276 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Aren't all the TES games streamlined? I'm no expert since the only one I ever finished was Morrowind, but I don't remember anything special about the combat system besides whacking stuff or blasting stuff.

[AlanC9]

crimzontearz wrote...

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

OK, but since ME wasn't streamlined to a "lowest common denominator mind numbing parody".... what's the point, again?

Modifié par AlanC9, 18 janvier 2012 - 06:55 .

[xSTONEYx187x]

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?

For the better. 

[Chewin]

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.

Skyrim is heavily streamlined. Your point?

And that wasn't my point. It's money I was talking about. That's what runs the industry.

And I'm still wondering about the "cater to the people who play it for the story instead of pew pew" argument you took up. Okay, if it worked like that, that there are more people i the pew pew section, BW would "cater" to them. It's natural. But it doesn't, and I don't know what to make of your statement.

why did I take up Mass Effect or halo?

Why did you answer my question with a question?

Modifié par Chewin3, 18 janvier 2012 - 07:01 .

[Il Divo]

AlanC9 wrote...


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.

Fair point. I'd actually forgotten about the blackout until about an hour ago. It's weird how I never realized how much of a crutch Wikipedia can be, for alot of things. Thankfully the Dark Souls wiki isn't following suit.

Modifié par Il Divo, 18 janvier 2012 - 07:03 .

[crimzontearz]

Chewin3 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.

Skyrim is heavily streamlined. Your point?

And that wasn't my point. It's money I was talking about. That's what runs the industry.

And I'm still wondering about the "cater to the people who play it for the story instead of pew pew" argument you took up. Okay, if it worked like that, that there are more people i the pew pew section, BW would "cater" to them. It's natural. But it doesn't, and I don't know what to make of your statement.

why did I take up Mass Effect or halo?

Why did you answer my question with a question?

- there is a lot of people into AC style sword play...should bioware cater to them to try and get more money? Maybe kniblade gentlemen duels?

- Because I am uncertain about the object of your question

[Kakita Tatsumaru]

It certainly is a great entry point for the series for someone who doesn't care about the story.

[Chewin]

crimzontearz wrote...
- there is a lot of people into AC style sword play...should bioware cater to them to try and get more money? Maybe kniblade gentlemen duels?

Elaborate, please.

- Because I am uncertain about the object of your question

Well you said (sarcastically) that you would recommend Halo 3 as aentry point to people and I said it was a great entry point for me and then you suddenly took up that Halo 1 was one generation behind me, ME1 wasn't,  and I wondered why you compared them in the first place then.

Modifié par Chewin3, 18 janvier 2012 - 07:19 .

[KotorEffect3]

How many times have seen this damn thread? I swear the hyperreactive types have really blown one little marketing statement way out of proportion.

[AgitatedLemon]

daqs wrote...

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

Anniversary isn't some awesome new game.

It's the same game as it was 10 years ago, complete with all of its faults, just with a shiny new coat of paint.

It's a refitted Original Xbox game.

[Recon Member]

@crimzontearz You're not making any sense.

[crimzontearz]

Chewin3 wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...
- there is a lot of people into AC style sword play...should bioware cater to them to try and get more money? Maybe kniblade gentlemen duels?

Elaborate, please.
- Because I am uncertain about the object of your question

Well you said (sarcastically) that you would recommend Halo 3 as aentry point to people and I said it was a great entry point for me and then you suddenly took up that Halo 1 was one generation behind me, ME1 wasn't,  and I wondered why you compared them in the first place then.

- that if you build a franchise with the basic selling point of being a a trilogy with overarching story interdependent through the chapters and the choices made in them (yes that was one of the major selling points of the first game, go look at the first E3 videos) because you are the one company that does consider writing to be the integral part of your game design then by appeasing the PEW PEW PEW people and giving the middle finger to the core audience (and yes the whole "this is the best entry point" followed by PR defense fells like a huge middle finger to many) you are pretty much Epic adding AC swordplay to GoW just to try and reel in more audience.

-Because Halo has a goddamn story that should be followed....just like DS and C1 and 2. it is harder for anyone to pick up or even know a game that is one generation behind you and more understandab
e to learn about it from its current generation sequel...but this is not ME's case and that was not the reason behind the comparison

[Aimi]

AgitatedLemon wrote...

daqs wrote...

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

Anniversary isn't some awesome new game.

It's the same game as it was 10 years ago, complete with all of its faults, just with a shiny new coat of paint.

It's a refitted Original Xbox game.

Yep. Basically the only things they added were the Terminals.

[ODST 5723]

My parents love Sons of Anarchy buy didn't start watching until Season 3. They missed 2 whole seasons, but got hooked. They still watch it and at one point they did stop to go back and watch the 2 seasons they missed. This gave them a better appreciation for the story and better context for some of the motivations.of various chracters.

However, had they not started watching Season 3 they likely wouldn't have watched the show at all.

[AlanC9]

crimzontearz wrote...

- that if you build a franchise with the basic selling point of being a a trilogy with overarching story interdependent through the chapters and the choices made in them (yes that was one of the major selling points of the first game, go look at the first E3 videos) because you are the one company that does consider writing to be the integral part of your game design then by appeasing the PEW PEW PEW people and giving the middle finger to the core audience (and yes the whole "this is the best entry wed by PR defense fells like a huge middle finger to many) you are pretty mucpoint" folloh Epic adding AC swordplay to GoW just to try and reel in more audience.

Of course, the "many" in the italicized bit are being very, very silly. What Bio does or doesn't tell people who never played ME has nothing at all to do with us.

And the more I think about this, the more I think that Bio is right.  ME1's gameplay is a lot worse than ME2's and, from what I've seen, even further behind ME3's. If I wanted to sell ME to people who aren't RPG fans -- any RPG fans who haven't bought ME already will never buy ME, so they don't count  -- I definitely would not start them with ME.

That leaves 2 and 3. I think 2's start isn't all that great for someone who didn't play 1. So, start them with ME3.

[Chewin]

crimzontearz wrote...
- that if you build a franchise with the basic selling point of being a a trilogy with overarching story interdependent through the chapters and the choices made in them (yes that was one of the major selling points of the first game, go look at the first E3 videos) because you are the one company that does consider writing to be the integral part of your game design then by appeasing the PEW PEW PEW people and giving the middle finger to the core audience (and yes the whole "this is the best entry point" followed by PR defense fells like a huge middle finger to many) you are pretty much Epic adding AC swordplay to GoW just to try and reel in more audience.

While I do agree with the point you're trying to make, it's not that simple for (in this case) game companies. Allowing choices and consequences play a key role in ME3 is certainly something BW should stick with, and which I think they are doing (so some extent). However, making this "The best entry point" do have a reason. If ME3 would only be a focus on the story, people wouldn't buy ME3 b/c they would need to play ME1 and 2 to get the full experience, and not everyone wants to pay for both of the games (even if you can get the cheap know). Plus, ME1 wouldn't be available for PS3 users, so they would feel "left out" and choices and consequences would only matter for those who has a Xbox or PC, and what's the point in buying ME3 if it focuses on choices and consequences in the previous games?

That's not an ideal marketing strategy. And BW wants their product to sell as much as possible. And obviously games that sell well are games that has a larger focus on the gameplay and multiplayer. I don't blame BW for going that route. So through this BW gets their "pew pew" crowd and hopefully the get people who gets interested in the story and goes and buys the previous games.

-Because Halo has a goddamn story that should be followed....just like DS and C1 and 2. it is harder for anyone to pick up or even know a game that is one generation behind you and more understandab
e to learn about it from its current generation sequel...but this is not ME's case and that was not the reason behind the comparison

I see. Well of course it's harder to jump "in the middle of a story". But as I said above, devs "offer" new mechanical improvement that the previous games didn't have (gameplay, graphics, etc). I do agree the story is something you shouldn't ignore, but not everyone are interested in it. A lot of people wants to just play a game that includes shooting stuff.

[Aimi]

Jumping into a story in the middle is a time-honored storytelling device anyway. In medias res goes back to the freaking Iliad.

[Darth Asriel]

@Chewin3- I get that marketing is marketing. I think what people are upset about is that people who believed in this series when it was a new IP have essentially been told "kick rocks, you'll buy it anyway." and while that may be true the would like to have some acknowledgement that this is still the game they supported and recommended to friends and family. Let's be honest Bioware got ME figures, comics, and props, because of the same rpg fans who are now being ignored for the shooter crowd. It reminds me of when the new Abram's Star Trek came out, the studio basically told fans of the original to kiss off. They even advertised it as not your father's trek. That was a kick in the crotch to the very people who kept Star Trek going all these years. EA and BW(by proxy) have done the same. They have downplayed the story and choices to pump up he shooter aspect. They even have a commercial where a thresher maw takes on a Reaper. It's a cool visual, but to hose who know have played the game it's stupid. Shepard has killed mass on foot with 2 people. Why would a reaper have any trouble with one?

There are plenty of shooters on the market. Great story driven games are becoming rare. ME3 should be a celebration of the team at BW and those who helped them get to his point. So far it has been far less than that.

[Kradsk]

daqs wrote...

AgitatedLemon wrote...

daqs wrote...

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

Anniversary isn't some awesome new game.

It's the same game as it was 10 years ago, complete with all of its faults, just with a shiny new coat of paint.

It's a refitted Original Xbox game.

Yep. Basically the only things they added were the Terminals.

And skulls.

[string3r]

Just like MGS4 is a great entry into the series!

[Icinix]

Marketing reasons.

They don't want people who didn't get on board with ME1 and ME2 to go meh about a third game in a trilogy they've never played.

Yeah its annoying since from day 1 for ME1 it was all billed as telling YOUR Sheps story over the course of a trilogy - and now its gone to - ME3 great place to start! You'll enjoy it the most if you relax and let us tell you a story.

But ultimately - I think its just marketing being marketing's usual silly self.

Modifié par Icinix, 18 janvier 2012 - 09:46 .

[Kakistos_]

Darth Asriel wrote...

@Chewin3- I get that marketing is marketing. I think what people are upset about is that people who believed in this series when it was a new IP have essentially been told "kick rocks, you'll buy it anyway." and while that may be true the would like to have some acknowledgement that this is still the game they supported and recommended to friends and family. Let's be honest Bioware got ME figures, comics, and props, because of the same rpg fans who are now being ignored for the shooter crowd. It reminds me of when the new Abram's Star Trek came out, the studio basically told fans of the original to kiss off. They even advertised it as not your father's trek. That was a kick in the crotch to the very people who kept Star Trek going all these years. EA and BW(by proxy) have done the same. They have downplayed the story and choices to pump up he shooter aspect. They even have a commercial where a thresher maw takes on a Reaper. It's a cool visual, but to hose who know have played the game it's stupid. Shepard has killed mass on foot with 2 people. Why would a reaper have any trouble with one?

There are plenty of shooters on the market. Great story driven games are becoming rare. ME3 should be a celebration of the team at BW and those who helped them get to his point. So far it has been far less than that.

I agree. Too many games are going down this path. I understand that it is a business but it is a form of art as well and for ignoring or belittling that aspect and those who care for it, those who make such decisions should expect a loss of respect.

[crimzontearz]

AlanC9 wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...
- that if you build a franchise with the basic selling point of being a a trilogy with overarching story interdependent through the chapters and the choices made in them (yes that was one of the major selling points of the first game, go look at the first E3 videos) because you are the one company that does consider writing to be the integral part of your game design then by appeasing the PEW PEW PEW people and giving the middle finger to the core audience (and yes the whole "this is the best entry wed by PR defense fells like a huge middle finger to many) you are pretty mucpoint" folloh Epic adding AC swordplay to GoW just to try and reel in more audience.

Of course, the "many" in the italicized bit are being very, very silly. What Bio does or doesn't tell people who never played ME has nothing at all to do with us.

And the more I think about this, the more I think that Bio is right.  ME1's gameplay is a lot worse than ME2's and, from what I've seen, even further behind ME3's. If I wanted to sell ME to people who aren't RPG fans -- any RPG fans who haven't bought ME already will never buy ME, so they don't count  -- I definitely would not start them with ME.

That leaves 2 and 3. I think 2's start isn't all that great for someone who didn't play 1. So, start them with ME3.

Too bad that you should sell RPGs to RPG fans and not mud things up to get a quick sale, Skirim succeeded.

Yes even tho I agree Crysis 2 had a longer, more cinematic campaign and solid gameplaybI would have paid double price to be able to Play Crysis one first. Same for Dead Space really, I would definitely not play the second before the first neither would I recommend it even tho DS2 is the better game

the same arguments were made to defend DA2, tho with different subjects, before it was released but go ahead and keep telling yourself that. Truth is that you do not need to compromise to get amazing sales...you only need an amazing RPG....amazing enough that you do not need a "best entry point" or "awesome button" to get in the sales.....it's being done before.

[AlanC9]

@ Icinix: It's only marketing being silly if you expect marketing to give you objective and factual information in the first place, which is itself silly.

Modifié par AlanC9, 18 janvier 2012 - 09:51 .