318 réponses à ce sujet

[maxut85]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

maxut85 wrote...

Archereon wrote...

maxut85 wrote...

Gorn Kregore wrote...

I'm sorry but, I highly doubt Bioware is capable of making a good or even okay multiplayer game without screwing it up.

I bet many people thought bioware was incapable of making a game with good shooting mechanics. But somehow ME2 it ended up getting some of the best review scores bioware has ever gotten.

Lol?  The shooter mechanics in ME2 are ****** poor due to bad level design.  Except for the rare blessing of fighting melee enemies, most fights are pathetically repetitive.

nice opinion dude.

Yes it's an opinion as is what anyone thinks about any game. And what was your point? At least he contributes to something...

I agree with Achereon. Well, I wouldn't say ****** poor, but it's very, very repetitive and makes the level design flaws even more apparent. Each missions are made in the same way, play the same way and are relatively long. Usually I prefer the later, but when there's nothing to see, not so much. Play again ME1, all missions play differently, they don't all have the same formula, same with the relatively boring and repetitive exploration quests, but at least they didn't have the very same formula as the main missions themselves. That's another big flaw in ME2, you either have the same very repetitive shooting, or your less numerous than before rpg quests, no in between. And the conversation with lacklustre options.

but dude you keep saying this stuff like its a fact. I"m going to tell you right now it is not a fact that ME 2 has "repetitive" shooting gameplay. He acted like it was a fact that ME 2 had repetitive gameplay and I was rediculous for not thinking the same way. Seriously dude two people can't think differently about a game ?

[TheShogunOfHarlem]

Recon64bit wrote...

COD sucks, if anything they should model it after Bad Company or Battlefront. Both those games have much more interesting gameplay than the typical, and repetitive run and gun garbage of COD.

Agreed. The COD series starting with COD 4, in my opinion, has the most overrated MP I've ever played. BFBC is a better experience but it falls short for not having prone. (same issue with SP) With vehicles, bigger maps and destructible environments, it allowed for more tactical gameplay. (not on the level I would wish but it worked) However in my MP experience the most enjoyable time I've had was playing GTA 4 MP.  

[maxut85]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

maxut85 wrote...

Da_Lion_Man wrote...

maxut85 wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...


Yes, but while the shooter mechanics were better, the level design took a plunge. Where was the more open environments which gave you a sense of place? Instead we get corridors after corridors, basically they took a step forward and two backwards. Also, there's no more interactive spaces during missions, ie. you could talk to people and do mini-quests in the science base in Noveria (more RPG-like) while now we just get an average third person shooter corridor-type mission. As I said, the shooting mechanics are a lot better, but they got the missions themselves wrong, they turned too much the game into a shooter while it's supposed to be an rpg, that's the best way to make a compelling universe like this one into a better one and more easily immersive.

you might now like it better but it's generally accepted by reviews that ME2 is much better than ME 1. And I personally didn't feel like it was corridors after corridors at all.

You mean reviews are fact?

well no but reviews are a pretty accurate way of telling you if a game is good or not. You might think they took two steps backwards. but me and many other people like it better the way it is. Theres really nothing for you to complain about if most people like ME 2 better and it got better reviews.

That's a bit naive. I thought it was consensus that big reviewers are bull**** <_< Unfortunately it seems it's not the case. Most reviewer nowadays will praise anything that is more easy to play, more akin to a movie than video games and other unwanted things. Plus, it's known that they're sold, I thought it was pretty obvious and proven several times. I could write two pages on how Splinter Cell Conviction is bull****, how it destroyed the series, how the story makes no sense and how it obviously catered to the Call of Duty demograph (a franchise that is highly acclaimed yet sucks on all accounts after the release of Call of Duty 2) yet it got high scores from everyone.

Often, a game being good or not is opinion. Yes you can often objectively tells that something works or not, that something makes this or that better, but it's often all a matter of opinion. Also, like I like to say it's not because Britney Spears is popular that she's good, and pre-release hype =/= quality. Reviews mean nothing really, it doesn't reflect the community's opinion, only the biaised view of the writers.

Okay, I've been a bit far with the corridors after corridors thing - as there's open spaces with plenty of cover and different ways to get to an engagement - and I've started a new game just now, but my point still stands. Missions are nothing more than go from point A to point B, open spaces or not. No mini-qests within them either, it's purely shooting (or anything else the your class allows you) and doing some talks here and there. There's no connected spaces which makes sense, take Noveria again, look how the science base is all well-made and connected and not just big rooms connected by corriders all the way through, bases, areas feel like bases or areas. There's a really apparent disconnect feel in ME2 despite the vastly superior shooting mechanics.

And then, I can't believe how anyone can say the conversation system is of any good. Play KOTOR, you'll know how much the system took a quality plunge. You barely have any choice, being stricly paragon or stricly renegade is the only encouraged ways as they both offer you everything and sticking to a grey road in more of an handicap than a choice giving you advantages over certain circumstances. Some people shouldn't react favoribly to you to both paragon and renegade options, there's just so much of these cases, basically conversations are only you asking for more information than anything else.

Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy ME2 and ME1, but both have their faults and both have a big deal of problems making anyone saying the game is good as it gets, someone who easily settles for less. Not gamebreaking problems, but plenty of little (and not so little) things which should be corrected. People should at least view these as refinements rather than patching (nonexistent to them) problems. Otherwise we'll get ME2 part 2 and not just me and people thinking like me will be disappointed.

"Most reviewer nowadays will praise anything that is more easy to play" well I think this is a pretty lame excuse. The majority of people (not just reviewers) did in f act like ME 2 more than ME 1. Atleast as far as I know. If you go to gamespot,ign, and metacritic. (probably other websites too. The "user" score for ME 2 is higher than ME 1 everytime. I'm just saying that that's evidence that most people dissagree with your ipinion that ME 2 is repetitive. It might be true that the reviewers are just praising things that are easier to play. But apparently thats what the majority is doing anyway. So why would they cater to you guys instead ?

Onto your opinion about the dialogue system. I am highly attached to kotor It was my first rpg when I was 10 years old. I really cherish how much fun I had playing it. I thought the dialogue system was amazing. But I think mass effect in many ways has a better dialogue system. I don't exactly know how to explain it but the ME dialogue system is really cool. It makes you feel like your really talking if that makes sense. And I prefer it. In fact I think it's so good that more rpg developers should really adopt the system. Anway thats just my opinion I really did like the old dialogue system too.

[MadCat221]

-Skorpious- wrote...

MadCat221 wrote...

If it is meant to "appeal to a Call of Duty" market...
I predict that there will be only human male characters, no alien races, and no biotic/tech powers, just guns.

Anything beyond that would be too hard for a "Call of Duty market" to comprehend.

You do know that the most recent Call of Duty has 50+ weapons, about 7 attachments per weapon, over 25 different grenades/special equipment, and a selection of about 35 playstyle-changing perks and killstreaks. What does ME have? About 18 weapons overall and 6 talents per class?

Don't be so quick to deem the "Call of Duty market" brainless when ME2 is inferior in, well, rpg gameplay mechanics.

And besides, pointing out the fact that CoD players will only tolerate playing a human character is completely rediculous when you consider that CoD takes place in modern times, thus, the CoD fanbase has never been exposed to playing as a different species before..

I point to the ME2 statistic that the number of people playing Soldier outnumbers all the others combined.  Why bother with non-Soldier classes if no one's gonna use them?  I also point to the overall blandness and Maddenization of the franchise, leading to homogenity.  Case in point.  The alien races, especially the Asari, would definitely not be homogeneous and palatable to such a crowd.

How many of those guns are redundant and put in for the simple sake of gun pr0n?

I will be pleasantly surprised if there's more depth to this game than the dry lake level that CoD has now, but I won't be holding my breath since they used the analogy of Call of Duty.

Modifié par MadCat221, 21 novembre 2010 - 12:04 .

[TheShogunOfHarlem]

Back to the OP: My personal feelings on MP aren't really positive. I suppose that my expectations were too high. Basically, I was hoping for smart tactical gameplay. What I experienced is moronic running and gunning. It appears to be the status quo for all MP games to a point that I don't at all care about MP nor do I abide it's popularity. Unfortunately, this has led to SP gaming slowly waning in innovation and relevance. Every game developer out appears to be trying to capitalize on the popularity of MP at the cost of having a meaningful SP experience. Worst yet is that the MP developers appear to be catering to the LCD of games. It's gotten so bad with FPS shooters that I have placed a temporary moratorium on myself: NO FPS or TPS or any games that aren't made by Bioware or Rockstar games. (the only two companies with great, meaningful SP experiences)



I don't care if BW has a MP spinoff of the ME series, but I hope it doesn't conform to the status quo that is the current state of MP gaming.

[Evil Johnny 666]

maxut85 wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

maxut85 wrote...

Archereon wrote...

maxut85 wrote...

Gorn Kregore wrote...

I'm sorry but, I highly doubt Bioware is capable of making a good or even okay multiplayer game without screwing it up.

I bet many people thought bioware was incapable of making a game with good shooting mechanics. But somehow ME2 it ended up getting some of the best review scores bioware has ever gotten.

Lol?  The shooter mechanics in ME2 are ****** poor due to bad level design.  Except for the rare blessing of fighting melee enemies, most fights are pathetically repetitive.

nice opinion dude.

Yes it's an opinion as is what anyone thinks about any game. And what was your point? At least he contributes to something...

I agree with Achereon. Well, I wouldn't say ****** poor, but it's very, very repetitive and makes the level design flaws even more apparent. Each missions are made in the same way, play the same way and are relatively long. Usually I prefer the later, but when there's nothing to see, not so much. Play again ME1, all missions play differently, they don't all have the same formula, same with the relatively boring and repetitive exploration quests, but at least they didn't have the very same formula as the main missions themselves. That's another big flaw in ME2, you either have the same very repetitive shooting, or your less numerous than before rpg quests, no in between. And the conversation with lacklustre options.

but dude you keep saying this stuff like its a fact. I"m going to tell you right now it is not a fact that ME 2 has "repetitive" shooting gameplay. He acted like it was a fact that ME 2 had repetitive gameplay and I was rediculous for not thinking the same way. Seriously dude two people can't think differently about a game ?

Huh? Do we need to say IMO every time we say something? It's obviously our opinion. Though things can be more objective than others, repetitive is something repeated to great lenghts without much variation, wich can sum up pretty well ME2's gameplay. In fact, go play back ME1, you'll realize how many more enemies you kill in ME2 and how frequently it is. Having said that, that doesn't meant repetition is a bad thing, I've myself said that I think Gears of War being repetitive and long was a good thing, but here, IMO, I think it's a disservice to the game.

He may think it's ridiculous for someone to not think like he does, but it's an opinion. Hell, everyone should think their opinion is the right one, else why believe in what you believe? There's no debating otherwise if we're only exchanging point of views while saying IMO, it's your opinion all the time... debating is about trying to make people see your point and side with you (the latter being very hard, though I am myself very open and critical to everything), if you show the "consensus" card and opinion thing all the time, why have forums?

[shinobi602]

Apparently there's been another barcode in another VGA teaser trailer:



It leads to this website with the word "Murder".

http://m.spike.com/l...Txmfl4mF91rAA**

[Waage25]

shinobi602 wrote...

Apparently there's been another barcode in another VGA teaser trailer:



It leads to this website with the word "Murder".

http://m.spike.com/l...Txmfl4mF91rAA**

Looks like a penis to me.

[Evil Johnny 666]

maxut85 wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...



That's a bit naive. I thought it was consensus that big reviewers are bull**** <_< Unfortunately it seems it's not the case. Most reviewer nowadays will praise anything that is more easy to play, more akin to a movie than video games and other unwanted things. Plus, it's known that they're sold, I thought it was pretty obvious and proven several times. I could write two pages on how Splinter Cell Conviction is bull****, how it destroyed the series, how the story makes no sense and how it obviously catered to the Call of Duty demograph (a franchise that is highly acclaimed yet sucks on all accounts after the release of Call of Duty 2) yet it got high scores from everyone.

Often, a game being good or not is opinion. Yes you can often objectively tells that something works or not, that something makes this or that better, but it's often all a matter of opinion. Also, like I like to say it's not because Britney Spears is popular that she's good, and pre-release hype =/= quality. Reviews mean nothing really, it doesn't reflect the community's opinion, only the biaised view of the writers.

Okay, I've been a bit far with the corridors after corridors thing - as there's open spaces with plenty of cover and different ways to get to an engagement - and I've started a new game just now, but my point still stands. Missions are nothing more than go from point A to point B, open spaces or not. No mini-qests within them either, it's purely shooting (or anything else the your class allows you) and doing some talks here and there. There's no connected spaces which makes sense, take Noveria again, look how the science base is all well-made and connected and not just big rooms connected by corriders all the way through, bases, areas feel like bases or areas. There's a really apparent disconnect feel in ME2 despite the vastly superior shooting mechanics.

And then, I can't believe how anyone can say the conversation system is of any good. Play KOTOR, you'll know how much the system took a quality plunge. You barely have any choice, being stricly paragon or stricly renegade is the only encouraged ways as they both offer you everything and sticking to a grey road in more of an handicap than a choice giving you advantages over certain circumstances. Some people shouldn't react favoribly to you to both paragon and renegade options, there's just so much of these cases, basically conversations are only you asking for more information than anything else.

Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy ME2 and ME1, but both have their faults and both have a big deal of problems making anyone saying the game is good as it gets, someone who easily settles for less. Not gamebreaking problems, but plenty of little (and not so little) things which should be corrected. People should at least view these as refinements rather than patching (nonexistent to them) problems. Otherwise we'll get ME2 part 2 and not just me and people thinking like me will be disappointed.

"Most reviewer nowadays will praise anything that is more easy to play" well I think this is a pretty lame excuse. The majority of people (not just reviewers) did in f act like ME 2 more than ME 1. Atleast as far as I know. If you go to gamespot,ign, and metacritic. (probably other websites too. The "user" score for ME 2 is higher than ME 1 everytime. I'm just saying that that's evidence that most people dissagree with your ipinion that ME 2 is repetitive. It might be true that the reviewers are just praising things that are easier to play. But apparently thats what the majority is doing anyway. So why would they cater to you guys instead ?

Onto your opinion about the dialogue system. I am highly attached to kotor It was my first rpg when I was 10 years old. I really cherish how much fun I had playing it. I thought the dialogue system was amazing. But I think mass effect in many ways has a better dialogue system. I don't exactly know how to explain it but the ME dialogue system is really cool. It makes you feel like your really talking if that makes sense. And I prefer it. In fact I think it's so good that more rpg developers should really adopt the system. Anway thats just my opinion I really did like the old dialogue system too.

Well the technology makes the dialogue system better in a way because it's more realistic, but I don't see what else but the choices themselves makes a dialogue better. Truth is, KOTOR had a LOT more choices and depth. I'd rather have a less polished system than a dumbed down one. I wouldn't want other rpgs use that system because it fundementally offers nothing except cool cinematic-like dialogues in exchange for depth. I'd rather read text throughout all of Oblivion like in Morrowind, rather than have a really, really dumbed down conversation system and dialogues, Morrowind offered thrice.

Second, don't take simple internet correlation as 'evidence', sure, my opinion may not be the most adopted, but that doesn't make such argumentation more valid, nor my opinion less valid than what the majority thinks. Let me use my Britney Spears thing again, is she good because she's popular? She sucks (opinion of most here I suppose) yet she sells a great deal, that's a dumb argument. MOST players don't bother going on video games forum in case you didn't know, casual gamers or infrequent players (don,t see that as a pejorative) usually don't visit such forums as other more hard core gamers. Scores and some people opinion on forums is a poor indication. And well, I've seen plenty of posts right here of people who have similar thoughts as me. And these scores mean nothing as people can change opinions, sometimes people score a game when they just played it and after a couple of months change their stance. Adding to that, my main point on reviewers wasn't that anyway, it was that they will never give a poor score or review to games from big studios. Otherwise Team Xbox wouldn't have been shut down for months directly after giving FFXIII a bad score TWO times (the first on a version that couldn't be completed) and Gamespot wouldn't have fired someone who gave Kane and Lynch a bad score. But the point you quoted was poorly worded and came from experience; how often did I read that those reviewers prefer things which make a game, less a game and more like an interactive movie or something that plays by itself? They're down-talking difficulty curves over achievements, game DEPTH over simplicity, etc. Hell, just reading those Black Ops or Splinter Cell Conviction reviews gave me shivers... Reviews are non-informative as they get too, they don't talk about all the little things that make a game good, they don't talk about much really. Good graphics, spectacular cinematics and high octane action sequences, only fancy qualitatives instead of actual game mechanics and what makes a game good. Reading a ME2 reviews also shows this, often you wouldn't even know it's a sequel, they barely make any comparison.

[Evil Johnny 666]

TheShogunOfHarlem wrote...

Back to the OP: My personal feelings on MP aren't really positive. I suppose that my expectations were too high. Basically, I was hoping for smart tactical gameplay. What I experienced is moronic running and gunning. It appears to be the status quo for all MP games to a point that I don't at all care about MP nor do I abide it's popularity. Unfortunately, this has led to SP gaming slowly waning in innovation and relevance. Every game developer out appears to be trying to capitalize on the popularity of MP at the cost of having a meaningful SP experience. Worst yet is that the MP developers appear to be catering to the LCD of games. It's gotten so bad with FPS shooters that I have placed a temporary moratorium on myself: NO FPS or TPS or any games that aren't made by Bioware or Rockstar games. (the only two companies with great, meaningful SP experiences)

I don't care if BW has a MP spinoff of the ME series, but I hope it doesn't conform to the status quo that is the current state of MP gaming.

Totally agreed, shooters is even more saturated than before, each and everyone one of them coming out nowadays play the same. Unfortunately people are dumb enough to keep buying the same game all over again for 60 bucks. The only shooter franchise I respect (and their later output wasn't as good as I hoped) is Halo. Halo has a story, a universe and a unique gameplay. It didn't change much, but it didn't really needed too, all it had to do is make a compelling military sci-fi experience and for the most part it did. No other fps franchise ever made me care for its universe or story, it's all the same modern warfare rehashed bull**** we see all the time. Ghost Recon was a great tactical shooter and hopefully the next Operation Flashpoint won't be as broken.

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 21 novembre 2010 - 02:29 .

[Aleksandar Shepard]

Kirabi wrote...

Aleksandar Shepard wrote...

If that rumor is true than I'm sorry to say that it sucks.Mass Effect should remain what it is = an RPG/FPS hybrid.
I understand that Bioware is trying to milk more money from ME, but I strongly suggest that they do it AFTER ME3.

So Bioware, stop wasting times on this and finnish up with ME2 DLCs and work on ME3 than later start a multiplayer.

DON'T screw this up!

So many things wrong with this post

A.If you notice Mass effect has full deep story and they flesh out a large believeable universe.Saying Mass effect should remain what it is silly ,the Mass effect universe is to good not to use in other forms."Mass Effect" Shepard story should remain a RPG/FPS hybrid but Mass effect"The FPS",Mass effect"The RTS",Mass effect"The Cartoon",Mass effect"the comic",Mass effect"The Movie" are totally different things and has no effect on Shepard story Mass effect which brings me to the next point

B.What does  Mass effect game with Multiplayer have to do with Mass effect 3?Is Bioware incapable of working on two games at the same time?Does this mean that Dragon age 2 and The Old republic are slowing down Mass effect 3.? Come on now Bioware has tons of resources and since they have no multiplayer experiance it is fair to say they would have to hire lots of people do this.How do i know this because they had do for ToR.

It is silly to think this game would have any effect on ME 3 infact the people who work on ME2 DLC are not ones working ME 3 they are  a separate group of people.ME 3 already has it team and already been work on this good awhile.Mass effect "pure FPS/TPS" with multiplayer would be run by a different bioware studio and would have to hire lots of people with multiplayer background to make it.

I have only one answer to your A and B statements;

They should not make Mass Effect shooter before ME3 is finnished.They should finnish Shepards story  before they engage in new ME project.It's just right order of things.And if they plan to release it after ME3, they should give us news about ME3, not allow this shooter rumor to leak or post that pictures (Yes they did allowed it to leak and assume form of rumor so they could see reaction of fans) before trilogy is completed.

Personally I don't like shooters and I was hoping for new RPG or even RTS would be more acceptable.As i said I'm not fan of shooters but everyone can easily see that ME just doesn't fit.Only way to make it acceptable is to allow only soldier/infiltrator type class in that multiplayer shooter.Bringing adepts, engineers, sentinels, vanguards will just mess up balance (and don't forget that in shooter upgrading and learning skill is not possible so you just work with whats given to you), and also those classes would probablly drow away shooter players other than ME fans (most of those ppl don't like unatural things, i know that from a fact).I understand that Bioware wants to grow larger in game industry but they are already excellent RPG creators and if they want to see this shooter thing to its end they should make sure that ppl who endorse their work ( mostly RPG players) will accept this new idea ( I don't accept it, but that individual opinion) or else this can ruin their reputation.

I know they are perfectly capable to work on multiple projects, but they are engaging in MMORPG realm that we all know is ruled by Blizzards World of Warcraft.That beast "ate" most of MMORPG games that tried to join the market
( Age of Conan, Warhammer......), but lets assume that The Old Republic stand up to WoW and become same as popular as WoW was for last 6 years.That would require full focus on ToR.Even Blizzard needed alot of time to launch some new games.

Anyway my conclusion is that they don't need this kind of project atm, not until they finnish ones they started!They should slow down abit.

[TheTWF]

I don't suppose anyone here understands the concept of "vote with your wallets"? 

No of course not. Protesting today equals complaining on blogs.

I personally think there not even remotely enough info right now to make judgments.

[pinskyyang]

already to many shooters like that on the market...

[Aleksandar Shepard]

Jasko_45 wrote...

already to many shooters like that on the market...

So true! 

Mass Effect kind of RPGs is unique by itself, with deep story and very nice universe( in my opinion even better than star wars one) and if Bioware drops it after Shepard's story for making another god forsaken shooter (like we don't have those enough) it will be "picked up" by another large gaming company, maybe not same universe but it will be similar enough to pull Bioware RPG fans, yet different enough to avoid legal conflict with Bioware.It's just the way game industry works!

[zazei]

Just more evidence that Bioware isn't the company to go to if a person want singel player RPG's anymore. I honestly don't care about this one way or another and I sure won't play/buy it. I'm looking forward to Obsidian's games far more then anything Bioware does these days. Might not be as polished but doubt we will ever hear them say they won't be using the name RPG so much because it might scare people off.

[Forsythia]

If it's a spinoff, I don't mind. If ME3 is going to be anything like CoD, however, I'll be done with BioWare.

[bjdbwea]

zazei wrote...

Just more evidence that Bioware isn't the company to go to if a person want single player RPG's anymore. I honestly don't care about this one way or another and I sure won't play/buy it. I'm looking forward to Obsidian's games far more then anything Bioware does these days. Might not be as polished but doubt we will ever hear them say they won't be using the name RPG so much because it might scare people off.

I agree. Of course I wouldn't buy this game either, but unfortunately it also says a lot about BioWare and EA. ME 2 was in my opinion already very disappointing as a successor to ME 1. LotSB was of course fantastic, but it was only a DLC. This rumor (if true) tells me that BioWare/EA seem to think that the mainstream means everything, and RPG fans little to nothing. If anything, we can pay to get some proper content some time after release, once the shooter crowd has moved to the next shiny new shooter.

What a difference to Bethesda and Obsidian. Fallout: New Vegas is actually more complex than Fallout 3. And already that game managed to a) transform a popular RPG series to modern standards without losing most of what made the series great, and create a working hybrid between shooter / action and RPG / tactics. And they didn't feel the need to dumb down the successor either. They were not afraid to develop an RPG and sell it as an RPG, even on consoles.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 21 novembre 2010 - 03:17 .

[Kurt Cobain]

I hope another developer than Bioware takes on the multiplayer.

[Kurt Cobain]

maybe respawn entertainment..?

[gadna13]

zazei wrote...

Just more evidence that Bioware isn't the company to go to if a person want singel player RPG's anymore. I honestly don't care about this one way or another and I sure won't play/buy it. I'm looking forward to Obsidian's games far more then anything Bioware does these days. Might not be as polished but doubt we will ever hear them say they won't be using the name RPG so much because it might scare people off.

What evidence? We don't even know what this game will be yet. Everything out so far is speculation. One site says they got leaked evidence that its multiplayer but then another says they have leaked info that it's ME3.

If we find out that it is a shooter then obviously your opinion is your opinion and there is no need to change it. I personally would probably not enjoy a ME shooter neither. But I am hopefull that this 'new game' (if it's not just shots for ME3) would be a different genre than the basic FPS.

[heretica]

Well, I still hope it's Mass Effect 3. We will see.



I don't see why they would make a Mass Effect multiplayer game or anything related to Mass Effect while the triology is not complete. Makes no sense.



I'd say it's DLC, but they don't make such a huge hype over DLC...

[Evil Johnny 666]

Catt128 wrote...

Well, I still hope it's Mass Effect 3. We will see.

I don't see why they would make a Mass Effect multiplayer game or anything related to Mass Effect while the triology is not complete. Makes no sense.

I'd say it's DLC, but they don't make such a huge hype over DLC...

While I don't really want to see a Mass Effect FPS, I don't see why it wouldn't be possible before ME3. Spin offs aren't a rare thing and they mostly don't deal with the main storyline, thus not interfering. It will most likely not bridge ME2 and ME3 since that would work agaisnt those who are not interested in shooters and want the whole Mass Effect trilogy experience, this role is for bridging DLC. But, since it's made by another studio (Bioware Montreal) it can work as a hype machine tool for Bioware by releasing the spin off before ME3 by fleshing out a bit the universe and giving a taste to players, like the books do. Not everyone are interested in them, but the biggest fans of the series will dwelve in them and get all the more hyped for the final chapter. Plus, they'll be catering to a broader audience, maybe getting some of the Modern Warfare crowd into trying ME3 if it is successfull, as it was one of ME2's goals which didn't work out so well. I can easily see Bioware trying to attract a new crowd into ME3 by actually making a game that would interest that crowd, while at the same time building hype for ME3. Because hype is all that matters for first week sales and pre-orders.

[maxut85]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

maxut85 wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...



That's a bit naive. I thought it was consensus that big reviewers are bull**** <_< Unfortunately it seems it's not the case. Most reviewer nowadays will praise anything that is more easy to play, more akin to a movie than video games and other unwanted things. Plus, it's known that they're sold, I thought it was pretty obvious and proven several times. I could write two pages on how Splinter Cell Conviction is bull****, how it destroyed the series, how the story makes no sense and how it obviously catered to the Call of Duty demograph (a franchise that is highly acclaimed yet sucks on all accounts after the release of Call of Duty 2) yet it got high scores from everyone.

Often, a game being good or not is opinion. Yes you can often objectively tells that something works or not, that something makes this or that better, but it's often all a matter of opinion. Also, like I like to say it's not because Britney Spears is popular that she's good, and pre-release hype =/= quality. Reviews mean nothing really, it doesn't reflect the community's opinion, only the biaised view of the writers.

Okay, I've been a bit far with the corridors after corridors thing - as there's open spaces with plenty of cover and different ways to get to an engagement - and I've started a new game just now, but my point still stands. Missions are nothing more than go from point A to point B, open spaces or not. No mini-qests within them either, it's purely shooting (or anything else the your class allows you) and doing some talks here and there. There's no connected spaces which makes sense, take Noveria again, look how the science base is all well-made and connected and not just big rooms connected by corriders all the way through, bases, areas feel like bases or areas. There's a really apparent disconnect feel in ME2 despite the vastly superior shooting mechanics.

And then, I can't believe how anyone can say the conversation system is of any good. Play KOTOR, you'll know how much the system took a quality plunge. You barely have any choice, being stricly paragon or stricly renegade is the only encouraged ways as they both offer you everything and sticking to a grey road in more of an handicap than a choice giving you advantages over certain circumstances. Some people shouldn't react favoribly to you to both paragon and renegade options, there's just so much of these cases, basically conversations are only you asking for more information than anything else.

Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy ME2 and ME1, but both have their faults and both have a big deal of problems making anyone saying the game is good as it gets, someone who easily settles for less. Not gamebreaking problems, but plenty of little (and not so little) things which should be corrected. People should at least view these as refinements rather than patching (nonexistent to them) problems. Otherwise we'll get ME2 part 2 and not just me and people thinking like me will be disappointed.

"Most reviewer nowadays will praise anything that is more easy to play" well I think this is a pretty lame excuse. The majority of people (not just reviewers) did in f act like ME 2 more than ME 1. Atleast as far as I know. If you go to gamespot,ign, and metacritic. (probably other websites too. The "user" score for ME 2 is higher than ME 1 everytime. I'm just saying that that's evidence that most people dissagree with your ipinion that ME 2 is repetitive. It might be true that the reviewers are just praising things that are easier to play. But apparently thats what the majority is doing anyway. So why would they cater to you guys instead ?

Onto your opinion about the dialogue system. I am highly attached to kotor It was my first rpg when I was 10 years old. I really cherish how much fun I had playing it. I thought the dialogue system was amazing. But I think mass effect in many ways has a better dialogue system. I don't exactly know how to explain it but the ME dialogue system is really cool. It makes you feel like your really talking if that makes sense. And I prefer it. In fact I think it's so good that more rpg developers should really adopt the system. Anway thats just my opinion I really did like the old dialogue system too.

Well the technology makes the dialogue system better in a way because it's more realistic, but I don't see what else but the choices themselves makes a dialogue better. Truth is, KOTOR had a LOT more choices and depth. I'd rather have a less polished system than a dumbed down one. I wouldn't want other rpgs use that system because it fundementally offers nothing except cool cinematic-like dialogues in exchange for depth. I'd rather read text throughout all of Oblivion like in Morrowind, rather than have a really, really dumbed down conversation system and dialogues, Morrowind offered thrice.

Second, don't take simple internet correlation as 'evidence', sure, my opinion may not be the most adopted, but that doesn't make such argumentation more valid, nor my opinion less valid than what the majority thinks. Let me use my Britney Spears thing again, is she good because she's popular? She sucks (opinion of most here I suppose) yet she sells a great deal, that's a dumb argument. MOST players don't bother going on video games forum in case you didn't know, casual gamers or infrequent players (don,t see that as a pejorative) usually don't visit such forums as other more hard core gamers. Scores and some people opinion on forums is a poor indication. And well, I've seen plenty of posts right here of people who have similar thoughts as me. And these scores mean nothing as people can change opinions, sometimes people score a game when they just played it and after a couple of months change their stance. Adding to that, my main point on reviewers wasn't that anyway, it was that they will never give a poor score or review to games from big studios. Otherwise Team Xbox wouldn't have been shut down for months directly after giving FFXIII a bad score TWO times (the first on a version that couldn't be completed) and Gamespot wouldn't have fired someone who gave Kane and Lynch a bad score. But the point you quoted was poorly worded and came from experience; how often did I read that those reviewers prefer things which make a game, less a game and more like an interactive movie or something that plays by itself? They're down-talking difficulty curves over achievements, game DEPTH over simplicity, etc. Hell, just reading those Black Ops or Splinter Cell Conviction reviews gave me shivers... Reviews are non-informative as they get too, they don't talk about all the little things that make a game good, they don't talk about much really. Good graphics, spectacular cinematics and high octane action sequences, only fancy qualitatives instead of actual game mechanics and what makes a game good. Reading a ME2 reviews also shows this, often you wouldn't even know it's a sequel, they barely make any comparison.

  I do see that there is more depth in the kotor system. And that's a pretty good advantage. I was actually pretty dissapointed when they announced DA2 wouldn't have it. But I think theres also a great advantage in the way the ME system makes you feel. It's also worth pointing out that bioware probably does not want to keep the same conversation system in all of their games. After you've played kotor1 &2, jade empire, and dragon age. You might want something new. Even if it pissses off some of the more hardcore fans.

"my opinion may not be the most adopted, but that doesn't make such argumentation more valid, nor my opinion less valid" But it kind of annoys me that you're saying you can have an objective opinion about weither a video game is good or not. Thats just bewildering to me. All video games are are preferences. Some people enjoy playing pac-man. But I'm sure you could try to prove objectively that it's a bad game. But who really cares. ? You can try to prove mass effect 2 is a worse game but if the majority of people dissagree with you why would you ? I find it funny. It's like saying " choclate ice cream sucks!" and come up with all these reasons why it's true. 

[Evil Johnny 666]

I never said some games being good is an objective opinion, hell that statement is a contradiction in itself, I said some elements could be considered objective. ie. a buggy half assed [insert generic game genre combat style] sucks compared to a more refined, bug free one with a lot of depth. A soundtrack reusing all the same tracks sucks. But then I don't know why we're talking about opinions and such, people have opinions... people thinking their opinion is fact merely have a strong one, believe in what they say and defend their point, there's no denying it's still an opinion, why make a fuss out of it?

[maxut85]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

I never said some games being good is an objective opinion, hell that statement is a contradiction in itself, I said some elements could be considered objective. ie. a buggy half assed [insert generic game genre combat style] sucks compared to a more refined, bug free one with a lot of depth. A soundtrack reusing all the same tracks sucks. But then I don't know why we're talking about opinions and such, people have opinions... people thinking their opinion is fact merely have a strong one, believe in what they say and defend their point, there's no denying it's still an opinion, why make a fuss out of it?

"I never said some games being good is an objective opinion," um alright I definatly got the impression you did. Especially defending the post from Archereon saying ME 2 had ****** poor combat due to bad level design. Anyway it doesn't really matter I think we've debated this into oblivion.