130 réponses à ce sujet

[Seifer006]

RiouHotaru wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Consider that if Bioware is out of touch with the fanbase, could it be because the fanbase is out of touch with them? Or even worse, out of touch with reality? I don't think this is entirely the fault of the developer and publisher. The consumer is not blameless.

This, there's an equal share of blame to go around.

Fans wound up having unrealistic expectations that the developer couldn't match.

The developer made assumptions about the fanbase

And the publisher...well, I don't know if EA did anything inparticular to Bioware, and there's no proof.  So far the evidence says EA actually didn't do much at all.  They didn't force multiplayer, they didn't write the endings, etc, etc.  EA's fault might just be that they happened to be EA.

read my review, majority of the fans wanted. I too was expected bioware to deliever

[RiouHotaru]

I'm honestly with Wizardy here. A lot of your complaints Terror sort of fall flat.

So what if the genophage had replacement characters to fill the holes if Mordin or Wrex were dead? Those were there for a reason. Or did you conveniently forget that Mass Effect titles have been equally standalone AND connected?

As for the dialog, c'mon. The missing neutral option barely effected anything, and almost none of the auto-dialog was character-breaking. Most of it was entirely neutral or what you would be expected to say in a situation. Not to mention you know as well as I do this is a loaded problem. No matter HOW much control was given, someone would complain. ME2 had plenty of control, and people STILL complained that they couldn't say or do certain things.

As for the endings, again, Bioware made the assumption that it's own fanbase could come up with a conclusion on their own, in fact, for all intents and purposes Bioware gave players FULL agency over the endings. But apparently that wasn't what people wanted. They wanted to be told how it concluded. They didn't care that it was their story, or their Shepard to decide for, they wanted Bioware to explicitly tell them how it ended. And then when Bioware did, people had the audacity to still complain that they didn't get what they wanted despite being told what thy would receive.

[AresKeith]

EA is in charge of advertising the game, DLC, marketing and other things

and yes they have been known to rush their games out

[Seifer006]

RiouHotaru wrote...

I'm honestly with Wizardy here. A lot of your complaints Terror sort of fall flat.

So what if the genophage had replacement characters to fill the holes if Mordin or Wrex were dead? Those were there for a reason. Or did you conveniently forget that Mass Effect titles have been equally standalone AND connected?

As for the dialog, c'mon. The missing neutral option barely effected anything, and almost none of the auto-dialog was character-breaking. Most of it was entirely neutral or what you would be expected to say in a situation. Not to mention you know as well as I do this is a loaded problem. No matter HOW much control was given, someone would complain. ME2 had plenty of control, and people STILL complained that they couldn't say or do certain things.

As for the endings, again, Bioware made the assumption that it's own fanbase could come up with a conclusion on their own, in fact, for all intents and purposes Bioware gave players FULL agency over the endings. But apparently that wasn't what people wanted. They wanted to be told how it concluded. They didn't care that it was their story, or their Shepard to decide for, they wanted Bioware to explicitly tell them how it ended. And then when Bioware did, people had the audacity to still complain that they didn't get what they wanted despite being told what thy would receive.

you should read my review.

[Ninja Stan]

That's enough of this argument, thank you.

End of line.

[Terror_K]

xsdob wrote...

I find the amount of bashing rpg fans and bsn posters need to do to other genre's of games rather obsessive, almost like an insecurity reflex or something that makes them need to drag down other forms of games to make their games seem better.

Also makes me glad that as a more casual oriented genre gamer I can play call of duty, assassin's creed, batman, grand theft auto, mass effect, witcher 2, warhammer 40K, and bethesda exploration games and enjoy them all equally.

Speaking personally, I love a lot of different genres as well, but I think many misinterpret what form the so-called "bashing" is taking and what the target is exactly. For me, it's consistency that's the problem, not so much the form or forms of game.

Now, some people clearly don't seem to care that much about consistency within a series. They could quite happily play the next Dragon Age as a full on Golden Axe or God of War hack'n'slash action game with no RPG elements if the game itself was good.

For me, a game sequel should be consistent with the games that preceded them. I like Uncharted and Gears of War for example, but that doesn't mean I want Mass Effect to become those games. I play Mass Effect because I want a Mass Effect experience, not because I want Uncharted in space or Gears of War with more colour and less grunting. If I want to play Uncharted I'll play Uncharterd, and if I want to play Gears I'll play Gears. So it ticks me off when I'm playing BioWare games that are supposed to be sequels, but end up dumbing down, filtering out or automating factors that I enjoy about the series in favour of factors that I don't want in Mass Effect because I don't feel that it's part of the appeal or even style/feel of the series. Simply put, a game should remain true to its source material and original style and audience, and not just change things to be something its not just because it's a popular trend.

The other factor that's part of my dislike is that I feel that a lot of games are becoming samey these days, and while BioWare used to be different and unique and have their own style, they seem to be abandoning it lately to jump on the same bandwagon as many other developers. There are just so many story-driven, semi-cinematic action games with lite RPG elements these days that it seems that almost every second AAA title could fit into this category now, and to me it seems that BioWare have been abandoning their strengths and what made them special to just join the same party and do things the same. It's not so much that these games are bad that they're starting to mimick, but the market is starting to become saturated with a lot of very similar material, and the variety just isn't there anymore. Games should innovate and become more complex as time goes on, and while there's a certain degree of that with many of today's action titles, BioWare in many ways were already there, and now instead of innovating they're doing the opposite and making their games more generic and simple to appeal to a wider audience. Adding complexity and depth to an action game genre over the years is innovation and growth, but taking stuff away from the RPG genre to merely make it more accessible and crowdpleasing to a generation of gamers who previously found RPGs too complex is not. It's like BioWare has decided to gradually give up nuclear physics and particle science more and more and just be happy with high-school level science instead because not enough people were getting into their field due to it's complexity.

Again, it's not like these other games are bad, but BioWare games used to offer so much more. It was like BioWare didn't care about popularity and they just did what they loved before. Now it just seems like they're making these cold, heartless products in an endeavour to create the genetically perfect game that can appeal to both the jocks and the nerds and everybody between. Just like everybody else. So now we're heading in a direction where aside from the odd gems of originality like Portal 2, we're largely getting the same games in slightly different clothing each time.