230 réponses à ce sujet

[Gthings83]

Mass Effect 2 is for the retarded group of RPG fans.  It's important the smarter people look out for the dumber ones, afterall they make up a majority of hte population.

Stupid people should be able to enjoy mass effect as well (mass effect 2).

[BounceDK]

While I enjoyed ME2, I also thought it was lacking in the RPG department. Quite a lot actually.
Maybe the correct term is "Made for the Call of Duty audience" instead of dumbed down.

Modifié par BounceDK, 19 février 2011 - 08:03 .

[Whatever42]

BounceDK wrote...

While I enjoyed ME2, I also thought it was lacking in the RPG department. Quite a lot actually.
Maybe the correct term is "Made for the Call of Duty audience" instead of dumbed down.

Except the CoD audience never bought it. The RPG audience bought it. And 90% of the RPG audience loved it. The 10% that didn't now live here.

[BounceDK]

That's pretty sad then. Maybe it's the Oblivion generation at work.

[Evil Johnny 666]

[quote]Thompson family wrote...

Except Wrex is nuanced. (etc.) [/quote]

I've heard my favorite character in the whole ME universe called a lot of things before, but "nuanced"?!
"Just because I like you doesn't mean I won't kill you."
"Ah the old days. Flying into the unknown. Killing it with big guns. Good times."

Absolutely Shakespearian.[/quote]

Compared to ME2 characters, that is.


[quote]You just admitted ME1 has simpler, less deep characterization, voiding your previous points.[/quote]

Eh no. I didn't say ME1 characters were simpler, I said they were simple enough. Learn to read.


[quote]And no, I do not believe shallow characters make for a better game -- least of all in an RPG..[/quote]
I didn't talk about shallow characters. Simple =/= shallow. Otherwise everyone would agree ME2 is shallow.

[quote]
[quote]And the Council are STILL the clueless political leadership in ME2, I don't know why you're referring to something this if it hasn't changed.[/quote]

So you admit, again, that much else besides the council has changed and gained in complexity. Thanks again.[/quote]

How did I do that? ME2 is a sequel, it's only normal things are expanded upon, otherwise it would fail. And they failed on expanding upon the council. You were whining about the council being a clueless political leadership in ME1 when they are still in ME2, I just said that it was basically a non-argument.



[quote][quote]1. Angst-ridden emo girl? Check.[/quote]

Angst-ridden and emotional victim of childhood abuse who has deep conflict with another member of your crew. [/quote]

Oh please, so deep. That's implied. Ask anyone who had not played ME2 to guess more in detail what would've happened/happens to an angst-ridden emo girl character, and they will all answer you emotional victim of childhood abuse, and also having a "deep" - seriously, no, she's just being a ****, that's not deep at all - with another girl crew member. It's as stereotypical as you can get. Hardly "nuanced", and certainly not more than Wrex.

[quote]
[quote][2. Krogan killing machine? Check.[/quote]

On whose behalf Shep goes on a rite of passage and becomes one of the few off-worlders to go to Tuchanka, where he learns more about Krogan civilization every five minutes s/he's there than in the entire game of ME1. Did you even talk to the Shaman after the Rite?[/quote]

The Shaman isn't Grunt. Grunt being a source of Krogan background has NOTHING to do with how deep of a character he is. He IS a Krogan killing machine acting on instincts, whose insctincts at some point hurts him because he predictably needs to do some killing rite. Grunt is the most shallow ME character ever, you can only admit it.


[quote]
[quote]3. An Asari justicar who can't do anything but follow her dumb code? Check.[/quote]

Sworn to hunt down and kill her own child.

The very idea of a code and a Justicar is a much more nuanced and fleshed out than Spectres ever were.[/quote]

Still predictable and hardly nuanced. As a Justicar, that doesn't make her any more "nuanced", maybe if she just was a noble Asari, but she's controlled by her damn code all the time, talk about being nuanced! The code more fleshed out? Spectres have freedom, there's the not following the laws ON THEIR WILL to achieve their needs. Justicars do not necessarily follow laws, but it's because of their code which pre-programs anything they'd do. There's real moral implications with Spectres as they can choose or not to break laws and defend their point.

[quote]
[quote]4. Boring disilisioned ex-Alliance soldier? Check.[/quote]

Even Jacob has "issues" with working for Cerberus -- quite like Garris had conflicts about working for C-Sec.[/quote]

Of course, that was also implied. The disillusioned ex-organisation soldier will always join another organisation because of personal ideals, but not without not entirely agreeing with his new employer. That story is old as ****. And you are right, Jacob is basically a less interesting Garrus. They basically copied one of their own characters in the same series and showed even much how he's a character that has been used for an eternity.

[quote]
[quote]5. Bred for perfection by greed ice queen but happens to actually have emotions when talked to? Check.[/quote]

Let's break that down:

1. Breed for perfection
2. By greed, not for any noble purpose.
3. Ice Queen -- who actually has emotions when talked to.

And a sister who she's willing to die for, and a best friend who betrays her and is killed in front of her, and a father who has become her sworn enemy..[/quote]

You know, there is obviously more to what I wrote (as to what you wrote), I just played your game and described the characters in a nutshell. All this hardly makes her "nuanced" in any way. How does being betrayed makes a character nuanced? Being breed for perfection by greed by her fathers = being a sworn enemy to her father, that's impossible not to be. And her sister thing isn't surprising at all, it's only agreeing with her previously stated character, that's not "nuancing" anything. She's still an incredibly stereotyped character.

ME1 still had stereotypical characters, but Bioware at least tried to hide it and make them at least a bit interesting. Basically, ME2's crew was meant to be the best of the most badasses, and it obviously shows. You can't make nuanced characters out of ones taken out of Hollywood action movies.


[quote]
[quote]I'm okay with Tali and Garrus, but since you whined about them in ME1:[/quote]

I did not whine. Read my post. I said I'm a proud fan of ME1. I'm just not starstruck.[/quote]

Let me rephrase it then: I'm okay with Tali and Garrus, but since you criticised them to prove a point about ME2:

Is that better?


[quote]
[quote]Tali: daughter of important diplomat who... gets important and wants to save her father from shame[/quote]

Whose loyalty mission -- again -- makes Shep one of the few off-worlders to visit the home of a major civilization in the game universe, where we learn more about that faction than we did in all of ME1.[/quote]

How does that even make a character more deep or nuanced? Plus, the "one of the few off-worlders..." bit is also far from original.

[quote]Thompson family wrote...


[quote]Except Bioware didn't use the opportunity of the teaming up with Cerberus to do anything at all about the moral implications[/quote]

Missed the whole blowing up/keeping the Collector Base thingy? And the rescue in Overlord, too.[/quote]

That's TWO. And those are certainly of the most basic moral ideas which are not something that follow you throughout the game. The Collector base thingy is thrown at the end of the game and is on the same moral level as saving the Rachni. The Collector base thing has NOTHING to do with the implications of working for Cerberus. It's only a choice Shepard can make no matter what, it's not a choice that makes working for Cerberus like a bad idea or not, and all. Basically, it has nothing to do with working with Cerberus in itself. I haven't got Overlord yet, but I'd be hard pressed to believe that A) it has more to do with the implications of WORKING for Cerberus and it's a DLC, nothing to do with the main game itself.


[quote]
[quote]
Bioware dropped the ball on making an actual mature game, they were
tried too much to be sure to not loose the new group of people they were
catering to, as showed by oh so many narrative elements scattered
throughout the whole thing - music, cinematics, etc..[/quote]

Which is it: Dumbed down or all things to all people? You can't have both..[/quote]

Huh? I'm not sure I understand. They dumbed down the game to appeal to the CoD crowd/mainstream, it's not about one or the other, it's choice versus the cause of the choice.

[quote]
[quote]And
the fact that you had no choice cheapened the whole thing. How the hell
can there be moral implications if you do not choose yourself to worth
with them? [/quote]

I presume you meant "work" instead of "worth."
Because
my Sherpard is a loyal member of the Alliance who doesn't go get Mordin
first. He goes straight to the Citadel to present Cerberus' new major
investments -including himslef -- to the Alliance and the Council, only
to find that they have decided to put him, his ship, the crew and the
Cerberus connections to good use.[/quote]

First, you accepted to work with Cerberus before getting to the Citadel - or going to the Alliance, something which you couldn't even do. If you mean Anderson deciding to use the connections to good use, then yes. But he may not even be in the council, and even if he is, the rest of the council wants nothing to do with Cerberus.


[quote]
[quote]Just
being able to team up with the Alliance would have made things much
more complex and give real implications. Do I go with Cerberus, because
they ressucitated me, already know the collectors are a threat and will
be much more considerate of the lives of those humans, or I go with the
Alliance because Cerberus are [is] evil, I am Alliance, and A or B.
There's no moral implication whatsoever, you just accept and do what
they tell you to do, how does this have any depth?[/quote]

Your choice is made for you in ME1 and is the ultimate in simplicity.
For the record, I don't like working with Cerberus either, but it is, plot-wise, the far more interesting situation.[/quote]

Yeah, because you're going to choose for whatever reason to worth for one of two organization in the first game of a new series... The reason you even play Shepard is because he was hand-picked by the Alliance for a mission. How is that the ultimate in simplicity? If it is, then practically every game on Earth is the ultimate in simplicity.


[quote]
[quote]Or
when Bioware decided to change the nature of the Genophage from "it
affects fertility AND causes stillborns" to "it ONLY affects fertility.[/quote]

Uh ...

"No,
human, you have not seen the piles of the children who never lived," or
something to that effect. It's in the scene where Shep's confronting
the Weyrlok representative.

We can get into a "does life begin at
conception" debate if you want, but the fact is that fertility rate is
determined by the number of living offspring. Mordin's argument that the
genophage just effects fertility rates is technically correct, but
largely a rationalization of his graphically displayed guilt -- another
instance of high drama compared to ME1 -- that ignores a horrific
consequence.[/quote]

here and here
How causing stillbirths is not killing? There's a difference between considering a zigote as a living human being and considering a fetus about to be given birth as a living human being. There's a reason why you don't do abortions passed a certain period of time. In case you didn't know, stillbirth is "giving birth" to a dead baby. I think Mordin made it pretty obvious that he would've been incomfortable with having dead babies on his hands. By ignoring the whole stillbirth thing and focusing on "adjusting fertility rates", that takes off a LOT of guilt off Mordin's head, making the whole subject less mature and less morally debatable.

[quote]
[quote]All the moral
implications from trying to control a dangerous group with relatively
murderous means are gone. Half the interest of the Genophage disappeared
because now the goal is much more positive than the "with plenty shades
of grey" there was in ME1.[/quote]

I honestly don't know
how anybody who played ME1 can say that. Wrex explained at length that
the genophage left survivors. The real problem was a lack of leadership
among the Krogan, their unwillingness to change and lack of any unity of
purpose -- things Wrex's providing in ME2 after years of trying. Those
attempts even led to an attempted ambush against him by his own father.
Most of Wrex's followers were killed, he was exiled and he stabbed his
father to death.[/quote]

I didn't say all the interest of the Genophage was gone, only a big part of it.


[quote]I respect those who see life and conception
issues as a black and white thing. It's a principled stand. But I
certainly don't see how the "goal has become much more positive."

"Look at the dead woman, Mordin. It doesn't seem like you helped her."[/quote]

At least they put that part in! But that's more about indirect consequences rather than the direct consequences of the Genophage, and that's my problem. It's a lot less gritty and morally ambiguous when you need to resort to talk about dubious scientific research to outdo such problem rather than talking about the dead babies it provides.

[quote]
[quote]
Again, dropping the ball rather than dealing with more mature themes.
Even Cerberus are censored. They are much less murderous than in ME1,
and even the Subject Zero thing was because of dissidents. AGAIN
cheapening the whole moral thing I spoke of earlier.[/quote]

Like
it or not, terrorist groups acquire political legitimacy in out own
world. Again, you're arguing that ME2 was dumbed down and that, at the
same time, it's not as simple (story wise) and black-and-white as it
was.[/quote]

I don't get the political legitimacy thing, I know this, in fact, it was still in ME1, as it was serving human interests. It wasn't so black and white in ME1, well, the problem is that there's was no real interactions with Cerberus. THAT would've made things far more ambiguous than the merely "we do nothing wrong, we're only slightly xenophobic and do a couple of risky things, rather than being morally less than politically correct while still having a relative noble goal. In ME2, it's hard to distrusts Cerberus that much beyond the "how they will backstab me again" thing.

[quote]
I'm thinking you're a highly principled person who is
appalled at the line the story has taken. That's a legitimate cause for
not wanting to play the game, but not a valid criticism of the quality
of the writing.

[quote]We must not be playing the same game if you think working with Cerberus has any implications or nuances things.[/quote][/quote]

How is it not valid criticism for the quality of writing? The more detailed, the more implications and the more anything there is to a story (which are all well-written), the best the writing is. It's not by drowning us in a purely black and white world which the choices you make depending solely on your character alignment that they're making particularly good writing. Look at the Rachni, look at the other ME1 choices. Yes, as a renegade dude it's easy to kill everyone off, but as a good guy, some choices are not so obvious. It's hard to take any ME2 problem seriously. The only inconvenience of the Genophage I can see, is Krogan killing themselves. But when you look at an invincible army of Krogan killing everyone, it's hard to sympathize that much with a bunch of brutes who'd do anything stupid to try to solve their problems, when you know their problem solved would be less than desirable.


[quote]
I actually read a book before going online to trash the thing.[/quote]
I read the first two ME books.


[quote]
2. Did you forget bits like "let's leave the Normandy for an
unspecified mission/shore leave so our ship can conveniently be attacked
by Collectors". Did you ever came up with a reason why they had to
leave the ship?[/quote]

Now that was cheesy. Almost as
cheesy as searching monkeys for a data disk or being trapped in an
abandoned mine and conveniently finding a whole other way out and any
one of a number of other instances I could name.

Except here, it's a plot devide. A plot hole, something nonsensical that was never explain (because there's no explanation). I fail to see the link with searching monkeys and a convenient mine.


[quote]
[quote]Or
why the Council made Shepard go search for Geth while a clearly
superior ship almost destroyed the whole Citadel space fleet and the
whole place? Among others.[/quote]

That was one of the most laboriously over-explained points in the whole game.[/quote]

Care to explain? As far as I know, the moment Shepard joined Cerberus the only thing that anyone cared to tell us is getting new squad mates and stopping the Collectors, which they are in no way related to the Geth.


[quote]
[quote]And
in case you didn't realize, the ME2 description is far more detailed
than the ME1 one, obviously ME1 isn't consisted of duel after duel of
Saren and Shepard, but the ME2 description says 90% percent of what
happens in ME2 versus the 5% of ME1.[/quote]

There's
something wrong with this sentence. I don't think you meant to say that
"ME2 description is far more detailed than ME1." Please clarify.[/quote]

I meant there wasn't much to add to my ME2 descripion to have a good gripe of the story. The same thing can't be said about your ME1 description. Like how do Shepard and Saren fight each other. If I wanted to give a comparable ME2 description, I would've said "it's a suicide mission". Then HOW do you do this suicide mission? "by making up a squad".

[Whatever42]

BounceDK wrote...

That's pretty sad then. Maybe it's the Oblivion generation at work.

Well, I think in Bioware's case, its that they wanted to create a cinematic gaming experience. Micromanagement distracts far too much from the experience they wanted. They need to use mechanics that would allow the story to flow.

So we have neat cut scene where it looks like actual movie camera work and dialogue.  Tears are shed, threats are made, weapons drawn and then we leap into combat. And you pause for 2 minutes as you queue all your powers. Then after a stop-go battle, you finally win and then for another 2 minutes you loot all the corpses and arrange your inventory, and equip new loots.

Not the experience they wanted.

Now, I do agree that all games, from DA:O to FNV have simplified their mechanics to remove some micromanagement and redundancy and to design systems that make it harder to gimp your character. I am the type of player who will spend time fiddling with every stat so I see the loss, absolutely, but I'm pretty sure we're a small minority of gamers who enjoy that degree of micromanagement.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

BounceDK wrote...

That's pretty sad then. Maybe it's the Oblivion generation at work.

Well, I think in Bioware's case, its that they wanted to create a cinematic gaming experience. Micromanagement distracts far too much from the experience they wanted. They need to use mechanics that would allow the story to flow.

So we have neat cut scene where it looks like actual movie camera work and dialogue.  Tears are shed, threats are made, weapons drawn and then we leap into combat. And you pause for 2 minutes as you queue all your powers. Then after a stop-go battle, you finally win and then for another 2 minutes you loot all the corpses and arrange your inventory, and equip new loots.

Not the experience they wanted.

Except shooting isn't a cinematic gaming mechanic. That's why movie critics are talking about VG elements in movies using first person sequences. Shooting your way through isn't in any way a more cinematic element than alloting points (which you can still do in ME2) or spending time in an inventory (while you can spend time in the research computer, on your personal computer reading mails, choosing weapons or armors). Hell, there's so many emails you get, how does that contribute to a more cinematic experience when you consider taking the inventory out?

[SalsaDMA]

AlanC9 wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Tbh, the tactics thing in DA:O more or less turned me off from that game. That it sounds like they are putting even more emphasis on it doesn't exactly convince me about it. I found the whole tactic system they had implemented there count-intuitive and in some cases plain silly in regards to how dumb your members where. Even more frustrating when the triggers forced actions on the members that were counter to what you wanted, and it overrode manual orders you had given. Just beefing up the amount of options in tactics choices doesn't make a deep game, as the webpage linked seemed to asume. It just makes it more frustrating to make your people do what you want them to do if they follow the pattern laid out in DA:O. I sure hope we don't get this failure of team-member control in ME3.

Itals mine. You sure about that? Not to my recollection. And of course, you can always just disable Tactics.

Anyway, Tactics are bad compared to what?

Oh yes, I'm certain.

Gnashed my teeth out every time I used melee characters because of this. Typical example:

I pause, select Zevran, order him to attack an archer on the left of the room. I then select my warden that is tank specced and orders him to run up to a middle group of archers to keep them occupied. An archer on the right I was ignoring for the moment with the melee guys cause I had ordered Morrigan to freeze him. Result when I unpause: The warden that is my current selected after unpusing does what he is supposed to. Zevran, on the other hand, runs first over to the left archer, takes a look at him and then runs across the entire room to the right archer and starts attacking that one. All the while the left archer is tearing my healer apart...

Happened every frigging time I tried to use melee guys in a tactical way. In the end I gave up with melee in the game at all and just used ranged only, cause at least I wouldn't loose attacking time then when they decided to swap targets without my desire.

[Whatever42]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

BounceDK wrote...

That's pretty sad then. Maybe it's the Oblivion generation at work.

Well, I think in Bioware's case, its that they wanted to create a cinematic gaming experience. Micromanagement distracts far too much from the experience they wanted. They need to use mechanics that would allow the story to flow.

So we have neat cut scene where it looks like actual movie camera work and dialogue.  Tears are shed, threats are made, weapons drawn and then we leap into combat. And you pause for 2 minutes as you queue all your powers. Then after a stop-go battle, you finally win and then for another 2 minutes you loot all the corpses and arrange your inventory, and equip new loots.

Not the experience they wanted.

Except shooting isn't a cinematic gaming mechanic. That's why movie critics are talking about VG elements in movies using first person sequences. Shooting your way through isn't in any way a more cinematic element than alloting points (which you can still do in ME2) or spending time in an inventory (while you can spend time in the research computer, on your personal computer reading mails, choosing weapons or armors). Hell, there's so many emails you get, how does that contribute to a more cinematic experience when you consider taking the inventory out?

You've never seen an action movie? I see lots of shoot outs in action movies. I see people reading emails in movies too. I also have seen people hack computer terminals in movies. Never seen a character in a movie spend 2 minute fiddling with his inventory after every fight, though. The locker system fits far better imo.

[Ulzeraj]

**** the RPG experts are still attacking the forums? I kinda miss the armchair themal clips scientists now. Please wake me up when this is over.

[Goofy McCoy]

I love the ME2 defense force that jumps out at any criticism and attempts to bludgeon it down and keep the status quo.



Fun game for that argument regarding character depth in mass effect:



Daddy score:

Miranda: evil daddy

Jacob: missing daddy

Tali: missing daddy, with complications

Grunt: no daddy

Jack: no daddy/evil terrorist hate-camp pseudo daddy

Thane: is a bad daddy

Samara: is an (asexual) bad daddy



One might argue that Morodin's issue is a metaphor along similar lines, but you can stretch things a lot of ways like that.



ME1 fitted the mentioned, time honored archtypes (disgruntled cop, humorously homicidal mercenary, Carth Onasi with shoddy government implants) and Liara ended up being the only one with the major (blue) daddy issues, which was fine then, since it ended up being a BIG DEAL, instead of an "OH THIS AGAIN" act.



I'm all for streamlining, and ME2 may not have been "dumbed down", but given certain trends and other factors that have come into play, I'm certainly going to remain apprehensive until we see more of game 3.

[Whatever42]

Ashley had serious daddy issues in ME1.

Garrus also had daddy issues.

Liara had mommy issues.

Tali was just a teenager hanging out - she brought up here daddy but basically just chilled in the engine room.

Wrex had daddy issues as well - heck, he killed his daddy!



There is a definate theme here. But simply pointing them out in ME2 and ignoring them in ME1 is not playing fair.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Except shooting isn't a cinematic gaming mechanic. That's why movie critics are talking about VG elements in movies using first person sequences. Shooting your way through isn't in any way a more cinematic element than alloting points (which you can still do in ME2) or spending time in an inventory (while you can spend time in the research computer, on your personal computer reading mails, choosing weapons or armors). Hell, there's so many emails you get, how does that contribute to a more cinematic experience when you consider taking the inventory out?

You've never seen an action movie? I see lots of shoot outs in action movies. I see people reading emails in movies too. I also have seen people hack computer terminals in movies. Never seen a character in a movie spend 2 minute fiddling with his inventory after every fight, though. The locker system fits far better imo.

Mechanic. Key word. Are you arguing hacking a computer in a game is a cinematic mechanic, that it makes the game more cinematic that if it had no hacking? Because that's pretty much what you are saying. It's not what is constituing something that makes something cinematic or not, it's HOW you do it.

[Gatt9]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

BounceDK wrote...

That's pretty sad then. Maybe it's the Oblivion generation at work.

Well, I think in Bioware's case, its that they wanted to create a cinematic gaming experience. Micromanagement distracts far too much from the experience they wanted. They need to use mechanics that would allow the story to flow.

So we have neat cut scene where it looks like actual movie camera work and dialogue.  Tears are shed, threats are made, weapons drawn and then we leap into combat. And you pause for 2 minutes as you queue all your powers. Then after a stop-go battle, you finally win and then for another 2 minutes you loot all the corpses and arrange your inventory, and equip new loots.

Not the experience they wanted.

Except shooting isn't a cinematic gaming mechanic. That's why movie critics are talking about VG elements in movies using first person sequences. Shooting your way through isn't in any way a more cinematic element than alloting points (which you can still do in ME2) or spending time in an inventory (while you can spend time in the research computer, on your personal computer reading mails, choosing weapons or armors). Hell, there's so many emails you get, how does that contribute to a more cinematic experience when you consider taking the inventory out?

You've never seen an action movie? I see lots of shoot outs in action movies. I see people reading emails in movies too. I also have seen people hack computer terminals in movies. Never seen a character in a movie spend 2 minute fiddling with his inventory after every fight, though. The locker system fits far better imo.

I think his point was trying to use a FPP in movies just doesn't work,  as anyone who's seen Doom can tell you.  It's *really* bad.

The locker system is hands down horrible.  I want loot in an RPG.  I want a reason to kill the people in my way,  and search out those random sidequests.  This whole system just served to move it squarely into shooter territory instead of RPG.

Further,  a great number of movies show people spending two minutes fiddling with their inventories,  they just happen to be talking at the same time.  Transformers is a good example...

"Where's your credit card?"
"Back pocket!"
"Which back pocket"
"Left cheek!  Left cheek!"

All while under fire,  one guy's fiddling with another guy's inventory.  Never mind the number of times they went to an armory.

**** the RPG experts are still attacking the forums? I kinda miss the armchair themal clips scientists now. Please wake me up when this is over.

Considering that ME2 sold less units that Baldur's Gate 2 did,  and that the entire industry has been showing a steady decline for over a year,  might be a really good time to start listening to the people telling you what's wrong.

Of course,  we can go with your plan.  Ignore it until the second great gaming crash occurs,  it won't take alot longer,  and we're pretty close to the point of no return now.

January 2010 dropped 13% from 2009
January 2011 dropped 5% from 2010

So we're now down almost 20% from 2009,  a 20% drop is a massive problem,  especially when the entire industry is Holiday driven and the vast majority of the sales should come in the months around December.

So sure,  go ahead,  ignore the people telling you why they won't spend their money.  I hope you're a big fan of paper football.

Edit:

The reason we're nearing the point of no return is this:  It takes 2-3 years to make a game,  we're steadily declining indicating people are *really* tired of the same couple of games ad nauseum.  So in order to make the changes necessary to reinvigorate the industry by diversifying and offering more than just Doom, Warcraft, and Tomb Raider,  we have to start right now.  Because if we wait out another cycle,  there won't be enough time to allow for the next cycle of development.  People will have walked away.

Modifié par Gatt9, 19 février 2011 - 10:41 .

[Spornicus]

"Hardcore RPG gamers" are the most arrogant, self-righteous gamers out there.

[Goofy McCoy]

Sure it is, Wrex's involvement in your mission is not predicated on resolving his family problems.



Having problems is a great conversation topic, it's easy to relate to. "Streamlining" it into the major actionable item of nearly every character's development isn't the same thing.



Take out his relationship with miranda, and her father is suddenly exactly the same as any of the other side-mission weirdos from ME1, not a major plot point.



Also, for the record, chalk up Kelly for daddy issues too. No real evidence... But c'mon, you know it has to be true.

[Omega-202]

Gatt9 wrote...
Considering that ME2 sold less units that Baldur's Gate 2 did,  and that the entire industry has been showing a steady decline for over a year,  might be a really good time to start listening to the people telling you what's wrong.

Of course,  we can go with your plan.  Ignore it until the second great gaming crash occurs,  it won't take alot longer,  and we're pretty close to the point of no return now.

January 2010 dropped 13% from 2009
January 2011 dropped 5% from 2010

So we're now down almost 20% from 2009,  a 20% drop is a massive problem,  especially when the entire industry is Holiday driven and the vast majority of the sales should come in the months around December.

So sure,  go ahead,  ignore the people telling you why they won't spend their money.  I hope you're a big fan of paper football.

Edit:

The reason we're nearing the point of no return is this:  It takes 2-3 years to make a game,  we're steadily declining indicating people are *really* tired of the same couple of games ad nauseum.  So in order to make the changes necessary to reinvigorate the industry by diversifying and offering more than just Doom, Warcraft, and Tomb Raider,  we have to start right now.  Because if we wait out another cycle,  there won't be enough time to allow for the next cycle of development.  People will have walked away.

Of course that has nothing to do with the fact that the world is still in the throws of the worst economic recession in the past 70 years.  People don't have the expendable income to use on videogames.  Even if people have the money, consumers are apprehensive about spending which is part of the reason its taking so long to recover.  

You seem like a smart enough person to realize this so I have to only assume you're being a ****-bag and pulling things out of your ass to try and make your point.  

Not only that, name me a single important game that even CAME OUT in January 2011.  There simply were no major blockbuster releases.  

So in regards to your "innovation" what are you asking for?  More of what the article's author describes?  Throwbacks to tedious RPGs of old that NO LONGER SELL?  Those games do even more poorly than testosterone flooded shooters that we've been deluged in over the past 5 years.  

[Thompson family]

[quote]Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

[quote]Absolutely Shakespearian.[/quote]

Compared to ME2 characters, that is.[/quote]

I'm going to skip the flippant dismissiveness, the always-ready fallback for those who have no point, and get to those issues where you at least attempted to make a point.

But first ...


[quote]Eh no. I didn't say ME1 characters were simpler, I said they were simple enough. Learn to read.[/quote]

I know how to read. I'm just handicapping myself a bit.

Not enough, apparently.

Now, let's go.

Re: The depth of the "Subject Zero" character

[quote]
Oh please, so deep. That's implied. [/quote]

"Implied?" IMPLIED? Did you even go to Pragia?

As for the rest of that argument on that point, being an abused child is as deep as it get. And what does their gender have to do with emotional depth?


[quote]The Shaman isn't Grunt. Grunt being a source of Krogan background has NOTHING to do with how deep of a character he is.[/quote]

Even if that were true, the trip to Tuchanka still stabs your argument that ME2 is a shallow game in the heart.

[quote]He IS a Krogan killing machine acting on instincts, whose insctincts at some point hurts him because he predictably needs to do some killing rite. Grunt is the most shallow ME character ever, you can only admit it.[/quote]

No, I don't. Grunt is a fellow in search of himself and his purpose in life. Next to being an abused child, that's as deep as it gets.

Re: Justicars


[quote]

Still predictable and hardly nuanced. As a Justicar, that doesn't make her any more "nuanced", maybe if she just was a noble Asari, but she's controlled by her damn code all the time, talk about being nuanced! The code more fleshed out? Spectres have freedom, there's the not following the laws ON THEIR WILL to achieve their needs. Justicars do not necessarily follow laws, but it's because of their code which pre-programs anything they'd do. There's real moral implications with Spectres as they can choose or not to break laws and defend their point.

[/quote]

OK. Let me get this straight.

Justicars are an ancient Asari order who follow a well defined code and sacrifice everything, including all family connections, to follow a well-defined code.

Spectres are free agents with no rules.

And Spectres are more nuanced.

Think abou that.


Re: Jacob and his issues with Cerberus:

[quote]


Of course, that was also implied. [/quote]

Pardon me for repeating myself: IMPLIED?

Quote: "I have -- issues with Cerberus' actions," or words to that effect. "I doubt you could find a more chequered past.:

Implied, indeed. He practically hits you over the head with it every time he talks to Shepard. I said M2 was better that ME1, but you're "implying" a subtley for it I never imagined.


[quote]
You know, there is obviously more to what I wrote (as to what you wrote), I just played your game and described the characters in a nutshell. All this hardly makes her "nuanced" in any way.[/quote]

OK. Let me get this straight.
1. You claim the charaters are shallow.
2. I challenge you on that.
3. You describe a character -- poorly.
4. I point out that there's far more to that character, even in your description.
5. You gripe that I shouldn't have gone beyond your "nutshell" description.

Think about that.


[quote]

Let me rephrase it then: I'm okay with Tali and Garrus, but since you criticised them to prove a point about ME2:

Is that better?[/quote]

Inaccurate again. I described them -- in a nutshell, as you put it. I never criticised them, and you are openly disingenuous to say that I did. I like Tali and Garrus as much as anyone on the forum.

Re: Tali's mission inside the Migrant Fleet

[quote]

How does that even make a character more deep or nuanced?[/quote]

It is a mission in which you find the body of her father, for one thing -- one of the most dramatic moments in the game. You also watch her confront the Admiralty board.

Had you ever seen Tali that angry before in ME1 -- or as emotive in any way?

No, you didn't.

[quote]Plus, the "one of the few off-worlders..." bit is also far from original.[/quote]

Even if that was true, the point would still be valid.

RE: Working for Cerberus

[quote]That's TWO [moral choices]. And those are certainly of the most basic moral ideas which are not something that follow you throughout the game. The Collector base thingy is thrown at the end of the game and is on the same moral level as saving the Rachni. The Collector base thing has NOTHING to do with the implications of working for Cerberus.[/quote]

What is the whole point of the mission. What is the mission objective?

To get to the COLLECTOR BASE.

And you seriously believe the question of what to do with it when you get there is just something "thrown in?"

They thought they were looking for the "Collector Home World," if I remember the early dialogue with TIM correctly. They didn't know, or even suspect,  it was a space station until EDI figured out it's location in the Galactic Core and Mordin figured out it could be a "artificial construction protected by mass effect fields." The option of the station being something you could destroy was a good plot twist.

[quote]Huh? I'm not sure I understand. They dumbed down the game to appeal to the CoD crowd/mainstream, it's not about one or the other, it's choice versus the cause of the choice.[/quote]

OK. I still don't understand your original point and you don't understand my question. Let's move on.

[quote]

First, you accepted to work with Cerberus before getting to the Citadel - or going to the Alliance, something which you couldn't even do. If you mean Anderson deciding to use the connections to good use, then yes. But he may not even be in the council, and even if he is, the rest of the council wants nothing to do with Cerberus.[/quote]

Look, it's simple.
1. My Shep went straight to the Citadel to turn himself and the Cerberus ship and crew in.
2. Instead of taking the ship into custody, the Council sent him on a mission.

My Shep had absolutely no chance to be anything but an Alliance Marine and a Spectre in ME1. In ME2, I at least have the option of telling the Council to get lost -- more of a choice than in ME1.

I don't like working with Cerberus. You don't like working with Cerberus. But -- in my playthrough at least -- the Council members finds themselves, to quote the Asari member "in a difficult position" and offers a way out of it. My Shep graciously accepted. He could have told them to go hang themselves -- which would also have gotten the Council out of its "difficult position" by making Shep a renegade. They could cut ties and owe him/her nothing.

Sometimes, you get orders you don't like. Despite the insult -- even an accusation of treason -- my Shep followed his duty as best he could.

There's also the side issue that hundreds of thousands of people are disappearing.

[quote]
Yeah, because you're going to choose for whatever reason to worth [work?] for one of two organization[s] in the first game of a new series... The reason you even play Shepard is because he was hand-picked by the Alliance for a mission. How is that the ultimate in simplicity? If it is, then practically every game on Earth is the ultimate in simplicity. [/quote]

It's called "either/or"

[quote]How causing stillbirths is not killing? ... I think Mordin made it pretty obvious that he would've been incomfortable with having dead babies on his hands. By ignoring the whole stillbirth thing and focusing on "adjusting fertility rates", that takes off a LOT of guilt off Mordin's head, making the whole subject less mature and less morally debatable.[/quote]

Is that not what I just said, that Mordin's rationalizing his own graphically displayed guilt?
Did I not clearly state that Mordin was speaking of an atrocity with clincal language?

Your insulting explanation of the sell-defining term "stillbirth" was particularly grasping and pointless.

[quote]I didn't say all the interest of the Genophage was gone, only a big part of it. ... At least they put that part in! But that's more about indirect consequences rather than the direct consequences of the Genophage, and that's my problem. It's a lot less gritty and morally ambiguous when you need to resort to talk about dubious scientific research to outdo such problem rather than talking about the dead babies it provides.[/quote]

The moral consequences of the genophage got their only meaninful discussion in a single scene in Virmire in ME1. It's a whole MISSION in ME2 -- and we see one of the bodies.

[quote]I don't get the political legitimacy thing.[/quote]

Then we need to move on. This thread's too long already.

[quote][quote]
I'm thinking you're a highly principled person who is
appalled at the line the story has taken. That's a legitimate cause for
not wanting to play the game, but not a valid criticism of the quality
of the writing.[/quote]

How is it not valid criticism for the quality of writing?[/quote]
As a teenager, I read George Orwell's 1984. I was so angy at the ending, I threw the book in the middle of the floor -- yet I still acknowlege it to be great literature.

I'm not calling any of ME "great literature," but you see the comparison.


[quote]The more detailed, the more implications and the more anything there is to a story (which are all well-written), the best the writing is. It's not by drowning us in a purely black and white world which the choices you make depending solely on your character alignment that they're making particularly good writing.[/quote]

By that definition, ME2 is better. ME1 was far more "purely black and white."


[quote] It's hard to take any ME2 problem seriously[/quote]

This forum has dozens, if not hundreds of threads debating  whether or not to reprogram the Geth, to name just one example.


(The URL to the links you give aren't working. I get a "404: Page not found.")


[quote]Care to explain?[/quote]

You've seen it. It's in the scrolled text at the begining of the game. The Council believe that the Sovereign was a Geth creation. When Shep meets with the Council, the Salarian member said Vigil didn't work any more. As the Asari member says, "We believe you believe it," but the sad fact of the matter is that Ockman's razor -- the belief that the simplest explanation is probably the true one -- is on the Council's side in this argument.

We're all so closely identified with Shepard that we see things from his/her point of view -- and share Shep's experiences. We see something at the Beacon on Eden Prime. We talk to Vigil. Heck, we talk to Legion who confirms the Geth have communicated directly with Sovereign. The Council has seen none of this.

Which is more likely -- that Sovereign was a Geth super-ship, or that an immortal race of gods are lurking in Dark Space?

Under the circumstances, it's amazing that as many people believe Shep as there are. And think about that: What exactly is Anderson's basis for his confidence that Shep is right? He knows a lot more than he's telling.

Modifié par Thompson family, 20 février 2011 - 12:13 .

[AlanC9]

SalsaDMA wrote...
I pause, select Zevran, order him to attack an archer on the left of the room. I then select my warden that is tank specced and orders him to run up to a middle group of archers to keep them occupied. An archer on the right I was ignoring for the moment with the melee guys cause I had ordered Morrigan to freeze him. Result when I unpause: The warden that is my current selected after unpusing does what he is supposed to. Zevran, on the other hand, runs first over to the left archer, takes a look at him and then runs across the entire room to the right archer and starts attacking that one. All the while the left archer is tearing my healer apart...

Hmm. Never happened to me. Or perhaps I didn't notice it. Unless the melee guys wen't after a target in a completely different part of the battlefield I likely wouldn't see it, given my camera preferences.

Happened every frigging time I tried to use melee guys in a tactical way. In the end I gave up with melee in the game at all and just used ranged only, cause at least I wouldn't loose attacking time then when they decided to swap targets without my desire.

How come you didn't just turn Tactics off?

[tonnactus]

88mphSlayer wrote...

when you see that stats screen you're mostly looking at redundancy when you consider that:
-they removed dice-roll from the combat in ME2, negating all of the "weapon upgrade skills", stuff like increased pistol accuracy or increased sniper accuracy mean nothing with no dice-roll

Each weapon skill has a special weapon attacks like marksmen or carnage.That was also taken away and replaced by ammo "talents" and a straight all influencing damage increase like adrenaline rush or assasination cloak. That is dumbing down at its finest.

[Thompson family]

Goofy McCoy wrote...

I love the ME2 defense force that jumps out at any criticism and attempts to bludgeon it down and keep the status quo.

At least we don't call the people who disagree with us dumb. We don't post threads like "How can I turn my brain off so I can enjoy ME2 like the rest of you?"

At least we can take it -- and dish it out.

And on top of it all, ME3 is already under development. It's going to go gold in less than a year. It will be what it is as if this discussion never happened.

[Thompson family]

Spornicus wrote...

"Hardcore RPG gamers" are the most arrogant, self-righteous gamers out there.

This thread that the article the OP links too are strong supporting evidence of that.

[AlanC9]

tonnactus wrote...

Each weapon skill has a special weapon attacks like marksmen or carnage.That was also taken away and replaced by ammo "talents" and a straight all influencing damage increase like adrenaline rush or assasination cloak. That is dumbing down at its finest.

So skills that work with only one weapon are good, and skills that workwith all weapons are not?

[Mongerty2]

Thompson family wrote...

Spornicus wrote...

"Hardcore RPG gamers" are the most arrogant, self-righteous gamers out there.

This thread that the article the OP links too are strong supporting evidence of that.

This. They always are quick to point out when someone is only stating an opinion, then turn around and state thier opinion as fact. I have noticed a lot of it in these forums pertain to ME1 vs ME2, yet by the definition that they give, ME1 is hardly an RPG as well.

You want a true RPG? GO ROLL A 20 SIDED DIE IN A D&D GAME. The rest of us will enjoy our video games, thank you.

[ObserverStatus]

Because we all know Kotaku is a reliable source of information.
http://kotaku.com/#!...player-spin off
(When this article was first released, it didn't say "rumor")

Modifié par bobobo878, 20 février 2011 - 02:40 .