409 réponses à ce sujet

[Whatever42]

tonnactus, your arguments have snapped in so many places that you really aren't coherent anymore.

[xSTONEYx187x]

MerchantGOL wrote...

WeedyWeedy wrote...

seems like bioware goes into console and "casual players" direction makes me sad

ME was Devloped For the Consoles<_<


Jezzus with this crap

Think I should bump this. Mass Effect 1 was orignally an Xbox 360 exclusive, the 360 been a console. Thank you and good night. 

PC elitists, huh, hate the c.unts. lol

[oldag07]

Staying out of the current argument, and responding to the original thread:

The title of thread is

So, Bioware's finally changed markets...

I would argue that the market changed just as much as Bioware has. The game has to appeal to a wider fan base simply because games are far more expensive to make compared to those of the past.

Modifié par oldag07, 30 mars 2011 - 09:03 .

[gogman25]

OP is right in my opinion, ME2 seemed more like "LESS QQ, MORE PEWPEW!" for the console crowd. I damn well miss the days when I could actually choose... and not have copy-paste enviroments. The hell is going on at Bioware?

[greed89]

kyrieee wrote...

Personally I think BioWare should apologize for this DLC. Of course they won't, but if they cared about the community enough they would man up and admit that they screwed up.

LMAO!

[Tazzmission]

gogman25 wrote...

OP is right in my opinion, ME2 seemed more like "LESS QQ, MORE PEWPEW!" for the console crowd. I damn well miss the days when I could actually choose... and not have copy-paste enviroments. The hell is going on at Bioware?

op has yet to answer my question. how can he love lotsb when it had similar gun mechanic but complain on arrival? if anything the guys a hypocrite or hes just bored

Modifié par Tazzmission, 30 mars 2011 - 09:21 .

[Mister Mida]

xSTONEYx187x wrote...

PC elitists, huh, hate the [omitted]. lol

That's really mature, dude.

Modifié par Mister Mida, 30 mars 2011 - 09:26 .

[Malanek]

Arrival was a solo mission so it didn't have the same squad mechanics and interaction the main game has. It is just a $7 DLC though. You are not going to get an entire cast of actors in to do the voice overs. I hoped they could hook it up with the voice acting for ME3 and get some squad mate conversation. Not sure if this was logistically possible or just not considered. But I still liked Arrival for both story and gameplay. I'm sure I'll play it quite a bit, at least once with every class. Not quite as good as LotSB but better than Overlord.

[Tazzmission]

Malanek999 wrote...

Arrival was a solo mission so it didn't have the same squad mechanics and interaction the main game has. It is just a $7 DLC though. You are not going to get an entire cast of actors in to do the voice overs. I hoped they could hook it up with the voice acting for ME3 and get some squad mate conversation. Not sure if this was logistically possible or just not considered. But I still liked Arrival for both story and gameplay. I'm sure I'll play it quite a bit, at least once with every class. Not quite as good as LotSB but better than Overlord.

to me it was the same mechanic but you play it solo.

[Firewolf99]

Even as a console owner, I have to say, Arrival was far more shootery. It felt like a (really, really crap) Uncharted level. And there was no dialogue choice. the main "choice" seemed to be stealth or shoot in the prison break. Seriously, Bioware, if ou want to make a shooter, then start another franchise. and get some practice too.

At the same time, the opening statement did contain a tad too much vitriol for my tastes. But thats just personal opinion. And he does hit the nail on the head.

Funny thing is, i'm willing to bet Bioware won't look at this thread. Tis a shame,
Still, heard they let another studio do this one. so hopefully, ME3 will go back to the ME2 main game formula i know and love.

[Herr Sovereign]

AwesomeName wrote...

I fail to see how how Arrival had no RPG elements in it. ME is an RPG in the fact that you make choices that affect the story. And it's been marketed as an action-rpg shooter. There really isn't a better term for it. At the end of the day, who bloody cares what genre it belongs to? What matters is how good the game is for WHAT it is, not for how well it can conform to ONE man's definition. They don't make ME with the ultimate goal being to make it fall strictly within certain boundaries. No, they try to make the best story they can, tell it the best way they can, and make it as emotionally engaging as they can through the gameplay. It's foolish making a game and restricting yourself to genre definitions. Screw genre definitions. There's been plenty a book, movie, tv show, artwork, piece of graphic design that's been REALLY good precisely because it "broke the rules."

Absolutely agree with you. Nowadays, the term "genre" is becoming more redundant by the day. You encounter games that blend certain genres and tastes to deliver a unique experience. 

[Junthor]

I've never really felt disappointed with what Bioware has offered up with the franchise...until I played Arrival. Not only was it a waste of time but it actually took away some of the aspects I enjoyed about the game, lore, and the ME galaxy.

[spacehamsterZH]

gogman25 wrote...
I damn well miss the days when I could actually choose... and not have copy-paste enviroments.

You mean like the copy-paste environments in ME1? You know, the kind ME2 didn't have?

Yeah, thought so.

Yawn.

[Jaron Oberyn]

Tazzmission wrote...

Reptilian Rob wrote...

Are you people EVER happy with what is given to you? Or do you all just sit in a **** hole all day and complain?

im glad we see eye to eye on that. and polite has yet to asnwer what i asked him wich was, how could he love lotsb (wich btw had a heavy shooter element) but hate arrival? to me the gameplay resembled lotsb but he's the one saying me is dying because bioware is favoring the shooter fanbase. can we say hypocrite?

Please point out where I say that I loved LoTSB. You need to reread my original statement because you are way off buddy. Can we say illiterate? 

dreman9999 wrote...

Polite
I alway like your post. They're alway thought full and indepth. But I have to say I disagree with you.... It's a Prelude dlc. A start to ME3. A darker story that prelude to the death, sacrifice and betrial to come. Yes, it is shooter heavy but that the nature of the mission. Your forgeting that it's a story about the reaper trying to lure Sheperd into a trap with his/her own fear so they can have a vanguard just in time for the invasion. The got Sheperd to come alone in a vonrible state. Who was he/she going to talk to? And was their any choice? Even not doing the mission doomed everyone. To me it just felt like a normal mission with a start, fight , in between, fight, and end....Like ever mission in ME2. It's a bridge to ME3. It may end ME2 but it start ME3 on the ground running.

The few occurences of dialogue they had could have been interactive. When there was dialogue, it was automatic. There were very few instances were you could actually "choose" the one option in order to progress the convo. And at the end you were able to have the 3 choices when talking to Hacket. If they would have had as much effort put into the dialogue as they did the combat, it wouldn't have been as bad as it is. In it's current state, it's simply a shooter DLC in regards to the combat, and the predetermined decisions/dialogue which is typical for a shooter.

Uszi wrote...

A piece of $7.00 DLC is not indicative of what ME3 or the philosophy of the entire company.

No sir.

You get what you pay for, IMO.
And for $7.00 it was about what I expected.

Hm... Well I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure it was $7.21 to be exact. So for $7.21 it was really terrible. As for this being indicative about what ME3 is going to be like, back when LoTSB came out Bioware said this was an example of what they were planning on doing with the next game. Movie- styled cinematic sequences like in LoTSB. In case you hadn't noticed, LoTSB's dialogue/cinematics were mostly automatic. Just like this DLC. You barely got to choose what shepard said. If they plan on taking this approach to ME3, then yes Arrival is an example of whats to come.

Herr Sovereign wrote...
Mass Effect has always been a shooter, a tactical one at that. 

This has to be a joke. Tactical? It's a shooter yes, but hardly tactical. It's like 3rd person halo, all you do is run and gun. Even the AI in the DLC did this and they supposedly improved upon them. 

piemanz wrote...

Man this forum is so full of whiners it's rediculous....

Not whiners. Winners. I got tiger blood baby. 

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

Also, Polite, didn't you know that the DLC team and the Main series team are two different teams? How else do you think they could come up with something as high production quality as LotSB (no matter what you think about it it had that) while in the very middle of development for ME3?

These are two different teams with very different people at the helm. It would be like saying ME3 would be a failure because DA2 sucked (Oh wait, you did that huh?).

Different people, different designs, different result.

I hope you do realize that the same company that publishes DA publishes ME. They're called EA, you ever heard of them? DA2's failure was mostly their fault, and partly Bioware's fault. ME3 will be a repetition of DA2, with the same responsibility. Like it or not, after DA2's failure people are hesitant to buy ME3 without reading the reviews for it. I don't blame them. And this DLC doesn't exactly help Bioware in that situation. 

CptAwesomePhD wrote...

Also, when have the 'quests' or missions or whatever in Mass Effect not been about shooting things? ME2 improved upon ME1 simply by making the shooty parts more streamlined and fun to play, whereas in ME1 they were pretty clunky and really just something you slogged through to see the next cool cutscene or dialogue sequence. 

In Mass 2 the sidequests have very weak storylines. On top of the fact that most of them consist of the player resolving the issue with another person literally 2-3 ft. away. An example would be the slaver sidequest on Illium. ME1's sidequests had much better written stories, and weren't easily accomplished in a manner of seconds. 

blacqout wrote...

EA are a good thing. Take a look at the spine on your ME2 case. The EA logo is inside a circle with the Mass Effect swoosh. Now look at Dragon Age. It's inside a Blood Dragon. 

They change their logo on every game they publish to fit in with the artwork and general aesthetic feel, showing the utmost respect for the developers vision. 

People need to lay off EA.

Funny. I see that as selfish for them to incorporate their logo into every game.


-Polite

Modifié par PoliteAssasin, 30 mars 2011 - 11:03 .

[Winterfly]

To all of you xboxers.

Xbox or PS3 or whatever console will never ever have a game with the same mood and feeling that Baldurs Gate once bringed us. Period. Closest you get to one of those old classic old school RPG's would probably be on a Wii.

[Nekator]

Feared this already... DA2 and this show the path Bio is taking. At least i can spare my money, there are better shooters out there. And after ME3 will become an even bigger debacel than DA2 Bio will have to think hard if they want to continue this ruinous way.

[Jaron Oberyn]

AwesomeName wrote...

I fail to see how how Arrival had no RPG elements in it. ME is an RPG in the fact that you make choices that affect the story. And it's been marketed as an action-rpg shooter. There really isn't a better term for it. At the end of the day, who bloody cares what genre it belongs to? What matters is how good the game is for WHAT it is, not for how well it can conform to ONE man's definition. They don't make ME with the ultimate goal being to make it fall strictly within certain boundaries. No, they try to make the best story they can, tell it the best way they can, and make it as emotionally engaging as they can through the gameplay. It's foolish making a game and restricting yourself to genre definitions. Screw genre definitions. There's been plenty a book, movie, tv show, artwork, piece of graphic design that's been REALLY good precisely because it "broke the rules."

ME started out as an RPG. ME2 is a shooter, with little RPG elements in it. It's only inevitable given Bioware's current course with the game that ME3 will have less RPG features than ME2, which was minimal. The game is supposed to be the players unique and personal universe, according to Casey Hudson. Please explain to me how that can be the case if the player's character already has predetermined dialogue and choices? Look throughout ME2 and the entire LoTSB and Arrival DLC's and you'll know what I mean. If there are set choices, and automatic dialogue sequences, what's there to differentiate between two people who play Mass Effect? It won't be a unique personal experience at all. It will be the same exact experience for everyone, thus proving Mr. Hudson a liar. Unfortunately, that's where they're heading. It's been seen in DA2, it's been seen in ME2, what do you think will happen in ME3?

-Polite

[Tazzmission]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

AwesomeName wrote...

I fail to see how how Arrival had no RPG elements in it. ME is an RPG in the fact that you make choices that affect the story. And it's been marketed as an action-rpg shooter. There really isn't a better term for it. At the end of the day, who bloody cares what genre it belongs to? What matters is how good the game is for WHAT it is, not for how well it can conform to ONE man's definition. They don't make ME with the ultimate goal being to make it fall strictly within certain boundaries. No, they try to make the best story they can, tell it the best way they can, and make it as emotionally engaging as they can through the gameplay. It's foolish making a game and restricting yourself to genre definitions. Screw genre definitions. There's been plenty a book, movie, tv show, artwork, piece of graphic design that's been REALLY good precisely because it "broke the rules."

ME started out as an RPG. ME2 is a shooter, with little RPG elements in it. It's only inevitable given Bioware's current course with the game that ME3 will have less RPG features than ME2, which was minimal. The game is supposed to be the players unique and personal universe, according to Casey Hudson. Please explain to me how that can be the case if the player's character already has predetermined dialogue and choices? Look throughout ME2 and the entire LoTSB and Arrival DLC's and you'll know what I mean. If there are set choices, and automatic dialogue sequences, what's there to differentiate between two people who play Mass Effect? It won't be a unique personal experience at all. It will be the same exact experience for everyone, thus proving Mr. Hudson a liar. Unfortunately, that's where they're heading. It's been seen in DA2, it's been seen in ME2, what do you think will happen in ME3?

-Polite

me1 was also a shooter but focused more on the rpg elements.... me2 did  the revearse.... its still the same game but just revearsed.

[88mphSlayer]

xSTONEYx187x wrote...

MerchantGOL wrote...

WeedyWeedy wrote...

seems like bioware goes into console and "casual players" direction makes me sad

ME was Devloped For the Consoles<_<


Jezzus with this crap

Think I should bump this. Mass Effect 1 was orignally an Xbox 360 exclusive, the 360 been a console. Thank you and good night. 

PC elitists, huh, hate the c.unts. lol

yep, Mass Effect 1 was designed from the beginning for a console

[Jaron Oberyn]

Tazzmission wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

AwesomeName wrote...

I fail to see how how Arrival had no RPG elements in it. ME is an RPG in the fact that you make choices that affect the story. And it's been marketed as an action-rpg shooter. There really isn't a better term for it. At the end of the day, who bloody cares what genre it belongs to? What matters is how good the game is for WHAT it is, not for how well it can conform to ONE man's definition. They don't make ME with the ultimate goal being to make it fall strictly within certain boundaries. No, they try to make the best story they can, tell it the best way they can, and make it as emotionally engaging as they can through the gameplay. It's foolish making a game and restricting yourself to genre definitions. Screw genre definitions. There's been plenty a book, movie, tv show, artwork, piece of graphic design that's been REALLY good precisely because it "broke the rules."

ME started out as an RPG. ME2 is a shooter, with little RPG elements in it. It's only inevitable given Bioware's current course with the game that ME3 will have less RPG features than ME2, which was minimal. The game is supposed to be the players unique and personal universe, according to Casey Hudson. Please explain to me how that can be the case if the player's character already has predetermined dialogue and choices? Look throughout ME2 and the entire LoTSB and Arrival DLC's and you'll know what I mean. If there are set choices, and automatic dialogue sequences, what's there to differentiate between two people who play Mass Effect? It won't be a unique personal experience at all. It will be the same exact experience for everyone, thus proving Mr. Hudson a liar. Unfortunately, that's where they're heading. It's been seen in DA2, it's been seen in ME2, what do you think will happen in ME3?

-Polite

me1 was also a shooter but focused more on the rpg elements.... me2 did  the revearse.... its still the same game but just revearsed.

I agree. But it's not the same game. ME1 had more choices. More interactivity. ME2 is too linear, and very few choices. The same goes for the LoTSB and Arrival DLC's. Bioware could have improved upon the combat while keeping the RPG elements of ME1. Instead, they watered down the RPG elements, and improved upon the combat. They chose the shooter crowd over the RPG crowd. 

-Polite

[Naltair]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

I agree. But it's not the same game. ME1 had more choices. More interactivity. ME2 is too linear, and very few choices. The same goes for the LoTSB and Arrival DLC's. Bioware could have improved upon the combat while keeping the RPG elements of ME1. Instead, they watered down the RPG elements, and improved upon the combat. They chose the shooter crowd over the RPG crowd. 

-Polite

I think you just have rose colored glasses here on the choice issue.  As for combat, Mass effect 2 provides a superior and more coherent action expereince period.  No more confusing combo of skill points plus targeting, just abilities that enhance or change how you engage combat not how well you do in combat.

Anyway I find the direction that Mass Effect is going as fine, actually I love it.  mainly because it defies genre conventions.  Convergence of play mechanics is the future of gaming as more and more games will borrow aspects from other kinds of "genres" to create interesting and fun experiences.

Kudos Bioware and keep up the good work, Arrival gave me chills and has me hyped for Mass Effect 3.

[Jaron Oberyn]

Naltair wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

I agree. But it's not the same game. ME1 had more choices. More interactivity. ME2 is too linear, and very few choices. The same goes for the LoTSB and Arrival DLC's. Bioware could have improved upon the combat while keeping the RPG elements of ME1. Instead, they watered down the RPG elements, and improved upon the combat. They chose the shooter crowd over the RPG crowd. 

-Polite

I think you just have rose colored glasses here on the choice issue.  As for combat, Mass effect 2 provides a superior and more coherent action expereince period.  No more confusing combo of skill points plus targeting, just abilities that enhance or change how you engage combat not how well you do in combat.

Anyway I find the direction that Mass Effect is going as fine, actually I love it.  mainly because it defies genre conventions.  Convergence of play mechanics is the future of gaming as more and more games will borrow aspects from other kinds of "genres" to create interesting and fun experiences.

Kudos Bioware and keep up the good work, Arrival gave me chills and has me hyped for Mass Effect 3.

You honestly believe that ME1's skill tree was confusing? It had descriptions for each ability right in the game. ME2's skill progression system is useless since you only have about 4-5 skills and have to invest in only those, with the exception of some leftovers for certain classes. Then you choose an upgraded form of the skill. In ME1 it was more detailed, and you had specializations. ME2 isn't a convergence of genres, it's a transition from Shooter/RPG to complete Shooter. 

-Polite

[Il Divo]

tonnactus wrote...

Right.Never doing any research(something strange like was tried in overlord) and at least considering this as an option to stop the collectors from coming into the galaxy.
This sounds like the cerberus that brought shepardt back to live....

How is this not doing any research? Because Shepard, a soldier, didn't reach the conclusion "HEY LET's DROP AN ASTEROID ON THE RELAY!". I'm sorry that most people in the Mass Effect universe thought the idea was impossible, until Arrival. That's how innovation works; someone thinks of an option which others haven't considered.

It was an obvious trap.Tim told Shepard immediatly after he escaped from the collector ship about the reaper vessel.
It was dumb to risk everything for intel then where was a better alternative.

So, wait a minute, it's dumb that Shepard and Illusive Man investigated the ship of the enemy they're actually fighting, rather than one that's been long dead? As What said, you've lost all coherency...

They didn't even know they needed an IFF until they hit the Collector Ship. What possible purpose does searching a dead Reaper serve to fight a present foe?

They wanted to stop them attacking human colonies.That was the story of the game.Initially the plan was to destroy the collector base and not to "learn" anything about it.That was just an opportunity that showed up right before shepardt seemed to destroy the human reaper.

Wrong. The story of the Mass Effect trilogy is to stop the Reapers. Which requires learning about the Reapers. If you do not learn about your enemy, then you cannot fight your enemy. I recommend you learn this lesson. Illusive says as much when you speak to him. He wants to know why the Collectors are taking humans.

Modifié par Il Divo, 31 mars 2011 - 12:56 .

[Il Divo]

PoliteAssasin wrote...


In Mass 2 the sidequests have very weak storylines. On top of the fact that most of them consist of the player resolving the issue with another person literally 2-3 ft. away. An example would be the slaver sidequest on Illium. ME1's sidequests had much better written stories, and weren't easily accomplished in a manner of seconds. 

-Polite

'Much better written' is pretty laughable since Mass Effect 1 was the game that began the downward spiral of Bioware side quests (Ex: Cerberus). The side quests also weren't long, unless you had trouble locating the planet and reaching a generic room filled with enemies. I spent more time in transit than I did completing any quest line. This is problematic when Bioware chose not to integrate side quests into main quest areas.

[Il Divo]

Winterfly wrote...

To all of you xboxers.

Xbox or PS3 or whatever console will never ever have a game with the same mood and feeling that Baldurs Gate once bringed us. Period. Closest you get to one of those old classic old school RPG's would probably be on a Wii.

Dragon Age: Origins was released on the 360/PS3, not the Wii.