587 réponses à ce sujet

[Gixxer6Rdr]

And to Chris Priestly, you keep talking about art, but the thing is you promised us gamers certain things, which makes it, the game, 'commissioned' art. You then do not have the right to the not deliver on what you promised, PERIOD!

Just picture Michelangelo instead of delivering on his promise painting the Sistine Chapel the picture of Andre the Giant. The whole art thing has no merit and is not an argument it's an excuse and a cheap 1 at that!

[davishepard]

Postman778 wrote...

The different between ME3 and The Mona Lisa or Warhol´s Soup Art are the interactivity. We can watch upon the ML or the Soup, but we cannot alter it. We can discuss about the creators intention, the style, why he used that colour or what else.
Mass Effect was NOT announced as art, we can watch. It was announced as our story, we can create and not as Mr. Hudsons vision of Shepard we HAVE to watch.

Wrong. You create nothing by playing ME (any one of the series). The experience you have is possible because the game creator made possible. The things you do in the game, the choices you have, the outcomes of it, everything was created by BioWare. 
It is not your story, but how you feel and the experience you have with it are yours.

[RiouHotaru]

Gixxer6Rdr wrote...

And to Chris Priestly, you keep talking about art, but the thing is you promised us gamers certain things, which makes it, the game, 'commissioned' art. You then do not have the right to the not deliver on what you promised, PERIOD!

Just picture Michelangelo instead of delivering on his promise painting the Sistine Chapel the picture of Andre the Giant. The whole art thing has no merit and is not an argument it's an excuse and a cheap 1 at that!

But you did get the things you were promised.  What didn't happen was your interpretation of that promise.

The Rachni are important, just not in the way that the portions of the fanbase were expecting.

What happened to ME3 is a simple case of developer delivery not meeting player expectation, which isn't necessarily the fault of the developer.

[archangel1996]

davishepard wrote...

Postman778 wrote...

The different between ME3 and The Mona Lisa or Warhol´s Soup Art are the interactivity. We can watch upon the ML or the Soup, but we cannot alter it. We can discuss about the creators intention, the style, why he used that colour or what else.
Mass Effect was NOT announced as art, we can watch. It was announced as our story, we can create and not as Mr. Hudsons vision of Shepard we HAVE to watch.

Wrong. You create nothing by playing ME (any one of the series). The experience you have is possible because the game creator made possible. The things you do in the game, the choices you have, the outcomes of it, everything was created by BioWare. 
It is not your story, but how you feel and the experience you have with it are yours.

So i am just a spectator, what is the difference with CoD then?

[Kel Riever]

"What happened to ME3 is a simple case of developer delivery not meeting player expectation, which isn't necessarily the fault of the developer."

Uh, YEAH, it is.

Modifié par Kel Riever, 14 janvier 2013 - 07:24 .

[liggy002]

Well, if this new "evolved" RPG represents where future RPGs are going and is representative of what the majority prefer, I'm going to have disagree with the majority and agree with the OP. I play games because I enjoy the feeling of being in another world and the world just feels that much more alive to me when I have a greater degree of customization and exploration available to me. I.E. The dialogue wheel, more sidemissions

ME2 was a damn good game but it was lacking many of the elements I loved in ME1. That is why ME1 will always be my favorite.

[archangel1996]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Gixxer6Rdr wrote...

And to Chris Priestly, you keep talking about art, but the thing is you promised us gamers certain things, which makes it, the game, 'commissioned' art. You then do not have the right to the not deliver on what you promised, PERIOD!

Just picture Michelangelo instead of delivering on his promise painting the Sistine Chapel the picture of Andre the Giant. The whole art thing has no merit and is not an argument it's an excuse and a cheap 1 at that!

But you did get the things you were promised.  What didn't happen was your interpretation of that promise.

The Rachni are important, just not in the way that the portions of the fanbase were expecting.

What happened to ME3 is a simple case of developer delivery not meeting player expectation, which isn't necessarily the fault of the developer.

yeah, war assets i play MP and i get more:D "The Rachni will have a great role" said them
"No ABC" said them
"Every choice matters" said them
"Bull****" i say
"you can start with ME3 and you din't lose anything" said them
"Honest for once" i say

[Iakus]

RiouHotaru wrote...

But you did get the things you were promised.  What didn't happen was your interpretation of that promise.

Monkey's Paw

[RiouHotaru]

Kel Riever wrote...

"What happened to ME3 is a simple case of developer delivery not meeting player expectation, which isn't necessarily the fault of the developer."

Uh, YEAH, it is.

No, it's not.  Why is it the developer's fault if the player's expectation isn't met?  Are you saying the developer has to cater to player expectation?  Because a lot of the "expectations" people apparently had for ME3 ranged from unrealistic to outright impossible.

[Grubas]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Kel Riever wrote...

"What happened to ME3 is a simple case of developer delivery not meeting player expectation, which isn't necessarily the fault of the developer."

Uh, YEAH, it is.

No, it's not.  Why is it the developer's fault if the player's expectation isn't met?  Are you saying the developer has to cater to player expectation?  Because a lot of the "expectations" people apparently had for ME3 ranged from unrealistic to outright impossible.

A lot of expectations were based upon things bioware succesfully implemented in other games, inclusive ME1 and 2. 

Explain to me please how the same features have suddenly became unrealistic and impossible to implement.

 

[Kel Riever]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Kel Riever wrote...

"What happened to ME3 is a simple case of developer delivery not meeting player expectation, which isn't necessarily the fault of the developer."

Uh, YEAH, it is.

No, it's not.  Why is it the developer's fault if the player's expectation isn't met?  Are you saying the developer has to cater to player expectation?  Because a lot of the "expectations" people apparently had for ME3 ranged from unrealistic to outright impossible.

What you are doing is being absurd.  And that is not an arguement.  An expectation, by its definition, does not make it a ludicrous expectation.  And frankly, it is not ludicrous to expect BioWare to make an *ss game which is what they did.

So, yeah, it is their fault.  Players want a good, entertaining game and whether you like it or not, enough players don't think Mass Effect 3 is.  If you want to say you like ME3, I won't argue with it.  But to say it lived up to players expectations as a whole is just pushing more Bulls**t than a cow farm in Texas.

[archangel1996]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Kel Riever wrote...

"What happened to ME3 is a simple case of developer delivery not meeting player expectation, which isn't necessarily the fault of the developer."

Uh, YEAH, it is.

No, it's not.  Why is it the developer's fault if the player's expectation isn't met?  Are you saying the developer has to cater to player expectation?  Because a lot of the "expectations" people apparently had for ME3 ranged from unrealistic to outright impossible.

I was satisfied with ME1, i was satisied with ME2, i am not and i will ever be with ME3(if IT is wrong)
If 90% of the people say the game sucks monkey balls, it sucks, simply as that
Youc an not say this is a RPG and then facts prove that it is at 10%-20%. BW like action? Bw wants the casual gamers? Fine, but don't pretend that i believe this BS

[Grubas]

Chris Priestly wrote...

I have worked on every game we've made since the end of Baldur's Gate Throne of Bhaal. EVERY time we make a game, someone complains it isn't as "RPG" as the one previously. NwN wasn't BG, KotOR wasn't NwN, Jade wasn't KotOR, ME wasn't Jade, etc.

RPG is not static, RPG changes and evolves. Fallout 3 is not the same game as Fallout. Dragon Age: Origins is not the same game as Baldur's Gate. There is no hard, set rule as to what an RPG must be (beyond letting you play a role and it being a game, I suppose) or contain. That "YOU" (whoever you is) enjoys XYZ features and "THEY" liek ABC features does not mean that a game that does or does not include those features is any more or less an RPG. Yes, it absolutely may be less of an RPG in the mind of someone who wants ABC features, but gets XYZ features, but that does not change the inherant RPGness of the game.

Now we're arguing about "art" (as a methapor, stick with me here). Is the Mona Lisa art? Sure, it's awesome, historic, beautiful, etc. Is Warhol's Soup art? No! It's simple, childish, ugly, etc. This is the mind of the person perceiving it. They are both art, just different art. BG2 is an RPG, so is ME3. They are different, but they are also the same.

And they were right. Making a good RPG and making a good game dont always have to walk hand in hand. 
I would like to pin point and nitpick about ME2, but i can't. Simply because the whole game is so well crafted and gives me such a good experience that i gladly forget about the strange things. 
ME3 on the other hand wakes expectations, logical expectations, it isnt going to deliver. 
I have no problem criticising a disapointing game for the lack of RPG elements, expecially because ithe games failure would have been diminished by sticking to proven RPG-mechanics. 
ME3 is clearly not a game comparable with Baldursgate2 or ME2. Its inferior. 

Modifié par Grubas, 14 janvier 2013 - 07:55 .

[David7204]

This thread would have a whole lot more credibility if the given examples weren't so stupid.

ME 1 guns better than ME 2 and ME 3 guns? Ridiculous.

ME 1 armor better? No way. I'll take two or three sets of armor that actually look good per character instead of two dozen generic space marine outfits to share between them that look lame any day of the week.

ME 1 had the best character tree? Absolutely not. ME 1's skill trees were clumsy, very poorly balanced, and full of 'fake depth.' ME 3's is better by a long, long shot. In fact, I even think ME 2's is better.

Modifié par David7204, 14 janvier 2013 - 08:01 .

[AchesOfDoom]

I do agree with Chris Priestly, in general ME3 is an RPG, it was shoot-erized because of the Galactic War.

[Grubas]

[quote]David7204 wrote...

This thread would have a whole lot more credibility if the given examples weren't so stupid.

ME 1 guns better than ME 2 and ME 3 guns? Ridiculous.
[/quote]
Say what you want but ME1 is the only game that makes the Sniper rifle a viable option from a realistic point of view.
[quote]
ME 1 armor better? No way. I'll take two or three sets of armor that actually look good per character instead of two dozen generic space marine outfits to share between them that look lame any day of the week.
[/quote]
Breather mask in space? You must be joking. 
[quote]
ME 1 had the best character tree? Absolutely not. ME 1's skill trees were clumsy, very poorly balanced, and full of 'fake depth.' ME 3's is better by a long, long shot. In fact, I even think ME 2's is better. [/quote]
[/quote]
ME3s skill tree is very rudimentary, but ME1s aditional skillz would be pointless because the gamemechanics associated with them have been scraped aswell. 

[David7204]

Are you capable of understand something called 'cause and effect.'? Because it sure doesn't look like it when you post comments like that.

The breather masks have nothing to do with the change in armor systems. They just as easily could have kept the armor system but simply put masks on all the suits instead of helmets. So implying that the new armor system somehow 'caused' the masks is moronic.

(By the way, even if you don't like them, breather masks have utterly nothing to do with RPG-ness. If you're going to complain about realism, then it's completely hypocritical to whine about the masks but say that carrying 80 suits of armor in your pocket or having guns that get 10x stronger over the course of the game is A-OK.)

ME 3 has fewer skills than ME 1 because many of ME 1's skills were nearly worthless. As I said, fake depth. The armor skill that gives 1% more damage protection per point. The medicine skill that had medi-gel recharge a second faster per point. Gee, how exciting. ME 3 does things right by integrating those bonuses into other skills and beefing them up so they actually have an impact.

Modifié par David7204, 14 janvier 2013 - 08:28 .

[stonbw1]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Gixxer6Rdr wrote...

And to Chris Priestly, you keep talking about art, but the thing is you promised us gamers certain things, which makes it, the game, 'commissioned' art. You then do not have the right to the not deliver on what you promised, PERIOD!

Just picture Michelangelo instead of delivering on his promise painting the Sistine Chapel the picture of Andre the Giant. The whole art thing has no merit and is not an argument it's an excuse and a cheap 1 at that!

But you did get the things you were promised.  What didn't happen was your interpretation of that promise.

The Rachni are important, just not in the way that the portions of the fanbase were expecting.

What happened to ME3 is a simple case of developer delivery not meeting player expectation, which isn't necessarily the fault of the developer.

I disagree.  The big gripe folks have is that they were promised that their choices mattered. Yes, the Rachni were important, but they were important in spite of the choices made by the player. That was the broken promise and yes, the fault of the developer.

[Obitim]

Chris Priestly wrote...

I have worked on every game we've made since the end of Baldur's Gate Throne of Bhaal. EVERY time we make a game, someone complains it isn't as "RPG" as the one previously. NwN wasn't BG, KotOR wasn't NwN, Jade wasn't KotOR, ME wasn't Jade, etc.

RPG is not static, RPG changes and evolves. Fallout 3 is not the same game as Fallout. Dragon Age: Origins is not the same game as Baldur's Gate. There is no hard, set rule as to what an RPG must be (beyond letting you play a role and it being a game, I suppose) or contain. That "YOU" (whoever you is) enjoys XYZ features and "THEY" liek ABC features does not mean that a game that does or does not include those features is any more or less an RPG. Yes, it absolutely may be less of an RPG in the mind of someone who wants ABC features, but gets XYZ features, but that does not change the inherant RPGness of the game.

Now we're arguing about "art" (as a methapor, stick with me here). Is the Mona Lisa art? Sure, it's awesome, historic, beautiful, etc. Is Warhol's Soup art? No! It's simple, childish, ugly, etc. This is the mind of the person perceiving it. They are both art, just different art. BG2 is an RPG, so is ME3. They are different, but they are also the same.

Hey there Chris,

Thanks for coming and putting your view across, that's why I like forums!

I see what you are saying with regards to the changes across systems, time and player expectations however I feel that the change within Bioware is more pronounced.  To be fair I only really ever came on the forums about the time Neverwinter Nights came out (I was suggesting it be ported the Xbox!) so I never saw the complaints going back to BG and further back.

To steal your art analogy, as you say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, some people prefer Da Vinci to Warhol to Constable.  However, with each of those artists, each had a particular visual style and you knew/know what you are getting with their work and I think that is the point I'm trying to make, perhaps the word decline was a tad harsh,  I think I mean change in style for content, I still enjoy Bioware games if I'm honest and did enjoy ME3 and to a certain extent DA2, they both did not grab me the same way as previous games though, Which does sadden me, I'm still looking forward ot DA3 and ME4 and will keep abreat of all the sews, and also future DLC for ME3.

Again, thanks for taking the time.

[Ninja Stan]

Can we please cut it out with the swearing? Self-censoring with asterisks still counts as swearing, by the way. Thank you.

[LTKerr]

If you want to play a RPG, say bye to Bioware and say hi to CDProjektRed. RPG evolve, yes, but Mass Effect franchise is no longer a RPG or an "evolved RPG" whatever that means.

Modifié par LTKerr, 14 janvier 2013 - 08:36 .

[Kel Riever]

I'm going to disagree that there was false depth, purposely at least, to the ME1 equipment list. You can even look at ME3 and see not all weapons/skills are created equal. And it sin't false depth. The improvement in ME3 is pretty clear that skills and equipment do tend to matter more, and I think players think more about what they take, before it is apparent that some things aren't worth taking. But that doesn't mean retroactively that ME1's long list of skills and equipment had a purposeful 'false depth' in there meant to give an impression of legitimate choices, but was instead a way to mislead the player.

ME1 was simply a product of its time, as far as I can tell. And, frankly, it was an epic product of its time. Could it have been improved upon? Yep. But I'll take the list of skills from ME1, or the skill list from ME3 any day over ME2. Weapon inventory management did improve dramatically from ME1 through 3. I just miss the heavy weapon option for your loadout.

[Obitim]

David7204 wrote...

Are you capable of understand something called 'cause and effect.'? Because it sure doesn't look like it when you post comments like that.

The breather masks have nothing to do with the change in armor systems. They just as easily could have kept the armor system but simply put masks on all the suits instead of helmets. So implying that the new armor system somehow 'caused' the masks is moronic.

(By the way, even if you don't like them, breather masks have utterly nothing to do with RPG-ness. If you're going to complain about realism, then it's completely hypocritical to whine about the masks but say that carrying 80 suits of armor in your pocket or having guns that get 10x stronger over the course of the game is A-OK.)

ME 3 has fewer skills than ME 1 because many of ME 1's skills were nearly worthless. As I said, fake depth. The armor skill that gives 1% more damage protection per point. The medicine skill that had medi-gel recharge a second faster per point. Gee, how exciting. ME 3 does things right by integrating those bonuses into other skills and beefing them up so they actually have an impact.

That is the difference in the skills system though, you had to invest in a few trees to see an actual difference, which made you levelling choices a lot more final, as opposed to ME2 and 3 whereby you get massive differences per level up.

[Zekka]

David7204 wrote...

Are you capable of understand something called 'cause and effect.'? Because it sure doesn't look like it when you post comments like that.

The breather masks have nothing to do with the change in armor systems. They just as easily could have kept the armor system but simply put masks on all the suits instead of helmets. So implying that the new armor system somehow 'caused' the masks is moronic.

(By the way, even if you don't like them, breather masks have utterly nothing to do with RPG-ness. If you're going to complain about realism, then it's completely hypocritical to whine about the masks but say that carrying 80 suits of armor in your pocket or having guns that get 10x stronger over the course of the game is A-OK.)

ME 3 has fewer skills than ME 1 because many of ME 1's skills were nearly worthless. As I said, fake depth. The armor skill that gives 1% more damage protection per point. The medicine skill that had medi-gel recharge a second faster per point. Gee, how exciting. ME 3 does things right by integrating those bonuses into other skills and beefing them up so they actually have an impact.

What Bioware should have done was make the skills have more depth and variation, they should have improved on the loot too, they should have also improved on the inventory to make it less clustered, they should have made the vehicular exploration and combat more interesting and give it better controls, they should have given us back planet exploration with less recycled environments and more unique areas. But this isn't what we got, we got Mass Effect 3 a shooter game that people will always defend and find an excuse to call it an RPG.

[Maniccc]

Do you remember when Bioware first started out and the level of RPG they created?

Yep

Who remembers Baldurs Gate and BG 2?

Me. Hated them, total yawnfest.

Who played through Neverwinter Nights with a variety of character types?

Hated it, yawnfest.

Who remember Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic?

First BW game I played that I liked was KOTOR. It was very silly, though, I about died laughing when my obviously Sith character was getting trained to be a Jedi, with my pale skin, popping veins and yellow eyes.

Who blitzed through Jade Empire?

I did not like this as much as KOTOR, but I enjoyed it.

Who remembers ME 1 and DA:O?

ME1, I liked. DA:O...yawnfest.

ME3, however, is an RPG.  People tend to confuse the application of the RPG concept (the actual game and its mechanics) with the concept of the RPG.    The concept of an RPG is a general one, it is elastic, like most artificial concepts, and allows for many interpretations and applications (different styles of gameplay. mechanics, etc.).

Modifié par Maniccc, 14 janvier 2013 - 08:58 .