276 réponses à ce sujet

[J0HNL3I]

Its just marketing, you have to be stupid to start on the last of a trilogy when trying a new series. Although halo 3 was the first halo game i played lol

Modifié par J0HNL3I, 18 janvier 2012 - 09:52 .

[AlanC9]

crimzontearz wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
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.

You really think there are a lot of RPG fans out there who haven't already made up their minds about the ME series? Or is this just a total non-sequitur?

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.

You wouldn't. I would. Like I said upthread, I would recommend people new to the IE start with BG2 rather than BG1, because that will will decrease the likelihood that they'll chuck the whole series in the trash.

Edit: let's get aaway from Bio. Let's say I want to sell someone on the Ultima games. Am I really going to tell hum to start with Ultima 4?

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.

I don't see any "compromises" from ME1 to ME3. I see improvements. So I don't see how this argument has any force.

Modifié par AlanC9, 18 janvier 2012 - 09:58 .

[crimzontearz]

Chewin3 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 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 understandable 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.

their game then should NOT be ME then but, say, COD or something.......you know like if you want a chickflick you definitely do not go to watch "the expendables"

unless the producers really want to lose credibility

[crimzontearz]

Because, Alan, you are part of the reason why ME as a series did not live up to its potential...well, the catering to those like you was. So thank you from the bottom of my heart.

[AlanC9]

Hey, just knowing how you feel about the series' direction makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. So no thanks are necessary.

Honestly, I'd pretty much given up on CRPGs ever getting away from crappy early-RPG inventory and getting with the 1980s. I was stunned when Bio finally improved the system with ME2. I understand that they're going a little backward with ME3, but you can't have everything. Kind of like MotB ; too good to actually be a blueprint for the future.

Modifié par AlanC9, 18 janvier 2012 - 10:04 .

[Toloveyou]

So basically you want ME3 to be a third person shooter with space magic?

[DarthSliver]

it would be cool if it detected if you imported or not so at the end when the credits roll it saids "Now you must pick up ME1 and ME2 to experience Shepards full story "

[Icinix]

AlanC9 wrote...

@ 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.

Exactly.

Marketing always has been, and probably always will be, for search of a better word, dumb.

[AlanC9]

Toloveyou wrote...

So basically you want ME3 to be a third person shooter with space magic?

Because I don't think RPGs should be about inventory? That's obviously absurd.

[Aimi]

jreezy wrote...

daqs wrote...

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

Keyword there is "middle". You know where Mass Effect 3 fits chronologically.

If you start playing in the series with ME3, you don't begin playing at the end of the game, with the Reapers defeated. You start at the beginning of the game, which takes place after two games and before one game. That fits "middle" to me.

Hell, the Iliad itself took place over a few days in the ninth year of a war that lasted ten years.

Modifié par daqs, 18 janvier 2012 - 10:15 .

[Il Divo]

AlanC9 wrote...

You wouldn't. I would. Like I said upthread, I would recommend people new to the IE start with BG2 rather than BG1, because that will will decrease the likelihood that they'll chuck the whole series in the trash.

And in all seriousness, this is a recommendation I see alot. When I was getting opinions on whether to play Baldur's Gate, I got more than a few recommendations to just skip right to Shadows of Amn, at least from a gameplay/dialogue standpoint.

[I-am-Biwinning]

string3r wrote...

Just like MGS4 is a great entry into the series!

Haha, yeah everyone I know who tried that, said they were utterly baffled, and had no idea what was going on. I for one played the entire series, and I thought it was one of the most grand, epic video game endings ever.

Now with mass effect 3, I think we have to look at "great" as a relative term. Great compared to what? I would say our only possible direct comparison would be Mass Effect 2. Although you can pick it up and pretty quickly get the gist of what's going on, you simply can't attain the same level of immersion in the story. The game tells you why you should care about Ashley or Kaiden, but there's no emotional attachment to those characters, because you didn't fight with them through the first game. It's only old characters that fully return, that new players are able to forge some form of emotional attachment to.

While it may be that it's a great entry point, we have to remember it's still an entry point. It's lying to tell people that they will have just as immersive of an experience as those who have played the whole series. Marketing hasn't really lied, they just left out the part that as much as it'll be enjoyable for new players, they really need to play the first two in order fully experience the game. I'm sure new players will be captured by the story of the reaper invasion, but it won't have near the same impact as those of us who have had two games of tension build up. Why should new players care as much about the krogan, when they haven't fought alongside wrex and grunt? New players may really enjoy it, and it may be easier to get into than ME2, but it won't be near the same game as it would be if they had played the first two.

[K_Tabris]

DarthShadow13 wrote...

 Do people watch Retrun of the Jedi before A New Hope? Do they watch Return of the King before Fellowship of the Ring?

I did this with Halo 3, and do not recommend it.  If i played Halo 1 and 2, first, the third would have been more meaningful.

And that series doesn't even have much of a story.  Mass Effect 3 is not an entry point ((unless you plan on playing action mode only); it's akin to reading the last chapter of a thriller or mystery novel first.

[I-am-Biwinning]

I-am-Biwinning wrote...

string3r wrote...

Just like MGS4 is a great entry into the series!

Haha, yeah everyone I know who tried that, said they were utterly baffled, and had no idea what was going on. I for one played the entire series, and I thought it was one of the most grand, epic video game endings ever.

Now with mass effect 3, I think we have to look at "great" as a relative term. Great compared to what? I would say our only possible direct comparison would be Mass Effect 2. Although you can pick it up and pretty quickly get the gist of what's going on, you simply can't attain the same level of immersion in the story. The game tells you why you should care about Ashley or Kaiden, but there's no emotional attachment to those characters, because you didn't fight with them through the first game. It's only old characters that fully return, that new players are able to forge some form of emotional attachment to.

While it may be that it's a great entry point, we have to remember it's still an entry point. It's lying to tell people that they will have just as immersive of an experience as those who have played the whole series. Marketing hasn't really lied, they just left out the part that as much as it'll be enjoyable for new players, they really need to play the first two in order fully experience the game. I'm sure new players will be captured by the story of the reaper invasion, but it won't have near the same impact as those of us who have had two games of tension build up. Why should new players care as much about things like the genophage, when they haven't fought alongside wrex and grunt? New players may really enjoy it, and it may be easier to get into than ME2, but it won't be near the same game as it would be if they had played the first two.

EDIT: Whoops I meant to edit that instead of quote it

Modifié par I-am-Biwinning, 18 janvier 2012 - 10:24 .

[Di-Hydrogen-Monoxide]

daqs wrote...

jreezy wrote...

daqs wrote...

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

Keyword there is "middle". You know where Mass Effect 3 fits chronologically.

If you start playing in the series with ME3, you don't begin playing at the end of the game, with the Reapers defeated. You start at the beginning of the game, which takes place after two games and before one game. That fits "middle" to me.

Hell, the Iliad itself took place over a few days in the ninth year of a war that lasted ten years.

It might just be because I'm very tired but it seems to me that if two games are down and one is left then you would be jumping in two thirds of the way into a story. Certainly doesn't fit any definition of middle I have heard of.

So yeah.

Anyway marketing is marketing is marketing. The long time fans will understand the story and connect to it so what's the problem?If RPG/story fans are interested in ME3 hopefully they will realise reading the last chapter of a book isn't the smartest thing to do, and if some screaming pre-pubescent shooter fan buys it are they really gonna care about story and emotional attachments? (That was a joke.)

[AgitatedLemon]

jreezy 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.

Nothing wrong with that.

Slow charging shields, the entire Library level (The Flood in general), the terrible checkpoint placement, monotonous backtracking, poorly placed health packs NEVER being where/when you need them...

[Trishann]

Chris Priestly wrote...

ME1 relaunch now with 100% more gungans.

Dooood, that's not funny!

Okay, maybe is.

[AgitatedLemon]

jreezy wrote...

AgitatedLemon wrote...

jreezy 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.

Nothing wrong with that.

Slow charging shields, the entire Library level (The Flood in general), the terrible checkpoint placement, monotonous backtracking, poorly placed health packs NEVER being where/when you need them...

Mmm hmm. Nothing wrong with that.

How does it feel being the only person in the world to not find fault with the Library, the backtracking, and the horrendous checkpoints?

[Aimi]

Di-Hydrogen-Monoxide wrote...

It might just be because I'm very tired but it seems to me that if two games are down and one is left then you would be jumping in two thirds of the way into a story. Certainly doesn't fit any definition of middle I have heard of.

So yeah.

Mmmh. "Middle" in this context has never meant "precisely halfway through the story". Like I said, the Iliad, which is definitionally a story that begins in medias res (the Roman poet Horatius coined the term to describe the way it starts), started nine-tenths of the way through the Trojan War, although it employed a partially nonlinear narrative to lay out some scenes. That's even further from halfway than two-thirds is.

"Middle" also has a dual meaning in the term in medias res: "middle" means "not at the beginning or end of a story", yeah, but it also means that you're being dumped more or less in the middle of the thick of the action.

[DPSSOC]

AlanC9 wrote...

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.

I don't see any "compromises" from ME1 to ME3. I see improvements. So I don't see how this argument has any force.

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.  The compromise being that, while the system is more friendly to the newbs RPG fans who enjoy the fine tuning that a broader levelling system allows (myself included) get kind of shafted.

I've never liked ME3 being describe as an entry point because it just makes me worry that we're going to have ME2 all over again, where the "consequences" of our major choices are 2 lines of dialogue and an email, in order to keep new players from getting confused as to why certain things are happening because the comic didn't do a good job of explaining who characters were or what's going on (assumption of ME3 comic based on ME2 comic).

Hopefully I'm worrying over nothing and we will get some noticeable differences that we see from start to finish, but past experience has bred a wealth of cynicism so I still assume I'll be proven right.

As they say, "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst, and all your surprises will be pleasant."

[CannonO]

It's not a great entry point. It is a great selling point. The game is still, as Mass Effect 2 was, mostly appealing for someone who followed the first two parts. They aren't fooling the real fans when they act like Part 3 is a great way to start a story.