1700 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

SimonTheFrog wrote...
Anyway... lets give BioWare a break for the consequence stuff. I think they did an ok job, considering the importing a save-game is a new one and that it worked was awesome already. Maybe they should have made a few choices less dramatic, knowing that such a thing would raise the expectations to a level that they wouldn't be able to meet, but all in all i think they are doing a very very good job dealing with the complexity of the matter.

P.S. being part of a big company doesn't help much in the end. They are EA but this only helps getting the funds for a project. If the project fails, than the team will be dissolved nontheless. 

My thoughts on Consequences:

Would it have been so tough to go the ME 1 route?  You get additional quests based on your origin (Earthborn, Colonist, Spacer) and paragon/renegade score.  You also get additional dialogue and information based on your profile (Sole Survivor, War Hero, Ruthless).  Would it have been so bad to toss in a few bonuses like that, rather than dozens of emails and a bunch of forced "chance meetings"? (Honestly, the Parasini and courier meetings are the  only ones that really worked for me.  No, not even Shiala)

Imagine:  A quest based on who you left to die on Virmire.  Maybe Kaiden's will had a final request for you, that Anderson or Hackett makes you aware of.  Perhaps involving tracking down Rahna.  Or Ashley,  you get a quest where you end up meeting her sisters, still grieving over her death.

Perhaps some of these N7 quests could have taken on greater meaning based on choices made in ME 1.  Maybe a quest on Tuchanka could have worked out differently if Wrex was alive or dead.  An N7 mission which might involve a wounded quarian, or a wounded rachni, depending on whether you killed the queen in ME 1.

I understand not being able to radically alter the storyline.  But even a "Top Ten List" of important decisions would not (I think) have been too tough to implement.  In-game reminders that your actions have not gone unnoticed.  Or at least, you don't have to stand in front of your personal terminal to notice the effect.

[Nightwriter]

iakus, that would've been utterly awesome.

... But would it have disrupted ME2's "standalone" status?

I find myself wondering, at times, how many ideas like yours they tried to implement, but some Evil Producer Person kept saying, "NO! ME2 is standalone! We must appeal to new gamers!"

Myself, I am not so fussed about this consequences thing, I just would have preferred ME2 not be a reboot.

[Iakus]

Nightwriter wrote...

iakus, that would've been utterly awesome.

... But would it have disrupted ME2's "standalone" status?

I find myself wondering, at times, how many ideas like yours they tried to implement, but some Evil Producer Person kept saying, "NO! ME2 is standalone! We must appeal to new gamers!"

Myself, I am not so fussed about this consequences thing, I just would have preferred ME2 not be a reboot.

Meh, does having a War Hero profile keep ME 1 from being a standalone game?  I sure don't recall fighting on Elysium.  Or tunnel fighting in the depths of Torfan.  Or surviving a batarian raid on Mindoir. 

ME 2 has a "default" setting of a renegade run where pretty much everyone who can be killed is dead.   Such missions could be set based on this "default profile"  New players get background information about Shepard through the quests and dialogues, just like profiles did in ME 1.  Veterans of ME 1 get the bonus of seeing their choices actually affecting ME 2 and "getting" the references. 

Of course, IGN thinks that's a bad thing.  I say if you start a series with a game that has a number at the end, you forfeit the right to complain about what you might have missed.

My guess is the Evil Producers simply decided it was cheaper and easier to create massive numbers of emails

[Nightwriter]

I find it very interesting that if you ask any of the people who were disappointed with ME2 what they would have liked to see in the game, you will hear many statements like:

"Well if you did this in ME1, this should happen in ME2."

We all keep referring back to ME1.

In fact I'd say the entire cause of my disappointment with ME2's story is having played ME1.

[Jebel Krong]

Nightwriter wrote...

iakus, that would've been utterly awesome.

... But would it have disrupted ME2's "standalone" status?

I find myself wondering, at times, how many ideas like yours they tried to implement, but some Evil Producer Person kept saying, "NO! ME2 is standalone! We must appeal to new gamers!"

Myself, I am not so fussed about this consequences thing, I just would have preferred ME2 not be a reboot.

i don't think so (because i don't think BW has evil producers doing things like that); and some of Iakus' suggestions aren't bad, or they could have done something similar (especially with the backgrounds that was weird just being ignored the whole game), i just think sometimes it comes down to time/resources - when you're doing material do you then have the same enthusiasm to go back and do something similar to what you did before? perhaps not.

[RiouHotaru]

iakus wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

iakus, that would've been utterly awesome.

... But would it have disrupted ME2's "standalone" status?

I find myself wondering, at times, how many ideas like yours they tried to implement, but some Evil Producer Person kept saying, "NO! ME2 is standalone! We must appeal to new gamers!"

Myself, I am not so fussed about this consequences thing, I just would have preferred ME2 not be a reboot.

Meh, does having a War Hero profile keep ME 1 from being a standalone game?  I sure don't recall fighting on Elysium.  Or tunnel fighting in the depths of Torfan.  Or surviving a batarian raid on Mindoir. 

ME 2 has a "default" setting of a renegade run where pretty much everyone who can be killed is dead.   Such missions could be set based on this "default profile"  New players get background information about Shepard through the quests and dialogues, just like profiles did in ME 1.  Veterans of ME 1 get the bonus of seeing their choices actually affecting ME 2 and "getting" the references. 

Of course, IGN thinks that's a bad thing.  I say if you start a series with a game that has a number at the end, you forfeit the right to complain about what you might have missed.

My guess is the Evil Producers simply decided it was cheaper and easier to create massive numbers of emails

Well, time and resources do cost money.  I doubt it was done out of a conscious desire to bone us out of anything they could've done.  It was just easier, and saved money.

[Nightwriter]

I notice every time BioWare failed to do something we wanted them to do, the suggested explanation is always that they didn't have enough time/money/resources.

[RiouHotaru]

Nightwriter wrote...

I notice every time BioWare failed to do something we wanted them to do, the suggested explanation is always that they didn't have enough time/money/resources.

It might sound like a broken record excuse...but I think we that the process of creating a videogame like they do is something most of us shouldn't judge without first-hand experience.  It's not innaccurate to say that maybe they just didn't have the time or budget.  I mean, in a perfect world, we could easily incorporate the best of all possible worlds.

Sadly, the real world, and money, don't work like that  

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

If
someone gives good criticism as constructive feedback, no-one is agaist it here. They may disagree with it, because different taste and opions, but they aren't agaist giving criticism.

Why some call some people here haters, because some peoples criticism here isn't anymore good criticism, it's pure hate. Basicly these few people just nack, trash talk and nit pick about every aspect of one game while they praise other game, like it was some perfect creation.

Point here is,
criticism is fine as long it's stays constructive and selective, but when it's become bitter whining about allmost every aspect of some game, like some people does here, that's just pure hate, not criticism.

What about people who stay constructive but also criticise almost every aspect of the game? I'd personally see myself in that particular category. The amount that's criticised shouldn't determine the validity of the issue(s), the manner in which it's done and the reasoning behind it should.

If people are not selective with they "negative" constructive feedback, but critism allmost everyting in game, then they would be consider as hater too. That's the sign of hater, they complaining about allmost everyting.  Is the complain, it sucks or constructive feedback or valid in someomes opinion, doesn't make any different when categorize is someone hater, it's the amount of critism from different aspects of the game what defines it, not quality. As amount, I don't mean as a few aspect gets alot of complain, I mean allmost every aspect gets complaining from same person. Also remember validity of issue is opinion, not fact, because it's often based persons own taste.

Sometimes people say that I don't hate everyting, I also love "something", but if they posts hardly ever show it anywhere, it's just pointless defence as person trying to reinforce they own ego that what they are doing is fine job, even if it's not.

That's completely illogical. You're basically saying that you're not hater if you complain about 79% of the games' factors but suddenly you go up to 80% and you're a hater, no matter how well-delivered, thought out and justified your arguments were. You're basically saying that once a game gets a certain amount of criticism it goes from being the games' fault to the person's fault and that their criticism is suddenly invalid. Isn't it possible that the game could simply be very, very flawed?

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
*snippet* the mechanics have been dumbed down

That's too early to judge. If they do decently then it'll be a quality > quantity situation.

That's a crock. Just because something is less flawed doesn't mean it's better for the genre or style of the game. By that logic turning it into a Pong clone would make it even better, since there's no lack of quality there and the gameplay is perfect for what it is.

Sorry, but if the gameplay doesn't deliver on what it should and takes the simple approach to merely make itself more functional while losing functionality and diversity in the process it's not a step in the right direction. That's why I don't support BioWare's recent trend and attitude of "simpler is better, even if it means losing out on things!"

And how is that determined, by the fans? Many of which are supporting DA2? Granted there's more of a case with ME2, but DA2 isn't as 'direct' of a sequel: Same universe, different setting, different hero.

Many of which are also concerned, worried and sceptical. Just as fans were with ME2 prior to release. We were worried it was going to be dumbed down, BioWare said it wasn't, and then it came out and it was.

Sorry, but I've seen this trend far too many times to think that it's a good thing. They've gone from merely advertising to the masses with DAO to catering to them fully with DA2. They've admitted its shorter, they've admitted its simpler, they've admitted to broadening the audience and they've admitted to it being designed more for consoles in mind. These are hardly positive admissions from where I'm sitting.

Bolded for emphasis. The Star Wars series has encompassed many genres over the years, so if I asked you what a Star Wars game should be about, what could you say besides the fact that it's about its universe?

Star Wars is not a game first and foremost though. Besides, as I said, if DA2 was a spin-off rather than a sequel about three-quarters of my issues with it would disappear. It doesn't necessarily seem like a bad game, it just seems like a bad "Dragon Age 2" (bolded for emphasis). If Baldur's Gate 2 had come along and only let me be human, was a hack'n'slasher and was a quarter the length of BG1 would fans have reacted as positively? It's only because of modern trends and the modern gamer that these kind of changes aren't being universally vilified.

The main thing that disappoints me is that I at least thought after Dragon Age Origins came along that there was at least going to be one series that stuck true to its RPG roots and would allow me to at least play a good fantasy RPG game every 2-3 years akin to the classics I loved. Now it's just heading down the same generic path as every other actiony title these days and blending in with all the rest of the stuff out there. BioWare games were always special and unique to me because they were different and not mainstream and allowed me to immerse myself in both gameplay and settings I could enjoy and lose myself in. ME2 was the first title of theirs that completely failed in this regard, and now DA2 looks to be going down the same path, and BioWare as a whole seems to be too. I've seen this pattern in so many franchises, IPs and universes/settings I've loved before far too often to believe that this is any different.

I liked BioWare because they didn't do what they're doing today and actually appreciated the cult audience more than the masses. They seemed to prefer making games as art rather than a means of profit. Now it seems they're no longer building worlds, characters and stories for people so much as building a heartless bunch of machines specifically tuned towards creating profit for themselves. It's no longer about the journey, just about the destination.

So all in all, I suppose I don't dislike what I see of Dragon Age 2 for what it is so much as what it's not.

Modifié par Terror_K, 29 octobre 2010 - 08:19 .

[Nightwriter]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

I notice every time BioWare failed to do something we wanted them to do, the suggested explanation is always that they didn't have enough time/money/resources.

It might sound like a broken record excuse...but I think we that the process of creating a videogame like they do is something most of us shouldn't judge without first-hand experience.  It's not innaccurate to say that maybe they just didn't have the time or budget.  I mean, in a perfect world, we could easily incorporate the best of all possible worlds.

Sadly, the real world, and money, don't work like that  

It's kind of convenient, isn't it?

Every time I want something, they always had juuuuuust not enough money to make it happen.

But yeah, I totally get what you're saying. I've got no idea how the development world works. But neither, I suspect, do a lot of the people telling me BioWare didn't have enough time/money/resources.

[RiouHotaru]

Nightwriter wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

I notice every time BioWare failed to do something we wanted them to do, the suggested explanation is always that they didn't have enough time/money/resources.

It might sound like a broken record excuse...but I think we that the process of creating a videogame like they do is something most of us shouldn't judge without first-hand experience.  It's not innaccurate to say that maybe they just didn't have the time or budget.  I mean, in a perfect world, we could easily incorporate the best of all possible worlds.

Sadly, the real world, and money, don't work like that  

It's kind of convenient, isn't it?

Every time I want something, they always had juuuuuust not enough money to make it happen.

But yeah, I totally get what you're saying. I've got no idea how the development world works. But neither, I suspect, do a lot of the people telling me BioWare didn't have enough time/money/resources.

I confess, I don't have even the barest idea of how the concept works in practice.  I'm currently trying to get a position on a writing team for an MMO, and the process just for the writing as it's been described (Can't do into detail, non-disclosure agreement) is insanely tedious.  And that's for a fledging company.  For people like Bioware, making a game on THIS kind of budget and market expectations?

Whew...

But you have a point too.  Man, sucks when we agree on somthing, huh?

[Terror_K]

The thing is, ME2 was such a schizophrenic game when it came to overall polish and quality. They apparently didn't have time to polish and tweak the more important things, but they had time to put in stuff that was essentially fluff like collecting fish and ships and dialogue from people if you stand around long enough and Legion doing "the robot" etc.



All in all ME2 really did feel like it needed another couple of months in the oven.

[RiouHotaru]

Terror_K wrote...

The thing is, ME2 was such a schizophrenic game when it came to overall polish and quality. They apparently didn't have time to polish and tweak the more important things, but they had time to put in stuff that was essentially fluff like collecting fish and ships and dialogue from people if you stand around long enough and Legion doing "the robot" etc.

All in all ME2 really did feel like it needed another couple of months in the oven.

Well, the "fluff" in question likely came down to personal touches, but you have a point.

Though, if we're going with food analogies, I'd call ME1 a meaty dish, lacking enough seasoning, while ME2 had plenty of seasoning, but perhaps not quite large enough portions...

And now I'm hungry.  Dammnit.

[Jebel Krong]

Nightwriter wrote...

I notice every time BioWare failed to do something we wanted them to do, the suggested explanation is always that they didn't have enough time/money/resources.

it's one of the valid reasons all the UNC worlds in me1 lack variation, and the screwy combat mechanics. development time-pressure is true for any game, it's just a fact of life.

the other thing to consider is: they don't add stuff to satisfy certain people, they add stuff to maximise the benefits for all.

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
*snippet* the mechanics have been dumbed down

That's too early to judge. If they do decently then it'll be a quality > quantity situation.

That's a crock. Just because something is less flawed doesn't mean it's better for the genre or style of the game. By that logic turning it into a Pong clone would make it even better, since there's no lack of quality there and the gameplay is perfect for what it is.

Sorry, but if the gameplay doesn't deliver on what it should and takes the simple approach to merely make itself more functional while losing functionality and diversity in the process it's not a step in the right direction. That's why I don't support BioWare's recent trend and attitude of "simpler is better, even if it means losing out on things!"

that's.... not what he said. no-one knows what they are doing to the mechanics, except for the features they have announced (voiced player etc), what he meant was if they do justice to those features (and the returning ones) it doesn't matter if the world is smaller/whatever because the sophistication and depth will make up for that.

Terror_K wrote...

And how is that determined, by the fans? Many of which are supporting DA2? Granted there's more of a case with ME2, but DA2 isn't as 'direct' of a sequel: Same universe, different setting, different hero.

Many of which are also concerned, worried and sceptical. Just as fans were with ME2 prior to release. We were worried it was going to be dumbed down, BioWare said it wasn't, and then it came out and it was.

no: YOU say it was, the majority were pretty damn happy.

Terror_K wrote...

Sorry, but I've seen this trend far too many times to think that it's a good thing. They've gone from merely advertising to the masses with DAO to catering to them fully with DA2. They've admitted its shorter, they've admitted its simpler, they've admitted to broadening the audience and they've admitted to it being designed more for consoles in mind. These are hardly positive admissions from where I'm sitting.

again: no - they said the world was smaller, i have seen nothing that says it's simpler/whatever-. it's like saying me2 was "smaller" than me1 when there's about twice as much dialogue and main locations/missions.

you just can't help jumping to all sorts of negative preconceived notions can you? then even when the finished game is nowhere near what you said, you find it extremely difficult to back down (especially after you put your rose-tinted glasses on for something else).

[SmokeyPSD]

I can't believe the negativity and outright just ignoring the hardwork that went into ME2 on here. There's constructive criticism, not agreeing with changes, then there's just treating the creators with no respect.



For me ME2 was a ballsy, great move. Bringing us to the darkness, in character, in story, in tone, in everything and not letting up. Forcing us on the path of moral ambiguity to combat pure evil. While the alliance and council are left licking wounds a new, unlikely Ally reaches out a hand and indeed the most powerful way possible, resurrecting your very life. It's the most interesting 2nd act I could've expected.



Gameplay wise it cut out a lot of fat I wasn't happy with from ME1. Was I happy with everything? No, room for improvement, yes. All these people calling ME2 a reboot and that the Bioware writer's have no sense of decency and have lost their souls to EA have just plain lost perspective I'm sorry.

[Nightwriter]

ME2 was a reboot. That's just me objectively observing the storyline.



The BioWare writers are still phenomenal and delivered some of the best damn writing I've ever seen in ME2. Seeing Miranda cry got me teary-eyed. I was pale while I was exploring Teltin. I almost screamed when I saw Kelly dragged into the elevator. I was biting my nails when I saw Tali wringing her hands in trial. The care and attention put into some of the environments and atmospheres was absolutely astonishing.

[Jebel Krong]

Nightwriter wrote...

ME2 was a reboot. That's just me objectively observing the storyline.

nice shootin' tex! opinion first then following that with the words "objectively observing" to justify said opinion = nice!



nice post smokey - i totally agree 

[Nightwriter]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

ME2 was a reboot. That's just me objectively observing the storyline.

nice shootin' tex! opinion first then following that with the words "objectively observing" to justify said opinion = nice!



nice post smokey - i totally agree 

*sigh*

Jebel, listen. Everything you achieved in ME1 is reset in ME2. It's just the truth. Please, man, I'm not trying to be negative here, I'm telling you the Council is holding the Idiot Ball again just to make working with Cerberus work.

[Pocketgb]

Pocketgb wrote...
That's a crock. Just because something is less flawed doesn't mean it's better for the genre or style of the game.

Depends on how much you think is too much. Given DA:O's horrendous state of balance, I'd say it was definitely too much.

The situation here is that there are players who put an emphasis on variety and a players who put an emphasis on balance, and given the current state of things it appears that Bioware is no longer catering solely to one color.

Terror_K wrote...
Many of which are also concerned, worried and sceptical.

Understandably so. But given that there were plenty of likewise diehard Bioware fans who were terribly turned off by DA:O's systems, how are we to go about pleasing everyone without having to double Bioware's staff?

Terror_K wrote...
Sorry, but I've seen this trend far too many times to think that it's a good thing.

They created Jade Empire at a time when Ninja Gaiden and all other sorts of action games were booming, so if you didn't 'see it coming' then I dunno what to tell you.

That doesn't mean Jade Empire is a bad game, of course. In fact it's quite the opposite.

Terror_K wrote...
Star Wars is not a game first and foremost though.

And now the same can be said for Dragon Age. It's no longer 'just a game', it's a universe.

If anything, blame the name, not the game. Dragon Age 2 is slightly misleading since most people apply numbers to insinuate rather direct sequels.

[Jebel Krong]

Nightwriter wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

ME2 was a reboot. That's just me objectively observing the storyline.

nice shootin' tex! opinion first then following that with the words "objectively observing" to justify said opinion = nice!



nice post smokey - i totally agree 

*sigh*

Jebel, listen. Everything you achieved in ME1 is reset in ME2. It's just the truth. Please, man, I'm not trying to be negative here, I'm telling you the Council is holding the Idiot Ball again just to make working with Cerberus work.

really? i'm still a spectre (& optional), i still killed sovereign, all the people i killed are still dead, ashley is still alive/kaiden dead, wrex is still alive doing what he said he'd be doing, Feros survived, the council are still idiots and all alive, i saved the citadel, my fame sweeps before me like a... great wind, or something etc. etc. yeah everything's re-set all right... 

yeah some things are re-set or contrived to help make it more standalone - no-one's saying it's perfect, but it ain't the disaster you and others are making it out to be, either. hell at least BW are trying - what other developer is?

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 29 octobre 2010 - 10:13 .

[RiouHotaru]

Nightwriter wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

ME2 was a reboot. That's just me objectively observing the storyline.

nice shootin' tex! opinion first then following that with the words "objectively observing" to justify said opinion = nice!



nice post smokey - i totally agree 

*sigh*

Jebel, listen. Everything you achieved in ME1 is reset in ME2. It's just the truth. Please, man, I'm not trying to be negative here, I'm telling you the Council is holding the Idiot Ball again just to make working with Cerberus work.

You're right, but in the interest of fairness, is the "reset" really something unexpected?  There are plenty of games where there's the illusion that your decisions meant anything, but the overall story doesn't change in the least bit.  Alpha Protocol comes to mind.

Also, as for the idiot ball, it's not just the Council's fault.  TIM admits after Horizon that he'd been leaking the information.  That's likely how the Council found out, and why they don't trust you much anymore.

[Nightwriter]

Jebel Krong wrote...

really? i'm still a spectre (& optional), i still killed sovereign, all the people i killed are still dead, ashley is still alive/kaiden dead, wrex is still alive doing what he said he'd be doing, Feros survived, the council are still idiots and all alive, i saved the citadel, my fame sweeps before me like a... great wind, or something etc. etc. yeah everything's re-set all right... 

yeah some things are re-set or contrived to help make it more standalone - no-one's saying it's perfect, but it ain't the disaster you and others are making it out to be, either. hell at least BW are trying - what other developer is?

Yes, bless them, they are, but I really wish they hadn't given the Council the Idiot Ball again. I really, really wish it.

And, well no, you're not still a Spectre, really, because I can think of only like two times when your Spectre status is even mentioned. It doesn't really mean anything. And like I said, I'm more concerned with plot continuity than callbacks to minor choices in ME1.

[SmokeyPSD]

I totally disagree that a reset took place. I can't read comments like this and just not see negativity. Yes, a huge drastic shift happens in story, but that's due in part because so much happened at the end of ME1. I don't understand the whole idiot ball argument. It was completely plausible, unfortunately that they would act the way they did. I thought that saving them would change things, but it didnt, u can see it even in the end exchange of ME1. It's not completely them being unreasonable either, they have real practical concerns of recovery, as does the alliance. The collector's are flying under the radar afterall and being even more effective agents for the reapers than the geth and saren ever were.

[Nightwriter]

Throughout all of ME1 you struggle with the Council's inaction. It is infuriating. It even pushes what you can realistically believe - Kaidan even says so. You are continuously frustrated with their refusal to help you properly. You fight, and you fight, and you fight, and finally Sovereign attacks them just like you said he would, and you have to save them, and they say, "Thank you for saving us from the Reapers."

And in ME2, it - meant - nothing. This is when my immersion starts to break because it feels like repetitive writing. It starts to become more than I can believe.