276 réponses à ce sujet

[Brownfinger]

I have people on my Xbox Live friends list who have never played Mass Effect. I've been trying to sell a few of them on the series. As someone who isn't invested in the series, and won't approach it in the same manner as those of us that are hardcore, then what else do they need to know other than "Reaper invasion"? There will be a short "previously on" recap in the beginning, yes?

Shocking, awful, and senseless as it may seem, there are those that just don't care as much about narrative. They've already hooked those of us that do, but it only makes sense to attempt to broaden the game's audience with improved shooter elements, multiplayer, and separate game modes designed to streamline dialogue and maximize the action. The rest of us junkies can still get our fix in the story mode. (Or is it RPG mode? I forget.)
It's not like Mass Effect is this hipster cult game, it's kind of a big deal. Prosperity and more money for the franchise as a whole ultimately benefits those of us that love it.

[Wittand25]

Oh come on. Of course marketing will say that ME3 is a great entry point.

What else are they supposed to say ?
"Go away if you did not bother to buy the older games we did not want your money."
"Sure you can play it without the other ones but it will be just half the fun or content."
"Before you can understand the plot you first must play to several years old games for roughly 50 hours."

Somehow all of these statements do not sound too good.
And one has to keep in mind that since not all old customers come back advertising always must adress new customers as well. So we veteran players get the "end your Shepard´s story" kind of marketing and new ones get "ME3 is a great way to start" .

More important than the marketing in my mind is that the devolpers really implement consequences or at least the illusion of consequences resulting from decisions in the past two games and the whole thing does not end up like the third act of DA2 (no matter how much I love that game the third act was awful when it came to reflecting your past actions or even your actions in that act).

Modifié par Wittand25, 19 janvier 2012 - 11:14 .

[TheRealJayDee]

Wittand25 wrote...

"Go away if you did not bother to buy the older games we did not want your money."
"Sure you can play it without the other ones but it will be just half the fun or content."
"Before you can understand the plot you first must play to several years old games for roughly 50 hours."

Somehow all of these statements do not sound too good.

Nobody wants statements like this, as they are stupid. What I'd expect them to do is to say ME3 will be the greatest game ever, but also to mention that it is the finaly entry of an epic trilogy and to give new gamers some  way to get reasonably priced complete versions of the first games.

Modifié par TheRealJayDee, 19 janvier 2012 - 11:25 .

[Wulfram]

Saying ME3 is a great place to start makes sense. Saying it's the best place to start is silly.

[twistedforsaken]

people shouldnt play this game if they havent played the others. its pees me off when someone says theyre a true mass effect fan when theyve only played the 2nd one.

[Icinix]

twistedforsaken wrote...

people shouldnt play this game if they havent played the others. its pees me off when someone says theyre a true mass effect fan when theyve only played the 2nd one.

Funny - I get the same thing when people say they're true Mass Effect fans but they think ME2 was a much better game.

All snide joking aside - in the case of PS3 players - they don't have the choice or option - and I've met some mad ME fans who are PS3 gamers.

So I think even if someone has only played ME2 or ME3 - they can and should still be considered a true ME fan.

[someguy1231]

Brownfinger wrote...
Shocking, awful, and senseless as it may seem, there are those that just don't care as much about narrative. They've already hooked those of us that do, but it only makes sense to attempt to broaden the game's audience with improved shooter elements, multiplayer, and separate game modes designed to streamline dialogue and maximize the action. The rest of us junkies can still get our fix in the story mode. (Or is it RPG mode? I forget.)
It's not like Mass Effect is this hipster cult game, it's kind of a big deal.

Compared to other, higher-selling games, it might as well be a "hipster cult game". ME2 didn't even place in the top 10 highest selling games of 2010. Halo Reach, by contrast, was the third-highest selling, and that for a game  released several months after ME2. Also like ME2, it was available solely for the 360 (as of 2010), so you can't blame it on ME2 being xbox-exclusive. Oh, and despite popular belief, it actually did have a significant narrative. I found all the deaths of Noble Squad far more well-done than any deaths in the ME games.

Your efforts to get more players to play ME3 are certainly admirable, but as long as ME is behind the curve in shooter elements and multiplayer, it won't make any significant difference. As I said in another thread, why would Gears of War fans play ME3's watered down Horde mode when they can just play, you know, Gears of War's Horde mode? Why would they care about some Marcus Fenix knockoff (Vega*) when they have the original Marcus? Why would they care about fighting a massive alien invasion when they've already done that in far more popular games? (Halo, GoW, Resistance, etc) And why would they care about a game whose multiplayer only offers a watered-down Horde mode, when Halo/Gears/Battlefield/etc. offer not only an improved horde mode, but campaign co-op and numerous competitive multiplayer options?

Everything Bioware has done in their attempts to attract these gamers have amounted to offering them something that's second-rate compared to what they can already get in other games. And as we've seen on these forums, many of these changes, half-hearted they may be, have angered many of the RPG fans who don't care about the shooter/multiplayer elements. So not only have Bioware not managed to get the group they're after, they've also pissed off the group they already have. Well done Bioware.

As for ME3 being an "entry-point", as others have said, that's just marketing speak. If they truly wanted it to be an "entry-point", they'd get rid of that "3" in the title.



*Speaking of Vega, I find it ironic that he was supposedly created to appeal to "dudebro" gamers, and yet if you visit his character thread in the other forum section, you'll find that 90% of it consists of salivating fangirls and the like posting hilariously bad fanart and dreaming about getting into his pants. Not exactly what you think of when you hear the word "dudebro". In fact, visting any of the character threads, an outsider would have the impression that ME is some galactic dating sim series. And people wonder why I'm so opposed to romance in the games...<_<

Modifié par someguy1231, 19 janvier 2012 - 12:24 .

[Brownfinger]

someguy1231 wrote...
Compared to other, higher-selling games, it might as well be a "hipster cult game".

Keep your sales comparisons. I'll take "Game of the Year" acclaims and a quality product over that, thanks. Mass Effect isn't exactly dwindling in obscurity. To suggest otherwise is laughable and absurd.

Your efforts to get more players to play ME3 are certainly admirable, but as long as ME is behind the curve in shooter elements and multiplayer, it won't make any significant difference.

Says you. I thought the shooter elements in Mass Effect 2 were vastly improved, and looking at the fluidity of the gameplay in Mass Effect 3, I honestly think that it can compete. Multiplayer is implemented in a way that makes sense within the Mass Effect universe, which is exactly what I wanted.

So not only have Bioware not managed to get the group they're after, they've also pissed off the group they already have. Well done Bioware.

Speak for yourselves. If I can have great story immersion in a sci fi universe with engaging characters without having to trudge through clunky gameplay (Mass Effect 1) to get there, then that's pretty fantastic. As angry as multiplayer makes a few people, I'd be willing to bet that most of them will still buy the game. And for the tiny handful of people who are dumb enough to deprive themselves of the final installment in an amazing trilogy because it branched out past their niche, then the punishment fits the crime.

As for ME3 being an "entry-point", as others have said, that's just marketing speak.

I don't have a problem with things that are transparent, and intelligent people have made up their minds already without needing to be swayed by those kinds of tactics. As I said, generating awareness and solidifying prosperity for the franchise only benefits us. It's not as if EA is going to turn around and make a Mass Effect kart racing game (though, I would play the **** out of that), Bioware is very careful and hands-on with their baby.

Modifié par Brownfinger, 19 janvier 2012 - 01:31 .

[superg30]

Chris Priestly wrote...

I think Marketing is saying it is the best entry point in the series as it is the best overall installment to the series. The graphics are better, the combat is better, the writing is as good if not better, the story installment is better, and for someone who has not played any ME game before, they understand the basics easier than before (well, certainly than ME2).

agreed, i played ME2 b4 ME1, i bought ME2 when i pre-ordered DA2 to see wat a BioWare game was like(had never played a BioWare game b4) and I was confused as all hell, throughout the entire game I thought Saren was some giant, evil/demented looking, bada** muthaf*****, not a half geth(his arm) turian with a glowing face, and i thought that a Reaper was a like  the Death Star from Star Wars when i heard that it could decimate a planet, without playing ME1 b4 ME2 the story line is very confusing as you dont know what or who anything/anyone is. I'm saying this because im trying to get my friend to join the series and he said that he might buy ME3 because of multiplayer, and if he likes ME3 he'll buy ME1 & 2, but if he's confused as all hell like I was well then........and I'm sure I'm not the only one whos experienced this.

[Morty Smith]

Marketing is not your friend, it´s the publishers friend. Marketing will say what makes it´s friend happy and foremost a lot of money. Just ignore it.

[RDSFirebane]

Honestly I have no issue with any of what they have done I just hope if you haven't played me 1&2 you get locked into a generic story with very little ability to influence the story. which ya sucks for new players but hey go buy the last Eragon book or even book 12 of the wheel of time and try starting there in those stories they build off the other books and if you don't know whats going on your just screwed and that's how it should be.

[didymos1120]

That's a rather poor analogy. Books are static. Even if you have no clue what's going on, the words you read are the exact same ones as those read by someone who's been following a series from the start.

[crimzontearz]

No Alan I specified "visually". The visual part of the combat (hand-eye coordination...twich...whatever) should not be the fulcrum of the freaking gameplay in an RPG. Building your character and sound choices (game mechanic related) should. Again twich should not come at the freaking expense of customization and deeper mechanics. One could easily finish ME2 without ever levelling up or upgrading anything just playing the game as a shooter, hell people do that on insanity....that should NOT be possible.

[DayusMakhina]

superg30 wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

I think Marketing is saying it is the best entry point in the series as it is the best overall installment to the series. The graphics are better, the combat is better, the writing is as good if not better, the story installment is better, and for someone who has not played any ME game before, they understand the basics easier than before (well, certainly than ME2).

agreed, i played ME2 b4 ME1, i bought ME2 when i pre-ordered DA2 to see wat a BioWare game was like(had never played a BioWare game b4) and I was confused as all hell, throughout the entire game I thought Saren was some giant, evil/demented looking, bada** muthaf*****, not a half geth(his arm) turian with a glowing face, and i thought that a Reaper was a like  the Death Star from Star Wars when i heard that it could decimate a planet, without playing ME1 b4 ME2 the story line is very confusing as you dont know what or who anything/anyone is. I'm saying this because im trying to get my friend to join the series and he said that he might buy ME3 because of multiplayer, and if he likes ME3 he'll buy ME1 & 2, but if he's confused as all hell like I was well then........and I'm sure I'm not the only one whos experienced this.

I played ME2 before ME1, it still made sense to me. Obviously I had more appreciation for the story of ME2 after playing ME1 but you could still follow the plot easily enough.

[didymos1120]

crimzontearz wrote...

No Alan I specified "visually". The visual part of the combat (hand-eye coordination...twich...whatever) should not be the fulcrum of the freaking gameplay in an RPG.

It should damn well matter in an Action-RPG.

[RDSFirebane]

didymos1120 wrote...

That's a rather poor analogy. Books are static. Even if you have no clue what's going on, the words you read are the exact same ones as those read by someone who's been following a series from the start.

All I'm saying is starting at 3 should be great and fun but they shouldnt get everything thouse of us that have played 1 and 2 get  just like reading books one and two give u a better understanding of the world your in..... That seems fair to everyone old fan boys and new ones but if you would rather disagree then feel free I was simply stateing my opnion in a way that was understandable.

[crimzontearz]

matter, dydimos, yes.

Completely supercede the other mechanics rendering them pretty much superfluos? No, because then you are left with a GoW with dialogue choices and token RPG mechanics left in there to save face

[AndrewRogue]

1. I know people keep pointing to the fact that ME1/2 are not expensive as a reason that they should be advertised as you should play these first, but keep in mind, price is not the only factor here. Playing Mass Effect 1 and 2 is not necessarily a very short experience. Telling people "No, you have to go spend $30 and use 80 hours playing these two games that didn't strike you when they came out before you can play this game that has you interested right now!" is really, really bad decision making.

2. As much as people like ME1 and 2 here (myself included), they are still older games and they are still flawed games... and they are quite possibly flawed in ways that ME3 will not be. Telling people to go play these games first significantly increases the odds that the potential ME3 buyer will run into a flaw in one of the previous games and decide not to continue as a result.

I saw some people pointing out BG vs BG2 as an example and I think it is pretty much perfect. I would never, ever recommend someone start with BG. Do I still think it was a good game? Yeah. Was it hella flawed? Oh yeah. Is BG2 pretty much an improvement in every regard? Yep! When a series evolves substantially, you don't want people to play the old titles that are going to be playing differently, you want them to play this one.

3. The "RPG" genre really needs a better name these days. Because honestly, the definition has become too muddied since, thanks to tech advances, most games can have "RPG" elements.

[crimzontearz]

A lot of games can have RPG elements hell Crysis 2 and both dead spaces had RPG elements, progression and full NG+.

The definition of RPG, non RPG, Hybrid, Action game with RPG elements or RPG with action elements lays in the balance

[Travie]

I had a dream last night that the Rakni queen sent a fleet of ships to rescue Shepard and earth's leaders when she heard that the Reapers were coming, and that Vega was an NPC in ME1 that I had to option to save (and did).

Then me and Garrus brofisted and told some dirty jokes (all renegades tell dirty jokes mkay?)... but I woke up.

I'm afraid that the opening scene will be the exactly the same no matter what we did in ME2, just like ME2's opening scene...

[Walker White]

DPSSOC wrote...

The ME2 levelling system could be seen as a compromise.  Levelling in RPGs has always been a rather involved process (at least the ones I've played), by simplifying it to 4 levels in 8 or so skills (with questionable requisites) they made it more approachable for non-RPG fans.

1st edition D&D and OD&D (brown books) had almost no leveling choices. There were no skills or feats and improvement was largely automatic. There was expanded spell selection, but in the original game youdid not actually get to automatically learn new spells at the level.

Skills were innovated in competitors to D&D, most notably Rune Quest.  But even there, levelling choice was largely nonexistent.  Improvement worked through a use feedback mechanism; imagine Skyrim without the opportunity to place perks.

Complex levelling choice is a more recent phenomenom that was added as RPGs became more complex.  It has certainly resulted in a narrowing of the hobby.  It has also forced the introduction of the respec; even the most accomplished player is likely to make crippling mistakes in their character build.  If we want the hobby to grow, this is not a good thing.

One of the interesting things about these arguments is the bimodal age divide.  Many of the fans of the ME series are younger people.  But then you have people like AlanC9 and myself who have been in the hobby since the 70s.  We have seen how elitism in this hobby has caused it to shrink from the "Golden Age" of the early 80s when everyone (and I mean everyone) played some type of RPG.

[AlanC9]

crimzontearz wrote...

No Alan I specified "visually". The visual part of the combat (hand-eye coordination...twich...whatever) should not be the fulcrum of the freaking gameplay in an RPG. Building your character and sound choices (game mechanic related) should. Again twich should not come at the freaking expense of customization and deeper mechanics. One could easily finish ME2 without ever levelling up or upgrading anything just playing the game as a shooter, hell people do that on insanity....that should NOT be possible.

Well, if you're going to make up your own meanings for words you're going to have to expect people to sometimes fail to follow you.

But I'm following you now, I guess, and so I have to ask.... so freaking what? An "RPG" shouldn't have twitch elements, you say. Since ME2 does have twitch elements, it's not an RPG? Not a good RPG?

ME2's combat was more enjoyable than ME1's. The fact that it was less of a traditional RPG is of no interest to me since I play games to enjoy playing them, not to give myself brownie points for being an RPG fan. Which is not to say that it's impossible for some alternate-universe ME2 to have been both a pure RPG and as enjoyable as ME2 -- beating ME1's combat isn't a super-high threshold. And that universe's AlanC9 would have liked that version of ME2 just fine. But that's not the universe this AlanC9 lives in.

Edit: if I could choose which universe to live in, would I have preferred one with a pure-RPG ME2 and 3 or this one, with the hybrid ME2 and 3? I don't really know. I think that the hybrid style suits the overall ME design better, but that might be just reifying my preference for ME2 over ME1.

Now, if you want to argue that ME2 was too damn easy, I'll save you the trouble by agreeing 100%. All Bio games are too easy. Always have been.

@ Walker White: Full agreement, as usual. 

Modifié par AlanC9, 20 janvier 2012 - 07:20 .

[SkittlesKat96]

Its just typical video game marketing, nothing new at all. EA and Bioware aren't the only company that does this (I just thought I'd say that cause there are some people thinking this is an exclusive Bioware thing and I'm a fan of Bioware and want to defend them, yes I admit it.)

At least they aren't saying its the best place to start Mass Effect 3. That would possibly get them more sales but it would also make everyone else facepalm.

[sonofalich]

it's not, that's just marketing speak to try and bring in more sales.

[Dudeman315]

AlanC9 wrote...
But I'm following you now, I guess, and so I have to ask.... so freaking what? An "RPG" shouldn't have twitch elements, you say. Since ME2 does have twitch elements, it's not an RPG? Not a good RPG?

ME2's combat was more enjoyable than ME1's. The fact that it was less of a traditional RPG is of no interest to me since I play games to enjoy playing them, not to give myself brownie points for being an RPG fan. Which is not to say that it's impossible for some alternate-universe ME2 to have been both a pure RPG and as enjoyable as ME2 -- beating ME1's combat isn't a super-high threshold. And that universe's AlanC9 would have liked that version of ME2 just fine. But that's not the universe this AlanC9 lives in.

Edit: if I could choose which universe to live in, would I have preferred one with a pure-RPG ME2 and 3 or this one, with the hybrid ME2 and 3? I don't really know. I think that the hybrid style suits the overall ME design better, but that might be just reifying my preference for ME2 over ME1.

Now, if you want to argue that ME2 was too damn easy, I'll save you the trouble by agreeing 100%. All Bio games are too easy. Always have been.

And for me ME2's combat was less enjoyable than ME1's. ME2's lack of a good story and 2-missions-and-done characters didn't really hold any appeal for me either.  Maybe I was expecting a Shen-mu done right and that was too much for bioware to actually pull off.