249 réponses à ce sujet

[Hathur]

jreezy wrote...

matt-bassist wrote...

jreezy wrote...

Better late than never to the Mass Effect franchise I guess, although starting from ME1 would be ideal.

the biggest obsticle is that many (read PS3) players cannot start at ME1. this whole xbox exclusive / EA takeover thing really f-ed this possibly amazing trilogy up bigtime.

Like I said though, better late than never. I'd rather players be able to experience at least some of Mass Effect over not being able to at all. EA started this whole problem anyway, ME would have remained an Xbox exclusive and there would have been no problem. They solved the problem of exclusivity only to crete another one since PS3 users will never get to play Mass Effect.

While I know it's popular (and fun?) to blame the evil EA corporate overlords on everything, this isn't actually their fault.

Microsoft owns the publishing rights to ME1, not EA. (When ME1 was released in 2007, EA did not own Bioware... EA only acquired Bioware in January of 2008... after Microsoft already owned the rights to ME1).

EA acquired the publishing rights for ME2 (and ME3 and obviously any other ME game to come so long as they continue to own Bioware). 

Microsoft did not (and will not - ever) release the publishing rights for ME1 to EA (can I assume you're all intelligent / sensible enough to understand why?).

When ME2 was released, Microsoft paid EA for a 1 year exclusivity clause for ME2 on their console (to encourage more people to buy Xbox over Ps3)... once that clause ended (Jan. 18, 2011) EA / Bioware then released it for PS3... if anything, EA can be seen as a "good guy" for doing this, allowing PS3 gamers who don't own a Xbox to play the game as well, even if they only get to jump in at the mid-way point.

Modifié par Hathur, 03 septembre 2011 - 03:25 .

[SomeKindaEnigma]

Gatt9 wrote...

Someone's grasp is a little weak,  but it isn't mine.

Your first major problem is the assertion that "The 2nd entry...",  there's never been a game series that connected choices from each preceeding title before.  So it cannot be possible for it to be the "Usually toughest",  for that to be true,  there'd have to be other series to show it.  There aren't any.  As such,  pretty much your entire point in the paragraph is false.

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.

Here you've got even bigger problems.

First,  it is demonstrable.  The entire entry is bordering on nonsensical with it's inclusion of magical events (Resurrection) and magical powers(Putting ammo in allies guns from 30 yards away),  combined with the fact that no one notices or cares.  The AI is a relic from the 1990's,  it's a linear corridor without any exploration,  eerily similiar to what we had in 1994's FPS's.  It can't even maintain it's own logic,  with the aforementioned thermal clips.  I can keep going if you want?

As far as the critics go,  you really might not want to rely on that arguement,  I can bust out a large number of links outlining how "Objective" they are.  I'll just point out here,  DA2 was given 10/10's.

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.

1.  The Dev team claimed that what you did in ME would effect ME2 too,  it was nothing but emails.  They claimed it would effect DA2 as well (From DAO),  and it was the same.  How many times do you accept the same lie before you realize it's not true?

2.  They aren't catering to their long term fans,  they threw them all out in the last 2 years. 

@whoever the guy below his post was,  if you're going to "Own" me,  do try and bring some arguements that aren't fabricated,  and don't rely on the "Arguement from on high" tactic,  especially when the God being referenced is the gaming press we have substantial proof reviews advertisers and not games.

1:  2nd entries are always toughest, but you may be too feeble-minded to grasp that concept.  It does not need to be a choice-based series such as Mass Effect.  ANY PLANNED, and I say PLANNED and put emphasis on PLANNED because that's what ME was, a PLANNED trilogy, you can do whatever you feel like in the first and establish things, and more or less the same in the 3rd iteration (just account for what has already happened), but the 2nd has to account for everything that happened in the first entry as well as what's going to happen in the 3rd when dealing with continuity...  Do a little thinking before bashing what I have to say.   

2.  If you're going to bash ME2 for nonsensical things such as what you listed, allow me to ask you about ME1.  How feasible is it to have the ability to carry literally over a hundred weapons if you desire between three characters, or better yet, armors on hand at any given time and change them at will?   Or lets talk about the series in general, the idea of mass effect fields/their science behind it is incredibly faulty.  Mass effect fields and FTL travel are physically impossible, and I don't think I need to get into the specifics behind that for people to agree.  And trust me, I can keep going about either subject.

So, instead of critiquing the larger, more glaring issues, you're focused on pointing out ME2's inaccuracies and faults and that's it?  You've got nothing to say about ME1 or the series itself?  

And about the critics, look at the general overall scores given between ME1 and ME2.  If you don't see the obvious difference, then I suggest you relearn how to read.  Of course you have critics who are biased towards certain games, whether in a positive or negative light.  But if you look at the GENERAL CONSENSUS (grab your dictionary) the critics weren't very impressed in the long run with DA2 as much as they were with the first.  So you can nitpick and point out a biased score such as 100/100 here and there, but your point is only less validated by pointing out such obscurities.  

3.  It was not all emails.  Conversations/side quests/certain ways some missions played out were affected by previous decisions, such as Rana Thanoptis' appearance, Shialas' appearance, Conrad's presence depending on whether you dealt with him or not in ME1 (disregard the bug for now), the initial conversation on Freedom's Progress with Tali and the Quarians, the meeting with the Council, whether Nassana recognizes you or not, the Asari with a message from the Rachni queen, your meetings with Ashley/Liara/Kaidan, etc etc etc.  All relatively minor gameplay differences, but makes the game experience different nonethless, and clearly not all emails.  And again, if you don't get why the ramifications of your choices will actually be rather substantial in the 3rd game, read my previous post.  

And I'm a long term fan, but they haven't thrown me out :happy:

[matt-bassist]

Hathur wrote...

jreezy wrote...

matt-bassist wrote...

jreezy wrote...

Better late than never to the Mass Effect franchise I guess, although starting from ME1 would be ideal.

the biggest obsticle is that many (read PS3) players cannot start at ME1. this whole xbox exclusive / EA takeover thing really f-ed this possibly amazing trilogy up bigtime.

Like I said though, better late than never. I'd rather players be able to experience at least some of Mass Effect over not being able to at all. EA started this whole problem anyway, ME would have remained an Xbox exclusive and there would have been no problem. They solved the problem of exclusivity only to crete another one since PS3 users will never get to play Mass Effect.

While I know it's popular (and fun?) to blame the evil EA corporate overlords on everything, this isn't actually their fault.

Microsoft owns the publishing rights to ME1, not EA. (When ME1 was released in 2007, EA did not own Bioware... EA only acquired Bioware in January of 2008... after Microsoft already owned the rights to ME1).

EA acquired the publishing rights for ME2 (and ME3 and obviously any other ME game to come so long as they continue to own Bioware). 

Microsoft did not (and will not - ever) release the publishing rights for ME1 to EA (can I assume you're all intelligent / sensible enough to understand why?).

When ME2 was released, Microsoft paid EA for a 1 year exclusivity clause for ME2 on their console (to encourage more people to buy Xbox over Ps3)... once that clause ended (Jan. 18, 2011) EA / Bioware then released it for PS3... if anything, EA can be seen as a "good guy" for doing this, allowing PS3 gamers who don't own a Xbox to play the game as well, even if they only get to jump in at the mid-way point.

I get it and I understand why (money) but i really think this should be one of those times where a company should just sell the rights and let EA and BIoware get it all together with ME1 2 and 3.

[SomeKindaEnigma]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...
<snip>

Gatt.. I must applaud you. Single handedly taking on these blind fanboys and discrediting their arguments... you make it look too easy.  Keep it up man.


-Polite

And I applaud you for applauding this guy who has yet to own anyone 

[littlezack]

matt-bassist wrote...

Hathur wrote...

jreezy wrote...

matt-bassist wrote...

jreezy wrote...

Better late than never to the Mass Effect franchise I guess, although starting from ME1 would be ideal.

the biggest obsticle is that many (read PS3) players cannot start at ME1. this whole xbox exclusive / EA takeover thing really f-ed this possibly amazing trilogy up bigtime.

Like I said though, better late than never. I'd rather players be able to experience at least some of Mass Effect over not being able to at all. EA started this whole problem anyway, ME would have remained an Xbox exclusive and there would have been no problem. They solved the problem of exclusivity only to crete another one since PS3 users will never get to play Mass Effect.

While I know it's popular (and fun?) to blame the evil EA corporate overlords on everything, this isn't actually their fault.

Microsoft owns the publishing rights to ME1, not EA. (When ME1 was released in 2007, EA did not own Bioware... EA only acquired Bioware in January of 2008... after Microsoft already owned the rights to ME1).

EA acquired the publishing rights for ME2 (and ME3 and obviously any other ME game to come so long as they continue to own Bioware). 

Microsoft did not (and will not - ever) release the publishing rights for ME1 to EA (can I assume you're all intelligent / sensible enough to understand why?).

When ME2 was released, Microsoft paid EA for a 1 year exclusivity clause for ME2 on their console (to encourage more people to buy Xbox over Ps3)... once that clause ended (Jan. 18, 2011) EA / Bioware then released it for PS3... if anything, EA can be seen as a "good guy" for doing this, allowing PS3 gamers who don't own a Xbox to play the game as well, even if they only get to jump in at the mid-way point.

I get it and I understand why (money) but i really think this should be one of those times where a company should just sell the rights and let EA and BIoware get it all together with ME1 2 and 3.

Honestly, from a financial standpoint, it probably wouldn't be worth EA's trouble to buy. Even if Microsoft asked a reasonable price for ME1, they still have to do the crunching and work to bring it to PS3. That's a lot of money and manhours dedicated to a game that, in all likelihood, won't make the money back.

It'd be nice if they would do it - but EA is a business, and it's not a very good business decision.

[Someone With Mass]

How some people can think that a decision like saving the rachni or saving people on Feros should have a significant impact on ME2's story is beyond me.

Some decisions in ME1 weren't meant to help against the Collectors, they were meant to help against the Reapers. Same with some decisions in ME2, like the choice on some loyalty missions or saving/destroying the Collector base. Even Shepard being a Spectre or not will change some outcomes.

[DarkDragon777]

Someone With Mass wrote...

How some people can think that a decision like saving the rachni or saving people on Feros should have a significant impact on ME2's story is beyond me.

Some decisions in ME1 weren't meant to help against the Collectors, they were meant to help against the Reapers. Same with some decisions in ME2, like the choice on some loyalty missions or saving/destroying the Collector base. Even Shepard being a Spectre or not will change some outcomes.

Exactly.


I'm so sick of people saying "Why didn't saving the Rachni Queen have an impact!?? It's all over our choices don't matter!" 

[SomeKindaEnigma]

Someone With Mass wrote...

How some people can think that a decision like saving the rachni or saving people on Feros should have a significant impact on ME2's story is beyond me.

Some decisions in ME1 weren't meant to help against the Collectors, they were meant to help against the Reapers. Same with some decisions in ME2, like the choice on some loyalty missions or saving/destroying the Collector base. Even Shepard being a Spectre or not will change some outcomes.

Perfectly put

[LGTX]

I'm more amused that people actually feel betrayed there was no impact on a grander scale in ME2. It's like the only reward they thought about while playing all those tedious ME1 missions was the repercussions they'd get in some game years away.

Truth is, they could have done grand impacts on ME2. And that would be the shovel Bioware would use to dig out ME3's own grave. The flags set in previous two games are painful as they are to resolve in ME3, an analogically branching midquel would completely eff up the storyline set to be concluded in just one game.

But I understand shallow marketing overrules such logic, so I guess I understand SOME frustration on lack of repercussions. I think.

[Merchant2006]

Return of the Jedi is the best entry point to the entire Star Wars Trilogy, duh.

[Phaedon]

This is how:

http://social.biowar...3/index/8078351

[Cornughon]

Hathur wrote...

Microsoft owns the publishing rights to ME1, not EA. (When ME1 was released in 2007, EA did not own Bioware... EA only acquired Bioware in January of 2008... after Microsoft already owned the rights to ME1).

EA acquired the publishing rights for ME2 (and ME3 and obviously any other ME game to come so long as they continue to own Bioware). 

Microsoft did not (and will not - ever) release the publishing rights for ME1 to EA (can I assume you're all intelligent / sensible enough to understand why?).

The PC-port of Mass Effect 1 (which was released in april 2008 or may or around that time) is published by EA, so Microsoft probably doesn't own all of the rights to ME1 (anymore). Shouldn't it be true that in theory a PS3-version of ME1 could also still be released? 

[DarthSliver]

You know if i remember correctly, i swear I heard they ME Trilogy is going to be their only series to support choices really carrying over to the next title like it is now. One the reasons i remember to this remark is it requires too much resources in that effort to make it work properly and something like ME Trilogy with importing and choices problay wont happen again for awhile. And if you want to know where i heard it from I am not too sure like said but my guess would be the gameinformer thing they did for Mass Effect 3 a few months ago.

[KotorEffect3]

jreezy wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

How some people can think that a decision like saving the rachni or saving people on Feros should have a significant impact on ME2's story is beyond me.

Some decisions in ME1 weren't meant to help against the Collectors, they were meant to help against the Reapers. Same with some decisions in ME2, like the choice on some loyalty missions or saving/destroying the Collector base. Even Shepard being a Spectre or not will change some outcomes.

Some people need instant gratification. 

The complainers fail to understand how trilogies work.

[Xeranx]

ME2 doesn't/didn't need to encompass every decision we made in ME. Only the most pertinent ones need to be developed in order to show that your decisions do carry weight from one game to the next. The Council decision is one that could be explored. Considering the that ME2 is Cerberus' story the fact that you pursued Cerberus in ME or didn't could have been developed more.

You work with Cerberus to find out why human colonies are disappearing all the while finding out what they're working on. If TIM already believes that the Reapers are a threat and that Shepard would be put to good use because of the hunch that the Reapers are behind this, then that could be used to also find out what Cerberus may be working on to counteract the Reapers. It would carry Shepard's last statement forward and allow us to explore at least one possible method of dealing with the Reapers in detail.

The idea that the second part stories in trilogies are often weak is a cop-out. It doesn't have to be so. Also, the above doesn't serve to leave a newcomer out of the loop. Even if a newcomer to the series doesn't get the chance to make all the decisions that were possible in the first game, they can still play the second and get enough of the story without continuity being sacrificed. That continuity was sacrificed hurts Bioware from the perception of those who started out with the first game. If the same method of "newcomers must be catered to" is experienced in ME3 as well then it shows how much care there is for those who actually support your work during a series.

I remember Hudson said they weren't likely to do another trilogy. I think that's a good idea if they're not going to take the time to develop things so that they're consistent, coherent, and acceptable for newcomers as well as old-timers.

[Biotic Sage]

jreezy wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

This is how:

http://social.biowar...3/index/8078351

End thread?

Agreed.  The question has been answered: differentiation.  New topic.

[marshalleck]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

jreezy wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

How some people can think that a decision like saving the rachni or saving people on Feros should have a significant impact on ME2's story is beyond me.

Some decisions in ME1 weren't meant to help against the Collectors, they were meant to help against the Reapers. Same with some decisions in ME2, like the choice on some loyalty missions or saving/destroying the Collector base. Even Shepard being a Spectre or not will change some outcomes.

Some people need instant gratification. 

The complainers fail to understand how trilogies work.

It remains to be seen just how much those decisions matter. Don't get cocky, lest you be forced to eat your words.

[KotorEffect3]

marshalleck wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

jreezy wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

How some people can think that a decision like saving the rachni or saving people on Feros should have a significant impact on ME2's story is beyond me.

Some decisions in ME1 weren't meant to help against the Collectors, they were meant to help against the Reapers. Same with some decisions in ME2, like the choice on some loyalty missions or saving/destroying the Collector base. Even Shepard being a Spectre or not will change some outcomes.

Some people need instant gratification. 

The complainers fail to understand how trilogies work.

It remains to be seen just how much those decisions matter. Don't get cocky, lest you be forced to eat your words.

Yes it does remain to be seen so don't assume the worst.  btw I am going to destroy cerberus:p

Modifié par KotorEffect3, 03 septembre 2011 - 08:33 .

[littlezack]

Merchant2006 wrote...

Return of the Jedi is the best entry point to the entire Star Wars Trilogy, duh.

One could say that Phantom Menace is the best place to start, since it's the first film, chronologically speaking. And I certainly wouldn't recommend anyone start there.

[KotorEffect3]

littlezack wrote...

Merchant2006 wrote...

Return of the Jedi is the best entry point to the entire Star Wars Trilogy, duh.

One could say that Phantom Menace is the best place to start, since it's the first film, chronologically speaking. And I certainly wouldn't recommend anyone start there.

You could start with ROTS really and not miss a beat, but I am one of those people that actualy enjoyed the prequels.  But anyways back to Mass Effect the complainers are wrong