344 réponses à ce sujet

[Quadcloppen]

They seem to listen, they just probably act like they don't. I could be wrong, but I do think they listen.

Modifié par Quadcloppen, 18 décembre 2010 - 09:51 .

[Ajara123]

They listen to us. The thing is they know they can't please everyone, so they just do the best they can with what they have.

[Terror_K]

Phaedon wrote...

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.

Inventory barely existed in ME2. It was no deeper than collecting guns or powerups in a shooter like Quake III or Unreal Tournament, but that's another matter.

What I mean is the practice of making complexity simple. With ME1 the inventory was over complex for what it was. ME2 on the other hand was overly simple. Complexity and depth in games --especially RPGs-- is a good thing, but to make it work well you have to try and make it so the complex aspects are as simple as possible, so that you make them easy to use but still maintain their depth and functionality in the process.

The problem is one can be too simple and take away what made the aspect good and fun in the first place by doing so. It's fine to take the overly tedious and unnecessary stuff out, but when you start taking away customisation, choice and variation in the process and let everything do itself too much it just becomes tedious and dull, especially when you end up making things linear and samey in the process.

I'll use an example I've used before for this: The Hank Scorpio episode of The Simpsons where the family moves town so that Homer can work with Scorpio. There's a few scenes in that where Marge Simpson is at home and wants to do housework, but the house just automatically cleans and takes care of itself, which leads to her just sitting there drinking wine. That's what ME2 feels like to me: they've taken away so much control, options and variations by automating things and cutting out the middle man that I just feel left out and want to do stuff but can't. Everything is too simple, too linear and/or on autopilot too much, it just doesn't feel interesting or rewarding, especially when in every playthrough everything ends up being the same in the same way with the only exception being my Shepard's face and what colour their armour is.

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.

It's not that these are bad games, it's that they're generic and rather simple games, and they're also not the type of game that Mass Effect is supposed to be. I enjoy a bit of CoD, Unreal Tournament, Quake III, Team Fortress 2 and even Gears of War now and then myself, but I don't want every game that I play and every game that comes out to be like that. That's no what Mass Effect started as and not the audience it was originally aimed at and not the type of game it should be. It's not about good or bad, it's about what is best for the game and what it's supposed to be. Mass Effect is an action RPG, that just happens to have TPS combat. It's not supposed to be that simple and generic, and the original game was more than the sum of its parts. These games aren't all bad games, but they're different from Mass Effect and should stay that way. And on top of that, there are more than enough of them out there as it is. Too many games are the same these days and it's only getting worse, and for Mass Effect to start heading down the same path is not a step in the right direction and not innovative or fresh. The mainstream gamer of today already has millions of titles catering to them, so why do the few titles that were still made for more niche audiences have to go down the same overtravelled road?

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.

I'm not saying it was a bad game, I'm saying it was a bad sequel and a bad RPG. Reviewers liked it because they probably weren't judging it on being a sequel and expecting as much from it as I was, so they reviewed it like they'd review any game, not caring about labels or prior expectations (not to mention the fact that reviewers hand out 9's and 10's far too easily these days). Gamers liked it because it was more like the type of games today's modern gamers like, just like I said above. It's more like a shooter, it's more simple and it's more like all the other big titles out there today, and that's the "in thing" at the moment because gaming is more mainstream than it was a decade ago. It's as simple as that.

As for the final comment, I wouldn't be surprised if there were some BioWare employees who actually felt the same why I do, but have to keep quiet and just go along with it. I've seen devs on the Dragon Age forums even say that they'd like to create more hard core RPGs than they are, but that the market simply isn't going for those things right now and they have to make games for where the market is going. So there may be some Mass Effect devs out there who would prefer to make a deeper, more complex game, but they have make what the "market wants" or something.

I find it extremely difficult to believe that ME2 was the natural evolution of ME1, especially given early videos. It just doesn't gel with me, and I'm almost certain that it was purposefully retooled part the way through to appeal to a greater audience and branch out more. The devs pretty much said as much when criticised at the old board shortly after E3 when concerns were raised about it being too much of a shooter, but still tried to claim that ME2 was still a strong RPG. So, who can really say whether ME2 was really the devs "expressing their personalities" or not? I personally don't think it was, and am convinced that they simply made ME2 like they did for profit and popularity reasons more than they truly wanted to make it. If ME2 was really supposed to be how the Mass Effect games were meant to be, then it would have started that way. Otherwise why would ME1 contain so many RPG elements and complex factors that are simply gone from ME2? Wouldn't they just have made ME1 like ME2 from the start since it's a far simpler game if that's what it was meant to be?

[SithLordExarKun]

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.

You always agree to anyone that either doesn't like ME2 or outright hates it. ME2 did sold more than ME1, you being an ME1 fanatic obviously can't accept the fact that despite you hate ME2 so much, its more popular and more sold than your precious ME1.

[SithLordExarKun]

Terror_K wrote...

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.

Only problem is ME2 is a better game than COD,GOW and Halo. Even the "dumb shooter crowd" as you people put it admit it. Because not only is bioware trying to make the ME franchise more popular, but at the same time its better than other 'mainstream' games. If its not about being a better game, why has ME2 garnered so many positive reviews from both critics and fans? Why hasn't bioware oversimplified it to the point that it becomes another 'simple' FPS like COD? Why is bioware bothering to add in more rpg elements in ME3?


And let me tell you something terror, the devs aren't listening to you or anybody else, the have mostly stopped caring about the ME community, you may make some great valid points but thats either buried within your own rants and in other attacks made by other haters. Thats probably why your cries aren't heard and constantly bashing bioware or the game isn't going to help.

[-Skorpious-]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

And let me tell you something terror, the devs aren't listening to you or anybody else, the have mostly stopped caring about the ME community...

Stanley  Woo and Jesse Houston say otherwise.

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/103/index/5465145%26lf%3D8#5466158

[SithLordExarKun]

-Skorpious- wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

And let me tell you something terror, the devs aren't listening to you or anybody else, the have mostly stopped caring about the ME community...

Stanley  Woo and Jesse Houston say otherwise.

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/103/index/5465145%26lf%3D8#5466158

Yes, because answering one single question means they care so much. So why aren't they interacting here as much as they do in the DA forums then? Why does every 'ME3 suggestion thread' gets ignored unlike the DA2 threads?

[-Skorpious-]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

-Skorpious- wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

And let me tell you something terror, the devs aren't listening to you or anybody else, the have mostly stopped caring about the ME community...

Stanley  Woo and Jesse Houston say otherwise.

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/103/index/5465145%26lf%3D8#5466158

Yes, because answering one single question means they care so much. So why aren't they interacting here as much as they do in the DA forums then? Why does every 'ME3 suggestion thread' gets ignored unlike the DA2 threads?

Because DA2 is only a mere 2 months away from release? Since DA2 is so close to release, DA devs have more incentive to reply to fan submitted topics than the newly announced ME3 (since customers naturally have questions they would like answered before buying a product).

I'm not sure if you were around the forums when ME2 was revealed, but Bioware became much more active on the forums during ME2's development cycle. Just give them time and they will likely start answering some of our questions.

Modifié par -Skorpious-, 19 décembre 2010 - 05:11 .

[SithLordExarKun]

[quote]Terror_K wrote...



It's not that these are bad games, it's that they're generic and rather simple games, and they're also not the type of game that Mass Effect is supposed to be. I enjoy a bit of CoD, Unreal Tournament, Quake III, Team Fortress 2 and even Gears of War now and then myself, but I don't want every game that I play and every game that comes out to be like that. That's no what Mass Effect started as and not the audience it was originally aimed at and not the type of game it should be. It's not about good or bad, it's about what is best for the game and what it's supposed to be. Mass Effect is an action RPG, that just happens to have TPS combat. It's not supposed to be that simple and generic, and the original game was more than the sum of its parts. These games aren't all bad games, but they're different from Mass Effect and should stay that way. And on top of that, there are more than enough of them out there as it is. Too many games are the same these days and it's only getting worse, and for Mass Effect to start heading down the same path is not a step in the right direction and not innovative or fresh. The mainstream gamer of today already has millions of titles catering to them, so why do the few titles that were still made for more niche audiences have to go down the same overtravelled road?

So just because they removed a few RPG elements and improved the shooter mechanics means they are making ME2 into another COD game but in space? Does COD allow you to make your own decisions? Does COD have free roam? Does COD have the simple level up distribution that ME2 has? Does COD have character interaction? No, they don't. One aspect being similar doesn't mean Mass effect is turning into an FPS crap fest.

Besides if what Casey Hudson said is true, there will be more RPG elements back in ME3 akin to that of ME1 and improved yet retaining ME2's combat. I don't see the need to panic here. Besides, so what if they did dumb down ME3 into yet another shooter? Its a video game, its not going to affect your life dramatically and there are plenty of other things to do. Don't like the game? Forget it and get something else. Too many shooters in the market? Then don't play games and do other things.

I remember the hype for FFXIII for 4 years(thats far more hype than i had for ME2) and it turned out to be a POS but i didn't bother raging on the forum on how crappy it was.

[SithLordExarKun]

-Skorpious- wrote...



Because DA2 is only a mere 2 months away from release? Since DA2 is so close to release, the DA devs have more incentive to reply to fan submitted topics than the newly announced ME3.

Looks like you haven't been around for long. They were interacting wit the community since DA2 announcement which was months ago but haven't interacted with ME forums since ME2's release.

-Skorpious- wrote...
I'm not sure if you were around the forums when ME2 was revealed, but Bioware became much more active on the forums doing ME2's development cycle. Just give them time and they will likely start answering some of our questions.

For ME3 yes. But as for how "ME2" was "dumbed down", they aren't going to respond to the nerd raging fans who get a hard on for ME1.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Terror_K makes extremely good points. I love ME2, but it really can't be debated that it turned from something completely original and fresh into Gears of War with dialogue (an exaggeration, but still). The ME1 feel was lost in ME2, it went from Blade Runner on an epic scale feel to Die Hard 2200.



Like i said, i love ME2, but it seriously did a 180. Hopefully some remnants of ME1 can be found in ME3.

[sinosleep]

Unless, of course, one chooses to debate it.

[-Skorpious-]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

-Skorpious- wrote...



Because DA2 is only a mere 2 months away from release? Since DA2 is so close to release, the DA devs have more incentive to reply to fan submitted topics than the newly announced ME3.

Looks like you haven't been around for long. They were interacting wit the community since DA2 announcement which was months ago but haven't interacted with ME forums since ME2's release.

You have to keep in mind that dev participation on this forum is completely voluntary. Mike and David may just enjoy posting in the forums more than the average dev. Afterall, devs come this forum on their own spare time - most would probably enjoy spending time with family/firends or playing games more than addressing the nerd-rage of an entire coummunity.

And Christina did remain quite active for a few months after ME2 was released. But like I said, give them time to announce some of ME3's features (they probably have a non-disclosure agreement or something) and they will likely begin answering fan-related content.

-Skorpious- wrote...
I'm not sure if you were around the forums when ME2 was revealed, but Bioware became much more active on the forums doing ME2's development cycle. Just give them time and they will likely start answering some of our questions.

SithLordExarKun wrote...

For ME3 yes. But as for how "ME2" was "dumbed down", they aren't going to respond to the nerd raging fans who get a hard on for ME1.

Woo and Houston gave some vague answers about this earlier, but thats likely all the dev's will say on the matter.

[SmokePants]

If I opened up an ice cream parlor that served 76 flavors of feces, it would be original. And if I went out of business, someone, somewhere would be angry.

[Pacifien]

SithLordExarKun wrote...
Yes, because answering one single question means they care so much. So why aren't they interacting here as much as they do in the DA forums then? Why does every 'ME3 suggestion thread' gets ignored unlike the DA2 threads?

Would you say Lair of the Shadow Broker is a failure on their part to address any of the concerns people had about the main game?

Also, not that I know why they don't go on the forums very often, but I strongly suspect that participation would be voluntary on their part and going on a forum being constantly on the defense about my job is not my idea of a good time. I honestly have no idea how the DA2 crew manage it, but they've been on BSN since the start while the ME crew have not.

[-Skorpious-]

Pacifien wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...
Yes, because answering one single question means they care so much. So why aren't they interacting here as much as they do in the DA forums then? Why does every 'ME3 suggestion thread' gets ignored unlike the DA2 threads?

Would you say Lair of the Shadow Broker is a failure on their part to address any of the concerns people had about the main game?

Also, not that I know why they don't go on the forums very often, but I strongly suspect that participation would be voluntary on their part and going on a forum being constantly on the defense about my job is not my idea of a good time. I honestly have no idea how the DA2 crew manage it, but they've been on BSN since the start while the ME crew have not.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, I believe Mike and David are rare exceptions rather than the rule when it comes to dev participation. Those guys are always on, so that probably means they enjoy addressing fan feedback more than a typical dev like, say, Jesse or Stanley would.

It seems to be more of individual preference than a team effort at this point.

Modifié par -Skorpious-, 19 décembre 2010 - 06:44 .

[Terror_K]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Only problem is ME2 is a better game than COD,GOW and Halo. Even the "dumb shooter crowd" as you people put it admit it. Because not only is bioware trying to make the ME franchise more popular, but at the same time its better than other 'mainstream' games.

I'm not so sure about that. Ignoring Halo because I actually think it's a decidedly average shooter that's actually nothing special, while ME2 is a game I do still prefer over those titles I believe that most of the CoD games and GoW do a better job of being what they are and what they were intended and supposed to be than ME2 did. In some senses I'd even say they did a better job than ME1. It's harder to screw things up when your mechanics are relatively simple, and that's the same logic that seemed to be behind ME2's simplification. The less moving parts, the less there is to go wrong.

The point basically is that ME2 was trying to be some kind of hybrid game and didn't quite succeed in either department, while at least CoD and Gears nail the type of games they are trying to be, even if they're shallower games for it (though I'd argue that most CoD titles have better weapon customisation than ME2 does). Of course when you're not trying to be a hybrid this is easier. ME2 didn't provide enough meat on the RPG side of things, and while the TPS side of things was admittedly improved when it came to basic gameplay, it fails to really change things up and use the mechanics to their full potential, like Gears of War actually does.

Though I will admit that parts of Overlord and LotSB did this far more effectively, but then LotSB is by far and large the best thing to come out of ME2 and head and shoulders above the vanilla game in most respects, with its only real weaknesses being aspects that are restricted by the weaknesses of the main game (so I can't really fault or blame it for that).

If its not about being a better game, why has ME2 garnered so many positive reviews from both critics and fans? Why hasn't bioware oversimplified it to the point that it becomes another 'simple' FPS like COD? Why is bioware bothering to add in more rpg elements in ME3?

To the first point, because it's appealing to a larger audience and fanbase now, who prefer that type of gameplay. It's about preference, not actually being better. Again, in some ways ME2 is a better game, but it's not a better RPG or a good sequel. And in the changes made it became the "game" that ME1 kind of wasn't. But being a better game doesn't make a better Mass Effect, because it deviates too much from the original style. One may say that things like --for random examples-- Worms, Red Dead Redemption, CoD4 and Starcraft 2 are "better games" than the original Mass Effect was, but that doesn't mean Mass Effect 2 becoming more like some or all of them suits the style and feeling of the series and is better for it. There's a difference between being a "better game" and being a "better Mass Effect" basically. My favourite game of all time is Unreal Tournament, which is pretty much a pure multiplayer shooter. That doesn't mean I want Mass Effect to become more like it though.

For the second point, the answer is one I've already given before: because BioWare wants to have their cake and eat it too. They don't want to just go for appealing to new fans when there's a chance that they can keep most of the old ones while reeling in the current popular audience too. It's all about popularity and profit, so they're appealing so as many as possible, and that means appealing to the mainstream audience as well as their old fans and more niche audiences. They're trying to find that perfect blend between old and new. The problem with this is that there will always be old fans who hate this approach and generally dislike more mainstream games and don't want to see their favourite studio watering down their products for the sake of branching out, while there will always be mainstream gamers who still find BioWare games too complex and involved and won't jump aboard unless there's multiplayer and things simplify even more. Of course, BioWare won't care if they can find that perfect medium between both extremes.

For the third point, I'll basically believe this when I see it. Talk is cheap, and that could have been nothing more than something to try and keep those of us who were disappointed quiet. When more info comes then I'll start to see whether this is true, but I'm keeping in mind that this is the same company that said ME2 was still a strong and deep RPG that had rich customisation, that DAO was going to have 2 years of DLC support and who appear to be making the same mistakes with Dragon Age 2 that they did with ME2. And there are also comments such as ME3 being a standalone game that don't give me hope, since that's one of the things I felt hindered ME2 so much.

As a final, somewhat unrelated note regarding the devs' presence here, they certainly were very active prior to ME2's release and then pretty much went silent straight afterwards. I know it's a voluntary thing coming here and all, but the timing certainly is convenient. It's only more recent since the ME3 teaser that we've got a little more activity in here from them (such as in this topic). At least after ME1 came out they were willing to discuss and talk about the issues people had with it. Here they've been silent throughout most of 2010, and every so often when an interview came out that raised the issues some people (such as myself) had with ME2 being less an RPG, we get some vague and snide comments with lame excuses while they point to awards and review scores, all topped off with a bow of arrogance +2.

Modifié par Terror_K, 19 décembre 2010 - 10:29 .

[SithLordExarKun]

Terror_K wrote...



I'm not so sure about that. Ignoring Halo because I actually think it's a decidedly average shooter that's actually nothing special, while ME2 is a game I do still prefer over those titles I believe that most of the CoD games and GoW do a better job of being what they are and what they were intended and supposed to be than ME2 did. In some senses I'd even say they did a better job than ME1. It's harder to screw things up when your mechanics are relatively simple, and that's the same logic that seemed to be behind ME2's simplification. The less moving parts, the less there is to go wrong.

Well you make a valid point for this one.

Terror_K wrote...
The point basically is that ME2 was trying to be some kind of hybrid game and didn't quite succeed in either department, while at least CoD and Gears nail the type of games they are trying to be, even if they're shallower games for it (though I'd argue that most CoD titles have better weapon customisation than ME2 does). Of course when you're not trying to be a hybrid this is easier. ME2 didn't provide enough meat on the RPG side of things, and while the TPS side of things was admittedly improved when it came to basic gameplay, it fails to really change things up and use the mechanics to their full potential, like Gears of War actually does.

You got to give ME2 some credit for its combat system. I have completed uncharted 2 on the PS3 and its shooter mechanics are are very similar to that of ME2 but much less refined and basically its more pray and spray than ME2. I agree that the COD titles has much better weapon customization than both ME1 and ME2, that alone is having a little more RPG elements than either games for that department but i understand that quite a number of RPG elements were removed from ME2.

Terror_K wrote...
For the second point, the answer is one I've already given before: because BioWare wants to have their cake and eat it too. They don't want to just go for appealing to new fans when there's a chance that they can keep most of the old ones while reeling in the current popular audience too. It's all about popularity and profit, so they're appealing so as many as possible, and that means appealing to the mainstream audience as well as their old fans and more niche audiences. They're trying to find that perfect blend between old and new. The problem with this is that there will always be old fans who hate this approach and generally dislike more mainstream games and don't want to see their favourite studio watering down their products for the sake of branching out, while there will always be mainstream gamers who still find BioWare games too complex and involved and won't jump aboard unless there's multiplayer and things simplify even more. Of course, BioWare won't care if they can find that perfect medium between both extremes.

Well its great you understand this concept. The thing is regardless of what bioware does there will always be a number of people that are unhappy and continue to bash bioware.

Terror_K wrote...
For the third point, I'll basically believe this when I see it. Talk is cheap, and that could have been nothing more than something to try and keep those of us who were disappointed quiet. When more info comes then I'll start to see whether this is true, but I'm keeping in mind that this is the same company that said ME2 was still a strong and deep RPG that had rich customisation, that DAO was going to have 2 years of DLC support and who appear to be making the same mistakes with Dragon Age 2 that they did with ME2. And there are also comments such as ME3 being a standalone game that don't give me hope, since that's one of the things I felt hindered ME2 so much.

Like you said its a wait and see approach.

Btw on a sidenote could you remove me from the ignore list/ I know i was extremely rude several times but the time of being a dick head is long over and i want to discuss something via PM.

[Terror_K]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
For the second point, the answer is one I've already given before: because BioWare wants to have their cake and eat it too. They don't want to just go for appealing to new fans when there's a chance that they can keep most of the old ones while reeling in the current popular audience too. It's all about popularity and profit, so they're appealing so as many as possible, and that means appealing to the mainstream audience as well as their old fans and more niche audiences. They're trying to find that perfect blend between old and new. The problem with this is that there will always be old fans who hate this approach and generally dislike more mainstream games and don't want to see their favourite studio watering down their products for the sake of branching out, while there will always be mainstream gamers who still find BioWare games too complex and involved and won't jump aboard unless there's multiplayer and things simplify even more. Of course, BioWare won't care if they can find that perfect medium between both extremes.

Well its great you understand this concept. The thing is regardless of what bioware does there will always be a number of people that are unhappy and continue to bash bioware.

While this is likely true, I think the key to minimizing this actually relates to my main issue with ME2 and (from what I've seen of) Dragon Age 2: consistency within a given series.

Again, my issues aren't so much with what ME2 became but more to do with the fact that it was Mass Effect 2 that became it. I've said it before and I'll say it again: if BioWare wants to branch out that's all fine and dandy, but I don't think they should go changing their series' part the way through. Certainly not the main ones anyway... if they do a spin-off that changes the gameplay and style I'd be fine with it. This is especially the case I feel with the Mass Effect Trilogy because of what it is: a trilogy. If you start off making a series a particular way in a particular style then I believe you should stick to that way for the trilogy. This doesn't mean things can't change or be improved or that innovation can't happen, but it does mean that you shouldn't go retooling things drastically and altering your core audience.

Had ME1 been in the style of ME2 from the start I wouldn't have had anywhere as many issues with what ME2 did. I wouldn't have got into the Mass Effect IP on anywhere near as deep a level, wouldn't be buying the ME merchandise, and ME1 itself wouldn't have been as satisfying, but I'd be playing the games and enjoying them on some level, and not posting on this board and complaining. It'd basically be another Jade Empire if that had been the case: a game I'd play and enjoy, but nowhere near as much and I basically wouldn't really comment about it that much at all. It's only because of my love of ME1 that I express my dislike and wish for change for ME2 so adamantly. ME1 was one of the few games I played that really became something more, and I really thought it was a great IP that I basically equated to being what Star Wars and Star Trek were once to me last century. Unfortunately it seems now that it's gone all "Star Wars Prequels" on me on only the second game in.

Btw on a sidenote could you remove me from the ignore list/ I know i was extremely rude several times but the time of being a dick head is long over and i want to discuss something via PM.

Done. For now at least...

Modifié par Terror_K, 19 décembre 2010 - 11:47 .

[Kreidian]

Interestingly I think the changes we've seen in ME2 prove that Bioware listens to the fans. Sure they took some huge risks with certain big shifts in the core gameplay but at the same time they clearly and effectively were able to address everything that was a big issue with the original. Much of what they've done int he DLCs also prove they listen to fans since so much of it seemed to me at least to be clearly inspired by fan suggestions.



I don't think they'll ever stop listening to the fans, that is in my opinion how you make top end 'Bioware quality' games in the first place. After all there is always room for improvement.



So for the Bioware folks still reading this thread let me just say: Awesome job guys, keep it up!



... and one more thing:

there was way too little RPG interactions in ME2, I want to have much longer and more varied conversations with all my crew, after each and every mission is possible. I want them to have more interactions with each other as well! This is definitely an area that needs improvement for ME3.



Thanks for listening.

[Dominus]

Couldn't have said it better than that - recieving feedback from critics, fans, and all other misc. sources is becoming a growing trend year after year. If you told me 10 years ago that people writing on internet forums could drastically change how a game is redesigned, I'd probably be scratching my head...

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

Had ME1 been in the style of ME2 from the start I wouldn't have had anywhere as many issues with what ME2 did.

I believe you, but..

What would you have done if ME2 and ME1 design would have happen reverse timetable. Meaning ME1 would have been "dumped down" design and ME2 would have been you favor loved RPG.  Think about it, first game would be style what you don't seem to support so much, while second would be style almost exactly what you like, would you defend the first game style?

You see how someone is defending what they like. They invent all possible reasons support what they want, in your case it's first game or is it really? Do you believe that your reasons is the only perspective reasons to make. Do you question your own reasons, that others reasons could be equal valid one to make, it's just what they like and want.

My point here was that as you see current situation go wrong direction in some ways, some of us see it as going right direction in some ways. It all comes from what we like and want, as what is our taste of games. That's hole point of discussion, what we like, not that some reason is better or more valid than other, when it's totally based players own taste of games. As for this "direction" word I used, I mean more like general ways, not that everyting in game design did go some direction. What we should try more is to find the real issues, what most of us can agree, not those what is based so much in our own taste of games. Because Bioware defines they game style as what it is, not us.

I hope developers can see trough this.

Modifié par Lumikki, 19 décembre 2010 - 04:19 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Pacifien wrote...

Would you say Lair of the Shadow Broker is a failure on their part to address any of the concerns people had about the main game?

Yes, I would say that apart from appeasing Liara's fanbase by shoehorning Shepard into the role of her bestest buddy and repurposing the Bombatron Hammerhead's mechanic into something more bearable (aka scripted pod racing), BioWare addresed nothing.

LotSB is full of all the same crap ME2 proper is full of, including plot holes and high heeled "uniform".

[Vena_86]

I find the argument of "it does not matter what makes it a better RPG or better shooter, but what's better for the game" quite interesting. There are several instances in ME2 where it does not do what is best for the game, no matter what lable you want to give it.
You don't want ME to be a hardcore RPG? Fine. But there are good reasons for other genres to introduce several key RPG mechanics to improve the game, without turning into actual RPGs. BioShock, Dead Space, WarCraft 3, Dawn of War 2 and every second racing game. These are just some examples where RPG mechanics have been implemented in a better way than in ME2, without beeing actual roleplaying games. It is just ironic that ME2 is sold as RPG first.
Customization and progression are very weak in Mass Effect 2. I just say it how I felt when playing it. I had a much better feel of progression in Dawn of War 2 (single player) and Dead Space. I also enjoyed the ammount of customization you had in BioShock with the so called "tonics", where I felt I was in charge and adjust the game to my style. These are things that, when done right are good for every game, no matter if it is a shooter, RPG, or cooking simulator.
I just played ME2 as a soldier again and from beginning to end it was the exact same gameplay. Using the same few powers the game has from beginning to end. Using the same overpowered equipment from beginning to end, only changing the color a few times. Having no control over how my character plays (fast? tough? weapon focus? abilitie focus). I am forced to play a jack of all trades like every other player. The upgrade system is counter productive. Half way through my first playthrough I did not even read the full names anymore. Just pick up everything  that you stumble upon and reasearch it, once you are on the Normandy. If it means I have to do a little more planet scanning, so be it. Instead of beeing a motivator this system became tedious. If it is so easy to become great at everything, there is no more though process required, there is no more involvement of the player, no reason to actually care about these upgrades. But I am not the first one to say just that.
What ME2 did was not streamlining anymore, it was trying to make this game as little RPGy as possible but BioWare kinda missed the finish line. Now the game doesn't even have the depth and long time motivation in it's RPG elements that some successfull shooters and strategy games have. As if RPGs are devils work and everything that can be associated with them. There are good reasons for RPG elements to exist and persist in gaming in the first place.
I still think it is a very good game, but there is still soooo much room for improvement.
It is irritating though, that possible improvements and in general the response of the core community (which are those who play the games the most, having the most experience) never appear to be in the conciousness of the ME devs. That is the impression which interviews, presentations and forum responses create. I just hope that the reality looks different.

Modifié par Vena_86, 19 décembre 2010 - 04:50 .

[Veex]

Terror_K wrote...



What I mean is the practice of making
complexity simple. With ME1 the inventory was over complex for what it
was. ME2 on the other hand was overly simple. Complexity and depth in
games --especially RPGs-- is a good thing, but to make it work well you
have to try and make it so the complex aspects are as simple as
possible, so that you make them easy to use but still maintain their
depth and functionality in the process.

This doesn't feel
like an accurate representation to me. Nothing about Mass Effect's
original inventory was complex, nor deep. It doesn't take any semblance
of intelligence to sort through large quantities of the same items. It
was tedious, shallow, and time consuming. If that is what passes for
"deep" RPG mechanics these days than I'm personally happy BioWare did away with them.



Mass
Effect 2's inventory is as simple as Mass Effect's, it simply removed
hundreds of items that had marginal stat differences and performed
exactly the same. Do I agree that Mass Effect 2 would benefit from a
greater selection of weapon and armor options? I do. I'd also like to
see the modification system make a comeback in some fashion. But to say
that either game's inventory was more or less complex seems inaccurate
in my opinion. One simply requires you to push "sell" or "omni-gel" more
often.

Terror_K wrote...


It's not that these
are bad games, it's that they're generic and rather simple games, and
they're also not the type of game that Mass Effect is supposed to be. I
enjoy a bit of CoD, Unreal Tournament, Quake III, Team Fortress 2 and
even Gears of War now and then myself, but I don't want every game that I
play and every game that comes out to be like that. That's no what Mass
Effect started as and not the audience it was originally aimed at and
not the type of game it should be. It's not about good or bad, it's
about what is best for the game and what it's supposed to be. Mass
Effect is an action RPG, that just happens to have TPS combat.

I think you've placed some over emphasis on RPG's being more "hard" or
"complex" than they really are. The things that differentiate Mass
Effect from a game like Call of Duty or Halo is the ability to shape
your character with branching dialogue and story options coupled with a
cinematic presentation. Not having a tedious inventory, as an example,
might make Mass Effect more similar to Halo or Call of Duty, but it is
certainly still more BioWare than "generic shooter."

Again, if
taking time to sort through and organize an inventory is what makes Mass
Effect less "simple" than "generic shooters" I am very pleased we've
gotten rid of the feature.

Terror_K wrote...

Gamers liked it because it was more like the type of games today's modern gamers like, just like I said above. It's more like a shooter, it's more simple and it's more like all the other big titles out there today, and that's the "in thing" at the moment because gaming is more mainstream than it was a decade ago. It's as simple as that.

I think that gamers are more diverse than you give them credit. When a series is being labled as an "Action/RPG" hybrid and it's shooting mechanics are overly RPG (meaning statistical points for weapon skills etc), it didn't hit the mark. When that series alleviates said discrpency, implements true shooter mechanics alongside it's RPG elements, it seems to more accurately fit it's label. It has nothing to do with the game being more or less simple, complex, or mainstream. It has to do with it being, for a lot of people, more fun.

I prefer both Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2 over the original Mass Effect. Why? Because I get an "old-school" RPG that lives up to it's billing, and I finally have a hybrid Action/RPG that does the same.