154 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

SalsaDMA wrote...

if the publishers can use the lack of tools to market dlcs they would otherwise have been unable to market, they might see it as a bad thing.

The rest of us, ofc, just think they are moneypinchers...

Toolsets improve the profitability of DLC by keeping the game active and on consumers' computers for a longer period.  They are not in conflict.  This has been explained many times. 

For example, I would not still be playing Fallout: New Vegas if it weren't for the Project Nevada mod.  It simply would not be on my PC anymore.  However, it still is, and I'm getting the DLC for it because the mods have extended the life of the game.

That's how it works.  It's not as if mods replace DLC content or vice versa.  Some mods even rely on them for assets like new models.  The difference is that mods are free and lack official support, and sometimes you get what you pay for.  They are, in the end, both optional. 

[AllThatJazz]

 My (comparative) dislike of Arrival  stems from the lack of choice issue. I couldn't choose what happened to the scientist, I couldn't choose to NOT massacre an entire system of Batarians (yep, even if it meant a 'game over' screen), I couldn't choose to stick two fingers up to the Alliance and scarper at the end. The whole thing was one big 'but thou must' scenario, which was annoying.  I understand why it was done - the same reason (I assume) as they did it in DA2, to set up a particular world state for the next instalment. It was just a bit heavy-handed for my liking. Also, it didn't have the cool little things in it that LotSB had (the dossiers and video, for example, which were great fun).

Anyway, on-topic. I'm actually pretty excited for ME3 at this stage. LotSB shows what the ME2 team are capable of, and the info for ME3 has so far got me feeling nice and positive.  Particularly looking forward to class-specific melee attacks. Will be very happy if my slightly fragile adept doesn't have to headbutt a krogan again, fun though that was.

[Mr. MannlyMan]

I'm more worried that ME3 will travel even further in the direction of "dudebro" Michael Bay-style lolawesome, and further scrap immersion in favor of the "stuff we saw in other shooters, and wanted to throw in for no good reason". I'm also kind of concerned that the story structure will have minimal complexity, like the ME2 main plot; gain support, gain support, gain support, MISSION FOR TIM, gain support, gain support, MISSION FOR TIM, gain support, gain support, OKAY, LAUNCH A FINAL DESPERATE ASSAULT ON YOUR ENEMY!

And just more weird design choices, like the decision to tie your Intimidate/Charm abilities directly to your Par/Ren score.

I'm also

[candidate88766]

onelifecrisis wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

Oh come off it.
Relays can now be destroyed by mere asteroids - breaks the plot of ME1.
All along, the reapers had a Plan B that could have let them invade in mere days - totally destroys the plot of ME1 and ME2.
The Alliance are all of a sudden open to the idea that the reapers are a real threat - breaks the plot of ME2.

Has nothing to do with ME1's plot. Nothing is indestructible.

And Hackett =/= the Alliance as a whole.

Honestly, SWM, sometimes I think you're just a troll. But on the off-chance you are serious...

The indestructablity of the Mass Relays is rather central to ME1's plot. If a relay can be destroyed by an asteroid then it can certainly be destroyed by a supernova. That would mean no Mu relay, which would render Sarens entire plan and almost all of ME1's plot redundant.

Hackett is an Admiral. That's the highest rank there is, in case you didn't know.

And you didn't even reply to the biggest plot breaker - the maraculous new Plan B that makes everything that has happened so far in both games into a joke.

1. The shockwave of a supernova from a distance could never have the same force as an asteroid directly impacting a Realy. If you put a car behind a jet turbine, it'll get blown away. Hit it with a wrecking ball and it'll get destroyed. The supernova couldn't destroy the Mu Relay because it wasn't close enough to the blast - in all the systems in ME, the Relay is near the outer edge.

2. We have no idea how long the Reapers have been travelling for. They may have been travelling for thousands of years, having started out after the Rachni wars failed. The Reapers having a back door into the galaxy in no way invalidates any part of ME1s plot or ME2s plot.

3. I thought the Alliance did think the Reapers were a real threat - Hackett and fifth fleet was there at the Battle of the Citadel. The Council denies the existence of the Reapers, but we were never told the Alliance's stand on it. Besides, just because Hackett is one of the admirals (or possibly the only one) doesn't mean eveyrone in the Alliance knows - information on the Reapers could be top-secret. Also, there may be a Fleet-Admiral above Hackett, who may only be admiral of fifth-fleet.

4. Someone who disagrees with you is instantly a troll? really? I thought BSN was getting past that phase.

[SalsaDMA]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

  It's not as if mods replace DLC content or vice versa.

So you honestly believe the Alternate appearance packs would have been marketable if a proper toolset had been released for ME2?

[candidate88766]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

  It's not as if mods replace DLC content or vice versa.

So you honestly believe the Alternate appearance packs would have been marketable if a proper toolset had been released for ME2?

When Bioware got a lease for the Unreal engine from Epic, mod toolsets may not have been part of the deal.

[Babli]

I lost faith in ME 3 when I heard that not every Reaper is as big as Sovereign. And Arrival didnt help it either with that "WE DESTROY YOU" attitude of Harbinger. Not to mention that devs keep saying that "ME 2 did it right so ME 3 will be the same just bigger"..because I am not big fan of second ME. And after DA 2 fiasco I keep asking myself, why am I even here. Yeah, I should go.

[upsettingshorts]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

  It's not as if mods replace DLC content or vice versa.

So you honestly believe the Alternate appearance packs would have been marketable if a proper toolset had been released for ME2?

Yup, as they created assets.  Most - certainly not all - mods for outfits utilize assets that are already in the game, especially models.   Furthermore, if people like how those appearances looked, they would get them - DLC or no.  I didn't, so I didn't get them.  The tiny cost was irrelevant to me because I simply wasn't interested.  

What modders would have done - which I would have approved of - is things like taking say, Miranda's new outfit and make changes like reskins, or removing the visor, etc. 

That being said, am I denying that there are going to be plenty of people who otherwise might have downloaded the appearance packs would not had there been a mod community providing similar content?  No, I'm not.  What I am saying though is that more people would actively be playing Mass Effect 2 and desire new content than would be without mods to keep the game fresh, and overall the assumption - and this is BioWare's assumption, they've said so - is that the net gain in terms of the profitability of DLCgoes up when the game has a toolset.

[candidate88766]

yorkj86 wrote...

candidate88766 wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

  It's not as if mods replace DLC content or vice versa.

So you honestly believe the Alternate appearance packs would have been marketable if a proper toolset had been released for ME2?

When Bioware got a lease for the Unreal engine from Epic, mod toolsets may not have been part of the deal.

See my post, above.  Epic Games likes to exercise oppressive and restrictive control over the Unreal Engine.

Yeah thought as much. And my bad, didn't see your post there.

Modifié par candidate88766, 05 juin 2011 - 04:14 .

[Jaron Oberyn]

You're not the only one sympathy. They seem to be pumping up the action/shooter crowd with all of this new coverage, but once again the RPG fanatics are waiting to see how much Bioware's added *cough* CUT *cough* to the game this time. Even reading some of the twitter posts seems to be getting my hopes down by each day. I'm expecting this to be more cinematic/automatic than ME2 which was unbearable. So much for each player having a unique shepard. That tends to be false when the game assumes control of the player and chooses dialogue/decisions for them. I'm still going to by the game unfortunately, as I'm sure others are, just to finish the trilogy. But thats it from Bioware for me. They don't want to admit it, but the acquisition from EA has changed this company from RPG developer to mainstream action developer. They're not unique anymore. Someone's going to have to take their place as RPG king, and mark my words it's going to be me and my company in the future. Thanks Bioware, you've made it that much easier for me.

-Polite

[amcnow]

leonia42 wrote...

amcnow wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

DA2 didn't fail my expectations, I knew how it was going to be since I followed its development from the onset. If you were expecting more than that you have no one to blame but yourself. Game played exactly as advertised. Wasn't everyone's cup of tea, for sure, but it was never toted as "just like Origins/Baldur's Gate!"

Not sure what DA2 has to do with ME3 though. Differen teams. Different goals. Different approaches. Really, it's like comparing night to day.

Now excuse me while I look for a cheap bottle, not wasting the good stuff.

Where did I say it was falsely advertised.  Now you're just putting words into my mouth.

Anyways, I highly suggest the good stuff.  The cheap stuff may have you go down faster than a cheap date.

Never said you said anything about advertising but seeing as I don't recognise your forum name from the old days of following DA2 development, I thought it safe to assume you bought into some of the PR and advertising gimmicks (or were just REALLY quiet during DA2 development). How else would you have heard of the game or known what to expect?

And no the expensive stuff is for special occassions. You haven't earned that yet. Though your lack of troll-ish language and general maturity has earned you a gold star. For now.

I didn't follow the development of DA2 too closely in these forums.  I have a couple of posts somewhere in there, but nothing major.  I mostly just googled for sources whenever I felt like it (sparingly).  I knew enough to know they were moving away from some of the mechanics of DA:O, but not as much about the continuation of the story.  I didn't follow the development of DA:O at all for that matter.

Mass Effect was my first series with BioWare.  I purchased DA:O out of pure curiosity and don't regret it.  I liked it so much, I even made a couple of mods for it several months later (if you care to see my sig).

The lack of toolset for DA2 didn't keep me from purchasing the game.  While I don't regret buying the game (although I do regret getting it from Best Buy... err), I do feel it was under developed.  Maybe there plan was to release a ton of DLC to make up for it (more than usual) and nickel and dime us in the process.  I may very well change my opinion of DA2 over time.  The first impression, however, wasn't a good on in my case.

*Maybe you should share that bottle of Tequila so I can be just as happily drunk. *

[OSUfan12121]

The only thing that will be a letdown for me is if they push resources into developing for the kinect instead of using those to improve the game. The kinect wont add anything to the game AT ALL.

[onelifecrisis]

candidate88766 wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

Oh come off it.
Relays can now be destroyed by mere asteroids - breaks the plot of ME1.
All along, the reapers had a Plan B that could have let them invade in mere days - totally destroys the plot of ME1 and ME2.
The Alliance are all of a sudden open to the idea that the reapers are a real threat - breaks the plot of ME2.

Has nothing to do with ME1's plot. Nothing is indestructible.

And Hackett =/= the Alliance as a whole.

Honestly, SWM, sometimes I think you're just a troll. But on the off-chance you are serious...

The indestructablity of the Mass Relays is rather central to ME1's plot. If a relay can be destroyed by an asteroid then it can certainly be destroyed by a supernova. That would mean no Mu relay, which would render Sarens entire plan and almost all of ME1's plot redundant.

Hackett is an Admiral. That's the highest rank there is, in case you didn't know.

And you didn't even reply to the biggest plot breaker - the maraculous new Plan B that makes everything that has happened so far in both games into a joke.

1. The shockwave of a supernova from a distance could never have the same force as an asteroid directly impacting a Realy. If you put a car behind a jet turbine, it'll get blown away. Hit it with a wrecking ball and it'll get destroyed. The supernova couldn't destroy the Mu Relay because it wasn't close enough to the blast - in all the systems in ME, the Relay is near the outer edge.

2. We have no idea how long the Reapers have been travelling for. They may have been travelling for thousands of years, having started out after the Rachni wars failed. The Reapers having a back door into the galaxy in no way invalidates any part of ME1s plot or ME2s plot.

3. I thought the Alliance did think the Reapers were a real threat - Hackett and fifth fleet was there at the Battle of the Citadel. The Council denies the existence of the Reapers, but we were never told the Alliance's stand on it. Besides, just because Hackett is one of the admirals (or possibly the only one) doesn't mean eveyrone in the Alliance knows - information on the Reapers could be top-secret. Also, there may be a Fleet-Admiral above Hackett, who may only be admiral of fifth-fleet.

4. Someone who disagrees with you is instantly a troll? really? I thought BSN was getting past that phase.

1. I don't think the distance of the supernova was ever stated, so okay.

2 (a). Sovereign had been working on getting the reapers through the Citadel relay for a long time before the events of ME1. It stands to reason that, during that time, the reapers would need to be waiting at the Dark Space Relay. If they had been en-route the whole time then opening the Citadel door to a relay they'd left behind long ago would be kinda useless. That means that they must have set off after Sovereign failed, which means the journey only took them two years. Can you see where I'm going with this or do I need to spell out the rest of it?

2 (. The collectors were building a human reaper that couldn't possibly have been finished in time for the arrival of the main force. What was the point in that?

3. Ken/Gabby: "After you died the Alliance brass tore apart everything you'd said. They said you were mistaken or dilusional. They discounted Sovereign as an isolated threat."

4. Not instantly, no. But SWM has a habit of disagreeing with me, and he usually does it with insults rather than reasoning. That said, in this thread he's being quite civil and having a proper discussion, which is nice.

Modifié par onelifecrisis, 05 juin 2011 - 04:24 .

[Geth_Prime]

I'm getting tired of some of the "fans" on this forum. Criticising the game for its mistakes is fine. Saying that you've lost hope in the series because the developers didn't take it in the direction you were hoping is just stupid. I'm not going to point fingers at specific people, but just because the game wasn't as RPG-ish as you wanted, just because the characters didn't develop the way you'd hoped, just because the developers decided to put something in the game that you personally weren't a fan of, that doesn't give you to bash them for something they liked and that the majority of fans liked too. It's like complaining that a kart racer isn't realistic enough. Just because you don't like something, that doesn't mean it's bad.

[Jaron Oberyn]

yorkj86 wrote...

candidate88766 wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

  It's not as if mods replace DLC content or vice versa.

So you honestly believe the Alternate appearance packs would have been marketable if a proper toolset had been released for ME2?

When Bioware got a lease for the Unreal engine from Epic, mod toolsets may not have been part of the deal.

See my post, above.  Epic Games likes to exercise oppressive and restrictive control over the Unreal Engine.

Not necessarily true. First of all, its not mod tools, it's simply UnrealED. It isn't a modding software, yet the editing software to create worlds and seqeunces in the unreal engine. Bioware, like many other developers who license the engine, have chosen to modify the version they received from Epic. From what I recall a developer saying on the old forums, they have 3rd party software that is entwined within the software. It's apparently these 3rd party applications that have licensing restrictions that prohibit them from releasing the UED since we wouldn't be getting the full package. Thats what I vaguely remember a Bioware developer saying before.

And then you have the problem with continuity in the game. Altering game sequences through "modding" could yield unexpected results when importing a game's save into the next installment. This also plays a big role in why we don't get UED with our games.

Don't blame Epic Games for it. They promote modding, hence the reason they have allowed it on all of their games. Epic Games likes to use the modding community as a pool of potential future employees, so long as you meet their standards. And some have. So it's not Epic's fault.

-Polite

[Ashira Shepard]

leonia42 wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

It'll be a let down regardless of what it does if you keep hyping yourself up with expectations that simply cannot be met.

Quoted for truth.

The game isn't even finished yet, chillax.

QFT for both of you.

I've been waiting for InFamous 2 because I absolutely loved the first one, my favourite game of all time on the PS3. The only expectation I had? To be able to follow through into the next game with whatever karmic path you original took. Now "expectation" is the wrong word, it was more a mild "hope" that it would happen. It won't, the canon ending is the Hero path and I got over in the same half hour that I found out about it because I understand why they did it.

Now I'm going to wait until the last month before Mass Effect's release to form any kind of opinion, even then I'll buy the game anyway so that I can form an actual opinion from first-hand experience.

I never build high expectations for a game, I found it lets me go along without recurring nerd rage and disappointment. I know, shocking.

[Ghost Warrior]

onelifecrisis wrote...

2 (a). Sovereign had been working on getting the reapers through the Citadel relay for a long time before the events of ME1. It stands to reason that, during that time, the reapers would need to be waiting at the Dark Space Relay. If they had been en-route the whole time then opening the Citadel door to a relay they'd left behind long ago would be kinda useless. That means that they must have set off after Sovereign failed, which means the journey only took them two years. Can you see where I'm going with this or do I need to spell out the rest of it?

2 (. The collectors were building a human reaper that couldn't possibly have been finished in time for the arrival of the main force. What was the point in that?

3. Ken/Gabby: "After you died the Alliance brass tore apart everything you'd said. They said you were mistaken or dilusional. They discounted Sovereign as an isolated threat."

2. (a)I agree. But what does that prove? Plan A was still much better,regardless of how much it took them to arrive.
( He was just another Reaper to be added to their army after they destroyed all life in the galaxy once more,a Reaper that will only be ready for the next cycle.

3. Maybe it's really true,or only people on highest positions in Alliance knew the truth and denied it to everyone else so they wouldn't create panic.

Modifié par Ghost Warrior, 05 juin 2011 - 04:32 .

[amcnow]

Geth_Prime wrote...

I'm getting tired of some of the "fans" on this forum. Criticising the game for its mistakes is fine. Saying that you've lost hope in the series because the developers didn't take it in the direction you were hoping is just stupid. I'm not going to point fingers at specific people, but just because the game wasn't as RPG-ish as you wanted, just because the characters didn't develop the way you'd hoped, just because the developers decided to put something in the game that you personally weren't a fan of, that doesn't give you to bash them for something they liked and that the majority of fans liked too. It's like complaining that a kart racer isn't realistic enough. Just because you don't like something, that doesn't mean it's bad.

You'll be better off ignoring the criticism.  We are well within our rights to voice our opinions (and frustrations) on this forum.  Not liking a game for the reasons you listed are valid criticisms.  Obviously, there are actions the criticizer can take (such as not playing the game).  With that said, criticizing the criticizers is just a waste of your precious time.

[candidate88766]

onelifecrisis wrote...

candidate88766 wrote...

1. The shockwave of a supernova from a distance could never have the same force as an asteroid directly impacting a Realy. If you put a car behind a jet turbine, it'll get blown away. Hit it with a wrecking ball and it'll get destroyed. The supernova couldn't destroy the Mu Relay because it wasn't close enough to the blast - in all the systems in ME, the Relay is near the outer edge.

2. We have no idea how long the Reapers have been travelling for. They may have been travelling for thousands of years, having started out after the Rachni wars failed. The Reapers having a back door into the galaxy in no way invalidates any part of ME1s plot or ME2s plot.

3. I thought the Alliance did think the Reapers were a real threat - Hackett and fifth fleet was there at the Battle of the Citadel. The Council denies the existence of the Reapers, but we were never told the Alliance's stand on it. Besides, just because Hackett is one of the admirals (or possibly the only one) doesn't mean eveyrone in the Alliance knows - information on the Reapers could be top-secret. Also, there may be a Fleet-Admiral above Hackett, who may only be admiral of fifth-fleet.

4. Someone who disagrees with you is instantly a troll? really? I thought BSN was getting past that phase.

1. I don't think the distance of the supernova was ever stated, so okay.

2 (a). Sovereign had been working on getting the reapers through the Citadel relay for a long time before the events of ME1. It stands to reason that, during that time, the reapers would need to be waiting at the Dark Space Relay. If they had been en-route the whole time then opening the Citadel door to a relay they'd left behind long ago would be kinda useless. That means that they must have set off after Sovereign failed, which means the journey only took them two years. Can you see where I'm going with this or do I need to spell out the rest of it?

2 (. The collectors were building a human reaper that couldn't possibly have been finished in time for the arrival of the main force. What was the point in that?

3. Ken/Gabby: "After you died the Alliance brass tore apart everything you'd said. They said you were mistaken or dilusional. They discounted Sovereign as an isolated threat."

4. Not instantly, no. But SWM has a habit of disagreeing with me, and he usually does it with insults rather than reasoning. That said, in this thread he's being quite civil and having a proper discussion, which is nice.

2. Ok, I'll agree that is a bit hazy. I always assumed the Human Reaper was merely to see if it was a viable option, and it would remain in the Collector Base while the invasion happened to keep it out of harms way until it was finished. If it wasn't working by the time the Reapers arrive, they have no need for it. If it does work, then it stays safe in the middle of the galaxy while the rest of the galaxy is harvested. I have no proof for this, but its how I justified the Human reaper's existence in my head. I'm not going to pretend I'm definetly right, and you are right in that it is pretty hazy plot-wise.

3. Forgot about that line. Maybe the reaper threat was classified to the top levels - if the Alliance is seen to build up their fleets then the Batarians may feel they are becoming a threat to them, or the Alliance may not be able to prepare for the Reaper arrival due to the Treaty of Farixen (something like that I think). However, you're right - the Alliance does seem to have changed its view. Does Hackett say anything in Arrival that disputes this, or is it just Hackett that believes in the Reapers.

4. I don't know the users here well enough so I jumped the gun a bit there. My bad. However, I would say that merely disagreeing loudly (i.e. using insults) isn't really trolling. Its poor show, and not particulaarly mature, but not really trolling. This isn't directed at you, but the BSN users do have a habit of calling others trolls for the most minor things.

[candidate88766]

amcnow wrote...

Geth_Prime wrote...

I'm getting tired of some of the "fans" on this forum. Criticising the game for its mistakes is fine. Saying that you've lost hope in the series because the developers didn't take it in the direction you were hoping is just stupid. I'm not going to point fingers at specific people, but just because the game wasn't as RPG-ish as you wanted, just because the characters didn't develop the way you'd hoped, just because the developers decided to put something in the game that you personally weren't a fan of, that doesn't give you to bash them for something they liked and that the majority of fans liked too. It's like complaining that a kart racer isn't realistic enough. Just because you don't like something, that doesn't mean it's bad.

You'll be better off ignoring the criticism.  We are well within our rights to voice our opinions (and frustrations) on this forum.  Not liking a game for the reasons you listed are valid criticisms.  Obviously, there are actions the criticizer can take (such as not playing the game).  With that said, criticizing the criticizers is just a waste of your precious time.

No one minds the ciriticism. Most of us here are Bioware / Mass Effect fans and constructive criticism shows your appreciation of the franchise in that you care for its future. Constructive criticism helped smooth out some of the annoying things from ME1. Likewise, criticism of the criticism is fine. As you say though, criticising the fact that people criticise is a bit annoying.

Coming onto the forums saying you've lost hope and won't buy the game is pointless though. Its your opinion, you're entitled to it and no one will try to take that away, but at the same time no one really cares. If someone has already made their mind up that they won't buy it then I'd have to question why they're still in the Mass Effect forums. 

[Ahriman]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

You're not the only one sympathy. They seem to be pumping up the action/shooter crowd with all of this new coverage, but once again the RPG fanatics are waiting to see how much Bioware's added *cough* CUT *cough* to the game this time.

As you remember after ME3 release they talked a lot about reaching rpg mechanic and not a single word about shooter mechanic. Now things have swapped. I don't know what to think about that, but it may be just advertisment waves for different parts of potential customers. If you are going to attract shooter fan you won't tell him how cool new skill tree is, right?

Even reading some of the twitter posts seems to be getting my hopes down by each day. I'm expecting this to be more cinematic/automatic than ME2 which was unbearable. So much for each player having a unique shepard. That tends to be false when the game assumes control of the player and chooses dialogue/decisions for them. I'm still going to by the game unfortunately, as I'm sure others are, just to finish the trilogy. But thats it from Bioware for me. They don't want to admit it, but the acquisition from EA has changed this company from RPG developer to mainstream action developer. They're not unique anymore. Someone's going to have to take their place as RPG king, and mark my words it's going to be me and my company in the future. Thanks Bioware, you've made it that much easier for me.
-Polite

Bioware always was a flagship in RPG industry, so they are mainstream by default. So it's difficult to separate changes of Bioware from changes of industry. Baldur's Gate also was mainstream sometime.
Oh well, tell me when you create your company.

[amcnow]

candidate88766 wrote...

amcnow wrote...

Geth_Prime wrote...

I'm getting tired of some of the "fans" on this forum. Criticising the game for its mistakes is fine. Saying that you've lost hope in the series because the developers didn't take it in the direction you were hoping is just stupid. I'm not going to point fingers at specific people, but just because the game wasn't as RPG-ish as you wanted, just because the characters didn't develop the way you'd hoped, just because the developers decided to put something in the game that you personally weren't a fan of, that doesn't give you to bash them for something they liked and that the majority of fans liked too. It's like complaining that a kart racer isn't realistic enough. Just because you don't like something, that doesn't mean it's bad.

You'll be better off ignoring the criticism.  We are well within our rights to voice our opinions (and frustrations) on this forum.  Not liking a game for the reasons you listed are valid criticisms.  Obviously, there are actions the criticizer can take (such as not playing the game).  With that said, criticizing the criticizers is just a waste of your precious time.

No one minds the ciriticism. Most of us here are Bioware / Mass Effect fans and constructive criticism shows your appreciation of the franchise in that you care for its future. Constructive criticism helped smooth out some of the annoying things from ME1. Likewise, criticism of the criticism is fine. As you say though, criticising the fact that people criticise is a bit annoying.

Coming onto the forums saying you've lost hope and won't buy the game is pointless though. Its your opinion, you're entitled to it and no one will try to take that away, but at the same time no one really cares. If someone has already made their mind up that they won't buy it then I'd have to question why they're still in the Mass Effect forums. 

I can agree with this.  I can't remember how many times I've seen a thread pop up about someone rage quitting.  It always ends up the same in the end, with subsequent flames and the thread getting closed.  The best thing you can do is ignore them, unless you're bored and looking to feed the troll (because that's usually what it is).

[KainrycKarr]

sympathy4saren wrote...

Geth_Prime wrote...

You pretty much are alone in this. Firstly, you could at least explain why you feel ME3 will be a letdown. Secondly, I don't know how you can think that. Almost everything that has been confirmed so far is good news. Like Someone With Mass said, if your expectations are stupidly high, of course the game will let you down. We'll all be enjoying one of the greatest games, if not the greatest game we've ever played, and you'll be whining about how the game isn't perfect for you. So stop worrying and enjoy what you get instead of nitpicking. At least wait until ME3 is out before complaining.

I used to think Mass Effect was an rpg...not a shooter. If I wanted to play gears of war I would friggin buy a shooter

You were wrong, and are still wrong. It's both.