887 réponses à ce sujet

[Terror_K]

Il Divo wrote...

Fair enough, but despite the shift in the middle of the trilogy, I'd say Mass Effect 2 was closer to the RPG-TPS hybrid and cinematic experience which Bioware had intended from the start.

I doubt it actually. Not given what some of the earth builds of ME1 looked like before its release (where it was even more of an RPG than it was a shooter, with another layer of skills and stats, the ability to change and direct your squad, etc.) and with the comments from BioWare around E3 2009 on the boards that had them admitting they were trying to make the game appeal to a broader audience and strengthen the shooter aspects.

I think Bioware with Mass Effect designed it with old school fans in mind and then tacked on the tps elements at the end.

While with ME2 they designed it with modern mainstream gamers in mind instead by creating a TPS first and then tacked the RPG elements at the end (which they even half-admitted to, so this statement isn't merely an opinion in that regard).

Il Divo wrote...

I actually thought the
problem most had was that it was 'too much' of the same; that the plot
didn't progress enough and was a rehash of the original.

Not for me. It wasn't enough of the same. Too different with the gameplay and style, and too different with its story. Not that the story and writing is bad as such, but when the whole series is billed as being a trilogy I expected there more to be in common and trailing through the second game story-wise than just "Reapers" and "Shepard" and that's pretty much it. BioWare advertised it as being "The Empire Strikes Back" of games, but it turned out more like the Aliens or Die Hard 2 of games. I certainly don't see how ME2 could ever be considered a rehash of the original, since gameplay and story wise it was incredibly different.

[Aradace]

Dude...AC II was superior to the first in almost every aspect XD. I actually have seen very few people that DIDNT like AC II better. *shrugs* Different strokes I guess

[Killjoy Cutter]

I'm loving ME2 to death and playing the heck out of it.



That said, it feels like there's a huge world and I'm only allowed to visit and see .01% of it. I'd like have more free reign to visit places and look around, have more actual worlds to visit, even if it's just more places the size of Omega, Illium, and the Citadel.

[Terror_K]

Aradace wrote...

Dude...AC II was superior to the first in almost every aspect XD. I actually have seen very few people that DIDNT like AC II better. *shrugs* Different strokes I guess

Haven't played ACII myself, but God... the original was one of the most boring, simple and repetitive games I ever played. I had high hopes for that looking at some of the early footage, but it was just a huge disappointment in pretty every regard except visuals. The story was horrid too... which is kind of why I never bothered with AC II, despite so many saying it improved on the original in every aspect.

[bjdbwea]

Well, I like the original Fallout 3 games a lot, including their combat system. Yet I like Fallout 3 just as much, if not more. Changes were necessary, but Bethesda didn't go over the top in making that RPG experience "accessible" and "immediate" and "appropriate" for all audiences. And sure enough, the sales numbers were still satisfying.

The problem is not "change" per se, the problem are changes for the worse. That's unfortunately what happened in ME 2, and it already seems as if it's going to be the same with DA 2. And that's also why the common BioWare developer reply of "oh well, you're just afraid of change" is ridiculous and almost insulting.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 09 août 2010 - 02:05 .

[Mister Mida]

Terror_K wrote...

Aradace wrote...

Dude...AC II was superior to the first in almost every aspect XD. I actually have seen very few people that DIDNT like AC II better. *shrugs* Different strokes I guess

Haven't played ACII myself, but God... the original was one of the most boring, simple and repetitive games I ever played. I had high hopes for that looking at some of the early footage, but it was just a huge disappointment in pretty every regard except visuals. The story was horrid too... which is kind of why I never bothered with AC II, despite so many saying it improved on the original in every aspect.

I have to admit that for me the story was one of the few things that made me play through the whole thing. AC wasn't a bad game, just really repetitive. AC II was a step up while keeping core gameplay intact and I think AC: Brotherhood is gonna top that as well.

[catabuca]

Terror_K wrote...

Aradace wrote...

Dude...AC II was superior to the first in almost every aspect XD. I actually have seen very few people that DIDNT like AC II better. *shrugs* Different strokes I guess

Haven't played ACII myself, but God... the original was one of the most boring, simple and repetitive games I ever played. I had high hopes for that looking at some of the early footage, but it was just a huge disappointment in pretty every regard except visuals. The story was horrid too... which is kind of why I never bothered with AC II, despite so many saying it improved on the original in every aspect.

It really is worth a play. It's far from repetitive. It's visually stunning. The story is great. It's definitely a great example of how to reinvigerate an IP. I'm sure you can pick it up relatively cheaply now. Like I said, I didn't finish AC1, but AC2 was addictive and in a completely different league.

[Terror_K]

catabuca wrote...

It really is worth a play. It's far from repetitive. It's visually stunning. The story is great. It's definitely a great example of how to reinvigerate an IP. I'm sure you can pick it up relatively cheaply now. Like I said, I didn't finish AC1, but AC2 was addictive and in a completely different league.

Actually there's another reason I haven't bothered: UbiSoft is currently on my X-List due to their horrid DRM policies at the moment. <_<

[catabuca]

Terror_K wrote...

catabuca wrote...

It really is worth a play. It's far from repetitive. It's visually stunning. The story is great. It's definitely a great example of how to reinvigerate an IP. I'm sure you can pick it up relatively cheaply now. Like I said, I didn't finish AC1, but AC2 was addictive and in a completely different league.

Actually there's another reason I haven't bothered: UbiSoft is currently on my X-List due to their horrid DRM policies at the moment. <_<

Fair enough. I think the gaming world is in for a rough ride while companies decide the best route to take regarding DRM. I think it's going to get worse before it gets better.

[Vena_86]

you are getting off topic guys

[Aradace]

bjdbwea wrote...

Well, I like the original Fallout 3 games a lot, including their combat system. Yet I like Fallout 3 just as much, if not more. Changes were necessary, but Bethesda didn't go over the top in making that RPG experience "accessible" and "immediate" and "appropriate" for all audiences. And sure enough, the sales numbers were still satisfying.

The problem is not "change" per se, the problem are changes for the worse. That's unfortunately what happened in ME 2, and it already seems as if it's going to be the same with DA 2. And that's also why the common BioWare developer reply of "oh well, you're just afraid of change" is ridiculous and almost insulting.

*shrugs* Regardless, Im still stoked about DA2...I, for one, thought ME2 was a (no pun intended) mass improvement over the original in just about every way.  Especially in the overall core gameplay.  The only thing I miss about ME1 is my inventory lol...Which, I'll get over I suppose. 

Secondly, Im not one to typically stroke the ego of a company or business but, I have to agree with their response of "Oh well, you're just afraid of change..." Especially if someone is judging a game before it even hits the shelves.  All the pissing and moaning about DA2 really needs to stop until AFTER it has been released.  Not that it will, but it needs to lol.

[Il Divo]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

I agree as well. I actually had a bit of a grudge against Oblivion because of my expectations from Morrowind.  I felt they streamlined too much, from talents to factions. I wish they could have just made a game like Morrowind with their improved engine and physics. I also very much preferred the story and lore of Morrowind. Most everyone disagreed with me, of course. Idiots.

Exactly. Oblivion wasn't 'terrible' but it definitely wasn't Morrowind in either quality or scope. Although Morrowind's actual story wasn't incredible, the history/lore was something else. The Battle of Red Mountain is a perfect example. Here you have this one event around which you had so many different biased perspectives on what actually happened: the Dwemer, the Ashlander Tribes, Dagoth Ur, the Tribunal, Azura, the Empire, and even Nerevar himself. It was just so incredible how many different points of view there were to consider.

Oblivion however became a basic tale of good vs. evil that still employed the 'fetch quest' structure that Morrowind was reviled for.

Catabuca wrote...
I don't think those two points are mutually exclusive. My impression was that many thought the plot took Shep out of the narrative that we associated him/her with, i.e., being a Spectre, dealing with the Alliance/Council. Now that was an essential plot point, imo, and something that was necessary seeing as though s/he died and was rebuilt by Cerberus. The other way the plot appears to break with the previous one is by having a different enemy - which is unavoidable since Saren is dead, obviously, but one that many argue doesn't work as well because Harbinger is less of a personal enemy than Saren. If the plot had progressed the story further, for argument's sake, then it could be viewed as being more like the first in that it continued the same narrative. As it is, it seemed to break with ME1 and go in a different direction. I'm not necessarily saying that's a bad thing, but a possible reason why some find the second game jarring when viewing it as part two of the installment.

This hits the nail on the head. I personally think that in some cases, it worked better (watching Shepard torn away from everything we saw in Mass Effect was great). In other cases, it was worse (the Collector General has nothing on Saren). I honestly didn't follow Mass Effect 2's development until about a week before its release so I didn't have many expectations for it.

Catabuca wrote...

I think we are gaming anti-twins I couldn't finish AC1 because I got bored and my heart wasn't in it. I played AC2 to death and achieved 100% synchronisation and can't wait for ACB . But yes, expectation is the root of all evil. I've said before, the marketing and hype leading up to ME2, and my love of ME1, made me think ME2 was going to be the second coming. When it wasn't I was really bummed. It's taken me months of not playing it and finally coming back to it to appreciate it more. There are still things I wish it did differently, and I still hold ME1 dear to me, but I'm better able to play ME2 and enjoy it than before.

Haha, it's possible. Don't get me wrong, if there are such things as 'wrong' opinions, it's probably mine that Assassin's Creed 1 was the better game overall.

The problem, as we said, is expectation. When I followed developer commentary for Assassin's Creed 2, Ezio's tale felt very unique. We're told that he's betrayed by those 'closest to him' and his only hope is to get his family to safety. The documentaries, trailers, etc, all indicated that this was the approach. Unfortunately I felt the game didn't do a good enough job of demonstrating the connection between Ezio and his family who simply disappear once we reach the Villa. The tale would have also been made far more personal if Ezio/Giovanni had been very close friends with more than just the first assassination target. That would have been a more intimate tale of revenge, in my opinion. But then, I probably wouldn't have this opinion if I didn't follow its creation so closely.

Don't mind me though. These are just a crazy man's ramblings.  I am looking forward to Brotherhood though!

Aradace wrote...
Dude...AC II was superior to the first in almost every aspect XD. I actually have seen very few people that DIDNT like AC II better. *shrugs* Different strokes I guess

And it was superior in almost every way excluding the two elements which I loved most about Assassin's Creed: the story and script. I felt that #2 lost all philosophical depth unfortunately.

Modifié par Il Divo, 09 août 2010 - 02:26 .

[Halo Quea]

Lumikki wrote...

Halo Quea wrote...

Are you talking about RPGs or something else?    Because it looks like you're trying to get some OTHER message across. 

I think he/she is just angry because some people think RPG is all about inventory and stats. You know character development as building it.

While character building can be major part of RPG's, it's not only possible way to roleplay. People has to remember that computers can do something what board games could never do. Crush numbers really fast. So, all the numbers in roleplaying games was more like keep track of rules and situation. Board games legacy forced players to handle numbers, because human as player was onlyone who could do it. Computers can do that without showing numbers for player, so that player can actually consenrate to playing the role of character. Roleplaying.

It's the difference between player building character with numbers or actually playing role of character in game. Little like does you character build (numbers) define what you are or are you actions and choises define what you character is. Both will end same, but way they are played in games are different.

No, that's not what that guy was saying.    It sounded more like he hated RPGs, including the developers who made them and the gamers who play them.    But this isn't something that RPG fans haven't heard before.  There are HORDES of gamers who really HATE RPGs with a freakin passion.   And what that guy wrote looked very familiar as well as obvious. 

[tonnactus]

Terror_K wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Fair enough, but despite the shift in the middle of the trilogy, I'd say Mass Effect 2 was closer to the RPG-TPS hybrid and cinematic experience which Bioware had intended from the start.

I doubt it actually. Not given what some of the earth builds of ME1 looked like before its release (where it was even more of an RPG than it was a shooter, with another layer of skills and stats, the ability to change and direct your squad, etc.) and with the comments from BioWare around E3 2009 on the boards that had them admitting they were trying to make the game appeal to a broader audience and strengthen the shooter aspects.

This is the the 2006 x6 demo footage of Mass Effect. The pistol skill alone has following:
Expertise,marksmen,accuracy, extended range,improved marksmen,stability, ultimate marksmen.

Everyone should decide theirself what game is closer to this,Mass Effect or Mass Effect 2.

That was their  "vision" of the game.

Modifié par tonnactus, 09 août 2010 - 02:53 .

[Lumikki]

iakus wrote...

Aradace wrote...

Maybe I read that wrong but....I was to the understanding that ME2 IS a stand-alone game.  (As in can be played w/o playing the first game and still know what's going on.)

It is also the second volume of a trilogy.  As such it has a history and a continuity that has to be maintained as well for those who have played the first game

So, is Kotor 2 as sequel and I can't even play my old character.  So, if ME2 would have someone else as main character than Shepard, would you be happy with story setup?

[Fhaileas]

tonnactus wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Fair enough, but despite the shift in the middle of the trilogy, I'd say Mass Effect 2 was closer to the RPG-TPS hybrid and cinematic experience which Bioware had intended from the start.

I doubt it actually. Not given what some of the earth builds of ME1 looked like before its release (where it was even more of an RPG than it was a shooter, with another layer of skills and stats, the ability to change and direct your squad, etc.) and with the comments from BioWare around E3 2009 on the boards that had them admitting they were trying to make the game appeal to a broader audience and strengthen the shooter aspects.

This is the the 2006 x6 demo footage of Mass Effect. The pistol skill alone has following:
Expertise,marksmen,accuracy, extended range,improved marksmen,stability, ultimate marksmen.

Everyone should decide theirself what game is closer to this,Mass Effect or Mass Effect 2.

That was their  "vision" of the game.

Wow -- I didn't realize quite how dumbed down streamlined even ME1 gameplay had become compared to the original vision/conceptualization. That footage is amazing!

Modifié par Fhaileas, 09 août 2010 - 03:11 .

[Lumikki]

tonnactus wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Fair enough, but despite the shift in the middle of the trilogy, I'd say Mass Effect 2 was closer to the RPG-TPS hybrid and cinematic experience which Bioware had intended from the start.

I doubt it actually. Not given what some of the earth builds of ME1 looked like before its release (where it was even more of an RPG than it was a shooter, with another layer of skills and stats, the ability to change and direct your squad, etc.) and with the comments from BioWare around E3 2009 on the boards that had them admitting they were trying to make the game appeal to a broader audience and strengthen the shooter aspects.

This is the the 2006 x6 demo footage of Mass Effect. The pistol skill alone has following:
Expertise,marksmen,accuracy, extended range,improved marksmen,stability, ultimate marksmen.

Everyone should decide theirself what game is closer to this,Mass Effect or Mass Effect 2.

That was their  "vision" of the game.

It was close to both of the games. Mass Effect 1 and 2. What you looked was minor details, like skills or customation. What are important too, but You missed hole idea what Mass Effects are. That early demo showed both games what they are, as ideology behind them. Cinematic action games with dialogs.

Modifié par Lumikki, 09 août 2010 - 03:17 .

[Aradace]

Lumikki wrote...

iakus wrote...

Aradace wrote...

Maybe I read that wrong but....I was to the understanding that ME2 IS a stand-alone game.  (As in can be played w/o playing the first game and still know what's going on.)

It is also the second volume of a trilogy.  As such it has a history and a continuity that has to be maintained as well for those who have played the first game

So, is Kotor 2 as sequel and I can't even play my old character.  So, if ME2 would have someone else as main character than Shepard, would you be happy with story setup?

Yep, as long as I was able to still select my class, gender, etc. then sure.  I wouldnt have any problem with it.

[tonnactus]

Fhaileas wrote...

Wow -- I didn't realize quite how dumbed down streamlined even ME1 gameplay had become compared to the original vision/conceptualization. That footage is amazing!

Thats right.Mass Effect level system was already "streamlined" (but things like carnage and marksmen stayed) .There was no need
to degrade it to kindergarten difficulty with the the scissor,rock and paper system.

Modifié par tonnactus, 09 août 2010 - 03:20 .

[yoomazir]

I think that Casey is full of himself...

[haberman13]

tonnactus wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Fair enough, but despite the shift in the middle of the trilogy, I'd say Mass Effect 2 was closer to the RPG-TPS hybrid and cinematic experience which Bioware had intended from the start.

I doubt it actually. Not given what some of the earth builds of ME1 looked like before its release (where it was even more of an RPG than it was a shooter, with another layer of skills and stats, the ability to change and direct your squad, etc.) and with the comments from BioWare around E3 2009 on the boards that had them admitting they were trying to make the game appeal to a broader audience and strengthen the shooter aspects.

This is the the 2006 x6 demo footage of Mass Effect. The pistol skill alone has following:
Expertise,marksmen,accuracy, extended range,improved marksmen,stability, ultimate marksmen.

Everyone should decide theirself what game is closer to this,Mass Effect or Mass Effect 2.

That was their  "vision" of the game.

In my estimation ME2 is EA's vision of the game.

I remember reading a Bioware dev quote before ME2 who said he "lamented the loss of a certain thing" - now we know what that was: RPG.

Hopefully the profits were worth the change!  Capitalism FTW.

[tonnactus]

haberman13 wrote...

Hopefully the profits were worth the change!  Capitalism FTW.

Doesnt seem so if they released a demo so many after the release.

[Nohvarr]

http://www.1up.com/n...ct-2-week-sales

2 million in sales after the first week. I'd say Bioware's game did just fine.

Look whether you like the new changes or not (I personally love them) the game did well critically and financially. The fact that they are modifying some aspects of DA 2 to be more in-line with the Mass Effect mold should be evidance enough of that. I mean if ME 2 hadn't sold well, you'd likely not see them going for a more iconic main character or impactful combat in DA 2.

I know not everyone will like the changes and that's fine. However let's not pretend that these changes spell doom for Bioware, or that they are soley the result of EA. In all honesty, some aspects of old school RPG are needlessly complicated in my opinion. A metric ton of useless loot, plus old school inventories, and skill progression that took far too long and didn't provide anything all that interesting to comabt/gameply for the amount of time you were forced to invest into it, are things I'm glad to see go.

I had a lot of fun playing through ME 2 whereas with ME 1 I tolerated the gameplay and enjoyed the story & characters. I personally think that the fact that Bioware removed those 'classic' RPG elements from their original build of ME to the released version of ME 1 suggests that even then the dev's were looking to streamline the gameplay without losing the customization. IMHO they stumbled a bit in ME 1 and succeeded with ME 2.

Modifié par Nohvarr, 09 août 2010 - 04:24 .

[tonnactus]

Nohvarr wrote...

http://www.1up.com/n...ct-2-week-sales

2 million in sales after the first week. I'd say Bioware's game did just fine.

Shipped is not sold. This was repeated often enough in this thread.According to Ea financial report Mass Effect sold
1,6 million copies.
http://kotaku.com/55...ells-a-lot-more

Modifié par tonnactus, 09 août 2010 - 05:04 .

[haberman13]

Fhaileas wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Fair enough, but despite the shift in the middle of the trilogy, I'd say Mass Effect 2 was closer to the RPG-TPS hybrid and cinematic experience which Bioware had intended from the start.

I doubt it actually. Not given what some of the earth builds of ME1 looked like before its release (where it was even more of an RPG than it was a shooter, with another layer of skills and stats, the ability to change and direct your squad, etc.) and with the comments from BioWare around E3 2009 on the boards that had them admitting they were trying to make the game appeal to a broader audience and strengthen the shooter aspects.

This is the the 2006 x6 demo footage of Mass Effect. The pistol skill alone has following:
Expertise,marksmen,accuracy, extended range,improved marksmen,stability, ultimate marksmen.

Everyone should decide theirself what game is closer to this,Mass Effect or Mass Effect 2.

That was their  "vision" of the game.

Wow -- I didn't realize quite how dumbed down streamlined even ME1 gameplay had become compared to the original vision/conceptualization. That footage is amazing!

Never thought I would say this, but they dumbed down ME1 too, lol!

They probably couldn't get it to run acceptably on the XBOX... too bad, looked awesome.