344 réponses à ce sujet

[GHOST OF FRUITY]

Another promising thread inevitably being dragged into the whole ME1 vs ME2 debacle - it's always the same thing and always the same people responsible for doing it. No wonder dev interaction has dropped. They probably got tired of reading the same discussions every week.



Do Bioware listen to the fanbase? Yes, I feel they do to a degree. Not an easy task when there are thousands of differing opinions. Not one person will have the same opinion as another, and there's the issue. Bioware will do what they will with ME3, and some suggestions i'm sure will be taken on board. Not all of course, but that just isn't a possibilty. Whatever they do, I know Bioware will make the best game they can. People will decide for themselves if they approve of the direction that ME3 takes.

[Nozybidaj]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Yes, I would say that apart from appeasing Liara's fanbase.....

And for being one of the more "passionate" posters about the whole thing previously I still haven't played LotSB.  Suppose I feel the story is all too far gone for a simple DLC to fix things, they still royally screwed up the whole arc there anyway, and as you mentioned wouldn't really do anything to fix all the other issues.  /shrug  At this point they really might as well go all out for the "Gears Effect" in ME3 and see what comes of it.  What's the worst that could happen?

[Lumikki]

GHOST OF FRUITY wrote...

Do Bioware listen to the fanbase? Yes, I feel they do to a degree. Not an easy task when there are thousands of differing opinions. Not one person will have the same opinion as another, and there's the issue. Bioware will do what they will with ME3, and some suggestions i'm sure will be taken on board. Not all of course, but that just isn't a possibilty. Whatever they do, I know Bioware will make the best game they can. People will decide for themselves if they approve of the direction that ME3 takes.

I agree. I will play ME3 if it is at least as good as both games before. I want to finnish the story. I'm sure developers listen enough and do what they think is best for ME3. We then deside do we play or not, like we allways do, it is our only choise to make.

[Bourne Endeavor]

Hammer6767 wrote...

lumen11 wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
Furthermore, people scream at these events and I guarantee you an entire salary Mass Effect’s fanbase would be considered a quick echo if Blacks Ops was being released at the same time. That is not a shot towards Bioware, since I believe them to superior development. Their fanbase is just not remotely as large as Call of Duty’s. Lastly, sales depict Mass Effect 2 did not widely outsell Mass Effect and reviews indicate not even a whole point separates the two in popularity. Therefore, while you believe it means people are hooked, I could easily make an argument fans of Mass Effect bought Mass Effect 2 on a blind buy. You know, akin to Final Fantasy, Call of Duty, Halo, and more or less any franchise. Not that I necessarily believe the latter, just highlighting the ease one could make an argument of it.

you certainly make a valid point, but don't forget that a sequel has to be substantially better than the original to achieve similar ratings, let alone better ratings.

THat is true...and if you read reviews (Metacritic, etc.) you will find that most reviewers found ME2 to be a superior successor.

In terms of gameplay or storyline? This is the conundrum the series faces. My personal gripe is not with the mechanics, as most are superior and as whole Mass Effect 2 is superior. My qualm is the narrative and main plot. It is inferior to its predecessor and when fans are queried to evaluate the plot devoid of the recruitment and loyalty missions. Mass Effect 2 does not fair so well far more often than not.

To answer the other poster,and reiterate my belief Mass Effect 2 is mechanically superior and ultimately more entertaining. You are incorrect, a sequel does not have to be substantially better to sell better or even achieve superior ratings. In the case of the former, I point to none other than Final Fantasy X-2. It is considered remarkably inferior in virtually every capacity to Final Fantasy X and yet sold exceptionally well... more so than Mass Effect 2 if I am not mistaken. It sold well based solely upon the immense success of its predecessor. Suikoden III makes the argument for the latter, as mainstream websites praised it as the best entry in the series despite the fact the fanbase almost unanimously cite Suikoden II superior. It did sell better, albeit that is due to the limited release Suikoden II saw.

Mass Effect 2 is a fantastic game with a weak main plot and excellent, if not phenomenal side main plots. Such is my opinion of course. Regardless, do not confuse the impact a prior entry in the series can have. A mere glance on this forum have people blindly pre-ordering Mass Effect 3 with no information available. That, in essence, means people are loving a game based on its predecessors.

GHOST OF FRUITY wrote...

Another promising thread inevitably being dragged into the whole ME1 vs ME2 debacle - it's always the same thing and always the same people responsible for doing it. No wonder dev interaction has dropped. They probably got tired of reading the same discussions every week.

When did this thread ever possible potential to be anything beyond contention? Its initiation was based on conflict, to debate the notion of whether Bioware listens to their fans. Difference of opinion was an inevitability from the onset and disagree with design choices was imminent. If anything excluding fan adoration and complete praise deters Bioware from posting freely when there is constructive criticism... well the TC received his answer and so did we all.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 20 décembre 2010 - 05:33 .

[TomY90]

one thing bioware does analyse the data of our gameplay (if we play whilst with the internet connection and if we have not disallowed bioware from doing so) they look at how we play the game, what classes we use, whether we skip discussions and what loyalty missions are the most popular.



i can imagine they look they look on this forum and listen to the press about the game and probably have a test group to find out what they feel about the game and what could be improved etc.

[Phaedon]

[quote]Terror_K wrote...
Yes, but the research isn't really customising at all, it's a completely linear system that ends up with the same thing happening in every playthrough with little to no attention from the player needed. There are no trade-offs and no real choice, and no modding at all. No matter what class you are and what style you play with, every single game of ME2 is going to be the same in this regard.[/quote]
Linear upgrade system? Not unlike the 'I just unlocked Cryo Ammo XII', so I'll replace 'Cryo Ammo XI' ?

[quote]
Fun is a point of view. I've played ME1 completely through dozens of times in dozens of different ways. I've only played ME2 completely through three times, and I find it hard to stomach it any more than that because I just find the linearity, lack of variation and customisation and the fact that nothing really changes that much between playthroughs tedious and samey.[/quote]
You don't seem to disagree directly with my post then. There is the majority's definition of fun, as well as the minority's definition. 

[quote]
They're more tactical warfare games than the standard ilk though. They're more like military simulations than fast-paced, action-oriented shooters. And they're nowhere near as popular as any of the CoD, Gears or Halo games.[/quote]
They are still popular enough to be considered mainstream. Hell, even Baldur's Gate was mainstream at some point. 

[quote]
I never said that, I simply said that ME2 was more of one than ME1 and seemed to be heading more in that direction. ME1 had stats governing even one's ability to shoot for one thing, and didn't make players rely on some kind of ammo, nor did it have the current shooter trend of super regenerating health. The overall style and presentation is also more bombastic, modern and aimed at a different, younger audience. It's split into levels via "Mission Complete" markers like an action game.[/quote]
Eh, stats don't help role-playing, they just limit you.

[quote]Those are just a few examples. The main point is, almost all of the changed elements were altered to something more akin and more common to modern day shooter titles. Which is why I scoff so much whenever people call ME2 "innovative" or "fresh" or anything like that. Almost every change made it more like every second action game out there today, and few things were things I'd call fresh or innovative at all. Using TPS combat that's already in things like Gears of War, Army of Two and Kane and Lynch isn't fresh, while how many other games used TPS combat tied to stats? Regenerating health is in every other shooter these days, so is ammo reliance. So are "Mission Complete" screens. So are red veins and a heartbeat across the screen when you're near death. About the only thing ME2 did that was innovative were interrupts, and they were something that was initially supposed to be in ME1 but never made the cut. Everything else that was added has been done to death lately, and often better. [/quote]
The funny thing is that RPGs are really not innovative, as for ammo reliance and health regeneration...they just work better, why abolish a mechanism just because it's not innovative. Not to mention that there are hundrends of games without health regeneration.

[quote]
And how, exactly, 1)is simply making the game more of a shooter "innovative" and "evolution" exactly? These days 2)many of the mechanics ME2 added are older and more tired than standard RPG ones. Not so much due to the age of the mechanics, but due to the saturation of shooters on the market. 3)ME2's weapons system is no more complex or deep than collecting guns in Doom. At least with ME1 you had a selection that was varied, randomised and had different stats, strengths and weaknesses, as well as modding capabilities. It didn't quite pull it off to its full potential admittedly, but it was still there.[/quote]
1) It has guns, better shooting mechanic=good thing
2) Shooter mechanisms older than RPG mechanisms? Video games, let alone shooters in the 70s....Hmm......
3) Sorry, but no, just no. You just made a whole genre look bad in order to prove your point. I don't know where to start, saying that the cover system is a relatively new concept, or that biotic powers is an entirely new concept, but you don't even seem to be able to distinguish FPSs from TPSs...



[quote]
I see. So games like Two Worlds and Gothic 3 are both good RPGs merely because they "fulfill the role that an RPG has" then? As long as you fit the description then you can't do it poorly, is that what you're saying?[/quote]
Except that Gothic 3 without bugs is considered a good RPG. As for Two Worlds, I have never played it. 
 
[quote]
Both were always hybrids rather than pure RPGs or pure shooters, but ME1 had the balance better. ME2 weighted far too much on the shooter side and cut out or down far too many RPG elements.[/quote]
Which RPG elements were cut down, when all that I can think of exist in some way? How was ME2 more concentrated on the shooter part? Because it actually had good gameplay?

[quote]They took stats away from items,[/quote]
Visible stats.

[qupte]reduced the items entirely and made them completely linear and basically a shooter-based weapon[/quote]
In what way?

[quote]system, they removed armour classes, they removed armour actually acting like armour,[/quote]
No,

[quote]they removed omni-tools and biotic amps, [/quote]
lines of code that slightly change a few variables are not RPG elements,

[quote]they removed weapon and armour modding[/quote]
and replaced it with a linear upgrade system with no penalties or trade-offs[/quote]
Mordin is offended

[quote]meaning every character can easily upgrade everything without having to pick and choose (essentially allowing players to have their cake and eat it too),[/quote]
Another thing that unfortunately passed from ME1 to 2.

[quote]they cut the class skills in half (making less possible builds for each class),[/quote]
Builds that had little differences betweeen each other, and hopefully the strategy forum points out that there are sufficient builds

[quote]removed skill determining weapon capability,[/quote]
By skill, you mean stats? Yeah, I think that I made my point.

[quote]removed pretty much all non-combat skills,[/quote]
?

[quote]removed hacking, electonics and decryption skills determining ability to unlock or decrypt things,[/quote]
I am glad they did that. If I want to play a true RPG, I want my skill and gained experience to affect the sprite that I am controlling, not the other way around. Because really, I have yet to meet someone who loved the loved crates that you couldn't access until you grind enough

[quote]removed first aid,cut the persuasion skills into one and merged it with a combat skill, made XP completely meaningless by giving a set amount after every mission no matter how the mission is done (how do we know the XP is even real and not just an arbritrary number now?[/quote]
'Cut the skills in half' was not enough ?

[quote], removed different ways of completing a mission beyond Paragon/Renegade dialogue at the end, made most of the levels a linear line from A to B,[/quote]
I really don't remember ME1 being different...

[quote]took away planet exploration entirely, etc.[/quote]
'How much does BioWare listen to the fans and their suggestions?'
Irony is a b****, right ? :happy:

[quote]Now, whether one thinks these things were an improvement is a matter of opinion, but the fact that it did happen is an out-and-out fact. And I just can't help but see parallels between what's happening here with DA2 and what happened with ME2.[/quote]
I am not sure if I get this paragraph. I don't think that some of the things that you listen happened, but you agree with me saying that 'improvement is a matter of opinion'. And well, majority ftw in that case, you can certainly not claim that BW doesn't listen to the fans, when most of the 'fans' liked it. 

[quote]
As for Number 2, BioWare's past record and style express their personality to me. I find it hard to believe that absolutely everybody in BioWare have gone from fantasy, sci fi and RPG-loving nerds to clones of Cliffy B and Michael Bay who think Call of Duty is the epitome of intelligent gaming excellence.
[/quote]
Disregarding the CoD=MW2, what past record and style?
Shattered Steel was a shooting game, Baldur's Gate and its sequels was an RPG, innovative for it's time, MDK2 was also a shooting game,  Neverwinter Nights was also a succesful RPG franchise that was continued, and it had itself innovation, KOTOR, another excellent RPG, with stuff that, at least, I haven't seen before, Jade Empire didn't sell as well as hoped, Mass Effect is yet another RPG that implements new stuff, and DA:O was going back to the roots, since the point of the game was to be a modern succesor of Baldur's Gate. SWOTOR is an MMO.

See the pattern here? Bioware, even though relying mainly on their story writers to produce excellent RPGs were never too afraid to experiment themselves with shooters. All of it's RPGs also implemented tons of new stuff that 'shocked' the gaming crowd. To me, it looks like Bioware wants to be free to try her own style. so I am pretty sure that they don't want their personalities surpressed by a bunch of vocal fans.

[Terror_K]

@Phaedon

I'm not even going to bother responding to your comments individually. Given your attitude and obvious bias in them I just feel it would be a waste of time. Part of your responses seem to indicate that you just don't get it, while others just show either you being deliberately obtuse or an overwhelming anti-RPG sentiment, despite your claims of playing and loving RPGs. Comments like "Eh, stats don't help role-playing, they just limit you" exhibit all of these factors. Let me guess... you're one of these RPG fans that pretty much just likes the roleplaying itself, but not so much the mechanics? Because stats are the backbone of the RPG and to say they don't help and limit you* is just ignorance, IMO.

* though they do admittedly limit you, this is actually a good thing, but you say it as if it's bad. RPGs need limits and boundaries in order to define your character, define items and add diversity. ME2 just doesn't do this enough.

Modifié par Terror_K, 20 décembre 2010 - 11:36 .

[PSUHammer]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

In terms of gameplay or storyline? This is the conundrum the series faces. My personal gripe is not with the mechanics, as most are superior and as whole Mass Effect 2 is superior. My qualm is the narrative and main plot. It is inferior to its predecessor and when fans are queried to evaluate the plot devoid of the recruitment and loyalty missions. Mass Effect 2 does not fair so well far more often than not.

To answer the other poster,and reiterate my belief Mass Effect 2 is mechanically superior and ultimately more entertaining. You are incorrect, a sequel does not have to be substantially better to sell better or even achieve superior ratings. In the case of the former, I point to none other than Final Fantasy X-2. It is considered remarkably inferior in virtually every capacity to Final Fantasy X and yet sold exceptionally well... more so than Mass Effect 2 if I am not mistaken. It sold well based solely upon the immense success of its predecessor. Suikoden III makes the argument for the latter, as mainstream websites praised it as the best entry in the series despite the fact the fanbase almost unanimously cite Suikoden II superior. It did sell better, albeit that is due to the limited release Suikoden II saw.

Mass Effect 2 is a fantastic game with a weak main plot and excellent, if not phenomenal side main plots. Such is my opinion of course. Regardless, do not confuse the impact a prior entry in the series can have. A mere glance on this forum have people blindly pre-ordering Mass Effect 3 with no information available. That, in essence, means people are loving a game based on its predecessors.

I disagree, here.  I happen to think the overall ME series main plot is pretty cool.  In the end it is cookie cutter scifi fantasy, but it sure is entertaining.  And, the main plot is even being added to by DLC and other media to fill in blanks before and after.  I tend to think of the series as having one main plot.

In the end, I enjoy all types of games and love RPGs.  I base the quality of a game on the fun I have playing it and the times I want to REPLAY it.  That is key, for me, as I don't have a ton of gaming time.  And, for ME2, I replayed it more than twice, which is how many times I went through ME1.  I have to say, getting rid of the cumbersome numbered inventory system was better, in this case.  The characters are more fleshed out and I felt the cinematic effect they were going for.

Whether they stick with the streamlined approach of ME2 or go back to ME1 roots, I don't care.  As long as I am entertained.  At the end of the day, playing a game will be taking time away from my kids, my wife and anything else I choose to spend free time on.  So it better be fun!

Modifié par Hammer6767, 21 décembre 2010 - 12:04 .

[ak4115]

lumen11 wrote...

you certainly make a valid point, but don't forget that a sequel has to be substantially better than the original to achieve similar ratings, let alone better ratings.

hahaha , so 90's... That was more than 10 years ago ...

Modifié par ak4115, 21 décembre 2010 - 01:33 .

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

@Phaedon

I'm not even going to bother responding to your comments individually. Given your attitude and obvious bias in them I just feel it would be a waste of time. Part of your responses seem to indicate that you just don't get it, while others just show either you being deliberately obtuse or an overwhelming anti-RPG sentiment, despite your claims of playing and loving RPGs. Comments like "Eh, stats don't help role-playing, they just limit you" exhibit all of these factors. Let me guess... you're one of these RPG fans that pretty much just likes the roleplaying itself, but not so much the mechanics? Because stats are the backbone of the RPG and to say they don't help and limit you* is just ignorance, IMO.

* though they do admittedly limit you, this is actually a good thing, but you say it as if it's bad. RPGs need limits and boundaries in order to define your character, define items and add diversity. ME2 just doesn't do this enough.

see this is half your problem, someone refutes your points and you dismiss them out of hand. there are better ways of limiting players than by arbitrary "stats" (or other means): limits to items/weapons you can carry, how many types of ammo you can select etc. give the player a choice, but make it so that you're not omnipotent so the game then represents a challenge - and more of one if you make bad choices.

the upgrades in ME1 were linear, for everything - from I-X. the omnit-tool and biotic amps did practically nothing, in terms of gamplay - they were chopped because they didn't differentiate, so were pointless. the fact that you're now advocating the merits of stat-based combat, of all retarded things, indicates just how far from rational you've become.

[Terror_K]

Jebel Krong wrote...

see this is half your problem, someone refutes your points and you dismiss them out of hand.

Actually, that's usually the opposite of what happens. Usually I counter by backing up my points or at the very least justifying them and then usually it's others who just come in and say "you're wrong just coz!" rather than properly discuss it. The fact of the matter is I'm sick of having to repeat myself over and over on these points almost a year later, and I could see that there wasn't really any point to it given his responses. If somebody at least understands, is willing to properly discuss things and is willing to bend just a little and consider what I have to say then I'll probably respond more in depth and back up my claims, albeit reluctantly. I could tell that was a waste of time for this case, so didn't. My answers are already littered around this board near on hundreds of times as it is.

there are better ways of limiting players than by arbitrary "stats" (or other means): limits to items/weapons you can carry, how many types of ammo you can select etc. give the player a choice, but make it so that you're not omnipotent so the game then represents a challenge - and more of one if you make bad choices.

While this is true, it's a point of view whether something is "abritrary" or not and the definition for that word quite often on this board seems to be "I didn't like it and it got in the way of my killing."

the upgrades in ME1 were linear, for everything - from I-X.

Only within their own upgrade sub-tiers, and in that case of course they are. But overall you had a choice of weapons and armour, choice of omni-tools and biotic amps and a choice of what you put in them that was governed by trade-offs and limitations that forced you to choose from a selection. With ME2 it's just inevitably find everything in the same place every playthrough, research it and keep upgrading and upgrading in the same fashion until everything is maxed out. There's no trade-offs, no limitations and thus no real choice.

Ever played Diablo 2? It's basically the equivalent of each weapon and piece of armour in that game having an unlimited amount of sockets and you just being able to make your items uber by putting every bonus item possible inside them without restriction.

In giving too much freedom and doing most of the work for the player they've taken away the whole point of modification and choice entirely. It may be fine for you and those who love everything simple so you can avoid the RPG gameplay elements as much as possible, but I actually like to play around with this stuff and customise my Shepard and his/her equipment to some degree, and I like it to actually be different now and then depending on situations and my play style and class, rather than the same tedious stuff doing everything for me like I'm a child in every playthrough.

the omnit-tool and biotic amps did practically nothing, in terms of gamplay - they were chopped because they didn't differentiate, so were pointless.

I disagree. I thought the both added to the gameplay, gave me extra customisation and choice and are something I really miss now that they've been relegated to simple upgrades like everything else. Sure, they could have been better and had a more profound effect on the gameplay by actually having better balanced items that force you to choose between their stats more by having some good at some aspects but not others, rather than the next best model almost always being better across the board, but this was something that plagued all of ME1's items and could have easily been fixed by adjusting the items themselves. The problem was that the player never had to go "do I want more of A, or more of B, because the A is higher than my current one, but the B is much lower, etc."

If we're going to list off pointless things that don't add to gameplay, why don't we mention things like Normandy customisation, armour colouring, civilian clothing choice, probes and fuel, etc. as well. These ME2 features are all far more pointless than the omni-tools and biotic amps were.

the fact that you're now advocating the merits of stat-based combat, of all retarded things, indicates just how far from rational you've become.

I don't actually want it back, I just listed it as an RPG aspect that was removed from the game, since the original post was related to removed or oversimplified/scaled back RPG elements in relation to ME2 being less of an RPG than ME1 and overall being an unsatisfactory one. I personally don't want stat-based combat back, or at least don't want it back in cone-of-death style. That's one of the few changes that made the game more of a shooter that actually benefitted it.

There are merits to stat-based combat though, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't really suit Mass Effect that well, IMO. Of if it did it would have to take another, more subtle form (perhaps something more akin to Alpha Protocol where leveling up your weapons skill is more about unlocking new ablities/talents/skills than it is about improving your actual shooting itself). I think more people have issues with it narrative-wise than they do gameplay wise though, since I've seen many say that they wouldn't have minded it so much had Shepard been a private or something rather than N7 and then a Spectre.

Modifié par Terror_K, 21 décembre 2010 - 10:51 .

[shumworld]

Just a comment on the issue of how ME1 and ME2's allocating attribute point stat system. I found ME2 approach to be a bit smoother to work with and made things less tedious in micro-management. I look at 1 ME2 attribute point to be equal to 10 ME1 attribute points.The stat system still exist it's just compressed to be more streamlined imo.

As for self regenerating. I find that to be a an more comfortable approach versus the idea of manually healing. I mean you're gonna heal yourself anyway, you may as well have the com do it for you. Plus it's a system that helps encourage the player to find cover.

Over all I find ME2 to be a successful hybrid of a TPS with "Action" RPG elements. True we lost the ability to upgrade our weapons, but the ammo types are the upgrades for the weapons. Plus its cool to see Shep and crew "calibrate" their weapons to see a graphic of what ammo type they have for their gun.

Modifié par shumworld, 21 décembre 2010 - 06:54 .

[Razyx]

Talking about almost everything, finally I made a screen with an alternative way to change or set the ammo, but not like a power..., from my pov it was not a good decission.

img149.imageshack.us/i/ammopic.jpg

Choice and customization are above any automated or linear way..., and always will bring a better replayability experience.
In most points I'm with Terror_K, but I'm not really good in english so I like more to read than write

About Bioware listening, sure..., and ask could be very useful too (e.g. recurring character thread)

PS: The "wheel" on the screen could be integrated in a better way, in a corner with some traslucent effect, etc... It's only an example.
 

Modifié par Razyx, 21 décembre 2010 - 01:51 .

[nelly21]

@ Terror

Terror, you can't accuse Phaedon of being obstinate when you have been nothing if not obstinate in the majority of your posts.

Phaedon offered couterpoints to your arguments. You simply brush them aside and throw in an accusation of being biased. But really, aren't all your arguments based around bias? How many times have you said that ME 2 was made for the preteen shooter crowd while ME 1 was for the more "sophisticated" gamer? How many times have you said that ME 2 "dumbed down" ME 1? These aren't examples of bias? Yes, Phaedon and I are biased. Despite our love for ME 1, we enjoyed ME 2 more. It just so happens that we are in the majority opinion. Bioware focuses on the majority of their fan base, a majority (keep in mind) that in prior posts you insinuated should be ignored "for the good of the game". Mass Effect is doing just fine Terror. I'm sorry it's not going in your prefered direction. But you are in the minority.

Accusing BioWare of not listening to fans based solely on YOUR perceived shortcomings is childish and quite frankly, silly.

Modifié par nelly21, 21 décembre 2010 - 04:16 .

[sinosleep]

Threads like these are precisely why I made my sig what it is. Your preferred genre (if you even have one, cause I don't know a single person that plays only one genre at the expense of all others) has NOTHING to do with your intelligence.

[jonnyblueballs]

It's obvious they hear the most vocal chants and react to them. Perhaps a little too hard as some of the changes made to improve ME2 from ME1 created some new chants. Hopefully they will be able to implement the good things from both games, the wishes born from both games, and yet make something of their very own in Mass Effect 3.

[Ajara123]

I agree jonny.

To me people will complain no matter what is done. Like i said before they know they cant please everyone.

[Phaedon]

Terror_K wrote...

@Phaedon

I'm not even going to bother responding to your comments individually. Given your attitude and obvious bias in them I just feel it would be a waste of time. Part of your responses seem to indicate that you just don't get it, while others just show either you being deliberately obtuse or an overwhelming anti-RPG sentiment, despite your claims of playing and loving RPGs. Comments like "Eh, stats don't help role-playing, they just limit you" exhibit all of these factors. Let me guess... you're one of these RPG fans that pretty much just likes the roleplaying itself, but not so much the mechanics? Because stats are the backbone of the RPG and to say they don't help and limit you* is just ignorance, IMO.

* though they do admittedly limit you, this is actually a good thing, but you say it as if it's bad. RPGs need limits and boundaries in order to define your character, define items and add diversity. ME2 just doesn't do this enough.

Attitude ? I didn't mean to offend anyone...
Bias, waste of time? That your opinion, which appears to be biased since you justify it on me 'not getting it'.
Anti-RPG element? Heh, right. I have an Anti-stat element because I have been playing RPGs for some time.
Stats are no backbone, they are obsolete elements first used in board games. But that's my opinion. And yours is that I am unable to comprehend how they are not obsolete, oh well. As for defining my character, how do stats do that ? Shouldn't it be like my...playstyle?

nelly21 wrote...

@ Terror

Terror, you can't accuse Phaedon of being obstinate when you have been nothing if not obstinate in the majority of your posts. 

Phaedon offered couterpoints to your arguments. You simply brush them aside and throw in an accusation of being biased. But really, aren't all your arguments based around bias? How many times have you said that ME 2 was made for the preteen shooter crowd while ME 1 was for the more "sophisticated" gamer? How many times have you said that ME 2 "dumbed down" ME 1? These aren't examples of bias? Yes, Phaedon and I are biased. Despite our love for ME 1, we enjoyed ME 2 more. It just so happens that we are in the majority opinion. Bioware focuses on the majority of their fan base, a majority (keep in mind) that in prior posts you insinuated should be ignored "for the good of the game". Mass Effect is doing just fine Terror. I'm sorry it's not going in your prefered direction. But you are in the minority. 

Accusing BioWare of not listening to fans based solely on YOUR perceived shortcomings is childish and quite frankly, silly.

Thanks for your support nelly. Indeed, I did love ME1, I still do, but not as much as I love ME2. 

sinosleep wrote...

Threads like these are precisely why I made my sig what it is. Your preferred genre (if you even have one, cause I don't know a single person that plays only one genre at the expense of all others) has NOTHING to do with your intelligence.

In fact, i'd like some of the elitists here try Rainbow Six Raven Shield and tell me that 'dumb', 'preteen', 'mainstream' gamers can play it.

Modifié par Phaedon, 21 décembre 2010 - 06:09 .

[shumworld]

sinosleep wrote...

Threads like these are precisely why I made my sig what it is. Your preferred genre (if you even have one, cause I don't know a single person that plays only one genre at the expense of all others) has NOTHING to do with your intelligence.

Your sig gave me a chuckle.

[Pacifien]

Okay, this has long been about other issues besides whether or not BioWare listens to their fans' suggestions. There are many similar threads in which one can express their opinion of ME2 as a whole, particularly in comparison to ME1. Here's one in case you think I'm joking. Many of you have participated in that thread as well.