145 réponses à ce sujet

[Christmas Ape]

I don't know why you quoted me if you weren't going to respond to a word I said.

[MrFob]

Nightwriter wrote...

Course it does. BioWare should accommodate new players without punishing old players.

There is only one thing wrong with this statement: IMO BW should not necessarily accommodate new players. Sounds a bit radical I know but seriously, I don't get how people can play a game that has a 2 in the title (or 3 in the case of the next game) and not be aware of the fact that there might be references to the old title.
Now in ME2, you can start as a new character and you can read the old Codex entries. That should be it. I hope that in ME3, BW specifically designs the game for savegame import and does not spent a whole lot of recourses thinking about what people who don't have the background might not get (they can read the codex or Mass Effect Wiki if they can't be bothered playing the older games). The time and recourses should rather be spent to make more permutations for consequences of earlier decisions, etc.
And frankly I don't get how reviewers can be so dense sometimes.

[Nightwriter]

Well I realize that as an ME1 player I will always think they should favor me over new players. I'm aware this is blatantly selfish, so I force myself to accept that BioWare will never do this, it's not only counterproductive to sales, it isn't fair to new gamers.

However I think if they were always going to try and accommodate new gamers they shouldn't have advertised the trilogy aspect so much.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

And they did.

The universe of Mass Effect does change by your actions: you get it more from the lore and the news about how the galaxy is running. You do have carry over choices, they do shape the context of the universe, it is a pretty new idea to try and implement, and we are seeing consequences and implications travel with us.

The game play doesn't change much, but that's a different bird entirely, and something they didn't promise.

Dean, ME2 was a giant reboot. A startover. Everything was reset. It made ME1 absolutely meaningless.

[Dean_the_Young]

ME1 shaped a lot of the ambient tone of ME2. ME2 was never going to be a completely different plot/levels/playthrough depending on your ME1 choices: they never claimed it would be two games in one, nor should anyone have expected that. What they did claim was that it would shape the world around you... and it does, though not in the best means possible. It certainly could have, should have, reflected more than three-liner news reports and three-min cameos, but the world around you does change.



A sad part of the experience was the import bug that made some decisions not carry over at all: some like Conrad were stuck, but others like the Terra Firma candidate, the uber-Renegade/Paragon missions, and others never got mention at all. That was a flaw in execution, not design.

[Christmas Ape]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
ME1 shaped a lot of the ambient tone of ME2. ME2 was never going to be a completely different plot/levels/playthrough depending on your ME1 choices: they never claimed it would be two games in one, nor should anyone have expected that. What they did claim was that it would shape the world around you... and it does, though not in the best means possible. It certainly could have, should have, reflected more than three-liner news reports and three-min cameos, but the world around you does change.

A sad part of the experience was the import bug that made some decisions not carry over at all: some like Conrad were stuck, but others like the Terra Firma candidate, the uber-Renegade/Paragon missions, and others never got mention at all. That was a flaw in execution, not design.

That's the Sirta Foundation base on Chohe, and it does get mentioned. It's just that it only ever flags the worst possible result.

[Nightwriter]

I don't mind my choices not drastically shaping the ME2 story. I just find it incredibly demoralizing and depressing that everything you do in ME1 is sort of made pointless in ME2.

[Dean_the_Young]

You think saving the colonists was point less? That keeping/changing the galaxy status quo while defeating Sovereign didn't matter to people? That helping people in the first game wasn't worth it for its own sake?

[Nozybidaj]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

 I'm referring to the IGN review of Mass Effect 2. In their review, one of the negatives of ME2 was that it was overly referential to ME1. They gave ME2 a 9.7, and the only negatives were that it was overly referential, and had minor bugs; which leads me to believe that ME2 could have potentially gotten a 10 if it wasn't as referential. Seeing as IGN is one of the King Pin reviewers out there, do you guys think that Bioware will take this criticism to heart?

Because in my personal opinion, that is the poorest excuse of a negative i've ever heard. Making ME3 even more standalone is the absolute worst direction you can take the epic ending of a trilogy. Casey Hudson has said multiple times that ME3 will be a standalone game, but how "standalone" do you think they are willing to take ME3 while still keeping it's identity, to cater for new players? ME2 was standalone enough with barely any references, will ME3 have even less referential material?

/shrug  Does anyone really expect anything else from IGN?  Their reviews are only terrible if you are lucky and find one of their better ones.  Saying ME2 was "overly referential to ME1" just makes me laugh, shake my head, and move on.  That's pretty par for the course for an IGN review.

[AntiChri5]

Christmas Ape wrote...

As a game review, it's a perfectly valid complaint. Designed as a standalone game, reviewed as a standalone game. That everybody's cranky the trilogy isn't taking the shape they want doesn't really enter into it.

Would a literature critic complain that a book which is the second part of a trilogy is overly referential? Would a movie critic complain that a movie which is the second part of a trilogy is overly referential?

[glacier1701]

When you look at interviews with various ME devs the one thing that came across was that they say they listen to the reviewers immedaitely after release. As they say they basically have had the game longer than we have and they are 'supposedly' professionals. (There are issues with such reliance on reviews which a number of e-magazines point out the main one being that there is NO certainty that the reviewer ever played the game 100% through). After a few months they then go the forums and see what is being said there. Recently there has been a trend in the ME devs with statements showing that some of the things we have said are being taken to heart and that these things will be on the lists as they work through ME3. (NOTE: this does not mean that they will be there but they will be on lists.) LotSB did show signs that a number of things we mentioned were taken to heart and if those continue to be there in ME3 then we can say that we have been listened to.



In the end what it comes down to is that BW has lost a lot of the goodwill it had generated in the past with some very bad marketing and PR in the last year. I doubt that many of us will take their word for what ME3 will be and perhaps go so far as to wait and not pre-order. While BW is happy with the sales figures for ME2 I do think that those figures show that they didnt achieve what they wanted. That was due in part how they targetted the ME1 fans (they basically blew many off), they hyped certain aspects of ME2 which were not normal BW material and coupled with word of mouth failed to attract the market they were after.



I have noticed that many people who had been active on these forums from BW before the release of ME2 and who have no direct connection with content development of ME3 have been noticeably absent. Its as if they are afraid to say anything because we can point to what they said in the past and call them on it.

[Christmas Ape]

AntiChri5 wrote...

Christmas Ape wrote...
As a game review, it's a perfectly valid complaint. Designed as a standalone game, reviewed as a standalone game. That everybody's cranky the trilogy isn't taking the shape they want doesn't really enter into it.

Would a literature critic complain that a book which is the second part of a trilogy is overly referential?

Is it written as a stand-alone novel connected to the preceeding work but not necessarily reliant on it? Then he should.

Would a movie critic complain that a movie which is the second part of a trilogy is overly referential?

As above, replacing "novel" with "movie".

[Nightwriter]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

You think saving the colonists was point less?

Yes.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

That keeping/changing the galaxy status quo while defeating Sovereign didn't matter to people?

Yes.

And what change.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

That helping people in the first game wasn't worth it for its own sake?

Helping people is meaningful and important. It should matter.

[AntiChri5]

Christmas Ape wrote...

AntiChri5 wrote...

Christmas Ape wrote...
As a game review, it's a perfectly valid complaint. Designed as a standalone game, reviewed as a standalone game. That everybody's cranky the trilogy isn't taking the shape they want doesn't really enter into it.

Would a literature critic complain that a book which is the second part of a trilogy is overly referential?

Is it written as a stand-alone novel connected to the preceeding work but not necessarily reliant on it? Then he should.

Would a movie critic complain that a movie which is the second part of a trilogy is overly referential?

As above, replacing "novel" with "movie".

If that is the case then it isn't a trilogy.

[CroGamer002]

Well ofcourse Bioware will implement all choices made in ME1 and M2 into ME3.


They aren't money grubbing douches like Infinity Ward that does't listen to their fans.

Modifié par Mesina2, 25 octobre 2010 - 02:22 .

[Christmas Ape]

AntiChri5 wrote...
If that is the case then it isn't a trilogy.

Hm. "A set of three literary or dramatic works related in subject or theme." I wonder if you could find some common thread between the Mass Effect games...

Modifié par Christmas Ape, 25 octobre 2010 - 02:23 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

Nightwriter wrote...

BioWare, ME2 WAS NOT REFERENTIAL ENOUGH TO ME1.

Christ, I was scandalized by how much I felt like ME1 ceased to matter in ME2.

This.

[AntiChri5]

Christmas, a standalone novel is not a part of a trilogy. Being a part of a trilogy implies there will be things referenced by the prior works. Quite a lot of them.



Is there something different about games? That games should be classified differently then movies or books in?

[ScooterPie88]

Christmas Ape wrote...

I don't know about that IGN reviewer, but I like my game sequels to be sequels, not just completely unrelated games with a franchise title on it.

Then you've been spoiled by Mass Effect, because I can't think of a single game beforehand in which decisions from the first game impacted the sequel. I'm willing to proven wrong, but I bet for every example of connected sequels one could find there's a dozen that are even less connected than Mass Effect/Mass Effect 2.

Maybe your choices aren't carried over but games like Halo and while I do loathe it COD Modern Warfare continue each other.  They don't have choices to be made but they do continue their respective stories. 

[Therion942]

Christmas Ape wrote...

AntiChri5 wrote...
If that is the case then it isn't a trilogy.

Hm. "A set of three literary or dramatic works related in subject or theme." I wonder if you could find some common thread between the Mass Effect games...

Oh you mean the guy or gal that could be replaced by anyone, whose significance is so severely diminished that his only defining attributes are whether he's a lawful stupid boyscout or chaotic derp douchebag, a character whose past galaxy shattering accomplishments are swept under the rug, whose past life is completely forgotten in the span of two years, so much so to the point where the character itself doesn't even talk about what it did?

Some thread.

[Fiery Phoenix]

ME3 can't be any more stand-alone than its predecessor. It's just flawed logic if it does happen.



Also, my response to whoever said ME2 was overly referential:

[Mister Mida]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

Also, my response to whoever said ME2 was overly referential:

That was funny

[Jebel Krong]

Nightwriter wrote...

Well I realize that as an ME1 player I will always think they should favor me over new players. I'm aware this is blatantly selfish, so I force myself to accept that BioWare will never do this, it's not only counterproductive to sales, it isn't fair to new gamers.

However I think if they were always going to try and accommodate new gamers they shouldn't have advertised the trilogy aspect so much.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

And they did.

The universe of Mass Effect does change by your actions: you get it more from the lore and the news about how the galaxy is running. You do have carry over choices, they do shape the context of the universe, it is a pretty new idea to try and implement, and we are seeing consequences and implications travel with us.

The game play doesn't change much, but that's a different bird entirely, and something they didn't promise.

Dean, ME2 was a giant reboot. A startover. Everything was reset. It made ME1 absolutely meaningless.

no, dean is right - things are different depending on what you did in me1. granted they aren't galaxy-changing events in and of themselves, but we've only got to the end of part 2 of the trilogy, and i think people kinda expected a little too much in this area - it has to be technologically feasible to implement given all the choices you could make in me1, let alone 2. from a business point of view it would be commercial suicide not to include new players (especially as video game sequels tend to sell much better than the 1st in a series).

Bennyjammin79 wrote...

I've never read a trilogy where the individual novels are 'stand alone". I think the same should apply to videogames. If a new player wants to know the story, they should have to start at the beginning.

 seriously? apart from the fact that books are not games are not films, every series i've ever read is composed of stand-alone titles that link together into trilogies etc. your last suggestion is business suicide.

As for IGN, they are as biased as all the other review sites, but at least they've always liked the ME series and promoted it, and given it's merits, that can only be a good thing.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 25 octobre 2010 - 03:39 .

[Epic777]

Nightwriter wrote...

Gibb, I don't think I've ever read a review so horrendous, I have the desire to burn down IGN headquarters just to erase the article from existence before BioWare sees.

BioWare, ME2 WAS NOT REFERENTIAL ENOUGH TO ME1.

Christ, I was scandalized by how much I felt like ME1 ceased to matter in ME2.

Of course you have. there is the classic reader PC review of "waaahhh!  this does not run/run well on my PC 1/10"

Modifié par Epic777, 25 octobre 2010 - 03:42 .