276 réponses à ce sujet

[matt-bassist]

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).

I see everyone here complaining that "it isn't the best jumping on point" yet pretty much everyone I see say this knows ME1 and 2. Don't get me wrong, if you are thinking of ME strictly as a story, they yes, it is not the best jumping on point. However, if you look at each of the games as a stand alone entity, then yes I do think ME3 is the best jumping on point as the team has refined their craft best at this point.

This doesn't mean that ME and ME2 aren't also great in what they are. Personally, if a new player came up to me and asked which should they play first, I would probably say ME3. Just like most Star Wars fans say that Empire is the best Star Wars movie. It doesn't mean you can't see teh oterh films or that they aren't worth watching, just like you can play ME, then ME2 then ME3 or ME3 then ME2 then ME or whatever.

I find that it is fans who get upset by this statement as I think they feel slighted (somehow) and that their love of the previous games isn't important so they take umbridge and get upset. People need to remember that Marketing mostly speaks to non-fans to try to make them fans. This doesn't mean that what they say isn't true, just that what they say does not always reflect what core fans already know.

WHAT!?!?!!!! Pre-Order Canceled. 

... just kidding. That's a pretty fair response. I can diggit. 

[Shepard the Leper]

wright1978 wrote...

Of course Lord of the rings is trilogy. Just because you can now buy it as a single book doesnt mean it wasn't originally 3 separate books.

No it isn't. Go check the definition of "trilogy". Reading the 2nd or 3rd pysical book doesn't make any sense - you won't have a clue what's going on. A "true" trilogy - like Star Wars - doesn't have that issue. You can watch any part and still know every important thing there is to know. Same with Harry Potter, all books have been written to be readable on their own. Someone who starts with part 7 will fully understand what's going on because everything of importance (from the previous books) is fully explained.

ME is designed to be a trilogy which means that every part can be played seperately without any issues. But combined they tell a bigger story. When you're comparing that to Tolkien's work, you can argue that The Hobbit is part of the story too. There's no need to read the Hobbit before starting the Lord of the Rings (or vice versa). That's the difference between a trilogy and one story cut into multiple parts.

[Darth Asriel]

Lord of the Rings is most definitely a trilogy. And no one who read the books would recommend starting at Return of the Kings. Multiple entries in what is viewed as a single story are meant to be viewed in a certain order. Someone who has heard good word of mouth on GRRM's A Song of Fire and Ice Series could not start at A Dance with Dragons and have much appreciation or understanding of he overall story. Sure you may understand the story of that book, but you miss the rest of the bigger story.

ME3 is the last part of a 3 part story. By playing only this one you lose the intricacies of the story. You really have no understanding of motivations, attitudes, situations hat have been building to this game. To use Star Wars again, watching ROTJ 1st can work, but you miss out on the details. You know almost nothin about Luke or his motivations. So that moment in the Emperor's throne room is wasted on you. It can only be processed at it's most shallow levels.

Asa long time fan, it does annoy me that EA seems to think I no longer matter. Fans are the ones who made this series what it is. As someone else said Too Human was supposed to be a trilogy, but it's not going to happen. Fans have been loyal to this series and it is a little hurtful that what should be our reward for loyalty is being peddled as Space Call of Duty. ME fans are loyal! And weird sometimes(the relationship boards are a trip) but what I think most want is some acknowledgement that they haven't been forgotten.

And finally, ROTS is the best of the Prequels. TPM had Jar Jar and a kid, AOTC had the worse romance ever committed to film. ROTS had the Emperor v Yoda. And while people bag on Christensen(who did suck) let's not forget Samuel L Jackson(Oscar nominee) Ewan McGregor(Oscar nominee) Natalie Portman(Oscar Winner) all were rather wooden at best and just plain awful with the verbal refuse Lucas gave them to work with.

[TheRealJayDee]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Personally, if a new player came up to me and asked which should they play first, I would probably say ME3.

And this doesn't make any sense to me, neither coming from someone who cares about Mass Effect as a whole experience, nor from someone who wants to make money. Will ME3 be the best game of the series? Probably, but that doesn't matter. Mass Effect has been promoted as a trilogy from the start, and it should still be recommended as such. Thing is, you tell someone completely new to Mass Effect to play ME3 first. He does, and loves it. How big are the chances he will play the other games afterwards, with worse graphics, arguably worse gameplay, and a story he already knows the end to? Why not instead tell him to start at the beginning?

This is actually the most reasonable thing I have read in quite some time regarding ME and marketing:

RageGT wrote...

BW should put ME3 for full price on GoG with no DRM and give ME1 and 2 for some 5-10 bucks each to anyone who doesn't already have them. It would certainly Polish the respect EA/BW might gain from their fans!

Probably not only on GoG, though. Why not make a trilogy edition for new fans, and/or a ME/ME2 bundle with all the DLCs? Problematic of course on the PS3 due to lack of ME, but still...

[Il Divo]

Shepard the Leper wrote...

No it isn't. Go check the definition of "trilogy". Reading the 2nd or 3rd pysical book doesn't make any sense - you won't have a clue what's going on. A "true" trilogy - like Star Wars - doesn't have that issue. You can watch any part and still know every important thing there is to know. Same with Harry Potter, all books have been written to be readable on their own. Someone who starts with part 7 will fully understand what's going on because everything of importance (from the previous books) is fully explained.

ME is designed to be a trilogy which means that every part can be played seperately without any issues. But combined they tell a bigger story. When you're comparing that to Tolkien's work, you can argue that The Hobbit is part of the story too. There's no need to read the Hobbit before starting the Lord of the Rings (or vice versa). That's the difference between a trilogy and one story cut into multiple parts.

If that's the case, then I think the designation of trilogy isn't useful at all. Star Wars often is referential to its earlier installments, and how events come about isn't fully explained. Harry Potter is also a perfect example of because of how referential it is to earlier material, which (contrary to your claims) Rowling does not explore in minute details.

Sure, you can try to watch Return of the Jedi on its own. Or read Harry Potter Book Seven without the first six. But why would you want to? Every author has a specific starting point in mind when they write a series. A small recap is not the best way to conclude that each installment stands entirely on its own, particularly when that recap is absent of details. Much like Lord of the Rings, you're far better off experiencing the story from the start, in which case you are aware (in detail) of all important plot events, as well as their context and significance.

Modifié par Il Divo, 18 janvier 2012 - 04:51 .

[Nu-Nu]

I don't know why people are so upset, starting with ME2 was better than not getting into the series at all, it got me hooked on the WHOLE series. It was a fantastic experience and the story wasn't that hard to pick up. When people ask me about which they should play, I say ME2 because I know that it will make them fall in love with the characters and story that they will play ME1 and go through the ordeal of old graphics and annoying combat system (stealth is useless in ME1 as enemies just run up to you).

[BatmanPWNS]

Fking hell, this has been discussed to death before.

It's like people make threads just to repeat themself now.

[MartinDN]

Lets be honest - If me1 was on all 3 platforms, no way would me3 be called a good starting point, and i would never recommend someone to start there, for all the friends who ive got into mass effect, and yes it was alot of effort getting mainly fps fans to play, ive always told them to start at 1, the combat isnt as good sure, or the pacing isnt as fast as 2 (which is a good thing) but it cant be missed, period, there is no mass effect without 1 or 2, its a trilogy for a reason.

Personally dont like this kind of marketing though, its an insult to those of us who played the previous games over and over, yeh all that time you spent was wasted, ME3 is the real Mass effect experience, the first 2 was just betas, suck it up. 

I suppose i can understand biowares intention though, and it is marketing afterall "You cant play me3 with having a save from 1 or 2, you will get the default choices and no satisfaction from character interaction due to not knowing the previous characters whatsoever, the codex is a good option but theres nothing like playing the game yourself" yeh what else are they going to say ?

Modifié par MartinDN, 18 janvier 2012 - 05:28 .

[Alex Arterius]

No matter what the mods here say there is absolutely no logically justifiable reason for playing the third installment before the previous 2.

Completelly unsensicle

Chris was chatting about it from a gameplay perspective, but even that is utter cobblers. If you start with 3 you can't see the gameplay progression from the first to third, this is seriously detracting beacuse we're going into ME3 seeing all the improvements made and that will enhance our experience, others who start with ME3 have nothing to compare this to and will just think of it as the norm, when this is infact not the case.
Now if you were to play the 3rd before the 1st and 2nd then go back and play the other two, you would be disappointed from a gameplay perspective as you your gameplay is then digressing instead of progressing.

Also from a story standpoint this is 100% garunteed ridiculous stuff, and not just beacuse of order and contnuity. Can you seriously imagine playing 3 then going in to play 2? the plot is so significantly different and off on a tangent in the second that you'd wonder what the hell is going on and how any of this has anything to do with the 3rd game you just played. Also you'd wonder why the hell all these squaddies are so important in the game when they only made cameos in the third

Seriously I mean surely no one can really be fooling for the garbage? :L

I mean really?

Really?

[AlanC9]

Il Divo wrote...

Shepard the Leper wrote...

No it isn't. Go check the definition of "trilogy". Reading the 2nd or 3rd pysical book doesn't make any sense - you won't have a clue what's going on. A "true" trilogy - like Star Wars - doesn't have that issue. You can watch any part and still know every important thing there is to know. Same with Harry Potter, all books have been written to be readable on their own. Someone who starts with part 7 will fully understand what's going on because everything of importance (from the previous books) is fully explained.

ME is designed to be a trilogy which means that every part can be played seperately without any issues. But combined they tell a bigger story. When you're comparing that to Tolkien's work, you can argue that The Hobbit is part of the story too. There's no need to read the Hobbit before starting the Lord of the Rings (or vice versa). That's the difference between a trilogy and one story cut into multiple parts.

If that's the case, then I think the designation of trilogy isn't useful at all. Star Wars often is referential to its earlier installments, and how events come about isn't fully explained. Harry Potter is also a perfect example of because of how referential it is to earlier material, which (contrary to your claims) Rowling does not explore in minute details.

Sure, you can try to watch Return of the Jedi on its own. Or read Harry Potter Book Seven without the first six. But why would you want to? Every author has a specific starting point in mind when they write a series. A small recap is not the best way to conclude that each installment stands entirely on its own, particularly when that recap is absent of details. Much like Lord of the Rings, you're far better off experiencing the story from the start, in which case you are aware (in detail) of all important plot events, as well as their context and significance.

I'd say you're both right. Shepard the Leper's got the official definition of trilogy right (though note that Star Wars only fits because of the crawls at the beginning of each film; I'm not sure it really counts as a trilogy) But this isn't a very useful definition of trilogy; there really aren't that many trilogies made in the official sense of the word. That's why the official usage is falling away.

I'd refer everyone to the Wikipedia discussion but it's SOPA protest time, so we should pick this up tomorrow.

[AlanC9]

As for the topic, there is a sense in which ME3 could be the best place to start a new player. If you really believe that ME1 has crappy gameplay, you don't want new players to start there since it would just give a bad impression of the series. That leaves ME2 and ME3. If you're going to be starting in the middle of things, maybe ME3 is the better choice. Since I haven't played ME3, I can't say.

Edit: I've found it better to let people who haven't played the IE games start with BG2. BG1 is so much weaker in character interaction, plot structure, and early-game balance that it makes the IE games look bad.

Edit: and yes, not everyone considers the BG1 plot structure weak.

Modifié par AlanC9, 18 janvier 2012 - 05:49 .

[wildannie]

It doesn't bother me where players start the series but I would always recommend starting with ME

But it's ME3 that they're looking to sell, its better for Bioware if the new players fork out the price of a new game than buy ME for a few dollars/pounds and decide its not for them. New players who fall in love with ME3 will probably get themselves ME and ME2 afterwards to experience the series as it was intended.

[aj2070]

Armass81 wrote...

If you enjoy the games for their story: it is not a great entry point. Get the 2 other games first, or at least watch their walkthroughs.

If you dont care and just want to shoot things: Sure, go ahead and start from there.

Well said!

[crimzontearz]

totally.....I would 100% recommend people to play crysis 2 before crysis 1....DS2 before DS1....halo 3 before halo 1 and 2....all because they are graphically superior to their predecessors and further the story.

GTFO.....that is just PR bull

[Chewin]

crimzontearz wrote...

totally.....I would 100% recommend people to play crysis 2 before crysis 1....DS2 before DS1....halo 3 before halo 1 and 2....all because they are graphically superior to their predecessors and further the story.

GTFO.....that is just PR bull

Guess what? I never played the Halo series since I never owned a Xbox 'til 2010. So I went and borrowed Halo 3 from a friend (who also had the previous games) and let me tell you, I don't think I would have gotten that hyped of continuing playing Halo if i had played Halo 1. Halo 3 was the perfect entry point for me, and back then, story wasn't that important to me.

Doesn't sound like "PR bull" to me.

[AgitatedLemon]

crimzontearz wrote...

totally.....I would 100% recommend people to play crysis 2 before crysis 1....DS2 before DS1....halo 3 before halo 1 and 2....all because they are graphically superior to their predecessors and further the story.

GTFO.....that is just PR bull

Comparing a franchise borne on 1 generation of consoles to a franchise that is 10 years old and spans 2 generations of hardware is a terrible comparison.

Also, lol @ graphics.

[crimzontearz]

Chewin3 wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...
totally.....I would 100% recommend people to play crysis 2 before crysis 1....DS2 before DS1....halo 3 before halo 1 and 2....all because they are graphically superior to their predecessors and further the story.

GTFO.....that is just PR bull

Guess what? I never played the Halo series since I never owned a Xbox 'til 2010. So I went and borrowed Halo 3 from a friend (who also had the previous games) and let me tell you, I don't think I would have gotten that hyped of continuing playing Halo if i had played Halo 1. Halo 3 was the perfect entry point for me, and back then, story wasn't that important to me.

Doesn't sound like "PR bull" to me.

good for you...halo 1 in the meantime is still considered the pinnacle of the series.....also, I'd rather bioware cater to people who buy the game for its story and not for the pew pew pew since, you know, that is what sets bioware above the rest of the devs....

also halo 1 was one generation behind you...me1 is not, just saying...

[Aimi]

Uh, the first Halo game is available for the 360, guys.

Modifié par daqs, 18 janvier 2012 - 06:41 .

[Chewin]

crimzontearz wrote...
also, I'd rather bioware cater to people who buy the game for its story and not for the pew pew pew since, you know, that is what sets bioware above the rest of the devs....

Then you have no idea how the industry works.

also halo 1 was one generation behind you...me1 is not, just saying...

Then why did you take it up in the first place?

[crimzontearz]

AgitatedLemon wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...
totally.....I would 100% recommend people to play crysis 2 before crysis 1....DS2 before DS1....halo 3 before halo 1 and 2....all because they are graphically superior to their predecessors and further the story.

GTFO.....that is just PR bull

Comparing a franchise borne on 1 generation of consoles to a franchise that is 10 years old and spans 2 generations of hardware is a terrible comparison.
Also, lol @ graphics.

it is not especially since halo was only one example for its own sake.

[xSTONEYx187x]

I played and completed God of War, missed on of GoW II and played and completed GoW III, I knew the premise, get revenge on Zeus, but I didn't understand the backstory of certain characters, why the Titans were helping Kratos, why Cronos detested Kratos etc.

TBH, I didn't really play that game for it's story but I love anything mythological so I followed it best I could.

Same could be said for Dragon Age II, never played Origins and on my first playthrough I hadn't a clue what was going on, what happened at Lothering? Who are the Grey Wardens? Who is Flemeth? Who are the Templars and why do they hate Mages?

That was my fault for not playing Origins I suppose but you get the drift.

The reason I'm mentioning this is because Mass Effect 3 needs some sort of interactive comic, I know a couple of people on other forums who are buying the game but have never played ME 1 nor 2, I told them that ME 3 comes with an IC so you can make previous choices from said games which they thought was awesome but I was just making assumptions based off the PS3 version of ME 2.

When BioWare say something along the lines of "At the beginning of Mass Effect 3 we have a system in place for the new players to make choices from previous games and get up to speed with the lore and story" I'll be content. 

:happy:

Modifié par xSTONEYx187x, 18 janvier 2012 - 06:50 .

[crimzontearz]

Chewin3 wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...
also, I'd rather bioware cater to people who buy the game for its story and not for the pew pew pew since, you know, that is what sets bioware above the rest of the devs....

Then you have no idea how the industry works.

also halo 1 was one generation behind you...me1 is not, just saying...

Then why did you take it up in the first place?

I do...let me introduce you to skyrim, the game that should prove to morons like EA that MP and lowest common denominator COD style streamlining is NOT needed to pull in awesome sales.

why did I take up Mass Effect or halo?

[CroGamer002]

crimzontearz wrote...

I do...let me introduce you to skyrim, the game that should prove to morons like EA that MP and lowest common denominator COD style streamlining is NOT needed to pull in awesome sales.

why did I take up Mass Effect or halo?

Did you forget that Skyrim is heavily streamlined?

[crimzontearz]

Mesina2 wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...
I do...let me introduce you to skyrim, the game that should prove to morons like EA that MP and lowest common denominator COD style streamlining is NOT needed to pull in awesome sales.
why did I take up Mass Effect or halo?

Did you forget that Skyrim is heavily streamlined?

just like NWoD is streamlined compared to MERPG....stramlined for functionality not to a lowest common denominator mind numbing parody