how they do it, and that's by absolutely gutting the core gameplay in favor of new elements.  ME2 got great reviews, and it's a decent game, but it's not a good or even decent RPG.  It also doesn't appear to have done as well as DA:O commercially.

You said that dragon age outsell mass effect 2, you take in consideration that DA:O was multi and mass effect 2 pc and 360 only.


Again only  "PC gamers with this crazy obssesion about roleplaying  believe that mass effect 2 is  a mediocre game only this faction, this is the problem with the pc gamers always generalize about things.

[DPB]

Solid N7 wrote...

Again only  "PC gamers with this crazy obssesion about roleplaying  believe that mass effect 2 is  a mediocre game only this faction, this is the problem with the pc gamers always generalize about things.

Really?

[Leafs43]

DAO was a franchise starter. Which is why it had such an inconclusive finale with many loose ends.





The only thing that should be considered is the sequel is slated for 8 months from now. This may lead to a rushed product which nobody wants.

[Solid N7]

dbankier wrote...

Solid N7 wrote...

Again only  "PC gamers with this crazy obssesion about roleplaying  believe that mass effect 2 is  a mediocre game only this faction, this is the problem with the pc gamers always generalize about things.

Really?

like javierbegazo said in another thread the complains come from the pc gamers and also make multi accounts to make thread how mass effect 2 and DA2 suck.

[Khavos]

Solid N7 wrote...
You said that dragon age outsell mass effect 2, you take in consideration that DA:O was multi and mass effect 2 pc and 360 only.

If your argument is that PS3 sales of DA:O make up the difference, I don't have the facts to refute it.  Nor do you have the facts to prove it, either.  I doubt it's true, though.  I suspect PC sales of DA:O were much higher.

Again only  "PC gamers with this crazy obssesion about roleplaying  believe that mass effect 2 is  a mediocre game only this faction, this is the problem with the pc gamers always generalize about things.

Dead wrong.  I think ME2 is a simply not an RPG, a mediocre game, and great storytelling.

Am I annoyed that a game billed as an action-RPG hybrid left out the RPG?  Certainly.  Looking beyond that, though, and addressing the game based solely on what it is - a third-person shooter - it's derivative and uninspired.  The only run I did was on Insanity, and I had no issues whatsoever.  The cover system has been done better by other, more focused games, and the combat gets extremely boring very early: take cover, headshot, win.  You're a bigtime console proponent, apparently; we both know Gears of War does what ME2 tries to do far, far better.  It's simply not a very good game.

It's a decent movie where you occasionally get to tell the actors how to deliver their lines, though. 

[Leafs43]

Khavos wrote...


Dead wrong.  I think ME2 is a simply not an RPG, a mediocre game, and great storytelling.

Am I annoyed that a game billed as an action-RPG hybrid left out the RPG?  Certainly.  Looking beyond that, though, and addressing the game based solely on what it is - a third-person shooter - it's derivative and uninspired.  The only run I did was on Insanity, and I had no issues whatsoever.  The cover system has been done better by other, more focused games, and the combat gets extremely boring very early: take cover, headshot, win.  You're a bigtime console proponent, apparently; we both know Gears of War does what ME2 tries to do far, far better.  It's simply not a very good game.

It's a decent movie where you occasionally get to tell the actors how to deliver their lines, though. 

What are you on?

Nearly every RPG ever made has had a fleshed out main character, ranging all the way back to the early 90's.  

Those aren't RPGs?


Maybe you just need to go back to paper and pen dungeons and dragons and create your own characters because obviously you aren't going to get it here.

[Khavos]

Leafs43 wrote...

What are you on?

Nearly every RPG ever made has had a fleshed out main character, ranging all the way back to the early 90's. 

Not even a little bit accurate.

Those aren't RPGs?

If "fleshed out main character" is the only element that defines a game as an RPG, then yes, they would certainly be RPGs.  As would the Call of Duty franchise, GTA, the Nancy Drew mystery series, etc.

[Solid N7]

Leafs43 wrote...

[

What are you on?

Nearly every RPG ever made has had a fleshed out main character, ranging all the way back to the early 90's.  

Those aren't RPGs?


Maybe you just need to go back to paper and pen dungeons and dragons and create your own characters because obviously you aren't going to get it here.

^^this