378 réponses à ce sujet

[littlezack]

marshalleck wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
 Adding UNC missions back brings back the barren, dead, vast worlds that belong in sci-fi and make the ME universe feel real again

What sci-fi exactly had barren, lifeless worlds? I'm really curious about this one.

LV-426 in Alien immediately springs to mind.

And yes, Mass Effect failed to achieve anything close to as haunting as that. 

You'll note that, in both Alien and Aliens, they don't spend a lot of time wandering around the empty planet. They go straight for the ship and show whats inside. There's a reason for that.

Modifié par littlezack, 28 juin 2011 - 04:12 .

[SalsaDMA]

littlezack wrote...

What multiple branching paths?

You land on the planet. X marks the spot. Point A. To point B. Yes, there's no set path, but there might as well be. If I draw an X on a map and tell you to go to it, you'll probably just follow a straight line to the X, especially if there isn't anything in your way or any reason to deviate.

I mean, really, people are surprised they changed this in ME2? What else could they do? ;'ME2 - this time, with twice the barren and lifeless environments!' That'll grab people.

No wonder you didn't like the mako if you just went in a straigth line for the points, instead of actually looking at the terrain...

[Il Divo]

SalsaDMA wrote...

No wonder you didn't like the mako if you just went in a straigth line for the points, instead of actually looking at the terrain...

What was there to really look at? It  was ground. I drove across it. 

For most locations, you really could just make a straight line to the facility. 

Modifié par Il Divo, 28 juin 2011 - 04:16 .

[littlezack]

SalsaDMA wrote...

littlezack wrote...

What multiple branching paths?

You land on the planet. X marks the spot. Point A. To point B. Yes, there's no set path, but there might as well be. If I draw an X on a map and tell you to go to it, you'll probably just follow a straight line to the X, especially if there isn't anything in your way or any reason to deviate.

I mean, really, people are surprised they changed this in ME2? What else could they do? ;'ME2 - this time, with twice the barren and lifeless environments!' That'll grab people.

No wonder you didn't like the mako if you just went in a straigth line for the points, instead of actually looking at the terrain...

There was nothing to look at it. It was a bloody rock!

[Commander Shep4rd]

nhsk wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Not only did ME2 have Bioware's highest critic and user-critic reviews, but it sold 300,000 more copies than ME1. So... it was simplified and gained more sales and succeed (critically and commercially).

Could that be because I f.example can remember seing ME2 adds on the TV but not for ME1? And the fact that ME2 hit the PS3 as well as opposed to ME1 who originally was exclusive to the Xbox?

So 300.000 more copies isn't really a lot... In that perspective.

You saw a lot of action in adds, CoD, Halo and Gears fans went and bought it.

Yay

Also add the fact that it was a sequel, sequels tend to make more sales than their previous. Many ME fans bought this game in hoping more a new ME experience and were disspointed.

Not saying i don¨t liek this game thought.

[SalsaDMA]

In Exile wrote...

nhsk wrote...
Could that be because I f.example can remember seing ME2 adds on the TV but not for ME1? And the fact that ME2 hit the PS3 as well as opposed to ME1 who originally was exclusive to the Xbox?

So 300.000 more copies isn't really a lot... In that perspective.

No. It's 360 sales only. But I do need to correct myself: it was only 150,000 for the 360 difference. At $40 per game, that means 6,000,000$ in revenue for Bioware/EA. That's a lot of money.

You saw a lot of action in adds, CoD, Halo and Gears fans went and bought it.

Yay

So? It sold more. If the argument is the redesign affect sales, well, that's just plain wrong.

So?

So, as in you are obviously ignoring why companies spend money on ads in the first place... To sell more units...

Otherwise they wouldn't waste money on ads.

[gogman25]

I intended to start a little thread to discuss this relativly minor topic and it's got over 300 replies. Golly gosh.

[sy7ar]

c'mon, it's a good trailer, i dont want to see any lines getting spoiled, yet I get to see some of the gameplay mechanics improvement. and comparing it to launch trailer? it's not even close.

[marshalleck]

littlezack wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
 Adding UNC missions back brings back the barren, dead, vast worlds that belong in sci-fi and make the ME universe feel real again

What sci-fi exactly had barren, lifeless worlds? I'm really curious about this one.

LV-426 in Alien immediately springs to mind.

And yes, Mass Effect failed to achieve anything close to as haunting as that. 

You'll note that, in both Alien and Aliens, they don't spend a lot of time wandering around the empty planet. They go straight for the ship and show whats inside. There's a reason for that.

And yet the barren lifelessness of the planet was a critical element in establishing the alien, inhospitable, and dangerous nature of exploring beyond the comfortable confines of our pleasant and familiar home on Earth. 

In Mass Effect 2, having almost every single world we visit be a lush forest or jungle planet with sandy beaches and prime oceanfront land, you undermine the value of the garden worlds like Earth, Palaven, Thessia, Surkesh, etc. 

Look at all the threads that pop up around here saying "so what if Earth gets destroyed, humanity can just live somewhere else." 

[AlanC9]

Terror_K wrote...
Mass Effect is partially about traveling and exploring space, and having realistic, dead worlds like you'd find in space can add to this experience.

Well, that's the thing. I don't think that ME should be about exploring space. That isn't Shepard's job.

[gogman25]

sy7ar wrote...

c'mon, it's a good trailer, i dont want to see any lines getting spoiled, yet I get to see some of the gameplay mechanics improvement. and comparing it to launch trailer? it's not even close.

Im not saying it wasn't a good trailer, by no means - but it's just not something I expected from a Mass Effect trailer.
Obviously PEW PEW BOOM BOOM is to be expected but the whole trailer? THE WHOLE TRAILER?

[SalsaDMA]

littlezack wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

littlezack wrote...

What multiple branching paths?

You land on the planet. X marks the spot. Point A. To point B. Yes, there's no set path, but there might as well be. If I draw an X on a map and tell you to go to it, you'll probably just follow a straight line to the X, especially if there isn't anything in your way or any reason to deviate.

I mean, really, people are surprised they changed this in ME2? What else could they do? ;'ME2 - this time, with twice the barren and lifeless environments!' That'll grab people.

No wonder you didn't like the mako if you just went in a straigth line for the points, instead of actually looking at the terrain...

There was nothing to look at it. It was a bloody rock!

I'll give you a hint: The mako didn't behave like a wild buck on steroids if you actually drove according to terrain, rather than trying to treat it like a hovertank.

It strikes me that the reason the hammerhead became what it did, was becuase too many people couldn't figure out looking at the terrain and seeing that instead of trying to drive up a steep clip, they might be better off circling around it...

Boggles the mind, I know...

[Veex]

Terror_K wrote...

Also keep in mind, while ME2 reviewed very well, there were still a lot of disgruntled hardcore fans on these very boards (hence why some of the RPG is returning to ME3 thankfully) and the game also didn't sell incredibly well, despite the rave reviews (it did decently, but comes nowhere close to the likes of CoD, Gears, Halo, Assassin's Creed, etc.).

Has any BioWare game ever achieved CoD, Halo, or AC numbers? Seems like a pretty odd statement to make with regards to the discussion at hand. How did ME2 fair in comparison to its predecessor, or to Dragon Age?

[aftohsix]

gogman25 wrote...

Im not saying it wasn't a good trailer, by no means - but it's just not something I expected from a Mass Effect trailer.
Obviously PEW PEW BOOM BOOM is to be expected but the whole trailer? THE WHOLE TRAILER?

Awsum buttin lol lol right Gogman RIGHT?

[AlanC9]

marshalleck wrote...
In Mass Effect 2, having almost every single world we visit be a lush forest or jungle planet with sandy beaches and prime oceanfront land, you undermine the value of the garden worlds like Earth, Palaven, Thessia, Surkesh, etc. 

It's hardly surpising that most worthwhile stuff in the galaxy is on the inhabitable worlds, relatively few though they are.

[Someone With Mass]

Il Divo wrote...

What was there to really look at? It  was ground. I drove across it. 

For most locations, you really could just make a straight line to the facility. 

Don't forget the colorful skybox that might have two other planets on it.

[gogman25]

aftohsix wrote...

gogman25 wrote...

Im not saying it wasn't a good trailer, by no means - but it's just not something I expected from a Mass Effect trailer.
Obviously PEW PEW BOOM BOOM is to be expected but the whole trailer? THE WHOLE TRAILER?

Awsum buttin lol lol right Gogman RIGHT?

Hey, it's a thread and it's for public discussion. No need to be rude.

[marshalleck]

AlanC9 wrote...

marshalleck wrote...
In Mass Effect 2, having almost every single world we visit be a lush forest or jungle planet with sandy beaches and prime oceanfront land, you undermine the value of the garden worlds like Earth, Palaven, Thessia, Surkesh, etc. 

It's hardly surpising that most worthwhile stuff in the galaxy is on the inhabitable worlds, relatively few though they are.

Are they really few though? All but a handful in ME2 are set on what might as well be Eden-like paradise...which also undercuts the importance Bioware attempted to place on Eden Prime in ME1 as one of Earth's most well-established and important colonies. But oh wait, lol Bekenstein! 

[aftohsix]

gogman25 wrote...

Hey, it's a thread and it's for public discussion. No need to be rude.

I'm not being rude.  I took your basic argument and summed it up in a short sentence for ease of reading / communication.

[AlanC9]

marshalleck wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
 Adding UNC missions back brings back the barren, dead, vast worlds that belong in sci-fi and make the ME universe feel real again

What sci-fi exactly had barren, lifeless worlds? I'm really curious about this one.

LV-426 in Alien immediately springs to mind.

And yes, Mass Effect failed to achieve anything close to as haunting as that. 

As mentioned, they didn't spend a lot of time on that planet.

I'd also mention Battlestar Galactica, where they ran into inhabitable planets about once per season. But again, they didn't actually bother doing episodes on the uninhabitable ones.

[littlezack]

SalsaDMA wrote...

littlezack wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

littlezack wrote...

What multiple branching paths?

You land on the planet. X marks the spot. Point A. To point B. Yes, there's no set path, but there might as well be. If I draw an X on a map and tell you to go to it, you'll probably just follow a straight line to the X, especially if there isn't anything in your way or any reason to deviate.

I mean, really, people are surprised they changed this in ME2? What else could they do? ;'ME2 - this time, with twice the barren and lifeless environments!' That'll grab people.

No wonder you didn't like the mako if you just went in a straigth line for the points, instead of actually looking at the terrain...

There was nothing to look at it. It was a bloody rock!

I'll give you a hint: The mako didn't behave like a wild buck on steroids if you actually drove according to terrain, rather than trying to treat it like a hovertank.

It strikes me that the reason the hammerhead became what it did, was becuase too many people couldn't figure out looking at the terrain and seeing that instead of trying to drive up a steep clip, they might be better off circling around it...

Boggles the mind, I know...

Yes, I drove around the mountains on the occasions they were in the way (unless the damn base was on top of the damn thing)

Either way, I'm not seeing the great exploration. My complaint isn't with the Mako's controls - though they sucked - but with the environments themselves, which are all basically the same thing. Vast. Empty. Boring. If they do it for you, fine, but they got old for me real fast.

[AlanC9]

marshalleck wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

It's hardly surpising that most worthwhile stuff in the galaxy is on the inhabitable worlds, relatively few though they are.

Are they really few though? All but a handful in ME2 are set on what might as well be Eden-like paradise...which also undercuts the importance Bioware attempted to place on Eden Prime in ME1 as one of Earth's most well-established and important colonies. But oh wait, lol Bekenstein! 

Of course they're really few. You can't land at all on the vast majority of worlds in ME2.

Edit: or are you trying to say that the planets we land on are the only one that are real in our minds? That would imply a very low esitmate of our intelligence.

Modifié par AlanC9, 28 juin 2011 - 04:35 .

[Aimi]

SalsaDMA wrote...

I'll give you a hint: The mako didn't behave like a wild buck on steroids if you actually drove according to terrain, rather than trying to treat it like a hovertank.

It strikes me that the reason the hammerhead became what it did, was becuase too many people couldn't figure out looking at the terrain and seeing that instead of trying to drive up a steep clip, they might be better off circling around it...

Boggles the mind, I know...

No.  Da.  Crux.

[ODST 5723]

gogman25 wrote...

Captain_Obvious wrote...

gogman25 wrote...

I never insulted anyone nor did I intend to, simply put the features are being simplified for a wider audience. If people were dumb for playing shooters... well... what game series are we discussing?
No, im not opposed to a game being 'simple', im opposed to a game being stripped of complexity in an attempt to gain more sales and failing.

Then why didn't you write "over-simplified to appeal to a wider audience" instead of "dumbing down"?  Or "why the lack of complexity in the trailer"? 

Because dumbing down is a well known phrase amongst gamers, and asking why the lack of complexity would be pointless as the answer to that is obvious.

No, you picked it because it;'s a well known charged phrase amongst gamers.  "Dumbing down" carries with it connotations and is used to support specific arguments against any sort of change which streamlines gameplay by implying that it requires less *skill, intelligence, inventory management, etc.*

You didn't choose hte other phrases because you've got an axe to grind and 'dumbing down" suits your agenda.

It's either that or you "dumbed down' your response becuase you didn't expect to engage in conversations with people who can read between the lines and see multiple sides of the story here. Your OP is the kind of thread posted when you expect to run into people that will either blindly agree with or miss the insinuations you're making to drum up support for your side.

Even if this is subconscious, your words are extremely pointed and the agenda is obvious.

[marshalleck]

AlanC9 wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
 Adding UNC missions back brings back the barren, dead, vast worlds that belong in sci-fi and make the ME universe feel real again

What sci-fi exactly had barren, lifeless worlds? I'm really curious about this one.

LV-426 in Alien immediately springs to mind.

And yes, Mass Effect failed to achieve anything close to as haunting as that. 

As mentioned, they didn't spend a lot of time on that planet.

I'd also mention Battlestar Galactica, where they ran into inhabitable planets about once per season. But again, they didn't actually bother doing episodes on the uninhabitable ones.

They did that minor character arc with Starbuck crashing on one. It lasted a couple episodes, didn't it? It also served to demonstrate just how dire the fleet's predicament was; planets all around, sure, but none habitable. No safe place to hide. 

But the point here which people are missing, and which is easy to miss is that you can't value something if you can't understand its negation. According to ME2, habitable--nay, tropical paradise--planets are a dime a dozen. Who gives a **** about Earth getting rampaged by Reapers, or another planet being permanently rendered inhospitable by a batarian thug with a grudge against humanity planning to drop an asteroid on it? We can just move everything to one of dozens of other places. 

More than being simply realistic depictions of what we think we understand to be typical planetary environments (Mars, Venus, Mercury) they serve an important role in science fiction of creating contrast with the boundaries of the familiar. Boundaries which ME2 dashed to pieces by having almost every single planet we visit be a lush garden resort world.

Modifié par marshalleck, 28 juin 2011 - 04:44 .