121 réponses à ce sujet

[Pacifien]

Nozybidaj wrote...
I've often wondered where exactly does all this "feedback" come from if not from fans and the forum.  I've not once in the 20+ years I've been playing video games been sent a survey or given a form to submit feedback through to a developer.  I suppose today they are using electronic feedback through online means but in the end that is really just data without context and in my own job I know how difficult that can be to interpret correctly.  Do they rely on feedback from reviewers and review sites?  Yikes, thats a scary thought.  Even if they conduct their own external user testing I can't imagine it is a more significant sampling of a population than what the forums offer.  Where exactly does this feedback come from?  Especially when put in the context that feedback on a forum should be taken lightly.

Forums are a form of feedback. It might not be a developers forum, but I wouldn't extend that to the idea that developers don't ever glance at the forums.

Sales are a form of feedback. If something didn't sell well, you likely won't be seeing it in the future.

People send emails or, back in the old days, letters with feedback.

Conventions are a prime venue for feedback where developers have a chance to talk one on one with fans.

And yes, reviews are another form of feedback.

Wherever people discuss the games, even if you happen to walk past a group having a dinner at a restaurant and they happen to be discussing your game, is a place to gather feedback. And now there is data being relayed directly from your platform to EA.

But what the developers do with that feedback is really up to them. In the end, they're going to make a game that is most enjoyable to themselves with hope that what they're creating is also enjoyable to a wide fanbase. It's an ongoing process. People point out the improvements made in LotSB which they feel should have been in the original game. What they don't take into account is that those improvements are in LotSB because of feedback from the original game. Even the developments they're making for the PS3 version all benefit from feedback they've been gathering for the past year.

Obviously, a person wants to play a game that they enjoy and providing feedback to the people developing that game help steer the mechanics more toward your liking. But no one should fool themselves in thinking their feedback will find its way into the development of the game. Nor should they assume that their own personal belief in what makes for a superior game trumps the opinions of another. In the end, the developers will make the game that they want. If it didn't work for you, I wouldn't blame other players because their feedback trumped yours. Their feedback simply fell more in line with what the developers felt would make a good game.

[Mallissin]

AntiChri5 wrote...

The green text is a way she seperates official serious business from her own panda self.
If being a moderator meant not being able to post your opinions, no-one would take the burden.

And you don't see any conflict of interest when they use their moderator status in a thread their participating in?

In fact, Pacifen didn't even respond to him, only shirking off the response by snipping down his comment and replying as "you've been naughty and don't deserve a rebuttal".

That's like a cop in plain clothes getting involved in an argument amoungst strangers and then whipping out their badge when someone disagrees with them, citing some semantic detail as an offense worthy of punishment.

It's an abuse of authority meant to censor others.

[SithLordExarKun]

Nozybidaj wrote...

Luigitornado wrote...

I came here because I enjoy Mass Effect, and wanted to talk about the story with people who enjoyed it as much as me. I didn't come here trying to convince nitpicking fans, why ME2 is a great game. Now that I find myself doing it, I'm not too sure I want to be with this community for that much longer.

Why do you feel the need to try and convince anyone of anything?

No matter what side of an issue you are on in this forum (and others like it) you are not going to convince anyone of anything. Find a thread discussing those things you want to discuss and participate in it, avoid the ones discussing things you don't want to participate in.

HAH and this coming from you? Hilarious.

[Pacifien]

Mallissin wrote...
And you don't see any conflict of interest when they use their moderator status in a thread their participating in?

Very well. There is a rule of thumb in other forums I participate in that moderators who participate in the discussion of the threads cannot then moderate within that thread. Unfortunately, as I am the only active moderator for the Mass Effect forums, that means I am **** out of luck when given the choice to participate in the discussion versus leaving myself open for moderating duties. Such was the dilemma I knew I would have to eventually face when they asked me to volunteer my time here. No opinions, no debates, nothing but moderation. This I swear to the denizens of the forums that I shall be. Once BioWare starts paying me to do this.

[Pacifien]

Mallissin wrote...
In fact, Pacifen didn't even respond to him, only shirking off the response by snipping down his comment and replying as "you've been naughty and don't deserve a rebuttal".

I suppose it didn't occur to you that I had no response to him.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Tonymac wrote...

@Pacifen,

Your wall of text critted my eyes. Really man - sheesh.

Most of us, ( I am assuming 99%) really do enjoy this game - why else would we be in the forums? We love the game. Its practically a given.

Can the game be better? Is there room for improvement? Is this a forum? Do we come here to share ideas that we think would make the game better? If I think the game can be better, does it necessarily mean that I am disappointed?

General discussions can and will cover many and just about any topics - even mild disappointment over some little this or that. Just because a few people don't like a certain aspect of the game does not mean that we all hate it, or are totally disappointed. Perhaps their voices are heard in several forum threads, perhaps they are slightly overheard, but we as citizens of this thread can see that as well.

Everyone hates a crybaby.

Oh my god exactly. I'm pretty sure everyone here loves ME2, it's just there is some of us who think there is lots of room for improvement. Seriously, where would ME3 go if no one gave criticism? It's ridiculous for people to brand those who criticise ME2 haters, it's absolutely ****ing ridiculous. We only want the the last game to be better, who doesn't want that? People are on the forums because they love the series.

Please, stop branding those who criticise ME2 haters of the game, because it is ridiculously immature and retarded.

[D.Sharrah]

Pacifen,



I just want to say thank you...I think that you do a brilliant job here on the forums. I have never felt like you have "abused your power", and always feel that you add something insightful to the discussion. I think that sometimes forumites can lose sight of the fact that you are still a fan...just as passionate as anyone else here. Keep up the good work.

[Isaidlunch]

Mallissin wrote...

It's an abuse of authority meant to censor others.

Don't you think you're blowing it out of proportion? He made a completely unnecessary comment on the length of Pacifien's post. While I don't think it was bad enough to drag out the green text it certainly wasn't an "abuse of authority" to point out it was wrong. I also thinks it's unfair to expect a moderator to have to choose between posting in a thread or moderating it.

Not trying to start a fight here but cut Pacifien some slack.

Modifié par Kazanth, 03 décembre 2010 - 02:53 .

[only1sgop]

Pacifien has my support

[Pacifien]

Man, if only I hadn't participated in this thread, I could ask people to now get back on topic or lock the topic for being hopelessly derailed.

[Tonymac]

Why do you think I've been quiet?

[Runescapeguy9]

only1sgop wrote...

Pacifien has my support

Then take a load of Pac's back and try to get the thread back on topic. One of the many things I thought ME2 did better than ME1 was the combat. Without it, even though it is certainly not the core of the game, it would not be the same.

Modifié par Runescapeguy9, 03 décembre 2010 - 03:00 .

[wulf3n]

 While the combat in ME2 "may" have been better than ME1, it still doesn't compare to a dedicated third-person shooter. I think bioware have strayed a bit too far.

While it's good to see them trying something new, they just don't have the experience in shooters, it would be like Blizzard making a racing game... wait!   their first game was a racing game  ok bad example, but my point is you stick to what you know. Bioware make rpg's, good ones, and that's what they should focus on. Instead of trying to reach a more mainstream(stupid) audience by riding the shooter wake left by halo and cod, they should be pushing the boundaries of rpg's. Let's face it you buy bioware games, because you wan't a solid rpg, with a great story. 

The main reason i prefer ME1 over ME2, was that even though it had "shooter" elements, it was still at it's heart an RPG. Just like KoToR and Jade Empire it was pushing the boundaries of the "traditional" rpg, trying new things.  

ME2 seems to have forgotten where it came from and is just trying to act like the big kids in the playground in order to fit in.

[Isaidlunch]

Well back on topic, what drew me to Mass Effect (1) in the first place was the idea of a galaxy full of adventure that I could just immerse myself in. Where I could just spend hours and hours running around soaking up the story. That may sound real corny but I love being able to lose myself in a game and that's exactly what I got with Mass Effect.



Mass Effect 2 certainly has it's flaws compared to the first game. While the story hangs by a thread at certain points I can still enjoy the game for what it is and I'm completely happy with how it turned out. The Mass Effect universe is still amazing in my opinion and I can only hope it remains that way in ME3.

[Tonymac]

XX55XX wrote...

If BioWare had stripped away most of the gameplay elements from ME2, like combat, mining, hell, even the exploration, it still would have made for an excellent interactive movie.

My point is, ME2's gameplay was solid, but it was not the reason why I picked it up at launch. The story (well, maybe not so much), the choices, and the characters were enticing. Making decisions and interacting with the characters were the game's main draw for me.

Anyone else share similar sentiments?

  I just started this game a few months back - I did not play ME1 at all.  Ergo I am lacking the experience entirely.  I see no 'change', only ME2 for what experience it gave me.

  I picked up ME2 and SC2 at the same time.  On a whim, I opened the ME2 package first - it was far smaller and sleek, looking like a lot less mess of wrapping plastic and books to read.  I put the comic back in the box, read a few lines of the 'how to' book thingy, and loaded the game.  After about say......  well....  maybe 30 seconds.... I was hooked.  Whats SC2?  *Shrugs*  Who cares?!  What I opened on a whim turned out to be my #1 game of the year hands down.

  I've played MMOs, FPS's, puzzle games, all sorts of games, but I have never seen so many forms of entertaining games  wrapped into one.  Paragon or Renegade?  Soldier, adept, infiltrator, etc.....  Makes a pretty big difference in how you play, doesn't it?  How about equipment management, rescources, what team members to choose, what heavy weapon to take.....  those make a huge outcome in how a mission goes.  Are you good at opening doors, or hacking into a system?   I hope you are, because things can get a bit harder if you don't turn off certain mechs here and there, or go into this or that room and disable certain systems.....  the better you are at the little 'mini-games' as I call them, the better the missions goe.   The point being, there is a LOT to this game.  Its an interactive game, its an FPS, with puzzles and exploration - and it tells a really amazing story - even up to the very end where the last big decision you make looks like it will have BIG TIME consequences in ME3.

  I think that the story could stand on its own, or the the FPS portion of it could also be its own game .....  but thats not what ME2 is.  ME2 is ALL of these 'factors' rolled into one game. 

  I for one would not even think of removing the combat or the storyline.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Tonymac wrote...

XX55XX wrote...

If BioWare had stripped away most of the gameplay elements from ME2, like combat, mining, hell, even the exploration, it still would have made for an excellent interactive movie.

My point is, ME2's gameplay was solid, but it was not the reason why I picked it up at launch. The story (well, maybe not so much), the choices, and the characters were enticing. Making decisions and interacting with the characters were the game's main draw for me.

Anyone else share similar sentiments?

  I just started this game a few months back - I did not play ME1 at all.  Ergo I am lacking the experience entirely.  I see no 'change', only ME2 for what experience it gave me.

  I picked up ME2 and SC2 at the same time.  On a whim, I opened the ME2 package first - it was far smaller and sleek, looking like a lot less mess of wrapping plastic and books to read.  I put the comic back in the box, read a few lines of the 'how to' book thingy, and loaded the game.  After about say......  well....  maybe 30 seconds.... I was hooked.  Whats SC2?  *Shrugs*  Who cares?!  What I opened on a whim turned out to be my #1 game of the year hands down.

  I've played MMOs, FPS's, puzzle games, all sorts of games, but I have never seen so many forms of entertaining games  wrapped into one.  Paragon or Renegade?  Soldier, adept, infiltrator, etc.....  Makes a pretty big difference in how you play, doesn't it?  How about equipment management, rescources, what team members to choose, what heavy weapon to take.....  those make a huge outcome in how a mission goes.  Are you good at opening doors, or hacking into a system?   I hope you are, because things can get a bit harder if you don't turn off certain mechs here and there, or go into this or that room and disable certain systems.....  the better you are at the little 'mini-games' as I call them, the better the missions goe.   The point being, there is a LOT to this game.  Its an interactive game, its an FPS, with puzzles and exploration - and it tells a really amazing story - even up to the very end where the last big decision you make looks like it will have BIG TIME consequences in ME3.

  I think that the story could stand on its own, or the the FPS portion of it could also be its own game .....  but thats not what ME2 is.  ME2 is ALL of these 'factors' rolled into one game. 

  I for one would not even think of removing the combat or the storyline.

It's not a godamn FPS

And i got the impression that you haven't played ME1 yet, go and play it and ME2 will be 10x better.

[Sajuro]

XX55XX wrote...

If BioWare had stripped away most of the gameplay elements from ME2, like combat, mining, hell, even the exploration, it still would have made for an excellent interactive movie.

My point is, ME2's gameplay was solid, but it was not the reason why I picked it up at launch. The story (well, maybe not so much), the choices, and the characters were enticing. Making decisions and interacting with the characters were the game's main draw for me.

Anyone else share similar sentiments?

You know what, you are right.
If we took the combat out of half life 2 it would be a good interactive movie. If we took the combat out of Super Mario Galaxy, that would be neat to run around and play with Gravity. Hell, lets take the combat out of every game so our suck doesn't ruin the developer's cutscenes.

[Tonymac]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

[It's not a godamn FPS

And i got the impression that you haven't played ME1 yet, go and play it and ME2 will be 10x better.

DUDE

GO read what I wrote again.  Read it.  Please.  And its time to hit the decaf.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Tonymac wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

[It's not a godamn FPS

And i got the impression that you haven't played ME1 yet, go and play it and ME2 will be 10x better.

DUDE

GO read what I wrote again.  Read it.  Please.  And its time to hit the decaf.

Went back, read it a second time, my reply still stands.

[Tonymac]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Tonymac wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

[It's not a godamn FPS

And i got the impression that you haven't played ME1 yet, go and play it and ME2 will be 10x better.

DUDE

GO read what I wrote again.  Read it.  Please.  And its time to hit the decaf.

Went back, read it a second time, my reply still stands.

Ok, I stated that I've not played ME1 at all.  I have no intention of getting it.

Sure, technically its not an FPS - I was actually referring to the combat portion of the game.  I enjoy it immensely.

Could the game stand without the combat portion?  Sure.  Would I still want to play it?  Sorry man, no way.  I enjoy the combat portion way too much. 

As an aside, I dunno if a game this good can honestly be 10x better.  I'm not sure thats possible. 

[Pacifien]

It always comes across to me that the disappointment with ME2 is more a disappointment that it failed to meet your expectations. Expectations for where you felt the ME universe was going. Expectations for what you feel an RPG should be. But it's a sequel, it cannot help but have expectations placed upon it. But it always casts a shadow in my mind on whether people are true in their dislike for ME2 as a game: is it truly bad as a game or is it simply bad in comparison to what you felt it should have been?

I never much cared for labels. Some people cling to them, content in the tropes that define a genre. Why limit oneself, I think. If you want to add a shooter element to a game, if you feel that makes the game mechanics better, then do so. If you want to add a space simulator to a game to give it a grand sense of scale, then do so. If you want to add the tower of hanoi and other code breaking puzzles, feel free as well. Whatever makes the game what you want it to be. And as for whether it is an RPG on top of that, I don't think anyone has ever adequately defined what makes for a good RPG. By most definitions, I would think that the original Mass Effect fails in this regard just as much as its successor.

Combat is an incredibly fun element of the second game to me, it adds to it replayability. But I imagine the impetus of this thread is that combat is not all Mass Effect 2 is. There are many other elements of the game one can enjoy outside of combat. You learn a great deal about life on Tuchanka. See two sides of the same coin in regards to Illium and Omega. Each squadmate comes with their own story and perspective. People can enjoy the game for these elements. To dismiss ME2 as a failed shooter game lacking in proper RPG elements seems simple in this regard.

Modifié par Pacifien, 03 décembre 2010 - 03:49 .

[Praetor Knight]

XX55XX wrote...

If BioWare had stripped away most of the gameplay elements from ME2, like combat, mining, hell, even the exploration, it still would have made for an excellent interactive movie.

My point is, ME2's gameplay was solid, but it was not the reason why I picked it up at launch. The story (well, maybe not so much), the choices, and the characters were enticing. Making decisions and interacting with the characters were the game's main draw for me.

Anyone else share similar sentiments?

Yeah, there is a lot of great dialogue and the characters feel like real people, that's why I stayed with ME2 and actually enjoyed how the story arc was developed (I did not see or hear any of the advertising for ME2, not until after I beat the game my first time!)

I got ME2 because I like good scif-fi and because of the story of ME and its immersive universe.

The combat in ME2 was icing on a Tres Leches cake, the plot (even with all its supposed "holes") kept me engaged enough to see what was coming next. So meh, maybe some forumites play too often...
I know I've got only one last achievement to earn between both games!

I'd also like to acknowledge the work Pacifien has done here on the forums, thanks 
Keep up the good work, and I hope you continue to engage in discussions.

Huzzah!

[wulf3n]

Pacifien wrote...
It always comes across to me that the disappointment with ME2 is more a disappointment that it failed to meet your expectations. Expectations for where you felt the ME universe was going. Expectations for what you feel an RPG should be.

I avoid "expectations" as, like you said, they tend to raise the bar too high. No the disappointment comes from bioware failing to meet their own standards, in an aspect of games "plot" they've been doing exceptional for as long as i can remember.

Pacifien wrote...
But it's a sequel, it cannot help but have expectations placed upon it. But it always casts a shadow in my mind on whether people are true in their dislike for ME2 as a game: is it truly bad as a game or is it simply bad in comparison to what you felt it should have been?

Ok people need to stop assuming i think ME2 is "bad". I still think its a great game, but imo it's at the bottom of the ladder in comparison to every other bioware game i've played.

Pacifien wrote...
Why limit oneself, I think. If you want to add a shooter element to a game, if you feel that makes the game mechanics better, then do so. If you want to add a space simulator to a game to give it a grand sense of scale, then do so. If you want to add the tower of hanoi and other code breaking puzzles, feel free as well. Whatever makes the game what you want it to be. And as for whether it is an RPG on top of that, I don't think anyone has ever adequately defined what makes for a good RPG. By most definitions, I would think that the original Mass Effect fails in this regard just as much as its successor.

That's all well and good...when you know what you're doing.

Pacifien wrote...
Combat is an incredibly fun element of the second game to me, it adds to it replayability. 

I don't doubt, but if you were ever in a shooty mood would Mass Effect be your first port of call? It certainly isn't for me. while the combat is good, it's not as good as a dedicated shooter.

[JeanLuc761]

Pacifien wrote...

It always comes across to me that the disappointment with ME2 is more a disappointment that it failed to meet your expectations. Expectations for where you felt the ME universe was going. Expectations for what you feel an RPG should be. But it's a sequel, it cannot help but have expectations placed upon it. But it always casts a shadow in my mind on whether people are true in their dislike for ME2 as a game: is it truly bad as a game or is it simply bad in comparison to what you felt it should have been?

I never much cared for labels. Some people cling to them, content in the tropes that define a genre. Why limit oneself, I think. If you want to add a shooter element to a game, if you feel that makes the game mechanics better, then do so. If you want to add a space simulator to a game to give it a grand sense of scale, then do so. If you want to add the tower of hanoi and other code breaking puzzles, feel free as well. Whatever makes the game what you want it to be. And as for whether it is an RPG on top of that, I don't think anyone has ever adequately defined what makes for a good RPG. By most definitions, I would think that the original Mass Effect fails in this regard just as much as its successor.

Combat is an incredibly fun element of the second game to me, it adds to it replayability. But I imagine the impetus of this thread is that combat is not all Mass Effect 2 is. There are many other elements of the game one can enjoy outside of combat. You learn a great deal about life on Tuchanka. See two sides of the same coin in regards to Illium and Omega. Each squadmate comes with their own story and perspective. People can enjoy the game for these elements. To dismiss ME2 as a failed shooter game lacking in proper RPG elements seems simple in this regard.

I think a large part of the problem is that, as you said, people are very content to have a narrow-minded defintion of something and if something strays even a little bit, it's a failure.  The way I've always seen it, inventory and stats, for example, are not what define an RPG.  They are, however, RPG elements, and the distinction is important.  

I'd argue that Mass Effect 2 is just as much an RPG as ME1 is, though both have different means of handling it.  Let's take a look at the elements that the games have:

Mass Effect:
- Epic story with heavy focus on the overarching Reaper plotline.
- Likeable characters with whom you can develop relationships
- Conversation system that allows you to define your Shepard
- In-depth inventory with weapon customization (a little clunky though)
- In-depth stats system that allows you to fine tune Shepard's abilities
- Competent combat system that works well enough but needs improvement.

Mass Effect 2:
- Epic story that focuses on the characters more than the Reaper plotline, turning it into a more personal story than the first game.
- Even more characters than the first game, the majority of which are expanded upon far more than in ME1
- Conversation system expanded to include interrupts.
- Simplified inventory but more emphasis on unique weaponry, rather than gradually improving stats.
- Streamlined stats system that compliments the improved shooting mechanics.
- Combat system is much improved, more in line with Gears of War. 

When looking at the two games as such, I'm honestly dumbfounded when people tell me that Mass Effect 2 is somehow not an RPG.  Mass Effect is not an RPG because of its stats or dice rolling combat mechanics, it's an RPG because of the characters and the way you can create your Shepard and influence the world around you.

[Pacifien]

wulf3n wrote...
Ok people need to stop assuming i think ME2 is "bad". I still think its a great game, but imo it's at the bottom of the ladder in comparison to every other bioware game i've played.

People only have your own words with which to create a portrait of who you are. If you have only focused on what is bad about ME2 on these forums, the assumption is an easy one to make. And if you feel someone is addressing you in particular in spite of not addressing you by name or quoting you, then perhaps you are sensitive that people are painting the wrong portrait of you. Use your words, dude.

wulf3n wrote...

Pacifien wrote...
Combat is an incredibly fun element of the second game to me, it adds to it replayability. 

I don't doubt, but if you were ever in a shooty mood would Mass Effect be your first port of call? It certainly isn't for me. while the combat is good, it's not as good as a dedicated shooter.

That is you and I am me. I do not own another game focused on shooting combat, nor would I want to as I have proven most inept at it in the past. ME2 suffices for now. And I do not play it solely for combat.