186 réponses à ce sujet

[Vaktathi]

_symphony wrote...

BioWare didn't know what to do with the ending until the very last months of development, there was a thread about it. We aren't talking about software bugs, we're talking about the game's plot, it was rushed.

Was it rushed? Or was it poorly managed? The latter could very well likely be true with much the same effect. They did the other two games in the same timespan and did much more significant visual and mechanical overhauls with 2 than they did with 3.

[sp0ck 06]

ME3 is more enjoyable for me than Skyrim. Skyrim felt like GTAIV to me...a very impressive, beautiful tech demo. The only real fun in the game is wandering around taking in vistas and exploring. The characters and all flat and the VA is awful, there's very few compelling storylines, the combat is AWFUL, the interface (especially for skills) is horrendous, and the game just lacks a fun factor. Granted, I played it a lot and found the world to be breathtaking and incredible, but the game is just not fun to play.

[Wrex4Life]

Skyrim isn't even that good

[SCJ90]

I think that the point is that if BW had 2 more years to work on ME3 it would have been one of the epic games that you still hear about 10 years from now

EDIT: Im a fan of the elder scrolls series, but Skryim, just felt wrong, cant put my finger on it but something was off

Modifié par SCJ90, 03 avril 2012 - 07:49 .

[Dude_in_the_Room]

SCJ90 wrote...

EDIT: Im a fan of the elder scrolls series, but Skryim, just felt wrong, cant put my finger on it but something was off

Thats usually a sign of a chemical imbalance.

[Euno17]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

Also if you're going to go witht he copies sold argument...

Does that mean CoD wipes the floor with Skyrim?

Come on now i know you guys like Skyrim but jeez, give it up, the games go after two completely different RPG/action sectors.

Its like comparing Madden to NBA live. Sure they're both sports games but thats it.

One doesn't mean you cant enjoy the other and see merits in both, nor does it mean you need to compare the two because they're on two different sports spectrums.

Please for the love of god re-read my post. I did not say any way shape or form say copies sold=better game. 

In-fact how the hell did you even come up with that? It's like you didn't even read my post at all.

Length of a game means nothing in terms of how good it is. Thats a real silly argument to make.

I play ME because i like the story, plain and simple, I like the characters, etc. I dont like Skyrim, I dont like morrowind, I dont like oblivion so the argument is moot to me

ME3 is better than all 3 combined in my gaming terms. deal with it.

But again, completion time means nothing, Hell i know people who have 60hours for 1 ME3 playthrough. I'll take a 10hr action packed great story filled game over a 100hr bore fest anyday.

Once again read my post again because clearly you are lost.  By the way if I had to CHOOSE between A. a game like Skyrim to play for 60/100 hours+ or B.) a 10 hour action packed game - I'll choose that 100 hours EVERY-TIME. Why the hell would you WANT to buy a 60 dollar game (or MORE with this DLC crap these days) only to spend 10 hours with a story? That would seriously ****** me off unless it was a MP game with a SP campaign thrown together at the last-minute in which can't the SP experience isn't the point of the game. 

EVEN if i got bored of Skyrim after lets say 50-60 hours - that is money WELL SPENT. That ten hour game will last you what? A night maybe 2? How long would Skyrim last you? 4-6 times that? 

Skyrim had 5 years and it was for nothing.
Same dumb repeatable quests. Same voices everywhere. At least in Morrowind and Oblivion I could figure out which one was an elf and a human just by hearing their voice. Now I need to look for around to know who's what since they all sound the same.
The only thing you can do in Skyrim is run around and hit stuff. 
Even the Guilds plot were weak. Before, you had titles and you worked your way to become master of the guild. Now it's just a few lousy quests, guy dies and voila. All hail me. 
And it's a sandbox, of course you'll be playing it for hours. But there's nothing more than to just rampage the countryside. I didn't even get the feeling the world was ending. 
In Morrowind it felt great knowing you were the Nerevarine. In Oblivion how you saved random cities from big bad monsters. In Skyrim...Yeah, so I can shout really loud.

Sigh. Are you really arguing with those points? Really? And what exactly is your argument for because all I can see is that you think Oblivion is better which I can't disagree with. 

I always find it funny when people talk about games having repetitive and A -> B sidequests then use Skyrim as an example of sidequests done right, i must have been playing a different game because that is exactly what Skyrim was.

Skyrim's side-quests - while not THAT great is far and away better then what we did in ME-3. There is enough difference kind of side quests in Skyrim to easily rate it above ME-3 and FAR longer too.

Modifié par Euno17, 03 avril 2012 - 08:05 .

[MsKlaussen]

Benny8484 wrote...

While I agree with your discontent with EA, I don't agree that Skyrim is better than ME3.  So many things were broken & remain broken to this day in Skyrim.  Half the skill trees are just awful, while others (blacksmithing) are so horribly overpowered that by taking them, you automatically become a god.

All of the faction questlines consisted of like 5 quests, which simply was not enough.  Removal of spellmaking, perks not working as intended, level scaling etc.

By no means is ME3 perfect, but I have already played ME3 far more than I ever have, or will play Skyrim.  I guess Morrowind spoiled me.  Such a shame TES has been dumbed down so much.

The difference between Skyrim and ME (as it relates to your post) however, is that with the construction kit every one of those issues can be fixed, and half of them have already. There are very easy to implement mods which quickly and effectively rethink and readjust the skill trees, adjust overall difficulty of the game either up or down, reintroduce spellmaking, recalculate adherence to level scaling, etc.

An hour after I discovered Skyrim Nexxus I had exactly the Skyrim installation I wanted. And then some. There are so many mods for it on that site alone it would take me another 8 months to get through them.

What you call broken is not irretriveably broken at all. But then, Bethesda has a hell of a lot more on its plate with TES than Bioware does with ME. The two can't even really be mentioned in the same sentence, and for Skyrim to work as well as it does and to completely bury ME where ongoing play and replay value is concerned out of the box, before mods are even considered? With that feature list? In complexity dumbed down TES is to ME what flying an F-16 is to tossing a paper plane. It's just not in the same galaxy.

And I'm not saying it should be or that this is a knock on ME. As someone else said earlier, TES is about what we were told it is about. Open ended choose your own adventure gameplay. There is not a single quest or choice in the game that one has to make or else the party is over. Not one. And technically there isn't much need for ridiculously extended guild quests in a game that you could play for the next 58 years without running out of random questing.

Sure, it's not perfect. And there are things that Morrowind, Oblivion, even original Arena had that were altered or taken away in Skyrim. But what exactly do you want? Try fletching your own arrows in Morrowind or any other TES game after literally shooting down hawks to gather their feathers. Compare melee or dual wield combat dynamics in Skyrim with earlier TES games. It's night and day. Compare graphical quality for a given rig level in Skyrim vs. Oblivion. You can't. Things are give and take, but TES shows continuous and consistent attempts at refinement and recognition of user concerns without a huge loss of core functionality and loss of its raison d'etre, despite having been ported to consoles. Plus, it was designed specifically with player wish list facilitating in mind. ME does not and was not. It does not allow you with its PC editing to take the entire game down to pickup sticks and reassemble it any way you want.

It is not Bethesda's fault if you play the game as is and don't take advantage of any of the design points that guarantee you will never have to be forced into playing the game as is. If ME had even a third as much flexibility as TES does fairly 80% of these player issues I read on here, including the endings problem, are nonstarters. At bare minimum, FemShep would actually move like a woman. I'd be willing to consider even that a major triumph.

Modifié par MsKlaussen, 03 avril 2012 - 09:21 .

[suprhomre]

speculation and speculation we would never know.

[Ghost]

The funny thing is that skyrim was developed in two years and how long was me3 developed?

[Euno17]

MsKlaussen wrote...

Benny8484 wrote...

While I agree with your discontent with EA, I don't agree that Skyrim is better than ME3.  So many things were broken & remain broken to this day in Skyrim.  Half the skill trees are just awful, while others (blacksmithing) are so horribly overpowered that by taking them, you automatically become a god.

All of the faction questlines consisted of like 5 quests, which simply was not enough.  Removal of spellmaking, perks not working as intended, level scaling etc.

By no means is ME3 perfect, but I have already played ME3 far more than I ever have, or will play Skyrim.  I guess Morrowind spoiled me.  Such a shame TES has been dumbed down so much.

The difference between Skyrim and ME (as it relates to your post) however, is that with the construction kit every one of those issues can be fixed, and half of them have already. There are very easy to implement mods which quickly and effectively rethink and readjust the skill trees, adjust overall difficulty of the game either up or down, reintroduce spellmaking, recalculate adherence to level scaling, etc.

An hour after I discovered Skyrim Nexxus I had exactly the Skyrim installation I wanted. And then some. There are so many mods for it on that site alone it would take me another 8 months to get through them.

What you call broken is not irretriveably broken at all. But then, Bethesda has a hell of a lot more on its plate with TES than Bioware does with ME. The two can't even really be mentioned in the same sentence, and for Skyrim to work as well as it does and to completely bury ME where ongoing play and replay value is concerned out of the box, before mods are even considered? With that feature list? In complexity dumbed down TES is to ME what flying an F-16 is to tossing a paper plane. It's just not in the same galaxy.

And I'm not saying it should be or that this is a knock on ME. As someone else said earlier, TES is about what we were told it is about. Open ended choose your own adventure gameplay. There is not a single quest or choice in the game that one has to make or else the party is over. Not one. And technically there isn't much need for ridiculously extended guild quests in a game that you could play for the next 58 years without running out of random questing.

Sure, it's not perfect. And there are things that Morrowind, Oblivion, even original Arena had that were altered or taken away in Skyrim. But what exactly do you want? Try fletching your own arrows in Morrowind or any other TES game after literally shooting down hawks to gather their feathers. Compare melee or dual wield combat dynamics in Skyrim with earlier TES games. It's night and day. Compare graphical quality for a given rig level in Skyrim vs. Oblivion. You can't. Things are give and take, but TES shows continuous and consistent attempts at refinement and recognition of user concerns without a huge loss of core functionality and loss of its raison d'etre, despite having been ported to consoles. Plus, it was designed specifically with player wish list facilitating in mind. ME does not and was not. It does not allow you with its PC editing to take the entire game down to pickup sticks and reassemble it any way you want.

It is not Bethesda's fault if you play the game as is and don't take advantage of any of the design points that guarantee you will never have to be forced into playing the game as is. If ME had even a third as much flexibility as TES does fairly 80% of these player issues I read on here, including the endings problem, are nonstarters. At bare minimum, FemShep would actually move like a woman. I'd be willing to consider even that a major triumph.

this^

[Canned Bullets]

There's a difference between Adventure RPGs like Elder Scrolls and Action RPGs like Mass Effect; both are too different to compare.

Modifié par Canned Bullets, 03 avril 2012 - 10:54 .

[Kingthlayer]

Meh why does Mass Effect 3 need to best Skyrim, when Dragon Age Origins is already better than it.

[Gatt9]

Once again read my post again because clearly you are lost. By the way if I had to CHOOSE between A. a game like Skyrim to play for 60/100 hours+ or B.) a 10 hour action packed game - I'll choose that 100 hours EVERY-TIME. Why the hell would you WANT to buy a 60 dollar game (or MORE with this DLC crap these days) only to spend 10 hours with a story? That would seriously ****** me off unless it was a MP game with a SP campaign thrown together at the last-minute in which can't the SP experience isn't the point of the game.

Why?

Because Bethesda is unable to make anything but clones of TES:Arena with fewer features, more bugs, and larger bugs. Even with Fallout, all they could create was a clone of TES:Arena with guns.

I'm actually in awe that Bethesda games sell at all, I strongly suspect that the only reason it sells is because you can be an assassin, a vampire, or a werewolf.

Because honestly, the quality of their games is far below industry standards, and it's filled with just about everything the critics used to pan games for.

But then, I also have some thoughts on how these topics end up getting created as well...

[MsKlaussen]

Gatt9 wrote...

Once again read my post again because clearly you are lost. By the way if I had to CHOOSE between A. a game like Skyrim to play for 60/100 hours+ or B.) a 10 hour action packed game - I'll choose that 100 hours EVERY-TIME. Why the hell would you WANT to buy a 60 dollar game (or MORE with this DLC crap these days) only to spend 10 hours with a story? That would seriously ****** me off unless it was a MP game with a SP campaign thrown together at the last-minute in which can't the SP experience isn't the point of the game.

Why?

Because Bethesda is unable to make anything but clones of TES:Arena with fewer features, more bugs, and larger bugs. Even with Fallout, all they could create was a clone of TES:Arena with guns.

I'm actually in awe that Bethesda games sell at all, I strongly suspect that the only reason it sells is because you can be an assassin, a vampire, or a werewolf.

Because honestly, the quality of their games is far below industry standards, and it's filled with just about everything the critics used to pan games for.

But then, I also have some thoughts on how these topics end up getting created as well...

This is like complaining about Ferrari because they don't make anything but really sexy and absurdly fast cars when they really should have looked into building birdcages too.

There is nothing wrong with specialization. Find what you do well. Set the genre standard for it. Hold position for a decade. OR, you can try to do everything and really E.A. it up.

But if you really want to scoff at the merits of sticking to one title or type of title, you'd do better to be discussing 3D Realms. When all you have to do is Duke Nukem, and after what, 12 years of fooing around with the same edition or whatever all you've got to show for things is a cool boxcover? You may be a developer that sucks and needs to diversify.

[BeefoTheBold]

Skyrim was good, but not as good as people are portraying it as being.

Mass Effect could have blown it out of the water with ONE more year if they had just done the following things:

1. ENDINGS. (Duh)
2. Taken care of the small details that people REALLY CARE ABOUT. (Tali's face for example.)
3. Not done utterly eye-rollingly dumb things like killing off a well liked character by Twitter and replacing her with a blatant conflict of interest. (Chobot)
4. Beefed up the side quest system. (The whole "walk by someone and get a side quest assigned" is almost as dumb as DA2's "find some random piece of crap and use The Force to know who to turn it into and get cash-money" approach.)
5. Taken care of a couple of the blatantly stupid things. (Functioning journal, making MP truly OPTIONAL.)
6. Not cut out 1/3rd of the dialog options by removing the "Neutral" dialog option.

Really, not that hard. Year tops. Could be six months really.

[BeefoTheBold]

Big Mac Heart Attack wrote...

Meh why does Mass Effect 3 need to best Skyrim, when Dragon Age Origins is already better than it.

Because DAO is five years ago. Skyrim is one of the games that Bioware is competing against TODAY.

[Cadence of the Planes]

What do you mean bested? Outsell?

In terms of quality, I think ME3 could have bested skyrim even if it was released prematurely 2 years ago

[Redcoat]

Gatt9 wrote...

Once again read my post again because clearly you are lost. By the way if I had to CHOOSE between A. a game like Skyrim to play for 60/100 hours+ or B.) a 10 hour action packed game - I'll choose that 100 hours EVERY-TIME. Why the hell would you WANT to buy a 60 dollar game (or MORE with this DLC crap these days) only to spend 10 hours with a story? That would seriously ****** me off unless it was a MP game with a SP campaign thrown together at the last-minute in which can't the SP experience isn't the point of the game.

Why?

Because Bethesda is unable to make anything but clones of TES:Arena with fewer features, more bugs, and larger bugs. Even with Fallout, all they could create was a clone of TES:Arena with guns.

I'm actually in awe that Bethesda games sell at all, I strongly suspect that the only reason it sells is because you can be an assassin, a vampire, or a werewolf.

Because honestly, the quality of their games is far below industry standards, and it's filled with just about everything the critics used to pan games for.

But then, I also have some thoughts on how these topics end up getting created as well...

I suspect that the reason Skyrim did so well is that people are desperate for something - anything - that isn't "A space marine is you!" shooter. Had the game been released amidst other RPGs, I doubt people would have paid as much attention to it, and been more critical of the bland NPCs, dull and unmemorable quests, and a world devoid of anything interesting to find.

That it's also mod-friendly is also a selling point, I guess. Of course, it seems like most of the mods do nothing except make the female characters look like glittery, makeup-encrusted trollops with purple hair and armour that could charitably be described as two postage stamps and a piece of dental floss, but there you are.

[Zmidponk]

MsKlaussen wrote...

The difference between Skyrim and ME (as it relates to your post) however, is that with the construction kit every one of those issues can be fixed, and half of them have already. There are very easy to implement mods which quickly and effectively rethink and readjust the skill trees, adjust overall difficulty of the game either up or down, reintroduce spellmaking, recalculate adherence to level scaling, etc.

An hour after I discovered Skyrim Nexxus I had exactly the Skyrim installation I wanted. And then some. There are so many mods for it on that site alone it would take me another 8 months to get through them.

1000x this.  It's the runaway success of the modding scenes in games, principally the TES games, that make me wonder what in the blue **** EA/Bioware are thinking in making their games more and more difficult to mod.  Hell, even Morrowind still has something of a community on the go, thanks to mods, and that's coming up on the 10th anniversary of release.  As for Skyrim, people were so keen to get modding for that game that the Skyrim Nexus site hit something like 6500 mods before the Construction Kit was even released.

As for the actual subject of this thread, frankly, comparing Skyrim with the Mass Effect games is utterly nonsensical.  They're both, broadly speaking, RPGs - but that's about the sole thing they have in common.  Mass Effect is sci-fi, Skyrim is fantasy.   Mass Effect is about being lead through a story, making decisions that affect that story (leaving the ending of ME3 aside, for a moment), Skyrim is where you're someone in the middle of a world, free to do pretty much whatever you want, including completely ignoring the main questline, if you so choose.  About the only way you could have a more meaningless comparison is if you were comparing Skyrim with FIFA.

[Zalbik]

The Elder Scrolls games are made by a company that takes care of its customers. That is how Bioware used to be but since they are now owned by EA and just a division of said corporation they could care less about their customers. The only caring they seem to show these days are how much they can nickle and dime their customers.

Also 2 more years would not have made a difference because what is left of Bioware has no soul

[Ylhaym]

Even Fallout:New Vegas is better than Skyrim

 

Big Mac Heart Attack wrote...

Meh why does Mass Effect 3 need to best Skyrim, when Dragon Age Origins is already better than it.

 
+1

BeefoTheBold wrote...
Because DAO is five years ago. Skyrim is one of the games that Bioware is competing against TODAY.

Yes 2009 is 5 years ago... oh wait...

[MsKlaussen]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Skyrim was good, but not as good as people are portraying it as being.

Mass Effect could have blown it out of the water with ONE more year if they had just done the following things:

1. ENDINGS. (Duh)
2. Taken care of the small details that people REALLY CARE ABOUT. (Tali's face for example.)
3. Not done utterly eye-rollingly dumb things like killing off a well liked character by Twitter and replacing her with a blatant conflict of interest. (Chobot)
4. Beefed up the side quest system. (The whole "walk by someone and get a side quest assigned" is almost as dumb as DA2's "find some random piece of crap and use The Force to know who to turn it into and get cash-money" approach.)
5. Taken care of a couple of the blatantly stupid things. (Functioning journal, making MP truly OPTIONAL.)
6. Not cut out 1/3rd of the dialog options by removing the "Neutral" dialog option.

Really, not that hard. Year tops. Could be six months really.

You are essentially saying that ME could have outdone TES if Bioware's design philsophy mimicked Bethesda's. Because Bethesda has made everything on that list a given since TES Construction Kit began shipping with every game.

1. Endings : You always controlled those. If there was an ending at all, because you never needed to seek one.

2. Small details : Like how in Oblivion all the characters sounded like ogres when fighting, including the women. So Bethesda re-did the sound effects while they completely rewrote the game and graphics engines, leading to characters who not only don't look like they just hopped off the Vortex Rikers back in the 90's, but sound like actual people with correct genders, and render far better with less graphics power than any previous Windows game in the TES series, with a ridiculous amount of polys in scenery and effects to deal with as well.

3. See #1.

4. Sidequests have always been extensive in TES. Bethesda replaced manually created quests with a quest generation engine, meaning they are now infinite. If we want to split hairs, they are repetitive. But they are actually individually spawned quests and even rudimentary programming knowledge is enough to know that anything automatic and standards based is bound to have some repetition somewhere and applaud the effort. Since they could have instead simply reamed your bank account ceaslessly for every quest expansion via paid DLC.

5. Reserving the right to single #5 out above for particular praise. And then adding that MP is a truly separate effort in TES that is so far behind the promised single player nature of the game in priority that it can't be seen via satellite.

6. The dialogue options are fewer in Skyrim than in previous games, and there is no persuasion wheel (which was EZ to game anyways just like the locks are now), plus the journal is a bit more vague, but if these are, as I imagine, the best of the deferrences to console design Skyrim will offer? I'm not going to lose any sleep.

To these you have to add that everything we just discussed is override capable - the single biggest factor here. It's a philosophical difference. Both developers need to design for consoles and PCs. Bethesda recgonized and remembered what makes PC gaming different. Bioware either didn't, or was unable for whatever reason to fork development accordingly. ME was designed as a read only product. You cannot talk about what
Skyrim is or isn't "without modding". Modding is the understood and much adored reality between Bethesda and the fanbase that the game was
designed with. It's ironic that people here would scoff at that while in the middle of an uproar about a dev-fan disconnect that in the opinion of many, diminishes the entire title.

I sincerely doubt that the factors involved in that are of the sort that simply adding more time would have changed. For ME to have equal footing to compare to TES, the entire philosophy behind its design would have needed to change. And it is for that reason that such comparisons can't be made.

[Nepp]

Ylhaym wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...
Because DAO is five years ago. Skyrim is one of the games that Bioware is competing against TODAY.

Yes 2009 is 5 years ago... oh wait...

Well, technically DAO was finished in 2007, the EA merger put a halt to it while it was ported and polished.

But I agree, ME3 deserved more dev time. The short dev time really shows, the graphics aren't really better than ME2, and the animations are even worse than in ME2. Let's not forget about the bugs and plotholes!