283 réponses à ce sujet

[JeffZero]

Oh, of course. Father Jerusalem was quoting me to begin with, so why did I even bother saying that? Hah, I'm too damned tired.

[MonkeyLungs]

IsaacShep wrote...

MonkeyLungs wrote...
DA2 was/is a reboot. Basically a complete relaunch of the series to take it in a new direction. Laidlaw himself has said as much. There's a new direction for the DA series and DA2 is the way forward whether the DA:O fans like it or not.

Didn't play DA2, did it restarted the lore and erased DAO from the continuity? If not, it's not a reboot.

Some people would day it did, other tha it just changed the direction. Whatever I'm not arguing semantics that are OT anyway.

You don't have to call it a REBOOT to know that what it did was alter almost everything about the DA experience.
----------
OT

People are worried about ME3 because some of us don't want the series to get any worse. ME2 was a step down from ME1 and I wouldn't want ME3 to continue that trend.

[True Zarken]

Dannyboy9876 wrote...

Look, people on these forums whine about everything.

I wouldn't take anything they say seriously without a strong argumment or a good point.

This.

If anything over the few years I've been here the most painfully obvious thing is people like to complain because it's not how they pictured it would turn out. Seriously only listen to those with a strong arguement otherwise your head will start to hurt.

Modifié par True Zarken, 13 juin 2011 - 05:19 .

[JeffZero]

MonkeyLungs wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

MonkeyLungs wrote...
DA2 was/is a reboot. Basically a complete relaunch of the series to take it in a new direction. Laidlaw himself has said as much. There's a new direction for the DA series and DA2 is the way forward whether the DA:O fans like it or not.

Didn't play DA2, did it restarted the lore and erased DAO from the continuity? If not, it's not a reboot.

Some people would day it did, other tha it just changed the direction. Whatever I'm not arguing semantics that are OT anyway.

You don't have to call it a REBOOT to know that what it did was alter almost everything about the DA experience.
----------
OT

People are worried about ME3 because some of us don't want the series to get any worse. ME2 was a step down from ME1 and I wouldn't want ME3 to continue that trend.

It's not semantics. You're using a term; we're telling you that you're using the term incorrectly.

It's like saying that something is an element and it isn't an element, and then someone tells you that it isn't an element and you say "I'm not arguing semantics".

Some days I wish the word 'semantics' hadn't been invented. I could do with a reboot on that one.

[FluffyScarf]

And some thought HL2 was a step down from HL. And AC2 a step down from AC. It just goes in circles.

[JeffZero]

FluffyScarf wrote...

And some thought HL2 was a step down from HL. And AC2 a step down from AC. It just goes in circles.

Both of those are pretty hard to fathom, but I've been a regular on GameFAQs for a very long time and indeed I've seen it.

I can see a lot more argument for ME2 being a step down from ME1, but I definitely don't agree with it overall.

[shadowreflexion]

zeoduos wrote...

I noticed that several people on this forum are a little bothered that ME3 might end up being like DA2.

Now, I have never played DA2. I have seen gameplay videos and such, and I can somewhat understand what fans are bothered about.

My question is: Aren't there two different teams of devs for ME and DA?

Hopefully not too many will be offended.
Many people worry because they might receive total closure with the last installment. On one hand I can't blame them but on the other hand there are ways to rectify that through DLCs and the such. If you look at a games fanbase, you'll notice two prevalent trends, people complaining because it went in one direction and others saying that it didn't go far enough in that direction.

To me, the issue is that while Bioware may listen to ideas, should they? imagine sitting in a room with 10 people that want to be heard and instead of really looking at why they want certain things, they just keep screaming for more. I'm not saying that it's less important but from what I've read on these forums, most of it is trivial.

The game can't be bad, it has to go like this. Pushing and pushing. I can only imagine the pressure that's place on the company. Some games have had damn good stories and gameplay. (Beyond Good & Evil) To name one. But fans at the time wanted Prince of Persia only to find out later that BG&E was a worthy game. I'm straying off topic, sorry.

In the minds of many, ME 3 has to be epic on all levels. No negotiation. Sadly, I fear that while ME 3 will be a great game, people won't really appreciate it if they continue to let themselves take over the story instead of experiencing the story as it's written.

I along with others want absolution. I want it to exceed my hopes. Realistically, if it doesn't have everything in it from the small choices I made throughout the series, it's not a deal breaker for me because I know that content can be released later and I'l just do another playthrough anyway. So in closing, I believe people are worried because the game may not give them everything they expect but some will be happy because it gave them a great experience.

[Paraxial]

Influence from the Dragon Age team, EA, excess of fan service, end of a trilogy. Everyone wants the end to be something grand, it's only natural that fans are concerned with the direction of the game.

I look forward to my sci-fi romance simulator with release day DLC. Going to sex me up a robot.

[MonkeyLungs]

JeffZero wrote...

MonkeyLungs wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

MonkeyLungs wrote...
DA2 was/is a reboot. Basically a complete relaunch of the series to take it in a new direction. Laidlaw himself has said as much. There's a new direction for the DA series and DA2 is the way forward whether the DA:O fans like it or not.

Didn't play DA2, did it restarted the lore and erased DAO from the continuity? If not, it's not a reboot.

Some people would day it did, other tha it just changed the direction. Whatever I'm not arguing semantics that are OT anyway.

You don't have to call it a REBOOT to know that what it did was alter almost everything about the DA experience.
----------
OT

People are worried about ME3 because some of us don't want the series to get any worse. ME2 was a step down from ME1 and I wouldn't want ME3 to continue that trend.

It's not semantics. You're using a term; we're telling you that you're using the term incorrectly.

It's like saying that something is an element and it isn't an element, and then someone tells you that it isn't an element and you say "I'm not arguing semantics".

Some days I wish the word 'semantics' hadn't been invented. I could do with a reboot on that one.

Yoir definition varies from mine. You are not the M**** GD authority on video game terms. An element is something that is rigidly defined and verified by scientific inquiry. An element is unique. Rebooting a videogame series is a term used to describe a transitional effect taken by a company towards an established franchise to make it different. I'm not the only person to describe DA2 as a reboot. I didn't want to argue before and was trying to be concillatory but ... DA2 = REBOOT.

[Paul Sedgmore]

MonkeyLungs wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

We don't call anti-tributes "reboots" in any spectrum; a reboot is just what the definition is: a complete relaunch. DA2 is not a complete relaunch.

DA2 was/is a reboot. Basically a complete relaunch of the series to take it in a new direction. Laidlaw himself has said as much. There's a new direction for the DA series and DA2 is the way forward whether the DA:O fans like it or not.

Monkey, DA2 was not a reboot as the events that occured in DA:O happened and the world works in the same way. The story took a new direction as the events dealing with the Warden were over and they needed to open up new stories to be able to carry on the franchise. Check out the meaning of reboot here: http://en.wikipedia....eboot_(fiction)

[chester013]

sympathy4saren wrote...

Many people, including myself, are very concerned the Mass Effect is turning into a full fledged third person shooter, like Gears of War.

It's pretty close...its almost there right now. No further towards shooter

I actually dusted my copy of gears 2 off the other day and popped it in my xbox and it's bad ass. Now action like that with the now well publicised RPG elements I don't know what there would be to complain about. I mean come on, play gears of war and ME1 back to back and see which one is better (action wise, not story etc before you get angry).

[HTTP 404]

chester013 wrote...

sympathy4saren wrote...

Many people, including myself, are very concerned the Mass Effect is turning into a full fledged third person shooter, like Gears of War.

It's pretty close...its almost there right now. No further towards shooter

I actually dusted my copy of gears 2 off the other day and popped it in my xbox and it's bad ass. Now action like that with the now well publicised RPG elements I don't know what there would be to complain about. I mean come on, play gears of war and ME1 back to back and see which one is better (action wise, not story etc before you get angry).

too late, I am angry.  AND how dare you play your RPGs with your TPSs!  everyone knows you can't mix genres!

[MonkeyLungs]

Paul Sedgmore wrote...

MonkeyLungs wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

We don't call anti-tributes "reboots" in any spectrum; a reboot is just what the definition is: a complete relaunch. DA2 is not a complete relaunch.

DA2 was/is a reboot. Basically a complete relaunch of the series to take it in a new direction. Laidlaw himself has said as much. There's a new direction for the DA series and DA2 is the way forward whether the DA:O fans like it or not.

Monkey, DA2 was not a reboot as the events that occured in DA:O happened and the world works in the same way. The story took a new direction as the events dealing with the Warden were over and they needed to open up new stories to be able to carry on the franchise. Check out the meaning of reboot here: http://en.wikipedia....eboot_(fiction)

I read that, thanks for the link. It did not change my opinion. Much of the lore was discarded or ignored. Not all,  but everything need not be discard for something to be a reboot, not even according to that article. Further reboots in game terms also take into account GAMEPLAY and GAMEPLAY SYSTEMS and GAME MECHANICS. A game can be a REBOOT based soley on massive changes to the mechanics or gameplay.

[FluffyScarf]

Some even think BF3 is more like BC3 and not a true successor to BF2. Try convincing them otherwise.

[MonkeyLungs]

chester013 wrote...

sympathy4saren wrote...

Many people, including myself, are very concerned the Mass Effect is turning into a full fledged third person shooter, like Gears of War.

It's pretty close...its almost there right now. No further towards shooter

I actually dusted my copy of gears 2 off the other day and popped it in my xbox and it's bad ass. Now action like that with the now well publicised RPG elements I don't know what there would be to complain about. I mean come on, play gears of war and ME1 back to back and see which one is better (action wise, not story etc before you get angry).

I prefer the combat in ME1 to Gears (and I don't hate Gears BTW) any day every day all day since ever since.

[turian councilor Knockout]

Worried ? I thought ME 3 was going to be the best in the series.

[snfonseka]

Generally, fans fear about the RPG elements of future BW games. Even in E3 BW gave priority to action elements rather than RPG elements. I like action but I like to see more about RPG element regarding ME3.

[JeffZero]

MonkeyLungs wrote...

Yoir definition varies from mine. You are not the M**** GD authority on video game terms. An element is something that is rigidly defined and verified by scientific inquiry. An element is unique. Rebooting a videogame series is a term used to describe a transitional effect taken by a company towards an established franchise to make it different. I'm not the only person to describe DA2 as a reboot. I didn't want to argue before and was trying to be concillatory but ... DA2 = REBOOT.

Hahaha, alright then.

[FluffyScarf]

We already have a more in-depth leveling system than M1. We even have weapon stats and proper weapon mods. They're adding armor/helmets back (for Ash at least). The only other 'RPG' element left to introduce is some form of planetary exploration.

[Eski.Moe]

One game really, Dragon Age 2 of course. Not a bad game by general standards but poor by that which I've come to expect from Bioware.

[Zeevico]

Marketing aside, why should I look forward to ME3 if Bioware/EA is so inconsistent about its production values and investment in its premier franchise? I mean ME2 is EA's best selling game. Yet if fan reaction is any measure, Arrival sucked. Is that how you sell ME3? I dunno, it's just silly to me.

Modifié par Zeevico, 13 juin 2011 - 05:46 .

[J. Finley]

I'm not worried at all about this, and I have no idea why some people would be. Just seeing the demos from E3 was enough to tell me it's going to be the best in the series.

[FluffyScarf]

Obviously you haven't kept up to date with the ME3 news. Go take a look at the stickied Twitter thread. Nothing but good signs so far.

[onelifecrisis]

Gatt9 wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Sarevok Synder wrote...

If they go full shooter, it's game over.

Can someone explain to me what this FULL SHOOTER is when everyone here allready knows that ME3 has more RPG elements than ME2 had?

Yeah, I agree with that. The handful of screens we've already seen had more RPG elements than all of ME2, so at this point the argument that it'll be too much of a shooter is moot. If it's too much of a shooter for you, you should have left the series after ME2.

With all due respect,

Adding one skil that increases all weapons damage,  and a weapon modifying scheme isn't adding in RPG elements.  Adding non-combat skills would've been.  Yes,  it's definitely a step in the right direction,  but honestly,  weapon modifying isn't remotely RPG.

I could modify my weapons in Bioshock and no one was trying to call it an RPG.

You may also want to avoid telling people to leave instead of letting them express their feelings.  Mass Effect really isn't that big of a seller,  it's been outsold by almost all of it's competition,  drive people away and you won't see anymore ME games.

Why is it that when someone says "with all due respect" what they really mean is "kiss my ass"?
- Ashley Williams

I really don't want to get into a debate on what is and is not an RPG, but I would have thought that defining what constitutes an RPG element wouldn't be that hard? But apparently it is, given your claim that placement of skill points to gain combat bonuses is not an RPG element.

Also, you've apparently failed to notice the new skill evolutions that have been added... or perhaps they also don't qualify as RPG elements by your definition?

Finally, I told nobody to leave.

[shepskisaac]

snfonseka wrote...
Even in E3 BW gave priority to action elements rather than RPG elements.

Not sure why anyone would be surprised, E3 is a visual show, all non-fans and general gaming audience expects the most exciting and blood-pumping demos & trailers. Many RPG elements play great but they don't look great/are not particulary exciting being just watched. Microsoft conference opened with Modern Warfare 3 demo that started with a 2 minutes underwater level and people screamed "boooooooooring!'. Since they're trying to bring new fans in obviously they will present action that is the most tempting/exciting for people who haven't jumped into the franchise yet.