616 réponses à ce sujet

[Nohvarr]

Franzius wrote...

candidate88766 wrote...

Franzius wrote...

a Company that is dead almost 3 years ago...

ME2's critical acclaim and commercial success would like a quick word with you.

I do not mind hype and critical acclaim and awards... I only mind my judgment.
I was over hyped for ME2. Belive me, I have loved ME1 so much that the wait for ME2 was similar to the wait for the prequel trilogy.
But when I start playing... second after second , I remember perfectly, the disappointment starts to grow in me...
Initially I have tried to deny it... But then it was more then clear... ME2 has quite nothing in common with ME1.
Again I consider ME2 just a mere action spin-off more than a proper second act in an already planned trilogy.

Reagarding the dead company... I am referring to Bioware artistical death, their death as masterful developers.

ME2's critical acclaim and commercial success would like a quick word with you.

How many 'People's choice' awards did it win...you know where fans voted it the best.

I understand ME 2 may not have been you're cup of tea but that dosen't mean the company is artistically dead. Heck the few images I've seen of ME 3 put the lie to that statement.

[LTKerr]

TheOtherTheoG wrote...

LTKerr wrote...

spychi wrote...

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

I don't want the shooter factor improved, that's why. I don't really care if they put new weapon mods or whatever people wanna see in a RPG; I just CAN'T play a game which gameplay reminds me a frenzied shooter (CoD) or an action one with no time to think (DA2). There's a few games I really love but I can't play for that reason: Kingdom Hearts, Heavy Rain (QTE just makes me sick), Devil May Cry, etc.

ME2 was too much shooter for me. Yeah, I've played it (even on insane) and it was OK but I don't think I can play anything more shooter than that. More RPG for ME3? Thanks, it'll be great. But please... no more shooter : (

So you actually find it physically impossible to play any games that are not hardcore RPG's? Right...

It's called open-mindedness. More people need it.

What? No, that's not what I meant.

I love RPG and I love strategy or graphic adventures as well. Hell, I even love Portal, Metal Gear series or Half-Life series (shooters, right?). As Walker White said, I want some pause, time to think my next step. I don't want to break my mouse or my keyboard while trying to stay alive, I don't want to play any CoD or Halo where enemies rush you anytime/anywhere. That makes me nervous.
Mass Effect isn't perfect but it's slow enough (ok, maybe too much XD). Fallout 3 has VATS. Half-Life Freeman has legs and a nice crowbar Metal Gear Snake has legs and can hide from his enemies. What about Mass Effect 2? Its speed is dangerously near any typical shooter such as CoD or Halo or Bioshock. I played them all and I didn't like their speed. Now I read that Mass Effect 3 is going to be faster than Mass Effect 2. What do you want me to think? That's a bad move for me. I understand that's a good move for other players, sure, but not for me.

Modifié par LTKerr, 06 mai 2011 - 04:36 .

[Ixalmaris]

Ajosraa wrote...


@truffle Christina Norman

I've been asked if we increased our dev time for ME3 to dumb it down, if we were dumbing it down wouldn't we need less time?

No.
When they deviate from the plan, either by adding or removing elements, they have to reballance the game and maybe even have to redo some levels and encounters.

"Needing more time" does not mean that they are adding stuff.

[Travie]

I really wish they could stuff together ME1's customization and RPG elements with ME2's combat gameplay.

;_;

[TheOtherTheoG]

LTKerr wrote...

TheOtherTheoG wrote...

LTKerr wrote...

spychi wrote...

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

I don't want the shooter factor improved, that's why. I don't really care if they put new weapon mods or whatever people wanna see in a RPG; I just CAN'T play a game which gameplay reminds me a frenzied shooter (CoD) or an action one with no time to think (DA2). There's a few games I really love but I can't play for that reason: Kingdom Hearts, Heavy Rain (QTE just makes me sick), Devil May Cry, etc.

ME2 was too much shooter for me. Yeah, I've played it (even on insane) and it was OK but I don't think I can play anything more shooter than that. More RPG for ME3? Thanks, it'll be great. But please... no more shooter : (

So you actually find it physically impossible to play any games that are not hardcore RPG's? Right...

It's called open-mindedness. More people need it.

What? No, that's not what I meant.

I love RPG and I love strategy or graphic adventures as well. Hell, I even love Portal, Metal Gear series or Half-Life series (shooters, right?). As Walker White said, I want some pause, time to think my next step. I don't want to break my mouse or my keyboard while trying to stay alive, I don't want to play any CoD or Halo where enemies rush you anytime/anywhere. That makes me nervous.
Mass Effect isn't perfect but it's slow enough (ok, maybe too much XD). Fallout 3 has VATS. Half-Life Freeman has legs and a nice crowbar Metal Gear Snake has legs and can hide from his enemies. What about Mass Effect 2? Its speed is dangerously near any typical shooter such as CoD or Halo or Bioshock. I played them all and I didn't like their speed. Now I read that Mass Effect 3 is going to be faster than Mass Effect 2. What do you want me to think? That's a bad move for me. I understand that's a good move for other players, sure, but not for me.

'Fast paced' does not necessarily equal 'More shooter-y'. The thing with the Mass Effect games, which was present in both 1 and 2, is that you could dramatically change how you play the game depending on what class you are, your play style. Sure, for those that want to biotic charge around the place and then run like ****, the game will be more fast paced, but at the same time if you want to play with a slow, tactical approach, sniping enemies from the other side of the map, you're able to do that as well, and I don't see how that would change for ME3. It's not like every single enemy has turned into a mindless husk and they just charge at you until you shoot them, like CoD, Gears, Bioshock, enemies actually act like, well, actual enemies.

[Halo Quea]

ExtremeOne wrote...

GuitarShredUK wrote...

IMO people need to stop overreacting about this, and need to see that John Riccitello (CEO of EA) was talking to a group of investors when he made the comment about a "larger market opportunity" for ME3. Now, these investors may also be gamers, as they're putting money into EA but that's beside the point.

I think the main thing that people need to understand is that "larger market opportunty" to investors/finance people means a greater opportunity for increased sales, greater returns on investments = more profit. As opposed to "larger market" = "broader audience of gamers".

   



That is exactly what it means the more money the happier the share holders and investors are 

If THAT'S the case, then how has Riccitiello managed to keep his job?  EA's stock has fallen nearly 70% percent since he took over as CEO in 2007.   He still commands an enormous salary and the company he runs is worth alot less today then it was when he took the reigns. 

If anything, investors should be very weary of anything Riccitiello has to say.

[Phaedon]

Ixalmaris wrote...

Ajosraa wrote...


@truffle Christina Norman

I've been asked if we increased our dev time for ME3 to dumb it down, if we were dumbing it down wouldn't we need less time?

No.
When they deviate from the plan, either by adding or removing elements, they have to reballance the game and maybe even have to redo some levels and encounters.

"Needing more time" does not mean that they are adding stuff.

I am convinced that you are one of the constant pessimists types. You are actually enjoying this.

The lead designer says the opposite than what you think, (and she actually makes sense) and you say that she is wrong. Oh well.

[Da Mecca]

This is hilarious.

[KainrycKarr]

I'm very pessimistic about these recent developments, yet very hopeful.

Conundrum, forums?

[Phaedon]

Da Mecca wrote...

This is hilarious.

And/or sad.

[Machazareel]

So much derp in this thread. How people are able to infer such calamity from a line that some CEO tossed to some investors despite the contradicting statements of someone who is actually making this game is beyond me.
People posted countless posts expressing that they'd prefer the game got more developement time, and when it does, the sky is falling.

I retain complete faith in ME3. Christina Norman and Casey Hudson are awesome.

[Ostagar2011]

didymos1120 wrote...

tishyw wrote...

Given the debacle that was DA2 and it's attempts to "capture a larger market", comments like this are a bit of a cause for concern. All we can do is hope that this was nothing more than EA Exec speak, and that they're not going to bollocks up ME3 as well.

Here's the difference:  w/ ME3 we have a CEO in an investor conference call talking about "larger market opportunity".  This is expected CEO behavior.  It comes as naturally to them as breathing, and probably involves about as much thought.  With DA2 you got statements about appealing to wider audiences and whatnot from the Lead Designer, and in multiple interviews.  You also got similar statements from other devs (e.g. Fernando Melo) about DA2. 

Do you expect Christine will come out any time soon and deny that her team wants a wider audience? Give it a few weeks and she'll be making Laidlaw-esque remarks paying the usual BioWare homage to Call of Duty and its fans. If she denies this audience is an objective, she's either a) missing an opportunity to get more revenue preparing to become martyr for the fans c) lying because she's afraid of DA2 style backlash d) insane.

The real question then is what - if anything - her team will actually do (have done) to attain this objective. I think it's reasonable to take for granted that it is an objective, and that things have been done in that direction. Just speculation (or "panic", if that sounds nicer), but they are owned by EA, have shown their true colors with DA2, and besides, what company doesn't always strive for more?

It's surely a matter time before we start hearing the same "we want CoD audience" interviews. With DA2, the devs never strictly speaking lied about how much they'd gutted DA:O in the name of the "wider audience". It was always twisting semantics, hiding behind "can't reveal that yet" tease-statements, using vague terms open to wide interpretation, omissions etc. But DA2 ended up being seen as a bait & switch.

Everyone agrees - RPG mechanics are not cool. If you want the CoD people, you have to ditch the 'clunky' RPG stuff. And the boring dialog/text stuff. The trouble is, I thought that ME2 was a good sweet spot between  RPG conventions and Shooter fun. So anything that goes towards the wider audience objective will usually involve taking an ML-77 to the RPG and dialog parts. Based on DA2, I no longer trust BioWare to tell me the extent to which this is (has) happened. To put the discussion to bed, a preview needs to go to a review site that is not just an extension of EA's marketing department...

[didymos1120]

Ostagar2011 wrote...
*snip speculative doomsday scenario*

Well, if all that happens, you can look back with your 20/20 hindsight and say "By god, I was right!"  Until then, you've got nothing much to go on.  Myself, I prefer not to spin RPG doomsday fables based on a single instance of stereotypically corporate language. 

Also, BTW, Christina Norman ain't the lead designer.  That'd be Preston Watamaniuk.  But he tends not to do a lot of press stuff, so the one to watch like a hawk for further signs of impending DOOM would be Casey Hudson.  Have fun!

[ExtremeOne]

Halo Quea wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...

GuitarShredUK wrote...

IMO people need to stop overreacting about this, and need to see that John Riccitello (CEO of EA) was talking to a group of investors when he made the comment about a "larger market opportunity" for ME3. Now, these investors may also be gamers, as they're putting money into EA but that's beside the point.

I think the main thing that people need to understand is that "larger market opportunty" to investors/finance people means a greater opportunity for increased sales, greater returns on investments = more profit. As opposed to "larger market" = "broader audience of gamers".

   



That is exactly what it means the more money the happier the share holders and investors are 

If THAT'S the case, then how has Riccitiello managed to keep his job?  EA's stock has fallen nearly 70% percent since he took over as CEO in 2007.   He still commands an enormous salary and the company he runs is worth alot less today then it was when he took the reigns. 

If anything, investors should be very weary of anything Riccitiello has to say.

   



He was also the man who once was part of the group that owned Bioware and Pandemic before he rejoined EA so he was key in EA buying Bioware / Pandemic . Plus he has turned EA around from that last few bad quaters .  Those share holders and investors seem to have no issue with him.  

[bald man in a boat]

*shakes head and walks away*

[henno13]

Great, I've come to expect nothing less from EA. It loos like they are gaining ground on Activision for the title of best money-grabbing publisher.

What hope I had for ME3 is slowly getting destroyed. When the phrase 'larger market opportunity' is used, it can only mean bad things for the game.

Modifié par henno13, 06 mai 2011 - 08:08 .

[Skyweir]

didymos1120 wrote...

Ostagar2011 wrote...
*snip speculative doomsday scenario*

Well, if all that happens, you can look back with your 20/20 hindsight and say "By god, I was right!"  Until then, you've got nothing much to go on.  Myself, I prefer not to spin RPG doomsday fables based on a single instance of stereotypically corporate language. 

Also, BTW, Christina Norman ain't the lead designer.  That'd be Preston Watamaniuk.  But he tends not to do a lot of press stuff, so the one to watch like a hawk for further signs of impending DOOM would be Casey Hudson.  Have fun!

I am curious. What do you base your opinion on Mass Effect 3 on, if not the publicly released statements of the publishers and developers?

Perhaps some kind of divine vision? Because I base mine on statements by publishers and the trend of ME1->ME2->DA2->ME3. And it is looking pretty dire.

[Ostagar2011]

didymos1120 wrote...

Ostagar2011 wrote...
*snip speculative doomsday scenario*

Well, if all that happens, you can look back with your 20/20 hindsight and say "By god, I was right!"  Until then, you've got nothing much to go on.  Myself, I prefer not to spin RPG doomsday fables based on a single instance of stereotypically corporate language. 

Also, BTW, Christina Norman ain't the lead designer.  That'd be Preston Watamaniuk.  But he tends not to do a lot of press stuff, so the one to watch like a hawk for further signs of impending DOOM would be Casey Hudson.  Have fun!

Gosh! Why "doomsday"? Some people don't like RPG elements and will be glad to see them gone. It's a matter of personal preference. I happen to enjoy RPG elements, so any (speculative) dilution of them to widen appeal is a bit negative for me, but for most others I know, it's a big positive.

The trouble with the '20/20 hindsight remark', is that I've just been there, done that and got the T-shirt with DA2 ... and found it depressing, rather than triumphalist. You may find this hard to grasp, but I want to be wrong, and get a good game.

As for not having much to go on - none of us have much to go on, so let's just close the forums until early 2012? Are you like this when people first comment on early screenshots too?

Did I say Christine was the lead designer or project director? I used the term "her team" because BioWare work as disparate departments, whose leads decide things (somewhat) by consensus - so I wouldn't be as brave as you and designate a single person that calls all the shots. From what Knowles says, BioWare's a little different from the corporate hierarchies I'm used to.

[didymos1120]

Skyweir wrote...

I am curious. What do you base your opinion on Mass Effect 3 on, if not the publicly released statements of the publishers and developers?

At the moment?  Not much, because there's, well, not much to go on.  In fact, I don't really have an opinion of ME3 yet.  How could I, when we have only tidbits and a smattering of screenshots?

[Skyweir]

didymos1120 wrote...

Skyweir wrote...

I am curious. What do you base your opinion on Mass Effect 3 on, if not the publicly released statements of the publishers and developers?

At the moment?  Not much, because there's, well, not much to go on.  In fact, I don't really have an opinion of ME3 yet.  How could I, when we have only tidbits and a smattering of screenshots?

Well, you are clearly positively inclined, based on your posts here. Why? If you have no opinion on the game, one way or another, why would you bother to defend or critique the game during development?

The only way to really know how the game is, I acknowlegde, is to play it. But to play it, one would have to buy it. And if I buy it, my opinion becomes pretty much irrelevant, both to myself and to Bioware, as I would already have invested time and money in if. Not to mention that the game is already done, so my opinion becomes doubly meaningless. So the only rational thing to do is to make a judgment based on available information, and try to point out potential flaws before the game is done, in the wain hope that someone reads and understand the conserns.

I went in the "wait and see" trap twice already, ME3 is getting a higher level of scrutiny.

[didymos1120]

Skyweir wrote...

Well, you are clearly positively inclined, based on your posts here. Why? If you have no opinion on the game, one way or another, why would you bother to defend or critique the game during development?

I'm not defending ME3. There's nothing to defend yet. For all I know, it's going to be awful and a terrible disappointment. Or, maybe, a gaming masterpiece. Or just alright.  No, mostly I'm just disputing the basis other people have for judging it so early and on so very little actual, direct evidence from the game itself.

Modifié par didymos1120, 06 mai 2011 - 08:53 .

[88mphSlayer]

AngelicMachinery wrote...

Drasill wrote...

Savber100 wrote...

Appeal to a wider market?

*shudders*

Please please don't dumb this game down. x(

I don't think thats possible.
lol go straight and shoot!

Heat seeking bullets?

actually if they brought over the weapons from Resistance: Fall of Man that'd be pretty awesome

[XFemShepX]

UGH.

ME3 has already been largely produced and is just being polished and refined at this point, I think--considering that they were able to do a full playthrough at Christmas.

I really hope this means they aren't doing an MMO. That'd just be terrible, for so many reasons.

[didymos1120]

XFemShepX wrote...

I really hope this means they aren't doing an MMO.

You honestly think that they're going to dive into another MMO with SW:TOR on the horizon? 

[Someone With Mass]

People are so stupid sometimes...