3223 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

In Exile wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
You'd probably end up with a very poor or primitive RPG. I'm having trouble imagining how it would work at all, though.

What if you had some loot and stats, as well as quests, but there was effectively no dialogue?

Well then you have no character. Role does require some form of narrative.

[darth_lopez]

In Exile wrote...

Because those people are all gamers too,  all just as valid as anyone here,  and the whole "Stats aren't necessary" stance isn't going to do nearly as well outside of BSN and Bethseda.

You're right. Bestheda will be shamed after their 3rd (or is it 4th?) release that sells 4 million + units. 

in regard to this point i'd like to point out that Bethesda uses alot of stats. Oblivions system was just a bit constricting, to some extent, and overly complicated and tedious. An interesting idea but after 88 hours the system does feel a bit on the meh side. Fallout 3 and Fallout NV (obsidian) both had many many stats That did matter. ME 1 also had plenty o' stats. So it's hard to imagine how anyone can argue bethesda has "statless" gameplay it's more akin to classless gameplay.

Edit: on bioware's side the statement from the OP is quite contridictory in refrence to DA:O which relied very heavily on stats and class. Then the ME Series has it's fair share of stats but is particularly class heavy for everying ranging from comabt feats to Out of combat skillsDA2s stats did something not sure what but they were there (pretty sure they also helped dictate what you could use)

Modifié par darth_lopez, 12 juillet 2011 - 01:02 .

[Varen Spectre]

Gatt9 wrote...

Actually,  that's to be expected.

There's a few people who exist only in the isolated world of BSN,  and think that ME2 was "Very well received" and that the "RPG Elistists are a minority!  Everyone else wants this!".

It makes them extremely uncomfortable when you point them in the direction of other websites some of whom have equivalent traffic to BSN,  and another gets more hits in an hour than BSN gets in a month.  Because at that point,  you shake the foundation of their beliefs,  "Everyone but him thinks like I do!",  and so rather than deal with the counterpoint,  they attack the poster.

Mmmm, are you sure... that Mass Effect 2 was not received... very well?  I admit, the definition of well received is pretty subjective, but still...

Accoding to data (most probably inacurate, but we don't have better about other games either) on shiped sales (not sold through though, but again we usually don't have those for other games either), it was probably an OK project.

And when it comes readers' and users' reception (I am not even talking about reviewers and other critics), Mass Effect 2 truly dominated it's competition on various polls about the best game of 2010 on sites like IGN, Gamespot, G4tv, Kotaku, etc. and went toe-to-toe with the game with one of the largest and most active fanbases ever - Starcraft 2. It took an interference from Huskystarcraft, the most popular SC broadcaster and highest ranked Youtube reporter with 300 000 + Youtube subscribers, to defeat Mass Effect 2 in GS GotY Award. 

After all, it ME 2 has won Golden Joystick Award - the largest and oldest readers' poll in the world with more than 1,5 million voters and has defeated the Modern Warfare 2 in probably the only polls the Infinity Ward cared (and campaigned) about.

Unless all those polls and public inquiries were falsified or unless the sites mentioned in quoted paragraph have traffic larger than IGN, Gamespot, Kotaku, 1Up, Gamestar, GameFAQs, etc. combined, I am more inclined to believe that Mass Effect 2 was received pretty well.

Modifié par Varen Spectre, 12 juillet 2011 - 12:59 .

[Bnol]

Gatt9 wrote...

I'm right there with you,  though I'm a bit more optimistic than you are.  As I said before,  the gaming market is projected to shrink by 20% this year,  and it looks primed to do worse in 2012 (Since all E3 showed was "Shooter shooter shooter shooter!!!").

So I'm optimistically expecting that around the end of 2012,  begining of 2013,  when the question "What happened to gaming?" becomes a critical question,  these mammoth threads will be remembered as a possible reason for it.

Because,  quite honestly,  the All-shooter lineup means that they're locked in for 2 years at a minimum to a creatively-dead list of games,  combined with the high probability of unimpressive consoles being announced or released next year,  we're right in the middle of 1989.  When Nintendo and Sega were releasing non-stop Super Mario clones,  and then fragmented the market with hardware that didn't penetrate because it was more gimmick than improvement.  Which prompted the 2nd big Console crash.

It is intersting that you attribute a 20% decline in the video game market (which a source would be nice) to not having pure-stat only based RPGs.  I mean, it couldn't have anything to do with the overall economic problems all over the world or possibly Japan's recovery from a massive natural disaster considering they are the second largest producer and consumer of video games.  No, instead you weave this argument that the video game industry is crashing because they aren't making games for the people on the true RPG forums that you visit.  Sorry, but you don't get any sort of real population data from forums, and even if you did it wouldn't matter to the developers/distributors as the only number that matters to them is sales revenues.  So yes, they will continue to make shooters as long as shooters sell. 

In terms of E3, they had Skyrim and Kingdom of Amalur as RPGs, but then again they probably don't fall under the true RPG definition you have. 

[In Exile]

Vaeliorin wrote...
But the thing is, that being better at being a dick doesn't make you any better at talking people into doing what you want.  Neither does being a nice guy.

Being socially aggressive is actually a really good way of getting people to do what you want. We even have a term for that: bullies. 

And it's important to point out that paragon != nice, but rather charming and that's very different. In both ME1 and ME2, there are charm options that give you paragon points where Shepard is quite threatening (a really good ME1 example is the medic quest).

The problem with this is that it only allows you to play a character who's as persuasive as you are.  I'm, generally speaking, not a persuasive person.  So, because I'm not persuasive, Shepard can't be persuasive?

The character is as persuasive as your character is. You make in-character decisions. For a pure RPG (as opposed to a hybrid like ME) I would say that what we should really have is the same situation as combat:

Investing in certain stats gives you a +bonus to your persuasive skills (as stats give + accuracy/+dmg/+dodge to combat abilities) and you can pick social skills that give you bonus speech options (e.g. you can have ranks in seduction, charm, intimidate, debate, diplomacy) and these open new dialogue paths (e.g. seduction, charm, intimidate, debate and diplomacy). 

What you then do is make an in-character decision: if your PC is the charming sort, you pick [charm] options. If your PC is the sort that tries to read the mood, you do that. 

It's no different than how combat is currently handled. 

This has always been a pet peeve of mine, from the days of playing PnP when the DM would allow players of characters who dumped charisma and didn't bother putting points into social skills to be really persuasive because they're really persuasive in real life, while my character, with a high charisma and maxed social skills, isn't capable of persuading anyone because I'm not persuasive in real life.

The choices that you make vis a vis dialogue options are no different than the choices (as the player) you make in combat. Stats are the degree of separation between you and the character (and in this case I think options should always be closed to a PC who does not have the requisite skill) but there is a difference between having the skill and combat technique and using it, and the using it part must come from the in-character decision. IMO.

Basically, what it boils down to is that my character's abilities should be as divorced from mine as possible.  Even to the point of my character's intelligence/wisdom/whatever limits his ability to issue commands to party members.

If we get to that point, combat and movement and exploration should all be automatic and the entire game should simply be a simulation. Why do you get a dialogue choice at all?

See above.  Also, I'd say that "winning combat" is, in fact, skill-based, since the way you've developed your skills tends to determine whether or not you win combat.

But if you're a total newbie you could fail even with a brilliantly build character, and an expert at the combat could win even with a trash character. That's entirely player skill. I steamroll nightmare in DA2 and DA:O because I'm very good at these kinds of games, and could probably beat the game on hard with any build, no matter how poor. Player skill will always matter unless we're looking at a simulation.

I don't know that it's really a conditioning thing.  I don't exactly get excited about every piece of loot (you'll never seen me get excited about a health potion or a non-unique crafting ingredient), but rather about pieces that have a good story behind them or allow me to progress my character.  Loot (before you actually see what it is) is kind of like presents at Christmas or your birthday.  There's an excitement to see what you got.

It just isn't for me. I think presents are a good analogy, because presents have always been an aggravation (is it trash, and will I have thank someone for it?). I'm also not very interesting in the totally unconnected lore someone wrote up for a particular weapon. It's great that it's not longsword +5 and instead The Sword of Crowning Awesome from Uldredth the Unificator, but if that entire backstory is irrelevant to the game itself it might as well have been the longsword +5. 

To me, reactive content is the reward - the game responding fluidly to the choices I make and the moves I make. And that applies to combat as much as it does to dialogue or items.

Well, yeah, Bioware hasn't done a very good job with loot lately.  There shouldn't be any best loot, but rather multiple pieces of loot that are equally good and which one would be best for you are dependent on your playstyle.  Even then, many people go for aesthetics over stats on loot.

I always go for aesthetics. I honestly never wore mage robes in DA:O or DA2 until reskin mods came out that I liked. And I essentially never wore the dwarven style armour in DA:O, because bleh. I found it so ugly.

It's not so much about the loot, but about the progression of the character.  And again, I think there's that sense of anticipation, much like Christmas morning when you're a kid, of "What did I get?" Not sure how you'd have to deal with the random number generator, though, unless you're one of those people that reloads until they get what they want out of a randomly generated chest (which wouldn't be possible in a system I'd want, as I'd generate all the random loot at the start of the game.)

When I say random number generator, I mean that the item is essentially that. What I get is either trash or not, but it's not exciting - it's aggravating that I'm essentially shfiting through someone's garbage to see if I get content I will like or not.

I think you and I just have different priorities in what we think is important in games (I know you think reactivity is important, and I think it's nice, but not necessary.  Of the "Choices and Consquences" concept that people like to toss around, I've come to the conclusion that only the choices really matter to me.)

Keep in mind that I don't actually think the content needs to be different (e.g. I wouldn't say a game is bad because all choices lead to Rome). When I say I want reactivity, I mean I want the game to recognize I made choice A instead of B, and if all choices lead to D, have a justification that uniquely addresses my choice for why I got to D. 

Giving me 10 identical flavours of ice-cream in 10 identical servings using 10 identical spoons is not giving a choice except in the emptiest sense of the word.

Modifié par In Exile, 12 juillet 2011 - 01:07 .

[In Exile]

the_one_54321 wrote...
Well then you have no character. Role does require some form of narrative.

It has a narrative. You just don't pick your dialogue. Your character has stats and you collect loot. As well, you have quests that reward XP and more loot. 

[the_one_54321]

In Exile wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Well then you have no character. Role does require some form of narrative.

It has a narrative. You just don't pick your dialogue. Your character has stats and you collect loot. As well, you have quests that reward XP and more loot.

Well, then you have a role to play. And you can choose to play it or not to.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

For the most part, that's a JRPG. Not all JRPGs mind you, but many don't allow you to pick your words except in key situations.

Also, if you include games that use a Keyword system instead of actual dialog, then the list gets much bigger. I'd wager that there are more RPGs that don't allow you to choose your own dialog in the sense of actual conversation than there are with dialog and narrative choices.

Likely because of technical limitations but also because narrative progression (in wRPGs) was often player driven through investigation and clue/object/person finding rather than character driven narratives that we have today.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 12 juillet 2011 - 01:31 .

[darth_lopez]

i got currious and went on a treasure hunt and what i found On The subject of the suggested video game market decline is that This is not the case. Projected growth to the end of this year (2011)in the US is a 38.1% increase and globaly is roughly a 30% increase link

Edit Was Projected to be 38.1% apparently hte article is 3 years old just noticed the date xD still looking for a more recent one (my google abilities are fairly poor sometimes). So there has been an overall growth since ~2007 of roughly 30.1% globally

This Site claims that the projections are 8.1% Some where (guessing western world) While it predicts an 11.x increase in asian markets in the last paragraph. (i didn't read the full article ctrl+f video game directed me to the last paragraph) in either case the market is apparently projected to grow still rather than decrease.

Modifié par darth_lopez, 12 juillet 2011 - 02:15 .

[Gatt9]

Bnol wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

I'm right there with you,  though I'm a bit more optimistic than you are.  As I said before,  the gaming market is projected to shrink by 20% this year,  and it looks primed to do worse in 2012 (Since all E3 showed was "Shooter shooter shooter shooter!!!").

So I'm optimistically expecting that around the end of 2012,  begining of 2013,  when the question "What happened to gaming?" becomes a critical question,  these mammoth threads will be remembered as a possible reason for it.

Because,  quite honestly,  the All-shooter lineup means that they're locked in for 2 years at a minimum to a creatively-dead list of games,  combined with the high probability of unimpressive consoles being announced or released next year,  we're right in the middle of 1989.  When Nintendo and Sega were releasing non-stop Super Mario clones,  and then fragmented the market with hardware that didn't penetrate because it was more gimmick than improvement.  Which prompted the 2nd big Console crash.

It is intersting that you attribute a 20% decline in the video game market (which a source would be nice) to not having pure-stat only based RPGs.  I mean, it couldn't have anything to do with the overall economic problems all over the world or possibly Japan's recovery from a massive natural disaster considering they are the second largest producer and consumer of video games.  No, instead you weave this argument that the video game industry is crashing because they aren't making games for the people on the true RPG forums that you visit.  Sorry, but you don't get any sort of real population data from forums, and even if you did it wouldn't matter to the developers/distributors as the only number that matters to them is sales revenues.  So yes, they will continue to make shooters as long as shooters sell. 

In terms of E3, they had Skyrim and Kingdom of Amalur as RPGs, but then again they probably don't fall under the true RPG definition you have. 

Google May NPD numbers,  and 2011 projection.  I really shouldn't have to handle relatively simple footwork.  If you're interested in the topic,  google each month of 2011,  many of them had significant drops,  as high as 15%. 

Nor does it have anything to do with that.  That's the excuses people tried to use in 2010,  when it was also dropping.  Thing is,  if you google gamespot and 2009 sales,  you'll find that during the height of the recession,  gaming experienced excellent growth.  It's insane to think that at the height of the recession people were spending more than ever before on gaming,  but when jobs started growing again they quit.

You can only sell the same game so many times.  We proved that with the SNES/Genesis generation,  we proved it with the RTS craze that shifted gaming to consoles,  and we'll prove it again here.  Each time it leads to a market crash,  because when your platform becomes "Any game you want,  so long as the only game you want is this game",  you're done. 

Just like if every single TV show suddenly became Dancing with the Stars,  or every single movie became Pirates of the Caribbean.  At some point,  people get bored of it,  and the bottom drops out.  Gaming is decimated by this,  because gaming has a 18-24 month lag time between when a genre erodes,  and when they can actually shift gears and compensate by working new genres.  By the point you realize the "Genre that everything has to be!" just suddenly lost it's shine,  you've got years worth of work before you can release a game in a different,  unsaturated genre.  This is why the market crashes,  because the reaction time is glacially slow.

This is not difficult logic to follow through.  Imagine playing only one game over and over and over.  How long exactly do you think you (And everyone else) is going to continue to pay for it?

Don't know anything about Kingdom.  But I do know that Skyrim's not an RPG.  It's exactly the same thing Oblivion was,  an Action-Adventure game.  There's not an iota of character progression in that game,  at level 1 you can kill anything and everything in the game.  Walk into the Arena and be the best fighter in the land,  that's not an RPG.  It's Tomb Raider with swords.

@the other guy on Skyrim...

Oblivion sold 4 million copies because it was the *only* RPG on the consoles for as much as a year after release,  the only RPG on the PC platform for a year.  At that point,  almost any game will sell.  Launching into the competition of Dead State,  Diablo 3,  and Mass Effect 3,  it's not going to sell all that well.

As evidence,  I offer up Fallout 3.  They shipped 4.6 million units for their initial shipment,  expecting to sell through them quickly.  The NPD numbers showed that,  with very generous math to get internation estimates,  they managed to sell only 2.2 million units before they dropped off the charts with the second full month of release.  My local Circuit City,  when it was closing,  had those things at 60% off.  Every other game was gone,  but they couldn't give them away.  My Best Buy had a lunchbox for a year after release.  In a city that supports 3 major league sports teams and 3 world-renown colleges with ~20,000 students apiece.

People seriously overestimate Bethseda's importance.

Modifié par Gatt9, 12 juillet 2011 - 02:36 .

[AlanC9]

Varen Spectre wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

Actually,  that's to be expected.

There's a few people who exist only in the isolated world of BSN,  and think that ME2 was "Very well received" and that the "RPG Elistists are a minority!  Everyone else wants this!".

It makes them extremely uncomfortable when you point them in the direction of other websites some of whom have equivalent traffic to BSN,  and another gets more hits in an hour than BSN gets in a month.  Because at that point,  you shake the foundation of their beliefs,  "Everyone but him thinks like I do!",  and so rather than deal with the counterpoint,  they attack the poster.

Mmmm, are you sure... that Mass Effect 2 was not received... very well?  I admit, the definition of well received is pretty subjective, but still...

Accoding to data (most probably inacurate, but we don't have better about other games either) on shiped sales (not sold through though, but again we usually don't have those for other games either), it was probably an OK project.

And when it comes readers' and users' reception (I am not even talking about reviewers and other critics), Mass Effect 2 truly dominated it's competition on various polls about the best game of 2010 on sites like IGN, Gamespot, G4tv, Kotaku, etc. and went toe-to-toe with the game with one of the largest and most active fanbases ever - Starcraft 2. It took an interference from Huskystarcraft, the most popular SC broadcaster and highest ranked Youtube reporter with 300 000 + Youtube subscribers, to defeat Mass Effect 2 in GS GotY Award. 

After all, it ME 2 has won Golden Joystick Award - the largest and oldest readers' poll in the world with more than 1,5 million voters and has defeated the Modern Warfare 2 in probably the only polls the Infinity Ward cared (and campaigned) about.

Unless all those polls and public inquiries were falsified or unless the sites mentioned in quoted paragraph have traffic larger than IGN, Gamespot, Kotaku, 1Up, Gamestar, GameFAQs, etc. combined, I am more inclined to believe that Mass Effect 2 was received pretty well.

You obviously don't understand. Because Gatt9 and the people who agree with him didn't like ME2, ME2 wasn't well-received by the people who count.

[Foolsfolly]

It is intersting that you attribute a 20% decline in the video game
market (which a source would be nice) to not having pure-stat only based
RPGs.

You won't get those numbers, however darth_lopez shows how the market is up and projected to continue to go up.

darth_lopez wrote...

i got currious and went on a treasure hunt and what i found On The subject of the suggested video game market decline is that This is not the case. Projected growth to the end of this year (2011)in the US is a 38.1% increase and globaly is roughly a 30% increase link

Edit Was Projected to be 38.1% apparently hte article is 3 years old just noticed the date xD still looking for a more recent one (my google abilities are fairly poor sometimes). So there has been an overall growth since ~2007 of roughly 30.1% globally

This Site claims that the projections are 8.1% Some where (guessing western world) While it predicts an 11.x increase in asian markets in the last paragraph. (i didn't read the full article ctrl+f video game directed me to the last paragraph) in either case the market is apparently projected to grow still rather than decrease.

Only for Gatt to ignore his post and continue to cite unsourced decline.

Arguing on the internet is like sexing a jelly fish. You may enjoy yourself at the time but no one involved comes out of that looking right.

@ AlanC9:

You obviously don't understand. Because Gatt9 and the people who agree
with him didn't like ME2, ME2 wasn't well-received by the people who
count.

That's about right. All those reviewers who loved it, awards it won, and the fact that it's the highest ranked BioWare game on Metacritic means nothing. A small group of RPG elitist who look at modern UIs and cry disliked it. Which means we're all stupid for having enjoyed the game.

Modifié par Foolsfolly, 12 juillet 2011 - 04:02 .

[The Spamming Troll]

is reading the 80 pages worth it for me?

[darth_lopez]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

is reading the 80 pages worth it for me?

no not really

[Terror_K]

I don't get why so many people are blind to the fact that ME2's popularity is evidence of it selling-out and dumbing down for the masses.

[Massadonious1]

Because what some people consider "smart" is subjective.

[darth_lopez]

Foolsfolly wrote...

It is intersting that you attribute a 20% decline in the video game
market (which a source would be nice) to not having pure-stat only based
RPGs.

You won't get those numbers, however darth_lopez shows how the market is up and projected to continue to go up.

darth_lopez wrote...

i got currious and went on a treasure hunt and what i found On The subject of the suggested video game market decline is that This is not the case. Projected growth to the end of this year (2011)in the US is a 38.1% increase and globaly is roughly a 30% increase link

Edit Was Projected to be 38.1% apparently hte article is 3 years old just noticed the date xD still looking for a more recent one (my google abilities are fairly poor sometimes). So there has been an overall growth since ~2007 of roughly 30.1% globally

This Site claims that the projections are 8.1% Some where (guessing western world) While it predicts an 11.x increase in asian markets in the last paragraph. (i didn't read the full article ctrl+f video game directed me to the last paragraph) in either case the market is apparently projected to grow still rather than decrease.

Only for Gatt to ignore his post and continue to cite unsourced decline.

I also Forgot to add in the third paragraph those numbers are from 2011-2015 that there is the 8.1 percent Growth Projected and 11.x in the Asian market. So yeah... I see no decline or source for decline or anything that can attribute it soley to the RPG games releasing in todays age.

Also in his post he claims that in 2006 TES:O was the only RPG to release that year on consoles

Oblivion sold 4 million copies because it was the *only* RPG on the
consoles for as much as a year after release,  the only RPG on the PC
platform for a year.  At that point,  almost any game will sell. 
Launching into the competition of Dead State,  Diablo 3,  and Mass
Effect 3,  it's not going to sell all that well.

This is not true
as you can see here this is the release List for games in 2006 TES released on march 20. Final Fantasy XI released a month later. Also having to compete with Final Fantasy seven "Dirge of something or another "later in the year. The following year in 2007 it had to compete with Eternal Sonata, The Witcher And Mass Effect On the consoles. (on the PC it had alot more Competition suffice to say) But in 2007 the Shivering Isle Expansion also Released. 

So as far as other RPGs existing on consoles Goes yes there were plenty for competition(what small part of gaming RPGs make up at least) . I've heard mixed opinions on the Witcher, Eternal Sonata i've not heard much about Final Fantasy is well final Fantasy it has a massive fanbase, and mass effect. So yeah i'd say for it's first Year and a half of existing it had decent competition. And still did fairly well from those numbers.
Oblivion From it's ratings to the fact that there is an aniversary edition planned for release...oh what do you know 1 hour before this post EST >.>  I'd say the game did very well. and sold on its own merit

Also With Skyrim, the game that has beaten ME 3 in various Competitions already, Coming out November 11th I think it could be a possibility EABW moved the release date back to avoid serious competition with Skyrim.

in regards to gatt9 on Fallout:

As evidence,  I offer up Fallout 3.  They shipped 4.6 million units
for their initial shipment,  expecting to sell through them quickly. 
The NPD numbers showed that,  with very generous math to get internation
estimates,  they managed to sell only 2.2 million units before they
dropped off the charts with the second full month of release.  My local
Circuit City,  when it was closing,  had those things at 60% off.  Every
other game was gone,  but they couldn't give them away.  My Best Buy
had a lunchbox for a year after release.  In a city that supports 3
major league sports teams and 3 world-renown colleges with ~20,000
students apiece.

Fall out has Sold numerous copies 3.46 mil alone on on the 360
2.6 million on the PS 3
and unfortunately only .88 milion on PC
All versions however recieved a Critic score of 8.8 - 9.0 (ps3 is the only one to score lower than 9.0) 

if you do some basic math that's ~ 6.8 million total Sold much better than ME 1 did apparently (according to VGcharts xbox pc Or even Dare i test the waters  >.>  KOTOR

Just so we have this out there VG charts may not be entirely accurate at all times(particularly with PC sales from the looks of it) It's the best i've got atm

Furthermore World Renowned Colleges and Sports teams i don't think are exactly known for their Video Gaming Aptitude More like their Physical and Mental Aptitudes So the Ability to find a good game in a store i can understand may be lost in such an environment.

Modifié par darth_lopez, 12 juillet 2011 - 05:21 .

[Epic777]

Terror_K wrote...

I don't get why so many people are blind to the fact that ME2's popularity is evidence of it selling-out and dumbing down for the masses.

So the fact its popular is sign is the smoking gun of selling-out. Me1 was a critical and commerical success,was that dumbed down too? These are same critics that praised DAO, KOTOR and BG. Or is there a larger deus ex style conspiracy going on? Maybe majestic 12 and illuminati are secretly planning against 'true RPGs'.

[Savber100]

Varen Spectre wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

Actually,  that's to be expected.

There's a few people who exist only in the isolated world of BSN,  and think that ME2 was "Very well received" and that the "RPG Elistists are a minority!  Everyone else wants this!".

It makes them extremely uncomfortable when you point them in the direction of other websites some of whom have equivalent traffic to BSN,  and another gets more hits in an hour than BSN gets in a month.  Because at that point,  you shake the foundation of their beliefs,  "Everyone but him thinks like I do!",  and so rather than deal with the counterpoint,  they attack the poster.

Mmmm, are you sure... that Mass Effect 2 was not received... very well?  I admit, the definition of well received is pretty subjective, but still...

Accoding to data (most probably inacurate, but we don't have better about other games either) on shiped sales (not sold through though, but again we usually don't have those for other games either), it was probably an OK project.

And when it comes readers' and users' reception (I am not even talking about reviewers and other critics), Mass Effect 2 truly dominated it's competition on various polls about the best game of 2010 on sites like IGN, Gamespot, G4tv, Kotaku, etc. and went toe-to-toe with the game with one of the largest and most active fanbases ever - Starcraft 2. It took an interference from Huskystarcraft, the most popular SC broadcaster and highest ranked Youtube reporter with 300 000 + Youtube subscribers, to defeat Mass Effect 2 in GS GotY Award. 

After all, it ME 2 has won Golden Joystick Award - the largest and oldest readers' poll in the world with more than 1,5 million voters and has defeated the Modern Warfare 2 in probably the only polls the Infinity Ward cared (and campaigned) about.

Unless all those polls and public inquiries were falsified or unless the sites mentioned in quoted paragraph have traffic larger than IGN, Gamespot, Kotaku, 1Up, Gamestar, GameFAQs, etc. combined, I am more inclined to believe that Mass Effect 2 was received pretty well.

To Gatt9 and others, the hardcore RPG crowd is all that matters. **** the casual players and mainstream audiences since they don't know quality when they see it.  As for all these rewards and good reception? They were ALL bought by EA even the Metacritic users who rated the game around 8.8. 

I mean there's NO way that the game is good despite those perfect scores since I don't personally like it!

...and yes, I'm being sarcastic. 

Modifié par Savber100, 12 juillet 2011 - 06:06 .

[Someone With Mass]

Terror_K wrote...

I don't get why so many people are blind to the fact that ME2's popularity is evidence of it selling-out and dumbing down for the masses.

Like if there was anything complex about ME1 that required a high level of intelligence to solve...

[In Exile]

the_one_54321 wrote...
Well, then you have a role to play. And you can choose to play it or not to.

Well, I'm talking about Warcraft III. It has every feature I just described. And now I'm going to stop with the leading questions. 

[In Exile]

Terror_K wrote...

I don't get why so many people are blind to the fact that ME2's popularity is evidence of it selling-out and dumbing down for the masses.

I thought ME2's lack of popularity was supposed to be the result of those things. I'm getting confused! How am I supposed to know what to hate ME2 for!?

[Il Divo]

Terror_K wrote...

I don't get why so many people are blind to the fact that ME2's popularity is evidence of it selling-out and dumbing down for the masses.

Or it's evidence that some people consider it far superior to its predecessor. But I suppose if we followed your reasoning, Assassin's Creed II, Baldur's Gate II, Halo 2, and all popular sequels, were dumbed down from their previous games.

It's also interesting how DA2's lack of popularity is due to the game being dumbed down. Yet Mass Effect 2's popularity is due to the game being dumbed down. Developers cannot win with your logic, so make up your mind.

Modifié par Il Divo, 12 juillet 2011 - 06:40 .

[Bnol]

darth_lopez wrote...

Also With Skyrim, the game that has beaten ME 3 in various Competitions already, Coming out November 11th I think it could be a possibility EABW moved the release date back to avoid serious competition with Skyrim.

It has as much to do with that as them not wanting to compete with themselves with them wanting to push SW:TOR out soon and before ME3.  Obviously not all the same market, but no reason to lose cross-over fans, especially when trying to launch a MMORPG.

[littlezack]

Terror_K wrote...

I don't get why so many people are blind to the fact that ME2's popularity is evidence of it selling-out and dumbing down for the masses.

This sort of thinking always bugs me. I mean, it basically assumes that we live in a Magical Fantasy World where wanting to make money off your product is somehow a bad thing.

Really, think about it. We can argue about the quality of ME2 all day, but let's just focus on that statement. It's wrong for a game to be popular. If a lot of people like something, it must be bad, and they're all stupid for liking it. How snobbish can  you get.

Videogames cost money to make, and people make them to make money. Oh, sure, they might have a love for the industry, but every videogame ever put on store shelves was made with the intent of making as much money possible. That's how the world works. That's capitalism. That's life. Going by your standard, Bioware just can't win - either they only appeal to a small niche of people and don't make enough money to suppor themselves, or they appeal to a lot of people and become soulless bastards.