344 réponses à ce sujet

[Ajara123]

lol sorry about that.

Anyways as i have stated before i believe they do listen to us. I just think some people want more of there ideas in the game than the designers.

[Dominus]

I am a forum god - I write things, and they HAPPEN... bow to me, lesser members!



>_>

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

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?

Then, as I said, they should either do a new IP or do a spin-off game seperate from the main series if they want to branch off more. My problem isn't so much the type of games they're making lately with this more streamlined approach so much as the fact they're deciding to suddenly do it in their sequels to other games that weren't initially like that. That and it seems that they're just not making good, deep RPGs at all any more, with the possible exception of SWTOR. At least the devs behind that directly said that they were making a game for BioWare fans, RPG fans and Star Wars fans rather than the mainstream gamer of today.

As I've said regarding DA2, most of my issues with how it's looking would be gone if it were a spin-off game set in the Dragon Age universe, like Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood or how Mass Effect Galaxy was a spin-off from the main Mass Effect games. But it's not, it's Dragon Age 2 and that's my problem, and the same issue I have with ME2 being so streamlined to the point of being dumbed down and being seemingly made to branch out to appeal to the mainstream rather than the more niche, nerdy games they started as.

My problem isn't so much with what BioWare is doing but as to how they're doing it. Ideally I'd prefer they remain a more niche developer, but they seem to feel the need to broaden their appeal by tailoring their games to the Halo Generation (which has been fully admitted by devs on the Dragon Age side of the forums). Fine, do that. But do it with something new made for them, don't retool all your existing stuff to suit them and leave the old fans in the dust with nothing but old titles and memories of what once was.

The problem is that it seems BioWare wants to have their cake and eat it too, and think they can appeal to both audiences with the same stuff by blending it together. After all, even the more action-oriented games over the past decade or so overall are becoming more cinematic and story-driven and more in-depth and even RPG-esque gameplay wise as well. It seems ironic to me that while other game developers are actually adding more "RPG" to their action games that BioWare is taking RPG away and adding more action. That's why I feel overall they're trying more to find these "perfect games" to appeal to as many as possible rather than making the games the way they should be to suit their original vision. Dragon Age started off as a "spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate" but suddenly after the first one we've got this sequel coming out that's more console oriented, seems to play more like God of War, takes away customisation and choice with oversimplification and is a third the length of the original.

It just doesn't seem like they're making games as art any more to me; it seems like they're just trying to make these perfect little cash cows to rake in the profits. They're jumping on the bandwagon to make this perfect blend to appeal to Joe Gamer rather than making well-defined, more focussed games that have a particular identity and style. And it just makes things feel false and manufactured to me, and they're now just making "games" like everybody else rather than products that were a cut-above the competition and had a certain special something to them.

Prior to ME2 I could tell BioWare games were made with love and care and they were making what they wanted. Now it seems like they're just assembling their things on the production line to make money.

[nelly21]

I honestly don't understand you Terror.



Should Bioware run a defecit to make you feel better? Should they retract their artistic standards to support your ideal definition of an rpg? Should they have resold ME 1 with a different cover on the case to make you less nostalgic? You are being childish and elitist. Somehow ME 1 was for the "sophisticated" crowd but ME 2 is for the basement dwellers.



If you no longer like Bioware games shouldn't you go find an alternative? Should the millions of people who support Bioware be ignored for your sake? Should Bioware not care about making money? Do you work for free?



Again, Bioware listens to us. But they are not beholden to us. Nor are we to them. We have a symbiotic reltionship: we want their games, they want our money. It was like that back when they were making Baldur's Gate and it's still like that. There's nothing wrong with it. If you don't like Bioware games anymore, go find a company to support! But don't accuse them of ignoring fans when your main problem is that listened to them, they just didn't listen to the one's you wanted them to listen to.

[Nightwriter]

They listen. But I believe they listen selectively. Shouldn't they?

[Terror_K]

nelly21 wrote...

I honestly don't understand you Terror.

Should Bioware run a defecit to make you feel better? Should they retract their artistic standards to support your ideal definition of an rpg? Should they have resold ME 1 with a different cover on the case to make you less nostalgic? You are being childish and elitist. Somehow ME 1 was for the "sophisticated" crowd but ME 2 is for the basement dwellers.

If you no longer like Bioware games shouldn't you go find an alternative? Should the millions of people who support Bioware be ignored for your sake? Should Bioware not care about making money? Do you work for free?

I'll cover this in several points:-

* BioWare shouldn't need to run a defecit, since they're bigger now than ever and are making more simultaneous projects now than ever. Surely they can make games to suit both their old fans and potential new ones.
* They already retracted their artistic standards from what I can tell. As I said, ME2 was no longer art in game form like their previous titles... it was just another game.
* And the annoying little term "elitist" pops up again in another ironic moment, as usual. Because of course it's arrogant and elitist to want different games and want some depth and consistency rather than just loving what everybody else does.
* What alternative? With the exception of indie developers and a select few pretty much everybody else is making the same brown story-driven action-oriented titles these days. The closest thing I can get to classic BioWare these days is an Obsidian title, and they never quite get that magic "it" factor that BioWare did.
* It's not just me that feels this way about ME2 and BioWare you know. And I have supported them so much in the past: I own almost every BioWare game, from all of Baldur's Gate, to all of NWN, to KotOR and Jade Empire. I've got Dragon Age Origins, Awakenings and every bit of DLC that went with it. I've not only got both Mass Effect games and all the DLC that was released for them, but all the novels, the original soundtrack, the Redemption comics series, the art book, both game guides, a hat and t-shirt and several lithographs. So excuse me if I'm a little annoyed that they're making their games these days more for the casual gamer who probably doesn't even notice their name on the cover and will likely play their next title once and trade it in towards the next Halo, Gears of War or Call of Duty than they are for somebody who has actually supported them.
* Of course they should care about making money, they need to make a profit. But they did plenty fine in the past, and there's a point where profit becomes more important than people and integrity. Also, DAO was apparently their most successful IP yet, and it was a fairly deep RPG in the classic BioWare mould. If it was so profitable and popular --even moreso than Mass Effect-- then why the need to simplify it and give it the Mass Effect 2 treatment?
* No, I don't work for free. But I'd rather earn less and stick to my guns than get more and sell out and abandon my principles for it. As long as I'm making enough to live on and have a little extra beyond that so I can enjoy myself, I'm happy.

Modifié par Terror_K, 18 décembre 2010 - 01:16 .

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

-Skorpious- wrote...
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.

Strengths of both, weaknesses of neither? So basically you consider the only 'strength' of the Hovercraft is... that it's a hovercraft. Seeing as the only weakness you've listed is that of the Mako in that it could bounce around fairly easy because I don't consider 'less floaty' to be something the Hammerhead needed to be. If you made the Hovercraft 'less floaty' you've actually just stripped one of it's main strengths. The Hammer-head is an agile little beast. Sure it only has a missile launcher and its only real defence is its barriers, but once you knew what you were doing with it, it was easy to waltz around those silly Geth... because of it's floaty speedy agility.

Personally if I there was one vehicle I would like to see them replace it with, it would be something more akin to the A-61 Mantis Gunship, maybe an improved one (in design), a rechargable Barrier with Armor and maybe the option whereby it's weapon complement can be altered for whatever mission we use it on. Has none of the 'yargh am gonna crash into the lava' issues of either of the previous 2 vehicles (unless you stupidly fly it into such), has the armor and weaponry of the Mako and has the maneuverability of the Hammerhead. That is taking the strengths of both and removing the weaknesses as it would also remove the 'mario hopping' that some people didn't like about the Hammerhead.

[habitat 67]

I happen to know quite a few Mass Effect fans that are unwilling to even enter these forums due mainly to the Veruca Salt (whine princess) behavior of the more vocal posters.

Modifié par habitat 67, 18 décembre 2010 - 02:05 .

[Nightwriter]

Bennyjammin79 wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

They listen. But I believe they listen selectively. Shouldn't they?

I hope they're ignoring this thread.

I'm honestly curious how their filtration process works. How do they weed out the trolls and focus on the people who may have actually worthwhile opinions?

What if someone rants, but there are good points buried in that rant? Is it dismissed just because it's a rant? Does attitude affect content?

[habitat 67]

Well, attitude always affects content. That's the way the world works.

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

I'll cover this in several points:-

* BioWare shouldn't need to run a defecit, since they're bigger now than ever and are making more simultaneous projects now than ever. Surely they can make games to suit both their old fans and potential new ones.

But Mass Effect serie is the try to please the new fans too, while DAO was more the old fans?
(Mass Effect serie has TPS in it, that's the different, it's hybrid, what means less traditional RPG)

Yeah, I know what happens in DA2, but that's other question.

Modifié par Lumikki, 18 décembre 2010 - 10:33 .

[Terror_K]

Yes, it is a question of style. Not just gameplay wise, but presentation wise too. ME1 felt like a mature game with substance and was a great homage to the great sci-fi films of the late 1970's through to the early 90's. It felt like it was made for those of us who grew up in that era and loved those films and are now adults. ME2 doesn't feel as mature and seems to go for a more over-the-top modern Hollywood approach and feels more like it's aimed at those who are still growing up, with a penchant for flashy style over actual substance. Things like a more bombastic, over-the-top style, attempting to be dark and gritty by just having more violence and swearing rather than actually exploring darkness properly and numerous large plot holes and examples where the integrity of the established universe just doesn't seem to be a high priority any more (combat pyjamas for instance) are examples of this.

Gameplay wise ME1 was still very much an RPG, and had strong RPG elements and ties. Yes, it was an action-RPG and had real-time TPS based combat, but it was still an RPG at the heart of it all. It may have done things a little clumsily but it still had customisation and decent player input. ME1 had a good degree of skills, including non-combat ones. ME2 threw out most of this in favour of a more automated approach and less customisation. It threw away varied skills and just gave us a series of combat-related powers. In ME1 you earned XP for deeds, in ME2 you just get a random, meaningless number thrown at you.

I mean, we bring up things like The Mako and elevators and argue as to the degree of them listening, but I don't exactly recall people saying they wanted modding gone at any point and time when it came to ME1 complaints. I don't recall people saying they wanted a linear upgrade system that just did all the work for you without any trade-offs whatsoever and that's all. I don't recall people saying they wanted the helmet toggle gone and that they wanted armour that was all just one piece. I don't recall people saying they wanted non-combat skills gone, or that they wanted omni-tools and biotic amps gone too. Some things are just bad and shallow gameplay, whether they're RPG elements or not.

Modifié par Terror_K, 18 décembre 2010 - 10:45 .

[Marta Rio]

Nightwriter wrote...
I'm honestly curious how their filtration process works. How do they weed out the trolls and focus on the people who may have actually worthwhile opinions?

Unpaid interns?  If I were in charge that's exactly who I'd have trying to separate the wheat from the chaff.

[SithLordExarKun]

You know terror for many of us(not all of us though), if they made ME2s gameplay almost identical to ME1's(alas with a few improvements) it would feel like the same exact game(like FO3 and new vegas) and thus wouldn't really feel like a different game which hinders the replayability a lot. It would feel much more like an expansion that a new game.



Thats just my personal opinion though so don't take it like i speak it for a fact.

[Terror_K]

That depends on the player. I personally don't need every game that comes out to change and be innovative. I'd prefer they improve and perfect what they've got a lot of the time rather than try and change things up too much. Good game mechanics are good game mechanics, whether they're new or not. As far as I'm concerned only those with short attention spans really need something completely new and fresh every single time. DAO wasn't a particularly innovative game overall, but was a damn fantastic one. BG2 wasn't that different from BG1 and if anything grew in depth. KotOR 2 basically used the same model as the original and made gameplay refinements and improvements without rewriting the book. The point is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Sure, ME1 was admittedly a little broken, but not everything that was changed was, and much could have done with a patch-job rather than a complete scrapping and replacement.

I also personally don't find ME2 to be particularly innovative overall when it comes to gameplay, instead choosing to basically simplify things and/or replace them with done-to-death shooter mechanics that are far more dated and less innovative. It's not about the age of the mechanics or the innovation as to why so many ME2 players accepted and preferred it, it's because those are the current trend these days and that type of gameplay is the "in thing" as it were. It's all about preference, not lack of innovation and being dated at all.

It's funny you mention Fallout 3 and New Vegas because that's a good example of what ME2 should have actually been. New Vegas has been (bug issues aside) rather well-received, despite being a game that isn't particularly innovative or fresh and despite using a dated engine. It really is essentially the same game style-wise to Fallout 3 in almost every way, but it just does it all that little bit better and that overall makes it a better game. It doesn't change too much, but tweaks what didn't quite work in Fallout 3 to make it better while not losing what it set out to do. It adds more where there was less, and streamlines what was unnecessarily complex, has a better story, narrative and characters and just feels richer and more refined. Obsidian realised that you didn't need to water down and oversimplify the mechanics to make the game better, and that you just needed to improve and refine what was there. And that's exactly what Mass Effect 2 should have been, rather than the near-on reboot it ended up being.

And as a final note, it seems from comments they've made that ME3 isn't going to innovate that much from ME2, and will essentially for the most part have identical gameplay. If that's the case, I'll be curious to see if the ME2 defenders who are so keen on things innovating and staying fresh will end up complaining because ME3 ends up not innovating, or whether they'll praise it unendingly because it offers more of the same, thus proving that it's not about being fresh and innovative at all, but merely getting more of what you like.

Modifié par Terror_K, 18 décembre 2010 - 01:39 .

[glacier1701]

Terror_K wrote...
...snip....

And as a final note, it seems from comments they've made that ME3 isn't going to innovate that much from ME2, and will essentially for the most part have identical gameplay. If that's the case, I'll be curious to see if the ME2 defenders who are so keen on things innovating and staying fresh will end up complaining because ME3 ends up not innovating, or whether they'll praise it unendingly because it offers more of the same, thus proving that it's not about being fresh and innovative at all, but merely getting more of what you like.

 It will be very interesting to see what many will say if this happens. I agree with you in that much was done to ME2 that was unnecessary. I can even recall some comments from a particular BioWare employee almost everytime we called BW on things that were done that we never saw the point of and how they said "dont you want us to make money?"  I think they have already gone from doing it for 'the love of it' to 'how much money can we make and how many awards can we get if we do this'.

[SithLordExarKun]

Terror_K wrote...

I also personally don't find ME2 to be particularly innovative overall when it comes to gameplay, instead choosing to basically simplify things and/or replace them with done-to-death shooter mechanics that are far more dated and less innovative. It's not about the age of the mechanics or the innovation as to why so many ME2 players accepted and preferred it, it's because those are the current trend these days and that type of gameplay is the "in thing" as it were. It's all about preference, not lack of innovation and being dated at all.

Well then its your personal thing that ME2's gamestyle isn't your preference. You may not like ME2 due to it being "dumbed down" and over simplification of things but the interesting thing to note is simplicity works, not everygame has to be 'zomgs00c0mpl3X!!" and the thing to note is that mass effect 1 was already simple to begin with.  Like you said, its preference

Terror_K wrote...
It's funny you mention Fallout 3 and New Vegas because that's a good example of what ME2 should have actually been.

In your personal opinion you mean. The problem with new vegas being so similar to fallout 3 is that its essentially the same game and theres no 'kick factor' to it, you felt like you played with it before and thus you lose interest much more quickly than the previous game. Its like watching the same exact movie with a few different scenes, not much to look for.

Theres a reason that the call of duty multiplayer became so stale after world at war, it was the same exact gameplay and mechanics as call of duty 4 and it only added a few tweaks here and there. But overall it was the same game as previous titles and every subsequent call of duty was essentially a reskin. This applied to new vegas as well. This is the reason why so many people start getting bored of call of duty.


But i know what you mean, the problem with ME2 was the removal of several RPG mechanics(inventory,stat distribution etc etc), had they actually kept and improved that it would still be the same game but much more innovated with its updated combat system. The game can't be too similar, nor can it be too distant, but the way you make it out to be is like ME1 is an RPG with shooter elements and then it turned into a complete Call of duty dick fest ME2.

Modifié par SithLordExarKun, 18 décembre 2010 - 03:21 .

[Pacifien]

Nightwriter wrote...
I'm honestly curious how their filtration process works. How do they weed out the trolls and focus on the people who may have actually worthwhile opinions?

What if someone rants, but there are good points buried in that rant? Is it dismissed just because it's a rant? Does attitude affect content?

Compare it to yourself. Have you created something? Have you had it critiqued? How do you read the forums? How do you filter that?

I'd mention something about how people interpret rants from an opposite viewpoint as well, but it'd be beside the point. Developers aren't programs. They think and process as a human being would.

[Terror_K]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Well then its your personal thing that ME2's gamestyle isn't your preference. You may not like ME2 due to it being "dumbed down" and over simplification of things but the interesting thing to note is simplicity works, not everygame has to be 'zomgs00c0mpl3X!!" and the thing to note is that mass effect 1 was already simple to begin with.  Like you said, its preference

In a sense simplicity is good, but one can take it too far, just like one can make things overly complicated. ME1 for instance was fairly simple, but overly complex to the point of tediousness for many as to how that simplicity was approached and implemented, mostly in the case of inventory. What we needed was actual streamlining of the system, but BioWare took things too far and oversimplified. When one streamlines the idea is to make it simpler and easier to access while giving the same functionality. In some ways ME2 does, but some things are simply gone, and most of what's left has gone from being a case of what was once players going, "why do I have to do so much to do the simplest thing" into a system that holds your hand too much, does most of the work for you without any real input and sometimes even feels like they're taking control away from you entirely as if to say, "you're doing it wrong!" and not even giving you a real choice at all.

Theres a reason that the call of duty multiplayer became so stale after world at war, it was the same exact gameplay and mechanics as call of duty 4 and it only added a few tweaks here and there. But overall it was the same game as previous titles and every subsequent call of duty was essentially a reskin. This applied to new vegas as well. This is the reason why so many people start getting bored of call of duty.

And yet Call of Duty is still a massive seller. Blacks Ops did amazing numbers sales wise. So if innovation is the excuse, then Mass Effect doesn't need to innovate to make money and could just easily stay the same. But that's not what it's about, as I said: it's about being a moneymaker by appealing to more people by making the game something that appeals to today's modern mainstream gamer, and today's modern mainstream gamer are the Halo, Gears of War and CoD players. It's about the opposite of innovation: it's about becoming more like one of the crowd, which is exactly what ME2 did. It's not about being a better game, it's about being a more popular game.

Modifié par Terror_K, 18 décembre 2010 - 09:27 .

[KillerYeh]

Well, I think they listen to community. There is a great improvement since ME1, it looks greater, plays more exciting... Lots of work and cool design.

[Phaedon]

Terror_K wrote...
In a sense simplicity is good, but one can take it too far, just like one can make things overly complicated. ME1 for instance was fairly simple, but overly complex to the point of tediousness for many as to how that simplicity was approached and implemented, mostly in the case of inventory. What we needed was actual streamlining of the system, but BioWare took things too far and oversimplified. When one streamlines the idea is to make it simpler and easier to access while giving the same functionality. In some ways ME2 does, but some things are simply gone, and most of what's left has gone from being a case of what was once players going, "why do I have to do so much to do the simplest thing" into a system that holds your hand too much, does most of the work for you without any real input and sometimes even feels like they're taking control away from you entirely as if to say, "you're doing it wrong!" and not even giving you a real choice at all.

How can something be both simplistic and complex? Unless if you are refering to the concept of an inventory, which let me remind you, existed in Mass Efect 2 as well.

And yet Call of Duty is still a massive seller. Blacks Ops did amazing numbers sales wise. So if innovation is the excuse, then Mass Effect doesn't need to innovate to make money and could just easily stay the same. But that's not what it's about, as I said: it's about being a moneymaker by appealing to more people by making the game something that appeals to today's modern mainstream gamer, and today's modern mainstream gamer are the Halo, Gears of War and CoD players. It's about the opposite of innovation: it's about becoming more like one of the crowd, which is exactly what ME2 did. It's not about being a better game, it's about being a more popular game.

First of all, don't generalize. Halo, Halo 2, Call of Duty, United Offensive, CoD 2,3 and 4 were great games (at least imho). So no, when you say 'Halo' and 'CoD' players you should specify, not to mention that you assume that being mainstream is bad. You are again assuming that all these games that you mentioned are bad. I really liked Black Ops, almost as much as CoD 2.  Popular means bad? No.

If you are suggesting that ME2 was a popular but a bad game, then you are wrong as well. Reviewers liked it. Gamers liked it. Why is it bad? Because you think that it is? It's the exact same thing with ideas, just because you like it, it doesn't mean that it's the best or that you have any right to force Bioware into producing something that doesn't express their personalities.

Modifié par Phaedon, 18 décembre 2010 - 09:44 .

[bjdbwea]

Terror_K wrote...

It's funny you mention Fallout 3 and New Vegas because that's a good example of what ME2 should have actually been. New Vegas has been (bug issues aside) rather well-received, despite being a game that isn't particularly innovative or fresh and despite using a dated engine. It really is essentially the same game style-wise to Fallout 3 in almost every way, but it just does it all that little bit better and that overall makes it a better game. It doesn't change too much, but tweaks what didn't quite work in Fallout 3 to make it better while not losing what it set out to do. It adds more where there was less, and streamlines what was unnecessarily complex, has a better story, narrative and characters and just feels richer and more refined. Obsidian realised that you didn't need to water down and oversimplify the mechanics to make the game better, and that you just needed to improve and refine what was there. And that's exactly what Mass Effect 2 should have been, rather than the near-on reboot it ended up being.

This. Well said. I completely agree. What's also "funny" is that NV apparently sold much better than ME 2, whereas ME 2 didn't sell much more than ME 1 either. So what does this say? You do not need to dumb down a successful RPG series, in fact it doesn't seem to increase sales.

[Phaedon]

bjdbwea wrote...
This. Well said. I completely agree. What's also "funny" is that NV apparently sold much better than ME 2, whereas ME 2 didn't sell much more than ME 1 either. So what does this say? You do not need to dumb down a successful RPG series, in fact it doesn't seem to increase sales.

Except that this logic has more holes than swiss cheese. All of the numbers that you see are made up, since there is a)No reliable source other than publishers b)Steam,D2D etc. sales don't count c)ME has been out for years. d)'Dumbed down' is your opinion and not a fact.

Modifié par Phaedon, 18 décembre 2010 - 09:50 .