887 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

 It gets hard to propose a middle ground or make suggestions for change when it seems to come down to "You're either for ME 1 or for ME2"  when the answer one wants to give it "Can we take this from ME 1 and change it like so to get option #3?  Or "ME 2 did this well, but it might be better if Bioware did it this way..."  or even "This game did it much better than either 1 or 2"

There doesn't always need to be a middle ground on every issue. I personally miss elevators + decontamination sequences. I don't know why Mass Effect 2 took them away from me.

Modifié par Il Divo, 06 août 2010 - 05:09 .

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

iakus wrote...

 It gets hard to propose a middle ground or make suggestions for change when it seems to come down to "You're either for ME 1 or for ME2"  when the answer one wants to give it "Can we take this from ME 1 and change it like so to get option #3?  Or "ME 2 did this well, but it might be better if Bioware did it this way..."  or even "This game did it much better than either 1 or 2"

There doesn't always need to be a middle ground on every issue. I personally miss elevators + decontamination sequences. I don't know why Mass Effect 2 took them away from me.

True, there are some things (story) where I think ME 2 screwed up big time and i won't apoligize for having that position.   But in matters of inventory, exploration, leveling mechanics, I don't think it would be unreasonable to take a position that both ME 1 and ME 2 screwed things up, but in different ways.

[Lumikki]

I don't think middle way is best choise of words, because it means both had it wrong?  More like take best working features from both games and add them to new game.

Because middle way is more like there is someking of split has happen between games. When that split only exist for some players, not all players. Example I liked both games, even if they are different. Meaning both games had they own strong and weak points. Problem just is we can't seem to agree what those good and bad stuff are. Because some people wants something what some others doesn't want.

Good example is so simple as Mako from ME1. We can't even agree was it good or bad thing. Because many did not like it and many did like it. So, how you take middle way here? I my self liked Mako and I think it was important for game in general as providing variety to gameplay, between combat and dialogs. How ever, some others did not like it. So, what's the middle way here?

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 août 2010 - 10:24 .

[bjdbwea]

Lumikki wrote...

Good example is so simple as Mako from ME1. We can't even agree was it good or bad thing. Because many did not like it and many did like it. So, how you take middle way here? I my self liked Mako and I think it was important for game in general as providing variety to gameplay, between combat and dialogs. How ever, some others did not like it. So, what's the middle way here?

Easy enough: Make its use voluntary. People who don't like it, don't have to use it.

And that's indeed actually pretty much how it was in ME 1. There were only a few missions where you had to use the vehicle. But if people don't want to miss the pew-pew in the side missions, then you could still easily offer the player the choice of whether he wants to drive to his destination, or be dropped into the pew-pew directly.

See, easy solution. There was never any need to cut out the exploration. But to stay on topic, what's worse is that they don't even admit what they did and claim that exploration is important to them, and that they suggest it's in the game. That is taking the readers of those interviews for fools.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 06 août 2010 - 10:28 .

[Tazzmission]

im hoping we get some under water base battle in mass effect 3

[Lumikki]

bjdbwea wrote...

Easy enough: Make its use voluntary. People who don't like it, don't have to use it.

That's nice options, but here is small problem

If something is option, then it can't be important for game as needed. Because if it's not needed, then why would anyone choose that choise. Other hand, if it's needed, then is it still optional as choise? Meaning, there is no point of have Mako if it's not needed to anything. Other hand if it's needed to something, then is it still optional?

These same argument are allways comming in mmorpg forums, because allowing choises doesn't allways mean there is choise. Meaning if other choise is needed and other is not, then why would anyone choose the not needed choise.

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 août 2010 - 10:41 .

[Terror_K]

I imagine if the planets weren't as hilly, and the worlds, the missions and bases more varied very few would have a problem with The Mako. Even when it was complained about most people either complained about the controls in the 360 version or the steep hills and environments you had to drive it on moreso than The Mako itself, and "The Mako" was more just the buzzword associated with the problem because it was the factor that linked them all together. The PC version came out and the altered controls were pretty much universally praised, as were the slight modifications made to it. Sure, there were complaints about the vehicle itself, but these usually came down to things like it being too bouncy/having crap suspension and people complaining about the shield being slow to charge (which was a pretty petty and silly complaint).

Funnily enough The Hammerhead comes along and more people actually have more issues with it than people did with The Mako, despite it apparently trying to be a Mako replacement to fix The Mako's problems. About the only positive factor is that it's faster and handles better, but in pretty much every other respect it fails, and the players have said as much (it's too weak, it lacks firepower, it doesn't feel right, it can't move its turret independent of itself, it can't zoom, its HUD is useless, it's too much of a "game vehicle" fmade for platforming around and doesn't really logically fit with what's its supposed to be, you can't save in it, you can't voluntarily exit it, it shakes insanely when you scan stuff with it, etc.)

If the main hub area of the Overlord mission was the type of place we got to drive The Mako in, the suspension was fixed a little and it had PC-style controls for both versions then The Mako would be fine.

Modifié par Terror_K, 06 août 2010 - 10:56 .

[bjdbwea]

Lumikki wrote...

If something is option, then it can't be important for game as needed. Because if it's not needed, then why would anyone choose that choise. Other hand, if it's needed, then is it still optional as choise? Meaning, there is no point of have Mako if it's not needed to anything. Other hand if it's needed to something, then is it still optional?

These same argument are allways comming in mmorpg forums, because allowing choises doesn't allways mean there is choise. Meaning if other choise is needed and other is not, then why would anyone choose the not needed choise.

I really don't understand what you're saying. In ME 1, you had to drive to the destination. In ME 2, you are dropped right into the pew-pew. Now, why not offer a simple choice? People who enjoy driving around in the Mako and exploring the planets, can do that. People who just want to get to the part of shooting enemies, can skip the Mako sequence.

There are usually lots of things in an RPG that aren't "needed". In fact, it's a sign of a bad RPG if there are no such things. But if we have to accept that the shooter crowd is part of the target audience, then simply offer them their way to the instant action, and let everyone else have the "useless" other things that make an RPG.

[ninnisinni97]

DarthCaine wrote...

Burdokva wrote...

You know, I dearly hope Mass Effect 2 turns out to sell less copies than the original; far less so.

It already sold more than ME1 and DAO and the majority prefers ME2 over ME1

Um, I'm pretty sure one of the "doctors" ( can't remember if it was Zeschuk or Muzyka) said that Dragon Age was actually their best-selling franchise so far.

[ninnisinni97]

bjdbwea wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Good example is so simple as Mako from ME1. We can't even agree was it good or bad thing. Because many did not like it and many did like it. So, how you take middle way here? I my self liked Mako and I think it was important for game in general as providing variety to gameplay, between combat and dialogs. How ever, some others did not like it. So, what's the middle way here?

Easy enough: Make its use voluntary. People who don't like it, don't have to use it.

And that's indeed actually pretty much how it was in ME 1. There were only a few missions where you had to use the vehicle. But if people don't want to miss the pew-pew in the side missions, then you could still easily offer the player the choice of whether he wants to drive to his destination, or be dropped into the pew-pew directly.

See, easy solution. There was never any need to cut out the exploration. But to stay on topic, what's worse is that they don't even admit what they did and claim that exploration is important to them, and that they suggest it's in the game. That is taking the readers of those interviews for fools.

What I find most irritating really is that they don't admit that perhaps at least some of the cuts and changes made in ME2 wasn't the best solution. They seem to be claiming that they have made the perfect solution, and refuse to take their responsibility.

In fact, I think this is becoming something of a trend with BioWare of late (including the DA team), that when the players get upset over something in one of their games, they go on the defensive at once, defending themselves ferociously. These forums just don't seem to have the same good atmosphere that they once had.

There, now I'm finished with my ranting.

[Tazzmission]

ninnisinni97 wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Good example is so simple as Mako from ME1. We can't even agree was it good or bad thing. Because many did not like it and many did like it. So, how you take middle way here? I my self liked Mako and I think it was important for game in general as providing variety to gameplay, between combat and dialogs. How ever, some others did not like it. So, what's the middle way here?

Easy enough: Make its use voluntary. People who don't like it, don't have to use it.

And that's indeed actually pretty much how it was in ME 1. There were only a few missions where you had to use the vehicle. But if people don't want to miss the pew-pew in the side missions, then you could still easily offer the player the choice of whether he wants to drive to his destination, or be dropped into the pew-pew directly.

See, easy solution. There was never any need to cut out the exploration. But to stay on topic, what's worse is that they don't even admit what they did and claim that exploration is important to them, and that they suggest it's in the game. That is taking the readers of those interviews for fools.

What I find most irritating really is that they don't admit that perhaps at least some of the cuts and changes made in ME2 wasn't the best solution. They seem to be claiming that they have made the perfect solution, and refuse to take their responsibility.

In fact, I think this is becoming something of a trend with BioWare of late (including the DA team), that when the players get upset over something in one of their games, they go on the defensive at once, defending themselves ferociously. These forums just don't seem to have the same good atmosphere that they once had.

There, now I'm finished with my ranting.

the only real thing that griped me was the collectors story. the planet scanning i dont even bother arguing because its a small feature. i felt that me2 has evolved when it came to the gameplay and physics, other than that the whole colonies vanishing by the collectors is what really struck at first but also missed in the long run. the rpg elements imo felt similar to the first game

[bjdbwea]

ninnisinni97 wrote...

In fact, I think this is becoming something of a trend with BioWare of late (including the DA team), that when the players get upset over something in one of their games, they go on the defensive at once, defending themselves ferociously. These forums just don't seem to have the same good atmosphere that they once had.

Defending? More like ignoring any criticism, and almost ridiculing the upset players in interviews. There is almost complete silence from the developers on the ME forums since release, while they are quite active on the DA forums. Unfortunately, the standard reply there seems to be "sorry, but you're just afraid of change". BioWare certainly has changed.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 06 août 2010 - 11:23 .

[Jebel Krong]

Lumikki wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

Easy enough: Make its use voluntary. People who don't like it, don't have to use it.

And that's indeed actually pretty much how it was in ME 1. There were only a few missions where you had to use the vehicle. But if people don't want to miss the pew-pew in the side missions, then you could still easily offer the player the choice of whether he wants to drive to his destination, or be dropped into the pew-pew directly.

See, easy solution. There was never any need to cut out the exploration. But to stay on topic, what's worse is that they don't even admit what they did and claim that exploration is important to them, and that they suggest it's in the game. That is taking the readers of those interviews for fools.

That's nice options, but here is small problem

If something is option, then it can't be important for game as needed. Because if it's not needed, then why would anyone choose that choise. Other hand, if it's needed, then is it still optional as choise? Meaning, there is no point of have Mako if it's not needed to anything. Other hand if it's needed to something, then is it still optional?

These same argument are allways comming in mmorpg forums, because allowing choises doesn't allways mean there is choise. Meaning if other choise is needed and other is not, then why would anyone choose the not needed choise.

this. and: game development is difficult enough that you will never aim features at a game, let alone actually ship them, that aren't designed for everyone to experience, at least in some form. the mako is a perfect example: BW wouldn't include that as a semi-major feature if only a handful of players liked it enough to actually use it, especially if it was easier to walk/whatever. the hammerhead came as DLC, and was in the form you just suggested, but as a result it's use is limited to a couple of DLC missions, because (unless included, as with overlord) you can't count on everyone having it. i still hate the hammerhead (too arcadey), but it (mostly) worked in overlord; with it's own mission DLC, not-so-much. the idea of the mako was better, only the implementation really didn't work as it was in me1, if you took the mako to planets like the one in overlord, then that would be awesome, but probably too time-consuming to develop for any main game.

[Tazzmission]

bjdbwea wrote...

ninnisinni97 wrote...

In fact, I think this is becoming something of a trend with BioWare of late (including the DA team), that when the players get upset over something in one of their games, they go on the defensive at once, defending themselves ferociously. These forums just don't seem to have the same good atmosphere that they once had.

Defending? More like ignoring any criticism, and almost ridiculing the upset players in interviews. There is almost complete silence from the developers on the ME forums since release, while they are quite active on the DA forums. Unfortunately, the standard reply there seems to be "sorry, but you're just afraid of change". BioWare certainly has changed.

whats so bad about change though? can you say that what they did to the combat system was that bad? because if you really wanna believe that than gaming has truley died. people have always given ea **** including myself on how they never change a game when it comes to sequels and yet bioware did just that and you all still complain. now a days people are so freaking biased it makes me sick

Modifié par Tazzmission, 06 août 2010 - 11:27 .

[Vena_86]

ninnisinni97 wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

Burdokva wrote...

You know, I dearly hope Mass Effect 2 turns out to sell less copies than the original; far less so.

It already sold more than ME1 and DAO and the majority prefers ME2 over ME1

Um, I'm pretty sure one of the "doctors" ( can't remember if it was Zeschuk or Muzyka) said that Dragon Age was actually their best-selling franchise so far.

DA and The Witcher show that real RPGs (real as in what RPG used to mean in video games) are very well profitable and that there is a large audience for it. What doesnt work is trying to lure in other target audiences with hollywood presentation and lots of action while removing RPG values (customization, exploration, diversity) and fooling roleplayers that its still an RPG. Atleast it wont work another time after ME2 which profited from preorders, expectations, a good name and outstanding marketing that worked arround mentioning anything that was lost in the game from Mass Effect 1. They never even said that there will be no vehicle at all in the full version. Instead they said there will be a new, better controllable vehicle. That it is in the form of a pathetic and disconnected DLC only became clear long after the release. It was also never mentioned that DLC armors have nonremovable helmets, eventhough dialogue presentation is one of the key strengths of the game. So many people preordered the game with that extra DLC and afterwards regret that decision and never even use the armor in game, simply because of the helmet toggle, which was removed from the game for no good reason. Same with the nonexisting inventory and many other aspects.
Bravo to the marketing.  Fool us once...

Modifié par Vena_86, 06 août 2010 - 11:34 .

[bjdbwea]

Tazzmission wrote...

whats so bad about change though? can you say that what they did to the combat system was that bad? because if you really wanna believe that than gaming has truley died. people have always given ea **** including myself on how they never change a game when it comes to sequels and yet bioware did just that and you all still complain. now a days people are so freaking biased it makes me sick

1. What's so good about change? Is each and any change good?

2. They changed a lot more in ME 2 than just the combat system.

3. You aren't biased, I take it?

[Tazzmission]

bjdbwea wrote...

Tazzmission wrote...

whats so bad about change though? can you say that what they did to the combat system was that bad? because if you really wanna believe that than gaming has truley died. people have always given ea **** including myself on how they never change a game when it comes to sequels and yet bioware did just that and you all still complain. now a days people are so freaking biased it makes me sick

1. What's so good about change? Is each and any change good?

2. They changed a lot more in ME 2 than just the combat system.

3. You aren't biased, I take it?

when it comes to me2 no i am not biased. ive stated my specifc main gripe with the game but i dont go all out like some people and say bioware sold out to ea or mass effect isnt a true rpg.  like i said in my previous post to you bj planet scaner i wont mention because to me its not that big of a deal like others make it out to be. i loved the new combat system and hell i even loved the upgrade to the singularity power, the only one true gripe i had was the whole collectors are abducting people and there a threat, people complained about the stupidest things like helmet toggle wich imo is not that important seeing as it dosent affect gameplay what so ever. people complained about lack of rpg elements and ive stated god knows how many times that me1 had the same amount of elements. the problem isnt bioware its the fans who say oh i hate the mako from me1 ok bioware replaced it for you and yet people still complain about the hammerhead. its easy to blame the developers instead of blaming yourself as to why people like me think no matter what anyone does for this franchise youll continue to nitpick it to death. if you such a true hardcore rpg gamer ok then drop mass effect and go back to japaneze rpgs otherwise shut up and this reply is to everyone who has said the same

[Throw_this_away]

It is easy to sit back and pick small elements of a huge game apart. It is easy to say what you would want changed or made better.



It is very difficult to design a massive game that will appeal to a broad audience. It is impossible to make everyone happy. ME2 did a damn fine job of it though.



I personally like the changes Bioware made with ME2 (not all of them, but overall). But I do agree with those that are frustrated when Bioware removed what simply needed to be tweaked.

[zazei]

Tazzmission wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

Tazzmission wrote...

whats so bad about change though? can you say that what they did to the combat system was that bad? because if you really wanna believe that than gaming has truley died. people have always given ea **** including myself on how they never change a game when it comes to sequels and yet bioware did just that and you all still complain. now a days people are so freaking biased it makes me sick

1. What's so good about change? Is each and any change good?

2. They changed a lot more in ME 2 than just the combat system.

3. You aren't biased, I take it?

when it comes to me2 no i am not biased. ive stated my specifc main gripe with the game but i dont go all out like some people and say bioware sold out to ea or mass effect isnt a true rpg.  like i said in my previous post to you bj planet scaner i wont mention because to me its not that big of a deal like others make it out to be. i loved the new combat system and hell i even loved the upgrade to the singularity power, the only one true gripe i had was the whole collectors are abducting people and there a threat, people complained about the stupidest things like helmet toggle wich imo is not that important seeing as it dosent affect gameplay what so ever. people complained about lack of rpg elements and ive stated god knows how many times that me1 had the same amount of elements. the problem isnt bioware its the fans who say oh i hate the mako from me1 ok bioware replaced it for you and yet people still complain about the hammerhead. its easy to blame the developers instead of blaming yourself as to why people like me think no matter what anyone does for this franchise youll continue to nitpick it to death. if you such a true hardcore rpg gamer ok then drop mass effect and go back to japaneze rpgs otherwise shut up and this reply is to everyone who has said the same

Honestly what you fail to understand (in a major way) is that not everyone cares about the same thing as you. Gameplay? It's nice and it needs to work but for me and others it's not the number one thing and I honestly couldn't care less about ME2's nice updated combat system when it means we lose RPG elements and other things are care more about then some shooting stuff. Mostly this is because no matter how cool or polished the shooting stuff may be it's still pretty much the same system with some variations they had in every third person shooter since the genre was invented. 

Very few things ever feel new and combat system almost never does, so for me at least it's not the number one thing and those small things you dismiss so easily means far more to other people. Now Mass effect 1 while lacking in many areas really was something new and freash. From the first moment I started the game right up to the end it almost feelt like I was playing a movie. In many ways ME1 was unpolished and a light version of RPG's in the past but it was still a RPG and it had a rather new way to handle many things including the dialog wheel and interactive cutscenes.

ME2 falls short in comparison to that. The new action based system is nice until the player realise Bioware made the whole game in a way that almost counts on the player to use it. The dialog will never continue on in another direction if you don't interupt the NPC and in 9.5/10 cases where a interupt breaks the dialog and start a fight, or breaks the dialog to push it into another direction the fight will start anyway a few moments later if the player don't use them. The only difference is a few paragon/renegade points one way or another. Obsidian handled the wheel better in Alpha Protocol then Bioware managed do it even though they invented it.

Also outside that ME2 has far too much action in it. All places like the citadel is gone and every small detail that used to exist vanished with it. There is nothing in ME2 that change based on what the player does unlike ME1. For example if you pick up Liara last in the first game she has gone semi insane at first and freaks out and get really mad when she realise she been trapped in a ruin while Shepard went ahead and solved the problem she been working on her whole life. You won't find a thing like that in ME2. The whole game might as well have been a pure action game because it sure acts like one.

Anyway it's hillerious that you blame others so much for having different taste then you do and at the same time claim you're not biased toward ME2 yoursef.

[Lumikki]

zazei wrote...

Anyway it's hillerious that you blame others so much for having different taste then you do and at the same time claim you're not biased toward ME2 yoursef.

It's any better than blaming others, developers and game, because game doesn't fit in you personal taste.

Game developers makes game with sertain style and players buy and play it, if they like the game. Basicly you are saying for developers, why you did not make game for my personal taste. You make assumption that what you want more or less, is what is wanted by other players.

[haberman13]

How can anyone like the ME2 changes? It just does not compute.

Sure, the guns "feel" better, but everything else was neutered.

Do people like less?

Had I played ME1 on console at release, maybe I could agree with the elevator and mako complaints, having played on PC a year after release the game was near flawless.

ME2 should have expanded on ME1, instead, it appears that they just wanted the Gears of War crowd instead of Bioware fans to enjoy the game.

Again, does not compute. In the end Bioware will be a shell of its former self, trapped between catering to Michael Bay and an ex-DM from BG2 days. Sounds like a dangerous venture for a company to split its userbase into two disparate groups of which neither party will be satisfied.

ME2 has too much thinking for the pure GoW player to enjoy, and is too dumbed down for a Bioware-fan to enjoy.

Modifié par haberman13, 06 août 2010 - 02:22 .

[Il Divo]

haberman13 wrote...

How can anyone like the ME2 changes? It just does not compute.

Sure, the guns "feel" better, but everything else was neutered.

Do people like less?

Had I played ME1 on console at release, maybe I could agree with the elevator and mako complaints, having played on PC a year after release the game was near flawless.

ME2 should have expanded on ME1, instead, it appears that they just wanted the Gears of War crowd instead of Bioware fans to enjoy the game.

Again, does not compute. In the end Bioware will be a shell of its former self, trapped between catering to Michael Bay and an ex-DM from BG2 days. Sounds like a dangerous venture for a company to split its userbase into two disparate groups of which neither party will be satisfied.

ME2 has too much thinking for the pure GoW player to enjoy, and is too dumbed down for a Bioware-fan to enjoy.

*raises hand*

<---Bioware fan.

Enjoyed Mass Effect 2 very much.

[theelementslayer]

haberman13 wrote...

How can anyone like the ME2 changes? It just does not compute.

Sure, the guns "feel" better, but everything else was neutered.

Do people like less?

Had I played ME1 on console at release, maybe I could agree with the elevator and mako complaints, having played on PC a year after release the game was near flawless.

ME2 should have expanded on ME1, instead, it appears that they just wanted the Gears of War crowd instead of Bioware fans to enjoy the game.

Again, does not compute. In the end Bioware will be a shell of its former self, trapped between catering to Michael Bay and an ex-DM from BG2 days. Sounds like a dangerous venture for a company to split its userbase into two disparate groups of which neither party will be satisfied.

ME2 has too much thinking for the pure GoW player to enjoy, and is too dumbed down for a Bioware-fan to enjoy.

<--- Ditto *raises hand*

While ME1 was good, ME2 blew it out of the water

[bjdbwea]

haberman13 wrote...

ME2 has too much thinking for the pure GoW player to enjoy, and is too dumbed down for a Bioware-fan to enjoy.

Perhaps. It seems obvious enough that the shooter fans didn't buy the game in as large numbers as someone who changes their game so much to cater to this group certainly hoped. At the same time, of course most people who liked ME 1 will have purchased the successor. The question now is: Will the shooter fans buy ME 3 in larger numbers? And how many RPG fans will pre-order it again? How many would put up with a dumbed down game at all again? BioWare/EA sound very confident in their path, but I've heard it all before from other developers. We'll see.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 06 août 2010 - 02:41 .

[joriandrake]

KainrycKarr wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

This is ridiculous. Mass Effect has been out for out for years. ME2 only about 6-7 months.

no, seriously.

no, SERIOUSLY. judge the bottom line once both games have been out an equal amount of time.

you know, normally a discussion is made between two or more people ...