830 réponses à ce sujet

[johnbonhamatron]

For me personally, playing ME2 made me absolutely certain that ME3 is a day-one purchase, with the uber-mega collector's edition, whatever that includes.

Basically, no, ME2 didn't make me even the tiniest bit hesitant to buy ME3. In all honesty, DA:O made me hesistant to buy DA2, but that's purely down to me not really getting that style of gameplay, which is fine, since that only applies to me, and my opinion is only valid for me, and me alone. Me not really liking it that much shouldn't impact on your enjoyment of it, same as your not liking ME2 as much as ME1 doesn't impact on mine.

And then we can all be happy, and make clothes out of hessian in a kibbutz. Or something. I haven't really thought this analogy through, though, if I'm honest...

[Terror_K]

petipas1414 wrote...

ME2 trimmed the fat from the original. DA2 tried to do the same, respectively.

One did way better than the other (obviously ME2 )

ME2 didn't just trim the fat, it cut a whole bunch of good meat away in the process. It was like they took a six inch by six inch steak and instead of merely cutting the fat they simply cut a one inch by one inch cube out of the centre and threw the rest away, leaving a rather simple and unsatisfactory portion in the end.

[Gatt9]

After ME2 there's no way I'm buying another Bioware game without seeing reviews first. After seeing the reviews for DA2, I won't buy.

I expect the same for ME3.

If Bioware wants to sell me games, they need to make RPGs, not throwaway action games with little quality.

[idontwannarun]

 DA2 I haven't actually completed yet, but so far I prefer DA:O.Ignoring combat, art style and the new dialogue system which I am sure will be fine when you get used to it.

Most about ME2 and DA2 disappointing is the "corridorization" of the mission area and the worlds. I would've loved if they kept the main objecive areas more like Feros, Ostagar and Rift station, where they mixed the combat and the main assignment with exploration and meeting new characters with sidequests!LOTSB had a really nice mission-layout, even though it took place in corridors, it wasn't simply <walk, kill, walk, kill, dialogue, end> which makes me excited for ME3!

[Terror_K]

I just came across an old comment from DA2 lead developer Mike Laidlaw where he basically admits that they sold out, console-ified the sequel and thus stabbed PC players in the back after what the original was intended to be and how it's more about $$$ now than making a good, deep RPG:-

"Now, the game mainly sold on console, so we're going the way of the audience."

After reading that, I really don't feel like buying ANYTHING from BioWare anymore. I hate the direction they're going lately and I hate that they put people like this in charge of their games and are basically giving the middle finger to a good portion of their old fanbase in the process. Loyalty means nothing anymore, nor does quality or depth. It's all about selling the most games now. And I'm frankly sick of being screwed over by these guys lately. No wonder Brent Knowles left the project early on because he didn't like where it was going and felt BioWare had changed.

[legion624]

I can't comment on DA2 yet. Just bought it but am busy finishing up Fallout 3. As far as Mass Effect goes, I love the games. My favorite series of all time. The only thing I was disappointed in from the 1st to the 2nd was the leveling up changes. You went from being able to almost fully customize your character to having 4 abilities and a choice of 2 upgrade when you leveled them completely up. That sucks. Besides that, I liked ME2 and look forward to being able to go back from ME1 through ME3 and seeing what the effects of my decisions has. If DA2 or ME3 lets me down, I will probably have to start renting Bioware games though. Sucks because Bioware has been king in my mind for years now.

[Niulus Kriyk]

I already paid off my copy of ME3, so no hesitation here.

[Ulzeraj]

And let the "Stop liking what I don't like" commence!

[patocerda]

 Look, honestly OP? It's way too early to decide whether or not ME3 is gonna live to your expectations, or mine's, or from anybody else on da forumz. There's just not enough info on the game yet.

Truth is, you should wait for more interviews about the whole RPG system, trailers, you know. Anyway, I think they're going with all they have on this one, so yeah, if I were you, I'd not think about it...yet. 

Anyway, you should remember: since the beginning, ME was intended to be a RPG-Shooter hybrid, not a old-school RPG. (Also, since when is free roam considered a requisite on a RPG? ) 

[Feanor_II]

Well right now I'm rushing through ME1 and ME2 (finished ME1 last weekend). I haven't plaed to ME1 since 2009 and I muust admit that I had it quite overrated, don't misunderstand me, I really love the game, but I wasn't aware of it flaws.

ME1 is better than ME2 in terms of:
- ...story, the story of ME1 is a great epic adventure, ME2 is structured in many mini-episodes (recruitment & loyalty missions), the mainstory (combat versus Reapers and Collectors) doesn't even take 25 % of the game (Freedoms Progress, Horizon, Collector ship and Collector Base)
- Customization: Inventory system was clumsy, but it permited customization of our squad, we had to manage the resources we had he best way we could, in ME2 once we get a powerfull weapon everybody can use it, party memebers can't use different armors.
- I have had the sensation that the recruitment missions are too straightforward in ME2.... but the thruth is that the same happens in ME1 (Virmire, Therum and Feros), only Noveria allows some variations when we have to make our way to the garage (in my opinion Noveria must be the pattern for the main missions in ME3)
- Exploratin forces us to be more active searching new missions and aventures

ME2 is better than M1 in terms of:
- the game engine itself, it makes a much better use of unreal engine.
- Graphics, in my opinion the scenes places of ME1 where to empty, ME2 has a much higher level of detail and with much more elements.
- Secondary missions, ME1 only had 4 types of maps for secondary missions (hangar, mine, underground bunker and lost ship), each secondary mission in ME2 has totally different types of map.
- Decisions: this is in my opinion what really defines a RPG, the decisions we make on ME2 have a more notable impact in ME2

Well ME1 has 4 points... and ME2 4...... but I think that those I've named for ME2 are more important.

To tel the tryuth, I'm not worried about ME3, but yes, i'm worried about DA2, the things I've been reading are quite disaponting and it seems that most of my fears are coming true.

Modifié par Feanor_II, 09 mars 2011 - 12:03 .

[Rolenka]

SpaceDesperado wrote...
 the ultimate reason to strip down all these crucial rpg elements like taking out free-roam planetary sections and giving the great Commander Shepard scanning duties. Now Mass Effect 3 is coming out, much sooner than probably any other bioware sequel...

For me, the "free-roam planetary sections" you describe were the height of tedium at their best and highly frustrating at their worst.

Who designs a map that frequently requires you to scale 85 degree inclines?

Scanning duties may not be exciting, but it beats driving on planets that have never heard of erosion.

As long as they finally nail resource gathering, ME3 will be just fine.

[Estelindis]

ME3 is my most-anticipated game ever; for better or worse, DA2 won't be changing that.

[Johnsen1972]

I honestly must admit that Im scared. Two months ago I told everyone that Bioware never screws up and that they should have faith in Bioware.

After watching the first interviews and reading reviews of DA2 I wasnt sure anymore. Bioware definitly did screw up with DA2 and Im really scared that the same will happend ME3.

Im a big Mass Effect fan and I still have hope. Please Bioware, dont screw up on Mass Effect.

[Feanor_II]

Genome256 wrote...
Then again, I think 'RPG' is a misleading name. A game with perfect RPG elements in every aspect, but with FPS-style combat is still an RPG, isn't it?

Sure!

[Bluko]

I share the OP's sentiment to a degree. I'm not sure I really like where Bioware is taking its games. Their new philosophy seems to be making games more "action-driven". Don't get me wrong, I usuaully enjoy those games be it han-n-slash or shoot-em' ups. I feel the more Bioware tries to cater to general audiences the less innovation we'll see in their games. I'll be the first to give Bioware credit, since they created the Baldur's Gate series, which are still IMO the best RPGs I've ever played.

However I have been finding their games less appealing. KOTOR and Dragon Age weren't that great, as they both suffered from vey clunky combat systems. Frankly I didn't have high expectations for ME1, since it basically seemed like KOTOR in a new setting, which it kind of is. However ME1 actually played pretty well, despite a few technical issues. Mass Effect gave me hope that Bioware was still capable of creating quality games. So I greatly looked forward to Mass Effect 2.

And Mass Effect 2 did make a lot of improvements. The graphics are better, there is little to no texture pop-in, conversations are more compelling/cinematic, etc. However at the same time character animations are a lot more rigged and stiff. Also while I generally like cover based shooters, I kind of begrudge the fact that ME2 has now become such. Not a real fan of the addition of ammo. To me it's like for eveything ME2 did right, it also took a step backwards. There are numerous nitpicks I have with ME2, but then there's a lot things I like better. ME2 leaves me with very mixed reactions, but it is undoubtedly a great game.

That said I do have my concerns about ME3. Namely I'm concerned they aren't going to change much from ME2. While ME2 was a good game, I think myself and many other would like to see a little bit of throwback to ME1's way of things.

I haven't played DA2 (and niether has anyone else yet really) so it's too early to pass judgement on the game. Although people are probably over-reacting as is typical.

[AdmiralCheez]

theSteeeeels wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Movies like Mrs. Doubtfire and Signs? 
I can watch those over and over.  Why?  Because they're short, have
endearing characters, aren't too incredibly complicated, and have
uplifting endings.

lol! ok you go watch ur mrs. doubtfire and willy wonka

With grammar like that, you are in no position to belittle my intellect.

Besides, the original Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was great.  Mostly because it had Gene Wilder.  Not one of my favorites, but honestly, you can't go wrong with Gene Wilder.

AdmiralCheez wrote...
Take, for example, Dr. Zhivago--excellent film with a beautiful
score and spectacular acting.  It's very dramatic and moving, and has
several underlying messages that really make you think.  Problem is,
it's like four hours long with all sorts of needless blathering.  It
heaps on the drama so much that it bogs down the story, and not once is
there a "cool" or "funny" part to cheer up the audience.

But
it's an absolute bore and difficult to watch.  I got zero enjoyment out
of it, even though I could appreciate it artistically.

so
you thought the score was beautiful and the acting was amazing, and you
found it very dramatic and moving..... yet you didnt enjoy it at
all..... ?? what ??

Nope.  It was masterfully done, but boring as all f*ck.  The character did nothing but give you reasons to feel sorry for them.  It was a massive downer, with nothing but scene after scene of absolute misery.  There were, like, two faint glimmers of hope thrown in there, but in the very next scene something came along to kick you in the balls.  I did not feel good watching Dr. Zhivago, and I am not going to waste four hours of my life alternating between absolute ennui and skull-crushing depression.

Powerful, intelligent, and artistic, but no fun whatsoever.  Don't get me wrong, I definitely think movies like Dr. Zhivago are important in preserving film as an art medium, but it's not something I'm going to pop into the DVD player on a Saturday night.

 

you prefer to watch movies like Mrs.
Doubtfire because they are 'short and have uplifting endings'. seriously
? thats what entertains you?  anybody who is actually into their gaming or movies will look for far
more than that

I prefer to play games and watch movies that I enjoy.  Seriously, if you had three hours to kill before going to work, what would you rather watch?  Hot Fuzz or Schindler's List?

No, I don't think ME3 should become a fluffy, feel-good comedy.  A certain degree of dramatic power is necessary to complete the capstone of such an awesome trilogy.  What I'm arguing here is that heavy RPG mechanics in games are like high drama in films: they makes a game "smarter" if you want to call it that, but they remove some of the entertainment value.

ME3 should be masterfully done, but not to the point that I avoid playing it.  The gameplay should provide enough challenge and customization that a player's mental facilities are intrigued, but not so much that they get overloaded and the player shuts it off before they can appreciate it.  This happened to me with DA:O, which I knew was phenomenal in respect to the characters and world it presented, but couldn't play because the combat was clunky and confusing.  They just dumped everything on you without explaining it first, and you were expected to figure everything out by yourself.  With all these variables and no clear point of entry, I was stumped and I gave up.

If a game has good mechanics, you should be able to pick it up and start playing immediately.  If its not fun or engaging within the first twenty minutes or so, if the player doesn't feel rewarded for overcoming challenges, most people won't bother to continue.  More complicated gameplay is perfectly fine if you introduce mechanics one or two at a time, giving the player time to adjust to each one, but the core must remain simple.  You know, "a minute to learn, a lifetime to master?"

Oh yeah, and I do want ME3 to have some funny, uplifting, or sheer badass moments.  Why?  Because I play for fun.  If I don't feel good playing it, it's not fun.  Rougher combat, a la ME2 (but perhaps a little improved) is a must as well, since ME1 did nothing for my adrenaline fix.  Well, at least not until the last half hour of gameplay, but that was due to the cinematic elements, not the fighting itself.

I leave you with these questions:

Would you rather LAUGH or CRY?

Would you rather feel POWERFUL or feel DEFEATED?

Would you rather be PLEASED or FRUSTRATED?

Would you rather CARE about something or feel APATHETIC?

And finally, would you rather finish a game feeling BETTER or WORSE off than when you began playing it?

[billybobjones]

hey op, could you do me a favor? make good on your word, don't buy ME3, and then leave this board so we all don't have to hear you whining about game mechanics that were old 6 years ago.

[dolphin1329]

petipas1414 wrote...

ME2 trimmed the fat from the original. DA2 tried to do the same, respectively.

One did way better than the other (obviously ME2 )

+1. IMO ME2 is miles better then ME1 and I will preorder the collector's edition of ME3 the minute it is announced.

[Lunatic LK47]

Silmane wrote...

Sorry, but Vanquish is the best third person shooter in..well, ever. It has very few quicktime events compared to some games out there.

Uh, no. For a game that encourages fast-pace stylish combat, you have arbritary limitations dumped on you (i.e. One melee skill= Automatic overheated suit) just "to keep it challenging." I find it to be outright laziness, and the Quick-Time-Events are outright stupid (i.e. "Rotate left analog stick in 1/2 a second.")

How is the GoW story bad? It's a macho man ass kicking story, yeah, but it's by no means bad.

Uh, I never cared for anyone at all. Why the **** should I care about the survival of the heroes if I'm not given a reason to do so. I shouldn't have to read novels written by Ms. "I love Mandalorians because they're hardcore" Traviss just to get basic exposition.

Ninja Gaiden 1 on xbox had amazing design throughout the entire game. NG2, however, was bad design, I agree.

Uh, no. Bad camera placement is BAD DESIGN no matter how you spin it.

[Lunatic LK47]

AdmiralCheez wrote...
I prefer to play games and watch movies that I enjoy.  Seriously, if you had three hours to kill before going to work, what would you rather watch?  Hot Fuzz or Schindler's List?


ME3 should be masterfully done, but not to the point that I avoid playing it.  The gameplay should provide enough challenge and customization that a player's mental facilities are intrigued, but not so much that they get overloaded and the player shuts it off before they can appreciate it.  This happened to me with DA:O, which I knew was phenomenal in respect to the characters and world it presented, but couldn't play because the combat was clunky and confusing.  They just dumped everything on you without explaining it first, and you were expected to figure everything out by yourself.  With all these variables and no clear point of entry, I was stumped and I gave up.

This. I got Dragon Age for free from a friend and I could only play the game in very short bursts of time until a mandatory difficulty spike showed up, forcing me to *NOT* play the game for MONTHS until last Sunday just because the interface is that bad. Dragon Age just suffered from "Command & Conquer" syndrome in the fact that it's a game that is meant for PCS ONLY, period. I don't understand why we needed inferior console versions with a **** interface.

If a game has good mechanics, you should be able to pick it up and start playing immediately.  If its not fun or engaging within the first twenty minutes or so, if the player doesn't feel rewarded for overcoming challenges, most people won't bother to continue.  More complicated gameplay is perfectly fine if you introduce mechanics one or two at a time, giving the player time to adjust to each one, but the core must remain simple.  You know, "a minute to learn, a lifetime to master?"

Thank you.

Oh yeah, and I do want ME3 to have some funny, uplifting, or sheer badass moments.  Why?  Because I play for fun.  If I don't feel good playing it, it's not fun.  Rougher combat, a la ME2 (but perhaps a little improved) is a must as well, since ME1 did nothing for my adrenaline fix.  Well, at least not until the last half hour of gameplay, but that was due to the cinematic elements, not the fighting itself.

This. I place Fallout 3 in the very low bottom of the list for the fact that everything is a "Ha Ha! U L05E" game.

I leave you with these questions:

Would you rather LAUGH or CRY?

Would you rather feel POWERFUL or feel DEFEATED?

Would you rather be PLEASED or FRUSTRATED?

Would you rather CARE about something or feel APATHETIC?

And finally, would you rather finish a game feeling BETTER or WORSE off than when you began playing it?

Ding ding ding. More free beer.

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 09 mars 2011 - 01:52 .

[Vyse_Fina]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

This. I place Fallout 3 in the very low bottom of the list for the fact that everything is a "Ha Ha! U L05E" game.

I leave you with these questions:

Would you rather LAUGH or CRY?

Would you rather feel POWERFUL or feel DEFEATED?

Would you rather be PLEASED or FRUSTRATED?

Would you rather CARE about something or feel APATHETIC?

And finally, would you rather finish a game feeling BETTER or WORSE off than when you began playing it?


Ding ding ding. More free beer.

Ok, let me get this straight:
You're implying that negative emotions shouldn't be utilized in storytelling?
...

If I wrote my thoughts on this I'd be banned from the forum

[KreeCapt]

I've already put a large chunk of Money down for ME3 in hopes of an Ultimate collectors edition. That should tell you how much faith I have in Bioware and the franchise of ME.

Both games of ME were great. ME1 had a tighter story, but crappy inventory. ME2 had tighter combat and revamped Inventory (Yay) and it's story was less on plot, but more on recruitment.

I think of it this way. ME1 had A LOT of exposition to do. Setting the Universe and it's fleshing of the Galaxies and races. It's plot was nothing spectacular. Same old plot used in many films, it just felt right. Being James Bond in Space. wicked. It was because everything was so new it felt that much more Awesome.

ME2 is a different beast all together. It's like the Movie The Dirty Dozen. More of a Character Study on your squadmates than focusing on Plot.

As for Dragon Age: Origins and DA 2. I don't like either one. Fantasy isn't my thing and besides, the games are done by two different teams. So how you may feel about DA doesn't mean it will impact ME.

that's how I see it anyway.

[LyletheBloody]

 I have not yet played DA2, but ME2 was the best game I ever played at the time and it still is by a wide margin.  I am not hesitant about buying ME3 or TOR based on my experience with DA:O or ME2.  I don't get to play DA2 until Friday or Saturday, but I'm definitely looking forward to it!

[Manic Sheep]

Vyse_Fina wrote...



Ok, let me get this straight:

You're implying that negative emotions shouldn't be utilized in storytelling?

...



If I wrote my thoughts on this I'd be banned from the forum file:///C:/Users/Erin/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image002.gif

IMO negative emotions should definitely be utilised in story telling but should
not overpower or overshadow the positive emotions. Even V for Vendetta ends on
a high note. You don’t want to finish a game or leave a movie theatre feeling
depressed.

Modifié par Manic Sheep, 09 mars 2011 - 01:56 .