1467 réponses à ce sujet

[1136342t54_]

Alex_SM wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

Actually sometimes it is. Resident evil has done that with Resident Evil 4 and it is still by far the best Resident Evil to date and that year it was one of the best games out. Some game companies actually say explicityly that they like to broaden their player base sometimes but even when they don't say it is still in their plan to do that simply as a company that wants to make money.

I didn't said it never happened. I said that is not usual, and it is not. 

About Resident Evil, I don't know personally (or through internet) any RE fan who thinks RE4 is the best one. The ones I know still prefer the first two or Code Veronica. I just saw some videos of RE4 and never appealed me. 

And I know any companie whants to sell more games, but Is not usual to ruin franchises dumbing them down to the lowest common denominator (except if you are called Activision or EA, unfortunately)
just to ship a few more coppies. And it not usual to listen the devs saying "omfg! you push a button and is awsome!!! Come on you call of duty fans who never liked our games, this is for you!!!!"

I've played most RE games and RE4 was definitely one of the best ones. I was quite pleased with it especially with everything they added since the older gameplay was getting...well old.

Assuming that ME3 will ruin the franchise on marketing (very similar to ME2) is silly.

[ElitePinecone]

Guys & gals, talking about DA2 isn't relevant to this topic. Take it somewhere else or to PM if you want to argue further.

[111987]

Darji wrote...

111987 wrote...

Darji wrote...

Wrong the Witcher was not a stand alone game. Yes the it had no real decsions which were integrated in the sequel but the overall world was perfectly tied together while you have the feeling that like 90% of the events that happend in ME1 had nothing to do with ME2 at all.

That was my point; decisions didn't carry over. That makes things a lot easier for the developers.

And I don't know how you can say what happened in ME1 had nothing to do with ME2...that's just silly.

Ok then please tell me what really mattered from ME1 in the main story of ME2.

You said ME2 had nothing to do with ME1. Which is wrong, because we had the same protagonist, the same overarching antagonist, some of the same locations (i.e. The Citadel), all the old squad mates and the effect they had on the story, etc...

[1136342t54_]

Darji wrote...
Really? a normal person would not see if the enemies they are fighting were attacked by a huge fireball? So are templars blind?

Either that or he was so ****ing grateful that you saved his life he didn't do anything. Also Meredith always knew that Hawke and even Hawke's comapanions were mages. Its quite possible that she didn't care (Hawke was a noble in act 2 and Cullen probably didn't tell her in Act1) or was just watching her to make sure she could take her in for any sign of trouble.

Edit: Like I said before I'm done arguing about it since it is irrelevant to the topic.

Modifié par 1136342t54 , 06 novembre 2011 - 04:48 .

[dreman9999]

Darji wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

Darji wrote...
No they raged becasue it was a total different game. It had no depth at all

Explain?

, the combat was nothing like Origins.

Actually it was quite similar but faster, no kiting and you really couldn't auto follow your target.

the story was a boring mess of three parts they somehow put together through the lazy "flashback feature" The whole world didnt even make sense.

What is there that didn't make sense? Is it simply confusing to realize that you are refugee trying to make a living for the first Act?

For example no one cared about you beeing a mage even if you fought right in front of them, or look like a normal mage.

Oh yeah your so right it isn't like we never had that happen in DAO. /sarcasm

And that was only one huge flaw in the world DA2 had.  Honestly even a 13 year old with a bit writing talent could have written a better story with better characters than the whole DA2 did. 

I've graded some 13 year old english papers. Don't ever say that.

Ok here.e.

No depth:
there was nothing stats based. dumbed down inventory, dumbed down skill tree, no tactical combat at all. And no the combat was not the same at all. again you dont need any strategy, you cant set up surprise attacks, all that made DA2 difficult were its spawns which were cheap and unfair and made every first encounter a lucky guess game.

And Inorigins it actually mattered in the world of Ofirins if you were a mage or not. It mattered if you were anhuman dwarf or elf. It mattered and people actually reacted differently depending on your character or class.

DA2 didnt make sense in terms of beeing stupid with no overall story at all beside the flashback thing. It were basicly 3 different stories somehow tied together to "one" whole story whioch was not even lazy but also bad implemented.

And you want evidence? Mabye it helps that a bioware guy who was also responsible for the story told in an interview that people dont want to read or long dialogues with deep stories.

The skills and statesare better than DA:O's.  DA2 has some fantasitc cc abilities.  A rouge in dragon age 2can take on a group.....You can't do that in Dragon Age:origin. Also,the characters are deeper. The main problem with DA2 is the xicution of it was horrible. They throw you into the game. It felt rushed. Don't comfuse that with having a bad story, characters of gameplay.

[Balek-Vriege]

I love how this has partially turned into a debate about Dragon Age and DAII ratings, which have nothing to do with the ME3 Modes or the Mass Effect series. Another team is responsible for DAO/DAII and the marketing for both was pretty much identical. Remember the metal music, focus on action and the "cool" marketing was somehow proof DOA was a bad RPG with little focus on plot? Yeah that didn't really pan out. What did pan out was some of the doom and gloom for DAII.

I will judge the Mass Effect 3 based off the Mass Effect series. Not based off another game the developers of ME never worked on.

Modifié par Balek-Vriege, 06 novembre 2011 - 04:51 .

[1136342t54_]

Balek-Vriege wrote...
I will judge the Mass Effect 3 based off the Mass Effect series. Not based off another game the developers of ME never worked on.

Finally a ****ing sane post in this thread.

[dreman9999]

Darji wrote...

111987 wrote...

Darji wrote...

111987 wrote...

Darji wrote...
All the story has was dead guy came back to save the world while collecting some new companions. That was all the story had to offer. There was no rich story and the ending was  also a huge cluster****.

Okay. You clearly aren't willing to be rational. We both know ME2 was much more than that.

Anyone could do what you just did. "ME1 was just this guy who found some random people and they saved a space station from a robot squid and its robot friends." See what I mean?

The thing is all the rest they told you during the game didnt matter a bit in this game. Take the Witcher 2 for example. Look how they slowy introduced events  and characters and what will happen later and really mattered in the overall story.

Yes it  can matter in the third game but giving all the stuff you heard and descided in ME1 and how it did not matter at all in ME2 I dont think this will happen at all. Espeically if they are tareting an even wider audience who never played a ME before.

The Witcher 2 is a standalone game. Thus it is much easier to make decisions matter. If decisions mattered as much in ME2 and they did in TW2, the game would became WAY too big, and ME3 would become even bigger. It just isn't realistic. Could they have made choices matter a little more? I think so. But i never thought they would be huge in ME2.

ME3 is different because it is the final game. I expect that decisions have a significant impact on my playthroughs.

Wrong the Witcher was not a stand alone game. Yes the it had no real decsions which were integrated in the sequel but the overall world was perfectly tied together while you have the feeling that like 90% of the events that happend in ME1 had nothing to do with ME2 at all.

Nothing you did in Witcher 1 had any effect in Witcher 2.Witcher 2 is a completly new story for the characters. Witch1 and Witcher 2's story relate thems selves like Uncharted 1 and uncharted 2's story.

[Alex_SM]

1136342t54 wrote...

I used tactics quite a lot  actually..

You used the "tactics" you could set to npcs, or "real tactics"?

First time I played DA:O I based all my combat in positioning, micromanaging everything and focusing extremely in the position of every character in the field. 

Also there are a lot of situations where you can make ambushes to the enemies. Obviosly, you must not run in straight line to them, but look carefully where they are and how many the are.

In DA2, due to the nature of the encounters, all this turns to be useless. The way they appear (magically around you) makes impossible to ambush anyone or to make any plans, the respawns makes positioning useless (because you cannot create any "safe ground" at your back: sooner or later an enemy will magically appear there), and at the end the new way of combat makes all unnecesary. You can just go and kill everything as if you where playing a regular hack & slash. 

At the end I just used to threw two simultaneous meteor showers (don't remember the name of the spell), launched the tank to the middle of the fight, and killed everyone with my rogue. Most combats finished in a few seconds (until the damned respawn that used to happen every combat). Even the one from the Arishok lasted less than 20 seconds, he was dead before the tank arrived him.

[Alex_SM]

1136342t54 wrote...

Assuming that ME3 will ruin the franchise on marketing (very similar to ME2) is silly.

I never said marketting ruins anything. But marketting says what direction is the franchise following, and I think the actual direction leds to mediocrity.

[1136342t54_]

dreman9999 wrote...
Nothing you did in Witcher 1 had any effect in Witcher 2.Witcher 2 is a completly new story for the characters. Witch1 and Witcher 2's story relate thems selves like Uncharted 1 and uncharted 2's story.

The Witcher isn't really a standalone game but it isn't a game that gives you choices that will caryy through to the other.

@Alex

I said I wasn't going to continue that conversation.

[Alex_SM]

Balek-Vriege wrote...

I will judge the Mass Effect 3 based off the Mass Effect series. Not based off another game the developers of ME never worked on.

Same company always means something. And EA (one of the biggest cancers of videogame industry) is also there. 

[1136342t54_]

Alex_SM wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

Assuming that ME3 will ruin the franchise on marketing (very similar to ME2) is silly.

I never said marketting ruins anything. But marketting says what direction is the franchise following, and I think the actual direction leds to mediocrity.

From what we have actually heard from ME3 ME2 to actual seems more mediocre in comparison.

[BluSoldier]

I don't see why anyone would be against this. While the true ME fans will all play on RPG mode, we lose nothing by their putting in a COD NOOB or a Kiddie game modes.

[Alex_SM]

1136342t54 wrote...

From what we have actually heard from ME3 ME2 to actual seems more mediocre in comparison.

Hope you are right and I'm wrong. But in the past years I usually had good eye when I had bad feelings about games. 

[1136342t54_]

Alex_SM wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

From what we have actually heard from ME3 ME2 to actual seems more mediocre in comparison.

Hope you are right and I'm wrong. But in the past years I usually had good eye when I had bad feelings about games. 

I usually have a good sense about games. I felt DA2 wasn't going to be as good as DAO and I was right. RE5 could never live up to RE4 correct again. Gears games get exponentionally better with every game again correct. COD games(modern warfare) would barely change. So far I'm right but not sure about Modern warfare 3.

ME3 so far looks good.

[Vegos]

BluSoldier wrote...

I don't see why anyone would be against this. While the true ME fans will all play on RPG mode, we lose nothing by their putting in a COD NOOB or a Kiddie game modes.

It simply loses its essence, that's all.

Just like if a gourmet restaurant suddenly decided to add french fries hamburgers to their menus "to appeal to a wider public". You can bet that wouldn't go down too well, either, even if the McDonald's kiddies rejoiced. I say, they should stick to McDonald's if they want junk food and leave my favorite fancy restaurant alone. Am I going to McDonalds and demanding a culinary masterpiece?

It's more a question what the Mass Effect franchise is than a question of who gains, who loses.

Modifié par Vegos, 06 novembre 2011 - 05:11 .

[Alex_SM]

1136342t54 wrote...

 So far I'm right but not sure about Modern warfare 3.

Well, as a completely OT... I think MW3 is gonna be a extremely mediocre game, as I think every COD in the last years is. 

[dreman9999]

Alex_SM wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

I used tactics quite a lot  actually..

You used the "tactics" you could set to npcs, or "real tactics"?

First time I played DA:O I based all my combat in positioning, micromanaging everything and focusing extremely in the position of every character in the field. 

Also there are a lot of situations where you can make ambushes to the enemies. Obviosly, you must not run in straight line to them, but look carefully where they are and how many the are.

In DA2, due to the nature of the encounters, all this turns to be useless. The way they appear (magically around you) makes impossible to ambush anyone or to make any plans, the respawns makes positioning useless (because you cannot create any "safe ground" at your back: sooner or later an enemy will magically appear there), and at the end the new way of combat makes all unnecesary. You can just go and kill everything as if you where playing a regular hack & slash. 

At the end I just used to threw two simultaneous meteor showers (don't remember the name of the spell), launched the tank to the middle of the fight, and killed everyone with my rogue. Most combats finished in a few seconds (until the damned respawn that used to happen every combat). Even the one from the Arishok lasted less than 20 seconds, he was dead before the tank arrived him.

The problem is notthe game has no tactic. It's the fact that you are trying  us DA:O tactics in da2. That won't work. DA:O is a 1:1 system, DA2 system is that  the battle changes as you fight. You need to think cc, that's the strongest thing to invest in in DA2. It sounds like you have character build for single attack damage. You need to look for powers that slowdown,stun, attack or devurt groups. Parylising gliph, confusion smoke, gravity well and anything at putan effect on enemies areyour priority. And pay attetion. DA2 has way more tactical options then DA:O, it's just that people whe play it try to try to play it like DA:O.

[1136342t54_]

Vegos wrote...

BluSoldier wrote...

I don't see why anyone would be against this. While the true ME fans will all play on RPG mode, we lose nothing by their putting in a COD NOOB or a Kiddie game modes.

It simply loses its essence, that's all.

Just like if a gourmet restaurant suddenly decided to add french fries hamburgers to their menus "to appeal to a wider public". You can bet that wouldn't go down too well, either, even if the McDonald's kiddies rejoiced. I say, they should stick to McDonald's if they want junk food and leave my favorite fancy restaurant alone. Am I going to McDonalds and demanding a culinary masterpiece?

It's more a question what the Mass Effect franchise is than a question of who gains, who loses.

Yep because fancy restaurants are so healthy 

[111987]

Vegos wrote...

BluSoldier wrote...

I don't see why anyone would be against this. While the true ME fans will all play on RPG mode, we lose nothing by their putting in a COD NOOB or a Kiddie game modes.

It simply loses its essence, that's all.

Just like if a gourmet restaurant suddenly decided to add french fries hamburgers to their menus "to appeal to a wider public". You can bet that wouldn't go down too well, either, even if the McDonald's kiddies rejoiced. I say, they should stick to McDonald's if they want junk food and leave my favorite fancy restaurant alone. Am I going to McDonalds and demanding a culinary masterpiece?

It's more a question what the Mass Effect franchise is than a question of who gains, who loses.

Isn't the Mass Effect franchise all about choices?

And this is just one more choice a player can make.

[Jcarlo123]

The only thing that worries me about this is that if you are playing the same game regardless of which mode you choose, this would suggest to me that the actual choices you can make in the game have been really dumbed down just accommodate the possibility of an "action" mode.

If it's possbile for the player to play the game without making any choices, then I don't imagine the choices that are there when you do play with choices are very complex or interesting.

So in otherwords, I hope they didn't design the entire game with the possibility of an "Action mode" in mind--throwing out any sort of real decisions or complexity just so an action mode would work at all.

Even if you have the option to play in RPG mode, it's very possible (and likely, even) that the mere existence of an action mode has already dumbed down the RPG mode.  As if the RPG mode was really complex and had lots of different choices, I don't see how an action mode could work at all anyway.

Modifié par Jcarlo123, 06 novembre 2011 - 05:17 .

[dreman9999]

Vegos wrote...

BluSoldier wrote...

I don't see why anyone would be against this. While the true ME fans will all play on RPG mode, we lose nothing by their putting in a COD NOOB or a Kiddie game modes.

It simply loses its essence, that's all.

Just like if a gourmet restaurant suddenly decided to add french fries hamburgers to their menus "to appeal to a wider public". You can bet that wouldn't go down too well, either, even if the McDonald's kiddies rejoiced. I say, they should stick to McDonald's if they want junk food and leave my favorite fancy restaurant alone. Am I going to McDonalds and demanding a culinary masterpiece?

It's more a question what the Mass Effect franchise is than a question of who gains, who loses.

Listen, here is whatyour not getting.BW is focus on making ME3 an action rpg, like it always was. All the new modes do to turn off what they already build in the game. They already made a game with mulitple dialoge options and way the story can go, all they did in action mode is pick something out of what they already made. In story mode, they just turn the rpg part they already made off.
Your problem is that your not understanding is that everything you want in the rpg mode is turned on in the rpg mode.

[111987]

Jcarlo123 wrote...

The only thing that worries me about this is that if you are playing the same game regardless of which mode you choose, this would suggest to me that the actual choices you can make in the game have been really dumbed down just accommodate the possibility of an "action" mode.

If it's possbile for the player to play the game without making any choices, then I don't imagine the choices that are there when you do play with choices are very complex or interesting.

So in otherwords, I hope they didn't design the entire game with the possibility of an "Action mode" in mind--throwing out any sort of real decisions or complexity just so an action mode would work at all.

I think it's more likely that in action mode the game just makes choices for you, automatically. What those automatic choices would be, or if you could set it to Paragon, Renegade, or neutral, I have no clue about.

[1136342t54_]

Jcarlo123 wrote...

The only thing that worries me about this is that if you are playing the same game regardless of which mode you choose, this would suggest to me that the actual choices you can make in the game have been really dumbed down just accommodate the possibility of an "action" mode.

False.

Imagine something like this. You are playing Shepard but decide to skip a good majority of the dialog. You only pick paragon choices no matter what. Don't ask investigate questions. don't necessarily bother with romances and some side quest and you focus on the fighting. All bioware did was basically dumb down the RPG mode.

If it's possbile for the player to play the game without making any choices, then I don't imagine the choices that are there when you do play with choices are very complex or interesting.

So in otherwords, I hope they didn't design the entire game with the possibility of an "Action mode" in mind--throwing out any sort of real decisions or complexity just so an action mode would work at all.

The player isn't making the choices bioware is. They made the choices for you in Action Mode. They basically get to chose the ending and what path your character takes. In RPG mode you choose the path and make the choices.