1700 réponses à ce sujet

[sinosleep]

Terror_K wrote...

Actually Revelation was released before the game was. So, in a sense, Mass Effect started as a novel.

Was revelation being written before the development process had begun? 

[Moiaussi]

sinosleep wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Actually Revelation was released before the game was. So, in a sense, Mass Effect started as a novel.

Was revelation being written before the development process had begun? 

Given it is marketed as 'prequel to the award winning game' (and near as I can tell was marketed as such before ME1 was even released, lol), rather than ME marketed as 'game based on the stunning novel by drew', it is fairly easy to see which was considered marketing and/or source material for which.

They were probably written concurrantly.

[tonnactus]

Siegdrifa wrote...


She and her team made a great job on ME2, not perfect certainly, not what you wanted to see mostly, but the way it works is like a well oiled machine.

Regarding the bugs the game had and still have,this is a joke. How could the ones who tested the game oversees such things like that squadmembers overwriten your own ammo powers or use their own,no matter if usefull or not.
Just one example.

[SithLordExarKun]

Moiaussi wrote...



In ME2 the criticism is pretty much entirely regarding the writing. It is directed at a completely different division of  the creation process. The criticisms are also more fundamental.

No, it was regarding the gameplay changes mostly, the writing was simple one flaw in the game and the "criticisms" were much less fundamental and more like "bioware, you suck, why did you change ME1, the most awsome game ever made to a mindless shooter which is ME2?? This sucks that sucks, suck suck suck." Thats basically the "fundamental criticism" i see all over the boards.

Moiaussi wrote...
Is anyone still looking forward to a mass effect movie as much after ME2 as they were after ME1?

Nobody wants a Mass Effect movie to begin with.

[Moiaussi]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

No, it was regarding the gameplay changes mostly, the writing was simple one flaw in the game and the "criticisms" were much less fundamental and more like "bioware, you suck, why did you change ME1, the most awsome game ever made to a mindless shooter which is ME2?? This sucks that sucks, suck suck suck." Thats basically the "fundamental criticism" i see all over the boards.

So 'mindless shooter' isn't a writing complaint? Noone accused ME1 of having complex thought provoking combat.

 Nobody wants a Mass Effect movie to begin with.

Strange, that wasn't the consensus either. There was a lot of concern, including over which variation of the plot would be used, but those outright rejecting the idea seemed the minority. Besides, if noone wanted a mass effect movie, how could it even be considered? You figure mass effect movie threads just spontaneously started 'just in case?'

[Iakus]

[quote]SithLordExarKun wrote...

[quote]Moiaussi wrote...

In ME2 the criticism is pretty much entirely regarding the writing. It is directed at a completely different division of  the creation process. The criticisms are also more fundamental.
[/quote] No, it was regarding the gameplay changes mostly, the writing was simple one flaw in the game and the "criticisms" were much less fundamental and more like "bioware, you suck, why did you change ME1, the most awsome game ever made to a mindless shooter which is ME2?? This sucks that sucks, suck suck suck." Thats basically the "fundamental criticism" i see all over the boards.[/quote]

Well, I haven't seen anyhting that rabid latel. At least, nothing from a poster I'd take seriously..  Me, I'd never say 'Bioware sucks" no matter how spirited the debate may get.  If I thought that, I wouldn't bother critisizing the game to begin with, I'd just shrug and say "remind me not to buy from that company again" and never visit the boards to begin with (See, Bioware, I complain 'cause I care!)

[quote]Moiaussi wrote...
Is anyone still looking forward to a mass effect movie as much after ME2 as they were after ME1?

[/quote] Nobody wants a Mass Effect movie to begin with.
[/quote]

I shudder just thinking of it. 

Though If a Mass Effect 2 was made, how would they handle costuming? 

[Terror_K]

Moiaussi wrote...

By the way, what awards did ME1 earn pre-release? I can't find any references to any other cover for Revelation other than the one saying it is the 'prequel to the award winning video game from bioware'

I believe Mass Effect won some "Best of E3" awards at both E3 2006 and E3 2007.

[Iakus]

Terror_K wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...

By the way, what awards did ME1 earn pre-release? I can't find any references to any other cover for Revelation other than the one saying it is the 'prequel to the award winning video game from bioware'

I believe Mass Effect won some "Best of E3" awards at both E3 2006 and E3 2007.

Yeah, for Best RPG, 2006 and 2007.  Also Best Console Game 2007

[Moiaussi]

iakus wrote...

I shudder just thinking of it. 

Though If a Mass Effect 2 was made, how would they handle costuming? 

This is a good example of the differences in opinions after ME1 vs after ME2. On the ME1 boards the idea was commented on cautiously, but mostly due to the reality that most movies based on games are poorly done. Noone was questioning the source material, other than concerns over it 'forcing' a cannon version. The cannon version seems to be happening anyway with the newer books, comics and how they handled the default in ME2.

[Moiaussi]

iakus wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...

By the way, what awards did ME1 earn pre-release? I can't find any references to any other cover for Revelation other than the one saying it is the 'prequel to the award winning video game from bioware'

I believe Mass Effect won some "Best of E3" awards at both E3 2006 and E3 2007.

Yeah, for Best RPG, 2006 and 2007.  Also Best Console Game 2007

I figured it was likely something like that. My point, though, was that the game won the awards and the book was marketed on that basis afterwards. It wasn't the other way around. In other words, the game sold the book.

Poorer game likely equals poorer book sales, although there may be loyal buyers based on ME1 and the other books, willing to ignore ME2.

[Terror_K]

Yes, the book was still essentially based on the game rather than the other way around. It was just that the book was released before the game, mostly so that potential players could read the story before playing the game to help set them up for it and let them get to know both Anderson and Saren. It was the same with Dragon Age Origins and The Stolen Throne.

[Moiaussi]

My point though is that unlike ME1, I don't think ME2 will sell a lot of books. Maybe the writers don't care and think they can coast on ME1, and maybe they are right, but does seem strange that they don't seem to take the criticism seriously.

[Lumikki]

glacier1701 wrote...

If they feel that these boards are harsh then they really should go over to the EvE forums.

There is difference between few people bashing game features month after other. While others even disagree with they opinion or game actually has something what most people agree as been broken. In ME2 there is what we all can agree, but there is also alot of stuff where we disagree too. Meaning player community is split with they opinions.

Yeah, there are alot more harsh forums than Biowares.

Modifié par Lumikki, 03 novembre 2010 - 09:08 .

[Jebel Krong]

Moiaussi wrote...

My point though is that unlike ME1, I don't think ME2 will sell a lot of books. Maybe the writers don't care and think they can coast on ME1, and maybe they are right, but does seem strange that they don't seem to take the criticism seriously.

? the new book was just released (i haven't read it, having had my fill of drew's writing and annoying characters that thankfully don't appear in either game), and they've branched out into comic books, figures etc. the comics in particular were sell-outs, every time.

[Jebel Krong]

Moiaussi wrote...

iakus wrote...

I shudder just thinking of it. 

Though If a Mass Effect 2 was made, how would they handle costuming? 

This is a good example of the differences in opinions after ME1 vs after ME2. On the ME1 boards the idea was commented on cautiously, but mostly due to the reality that most movies based on games are poorly done. Noone was questioning the source material, other than concerns over it 'forcing' a cannon version. The cannon version seems to be happening anyway with the newer books, comics and how they handled the default in ME2.

no-one's done a high-profile one, yet, though. and that's all it will take: if Halo or whatever - and that has got to be the easiest one, with a decent budget, to do - is made and does well then you'll see a lot more. mass effect would also be relatively easy given a decent budget - it's not that far off the 'star trek' template... they've just gotta get the right actor for shepard.

the whole canon/not-canon is irrelevant - Bioware was always going to have theirs, every one else has their own.

[Moiaussi]

Jebel Krong wrote...

? the new book was just released (i haven't read it, having had my fill of drew's writing and annoying characters that thankfully don't appear in either game), and they've branched out into comic books, figures etc. the comics in particular were sell-outs, every time.

Which makes more money? Comics or game? And what you seem to be suggesting is that the same marketing departments that brought us spiderman 3 and the worst of the bat movies are getting into video games now?

Sounds like a classic success story. Big hit, ruined by greed, over-exploitation, and listening to the wrong people. Not saying that toy and comic sales are a bad thing, just pointing out the results in other similar situations.

[Moiaussi]

Jebel Krong wrote...

no-one's done a high-profile one, yet, though. and that's all it will take: if Halo or whatever - and that has got to be the easiest one, with a decent budget, to do - is made and does well then you'll see a lot more. mass effect would also be relatively easy given a decent budget - it's not that far off the 'star trek' template... they've just gotta get the right actor for shepard.

the whole canon/not-canon is irrelevant - Bioware was always going to have theirs, every one else has their own.

Note I wasn't against a ME movie after ME1. I was in the 'cautiously optimistic' category, based on ME1's writing. If the script gets re-done ala ME2 though, I am expecting another 'video game movie.' Marketing departments, studios and cheap writing can ruin even the best source material.

[Jebel Krong]

Moiaussi wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

? the new book was just released (i haven't read it, having had my fill of drew's writing and annoying characters that thankfully don't appear in either game), and they've branched out into comic books, figures etc. the comics in particular were sell-outs, every time.

Which makes more money? Comics or game? And what you seem to be suggesting is that the same marketing departments that brought us spiderman 3 and the worst of the bat movies are getting into video games now?

Sounds like a classic success story. Big hit, ruined by greed, over-exploitation, and listening to the wrong people. Not saying that toy and comic sales are a bad thing, just pointing out the results in other similar situations.

same people brought you batman: arkham asylum. just because most stuff is drivel in every medium, doesn't mean it all is.

edit: btw sony made spiderman, WB made all the batman films... sam raimi is a fine director but studio interference ruined spiderman 3, not him. chris nolan has done wonders for batman films, even though joel schumacher ruined them for the same studio, do you tar everyone with the same brush?

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 03 novembre 2010 - 04:18 .

[sinosleep]

Jebel Krong wrote...

 btw sony made spiderman, WB made all the batman films... sam raimi is a fine director but studio interference ruined spiderman 3, not him. chris nolan has done wonders for batman films, even though joel schumacher ruined them for the same studio, do you tar everyone with the same brush?

That is the biggest reason why I don't ever just blindly discount any possible video game movies. Video game movies don't suck becuase the format doesn't translate, video game movies suck becuase the people writing, directing, and acting in them suck. The instant some people worth a damn decide they want to make a video game movie is the instant we'll get a good one.

Just look at the comic book movie genre, once upon a time it was just as horrid as the video game movie genre is. Then people like Chris Nolan, Sam Raimi, Christian Bale , Robert Downy Jr., and Guillermo del Toro started getting involved and all of a sudden comic book movies not only became respectable, but flat out some of the most regularly profitable movies studios could make.

[Jebel Krong]

if they'd just let Neill Blomkamp do the Halo film, they'd be rushing game films to production right now, instead of some comic-book movies (which the bottom is going to fall out of sooner than later, especially with the less well-known ones). Mass Effect would make a great movie in the right hands.

[Moiaussi]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Which makes more money? Comics or game? And what you seem to be suggesting is that the same marketing departments that brought us spiderman 3 and the worst of the bat movies are getting into video games now?

Sounds like a classic success story. Big hit, ruined by greed, over-exploitation, and listening to the wrong people. Not saying that toy and comic sales are a bad thing, just pointing out the results in other similar situations.

same people brought you batman: arkham asylum. just because most stuff is drivel in every medium, doesn't mean it all is.

edit: btw sony made spiderman, WB made all the batman films... sam raimi is a fine director but studio interference ruined spiderman 3, not him. chris nolan has done wonders for batman films, even though joel schumacher ruined them for the same studio, do you tar everyone with the same brush?

Re-read what I wrote. I said the marketing department ruined spiderman 3, not Rami. And the Nolan bat-restart has so far resisted the trend. It is possible to make sequels that are (a) good and ( still sell toys and other merchandise, and in fact that route is arguably more successful. Good movies are much better marketing than lousy ones. Games are a smaller audience, so it is even more so there.

Btw, keep in mind that the context here is a discussion of the quality of ME2, and specificly with this particular thought whether the marketing department is driving now instead of the much better writing we saw in ME1. And don't get me wrong. There is still some good writing in ME2. Just as an over all story it is a lot less coherent and seems to be working on the 'more characters = better' principle common to marketing strategies (since more characters = more toy variations to sell).

Modifié par Moiaussi, 03 novembre 2010 - 04:59 .

[glacier1701]

Moiaussi wrote...
Snip......

Btw, keep in mind that the context here is a discussion of the quality of ME2, and specificly with this particular thought whether the marketing department is driving now instead of the much better writing we saw in ME1. And don't get me wrong. There is still some good writing in ME2. Just as an over all story it is a lot less coherent and seems to be working on the 'more characters = better' principle common to marketing strategies (since more characters = more toy variations to sell).

 Actually I do recall an interview with Casey Hudson and he was asked about the number of characters. (Trying to figure out where I saw it but cant recall.) Anyways Casey basically said that "Everyone likes new characters so ME2 was made a character based story. Its too bad that the players don't get that that is how we choose to present the story."  Not sure I got it totally right but that was the gist of his remark. Lots of characters because we like new characters. And its our fault for not understanding how the story was done which is why there was some critisism. In other words it was not marketing it seems to have come from Casey and its our 'fault' for not understanding or liking all these characters because new characters are cool!!!!

Modifié par glacier1701, 03 novembre 2010 - 08:22 .

[Nightwriter]

glacier, I would REALLY like to see that article. I would be, like, so excited if I could just see that.

[Moiaussi]

glacier1701 wrote...

 Actually I do recall an interview with Casey Hudson and he was asked about the number of characters. (Trying to figure out where I saw it but cant recall.) Anyways Casey basically said that "Everyone likes new characters so ME2 was made a character based story. Its too bad that the players don't get that that is how we choose to present the story."  Not sure I got it totally right but that was the gist of his remark. Lots of characters because we like new characters. And its our fault for not understanding how the story was done which is why there was some critisism. In other words it was not marketing it seems to have come from Casey and its our 'fault' for not understanding or liking all these characters because new characters are cool!!!!

There isn't any of the new characters I don't like (yes, even Jacob), but balance and a central plot are still important. Otherwise it is just 'tales from the ME universe', and may well be worth reading but it isn't really ME2.

They are not 'presenting the story' in ME2, they are presenting a series of vaguely related short stories. That makes me curious. Is the head writer in ME2 primarily a comic book writer or primarily a novelist? ME1 was Drew, who seems to be a novelist. Comics tend to be much more episodic or at least much shorter arcs.

[Iakus]

Nightwriter wrote...

glacier, I would REALLY like to see that article. I would be, like, so excited if I could just see that.

http://www.joystiq.c...-mass-effect-2/

specifically:

Mass Effect 2 has an untraditional structure, "building the team" as your narrative thrust rather than just being relegated to the first act like in many games. Was there a worry that people wouldn't get it or would be waiting for the "real game" to start?

We knew it was a risk and something different. You're right, the story of Mass Effect 2 is very much about how you get ready for a mission by building a team and understanding who they are, and about learning the magnitude of what you're facing. The funny thing is that people will say "other than gathering your crew and building your team and getting ready for this mission, there's not much story there." But that is the story. In other media, you find stories that are about so many different kinds of things, different structures. In movies you find there are stories about how someone gathers a team and makes them well equipped and well trained.

Part of what's great about a role playing game is that you have the choice of going off and doing other side stories, but that can be a problem, and that was one of the pieces of feedback we had about Mass Effect 1, that because the core story had so much intensity and pressure around it, when you would go off and do a side mission, it didn't have that kind of intensity and it wasn't directly linked as part of the story. That's where that Dirty Dozen team building structure addressed a lot of that on a fundamental level. If much of what you're doing in the game is recruiting a team and making them loyal to you and getting them equipped, then you have lots of missions, but every one of them will change whether or not someone's loyal to you in the end, or if they're even there or not. So something like helping Miranda find her sister, which is more emotional, kind of a touchy-feely story, ties back into this suicide mission in a way that makes sense because her mind is clear and she's totally loyal to you.

Of course, where the teambuilding takes place is still an unanswered question for me.  And it goes beyond coincidence that everyone "just happens" to have a personal mission which needs to be done or they'll be unfocused and die.