830 réponses à ce sujet

[N7Armada]

I love the implication that if we loved ME2 than were not big BW fans. Were not true. So childish like I loved this band before the sold out and got popular. Fact is I love the story the universe and the setting that's what immerses me not being able to wander aimlessly and take 20 minutes to take down an enemy.

[BatarianBob]

SpaceDesperado wrote...

I even hear it also includes a lot of repetive dungeons on top of that...

You should love it then.  You listed ME1 as an example of Bioware's good old days, after all.

I don't mean to tear ME1 down, but you have to admit that repetitive dungeons describe it to a tee.

Anyway, to answer the thread title question, DAO made me hesitant to buy ME2.  Mostly because of how horrifically buggy it was.  Fortunately, ME2 didn't share that flaw (it had flaws all it's own).  Don't see any reason to think ME3 will have DA2's shortcomings.

Modifié par Taranatar9, 10 mars 2011 - 08:05 .

[Rekkampum]

Reginthorn wrote...

 Sorry dude you are on your own! Mass Effect 2 is a waaayyy better game then Mass Effect. I am also enjoying Dragon Age II right now. 

A friend of mine also likes DA 2 alot. Speaking of DA 2, so many locked threads have popped up because of what people have been saying. Massive trolling over there.

[N7Armada]

I'm sure this will be troll central after
ME3 releases.

[Weiser_Cain]

I've stayed away from da2 but I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt that they can still make an RPG. It's not like they can make it more of a shooter at this point so from my perspective there's only one way to go.

I'll get it, wrapping up the story of Shepard at least, if it's good I'll stick around for the RPG's. If not and is indicative of their future releases then I'll say thanks for the ride and get on with the rest of my life.

[Gatt9]

N7Armada wrote...

I love the implication that if we loved ME2 than were not big BW fans. Were not true. So childish like I loved this band before the sold out and got popular. Fact is I love the story the universe and the setting that's what immerses me not being able to wander aimlessly and take 20 minutes to take down an enemy.

You read way too far into that,  that was neither an intended nor implied message.  My reference was simply that Bioware has made a drastic alteration in style in under 2 years,  and that anyone who prefered their previous style is now no longer valid.

You're preference is perfectly fine,  my issue is with the fact that Bioware did in fact "Sell out".  They've clearly stated that from this point forward,  deep RPGs will not be made by them.  They will make only ME2/DA2 style games,  and that the reason they're doing it is not a design decision,  not because the new direction will make a better game,  but solely because it'll sell more copies. 

I also have to point out,  this isn't the first time this road has been travelled.  It was traveled about ~13 years ago.  ~13 years ago some of the greatest games were: Masters of Orion 2,  X-com,  Panzer General and Warlords.  Then came Warcraft 2,  Command & Conquer,  and Starcraft.  The industry loudly proclaimed "Turn based gaming is dead!  It's old!  It's archaic!  Only RTS will sell now!"

So X-com,  Panzer General,  and Warlords,  Magic the Gathering,  even Civilization became RTS's.  X-com failed and Microprose died with it.  Panzer General failed and with it went SSI.  Warlords failed,  I've no idea what happened to the studio.  RTS Civilization failed and Activision quietly swept it under the rug.  MTG failed.  Pretty consistently,  trying to shoehorn gameplay into some new "Popluar" type game just to grab the wave of popularity failed.  Didn't happen immediately,  took X-com 3 crappy games to bury Microprose.  SSI lived a little longer.  But it did happen.  The lesson that should've been learned is that you design games to use the form that suits them best,  you don't just pick a popular form and cram a game into it.  Apparently,  the lesson wasn't learned,  'cause here we are again today,  Cramming games into the "Action!" mold just for the sake of releasing an Action game.  Now I'd be pretty thick-headed if I said ME2 falls directly into that catagory,  it was already half Action.  DA2 OTOH,  it was forced.  If Bioware wants to make action games,  that's perfectly fine,  but they need to clearly and definitively break from using the term RPG and clearly label their games as Action games.  Every time they sell a copy to someone expecting a Bioware RPG and getting something else,  they make their position that much worse.  People get gunshy,  they wait for reviews and reports,  and that makes a sale that much less likely.  2 years ago,  I would've had DA2 pre-ordered months early,  now I waited,  and what I saw cost them a sale,  because I got burned on ME2.

I also think you're exagerating on taking 20 minutes to take down an enemy.  The only time that's happened is in Baldur's Gate 2 with the hidden areas filled with ultra-highlevel baddies.

I also have to add,  in a good game,  well designed,  like Baldur's Gate 2,  wandering yielded some very nice rewards.  Contrast this to Oblivion or even ME,  where wandering is essentially rewardless.

[DnVill]

Gatt9 wrote...

You're preference is perfectly fine,  my issue is with the fact that Bioware did in fact "Sell out".  They've clearly stated that from this point forward,  deep RPGs will not be made by them.  They will make only ME2/DA2 style games,  and that the reason they're doing it is not a design decision,  not because the new direction will make a better game,  but solely because it'll sell more copies. 

Can you post a link to this? This statement really worries me. 

Bioware is one the few developers out there that I'm still willing to buy games from but If this is true then maybe ME3 would be my last sale from them. (unless they don't make the same mistake as DA2)


I've given up Blizzard after SC2.
I've given up any MW type shooters.
I've given up on Ubisoft after R6V2
I've given up on the C&C franchise.


imo Bioware is the only developer left out there that can chuck out decent games that are actually worth buying.
Really hoping ME3 would not disappoint. 

[Terror_K]

Rekkampum wrote...

A friend of mine also likes DA 2 alot. Speaking of DA 2, so many locked threads have popped up because of what people have been saying. Massive trolling over there.

There's a difference between trolling and a whole bunch of fans feeling pissed off because they feel stabbed in the back and that what started out as a great series has now been ruined. They're not all trolls, most of them are just extremely peeved at BioWare and the Dragon Age 2 team right now. Even I want to see Mike Laidlaw banned from being in charge of any future Dragon Age games. As far as I'm concerned he ruined the IP.

[The Shadow Broker]

I just hope, and pray that they dont rush with ME3. I know is impossible to keep everybody happy but please, release the best game you can make.

Modifié par The Shadow Broker, 10 mars 2011 - 08:58 .

[InvaderErl]

Well ME2 was fantastic so no, I'm in no way hesitant to buy ME3.

DA2 was made by a separate development team so I don't see how it has any bearing on anything besides the Dragon Age series.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 10 mars 2011 - 09:22 .

[Raizo]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Mynoot wrote...

Bioware's story telling has gone done more than a notch. ME1 was good, not as good as Baldur's Gate or DA:O, but certainly good for this particular franchise.

ME2 was really more about the combat.

I have my doubts about thier biggest project to date because of this.

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

ME2 >>> ME1. Would preorder ME3 now if I could.

Only in game play. The holes and logic inconsistancies in the story really show BW is either getting lazy or cheap on hiring good writers.

I could not disagree more profoundedly. Overall, the writing in ME2 easily outshone ME1. The only area ME1 beat ME2 was in the main mission story telling and most of tthe problem there was editting and mission design, not writing.

I agree.

[Sable Phoenix]

Raizo wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Mynoot wrote...

Bioware's story telling has gone done more than a notch. ME1 was good, not as good as Baldur's Gate or DA:O, but certainly good for this particular franchise.

ME2 was really more about the combat.

I have my doubts about thier biggest project to date because of this.

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

ME2 >>> ME1. Would preorder ME3 now if I could.

Only in game play. The holes and logic inconsistancies in the story really show BW is either getting lazy or cheap on hiring good writers.

I could not disagree more profoundedly. Overall, the writing in ME2 easily outshone ME1. The only area ME1 beat ME2 was in the main mission story telling and most of tthe problem there was editting and mission design, not writing.

I agree.

Then you weren't paying attention.

That's not meant as an insult.  My first time through the game I thought it was great too.  The glitz and flash and blatant manipulation of the adrenal glands got me wrapped up enough that my hindbrain was the primary location of my experience.

My first time through.

But if you sit back and actually think about the story in ME2, it falls apart like damp rice paper.

Modifié par Sable Phoenix, 10 mars 2011 - 09:52 .

[Sable Phoenix]

Gatt9 wrote...

N7Armada wrote...

I love the implication that if we loved ME2 than were not big BW fans. Were not true. So childish like I loved this band before the sold out and got popular. Fact is I love the story the universe and the setting that's what immerses me not being able to wander aimlessly and take 20 minutes to take down an enemy.

You read way too far into that,  that was neither an intended nor implied message.  My reference was simply that Bioware has made a drastic alteration in style in under 2 years,  and that anyone who prefered their previous style is now no longer valid.

You're preference is perfectly fine,  my issue is with the fact that Bioware did in fact "Sell out".  They've clearly stated that from this point forward,  deep RPGs will not be made by them.  They will make only ME2/DA2 style games,  and that the reason they're doing it is not a design decision,  not because the new direction will make a better game,  but solely because it'll sell more copies. 

I also have to point out,  this isn't the first time this road has been travelled.  It was traveled about ~13 years ago.  ~13 years ago some of the greatest games were: Masters of Orion 2,  X-com,  Panzer General and Warlords.  Then came Warcraft 2,  Command & Conquer,  and Starcraft.  The industry loudly proclaimed "Turn based gaming is dead!  It's old!  It's archaic!  Only RTS will sell now!"

So X-com,  Panzer General,  and Warlords,  Magic the Gathering,  even Civilization became RTS's.  X-com failed and Microprose died with it.  Panzer General failed and with it went SSI.  Warlords failed,  I've no idea what happened to the studio.  RTS Civilization failed and Activision quietly swept it under the rug.  MTG failed.  Pretty consistently,  trying to shoehorn gameplay into some new "Popluar" type game just to grab the wave of popularity failed.  Didn't happen immediately,  took X-com 3 crappy games to bury Microprose.  SSI lived a little longer.  But it did happen.  The lesson that should've been learned is that you design games to use the form that suits them best,  you don't just pick a popular form and cram a game into it.  Apparently,  the lesson wasn't learned,  'cause here we are again today,  Cramming games into the "Action!" mold just for the sake of releasing an Action game.  Now I'd be pretty thick-headed if I said ME2 falls directly into that catagory,  it was already half Action.  DA2 OTOH,  it was forced.  If Bioware wants to make action games,  that's perfectly fine,  but they need to clearly and definitively break from using the term RPG and clearly label their games as Action games.  Every time they sell a copy to someone expecting a Bioware RPG and getting something else,  they make their position that much worse.  People get gunshy,  they wait for reviews and reports,  and that makes a sale that much less likely.  2 years ago,  I would've had DA2 pre-ordered months early,  now I waited,  and what I saw cost them a sale,  because I got burned on ME2.

I also think you're exagerating on taking 20 minutes to take down an enemy.  The only time that's happened is in Baldur's Gate 2 with the hidden areas filled with ultra-highlevel baddies.

I also have to add,  in a good game,  well designed,  like Baldur's Gate 2,  wandering yielded some very nice rewards.  Contrast this to Oblivion or even ME,  where wandering is essentially rewardless.

Wow.  This is spot on.  Everything you said is perfectly accurate and also perfectly mirrors my feelings on the subject.  Concise, factual, and deeply insightful.  Bravo, sir or madam.

Modifié par Sable Phoenix, 10 mars 2011 - 09:52 .

[InvaderErl]

ME1's plot has its own fair share of problems. Characters just magically happen to know things when they need to (try and figure out when Shepard actually finds out the Citadel is going to be attacked - because its not before he tells the Council) and a couple of events temporally don't make sense (Tali arrives on the Citadel several DAYS before Shepard with evidence of Saren and Benezia congratulating each other over the attack on Eden Prime before it even happens).

And Shepard's entire victory depends on Saren being a colossal idiot.

The attraction of this series is the universe and the characters, the plot has always boiled down to little more than Kill Evil Robots.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 10 mars 2011 - 09:54 .

[CroGamer002]

DnVill wrote...


I've given up Blizzard after SC2.
I've given up any MW type shooters.
I've given up on Ubisoft after R6V2
I've given up on the C&C franchise.

Hmh, even on Assassin's Creed?

Also what's R6V2?

[Lumikki]

SpaceDesperado wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

He means the major difference between role-playing and traditional RPG features as statical gameplay. You know statical gameplay, trying to build optimized character, loot better items, kill enemies to get exp so you can level up and progress forward to get advances. Role-playing how ever, isn't statical gameplay, even if RPG can have it, so some people just enjoy taking role of character. Like doing action, talking, making choises and living the story in virtual world.

That has been the argument between RPG fans here. Some are more traditional RPG fans and some has more wider consept as what RPG is. I'm example wider consept RPG fan and that's reason why I can accept so well both ME1 and ME2. Some more traditional RPG fan, who doesn't accept the wider consept, have problems accepting ME2, because it's statical gameplay is lesser than in ME1. Of course there is a lot more in this, but that's basic. It's different way to look RPG's.

This is a very good point. You know the list you mentioned that justifies as rpg? " Like doing action, talking, making choises and living the story in virtual world."

Like I sayed there is a lot more in it. I just sayed there the reason why people see those two games differently and why some player can accept them better. How ever, I did not talk about connection between what define RPG from other games and that's ability play different kind of character. That connection is customation.

That's other agrument what we have here between RPG fans. The wider RPG fans doesn't consider customation as gameplay, but as defining the players characters for role. It's like allow you to be what you want. While the traditional RPG fans thinks statical gameplay is part of customation and without it there is no RPG. Now the different is that while same features can provide both sametime time, define characters and statical gameplay, there is also features what doesn't define anything, they are there only for statical gameplay. So, it's question of players motive and values, why player is wanting sertain features. Does it make statical gameplay better or actual role-playing defining.

So, why some of us wider RPG fans has been little bit agaist statical gameplay and micro-management, when we accept them as RPG too?

Because if you put same features in every RPG, you get allways same kind of traditional type of RPG.  Remember we accept also wider view point of RPG too. So, when game like Mass Effect aren't ment to be traditional RPG, but hybrid, then we have to ask what RPG features fits well in this kind of hybrid game. So, we don't want features what doesn't make that hybrid gameplay better, we want to features what support it.

While traditional RPG fans sees situation like it's missing the RPG if it does have the statical gameplay. So, they keep pushing statical gameplay features to make RPG better for them, but for us wider consept RPG fans some of those stuff is breaking the hybrid style what Mass Effect is presenting.

So, while we want more customation to define our characters like traditional RPG fans wants too, we don't want to change the focus of game from cinematic action role-playing to micro-management based statical strategy gameplay, what could break cinematic role-playing impression. It's question soul of the hybrid game, where the focus is.

So,we aren't pushing different view because we want shooter. It's question that shooter side combat is part of Mass Effect and it should work well too. We are pushing different view because RPG can be more than statical gameplay too and Mass Effect serie is trying to show it to us. Yeah, we know the customation as define RPG characters did get cut badly in ME2. That's why we support more customation to allow us define our characters better, but it's also question how to do it so that it support Mass Effect hybrid style without turning it to traditional RPG and break the soul of Mass Effect serie. So, in end we want both shooter and role-playing RPG work well togather as big picture. Not make one better than other or try to smother one side.

So, while ME1 did totally smother the shooter side, there was hardly any shooter combat left. ME2 was very close to smother RPG side with so little customation, cutting exploration and imression details. There is need for balance, but how to do it right is the question.

Modifié par Lumikki, 10 mars 2011 - 10:57 .

[Chaos Gate]

I'm hesitant to buy any future BioWare title after my overwhelming disappointment with Mass Effect 2. My consumer confidence in this company has been crushed.

[DnVill]

Mesina2 wrote...

DnVill wrote...


I've given up Blizzard after SC2.
I've given up any MW type shooters.
I've given up on Ubisoft after R6V2
I've given up on the C&C franchise.

Hmh, even on Assassin's Creed?

Also what's R6V2?

R6V2 -> Rainbow Six Vegas 2
Assasins Creed was ok... but assasins creed 2 was basically Altair + finger and another blade. (and swimming lessons)

[Chewin]

R6V2 = Rainbow Six Vegas 2? That's a new one

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

So, while ME1 did totally smother the shooter side, there was hardly any shooter combat left. ME2 was very close to smother RPG side with so little customation, cutting exploration and imression details. There is need for balance, but how to do it right is the question.

I think most can agree that the answer to the perfect Mass Effect lies somewhere between ME1 and ME2. That said, different people will still disagree as to whether that balance should be closer to ME1 or closer to ME2. I'm personally not quite sure myself, as it depends on the element itself. Some elements I'd prefer to be closer to ME1, some closer to ME2. Overall I do believe that BioWare can use ME2 as a basic foundation to build upon and add more and even bring back some of what was lost from the original game, but they still have to do it right and to a fairly good degree to succeed, IMO.

Basically, when it comes down to it, I want BioWare to basically say, "what can we bring back from ME1 to ME3 that was lost in ME2 without changing the core design of ME2 in the process?"

[Vyse_Fina]

DnVill wrote...

I've given up Blizzard after SC2.
I've given up any MW type shooters.
I've given up on Ubisoft after R6V2
I've given up on the C&C franchise.


imo Bioware is the only developer left out there that can chuck out decent games that are actually worth buying.
Really hoping ME3 would not disappoint. 

Nah come on it's not all that bad. Skyrim looks decent enough so far and so does Deus Ex and Skyward Sword.
If you aren't one of these "Western games only" guys there is also The Last Story and The Last Guardian. It's ok.

Modifié par Vyse_Fina, 10 mars 2011 - 12:23 .

[Tamcia]

What do you mean after ME2? It was freaking awesome!

[MassEffect762]

Absolutely. I can't speak for DA2 yet but ME2 was enough of a disappointment to me to realize somethings very wrong.

[Reclusiarch]

Not at all. I loved Mass Effect 1. I loved Mass Effect 2. I loved Dragon Age. I think I'll enjoy Dragon Age 2 as well, from what I've played and seen in the demo! Mass Effect 3? I'll most probably love it. My faith in BioWare have never been greater!

[Franzius]

I will skip DA2.
It will be the first Bioware game I will skip in, maybe, 10-12 year.

Now I am also really hesitant about ME3.
ME2 is a decent game in itself with a great graphic, but a terrible & disappointing game as a sequel of ME1.
Bioware isn't able anymore to keep on following the innovation path they have started long ago.

Now the core business of Bioware seems to have become the production of linear (LINEAR!!!) and mediocre action games with dialogue cut-scene.
If this trend will be followed also by SW:TOR I really see a dangerous future for Bioware.

Regarding the future of Bioware, to be honest, it depends on how able they will be to learn to produce good action game in order to compete with bungie, naughty dog, epic, rockstar etc...

ME as a brand has already lost it's original appeal with a great part of the fans (especially outside this forum and game "journalists").

ME3, unfortunatelly, will be similar to ME2... We have to accept that the typical EA super-short production time will not allow Bioware to make some of the changes that many of us hope.

In this moment of confusion it would be really necessary to have Casey Hudson addresses some of the issue reagarding ME3 (who is the writer, the linearity, the exploration, rpg elemets..)...

MY DEEPEST FEAR ???... CHRISTINA "THE CUTTER" NORMAN the one that created 8bit galaxy maps, the planet scanning, the one that cut inventories, propose linear maps, create incredibly original "suicide missions", destroy the party managment, the rpg element and the EXPLORATION.

I really hope that Bioware will not end like westwood, bullfrog, origin, maxis etc...