3223 réponses à ce sujet

[Core_Commander]

Back in my younger days I played a ton of paper-and-pen RPG's. We never had meaningful inventory or loot, just a few important items scribbled on the side of character sheets. After a while we forgone rolling on stats and instead used a pool to make sure characters aren't screwed from the start, and thus enjoyable for all - one could say we "streamlined" and "homogenized".

The fun was in the story - playing the characters, the NPC's, the world. It's a role-playing game after all. As long as characters are good, the combat makes sense (as in, know what you're fighting for at the moment) and you can make choices to personalize your Shepard, I'm good. Only hoping the story is decent (looking at you, ME2). Stats and loot are secondary to the narrative and participating in in.

[Terror_K]

BioWare doesn't NEED to cater to the mainstream masses and to be a success. It's a complete fallacy that you need to go for the biggest audience and create generic, overly simple stuff like everybody else to make a profit and succeed. That's an illusion and excuse created by companies who have become too greedy. DA:O amongst other titles proved there is an audience out there for RPGs and other types of games that aren't the same brown story-driven action titles with light RPG elements as 90% of the AAA titles these days. The RPG genre doesn't need to be dead, its the publishers and developers out there who are killing it, not the audience. It's not that the audience isn't there, it's that its not the biggest one.

[Lumikki]

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.

Yes, we all know that ME2 was design to please masses, even Bioware has sayed it. How ever, why to hell is that bad point to please masses and try to get sales of game up? Bioware don't do anything like this unless they WANT to do it. What are they reasons for it, is they own, we players don't deside some companies game design directions.

How ever, you comment about "Dumbing down" is low. You are smart girl, so don't go in this same road, where you need to use "insulting" words, because you self did not like it's direction. Have little respect for the hard work Bioware has done. Basicly you are just bitter because Bioware did not design game what was 100% way you wanted. Is that really reason for go to all this dumping down path, if the game was what some other people wanted?

Modifié par Lumikki, 12 juillet 2011 - 08:25 .

[Someone With Mass]

They want to make more money. That's it.

[littlezack]

BioWare doesn't NEED to cater to the mainstream masses and to be a success. It's a complete fallacy that you need to go for the biggest audience and create generic, overly simple stuff like everybody else to make a profit and succeed. That's an illusion and excuse created by companies who have become too greedy.

Yes, yes, companies are greedy for wanting to make money, games should just be made for the FANS, rage against the machine, blah blah blah.

I will say though, that if you think the majority of people who bought DA:O did so for the RPG elements and not the 'sex and violence' that was a big part of the advertising campaign, you're more naive than I originally thought.

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

You are smart girl

I'm a smart what now?

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

You are smart girl

I'm a smart what now?

Yeah, I think so. Why?

I allways have high respect to you, because most the time you make well thinked posts what are usually very constructive. Only problem is this bitterness agaist Biowars design direction, what you carry over in most posts. To have different opinions are fine or liking different kind of games. Expressing disagreement is fine, even Biowares design direction. But the tone...

Modifié par Lumikki, 12 juillet 2011 - 08:31 .

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Yeah, I think so. Why?

I allways have high respect to you, because most the time you make well thinked posts what are usually every constructive. Only problem is this bitterness agaist Biowars design direction, what you carry over in every post.

It was more the "girl" part I was referring to. I'm not female. Perhaps I need to stop using Femshep as an avatar.

And sorry, but it's hard not to be bitter at BioWare after Dragon Age 2. It was a god-damned betrayal, symbolising everything I hate about modern games and confirming my fears about where BioWare had gone and showing me that they had fallen far quicker than even I had thought.

[Ahriman]

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.

But doesn't it have almost same sales as ME1? I mean, ME2 is popular not because of catsuits or lack of customization, actually it's popular because of same reasons as ME1: sci-fi action with story you can affect on. I'm even sure that if Bioware fixed some ME1's elements instead of removing them it would change barely nothing. This 'mainstreaming' doesn't work and never will, it would be strange if Bioware didn't understand it.

[littlezack]

Terror_K wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Yeah, I think so. Why?

I allways have high respect to you, because most the time you make well thinked posts what are usually every constructive. Only problem is this bitterness agaist Biowars design direction, what you carry over in every post.

It was more the "girl" part I was referring to. I'm not female. Perhaps I need to stop using Femshep as an avatar.

And sorry, but it's hard not to be bitter at BioWare after Dragon Age 2. It was a god-damned betrayal

You take things too seriously. It's not a 'betrayal', they just made a game you didn't like. One game, I might add. They don't owe you anything, you don't owe them anything, they're not under any obligation to make games you like, and the fact that they didn't doesn't constitute them stabbing you in the back. They make games. You buy them or don't buy them. That is the extent of your relationship with Bioware.

Modifié par littlezack, 12 juillet 2011 - 08:39 .

[Lumikki]

Wizz wrote...

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.

But doesn't it have almost same sales as ME1? I mean, ME2 is popular not because of catsuits or lack of customization, actually it's popular because of same reasons as ME1: sci-fi action with story you can affect on. I'm even sure that if Bioware fixed some ME1's elements instead of removing them it would change barely nothing. This 'mainstreaming' doesn't work and never will, it would be strange if Bioware didn't understand it.

That's because ME series was design to be something between RPG fans and other players who aren't so much in deeper RPG, but would like more action side. Issue was that ME2 when little too far for some "hardcore" RPG fans, while other RPG fans still was able to accept ME2 just fine, because it was still good game. Now in ME3 they try to fix some of the RPG part, while they still gonna keep the action side too. Point been some RPG elements can be very annoying for other people who aren't liking deep "hardcore" RPG.

Why Bioware doesn't sell ME2 better than this? maybe it's because like you sayed, Bioware has been expected to make RPG games. Now that it tries to do little light way RPG as action RPG, some of core RPG fans doesn't like it, while the outside players doesn't yet know ME2 that well. It's still ranked as action RPG, you know.

Modifié par Lumikki, 12 juillet 2011 - 09:23 .

[Ahriman]

Lumikki wrote...
That's because ME series was design to be something between RPG fans and other players who aren't so much in deeper RPG, but would like more action side. Issue was that ME2 when little too far for some "hardcore" RPG fans, while other RPG fans still was able to accept ME2 just fine, because it was still good game. Now in ME3 they try to fix some of the RPG part, while they still gonna keep the action side too. Point been some RPG elements can be very annoying for other people who aren't liking deep "hardcore" RPG.

Bioware can only choose who is going to be annoyed.
There are different sorts of people who like, ehm, games with dialogs [I don't to use word 'RPG' to avoid unnecessary discussion]. You cannot please them all, but you can try to intrigue them enough for buying game. Than better game is than it's easier to catch people of the 'opposite side'.

Why Bioware doesn't sell ME2 better than this? maybe it's because like you sayed, Bioware has been expected to make RPG games. Now that it tries to do little light way RPG, some of core RPG fans doesn't like it, while the outside players doesn't yet know ME2 that well. It's still ranked as action RPG, you know. ME2 was ME1 element fix.

I disagree here. One of my friends is a big DS and Gears of War fan and he finds ME2 dull and tedious. Just as ME1. Bioware should just make games in which they are best, that's all. Hopes for getting CoD sales are an illusion.

Modifié par Wizz, 12 juillet 2011 - 09:24 .

[Lumikki]

Wizz wrote...

Why Bioware doesn't sell ME2 better than this? maybe it's because like you sayed, Bioware has been expected to make RPG games. Now that it tries to do little light way RPG, some of core RPG fans doesn't like it, while the outside players doesn't yet know ME2 that well. It's still ranked as action RPG, you know. ME2 was ME1 element fix.

I disagree here. One of my friends is a big DS and Gears of War fan and he finds ME2 dull and tedious. Just as ME1. Bioware should just make games in which they are best, that's all. Hopes for getting CoD sales are an illusion.

I don't expect that some "hardcore" shooter fans would like ME2 anymore than some "hardcore" RPG fans. That's because it's middle of them both. How ever, there is A LOT of players between these extreme paths too.

Modifié par Lumikki, 12 juillet 2011 - 09:28 .

[Phaedon]

Wizz wrote...

But doesn't it have almost same sales as ME1?

Nice statement there, mind finding a source of it that isn't VGChartz?

All we know is that the initial retailer demand for ME2 was better than the one for ME1.

And that doesn't matter at all.

ME1 was received extremely well by critics. ME2 was received even better than that, by critics.
ME1's online fan reviews (Metacritic, Gamespot, IGN etc.) are universally positive. ME2's fan reviews are even more positive.
ME1 won several GOTY awards. ME2 broke the GOTY barrier and won 130+ GOTY awards.

ME2 appears to be more popular than ME1. Nobody is talking about COD sales, only you. 

I mean, ME2 is popular not because of catsuits or lack of customization, actually it's popular because of same reasons as ME1: sci-fi action with story you can affect on. I'm even sure that if Bioware fixed some ME1's elements instead of removing them it would change barely nothing. This 'mainstreaming' doesn't work and never will, it would be strange if Bioware didn't understand it.

Or perhaps you should realize that streamlining isn't fundamentally wrong.

ME2's gameplay was more popular because it actually had a more enjoyable shooter element and the inventory and progression, as well as balance weren't broken.

[darth_lopez]

littlezack wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Yeah, I think so. Why?

I allways have high respect to you, because most the time you make well thinked posts what are usually every constructive. Only problem is this bitterness agaist Biowars design direction, what you carry over in every post.

It was more the "girl" part I was referring to. I'm not female. Perhaps I need to stop using Femshep as an avatar.

And sorry, but it's hard not to be bitter at BioWare after Dragon Age 2. It was a god-damned betrayal

You take things too seriously. It's not a 'betrayal', they just made a game you didn't like. One game, I might add. They don't owe you anything, you don't owe them anything, they're not under any obligation to make games you like, and the fact that they didn't doesn't constitute them stabbing you in the back. They make games. You buy them or don't buy them. That is the extent of your relationship with Bioware.

No imma have to side with Terror here BWs Main line is "We make good Stories" What was DA 2?  it wasn't that the mechanics were too dumbed down (i'm sure it didn't help it's case though) it's not that it's combat couldn't be exillerating. What killed it for me, and my compadres at least, was that the story that was advertised "How Hawke Becomes the most important person in Thedas neh the DA universe" was not there. From Day 1 hawke was Portrayed as awesome the most important guy in the lore etc. What did we get? some slum dog climbing his way to the top, not that it wasn't interesting it just wasn't a good story we have countless moments where hawke just does stuff for no good apparent reason. we have even more moments where what he does makes little to no sense with the end result. We have even more moments where no matter what option you picked to help mages they continuosly betrayed your trust  we have a story that should've been 5 acts long but got cut at 3 and had a nonsense ending that didn't explain maybe 90% of what we wanted to know going into the game. We Had Qunari who literally only served the purpose of Random Unecessary antagonist #2 because BW couldn't think of anything to compliment the Idol section of story. We have literally a game, which unlike it's predecessor, was driven entirely off sex and violence (sigmund freuds favorite game ever = DA2) Hawkes personal story while interesting and entertaining for some on the story telling level was a massive let down. The Series would've been better off if it stopped at Awakenings or Just kept getting DLC. Because that's about what DA 2 was worth the Cost of Lelianas song. For the story that was presented It should have been no more than 10 dollars. Bioware literally did a 180 on a series that had great mechanics good story and was so close to perfect RPG and killed it.they flaunted important characters from the original yet did nothing with them. Flemmeth's role?  morrigans story?  where were the continuations?  why thorugh out the entire of a game whos predecessor was built on choice and options did this game make players feel like their choices bore no weight. we we promised mountains story wise and we got 2 inch mounds of shifty sand.

DA 2 was a betrayal out right. Bioware Failed the community by releasing it and the DA 2 team should be fired. What's worse is not only did they make a ****ty story and a rather ****ty game but one person at least had the gull to go to metacritc and try boosting the games stats. DA 2 was the worst game in Bioware history.

[Phaedon]

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.

Terror_K wrote...

BioWare doesn't NEED to cater to the mainstream masses and to be a success. It's a complete fallacy that you need to go for the biggest audience and create generic, overly simple stuff like everybody else to make a profit and succeed. That's an illusion and excuse created by companies who have become too greedy. DA:O amongst other titles proved there is an audience out there for RPGs and other types of games that aren't the same brown story-driven action titles with light RPG elements as 90% of the AAA titles these days. The RPG genre doesn't need to be dead, its the publishers and developers out there who are killing it, not the audience. It's not that the audience isn't there, it's that its not the biggest one.

Nice self-contradiction there.

DA2 sold worse than DA:O, and therefore, it is less popular than DA:O.

By your logic DA:O popularity is evidence of it selling-out to a specific group (BG fans), while DA2 is a the real RPG with the much better role-playing.

Also, I can find a ton of other games that were received pretty badly and made few money. Does that make them good?

Or does the rest of the games that sold well and were popular bad?

Or is it just you you using your logic selectively.
--
@Terror_K and @Wizz

Stop acting as if inventory and loot in ME1 were deep.
They were derp, at best.

All of the items were 6 models with reskins now and then, all felt the same, and they weren't complex at all.
You didn't pick a model to apply it on your build, you picked one model from I to X to pick the model with slightly better ATK stat.

ME2's inventory, with all of the weapons feeling different and having different stat was easily more complex than it. 

Not to mention that the inventory in ME1 was clutterred for no reason and a decent amount of time spent on the game was spent by people trying to calculate how many weapons they should keep for them and squadmates, omni-gelling everything else, and changing the weapon to each squadmate, one by one.

[Mister Mida]

Phaedon wrote...

ME2's inventory, with all of the weapons feeling different and having different stat was easily more complex than it. 

What different stat? And you think that's way more complex than ME (1)'s system? I'd call it easily nothing better.

[Phaedon]

Mister Mida wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

ME2's inventory, with all of the weapons feeling different and having different stat was easily more complex than it. 

What different stat? And you think that's way more complex than ME (1)'s system? I'd call it easily nothing better.

Yeah, because there are dozens of I-X versions of the same wweapon laying around, all with essentially the same stats.

And to answer your question:
Assault Rifle Models 

Below is a list of the types of assault rifles in Mass Effect 2 and their base stats:
M-8 Avenger 

Manufacturer[/b]: Elkoss CombineBase Damage[/b]: 10.8
Damage Multipliers[/b] (Armor / Barriers / Shields): x1.25 / x1.25 / x1.25
Default ammo[/b]: 40 / 400Acquisition[/b]: Default starting weapon[/list]
M-15 Vindicator

Manufacturer[/b]: Elanus Risk Control Services
Base Damage[/b]: 36.8
Damage Multipliers[/b] (Armor / Barriers / Shields): x1.25 / x1.25 / x1.25
Default ammo[/b]: 24 / 96
Acquisition[/b]: Dossier: Archangel[/list]

M-76 Revenant
 
Manufacturer[/b]: Unknown
Base Damage[/b]: 21.3
Damage Multipliers[/b] (Armor / Barriers / Shields): x1.4 / x1.2 / x1.2
Default ammo[/b]: 80 / 480
Acquisition[/b]: Collector Ship (mission) (Soldier only).[/list]
Different base damage,accuracy, modifiers, ammo per mag/total, and playstyle in general.

Modifié par Phaedon, 12 juillet 2011 - 10:05 .

[darth_lopez]

if only BW let us see the stats(in game) v.v Looks like they will in ME 3 though ^^

Modifié par darth_lopez, 12 juillet 2011 - 10:05 .

[Phaedon]

darth_lopez wrote...

if only BW let us see the stats(in game) v.v Looks like they will in ME 3 though ^^

The description tends to describe the suggested playstyle though, no?

[CroGamer002]

^Phaedon, we all know that RPG's has to be complex as Sims City.

[Phaedon]

Mesina2 wrote...

^Phaedon, we all know that RPG's has to be complex as Sims City.

Sim City does have more modifiable stats/complex stat. progression than a traditional RPG, and even more stats in general, so I find the comparison unjust.

[darth_lopez]

Phaedon wrote...

darth_lopez wrote...

if only BW let us see the stats(in game) v.v Looks like they will in ME 3 though ^^

The description tends to describe the suggested playstyle though, no?

it does it just doesn't give us the exact numbers which i always find helpful just a pet pieve really nothing major. Typically it's suggestions are broad though, except for the ARs, You use SMGs on Shields Pistols on armor, except the predator shields or armro, shotguns on barriers typically and SRs on just about anything you want (incissor shields, Widow maker Victims, the one that starts with the M armor Viper Shields).

the ARs i think can get pretty descriptive sometimes but nothing so much as to suggest if one is ever more effective than the others.

[CroGamer002]

Phaedon wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

^Phaedon, we all know that RPG's has to be complex as Sims City.

Sim City does have more modifiable stats/complex stat. progression than a traditional RPG, and even more stats in general, so I find the comparison unjust.

Then I apologize to Sims City franchise.

[Phaedon]

Avenger:
"A common, versatile, military-grade assault rifle. Accurate when fired in burst shots, and deadly when fired on full auto. The Avenger is effective at penetrating shields, armor and biotic barriers. The modular design and inexpensive components of the Avenger make it a favorite of military groups and mercenaries alike. The Avenger has a reputation for being tough, reliable, easy to use, and easy to upgrade."

Revenant:
"Unleashes a storm of deadly high velocity slugs. Less accurate than an assault rifle, but has a high ammo capacity and deals much more damage. Effective against armor, shields and biotic barriers. Upgrades the Vindicator Battle Rifle.
This custom-made machine gun features technology not widely available. Protected against replication by sophisticated Fabrication Rights Management (FRM) technology, only the richest and most powerful warlords can afford this weapon."

Seems like they do, now and then.
Not in comparison, though. But yeah, that's being fixed in ME3, apparently.

Modifié par Phaedon, 12 juillet 2011 - 10:12 .