122 réponses à ce sujet

[Fredvdp]

Absolutely. I feel like EA expected existing fans to buy the game anyway, so they modified the design of the game to be appealing to the average gamer. Sidequests are given to you for free with no exploration required. The dialog wheel has two choices and one investigate option (if you're lucky) as opposed to ME2's 2-3 choices with 2-5 investigate options. The shift from ME1 to ME3 feels like the difference between 2001: A Space Odyssey and Armageddon to me.

[hostaman]

 Can't imagine the CoD crew ever really going for a game like this, so I'm not sure about it being broadened, however as others have suggested it does feel a bit rushed in places, and somehow smaller than ME2.

E.g. with the Autodialogue and fetch side missions seems like they were trying to add more content on the cheap.  I still think the game is great overall, but just not as polished as ME2.

[elitecom]

Cerbrus operative wrote...

Ownedbacon wrote...

Yes
Multiplayer
"Better" with Kinect
Jessica Chobot
Single Hub - more than one could be overwhelming
Railroading choices - make it easier for new players
Shepard obsessed with Ventboy - in order to force/establish characteristics so the protagonist for new players where players from previous installments already have an established character.
Choices made throughout the series undone/redone for new players to make like the Rachni.
Space ninjas lol

You forgot to mention the ridiculous "Take Back Earth" trailers.

Might as well add the addition of action mode and story mode incase someone can't lower or increase the difficulty settings.

[Cainne Chapel]

elitecom wrote...

EnvyTB075 wrote...

MandaPanda81 wrote...

The ones whose biggest complaint about ME 3 is the gameplay?  Could you point a couple out to me?  I don't think I've encountered this creature...

That would be me. I felt like i was playing Gears of War all over again, and if i wanted that i would have played Gears of War.

Instead, i was playing ME3....apparently.

And me. I mean ME3's gameplay is probably great if you want to play a TPS or Gears of Wars, but if you want to play a Mass Effect game(a roleplaying game) it's not so great.

whats wrong witht he TPS gameplay? ME has been a VERY action oriented series from teh start, ME2 and ME3 just refined combat so it wasn't so much of a mess as it was with ME1.

Also ME has NEVER been a straight role playing game so I dont expect it to play like one. Even ME1 didn't play like a good RPG it played like a bad mishmash RPG/TPS

so im not seeing the deal with the complaint for ME3s gameplay

[Cainne Chapel]

Ownedbacon wrote...

Yes
Multiplayer
"Better" with Kinect
Jessica Chobot
Single Hub - more than one could be overwhelming
Railroading choices - make it easier for new players
Shepard obsessed with Ventboy - in order to force/establish characteristics so the protagonist for new players where players from previous installments already have an established character.
Choices made throughout the series undone/redone for new players to make like the Rachni.
Space ninjas lol

Nothing wrong with Multiplayer, heck I myself might of even enjoyed Co-op.  Nothing wrong with multiplayer in an RPG or TPS and its not like its never beend one before, even by bioware (Neverwinter nights ring a bell)

Better with kinect is just good old MS marketing to push a product, I tend to ignore that

Jessica Chobot, eh Fanservice I guess, dont quite know how that appeals to a "broader" audience

Single Hub- yes more hubs would of been nice, but with the way the story is set up it makes sense.  Kinda hard to go to a hub if its been taken over/destroyed.  besides what other hubs would one need outside of the normandy really?

Railroading choices- you mean as opposed to the freeform choices we didn't have in 1 and 2? Come on we were always railroaded to a degree, its just a matter of how much or how little you paid attention to it. We have always only ever had 1 or 2 or no choices when it came to things during ME1 or 2 as well.

Ventboy I dont see the problem with, it was just supposed ot signifiy shepards "human" connection I guess.

All in all I see most of those issues as personal problems rather than ME3 trying to much to appeal to a broader audience, which lets be honest here, pretty much most games try to appeal to as broad a market as they can. 

But I still dont have an issue with it as while i'm playing i'm not sitting here thinking "Oh they must of done this for new players" I didn't do it in ME1 nor did I do it with ME2.

[Loaderini]

 YES.


especially when it comes to kids that just wanna shoot things and skip cinematics, skip dialog and "how it ended? don't remember. hey, what's your nickname? wanna play multiplayer together?"

Modifié par Loaderini, 08 août 2012 - 06:35 .

[Lionfranky]

They tried to appeal to new audience too much that our choices from previous games had little to no impact at all....

[jeffyg93]

Lionfranky wrote...

They tried to appeal to new audience too much that our choices from previous games had little to no impact at all....

No, they quite ****ing did.

Tuchanka? Rannoch? Did you play the ****ing game at all?

Someone without an import is going to have a pretty ****ty and depressing experience.


And I'm kinda disgusted by this thread, it makes us all sound like entitled elitists. Mass Effect isn't some ****ing exclusive club. There is no problem with appealing to a broader audience. The more people that enjoy the game, the better. The new additions that appeal to more audiences (full auto dialogue, multiplayer, easier difficulty, etc) are all ****ing optional and do not detract from the single-player experience.

[knightnblu]

The only appeal to a wider audience should come from the story. Either a story appeals to you or it does not. By pandering to the so called "wider" audience all EA/BioWare did was to water down the experience for the fans who paid for and played ME1 and 2 and pre-purchased ME3. By the way, thanks for that BioWare!

The great reduction in choices, tracked dialog, absent dialog where there should have been some, and step and fetch it quests were tiresome. Where were the key objectives to advance the galactic war? Where were the rescues of key strategists trapped in enemy space? Where were the black ops missions against key enemy assets? Where were the space battles with the Normandy strutting her stuff? Where were the boarding party missions designed to extract intelligence? Where was the R&D that would give us some small edge here and there? It was all absent.

There is a hell of a lot of ground left uncovered in the galactic war which I hope will be taken care of with massive amounts of DLC that should have been included in the SP game, but wasn't. That shell of a game that was ME3 is the price that we paid for pandering to the wider audience and don't even get me started on MP.

[Femlob]

txgoldrush wrote...

More crybaby RPG elitist garbage.....

Please....

And people think that Biowares other games were not rushed and were polished? WOW. Try the obvious beta.....the 360 version of ME1 with cut and paste side quests.

No wonder why I find BSN ignorant.

"And yet, if I were to plant an axe in your skull at night, I would be arrested. How is that justice?"

If we leave things up to the likes of EA and Bioware, people'll have forgotten what a RPG is supposed to be like in a few generations. It's not elitism; it's trying to protect something from going extinct.

[jeffyg93]

Femlob wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

More crybaby RPG elitist garbage.....

Please....

And people think that Biowares other games were not rushed and were polished? WOW. Try the obvious beta.....the 360 version of ME1 with cut and paste side quests.

No wonder why I find BSN ignorant.

"And yet, if I were to plant an axe in your skull at night, I would be arrested. How is that justice?"

If we leave things up to the likes of EA and Bioware, people'll have forgotten what a RPG is supposed to be like in a few generations. It's not elitism; it's trying to protect something from going extinct.

"People enjoying a game in a different way than me? THEY'RE WRONG, THAT'S NOT A TRUE RPG! btw im not elitist!"

RPGs are not being threatened. There will always be a market for them as long as fans exist.

Modifié par jeffyg93, 08 août 2012 - 08:33 .

[spirosz]

Atakuma wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

Yes
Reams of auto-dialogue and railroaded actions where choices used to be.

Neither of those things really have anything to do with appealing to a broader audience. There was really no need for the amount of auto dialogue when they had action mode, it was purely a stylistic choice, and the so called railroading was all about recources.

Actually, some people complained that the dialogue was a hassle.... so it could of been related to that. 

Back to the poll - Yes, but hey, it sold well and "I'm just the minority!" 

[Greed1914]

jeffyg93 wrote...

Femlob wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

More crybaby RPG elitist garbage.....

Please....

And people think that Biowares other games were not rushed and were polished? WOW. Try the obvious beta.....the 360 version of ME1 with cut and paste side quests.

No wonder why I find BSN ignorant.

"And yet, if I were to plant an axe in your skull at night, I would be arrested. How is that justice?"

If we leave things up to the likes of EA and Bioware, people'll have forgotten what a RPG is supposed to be like in a few generations. It's not elitism; it's trying to protect something from going extinct.

"People enjoying a game in a different way than me? THEY'RE WRONG, THAT'S NOT A TRUE RPG! btw im not elitist!"

RPGs are not being threatened. There will always be a market for them as long as fans exist.

Assuming you can even get the funding for such a thing.  EA has a goal of selling 5 million copies for many of its games and isn't very interested in anything that won't hit huge numbers.  Developers of the more niche genres, like Dobule Fine, are turning toward things like Kickstarter because the publishers that hold the money don't want anything to do with these types of games. 

[ChickenDownUnder]

Nah. To me, it seemed like Bioware's 'broader appeal' game in the Mass Effect series was actually ME2, the events of which were mostly made irrelevant in ME3.

The main, biggest problem I see in ME3 is too much focus on the artsy side of things. Like the writers sat down and just asked themselves what would be cool without considering much of anything else. Why certain characters are doing what they're doing, the main plot, what would the player actually like, how would it fit in with the past games, etc etc.

Like the whole Thane and Kai Leng fight. Sure, on the surface it looked cool, but that is only if you ignored how completely senseless it was for such a scene to even exist. Why would Shepard and co suddenly forget they had guns to shoot Kai Leng with? Would Shepard really just stand back a few feet away and let a sick friend--skilled friend or no--attack an assassin? For a guy who has to get up close to use his sword, Kai Leng sure isn't all that stealthy either. Goes on and on and on....

[elitecom]

Cainne Chapel wrote...whats wrong witht he TPS gameplay? ME has been a VERY action oriented series from teh start, ME2 and ME3 just refined combat so it wasn't so much of a mess as it was with ME1.

Also ME has NEVER been a straight role playing game so I dont expect it to play like one. Even ME1 didn't play like a good RPG it played like a bad mishmash RPG/TPS

so im not seeing the deal with the complaint for ME3s gameplay

ME1 is a roleplaying game, a bit different than KotOR perhaps but nevertheless a roleplaying game. The problem with the TPS gameplay of ME3 is its abundance, if I want to play a TPS I can just get Gears of Wars. With ME1 Bioware tried to do something original with the gameplay, they created a system with an entirely original take on accuracy and damage. In my eyes the combat wasn't just changed in ME2 & 3 it was arguably made much similar to the combat you'd find in a TPS.  

Bottom line Mass Effect 3 hasn't original gameplay in terms of combat, it's almost exactly like Gears of Wars save for your powers. 

I for one appreciate when developers try to do something new and make a game or feature that stands out. There is a striking trend of commonality within the different game genres these days, especially in the FPS one. And when Bioware makes a system which is both original and is working, then it saddens me to see it be removed and replaced with something which exists in abundance.  

[Iakus]

jeffyg93 wrote...

Lionfranky wrote...

They tried to appeal to new audience too much that our choices from previous games had little to no impact at all....

No, they quite ****ing did.

Tuchanka? Rannoch? Did you play the ****ing game at all?

Someone without an import is going to have a pretty ****ty and depressing experience.


And I'm kinda disgusted by this thread, it makes us all sound like entitled elitists. Mass Effect isn't some ****ing exclusive club. There is no problem with appealing to a broader audience. The more people that enjoy the game, the better. The new additions that appeal to more audiences (full auto dialogue, multiplayer, easier difficulty, etc) are all ****ing optional and do not detract from the single-player experience.

I did have an import, and it was still a depressing experience.  What's your point?

There's nothing wrong with trying to reach a broader audience.  But if you do it by alienating your old audience and abandoning what put you on the map to begin with, then what does it profit you?  If you make your rpgs more popular by stripping away what made your rpgs special, what have you accomplished?

[Edorian27]

I have to say: Partly.

Because on the one hand I belive creating the 3rd game in such a series should adress the 1+2 players for 95% of the time imho, they owe this to the fanbase who lived through the first two adventures with Shepard.
So I think the "trial" scene in London should have been much more detailed and there should have been more past references.

Also, the should have stuck with a slightly more sophisticated and grown-up game (less action/ shooter style, more RPG, Dialogue and character build)


On the other hand: There are still a lot contributions to the "veterans" like the dialogues with Squadmates I totally enjoyed in light of the relations developed throughout the first two games, the cameos of ME2 characters and such.
So they didn't completly forgot about the fanbase.

[someguy1231]

I think many of you overestimate the impact of Bioware's attempts at wider appeal. Much of the things people have mentioned - autodialogue, meaningless decisions - were done more the result of the game being rushed. A newcomer who tries to get into ME3's story without having played the first two games will still be completely lost. Besides, if they were really going for the new crowd, they would've given the game a cliche, "You took back Earth!", feel-good type of ending. Instead, Bioware tried to be "artsy" and gave us that pretentious idiocy we got for an ending.

[AnthonyDraft]

"It's the best place to start the trilogy" enough said. -.-

ME2 was the best place to start, because it had a new beginning, but not ME3.

[JosieFrances]

chemiclord wrote...

Yes.

I also believe they had no choice. EA's entire business plan is about selling millions of copies. To fit that model, Bioware HAD to develop ME3 to a broad audience.

Yeah I agree, I really wish they weren't partnered with EA ><

[F4H bandicoot]

jeffyg93 wrote...


No, they quite ****ing did.

Tuchanka? Rannoch? Did you play the ****ing game at all?

Someone without an import is going to have a pretty ****ty and depressing experience.


And I'm kinda disgusted by this thread, it makes us all sound like entitled elitists. Mass Effect isn't some ****ing exclusive club. There is no problem with appealing to a broader audience. The more people that enjoy the game, the better. The new additions that appeal to more audiences (full auto dialogue, multiplayer, easier difficulty, etc) are all ****ing optional and do not detract from the single-player experience.

Rachni
Collector base



The single player is already detracted and is **** compared to 2, my choices don't matter, my shep is a ****ing retard and is railroaded in sucking hacketts balls.
Why add a story and action mode?? Want action, turn the difficulty to insanity, want story, put it on normal. The whole point of the game is making choices and having conversations, put action mode on , it becomes a stupidly generic game of boredom.

Modifié par F4H bandicoot, 08 août 2012 - 09:59 .

[jokey javik]

chemiclord wrote...

jokey javik wrote...

Someone at ea should have said ok here is the rpg average profit margins lets just make sure that we can at least stay around that and let bioware do there thing.

Repeat this line to yourself.

Continue doing so until you understand what is wrong with that statement, and why it would never happen.

would have been nice but I expect nothing from ea I like to sit on the sidelines eat popcorn and see just how much one company can not improve a product but degrade it.

Broader audience ok here is the secret to getting and keeping them make a great game greater not water it down.

[Shaleist]

legion999 wrote...

Shaleist wrote...
This question is biased. If I say 'No' it means I feel that they weren't catering to the knuckle dragging audiences of the world.  BUT I think they did.  However if I say 'yes' it suggests the makers 'Tried to hard' when in fact the entire game kept striking me as being either rushed to the extreme or made in a LAZY fashion.  So I don't know how to answer this poll other than this image.

I'm sorry.  

I forgive you.

Modifié par Shaleist, 09 août 2012 - 10:47 .