406 réponses à ce sujet

[Dragoonlordz]

Next stop, IGA's which I hope ME3 wins some catagories too.

[4stringwizard]

EntropicAngel wrote...

spirosz wrote...

Well, that's subjective at best, IMO, but I see what you're getting at, I just disagree 

Fair enough. I have no problem with that...

4stringwizard wrote...

Skyrim is an RPG.  Deal with it. 

...but this, on the other hand, just makes me smile.

Deal with it. 

[Someone With Mass]

spirosz wrote...

ME series has always been a true hybrid in my perspective.  ME1 being more heavily influenced in the RPG sense (stats, inventory, etc), ME2 more heavily focused on action, gameplay, etc, and ME3 trying to strike that balance (which it didn't achieve for me, personally).  

Yeah, it tried, but it's not standing out, because I can see some things it's doing in plenty of other games. Like the whole weapon system.

[xsdob]

I never run out of good rpg's to play, because I consider any game where you assume the role of another character's life to be a role playing game.

Thus, almost every modern game is a role playing game, and I never run out of modern games to play that I can enjoy.

Of course when it comes to CMG's, that's where the depletion starts.

Modifié par xsdob, 08 décembre 2012 - 09:33 .

[4stringwizard]

Lathrim wrote...

4stringwizard wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

spirosz wrote...



And by choices you mean, by story/ impact on story?  You choose how your character looks, you can get different dialogue choices, you choose how to fight, which quests to do, etc.  

Absolutely not. i mean choices that define your character.

Skyrim is an RPG.  Deal with it. 

By your definition. Stop tossing it at people and understand that "role-playing game" is too wide a genre and term to have a strict and factual definition.  I can certainly comprehend why EntropicAngel believes Skyrim is not a RPG, even though I disagree.

It's not the fact that he doesn't believe it to be an RPG - it's his reasoning behind it, which I think is rather silly and ill-reasoned.  But I don't feel like getting into a "what defines an RPG debate", so I'll politely tip my hat and wish you all good day. 

GOOD DAY SIR!!!

[TheProtheans]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Next stop, IGA's which I hope ME3 wins some catagories too.

That is incorrect English.
ME3 only won 1 category which had barely any competition.

[Dragoonlordz]

TheProtheans wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Next stop, IGA's which I hope ME3 wins some catagories too.

That is incorrect English.
ME3 only won 1 category which had barely any competition.

Not at all. My use of the English language is just fine thanks. It is nominated for many catagories in the IGA's.

[CDRSkyShepard]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

clarkusdarkus wrote...

Whoa now chief seems your reading what u want to read..........ME3 having an option for action mode is ridiculous considering ME1/2 didnt have it................now what part of that is me saying i didnt like it? it's out of place and doesnt belong in ME.....

Who you trying to fool? You did not like it in ME franchise because you feel does not belong in it, you said so yourself. You also said you did not like them saying "too videogamey", when in reality action mode is for many more videogamey than the other modes. You hate that ME had a videogamey mode yet also hate that they said did not want something because was too videogamey. Make up your mind.

Action mode =/= "videogamey" mode
Unless you want to say anything that isn't a straight-up shooter isn't a video game.

Really, if you want to look at it from a perspective of action-y being the definition videogamey, then BW's the hypocrite, because they made an action mode when they didn't want things to be too videogamey. Lol.

But OT: I'm glad it won RPG of the year, because any of the others would've been an insult to the genre. ME3 isn't the best example of it, though. It definitely wasn't GOTY material, but as far as RPGs this year, it's it. It won more from a lack of options than anything else. XD

[AngryFrozenWater]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

It's interesting to note that BW never described ME3 as an RPG. Look at the official site. Instead it's called an "action game with an interactive story" and an "action-shooter game". The term RPG is nowhere to be found. I wonder if the site will be changed now that it won the prize. Anyway... The devs must be glad with that prize, though. Congrats.

I can call an apple an orange but calling it something else does not make it so.

The difference is that I am not calling it, but instead the developers of the game do not describe it as an RPG. That means it wasn't their intention to make ME3 an RPG.

Developer didn't say that, publisher did. One that you did not believe when relating to PR for DA2, yet yet magically believe when comes to ME3 PR.

For all intents and purposes BW and EA are the same company. BW as an independent company has died because of that. Also, as you know marketing and monetizing are an integral part of the dev team. Everything you see in public was dreamed up by that team. So do not point to EA when it fits your agenda.

What EA writes on it's store page like Origin or press release is not required for Bioware to agree with or give the go ahead for. Bioware has very little if any say on how EA advertises their game, it does have say on what press releases itself puts out but not what EA puts out. EA has some influence on the game design (though the difference between what people on here think they do or have is different to reality of what they actually effect) but as they are the ones paying for it's creation they do have some right to some influence though unknown as it may be longer deadlines would be much appreciated by me. Bioware however does not have that same power over what EA does. You can blame Bioware for everything EA does if you wish but it's not accurate what you accuse them of such as how much control and input you "think" Bioware has over EA's PR. Each has different roles and responsabilities. They are not both accountable for everything each other does.

What has Origin to do with what I wrote? I am talking about ME3's website. And how the company is advertizing their games is up to the dev team. As stated marketing and monetizing are in the hands of the individual devs teams. It's a new EA policy, whether you like it or not. Stop attributing the positive traits to BW and the negative ones to EA, because BW is a division of EA. And tus they are the same company. Why do you feel the urge to defend the EA label called Bioware when there is nothing to defend?

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 08 décembre 2012 - 11:01 .

[Nerevar-as]

CDRSkyShepard wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

clarkusdarkus wrote...

Whoa now chief seems your reading what u want to read..........ME3 having an option for action mode is ridiculous considering ME1/2 didnt have it................now what part of that is me saying i didnt like it? it's out of place and doesnt belong in ME.....

Who you trying to fool? You did not like it in ME franchise because you feel does not belong in it, you said so yourself. You also said you did not like them saying "too videogamey", when in reality action mode is for many more videogamey than the other modes. You hate that ME had a videogamey mode yet also hate that they said did not want something because was too videogamey. Make up your mind.

Action mode =/= "videogamey" mode
Unless you want to say anything that isn't a straight-up shooter isn't a video game.

Really, if you want to look at it from a perspective of action-y being the definition videogamey, then BW's the hypocrite, because they made an action mode when they didn't want things to be too videogamey. Lol.

But OT: I'm glad it won RPG of the year, because any of the others would've been an insult to the genre. ME3 isn't the best example of it, though. It definitely wasn't GOTY material, but as far as RPGs this year, it's it. It won more from a lack of options than anything else. XD

So absolutely there were no worthy RPGs this year?

[AresKeith]

@Nerevar there probably were but not nominated, was Witcher 2 nominated for best RPG?

[Dragoonlordz]

CDRSkyShepard wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

clarkusdarkus wrote...

Whoa now chief seems your reading what u want to read..........ME3 having an option for action mode is ridiculous considering ME1/2 didnt have it................now what part of that is me saying i didnt like it? it's out of place and doesnt belong in ME.....

Who you trying to fool? You did not like it in ME franchise because you feel does not belong in it, you said so yourself. You also said you did not like them saying "too videogamey", when in reality action mode is for many more videogamey than the other modes. You hate that ME had a videogamey mode yet also hate that they said did not want something because was too videogamey. Make up your mind.

Action mode =/= "videogamey" mode
Unless you want to say anything that isn't a straight-up shooter isn't a video game.

Really, if you want to look at it from a perspective of action-y being the definition videogamey, then BW's the hypocrite, because they made an action mode when they didn't want things to be too videogamey. Lol.

But OT: I'm glad it won RPG of the year, because any of the others would've been an insult to the genre. ME3 isn't the best example of it, though. It definitely wasn't GOTY material, but as far as RPGs this year, it's it. It won more from a lack of options than anything else. XD

I never said whether or not the two stances from the studio might have been hypocritical or not. I was refering to the poster who was. Studio being so in his example does not make the poster immune for being so aswell, he is not excuses from being so just because the other might be too.

[AlanC9]

EntropicAngel wrote...

4stringwizard wrote...

Skyrim is an RPG.  Deal with it. 

...but this, on the other hand, just makes me smile.

Hey, he didn't say it was a good RPG.

[TheProtheans]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

TheProtheans wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Next stop, IGA's which I hope ME3 wins some catagories too.

That is incorrect English.
ME3 only won 1 category which had barely any competition.

Not at all. My use of the English language is just fine thanks. It is nominated for many catagories in the IGA's.

You implied it won some categories at VGA's by saying you hope it will win some categories at the IGA's too.
It only won one category, not multiple.

Your use of English was bad.

[Twinzam.V]

AlanC9 wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

4stringwizard wrote...

Skyrim is an RPG.  Deal with it. 

...but this, on the other hand, just makes me smile.

Hey, he didn't say it was a good RPG.

Although i think its better than ME3. But thats my opinion. 

[Dragoonlordz]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

What EA writes on it's store page like Origin or press release is not required for Bioware to agree with or give the go ahead for. Bioware has very little if any say on how EA advertises their game, it does have say on what press releases itself puts out but not what EA puts out. EA has some influence on the game design (though the difference between what people on here think they do or have is different to reality of what they actually effect) but as they are the ones paying for it's creation they do have some right to some influence though unknown as it may be longer deadlines would be much appreciated by me.

Bioware however does not have that same power over what EA does. You can blame Bioware for everything EA does if you wish but it's not accurate what you accuse them of such as how much control and input you "think" Bioware has over EA's PR. Each has different roles and responsabilities. They are not both accountable for everything each other does.

What has Origin to do with what I wrote? I am talking about ME3's website. And how the company is advertizing their games is up to the dev team. As stated marketing and monetizing are in the hands of the individual devs teams. It's a new EA policy, whether you like it or not. Stop attributing the positive traits to BW and the negative ones to EA, because BW is a division of EA. And tus they are the same company. Why do you feel the urge to defend the EA label called Bioware when there is nothing to defend?

I did not say just Origin I said that as an example among others. Also I read the article about EA saying they let the studio do what they wanted, they specifically said development if I recall and I do not remember them saying advertising so I would like you to show me proof that they said it has anything to do with advertising or marketing incase I missed that part. EA is the publisher it is their job to market the products not make them, they influence making as they invested the money to create it but Bioware handles the making of the game and some of their own PR.

However EA does the marketing and such, that is what they are there for and their primary role. Selling the games their studios make. Bioware is still a studio under EA, multiple studios now but they are not the same, not in the method your trying to make them out to be. Each plays a role in the development and marketing/publishing of the game. Now I am going to ask you why you feel the urge to somehow convince yourself that Bioware are to blame for the choices of EA? Each make choices and each have their roles, each are accountable to what they do not both are accountable for what either of them do.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 08 décembre 2012 - 11:40 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

What EA writes on it's store page like Origin or press release is not required for Bioware to agree with or give the go ahead for. Bioware has very little if any say on how EA advertises their game, it does have say on what press releases itself puts out but not what EA puts out. EA has some influence on the game design (though the difference between what people on here think they do or have is different to reality of what they actually effect) but as they are the ones paying for it's creation they do have some right to some influence though unknown as it may be longer deadlines would be much appreciated by me.

Bioware however does not have that same power over what EA does. You can blame Bioware for everything EA does if you wish but it's not accurate what you accuse them of such as how much control and input you "think" Bioware has over EA's PR. Each has different roles and responsabilities. They are not both accountable for everything each other does.

What has Origin to do with what I wrote? I am talking about ME3's website. And how the company is advertizing their games is up to the dev team. As stated marketing and monetizing are in the hands of the individual devs teams. It's a new EA policy, whether you like it or not. Stop attributing the positive traits to BW and the negative ones to EA, because BW is a division of EA. And tus they are the same company. Why do you feel the urge to defend the EA label called Bioware when there is nothing to defend?

I did not say just Origin I said that as an example among others. Also I read the article about EA saying they let the studio do what they wanted, they specifically said development not advertising so I would like you to show me proof that they said it has anything to do with advertising or marketing. EA is the publisher it is their job to market the procudts not make them, they influence making as they invested the money to create it but Bioware handles the making of the game and some of their own PR however EA does the marketing and such, that is what they are there for and their primary role. Selling the games their studios make. Bioware is still a studio under EA, multiple studios now but they are not the same, not in the method your trying to make them out to be. Each plays a role in the development and marketing/publishing of the game. Now I am going to ask you why you feel the urge to somehow convince yourself that Bioware are to blame for the choices of EA? Each make choices and each have their roles, each are accountable to what they do not both are accountable for either of them do.

Riccitiello's EA Shifts From 'Defense' To 'Offense'.

"He said the publisher is integrating its development teams with marketing and monetization."

[Dragoonlordz]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Riccitiello's EA Shifts From 'Defense' To 'Offense'.

"He said the publisher is integrating its development teams with marketing and monetization."

Your reading more into that than will turn out to be I am sure. EA will never hand over all the marketing to the developers, more control does not equal full control. They are and always will be the publishers, the people who "publish" the games. To me all that statement means is developers will have more freedom but not full control.

EA marketing the games for example, some input from studios sometimes but not always, studios market some things on their own like DLC, merchandise and such. Without the publisher doing it's job and publishing the games then they are mere bank managers, doll out the money. I cannot see that ever being the reality of it or way would happen.

Now maybe I am wrong, maybe a Bioware team member will correct me and tell me that Bioware handled all the marketing for ME3 but I somehow doubt that will happen because I don't think that is what happened or will happen. Until that time I will continue to believe that EA published ME3, they marketed ME3 and Bioware are not responsible for what EA says in their adverts.

I also asked a question which will ask again. Why you feel the urge to somehow convince yourself that Bioware are to blame for the choices of EA? Each make choices and each have their roles, each are accountable to what they do not both are accountable for what either of them do. I don't blame a brother of an idiot for the idiotic thing his brother might do yet they are both related, they may even live together but each is accountable to their own actions, no different here. Bioware and EA are not the same, they fulfill different roles and have different responsabilities.

Do you honestly believe EA are to blame for what Bioware does and Bioware are to blame for what EA does? Because you said they are one and the same so you have to by that logic blame both for what either does. My stance on the other hand is that each are accountable for what each does not both accountable for what either does. I am not saying EA is bad and Bioware good or vice versa, I am saying they are not the same and they are not both to blame for what the other does.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 09 décembre 2012 - 12:02 .

[d-boy15]

AresKeith wrote...

@Nerevar there probably were but not nominated, was Witcher 2 nominated for best RPG?

witcher 2 released in 2011 on PC, they released it on 360 this year.

still, it wasn't nominted, 2011 VGA choose dragon age 2  instead and this year they choose some
hack&slash game to be mass effect 3 competitor.

may be they have an issue with european game or the nudity...

from the list of VGA niminated list, I can say that it's a red carpet for mass effect 3, not much of a competition
in this category. 

[archangel1996]

Well, there were a strict competition this year in the RPG nominations *_*