160 réponses à ce sujet

[Icinix]

Zulu_DFA wrote...
The planet scanning and the Hammerhead were specifically designed to punish the fans for b*thcing about the Mako.

..Nice.  Kinda puts a dampner on ME3 though..

[Bloggers99]

MadCat221 wrote...
The Hammerhead? I sum it up as such: "Unreal Tournament called, they want their Manta back."

It tried too hard to be thooperkewl and completely contradicted the game's attempt to be a more serious sci-fi.

Because a chick doing a cartwheel onto a VTOL and taking it's shields down is serious?

The game's got a tac-nuke launcher. At this point, I'm not so concerned with it being so serious. I prefer the Hammerhead. It's a hover tank. Also, the Mako had infinite ammo, why can't the Hammerhead? Remember the soldiers at the entrance to Zakera Ward? A slug capable of nuclear levels of devastation can be held in the palm of your hand.

The only drawback to the Hammerhead was the durability, which didn't bother me too much. You just had to hang back and blast things. If Overlord is any indication of what may come in the future, I'm excited.

[Zulu_DFA]

iakus wrote...

Bloggers99 wrote...

You fly around a freaking galaxy when you're not planet-side. I'd call that exploration.

So talking to Tali in Engineering was exploring the Normandy?

No, it was exploring Tali. Only I feel that even such a dull object as Tali was worth a lot more in terms of exploration, than the whole freaking galaxy.

Also, another theory: the planet scanning was Mass Effect 2's way to have balls.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 07 mars 2011 - 10:34 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Icinix wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...
The planet scanning and the Hammerhead were specifically designed to punish the fans for b*thcing about the Mako.

..Nice.  Kinda puts a dampner on ME3 though..

Yeah, that's why I am horrified, thinking about what BioWare can come up with to punish us for b*tching about the planet scanning!

[stonbw1]

I really have to keep giving BW their proper due. A claim it may be, but it is still nice to see developer comments stating that they value our feedback/constructive criticisms on the games. At the end of the day, we all want the same thing: the best ME3 experience possible. Gosh, I've come too far with ME not to!

[VolusNamedBob]

CN: I can’t talk about any of the specific decisions or what they actually do. But what I can say is that decisions through all of the Mass Effect games, including the DLC, will matter for Mass Effect 3. And it’s not just like decisions that carried over from ME1 to ME2 will matter in ME3, they’ll be decisions in ME1 that did not visibly impact ME2 that will have an impact in ME3. What we looked at is the total story, everything that happened in Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2 is real and matters, we let the writers draw on that as much as they want to customize the experience and to be pretty much without limits.

Damn, I feel like making 5 different playthroughs instead of just the 2 I currently have going.

[mashedpotatoeman]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...
The planet scanning and the Hammerhead were specifically designed to punish the fans for b*thcing about the Mako.

..Nice.  Kinda puts a dampner on ME3 though..

Yeah, that's why I am horrified, thinking about what BioWare can come up with to punish us for b*tching about the planet scanning!

Every time you want to do a Mass Relay jump you have to write a 5 page essay on a randomly generated topic. That'll show you not to complain!

[Zulu_DFA]

mashedpotatoeman wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...
The planet scanning and the Hammerhead were specifically designed to punish the fans for b*thcing about the Mako.

..Nice.  Kinda puts a dampner on ME3 though..

Yeah, that's why I am horrified, thinking about what BioWare can come up with to punish us for b*tching about the planet scanning!

Every time you want to do a Mass Relay jump you have to write a 5 page essay on a randomly generated topic. That'll show you not to complain!

Then the Big Brother takes all them essays to BioWare and they don't need their own writers any more. A perfect plan!

[Vyse_Fina]

mashedpotatoeman wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...
The planet scanning and the Hammerhead were specifically designed to punish the fans for b*thcing about the Mako.

..Nice.  Kinda puts a dampner on ME3 though..

Yeah, that's why I am horrified, thinking about what BioWare can come up with to punish us for b*tching about the planet scanning!

Every time you want to do a Mass Relay jump you have to write a 5 page essay on a randomly generated topic. That'll show you not to complain!

And they'll make it so that you have to reboot after each typo!

[JKoopman]

Warlokki wrote...

Duh. "Whoever replaced Shepard if he/she didn't make it"?
Gamejournalism=wallbanger (well that wasn't bad really). AFAIK, BW has said there will be no save importing if Shep died (still wish you could import, see a cutscene and get "game over" screen )

LOL that would be hilarious! You start up ME3, import your (dead) Shepard and are presented with a cutscene showing the Reapers destroying Earth. Then a Game Over screen.

[Terror_K]

Shotokanguy wrote...

Looks like a good interview to reference if I ever see the "Mass Effect should be more RPG than shooter!" debate again. I always was of the opinion that Mass Effect, from the beginning was meant to be the perfect blend of third person shooter action and RPG depth, but the first game was not that and it must have had people thinking it was supposed to be more RPG feeling than...shootey.

And I suppose that you also believe George Lucas when he says that the Star Wars prequels were "his original vision" despite all the factors that contradict this from earlier interviews too?

On top of that she even says "The vision evolves, it never stays exactly the same" directly, indicating that things changed somewhere between ME1 and ME2 for what the game was supposed to be.  The most obvious indicator is the fact that it'd be easier to do the simpler, non-stat based combat of ME2 than it would be to implement ME1's more complex, RPG-based stat-determined shooting. Had they planned to make the combat ME2 style from the start, they would have. What they did was see a whole bunch of whining shooter fans getting confused and then dumbed down the game for them. She pretty much admits as much in the interview, thus contradicting her previous claim that ME2 was closer to their original vision entirely. I suppose soon we'll start having people believing that Dragon Age 2 was the original vision for Dragon Age: Origins.

This just makes me more concerned for ME3, and more sure that I'd prefer somebody else as Lead Gameplay Designer. I'm just not a fan at all off Christina's overall design philosophy and mindset.

[Zulu_DFA]

Terror_K wrote...

This just makes me more concerned for ME3, and more sure that I'd prefer somebody else as Lead Gameplay Designer. I'm just not a fan at all off Christina's overall design philosophy and mindset.

Maybe it's not her fault, after all, but that of the real gameplay designers, who are more commonly known as marketologists.

[Sailears]

The only thing that I could possibly get worked up about is that fine line between grind and enjoyable challenge, which is all subjective anyway.
I'm of the opinion that 'new game' should contain all the upgrading, improving and general grinding challenges (read: rpg experience), and 'new game plus' where you can play to enjoy the combat and decisions (read: store driven shooter experience). I use these terms loosely, and only to convey what I mean without having to write a huge paragraph.
I appreciate (of course not fully, because I have zero experience in it) the difficulty in balancing for the two approaches, but at least there is the possibility of satisfying most people. Everyone has to play through the 'improving' style first, and those that want can then coast through ng+ maxxed out.

Edit: For the record, I like the gameplay changes.

Modifié par Curunen, 08 mars 2011 - 12:43 .

[N7Infernox]

Icinix wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...
The planet scanning and the Hammerhead were specifically designed to punish the fans for b*thcing about the Mako.

..Nice.  Kinda puts a dampner on ME3 though..

I still don't understand what was so bad about the Hammerhead. It was way more fun to ride around in, especially when compared to the awkwardly steering, somewhat-antigrav-but-not-really Mako vehicle. And to be frank, in my playthrough of ME1, I could never truly tell how much health the Mako had, yet at the same time i never felt that i was in danger b/c of the armor.
Seriously; slap some extra armor on the Hammerhead, along with secondary fire, and the ability to get out of it at will, and you're golden. (at least i would be)

But that's diverting the topic!: in regard's to the article, I love the fact that they're not reinventing combat again. I love ME2's mechanics so much b/c, partly of the improved interface and more responsive guns.

Modifié par N7Infernox, 08 mars 2011 - 12:47 .

[CaptainZaysh]

Terror, I think your conclusion is mistaken. I've seen other interviews where BW said that ME1 was not as good a shooter as they'd wanted it to be simply because as devs they didn't have much experience at making good shooters. They really worked on that in 2 thus creating a game closer to their original vision in that respect than 1 achieved.

[Zulu_DFA]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Terror, I think your conclusion is mistaken. I've seen other interviews where BW said that ME1 was not as good a shooter as they'd wanted it to be simply because as devs they didn't have much experience at making good shooters. They really worked on that in 2 thus creating a game closer to their original vision in that respect than 1 achieved.

That only happened after ME1 had been released and somebody whined it was a bad shooter.

[Lumikki]

Christina Norman:

A couple of major factors. First of all, we always had a vision for the game. The vision evolves, it never stays exactly the same but from the very start, there was the vision of the game.

I think this is true any game what has series, the vision evolves little bit in every game.

We knew at the point when Mass Effect 1 came out that there were certain aspects of the original vision of Mass Effect that we had not addressed.

With ME1, we wanted to build Mass Effect and we did our best to do that and we succeeded in a lot of areas, but we didn’t reach where we wanted to do in some areas.

This pretty much say that they could not catch the vision they had totally in Mass Effect 1.

The way I like to put that is, Mass Effect has always looked like a shooter, but Mass Effect 1 didn’t really play like one.

Here comes the Mass Effect combat is shooter, even if ME1 did not do it right.

I quoted these because we have argued a lot about these stuff. Because some people here thinked that first game is the "vision". It was vision as best way they could make at the time they made the game. In second game they learn better ways to do some stuff. I'm sure in ME3 game get evolved even more. I don't mean simplification but direction of vision what they have about Mass Effect serie. I don't know what it is, but we will see it after ME3, because then it's all done.

I can’t talk about any of the specific decisions or what they actually do. But what I can say is that decisions through all of the Mass Effect games, including the DLC, will matter for Mass Effect 3. And it’s not just like decisions that carried over from ME1 to ME2 will matter in ME3, they’ll be decisions in ME1 that did not visibly impact ME2 that will have an impact in ME3. What we looked at is the total story, everything that happened in Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2 is real and matters, we let the writers draw on that as much as they want to customize the experience and to be pretty much without limits.

This pretty much confirms that both games ME1 and ME2 decission will carry over to ME3. What is very nice.

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 mars 2011 - 01:22 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Good read. Seems like Christina Norman knows what she's doing. I look forward to ME3.

[patocerda]

Really interesting interview, it seems they are going to nail it on this one. I'm all hyped about the decisions stuff!

It gave me the impression that ME3 is going to rock the F@"! out of all the other games this year.

Still, need more info to make it more than a impression though...

[Xivai]

Corporate clout. Uh oh, in one question the design is always changing and evolving. In the next question she says if it isn't broke don't fix it. What is it? Which is the truth? Seems like they want to give everyone a pleasant answer. Dun dun dun.. the first suspicious sign appears. Please not like Dragon Age 2 PLEASE!! For the love of god just keep the trilogy on the level and then do whatever you want to the series. I hope I'm just jumping at shadows.

[Zulu_DFA]

Xivai wrote...

Corporate clout. Uh oh, in one question the design is always changing and evolving. In the next question she says if it isn't broke don't fix it. What is it? Which is the truth? Seems like they want to give everyone a pleasant answer. Dun dun dun.. the first suspicious sign appears. Please not like Dragon Age 2 PLEASE!! For the love of god just keep the trilogy on the level and then do whatever you want to the series. I hope I'm just jumping at shadows.

[Lumikki]

Isn't it that if something isn't broken they don't need to fix it, but some areas game allways get changed and evolved. Game is never perfect, so changes allways happen.

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 mars 2011 - 01:22 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Lumikki wrote...

Isn't it that if something isn't broken they don't need to fix it, but some areas game allways get changed and evolved. Game is never perfect, so changes allways happen.

Isn't EVERYTHING in ME2 broken (again, admittedly)?

The problem is, ME2 did not really fix ME1. ME2 threw ME1 out of the window, and made everything anew and different. So it needs a lot of fixing of its own.

[Lumikki]

I'm not gonna argue with you because I know it will not lead anywhere. Yes, ME2 did fix a few stuff, like example weapon combat. Just because you don't like direction, doesn't mean it's not fixed.

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 mars 2011 - 01:33 .

[Abstract]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Isn't it that if something isn't broken they don't need to fix it, but some areas game allways get changed and evolved. Game is never perfect, so changes allways happen.

Isn't EVERYTHING in ME2 broken (again, admittedly)?

The problem is, ME2 did not really fix ME1. ME2 threw ME1 out of the window, and made everything anew and different. So it needs a lot of fixing of its own.

EVERYTHING?  that's the most ridiculous thing I have heard. The combat is vastly superior to the first game, and not nearly as clunky. They fixed graphical bugs and the game runs smoother overall.