434 réponses à ce sujet

[Terror_K]

Overall I think it comes down to the fact that a lot of fans who weren't entirely happy with the direction Mass Effect 2 took are worried that by the time the devs start talking about Mass 3 it'll be far too late to try and influence the final game because most of it will be set in stone. When in the wake of the original Mass Effect we got devs popping in and saying, "we undertand you didn't like feature X, how do you think we could make it better?" and we actually got to feel like we were part of the process it made us feel like we were shaping the next game somewhat. Even the PC version of ME1 improved the inventory, The Mako and the mini-games based on feedback from the original 360 version.

Granted, much of what was discussed actually ended up going nowhere, such as devs discussing inventory alternatives, and then despite a lot of good ideas and suggestions it simply went. One of the main arguments here of course is whether it went because it was good for the game, or whether it went because BioWare simply wanted to take it in a new, simpler direction. Some fans think it was the former, some the latter, and some probably think it's a little of both. Only BioWare know for sure.

I suppose one of the main differences is that there either weren't as many people incredibly disappointed by the first game, or those that were just didn't get into it enough to stick around due to the disappointments. Sure, there was a lot of discussion about ME1's flaws and weaknesses, but it wasn't so volatile as the complaints following ME2. This is probably due more to the fact that it's a sequel than anything else: if the first game is disappointing you never got into it, so you just leave. If the second game is disappointing but you were really into the first one, then you'll tend to feel more invested in it and tend to voice your complaints more, especially when there's a third game to come because you may have hopes that you can influence the devs into making it more like the first one, or at least bringing back what was lost.

The other thing is many feel that ME1's flaws came from one basic issue: poor game design, while ME2's flaws came from two basic issues: poor game design and a change in direction. It's all very well to give BioWare feedback via constructive criticism on aspects we feel are examples of poor game design, but if they really do want to take the series in a new, more modern and mainstream direction, then that's a precedent they've already decided to set, and those of us not entirely happy with the direction the game (and, yes, even BioWare overall) may be going are probably going to find our voices unheard and the third game full of the same problems. Issues like a bad inventory and framerate issues are pretty much universal, but issues like no inventory and squaddies running around in next to no protection in combat situations on strange worlds can be a matter of perspective.

[PSUHammer]

bjdbwea wrote...
Thanks. It's nice to hear that criticism is still allowed on these forums, contrary to the apparent wish of some posters.

I don't think anyone dislikes criticism if it is constructive.  What most people here are referring to is the open hostility on these forums.  Everything from "if you like ME2 you are stupid or a fanboy" to "the developers don't listen or are never on the boards" kind of whining.  Everyone's opinion here is subjective.

I loved ME2 and the direction it took...obviously so did most reviewers and the game buying masses.  Does that mean my opinion is more or less valid than someone who disliked it?  Of course not, but there is a constructive and civil way to have a discussion that could be enlightening.  Flaming people or the developers just doesn't give you (proverbial you) any credibility.

Before people hit the submit button, I wish they would imagine themselves stating their thoughts live with a group of people, first.  I bet you would see a totally different tone.

[bjdbwea]

But there are just as many, if not more people who react hostile to any criticism against the game. Surely you do not think that such a behaviour is acceptable just because they happen to be in the alleged majority?

Modifié par bjdbwea, 26 janvier 2011 - 12:59 .

[PSUHammer]

Of course not, and I agree with you, but, more often than not, people who are angry/upset/disgruntled tend to post with more vitriol.



I think there are valid points on both sides and valid reasons why one person likes something while the next person hates it. Like music, movies, books, etc., it's all subjective. But if you have a more civil tone and make your case, I would be more likely to even take the time to read your post. If it is just rage or flaming...I skip on by.

[Lumikki]

There is two thing about critism.

1. How critism is sayed, is equal important than the message it self.
2. People often give critism based what they self did not like, so it's also persons taste of games.
- This means critism may seen by others not valid, even if sayer him self think it is valid.

Example, someone saying ME2 direction was wrong is equal valid and saying it was right. It's totally based players own taste of games as what they want or wanted the game to be.

Some people here thinks, like we don't like when someone is making critism. Of course it's fine to give constructive critism, but don't expect that you critism doesn't get counter arguments or if it sayed with "insulting tone", it doesn't annoy other. Hostile agaist critism or do others think the that critism isn't valid because it's based taste of games in they opinion?

Modifié par Lumikki, 26 janvier 2011 - 02:22 .

[Vena_86]

People tend to become hostile once "counter arguments" like metacritic and reviews of IGN(norance) etc. are presented as universal truth, with a complete disregard for what the actual criticism was.
Someone says there is no modding in ME2 and thats bad. Then someone else says, but ME2 had better combat, so the game is better....FUUUUUUUU
When trying to discuss something and the opposite site does not even pay attention to the points beeing discussed that leads to hostility which leads to more hostility and the creation of stereotypes (like RPGs are for elitist nerds, shooters are for retards) and more and more.
So it would be really nice of BioWare devs to come here and explain their decisions and present counterarguments to the criticism of their fan base, which would also stop alot of the fighting arround here.
And by explain I don't mean "it was a design decision", which is pretty much all we had so far.

Modifié par Vena_86, 26 janvier 2011 - 02:39 .

[Terror_K]

The thing is, I think sometimes being somewhat harsh is necessary, and the only way you can get across that you're really, REALLY unhappy with something. I mean, there are things that are just a tad annoying and frustrating, but there are also things that are down right near-on game ruining, and in those cases it's hard to pull your punches and I'm not really sure you should.



Constructive criticism is determined by how reasonable the argument itself is, and not always how reasonably its put across. Somebody can be really angry, but present their point in an understandable and constructive way still. And to be honest, I think in some ways BioWare needs to be a little shaken up and insulted for some factors. As long as the reasons for it have some logic, reason and merit to them and aren't just straight-up bashing then I don't see the harm, and as long as the concept gets attacked and not the person.

[Lumikki]

Vena_86 wrote...

So it would be really nice of BioWare devs to come here and explain their decisions and present counterarguments to the criticism of their fan base, which would also stop alot of the fighting arround here.

Company makes red shirt. Now some people likes blue shirt so they give critism why the shirt was red and not blue. Basicly these people thinks that companies decission was bad. So, they ask please company explain why you made the red shirt? While all the people who liked red shirt are fine with it. Of course now the people who are fine starts argue with people who likes blue, because they have disagreement what is the right color.

Now this is little bad example, because you can make multible color shirts, but in game, the feature can be only ones. It's totally based what every player likes. Why would developers need to explain for people why they did something? I mean what ever Bioware is telling doens't make it better, because who are disliking wants change and who aren't likes as it is. Meaning fighting doesn't stop, because you can't change what people likes, what is the main root of all the fighting.

Modifié par Lumikki, 26 janvier 2011 - 02:54 .

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Company makes red shirt. Now some people like blue shirt so they give critism why the shirt was red and not blue. Basicly these people thinks that companies decission was bad. So, they ask please company explain why you made the red shirt? While all the people who liked red shirt are fine with it. Of course now the people who are fine starts argue with people who likes blue, because they have disagreement what is the right color.

Now this is little bad example, because you can make multible color shirts, but in game, the feature can be only ones. It's totally based what every player likes. Why would developers need to explain for people why they did something? I mean what every Bioware is telling doens't make it better, because who are disliking wants change and who aren't likes as it is. Meaning fighting doesn't stop, because you can't change what people likes, what is the main root of all the fighting.

Not always. It's not always about likes, but also about expectation and consistency. For example, I personally like shooters as well as RPGs. I enjoy the likes of Unreal Tournament, Team Fortress 2, Half-Life 2, Crysis, Gears of War, etc. as well, but I was disappointed by ME2 becoming more of a shooter, so it's not just about tastes.

Many of the issues players have with ME2 are not that it became more of a shooter, but more a case that it seemed to become less like Mass Effect. They miss a lot of the elements that were there in the first game, and feel that the removal and simplification of many of these elements was either a bad move or took things too far. They may like shooters too, but that's not what they played the original Mass Effect for and not what they wanted from Mass Effect 2. To many ME2 just simply didn't stay true to its predecessor, and it's as simple as that. It's the same thing that if ME3 ended up becoming a really complex RTS game: sure, you've got far more depth and stats, etc. in there, but that's not remaining consistent with the previous title(s).

It's also not always simply a gameplay for everybody either, as many are also disappointed by things such as an overall change in style and feel to the whole game, the quality of the writing of the main plot, etc. Some players just look as the Mass Effect series as a bunch of games and judge success only from how they perform as games, not really caring about lore inconsistences, plot-holes, change of basic presentation and style, etc. while others see them as more than games and are more put off by factors external to the gameplay than by the gameplay elements.

There has been an overall shift of tone and style from ME1 to ME2 and this is reflected as much in the non-gameplay factors as it is in the gameplay ones. Many have said that ME2 simply lost something that ME1 had that's sometimes hard to describe. Often it's been said that ME2 was more of a game and less of an experience, and that it lost that spark somewhere, even by some of those who largely admit that many of the gameplay changes were improvements.

I suppose the overall point here is that many people have many different issues ranging across an array of factors, to varying degrees. There are those who love almost all the changes including the overall shift in style, those that love the gameplay changes and don't care about anything beyond that, those who hate both and everything in-between.

Everything is driven by opinion, but I think overall the main factor that is Mass Effect 2 wasn't entirely consistent and changed in a good number of ways from Mass Effect 1. Whether one thinks this is an improvement or not, and what factors have improved or not, is a  matter of opinion, but the whole thing comes down to this. That's why there are those who attack ME2 and those who defend it. And I can't help but feel that had Mass Effect 2 not been as different from its predecessor as it turned out, there wouldn't have been as much arguing.

[PSUHammer]

Vena_86 wrote...

People tend to become hostile once "counter arguments" like metacritic and reviews of IGN(norance) etc. are presented as universal truth, with a complete disregard for what the actual criticism was.
Someone says there is no modding in ME2 and thats bad. Then someone else says, but ME2 had better combat, so the game is better....FUUUUUUUU
When trying to discuss something and the opposite site does not even pay attention to the points beeing discussed that leads to hostility which leads to more hostility and the creation of stereotypes (like RPGs are for elitist nerds, shooters are for retards) and more and more.
So it would be really nice of BioWare devs to come here and explain their decisions and present counterarguments to the criticism of their fan base, which would also stop alot of the fighting arround here.
And by explain I don't mean "it was a design decision", which is pretty much all we had so far.

Well, I tend to think that pointing to general review sites is a valid argument against a claim like "most people didn't like ME2".  I have heard that stated in this very forum.  But, you are right that when used out of context of the discussion then any counterpoint can be a red herring.

But, all of these things are subjective so flatly saying "the combat is bad" or "the storyline is worse" or "the inventory system sucks" can have the same effect.  Some people dislike the inventory changes in ME2, for instance, wanting a more traditional RPG inventory system.  Bioware has stated they were aiming to move away from that type of inventory for this game as they thought it took away from the more important elements of the game that they were shooting for (cinematic shooter/RPG hybrid).  I think it is a valid concern for those who wanted a complex inventory system...but personally that wasn't important to me.  It's hard to have an argument here.  Some liked it, some didn't. For Bioware, it comes down to sales and the success of the game.  And by all accounts, it was quite successful based on sales.

But, I am sure they consider people's concerns here on the forums.  IF they are presented in a constructive way.

Modifié par Hammer6767, 26 janvier 2011 - 03:09 .

[PSUHammer]

Terror_K wrote...
Everything is driven by opinion, but I think overall the main factor that is Mass Effect 2 wasn't entirely consistent and changed in a good number of ways from Mass Effect 1. Whether one thinks this is an improvement or not, and what factors have improved or not, is a  matter of opinion, but the whole thing comes down to this. That's why there are those who attack ME2 and those who defend it. And I can't help but feel that had Mass Effect 2 not been as different from its predecessor as it turned out, there wouldn't have been as much arguing.

But IS there a lot of argument?  Or are you just hearing the people in the forums who are upset posting a lot?  I think some of the issue here is we tend to generalize.  Most people who own or played the game do not post in the forums.  So, can we assume the collective whole of those who bought the game share the sentiments of those who post on this forum regularly?  I am not so sure.

[Terror_K]

Hammer6767 wrote...

It's hard to have an argument here.  Some liked it, some didn't. For Bioware, it comes down to sales and the success of the game.  And by all accounts, it was quite successful based on sales.

Which many feel is kind of the problem. A lot of us feel that BioWare games used to be made with love and made to be something more akin to interactive works of art made with love. It really felt like they cared about the product they were making and were making it to be something they wanted and something of quality, depth and heart. It never felt like they were going for the numbers, but that it was about making the game first and foremost and money was a secondary factor.

Now it seems priorities have changed. Mass Effect 2 felt cold and heartless, and like it was artificially designed to simply appeal to a great number of people for the sake of profits. It felt less like BioWare were asking "what's best for the game?" and more like they were saying, "what's best for sales and our pockets?" That may sound a little judgemental on my part and rather negatively labeling of BioWare, but this is how things came across to me. And because of this it seems like rather than making something unique and special that transcended most video games like they used to, instead their now just making these artificially "perfect" games and want to try and have the best of both worlds. It seems as if they've fallen into the same trap as almost every other game developer these days: to be a success you have to market to the mainstream masses, and the masses these days want the same brown mush: they all want these generic story-driven, fast-paceded games that hybrid shooter or action games with a few light RPG elements here and there. It's not so much that these games are bad, but it's just that there's a distinct lack of real variety out there these days and many genres have lost their identity because of all these hybrids saturating the market lately.

And that overall I feel is the problem: BioWare is now chasing a particular audience; the same audience that almost every other major game developer is chasing, rather than just seeming to make their own unique brand of product any more. Which wouldn't be so bad in principle if they did it with something completely new, but instead they seem to want to sabotage their existing IPs that were not initially designed to be this way part the way through.

Modifié par Terror_K, 26 janvier 2011 - 03:24 .

[Terror_K]

Hammer6767 wrote...

But IS there a lot of argument?  Or are you just hearing the people in the forums who are upset posting a lot?

It works both ways. Sure... they're always willing to say, "it's a vocal minority" and/or "it's the same people just posting repeatedly" but let's not forget that it's probably even more common that the ones who step in to defend ME2 at every point are the same, opposing "vocal minority" merely on the other side of the fence.

From my experience here I'd actually say it's more accurate to say there's a vocal minority of staunch ME2 defenders, and there's also a vocal minority of ME2 detractors. Most other people here are somewhere in the middle, or simply sit back and watch. If there are already a good half-a-dozen or so "voices for the fans" on either side of the table bringing up good points (and even as a detractor I'll admit there are those that oppose me that do bring up good points) then they don't really need to post something that's already been said. Looking around I see a lot of posts filled with people who are both satisfied and disappointed to varying degrees.

I think some of the issue here is we tend to generalize.  Most people who own or played the game do not post in the forums.  So, can we assume the collective whole of those who bought the game share the sentiments of those who post on this forum regularly?  I am not so sure.

Yes, but what is Mass Effect to those who aren't on the forums for the most part? Is it something special at all? Is it more than just a series of games? Do they buy the comics, the novels, the soundtracks, the t-shirts, the lithos, the art books, the action figures, etc. as well? Or are the Mass Effect titles just some other good gamse amongst many that in most cases will probably be traded in for Gears of War 3 or the next Call of Duty or Halo, etc.?

There's the players and then there's the fans. And it doesn't seem right to me that BioWare should be catering more to the players who will probably forget about Mass Effect in five years time than it is to those who fell in love with the franchise from the start and have plans to continue to love it beyond whatever its life-cycle is.

[Nohvarr]

All though you are entitled to your point of view I respectfully disagree with your conclusions. Jade Empire was the very first indication that Bioware wanted to move towards a balanced fusion of action and RPG. It didn't work as well as we could've hoped but it was a step in the right direction.

Mass Effect was a much more successful attempt to fuse the two, but also brought to light some of the problems with trying to fuse 'The RPG checklist' with an action packed 3rd person tacticle shooter.

Learning from this they make ME 2. Some people didn't like it, which is fine, but that's no reason to accuse Bioware of losing their way. The recent dev diary's on DA 2 made it clear that the current direction for that game was something they'd been thinking about since before the Release of DA:O.

So why go this route? Because they want to, because it's something they think people will enjoy. Listening to them enthusiasm in their voices when they talk about DA 2 let's me know that this is not just about chasing a particular audience. They are honestly excited about what they are doing.

And I imagine the ME team is the same way.

[Players vs Fans]

I disagree. Just because I buy an ME t-shirt does not make my opinion any more valid than another person who bought and played the game. This desire to remove people who are looking forward to ME 3 just because they're not ''True Fans' strikes me as a tad elitist.

Modifié par Nohvarr, 26 janvier 2011 - 03:41 .

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

*snip*

Not much to say, You say you opinions well. I just disagree some of you opinions, but mostly I disagree your negativity agaist ME2. I don't see ME2 as negative as you do, I see it as very positive ways. Mostly I think it's because my values as what's important in Mass Effect games is little different. I see both Mass Effect games as equal good. Sure both Mass Effect games has something to improve, but no game is ever perfect.

Modifié par Lumikki, 26 janvier 2011 - 03:52 .

[habitat 67]

Terror_K wrote...
Yes, but what is Mass Effect to those who aren't on the forums for the most part? Is it something special at all? Is it more than just a series of games? Do they buy the comics, the novels, the soundtracks, the t-shirts, the lithos, the art books, the action figures, etc. as well? Or are the Mass Effect titles just some other good gamse amongst many that in most cases will probably be traded in for Gears of War 3 or the next Call of Duty or Halo, etc.?

Sounds like you are unaware of the vast plethora of Mass Effect fans who choose to spend their time on other often more positive forums. Yes, they buy stuff too (a lot of it), and for the most part they consider these forums to be an embarrasment, mainly due to the constant trolling and complaining here.

As the ever intelligent Phaedon has mentioned, the devs go to these other places too, where they are treated respectfully. ( I know where he's talking about)

[JHU_P4NDA]

If I may, the Geth are a beautiful example of this. Neither the True Geth or the Heretics are technically "right." One believes that "one < two", and the other believes that "two < three". However, unlike geth, who on the whole accepted that a faction believed a different truth and wanted to separate, this forum is populated by far too many people who would try to convince others of their truth through what I think of as "verbal violence".

Modifié par JHU_P4NDA, 26 janvier 2011 - 03:58 .

[Terror_K]

habitat 67 wrote...

Sounds like you are unaware of the vast plethora of Mass Effect fans who choose to spend their time on other often more positive forums. Yes, they buy stuff too (a lot of it), and for the most part they consider these forums to be an embarrasment, mainly due to the constant trolling and complaining here.

As the ever intelligent Phaedon has mentioned, the devs go to these other places too, where they are treated respectfully. ( I know where he's talking about)

I'd be curious as to where these are, because I haven't come across them. Most of the places I've been are admittedly mostly positive about ME2, but they still have people on them who thought ME2 was oversimplified.

I also like how anybody who complains here is automatically a troll it seems. The definition here is too often simply "anybody who doesn't agree with the majority" and sometimes even "anybody who hates ME2" and that's all it takes.

Too often at this place I see the terms "elitist," "troll" and "hater(s)" come up, no matter how good a case a person makes, simply because they don't like the direction ME2 took. And if anything is an embarrassment about these forums, it's the amount of people who have to resort to insulting fellow posters with these labels instead of simply arguing the point. Attack the argument, not the person behind it.

Modifié par Terror_K, 26 janvier 2011 - 04:02 .

[Nohvarr]

I didn't even use the word elitist until you made the comment about players vs. Fans. This is nothing new from you, I clearly recall you going on record as fearing an influx of new fans/players.during the runup to ME 2.You didn't want the game to be accessible to new players because you felt it would detract from your expierence. I describe this behavior as Elitist, but you I don't know personally.

[bjdbwea]

Nohvarr wrote...

Learning from this they make ME 2. Some people didn't like it, which is fine, but that's no reason to accuse Bioware of losing their way.

It depends on what you think that "their way" is supposed to be. It used to be not to care about what sells best to the mainstream (which have been shooters for decades), but to try to develop the best RPGs. So if we can agree that this was their way, then I don't see how you could conclude that they have not lost it with ME 2. Not completely perhaps, because of course there are still some RPG elements and some of the elements that made previous BioWare games great in ME 2, but it's obvious that they had to take the back seat. ME 1 is what I'd call an evolution of "the BioWare way", but not ME 2.

Nohvarr wrote...

The recent dev diary's on DA 2 made it clear that the current direction for that game was something they'd been thinking about since before the Release of DA:O.

And of course they would say anything else.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 26 janvier 2011 - 04:45 .

[Nohvarr]

[quote]bjdbwea wrote...

[quote]Nohvarr wrote...

Learning from this they make ME 2. Some people didn't like it, which is fine, but that's no reason to accuse Bioware of losing their way.[/quote]

It depends on what you think that "their way" is supposed to be. It used to be not to care about what sells best to the mainstream (which have been shooters for decades), but to try to develop the best RPGs. So if we can agree that this was their way,[/quote]

I would argue they were trying to make great games, with a high amount of customization, fantastic stories with great character interaction. KOTOR required the system they used at the time as did Baldur's gate. Jade Empire show'ed they were not beholden to RPG conventions, and ME 2 and even Dragon Age 2 show that they are not allowing themselves to be limited by the rules of the RPG as some people define them.
 
[quote]then I don't see how you could conclude that they have not lost it with ME 2[/quote]

Because I honestly consider ME 2 to be an overall superor game to ME 1. The first game was fine, it got the ball rolling and did some interesting things. I honeslty enjoyed the second game more. I enjoyed how the characters were presented, I loved the missions N7 and main, and I enjoyed actualy playing the game more than I did the first. I can honestly point to more moments where I cracked a smile just because of gameplay in ME 2 than I can the first game.

 [quote]ME 1 is what I'd call an evolution of "the BioWare way", but not ME 2.[quote]

You're definition of the 'Bioware way' is vastly different from my own.

[quote]Nohvarr wrote...

The recent dev diary's on DA 2 made it clear that the current direction for that game was something they'd been thinking about since before the Release of DA:O.[/quote]

And of course they would say anything else.
[/quote]

Has nothing to do with what they said, it has everything to do with how they said it. The look on their faces as they talked about their creation. They love their work, that' obvious, so the argument that they'ev abandon love for money rings hollow in tis light.

[Terror_K]

Nohvarr wrote...

I didn't even use the word elitist until you made the comment about players vs. Fans. This is nothing new from you, I clearly recall you going on record as fearing an influx of new fans/players.during the runup to ME 2.You didn't want the game to be accessible to new players because you felt it would detract from your expierence. I describe this behavior as Elitist, but you I don't know personally.

I feared an influx of new fans/players from the more mainstream side of things because I thought it would mean them coming in and outvoicing the old fans and then the Mass Effect series being more tailored towards them than the exisiting fans because of their greater numbers resulting in a louder overall voice. And from my experience that's exactly what's happened.

I don't see why it is "elitist" to worry that your favourite genre is getting oversimplified and that your favourite video game IP is being mainstreamed to the point where they stop appealing to you any more because they become more like everything else and less like what you like. If anything, I think it's more elitist (or at least more arrogant) to expect and want every single game and entertainment product out there to suit you. Why exactly is it "elitist" for me (or anybody else) to actually want just one or two of their favourite RPGs and favourite IPs to remain true to its form instead of becoming like the hundeds and hundreds of other stuff out there? I just don't want the Mass Effect and Dragon Age series' to just end up like every second game on the shelf.

[bjdbwea]

Nohvarr wrote...

I would argue they were trying to make great games, with a high amount of customization, fantastic stories with great character interaction.

Okay. But then I still don't understand how you could say that they have not lost their way with ME 2. High amount of customization? Certainly not in comparison to other RPGs. Fantastic story? Where? Great character interaction? Perhaps in a few scenes.

I understand that you prefer ME 2 over ME 1, but isn't that perhaps exactly because they changed so much? Because it's less like a BioWare RPG and more like a common shooter? And perhaps "changed their way" is the term that you would prefer, but you certainly don't want to argue that ME 2 would be the logical next step of evolution of previous BioWare games.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 26 janvier 2011 - 05:22 .

[Nohvarr]

Terror_K wrote...

 Why exactly is it "elitist" for me (or anybody else) to actually want just one or two of their favourite RPGs and favourite IPs to remain true to its form

The reason I use 'Elitist is beacuse your actions lead me to believe that you feel other people have no right to play on your swingset. Truth be told you were actually the first one to attack other people instead of their arguments by seperating them into fans and players. You immediatly placed everyone you did not consider a fan on a lower level, and thus enabled yourself to safely ignore their views, concerns and wants.

That's why I called your actions elitist.

Okay. But then I still don't understand how you could say that they have not lost their way with ME 2. High amount of customization? Certainly not in comparison to other RPGs. Fantastic story? Where? Great character interaction? Perhaps in a few scenes.

I consider have a few significant options much more interesting than having a ton of nearly useless ones. That why I laughed when people complained about the number of weapons in ME 1 vs. ME 2. ME 1 had a total of 4 weapons, with a some color swaps and two skins between them. Each weapon in that type fired the same in ME 1. ME 2 had weapons with significantly different firing characteristics, which made them feel much better when a person actually plays.

Fantastic story: since the story is pulling the team together, I'd call all the recruitment missions and loyalty missions apart of that tale. And since my actions on those missions determine my final fate, I'd argue it's more interactive than ME 1's Finale.

I understand that you prefer ME 2 over ME 1, but isn't that perhaps exactly because they changed so much? Because it's less like a BioWare RPG and more like a common shooter? And perhaps "changed their way" is the term that you would prefer, but you certainly don't want to argue that ME 2 would be the logical next step of evolution of previous BioWare games.

I can't agree, because everything I see fits in line with the direction I expected after playing Jade Empire. That game was a firm indication that Bioware wanted to do more than just make the same types of RPG's over and over again. They're going to push, test, and see what works, and if they continue to produce quality titles like ME 2, then that's fine with me.

Modifié par Nohvarr, 26 janvier 2011 - 05:31 .

[habitat 67]

Terror_K wrote...

I feared an influx of new fans/players from the more mainstream side of things because I thought it would mean them coming in and outvoicing the old fans and then the Mass Effect series being more tailored towards them than the exisiting fans because of their greater numbers resulting in a louder overall voice. And from my experience that's exactly what's happened.

What about the "old fans" who like the direction Mass Effect went into? Certainly you do not believe that the majority of Mass Effect 1 players hated 2?

Terror_K wrote...
I don't see why it is "elitist" to worry that your favourite genre is getting oversimplified

Fallout: New Vegas would like to have a word with you.

Terror_K wrote...
and that your favourite video game IP is being mainstreamed to the point where they stop appealing to you any more because they become more like everything else and less like what you like.

There's many many RPGs out there that have played in the same similar way for more than 10 years now. Maybe it's time for modernization.

Terror_K wrote...
  I just don't want the Mass Effect and Dragon Age series' to just end up like every second game on the shelf.

Dragon Age started out as a fantastic tribute to Baldur's Gate, I cannot comment on it's succesor until I play it.
Mass Efffect 1 & 2 is unlike anything I've ever played, in a good way. 120+ GOTY awards agree.