424 réponses à ce sujet

[SirOccam]

I find it funny how BioWare get slammed for wanting to sell a bunch of copies of their games. They want to make the best game they can...so how do you define what's best?

People have taken issue with the idea that more sales indicates a better game, so what's your alternative definition? Critical reaction? ME2 got great reviews, but many people here say it was an awful game. By either of these indicators, though, it was an amazing game.

If "streamlining" and whatever other terms which get thrown around mean they're pandering, then why wouldn't going the other way just mean they're pandering to the hardcore RPG crowd? Why should they cater to a smaller audience? Should BioWare want 1 "hardcore" fan over 10 casual fans? Their money is as green as yours.

[pizoxuat]

[Giggles_Manically]

Maybe people want a quality game over a quanity derived piece of drivel that panders to bros and people who are taking a break from MW2 multiplayer.



While yes I do enjoy action games as much as the next bloke, I really dont want to see DA2 go off the ME2 end and lose all the RPG for shooty-shooty or Hot Rod Samuri Combat.

[SirOccam]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Maybe people want a quality game over a quanity derived piece of drivel that panders to bros and people who are taking a break from MW2 multiplayer.

While yes I do enjoy action games as much as the next bloke, I really dont want to see DA2 go off the ME2 end and lose all the RPG for shooty-shooty or Hot Rod Samuri Combat.

What "RPG" did they lose, really? And ME1 was partially a shooter as well, so I don't see how improving the experience of the shooting part suddenly turned it into a shooter. The shooting was already there...it was just worse.

Modifié par SirOccam, 11 août 2010 - 02:10 .

[Saibh]

SirOccam wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Maybe people want a quality game over a quanity derived piece of drivel that panders to bros and people who are taking a break from MW2 multiplayer.

While yes I do enjoy action games as much as the next bloke, I really dont want to see DA2 go off the ME2 end and lose all the RPG for shooty-shooty or Hot Rod Samuri Combat.

What "RPG" did they lose, really? And ME1 was a shooter as well, so I don't see how improving the experience of the shooting part suddenly turned it into a shooter. The shooting was already there...it was just worse.

Yeah, I always wondered about that. Why is it so important to have changable armor and weapons? The armor all looks pretty much the same, just different colors. All you have to do is sort through the loads of loot you got (and for roleplaying purposes, does it make any sense to strip the soldiers you just kill of their armor and cart it around with you?), and find out which one has the best stats, and then do a switcharoo with your party members to give them your old stuff.

The weapons are neither here nor there, I'd say. Before you could make some truly game-breaking guns, but remember how every complained that you should have gotten free stuff as a Spectre? Now you come equipped with some very high-quality gear. If you want to make it better on your own time, do so.

Honestly, the ability to swap armor and weapons seemed pretty cosmetic to me. There was no real thought process behind it. You gained levels, the drops got nicer, you switched loot, you sold old stuff to buy more stuff. Possibly. You killed geth, this immediately uploaded all of the credits it makes sense for them to have onto your omni-tool.

Duh.

[Mystranna Kelteel]

SirOccam wrote...
Why should they cater to a smaller audience? Should BioWare want 1 "hardcore" fan over 10 casual fans? Their money is as green as yours.

So you're saying BioWare should make Twilight games.

[Giggles_Manically]

SirOccam wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Maybe people want a quality game over a quanity derived piece of drivel that panders to bros and people who are taking a break from MW2 multiplayer.

While yes I do enjoy action games as much as the next bloke, I really dont want to see DA2 go off the ME2 end and lose all the RPG for shooty-shooty or Hot Rod Samuri Combat.

What "RPG" did they lose, really? And ME1 was partially a shooter as well, so I don't see how improving the experience of the shooting part suddenly turned it into a shooter. The shooting was already there...it was just worse.

Since I am running late as it is, go watch Razorfist's reivew on youtube about ME2 to see what I mean.
Also ME2 is probably the lamest Bioware game I have ever played. period.

[SirOccam]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

SirOccam wrote...
Why should they cater to a smaller audience? Should BioWare want 1 "hardcore" fan over 10 casual fans? Their money is as green as yours.

So you're saying BioWare should make Twilight games.

If they want to, sure. I wouldn't play them, but that fact alone wouldn't make them bad games.

They could easily be bad for other reasons, but simply being Twilight-related isn't enough to be able to judge it as bad, objectively speaking. I haven't seen the movies and have no plans to, so I can't judge them except to say that what I've heard of them doesn't interest me.

The thing is, and this is the crux of my argument, that "bad" is subjective. Yet people try to apply it objectively. If there is to be any objective definition for "bad," it needs to be based on some kind of reasoning. Making lots of money doesn't necessarily mean a game is objectively good, but it makes a hell of a lot more sense than saying making lots of money means the game is objectively bad.

[Saibh]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

SirOccam wrote...
Why should they cater to a smaller audience? Should BioWare want 1 "hardcore" fan over 10 casual fans? Their money is as green as yours.

So you're saying BioWare should make Twilight games.

It's true that no book has ever been good quality and successful. I mean, that's just ridiculous. Everyone knows BioWare's games always bomb. They're just too good, no one wants to play them.

[Mystranna Kelteel]

SirOccam wrote...
If they want to, sure. I wouldn't play them, but that fact alone wouldn't make them bad games.

They could easily be bad for other reasons, but simply being Twilight-related isn't enough to be able to judge it as bad, objectively speaking. I haven't seen the movies and have no plans to, so I can't judge them except to say that what I've heard of them doesn't interest me.

The thing is, and this is the crux of my argument, that "bad" is subjective. Yet people try to apply it objectively. If there is to be any objective definition for "bad," it needs to be based on some kind of reasoning. Making lots of money doesn't necessarily mean a game is objectively good, but it makes a hell of a lot more sense than saying making lots of money means the game is objectively bad.

I see you missed the point entirely. But that's alrite.

Anyways, no, people don't try to apply "bad" objectively. When they say a game is bad they're obviously speaking an opinion: their opinion.

It's people like you who seem to want to argue that their opinion is somehow invalid because they give their reasoning as to why they call it bad. This whole thing is subjective. BioWare gets "slammed" because they're not living up to their fans' expectations.

But for some reason you seem to think people shouldn't have these opinions because they sell in high volume or something? My point is, if BioWare really wants to make "the best game they can" then they should not measure that on sales, and if they say their specific goal is to sell a certain number of copies then their goal is clearly not making the best game they can. They just want it to sell.

[SirOccam]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Maybe people want a quality game over a quanity derived piece of drivel that panders to bros and people who are taking a break from MW2 multiplayer.

While yes I do enjoy action games as much as the next bloke, I really dont want to see DA2 go off the ME2 end and lose all the RPG for shooty-shooty or Hot Rod Samuri Combat.

What "RPG" did they lose, really? And ME1 was partially a shooter as well, so I don't see how improving the experience of the shooting part suddenly turned it into a shooter. The shooting was already there...it was just worse.

Since I am running late as it is, go watch Razorfist's reivew on youtube about ME2 to see what I mean.
Also ME2 is probably the lamest Bioware game I have ever played. period.

"I do, however, want to preface my comments by saying that, in all, I find Mass Effect 2 to be one of the best games I've played all year, and, generally speaking, a superior effort to the first game of the series."

Despite all his gripes (and he sure had a lot), he still found the game entertaining, more so than ME1 even. Most of his gripes were completely subjective anyway. He hated the shop system, I was more or less indifferent to it. He hated the ammo switch, I LOVED it. What makes his opinions "correct" aside from the fact that he can do a decent Yahtzee impression?

And futhermore, as you referred me to the video, I presume you agree with most, if not all, of his points, yet you came to the opposite conclusion he did. That demonstrates to me that none of those points can really objectively paint the game as bad.

[Saibh]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

SirOccam wrote...
If they want to, sure. I wouldn't play them, but that fact alone wouldn't make them bad games.

They could easily be bad for other reasons, but simply being Twilight-related isn't enough to be able to judge it as bad, objectively speaking. I haven't seen the movies and have no plans to, so I can't judge them except to say that what I've heard of them doesn't interest me.

The thing is, and this is the crux of my argument, that "bad" is subjective. Yet people try to apply it objectively. If there is to be any objective definition for "bad," it needs to be based on some kind of reasoning. Making lots of money doesn't necessarily mean a game is objectively good, but it makes a hell of a lot more sense than saying making lots of money means the game is objectively bad.

It's people like you who seem to want to argue that their opinion is somehow invalid because they give their reasoning as to why they call it bad. This whole thing is subjective. BioWare gets "slammed" because they're not living up to their fans' expectations.

They're not living up to your expectations. I know it sure seems like all of the people moaning about the changes is some how this vast majority that comprises all of their fans, but they are not. Most people who are completely alright with the changes aren't going to comment about it. I rarely do; I generally only point out what I like to counteract when people dislike it.

Seriously, most of us don't mind the changes or even like them.

Making the "best game ever" is entirely subjective. Who judges what's the best? The angry, unpleasable critics? The popular majority? You?

EDIT: Being a little...more clear...

Modifié par Saibh, 11 août 2010 - 02:45 .

[SirOccam]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

SirOccam wrote...
If they want to, sure. I wouldn't play them, but that fact alone wouldn't make them bad games.

They could easily be bad for other reasons, but simply being Twilight-related isn't enough to be able to judge it as bad, objectively speaking. I haven't seen the movies and have no plans to, so I can't judge them except to say that what I've heard of them doesn't interest me.

The thing is, and this is the crux of my argument, that "bad" is subjective. Yet people try to apply it objectively. If there is to be any objective definition for "bad," it needs to be based on some kind of reasoning. Making lots of money doesn't necessarily mean a game is objectively good, but it makes a hell of a lot more sense than saying making lots of money means the game is objectively bad.

I see you missed the point entirely. But that's alrite.

Anyways, no, people don't try to apply "bad" objectively. When they say a game is bad they're obviously speaking an opinion: their opinion.

It's people like you who seem to want to argue that their opinion is somehow invalid because they give their reasoning as to why they call it bad. This whole thing is subjective. BioWare gets "slammed" because they're not living up to their fans' expectations.

But for some reason you seem to think people shouldn't have these opinions because they sell in high volume or something?

Not at all. I am totally not against people having differing opinions. What I object to is people using things like "ME2 was bad" as a basis for arguing that BioWare shouldn't include any ME2-like things in DA2. When it's being used as a foundation for an argument, that's using it objectively.

And mostly, it's something that has bugged me for a while, how people look down on things that are commercially successful. They rail against the "unwashed masses" and the "herd mentality" and whatnot, but what I want to know is, what makes the unwashed masses wrong?

My point is, if BioWare really wants to make "the best game they can" then they should not measure that on sales, and if they say their specific goal is to sell a certain number of copies then their goal is clearly not making the best game they can. They just want it to sell.

What should they measure it on? This is the question I'm asking here. Sales is but one part of the puzzle, as is critical reception. Both are reasonable metrics, but the real solution could be one or the other or both or neither.

Modifié par SirOccam, 11 août 2010 - 02:43 .

[Mystranna Kelteel]

Saibh wrote...
They're not living up to your expectations.
I know it sure seems like all of the people moaning about the changes
is some how this vast majority that comprises all of their fans, but
they are not. Most people who are completely alright with the changes
aren't going to comment about it. I rarely do; I generally only point
out what I like to counteract when people dislike it.

Seriously, most of us don't mind the changes or even like them.

And
I'll use that word you don't like: making the "best game ever" is
entirely objective. Who judges what's the best? The angry, unpleasable
critics? The popular majority? You?

This is exactly my point. Everyone whose expectations are not being met are saying so. That's fine. People are allowed to express their opinions. I'm sick and tired of people saying crap like "Stop bashing BioWare!!!"

Erm, why should they? If BioWare is disappointing them then they have every right to say so.

SirOccam wrote...
Not at all. I am totally not against people having differing opinions. What I object to is people using things like "ME2 was bad" as a basis for arguing that BioWare shouldn't include any ME2-like things in DA2. When it's being used as a foundation for an argument, that's using it objectively.

And mostly, it's something that has bugged me for a while, how people look down on things that are commercially successful. They rail against the "unwashed masses" and the "herd mentality" and whatnot, but what I want to know is, what makes the unwashed masses wrong?

What should they measure it on? This is the question I'm asking here. Sales is but one part of the puzzle, as is critical reception. Both are reasonable metrics, but the real solution could be one or the other or both or neither.

Obviously "the best game BioWare can make" is different for everyone. If BioWare wants to make the best game they possibly can then obviously they are judging that by their standards, budget, staff, etc.

It's theorteically possible that BioWare's standards could simply be "A game that sells 10 million copies is the best game we can make", but something like that is honestly stupid because something does not have to live up to any universal quality standards at all to sell.

A game that is completely panned by all reviewers can still sell extremely well and considered "good" by its fans. A game that gets high reviews can still sell poorly and be considered bad.

The point here is that you're wasting your time. They have every right to express their opinion and say what they think is bad and why. Hell, even you have the right to "complain" about their complaining, but, honestly, what are you trying to accomplish? It just makes you sound hypocritical to criticize someone for making criticisms.

Modifié par Mystranna Kelteel, 11 août 2010 - 02:53 .

[Saibh]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

This is exactly my point. Everyone whose expectations are not being met are saying so. That's fine. People are allowed to express their opinions. I'm sick and tired of people saying crap like "Stop bashing BioWare!!!"

Erm, why should they? If BioWare is disappointing them then they have every right to say so.

They have a right to be constructive, to be polite. They don't have the right to "bash" the developers on their board. This isn't a fan board, these are the official BioWare forums.

Mostly, all of the complaints come off as unmitigated whining with no basis in fact and without looking at the whole picture, and all of it we've heard a hundred times.

[SirOccam]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

The point here is that you're wasting your time. They have every right to express their opinion and say what they think is bad and why. Hell, even you have the right to "complain" about their complaining, but, honestly, what are you trying to accomplish? It just makes you sound hypocritical to criticize someone for making criticisms.

Well we're all wasting our time, aren't we? After all, we're on the BioWare forums discussing a game that won't be out for over half a year.

What I was trying to accomplish was to partake in what I think is an intellectually stimulating discussion. I don't expect that we here can once and for all settle the issue of what makes a game good, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth talking about. If it bothers you that much, well, no one's forcing you to participate.

And again, I'm not criticizing anyone "for making criticisms." If someone hated ME2, fine. If they hate DAO, fine. If they think DA2 will be bad, fine. I don't care. What I am interested in is why people feel the way they do. These forums would be pretty lame if it was only full of "I like this" or "I don't like this" and no resultant discussion.

[Mystranna Kelteel]

Saibh wrote...
They have a right to be constructive, to be polite. They don't have the right to "bash" the developers on their board. This isn't a fan board, these are the official BioWare forums.

Mostly, all of the complaints come off as unmitigated whining with no basis in fact and without looking at the whole picture, and all of it we've heard a hundred times.

And we've all heard this type of "counter argument" a hundred times as well. Yeah, we get it: you like ME2 and don't like hearing BioWare get bashed for it.

Well, hey, if the "BioWare bashing" is inappropriate for these forums then the moderators and devs will properly take care of it. Because fan are allowed to say what they want (within BioWare's forum rules, of course), and I really haven't seen a rule saying, "You can't be negative about our games and decisions!!!!!!"

That'd be silly and tyrannical, and I reckon BioWare is intelligent enough to listen to their negative criticism regardless of whether or not you personally think it sounds like unmitigated whining with no basis in fact.

[Saibh]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

Saibh wrote...
They have a right to be constructive, to be polite. They don't have the right to "bash" the developers on their board. This isn't a fan board, these are the official BioWare forums.

Mostly, all of the complaints come off as unmitigated whining with no basis in fact and without looking at the whole picture, and all of it we've heard a hundred times.

And we've all heard this type of "counter argument" a hundred times as well. Yeah, we get it: you like ME2 and don't like hearing BioWare get bashed for it.

Well, hey, if the "BioWare bashing" is inappropriate for these forums then the moderators and devs will properly take care of it. Because fan are allowed to say what they want (within BioWare's forum rules, of course), and I really haven't seen a rule saying, "You can't be negative about our games and decisions!!!!!!"

That'd be silly and tyrannical, and I reckon BioWare is intelligent enough to listen to their negative criticism regardless of whether or not you personally think it sounds like unmitigated whining with no basis in fact.

What exactly is your point? You've already said "you probably have the right to complain about complainers!". Great. Then any complaining on your part about complaining is just hypocritical, wouldn't you say?

[Mystranna Kelteel]

SirOccam wrote...
And again, I'm not criticizing anyone "for making criticisms." If someone hated ME2, fine. If they hate DAO, fine. If they think DA2 will be bad, fine. I don't care. What I am interested in is why people feel the way they do. These forums would be pretty lame if it was only full of "I like this" or "I don't like this" and no resultant discussion.

How is this not a criticism:

What I object to is people using things like "ME2 was bad" as a basis
for arguing that BioWare shouldn't include any ME2-like things in DA2.
When it's being used as a foundation for an argument, that's using it
objectively.

And mostly, it's something that has bugged me for a
while, how people look down on things that are commercially successful.
They rail against the "unwashed masses" and the "herd mentality" and
whatnot, but what I want to know is, what makes the unwashed masses
wrong?

You're objecting to their opinion; that is a criticism. How else can you object to something unless you have passed your judgment on the subject and determined it to be wrong in your mind?

Regardless, it is perfectly valid for someone to say they do not want ME2 elements in DA2 if they disliked said elements in ME2. The foundation for their argument is the fact that they disliked said feature. Yes, their decision of whether or not to like it is subjective, but it is an objective truth (unless they're lying) that they dislike it, and that can be used as a basis to an argument as to why such a feature should or should not be included.

[SirOccam]

JoePinasi1989 wrote...

[...]And so, the mighty pillars of our great community have dispensed their wisdom. We are overjoyed and hope for more, next season, only on BSN. Now... can a moderator come and clean up this mess?

Are you going to contribute anything useful to the discussion at any point? Or just continue with the sarcastic, passive-agressive stuff? It's funny that the one calling for a moderator is the one who hasn't contributed anything except sarcastic jabs.

If you disagree, how about elaborating?

[Mystranna Kelteel]

Saibh wrote...
What exactly is your point? You've already said "you probably have the right to complain about complainers!". Great. Then any complaining on your part about complaining is just hypocritical, wouldn't you say?

I was trying to understand what you get out of hypocritically complaining about complainers. I personally find a lot of pleasure in debating. I'm making my points fairly clearly imo.

I can complain about ME2. You can complain about my complaint. I can complain about your complaint about my complaint.

If person A makes a subjective point and explains their reasons, that is fine. If Person B complains about the mere fact that someone is complainging, that's odd. If Person C points out that complaining about complaining is hypocritical, that's funny and makes a point to Person B. At which point Person B gets offended and tries to turn the tables on Person C, which is also funny.

Granted, that is my opinion. Feel free to complain about it. :happy: