830 réponses à ce sujet

[habitat 67]

Zulu_DFA wrote...
I don't think 2012 is going to see the end of the world or something, but I do think that civilization has entered a phase of decline, and ME1 to ME2 transition is a clear sign of it.

Devo would have you believe the decline started much earlier.   

[Lunatic LK47]

Il Divo wrote...

So here's a question:

Why does it matter that Bioware tried to create an inventory if the finished product is so lacking in presentation? If I don't experience any entertainment from Mass Effect's attempt at an inventory, why is it so necessary for the feature to return? 

You say that Mass Effect 2 is devoid of customization, which is true. However, Mass Effect was just as plain, simple, and if anything even more tedious/boring. Mass Effect's weapon progression was also completely linear.

Deep, enjoyable gameplay mechanics are not achieved by throwing a million lifeless weapons at the player base. I spent far more time creating omni-gel than I ever did customizing Shepard + company. That is not a good sign, for an RPG. All this did was continue to remove me from the story/events of the game. At the very least, Mass Effect 2 avoided this. I was not pulled from the events of the game every few minutes for omni-gel.

I agree with you that it would have been great if Bioware had gone back and redesigned the inventory from the ground up. But Terror, you almost make it sound like Mass Effect was on the level of Baldur's Gate in terms of character customization, when the customization it offered was already quite bland/lifeless. It felt more like Bioware added an inventory simply because Mass Effect is an rpg and gamers think all rpgs must have inventories, rather than because they thought the system worked well. 

THANK YOU.

[N7Infernox]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

So here's a question:

Why does it matter that Bioware tried to create an inventory if the finished product is so lacking in presentation? If I don't experience any entertainment from Mass Effect's attempt at an inventory, why is it so necessary for the feature to return? 

You say that Mass Effect 2 is devoid of customization, which is true. However, Mass Effect was just as plain, simple, and if anything even more tedious/boring. Mass Effect's weapon progression was also completely linear.

Deep, enjoyable gameplay mechanics are not achieved by throwing a million lifeless weapons at the player base. I spent far more time creating omni-gel than I ever did customizing Shepard + company. That is not a good sign, for an RPG. All this did was continue to remove me from the story/events of the game. At the very least, Mass Effect 2 avoided this. I was not pulled from the events of the game every few minutes for omni-gel.

I agree with you that it would have been great if Bioware had gone back and redesigned the inventory from the ground up. But Terror, you almost make it sound like Mass Effect was on the level of Baldur's Gate in terms of character customization, when the customization it offered was already quite bland/lifeless. It felt more like Bioware added an inventory simply because Mass Effect is an rpg and gamers think all rpgs must have inventories, rather than because they thought the system worked well. 

THANK YOU.

Aside from the bold-faced words, I agree. Inventories does not an rpg make.
And the italicized words are truer than true. Welcome to the new age rpg guys.

[Sable Phoenix]

To answer the OP in short?

Yes.

In long...

The EA-ification of BioWare is well underway, and even faster than I feared.  Since EA is hemorrhaging money, they’re going to focus on any successes their satellite companies produce and come down on them like a ton of bricks to milk them for all they can.  The immense time pressure from EA to make sure that they RELEASE THE GAME NEXT YEAR WE NEED MONEY DO IT DO IT can be seen in the declining quality of the releases, to say nothing of the changes to the planned development schedules.  I mean, BioWare originally planned two years’ worth of DLC and expansions for Dragon Age: Origins; they would’ve used that time to develop Dragon Age 2 and make it, you know, good.  Instead we got a single expansion that was so buggy it was nearly unplayable for many, some rushed DLCs that declined markedly in quality the further they were from the original game, and a sequel released a single year after its predecessor.  And, surprise surprise, the release of this sequel is also laced with bugs and distribution problems, and is severely limited in scope from both a story and a content perspective.

I’ve worked in game development and I can testify firsthand that a single year of game development time is lightning speed.  Unless you’re making a game like Madden where the only major changes you are making each year are purely cosmetic, you can not produce a polished and complete triple-A title from the ground up in that short a time.  But EA doesn’t care about that, they only see the dollar signs, and I know (also from firsthand experience) that when the publisher says you release a title, you release that title, no matter if it’s ready or not.

Given my disappointment with the weak and directionless story in Mass Effect 2 and a the similarly anemic narrative for Dragon Age 2, given the stripping down of both sequels and the removal of features that “clutter” them with RPG game design, given the overall move towards actiony, button-mashing, console-friendly, idiot-proofed gameplay, and given the results of the kind of development crunch BioWare is now operating under (which will also apply to Mass Effect 3, with yet another single-year game development schedule), my hopes for Mass Effect 3 are at an all time low.  So, yes, by this point I am debating whether I will even want to buy it when it comes out.

BioWare has, in the past, been known for releasing generally high quality products (although facepalm-worthy bugs for things like romances are also par for the course). It’s awful to watch EA force them into a position where they’ll become known as just another sub-par software developer who produces rushed and incomplete games. It's not surprising, but it's not enjoyable either.

Modifié par Sable Phoenix, 09 mars 2011 - 08:46 .

[tonnactus]

Dragon Age 2 didnt dissapoint me as much as Mass Effect 2(of course,not at all). They dont change that much and it isnt the continuation of the Warden Story anyway,so i could forgive that.

Modifié par tonnactus, 09 mars 2011 - 09:03 .

[Lumikki]

N7Infernox wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

So here's a question:

Why does it matter that Bioware tried to create an inventory if the finished product is so lacking in presentation? If I don't experience any entertainment from Mass Effect's attempt at an inventory, why is it so necessary for the feature to return? 

You say that Mass Effect 2 is devoid of customization, which is true. However, Mass Effect was just as plain, simple, and if anything even more tedious/boring. Mass Effect's weapon progression was also completely linear.

Deep, enjoyable gameplay mechanics are not achieved by throwing a million lifeless weapons at the player base. I spent far more time creating omni-gel than I ever did customizing Shepard + company. That is not a good sign, for an RPG. All this did was continue to remove me from the story/events of the game. At the very least, Mass Effect 2 avoided this. I was not pulled from the events of the game every few minutes for omni-gel.

I agree with you that it would have been great if Bioware had gone back and redesigned the inventory from the ground up. But Terror, you almost make it sound like Mass Effect was on the level of Baldur's Gate in terms of character customization, when the customization it offered was already quite bland/lifeless. It felt more like Bioware added an inventory simply because Mass Effect is an rpg and gamers think all rpgs must have inventories, rather than because they thought the system worked well. 

THANK YOU.

Aside from the bold-faced words, I agree. Inventories does not an rpg make.
And the italicized words are truer than true. Welcome to the new age rpg guys.

That's what I have tryed to say a few times. Force some traditonal RPG feature to game where it doesn't fit well, isn't really good thing. That's why ME2's inventory was better, because it fits better the ME style, in that kind of science fiction serie and gameplay style. I don't mean it's comlexity, but the base design. Only thing lacking was few missing customation options as giving player more choises. Like some have sayed customize weapons and armors for all characters, not just Shepards.

In my opinion biggest problems what ME2 had was, not enough customation (armors, weapons and characters), too weak main story (too much companion related missions), not enough choises in dialogs as consequences (too moral based), too linear missions (no alternative solutions) and too much combat without any other kind of gameplay variety (example vehicle driving or something else). If these could be better in ME3, I think it could be even better game.

Yeah, I will buy ME3, no hesitation at all. I do like both ME1 and ME2 equal much.

Modifié par Lumikki, 09 mars 2011 - 09:37 .

[Knottedredloc]

Sable Phoenix wrote...

To answer the OP in short?

Yes.

In long...

The EA-ification of BioWare is well underway, and even faster than I feared.  Since EA is hemorrhaging money, they’re going to focus on any successes their satellite companies produce and come down on them like a ton of bricks to milk them for all they can.  The immense time pressure from EA to make sure that they RELEASE THE GAME NEXT YEAR WE NEED MONEY DO IT DO IT can be seen in the declining quality of the releases, to say nothing of the changes to the planned development schedules.  I mean, BioWare originally planned two years’ worth of DLC and expansions for Dragon Age: Origins; they would’ve used that time to develop Dragon Age 2 and make it, you know, good.  Instead we got a single expansion that was so buggy it was nearly unplayable for many, some rushed DLCs that declined markedly in quality the further they were from the original game, and a sequel released a single year after its predecessor.  And, surprise surprise, the release of this sequel is also laced with bugs and distribution problems, and is severely limited in scope from both a story and a content perspective.

I’ve worked in game development and I can testify firsthand that a single year of game development time is lightning speed.  Unless you’re making a game like Madden where the only major changes you are making each year are purely cosmetic, you can not produce a polished and complete triple-A title from the ground up in that short a time.  But EA doesn’t care about that, they only see the dollar signs, and I know (also from firsthand experience) that when the publisher says you release a title, you release that title, no matter if it’s ready or not.

Given my disappointment with the weak and directionless story in Mass Effect 2 and a the similarly anemic narrative for Dragon Age 2, given the stripping down of both sequels and the removal of features that “clutter” them with RPG game design, given the overall move towards actiony, button-mashing, console-friendly, idiot-proofed gameplay, and given the results of the kind of development crunch BioWare is now operating under (which will also apply to Mass Effect 3, with yet another single-year game development schedule), my hopes for Mass Effect 3 are at an all time low.  So, yes, by this point I am debating whether I will even want to buy it when it comes out.

BioWare has, in the past, been known for releasing generally high quality products (although facepalm-worthy bugs for things like romances are also par for the course). It’s awful to watch EA force them into a position where they’ll become known as just another sub-par software developer who produces rushed and incomplete games. It's not surprising, but it's not enjoyable either.

Yep!  I agree 100%!

[Malanek]

I have absolutely no hesitation about ME3 because ME2 was absolutely brilliant. Not hearing good things about DA2 but I have to wait until the 11th to see for myself. DA2 will have no bearing on me buying ME3 though.

[Il Divo]

SpaceDesperado wrote...

The proof is from the dissapointed fans on these forums like phoenix, terror_k, spamming troll etc., who are starting to realize the level of quality and content of bioware games are starting to decline, but have some faith left that somehow bioware will realize their mistakes.

Proof? I see no proof. I see opinions, nothing more. You've shed light on nothing.

Modifié par Il Divo, 09 mars 2011 - 09:35 .

[Lumikki]

SpaceDesperado wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

SpaceDesperado wrote...

The proof is from the dissapointed fans on these forums like phoenix, terror_k, spamming troll etc., who are starting to realize the level of quality and content of bioware games are starting to decline, but have some faith left that somehow bioware will realize their mistakes.

Proof? I see no proof. I see opinions, nothing more. You've shed light on nothing.

Sure man, either you haven't read any of the comments on these forums, or your brain is doing some sort of mindblock to avoid any negative thoughts.

I don't follow you. I mean sure those people are disapointed and few of them have give very good constructive feedback. How ever, what you mean Biowares mistake?

If you mean DA2 as game design, then I have to agree in somewhat, because in my opinion while it could be fine game, I think there was small mistake there from Biowares part. How ever, if you talk Mass Effetc serie, I haven't seen any real mistakes. Just few design problems as balancing the content, what could have been done better. I don't think any game will be perfect.

Modifié par Lumikki, 09 mars 2011 - 09:46 .

[Gatt9]

Lumikki wrote...

SpaceDesperado wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

SpaceDesperado wrote...

The proof is from the dissapointed fans on these forums like phoenix, terror_k, spamming troll etc., who are starting to realize the level of quality and content of bioware games are starting to decline, but have some faith left that somehow bioware will realize their mistakes.

Proof? I see no proof. I see opinions, nothing more. You've shed light on nothing.

Sure man, either you haven't read any of the comments on these forums, or your brain is doing some sort of mindblock to avoid any negative thoughts.

I don't follow you. I mean sure those people are disapointed and few of them have give very good constructive feedback. How ever, what you mean Biowares mistake?

If you mean DA2 as game design, then I have to agree in somewhat, because in my opinion while it could be fine game, I think there was small mistake there from Biowares part. How ever, if you talk Mass Effetc serie, I haven't seen any real mistakes. Just few design problems as balancing the content, what could have been done better. I don't think any game will be perfect.

Just for the record,  even trying to give constructive feedback here gets you "You're old! Archaic! Outdated!".  Trying to explain the reasons why ME2 was disappointing from an RPG standpoint gets you "It's a RPG,  I had conversations".  It's effectively pointless.

I would guess that the majority of the RPG fans got beat out of the forum after a few months of this when the forum was in flames over ME2's release.

Modifié par Gatt9, 09 mars 2011 - 09:55 .

[Lumikki]

Gatt9 wrote...

I would guess that the majority of the RPG fans got beat out of the forum after a few months of this when the forum was in flames over ME2's release.

You do know that I'm RPG fan?

[N7Infernox]

Gatt9 wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

SpaceDesperado wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

SpaceDesperado wrote...

The proof is from the dissapointed fans on these forums like phoenix, terror_k, spamming troll etc., who are starting to realize the level of quality and content of bioware games are starting to decline, but have some faith left that somehow bioware will realize their mistakes.

Proof? I see no proof. I see opinions, nothing more. You've shed light on nothing.

Sure man, either you haven't read any of the comments on these forums, or your brain is doing some sort of mindblock to avoid any negative thoughts.

I don't follow you. I mean sure those people are disapointed and few of them have give very good constructive feedback. How ever, what you mean Biowares mistake?

If you mean DA2 as game design, then I have to agree in somewhat, because in my opinion while it could be fine game, I think there was small mistake there from Biowares part. How ever, if you talk Mass Effetc serie, I haven't seen any real mistakes. Just few design problems as balancing the content, what could have been done better. I don't think any game will be perfect.

Just for the record,  even trying to give constructive feedback here gets you "You're old! Archaic! Outdated!".  Trying to explain the reasons why ME2 was disappointing from an RPG standpoint gets you "It's a RPG,  I had conversations".  It's effectively pointless.

I would guess that the majority of the RPG fans got beat out of the forum after a few months of this when the forum was in flames over ME2's release.

Somebody's angry... dude, in RPG's you make a character, customize em, upgrade his skills, and explore. ME2 had all of those. Everything else is added. In fact, the only "RPG features" ME1 had over ME2 was an inventory (looting in 22nd century council space-- really?), different kinds of armor (your opinion on that is your own), and skill trees that made minimal improvements and only affected how good you were at killing things (aside from first aid and charm/ intimidate). As far as I'm concerned, ME2 just saved time, and helped you get out there and play as your character more. Heck, there was more content too: some situations were even made just so you could think: "what you'd do in a random situation like that?"

ME2 is awesome, and according to Christina Norman herself, it is closer to the true vision of ME gameplay than ME1 was.
*end rant*

[Il Divo]

SpaceDesperado wrote...

Sure man, either you haven't read any of the comments on these forums, or your brain is doing some sort of mindblock to avoid any negative thoughts. Most of what I, and other like me, are telling you are facts. The only thing opinionated was whether the general direction that bioware is taking like stripping down rpg elements, appealing to casual fans, more linear structure etc. makes their games better or not.

No, you are telling me your opinions, and attempting to give them more credibility by attaching the word 'facts' like some kind of shield. Would you like me to start linking all your posts about how Mass Effect 2 had no memorable moments? Or about how the Citadel was Bioware's best hub? Better yet, how about how Dragon Age 2 is going to flop and Bioware is over? These are all opinions or unsupported conclusions.

Fact: The sky is blue.
Opinion: Blue is a nice color.

Welcome to the Internet. Opinions here are dime a dozen. If you came in expecting to convince anyone of anything, you came to the wrong place. Take your 'light' elsewhere.

Modifié par Il Divo, 09 mars 2011 - 10:18 .

[Liou]

Not really.

If you look at things like the skill tree and the way you earned xp, sure ME2 is a terrible roleplaying game but atleast it still let me roleplay the kind of character i wanted. Not many single player RPGs do that. Infact, the only RPGs where i ever felt that i was actually participating as the character instead of just observing from a fictional characters point of view which wasn't my own was Mass Effect 1+2, Dragon Age, Oblivion, Morrowind and Fallout 3. BioWare and Bethesda is the only developers which makes that kind of roleplaying games. And there is a huge difference between their games. What i am trying to say is, there is no one like BioWare and Mass Effect 2 was still a good game in my opinion even though i certainly didn't like the direction they took.

Modifié par Liou, 09 mars 2011 - 10:29 .

[shep82]

I havent played DA2 yet mainly because while I liked DAO it wasnt my cup of tea so to speak. I like RPGs but despise "the point and click wait for effect" type. ME 1 and 2, Oblivion, Fallout are more my cup of tea. In short whether I eventually get DA 2 or not has no bearing on ME 3 for me. I loved ME but all the things I hated were fixed in ME 2 so I have no doubt ME 3 will be as epic.

[N7Infernox]

Liou wrote...

Not really.

If you look at things like the skill tree and the way you earned xp, sure ME2 is a terrible roleplaying game but atleast it still let me roleplay the kind of character i wanted. Not many single player RPGs do that. Infact, the only RPGs where i ever felt that i was actually participating as the character instead of just observing from a fictional characters point of view which wasn't my own was Mass Effect 1+2, Dragon Age, Oblivion, Morrowind and Fallout 3. BioWare and Bethesda is the only developers which make that kind of roleplaying games. And there is a huge difference between their games. What i am trying to say is, there is no one like BioWare and Mass Effect 2 was still a good game in my opinion even though i certainly didn't like the direction they took.

I'm...confused... That seems a tad... contradictory...

Modifié par N7Infernox, 09 mars 2011 - 10:40 .

[rmann]

I was actually hesitant to buy ME2 after playing the first game. I heard nothing but praise going into ME1, but I didn't think it was anything better than decent. I'm very glad, however, I gave ME2 a chance. Instead of going in with high expectations and being let down by a decent game, I went in with basically no expectations and was rewarded with a great game. In fact, I'd go as far as to say ME2 is my favorite bioware game, and I've played them all from BG2 onwards (sonic game excluded).

Take from that what you will.

[Lumikki]

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.

Modifié par Lumikki, 09 mars 2011 - 10:49 .

[Liou]

N7Infernox wrote...

Liou wrote...

Not really.

If you look at things like the skill tree and the way you earned xp, sure ME2 is a terrible roleplaying game but atleast it still let me roleplay the kind of character i wanted. Not many single player RPGs do that. Infact, the only RPGs where i ever felt that i was actually participating as the character instead of just observing from a fictional characters point of view which wasn't my own was Mass Effect 1+2, Dragon Age, Oblivion, Morrowind and Fallout 3. BioWare and Bethesda is the only developers which make that kind of roleplaying games. And there is a huge difference between their games. What i am trying to say is, there is no one like BioWare and Mass Effect 2 was still a good game in my opinion even though i certainly didn't like the direction they took.

I'm...confused...

What i mean is that the actual roleplaying, not the skills, xp, loot etc but the roleplaying itself is still pressent in the game. I still feel i can play the kind of character i want to and in the end, i guess thats more important to me than the traditional roleplaying elements even though i missed them in ME2. But at the same time, there is a limit to how much they can simplify it and still keep me interested in the game. ME2 didn't cross that line but it was close.

[N7Infernox]

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. Someone else as traditional RPG fan, who doesn't accept the wider consept, have problems accepting ME2, because it's statical gameplay is lesser than in ME1.

Oh wow I was being sarcastic when i said I was confused, but you elaborated on the very point I was trying to draw attention to. So thank-you nonetheless.

@Liou (above): I completely agree with you. I didn't miss the stats all too much myself (and I've played all of the same rpg's that you have) , but I also think that ME2 is right on the line of "oversimplifying". But it hasn't crossed it yet, and hopefully Mass Effect 3 will stay along the same bounds as ME2. (adding a persuasion skill would be nice)

Modifié par N7Infernox, 09 mars 2011 - 10:54 .

[Il Divo]

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. Someone else as traditional RPG fan, who doesn't accept the wider consept, have problems accepting ME2, because it's statical gameplay is lesser than in ME1.

I'd say this does a damn good job of summing it up.