Tazzmission wrote...
Chewin3 wrote...
I wouldn't say DA II was rushed. It's actually a very good game. But when it comes to being a sequel, it's the worst game EVA!!!
i never cared for dragon age honestly. im not a fan on the whole medevil theme at all. and the truth is the people who still complain will buy me3 because than it gives them another excuse to rant about in the long run.
Naltair wrote...
IGN: After the game is finished, do you go back through a play it again with all of the music in place?piemanz wrote...
Naltair wrote...
I would love a link to said interview.
http://uk.music.ign..../1154594p1.html
I'm nt going to lie, it is concerning.However ME3 will have had 2 years of development by the time it's released which isn't really rushed when you consider theres a 2 year gap between ME1 and ME2, and they had to revamp the whole game in that time.
Zur: Sure thing. I'm actually really anxious for the game right now, so I can pop it in and start playing. I'm really looking forward to see it. I know there are a few bugs that still need to be fixed. Unlike other titles from Bioware, this [score] was kind of a rush job. EA really wanted to capitalize on the success of Origins, so the game was really being pushed hard to be released now. So I'd like to know if there are bugs, or if there's anything we could patch or fix. [Editor's note: Zur is speaking about bugs in the score only; he had no involvement with the rest of the game's development.]
I think people are reading way too much into this.
cedgedc wrote...
I am going to respectfully disagree. I am the first to admit that if a game sequel starts with radical gameplay changes, I'm the first to go 'Woa woaa... What's this? Shift is supposed to be my sprint button!'
I loved ME1 or I wouldn't have even looked at the sequel, but ME2 gave me everything I felt was missing from the first one and then some. ME1 was a plot builder. We don't know anything going in, so you're building from the ground up and being introduced to the setting.
ME2 was more immersive to me by far. The world was there. They added much needed places (Like omega) that everyone looks for in a good bioware product/ sci-fi game. The development of the ship and greater degrees of interraction with it.. the freedom to build your crew up as much as desired, or go barebones.
Oh, also the team grew -some- balls and drew a line in the sand saying 'Hey ME2 isn't for little kids, we're going to have characters use the ... *Gasp* .. F-word! (Which in an rpg is quite a step, mind you!)
All of these things added so much more depth. There wasn't the meaningless exploring of totally baren planets where you're suddenly, starkly aware of how alone you are playing the game, and how empty it can be. All of ME2's environments were rich, filled with surprises and interraction.
Even granted the increased resources and technology afforded to the team for ME2 I still found it to be proportionately better, in all the ways I could want a follow-up to a very succesful first instalment to be.
Modifié par Terror_K, 24 mars 2011 - 09:58 .
Terror_K wrote...
cedgedc wrote...
I am going to respectfully disagree. I am the first to admit that if a game sequel starts with radical gameplay changes, I'm the first to go 'Woa woaa... What's this? Shift is supposed to be my sprint button!'
I loved ME1 or I wouldn't have even looked at the sequel, but ME2 gave me everything I felt was missing from the first one and then some. ME1 was a plot builder. We don't know anything going in, so you're building from the ground up and being introduced to the setting.
ME2 was more immersive to me by far. The world was there. They added much needed places (Like omega) that everyone looks for in a good bioware product/ sci-fi game. The development of the ship and greater degrees of interraction with it.. the freedom to build your crew up as much as desired, or go barebones.
Oh, also the team grew -some- balls and drew a line in the sand saying 'Hey ME2 isn't for little kids, we're going to have characters use the ... *Gasp* .. F-word! (Which in an rpg is quite a step, mind you!)
All of these things added so much more depth. There wasn't the meaningless exploring of totally baren planets where you're suddenly, starkly aware of how alone you are playing the game, and how empty it can be. All of ME2's environments were rich, filled with surprises and interraction.
Even granted the increased resources and technology afforded to the team for ME2 I still found it to be proportionately better, in all the ways I could want a follow-up to a very succesful first instalment to be.
Sorry, but I strongly disagree with pretty much everything. ME2 constantly reminded me it was a game at every turn. The small, linear levels, the shoehorning of the Cerberus stuff, the complete lack of polish on N7 worlds, the endless pop-ups and loading screens, the over-the-top immature Modern Hollywood approach, the dumbing down and automation of the RPG elements, etc.
Almost everything you list there as a so-called positive I actually found to be worse (e.g. locations didn't feel immersive, they felt small and fake; at least the ME1 UNC worlds felt vast and empty like space should) and while ME2 gave you "everything you felt was missing from the first one and then some," to me ME2 took almost everything that was special about Mass Effect away and then some in favour of mainstreamlining, oversimplification and Hollywooding it up. About the only thing it actually improved on was basic gameplay, graphics and cinematics. ME2 wasn't an experience anymore, it was just a game, and would remind you of such at every turn, IMO.
Naltair wrote...
IGN: After the game is finished, do you go back through a play it again with all of the music in place?piemanz wrote...
Naltair wrote...
I would love a link to said interview.
http://uk.music.ign..../1154594p1.html
I'm nt going to lie, it is concerning.However ME3 will have had 2 years of development by the time it's released which isn't really rushed when you consider theres a 2 year gap between ME1 and ME2, and they had to revamp the whole game in that time.
Zur: Sure thing. I'm actually really anxious for the game right now, so I can pop it in and start playing. I'm really looking forward to see it. I know there are a few bugs that still need to be fixed. Unlike other titles from Bioware, this [score] was kind of a rush job. EA really wanted to capitalize on the success of Origins, so the game was really being pushed hard to be released now. So I'd like to know if there are bugs, or if there's anything we could patch or fix. [Editor's note: Zur is speaking about bugs in the score only; he had no involvement with the rest of the game's development.]
I think people are reading way too much into this.
Modifié par SalsaDMA, 25 mars 2011 - 06:44 .
Terror_K wrote...
cedgedc wrote...
I am going to respectfully disagree. I am the first to admit that if a game sequel starts with radical gameplay changes, I'm the first to go 'Woa woaa... What's this? Shift is supposed to be my sprint button!'
I loved ME1 or I wouldn't have even looked at the sequel, but ME2 gave me everything I felt was missing from the first one and then some. ME1 was a plot builder. We don't know anything going in, so you're building from the ground up and being introduced to the setting.
ME2 was more immersive to me by far. The world was there. They added much needed places (Like omega) that everyone looks for in a good bioware product/ sci-fi game. The development of the ship and greater degrees of interraction with it.. the freedom to build your crew up as much as desired, or go barebones.
Oh, also the team grew -some- balls and drew a line in the sand saying 'Hey ME2 isn't for little kids, we're going to have characters use the ... *Gasp* .. F-word! (Which in an rpg is quite a step, mind you!)
All of these things added so much more depth. There wasn't the meaningless exploring of totally baren planets where you're suddenly, starkly aware of how alone you are playing the game, and how empty it can be. All of ME2's environments were rich, filled with surprises and interraction.
Even granted the increased resources and technology afforded to the team for ME2 I still found it to be proportionately better, in all the ways I could want a follow-up to a very succesful first instalment to be.
Sorry, but I strongly disagree with pretty much everything. ME2 constantly reminded me it was a game at every turn. The small, linear levels, the shoehorning of the Cerberus stuff, the complete lack of polish on N7 worlds, the endless pop-ups and loading screens, the over-the-top immature Modern Hollywood approach, the dumbing down and automation of the RPG elements, etc.
Almost everything you list there as a so-called positive I actually found to be worse (e.g. locations didn't feel immersive, they felt small and fake; at least the ME1 UNC worlds felt vast and empty like space should) and while ME2 gave you "everything you felt was missing from the first one and then some," to me ME2 took almost everything that was special about Mass Effect away and then some in favour of mainstreamlining, oversimplification and Hollywooding it up. About the only thing it actually improved on was basic gameplay, graphics and cinematics. ME2 wasn't an experience anymore, it was just a game, and would remind you of such at every turn, IMO.
Terror_K wrote...
cedgedc wrote...
I am going to respectfully disagree. I am the first to admit that if a game sequel starts with radical gameplay changes, I'm the first to go 'Woa woaa... What's this? Shift is supposed to be my sprint button!'
I loved ME1 or I wouldn't have even looked at the sequel, but ME2 gave me everything I felt was missing from the first one and then some. ME1 was a plot builder. We don't know anything going in, so you're building from the ground up and being introduced to the setting.
ME2 was more immersive to me by far. The world was there. They added much needed places (Like omega) that everyone looks for in a good bioware product/ sci-fi game. The development of the ship and greater degrees of interraction with it.. the freedom to build your crew up as much as desired, or go barebones.
Oh, also the team grew -some- balls and drew a line in the sand saying 'Hey ME2 isn't for little kids, we're going to have characters use the ... *Gasp* .. F-word! (Which in an rpg is quite a step, mind you!)
All of these things added so much more depth. There wasn't the meaningless exploring of totally baren planets where you're suddenly, starkly aware of how alone you are playing the game, and how empty it can be. All of ME2's environments were rich, filled with surprises and interraction.
Even granted the increased resources and technology afforded to the team for ME2 I still found it to be proportionately better, in all the ways I could want a follow-up to a very succesful first instalment to be.
Sorry, but I strongly disagree with pretty much everything. ME2 constantly reminded me it was a game at every turn. The small, linear levels, the shoehorning of the Cerberus stuff, the complete lack of polish on N7 worlds, the endless pop-ups and loading screens, the over-the-top immature Modern Hollywood approach, the dumbing down and automation of the RPG elements, etc.
Almost everything you list there as a so-called positive I actually found to be worse (e.g. locations didn't feel immersive, they felt small and fake; at least the ME1 UNC worlds felt vast and empty like space should) and while ME2 gave you "everything you felt was missing from the first one and then some," to me ME2 took almost everything that was special about Mass Effect away and then some in favour of mainstreamlining, oversimplification and Hollywooding it up. About the only thing it actually improved on was basic gameplay, graphics and cinematics. ME2 wasn't an experience anymore, it was just a game, and would remind you of such at every turn, IMO.
Guest_SpaceDesperado_*
Modifié par SpaceDesperado, 26 mars 2011 - 12:20 .
Dave666 wrote...
Terror_K wrote...
cedgedc wrote...
I am going to respectfully disagree. I am the first to admit that if a game sequel starts with radical gameplay changes, I'm the first to go 'Woa woaa... What's this? Shift is supposed to be my sprint button!'
I loved ME1 or I wouldn't have even looked at the sequel, but ME2 gave me everything I felt was missing from the first one and then some. ME1 was a plot builder. We don't know anything going in, so you're building from the ground up and being introduced to the setting.
ME2 was more immersive to me by far. The world was there. They added much needed places (Like omega) that everyone looks for in a good bioware product/ sci-fi game. The development of the ship and greater degrees of interraction with it.. the freedom to build your crew up as much as desired, or go barebones.
Oh, also the team grew -some- balls and drew a line in the sand saying 'Hey ME2 isn't for little kids, we're going to have characters use the ... *Gasp* .. F-word! (Which in an rpg is quite a step, mind you!)
All of these things added so much more depth. There wasn't the meaningless exploring of totally baren planets where you're suddenly, starkly aware of how alone you are playing the game, and how empty it can be. All of ME2's environments were rich, filled with surprises and interraction.
Even granted the increased resources and technology afforded to the team for ME2 I still found it to be proportionately better, in all the ways I could want a follow-up to a very succesful first instalment to be.
Sorry, but I strongly disagree with pretty much everything. ME2 constantly reminded me it was a game at every turn. The small, linear levels, the shoehorning of the Cerberus stuff, the complete lack of polish on N7 worlds, the endless pop-ups and loading screens, the over-the-top immature Modern Hollywood approach, the dumbing down and automation of the RPG elements, etc.
Almost everything you list there as a so-called positive I actually found to be worse (e.g. locations didn't feel immersive, they felt small and fake; at least the ME1 UNC worlds felt vast and empty like space should) and while ME2 gave you "everything you felt was missing from the first one and then some," to me ME2 took almost everything that was special about Mass Effect away and then some in favour of mainstreamlining, oversimplification and Hollywooding it up. About the only thing it actually improved on was basic gameplay, graphics and cinematics. ME2 wasn't an experience anymore, it was just a game, and would remind you of such at every turn, IMO.
+1
Jebel Krong wrote...
Terror_K wrote...
Sorry, but I strongly disagree with pretty much everything. ME2 constantly reminded me it was a game at every turn. The small, linear levels, the shoehorning of the Cerberus stuff, the complete lack of polish on N7 worlds, the endless pop-ups and loading screens, the over-the-top immature Modern Hollywood approach, the dumbing down and automation of the RPG elements, etc.
Almost everything you list there as a so-called positive I actually found to be worse (e.g. locations didn't feel immersive, they felt small and fake; at least the ME1 UNC worlds felt vast and empty like space should) and while ME2 gave you "everything you felt was missing from the first one and then some," to me ME2 took almost everything that was special about Mass Effect away and then some in favour of mainstreamlining, oversimplification and Hollywooding it up. About the only thing it actually improved on was basic gameplay, graphics and cinematics. ME2 wasn't an experience anymore, it was just a game, and would remind you of such at every turn, IMO.
the levels were samller but they were far more immersive in me2 - you are plain wrong to think anything else, sorry. and for reapers sake stop throwing your favourite terms: "dumbed down rpg" & "hollywoodism" about in every goddamn post because they are your (and a few others') opinions and not FACTS.
Modifié par Terror_K, 26 mars 2011 - 05:07 .
Many gamers simply prefer that there's less RPG stuff getting in the way and prefer the game as a more over-the-top, less mature more modern action flick style affair than as a more dignified, intelligent homage to great sci-fi from the 1980's.
AlanC9 wrote...
And many other gamers wouldn't characterize the changes that way, of course. Although you might get broad agreement on "Hollywood-ize" depending on what you mean by it. Being "cinematic" has always been part of the appeal of ME.
I'm also not sure about the "and" here:Many gamers simply prefer that there's less RPG stuff getting in the way and prefer the game as a more over-the-top, less mature more modern action flick style affair than as a more dignified, intelligent homage to great sci-fi from the 1980's.
There's no particular reason that these two tastes would be linked, is there?
Terror_K wrote...
Of course there is. When you're shifting the game more towards a younger, more mainstream audience. When you're going for the Black Ops and Gears of War crowd more than the Baldur's Gate and Deus Ex one. When you're going more for fans of Michael Bay's Transformers or G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra than you are fans of Blade Runner, Aliens or The Wrath of Khan. It's all linked: BioWare wants to branch out to a younger, hipper audience now. Have ever since EA took the reins. It's the same mentality that sent DA2 down the crapper recently.
habitat 67 wrote...
Who the hell were the 4 million people that played Red Dead Redemption then? Were they all old people? (just wondering)
I mean, the old west is especially... for old people, right?
Modifié par habitat 67, 26 mars 2011 - 08:12 .
habitat 67 wrote...
If I was a soulless corporate exec hellbent on profit before quality my drone mind would certainly focus in on that.
Great, now I'm depressed.
Modifié par piemanz, 26 mars 2011 - 08:20 .
The complainers about the complainers, who whine about the whiners, and are so quick to invoke the "vocal minority" argument, are just forgetting that they, the ones who actively praise ME2, are also that: a vocal minority, just the one on the other side of the spectrum.SpaceDesperado wrote...
This topic is funny.
ME2 was stripped down from most RPG elements to appeal to a "wider crowd" and it only barely recieved the same amount of sales as the 360 ME1. Despite the fact that the 360 sold around 25 million more copies between ME1 and ME2.
Dragon Age 2 sold much much less and will never outsell Dragon Age: Origins.
ME2 on the ps3, even with all those "extra content" barely managed to sell a quarter million. I wonder why? Maybe they thought even with all those bonuses, it still wasn't enough to justify to purchase a single-player only corridor shooter with interactive dialogue.
Hey, if most people on the ME forums say it's only a loud minority, it must be right?
Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 26 mars 2011 - 02:59 .
Modifié par MassEffect762, 26 mars 2011 - 03:17 .
Thank you, Phoenix.Fiery Phoenix wrote...
They're called complainers squared, Zulu.
Retour en haut