684 réponses à ce sujet

[onelifecrisis]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...
You can have sequel potential without cliffhangers or major unresolved plot points. Take ME1 for example - the plot of Saren and Sovereign is wrapped up, and wrapped up very well, in ME1 but there is obvious sequel potential in that the Reapers were still out there.

Also bear in mind with ME1 that Bioware was testing a new IP and a new gameplay direction for them - they had to bear in mind that ME1 may flop, so it needed to be fairly wrapped up in case they couldn't make a sequel. That made things much harder for ME2 - everything except the Reapers were wrapped up in ME1, and you can't have the Reapers arrive in ME2 without ending on a cliffhanger, so they had to introduce a new antagonist in the form of the Collectors. You get this in films too - the original Star Wars wrapped up its plot in one film in case it flopped but had hooks into Empire in case it suceeded. However, this is much more of an issue with games - the industry as a whole doesn't seem to like original IPs.

But you also get films like FotR which didn't really end at all, and which also could have flopped. Your counterpoint to that is the price of entry, and my counterpoint to your counterpoint is that gamers are, if anything, even more inclined to pour their money into big franchises than moviegoers.

I suppose, but then again LotR isn't a new IP so didn't have quite as much risk as something like Star Wars or Mass Effect. There are lots of LotR fans out there, and given that the story was already written the film had a reasonable chance of success.

But you do have a point - when gamers start being invested in a franchise they are more likely to continue to invest. I agree, but at the same time this kind of franchise loyalty makes it harder to attract new fans - people that didn't buy ME1 and ME2 obviously had their reasons, so if Bioware wants more people to buy ME3 then they need to distance it from the previous installments even if it means that new fans won't get the full ME experience.

Hmm, good point.

[Candidate 88766]

Montezuma IV wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...
You can have sequel potential without cliffhangers or major unresolved plot points. Take ME1 for example - the plot of Saren and Sovereign is wrapped up, and wrapped up very well, in ME1 but there is obvious sequel potential in that the Reapers were still out there.

Also bear in mind with ME1 that Bioware was testing a new IP and a new gameplay direction for them - they had to bear in mind that ME1 may flop, so it needed to be fairly wrapped up in case they couldn't make a sequel. That made things much harder for ME2 - everything except the Reapers were wrapped up in ME1, and you can't have the Reapers arrive in ME2 without ending on a cliffhanger, so they had to introduce a new antagonist in the form of the Collectors. You get this in films too - the original Star Wars wrapped up its plot in one film in case it flopped but had hooks into Empire in case it suceeded. However, this is much more of an issue with games - the industry as a whole doesn't seem to like original IPs.

But you also get films like FotR which didn't really end at all, and which also could have flopped. Your counterpoint to that is the price of entry, and my counterpoint to your counterpoint is that gamers are, if anything, even more inclined to pour their money into big franchises than moviegoers.

I suppose, but then again LotR isn't a new IP so didn't have quite as much risk as something like Star Wars or Mass Effect. There are lots of LotR fans out there, and given that the story was already written the film had a reasonable chance of success.

But you do have a point - when gamers start being invested in a franchise they are more likely to continue to invest. I agree, but at the same time this kind of franchise loyalty makes it harder to attract new fans - people that didn't buy ME1 and ME2 obviously had their reasons, so if Bioware wants more people to buy ME3 then they need to distance it from the previous installments even if it means that new fans won't get the full ME experience.

Hmm...You do have a point. I guess I should stop trying to compare ME3 to the other games in the series. If it's a good game or not is realy all that matters.

Yeah I agree with that, although choices form ME1&2 having consequences in ME3 will help decide whether it is a good game or a great game. I have no doubt that ME3 will be an amazing game, but if previous choices really do matter then it has the potential to be one of the all time greats.

[crimzontearz]

Thompson family wrote...
Fair enough, crimzontearz, but let's acknowledge that BioWare didn't strike the right balance either time. Customization was severely reduced, but that was an oversimplification of a tedious system in the first game. (Now before somebody jumps in with the arrogant claim of "dumbing down," nobody's impressed with your ability to either craft a perfect character point by point or with your skill at needlepoint embroidery.)

BW has admitted that. They say they are working to correct it in ME3. If you don't trust them, well, that can't be helped. But the fact remains that they have apologized for the simplistic character-building of ME2 and claim to be working on putting meat back on the bones, which would require some trouble and expense.

EDITED P.S. For the record, I thought Miranda's goofy high-heeled boots and booty outfit looked like it came right out of an Austin Powers movie. The lack of space suits didn't bother me so much because I assumed they carried small mass effect field generators in them that acted like "barrier suits." After watching Shep get spaced and losing air out of an rip in an old suit while the Normandy, even in its death throes, had it's holes covered with Mass Effect fields, the suits just didn't bother me that much.

A fair point, but that does not excuse going from one extreme to the other. Given ME2 it is their burden to show me that they are, indeed, correcting the mistake by going in the , shall we say, right direction. Truth is that they did have the choice to streamline the RPg features but retain their depth (kind of like the WoD 2.0 did in respect of the original serie) OR streamline them to the point they really mattered very VERY little so that thus puhing the game more toward a standard GoW clone when it came to gameplay.  The final verdict will sadly come only when the game finally comes out since bioware is renown for keeping their lips tight on matters like this one (thus inviting more suspicion)

as for Miranda's suit, we know from the Codex that Mass Effect fields can fail to stop all projectiles coming to the wearer hence why the armor is there..... and that they do not protect against hazardous environments. So........once her barrier drops then what? OSK scenario? Ultimately given ME1's stance toward lore and the verosimilitude of the game itself it is obvious ME2 just followed the rule of cool. The game could have still been cool without forsaking such roots trying too hard to appeal to the drooling masses

See my earlier post, about getting to take the journey.

anyone but the PS3 players has the chance to take the journey....the FULL journey. Those who cannot can always catch up either through full youtube playthroughs in combination with the genesis interactive comicbook. I feel very little sympathy toward those who simply "could not be bothered" to bring themselves up to speed

Well, first off, it was somebody besides Silverman who made this latest mistake, and complicity in ritual human sacrifice would be a criminal act. At this point, I think they're not replying directly because they don't want to make this situation worse.

in spite of whoever misspoke this time the point stands. Not saying anything only invites more suspicion

All I can say is that I'm an older fan and I'm not miffed.

glad you are not, I am merely saying that those who are indeed are not baseless in being miffed

[Thompson family]

@crimzontearz

Every one of your arguments is not only valid and reasonable, they are all validly and reasonably presented. Thank you You've made another good case that everybody with apprehensions about ME3 is not a raving paranoid or just someone eager to grind an axe.

crimzontearz wrote...

I am merely saying that those who are indeed are not baseless in being miffed

Agreed.

[crimzontearz]

Thompson family wrote...

@crimzontearz

Every one of your arguments is not only valid and reasonable, they are all validly and reasonably presented. Thank you You've made another good case that everybody with apprehensions about ME3 is not a raving paranoid or just someone eager to grind an axe.

crimzontearz wrote...

I am merely saying that those who are indeed are not baseless in being miffed

Agreed.

it is refreshing to have such a conversation....it is rare these days on the BSN. Also, forgive my phrasing and constructs, my native tongue is neolatin and not of anglosaxon descent.

Now...I would like to add that  all of this COULD be avoided (assuming Bioware is indeed going to keep their promises about the game) with a modicum of communication if not through Casey and Ray perhaps through the community managers.

See, back when ME2 was coming out and people began to realize that the outfits they saw in all videos and previews were static (when it came to companions) and somewhat ridiculous (Jack...I'm looking at you) they began to ask questions (like "is there any armor customization at all?"), questions that were not answered by the devs but only later on by the very first fans who got the game and reported here. That did not go down well mainly because the developers were dodging the questions possibly because they knew the answer would only make things worse. But not answering in the long run made the people who have been here for a while suspicious, cynical and wondering WHY the silence and the apparent lies of omission....

in any event I am digressing. Take for instance the issue with Ashley's outfit for ME3. That is kind of typical of how certain things are handled here. The issue came up alongside the sister issue of character customization for NPCs, the response was "you will see Ashley with armort and a helmet" and "we wanted to give squadmates unique but appropriate looks". That tells us nothing really...it is very sybilline and only incites suspicion but it is strenuously justified by  people who say "nothing is final, Bioware can say nothing for certain"......and yet, at least an idea of the general direction, at this point, I am sure is available. If this was a non issue and Bioware was indeed adding full customization and less ridiculous outfits (and not screwing over Ashley's character in the process) then there should be no problem in letting people know barring the Marketing and Branding departments being obtuse......

[Gaidax]

Well, people need to think big... 

Do you honestly think that ME1 and ME2 was anything more than just a prelude to what is coming? Let alone the action of Commander Shepard really did anything significant on a grand scale of things? To be brutally honest, despite the seemingly grand things Shep accomplished - in face of the incoming Reaper invasion his interference was merely only on the level of a very annoying fly. Sure he kinda saved the Galaxy from the imminent threat, but for the Reapers it was probably like "damn our scouting team got pooped, oh well let's nuke them". In other words - in a long run he did nothing really.


On the article - people are kind of forgetting that there are people who never even touched ME series and there is quite a lot of those, so they need to get a guarantee that they can pick ME3 fresh and not end up feeling "huh?" about it.

[crimzontearz]

^
that mindset caters to the lazy and the stupid which in turns dilutes the story and the importance of previous chapters

[crimzontearz]

you think it is intelligent to jump in to the third chapter of a trilogy heavily reliant on story (and player decision in this case) and expect it to be accessible to you (assuming you never gave a crap about it before) and to be catered to?