684 réponses à ce sujet

[onelifecrisis]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Ricinator wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Wait.

All of your "ME2 SUCKS" rage... stems from Ash ditching you?

It may have opened my eyes and showed how hollow ME2 really is

Yep, theory confirmed.

Cruel.
And you say I should be less provocative!

Modifié par onelifecrisis, 01 novembre 2011 - 11:31 .

[AdmiralCheez]

onelifecrisis wrote...

Cruel.
And you say I should be less provocative!

Sometimes, something is just too preciously melodramatic not to pounce on.

No offense, Ricinator.  All in good fun.

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 01 novembre 2011 - 11:38 .

[Ricinator]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

Cruel.
And you say I should be less provocative!

Sometimes, something is just too preciously melodramatic not to pounce on.

No offense, Ricinator.  All in good fun.

no worries good sir... nice catch btw i hadn't really thought about that till you brought it up anyway.

[Ofcoursenot]

Look, from what I've seen, linearity is assured. It's just about required, too, since Shep won't have time to run around running errands, either. Not even to punch Pyjaks. Level design is clearly linear. Doubt all you want, this is ME2 with more customization and a new power progression system.

[Anacronian Stryx]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

Cruel.
And you say I should be less provocative!

Sometimes, something is just too preciously melodramatic not to pounce on.

No offense, Ricinator.  All in good fun.

You need to start printing t-shirts : Got pounced by the Cheez...good times!.

[shep82]

iakus wrote...

 Well, just read the article.

I knew this would happen.

The exact same thing happened when ME2 came out.  ME1 was suddenly unimportant.  A prequel.  Inconsiquential.  It's time was past.  Time for new and shiny!

Now that ME3 is on the horizon, history repeats itself.  Only this time it's for both ME1 and ME2.

Sometimes I hate being right.

*sigh* Me 1 is not unimportant or inconsiquential as far as ME 2 is concerned nor will ME 3 be for ME 1 and 2.

[shep82]

Ofcoursenot wrote...

Look, from what I've seen, linearity is assured. It's just about required, too, since Shep won't have time to run around running errands, either. Not even to punch Pyjaks. Level design is clearly linear. Doubt all you want, this is ME2 with more customization and a new power progression system.

Which is fine by me as ME 2 is years ahead of ME 1.

[onelifecrisis]

shep82 wrote...

Me 1 is not unimportant or inconsiquential as far as ME 2 is concerned.

That's right. My ME2 inbox is proof of that! /sarcasm

Seriously, how can you say ME1 was important to ME2? The beginning of ME2 is might as well be a progress bar with the words "DELETING ME1, PLEASE WAIT". Bye-bye crew, bye-bye ship, bye-bye Alliance, bye-bye Council. Oh, and reapers? What are they? Nevermind, let's just go kill collectors.

And none of the ME1 decisions made any difference at all.

But at least I got some emails. Gotta love those emails.

Modifié par onelifecrisis, 01 novembre 2011 - 11:47 .

[Ghost-621]

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."

[Ricinator]

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."

+1

[nutshell43]

111987 wrote...
2. PS3 was released like a year after the Xbox/PC versions.

So was the PC version for ME1. Nowhere did I say that the PS3 version was a day 1 release, just that there was one, which sold some copies, which makes up part of the difference between ME1 and ME2.

4. Which made the gameplay better. And in ME3 they're bringing back many RPG mechanics, so everyone wins.

No, it didn't. There were some improvements but they were orthogonal to the mechanics issue. If you didn't agree with that you must think that ME3 will make gameplay worse with those RPG mechanics so you wouldn't win. Ergo, you think I'm right. =)

5. ME1 actually was more explict in thsi department. Side boobs and asses for everyone.

"****** and asses" generally implies that they're used gratuitously and liberally.

In ME1 it was one short scene embedded in the story. In ME2 half your crew wears spandex, cleavage to the belly or a belt and dat ass is shoved into your face constantly.

Let's not start a nitpicking contest. I don't really have a problem with this issue per se (it's more a symptom of a general transformation from hardish sci-fi to a more comic booky approach) but you can't seriously argue that BW didn't dial up the sex appeal even a little bit.

[shep82]

onelifecrisis wrote...

shep82 wrote...

Me 1 is not unimportant or inconsiquential as far as ME 2 is concerned.

That's right. My ME2 inbox is proof of that! /sarcasm

Seriously, how can you say ME1 was important to ME2? The beginning of ME2 is might as well be a progress bar with the words "DELETING ME1, PLEASE WAIT". Bye-bye crew, bye-bye ship, bye-bye Alliance, bye-bye Council. Oh, and reapers? What are they? Nevermind, let's just go kill collectors.

And none of the ME1 decisions made any difference at all.

But at least I got some emails. Gotta love those emails.

I don't agree at all. The reaper threat was always going to be a behind the scenes thing untill the big battle. They were behind the collectors or did you forget that? I liked getting rid of the Alliance, going rogue and the decisions did matter and in more than emails.

[Ghost-621]

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.

[Il Divo]

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.

[Candidate 88766]

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?

Modifié par Candidate 88766, 01 novembre 2011 - 11:56 .

[DxWill10]

The first article I saw about ME3 was largely about reasons new players can so easily join. I wasn't worried.

I've now seen many articles since then stating this exact same thing over and over. To me, it seems they are really banking on new players joining. I hope they do so at least statements like the one below won't have been said for nothing.

"Who cares what happened in the regular season? It's the super bowl that matters"

This made me drop my jaw for a second. But what can you do? I'm going to have faith that Bioware will make our choices from ME1 and 2 relevant and meaningful in ME3. If I start losing faith, I think I'd become an EMO kid. I would prefer not to wear eye-liner, so just gotta have faith...

Ok. Faith. Yea. Got it.

[shep82]

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?

Quoted for truth.

[sympathyforsaren]

Ricinator 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."

+1

+ 2

It doesn't feel like Mass Effect at all. I cancelled mine but holding out hope.

[Iakus]

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"

[Ricinator]

@nutshell43
We never wanted dialed up sex appeal, just Less pusy devs to stick by what ME1 had and continue with the epic trilogy. The way i had thought they had envisioned it. But instead we got a super linear good-bad system with only better combat, a lot less weapons, raped dialogue system, and an extreme lack of re-playability.

They just let Fox News Machine get to them.

Modifié par Ricinator, 02 novembre 2011 - 12:03 .

[Gibb_Shepard]

BAHAHA! YES! Another article DEDICATED to telling the world how ME3 is a great starting point.

This marketing is ruthless, it really is. Bioware would have to be the least personable company when it comes to marketing, ever.

[shep82]

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.

[Ghost-621]

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.

[Ghost-621]

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.

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

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"

Likewise. What I find really strange about it is that, take another series (like Assassin's Creed), much of the marketing is based around the ability to continue/finish the story which has been built up in its previous installments. Hell, with Revelations, the next release, Ubisoft has promised that this game will provide us with "more answers than questions", which most fans were hoping for.

Even if other developers don't actively emphasize how essential their previous games are to understanding the current game, is it very typical for them to continually emphasize how "stand alone" their current product is?

Even if that's the case, considering ME3 is marketed as the conclusion of a trilogy and that Bioware relies on a reputation as "renowned story-tellers", this is less than ideal.

Modifié par Il Divo, 02 novembre 2011 - 12:08 .