249 réponses à ce sujet

[Kusy]

Would you like a cup of Sarcastic Earl Gray?

Modifié par Mr.Kusy, 02 septembre 2011 - 04:16 .

[Maggot4everr]

As I go through these posts, it's funny. BSN rages and belittles each other over issues that ultimately don't even matter. I don't know, maybe it's because I'm tired, but I'm snickering profusely over how worked up people are getting over nothing. Must be because ME3 is still far from release. Anyways, continue.

[Rockworm503]

laecraft wrote...

The people who start from the last game are smart, because the latest game is always the best. There's nothing enjoyable about playing an outdated game. Two years can make a drastic difference in graphics and gameplay. As of today, ME2 is fun, while ME1 is a chore. ME3 will be even better.

Yes because popping in my old NES or SNES and playing megaman is just stupid it passed some invisible time limit and is no longer fun.
This is the most pathetic argument I've ever seen.

[Biotic Sage]

@Bluko and @Gatt9

As someone who loves both games, I have to disagree with your assessment that they "gutted" Mass Effect to make ME2. At its core, it still has the heart of ME1; the dialogue wheel, the weapon/power combat, choices, customization, a heroic story, and interesting characters.

Now, admittedly, they could certainly improve upon many of these core elements in ME3 (and it seems like they are for most), but ME2 was not some corrupted abomination like you make it out to be. Yes, the atmosphere of ME1 was more authentic and distinct. Yes, ME2 has a shiny new coat of paint. But do these aspects really qualify it as a "Gears of War clone"? I've played Gears of War, and it is an entirely different experience. Borrowing some cues for the combat was not a bad idea in my opinion, because that's what they were striving for in the first place; you could tell they wanted cover style combat in ME1, it was just poorly executed.

Just wait for ME3 to see how much your choices pay off; they had to make the middle chapter more linear for pragmatic reasons.  If it ends up sucking still in the payoff department, then you are welcome to condemn it.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 02 septembre 2011 - 04:25 .

[spikoro5698]

Biotic Sage wrote...

@Bluko and @Gatt9

As someone who loves both games, I have to disagree with your assessment that they "gutted" Mass Effect to make ME2. At its core, it still has the heart of ME1; the dialogue wheel, the weapon/power combat, choices, customization, a heroic story, and interesting characters.

Now, admittedly, they could certainly improve upon many of these core elements in ME3 (and it seems like they are for most), but ME2 was not some corrupted abomination like you make it out to be. Yes, the atmosphere of ME1 was more authentic and distinct. Yes, ME2 has a shiny new coat of paint. But do these aspects really qualify it as a "Gears of War clone"? I've played Gears of War, and it is an entirely different experience. Borrowing some cues for the combat was not a bad idea in my opinion, because that's what they were striving for in the first place; you could tell they wanted cover style combat in ME1, it was just poorly executed.

Just wait for ME3 to see how much your choices pay off; they had to make the middle chapter more linear for pragmatic reasons.  If it ends up sucking still in the payoff department, then you are welcome to condemn it.

I could not have said it any better.

[SomeKindaEnigma]

Gatt9 wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

Bluko wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

How? Easy.

Remember how ME2 had very little to do with anything in ME1? Well, get ready for that again in ME3. The game's plot and characters will be written that it is a standalone game, with a sprinkling of cameos here and there for the importers, as well as tons of email.

Yep.

Bioware can say whatever they want (There's over 900 variables! etc.) but reality is ME3 is going to play pretty much the same whether you've played each game prior or are fresh off the boat. There'll be a few cameos for importers, but seriously folks you're not going to get a radically different experience based on whether you saved the Council or not, or the Collector Base.

It'll be interesting to see the storm people make when they realize 90% of the ME2 crew is not coming back with you on the Normandy. Garrus and Tali seem to be exceptions at this point. So I suppose you might end up with Barrus (Garrus evil twin brother who's also an Infiltrator) as something to add variety or maybe you'll just be short a squadmate.

Bioware has made a very conscious effort to bring in new people at the expense of existing fans for awhile now. This should be obvious to all what with the complete overhaul that went on with ME2's gameplay. They didn't re-create ME's gameplay to address fans concerns. They did it because Mass Effect only sold about 2 millionish copies which while good, doesn't compare to most other exclusives that will sell 4+ million copies. So they ripped out ME1's guts and shoved something more akin to Gears of War in it's place so it would sell more to the young male adult crowd. Cause guess what Gears of War sells about twice as many copies on the Xbox 360 alone.

The frst two questions I asked myself when starting ME2 is WTF is there ammo? and Why am I taking cover just like Marcus Fenix? It truly makes me sad to think what ME2 may have been like they actually bothered to fix what was wrong with ME1.

Now I'm sure I'll get a comment from someone telling me everything about ME1 was broken hence the need for a complete overhaul. And you know what I'm happy that your content to play a Gears of War RPG TPS. Me not so much. I really do think it would have been much better if the series had at least tried to keep the gameplay the same as the original as if anything there's a very stark disconnection from ME1 to ME2 that basically ends up with you liking one game over the other(s) no matter how impartial you may be. Also I don't feel ME2's sales really eclipsed ME1 sales to warrant ME2 as an improvement over its predecessor.


Anyways, the sooner you wake up and realize that Bioware doesn't really care too much what you want cause they figure you're enough of a fanboy that'll you'll pick up ME3 no matter what that they can pretty much focus on selling the game to new people. That's exactly where blind fanboyism takes you. Of course that's what every company wants cause in the short term perspective it makes you  easy to soak for money. (Hence the over-abundant amount of DLC garbage lately.) Problem is this brings a decline in a quality as they are no longer interested in the longevity of their company/brand.

I agree as well.

This is what EA does,  years ago EA used to make sequels to their games,  incredible ones,  now they make sequels to someone else's game and put their IP's name on the box.

EA isn't interested in continuing the potentially revolutionary introduction of a Trilogy in gaming where you actually effect how the story progresses through the three entries.  Bioware could've changed gaming forever,  for the 2nd time in it's history.

Sadly,  EA doesn't want innovation,  they want GoW and CoD's sales.  So they'll toss out the potential,  give you emails and an occasional irrelevant cameo,  and do their best to mimic other games instead of building on their own.

I love how you guys make baseless assumptions about ME 3 while ignoring that ME 2 had to account for continuity giving it less wiggle room.

How is it baseless to expect no change based on what they did with ME2?

Further,  how did ME2 account for continuity?  It threw continuity out the window to implement characteristic features of other games.  Look at the thermal clips,  the explanation makes no sense,  it takes me about the same number of shots to kill a Geth as it did in ME.  Nevermind that it couldn't even keep continuity with itself,  putting thermal clips in places they can't possibly be,  and on enemies that have no use for them.   "Continutiy" in ME2 is at the very best,  background chatter and one-liners about how "Humans are taking over" with no real difference from what the other side chose.

ME2 didn't account for continuity,  all it did was make the occasional reference to ME,  while implementing a different game.

I see no reason to expect anything else here,  especially with the marketing promo "This is a great place to start!".  There'll be some cameos,  maybe a few emails,  possibly even a random line of dialogue or two.  But nothing of note,  because they won't want people to think they can only play ME3 if they already played the first two.  EA's priority isn't keeping the population they have,  it's hunting the snipe that's some other game's sales.

So it'll be like C&C is.  Each entry weaker than the last,  with less relation to the preceeding game,  and a steady decrease in quality.

Because that's EA's gameplan.  If something manages to sell a few copies,  keep pushing out sequels as close to annually as possible and try to mimic whatever sold well last year in any way possible.  It's not like it's a secret,  they even admit in their Press pieces they have "Annual series" and they aren't referring to just the Sports division.

You obviously don't seem to be grasping the fact that the 2nd entry in a trilogy usually is the toughest as far as keeping continuity goes (especially in a choice-oriented series)...  of course you aren't going to see massive ramifications for your decisions made in the first game, if they played a major role in how the 2nd game unfolded it would be an absolute nightmare/damn near impossible trying to account for all of that in the 3rd, considering how many different variables will then have been created.  since ME3 is the final game, they no longer have to account for these decisions in the future, so I think it's reasonable to assume that you WILL see major repercussions and differences in the ways events unfold based on your prior decisions.

Your each entry weaker than the last comment is pure bias/personal taste; I don't think there's anything wrong with you liking ME1 more, but I and plenty of others happen to disagree and like ME2 more (not to mention the critics disagree with you as well).  So, you really made no point with that comment.

And marketing promo is just that, marketing promo.  The marketing team members' jobs likely depend on how well they can spread word of the game and make it appeal to more than just the loyal fans they already have.  The dev team has stated on numerous occasions how everything you did in ME1 and ME2 will definitely affect how your 3rd game experience unfolds, but if you're someone new to the series, has no idea what the backstory is really about, and don't really care to play the first 2 games first because the 3rd seems much more awesome, do you really want to be told you NEED/HAVE to play the first 2 to get the 3rd?  

I don't really completely like the stuff I hear in the marketing campaign so far, but I know enough to realize that Bioware is catering to the long-time fans just as much as, or probably more so in the long run than the average newcomer.

Modifié par SomeKindaEnigma, 02 septembre 2011 - 05:19 .

[spikoro5698]

SomeKindaEnigma wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

Bluko wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

How? Easy.

Remember how ME2 had very little to do with anything in ME1? Well, get ready for that again in ME3. The game's plot and characters will be written that it is a standalone game, with a sprinkling of cameos here and there for the importers, as well as tons of email.

Yep.

Bioware can say whatever they want (There's over 900 variables! etc.) but reality is ME3 is going to play pretty much the same whether you've played each game prior or are fresh off the boat. There'll be a few cameos for importers, but seriously folks you're not going to get a radically different experience based on whether you saved the Council or not, or the Collector Base.

It'll be interesting to see the storm people make when they realize 90% of the ME2 crew is not coming back with you on the Normandy. Garrus and Tali seem to be exceptions at this point. So I suppose you might end up with Barrus (Garrus evil twin brother who's also an Infiltrator) as something to add variety or maybe you'll just be short a squadmate.

Bioware has made a very conscious effort to bring in new people at the expense of existing fans for awhile now. This should be obvious to all what with the complete overhaul that went on with ME2's gameplay. They didn't re-create ME's gameplay to address fans concerns. They did it because Mass Effect only sold about 2 millionish copies which while good, doesn't compare to most other exclusives that will sell 4+ million copies. So they ripped out ME1's guts and shoved something more akin to Gears of War in it's place so it would sell more to the young male adult crowd. Cause guess what Gears of War sells about twice as many copies on the Xbox 360 alone.

The frst two questions I asked myself when starting ME2 is WTF is there ammo? and Why am I taking cover just like Marcus Fenix? It truly makes me sad to think what ME2 may have been like they actually bothered to fix what was wrong with ME1.

Now I'm sure I'll get a comment from someone telling me everything about ME1 was broken hence the need for a complete overhaul. And you know what I'm happy that your content to play a Gears of War RPG TPS. Me not so much. I really do think it would have been much better if the series had at least tried to keep the gameplay the same as the original as if anything there's a very stark disconnection from ME1 to ME2 that basically ends up with you liking one game over the other(s) no matter how impartial you may be. Also I don't feel ME2's sales really eclipsed ME1 sales to warrant ME2 as an improvement over its predecessor.


Anyways, the sooner you wake up and realize that Bioware doesn't really care too much what you want cause they figure you're enough of a fanboy that'll you'll pick up ME3 no matter what that they can pretty much focus on selling the game to new people. That's exactly where blind fanboyism takes you. Of course that's what every company wants cause in the short term perspective it makes you  easy to soak for money. (Hence the over-abundant amount of DLC garbage lately.) Problem is this brings a decline in a quality as they are no longer interested in the longevity of their company/brand.

I agree as well.

This is what EA does,  years ago EA used to make sequels to their games,  incredible ones,  now they make sequels to someone else's game and put their IP's name on the box.

EA isn't interested in continuing the potentially revolutionary introduction of a Trilogy in gaming where you actually effect how the story progresses through the three entries.  Bioware could've changed gaming forever,  for the 2nd time in it's history.

Sadly,  EA doesn't want innovation,  they want GoW and CoD's sales.  So they'll toss out the potential,  give you emails and an occasional irrelevant cameo,  and do their best to mimic other games instead of building on their own.

I love how you guys make baseless assumptions about ME 3 while ignoring that ME 2 had to account for continuity giving it less wiggle room.

How is it baseless to expect no change based on what they did with ME2?

Further,  how did ME2 account for continuity?  It threw continuity out the window to implement characteristic features of other games.  Look at the thermal clips,  the explanation makes no sense,  it takes me about the same number of shots to kill a Geth as it did in ME.  Nevermind that it couldn't even keep continuity with itself,  putting thermal clips in places they can't possibly be,  and on enemies that have no use for them.   "Continutiy" in ME2 is at the very best,  background chatter and one-liners about how "Humans are taking over" with no real difference from what the other side chose.

ME2 didn't account for continuity,  all it did was make the occasional reference to ME,  while implementing a different game.

I see no reason to expect anything else here,  especially with the marketing promo "This is a great place to start!".  There'll be some cameos,  maybe a few emails,  possibly even a random line of dialogue or two.  But nothing of note,  because they won't want people to think they can only play ME3 if they already played the first two.  EA's priority isn't keeping the population they have,  it's hunting the snipe that's some other game's sales.

So it'll be like C&C is.  Each entry weaker than the last,  with less relation to the preceeding game,  and a steady decrease in quality.

Because that's EA's gameplan.  If something manages to sell a few copies,  keep pushing out sequels as close to annually as possible and try to mimic whatever sold well last year in any way possible.  It's not like it's a secret,  they even admit in their Press pieces they have "Annual series" and they aren't referring to just the Sports division.

You obviously don't seem to be grasping the fact that the 2nd entry in a trilogy usually is the toughest as far as keeping continuity goes (especially in a choice-oriented series)...  of course you aren't going to see massive ramifications for your decisions made in the first game, if they played a major role in how the 2nd game unfolded it would be an absolute nightmare/damn near impossible trying to account for all of that in the 3rd, considering how many different variables will then have been created.  since ME3 is the final game, they no longer have to account for these decisions in the future, so I think it's reasonable to assume that you WILL see major repercussions and differences in the ways events unfold based on your prior decisions.

Your each entry weaker than the last comment is pure bias/personal taste; I don't think there's anything wrong with you liking ME1 more, but I and plenty of others happen to disagree and like ME2 more (not to mention the critics disagree with you as well).  So, you really made no point with that comment.

And marketing promo is just that, marketing promo.  The marketing team members' jobs likely depend on how well they can spread word of the game and make it appeal to more than just the loyal fans they already have.  The dev team has stated on numerous occasions how everything you did in ME1 and ME2 will definitely affect how your 3rd game experience unfolds, but if you're someone new to the series, has no idea what the backstory is really about, and don't really care to play the first 2 games first because the 3rd seems much more awesome, do you really want to be told you NEED/HAVE to play the first 2 to get the 3rd?  

I don't really completely like the stuff I hear in the marketing campaign so far, but I know enough to realize that Bioware is catering to the long-time fans just as much as, or probably more so in the long run than the average newcomer.

I agree, that guy is nothing more than an arrogant ME2 bandwagon hater. you sir, have owned him and have received a friend request.

[GreenDragon37]

It's marketing. It's BS.

I will salways consider ME1 to be the best starting point.

[FoxShadowblade]

It's a great entry point because people will buy it, go "huh", look online, see how if you play the first two, your experience is much greater, and boom. BioWare has made a lot of money.

You guys act shocked that the Video Game Industry wants money, pull your heads out of your puckers and you'll learn a thing or two.

[littlezack]

Again? Really? This damn topic - again?

[Someone With Mass]

FoxShadowblade wrote...

It's a great entry point because people will buy it, go "huh", look online, see how if you play the first two, your experience is much greater, and boom. BioWare has made a lot of money.

You guys act shocked that the Video Game Industry wants money, pull your heads out of your puckers and you'll learn a thing or two.

Average BSN member:
A company that wants money? Who would've thought?

I thought the developers could live on happy fan mails and rainbows. They don't need to pay taxes or buy food or support their families. Nope. 

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 02 septembre 2011 - 06:05 .

[TongueDar]

laecraft wrote...
The people who start from the last game are smart, because the latest game is always the best. There's nothing enjoyable about playing an outdated game. Two years can make a drastic difference in graphics and gameplay. As of today, ME2 is fun, while ME1 is a chore. ME3 will be even better.

There's not much about your comment that I agree with.

I'm playing ME again -- which I've already played through three times -- and I like it way better than ME2 -- which I barely finished once.

And the irony in your post.  Considering that ME2 was streamlined to death -- dumbed-down, so that it would be more accessible, it's safe to say that smart people weren't Bioware's primary target.

And your opinion about ME1 being a chore, when ME2 introduced planet mining(grinding), which many of the thumb-stick drivers weren't to keen about.

I do agree on a drastic difference in gameplay though, as most modern mainstream titles are lacking in it, or at least what experienced gamers would consider as good gameplay.

Modifié par TongueDar, 02 septembre 2011 - 06:21 .

[littlezack]

TongueDar wrote...
And the irony in your post.  Considering that ME2 was streamlined to death -- dumbed-down, so that it would be more accessible, it's safe to say that smart people weren't Bioware's primary target.

Was it ever? It's not like it took more intelligence to play ME1 than it did ME2. And how are 'experienced' gamers better able to judge good gameplay than 'inexperienced' gamers? Really, how does one define an 'experienced gamer'?

[SomeKindaEnigma]

TongueDar wrote...

laecraft wrote...
The people who start from the last game are smart, because the latest game is always the best. There's nothing enjoyable about playing an outdated game. Two years can make a drastic difference in graphics and gameplay. As of today, ME2 is fun, while ME1 is a chore. ME3 will be even better.

There's not much about your comment that I agree with.

I'm playing ME again -- which I've already played through three times -- and I like it way better than ME2 -- which I barely finished once.

And the irony in your post.  Considering that ME2 was streamlined to death -- dumbed-down, so that it would be more accessible, it's safe to say that smart people weren't Bioware's primary target.

And your opinion about ME1 being a chore, when ME2 introduced planet mining(grinding), which many of the thumb-stick drivers weren't to keen about.

I do agree on a drastic difference in gameplay though, as most modern mainstream titles are lacking in it, or at least what experienced gamers would consider as good gameplay.

You know, I still really fail to see how a game being "dumbed down" caters to people who are apparently lacking intelligence.  I mean, after convincing a friend of mine who is a UNC grad and current Michigan grad student to play the 2 games in his off-time this summer, he considered ME2 significantly better than ME1 (so is he stupid too?)  The rest of your post is ME1-bias (which is fine, I just disagree because I'm more of an ME2 fan)

[KotorEffect3]

TongueDar wrote...

 it's safe to say that smart people weren't Bioware's primary target.

.

Good old fashioned elitism appears to be alive and well.

[DaringMoosejaw]

A totally broken economy with a 99% junk inventory system was certainly the height of intelligence, yessir.

Modifié par DaringMoosejaw, 02 septembre 2011 - 07:33 .

[k177sh0t]

CoD audience

:3

[Someone With Mass]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

A totally broken economy with a 99% junk inventory system was certainly the height of intelligence, yessir.

The stats system really required a new way of strategic thinking too.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Does ME3 do your taxes? And walk your dog?
I'd totally buy it if it would!

[Candidate 88766]

One thing to point out from the OP: 'xbox newcomers'? You do know that ME was originally an xbox exclusive right?

[Kusy]

littlezack wrote...

TongueDar wrote...
And the irony in your post.  Considering that ME2 was streamlined to death -- dumbed-down, so that it would be more accessible, it's safe to say that smart people weren't Bioware's primary target.

Was it ever? It's not like it took more intelligence to play ME1 than it did ME2. And how are 'experienced' gamers better able to judge good gameplay than 'inexperienced' gamers? Really, how does one define an 'experienced gamer'?

By comparison, being experienced in something means you have seen your share of it, an experienced hiker could climb dozens of mountains while the unexperienced one climbed three... it's obvious that the first one have a larger insight on the matter of hiking and can judge the track with more experience than the second one...

To put it simple, I played more games, I have more examples of what to consider as good or bad. I'm not saying yours opinion doesn't matter or is wrong, but I have more insight.

Another thing - I too don't understand how gameplay mechanics can have anything to do with player's inteligence. The main story in Mass Effect The Second however, was pretty bad compared to Mass Effect Prime and if I were looking for some way of proving that ME2 insults it's players inteligence - I'd look there... but it's not like I'm looking for it.

Modifié par Mr.Kusy, 02 septembre 2011 - 11:20 .