597 réponses à ce sujet

[I am disappoint]

Blueprotoss wrote...

I am disappoint wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

I am disappoint wrote...

But they were a problem in Mass effect 3.
Real shabby writing and loads of plot holes, probably due to incompetence from Bioware.
Very disappointing. 

The problems were created in Mass effect 3 as they did not exist in ME2 or ME1.

So I see you're resorting to straw-men because ME is Bioware's story and ME3 is reflected by by ME1/ME2.

I see you ran out of points and no longer have anything meaningful to say about the topic at hand.
Plot holes and incoherent writing doesn't really have anything to do with Straw men or straw people.

How have I run out of ideas when I'm not the one thats saying that ME3 is filled with plot holes and incoherent writing.  If ME3 was filled with plot holes and incoherent writing then ME3 would contradict ME1 and ME2, which would cause them to be filled with plot holes and incoherent writing.

That's not how stories work.
When ME3 condradicted ME1, it was not the fault of ME1 that it got retconned as ME3 was the latest installment the reason a contradiction occured. 
Like the Mass effect book Deception, just because Deception made loads of mistakes that were said to be not true in previous books and games, doesn't mean it was the fault of them, it was Deceptions fault.
Just like the problems are Mass effect 3 fault.

Besides a lot of the plot hole don't even have anything to do with Mass effect 1 or 2.
It's just between ME3 and Mass effect Universe, mostly the fault of ME3 yet again in this case.

[fainmaca]

Blueprotoss wrote...
Ironically ME3 was advertised around the same amount that ME2 was while ME1 was advertised the most out of the series based on Microsoft's decisions.  An example of EA doing a lot of advertising would be with Battlefield 3.  Heck, Dante's Inferno had more advertising then ME3 especially with the fact religious protest during one of the E3s.  Yet you assume that the Mutiplayer vastly expanded the audienece in ME3, which thats a crazy assumption.

I didn't refer at any point to the amount of marketing. I referred to the type of marketing, the way it was marketed. Say what you will about how much they put in, its doesn't matter if it was less than other franchises. What matters was that it was there. They don't need that to reel in previous players. That is there to draw in new customers.

I also never said that MP caused a massive increase. That's you putting that spin in there. I said that MP inclusion made me (and possibly a number of other previous customers) doubt the game.

How are they marginally when ME3 outsold both ME1 and ME2 with 1st month and continuous sales.  

They are marginally valuable in weighing up the game's worth as a 'good' game. Read what I am typing. At launch, we as consumers had nothing to go on but the marketing and past experience. For a sequel, this is what it relies upon. A new standalone game relies upon demonstrated worth. The sales in March are not from it being a good game, they are from the marketing campaign and the pre-existing fanbase. What is so hard to get about that?

If it was from Silverman then that the bold would have been in quotations.

It is in quotations.

[Blueprotoss]

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...

I'm just going to quote the entire part of the interview for you from the CVG source. Read what Silverman says, please. The second paragraph.

Question: Would you say it had more traditional RPG elements than in ME2?

Silverman: Absolutely. Hands down. We get this question a lot. Mass Effect 2 won 150 Game Of The Year awards, right. How do you improve on that? One of the things at BioWare is that we don't look at that and kick back: 'Job done, let's give them that again.'

We've done a lot of research about what people like about Mass Effect, Mass Effect 2 and other games too; what do they like about Gears Of War? Why does that game do what it does? Same goes for Assassin's Creed, Halo, Call Of Duty and lots of RPG games too... we've looked at all these games to see what's resonating and what's not.

On the one hand, we don't want to go too far down the rabbit hole where Shepard starts rolling dice, but on the other hand we don't want to ignore that coolness - where people can customise parts of their character and making them feel that it's them in the adventure. We capitalise on that in spades in ME3.

Yet Silverman/Bioware were inspired by Gears and Uncharted based on the cover system not by CoD, Halo, or Assassin's Creed.  Again its not my fault that you didn't read the article while talking Bioware quotes out of context isn't anything new on BSN.

[Blueprotoss]

I am disappoint wrote...

That's not how stories work.
When ME3 condradicted ME1, it was not the fault of ME1 that it got retconned as ME3 was the latest installment the reason a contradiction occured. 
Like the Mass effect book Deception, just because Deception made loads of mistakes that were said to be not true in previous books and games, doesn't mean it was the fault of them, it was Deceptions fault.
Just like the problems are Mass effect 3 fault.

Besides a lot of the plot hole don't even have anything to do with Mass effect 1 or 2.
It's just between ME3 and Mass effect Universe, mostly the fault of ME3 yet again in this case.

This is ironic when Bioware descides what happens in ME even when they didn't contradict themselves.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 07 septembre 2012 - 03:43 .

[Chaotic-Fusion]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...

I'm just going to quote the entire part of the interview for you from the CVG source. Read what Silverman says, please. The second paragraph.

Question: Would you say it had more traditional RPG elements than in ME2?

Silverman: Absolutely. Hands down. We get this question a lot. Mass Effect 2 won 150 Game Of The Year awards, right. How do you improve on that? One of the things at BioWare is that we don't look at that and kick back: 'Job done, let's give them that again.'

We've done a lot of research about what people like about Mass Effect, Mass Effect 2 and other games too; what do they like about Gears Of War? Why does that game do what it does? Same goes for Assassin's Creed, Halo, Call Of Duty and lots of RPG games too... we've looked at all these games to see what's resonating and what's not.

On the one hand, we don't want to go too far down the rabbit hole where Shepard starts rolling dice, but on the other hand we don't want to ignore that coolness - where people can customise parts of their character and making them feel that it's them in the adventure. We capitalise on that in spades in ME3.

Yet Silverman/Bioware were inspired by Gears and Uncharted based on the cover system not by CoD, Halo, or Assassin's Creed.  Again its not my fault that you didn't read the article while talking Bioware quotes out of context isn't anything new on BSN.

What fainmaca quoted was said by Silverman. Which you insisted wasn't. Now I have no idea what you're trying to argue. 
Read the second paragraph. Again and again and again and again if necessary.

Anyway, I'm done. There is no point to this.

[Blueprotoss]

fainmaca wrote...

I didn't refer at any point to the amount of marketing. I referred to the type of marketing, the way it was marketed. Say what you will about how much they put in, its doesn't matter if it was less than other franchises. What matters was that it was there. They don't need that to reel in previous players. That is there to draw in new customers.

Marketing normally will atract new customers just like what happened with ME2 and DA.

fainmaca wrote... 

I also never said that MP caused a massive increase. That's you putting that spin in there. I said that MP inclusion made me (and possibly a number of other previous customers) doubt the game.

I'm sorry then while I doubted the MP until I played the final version when ME3 was released.

fainmaca wrote... 

They are marginally valuable in weighing up the game's worth as a 'good' game. Read what I am typing. At launch, we as consumers had nothing to go on but the marketing and past experience. For a sequel, this is what it relies upon. A new standalone game relies upon demonstrated worth. The sales in March are not from it being a good game, they are from the marketing campaign and the pre-existing fanbase. What is so hard to get about that?

If thats the case then ME3 would have died in April.  You should remember that ME3 was successful based on ME1 and ME2 while it was also a successful game based on some people playing it as a stand alone game.  There are always people late to a franchise that may or amy not play the previous titles afterwards.

fainmaca wrote... 

It is in quotations.

Yet they're taken out of context.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 07 septembre 2012 - 03:53 .

[Blueprotoss]

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...

What fainmaca quoted was said by Silverman. Which you insisted wasn't. Now I have no idea what you're trying to argue. 
Read the second paragraph. Again and again and again and again if necessary.

Anyway, I'm done. There is no point to this.

Yet the evidence is in the fifth paragraph in the article because ME was inspired by the cover system in Gears and Uncharted.  Either way this is from Silverman and he's one of the thousands of Bioware employees.  It also isn't new that a Biowate quote is taken out of context on BSN.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 07 septembre 2012 - 03:58 .

[fainmaca]

Blueprotoss wrote...
Marketing normally will atract new customers just like what happened with ME2 and DA.

That's what I am saying. Part/most of ME3's increase over the previous two games would be attributed to the marketing rather than the game's actual merit. You can pretty much assume that almost everything up to matching the sales of the previous two games comes from the pre-existing fanbase. New players were drawn in by marketing and said fanbase's word-of-mouth.

If thats the case then ME3 would have died in April.  You should remember that ME3 was successful based on ME1 and ME2 while it was also a successful game based on some people playing it as a stand alone game.  There are always people late to a franchise that may or amy not play the previous titles afterwards.

I agree about the new players, that's what the marketing is for. The point I am debating is you saying that March's figures were proof of the game's merit. They are not. They are just proof that plenty of people bought it, and the marketing team earned their wages.

But I would also debate your apparent stance that ME3 has continued to do well since. Declining interest in the MP side of things evidenced by emptier game lobbies, continued dissent from a significant portion of the fanbase, and the sharp drop in the game's price indicate to me that it has not aged well.

Yet they're taken out of context.

How are they taken out of context? I simply quoted his response, word for word. He was asked how other games have influenced Bioware's game development, and he responded with those exact words. He states very clearly that they take inspiration from other games. If you mirror something from another game, your own creation by default will begin to resemble it. That's the whole point of the process.

[knightnblu]

Story cohesion, choices discounted at the end, unfulfilled promises made by BioWare.

[Blueprotoss]

knightnblu wrote...

Story cohesion, choices discounted at the end, unfulfilled promises made by BioWare.

This is far from true  especially when choice isn't denied and Bioware didn't lie.

[Blueprotoss]

fainmaca wrote...

That's what I am saying. Part/most of ME3's increase over the previous two games would be attributed to the marketing rather than the game's actual merit. You can pretty much assume that almost everything up to matching the sales of the previous two games comes from the pre-existing fanbase. New players were drawn in by marketing and said fanbase's word-of-mouth.

All I'm saying its nothing new.

fainmaca wrote... 

I agree about the new players, that's what the marketing is for. The point I am debating is you saying that March's figures were proof of the game's merit. They are not. They are just proof that plenty of people bought it, and the marketing team earned their wages.

If March wasn't accurate then ME3 would have died in March and there are still a lot of ME3 copies being sold.

fainmaca wrote...  

But I would also debate your apparent stance that ME3 has continued to do well since. Declining interest in the MP side of things evidenced by emptier game lobbies, continued dissent from a significant portion of the fanbase, and the sharp drop in the game's price indicate to me that it has not aged well.

MP has far from declined especially when looking at the N7 challenges.

fainmaca wrote...  

How are they taken out of context? I simply quoted his response, word for word. He was asked how other games have influenced Bioware's game development, and he responded with those exact words. He states very clearly that they take inspiration from other games. If you mirror something from another game, your own creation by default will begin to resemble it. That's the whole point of the process.

Its easy to take something out of context since Gears and Uncharted were actually mentioned as inspirations based on the cover systems. 

[DirtyPhoenix]

Unfulfilled promises, lesser amount of sidequests, f**king linearity and overall feeling of being rushed and cutting corners.

[Sulious Vandomar]

Anything and everything about the Crucible. The game should have been about uniting a fractured galaxy, not building a super weapon that led to a ****ty final hour of the game.

[I am disappoint]

Blueprotoss wrote...

I am disappoint wrote...

That's not how stories work.
When ME3 condradicted ME1, it was not the fault of ME1 that it got retconned as ME3 was the latest installment the reason a contradiction occured. 
Like the Mass effect book Deception, just because Deception made loads of mistakes that were said to be not true in previous books and games, doesn't mean it was the fault of them, it was Deceptions fault.
Just like the problems are Mass effect 3 fault.

Besides a lot of the plot hole don't even have anything to do with Mass effect 1 or 2.
It's just between ME3 and Mass effect Universe, mostly the fault of ME3 yet again in this case.

This is ironic when Bioware descides what happens in ME even when they didn't contradict themselves.

Is English your second language?
Your words are a bit muddled up, in fact nothing in the sentence is coherent. 

[AlanC9]

I liked some of the things people are complaining about, personally. I don't think the CRPG traditions of sidequests and nonlinearity are good for all RPGs, or for this one in particular. ( If they'd removed credits and shops we'd have really had something)

After the EC I'm pretty much OK with the ending. What still bugs me is the junky animation, like jumpy cutscenes and Exorcist heads.

[AresKeith]

AlanC9 wrote...

I liked some of the things people are complaining about, personally. I don't think the CRPG traditions of sidequests and nonlinearity are good for all RPGs, or for this one in particular. ( If they'd removed credits and shops we'd have really had something)
.

well most people actually liked the side-quests of ME1 and ME2, thats what they mostly expect in RPG type games

and the over use of auto-dialogue was killing the role-playing aspect of the game

Modifié par AresKeith, 07 septembre 2012 - 04:44 .

[ghost9191]

yeah wouldn't have minded the fetch quests if we had to go down to the planet to retrieve the item. rather then jsut scanning and leaving

liked the exploration and such of ME2

[Blueprotoss]

I am disappoint wrote...

Is English your second language?
Your words are a bit muddled up, in fact nothing in the sentence is coherent. 

Insulting people won't help you especially when you're proven to be in the wrong.  If there was a problem then you would have mentioned it 2 pages ago.

[PuppiesOfDeath2]

legion999 wrote...

 Mine would have to either be auto-dialogue or lack luster side missions.

Star Brat

[Blueprotoss]

AresKeith wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

I liked some of the things people are complaining about, personally. I don't think the CRPG traditions of sidequests and nonlinearity are good for all RPGs, or for this one in particular. ( If they'd removed credits and shops we'd have really had something)
.

well most people actually liked the side-quests of ME1 and ME2, thats what they mostly expect in RPG type games

Yet everyone has their own likes and dislikes withe each of the ME game just like anyhting else.  Btw there were still a good amount of side-quests in ME3 just like in ME2 while they're both outnumbered by the amount in ME1.

[AresKeith]

Blueprotoss wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

I liked some of the things people are complaining about, personally. I don't think the CRPG traditions of sidequests and nonlinearity are good for all RPGs, or for this one in particular. ( If they'd removed credits and shops we'd have really had something)
.

well most people actually liked the side-quests of ME1 and ME2, thats what they mostly expect in RPG type games

Yet everyone has their own likes and dislikes withe each of the ME game just like anyhting else.  Btw there were still a good amount of side-quests in ME3 just like in ME2 while they're both outnumbered by the amount in ME1.

the majority of side-quests in ME3 were fetech quests and most of those had potential for us to actually land on the planet, just like ME2 did. And it doesn't matter how many side quests there

[Blueprotoss]

AresKeith wrote...

the majority of side-quests in ME3 were fetech quests and most of those had potential for us to actually land on the planet, just like ME2 did. And it doesn't matter how many side quests there

The majority of ME3 side quests were actually N7 or ME2/ME3 squadmate based missions while fetch quests are fetch quests.  Its ironic when you're saying that the number of side missions don't matter when you were previously talking about the amount of them.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 07 septembre 2012 - 04:53 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

ghost9191 wrote...

yeah wouldn't have minded the fetch quests if we had to go down to the planet to retrieve the item.

You mean making them actual side missions and not fillers? I love ME3 overall but when I see what they did to the majority of the sidequests and what it could have been (imagine landing in Kar'Shan and retrieving the pillar of strength, along with some Batarian soldiers maybe, or fighting alongside Elcor tanks on Dakuuna) it makes me very angry :/

Blueprotoss wrote...
Btw there
were still a good amount of side-quests in ME3 just like in ME2 while
they're both outnumbered by the amount in ME1.

It needed more. Atleast as many as ME2 had. Not exactly a fan of ME1 sidequests either. They were more in number but generally inferior than ME2 or 3 apart from a few. Ofcourse, opinions and such..

Modifié par pirate1802, 07 septembre 2012 - 04:57 .

[AresKeith]

Blueprotoss wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

the majority of side-quests in ME3 were fetech quests and most of those had potential for us to actually land on the planet, just like ME2 did. And it doesn't matter how many side quests there

The majority of ME3 side quests were actually N7 or ME2/ME3 squadmate based missions while fetch quests are fetch quests.  Its ironic when you're saying that the number of side missions don't matter when you were previously talking about the amount of them.

1. If you look at the crappy journal, other than the main missions most of them were fetch quests, which most of those could've been actual missions like how ME2 was

2. I said they didn't matter because your trying to compare the number of side missions to the other games when that doesn't matter

[Blueprotoss]

pirate1802 wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...
Btw there were still a good amount of side-quests in ME3 just like in ME2 while they're both outnumbered by the amount in ME1.

It needed more. Atleast as many as ME2 had. Not exactly a fan of ME1 sidequests either. They were more in number but generally inferior than ME2 or 3 apart from a few. Ofcourse, opinions and such..

ME3 could have had more while I think ME3 reached a balance just like in ME2.  You're correct will everything else even when ME1 is my favorite out of series.