176 réponses à ce sujet

[serjwolf]

Chris Priestly wrote...

I'd also suggest that people who complain about a "dumbed down" story, check out the recent awards ME2 has won like best RPG of the year, best story of the year, best character of the year, GAME of the year, etc.

Mass Effect 2 is certainly dumbed down, but its still light years (see what i did there) ahead of any other RPG as far as the plot goes.  Its just unfortunate that mass effect 2 took a step up in everything but story, which is what I love most about Mass Effect.

Modifié par serjwolf, 25 décembre 2010 - 10:14 .

[Bourne Endeavor]

Chris Priestly wrote...

I'd also suggest that people who complain about a "dumbed down" story, check out the recent awards ME2 has won like best RPG of the year, best story of the year, best character of the year, GAME of the year, etc.

No offense, Chris but there is no separate category to differentiate sections of the storyline. In my personal opinion the Recruitment and Loyalty missions certainly warrant that award. I would heavily disagree the main plot does however. I found it wanting in numerous areas, specifically in explanation and continuality as it felt far too disjointed at times or contrived. (Every on the Shuttle comes screaming into mind.) Regardless, I do not desire to turn this into a debate about main story plotholes as everyone's opinion differs. My point is while I would probably offer that story award (although I have not played every game released in 2010), that does not necessarily mean I thought everything was not devoid of criticism and hopeful improvement.

There is a reason people specifically mention ME's main plot as superior and the website (IGN) that awarded you the title agrees, if I recall.

Now query me about the gameplay and I will start off on why I prefer ME2. 

In any event this is speculation. We can determine if Mass Effect is a forgotten chapter only once information is released for ME3. For all we are aware, Earth could be a background that is destroyed in the intro (Normandy style) or the stomping ground for a single mission before we return to the Citadel for a full-fledged galactic war against the Reapers.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 25 décembre 2010 - 10:16 .

[Terror_K]

Two excellent posts in a row from BiancoAngelo7 and Delerius_Jedi! I agree with both of you completely!

[Bourne Endeavor]

Only having read their posts now. They are indeed excellent.

[Lumikki]

sinosleep wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Well, to be fair as well, the writing quality of the loyalty missions was pretty damn high. As were most of the recruitment ones. It was the main story involving The Collector's that was the weak link really, and they did fairly well even then with the material they had, but the material itself wasn't particularly good to be honest. So in a way I'd say the writing was mostly good, but the story wasn't... if that makes sense.

I actually agree with this. The central plot (Shepard must gather a group for a suicide mission to save the human colonies/stop the collectors) was pretty weak, while the individual character arcs were very well written.

I also agree with this. Main story was weak, too much story weight was in squad members missions.

[joltmajor]

Terror_K wrote...

Two excellent posts in a row from BiancoAngelo7 and Delerius_Jedi! I agree with both of you completely!

Indeed.  They conveyed what I was trying to say in a much cleaner manner.

[Nohvarr]

sinosleep wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Well, to be fair as well, the writing quality of the loyalty missions was pretty damn high. As were most of the recruitment ones. It was the main story involving The Collector's that was the weak link really, and they did fairly well even then with the material they had, but the material itself wasn't particularly good to be honest. So in a way I'd say the writing was mostly good, but the story wasn't... if that makes sense.

I actually agree with this. The central plot (Shepard must gather a group for a suicide mission to save the human colonies/stop the collectors) was pretty weak, while the individual character arcs were very well written.

Here's the thing, the central plot was the recruitment of the individual characters, and gaining their loyalty to take down the Collectors. The two are far too intertwined to be seperated. Your ending, your very survival depends on these people and your interactions with them, more so than even ME 1. That interactivity, that storyline and gameplay are the reason so many gamers have heaped accolades upon ME 2. Gametrailers fan based awards gave ME 2 game of the year.

Let me repeat that, in a year of big budget fan beloved titles like Red Dead: Redemption, God Of war 3, Halo: Reach, and Starcraft 2, gamers (not just rpg gamers, not jus gamers that like story, all gamers) picked Mass Effect 2 as game of the Year. When that is taken into account, it casts some of the criticism from this board in a different light.

I'm sure they're listening, and plucking out any good ideas that fit in with their overall goal for the game, but the simple truth is they have to weigh the information they get here against the feedback they receieved from other fans. So I'd say they're right to point out the sheer number of awards when the hatefest get's out of hand. It shows that at the end of the day, they know what their doing, and the majority of their customers agree with them.

[sinosleep]

@ Delerius_Jedi

Here's the problem, they HAVE answered MANY questions, and people simply refuse to accept their answers.

You see an interview like the on Casey Hudson did for joystick and there are a ton of answers there. He answered questions about the mini-games, the mako, why the main plot was so thin, etc, etc, etc. And many of the people making criticisms have read those interviews and simply don't like the answers. Christina Norman posted a link to her "where did my inventory go" presentation that also had many answers, answers that people here simply didn't like.

SO what are they supposed to do at that point? Just continue to repeat adnauseum how they feel about the changes they made and why they made them? 

p.s. here's an excerpt

I don't actually have any regrets about how we did anything. I think there are definitely things that we would want to change for next time, based on how we learned about how people played the game. Mainly the obvious things like a better resource gathering experience. I think we were really happy with how the moment-to-moment gameplay felt but a lot of people wanted some of the RPG system "richness" to come back to the experience. Those are some of the these things we've learned about how people have played it and the feedback that they've given. To your point; you don't have an infinite amount of time so it really is about trying to get everything to a level where you can be satisfied with it. I think we were satisfied with all of the different parts we added to Mass Effect 2.

Modifié par sinosleep, 25 décembre 2010 - 10:40 .

[Lumikki]

People, there is difference between getting award of year 2010 and compare something to all games what exist before year 2010. What some of you people here demand isn't just best game of year, they demand best game for all time in all aspect. The perfect game for them. Too bad perfection doesn't exist and same game isn't perfect to everyone. So, what you think is perfect to you may not be perfect to someone else.

Are you asking more discussion to make game what you like or unable to accept that developers may disagree with you?

Modifié par Lumikki, 25 décembre 2010 - 10:43 .

[Babli]

Ah yes "Mass Effect 1" We have dismissed that claim.

[massive_effect]

MajesticJazz wrote...


Here is the link to the article: http://www.gamezenith.com/?p=1042


Thoughts?

We could have used a brief summary, or "the gist" of his article. This forum isn't a news article aggregator. Simply posting a headline and link is like spam.

Without reading the article and in response to your question:

I would rather play a full RPG over an interactive comic. Although the comic has plot elements from ME1, it is really just an ME2 prologue. So, I don't think ME1 is undermined by the comic.

[Fraevar]

@Sinosleep: Hudson giving interviews with an overall tone is not the same as in-depth discussion on certain aspects, which is what the Dragon Age team has been engaging in. I think a lot of people would like to talk to the Mass Effect writers, since they're the ones responsible for how characters act and how it is all going to tie together. Again, for a story based company, having the writers seemingly avoid any direct dialogue with their community does seem a bit odd.

[Terror_K]

Delerius_Jedi wrote...

@Sinosleep: Hudson giving interviews with an overall tone is not the same as in-depth discussion on certain aspects, which is what the Dragon Age team has been engaging in. I think a lot of people would like to talk to the Mass Effect writers, since they're the ones responsible for how characters act and how it is all going to tie together. Again, for a story based company, having the writers seemingly avoid any direct dialogue with their community does seem a bit odd.

Especially when they were previously so active. ME2 came out and then... BAMM! Almost nothing since.

Casey also says that he has "no regrets" about ME2 at all and that they were completely satisfied with the game, and it's comments like that concern me. Also, it's all very well to say that fans wanted some of the "RPG richness back" for the next game, but there's the immediate answer of "it should never have been removed in the first place" to that.

Modifié par Terror_K, 25 décembre 2010 - 11:09 .

[Nohvarr]

Delerius_Jedi wrote...

@Sinosleep: Hudson giving interviews with an overall tone is not the same as in-depth discussion on certain aspects, which is what the Dragon Age team has been engaging in. I think a lot of people would like to talk to the Mass Effect writers, since they're the ones responsible for how characters act and how it is all going to tie together. Again, for a story based company, having the writers seemingly avoid any direct dialogue with their community does seem a bit odd.

That interview shows that they go as far as reviewing fanart to understand who is liked and why. ME 2 already collects data about how people play (not about how the 'say' they play) the game. They've talked to the community in the past and people still refuse to listen. Then there's the fact that the writers are likely working on the game. We know they pay attention, the changes in ME 2 are proof of that, however they don't have to come here and get insulted to get good feedback.

The DA 2 teams game isn't out yet and it's fairly close to release so they're taking the time to explain certain things to the fans. But even the DA team will only go so far. Mr. Laidlaw recently avoided getting into a debate with a fan over an element of the games opening act because that fan did not have the information necassary to form an argument. 

And, as a final note, sometimes there is no point in arguing with a person that's already made up their mind.

[sympathy4saren]

Genre stagnation? Dude, shooters shoot at stuff. Non-stop. With a gun. 99% of the time its on planet Earth. Heck, 50% of the time it's at zombies.

Anyways, back to what the OP said...I never bought the fact EA is having much of an influence, other than better financial support. Could be wrong.

Modifié par sympathy4saren, 25 décembre 2010 - 11:18 .

[Aradace]

Not really on topic I think but I'll say it anyway. It's already been "confirmed" that in ME3 that we are going to be doing the whole "DA:O song and dance" of going around to the races of the universe/galaxy and "uniting them" to stop the Reapers. Now, I'll be "fine" with that up until I have to do ANYTHING for the Batarians. I refuse to do anything for the Batarians other than putting a bullet in each of their slaving ass heads. Batarians are the only ficticious race that I hate more than Tusken Raiders...Just ask my wife, I realllllllllly hate Tusken Raiders lol.

[SantosCapela]

Regarding the topic there are few things important from me1. Most people talk about conrad verner, shiala and all the available npc but those aren't important. Many wanted that when the consort is helped she stayed in business. I disagree and am happy that even though I completed the side quest the result was the news about years of bad press etc... I don't think Shepperd is god and so people should not change only because he helped in an irrelevant side quest. Nevertheless, it is nice that those characters appear and I want them to appear, however, I'm against a big role for them, at least for most of them. Obviously I wouldn't mind a non-bugged conrad verner and and sirta foundation in me2.



The only decisions that I consider important in me1 are the rachni queen, wrex and ashley/kaidan , Udina/Anderson and the council and that's it. Maybe toombs also since I hope me3 will have more focus and variability according to Sheppard origins. Me2 also has a few important ones, the mordin/genophage cure, legion and quarian/geth war, keep or destroy the collector base, who lives and who dies since some can have an important role in the future. Hoping also that kazumi mission's black box will be important.

[Lumikki]

Delerius_Jedi wrote...

Again, for a story based company, having the writers seemingly avoid any direct dialogue with their community does seem a bit odd.

Not directed to me, but i like to comment this. It's little odd, but I think it can also be understanded.

Example if Bioware disagree what some part of community, what wants to talk is saying, then there is hard to create any meaningful dialog. Because you would be just disagree with each others. So, this would lead very hostile discussion, what is allready happen in this forum because so much disagreements between players.

In my opinion developers does agree with some stuff what we have sayed here, but they also disagree too. Meaning developers vision of Mass Effect series isn't neccassary in same line than some of us.

Also then there is situation that business wise it's not smart to critism they own product while it's they newest selling product (marketing). So, it's smarter just wait untill time is better for it. This is just my opinion. Point is that you don't talk when there is change that talk doesn't make situation better.

Modifié par Lumikki, 25 décembre 2010 - 11:39 .

[Fiery Phoenix]

BiancoAngelo7 wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

I'd also suggest that people who complain about a "dumbed down" story, check out the recent awards ME2 has won like best RPG of the year, best story of the year, best character of the year, GAME of the year, etc.

Mr. Priestly, while people complaining that the story is "dumbed down" are exaggerating because they are venting their unsatisfaction with ME2's story approach where the focus was on recruiting a team, not killing the reapers, I hope you and your colleagues understand one important thing:

You may receive awards upon awards but that will only carry you so far in the qualitative appreciation of a game.

What I mean to say is that even though ME2 won several awards this does not mean that Bioware stayed true to its fans after ME1. This does not mean that Bioware improved upon and built upon what fans came to love in ME1. This does not mean that the level of immersion that was provided in ME1 was continued or even included in ME2. This does not mean that ME2 was the game that so many of us were hoping for and logically expecting to come after the masterpiece that was ME1.

What those awards do mean is that ME2 beat other games when being considered for whichever awards it won. This means that it was considered better than a lot of contenders that frankly, are pathetic excuses for a game. About half of the gaming sites and events that give awards choose games as nominations for several wrong reasons. Even if you don't agree with that, comparing ME2 to the majority of games being considered for awards is already a losing logical fallacy from the start.

This is why your statement and the lack of developer interaction in recent times worries me and other ME fans. Even though there are quite a large number of people complaining about very obvious shortcomings that the franchise has demonstrated, the only comments we ever see, if we see any at all, are the ones like yours.

No one is saying that ME2 didnt deserve those awards. A lot of people are saying that it was nowhere near the game it could have and should have been.

And this worries us greatly for ME3. Because it is the last chance (that we know of) to bring back the magic that made the ME universe what it was in ME1. And so far, there is nothing that leads us to believe that you and your colleagues have even taken this into consideration, much less addressed the issue.

For emphasis.

[sympathy4saren]

In what context was the emphasis implied for?

[Bourne Endeavor]

Lumikki wrote...

Delerius_Jedi wrote...

Again, for a story based company, having the writers seemingly avoid any direct dialogue with their community does seem a bit odd.

Not directed to me, but i like to comment this. It's little odd, but I think it can also be understanded.

Example if Bioware disagree what some part of community, what wants to talk is saying, then there is hard to create any meaningful dialog. Because you would be just disagree with each others. So, this would lead very hostile discussion, what is allready happen in this forum because so much disagreements between players.

In my opinion developers does agree with some stuff what we have sayed here, but they also disagree too. Meaning developers vision of Mass Effect series isn't neccassary in same line than some of us.

Also then there is situation that business wise it's not smart to critism they own product while it's they newest selling product (marketing). So, it's smarter just wait untill time is better for it. This is just my opinion. Point is that you don't talk when there is change that talk doesn't make situation better.

I do not believe anyone is expecting nor demanding Bioware devs openly slam portions of the game even if they themselves feel it was lackluster. It is evident from a marketing standpoint that such a statement would be detrimental to the integrity of the game. There is a difference between acknowledging certain aspects will be improved and opening a dialogue with the community to slamming one's product.

Take Garrus as our example. What harm would be involved in one of the writers posting something akin to, "Yeah, we didn't record as much dialogue with him as we would have preferred. There were x (problems with VA, release times, whatever) but no worries. We are spending even more time on character dialogue for ME3 and yes Garrus will have finished his calibrations."

This statement accomplishes a number of things.

- It retains ambiguity in the event Bioware does not wish to reveal if Garrus active on the Normandy or not.
- It acknowledges a known issue (Lack of dialogue on specific characters)
- It eludes to the likelihood of even more dialogue overall
- It creates a dialogue where the community feels they are being heard when criticism is constructive.
- Little joke to keep the mood happy.

For a gameplay discussion. They could subtly insinuate biotics will have more frequent usage or are receiving a tweak in design. It is little tidbits such as this the fans desire. We are not looking for them to post "Yeah, ME2's main plot could have been so much better" or anything of such nature. That is not at all constructive, may not be their own opinion and ultimately leads to nothing beneficial. I do not care to know what could have been or seek acknowledgment of the flaws in ME2. I have made my own observations and conclusions. What I do seek is what is being done about them. I may not necessarily fancy these changes but that is when discussion can be had to explain why they are for the best. Whether or not I agree is subjective.

The Garrus example is one such complaint and there would be significantly less if Bioware devs posted even just once a week about them.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 25 décembre 2010 - 12:16 .

[Fiery Phoenix]

sympathy4saren wrote...

In what context was the emphasis implied for?

I basically agree with the post. Completely.

[Lumikki]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

I do not believe anyone is expecting nor demanding Bioware devs openly slam portions of the game even if they themselves feel it was lackluster. It is evident from a marketing standpoint that such a statement would be detrimental to the integrity of the game. There is a difference between acknowledging certainly aspects will be improved and opening a dialogue with the community to slamming one's product.

I agree, but what if developers don't agree with you as what is the aspect what requires improvements?

Do, you accept that they don't agree or do you accuse them as not acknowledging as what you known as been aspect what requires improvements?

My point here is, don't assume that they will agree with you. Even we players here have major disagreements as what are those stuff what requires improvements.

Modifié par Lumikki, 25 décembre 2010 - 12:36 .

[Nohvarr]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
 What I do seek is what is being done about them. I may not necessarily fancy these changes but that is when discussion can be had to explain why they are for the best. Whether or not I agree is subjective.

1. The game is still in development and implementation of any idea is still in flux. Bioware is no longer in the business of promising or even hinting at things that may or may not be in the finished product. That bite them in the rear when people were upset with ME 1 for not having more DLC and the interrupts they'd originally planned.

2. They did explain the changes from ME 1 to ME 2, and some portions of the fanbase dragged that argument up again and again. Had the game not been as well recieved their arguments might have held more weight, but has been established, Bioware did an excellent job in expanding ME fanbase, and a significant portion of that fanbase is seemingly very happy with the games current direction. So what's the point in reopening old wounds for a portion of the fanbase.

3. As the DA 2 team has said repeatedly, Bioware is going to do what they think is best for what the game is trying to accomplish. They can not please everyone, and engaging in long multi-page debates over a portion of a game is waste of time they could put to better use, say making the game. This is why they likely designed the game to tell them how people played it. That information is unbiased, it has no preconceptions, baggage or an agenda. That information 'is what it is' and that makes it more valuable in some respects than the feedback they get on these forums.

[sympathy4saren]

Me too. There are a lot of us that feel that way...us true rpgers. But it seems like we are the ones being attacked and ostracized. I'm trying to tell it how it is without being too rude. I've been a fan of BioWare ever since Jade Empire