597 réponses à ce sujet

[shepskisaac]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

1. It doesn't really do much to advance the story from ME1. You're basically in the exact same spot at the end of ME2 as you are in ME1. The Reapers are coming and you have to stop them.

Neither did The Empire Strikes Back anything to really advance the main story of The Empire versus The Rebels. One could say it was a filler while we were waiting for Second Death Star to get build.

BeefoTheBold wrote...

3. There's not a lot of character choices here.

You ARE working for Cerberus. Period. End of discussion. No option to ditch them and go back to work with the Human Alliance fleet. No options to do pretty much anything. Remind you of Dragon Age 2 at all?

Yet you can still express your disapproval for Cerberus and its methods. Frankly, that's more than you've got in ME1. You HAD to work for the Alliance, report to them and whatnot. What if you didn't want to? Renegade Sheps may preferred 'working for themselves'. You're looking at the Cerberus thing from Paragon/"good" perspective. No one complained when you were railroaded into being a Jedi in KOTOR 1, even if you rolplayed a hardcore Sith. So why is Cerberus such a problem, when you still make it clear you only do it because of the Collectors threat.

BeefoTheBold wrote...

But it was, without a doubt, inferior to ME1 from a storyline perspective.

Nothing is 'without a doubt' when we deal with subjective perceptions of art.

BeefoTheBold wrote...

2. They seem to be shifting them further and further in that same wrong direction

How exactly are they shifting even further in this wrong direction if they're re-implementing many RPG elements from ME1 into ME3 and already announcing DA3 will mix both of the previous games (thus by default be less streamlined than DA2)?

[BeefoTheBold]

No Snakes Alive wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

No Snakes Alive wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...

No Snakes Alive wrote...

Dear whiners,

-snip-

Haters gonna hate, I guess, right?

Your a self-labeled hater aparrently.  Anyway the topic is about Bioware's decline.  Or how I like to say, Complete absorbtion into EA.

Lol the decline? Even though, of their first two Mass Effect games, the second was CLEARLY superior? And even though there's no indication whatsoever that they aren't continuing to attempt to progress the series in ways that makes sense with their third game? You sure this thread isn't about your "waaaahhhh mp is for casual cod newbs bioware is EA's slave for even considering it waaaahhhh" elitist attitudes?

Sure seems that way to me! I mean you're talking about the decline of s company that's bigger than ever and whose most recent game in this series is widely considered to be one of the best games of this generation. Herp derp.

Faulty premise. 

The second one had clearly superior shooter mechanics, it was clearly INFERIOR as an overall game from a storyline and character development perspective, despite not having to create the entire universe like the first one did.

Better selling game does not equate to better quality game. Last I checked The Sims was one of the best selling games of all time.

Talk about faulty premises. Nice strawman argument there considering I never even almost gave the slightest indication that I think sales equates to quality in a game. They do mean something though, and certainly more than your minority-opinion, even when you do present it as fact. How about the universal critical acclaim that sides on ME2's superiority over ME also? Nice failure to mention that.

Opinions are opinions though, and if you think ME2 only got the shooter aspects better and did worse at the rest, then that sounds like a personal problem that won't be swayed by a million opinions of neither critics nor new purchasers, and certainly not fellow forum members who call you out on your bull****. And for the record, in my opinion the character development was superior in ME2; far more characters and a greater percentage mattered more to me. Hell in ME the only reason I had a tough time deciding who to sacrifice at Virmire was because I wanted them both dead.

The majority opinion, based on sales, critical acclaim, and the like, seems to be that ME2 is the superior game overall. I'm not using that to discount your opinion if you happen to disagree, but it should be good enough reason for yo not to present YOUR own opinion as fact and discount everyone else's. If you think Bioware is on the decline then lol one less game for you to buy this March and goodbye to you. But rallying the few troops won't change the direction Bioware is headed and most people are glad for that no matter how vocal a minority you try to be.

Just a thought, but it IS possible to have a reasonable discussion with folks who disagree with you without being a complete dick about it. Several people in this very thread who share your viewpoint are managing to do so.

I'm going to spend my time discussing with them since you apparently aren't capable of detatching personal shots and emotion from your posts. Get back to me when you can do so. 

And on a side note, I'm willing to guess that if you DO love Bioware just as much as you probably think you do then you may want to tone down your assaults on this "vocal minority" (another unproven claim...that your side is the majority. Available evidence, such as the sales of DA2 vs DAO, say otherwise.) because my guess is that you're doing Bioware no favors by personally attacking even a minority part of their customer base.

[Phaedon]

Ghost-621 wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

By the way, the core crowd BioWare has today was created by titles such as KOTOR, Mass Effect 1,2 or Dragon Age:Origins.

Seeing as BG was released in 1998 and the game had an M rating, the minimum age of what people naively consider a core fan, would be early 30s. It's ridiculous to even imply that you can survive by just catering to that crowd 15 years later.

It's ridiculous to even imply that you can't. They chose a big-name publisher because they thought I would bring in more $$$. However, thanks to EA's influence, Bioware has been pissing all over what originally raised them to their high position, their fans.

Have you ever touched KOTOR?

Do you think that it's anything like BG?

Do you really think that the majority of sales out of KOTOR came from BG fans?

We don't know if BioWare would survive without EA, but that's irrelevant. You are bringing this in to change the subject, because you can't argue directly your position, which apparently is "BioWare could have survived mighty fine just by attracting the same costumers they did 15 years ago".

That doesn't work for sock companies. Let alone video game ones.

[someguy1231]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Another faulty premise.

You're assuming it doesn't detract from the SP and that Bioware wouldn't miss those fans even if they are "butthurt". I get the impression Bioware WANTS to keep both the shooter/COD gamers and their original core group. You see this in things like Casey Hudson's twitter claiming that coop won't be what people are "afraid" of.

Of course Bioware wants to keep any customers they can get. Including *gasp!* people who are unfamiliar with Bioware! I was only speaking for myself when I said I wouldn't miss gamers who treat the mere existence of optional multiplayer as an infectious disease that somehow ruins the whole game.

BeefoTheBold wrote...
You see this in Peter Moore's presentation about "popular demand" driving their decisions and how it doesn't necessarily have to mean that they can't appease both core and casual gamers.

A video game company that has a strategy aimed toward pleasing as broad a group of gamers as possible? HOW DARE THEY! <_<

BeefoTheBold wrote...
Basically, Bioware is WELL aware of how polarizing their new strategy/change of direction has been and just how much they've annoyed those "butthurt" gamers that BUILT THEM TO WHERE THEY ARE TODAY IN THE FIRST PLACE. And it does bother them, just, apparently, not enough for them to actually change prioritizing the COD gamers.

And here's where your entitlement shows. Bioware doesn't care whether the person buying ME3 is someone completely unfamilar with ME3 or someone who owns every previous Bioware game and has tons of related merchandise. All they care about is that they buy it, period. If Bioware was only concerned about pandering to their already-established hardcore fanbase with few incentives for attracting new gamers, their games would sell alot less than they do now, sequels would be unlikely, and they might have even folded as a company. Considering how much bigger the budgets for Bioware's games have gotten, they have to sell alot more to make profit. What you're asking for might please you, but it would be financial suicide on Bioware's part.

BeefoTheBold wrote...
Look, we already know that the inclusion of multiplayer will impact SP. How do we know? Galactic readiness. The amount of stuff you need to do to get the optimum ending just got artificially increased because if you aren't doing the MP segment you are FORCED to do more of the SP segment if you want to get the best ending. You've now indirectly made either doing the MP or doing more side quests in the SP mandatory.

And one of the most common complaints from the MP haters was that the inclusion of MP would shorten the SP campaign. Yet here you're complaining about the exact opposite? Besides, since it's the best ending, it makes sense Bioware would force the player to work toward it to give them a sense of accomplishment. You can either do MP or more SP to get that. Two paths to the same location, and you aren't forced to take both. It's actually a fairly good compromise if you look at it like that: People who dislike MP get longer SP, and people who like MP can supplement their SP with it.

[armass]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Faulty premise. 

The second one had clearly superior shooter mechanics, it was clearly INFERIOR as an overall game from a storyline and character development perspective, despite not having to create the entire universe like the first one did.

Better selling game does not equate to better quality game. Last I checked The Sims was one of the best selling games of all time.

Story-wise ME2 aimed at something completly different than ME1. The characters were the story. I get that someone may not have like character stories anyway, but I would question if ME1 was better overall in this departement. The writing was superior in many areas in ME2.

I will second this. I play these two games frequently (no surprise there) and every time I try a little bit more to get into the minds of those who feel like the actual writing itself is stronger in ME1. With few exceptions sprinkled throughout, I just never see it.

Whether or not someone likes the "more personal" approach to ME2 -- and yes, I just used a BioWare buzz term for the game while it was still in development as it's actually true -- well, that's on them. If ME2 were the finale I'd like its approach a lot less but as a middle entry I think it's fantastic.

Let me put it this way. Here's the things that Shepard accomplishes in the first game.

1. He discovers Saren's guilt on Eden Prime
2. He proves it on the Citadel
3. He becomes the first human Spectre
4. He either completely kills off the Rachni or manages to bring them back from the brink of extinction
5. He finds out about indoctrination
6. He either saves or finishes off a human colony
7. He prevents the return of a Krogan army fully controlled by Saren
8. He discovers how the Reapers have done the galactic extermination thing EVERY TIME PREVIOUS by discovering the location of the conduit and then following Saren through it and preventing the beacon from being activated that would have instantly brought the entire Reaper invasion fleet in
9. He either saves or sacrifices the council
10. He kills Saren and prevents the first Reaper from destroying everyone and everything

I could go on. But you get the drift. All of these things are accomplished in the first game DESPITE needing the first game to introduce the entire setting and galaxy.

What happens in the second game?

Um...well...he builds a new team and, well, he makes them like him a whole lot. And I guess he rescues a few colonists and ends up in the exact same spot as before: The Reapers are coming, nobody believes him, and he still needs to stop them.

Exactly, In the end of second game he's in the same position as in the first game, reapers are still coming and nobody believes him. Ok we did destroy the collectors and save some human colonies, but so what? In the first game we saved the whole galaxy and after that nobody still believes us while they had a reaper inside the citadel!! Second game was just a sightseeing trip around the galaxy to collect squadmates and helping them and then dealing with some fringe threat that only targeted some human colonies. As amusing at it was, the main plot didn't really go anywhere.

It's true that they were making a "terminator" made from humans, but what could it have done? Try another attack against the Citadel? The collectors/harbingers plan was idiotic, unless it turns out they were just meant to be some decoy... 

Modifié par armass, 15 octobre 2011 - 06:32 .

[JeffZero]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Faulty premise. 

The second one had clearly superior shooter mechanics, it was clearly INFERIOR as an overall game from a storyline and character development perspective, despite not having to create the entire universe like the first one did.

Better selling game does not equate to better quality game. Last I checked The Sims was one of the best selling games of all time.

Story-wise ME2 aimed at something completly different than ME1. The characters were the story. I get that someone may not have like character stories anyway, but I would question if ME1 was better overall in this departement. The writing was superior in many areas in ME2.

I will second this. I play these two games frequently (no surprise there) and every time I try a little bit more to get into the minds of those who feel like the actual writing itself is stronger in ME1. With few exceptions sprinkled throughout, I just never see it.

Whether or not someone likes the "more personal" approach to ME2 -- and yes, I just used a BioWare buzz term for the game while it was still in development as it's actually true -- well, that's on them. If ME2 were the finale I'd like its approach a lot less but as a middle entry I think it's fantastic.

Let me put it this way. Here's the things that Shepard accomplishes in the first game.

1. He discovers Saren's guilt on Eden Prime
2. He proves it on the Citadel
3. He becomes the first human Spectre
4. He either completely kills off the Rachni or manages to bring them back from the brink of extinction
5. He finds out about indoctrination
6. He either saves or finishes off a human colony
7. He prevents the return of a Krogan army fully controlled by Saren
8. He discovers how the Reapers have done the galactic extermination thing EVERY TIME PREVIOUS by discovering the location of the conduit and then following Saren through it and preventing the beacon from being activated that would have instantly brought the entire Reaper invasion fleet in
9. He either saves or sacrifices the council
10. He kills Saren and prevents the first Reaper from destroying everyone and everything

I could go on. But you get the drift. All of these things are accomplished in the first game DESPITE needing the first game to introduce the entire setting and galaxy.

What happens in the second game?

Um...well...he builds a new team and, well, he makes them like him a whole lot. And I guess he rescues a few colonists and ends up in the exact same spot as before: The Reapers are coming, nobody believes him, and he still needs to stop them.

I see what you're getting it and to an extent I do agree, but again I feel the need to reiterate that I'm usually pretty happy with 'midquels' that zoom in on more personal issues before the third and final installment gets all 'epic big picture' on everyone. That's just a preference thing. Would it have been great if a few more Reaper-relevant revelations happened? Sure. But you know what else Shepard did in ME2?

1. Potentially strengthened Clan Urdnot to prepare the krogan.
2. Potentially moved the genophage dilemma forward to prepare... heh, well, the krogan.
3. Potentially gave the geth a stronger and more unified fighting force. Thus, prepare the geth.
4. Potentially told the quarians to push for war or peace. Thus, prepare the quarians.
5. Potentially installed Liara as the new Shadow Broker. Thus, provided a major information hub. (Actually, I think the devs have confirmed LOTSB and Arrival 'happen' regardless of whether or not you bought them, so yeah.)

This in addition to stopping the Collectors, learning (a bit) more on the Reapers' motivations and the general (and I would think very obvious) 'byproduct' goal of getting more than just a tense Council kinda-sorta on Shepard's side to prepare for the end days ahead.

Maybe it was more all-over-the-place with its pacing. No, I'll give you the full nine yards on that one -- it absolutely was. But I enjoyed the ride to no end. I enjoyed actually fleshing out all these races and cultures that I got so shaky over in ME1 because Tali would tell me about the fascinating quarian flotilla for half an hour but I wanted to go there and see it with my own two eyes. And I figured even then, while playing ME1, that if there were an appropriate time to do so it'd probably be ME2.

I went into ME2 expecting the calm before the storm. I went into it expecting the galaxy's inhabitants to be explored more. I went into it expecting Shepard to begin to discover Kaidan's 'bigger boot' via gathering allies. While the ally-gathering was limited, a more complete playthrough (as in... the only way the games should be played, IMO) will set objects in motion for that big splash third act. It seems like I had preconceptions of what ME2 was going to be that were largely in-line with what it was and maybe for that I'm more willing to shrug off some of its literary failings.

But the writing itself? ME2's script's ability to make me care for the characters, care for the races, care for what I was seeing on my screen? Superior to ME1 for me.

Modifié par JeffZero, 15 octobre 2011 - 06:35 .

[BeefoTheBold]

IsaacShep wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

1. It doesn't really do much to advance the story from ME1. You're basically in the exact same spot at the end of ME2 as you are in ME1. The Reapers are coming and you have to stop them.

Neither did The Empire Strikes Back anything to really advance the main story of The Empire versus The Rebels. One could say it was a filler while we were waiting for Second Death Star to get build.

BeefoTheBold wrote...

3. There's not a lot of character choices here.

You ARE working for Cerberus. Period. End of discussion. No option to ditch them and go back to work with the Human Alliance fleet. No options to do pretty much anything. Remind you of Dragon Age 2 at all?

Yet you can still express your disapproval for Cerberus and its methods. Frankly, that's more than you've got in ME1. You HAD to work for the Alliance, report to them and whatnot. What if you didn't want to? Renegade Sheps may preferred 'working for themselves'. You're looking at the Cerberus thing from Paragon/"good" perspective. No one complained when you were railroaded into being a Jedi in KOTOR 1, even if you rolplayed a hardcore Sith. So why is Cerberus such a problem, when you still make it clear you only do it because of the Collectors threat.

BeefoTheBold wrote...

But it was, without a doubt, inferior to ME1 from a storyline perspective.

Nothing is 'without a doubt' when we deal with subjective perceptions of art.

BeefoTheBold wrote...

2. They seem to be shifting them further and further in that same wrong direction

How exactly are they shifting even further in this wrong direction if they're re-implementing many RPG elements from ME1 into ME3 and already announcing DA3 will mix both of the previous games (thus by default be less streamlined than DA2)?

Actually, The Empire Strikes Back had a lot of storyline advancements.

Luke traveling to Dagabah to get his Jedi training comes to mind as a VERY good example. The empire destroying the rebel base on Hoth and scattering them to the four corners of the galaxy is another. Finding out that Darth Vader is Luke's father seems pretty significant as well. You get the point.

The difference between not having a choice in working for the human alliance and not having a choice when working for Cerberus is the backstory established for Shepard. In all the available backstories, the character introduction of Shepard explains why he works for the human alliance. How else is he going to become the first human spectre if he doesn't have the alliance's support? In other words, some stuff kind of have to happen for the plot to be logical.

That's where the difference between Shepard having no choice working for the human alliance and having no choice working for Cerberus falls apart.

It makes NO sense for a Paragon Shepard to work for Cerberus when he could ditch them and go back to the human alliance and his old mentor easily. Sure, makes sense as a Renegade Shepard, but not at all for a Paragon.

In the first game, it makes sense either way because it's necessary to become and remain a Spectre. After he becomes one though, the amount you have to listen to the alliance decreases dramatically. You become much more of a free agent and a great many of the alliance missions become up to you to complete or not and how you complete them.

Similarly, becoming a Jedi in KOTOR makes perfect sense when you find out the true story of who you are. Essentially, your powers are bursting at the seams and the council really has no other choice but to either train you or kill you.

[JeffZero]

armass wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Faulty premise. 

The second one had clearly superior shooter mechanics, it was clearly INFERIOR as an overall game from a storyline and character development perspective, despite not having to create the entire universe like the first one did.

Better selling game does not equate to better quality game. Last I checked The Sims was one of the best selling games of all time.

Story-wise ME2 aimed at something completly different than ME1. The characters were the story. I get that someone may not have like character stories anyway, but I would question if ME1 was better overall in this departement. The writing was superior in many areas in ME2.

I will second this. I play these two games frequently (no surprise there) and every time I try a little bit more to get into the minds of those who feel like the actual writing itself is stronger in ME1. With few exceptions sprinkled throughout, I just never see it.

Whether or not someone likes the "more personal" approach to ME2 -- and yes, I just used a BioWare buzz term for the game while it was still in development as it's actually true -- well, that's on them. If ME2 were the finale I'd like its approach a lot less but as a middle entry I think it's fantastic.

Let me put it this way. Here's the things that Shepard accomplishes in the first game.

1. He discovers Saren's guilt on Eden Prime
2. He proves it on the Citadel
3. He becomes the first human Spectre
4. He either completely kills off the Rachni or manages to bring them back from the brink of extinction
5. He finds out about indoctrination
6. He either saves or finishes off a human colony
7. He prevents the return of a Krogan army fully controlled by Saren
8. He discovers how the Reapers have done the galactic extermination thing EVERY TIME PREVIOUS by discovering the location of the conduit and then following Saren through it and preventing the beacon from being activated that would have instantly brought the entire Reaper invasion fleet in
9. He either saves or sacrifices the council
10. He kills Saren and prevents the first Reaper from destroying everyone and everything

I could go on. But you get the drift. All of these things are accomplished in the first game DESPITE needing the first game to introduce the entire setting and galaxy.

What happens in the second game?

Um...well...he builds a new team and, well, he makes them like him a whole lot. And I guess he rescues a few colonists and ends up in the exact same spot as before: The Reapers are coming, nobody believes him, and he still needs to stop them.

Exactly, In the end of second game he's in the same position as in the first game, reapers are still coming and nobody believes him. Ok we did destroy the collectors and save some human colonies, but so what? In the first game we saved the whole galaxy!! Second game was just a sightseeing trip around the galaxy to collect squadmates and helping them and then dealing with some fringe threat that only targeted some human colonies.

Ah, I really do hate the 'sightseeing' argument. I won't elaborate since I feel like my recent post explains my position well. But personally I just don't agree with it. Like I said, several of those 'not related to the main plot, ugh!' missions had plenty of purpose.

Honestly, I feel like I accomplish a lot more on the flotilla than I do on Feros. Feros ends with 'a bit more into Saren's motivations and Sovereign's control... thank you for rescuing (or killing) our asari, Mario, but the Spectre is in another castle.'

[JeffZero]

Unfortunately, I do need to get going for now. I'll come back to the thread later.

[BeefoTheBold]

someguy1231 wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Another faulty premise.

You're assuming it doesn't detract from the SP and that Bioware wouldn't miss those fans even if they are "butthurt". I get the impression Bioware WANTS to keep both the shooter/COD gamers and their original core group. You see this in things like Casey Hudson's twitter claiming that coop won't be what people are "afraid" of.

Of course Bioware wants to keep any customers they can get. Including *gasp!* people who are unfamiliar with Bioware! I was only speaking for myself when I said I wouldn't miss gamers who treat the mere existence of optional multiplayer as an infectious disease that somehow ruins the whole game.

BeefoTheBold wrote...
You see this in Peter Moore's presentation about "popular demand" driving their decisions and how it doesn't necessarily have to mean that they can't appease both core and casual gamers.

A video game company that has a strategy aimed toward pleasing as broad a group of gamers as possible? HOW DARE THEY! <_<

BeefoTheBold wrote...
Basically, Bioware is WELL aware of how polarizing their new strategy/change of direction has been and just how much they've annoyed those "butthurt" gamers that BUILT THEM TO WHERE THEY ARE TODAY IN THE FIRST PLACE. And it does bother them, just, apparently, not enough for them to actually change prioritizing the COD gamers.

And here's where your entitlement shows. Bioware doesn't care whether the person buying ME3 is someone completely unfamilar with ME3 or someone who owns every previous Bioware game and has tons of related merchandise. All they care about is that they buy it, period. If Bioware was only concerned about pandering to their already-established hardcore fanbase with few incentives for attracting new gamers, their games would sell alot less than they do now, sequels would be unlikely, and they might have even folded as a company. Considering how much bigger the budgets for Bioware's games have gotten, they have to sell alot more to make profit. What you're asking for might please you, but it would be financial suicide on Bioware's part.

BeefoTheBold wrote...
Look, we already know that the inclusion of multiplayer will impact SP. How do we know? Galactic readiness. The amount of stuff you need to do to get the optimum ending just got artificially increased because if you aren't doing the MP segment you are FORCED to do more of the SP segment if you want to get the best ending. You've now indirectly made either doing the MP or doing more side quests in the SP mandatory.

And one of the most common complaints from the MP haters was that the inclusion of MP would shorten the SP campaign. Yet here you're complaining about the exact opposite? Besides, since it's the best ending, it makes sense Bioware would force the player to work toward it to give them a sense of accomplishment. You can either do MP or more SP to get that. Two paths to the same location, and you aren't forced to take both. It's actually a fairly good compromise if you look at it like that: People who dislike MP get longer SP, and people who like MP can supplement their SP with it.

You're assuming that I think Bioware's decision FROM A BUSINESS STANDPOINT makes no sense. Bioware's making the same decision every other company is making. They're chasing the biggest market.

That can make a lot of sense. I happen to think doing what, say, CD Projekt has chosen to do and dominate a smaller market also makes a lot of sense. After all, DAO outsold DA2 despite DA2 having DAO's popularity to build upon.

The difference is that I care what *I* want in a game, not what Call of Duty players want. Call that entitlement if you like. I think most anyone, if they're honest, feels the same way. People who like the inclusion of a MP mode like it because it's catering to what THEY like.

If the numbers were on the other side, they'd be the one complaining about the lack and being called "entitled" or what not.

As for longer vs. shorter SP or whatever. I think the complaint is that it will IMPACT the SP. Being forced to do more side quests to get the best ending or having a lower quality/shorter SP are TWO DIFFERENT EXAMPLES of how the SP can be impacted.

[BeefoTheBold]

JeffZero wrote...

Unfortunately, I do need to get going for now. I'll come back to the thread later.

That's okay Jeff. Was kind of thinking of wandering off and watching some football or something myself.

I enjoy our debates. Will look forward to more of them.

[JeffZero]

BeefoTheBold wrote...
People who like the inclusion of a MP mode like it because it's catering to what THEY like.

I definitely like it only because I know a lot of people personally who are excited about it. I don't really care one way or the other but if someone pointed a gun at my head and said 'decide whether or not we do multiplayer in ME3' I'd probably swallow hard and respond with 'nah, let's not then.'

[JeffZero]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

Unfortunately, I do need to get going for now. I'll come back to the thread later.

That's okay Jeff. Was kind of thinking of wandering off and watching some football or something myself.

I enjoy our debates. Will look forward to more of them.

Yup, likewise. 

[shepskisaac]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Actually, The Empire Strikes Back had a lot of storyline advancements.

Luke traveling to Dagabah to get his Jedi training comes to mind as a VERY good example. The empire destroying the rebel base on Hoth and scattering them to the four corners of the galaxy is another. Finding out that Darth Vader is Luke's father seems pretty significant as well. You get the point.

But these are local & personal story advancements, just as in ME2. Nothing in Empire changed the fact second Death Star was being constructed and the Empire was still ruling. Nothing in ME2 changes the fact the Reapers are still coming.

BeefoTheBold wrote...

The difference between not having a choice in working for the human alliance and not having a choice when working for Cerberus is the backstory established for Shepard. In all the available backstories, the character introduction of Shepard explains why he works for the human alliance. How else is he going to become the first human spectre if he doesn't have the alliance's support? In other words, some stuff kind of have to happen for the plot to be logical.

That's where the difference between Shepard having no choice working for the human alliance and having no choice working for Cerberus falls apart.

It makes NO sense for a Paragon Shepard to work for Cerberus when he could ditch them and go back to the human alliance and his old mentor easily. Sure, makes sense as a Renegade Shepard, but not at all for a Paragon.

In the first game, it makes sense either way because it's necessary to become and remain a Spectre. After he becomes one though, the amount you have to listen to the alliance decreases dramatically. You become much more of a free agent and a great many of the alliance missions become up to you to complete or not and how you complete them.

It's the Cerberus that has means, resources and & intel to stop the Collectors so it does make sense for Paragon Shep to use Cerberus to stop more humans from getting killed. Frankly, the "good"/Paragon Anderson does seem to realize it as well.

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Similarly, becoming a Jedi in KOTOR makes perfect sense when you find out the true story of who you are. Essentially, your powers are bursting at the seams and the council really has no other choice but to either train you or kill you.

But it makes no sense before that, when you see the world from the perspective of a "new" person and make your own choices. Revan at the beginning should have been able to align with the Sith just as much as he should've been able to align with the Jedi. They railroaded the Jedi thing for storyline purpouses and the effect of the 'revelation'.

Modifié par IsaacShep, 15 octobre 2011 - 06:43 .

[someguy1231]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

That can make a lot of sense. I happen to think doing what, say, CD Projekt has chosen to do and dominate a smaller market also makes a lot of sense. After all, DAO outsold DA2 despite DA2 having DAO's popularity to build upon.

Except CD Projekt's games have much smaller budgets than Bioware's, so they can afford to cater to a smaller market. Bioware cannot.

[vader da slayer]

never knew that adding well thought out features lost fans. if "fans" leave because of a new feature then they were never really fans to begin with imo.

[The Interloper]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Why it's an inferior story is because of a few factors:

1. It doesn't really do much to advance the story from ME1. You're basically in the exact same spot at the end of ME2 as you are in ME1. The Reapers are coming and you have to stop them.

2. The character dialog trees are not particularly deep. It's basically a game of side quests. The entire purpose is to recruit people and then do essentially loyalty missions and two main quests. (Boarding the Collector Vessel and going through the Mass Relay)

This is a story that lacks a whole bunch of focus and just jumps around haphazardly and wherever. The bad pacing and writing doesn't stand out as much because the universe created in the first game is so very interesting.

3. There's not a lot of character choices here.

You ARE working for Cerberus. Period. End of discussion. No option to ditch them and go back to work with the Human Alliance fleet. No options to do pretty much anything. Remind you of Dragon Age 2 at all?

Now, like I said, Mass Effect 2 balanced some of these shortcomings out by it's good qualities. Better visually, tighter gameplay, improved side quests, etc.

But it was, without a doubt, inferior to ME1 from a storyline perspective.

4. Obviously there are degrees with this. It's not like Mass Effect 3 is turning into The Sims overnight. But the fans who don't like Bioware's new direction feel:

1. They've already shifted their RPGs too much in the wrong direction and
2. They seem to be shifting them further and further in that same wrong direction

Basically, they dislike, as an example, the inclusion of coop not just because of it's impact on ME3, but also because they fear the slippery slope that things like coop and kinect are going to have a deeper and deeper impact on future games that Bioware comes out with.

It's like when you know a relationship is slowly failing and you're trying as hard as you can to salvage it but can still feel it gradually slipping away.

1. This is hardly unusual in trilogies. The events two towers did almost nothing to actually defeat sauron; you just killed more proxies and frodo walked a little closer. People often say that arrival should have been the main plot but that has the same problem-at the end you've just delayed the reapers a little more, just like ME1. ME2 is transition, not resolution. In the meantime we find out some more about the reapers, greatly expand the cast and set up things for the next game. I personally don't see the "but we're in the same place" thing as that bad, and I dont' even agree that we were in the same place. In fact we moved backwards a bit-the government is now even less interested in stopping the reapers.

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Actually, The Empire Strikes Back had a lot of storyline advancements.

Luke traveling to Dagabah to get his Jedi training comes to mind as a VERY good example. The empire destroying the rebel base on Hoth and scattering them to the four corners of the galaxy is another. Finding out that Darth Vader is Luke's father seems pretty significant as well. You get the point.

And none of this, except for Luke finding Yoda, helps with defeating the empire. And Yoda doesn't have the time in the story to pan out(ie train luke), at least from the practical perspective, not so unlike the collector base. Again, I just don't think your earlier definition of what makes a second act a good second act fits. As I said, and I think Zero too, ME2 advances the story in many ways that dont' directly fill up the "reaper defeat" meter.

2. Mostly agreed.

3. As per above I agree conversation options were gimped a little, but action wise ME2 had far more opportunities for meaningful choice then ME1-one in each character mission, at least, and the SM takes things up to eleven (seriously, how many rpgs have a select-the-cast option? Because that's basically what the sm is). The cerberus railroading is little different from forcing shepard to join the council in ME1. It helps keep the plot fairly simple and makes sense in context.

BeefoTheBold wrote...

It makes NO sense for a Paragon Shepard to work for Cerberus when he could ditch them and go back to the human alliance and his old mentor easily. Sure, makes sense as a Renegade Shepard, but not at all for a Paragon.

In the first game, it makes sense either way because it's necessary to become and remain a Spectre. After he becomes one though, the amount you have to listen to the alliance decreases dramatically. You become much more of a free agent and a great many of the alliance missions become up to you to complete or not and how you complete them.

I've had lengthly debates on this subject and your point revolves around the assertion that Shepard can rejoin the alliance. And he cant. The alliance or the council because they aren't interested in helping him, and even if he ran from TIM the very fact that cerberus brought him back means no one will trust him. So cerberus is the only option. The only real problem here is that Paragon shep joins TIM without trying to return to the council first, but that's minor as he can rush back there almost right after getting the normandy back. As for Shepard's grudge against cerberus, they did save his life, so IMO it evens out.

We can wrangle over the specific details but I don't see how cerberus and council railroading are significantly different.

4. The slippery slope principle is argumentively false. It can be used to prove anything and needs more information to be valid-in short, it's useless. Just because I've taken six steps in one direction doesn't mean I can't change direction. For instance ME2 and DA2 set up a trend of streamlining rpg mechanics, but ME3 is reversing that a bit. Likewise ME2's fractured story does not seem to be returning, at least quite so much, in ME3.  That doesn't mean there aren't trends but this isn't set isn't set in stone either.

[hecksard]

BeefoTheBold wrote...
As for longer vs. shorter SP or whatever. I think the complaint is that it will IMPACT the SP. Being forced to do more side quests to get the best ending or having a lower quality/shorter SP are TWO DIFFERENT EXAMPLES of how the SP can be impacted.

Neither of these are examples of how the SP can be impacted, since neither are real examples in the first place.

'More' than what? 'Shorter' than what? You're counting numbers of missions differently in each example, then falsely equating them. You must choose one of these, not both:

EITHER:

1. "Being forced to complete the full list of missions to get the best ending or having a shorter SP ..."

OR:

2. "Being forced to do more missions to get the best ending or having a standard length SP ..."

You can't balance your equation, and that's why you keep making the same mistake. And this is setting aside for the moment the dubious notion of 'forcing' in a context of increased player choice.

Modifié par hecksard, 15 octobre 2011 - 06:58 .

[Reptillius]

don't know if it's been said. faulty memory and I'm getting ready for work while reading forums this morning... But ME2 does advance the story from ME1... it just doesn't advance it quite as well as it could have... it introduces more key characters and it does take down resources that the Reapers could have used against the Galaxy. Further weakening their position.

the problem with it is that story is rather disjointed in the way it was presented. But I don't think we'll have that worry in ME3.

[Erszebeth]

I wouldn't mind MP if it didn't include galactic readiness. Bioware has a right to add a feature that makes people happy, Bioware has the right to gather a new public. MP is clearly a buisness decision only made to test the potential of a Mass Effect universe MMOFPS.

The problem is, the trilogy was supposed to be Shepard's story and now it's not anymore. With galactic readiness, you can now nullify three games worth of choices made by the "hero" if you wish.

What does galactic readiness does ? It tells us that Shepard is not the hero anymore. That all what we did never really mattered. On top of being a very ankward design choice to explain to the crowds, galactic readiness totally undermine the identity of who you're suppose to be. They could have pleased both crowds equally, they choose not to, and this is a very bitter pill to swallow.

[No Snakes Alive]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

No Snakes Alive wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

No Snakes Alive wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...

No Snakes Alive wrote...

Dear whiners,

-snip-

Haters gonna hate, I guess, right?

Your a self-labeled hater aparrently.  Anyway the topic is about Bioware's decline.  Or how I like to say, Complete absorbtion into EA.

Lol the decline? Even though, of their first two Mass Effect games, the second was CLEARLY superior? And even though there's no indication whatsoever that they aren't continuing to attempt to progress the series in ways that makes sense with their third game? You sure this thread isn't about your "waaaahhhh mp is for casual cod newbs bioware is EA's slave for even considering it waaaahhhh" elitist attitudes?

Sure seems that way to me! I mean you're talking about the decline of s company that's bigger than ever and whose most recent game in this series is widely considered to be one of the best games of this generation. Herp derp.

Faulty premise. 

The second one had clearly superior shooter mechanics, it was clearly INFERIOR as an overall game from a storyline and character development perspective, despite not having to create the entire universe like the first one did.

Better selling game does not equate to better quality game. Last I checked The Sims was one of the best selling games of all time.

Talk about faulty premises. Nice strawman argument there considering I never even almost gave the slightest indication that I think sales equates to quality in a game. They do mean something though, and certainly more than your minority-opinion, even when you do present it as fact. How about the universal critical acclaim that sides on ME2's superiority over ME also? Nice failure to mention that.

Opinions are opinions though, and if you think ME2 only got the shooter aspects better and did worse at the rest, then that sounds like a personal problem that won't be swayed by a million opinions of neither critics nor new purchasers, and certainly not fellow forum members who call you out on your bull****. And for the record, in my opinion the character development was superior in ME2; far more characters and a greater percentage mattered more to me. Hell in ME the only reason I had a tough time deciding who to sacrifice at Virmire was because I wanted them both dead.

The majority opinion, based on sales, critical acclaim, and the like, seems to be that ME2 is the superior game overall. I'm not using that to discount your opinion if you happen to disagree, but it should be good enough reason for yo not to present YOUR own opinion as fact and discount everyone else's. If you think Bioware is on the decline then lol one less game for you to buy this March and goodbye to you. But rallying the few troops won't change the direction Bioware is headed and most people are glad for that no matter how vocal a minority you try to be.

Just a thought, but it IS possible to have a reasonable discussion with folks who disagree with you without being a complete dick about it. Several people in this very thread who share your viewpoint are managing to do so.

I'm going to spend my time discussing with them since you apparently aren't capable of detatching personal shots and emotion from your posts. Get back to me when you can do so. 

And on a side note, I'm willing to guess that if you DO love Bioware just as much as you probably think you do then you may want to tone down your assaults on this "vocal minority" (another unproven claim...that your side is the majority. Available evidence, such as the sales of DA2 vs DAO, say otherwise.) because my guess is that you're doing Bioware no favors by personally attacking even a minority part of their customer base.

Personal attacks? Tone down my assaults? Lol are you kidding me? First you make up a false argument on my behalf out of nowhere and then you act like I've done nothing but insult you when I let you know why you shouldn't so readily dismiss the opinions of others. It's a real low tactic to call ME names based on the imaginary idea that I've attacked you first when there isn't one personal insult or emotionally driven claim against you in my post (besides calling you out on your attempt to insult my argument when it's not even one I ever made). Good job.

The fact of the matter is that there's plenty of proof behind the claim that ME2 was better received than ME by fans and critics alike, and the sales of Dragon Age games isn't the place to look. You're in the wrong forum if that's your argument.

The fact of the matter is that disagreeing with the direction Bioware has taken the Mass Effect series is something you're all entitled to, even if it's not going to change where they're headed because it's led to more acclaim and sales for them. The false sense of entitlement and obnoxious elitist attitudes are insulting though. If you're willing to consider gameplay changes that most people consider improvements "dumbing down" then you shouldn't be so defensive and sensitive when people defend their opinions.

Some of you act like me playing Dark Souls right now while I eagerly anticipate the multiplayer in ME3 is some sort of impossible hardcore/casual gamer paradox that's gonna make the universe implode. There's absolutely no basis behind the theory that the addition of an optional multiplayer component equates to the subtraction of what makes the game appeal to a hardcore RPG fan. And I'm glad none of you have anything to do with the development of this game.

[kalle90]

IsaacShep wrote...

kalle90 wrote...

DA2 sold tons with the hype but I doubt DA3 will sell as much at launch because players are more wary.

DA2 didn't sell "tons". Initial sales were very good thanks to hype, pre-orders and success of Origins. But once awful word-of-mouth got out, DA2 pretty much stopped selling, it has no legs and will never come even close to what DAO sold. You're right though about DA3 sales. Will be much worse during the debut because of DA2. But if it gets great reviews, then it will convince people to give the series another try.

That's what I was going for.

Anyways about ME2. Yes it is mostly about characters and I'd say they were done pretty so-so. The big thing is that supposedly ME3 doesn't really follow up from that. Most ME1 contacts were handled as email or blatant "Why didn't you call me when you were dead?" meetings so that throws many of the characters out of the window. So the only real character interaction was with squadmates and half of them will be unavailable anyway and won't probably have much of a role.

Comparing to Empire Strikes Back it's like half of the cast had been switched for the Return of the Jedi so most of the character progression would have been thrown down the drain. What if Han Solo and R2D2 had like 5 minute cameos in RotJ?

But the base problem is Mass Effect 2 adding a dozen new squadmates (and resetting the story killing Shep, forcing him to Cerberus...) so I guess Bioware has to do with what they have

[No Snakes Alive]

I love how a Bioware representative actually took the time to respond to this thread with what was essentially a big fat resounding "Yes; /thread."

[Erszebeth]

Given the fact that you have to create a BSN profile to access features, I'd say that increasing community is different from increasing fans. But then again, it depends on your definition of what a fan is.

Modifié par Erszebeth, 15 octobre 2011 - 09:09 .

[In Exile]

someguy1231 wrote...
Except CD Projekt's games have much smaller budgets than Bioware's, so they can afford to cater to a smaller market. Bioware cannot.

They also have an independent revenue stream from owing from distribution of games via GoG.com. They don't support themselves entirely from recouping development costs from their own games. 

Beyond that, because they're a smaller developer without the baggage of a reputation, they get the benefit of the doubt on a lot of features.