684 réponses à ce sujet

[Thompson family]

FluffyScarf wrote...

But I liked taping down Mouse 1 to take out enemies on Insanity. Don't you remember how amazing those hexagonal blue shields? They looked ridiculous and completely out of place, and it was never explained how they worked in the lore. But it was in ME 1, so it was perfect. And who didn't enjoy sorting through piles of identical weak weapons? Or pressing 'Convert to Omni-gel' hundreds of times. I believe that took about 5 of the total 30 hours. Those features made ME 1 great.

"Convert to Omni-Gel" hundreds of times was my favorite. What I loved most was when Shep already had 999 Omni gel so you got no benefit whatsoever. It was just housecleaning so you wouldn't have more than 150 items.

Brings a tear to my eye every time I remember that.

[AdmiralCheez]

Ricinator wrote...

well i got her back in me3 so continue your rant about that good sir...

Hurrhurr.

RPG was stripped bare, accept it or not, its true.

Dunno, had just as much roleplaying as the original.  I was annoyed by how small and boxed in it felt, but a jog across the Presidium cured me of that mighty quick (THANK GOD FOR RAPID CAB).

Combat was the only feature in ME2 the devs cared about, and with their 150 game of the year awards i dont expect them to change that game design.

Yeah, sure, the characters and expanded lore didn't mean anything at all, nope nope nope...

[onelifecrisis]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

I said "a bit more impact" not "two different games". Still, BW have claimed that divergence will be easier to do in ME3. Unfortunately, articles like the one in the OP make it sound like divergence really isn't a priotity.

I am expecting ME3 to pay more attention to past decisions than ME2 did, yes.

I'd be more concerned about Alan Flynn and David Silverman if they were actually writing and programming the damn game, but they're not.

If you're right, I hope that "more attention" doesn't simply mean more random encounters with extremely minor NPCs. One of the reasons I use Genesis is to avoid that crap in ME2 while still getting to make the ME1 decisions which will, hopefully, make an appreciable difference to something in ME3.

If nothing else, you should now understand why I consider ME1 to have made no difference to ME2.

[DiebytheSword]

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.

To be fair, that's implying that the oringinal countcil doesn't suck.

All the rest, totally agree.

[Sgt Stryker]

iakus wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

I'm not reading ten pages but: "Who cares what happened during the season" sounds a lot like "who cares what happened during ME1 & 2."


Edit: Another ME1 vs. ME2 thread? IS that what I'm seeing? *sigh*

INdeed.

It also sounds like "Mass Effect Three is the best place to start"

and 

"You're not going to remember all the details from when you played that game, right?

And I agree.  This should be something ME1 and ME2 fans both should unite about.

Why does it seem like people like Silverman and Flynn believe that fans only make one or two playthroughs immediately after release, then never touch the game again? I, for one, want to get at least one more playthrough started this December, when I can finally devote some time to gaming, as opposed to dealing with grad school application crap.

[FluffyScarf]

You can complete every quest, grab the best weapons, and get the best ending in one play through. What more do you need to do? It's all done. Superfluous things like who dies, who you romance can all be viewed on the Tube. Saves about 20-30 hours.

[xSTONEYx187x]

I try not to pay attention to the marketing team, but some quotes really do confuse/annoy me.

"What we're trying to do with Mass Effect 3 is that it's a new beginning for the series." - David Silverman.

Things like that irk me a bit, yes I understand they want more fans and sales, but saying stuff like "ME 3 is a new beginning of the series", really? How would anyone get away with that?

You never hear Ubisoft, Konami, Epic, etc call the last game in their trilogy/series a "new beginning", especially a game like Mass Effect which was built around choice.

http://www.computera...ut-selling-out/

David Silverman must mention the statement "natural entry point" 2 or 3 times in the same interview.

My favourite game series was MGS and if Hideo Kojima was constanly saying in interviews, pre MGS 4's release, that it was a "new beginning" and "natural entry point" in almost every interview, I'd be really disappointed.

Modifié par xSTONEYx187x, 02 novembre 2011 - 12:47 .

[nutshell43]

Thompson family wrote...
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.

Why? Does it hurt to be shown a mirror or something?

And nowhere do you provide an argument why that pandering allegedly worked. Either BW lost many buyers and gained many, or the old ones stayed but there were few new ones.

Nowhere do you address my points: Given sales of comparable blockbusters you would expect a larger sales increase than ME1->ME2. So ME2's makeover to increase its appeal for the casual market pretty much failed (one reason for ME3's increased RPG elements).
In fact on the PC it failed to badly that despite the huge boost a simultaneous release should have offered (hard to drum up excitement for a year old game - see PS3) it did worse than ME1. OTOH the PC has a more hardcore audience than the 360, so it's not surprising.

That is if vgchartz is correct. Which is anyones guess and leads to this PSA:

*DON'T* use vgchartz. Just make **** up if you have to; it's just as likely to be accurate but doesn't try to appear authoritative. vgchartz is complete and utter crap.

[Ricinator]

@candidate 88766
Me1 had similar linear lvl design as ME2, but they trick you into thinking the world is bigger than it actually is. Except for the citadel that was really open compared to the rest of the game.

Me2 you couldn't even go to the presidium and the static load screens kill any immersion you may have in the hamster cage you are provided. Same across the whole game, you can't leave the Normandy like Me1, and it just feels so constricting the entire game.


Me1 had a lot of dialogue, so much so that i can replay the game 50 times and still find a hidden dialogue options. Sure the game pushes you forward with a few similar options when talking to campaign driving people. But atleast you have several options to choose from.

Me2 you get tricked into thinking there is more dialogue because the game is 3x longer than Me1. The dialogue itself feels like you are always stuck moving forward. You hardly get to dig through conversations like Me1. It just feels like it is all laid out in front of you you can go left or right conversation paths which are the same. Regardless of the base choice, you have really 0 impact in what you say. After miranda/jack or tali/legion fight you can't even talk to them if you didn't use a blue or red option FOR THE LOVE OF GOD.

blah blah blah Mako/Hammerhead argument. never had a prob with Mako myself.
inventory love it or hate it. atleast it was there in Me1
ect. ect. you get the point

[Nashiktal]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

They add up to small world syndrome, but that's about it. And I don't want small actions to matter. Quite the contrary. Big decisions (like saving the council) should have a bit more impact though, IMO.

Kind of hard to make two completely different games for the middle chapter of a series.

Indeed. Unfortunately marketing seems to be telling us we can't expect our choices to do much in ME3 either. It could be entirely false of course, but that is what the marketing is telling us. 

So either all of us fans are idiots, the marketing isn't for us fans (bioware probably assumes the core fan's don't even need marketing, which is semi true), or their marketing actually is terrible. Now I can understand not marketing to us, the raving fans on the BSN. However I have to critisize how they are marketing. My friend, I will call him tom, bought into the ME2 marketing and decided to grab the game. Afterwards tom constantly moaned about how much talking there was in the game, and wanted to get to the action.

So if ME3 marketing is true, tom is going to love the hell out of the game, as he didn't play Me1 (and thus had default choices). However if ME3 marketing isn't on the mark, and it pleases us core fans, he is going to be dissapointed as he doesn't really like the choices or the talking. He is a shooter guy.

I guess what I am trying to say, is that ME marketing needs to be clearer, and if it isn't already, give us a clearer look at the game. Tell us our choices will matter if they do! Don't tell us not to care, the VERY FACT there is an INTERGALACTIC WAR means I will care about my choices. Will that girl I saved from suicide in ME1 be alright during the way? What will that idiotic fan do while the galaxy burns around him? Will helena blake fight during the way? Or if she is a social worker how will she help/abandon the poor souls she is entrusted to?

Those choices create stories, and those stories are what we want to see. When silverman said who cares, even if we supposedly took it out of context, it stuck a knife in some of our hopes you know?

[Arcadian Legend]

FluffyScarf wrote...

You can complete every quest, grab the best weapons, and get the best ending in one play through. What more do you need to do? It's all done. Superfluous things like who dies, who you romance can all be viewed on the Tube. Saves about 20-30 hours.

It does, but, er, I dunno it sort of kills the replayability factor don't you think?

[billy the squid]

AdmiralCheez wrote...


Dunno, had just as much roleplaying as the original.  I was annoyed by how small and boxed in it felt, but a jog across the Presidium cured me of that mighty quick (THANK GOD FOR RAPID CAB).

The wholesale removal of weapon modificatons and armour modifications, shifting it to upgrades linked with that god forsaken planet scanning, was something I missed, sae with power evolution and progression.I think they might have reached a happy medium in ME3, I certainly don't want to return all the way to ME1 when one was inundated with trash Items and mods when the character reached level 50+

Oh and the character equippment screen in ME1, wow scrolling through an endless list of mods was tedious.

Modifié par billy the squid, 02 novembre 2011 - 12:51 .

[shepskisaac]

xSTONEYx187x wrote...

You never hear Ubisoft, Konami, Epic, etc call the last game in their trilogy/series a "new beginning", especially a game like Mass Effect which was built around choice.

Just watch how Ubisoft will say the same thing with Assassin's Creed 3 next year.

[Kaiser Shepard]

jreezy wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

FluffyScarf wrote...

You can complete every quest, grab the best weapons, and get the best ending in one play through. What more do you need to do? It's all done. Superfluous things like who dies, who you romance can all be viewed on the Tube. Saves about 20-30 hours.

Why are you playing then? Just watch a walkthrough.

I'm the kinda guy who reads books over and over, though.

People DO that?!

Maybe the ending changes the ninth time you read it. You never know.

[FluffyScarf]

Watching someone else play is even more tedious than replaying ME 1. Once you've finished once, you know exactly how both games will end. No logical reason to start all over again. Probably why some 'hardcore RPG-fanatics' are seen as addicts. How many times can you play the same game over and over? Boggles the mind. There are plenty of great games beyond RPGs. Try telling that to the half-dozen 'RPG-tards' here though.

[onelifecrisis]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

jreezy wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

FluffyScarf wrote...

You can complete every quest, grab the best weapons, and get the best ending in one play through. What more do you need to do? It's all done. Superfluous things like who dies, who you romance can all be viewed on the Tube. Saves about 20-30 hours.

Why are you playing then? Just watch a walkthrough.

I'm the kinda guy who reads books over and over, though.

People DO that?!

Maybe the ending changes the ninth time you read it. You never know.

I bet it does if you're stoned enough.

[Balek-Vriege]

Before ME2 came out, the friends of mine who actually play games thought ME2 looked awsome, but felt compelled to buy and play through ME1. They ended up not buying ME2 because they didn't want to play through another title just to enjoy the next installment.

That's a problem for RPGs in general. Trying to sell the fact that Mass Effect 3's story will be very engaging and independent of the first two is not a bad thing. Marketing's whole purpose is to try and get new customers to buy a product. Preaching to the choir doesn't help unless there was something wrong with the product to begin with.

And didn't we see this coming anyways? Naturally Mass Effect 3's plot is going to cancel out the other two.

Mass Effect 1 was about preventing an unstoppable invasion. The Reapers end up arriving anyways, but at least you have a chance now. No matter what, events in ME1 were going to be overshadowed.

Mass Effect 2 was about preventing the possible extinction of the Human race and setting back the Reapers plans. They most likely wanted a Human Reaper completed before they even invaded so they could simply wipe the rest of humanity out. After Mass Effect 2 there may actually be enough Humans left to survive a galactic war.

Mass Effect 3 is about winning a real galactic war against the Reapers. The previous two games while important because the events which led to this point, are now small beans compared to the scale of ME3's everyone fights or we all die plot.

In a way it really is a good place to jump into the series. Hopefully they design the beginning of the game (the trial) well so it can bring new players up to speed. Also Vega seems to be the noob that helps with plot explaination as well.

I swear sometimes that Developers/Publishers should be more like Blizzard when it comes to Marketing. Inactive forums, years of development, a 30 second trailer once a year and minimal communication with the community. Imagine if Bioware did this:

Bioware: "Game x is coming soon..."
*6 months pass by*
Fans: "When?"
*1 year passes by*
Bioware: "Soon..."
*6 months go by*
Fans: "Hows it going?
Bioware: "reworked a whole bunch of stuff here take a look. By the way this could all change in the next year..."
Fans: "ANOTHER year? I thought you said it was coming out soon 2 years ago???"
Bioware: "Soon, Beta in a year and a half..."

Seems to work for Blizzard. Then we will see if people really think Bioware's marketing/communication is really that bad...

Modifié par Balek-Vriege, 02 novembre 2011 - 12:55 .

[AdmiralCheez]

billy the squid wrote...

The wholesale removal of weapon modificatons and armour modifications, shifting it to upgrades linked with that god forsaken planet scanning, was something I missed, sae with power evolution and progression.I think they might have reached a happy medium in ME3, I certainly don't want to return all the way to ME1 when one was inundated with trash Items and mods when the character reached level 50+

Oh and the character equippment screen in ME1, wow scrolling through an endless list of mods was tedious.

Yeah, a happy medium would be awesome.

Only with better combat.

[Nashiktal]

IsaacShep wrote...

xSTONEYx187x wrote...

You never hear Ubisoft, Konami, Epic, etc call the last game in their trilogy/series a "new beginning", especially a game like Mass Effect which was built around choice.

Just watch how Ubisoft will say the same thing with Assassin's Creed 3 next year.

To be fair, I played AC1 and dropped it because it was repetitive, but loved AC2. I can't remember if AC2 was stand alone, but brotherhood relied heavily on AC2 for story. Without it you would be quite lost. Not very stand alone for a small spinoff.

[Dean_the_Young]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

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

Krogans uniting vs. Krogans NOT uniting was a pretty big difference to me.

Well, if ME2 had actually done anything with that, it might have had an impact. It's not like the Ambassador wasn't there, or the same Krogan rivals.

Frankly I can't tell if Wreave was supposed to be raising up a prospectivenew Krogan empire or not.

[Ofcoursenot]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

The wholesale removal of weapon modificatons and armour modifications, shifting it to upgrades linked with that god forsaken planet scanning, was something I missed, sae with power evolution and progression.I think they might have reached a happy medium in ME3, I certainly don't want to return all the way to ME1 when one was inundated with trash Items and mods when the character reached level 50+

Oh and the character equippment screen in ME1, wow scrolling through an endless list of mods was tedious.

Yeah, a happy medium would be awesome.

Only with better combat.

And weapon color options. Red Assault Rifles from ME1 FTW.

Modifié par Ofcoursenot, 02 novembre 2011 - 12:56 .