830 réponses à ce sujet

[Lunatic LK47]

Vyse_Fina wrote...


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

I wouldn't mind having negative emotions being utilized in storytelling, but plugging it in for the sake of plugging it will make us feel like we wasted our ****ing time and money. I'm ****ing glad I turned Fallout 3 into Gamestop just because it fit both categories, and had a ****load of glitches.

[N7Infernox]

I just had the massive urge to rant...
In short, Mass Effect 3 will be awesome. If not, we go back to our lives per usual. And if you don't like DA2 or ME2's "dumbed down" rpg elements, then go play one of your old RPG's. Life goes on buddy. Like seriously, you don't have to like the game. (but you obviously do since you're posting in the Mass Effect forum)

[mcsupersport]

1)  ME1 Mako did have perferred paths to be taken, usually highlighted by different colored material to drive on.  If you looked at the map and actually used the info given you could plan a path(not straight lines) to get where you needed to go with reasonable speed.  Most didn't bother with this and tried to go straight over things they should have been going around which would have taken less time.

2)  I also played DAo and gave up on it, and finally came back after doing some reading on it(a year almost later) and found the game to be fun and engaging.

I like ME1, ME2 and DA:O all for different reasons, and all have their faults in my book.  I wish ME2 had more of an inventory(yeah it does have some) but no where near the insane amounts you see in ME1 and DA:O.  How many variations of guns levels or sword materials do you actually need?????  The only real thing I missed about inventory in ME2 was no change/any of armor on squad mates, and I miss the gun mods(don't like them as class skills).  In DA:0(ME1 also for that matter but with guns) all the different sword/armor materials just make more junk to haul back to town and sell, would much rather have less worth more and simplify everything, since you don't change your companions all that much once you find decent stuff for them.  

As long as they continue to make decent stories, whether driven off of characters like in ME2 or over arching drama like in ME1 and DA:O then I will continue to buy their games.  Otherwise I will be stuck with COD, or some such like Starwars lego or WoW.

[Greybox_Inception]

dude, i can't wait to buy mass effect 3, in fact i'm going to pre-order it at a local gamestop. :-D i want it on the 1st day.

[Mr. MannlyMan]

Wow AdmiralCheez, that whole analogy is just bad.

No, I don't care to explain why.

[mcsupersport]

ME3 will be either a day one or pre-order purchase for me.

by the way anyone else having such major issue with board tonight??

Modifié par mcsupersport, 09 mars 2011 - 02:37 .

[bandfred]

Yes, I am hesitant to buy ME 3 after DA 2, where even if I do decide to get it (which is unlikely), it will be in a bargin bin.

I'll wait until metacritic reviews come out and with talking with others. In no way are big name review sites trustworthy.

Modifié par bandfred, 09 mars 2011 - 03:14 .

[Thompson family]

SpaceDesperado wrote...

So to that brings me to my main arguement, should we ...

expect BioWare to retreat to the boring, spreadsheet-like drudgery of the traditional RPG, which worked better when people did it with paper and pencil back when I was in college, or continue with the great story that  presentation and action instead of halting every 10 minutes when you found a marginally better outfit of armor and stopped to have your Shepard or a squadmate change clothes in the middle of a mission.

Yo. Sign me up. Mine's pre-ordered.

I've got my main Shepard lined up and waiting. Started up ME1 again a couple of days ago to have a full career as a FemShep Infiltrator. The inventory system and all that form-filling for character traits is even more stuptifyingly dull than I remembered it.

And don't give me that "dumbed down" garbage. My previousfavorite game was Medieval Total War II and I managed all my cities, recruited all my own units and fought all my own battles on the tactical map. And my favorite type of unit is the horse archer, the most micromanagement intensive unit in the game. I'll be getting Shogun II Total War next week. I can and do pay close attention to detail to squeeze out every single bit of strategic advantage -- when there's a point.

Forget combat. That bureaucratic form-filing in ME1 destroyed narrative flow. It was like trying to watch a great movie and then having them interrupt it every five minutes for a commercial. "Hey, you there! Bet you haven't tried the newest Volkov Sniper Rifle by Rosenkov Materials. You have? Ah, but you're using the Volkov IX. Try the new Volkov X. It does 18 more points of base damage! That's a whopping improvement of  6 whole percent! AND, customer, it fires a huge 0.1 more shots before overheating! So throw that old IX in the Omni-Gel vat and get your X RIGHT NOW!"

Immersive? It was getting nickelled and dimed to death and being nagged while doing it.

Modifié par Thompson family, 09 mars 2011 - 03:39 .

[Lunatic LK47]

Thompson family wrote...

Forget combat. That bureaucratic form-filing in ME1 destroyed narrative flow. It was like trying to watch a great movie and then having them interrupt it every five minutes for a commercial. "Hey, you there! Bet you haven't tried the newest Volkov Sniper Rifle by Rosenkov Materials. You have? Ah, but you're using the Volkov IX. Try the new Volkov X. It does 18 more points of base damage! That's a whopping improvement of  6 whole percent! AND, customer, it fires a huge 0.1 more shots before overheating! So throw that old IX in the Omni-Gel vat and get your X RIGHT NOW!"

Immersive? It was getting nickelled and dimed to death and being nagged while doing it.

Another person added to the free beer list.

[Lunatic LK47]

Someone needs to fix the networking on the forums.

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 09 mars 2011 - 03:47 .

[Gatt9]

Thompson family wrote...

expect BioWare to retreat to the boring, spreadsheet-like drudgery of the traditional RPG, which worked better when people did it with paper and pencil back when I was in college, or continue with the great story that  presentation and action instead of halting every 10 minutes when you found a marginally better outfit of armor and stopped to have your Shepard or a squadmate change clothes in the middle of a mission.

Even the project lead states quite clearly they had no intention of making an RPG,  why do people continue to try and catagorize ME2 as such?  There's no such thing as "Traditional RPG".  Either it is,  or it isn't.

Dialogue,  side tasks,  and making choices do not make a game an RPG.  In this case,  it made it a TPS with dialogue.  I'm in constant amazement that if there's more than 2 minutes of dialogue in a game people try to claim it's an RPG.  Talking != RPG. 

Unless someone here would like to explain that Wing Commander 3 is an RPG? 

It's blindingly obvious what you want,  a story and action,  so perhaps what you really should be doing is posting on the FPS and TPS developer's forum's demanding they actually add story to their action games instead of heading into RPG forums demanding that they eliminate the entire RPG framework so you can play a Shooter with a story.

Regardless,  doesn't matter.  As DA2's forums make quite clear now,  Bioware's not going to be here in 3 years. 

You would've thought they'd have learned from the FMV debacle,  or the RTS debacle,  when trying to cater to some mythical mass market wiped out significant portions of the industry.  Nope.  Here we are again.

[aliswann10]

Am I hesitant to buy ME? Nope. To each is own and you can't please everyone.  That's 2 cliches in a row but it's true, especially in regard to this topic. I loved ME1 and DA O and I also love ME 2 and DA 2 including all the changes made. Maybe you need to look into some different franchises and leave these alone. The games are highly regarded and make enough money where bioware's going to do what they want to do and no amount of complaining will change that. I guess you just got to move on and leave these games to us fans that appreciate them for what they are.

[Terror_K]

Thompson family wrote...

Forget combat. That bureaucratic form-filing in ME1 destroyed narrative flow. It was like trying to watch a great movie and then having them interrupt it every five minutes for a commercial. "Hey, you there! Bet you haven't tried the newest Volkov Sniper Rifle by Rosenkov Materials. You have? Ah, but you're using the Volkov IX. Try the new Volkov X. It does 18 more points of base damage! That's a whopping improvement of  6 whole percent! AND, customer, it fires a huge 0.1 more shots before overheating! So throw that old IX in the Omni-Gel vat and get your X RIGHT NOW!"

Immersive? It was getting nickelled and dimed to death and being nagged while doing it.

Funny... I felt far more that way in ME2 with the "Mission Complete" screens and those giant pop-ups invading almost the entire bottom right quarter of my screen than I ever did in ME1. At least in ME1 I could choose when to look at the inventory and level-up screens.

Modifié par Terror_K, 09 mars 2011 - 04:34 .

[Terror_K]

aliswann10 wrote...

Am I hesitant to buy ME? Nope. To each is own and you can't please everyone.  That's 2 cliches in a row but it's true, especially in regard to this topic. I loved ME1 and DA O and I also love ME 2 and DA 2 including all the changes made. Maybe you need to look into some different franchises and leave these alone. The games are highly regarded and make enough money where bioware's going to do what they want to do and no amount of complaining will change that. I guess you just got to move on and leave these games to us fans that appreciate them for what they are.

Sorry, but I don't think a series should be hijacked and "retooled by the network" part the way though just to appeal to a greater audience at the expense of alienating a good chunk of the original one, especially when there's already hundreds of the same stuff out there for this greater audience already. A series should remain consistent and continue to be what it originally set out to be, not just change on a whim because the company wants to rake in more $$$. Feeling like you've been knifed in the back by somebody you once respected and trusted isn't exactly an easy thing to just walk away from, especially when there's so damn little to walk to for alternatives. I don't think other games that don't appeal to me should be altered to do so, and I sure as hell don't think games that are for me should be altered either.

[brightblueink]

Terror_K wrote...

[...] Loyalty means nothing anymore, nor does quality or depth. It's all about selling the most games now. [emphasis mine]

Honestly, I think you're fooling yourself if you think that's never been at least part of their goal. They're a company. If their games don't sell, they can't make more games, and there's no point. I think the only place you're ever going to find developers making games simply for the love of making games and nothing more would be among indie developers...and even then, I'm sure many indie developers would be quite happy if their game sold a lot and they made a profit off of it.

This isn't to say that the people at Bioware don't love games, or that they don't care about their fans, "hardcore" or not. I'm sure they do. But as a company, it doesn't make sense NOT to reach out toward the market where you've actually found success.

EDIT:

A series should remain consistent and continue to be what it originally
set out to be, not just change on a whim because the company wants to
rake in more $$$.

First of all, I don't think that ME2 is inconsistant with ME1, nor were the changes made "on a whim". Games take too long to develop for anything to be changed on a whim, IMO, obviously every change they make is thought about. 

Secondly, I can think of very few series that had the second game in the series NOT evolve from the first one, and when they did usually people complained about the second game being too much like the first. Honestly, I'd rather see series that aren't afraid to mix up their gameplay a bit. It's a sign of growth.

Modifié par brightblueink, 09 mars 2011 - 04:53 .

[JediNg]

Absolutely, OP. Doubt it'll happen, but I can definitely get on board with the idea that the franchise could see many changes unwanted if DA2 is anything to go by.

Modifié par JediNg, 09 mars 2011 - 04:54 .

[SSV Enterprise]

Terror_K wrote..

Funny... I felt far more that way in ME2 with the "Mission Complete" screens and those giant pop-ups invading almost the entire bottom right quarter of my screen than I ever did in ME1. At least in ME1 I could choose when to look at the inventory and level-up screens.

"You have reached the 150 item limit."

[Terror_K]

brightblueink wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

[...] Loyalty means nothing anymore, nor does quality or depth. It's all about selling the most games now. [emphasis mine]

Honestly, I think you're fooling yourself if you think that's never been at least part of their goal. They're a company. If their games don't sell, they can't make more games, and there's no point. I think the only place you're ever going to find developers making games simply for the love of making games and nothing more would be among indie developers...and even then, I'm sure many indie developers would be quite happy if their game sold a lot and they made a profit off of it.

This isn't to say that the people at Bioware don't love games, or that they don't care about their fans, "hardcore" or not. I'm sure they do. But as a company, it doesn't make sense NOT to reach out toward the market where you've actually found success.

Of course making money and selling games has always been part of the goal, but that always seemed to be secondary to making the games as pieces of interactive art and making good, deep RPGs instead of just cash cows. I just don't feel the love in their games any more, they now just seem like these cold, methodical constructs designed to make money rather than being anything that rises above that and is more than just another game. Ever since EA has taken over there's just been this shallowness and mainstreamlined Hollywood Bockbuster feel to their games and they're suffering for it, IMO.

If they want to branch out and appeal to the mainstream and the lowest common denominator, then fine... I'm not saying they shouldn't. But if they want to do that they should do it with a new IP instead of saboutaging their existing ones and twisting them into something they originally weren't for the sake of it. Why can't they make games for both their existing fanbase who want proper RPGs and for newcomers as well? They've just sold out now... Mike Laidlaw has pretty much admitted it and admitted that Dragon Age has pretty much be rebooted and retooled for the mainstream console audience.

The thing is, Dragon Age: Origins was supposedly their most successful IP yet, and was an old-school fantasy RPG more akin to Baldur's Gate and NWN than it was to modern popular games, and yet they've decided to just wreck it and retool it into more modern popular game style wise with the sequel just because of a few whiners who didn't finish the game and found the combat slow and thought a non-voiced protagonist was old-fashioned and a whole bunch of other modern BS concepts that are just wrong. The people who ****ed about these factors clearly weren't who the game was made for, but instead of just acknowledging that BioWare just give those the original was made for the middle finger and abandon them for these newcomers. And I'm quite frankly sick to death of BioWare constantly kicking me in the balls and spitting on me in favour of these people who hadn't even heard about them until recently.

[sigma_draconis]

Terror_K wrote...

Sorry, but I don't think a series should be hijacked and "retooled by the network" part the way though just to appeal to a greater audience at the expense of alienating a good chunk of the original one, especially when there's already hundreds of the same stuff out there for this greater audience already. A series should remain consistent and continue to be what it originally set out to be, not just change on a whim because the company wants to rake in more $$$. Feeling like you've been knifed in the back by somebody you once respected and trusted isn't exactly an easy thing to just walk away from, especially when there's so damn little to walk to for alternatives. I don't think other games that don't appeal to me should be altered to do so, and I sure as hell don't think games that are for me should be altered either.

See, here's what I don't understand, why can't people realize that Bioware just like every other game company out there, is a buissiness and they're there to make money first and foremost. Obviously, they enjoy making games not only for the money otherwise they wouldn't be doing it, but profit will always comes first. It's what keeps them in buissiness and what keeps them making more games for everyone. Especially with big title games being the money sucking black hole that they are, they have to sell to a big audience for it to be worth it. The average number of copies these days have been raised to at least 2 million sold before a decent profit is made. They're not doing this to appeal to you or me, but to as many as possible. And why should they? This is exactly why I will never understand why people want to keep things they enjoy as cult classic and keep it from going mainstream.

Terror_K wrote...

If they want to branch out and appeal to
the mainstream and the lowest common denominator, then fine... I'm not
saying they shouldn't. But if they want to do that they should do it
with a new IP instead of saboutaging their existing ones and twisting
them into something they originally weren't for the sake of it. Why
can't they make games for both their existing fanbase who want proper
RPGs and for newcomers as well? They've just sold out now... Mike
Laidlaw has pretty much admitted it and admitted that Dragon Age has
pretty much be rebooted and retooled for the mainstream console
audience.

The thing is, Dragon Age: Origins was supposedly their
most successful IP yet, and was an old-school fantasy RPG more akin to
Baldur's Gate and NWN than it was to modern popular games, and yet
they've decided to just wreck it and retool it into more modern popular
game style wise with the sequel just because of a few whiners who didn't
finish the game and found the combat slow and thought a non-voiced
protagonist was old-fashioned and a whole bunch of other modern BS
concepts that are just wrong. The people who ****ed about these factors
clearly weren't who the game was made for, but instead of just
acknowledging that BioWare just give those the original was made
for the middle finger and abandon them for these newcomers. And I'm
quite frankly sick to death of BioWare constantly kicking me in the
balls and spitting on me in favour of these people who hadn't even heard
about them until recently.

Why does it have to be that changing old school elements and making it more streamlined equates to dumbing it down? Does playing a more traditional in-depth RPG make you smarter than those who play shooters? It doesn't, it's simply different taste for different people.  It just so happen that the audience for shooter games is larger than the audience for RPG's or any other genres. Doesn't make them dumber than you, doesn't make you smarter than them.

And not you nor anyone is entintled to have them try to please you alone. No matter for how long you've been their fan nor how loyal you are, you're no more a "true fan" than those "who haven't even heard about them until recently". So them doing something you don't like does not equate to betraying you or stabbing you in the back. That would imply that they have some loyalty to you, which they don't nor need to. Remember they're simply a company there to make money, always have been always will be. I apologize if I'm a bit confrontational, but quite frankly I've seen too much of these sort of complaints.

Modifié par sigma_draconis, 09 mars 2011 - 05:15 .

[Terror_K]

sigma_draconis wrote...

This is exactly why I will never understand why people want to keep things they enjoy as cult classic and keep it from going mainstream.

Because the very things that they need to both add and remove in order to make the thing appeal to the mainstream are the very things that those who enjoy it the most hate and love respectively. Simply put, in order to make the product more mainstream they have to add factors I don't like and remove ones that I do.

At the moment now it's pretty clear that BioWare want to have their cake and eat it too: they don't want to go fully mainstream, but somehow bridge that gap between cult, nerdy stuff and more mainstream stuff to find that perfect blend and thus bring in more mainstream players but keeping their RPG fans where they can by not deviating too far. The problem is that they either don't realise or don't seem to care that a good deal of their old fans don't even really like a small amount of mainstream elements and that they're still taking out a lot of stuff that they like in the process. The way they're going they're going to be in a position where they can't really please either side. They're never going to hit Call of Duty or Gears of War numbers so long as there are things like dialogue and stats of any kind, and they're not going to please their hardcore RPG fanbase brought up on Baldur's Gate and NWN by messing with their own IPs and dumbing things down.

The basic point is, they can't mainstreamline things without altering the game in a way that puts me off. I liked Dragon Age: Origins and ME1 not just for what they were, but for what they weren't. Now DA2 has come along and appears to have taken away most of the things I loved about DA:O and added a whole bunch of modern game conventions I generally don't like. About the only improvement I've seen thus far is the skill trees... that's about it. The rest is just this dumbed-down, console-ized little action game that appears to be half the game DAO was in almost every respect. Especially if you're a PC gamer.

[Slayer299]

I loved ME1 and while I was disappointed with more than a few elements in ME2 (like the lack of any actual plot, although the char and LM were great), it was still a good game.

After seeing the changes to DA2 I am having serious concerns, (even allowing for the fact that they are diff't dev teams). So I'll be following very closely what the devs release about ME3 before I preorder anything from BW.

[Terror_K]

*Disregard. Double post thanks to forum throwing a fit today*

Modifié par Terror_K, 09 mars 2011 - 05:18 .

[Il Divo]

SpaceDesperado wrote...

...well it's clear that i am talking to the wrong bioware fans when i re-joined these forums lol. You guys realize that DA2 is based off one city? I even hear it also includes a lot of repetive dungeons on top of that... Mass Effect 2 was not a better game than the original ME in any way, maybe combat if they didn't take out looting and add in ammunition. The story was worse, name me one memorable experience in ME2 compared to the many in the original. The planets, missions, characters, atmosphere were all much better and memorable in the original.

1) Watching Shepard fall into the atmosphere of Alchera.
2) Allowing Mordin to eliminate Malon.
3) Thane's entrance.
4) The Entire Suicide Mission.
5) Sharing a drink/old memories with Dr. Chakwas.
6) Listening to Mordin sing.

I could keep going, but the point is I fail to see how you've proven all your experiences in Mass Effect to be more 'memorable', which is an extremely subjective notion. I personally found Mass Effect's characters to be among Bioware's most boring/lifeless, while Mass Effect 2's cast ranks among the top, but that's just me. 

I also fail to see how Mass Effect's looting/inventory was a plus over the Mass Effect 2 system.

The Citadel in the original game was the best setting/planet in any bioware game for me. The environment, characters, side-quests, and the general gain of knowledge you get from that planet was truly amasing. Also add to the fact that during your journey, re-visiting the planet gained you more quests and activitie to do. Now think of the citadel in Mass Effect 2...

Sorry, I kind of threw up in my mouth a little after reading this. Truthfully, if I wanted to see side quests done well, I would go back and play Kotor/Jade Empire. If I wanted to see hub worlds done well, I'd go play Jade Empire. The Mass Effect Citadel is extremely lifeless for a galactic hub; it simply does not have enough things going on within to justify its abnormal size. Neither Mass Effect 1 or 2 were able to capture the splendor/scale of the Imperial City in this regard.  

Mass Effect 1's attempts at side quests/exploration were in many ways among Bioware's weaker attempts, with Mass Effect 2 slightly worse off (assuming we don't count loyalty missions). The generic environments and repetitive mission style did not create engaging side quests, but made them extremely tedious.

Modifié par Il Divo, 09 mars 2011 - 05:24 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Valadras21 wrote...

On the contrary OP, I approve of Bioware's design choices and will be playing ME3 on release day. Would be doing the same with DA2 right now since I have it, but I still need to finish awakening again for my 'perfect' import

Except your import would by chance not be what the game says you did and bringing dead characters back to life because the game feels like it not due to how it was designed to be but because it need a patch to fix the issue on their latest game title release aka DA2 and you would be relying on fingers crossed they will learn from it and not repeat it with regards to ME3.

I thought the import was disgusting between ME1 and ME2, such as the rachni part and citadel/council bit.

Personally though on topic, I will not  be buying ME3 unless they replace the lead designer. 

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 09 mars 2011 - 05:26 .

[Terror_K]

Il Divo wrote...

I personally found Mass Effect's characters to be among Bioware's most boring/lifeless, while Mass Effect 2's cast ranks among the top, but that's just me.

While I found ME1's cast to be some of the most real, down-to-earth and believable characters, while most of ME2's cast come across as gimmicky, over-the-top, comic book style super-companions. What exactly is your point then?