1700 réponses à ce sujet

[Count Viceroy]

khevan wrote...
Can I get a starship called Serenity and be fighting Reavers instead of Reapers? 

Think Jewel Staite would look good in an enviro suit? :innocent:

[khevan]

Count Viceroy wrote...

khevan wrote...
Can I get a starship called Serenity and be fighting Reavers instead of Reapers? 

Think Jewel Staite would look good in an enviro suit? :innocent:

She'd look good in my enviro suit...

But anyways, that's off topic, so I think we should drop the Firefly references...

(but I'd totally be for Jewel Staite as LI and Squadmate in ME3........)

Edit: 'cause spelling > me

Modifié par khevan, 20 novembre 2010 - 08:16 .

[harazal]

A lot of people on this topic seem unable to seperate commerical reality, with some sort of fairy tale, utopia that exists in their mind. The talk of Shepards resurrection is a prime example of this. This is a classic example, quoted below:-



There was such opportunity for character development, character interaction, philisophical discussion, and more, and this opportunity was wasted. For some reason, that kinda bugs me.



Let me tell you buddy, that **** wont fly in a video game. The overwhelming majority of gamers don't want philisophical debate in their games. When you consider how few people actually finish games, throwing up character development in the first 15 minutes is simply going to switch people off. However great it might have been in an ideal world, slowing the game down in the first act would have done more harm than good to the game as a whole. Poeple are not accepting that a game is a commercial product. It HAS to sell. Bioware has a duty to itself, its employeees, and shareholders to make sure they produce a game that sells.



But if we move away from that, why did they kill shep, and then bring him back 15 minutes later? You could say it was edgy and dark, but in reality it was a hook. Pure and simple. It got people interested in the first 15 minutes, and created a plausible excuse for an ingame tutorial, which is ESSENTIAL for the, again, vast amount of people that bought this game who are either not regular gamers (which probably comes as a surprise to many people on this board, but hardcore gamers are the minority in the gaming market) or RPG fans.



Its tempting to compare games to movies, or books, and criticise their story structures for not being this, or not being that. The reality is games suffer a unique challenge. Anyone can read a book or watch a movie. Every one has those skills. Playing a game, especially and RPG is different. Even regular gamers can shy away from RPGs.



In order to level the playing field, sacrifices have to made. Can they be made more artfully? Perhaps. But i've yet to ever play a video game that had a story that could even compare to a master peice book, or an oscar winning film. The important thing here, though, is that i don't expect to. Had i choice between a game like Mass Effect or a movie, book or tv show, i'd choose mass effect 2.



I accept that games have their own challenges, and appreciate them for what they can do. Mass Effect 2 is the finest game i have ever played.

[khevan]

harazal wrote...

A lot of people on this topic seem unable to seperate commerical reality, with some sort of fairy tale, utopia that exists in their mind. The talk of Shepards resurrection is a prime example of this. This is a classic example, quoted below:-

There was such opportunity for character development, character interaction, philisophical discussion, and more, and this opportunity was wasted. For some reason, that kinda bugs me.

Let me tell you buddy, that **** wont fly in a video game.

That was my quote, and I'd like to respond.  I shortened your quote so as to not overwhelm readers with a wall-o-text.

You seem to have assumed that I wanted such interaction, development, and discussion immediately after the resurrection event itself.  This is not the case.  Spaced out over the course of the game, a sentence here or there, a mention that Shepard died and came back without a flippant "I got better" response...these are the things that I wish were there and aren't.  I'm not asking for several half hour or more expositions on the nature of life and death.  That amount of detail does not belong in a video game, and there I agree with you.  For you to think that this is what I want is...confusing to me. 

After Shep wakes up, the entire thing is mentioned maybe three or four times, most of them on the tutorial station!  You honestly think that having the entire subject of what's basically a true miracle dropped without any conversational exploration is a good thing?  Or at least "commercial reality" rather than poor writing?

If this is how you think, I think that we need to agree to disagree, because it would have been just as easy to write a few lines here and there to explore such an important topic as, you know, coming back from the frakking DEAD.

Modifié par khevan, 20 novembre 2010 - 08:47 .

[Nightwriter]

harazal wrote...

A lot of people on this topic seem unable to seperate commerical reality, with some sort of fairy tale, utopia that exists in their mind. The talk of Shepards resurrection is a prime example of this. This is a classic example, quoted below:-

There was such opportunity for character development, character interaction, philisophical discussion, and more, and this opportunity was wasted. For some reason, that kinda bugs me.

Let me tell you buddy, that **** wont fly in a video game. The overwhelming majority of gamers don't want philisophical debate in their games. When you consider how few people actually finish games, throwing up character development in the first 15 minutes is simply going to switch people off. However great it might have been in an ideal world, slowing the game down in the first act would have done more harm than good to the game as a whole. Poeple are not accepting that a game is a commercial product. It HAS to sell. Bioware has a duty to itself, its employeees, and shareholders to make sure they produce a game that sells.

But if we move away from that, why did they kill shep, and then bring him back 15 minutes later? You could say it was edgy and dark, but in reality it was a hook. Pure and simple. It got people interested in the first 15 minutes, and created a plausible excuse for an ingame tutorial, which is ESSENTIAL for the, again, vast amount of people that bought this game who are either not regular gamers (which probably comes as a surprise to many people on this board, but hardcore gamers are the minority in the gaming market) or RPG fans.

Its tempting to compare games to movies, or books, and criticise their story structures for not being this, or not being that. The reality is games suffer a unique challenge. Anyone can read a book or watch a movie. Every one has those skills. Playing a game, especially and RPG is different. Even regular gamers can shy away from RPGs.

In order to level the playing field, sacrifices have to made. Can they be made more artfully? Perhaps. But i've yet to ever play a video game that had a story that could even compare to a master peice book, or an oscar winning film. The important thing here, though, is that i don't expect to. Had i choice between a game like Mass Effect or a movie, book or tv show, i'd choose mass effect 2.

I accept that games have their own challenges, and appreciate them for what they can do. Mass Effect 2 is the finest game i have ever played.

Yep. I am so totally putting this in my talk about the disappointment thread thread.

Basically I feel that the basic statement behind opinions like these is that we have no place wanting more from our videogames. While I feel that there are some gamers with a false sense of entitlement that probably need to hear statements like this, in general I inherently - and respectfully - disagree.

I have seen games which delivered what I wanted ME2 to deliver, and BioWare games at that. Commercial demand did not seem to inhibit them so much then. All this talk about how it is just totally completely impossible and naive to want more than we were given seems like, well... something it would be a dev's place to say. We don't know enough about the world of game development to make claims about BioWare's inner workings.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 20 novembre 2010 - 09:36 .

[glacier1701]

In addition to the comments by the 2 posters above me I will say this. WE, the final consumer, are also a shareholder in company as it is our money that ultimately funds a company. As such we have as much right to have our say on what was good or bad about a game. Remember that if we do NOT buy the game then it fails regardless of how shiny it looks, how good or bad the writing, what reviewers say about it and so on and so on. Even more importantly the game industry is one of very few industries where, if a product fails to perform, it cannot be returned for a full refund!!! So remarks made that basically say 'just be happy a game was even produced' are ignorant at best of the realities of todays marketplace. It is a right for us to demand high quality games for our money and a right for us to be able to make it clear why a game did not meet those conditions.

 Having said that this does not mean that a game company has to listen to what we say. It can do what it likes as that is part of the freedom they enjoy. However if they fail to listen they run the risk of going out of business by producing games that no-one wants. In other words success or failure is in OUR hands and the only way we have currently of expressing our opinions after we have bought a product is to post where game companies can read our comments.

[Lumikki]

Who is this "we", because I definetly aren't with you. Game company does what they want and there is nothing what you can do about it. People has this idiotic assumptions that if they don't like something, it will fail. Why it's idiotic, because they never consider that others can actually like something what they don't. So, they are preaching they opinions as only true God.

Modifié par Lumikki, 20 novembre 2010 - 02:52 .

[keekee53]

I loved the changes Bioware made to the game in ME2.  I hated spending time melting useless items into Omnigel, I hated constantly upgrading armor and weapons, and I HATED the mako.  I love ME1 but I will not play it anymore because of the mako.

As for the RPG side of the game, ME1 wins.  In ME1, I felt like I was really learning more and more about my crew after each mission.  The romance was much better in ME1.  You could see the progression of Shepard and the LI falling for each other.  In ME2, it was let's do it  just in case we die on this mission.  It definitely seemed like it was more about sex than romance.  Some of the LIs in ME2 had decent love scenes, which I did not get to experience in my own game but I looked them up on you tube, but most were poorly done.

Am I disappointed in Mass Effect 2?  Yes and No.

[Xeranx]

Lumikki wrote...

Who is this "we", because I definetly aren't with you. Game company does what they want and there is nothing what you can do about it. People has this idiotic assumptions that if they don't like something, it will fail. Why it's idiotic, because they never consider that others can actually like something what they don't. So, they are preaching they opinions as only true God.

Did you read the post above you?  Glacier didn't say that a game company couldn't do what they want.  In fact, he stated they could do whatever they wanted but added that future success of any game company rests with consumers (this was implied).  I wish more people heeded that message, but unfortunately another Madden game or the like will come out and people will shell out their (or their parents') hard-earned $50-$60 for something that has only the barest improvement to it.  I just find that to be complete nonsense.

[Lumikki]

Xeranx wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Who is this "we", because I definetly aren't with you. Game company does what they want and there is nothing what you can do about it. People has this idiotic assumptions that if they don't like something, it will fail. Why it's idiotic, because they never consider that others can actually like something what they don't. So, they are preaching they opinions as only true God.

Did you read the post above you?  Glacier didn't say that a game company couldn't do what they want.  In fact, he stated they could do whatever they wanted but added that future success of any game company rests with consumers (this was implied).

Yes, I did read. Problem is, it also implifies that consumers aren't happy with current products. Because it implifies that companies should not make games how they want, but should listen they consumers. It is true that it's good to listen consumers, but and here comes the big but.

Point is, who's this consumer they should listen?

Modifié par Lumikki, 20 novembre 2010 - 04:34 .

[Googlesaurus]

Lumikki wrote...

Point is, who's this consumer they should listen?

The consumer that the least critical, most willing to buy into the promises of the game, and most likely to buy similar games from the same company in the future. You make the game for them if you want to make the most money. But if you want to build a solid consumer base, it's a different story.  

[7a7ec]

The most sad thing is, that ME 2 will probably get alot of GOTY awards...

and this just breaks my heart couse I know it doesnt deserve it ...

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

7a7ec wrote...

The most sad thing is, that ME 2 will probably get alot of GOTY awards...
and this just breaks my heart couse I know it doesnt deserve it ...

I know it has its shortcomings, but what games this year have been better?

[Zulu_DFA]

StarCraft 2 hands down.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 20 novembre 2010 - 06:34 .

[Mike2640]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

7a7ec wrote...

The most sad thing is, that ME 2 will probably get alot of GOTY awards...
and this just breaks my heart couse I know it doesnt deserve it ...

I know it has its shortcomings, but what games this year have been better?

Red Dead Redemption, Fallout: New Vegas, Star Craft II, to name a couple.

I guess since I kinda horned in on the conversation there, I may as well mention a few things I wish had been better. I dont know if it's just me, but it seems like with the characters, while we learn a lot about them, they never really feel like they're really present in the current situation.
In terms of their devellopment it feels like we're in the middle of a road, and by doing their loyalty missions we're paving more of the road backwards, but we never really get it going forwards. Did that analogy make sense to anyone besides me?

What I mean is, we learn fair bit about their respective pasts and issues, but very rarely how they are 'now'. For example, in ME1 Ashley would talk to Shep about the mission alot and voice her concerns about having non-alliance personel on the Normandy. We'd get to learn her take on how things were progressing, as well as learn more about her past. People talk about character development in ME2, but I think what they really mean is character establishment. We learn who these people are and what they went through, but we never really see much growth or actual development.

I like Mass Effect 2, I do. But I cant say I wasn't dissappointed with it in several key areas.

Modifié par Mike2640, 20 novembre 2010 - 07:14 .

[Iakus]

harazal wrote...

Let me tell you buddy, that **** wont fly in a video game. The overwhelming majority of gamers don't want philisophical debate in their games.

Perhaps not a philosophical debate, but in a game which is at least an rpg hybrid, which has choice and consequences, the consequences of being brought back for the dead should be explored.  I can think of a couple of succesful games which actually did that quite well. ME 2 treated it as the gimmick it was.

But if we move away from that, why did they kill shep, and then bring him back 15 minutes later? You could say it was edgy and dark, but in reality it was a hook. Pure and simple. It got people interested in the first 15 minutes, and created a plausible excuse for an ingame tutorial, which is ESSENTIAL for the, again, vast amount of people that bought this game who are either not regular gamers (which probably comes as a surprise to many people on this board, but hardcore gamers are the minority in the gaming market) or RPG fans.

It wasn't "edgy and dark", it was "cheap and simplistic".  Why is it a hook for new gamers?  They haven't any idea who Shepard is, why should they care if he dies?  They haven't even made Shepard's face at this point.  ME 1 started out with Anderson, Udina, and Hackett talking about Shep's backstory behind closed doors, how is that any less a "hook' than killing off this faceless unknown protagonist before you actually do anything yet?

Even regular gamers can shy away from RPGs.

So because not everyone likes RPGs...what?  There's no problem that can't be resolved with enough gunfire?   Motivation doesn't matter as long as something awesome happens?  Conversations are just waypoints between action sequences?  What is it exactly that makes rpgs such pariahs in the gaming community?

It's not tempting to compare games to books.  It's tempting to compare Bioware games to movies and books.  they're that good.  Usually.  I don't normally go into the whole "what is an RPG" question.  But to me an rpg is an interactive story.  If the story is cheesy, shallow,  and disjointed, why on earth would I want to buy the next one in the series?  I'm no great literary connoisseur.  But I do have some standards.  Dealing with death in such a cavalier way as I have not seen outside of a high level D&D powergaming session is cheesy and shallow.

In order to level the playing field, sacrifices have to made. Can they be made more artfully? Perhaps. But i've yet to ever play a video game that had a story that could even compare to a master peice book, or an oscar winning film. The important thing here, though, is that i don't expect to. Had i choice between a game like Mass Effect or a movie, book or tv show, i'd choose mass effect 2.

So because games haven't achieved the level of story that movies have, they need to sacrifice story to be more appealing? 

Games haven't reached that level or art, no.  But I had thought that if it was to be achieved, Bioware would do it first.   I'd rather watch a movie, read a book, or watch a tv show that play it.  When it came to ME 1, I'd have to ask which book/movie/program before making that choice. 

I accept that games have their own challenges, and appreciate them for what they can do. Mass Effect 2 is the finest game i have ever played.

I'd rather play such "flawed" games as Alpha Protocol or KOTOR 2.  If I wanted a game that dealt with life, death and identity better, I'd play The Witcher, or even better, Planescape: Torment.   I'd rather play pretty much any Bioware game that has come out before ME2, and I desperately hope DAO is not Bioware's swan song as far as rpgs go.

[Iakus]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

7a7ec wrote...

The most sad thing is, that ME 2 will probably get alot of GOTY awards...
and this just breaks my heart couse I know it doesnt deserve it ...

I know it has its shortcomings, but what games this year have been better?

Starcraft 2:  At least as good as story as ME2.  And the characters interact a lot more to boot.

Alpha Protocol:  Yes, AP is my RPG GOTY

Fallout: New Vegas: I clocked just over 90 hours on my first playthfough.  And I'm sure I haven't found everything

[Count Viceroy]

iakus wrote...

Starcraft 2:  At least as good as story as ME2.  And the characters interact a lot more to boot.

Alpha Protocol:  Yes, AP is my RPG GOTY

Fallout: New Vegas: I clocked just over 90 hours on my first playthfough.  And I'm sure I haven't found everything

1. The campaign is enjoyable, the cutscenes are gorgeous but the story is dull at best. I saw the betrayal 'twist' coming miles away.

2. AP is a horrible game with excellent RPG elements, not to mention it's quite buggy. It's what obsidan does though.

3. New Vegas is an expansion to fallout 3, while good it's infinitely more buggy to boot, again obsidian.

If anything, it'll be Starcrafts multiplayer that will carry it to game of the year, but it has rarely been awared to a game with a single strong aspect. You need the complete package. I don't think we've seen this years game yet.

[Iakus]

Mike2640 wrote...

I guess since I kinda horned in on the conversation there, I may as well mention a few things I wish had been better. I dont know if it's just me, but it seems like with the characters, while we learn a lot about them, they never really feel like they're really present in the current situation.
In terms of their devellopment it feels like we're in the middle of a road, and by doing their loyalty missions we're paving more of the road backwards, but we never really get it going forwards. Did that analogy make sense to anyone besides me?

What I mean is, we learn fair bit about their respective pasts and issues, but very rarely how they are 'now'. For example, in ME1 Ashley would talk to Shep about the mission alot and voice her concerns about having non-alliance personel on the Normandy. We'd get to learn her take on how things were progressing, as well as learn more about her past. People talk about character development in ME2, but I think what they really mean is character establishment. We learn who these people are and what they went through, but we never really see much growth or actual development.

I know exactly what you mean.

The conversations and personal missions let you see a lot more into the characters backstories.  Which is good, as far as it goes.  But you don't really see the characters react to stuff going on in Shepard's story.  In the "here and now"  When not doing their personal missions, they are static robots that simply shoot at enemies.  They don't talk about the Collectors, the missing colonies, the missions you do, or other squadmates.  They have one thing that defines the whole of their being. What's happening in the present seems irrevlevent.

Thus why I call the ME 2 squaddies "windup toys"  Shepard takes them off their shelves, winds them up, and lets them do their thing (the loyalty mission)  Then puts them back on the shelf as a lifeless doll again.

[Lumikki]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

I know it has its shortcomings, but what games this year have been better?

And here comes a question again. To who it's better?

My point is that what some people consider better isn't same for everyone. Example few games suggested here, I would never even buy them, because they aren't for me. My point is, do you judge ME2 because it isn't done perfectly for you?

Modifié par Lumikki, 20 novembre 2010 - 08:17 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

StarCraft 2 hands down.

As a Starcraft fan, I must disagree.  Not that it wasn't AWESOME, but definitely not the BEST.

Anyway, back on topic.  I really liked ME2, but a few things bugged me about it.  Firstly, the whole Collector shebang was interesting, but nonsensical and underdeveloped.  Also, I think completely cutting flawed features instead of improving them didn't work as well as it should have, but hopefully in ME3 they can find a middle ground.  More convos and interactions BETWEEN squadmates, please, since I hate how isolated they are from one another.

And I beg you, no more retconning.

[Da_Lion_Man]

I'd say Red Dead Redemption, Metro 2033 or Fallout: New Vegas is my GoTY.

[Zulu_DFA]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

StarCraft 2 hands down.

As a Starcraft fan, I must disagree.  Not that it wasn't AWESOME, but definitely not the BEST.

Definitely better than ME2.

It has all that ME2 got:

- The (Paragade) Protagonist travels the Galaxy in a fancy starship
- Which has an Armory and a Laboratory, where new upgrades for equipment are researched for the cash and resources gathered on missions
- NPC characters occasionally join the Protagonist's team and hand out new missions
- Back on the ship they interact with the Protagonist and with each other
- The Protagonist gets to make Big Choices sometimes
- Galactic news and commercials
- The Galaxy is full of aliens and mercenaries
- Some primordial Evil supposedly is poised at extinguishing the life
- Aliens were uplifted by even more ancient aliens.
- Trasnhuman soldiers
- Rogue spectres
- Evil Experiments
- Cerberus
- Ali Hillis, Tricia Helfer, Michael Dorn.
- even the left-hand salute (SC feature since Brood War)

... but not the squinty eyes...

AdmiralCheez wrote...
Anyway, back on topic.  I really liked ME2, but a few things bugged me about it.  Firstly, the whole Collector shebang was interesting, but nonsensical and underdeveloped.  Also, I think completely cutting flawed features instead of improving them didn't work as well as it should have, but hopefully in ME3 they can find a middle ground.  More convos and interactions BETWEEN squadmates, please, since I hate how isolated they are from one another.

And I beg you, no more retconning.

Lol, funny how you bring up the interaction BETWEEN squadmates while opposing me in my "poll" thread. Can't you see that the decision to "bring back" the ME2 expandables will mean no interaction between squadmates? They'll be just the same ME2 dolls they were!

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 20 novembre 2010 - 09:32 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

StarCraft 2 hands down.

As a Starcraft fan, I must disagree.  Not that it wasn't AWESOME, but definitely not the BEST.

Definitely better than ME2.

It has all that ME2 got:

- The (Paragade) Protagonist travels the Galaxy in a fancy starship
- Which has an Armory and a Laboratory, where new upgrades for equipment are researched for the cash and resources gathered on missions
- NPC characters occasionally join the Protagonist's team and hand out new missions
- Back on the ship they interact with the Protagonist and with each other
- The Protagonist gets to make Big Choices sometimes
- Galactic news and commercials
- The Galaxy is full of aliens and mercenaries
- Some primordial Evil supposedly is poised at extinguishing the life
- Aliens were uplifted by even more ancient aliens.
- Trasnhuman soldiers
- Rogue spectres
- Evil Experiments
- Cerberus
- Ali Hillis, Tricia Helfer, Michael Dorn.
- even the left-hand salute (SC feature since Brood War)

... but not the squinty eyes...

AdmiralCheez wrote...
Anyway, back on topic.  I really liked ME2, but a few things bugged me about it.  Firstly, the whole Collector shebang was interesting, but nonsensical and underdeveloped.  Also, I think completely cutting flawed features instead of improving them didn't work as well as it should have, but hopefully in ME3 they can find a middle ground.  More convos and interactions BETWEEN squadmates, please, since I hate how isolated they are from one another.

And I beg you, no more retconning.

Lol, funny how you bring up the interaction BETWEEN squadmates while opposing me in my "poll" thread. Can't you see that the decision to "bring back" the ME2 expandables will mean no interaction between squadmates? They'll be just the same ME2 dolls they were!

Christ's sake, Zulu, stop treating me like I'm your mortal enemy.  While SC2 DID have all the things ME2 had, I felt ME2 did them better.  Also, I felt the end was rather... stupid, really.  SPOILER I mean Kerrigan human again?  Please.  The level of immersion isn't the same, and the plot had me rolling my eyes more often.  Don't get me wrong, I love it, but for as long as I waited for it, I couldn't help but feel a bit let down.

Christ's sake again.  How would bringing back old squadmates make them dolls again, hm?  How do you know Bioware wouldn't make an effort to improve that?