344 réponses à ce sujet

[glacier1701]

Pacifien wrote...

Captain_Obvious_au wrote...
*snip*

Oh, see, I don't buy this argument at all. When I lurked on the old forums, the complaint was simple: get rid of the Mako and the slow elevators.

People need to know what they're complaint truly is. The Mako had some tedious moments associated with it, but the louder complaints weren't about refining the Mako's controls or taking better care to design the landscape. The loudest complaint was that the Mako sucked and the developers should remove it.

It's only with their removal did people understand what their actual complaint was. Or the people who complained the loudest are satisfied, they quiet down, and a new group take their place.

People can say "I want more squad banter," but without really describing how they want squad banter, they open the door for BioWare to implement squad banter in a way that entirely displeases them. They can say they want the return of elevators, but do they want the return of elevators to disguise load times again?

And you simply can't say "removing it was a mistake, put it back." There were complaints originally for a reason. You still have to address those reasons, but people simply say "put it back." Well, then we're back where we started.

I've seen people make their complaints and then say it's up to BioWare to figure out what the real issue is. Unfortunately, not everyone's brain is wired the same way as yours. Why you disliked something isn't the same as why someone else disliked it or even liked it.

Take the mining game. People on the forums are very vocal that they found it tedious and want it removed. But honestly, the first time I played through the game, the mining wasn't tedious. And I do see people on the forums who think "what's the big deal about mining?" It was different. It became tedious with more playthroughs and there was no alternative to obtain the resources I needed without the unofficial save game editor. I could tell BioWare they should remove it. But then what are they going to replace it with? I didn't give them any ideas, I just said remove it. Maybe they remove the need for resources to upgrade anything, simplifying the process even further and then people complain about that.

 This is a disingeneous arguement. Not everyone can necessarily put down exactly what it is about something that makes them dislike it let alone come up with a detailed suggestion as to a fix. And more to the point the players do NOT have inside information as to what resources exist, what limits exist to any potential fix and well they just are NOT the game developers. Requiring that shows a lack of respect of what a number of posters are doing. They are listing why they dislike something but not offering solutions as the people who know what solutions are available are the game developers themselves. Those posters at least know the limitations that exist with what they can say. They might have suggestions and a good game company should be more visible in asking questions or perhaps pointing out why some things cannot be fixed and so on. After all what is so wrong about having an informed playerbase?

[RussianSpy27]

ME 3 is scheduled to be released in about 12 months.



Realistically speaking, at this stage of ME3's development, what types of suggestions, if any, is there still time to provide with an expectation that their consideration can possibly fit into the developmental time frame?



For example (totally may be wrong here), it may be too late to critique certain plot ideas or technical graphical ideas. However, there may be room for certain game-mechanics ideas. Thanks.

[SithLordExarKun]

Terror_K wrote...



In either case, I can simply say this: the original Mass Effect was made in a way that was very much the way I wanted. So you'd think that the sequel should therefore also be made very much in the way I wanted too, right?

So you're basically saying how bioware should make the next mass effect or their games in your personal image right? Seriously, no offence but you're even worst than a communist dictator.

[Bourne Endeavor]

I had potentially thought as much upon finishing what I posted, and although my first post did not suggest I wished Bioware to return to move backward, or at least I do not believe it did. If this was not easily portrayed, my apologies. Indeed, in-depth criticism is few and far in between.

To answer your query, I did have the basis for a concept, albeit still rough in design and still maintains the majority of ME2's established plot but expends on it. The centralized focus is upon the Collector General as the antagonist, who is compelled by indoctrination to commit the atrocities the Collectors have yet there exists a portion of Prothen stability in his mind, not unlike Benezia. His longing is to finally be put to rest, for his and his Porthen mutated brethren torment to subside. To accomplish this objective, as his mind is not his own for long, he assaults the Normandy, to force Shepard's hand to eliminate him. Personally, I would alter the beginning to a comatose state or Shepard in cytostasis for believability. Even him/her been shown to enter the Mako would make stretching his/her survival more likely.

In any event, what we discover throughout the story is a more personal depiction of what became of the Prothen race, their mutation and perhaps a greater sense of what the overall purpose of the Reaper's cycle, at least from the Prothen's interpretation. This information and everything to assist against the Collectors is received through interaction with the Collector General at various intervals, say for example, Horizon as one or the Collector Ship.

Essentially, Collector General takes the role of the sympathetic anti-villain. His actions are primarily forced and not his own. This departures from Saren, who was convinced the Reapers were correct and chose to adamantly carry out their will in a misguided belief organics would be spared.

For a less elaborate example, I would have preferred a few additional main plot missions to better bridge the story together, especially where everyone enters the shuttle as a plot device. I should state I do not hate or even dislike the story, so much as I believe it could have been more. Of course your mileage may vary.

@AlanC9
I would disagree and felt the reveal of the Prothens being Collectors was underutilized, if not more frequently forgotten. We learn little of the Reapers themselves and merely that the Collectors were once Prothen. There is little depth beyond this nor is it further explored. What is the purpose of the Reaper cycle? What was their origin? More prominently, Mass Effect conclusions the same as Mass Effect. "The Reapers are coming and we must stop them." There is progression. Furthermore, there are inconsistencies. One I mentioned above, another is the impossibility of the Collector's mission. It is insinuated, and outright spoken, that the Collectors aim to attack Earth. Yet in their possession is a single ship. If they so much as sniffed Citadel space, they would be annihilated as evident by the Normandy SR2 single-handed destroying their ship. As with before your mileage may vary and I respect that.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 17 décembre 2010 - 12:33 .

[SithLordExarKun]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...



Coincidently, you seem to perceive I dislike Mass Effect 2 and that I desire a return to the old ways. In actuality, you essentially state precisely that, despite my post openly and specifically going against this. I recommend you read the entirety of someone's criticism prior to making baseless assumptions that prove inadequate or to be blunt, wrong. I shall even quote myself. "I am more willing to compromise inclusions in ME2 that some disliked if other areas receive more necessary attention. One would be the inventory system. I am indifferent to it since I never believed it could not be rectified from the monotonous chore it had been in ME, yet do not dislike the weapon locker concept utilized in ME2."

Read terror_ks previous post in another thread. It was basically summed up as "Make ME3 more like ME1, make the inventory like ME1, make the mechanics like ME1".

[Captain_Obvious_au]

Stanley Woo wrote...

sinosleep wrote...

So basically most arguments here come down to

a.) If they made the changes I wanted they listen to their fans
b.) If they made changes I didn't want then they are a horrible company that doesn't listen to their fans.

Yes. that seems to be the crux of it, based only on the arguments presented in this very thread. Some great examples are given on this very page as well. Most people are aware of their biases, some are not, and that's fine, since we still take it all into account when developing our games.

That's an incredibly simplistic and incorrect way of looking at it. As I've said before it's not that Bioware didn't listen, it's that - and Terror_K pointed this out as well - Bioware didn't go in-depth about the complaints.

Pacifien wrote...

Captain_Obvious_au wrote...
Personally
speaking, no. I enjoy ME2 a lot, don't get me wrong, it's a fun game.
The main point that most of us are trying to make is that Bioware sortof
listens, but doesn't listen properly. The removal of things like the
Mako and Elevators instead of fixing them for example are some of the
big complaints.*snip*

Oh, see, I don't buy this argument
at all. When I lurked on the old forums, the complaint was simple: get
rid of the Mako and the slow elevators.

People need to know what
they're complaint truly is. The Mako had some tedious moments associated
with it, but the louder complaints weren't about refining the Mako's
controls or taking better care to design the landscape. The loudest
complaint was that the Mako sucked and the developers should remove it.

And you simply can't say "removing it
was a mistake, put it back." There were complaints originally for a
reason. You still have to address those reasons, but people simply say
"put it back." Well, then we're back where we started.

I've seen
people make their complaints and then say it's up to BioWare to figure
out what the real issue is. Unfortunately, not everyone's brain is wired
the same way as yours. Why you disliked something isn't the same as why
someone else disliked it or even liked it.

Take the mining game.
People on the forums are very vocal that they found it tedious and want
it removed. But honestly, the first time I played through the game, the
mining wasn't tedious. And I do see people on the forums who think
"what's the big deal about mining?" It was different. It became tedious
with more playthroughs and there was no alternative to obtain the
resources I needed without the unofficial save game editor. I could tell
BioWare they should remove it. But then what are they going to replace
it with? I didn't give them any ideas, I just said remove it. Maybe they
remove the need for resources to upgrade anything, simplifying the
process even further and then people complain about that.

I see where you're coming from Pac. Now to clarify, I wasn't part of the community for a long time for ME1 because I didn't buy it for a long time, so I'm not going to contest what people were specifically complaining about. I do disagree partially about the Mako example though - you can put it back, to an extent. This is all part of my own solutions to Mass Effect 2's 'problems' which would be to bring something like the Mako back, fix the controls, and only have it for major story planets. That way you still get to run around in it, but it's not being over-exposed. Then, if people want more, add some DLC missions.

As for peoples brains not being wired like mine...well...not everyone can be that lucky

With regards to Planet Scanning/Mining, I thought about this too and mentioned in my ME3 suggestion blog a return to the ME1 system about finding metals the old way. Sure, it doesn't have as much spiffy graphics etc but it's functional, not tedious, and you still get the codex up about the planet you're scanning. Incidently I'm not referring to my ideas blog to toot my own horn, just to provide an example that there are fans out there who think these 'problems' through and come up with suggestions. Yes, there are people who only whine and there always will be, but it's not only like that.

[Bill the Illusive man]

I forgot to add in my last response, THANK YOU for nixing the elevators lol. Goodness, how many of you said "Oh snap" I forgot something in this hallway or other room and then you had to go back up the elevator only to go back again. That's three times in the elevator. Though I loved the conversations in the elevator, the wait time was a blower.



THANK YOU!



I don't really miss the Mako either. I haven't played the other dlc with the hammerhead but its looks cool.



About the mining though, the key from what I learned was not to even waste your time with planets that were not rich or good with resources as I learned you eventually run out of money and things to do.

[shinobi602]

Bill the Illusive man wrote...

I forgot to add in my last response, THANK YOU for nixing the elevators lol. Goodness, how many of you said "Oh snap" I forgot something in this hallway or other room and then you had to go back up the elevator only to go back again. That's three times in the elevator. Though I loved the conversations in the elevator, the wait time was a blower.

THANK YOU!

Sitting through some boring ass "cutscene" three times is a lot worse.

Modifié par shinobi602, 17 décembre 2010 - 05:12 .

[AlanC9]

glacier1701 wrote...
 Not everyone can necessarily put down exactly what it is about something that makes them dislike it let alone come up with a detailed suggestion as to a fix.

Anyone who can't articulate what he doesn't like about something doesn't have any right to be angry when an attempt to fix that thing doesn't turn out exactly the way he would have liked. Even if the devs were mind readers, they can't read the mind of someone who hasn't thought things through yet.

They are listing why they dislike something but not offering solutions as the people who know what solutions are available are the game developers themselves.  

You missed Pacifien's point. A lot of posters are not saying why they dislike something, merely that they dislike it. And among posters who do dislike a feature, you often find people disliking it for different reasons.

[AlanC9]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
I would disagree and felt the reveal of the Prothens being Collectors was underutilized, if not more frequently forgotten. We learn little of the Reapers themselves and merely that the Collectors were once Prothen. There is little depth beyond this nor is it further explored. What is the purpose of the Reaper cycle? What was their origin? More prominently, Mass Effect conclusions the same as Mass Effect. "The Reapers are coming and we must stop them." There is progression.

Well, we obviously differ on what counts as "learning little" of the Reapers. We learned about as much as I wanted revealed in the middle chapter.

As for where the middle chapter should have taken us, I agree that we're not very far from where we were at the end of ME1 -- except, of course, for the whole working-with-Cerberus thing.  I just don't see this as a problem. Note that some critics panned Empire Strikes Back on these grounds, since at the end of the film we're essentially where we were at the end of Star Wars. In gaming, I could point to Wing Commander 2, where the whole game basically takes your character and the Earth-Kilrathi war to about where they were at the end of WC1. WC2 is similar to ME2 in other ways, because it had expansions that performed essentially the function of DLC; the second expansion was explicitly a bridge to WC3.

So yeah, mileages vary.

 One I mentioned above, another is the impossibility of the Collector's mission. It is insinuated, and outright spoken, that the Collectors aim to attack Earth. Yet in their possession is a single ship. If they so much as sniffed Citadel space, they would be annihilated as evident by the Normandy SR2 single-handed destroying their ship.

But this just means that the people who thought the Collectors were going to attack Earth were wrong. Considering how little information is available before you go through the Omega-4 relay, it's hardly surprising that  estimates of enemy capabilities and intentions are wrong. Unless TIM talks about this in the after-mission speech, but IIRC he mostly talks about the Reapers.

[Gibb_Shepard]

There are too many opinions in this thread, and they differ far too much. Everyone is pretty split on what they want in ME3, which is very unfortunate. If everyone could somehow agree on at least one point, maybe we'd get somewhere in a dev listening to that point. But everyone has an opinion, and no one can agree. I really don't know what to expect with ME3 when there are crowds who want 10 different things to represent one feature in the game. Not looking good.

[Lumikki]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

There are too many opinions in this thread, and they differ far too much. Everyone is pretty split on what they want in ME3, which is very unfortunate. If everyone could somehow agree on at least one point, maybe we'd get somewhere in a dev listening to that point. But everyone has an opinion, and no one can agree. I really don't know what to expect with ME3 when there are crowds who want 10 different things to represent one feature in the game. Not looking good.

That's pretty much how it is. It's not just that we disagree, but some people have attitude like, I want this and I don't care what others want as long I get what I want. It's selfish pursue of only what people them self want.

So, because we know that developers listen, I just hope developers are able to see the real issues from all this chaos what we have created to this forum and able to remove the personal complains and conserate to what most of us agree as issue. Then there is the stuff what has totally split opinions, what can be harder to solve.

Modifié par Lumikki, 17 décembre 2010 - 09:18 .

[gadna13]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

There are too many opinions in this thread, and they differ far too much. Everyone is pretty split on what they want in ME3, which is very unfortunate. If everyone could somehow agree on at least one point, maybe we'd get somewhere in a dev listening to that point. But everyone has an opinion, and no one can agree. I really don't know what to expect with ME3 when there are crowds who want 10 different things to represent one feature in the game. Not looking good.

Hahaha and this is exactly why I hope Bioware does their own thing with ME3.  No one is going to have the same opinions as me.  No one is going to like everything that I like. No one is going to think exactly like me.

I think the only thing that everyone here can agree on is that Bioware, at some point, got you hooked onto either Mass Effect or one of their other games (people wouldn't be here otherwise).

[Terror_K]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Read terror_ks previous post in another thread. It was basically summed up as "Make ME3 more like ME1, make the inventory like ME1, make the mechanics like ME1".

That's not really true and rather misleading. I've often said that I don't want ME3 to have an ME1 style inventory, and that there are some mechanics from ME1 I don't want back at all. In some ways I do want ME3 to be more like ME1, but that doesn't mean I want it to just become exactly like it was in ME1. Mostly I want things that I missed in ME1 to be brought back in some form, but not necessarily in the same form they took. There's lots there that could be done better, and that's kind of the point: it could have been done better, but instead either wasn't done at all but was done in such a shallow, unsatisfying and/or automated way that it failed.

I'd actually like to think that the devs do listen to some extent, despite me saying that I don't think that they listened properly in the past. If I didn't, I would have just kept quiet about my issues with ME2 after about a month when it came out. The reason I criticise, offer up ideas and alternatives and am vocally rather critical of ME2 is because I want the devs to know I'm unhappy with these things and why I am, in the hopes of them maybe listening and trying to make ME3 a better game for it.

I complain and voice my concerns not because I hate the game, but because I loved the first game and thought it had potential to go somewhere fantastic, and instead I was rather disappointed and felt that ME2 for the most part wasted and squandered this potential. I don't think it's arrogant or even unreasonable when you really love the first part of something and the second part is disappointing and suddenly doesn't feel like it's made for you any more that you get angry and/or annoyed at this and feel a little let down and even betrayed by those who made it. It doesn't matter how popular something is, when it's a sequel, second part or follow-up to something it should have the same style and feeling of the first thing.

If ME1 hadn't felt like something made for me that I'd really enjoy then I think it would be fair to call me arrogant and unreasonable to expect the sequel and other ME games to suit me, but this wasn't the case at all. I don't expect every BioWare game to me made for me, I just expect there to be some consistency within a series so that it doesn't end up changing part the way through just to suit a different audience or broaden its appeal. It happened between ME1 and ME2, it looks like it's happening again with DAO and DA2 now as well.

If BioWare really feels like it needs to branch out more then fine... do so. But create a new IP and series to do it, rather than retooling your existing franchises to the point where those who you made it for originally start to become alienated with later products.

Modifié par Terror_K, 17 décembre 2010 - 11:08 .

[Jebel Krong]

Captain_Obvious_au wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

sinosleep wrote...

So basically most arguments here come down to

a.) If they made the changes I wanted they listen to their fans
b.) If they made changes I didn't want then they are a horrible company that doesn't listen to their fans.

Yes. that seems to be the crux of it, based only on the arguments presented in this very thread. Some great examples are given on this very page as well. Most people are aware of their biases, some are not, and that's fine, since we still take it all into account when developing our games.

That's an incredibly simplistic and incorrect way of looking at it. As I've said before it's not that Bioware didn't listen, it's that - and Terror_K pointed this out as well - Bioware didn't go in-depth about the complaints.

no of course not: BW couldn't possibly have anyone on staff as clever as Terror_k or other forumites on their staff, analysing features and feedback. definitely not.

<_<

[CitizenSnips28]

The way I see it, voicing an opinion about a game in the forums is much like voting. You express how you want the game and give suggestions. If alot of people agree with you and make similar posts the devs will most likely take the suggestion into consideration. If not, I have no right to be angry or make demands. Its their game, not mine. Nobody is forcing me to buy their products.



At the same time I can sympathize with some of the people who are overly worried or critical about moves to make Mass Effect more mainstream. The problem is, there really aren't many other game companies making games like Bioware. Obsidian perhaps, and though their games usually have fairly good writing and ambitious features, they have a track record for being obnoxiously buggy and rushed. If Bioware starts making say, FPS Call of Duty clones in order to make a larger profit, it would literally leave WRPG fans without options.



I personally enjoyed ME2 more than 1 and felt the streamlining was more or less a good move. For example, weapon specializations forced the player to play through most of the game using only one or maybe two weapon types. Removing specializations meant I could use the weapon that best suited the situation, and as a Soldier class, it was a welcome change. That said, I would cast my vote for the game remaining where it is or perhaps grow a bit, depth wise. Any further moves to streamline and simplify would probably start to feel too simple and boring to me. Fortunately I believe enough fans and critics have voiced concerns about oversimplification that Bioware will make a shift towards more RPG mechanic depth. Id love to see more weapons and armor and perhaps more armor customization for your companions while still maintaining their individual look.

[Captain_Obvious_au]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Captain_Obvious_au wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

sinosleep wrote...

So basically most arguments here come down to

a.) If they made the changes I wanted they listen to their fans
b.) If they made changes I didn't want then they are a horrible company that doesn't listen to their fans.

Yes. that seems to be the crux of it, based only on the arguments presented in this very thread. Some great examples are given on this very page as well. Most people are aware of their biases, some are not, and that's fine, since we still take it all into account when developing our games.

That's an incredibly simplistic and incorrect way of looking at it. As I've said before it's not that Bioware didn't listen, it's that - and Terror_K pointed this out as well - Bioware didn't go in-depth about the complaints.

no of course not: BW couldn't possibly have anyone on staff as clever as Terror_k or other forumites on their staff, analysing features and feedback. definitely not.

<_<

Aside from having a shot at myself and Terror, I'm not sure what the point of your post was. I never said Bioware staff weren't smart, I said they don't listen properly. Seems to be your problem too.

[Pacifien]

Let's not get personal here. And trim quotes properly. And that goes for everyone. Thank you.

Modifié par Pacifien, 17 décembre 2010 - 01:38 .

[Tasker]

Haven't read the entire thread as it was starting to make my eyes bleed. 

But in answer to the OP...


Yes, I think that Bioware listens to their fans and implements changes based on what they hear.

I don't however, necessarilly think that these days Bioware does what the fans actually ask for.

Things that are asked to be tweaked, instead seem to get butchered or removed completely.

Modifié par Orkboy, 17 décembre 2010 - 02:01 .

[glacier1701]

AlanC9 wrote...

glacier1701 wrote...
 Not everyone can necessarily put down exactly what it is about something that makes them dislike it let alone come up with a detailed suggestion as to a fix.

Anyone who can't articulate what he doesn't like about something doesn't have any right to be angry when an attempt to fix that thing doesn't turn out exactly the way he would have liked. Even if the devs were mind readers, they can't read the mind of someone who hasn't thought things through yet.

They are listing why they dislike something but not offering solutions as the people who know what solutions are available are the game developers themselves.  

You missed Pacifien's point. A lot of posters are not saying why they dislike something, merely that they dislike it. And among posters who do dislike a feature, you often find people disliking it for different reasons.

Nothing in my post says that those who post they dislike something but do not articulate why have to be listened to. Indeed, as you say, if things are NOT changed to their liking they really cannot complain. Yet if enough people are posting they dislike something does it not then fall upon the developer to ask why are people complaining about something?

So far as I have seen there has been a lot of criticism about the mining mini-game. We got some minor change to it in a patch apparently (though I haven't really seen the difference), a mention about it from Christina Norman and thats it. The next time the subject came up we were basically told by no less a person than Casey Hudson that the mining game was fine just that the players were doing it wrong!!!! I, personally, did not see anything on the boards asking why we felt the mining game was bad or tedious or anything. I, personally, heard the lead up to the release of the game that consistently said BE PREPARED and this was the same thing said by anyone connected with BioWare from the good Doctors on down. And I, personally, saw the first vids on YouTube that showed the game prior to the release date that showed mining and the comments and my own opinion agreed that the mining game was going to be boring and possibly repetitive stress inducing. Yet Casey said the mining game is perfect and its just the players fault they do not like it!

 I expect BioWare, as a good company, to know that if something is disliked that at least follow up is made as to why. That follow up should include asking questions of the people of the forums. This does not guarantee that the answers will be the same nor does it guarantee that what the players might agree is the 'fix' can be implemented but at least the company can point to that and say we asked you for your opinion. I have not see that happening yet consistently it is referred to in interviews as happening to show how we are being listened to. It might even be happening to a small group of selected players but the main issue here is that BioWare chooses to remain silent.

So what is it about us that makes BioWare keep quiet and not try to inform us of some of the things that went on during ME2's development? We have been told that an informed player is what BioWare wants us to be yet they do not do their part in trying to inform us. This does not make BioWare any different from the majority of game developers and the few who are different are the ones who consistently win peer awards from the industry for being different so why doesn't BioWare move over from the crowd to being one of the leaders instead?

[nelly21]

@ Bourne

How is that any different than Saren? Saren didn't want to be a slave of the Reapers. He did it because he thought it was the only way to save organic life. He gave himself up to the Reapers to try and prove the worth of organic life. He even denies being indoctrinated until the end and if you make the right dialogue choices, he tries to kill himself to gain a little bit of redemption back.

The point is, we already had a tragic figure antagonist in this series (two if you count Benezia). How would adding another one move the story forward?

Furthermore, giving such characteristics to Collector General would go against what we learned about the Collectors. Mordin explains it. They are not living things any more. They are tools. They have no culture, no personal will, no society. They exist to serve the Reapers. Why would the Reapers allow one Collector to be repentant and try to sabotage their plans when they can easily replace it with thousands of others?

As for the invasion of Earth, remember two things: One, the Normandy is the most highly advanced ship in the galaxy. Two, the Collectors were building a Reaper. We do not know whether they needed to invade Earth in order to build the Reaper or whether Earth would be the intial target of the new Reaper. It would seem likely that the Reaper was intended to be used in the invasion of Earth. Otherwise, why even bother starting with smaller isolated pockets of non-Alliance colonies? And as we saw in the first game, a single Reaper was more than capable of destroying an Alliance fleet.

You see my point? I would have been unhappy with your storyline. But if you were the creator of the Mass Effect series, would that give me the right to say you aren't listening to me? Or would you say, "Our game is more popular than it's ever been, the overwhelming majority of people liked it. I'm going to deliver the story they already like"? Bioware and their writers delivered a sequel in the trilogy designed to expand on the universe without resolving the entire conflict. They succeeded in that respect. The story cannot cater to everyone. Bioware is going to write the story they want towrite and hope it is popular with fans. So far, it has been tremendously popular. Take a look at the VGAs. I defy anyone to point out another game that got a bigger pop from the crowd than ME 3. This tells me Mass Effect's story has hooked enough people to keep it among the most anticipated titles of 2011. One quick look at next year's releases will tell you just how much of an accomplishment that is.

@ Terror

I apologize if I'm missing something but it really simply sounds like you are saying,"I liked ME1, ergo ME2 should have remained the way I liked it otherwise the game is a failure". Bioware is making the game they want to make. We can offer suggestions CONSTRUCTIVE criticism, etc. But it's still Bioware's job to make the decisions and make the game they want to make. It is up to us, the consumer, to decide whether we like their product or not.

To simply say, "I have a reasonable desire to see the game remain the same for me" is not realistic. What videogames have had sequels remain unchanged throughout their life cycle and enjoy the amounts of success ME is enjoying? Should we criticize Nintendo for deviating too far from the formula of Mario Brothers when they made Mario Brothers 2 and Mario Brothers 3? Or should we look at them and say, "You know, I enjoyed Mario 1. I hated Mario 2. I am not going to buy Mario 3".  If enough people did not like the changes made, the franchise would be forced to go back to its roots. But fans did enjoy the changes. Does that mean Nintendo doesn't listen?

Modifié par nelly21, 17 décembre 2010 - 04:56 .

[-Skorpious-]

What I want - Improved squad banter

Suggestion - Bioware's DA team pretty much nailed squad banter; the ME team could ask for advice on how to enhance squad interaction for ME3. Also, they could improve upon Origins banter by increasing the likelihood of spontaneous conversations between squadmates (having two instead of three squadmates should make this easier anyways). Bringing back the manual "press x to ask for a squadmates opinion on the current environment" from ME wouldn't hurt either.

What I want - Elevators, the Normandy's airlock, and other elements that enhance immersion

Suggestion - Yes, I was among the few that supported elevators since ME2 was revealed. However tedious they may appear to be, if Bioware upped the speed of the elevators (not the actual speed of the loading times, but rather how quick the elevators themselves seem to be moving) then the loading times may appear less stressful to players. Plus, I never noticed much of a difference between the static loading screens and the elevators anyways.

What I want - A new vehicle

Suggestion - While I cannot give as detailed answer as I would like, I can at least express my desire for a new vehicle. While I prefer the Mako over the HH, there were obvious reasons for its removal. To compensate for both parties, my suggestion is a vehicle with, well, the strength of both and the weakness of neither. A less floaty hovercraft with weapons and armor for example.

Just my 2 cents on some of this threads most debated topics.

[Terror_K]

nelly21 wrote...

@ Terror

I apologize if I'm missing something but it really simply sounds like you are saying,"I liked ME1, ergo ME2 should have remained the way I liked it otherwise the game is a failure". Bioware is making the game they want to make. We can offer suggestions CONSTRUCTIVE criticism, etc. But it's still Bioware's job to make the decisions and make the game they want to make. It is up to us, the consumer, to decide whether we like their product or not.

To simply say, "I have a reasonable desire to see the game remain the same for me" is not realistic. What videogames have had sequels remain unchanged throughout their life cycle and enjoy the amounts of success ME is enjoying? Should we criticize Nintendo for deviating too far from the formula of Mario Brothers when they made Mario Brothers 2 and Mario Brothers 3? Or should we look at them and say, "You know, I enjoyed Mario 1. I hated Mario 2. I am not going to buy Mario 3".  If enough people did not like the changes made, the franchise would be forced to go back to its roots. But fans did enjoy the changes. Does that mean Nintendo doesn't listen?

I'm not just talking about mild gameplay changes though, I'm talking about the entire feel and presentation of the thing. The whole series feels like it's shifted from being something that was aimed at intelligent, 25-year-old plus RPG and sci-fi nerds who love classic sci-fi from the late 1970's to early 1990's with the first game to being aimed at the average modern-day teenager who just loves mindless, modern action movies and style over substance with the second game. The style of the game has shifted from being mostly RPG to mostly shooter now. It's like it's made more for a completely different audience, rather than simply trying to make it like the first one but better.

On top of that, this is supposed to be a trilogy, and thus is supposed to encourage players to start with the first game and stick with it all the way through, especially with its import feature. If Mass Effect got some kind of spin-off shooter game or a spin-off RTS game this wouldn't be an issue for me despite it being a different style because it's not a direct follow-up. ME2 is supposed to be. You don't see other game sagas like BioShock, Assassin's Creed, Uncharted, etc. completely changing their mechanics and audience part the way through the game to the degree that Mass Effect 2 did over the first and now Dragon Age 2 seems to be doing over the original DAO. They're all largely the same, with small alterations and changes to try and improve on the original, but rarely are most of the mechanics completely scrapped and redone. Most of the time they actually try and add depth and more to the sequels rather than take it away and oversimplify things.

As I've said before, ME2 seems like another case of Deus Ex: Invisible War to me, except rather than getting panned like that did it's getting praised for it. I think it's merely a case of the changing times because the circumstances aren't that different.

[Lumikki]

In simple way sayed, you like sertain game style and you want Bioware do games for you the way you like it. What about the other people and what Bioware wants?

Have asked from you self, why you think Bioware is wrong as what they do and you are right?
What if Bioware is right?

Modifié par Lumikki, 17 décembre 2010 - 11:32 .

[Ajara123]

Idk Terror. To me Assassins Creed brotherhood didn't improve at all from assassins creed 2 thats just my opinion. Then again this isn't the place to say why i feel that way thought either.



I understand why people are upset about mass effect 2. I also have to say this though, we can't always have things go the way we want them to.