684 réponses à ce sujet

[111987]

Ghost-621 wrote...

Could the combat in ME1 have been a little better? Yes, it wasn't perfect, but you actually had to use your head, and your squadmates on higher difficulties. 

Why use your head and your squadmates when even on Insanity, you can just launch a Singularity and trap a dozen enemies in the air, to be picked off at your lesiure?

Come on. ME2's Insanity required you to use your head and squadmates far more than ME1.

[onelifecrisis]

Ghost-621 wrote...

I'm willing to bet mine that those hours upon hours of choices and gaming won't matter for crap in ME3.

+1

But the trial offers a ray of hope. It could provide new players with a way of making old choices. That's my one ray of hope for ME3 "divergence".

[Nashiktal]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Montezuma IV wrote...

RolandX9 wrote...

If it weren't for ME1, I wouldn't even be looking at ME3.

This is the only thing I wish BioWare keeps in mind.

Really? You really saying you wouldn'd be interested in a game about a GALACTIC WAR!? To me thats just about the best game premise I've ever heard. 

Wait what? That is one of the most common themes in video game history. Hell that was the theme of one of the very first video games.

I'm kinda burnt out on war. My favorite parts of ME1 (and the precious few in ME2) were the politicol and emotional moments.

[onelifecrisis]

111987 wrote...

Ghost-621 wrote...

Could the combat in ME1 have been a little better? Yes, it wasn't perfect, but you actually had to use your head, and your squadmates on higher difficulties. 

Why use your head and your squadmates when even on Insanity, you can just launch a Singularity and trap a dozen enemies in the air, to be picked off at your lesiure?

Come on. ME2's Insanity required you to use your head and squadmates far more than ME1.

Hmm. Neither game really made me use my head, but I gotta say I found Insanity much harder in ME1 than it was in ME2. Not because it required thinking, but just because it was, well, hard. Enemies had a bazillion hitpoints and I had, like, 3.

[chris2365]

Ghost-621 wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Ghost-621 wrote...

RolandX9 wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

"It's like the Superbowl. Who cares what happened in the regular season? Now's the one that matters."

Sigh...

+1. Stupidest Bioware marketing quote thus far, considering that the whole effing draw for the majority of people buying this game will be to finish what we started. You know, actions, consequences, that sort of thing? I really hope no one there actually thinks that a galaxy-wide war is comparable to one football game. If it weren't for ME1, I wouldn't even be looking at ME3.

Quoted for the truth.

It's a good thing people can cancel their preorders up to day of release...because I don't see ME3 being a true "Mass Effect."

Define what you think a 'true mass effect' game is, and why ME2 apparently wasn't one and why you don't think ME3 will be. 

Actually, don't bother - you're probably wrong.

What made Mass Effect 1 good? The characters, the setting, the interaction, the dialogue and the story. Everything else - the combat, the poor AI, the badly implemented inventory that actually added very little, the graphical hiccups and the recycling of environments - these were all bad points, and ME2 improved on all of those bad points while keeping all the things that made ME1 a 'mass effect' game. ME3 is keeping all the stuff ME2, while bringing back the inventory in a way that actually works. It has all the components of ME1, yet you don't think its going to be a 'true mass effect' game?

"I'm probably wrong." You're adorable, my opinion makes me wrong.

Could the combat in ME1 have been a little better? Yes, it wasn't perfect, but you actually had to use your head, and your squadmates on higher difficulties. ME2 had the fast-paced pew-pew GOW combat that people like you wanted. Everything else was stripped bare, and the vast majority of our efforts in the first were adressed by an email.

No, ME2 did not have all of the components ME1 did. Not even close.

In short, no, I don't think ME3 will be a Mass Effect game. It looks like a Space GOW with some dead-space death scenes and a dialogue wheel.

For fans of the series, think twice before you invest that $60, because I'm willing to bet mine that those hours upon hours of choices and gaming won't matter for crap in ME3. It would scare off the teenagers.

You do realise that I am a teenager, right. Don't think that Mass Effect is just for adults. And Mass Effect 3 just so happens to be my most anticipated game of all time ( in other words: don't assume all teens are COD fanboys)

[spirosz]

I'm just gonna say +1 because everyone likes doing it.

[Ghost-621]

111987 wrote...

Ghost-621 wrote...

Could the combat in ME1 have been a little better? Yes, it wasn't perfect, but you actually had to use your head, and your squadmates on higher difficulties. 

Why use your head and your squadmates when even on Insanity, you can just launch a Singularity and trap a dozen enemies in the air, to be picked off at your lesiure?

Come on. ME2's Insanity required you to use your head and squadmates far more than ME1.

No, it did not. Krogans in ME1 were something to be feared, they were slow-moving bullet sponges in ME2. There were snipers in ME1, where if you stuck your head out for too long, bam, dead. In ME1, enemies had shotguns and assault rifles, and used different ammo types. In ME2, there were pew-pews, biotics pew-pews, flamethrowers, and the occasional pew-pew-pew-rocket robot. 

That's just from five seconds of reflecting on the gameplay of them both. 

[Thompson family]

nutshell43 wrote...

Thompson family wrote...
Nice analogy, but allow me to point out that ME2 sold approximately 500,000 more copies than ME1.

Which is actually pretty weak considering:

1. The 360's installed base was much larger for ME2.
2. Simultaneous PC release and a PS3 release.
3. Gamers are sequel hos; a major franchise generally doesn't peak with the first game.
4. They made the game oh so much more accessible by dropping all that unsexy RPG mechanics for GoW.
5. ****** and Asses.

Let's start with point three since that is exactly the point I was making. Thanks for the endorsement. Games and books and movies are not the directly comparable.

Now, for the others.

1.Blockbuster sales of other games released at the same time as ME 1 show that ME1 sold well beneath the "installed base" then. I'd suggest that "installed base" is more of a factor with games that sell better.

2. Actually, the PS3 release of ME2 helped very little and the PC sales of ME2 were actually less than PC sales for ME1, by the best figures publicly available (vgchartz.). IIRC, the sales on PS3 didn't make up for the drop in PC, which means the strength of the Xbox 260 market carried ME2 very impressively.

3. Address already. Thanks again.

4 and 5. OK. Let's just ignore the shelves at BioWare bulging under the weight of Game of the Year Awards, the rapturous critical reviews -- few if any of which referred to any resemblance to GoW or T&A. Let's ignore the fanbase that's still here. Let's ignore all that and say you're right, that it was all purile juvenile pandering, just for the fun of it.

Looks like purile, juvenile pandering is the way to go, doesn't it? I and many other members of this forum would appreciate it if you didn't point that out too often.

Modifié par Thompson family, 02 novembre 2011 - 12:11 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Those of you who say ME1 means nothing to ME2 have clearly never started a file without importing.

TORTUUUUURRREEEE....

[Kaiser Shepard]

What they should use to market is the whole choice/consequence aspect of the series, assuming it's done right, coupled with the fact that now is still an excellent time to get started with Mass Effect because the first two games have just been priced down to - let's say - 10 bucks each, or will in time for Christmas be available in a special budget bundle.

Now, how I would market the choice/consequence system would be with one big and several smaller decisions from the previous two games. The choice to market should be ME2 endgame one, if it actually had the effect we expected it to. Now, for a minute assume that Arrival hadn't been made, and imagine Hudson/Walter/Silverman/Flynn/whatever talking about your past choices on a stage at some sort of convention, finally ready to show the first gameplay footage of ME2.

They show how the game normally starts, with Shepard being tried on Earth (or Arcturus) for having worked with Cerberus. Shepard, handcuffed and escorted by Anderson and two guards (one or both possibly being future squaddies), walks down the final corridor before arriving in the courtroom. They arrive, past choices are reflected, courtroom drama happens, Shepard can choose to go all "I NEVER BROKE THE LAW, I AM THE LAW.", the usual stuff. Halfway through the trial, the Reapers actually hit and Shepard is pardoned. Cue some actual combat gameplay that happens afterward. Mission ends as it normally would, with Shepard getting on the new repainted Alliance SR-2, screen goes to black.

Crowd is impressed, starts to clap. "However", Mr Hudson goes, "that's not the only possible way the game can start." Crowd goes all "Oooh!" , and Casey goes on to say "As most of you probably know, it was possible to end Mass Effect 2 in two vastly different ways, the following is what happens when you if you chose to give the base to Cerberus..."

The crowd is treated to a radically different introduction scene, one in which Shepard and the rest of the Lazarus Cell are in charge of the former Collector Base (and the research bases built around it). Eventually some other bad stuff happens, such as an experiment getting out of control after which the team learns that the Reapers have just hit Earth, or maybe the Reapers actually arriving in an (possibly even successful) attempt to take back their precious Star Forge Reaper womb. in any case, Shepard and co are sent back into the great star ocean to gather either allies or precious resources to once again save the day, after which the majority of the plot unfolds like it otherwise would.

BAM!

That's how you market this kind of thing: show people the influences their choices have, how they change the game and the story. Of course, none of the other choices from the previous two games would have ramifications this big (allowing the player to access one level but keep him from another), but that's marketing for ya.

Most newcomers would be impressed by what they've just seen and would, because they've also just been told the previous two entries in the series are dirt cheap now, either impulse purchase those (because for that price, why not?) or do some research on the series and still buy it, becuase they'd realise that some content is restricted to those who played the other two games. And others will come to the conclusion that it's not exactly their cup of tea, as no one product is for everyone. And some of those you could still haul in the with the planned multiplayer reveal X months after the current presentation.

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 02 novembre 2011 - 12:19 .

[Candidate 88766]

Ghost-621 wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Ghost-621 wrote...

RolandX9 wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

"It's like the Superbowl. Who cares what happened in the regular season? Now's the one that matters."

Sigh...

+1. Stupidest Bioware marketing quote thus far, considering that the whole effing draw for the majority of people buying this game will be to finish what we started. You know, actions, consequences, that sort of thing? I really hope no one there actually thinks that a galaxy-wide war is comparable to one football game. If it weren't for ME1, I wouldn't even be looking at ME3.

Quoted for the truth.

It's a good thing people can cancel their preorders up to day of release...because I don't see ME3 being a true "Mass Effect."

Define what you think a 'true mass effect' game is, and why ME2 apparently wasn't one and why you don't think ME3 will be. 

Actually, don't bother - you're probably wrong.

What made Mass Effect 1 good? The characters, the setting, the interaction, the dialogue and the story. Everything else - the combat, the poor AI, the badly implemented inventory that actually added very little, the graphical hiccups and the recycling of environments - these were all bad points, and ME2 improved on all of those bad points while keeping all the things that made ME1 a 'mass effect' game. ME3 is keeping all the stuff ME2, while bringing back the inventory in a way that actually works. It has all the components of ME1, yet you don't think its going to be a 'true mass effect' game?

"I'm probably wrong." You're adorable, my opinion makes me wrong.

Could the combat in ME1 have been a little better? Yes, it wasn't perfect, but you actually had to use your head, and your squadmates on higher difficulties. ME2 had the fast-paced pew-pew GOW combat that people like you wanted. Everything else was stripped bare, and the vast majority of our efforts in the first were adressed by an email.

No, ME2 did not have all of the components ME1 did. Not even close.

In short, no, I don't think ME3 will be a Mass Effect game. It looks like a Space GOW with some dead-space death scenes and a dialogue wheel.

For fans of the series, think twice before you invest that $60, because I'm willing to bet mine that those hours upon hours of choices and gaming won't matter for crap in ME3. It would scare off the teenagers.

People like me? You mean a fan of Mass Effect since 2005? Oh wait, because I can appreciate games outside of the RPG genre I must be some vegetative heap of flesh barely qualified to be called a human.

You didn't actually define what you thought made ME1 so good. I'd argue that it was the setting, the characters, the interaction with said characters and the cinematic apporach to storytelling it took  - all things ME2 kept - but if you disagree then I'd love to hear what you think a Mass Effect game is.

You rarely had to use your head in ME1's combat. Put barrier up, load up your magical unlimted ammo assault rifle and wade through everything. Insanity was only different because you had to use cover, unlike ME2 where most difficulties require use of cover to survive.

And if you're that worried that ME3 won't be any good then why are you hanging around on a forum devoted entirely to the game you've already made your mind up about?



Normally I'd hate to across this rude, but you aren't exactly being the most friendly chap in the world.

[onelifecrisis]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Those of you who say ME1 means nothing to ME2 have clearly never started a file without importing.

TORTUUUUURRREEEE....

I have, and I don't know what you mean. I didn't notice any differences. I mean, Wrex gets replaced by Wreave, which made absolutely no difference to anything (though there is obvious potential for this to make a big difference in ME3). Council got replaced by humans, which made absolutely no difference to anything. Minor characters like Rana Thanoptis and that Noveria chick were absent, which deprived me of a fetch quest or two (thank god). I'm struggling to think of any other differences...

Modifié par onelifecrisis, 02 novembre 2011 - 12:17 .

[AdmiralCheez]

That's a fabulous idea, Kaiser.

Except for the Cerberus fandorking.

[Il Divo]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

You didn't actually define what you thought made ME1 so good. I'd argue that it was the setting, the characters, the interaction with said characters and the cinematic apporach to storytelling it took  - all things ME2 kept - but if you disagree then I'd love to hear what you think a Mass Effect game is.

Agreed. Of all the things I typically go to Bioware for, gameplay isn't one of them.

[Ghost Lightning]

111987 wrote...

Ghost-621 wrote...

Could the combat in ME1 have been a little better? Yes, it wasn't perfect, but you actually had to use your head, and your squadmates on higher difficulties. 

Why use your head and your squadmates when even on Insanity, you can just launch a Singularity and trap a dozen enemies in the air, to be picked off at your lesiure?

Come on. ME2's Insanity required you to use your head and squadmates far more than ME1.

this times a million. The collector ship on insanity is the hardest thing I've ever played in a VG. Only level I've tried and never beat.

[Sgt Stryker]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Those of you who say ME1 means nothing to ME2 have clearly never started a file without importing.

TORTUUUUURRREEEE....

Yeah, tell me about it. 

"What do you mean I have to roleplay either as Captain Picard or a member of the Waffen-SS? Can't I be somewhere in between?"

[Nashiktal]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Those of you who say ME1 means nothing to ME2 have clearly never started a file without importing.

TORTUUUUURRREEEE....

I agree that "means nothing" is faceticious, but it definitely wasn't anything major. Wisps of nostalgia and a lot of emails don't really say much though. All the major decisions from the previous game get five minute cameos at best.

Now I completely understand why bioware is doing this, and in fact I expected it. I just think bioware created a bigger hype than they can live up to, their marketing and promises for the first game didn't help.

Of course if in ME3 I find my self completely wrong I will be utterly happy and will gladly proclaim everyone was wrong, and I am sure all the nay sayers would be ecstatic to be wrong. You have to admit that biowares marketing is terrible to their fans though. There were many threads (after me2 where people were complaining about choices) where people were either telling the nay sayers to wait until ME3 (all the major choices will happen there!) or at the very least pinning their hopes there. Yet the marketing isn't exactly pointing in that direction.

The marketing is just going to make the fans panic. I honestly do wonder how many new fans they are attracting with all this though, and what kind. And will these new fans be able to coexist with the old? 

Modifié par Nashiktal, 02 novembre 2011 - 12:22 .

[AdmiralCheez]

onelifecrisis wrote...

I have, and I don't know what you mean. I didn't notice any differences. I mean, Wrex gets replaced by Wreave, which made absolutely no difference to anything (though there is obvious potential for this to make a big difference in ME3). Council got replaced by humans, which made absolutely no difference to anything. Minor characters like Rana Thanoptis and that Noveria chick were absent, which deprived me of a fetch quest or two (thank god). I'm struggling to think of any other differences...

Really?

Because those little things made me go apesh*t.

WHO IS THIS HACK?  WHERE IS WREX?  TUCHANKA SUCKS.

WHAT THE HELL.  WHAT IS UP WITH THIS COUNCIL?  IT SUCKS.

WHY IS NOS ASTRA SO EMPTY?  THIS SUCKS.

It felt absolutely empty and impersonal.  I quit before finishing the second round of dossiers.

[Candidate 88766]

Il Divo wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

You didn't actually define what you thought made ME1 so good. I'd argue that it was the setting, the characters, the interaction with said characters and the cinematic apporach to storytelling it took  - all things ME2 kept - but if you disagree then I'd love to hear what you think a Mass Effect game is.

Agreed. Of all the things I typically go to Bioware for, gameplay isn't one of them.

Which is why ME2 was so good - it had all the best hallmarks of Bioware games while also having the best gameplay Bioware has ever created. Everything that makes Bioware games good was in both ME1 and ME2. People just become stuck up the moment the word shooter is mentioned. 

[shep82]

Ghost-621 wrote...

shep82 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Ghost-621 wrote...

Ugh...The more I read about ME3 the more I am convinced that it is a poor man's GOW clone with a dialogue wheel.

Maybe, but I'd argue that this has been the case since the series' inception. Aside from bad inventory and biotics, there wasn't much that really set Mass Effect apart from any other shooter gameplay, in my opinion.

I'm just concerned that the current marketing policy for promoting sequels consists of "put two bullets in the head of the predecessor and bury the corpse in the desert"

I see no evidence of that.

You really do have your head in the sand, don't you?

Go read the IGN article again.
Go watch Silverman's idiotic "rain men" and "who cares?" statement.

No I don't have to read it again nor do I have my head in the sand. He is simply stating that while ME 3 will conclude things and, everything else leads to this statements are simply his way of saying this is it the end we've been waiting for. As far as the starting point issue he is simply saying that players can play ME 3 without playing the previous games just like ME 2. Big deal that doesnt sound like a negative to me as ME 2 was great.

[Candidate 88766]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

I have, and I don't know what you mean. I didn't notice any differences. I mean, Wrex gets replaced by Wreave, which made absolutely no difference to anything (though there is obvious potential for this to make a big difference in ME3). Council got replaced by humans, which made absolutely no difference to anything. Minor characters like Rana Thanoptis and that Noveria chick were absent, which deprived me of a fetch quest or two (thank god). I'm struggling to think of any other differences...

Really?

Because those little things made me go apesh*t.

WHO IS THIS HACK?  WHERE IS WREX?  TUCHANKA SUCKS.

WHAT THE HELL.  WHAT IS UP WITH THIS COUNCIL?  IT SUCKS.

WHY IS NOS ASTRA SO EMPTY?  THIS SUCKS.

It felt absolutely empty and impersonal.  I quit before finishing the second round of dossiers.

I agree. People ignore all the little differences that ME1 makes in ME2, but I think they really add up. I guess some people want to see colossal differences from the smallest actions rather than taking the effort to notice the differences that are there.

[Kaiser Shepard]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

That's a fabulous idea, Kaiser.

Except for the Cerberus fandorking.

What Cerberus fandorking? This is me in "Choices actually mattering mode", as I have been long before Cerberus started to grow on me.

[Iakus]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

What they should use to market is the whole choice/consequence aspect of the series, assuming it's done right, coupled with the fact that now is still an excellent time to get started with Mass Effect because the first two games have just been priced down to - let's say - 10 bucks each, or will in time for Christmas be available in a special budget bundle.

Now, how I would market the choice/consequence system would be with one big and several smaller decisions from the previous two games. The choice to market should be ME2 endgame one, if it actually had the effect we expected it to. Now, for a minute assume that Arrival hadn't been made, and imagine Hudson/Walter/Silverman/Flynn/whatever talking about your past choices on a stage at some sort of convention, finally ready to show the first gameplay footage of ME2.

They show how the game normally starts, with Shepard being tried on Earth (or Arcturus) for having worked with Cerberus. Shepard, handcuffed and escorted by Anderson and two guards (one or both possibly being future squaddies), walks down the final corridor before arriving in the courtroom. They arrive, past choices are reflected, courtroom drama happens, Shepard can choose to go all "I NEVER BROKE THE LAW, I AM THE LAW.", the usual stuff. Halfway through the trial, the Reapers actually hit and Shepard is pardoned. Cue some actual combat gameplay that happens afterward. Mission ends as it normally would, with Shepard getting on the new repainted Alliance SR-2, screen goes to black.

Crowd is impressed, starts to clap. "However", Mr Hudson goes, "that's not the only possible way the game can start." Crowd goes all "Oooh!" , and Casey goes on to say "As most of you probably know, it was possible to end Mass Effect 2 in two vastly different ways, the following is what happens when you if you chose to give the base to Cerberus..."

The crowd is treated to a radically different introduction scene, one in which Shepard and the rest of the Lazarus Cell are in charge of the former Collector Base (and the research bases built around it). Eventually some other bad stuff happens, such as an experiment getting out of control after which the team learns that the Reapers have just hit Earth, or maybe the Reapers actually arriving in an (possibly even successful) attempt to take back their precious Star Forge Reaper womb. in any case, Shepard and co are sent back into the great star ocean to gather either allies or precious resources to once again save the day, after which the majority of the plot unfolds like it otherwise would.

BAM!

That's how you market this kind of thing: show people the influences their choices have, how they change the game and the story. Of course, none of the other choices from the previous two games would have ramifications this big (allowing the player to access one level but keep him from another), but that's marketing for ya.

Most newcomers would be impressed by what they've just seen and would, because they've also just been told the previous two entries in the series are dirt cheap now, either impulse purchase those (because for that price, why not?) or do some research on the series and still buy it, becuase they'd realise that some content is restricted to those who played the other two games. And others will come to the conclusion that it's not exactly their cup of tea, as no one product is for everyone. And some of those you could still haul in the with the planned multiplayer reveal X months after the current presentation.

What is this "choice" thing you speak of? Is it like picking an ammo power?

[onelifecrisis]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

I have, and I don't know what you mean. I didn't notice any differences. I mean, Wrex gets replaced by Wreave, which made absolutely no difference to anything (though there is obvious potential for this to make a big difference in ME3). Council got replaced by humans, which made absolutely no difference to anything. Minor characters like Rana Thanoptis and that Noveria chick were absent, which deprived me of a fetch quest or two (thank god). I'm struggling to think of any other differences...

Really?

Because those little things made me go apesh*t.

WHO IS THIS HACK?  WHERE IS WREX?  TUCHANKA SUCKS.

WHAT THE HELL.  WHAT IS UP WITH THIS COUNCIL?  IT SUCKS.

WHY IS NOS ASTRA SO EMPTY?  THIS SUCKS.

It felt absolutely empty and impersonal.  I quit before finishing the second round of dossiers.

So you just want to bump into some old faces and you're happy?

[shep82]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

I have, and I don't know what you mean. I didn't notice any differences. I mean, Wrex gets replaced by Wreave, which made absolutely no difference to anything (though there is obvious potential for this to make a big difference in ME3). Council got replaced by humans, which made absolutely no difference to anything. Minor characters like Rana Thanoptis and that Noveria chick were absent, which deprived me of a fetch quest or two (thank god). I'm struggling to think of any other differences...

Really?

Because those little things made me go apesh*t.

WHO IS THIS HACK?  WHERE IS WREX?  TUCHANKA SUCKS.

WHAT THE HELL.  WHAT IS UP WITH THIS COUNCIL?  IT SUCKS.

WHY IS NOS ASTRA SO EMPTY?  THIS SUCKS.

It felt absolutely empty and impersonal.  I quit before finishing the second round of dossiers.

I agree. People ignore all the little differences that ME1 makes in ME2, but I think they really add up. I guess some people want to see colossal differences from the smallest actions rather than taking the effort to notice the differences that are there.

Agreed.