616 réponses à ce sujet

[GreenSoda]

I don't get what some ppl here are so hung up about. ME3 could be Baldurs Gate in space and the EA suit would have said the exact same thing at a shareholder meeting. It simply has no bearing on the actual game.

[Galad22]

Phaedon wrote...
No. But I am observing the hypocrisy.
As I said, the article has good news. He talks about balancing the shooter and RPG elements, and right after that, about appealing to a greater fan base. Which means, therefore, that they expect both new shooter and RPG fans.

Best of both worlds is not possible. If it is too much of a shooter, at least some rpg fans won't most likely like it. I certainly won't.

If there is too much rpg things in it, shooter fans won't most likely bother with it. Why would they there is pure shooters out there more than enough.

[Phaedon]

didymos1120 wrote...

spychi wrote...

They said that they want to improve the shooter factor and THE RPG FACTOR... wtf you guys are complaining about?!

The fact that Riccitello said "larger market opportunity" while talking to a bunch of investors, apparently.

I see the point you are trying to make, but why does everyone think that the market is only shooter but not RPG fans?

He talked about

HE RPG FACTOR

BSN gonna BSN

[Phaedon]

Galad22 wrote...

Phaedon wrote...
No. But I am observing the hypocrisy.
As I said, the article has good news. He talks about balancing the shooter and RPG elements, and right after that, about appealing to a greater fan base. Which means, therefore, that they expect both new shooter and RPG fans.

Best of both worlds is not possible. If it is too much of a shooter, at least some rpg fans won't most likely like it. I certainly won't.

If there is too much rpg things in it, shooter fans won't most likely bother with it. Why would they there is pure shooters out there more than enough.

It's not really hard actually.
Remove all RPG influence from shooting, like ME2 did, but add new skills in elements that the player can't directly control, such as running, biotic powers, etc.

[didymos1120]

Phaedon wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

spychi wrote...

They said that they want to improve the shooter factor and THE RPG FACTOR... wtf you guys are complaining about?!

The fact that Riccitello said "larger market opportunity" while talking to a bunch of investors, apparently.

I see the point you are trying to make, but why does everyone think that the market is only shooter but not RPG fans?

He talked about

HE RPG FACTOR

BSN gonna BSN

I don't think that.  My point was that the phrase "larger market opportunity" in the context of an earnings conference call is about as meaningful as "um". It's practically a spinal reflex.  It's kinda like Ray Muzyka saying "emotionally engaging". It sounds like it means something, but who knows what the hell that actually is in terms of specifics.

Modifié par didymos1120, 05 mai 2011 - 07:07 .

[CroGamer002]

Galad22 wrote...

ianmcdonald wrote...
Everyone is focused on assuming the worst. I think you hit the nail on the head.

Perfectly reasonable opinion after DA2.

I know I said DA2 is superior to DA:O few pages ago but DA2 was rushed and there was never meant to be a sequel.

Mass Effect 3 in the other hand was planned when ME1 was started to be developed. Also EA is DELAYING ME3!
Proof that they are taking their time for ME3, even if it's do to big competition for GOTY reward.

[Phaedon]

didymos1120 wrote...
I don't think that.  My point was that the phrase "larger market opportunity" in the context of an earnings conference call is about as meaningful as "um". It's practically a spinal reflex.  

Yep, I understood your point.
It's just that I don't see why everyone, even if they take his words seriously, don't see it the way I am referring to.

[Ixalmaris]

"We don't want to have any meaningless behind-the-scenes stat games, where the output is very minor in combat. Every single thing you do has a real impact in the battle."

http://www.oxm.co.uk...-mass-effect-3/

R.I.P ME3 (At least the RPG part of it)

Modifié par Ixalmaris, 05 mai 2011 - 07:11 .

[RolandX9]

didymos1120 wrote...

spychi wrote...

They said that they want to improve the shooter factor and THE RPG FACTOR... wtf you guys are complaining about?!

The fact that Riccitello said "larger market opportunity" while talking to a bunch of investors, apparently.

And that RPGs don't usually sell in Call of Duty numbers. And that EA has already screwed up at least one Bioware game. And that "genre equivalent to shooter-meets-RPG" does not equal "improve the shooter factor and THE RPG FACTOR."

I'm not panicking, but I am worried. Corporate-speak is often bad news for artistic endeavors. For all we know, some suit saw the reactions to the GI stuff and wasn't happy. OTOH, this could just be happy talk to calm nervous shareholders who see the supposedly all-important holiday window go bye-bye (because, you know, that hurt ME2 so much). As for me, I'm going to wait until E3 to make any substantive judgements.

[RailTracer]

It would seem Bioware has become the Square Enix of the west and Mass Effect 3 will be its equivalent of Mindjack

[didymos1120]

Phaedon wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...
I don't think that.  My point was that the phrase "larger market opportunity" in the context of an earnings conference call is about as meaningful as "um". It's practically a spinal reflex.  

Yep, I understood your point.
It's just that I don't see why everyone, even if they take his words seriously, don't see it the way I am referring to.

Confirmation bias. A big sentiment around here is that whole "It's dumbed down for the COD Crowd. Too much shooter. Not an RPG at all" thing.  People see the word "shooter", and interpret based on that.  The "RPG" part is "obviously" just smoke and mirrors or whatever.  They know what he's really saying.

[CroGamer002]

Galad22 wrote...

Phaedon wrote...
No. But I am observing the hypocrisy.
As I said, the article has good news. He talks about balancing the shooter and RPG elements, and right after that, about appealing to a greater fan base. Which means, therefore, that they expect both new shooter and RPG fans.

Best of both worlds is not possible. If it is too much of a shooter, at least some rpg fans won't most likely like it. I certainly won't.

If there is too much rpg things in it, shooter fans won't most likely bother with it. Why would they there is pure shooters out there more than enough.

Fallout 3 and New Vegas.

Very popular among shooter fans.

[Phaedon]

RolandX9 wrote...
that RPGs don't usually sell in Call of Duty numbers. And that EA has already screwed up at least one Bioware game. And that "genre equivalent to shooter-meets-RPG" does not equal "improve the shooter factor and THE RPG FACTOR."

Yes, yes it does.
It's about balancing the two genres in a hybrid, considering that the previous 2 games were fairly unbalanced.

[didymos1120]

Ixalmaris wrote...

"We don't want to have any meaningless behind-the-scenes stat games, where the output is very minor in combat. Every single thing you do has a real impact in the battle."

http://www.oxm.co.uk...-mass-effect-3/

R.I.P ME3 (At least the RPG part of it)

Case in point.

[WizenSlinky0]

Phaedon wrote...

Yep, I understood your point.
It's just that I don't see why everyone, even if they take his words seriously, don't see it the way I am referring to.

Because the age of the RPG has been more or less over for awhile. There's still a few companies, Bioware included, that had been putting out good solid RPG's but that number has been getting smaller.

"Broader market oppurtunity" is taken badly because the primary market right now wants shooters. The market is being filled with them, one after another, because they sell. So if they are attempting to break into a larger market it makes more sense for them to target shooter fans than it does RPG fans. Signs point to shooter fans being numerically superior.

That's just how people are taking it. I'm a bit unnerved by it myself. But I really don't care what the PR campaign says. I'll just wait for them to show me what they're doing and reserve my judgement till then.

[Phaedon]

WizenSlinky0 wrote...
Because the age of the RPG has been more or less over for awhile. There's still a few companies, Bioware included, that had been putting out good solid RPG's but that number has been getting smaller.

"Broader market oppurtunity" is taken badly because the primary market right now wants shooters. The market is being filled with them, one after another, because they sell. So if they are attempting to break into a larger market it makes more sense for them to target shooter fans than it does RPG fans. Signs point to shooter fans being numerically superior.

That's just how people are taking it. I'm a bit unnerved by it myself. But I really don't care what the PR campaign says. I'll just wait for them to show me what they're doing and reserve my judgement till then.

I can't think of a genre more succesful than RPGs, besides shooters of course.
Sport games? Maybe. 

[Galad22]

Mesina2 wrote...

Fallout 3 and New Vegas.

Very popular among shooter fans.

Alright then. I stand corrected.

[Da Mecca]

didymos1120 wrote...

Ixalmaris wrote...

"We don't want to have any meaningless behind-the-scenes stat games, where the output is very minor in combat. Every single thing you do has a real impact in the battle."

http://www.oxm.co.uk...-mass-effect-3/

R.I.P ME3 (At least the RPG part of it)

Case in point.

Well the thing I don't like about current ME is the stats you upgrade are for combat and nothing more.

Granted this is a shooter first and a RPG second, so I guess that just comes with the territory.

[ExtremeOne]

Bostur wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...

well game communites need to start understanding that this is a business and in business . A company does what it takes to make the most money possible .  Of course the 2 clash but at the end of the day EA's share holders and investors have power .   I was not arguing over people being worried on here . I was simply brining a business point of view to this discussion .  

I understand that. I was just trying to explain that the business point of view is irrelevant for the customers. _If_ ME3 turns out a polished turd - and I know thats a big if - then the business point of view really does nothing for us.

Of course in the long term the business side and the consumers have similar interests, but it's so long term that individual titles can still suffer from the different point of view from the two sides.

  


I understand how you feel .  I am hoping Mass Effect 3 will be a great game as well .  

[MajFauxPas]

Da Mecca wrote...

Well if it was at an investor conference no wonder they said that.

That's what investors want to hear.

If that is indeed what investors want to hear, and I'm not arguing against you but against investors and their lack of knowledge, then they do not know the value of the brand name or the value of the franchise. I suspect they would forsake all their quality brands and franchises in hopes of "larger target market", which would lower their product quality, effectively killing the real value of the product and the company, and ultimately their stock. Stupid, stupid investors. Why fix what isn't broken? [ME1]

Investors are like sheep? They want money, not good games? Apparently that's what EA thinks. Investors should not even be addressed by developers as to the state of their games, but the state of their finances. The fact that investors are being addressed by the CEO of EA on the future state of already profitable established brands means that EA is currently more afraid of going out of business and losing their jobs than they are of making a terrible game that ruins their company image....

I've lost interest in ME3 as a result. So now EA has alienated their consumer base as a result of making promises to investors. That means they don't want us to buy their games, they want investors to buy their stock. This is not going to end well for EA.

[ExtremeOne]

Da Mecca wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Ixalmaris wrote...

"We don't want to have any meaningless behind-the-scenes stat games, where the output is very minor in combat. Every single thing you do has a real impact in the battle."

http://www.oxm.co.uk...-mass-effect-3/

R.I.P ME3 (At least the RPG part of it)

Case in point.

Well the thing I don't like about current ME is the stats you upgrade are for combat and nothing more.

Granted this is a shooter first and a RPG second, so I guess that just comes with the territory.

   



In a real rpg like Final Fantasy or Fallout you can become all powerful by reaching a real high level cap . Mass Effect 2 and even Mass Effect 1 had stupid level caps of such a low number . Why even bother with the rpg part if My Shepard can not become all powerful at say level 80 or 90 

[Therefore_I_Am]

Ixalmaris wrote...

"We don't want to have any meaningless behind-the-scenes stat games, where the output is very minor in combat. Every single thing you do has a real impact in the battle."

http://www.oxm.co.uk...-mass-effect-3/

R.I.P ME3 (At least the RPG part of it)

Hmmm.

Modifié par Therefore_I_Am, 05 mai 2011 - 07:32 .

[Waage25]

Da Mecca wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Ixalmaris wrote...

"We don't want to have any meaningless behind-the-scenes stat games, where the output is very minor in combat. Every single thing you do has a real impact in the battle."

http://www.oxm.co.uk...-mass-effect-3/

R.I.P ME3 (At least the RPG part of it)

Case in point.

Well the thing I don't like about current ME is the stats you upgrade are for combat and nothing more.

Granted this is a shooter first and a RPG second, so I guess that just comes with the territory.

Yeah and now they want even less "Skills in there RPG game." After all it worked for DA2 so why not for ME3.

[Darth Death]

Skyweir wrote...

Darth Death wrote...

hero3440 wrote...

You know that EA also said that most or of it games now were gonna have multiplayer in it, but as game informer confirmed there is no multiplayer in mass effect 3. Also stop using DA2 an excuse as why mass effect 3 is gonna be suck because the dragon age are an entire different team from mass effect.

That's exactly what I said a few mins ago. Worry is getting us nowhere.

There is two ways to predict how Mass Effect 3 will come out:

One is based on information obtained from recent publications of Bioware, drawing a line from ME1, to ME2 and DA2, then extrapolating based on known facts and making an estimate of how the game will play based on these trends.

The other is based on asbolute faith in people that we have never met, speaking mostly in smilies , contradictions and vauge sounding promises. People that are known to have been painting an inacurate picture of products at earlier times.
....
One of these approaches is rational, the other is not.

Worry will get you lots of places, it makes you prepared and allows you to avoid further problems by anticipating them in advance. Especially if voiced early enough in the process to perhaps have an effect.

Blind faith, on the other hand....

Worry is pointless since the end result will be the same regardless what has been said here. You can sit here and be anxious all you want, but until BioWare shows some sort of gameplay footage, you're either going to like or dislike it. Its unproductive to stress about it. As for myself, I love ME2's gameplay so I've no uncertainties what's in-store for ME3. I trust BioWare to make the right decision for everyone, and not just a sector of people.   

[ExtremeOne]

MajFauxPas wrote...

Da Mecca wrote...

Well if it was at an investor conference no wonder they said that.

That's what investors want to hear.

If that is indeed what investors want to hear, and I'm not arguing against you but against investors and their lack of knowledge, then they do not know the value of the brand name or the value of the franchise. I suspect they would forsake all their quality brands and franchises in hopes of "larger target market", which would lower their product quality, effectively killing the real value of the product and the company, and ultimately their stock. Stupid, stupid investors. Why fix what isn't broken? [ME1]

Investors are like sheep? They want money, not good games? Apparently that's what EA thinks. Investors should not even be addressed by developers as to the state of their games, but the state of their finances. The fact that investors are being addressed by the CEO of EA on the future state of already profitable established brands means that EA is currently more afraid of going out of business and losing their jobs than they are of making a terrible game that ruins their company image....

I've lost interest in ME3 as a result. So now EA has alienated their consumer base as a result of making promises to investors. That means they don't want us to buy their games, they want investors to buy their stock. This is not going to end well for EA.

    


You need to understand that the share holders and investors of EA are the real power at EA . If they want something done they will get it . a publicly traded company has a job to make as much money as possible for its share holders and investors .  I can understand how you feel but if I was a EA share holder I would want them to make as much money as Blizzard did on the Call of Duty games