1113 réponses à ce sujet

[argonian persona]

Phategod1 wrote...

I'm glad this thread is still here I just wanted to state I have played Mass Effect 1 and 2 numerous times and I never had a broken quest, so for all the accolades Skyrim will receive nothing will stick out In my mind more then broken quests in the game. So I hope ME3 will have good enough Beta testers so we wont have to put up with that BS.

I've yet to come across one broken quest in 200 hours of gameplay. I know they exist, but statistically (% of games affected) they are rare.

Mass Effect 3 is a smaller game. A much smaller game. It should have less bugs. When devs seek for bugs, they'll have less game in which to search for them, equating to lesser bugs.

Which leads to another thing: gameplay value.

Even if there are multiple playthroughs in each class, with each playthrough lasting 50 hours, it leads to one playthrough in any standard archetype character in Skyrim....300 hours. That's 900 hours+ for total gameplay, not including the inevitable expansion coming.

How players and fans of both games view ME3's gameplay value will be interesting, especially since choices don't create a branching story in ME3.

[Atakuma]

argonian persona wrote...
How players and fans of both games view ME3's gameplay value will be interesting, especially since choices don't create a branching story in ME3.

Skyrim's gameplay value wore out after ten hours for me. I prefer games to have a purpose.

[Epic777]

@argonian persona, how can we be in the age of Skyrim, when it is not a huge evolution of the elder scrolls series?

Modifié par Epic777, 08 janvier 2012 - 02:03 .

[Epic777]

DOUBLE POST

Modifié par Epic777, 08 janvier 2012 - 02:03 .

[slimgrin]

One thing is for certain: Skyrim, good as it is, is just Oblivion 2.0. Bethesda took few risks and covered no new territory with Skyrim. So the lesson with Skyrim is: formula sells.

At least both Bioware and CDPR had the balls to make make major changes to their sequels.

Modifié par slimgrin, 08 janvier 2012 - 02:03 .

[Epic777]

slimgrin wrote...

One thing is for certain: Skyrim, good as it is, is just Oblivion 2.0. Bethesda took few risks and covered no new territory with Skyrim. So the lesson with Skyrim is: formula sells.

At least both Bioware and CDPR had the balls to make make major changes to their sequels.

Can you blame them? Why risk a money making algorithm?

[AlexXIV]

Epic777 wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

One thing is for certain: Skyrim, good as it is, is just Oblivion 2.0. Bethesda took few risks and covered no new territory with Skyrim. So the lesson with Skyrim is: formula sells.

At least both Bioware and CDPR had the balls to make make major changes to their sequels.

Can you blame them? Why risk a money making algorithm?

Yes I can blame. Not that it matters though.

[slimgrin]

Epic777 wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

One thing is for certain: Skyrim, good as it is, is just Oblivion 2.0. Bethesda took few risks and covered no new territory with Skyrim. So the lesson with Skyrim is: formula sells.

At least both Bioware and CDPR had the balls to make make major changes to their sequels.

Can you blame them? Why risk a money making algorithm?

Bethesda has been making the same damn game for years now. Yes I can blame them, and their 'new' engine for Skyrim. The game is seriously outdated in a number of ways.

[Epic777]

AlexXIV wrote...

Epic777 wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

One thing is for certain: Skyrim, good as it is, is just Oblivion 2.0. Bethesda took few risks and covered no new territory with Skyrim. So the lesson with Skyrim is: formula sells.

At least both Bioware and CDPR had the balls to make make major changes to their sequels.

Can you blame them? Why risk a money making algorithm?

Yes I can blame. Not that it matters though.

Its a no win situation, change the money making alorithm, it could sink the series, see also Deus Ex: IW, DA2 and many others. On the flip side continuing with the same formula could leave the series stale.

[slimgrin]

Nonsense. Just make a good sequel. Quality sells. Look at both ME2 and TW2.

Modifié par slimgrin, 08 janvier 2012 - 02:13 .

[AlexXIV]

slimgrin wrote...

Nonsense. Just make a good sequel. Quality sells. Look at ME2.

Fixed.

[slimgrin]

AlexXIV wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Nonsense. Just make a good sequel. Quality sells. Look at ME2.

Fixed.

TW2 uses superior tech to both Skyrim and ME2.  Doesn't matter if you like it or not. They took the leap that Bethesda didn't. Also, TW2 was one of the most popular RPG's last year, not sure what you're on about. 

Modifié par slimgrin, 08 janvier 2012 - 02:24 .

[Epic777]

slimgrin wrote...

Nonsense. Just make a good sequel. Quality sells. Look at both ME2 and TW2.

Easier said than done. You run the risk of a divided fanbase with drastic changes. Look at ME2 and this board. <EDIT> After seeing the above and below responses, the defense rests.

Modifié par Epic777, 08 janvier 2012 - 02:28 .

[KotorEffect3]

Epic777 wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Nonsense. Just make a good sequel. Quality sells. Look at both ME2 and TW2.

Easier said than done. You run the risk of a divided fanbase with drastic changes. Look at ME2 and this board. <EDIT> After seeing the above responses, the defense rests.

Can't really use this board to get an accurate perspective of the fanbase.  ME 2 by and large had a very positive response from fans and gamers in general.  The only people that complained about it are so called "hardcore" rpg fans who tend to be extremist and elitist.

[AlexXIV]

slimgrin wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Nonsense. Just make a good sequel. Quality sells. Look at ME2.

Fixed.

TW2 uses superior tech to both Skyrim and ME2.  Doesn't matter if you like it or not. They took the leap that Bethesda didn't. Also, TW2 was one of the most popular RPG's last year, not sure what you're on about. 

When have good RPGs ever been about 'superiour tech'? TW2 was worse than DA2 and Skyrim last year, which makes it a bad example how to make a good sequel tbh. Also ignoring all that happened in TW1 wasn't really what made it a good sequel either. If they didn't rush the ending and at least made decisions you made before count in the end it would have been ok, but not like that. It is just another example of RPGs becoming action adventures.

[Epic777]

As a way to atone for driving this thread into a bad direction. I have a question for all the forumites here, are we in the era of 'Bioshock'? A game series with commercial and critical success? No, even a good game doesn't always mean it will influence gaming. I believe Skyrim is in the same boat.

[Gatt9]

argonian persona wrote...

Phategod1 wrote...

I'm glad this thread is still here I just wanted to state I have played Mass Effect 1 and 2 numerous times and I never had a broken quest, so for all the accolades Skyrim will receive nothing will stick out In my mind more then broken quests in the game. So I hope ME3 will have good enough Beta testers so we wont have to put up with that BS.

I've yet to come across one broken quest in 200 hours of gameplay. I know they exist, but statistically (% of games affected) they are rare.

Can you post a link to the results of your study where you contacted every single gamer who bought a copy?

Because otherwise I strongly suspect you're just making stuff up again.

[KotorEffect3]

The thing with skyrim is didn't really do anything new, it was a great game but it was pretty much like oblivion but better.

[AlexXIV]

jreezy wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Nonsense. Just make a good sequel. Quality sells. Look at ME2.

Fixed.

TW2 uses superior tech to both Skyrim and ME2.  Doesn't matter if you like it or not. They took the leap that Bethesda didn't. Also, TW2 was one of the most popular RPG's last year, not sure what you're on about. 

When have good RPGs ever been about 'superiour tech'? TW2 was worse than DA2 and Skyrim last year, which makes it a bad example how to make a good sequel tbh.

Logical fallacy.

Learned a new word?