276 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Il Divo wrote...

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.

That's actually how I got into the IE games, and Bioware. I'd pretty much wrtten off CRPGs until I tried out the CGW demo disc with all of Chateau Irenicus.

[AlanC9]

DPSSOC wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
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.

Hmm ... I guess I didn't see that because I've played plenty of RPGs with minimal leveling choices.  Most obviously, the BG series and the rest of the IE games (blame D&D itself, not Bioware and Black Isle). Or the Ultima series, where your PC had to be Avatar class and every companion's class was fixed.

But yeah, ME2's skill point system wasn't all that great. I still liked it marginally better than ME1's because there were a few more real choices to make.

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).

It's a real concern, I agree. But let's get the causality right. The marketing talk isn't going to change those design decisions. It might indicate that Bio's made the wrong decisions, but if they talked differently about ME3 it would still be the same game

And I agree about expectations. I try to think of ME3 as just another Bio game. I've liked most of those -- even the NWN1 OC was not as bad as people say.

Modifié par AlanC9, 19 janvier 2012 - 01:12 .

[Bananables]

after 9 pages i know its been pointed out a million times but im gonna say it again

theyre milking it as much as they can for money. the ME universe, especially ME3 has entered the play one popular game and think youre a hardcore gamer territory. you know, the same territory that COD and BF are in and theyre trying to get those people to jump in the bandwagon.

but the truth is, this marketing stunt is a bad idea. think about it, bioware has put tons of resources into the storytelling of all 3 ME games and by saying that ME3 is a great entry point, theyre really letting all their hardwork in ME1 and ME2 go in vain. cuz chances are a lot of the new players who dive into ME3 first wont bother with the first 2 games.

if they encouraged people to play the series from beginning to end theyll actually make more money i think. i bought ME1 and ME2 preowned from gamestop for about $20 each, and now im gonna preorder ME3 for $60... they just got $100 from me, idk how much gamestop gets from that but still

[CannonO]

Bananables wrote...

after 9 pages i know its been pointed out a million times but im gonna say it again

theyre milking it as much as they can for money. the ME universe, especially ME3 has entered the play one popular game and think youre a hardcore gamer territory. you know, the same territory that COD and BF are in and theyre trying to get those people to jump in the bandwagon.

but the truth is, this marketing stunt is a bad idea. think about it, bioware has put tons of resources into the storytelling of all 3 ME games and by saying that ME3 is a great entry point, theyre really letting all their hardwork in ME1 and ME2 go in vain. cuz chances are a lot of the new players who dive into ME3 first wont bother with the first 2 games.

if they encouraged people to play the series from beginning to end theyll actually make more money i think. i bought ME1 and ME2 preowned from gamestop for about $20 each, and now im gonna preorder ME3 for $60... they just got $100 from me, idk how much gamestop gets from that but still

Seriously, why aren't they selling a two-pack of ME1 and ME2 + DLC for like $29.99 right now. And ME2 on PS3 for $19.99 +DLC included? Then market those as a way to get into it?

I seriously don't get who would be fooled into thinking the final act is the good place to start in a story? Start with The Matrix Revolutions? Might be a problem.

Modifié par CannonLars, 19 janvier 2012 - 01:41 .

[Bananables]

CannonLars wrote...

Bananables wrote...

after 9 pages i know its been pointed out a million times but im gonna say it again

theyre milking it as much as they can for money. the ME universe, especially ME3 has entered the play one popular game and think youre a hardcore gamer territory. you know, the same territory that COD and BF are in and theyre trying to get those people to jump in the bandwagon.

but the truth is, this marketing stunt is a bad idea. think about it, bioware has put tons of resources into the storytelling of all 3 ME games and by saying that ME3 is a great entry point, theyre really letting all their hardwork in ME1 and ME2 go in vain. cuz chances are a lot of the new players who dive into ME3 first wont bother with the first 2 games.

if they encouraged people to play the series from beginning to end theyll actually make more money i think. i bought ME1 and ME2 preowned from gamestop for about $20 each, and now im gonna preorder ME3 for $60... they just got $100 from me, idk how much gamestop gets from that but still

Seriously, why aren't they selling a two-pack of ME1 and ME2 + DLC for like $29.99 right now. And ME2 on PS3 for $19.99 +DLC included? Then market those as a way to get into it?

I seriously don't get ho would be fooled into thinking the final act is the good place to start in a story? Start with The Matrix Revolutions? Might be a problem.

right. the kind of gamers theyre attracting with that slogan are the ones that only play games for the booms and pows. "gamers" that dont care for story and all the things that make ME amazing. anyone fooled by this marketing stunt will be those "gamers"

and yeah i agree why arent they selling a package like that? ME 1 & 2 for $30, thats $10 less than what i bought them for. thats such a good deal anyone looking to get into the ME universe would be stupid not to bother. i just think more cash is what theyre after, theres better ways to do it that wont make their efforts go unnoticed to new fans.

Modifié par Bananables, 19 janvier 2012 - 01:37 .

[DPSSOC]

AlanC9 wrote...
It's a real concern, I agree. But let's get the causality right. The marketing talk isn't going to change those design decisions. It might indicate that Bio's made the wrong decisions, but if they talked differently about ME3 it would still be the same game

Of course I guess I should say that the direction of their marketing has me concerned about the direction they've taken the game in, having nothing else to go on.  It's similar to character design; how they make a character look in videogames, television, film, etc. is often a good indicator of personality (not always).  Same here, the advertising is making ME3 look like ME2 Revisited and that has me concerned.

Luckily where I get my games allows me to return any new release within 1 week of purchase for full in store credit so if ME3 does turn out to be ME2 Revisited I'm not out anything (except a kickass end to a series).

[Kaiser_Wilhelm]

Belisarius09 wrote...

Its just a marketing mechanic. Obviously starting at the beggining provides the player with a much fuller experience, more backstory, more character background, the chance to develop relationships with your squadmates and learn their story etc.

They've produced the game in a way that starting at Me3 will be bearable, but it is much obviously better to start at the first game and work your way up, and person thats played the previous two titles can tell you that.

It's like Mass Effect 2 but to a greater extent. You can play just the game and start there, but the experience is much more rewarding if you play the other games first.

[Iakus]

CannonLars wrote...

Seriously, why aren't they selling a two-pack of ME1 and ME2 + DLC for like $29.99 right now. And ME2 on PS3 for $19.99 +DLC included? Then market those as a way to get into it?

I seriously don't get who would be fooled into thinking the final act is the good place to start in a story? Start with The Matrix Revolutions? Might be a problem.

Indeed.

It's disturbing how they insist on playing up the latest game by dumping on the previous installments.  We saw it with ME1 when ME2 came out.  And now with ME3 they're acting all ashamed that there were two Mass Effect games that came out before this one.

Seriously, the concept of a true game trilogy is something that should be played up as an amazing achievement, not some shameful secret to be thrown under the bus

[Tokion]

I feel sorry for all those who missed out on the mind blowing moments ME1's story had to offer. Discovering the Reapers' exsistence and the insignificance of organic beings was one of the best moment the series had to offer. Oh and the inspiring music and atomsphere when joining the spectres. ME2 was missing these epic moments.

However, ME1 needs a remake though. The Mako really needs to die in a fire.

Something simple could be done to make ME1 more fun. For example, replacing the Mako with the Firewalker, then exploring planet would actually be fun.

Modifié par Tokion, 19 janvier 2012 - 02:27 .

[GreenDragon37]

 It's called marketing. Personally, I'd never tell anyone to start at the end of a trilogy.

[AgitatedLemon]

Tokion wrote...

ME1 needs a remake. The Mako really needs to die in a fire.

Something simple could be done to make ME1 more fun. For example, replacing the Mako with the Firewalker, then exploring planet would actually be fun.

How dare you.



Wht did he ever do to you?

Modifié par AgitatedLemon, 19 janvier 2012 - 02:27 .

[CannonO]

Tokion wrote...

ME1 needs a remake. The Mako really needs to die in a fire.

Something simple could be done to make ME1 more fun. For example, replacing the Mako with the Firewalker, then exploring planet would actually be fun.

Mako was fine with me. How about they spend time keeping some open vehicle side missions in ME3 since they dropped it in ME2 instead of giving us some good planets like we wanted? Oh wait. I forgot that it isn't a shooter idea, so they aren't interested.

[Tokion]

I just finished a completionist ME1 AGAIN by mining out every planet and grabbing every savage. On ME2, I am taking out my M-920 nuke to shoot that thing in the face when I go and visit the crash site.

THE MAKO NEEDS TO DIE! >:]

Modifié par Tokion, 19 janvier 2012 - 02:30 .

[crimzontearz]

iakus wrote...

CannonLars wrote...
Seriously, why aren't they selling a two-pack of ME1 and ME2 + DLC for like $29.99 right now. And ME2 on PS3 for $19.99 +DLC included? Then market those as a way to get into it?

I seriously don't get who would be fooled into thinking the final act is the good place to start in a story? Start with The Matrix Revolutions? Might be a problem.

Indeed.

It's disturbing how they insist on playing up the latest game by dumping on the previous installments.  We saw it with ME1 when ME2 came out.  And now with ME3 they're acting all ashamed that there were two Mass Effect games that came out before this one.

Seriously, the concept of a true game trilogy is something that should be played up as an amazing achievement, not some shameful secret to be thrown under the bus

it does not matter....apparently some people truly believe that it's a good thing to start a triogy from its last chapter.....


oh and that the defining characteristic of old school rpgs that fans seem to want is an inventory........

[GreenDragon37]

My problem is that the people who started at ME2 keeping saying that Mass Effect is an Action game with RPG elements. That wasn't what Mass Effect 1 was. It was a RPG/TPS hybrid. I can understand improving gameplay, but not at the cost of story and choice. That was my problem with ME2. Don't get me wrong, it is fantastic. I love that game... that being said, I think ME1 was better as an RPG. ME2 is better as a shooter. I was hoping ME3 would blend the best of both, but... I don't know.

I just don't like that it seems BioWare keeps throwing their first games under the bus.

Modifié par GreenDragon37, 19 janvier 2012 - 02:36 .

[crimzontearz]

GreenDragon37 wrote...
My problem is that the people who started at ME2 keeping saying that Mass Effect is an Action game with RPG elements. That wasn't what Mass Effect 1 was. It was a RPG/TPS hybrid. I can understand improving gameplay, but not at the cost of story and choice. That was my problem with ME2. Don't get me wrong, it is fantastic. I love that game... that being said, I think ME1 was better as an RPG. ME2 is better as a shooter. I was hoping ME3 would blend both, but... I don't know.

because apparently it is good to completely strip customiization from an RPG and turn progression in a purely linear affair and still call it an RPG.....its the way of the future

Modifié par crimzontearz, 19 janvier 2012 - 02:38 .

[CannonO]

GreenDragon37 wrote...

My problem is that the people who started at ME2 keeping saying that Mass Effect is an Action game with RPG elements. That wasn't what Mass Effect 1 was. It was a RPG/TPS hybrid. I can understand improving gameplay, but not at the cost of story and choice. That was my problem with ME2. Don't get me wrong, it is fantastic. I love that game... that being said, I think ME1 was better as an RPG. ME2 is better as a shooter. I was hoping ME3 would blend both, but... I don't know.

The later you jump into the series, the less you associate it with an RPG. That's why most of the people arguing that it is missing its RPG roots have played since near-launch and those who joined later or with ME2 just clash with them, arguing otherwise.

It was indeed, at its beginning, far more often referred to as and by its traditional RPG components and what many agreed was not the most smooth or stellar TPS component.

Modifié par CannonLars, 19 janvier 2012 - 02:51 .

[GreenDragon37]

CannonLars wrote...

GreenDragon37 wrote...

My problem is that the people who started at ME2 keeping saying that Mass Effect is an Action game with RPG elements. That wasn't what Mass Effect 1 was. It was a RPG/TPS hybrid. I can understand improving gameplay, but not at the cost of story and choice. That was my problem with ME2. Don't get me wrong, it is fantastic. I love that game... that being said, I think ME1 was better as an RPG. ME2 is better as a shooter. I was hoping ME3 would blend both, but... I don't know.

The later you jump into the series, the less you associate it with an RPG. That's why most of the people arguing the it is missing its RPG roots have played since near-launch and those who joined later or with ME2 just clash with them, arguing otherwise.

It was indeed, at its beginning, far more often referred to as and by its traditional RPG components and what many agreed was not the most smooth or stellar TPS component.

True. Shame. Funny though, I actually liked ME1 combat. Sure, it could have used cleaning up, but I felt ME2 was TOO streamlined. ME3 does seem to be brining back some of those elements while retaining tighter combat. But in the end, it's the story/choices That brought me to Mass Effect. We'll see...

Modifié par GreenDragon37, 19 janvier 2012 - 02:47 .

[Heimdall]

It's marketing talk, that's all.

Really, do you expect them to tell new players "If you haven't been a long time fan of the series, you shouldn't buy it"?

The idea is to draw fans into the series so they go back and buy the previous games. They are going to get fewer new fans if they try and get people to go play games that apparently didn't attract their interest already anyway so they can enjoy the new product.

[CannonO]

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.

Were we not to assume that as the series goes on, the company is trying to improve the game?

Now it sounds like you are saying that clueless buyers are being targeted here, even if they really would be interested in the story. As you said, considering this as a story, it is not the best point. But to those who are new, you are telling them to start now, like it is CoD and it doesn't need to be looked at as anything more than a standalone shooter (as if that is the appeal).

Of course this should be the best as far as tuned development goes, but that doesn't justify telling everyone who wasn't interested before that they should start right now that you are selling the brand new and fully priced entry. It doesn't help my perspective when such statements are made by Casey Hudson as a specifically shooting combat demo streams behind him, which happens to be the biggest market...

But maybe that is me thinking I am a decently understanding consumer. Maybe you all just really want those profits more than the statements imply.

Modifié par CannonLars, 19 janvier 2012 - 02:52 .

[crimzontearz]

and here is what I do not get. The combat in an RPG is a representation of how your character's build handles, it is just an interface at least visually.....it is not the fulcrum of the game play. Do people complain that Diablo's or BG's combat system is not as engaging as GOW's DMC's or NG'S? no....because they are different games. In ME1 combat was clunky yes but because it was just an interface just like it is for other RPGs. Yes....I am not going to complain if the combat interface evolves to become as engaging as the combat game play of a shooter in this case as long as the RPG features are not lost...

and god dammit even Christina Norman admitted they went too far with the streamlining in ME2 and promised more depth in ME3

[Aimi]

crimzontearz wrote...

and god dammit even Christina Norman admitted they went too far with the streamlining in ME2 and promised more depth in ME3

And there is more depth, sooo...what's the issue?

[GreenDragon37]

Lord Aesir wrote...

It's marketing talk, that's all.

Really, do you expect them to tell new players "If you haven't been a long time fan of the series, you shouldn't buy it"?

The idea is to draw fans into the series so they go back and buy the previous games. They are going to get fewer new fans if they try and get people to go play games that apparently didn't attract their interest already anyway so they can enjoy the new product.

No, I don 't expect that. But what I do expect is for BioWare to at least acknowledge and offer some praise to the games that made ME3 possible. Like a, "While you are waiting for ME3, you should try ME1 and ME2 to see what brought it to this epic showdown. Now available to reduced prices." That's not hard, is it? To give your older games some love and acknowledge them?

[Heimdall]

GreenDragon37 wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

It's marketing talk, that's all.

Really, do you expect them to tell new players "If you haven't been a long time fan of the series, you shouldn't buy it"?

The idea is to draw fans into the series so they go back and buy the previous games. They are going to get fewer new fans if they try and get people to go play games that apparently didn't attract their interest already anyway so they can enjoy the new product.

No, I don 't expect that. But what I do expect is for BioWare to at least acknowledge and offer some praise to the games that made ME3 possible. Like a, "While you are waiting for ME3, you should try ME1 and ME2 to see what brought it to this epic showdown. Now available to reduced prices." That's not hard, is it? To give your older games some love and acknowledge them?

That is ME and ME2 marketing, not ME3 marketing.