239 réponses à ce sujet

[S.A.K]

See the resemblance?

[Icinix]

ThePwener wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Casey Hudson is accused of a lot of things..but "talks bad" is certainly not one of them that holds any weight.

I take it you did not see the ME3 E3 reveal. He repeated the same thing for 2 flat minutes. Dodges questions that can be easily asweared for no reason. The guy is a bad public speaker.

Not really - watch any marketing / E3 presentation . They all repeat the same key couple of things they focus on.  They don't want to reveal too much too soon, or overload the journalists bloggers with too much info.

[Bnol]

ThePwener wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Casey Hudson is accused of a lot of things..but "talks bad" is certainly not one of them that holds any weight.

I take it you did not see the ME3 E3 reveal. He repeated the same thing for 2 flat minutes. Dodges questions that can be easily asweared for no reason. The guy is a bad public speaker.

Not sure what particular E3 video you are talking about.  If it is the EA press conference he didn't repeat anything for 2 minutes.  Certainly he did repeat some talking points in the presentation, which is just basic to make sure what you want to be remebered is remembered.  In terms of not answering questions there are certainly going to be things he won't answer.  Certainly he isn't the best public speaker, but that isn't his job.  His job is to develop games, the communication skills he needs are different.

[didymos1120]

ThePwener wrote...

@Arcian: Did you see the E3 reveal of ME3? He was talking like a 6 year old.

LOL.  Here's an actual 6-year old:




Also, Ray Muzyka was the guy who gave the actual ME3 reveal presentation.  Casey did some interviews later on:

IGN:



Gametrailers "Behind Closed Doors" demo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyDRm8jdA2Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V61DK3IbBwM

ETA:  If you're looking for some CHud public speaking to bash, try the SDCC videos on BiowareTV.  There he was actually addressing a crowd, not just a guy with a mic.

ETAA: Ah, OK, you were talking about the E3 Press Conference where they did the live demo after the live-action trailer. No it wasn't stirring oratory a la Captain Kirrahe, but I fail to see what your big issue is with what he did say (which was actually very little).  And that was the day after the Kinect thing anyway.

Modifié par didymos1120, 04 août 2011 - 09:29 .

[Savber100]

ThePwener wrote...

Arcian wrote...

Nope, I'm saying it's a hybrid.

No, NOW you say it's a hybrid. A few posts ago you claimed "it wasn't an RPG and never will". Consistency is very important in a discussion. You look very bad by changing mid discussion.

And all this foolishness gave me a headache. Going to bed now.

.

lol, it never takes long before you guys start bickering... 

Ok, Arcian said "it wasn't an RPG and never will" 

Guess what? ME isn't one. ME isn't a RPG. ME isn't a shooter. ME is a HYBRID, not an actual RPG or an actual shopter but a combination that draws upon both genres. 

It's the same reason why we don't call a mule either a horse or a donkey because it's both. <_<


Edit: LOL... got ninja'd by Acian there. You even used the same example. 

Modifié par Savber100, 04 août 2011 - 09:11 .

[Lumikki]

Arcian wrote...

What Mass Effect is not:
1) An RPG.
2) A shooter.

What Mass Effect is:
1) A hybrid between the two.

Calling Mass Effect an RPG or shooter because it merely has elements of those genres is the same thing as calling a mule a donkey or horse because it's part horse or donkey.

Making it more clear.

Mass Effect is RPS (Role-Playing Shooter) what hybris of action RPG and shooter combat, what is also sub-genre of action RPG, what is a also loosely-defined sub-genre of (An) RPG.

Modifié par Lumikki, 04 août 2011 - 09:17 .

[Terror_K]

And yet BioWare themselves kept referring to the original Mass Effect as an RPG (usually more specifically as an "action-RPG") during the marketing prior to its release.

[Icinix]

Terror_K wrote...

And yet BioWare themselves kept referring to the original Mass Effect as an RPG (usually more specifically as an "action-RPG") during the marketing prior to its release.

These days most developers are too afraid to label anything an RPG.

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

And yet BioWare themselves kept referring to the original Mass Effect as an RPG (usually more specifically as an "action-RPG") during the marketing prior to its release.

Because that it is. Issue isn't what it is, issue is that some people idea what word means is different.

[darknoon5]

Terror_K wrote...

And yet BioWare themselves kept referring to the original Mass Effect as an RPG (usually more specifically as an "action-RPG") during the marketing prior to its release.

Believe it or not, Casey Hudson =/= Bioware. Casey Hudson saying one thing in an interview doesn't mean all of Bioware share that view.

Even then, I can't recall ME1 exclusively being called an RPG without a reference to the shooter parts.  ME1 is an RPG depending on how you define, just a hybrid.

Arcian wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

And yet
BioWare themselves kept referring to the original Mass Effect as an RPG
(usually more specifically as an "action-RPG") during the marketing
prior to its release.

Ah, the vanguard of elitism arrives.

Ha, I laughed.

Modifié par darknoon5, 04 août 2011 - 09:20 .

[didymos1120]

Terror_K wrote...

And yet BioWare themselves kept referring to the original Mass Effect as an RPG (usually more specifically as an "action-RPG") during the marketing prior to its release.

*sigh*

Please read the interview.  Nevermind, I'll just quote the relevant bit:

Typically our goals - creating interactive story, compelling progression, intense combat, and exploration -result in games that are classified as RPGs.

He's not saying "We don't make RPGs." He's not saying "ME1 is in no way an RPG."

Modifié par didymos1120, 04 août 2011 - 09:22 .

[Massadonious1]

 What a warm welcome. 

[darknoon5]

Massadonious1 wrote...

 What a warm welcome. 

What can I say, he compared hardcore fans asking for the ME film to be tailored to them to a starving child asking their parents for food.

[Massadonious1]

darknoon5 wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

 What a warm welcome. 

What can I say, he compared hardcore fans asking for the ME film to be tailored to them to a starving child asking their parents for food.

Yeah, I get it. I'm not exactly his biggest fan either, I just found it hilarious that he has such of a reputation to warrant such a frenzied response to his first post in this thread.

[Lumikki]

Massadonious1 wrote...

Yeah, I get it. I'm not exactly his biggest fan either, I just found it hilarious that he has such of a reputation to warrant such a frenzied response to his first post in this thread.

You are right. It's not what is sayed, but persons hidden meaning behind it, based many previous posts. We all carry our burden.

[Brenon Holmes]

Weskerr wrote...
As for the second part I bolded, are you really only fairly excited about ME3's story?

I'm a pretty moderate guy, don't like hyperbole. 

I think it's a good story, I'll be able to judge for myself better once I've done a real playthrough or two... but it's safe to say I'm excited about that particular prospect. :happy:

[Savber100]

Brenon Holmes wrote...

I'm a pretty moderate guy, don't like hyperbole. 

I think it's a good story, I'll be able to judge for myself better once I've done a real playthrough or two... but it's safe to say I'm excited about that particular prospect. :happy:

Would you say that the writing team has responded to the critics on the so-called plotholes in ME2 (assuming they were plotholes)?

No need to say too much but just curious since Bioware seems to listen to a lot of technical and gameplay feedback but rarely say much about the story/writing feedbacks. 

Modifié par Savber100, 04 août 2011 - 09:53 .

[Terror_K]

darknoon5 wrote...

What can I say, he compared hardcore fans asking for the ME film to be tailored to them to a starving child asking their parents for food.

What I meant was that I'm sick of almost everything these days in the entertainment industry being catered to the one same big audience to the point where the few things I enjoy are even being warped and changed to suit this audience: one that is already massively catered for as it is. Simply put: I'm starving for games, movies, books, etc. that I can really get into these days because almost nobody wants to make them any more because it's just so much more profitable to cater to the big audience that's already got more than they could ever ask for. As time goes on the nerd/geek audience are being left more an more behind in favour of samey mainstream drivel, and I don't like to see an IP that appealed to be because of not only what it was but for what it wasn't now turning its back somewhat to its roots just for the sake of global mainstream appeal.

And the same goes for the overall direction BioWare seems to be taking lately: less RPG, more action basically. Less art, more mechanised formula for perfection. Less sci-fi nerd/geek, more mainstream Joe Average. etc.

I'm basically saying that I still don't believe what Mass Effect is now is how it was intended from the start. Somewhere between ME1 and ME2 the vision changed, the direction changed and the target audience shifted at least somewhat. What Mass Effect is now and probably will be in the future is not something I question, but I do question anybody who says that it was always that way. To simplify it: Mass Effect didn't start as a hybrid game, it started as an RPG with some TPS elements. It was only with ME2 that it became a proper hybrid, and actually became more of a story driven TPS with some RPG elements than what ME1 was. with ME3 it appears to be a more balanced hybrid, but I still feel its too focused on the action and shooter elements personally. At least from what I've seen.

And I'm just not a big fan of the feeling that they're making their games lately more to bring in new fans than to keep the old ones. That's what DA2 was pretty much entirely built on, for example.

Savber100 wrote...

Would you say that the writing team has responded to the critics on the so-called plotholes in ME2 (assuming they were plotholes)?

No need to say too much but just curious since Bioware seems to listen to alot of technical and gameplay feedback but rarely say much about the story/writing feedbacks. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/tongue.png[/smilie]

I'd like to hope there's nothing as brick-to-the-face bad as what I like to call "Going on the... uh... 'Mission' to the... uh... 'Place'" when you end up piling everybody useful into the shuttle to go nowhere and do nothing just so the Normandy can get attacked by the Collectors.

Modifié par Terror_K, 04 août 2011 - 09:58 .

[crsoadd]

Savber100 wrote...

Varen Spectre wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

I don't think it's a question of Fallout being unable to tell an engaging story, but that Bioware has always put interaction, characters, and choices above RPG mechanics, based on their game design.

Well, I was mostly curious what Fallout games Savber100 meant, because there are big differences between them and some of them have pretty good stories with some of the craziest and most unique characters I have ever seen.

I was also curious why he (she) thinks that Fallout games should be used as examples of games the developers of which did not focus on engaging story first and other aspects later but the other way around. I mean, the fact that some studio does not focus on characters, dialugues, etc. as much as Bioware does not necessarily  mean that these aspects are still not the most important part of their game... Especially since the term Fallout includes 1 and 2 which were excellent in these departments.

lol. I'm a guy for future note. :happy:

To further answer your questions which I feel I sorta missed in my previous posts,

I agree with what you said. Planescape Torment to Fallout 1 had more interesting characters than almost any games since they  were released. However, because of burdensome mechanics, people that don't have as much time would never meet people like Harold from Fallout or freaking Morte from PT.

All they'd have to do to meet morte is start up PS:T, he is the first thing you see. Impossible to miss.

By no means do classical RPGs have bad stories (I point at PT again)

I find that older rpg's tend to have better stories than most newer rpg's or games.

but they have unintuitive layouts and overly complex systems that do more than scare off a fair share of potential gamers that would have otherwise loved these games.

I disagree, playing the first FO game without ever having played one before or ever touching gurps I was able to pick the game up fairly quickly. They tell you what different perks/attributes/skills do and what they effect. It isn't even remotely hard it just requires basic reading comprehension and a little time. But then I probably am in the minority here. Which is sad. And I say sad because I can understand people not wanting something deep or complex and just wanting to be able to jump in a game and play for short bursts here and there. And there had always been genres that were good for that. Like action/adventure and of course the fps. And I enjoy those other genres from time to time myself. But sometimes it was nice to just dig into a nice deep rpg. And those are being thrown to the wayside and being replaced with something that is more like everything else.

I believe Bioware realizes this and have therefore taken serious steps in departing from these mechanics (much to the ire of the old-school gamers).

Yes, I am feeling ire-ish.... walka walka.

To Bioware, it's story and characters above all else while allowing as much interactivity as possible.

This confuses me, and I saw some one mention earlier something about millions of possible player choices that bioware try to anticipate or something along those lines. But they don't try and anticipate anything, ever. Any decision you make is presented to you in a dialog box/wheel. They have a list that they have already made that you choose from. I wish they would implement something along the lines of Deus Ex or even Alpha Protocol. Where things the player does in game, their actions or how they play effects the game world. There seems to be very few games that do that.

[Bryy_Miller]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

What do you see as the current holy grail for RPGs right now?

"To be honest, I don’t know.  I never consider myself an RPG developer, and
I don’t really worry about traditional genre conventions other than our
own goals for making a great game. Typically our goals - creating
interactive story, compelling progression, intense combat, and
exploration -result in games that are classified as RPGs. But my
intention is always to make the best possible story-driven games, and
for me and my team, the next great design that we’re excited about is
what we’re doing with ME3. "

Well said, Casey Hudson. Less worrying over genre classification, and more time spent making a quality product. I approve. 

This is exactly the approach Bioware should be taking. Very glad to hear it.

And yet people goe ape-crud over them saying they want the COD crowd.

[Candidate 88766]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

What do you see as the current holy grail for RPGs right now?

"To be honest, I don’t know.  I never consider myself an RPG developer, and
I don’t really worry about traditional genre conventions other than our
own goals for making a great game. Typically our goals - creating
interactive story, compelling progression, intense combat, and
exploration -result in games that are classified as RPGs. But my
intention is always to make the best possible story-driven games, and
for me and my team, the next great design that we’re excited about is
what we’re doing with ME3. "

Well said, Casey Hudson. Less worrying over genre classification, and more time spent making a quality product. I approve. 

This is exactly the approach Bioware should be taking. Very glad to hear it.

And yet people goe ape-crud over them saying they want the COD crowd.

They meant they wanted an audience of a similar size to that which CoD gets, not that they literally want the same people who play CoD. A third-person, story-focused science fiction game mainly aimed purely at single-player is not going to appeal to the same people who are looking for a 'realistic', modern, first person shooter with a heavy focus online multiplayer. Anyone that thinks that ME2 having a little more focus on the shooting than ME1 is an attempt at pulling in the CoD and BF crowds doesn't understand why people play CoD or BF in the first place.