104 réponses à ce sujet

[azerSheppard]

javierabegazo wrote...

CaolIla wrote...

Trying to talk a game good never works, so just make it good and let it talk for itself. 

I just wish there would be less "buzzwords". I look at other developers talk about their games[ http://e3.gamespot.com/video/6318309/ ], and they do so in a non-shallow way that is actually way more interesting and you feel like it's far more genuine instead of "Keep your finger on the Pulse" or "Tell a more emotionally engaging visceral story" or " Press a button and something awesome happens" or "Think like a general, Fight like a Spartan", .

Thank god for DICE and EPIC
Cliff Blizinski for example atleast doesn't talk like a PR, he talks like a real gamer. Thats what bioware needs, it really feels like the bioware dev don't play any games aside from play testing their own ones...

[TommyH]

javierabegazo wrote...

I just wish there would be less "buzzwords". I look at other developers talk about their games[ http://e3.gamespot.com/video/6318309/ ], and they do so in a non-shallow way that is actually way more interesting and you feel like it's far more genuine instead of "Keep your finger on the Pulse" or "Tell a more emotionally engaging visceral story" or " Press a button and something awesome happens" or "Think like a general, Fight like a Spartan", .

I totally agree.

If every second word is "huge", "awesome", "fantastic", "epic", "best" or "great" it gets nauseating and totally unbelievable. I have a hard time believing that such talk still impresses people. As if it there never was a game that had no weak spot... Really? Come on!!
As the other chap said, make a cool game and people will find out soon enough...

Modifié par TommyH, 16 juin 2011 - 11:42 .

[TommyH]

Sorry, double post.

Modifié par TommyH, 16 juin 2011 - 11:41 .

[TommyH]

double post, sorry

Modifié par TommyH, 16 juin 2011 - 11:40 .

[Aquilas]

Casey and company are introducing the Vega character to represent the new player (to some extent). While I agree completely that starting with ME3 is a mistake in terms of experiencing the ME totality, the Vega character is justifiable in the ME universe.

Remember, the Council and the Alliance have been downplaying the Reaper threat throughout the trilogy. Most people think Shepard is a rogue operative, though not on Saren's level. So is it "realistic" to have a troop assigned to your team who really doesn't have the complete picture? Sure it is.

Again, I think starting with ME3 is a mistake, and Casey's statement borders on possible dissimulation. That is, the dev team may compromise--may have to compromise--core elements of character and story arc to accomodate new players.

The only way we'll know if they have is to play the game. With DA2 and Arrival being the latest products, I'm apprehensive. But I trust BioWare is faithful enough to something as grand as ME to do the right thing. We'll see.

Modifié par Aquilas, 16 juin 2011 - 01:00 .

[Gibb_Shepard]

Terror_K wrote...

Wait... so one one hand you guys --BioWare-- make a big deal about the whole trilogy nature of the game and the imports and everything and say that it's part of what makes Mass Effect so unique and special and that going through all three will really personalise the game and make a difference, and on the other hand you're saying the "best place to start" is the final part of the trilogy which basically indicates that going through the previous games and importing doesn't really make that big of a deal at all and it's better to just come in at the end from scratch.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways, and to be saying that the final part of the trilogy is "the best place to start" is not --as a longtime fan who has played and imported through both games-- giving me much confidence in this final part and just leads me to believe that everything up until now was largely superfluous and the decisions I made in both previous titles aren't going to have much of an impact on this final part at all.

But then, I've always thought this whole "each game can stand on its own" approach was the biggest mistake you guys made when developing it as a so-called trilogy and that you basically wasted so much true potential by putting too much effort into assuring people could jump in any time. Sorry, but I just can;'t help but feel the whole thing could have been just that much more if you'd actually developed it as a proper trilogy ala Star Wars or LotR that really depends on the previous parts to truly work. ME2 already felt far too removed from ME1 when it came out and seemed to push so many seemingly meaningful choices into the background too much or simply trivialise them, and I'd hate to think ME3 is going to do the same again.

They ditched that emphasis they used to put on imports. It used to be a big selling point they used to emphasise, now that emphasis is put on how each game in the trilogy is the best place to start.

I find it funny how BW, which is supposed to be developing an interconnected trilogy, are the only ones who mention how "This game is the best place start!". Gears 3 is coming out this year, have you heard Cliffy B going on about how Gears 3 is the best place to start? He actually constantly mentions previous events in the games. Sure he's not telling people to go play the previous games, but he doesn't go on and on about it like BW.

He's just an example of the attitude towards many games coming out this year. Hudson really needs to lay off this crap.

[Raycer X]

I feel that it would be a little weird to play ME3 first sinceall the features that were in it won't be in ME1 or 2. IE: It would feel weird to go from having a menu screen with so much customizable skills in ME3 to a menu with little customizable skills in ME2.

[Terror_K]

To be honest, I don't even get the reasoning behind this way of going about things from BioWare. It's like they're pushing players away from playing the previous two titles and trying to get them to ignore them and just focus on their upcoming new flashy stuff alone. Don't they want players to play the previous two (i.e. current) Mass Effect titles or something? Wouldn't encouraging potential new players to actually give the first two a go not only give said players a greater appreciation of the trilogy and something to play now to whet their appetites for ME3 while it's still about 9 months away, but also more sales for two major BioWare titles? It's almost like they're saying, "No! We don't want your money now for those titles... we only want your money in 9 months time for this new one. You put that money away or spend it on other games or something else until ME3 comes out."

[Someone With Mass]

It could just be that they want the purchase of the other games in order to get as much content as possible to be optional. If they're forcing it on people, I bet less newcomers would want to play the first two games in order to play the third one because it'd feel like such a chore. They should have something that's appealing and motivating to do so instead.

[Terror_K]

Someone With Mass wrote...

It could just be that they want the purchase of the other games in order to get as much content as possible to be optional. If they're forcing it on people, I bet less newcomers would want to play the first two games in order to play the third one because it'd feel like such a chore. They should have something that's appealing and motivating to do so instead.

I would have thought the concept of the third game being so much richer and personal would have been more than enough. You don't need to say that the first two games are "required playing" but something that just reflects how much deeper the experience would be as a whole if you did should be at least encouraging. Right now they're doing absolutely nothing to encourage others to play the first two games at all... quite the contrary given the comments about ME3 being "the best" place to start. That's discouraging if anything. And that's what weirds me out. And, again, is making me question how deep and involved this third game is really going to be for import players.

[Fiery Phoenix]

The exact same was said about ME2 last year, Terror.

[julian08]

Well, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the best place to start is the first game.
Of course they want to attract players who never played any ME game before. But in my opinion, it is just common sense that you should have experienced the whole story of a game trilogy. I don't start Lord of the Rings by reading Two Towers and complain that the plot doesn't make a lick of sense.

[Fiery Phoenix]

julian08 wrote...

Well, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the best place to start is the first game.
Of course they want to attract players who never played any ME game before. But in my opinion, it is just common sense that you should have experienced the whole story of a game trilogy. I don't start Lord of the Rings by reading Two Towers and complain that the plot doesn't make a lick of sense.

Everyone knows ME1 is, objectively, the best place to start. Even BioWare and Casey himself know it. For whatever reason they tend to feel compelled to twist things around and start saying contradictory stuff for the sake of getting the attention of that "wider audience" they've been fighting for. I still think it's entirely a marketing thing.

[JockBuster]

Is it? Yes from BW's standpoint IF you want to boost sales of ME1 & ME2.
Since importing a character from ME1 to ME2 has bonuses, and ME3 WILL get bonuses for importing a ME2 character, people will WANT the bonuses (IF they are worthwhile), plus the extra dialogue AND making for additional endings. CH also stated that in ME3 Shepard's background (Earthborn, Spacer, Colonist and Ruthless, Sole Survivor & War Hero = 9 combos) WILL change how ME3 plays out.

[Art3m]

I think George Lucas never would tell "Hey palls, c'mon, watch The Return of the Jedi first, it's my best movie, you don't need watch previous 2 'cause they are not as full of awsome stuff as the 3rd!".
Me, playing the franchise stating that this series should be started to play with Mass Effect. 'cause BioWare, it's also an awsome game you did. And it's the beginning of the story. If I were Casey Hudson I'd say "guys, play ME3, then get back to ME1 and make YOUR story, it's worth of it".

[Thrombin]

Terror_K wrote...

To be honest, I don't even get the reasoning behind this way of going about things from BioWare. It's like they're pushing players away from playing the previous two titles and trying to get them to ignore them and just focus on their upcoming new flashy stuff alone. Don't they want players to play the previous two (i.e. current) Mass Effect titles or something? Wouldn't encouraging potential new players to actually give the first two a go not only give said players a greater appreciation of the trilogy and something to play now to whet their appetites for ME3 while it's still about 9 months away, but also more sales for two major BioWare titles? It's almost like they're saying, "No! We don't want your money now for those titles... we only want your money in 9 months time for this new one. You put that money away or spend it on other games or something else until ME3 comes out."

Are they even producing copies of ME1 and ME2 any more? I would have thought that anyone wanting to buy 1 and 2 at this point will be picking up used copies or unsold merchandise from some retailer's or ebayer's storeroom. I wouldn't have thought any money would go to EA/Bioware so I'm not surprised they're not interested in pushing these. 

Story wise it's great to experience all three but, gameplay-wise, some of the flaws of the other two games could put people off to the extent that they buy ME1 or ME2, decide they don't like it and then not pick up ME3 at all because of that experience.

Encouraging newbies to play 1 and 2 can only hurt sales of 3, in my opinion, which is almost certainly the reason for the approach.

However, I think it's possible to say you don't need 1 and 2 to enjoy 3 without saying that 3 is the best place to start. Saying 3 is the best place to start means that those of us who didn't start with 3 are losing out. Of course we're not but that's what it's saying!

Regards

Julian 

[ReinaHW]

Starting with a series at the end without having an understanding of the background, the history, the characters and more is pretty stupid.

It would be like if you went to read the Lord Of The Rings and you started with the last book, you would only end up being confused at everything that's happened without having read the first two parts.
If you want to know the full story then it's better to read it from the beginning.

I always prefer to start from the beginning with a series if I can, if I can't I don't play or read or see the concluding part until I've got a complete understanding of what happened before.
If that means it takes hours, then fine, it takes hours or days or weeks, however long it takes for me to not be confused over starting off with something without having any prior knowledge.

Anyone new to the ME series really should be encouraged to play the first two games, saves on confusion over what's going on.

[Sphynx118]

Ofc its stupid beyond measure to jump in at the last part of trilogy.
Bioware knows this aswell but they hunger for money so they wont tell you its stupid. "I would say this is the best part to start blabla give me all your money LOLOLOLOL"

[stonbw1]

This is simple: If the statement that ME3 is the best launching point is false, such a statement is clearly for selling purposes and therefore, good news for us. If it's a true statement, that means that ME3, for all intense and purposes, can be a standalone game, which would be disappointing. We shall see . . .

[Il Divo]

stonbw1 wrote...

This is simple: If the statement that ME3 is the best launching point is false, such a statement is clearly for selling purposes and therefore, good news for us. If it's a true statement, that means that ME3, for all intense and purposes, can be a standalone game, which would be disappointing. We shall see . . .

I think this is the most appropriate way to look at it. 

As much as I would want everyone to play Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2, it may not be cost-effective. Telling someone that they have to play a combined 80+  hours of game time to understand Mass Effect 3 is not the best means of generating sales. On the other hand, Bioware could also offer a Mass Effect 1+2 bundle at a cheaper price to generate more interest. 

[DarthSliver]

They said they will have the choice thing that will happen for the new players to make some choices from the previous games. But on the other hand I do hope that the most successful choices like during the suicide mission are limited and make it nearly impossible for new players to have most of the characters survive. Also even if new players can get into the third game, hopefully there is something in the credits, more towards the beginning, encouraging them to pick up the previous 2 games to have a more personal experience.

[shinobi602]

Chris Priestly wrote...
Me, I think the Project Director's word can pretty much taken to be true.

You think the best place to start in a trilogy...is at the end...of the trilogy?

Ermmm

Modifié par shinobi602, 16 juin 2011 - 07:27 .

[BlahblahIV]

To me it looks like they are doing what Disney did prior to the release of Tron: Legacy. Leading up to the release of Legacy Disney ceased selling the original Tron, had it removed from Netflix, and other retail outlets. Why? Because they were concerned that people who wanted to see Legacy would go back to the original Tron and see the extremely dated effects and whatnot, and would not see Legacy.

I'm certainly not saying BioWare is about to stop selling the previous 2 entries but it's obvious that they want to keep the focus on bringing people in to the most refined entry in the series, rather than have them go back and played the first one, which by comparison seems more unrefined and less polished. I'm sure someone in the marketing department is worried that if people go back and play ME1 that they may not like various aspects of it that have since been polished or removed and have that color their opinion on the second and third games.

Obviously starting a trilogy at the last entry is a silly thing to do, but from a PR perspective you'd want people to start with the newest, sexiest model.

[Mister Mida]

The best place to start any trilogy is the first part. Period. Bioware knows it, people who actually pay attention and wanna appreciate a story know it. It seems that Bioware's PR is only talking to people who care about gameplay and/or wanna fight big giant robots. When 'The Witcher 2' got announced, I didn't sit around waiting for that to come out. No, I went to buy the original Witcher and enjoying this . And that convinced me to buy 'The Witcher 2'.

So like many other people here I think Bioware's doing it wrong. Encouraging potential customers to play your previous products can actually convince people who are on the fence about buying your future products. Add to that, many people actually see right through this PR talk.

Modifié par Mister Mida, 16 juin 2011 - 10:18 .

[Robbiesan]

Warkupo wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

Warkupo wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

"The best place" is a silly thing to say. "A great place" would make sense and might actually be true.

Opinions cannot be true. 

All opinions are true.

All opinions are false. 

Opinions are like buttholes - everyone has one.  Big deal.  (imo)

All that said, I think for someone new to the ME universe, ME3 is a good place to start.  They may not decide to play ME1 and 2, but there is a good chance they will.  I suspect there will be some new fans because of ME3.  We'll see how it goes next year.