310 réponses à ce sujet

[Lucifer_Cheney]

As long as they don't **** up the story or character development, I couldn't care less if they worship at the alter of Cliff Bleszinski or everyone at Infinity Ward and Bungie.

[xSTONEYx187x]

Savber100 wrote...

Silverman is a great guy but he tries too hard to please newcomers of the franchise. Hence why he uses fancy terms like "cool" and "awesome" while showing games that people have (I admit) ENJOYED like Halo, COD, GOW. Metal Gear Solid 4, and Uncharted. I admit it's a little pretentious here and there but this guy knows how to draw people that aren't fond of RPGs and have them enjoy games like ME. 

Or he can just please us by mentioning Planescape Torment, Baldur's Gate 2 etc of which I'll ask what's the point of marketing when he's just appealing to us, the regular Bioware fan? Let him do his job and just remind ourselves that he's not talking to US; he's talking to potential customers. 

Brilliant post, Savber100. 

[InkognitoY]

I don't Reall care how much they improve the combat, personally I had no problem with ME1. just as long as the character development and RPG elements of the game don suffer, I have no problem.

[Gatt9]

Lumikki wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

ME1 had allmost ZERO TPS side. You think this is what balance is?

And yet you're always claiming that BioWare had meant for it to be like ME2 from the start. Despite evidence to the contrary. :innocent:

Yes and No, but there is no conratory evidence, only your own rebel agaist what Bioware does.
Balance between RPG gameplay vs TPS combat and what ME serie should have been from start. There is no conflict there.

You assumption is based TOTALLY what ME1 was, not what Bioware wanted the serie to be. If it would been so how you see situation, then there would NEVER have been point to change the balance or combat style between ME's. So, you assumption is wrong. Only correct assumption is that Bioware wanted TPS combat in ME serie, but they failed make it good at in ME1. Then with ME2 they over simplifyed RPG side, while they got TPS side working. Because every evidense as what Bioware has done support this conclusion.

I'm not complaining here what Bioware does, YOU are.

I'm complaining you complain as not having base. Don't get me wrong I support "your complain" increase RPG aspects in ME serie. Because I support improving ME serie and it's balance, even Bioware agrees with you in this. I don't how ever support you vision what you think ME serie is, because it's wrong one. It's you personal dream vision what you wanted ME series to be, not what IT REALLY IS, defined by BIOWARE.

So, you idea of balance is based failed excecution of game features. Point been ME1 failed totally in TPS side and ME2 over simplifyed RPG features. ME3 is trying to fix the issue.

You've got massive logical problems in there.

ME was the game developed by Bioware,  ME2 was the game developed under EA.  Bioware could have changed the game,  they could have delayed it and reworked it,  they chose not to.  Hence,  one can conclude that they intended to release the game like that,  because they did,  and since they released it like that,  one can say that they were relatively happy with it.  Which means,  it met their expectations.

The onus is upon you to definitively prove that Bioware hated the end result of their work,  and regreted releasing it that way.  Because if you cannot,  then there must be some other reason for the change,  and since there was a major change in cooporate culture that lead to the resignation of one of their long-time devs,  we can conclude that it was EA's influence,  not their original intent.

You continually assert that ME was not what Bioware wanted,  you need to definitively prove that.  You'll need an interview from immediately after release,  before EA took over,  that clearly states "We don't know what happened,  we meant to release a TPS,  we've no idea what this meadowmuffin is".

If I am an author, and I believe that in my book, a certain character dies at a certain event, somehow, no matter what I say, whoever was that character's greatest fan will always call that action NOT OF MY OWN DECISION but obviously that of the overlords "in charge of me".

It's this phenomena that I feel is the primary factor in statments like yours.

I feel quite the opposite.  I feel people keep continually assigning reservations to the original ME team that do not hold true,  in defense of EA's influence that quite obviously changed the direction and genre of the game.

I haven't yet seen any evidence that Bioware detested ME on release.

____________________________________________________________________________________

@OP's topic

Yes,  it's pretty clear from the features,  gameplay,  and interviews that someone at EA is using "What sold really well in the last couple years?" as the design template,  rather than build upon ME and it's strengths.  That screenshot collage really shows this.  At this point,  you can pretty much take ME3's feature list and generate a list of games from the last 3 years.

[Raxxman]

InkognitoY wrote...

I don't Reall care how much they improve the combat, personally I had no problem with ME1. just as long as the character development and RPG elements of the game don suffer, I have no problem.

Well hopefully ME3 will have the best of both worlds.

[Pulletlamer]

Oh look, THIS thread again.

First, those images were from a well-deserving to be called Troll Thread, that got locked, not flamed.
You copying them only proves you share the same (if not similar) opinion, which tells a lot about the person making this thread.

You say you want to keep a civilizided discussion, but instead you post those images in the opening post, and say Discuss? It's the same the other person did. Showing the images to back up your opinion as facts could be accurately described as being a troll. At least in my book, don't know 'bout yours.

I, and many others proved in that thread that the supposed "facts" or similarities those images are willing to show are absurd to make, since if every game designer had to try to do things that are completely different from everything else, there won't be enough things.

This is my quote from the thread:

Pulletlamer wrote...

@OP

1.Turrets were long before Gears of War in other videogames and shooters.

2. It's a sword. All swords have similar shape. If they had implemented a knife, we would be arguing it looks like COD knife.

3.And what? Just because it appears in a videogame it means it can't appear in others? Right. Whatever.
Also I could say MW2 copied that from IRL police.

4.A lot of bipods tend to look similar when they are designed (Fear 3, etc)

5.Bulletstorm =/= Mass Effect. Not even close. That is all.

6.They
look similar, and what? Just because of that it's a shooter?. Don't
forget it's still in the development phase, his face and looks aren't
final.

Seriously. All your points (if you had any) have been rendered invalid.

I hate how easily people devalue developers ideas when the game it's still 8 or 9 months far from release.

Oh wait, I forgot this is the internet.

Successful Troll is Successful?

Nowadays everything is cuestioned to be original. Seriously? Of course if you create a game with guns, it's going to be similar to another game because it had guns, and turrets, and bipods (I could tell you a lot of games that have bipods, and all of them look exactly the same, you know why? Because they're bipods, it's not like there's room for more, they're gonna have two feet and probably two arms with guns. Also turrets look like turrets). What does that prove? Just because there's turrets in other games you're not going to buy the game because it's unoriginal, or it's a spin-off?

Seriously it's so stupid to compare those images it's not even worth wasting the time, hence why I just quoted myself from the other thread.

I like Mass Effect because it merges the best of shooters with the best of RPG (it's like an action RPG game). I don't want to play ME3 rolling dices and with a lot of stats and pointless inventory systems. I'm a big RPG fan (I played board RPG games, like D&D), it's just that those mechanics doesn't fit with a shooter game. I don't usually like nowadays RPG videogames, except, Fallout, DA2, etc.

I don't care anymore about what people like the Opening post in this thread say. Seriously, it feels like you just wanna ruin everything BW does with ME and cuestion it. Then why the hell are you playing ME games in the first place? You know what ME and ME2 are. It's not a secret. Don't try to change it.

Everyone nowadays has it's own opinion and bits of what a RPG is (which I'm totally fine with). What I hate is when people come to a forum and say things like: "This game has not enough RPG elements, ME is becoming a shooter, etc etc.". I'm sure half of the people that consider themselves "HARDCORE RPG" fans have never played in his/her whole life a BOARD RPG game of Dungeons and Dragons, they just play some WOW and say oh hey I'm a true RPG fan!!!

I played it (D&D 2nd edition, among others), and I can say that inventories, stats and loot are not what made me enjoy it, it was the story. As long as ME3 has good story I don't care about stats and loot. Those are just additional fluff in the RPG genre. What makes RPG games great is the story as long as it makes the player care about it and feel immersed.

And I know Mass Effect is going to have a good history. AND (not or) good gameplay. They're not exclusive, they're additive. No matter what you the "Hardcore RPG" fans (trolls) want to convert it to, it's not going to happen, and I'm glad with it.

I don't care if you flame me or call me troll or not. I'm not. The fact is, I can really say I am (mostly) a true RPG fan. I bet probably some of you that always whine about RPG elements in videogames can't do that. Not that with that I'm trying to state my opinion as a fact, it's still an opinion.

I'm done ranting, for now.

Modifié par Pulletlamer, 24 juillet 2011 - 08:12 .

[Dexi]

Gatt9 wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

ME1 had allmost ZERO TPS side. You think this is what balance is?

And yet you're always claiming that BioWare had meant for it to be like ME2 from the start. Despite evidence to the contrary. :innocent:

Yes and No, but there is no conratory evidence, only your own rebel agaist what Bioware does.
Balance between RPG gameplay vs TPS combat and what ME serie should have been from start. There is no conflict there.

You assumption is based TOTALLY what ME1 was, not what Bioware wanted the serie to be. If it would been so how you see situation, then there would NEVER have been point to change the balance or combat style between ME's. So, you assumption is wrong. Only correct assumption is that Bioware wanted TPS combat in ME serie, but they failed make it good at in ME1. Then with ME2 they over simplifyed RPG side, while they got TPS side working. Because every evidense as what Bioware has done support this conclusion.

I'm not complaining here what Bioware does, YOU are.

I'm complaining you complain as not having base. Don't get me wrong I support "your complain" increase RPG aspects in ME serie. Because I support improving ME serie and it's balance, even Bioware agrees with you in this. I don't how ever support you vision what you think ME serie is, because it's wrong one. It's you personal dream vision what you wanted ME series to be, not what IT REALLY IS, defined by BIOWARE.

So, you idea of balance is based failed excecution of game features. Point been ME1 failed totally in TPS side and ME2 over simplifyed RPG features. ME3 is trying to fix the issue.

You've got massive logical problems in there.

ME was the game developed by Bioware,  ME2 was the game developed under EA.  Bioware could have changed the game,  they could have delayed it and reworked it,  they chose not to.  Hence,  one can conclude that they intended to release the game like that,  because they did,  and since they released it like that,  one can say that they were relatively happy with it.  Which means,  it met their expectations.

The onus is upon you to definitively prove that Bioware hated the end result of their work,  and regreted releasing it that way.  Because if you cannot,  then there must be some other reason for the change,  and since there was a major change in cooporate culture that lead to the resignation of one of their long-time devs,  we can conclude that it was EA's influence,  not their original intent.

You continually assert that ME was not what Bioware wanted,  you need to definitively prove that.  You'll need an interview from immediately after release,  before EA took over,  that clearly states "We don't know what happened,  we meant to release a TPS,  we've no idea what this meadowmuffin is".

If I am an author, and I believe that in my book, a certain character dies at a certain event, somehow, no matter what I say, whoever was that character's greatest fan will always call that action NOT OF MY OWN DECISION but obviously that of the overlords "in charge of me".

It's this phenomena that I feel is the primary factor in statments like yours.

I feel quite the opposite.  I feel people keep continually assigning reservations to the original ME team that do not hold true,  in defense of EA's influence that quite obviously changed the direction and genre of the game.

I haven't yet seen any evidence that Bioware detested ME on release.

____________________________________________________________________________________

@OP's topic

Yes,  it's pretty clear from the features,  gameplay,  and interviews that someone at EA is using "What sold really well in the last couple years?" as the design template,  rather than build upon ME and it's strengths.  That screenshot collage really shows this.  At this point,  you can pretty much take ME3's feature list and generate a list of games from the last 3 years.

If you don't like what ME2 is and what ME3 will be, what are you still doing here? You ain't gonna change nothing.

Go crave for attention somewhere else! 



~~~~~~

Ok, as this already turned into a ME3: RPG vs FPS, I counted the good arguments... So far

F/TPS 4 - 3 RPG 

Uhoh, shooter boys are winning  

[Il Divo]

Gatt9 wrote...

You've got massive logical problems in there.

ME was the game developed by Bioware,  ME2 was the game developed under EA.  Bioware could have changed the game,  they could have delayed it and reworked it,  they chose not to.  Hence,  one can conclude that they intended to release the game like that,  because they did,  and since they released it like that,  one can say that they were relatively happy with it.  Which means,  it met their expectations.

This argument doesn't work in the slightest. What a developer releases does not have to equal what they want the game to be. Look at Assassin's Creed franchise (or most gaming sequels) as an example. If they were completely happy with the game/style as it was, they would not have changed the style of investigation missions. Public opinion however thought AC had alot of potential, but was too formulaic.
 
Someone else once made the statement that if you are ever "satisifed" with a video game, you're not working hard enough. I think that holds true here. Bioware chose to release Mass Effect because there comes a point where you simply have to let it go.

This is true with anything from directing a movie, making a video game, or writing an essay. There have been times where I have been forced to submit papers which (looking back) had very obvious flaws. That Bioware released Mass Effect does not mean they thought their final product was perfect. Maybe they loved the story, but hated their gameplay. Maybe they thought it all sucked. Mass Effect's release does not tell us anything in the slightest.

You continually assert that ME was not what Bioware wanted,  you need to definitively prove that.  You'll need an interview from immediately after release,  before EA took over,  that clearly states "We don't know what happened,  we meant to release a TPS,  we've no idea what this meadowmuffin is". 

This would work if it was common for developers to openly admit the flaws of their game during marketing. Typically, this practice happens later on, while advertising for a sequel. If we were ever going to see criticism against Mass Effect, it was not likely to come any time before the sequel was released.

I haven't yet seen any evidence that Bioware detested ME on release.

But the evidence does not need to come from Bioware. I detested most of ME's gameplay on release, from exploration, to the inventory, to the shooting mechanics. Criticisms is just as important in this regard. It's essentially a public form of peer review.

Modifié par Il Divo, 24 juillet 2011 - 08:27 .

[TheKillerAngel]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Agent_Dark_ wrote...

needs more Battlefield 3 imo. ME3 on Frostbite 2 engine would be insanely epic

UE is the best engine. CryE3 and Frostbite 2 have nothing on it. They need to stick with what they have. 


-Polite

I'll have to disagree. FB2 is a big step up from Unreal 3. Just look at the dust particles and debris that fly out when you shoot a building, or how light reacts with various particles and surfaces. Here is a technical demonstration of FB2.

Modifié par TheKillerAngel, 24 juillet 2011 - 08:53 .

[MeAndMySandvich]

I have no issues with them ripping off, say, jetpacks or good A.I. from Halo. Nothing wrong with a dev using other games with similar gameplay elements to figure out what works.

[Someone With Mass]

TheKillerAngel wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Agent_Dark_ wrote...

needs more Battlefield 3 imo. ME3 on Frostbite 2 engine would be insanely epic

UE is the best engine. CryE3 and Frostbite 2 have nothing on it. They need to stick with what they have. 


-Polite

I'll have to disagree. FB2 is a big step up from Unreal 3. Just look at the dust particles and debris that fly out when you shoot a building, or how light reacts with various particles and surfaces. Here is a technical demonstration of FB2.

http://www.escapistm...s-vs-Aesthetics

[Someone With Mass]

The Big Bad Wolf wrote...

I guess no one can make a game without everyone referencing to another....

Then again, is that really a bad thing?

I love when some games are giving slight nods at other games in the same genre.

[TheKillerAngel]

Someone With Mass wrote...

TheKillerAngel wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Agent_Dark_ wrote...

needs more Battlefield 3 imo. ME3 on Frostbite 2 engine would be insanely epic

UE is the best engine. CryE3 and Frostbite 2 have nothing on it. They need to stick with what they have. 


-Polite

I'll have to disagree. FB2 is a big step up from Unreal 3. Just look at the dust particles and debris that fly out when you shoot a building, or how light reacts with various particles and surfaces. Here is a technical demonstration of FB2.

http://www.escapistm...s-vs-Aesthetics

I agree, but how is that relevant? FB2 is just technically more capable than UE3.

[Icinix]

They are - but only in the combat.
Which is fine. Because the combat has always been a bit stiff.

The story, choices, romance, character progression etc is all very non-shooter.

[AlanC9]

Gatt9 wrote...

ME was the game developed by Bioware,  ME2 was the game developed under EA.  Bioware could have changed the game,  they could have delayed it and reworked it,  they chose not to.  Hence,  one can conclude that they intended to release the game like that,  because they did,  and since they released it like that,  one can say that they were relatively happy with it.  Which means,  it met their expectations.

The onus is upon you to definitively prove that Bioware hated the end result of their work,  and regreted releasing it that way.  Because if you cannot,  then there must be some other reason for the change,  and since there was a major change in cooporate culture that lead to the resignation of one of their long-time devs,  we can conclude that it was EA's influence,  not their original intent.

"Can conclude"? Or  "must conclude"?

I don't got a dog in this argument with Lumikki anyway -- I though ME2 was a big improvement, so if EA really turns out to be the cause of the changes then that only means that I like EA better. I'm just curious about what's being asserted here.

Modifié par AlanC9, 24 juillet 2011 - 09:32 .

[AlanC9]

Il Divo wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...
I haven't yet seen any evidence that Bioware detested ME on release.

But the evidence does not need to come from Bioware. I detested most of ME's gameplay on release, from exploration, to the inventory, to the shooting mechanics. Criticisms is just as important in this regard. It's essentially a public form of peer review.

You shoudn't give in to Gatt9's rhetoric. "Detested" isn't the level you need to get to before making changes to a design. Bio didn't have to "detest" BG1's map design to throw it out in favor of BG2's map design, which they've used up to the present day,

Modifié par AlanC9, 24 juillet 2011 - 09:35 .

[KainrycKarr]

Lumikki wrote...

Mister Mida wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

When you people get it, Mass Effect serie is cimematic action RPG with Third-Person SHOOTER combat. If you can not accept that, then YOU have issues, not Bioware. Does the next question make any better sense to you.

Is Bioware taking to much inspiration from cliche RPG's for ME3?

Why would that make any more sense?

Exactly, OP has biased attitude. There is no difference what kind of games Bioware is learning, because they learn from all games they see and play. It's they business, game industry.

Uh yeah it's biased, he's an RPG fan, as are most of us, that's the whole friggin' point of the question.

[Someone With Mass]

Casey Hudson said during Comic-Con that they aren't aiming to be any kind of labeled RPG or basing it of something other RPGs may have done. They're trying to do make it the way they think an RPG should be like.

[Lumikki]

Gatt9 wrote...

ME was the game developed by Bioware,  ME2 was the game developed under EA.  Bioware could have changed the game,  they could have delayed it and reworked it,  they chose not to.  Hence,  one can conclude that they intended to release the game like that,  because they did,  and since they released it like that,  one can say that they were relatively happy with it.  Which means,  it met their expectations.

Yes, ME1 was best what they did the time when they did the game and they where happy about it. After they had done ME1 and started to make ME2, they how ever where not happy how everyting did go with ME1, they made mistakes. So they learned from they mistakes and change stuff to make ME2 better and where happy about the changes, but they also made new mistakes. Same will happen with ME3 too. They will try they best.

The onus is upon you to definitively prove that Bioware hated the end result of their work,  and regreted releasing it that way.  Because if you cannot,  then there must be some other reason for the change,  and since there was a major change in cooporate culture that lead to the resignation of one of their long-time devs,  we can conclude that it was EA's influence,  not their original intent.

Can I prove it. YES I CAN.

You self and games are my prove of it. You are complaning here in this forum how ME2 is different than ME1. So, that means ME was changed. CAN you define any reason to anyone change something what they did not want to be change, so different what you SELF would come here and complain it?

Because if you can not, then Bioware/EA had all intent to change the game to fit better what THEY WANTED the game to be. ME1, ME2 and ME3 changes are my prove. Look at them, you see it there what they have done , what they have change, the intent is there looking directly you face. NOBODY change anything without reasons.

I'm not the one who is here complaining what Bioware/EA does, you are.
I'm not here blaming something else because game isn't the way I like, You are.
I'm not the one who lives in dream saying if they had done that way, you are.

Every game is best what they could do at the moment. Every change is because they wanted to change something to be more what they wanted it to be. Every mistake they did do, they tryed to fix it in next game.

You don't design these games, they do. You don't define directions of these games, they do. You don't make decissions, they do. They hold all the cards, you hold nothing at all.

Modifié par Lumikki, 24 juillet 2011 - 11:14 .

[KainrycKarr]

Lumikki wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

ME was the game developed by Bioware,  ME2 was the game developed under EA.  Bioware could have changed the game,  they could have delayed it and reworked it,  they chose not to.  Hence,  one can conclude that they intended to release the game like that,  because they did,  and since they released it like that,  one can say that they were relatively happy with it.  Which means,  it met their expectations.

Yes, ME1 was best what they did the time when they did the game and they where happy about it. After they had done ME1 and started to make ME2, they how ever where not happy how everyting did go with ME1, they made mistakes. So they learned from they mistakes and change stuff to make ME2 better and where happy about the changes, but they also make new mistakes. Same will happen with ME3 too. They will try they best.

The onus is upon you to definitively prove that Bioware hated the end result of their work,  and regreted releasing it that way.  Because if you cannot,  then there must be some other reason for the change,  and since there was a major change in cooporate culture that lead to the resignation of one of their long-time devs,  we can conclude that it was EA's influence,  not their original intent.

Can I prove. YES I CAN.

You self and games are my prove of it. You are complaning here in this forum how ME2 is different than ME1. So, that means ME was changed. CAN you define any reason to anyone change something what they did not wanted to be changed, so different what you have you SELF come here and complain it?

Because if you can not, then Bioware/EA had all intent to change the game to fit better what THEY WANTED the game to be. ME1, ME2 and ME3 changes are my prove. Look at them, you see it there what they have done , what they have change, the intent is there looking directly you face. NOBODY change anything without reasons.

I'm not the one who is here complaining what Bioware/EA does, you are.
I'm not here blaming something else because game isn't the way I like, You are.
I'm not the one who lives in dream saying if they had done that way, you are.

Every game is best what they could do at the moment. Every change is because they wanted to change something to be more what they wanted it to be. Every mistake take make they did do, they tryed to fix it in next game.

You don't design these games, they do. You don't define directions of these games, they do. You don't make decissions, they do. They hold all the cards, you hold nothing at all.

I really don't think your grasp of english is good enough to engage in this kind of argument, and I mean that in the nicest way possible.

[In Exile]

Terror_K wrote...
For recent examples, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Fallout: New Vegas and Alpha Protocol seemed to "get it" when it came to mixing shooter and RPG, and I'm not sure the Mass Effect camp do any more, or even want to. They seemed to when making ME1, but not so much now.

I haven't played human revolution, but New Vegas and AP have terrible mechanics. AP is actually worse than ME1, and New Vegas is on par (but has better RPG elements, obviously). 

Looking at two games that have terrible combat and saying they should be the inspiration for ME3 is... well, not good. 

[Lumikki]

KainrycKarr wrote...

Uh yeah it's biased, he's an RPG fan, as are most of us, that's the whole friggin' point of the question.

I'm also RPG fan. Do you see me complaining Mass Effect serie having TPS combat?

KainrycKarr wrote...

I really don't think your grasp of english is good enough to engage in this kind of argument, and I mean that in the nicest way possible.

My english may not be good, but at least I'm seeing how it is, I'm not blaming companies, other game styles and so on, because something isn't the way I like it.

Modifié par Lumikki, 24 juillet 2011 - 09:52 .