178 réponses à ce sujet

[BleedingUranium]

I fail to see how the gameplay improving with each game is making it "more CoD-like". I swear most people don't even know what makes CoD bad (90% of it is terrible gameplay/game mechanics), and just use the name for anything they don't like.

[EnvyTB075]

BleedingUranium wrote...

I fail to see how the gameplay improving with each game is making it "more CoD-like". I swear most people don't even know what makes CoD bad (90% of it is terrible gameplay/game mechanics), and just use the name for anything they don't like.

ME2 > ME3 wasn't an improvement. Certain aspects yes, but overall? Nope.

Modifié par EnvyTB075, 17 février 2013 - 06:05 .

[BleedingUranium]

EnvyTB075 wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

I fail to see how the gameplay improving with each game is making it "more CoD-like". I swear most people don't even know what makes CoD bad (90% of it is terrible gameplay/game mechanics), and just use the name for anything they don't like.

ME2 > ME3 wasn't an improvement. Certain aspects yes, but overall? Nope.

Name one thing about ME2's gamplay mechanics that are better than 3.

[EnvyTB075]

BleedingUranium wrote...

EnvyTB075 wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

I fail to see how the gameplay improving with each game is making it "more CoD-like". I swear most people don't even know what makes CoD bad (90% of it is terrible gameplay/game mechanics), and just use the name for anything they don't like.

ME2 > ME3 wasn't an improvement. Certain aspects yes, but overall? Nope.

Name one thing about ME2's gamplay mechanics that are better than 3.

Cover, movement, each weapons special traits and the overall emphasis on tactical power employment and squad movements rather than ME3's mess of "dive shoot dive shoot, sprint dive shoot" which was my ME3 infiltrator campaign in a nutshell.

The fact the player was slower also meant that enemies were much smarter than they are in ME3, in which they just run out in the open and "cheat" with some of the smallets hit boxes known to man (phantoms, Nemesis). To compensate they don't miss and are barely affected by player attacks, especially Dragoons. On top of that Dragoons have this innate ability to stun lock the player by bio charging towards then with their spaghetti whips, only to shoot you as soon as that move finishes, something the player cannot achieve. The balance is utterly pathetic.

ME2 was a thinking mans game, not a Gears knock off for the ADHD crowd where a game only has good gameplay if its fast paced.

edit: I do however like ME3's weapon selection, however i dislike the weapon availability as that removed even more of an RPG element to the class system.

Modifié par EnvyTB075, 17 février 2013 - 06:18 .

[chemiclord]

BleedingUranium wrote...

I fail to see how the gameplay improving with each game is making it "more CoD-like". I swear most people don't even know what makes CoD bad (90% of it is terrible gameplay/game mechanics), and just use the name for anything they don't like.

Hence my particular heavy usage of quotation marks.

The "CoD audience" really is nothing more than changes made to make them more appealing to as broad of an audience as possible.  It's why ME3 was declared the "best time to enter the series" (or something to that effect).  You want new players... you don't want potential customers to feel that they shouldn't bother because they didn't buy the first two.

I suspect it's also why Bioware backed off on how many decisions you made in the first two games would drastically impact the third (or even from the first to second)... and why there wasn't any particularly special rewards for being a "devoted fan" right from the start.

[EnvyTB075]

chemiclord wrote...
Hence my particular heavy usage of quotation marks.

The "CoD audience" really is nothing more than changes made to make them more appealing to as broad of an audience as possible.  It's why ME3 was declared the "best time to enter the series" (or something to that effect).  You want new players... you don't want potential customers to feel that they shouldn't bother because they didn't buy the first two.

I suspect it's also why Bioware backed off on how many decisions you made in the first two games would drastically impact the third (or even from the first to second)... and why there wasn't any particularly special rewards for being a "devoted fan" right from the start.

The problem is that it almost never works. The closest CoD clone of last year that wasn't Blops II was MoHW, and that flopped HARD.

People who play CoD play CoD, they don't play something else thats trying to be CoD. The problem is publishers fail to recognise this. Its not CoD's fault, and i still rank CoD4 as one of the best FPS's of all time. Its just the way all these unique games with their individual gameplay traits are being sacrificed for a crowd that'll give it one look and go back to playing what they love.

[TurianRebel212]

EnvyTB075 wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

EnvyTB075 wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

I fail to see how the gameplay improving with each game is making it "more CoD-like". I swear most people don't even know what makes CoD bad (90% of it is terrible gameplay/game mechanics), and just use the name for anything they don't like.

ME2 > ME3 wasn't an improvement. Certain aspects yes, but overall? Nope.

Name one thing about ME2's gamplay mechanics that are better than 3.

Cover, movement, each weapons special traits and the overall emphasis on tactical power employment and squad movements rather than ME3's mess of "dive shoot dive shoot, sprint dive shoot" which was my ME3 infiltrator campaign in a nutshell.

The fact the player was slower also meant that enemies were much smarter than they are in ME3, in which they just run out in the open and "cheat" with some of the smallets hit boxes known to man (phantoms, Nemesis). To compensate they don't miss and are barely affected by player attacks, especially Dragoons. On top of that Dragoons have this innate ability to stun lock the player by bio charging towards then with their spaghetti whips, only to shoot you as soon as that move finishes, something the player cannot achieve. The balance is utterly pathetic.

ME2 was a thinking mans game, not a Gears knock off for the ADHD crowd where a game only has good gameplay if its fast paced.

edit: I do however like ME3's weapon selection, however i dislike the weapon availability as that removed even more of an RPG element to the class system.


In terms of combat ME3 is the best in the series. The combat is awesome in ME3. ME2 is the best game in the series. Period. But the combat isn't as good as ME3. If they did one thing right with ME3 it was the combat.

It sounds as if your struggling with the pace and combat as an infiltrator. What weapon do you use? What's your bonus power? What ammo type do you run? How heavey are you? What difficulty are you playing?

[AlanC9]

EnvyTB075 wrote...


Cover, movement, each weapons special traits and the overall emphasis on tactical power employment and squad movements 

Tactical power employment? ME2? 

Thinking man's game? Get behind cover, shoot enemies when they pop their heads up ME2?

Modifié par AlanC9, 17 février 2013 - 06:42 .

[EnvyTB075]

TurianRebel212 wrote...

In terms of combat ME3 is the best in the series. The combat is awesome in ME3. ME2 is the best game in the series. Period. But the combat isn't as good as ME3. If they did one thing right with ME3 it was the combat.

It sounds as if your struggling with the pace and combat as an infiltrator. What weapon do you use? What's your bonus power? What ammo type do you run? How heavey are you? What difficulty are you playing?

Insanity in ME3 was the easiest "super hard" difficulty i have ever played. Specifically a Black Widow X, Energy Drain as bonus, Disruptor ammo, can't name my weight off the top of my head but it was low due to the Eagle X at my hip that was never used (also, the weight system was dumb). I always had Garrus (Widow X, AP rounds, Overload specced to damage) and Javik (P-rifle (AI never hit the overheat threshold, hence TONNES of damage), Dark Channel as a background DOT power).

No need for cover, just E-drain/Overload combo, slow down time through the sniper and pick off enemies as though i was playing skeet shooting at the olympics. Didn't use my squad (directing them, choosing powers etc) at all, there wasn't any point for around 99% of the enemies (i.e, difficulty curve was dumb).

Compare that to ME2 (in which i'm playing as the same class, DLC enabled, flash-G as bonus, right now) and i'm working that space bar like no tomorrow, with the q and e keys a couple of presses behind. Setting up my squad to distract enemies as i sneak around behind them since the AI in ME2 understand the concept of cover. No dodge rolls to get myself out of situations i put myself in, leading to a more (and believe me i DO hate to use the term) realistic pace to the battle. Playing as an infiltrator, i don't get the Assault Rifle or Shotgun, so tough ****** i gotta think other strategies to win, gotta think about what squaddies i bring. Can't just bring Garrus and Zaeed and exploit the Incisor glitch, doesn't do enough damage when its not fully leveled up so i need someone with Warp, so Miranda or Thane, but he doesn't have Overload.

To out smart your enemies using the full capabilities of your squad is far more rewarding than shooting everything in the face with a widow. Hell during the Thanix missile section in ME3 i just activated the cloak and ran about for a bit to wait out the timer while my squad was on the other side of the level (actually doing a decent job of fending off 3 banshees and a brute, that is to be commended). The total lack of individuality in ME3's combat was the killer, i was merely playing Gears of War in a Mass Effect skin.

edit: Also i'm playing on Hardcore, Insanity was actually a bit too hard at the beginning. However do the same as in ME3 and use a save game +, it becomes difficult, but not unfairly so.

AlanC9 wrote...

EnvyTB075 wrote...


Cover, movement, each weapons special traits and the overall emphasis on tactical power employment and squad movements 

Tactical power employment? ME2? 

Thinking man's game? Get behind cover, shoot enemies when they pop their heads up ME2?

Sounds like ME3 to me. In ME2 i'm using my powers (squad and my own) to demolish enemy defenses, leaving them exposed to my SMG.

Modifié par EnvyTB075, 17 février 2013 - 06:55 .

[chemiclord]

EnvyTB075 wrote...

The problem is that it almost never works. The closest CoD clone of last year that wasn't Blops II was MoHW, and that flopped HARD.

People who play CoD play CoD, they don't play something else thats trying to be CoD. The problem is publishers fail to recognise this. Its not CoD's fault, and i still rank CoD4 as one of the best FPS's of all time. Its just the way all these unique games with their individual gameplay traits are being sacrificed for a crowd that'll give it one look and go back to playing what they love.

And here's the problem with focusing on your "devoted fans."

First of all... what is a "devoted fan?"  Let's assume, for the sake of argument, it's the posters on this forum.  Okay... let's make a game for us.

Do you see the problem already?  You should.  For every decision you make... you ****** off an entirely different group of "devoted fans."  You can't make them all happy, because often one group of "devoted fans" wants something mutually exclusive to another group.

So... boom.  You've lost whichever group of "devoted fans" got the short straw for your next game.  But hey, let's keep working for our "devoted fans"... oh... that group is smaller... and new players aren't interested because they clearly aren't your target audience.  It's a completely unsustainable model.

So what is a game company to do?  Well, it's pretty simple... make the game THEY want to make and cast as broad of a net as they realistically can to maximize sales.  If the "devoted fans" don't like it... well it's a shame... but they can't make games for you specificially.  They're sorry you don't like it, but that's the way it is.

Modifié par chemiclord, 17 février 2013 - 06:59 .

[TurianRebel212]

EnvyTB075 wrote...

TurianRebel212 wrote...

In terms of combat ME3 is the best in the series. The combat is awesome in ME3. ME2 is the best game in the series. Period. But the combat isn't as good as ME3. If they did one thing right with ME3 it was the combat.

It sounds as if your struggling with the pace and combat as an infiltrator. What weapon do you use? What's your bonus power? What ammo type do you run? How heavey are you? What difficulty are you playing?

Insanity in ME3 was the easiest "super hard" difficulty i have ever played. Specifically a Black Widow X, Energy Drain as bonus, Disruptor ammo, can't name my weight off the top of my head but it was low due to the Eagle X at my hip that was never used (also, the weight system was dumb). I always had Garrus (Widow X, AP rounds, Overload specced to damage) and Javik (P-rifle (AI never hit the overheat threshold, hence TONNES of damage), Dark Channel as a background DOT power).

No need for cover, just E-drain/Overload combo, slow down time through the sniper and pick off enemies as though i was playing skeet shooting at the olympics. Didn't use my squad (directing them, choosing powers etc) at all, there wasn't any point for around 99% of the enemies (i.e, difficulty curve was dumb).

Compare that to ME2 (in which i'm playing as the same class, DLC enabled, flash-G as bonus, right now) and i'm working that space bar like no tomorrow, with the q and e keys a couple of presses behind. Setting up my squad to distract enemies as i sneak around behind them since the AI in ME2 understand the concept of cover. No dodge rolls to get myself out of situations i put myself in, leading to a more (and believe me i DO hate to use the term) realistic pace to the battle. Playing as an infiltrator, i don't get the Assault Rifle or Shotgun, so tough ****** i gotta think other strategies to win, gotta think about what squaddies i bring. Can't just bring Garrus and Zaeed and exploit the Incisor glitch, doesn't do enough damage when its not fully leveled up so i need someone with Warp, so Miranda or Thane, but he doesn't have Overload.

To out smart your enemies using the full capabilities of your squad is far more rewarding than shooting everything in the face with a widow. Hell during the Thanix missile section in ME3 i just activated the cloak and ran about for a bit to wait out the timer while my squad was on the other side of the level (actually doing a decent job of fending off 3 banshees and a brute, that is to be commended). The total lack of individuality in ME3's combat was the killer, i was merely playing Gears of War in a Mass Effect skin.

edit: Also i'm playing on Hardcore, Insanity was actually a bit too hard at the beginning. However do the same as in ME3 and use a save game +, it becomes difficult, but not unfairly so.

AlanC9 wrote...

EnvyTB075 wrote...


Cover, movement, each weapons special traits and the overall emphasis on tactical power employment and squad movements 

Tactical power employment? ME2? 

Thinking man's game? Get behind cover, shoot enemies when they pop their heads up ME2?

Sounds like ME3 to me. In ME2 i'm using my powers (squad and my own) to demolish enemy defenses, leaving them exposed to my SMG.

Well your playing the infiltator to it's fulliest ability with a black widow and energy drain. This is one of the OP classes in ME3. So insantity might be easy for you. Go try a vanguard on insanity. That's when things get fun. 

[Jadebaby]

ME3 didn't become more "cod-like" it became more "gears-like"...

And damn are the games similiar in combat mechanics...

I preferred ME2 combat, it was far more challenging.

[EnvyTB075]

chemiclord wrote...
And here's the problem with focusing on your "devoted fans."

First of all... what is a "devoted fan?"  Let's assume, for the sake of argument, it's the posters on this forum.  Okay... let's make a game for us.

Do you see the problem already?  You should.  For every decision you make... you ****** off an entirely different group of "devoted fans."  You can't make them all happy, because often one group of "devoted fans" wants something mutually exclusive to another group.

So... boom.  You've lost whichever group of "devoted fans" got the short straw for your next game.  But hey, let's keep working for our "devoted fans"... oh... that group is smaller... and new players aren't interested because they clearly aren't your target audience.  It's a completely unsustainable model.

So what is a game company to do?  Well, it's pretty simple... make the game THEY want to make and cast as broad of a net as they realistically can to maximize sales.  If the "devoted fans" don't like it... well it's a shame... but they can't make games for you specificially.  They're sorry you don't like it, but that's the way it is.

Theres a difference between making a game for a devoted fan, and making a game that lives up to its predessesors, which is what was expected. I don't think anyone expected the middle dialogue option to be removed, investigate options almost non-existant and the "paragon/renegade" options pretty much being the exact same thing or absolutely nothing that took the possibility of a variety of Shepards into account.

ME2 did it fine, why all of a sudden was it deemed "unworkable" in ME3? Why dilute your identity in the fear of losing dedicated fans and create a game that is functionally "ok" but not a true follow up to your previous works which would have been a far greater game?

TurianRebel212 wrote...

Well your playing the infiltator
to it's fulliest ability with a black widow and energy drain. This is
one of the OP classes in ME3. So insantity might be easy for you. Go try
a vanguard on insanity. That's when things get fun. 

Uh, no, because the game should be difficult no matter what class you used. I shouldn't have to play as a specific class for the game to be balanced.

Modifié par EnvyTB075, 17 février 2013 - 07:06 .

[EnvyTB075]

double post

Modifié par EnvyTB075, 17 février 2013 - 07:04 .

[TurianRebel212]

EnvyTB075 wrote...

chemiclord wrote...
And here's the problem with focusing on your "devoted fans."

First of all... what is a "devoted fan?"  Let's assume, for the sake of argument, it's the posters on this forum.  Okay... let's make a game for us.

Do you see the problem already?  You should.  For every decision you make... you ****** off an entirely different group of "devoted fans."  You can't make them all happy, because often one group of "devoted fans" wants something mutually exclusive to another group.

So... boom.  You've lost whichever group of "devoted fans" got the short straw for your next game.  But hey, let's keep working for our "devoted fans"... oh... that group is smaller... and new players aren't interested because they clearly aren't your target audience.  It's a completely unsustainable model.

So what is a game company to do?  Well, it's pretty simple... make the game THEY want to make and cast as broad of a net as they realistically can to maximize sales.  If the "devoted fans" don't like it... well it's a shame... but they can't make games for you specificially.  They're sorry you don't like it, but that's the way it is.

Theres a difference between making a game for a devoted fan, and making a game that lives up to its predessesors, which is what was expected. I don't think anyone expected the middle dialogue option to be removed, investigate options almost non-existant and the "paragon/renegade" options pretty much being the exact same thing or absolutely nothing that took the possibility of a variety of Shepards into account.

ME2 did it fine, why all of a sudden was it deemed "unworkable" in ME3? Why dilute your identity in the fear of losing dedicated fans and create a game that is functionally "ok" but not a true follow up to your previous works which would have been a far greater game?

TurianRebel212 wrote...

Well your playing the infiltator
to it's fulliest ability with a black widow and energy drain. This is
one of the OP classes in ME3. So insantity might be easy for you. Go try
a vanguard on insanity. That's when things get fun. 

Uh, no, because the game should be difficult no matter what class you used. I shouldn't have to play as a specific class for the game to be balanced.

Everything about ME3- the story, characters, narrative and gameplay was geared to the new players. "Best point to jump in" or somehting like that. I agree completly with you. But I still think ME3 had the best combat but it was the easiest game of the series. ME2 on insantiy is utterly brutal. But the prize.....

[nos_astra]

chemiclord wrote...
So what is a game company to do?  Well, it's pretty simple... make the game THEY want to make and cast as broad of a net as they realistically can to maximize sales.  If the "devoted fans" don't like it... well it's a shame... but they can't make games for you specificially.  They're sorry you don't like it, but that's the way it is.

My marketing professor would like to have a word with you. You really don't want to go for a game as average as possible to appeal to the widest audience possible when you're making an AAA game. Seriously?

It doesn't seem to have worked out for ME3. Or DA2. Maybe not even for ME2.

Modifié par klarabella, 17 février 2013 - 07:31 .

[liggy002]

chemiclord wrote...

Kabooooom wrote...

Let's be perfectly honest here, the "majority" likely doesn't care all that much. The ending being this source of rage (or even significant dislike) is probably limited to a very small segment of fans.

Absolutely. Obviously, in fact. But as a developer, do you create games for the people who don't give half a crap about them, or do you create games for your devoted fanbase?

The answer to that is also obvious.

In ME3, they attempted to appeal to a wider audience. That's totally fine. Perfectly reasonable. Hell, I actually enjoyed the tweaks to the combat system and the addition of multiplayer to the game. I have no problem with that at all. But they didn't make ME3 for people that play the game halfway and don't finish it, they made it for people like us - who love Mass Effect.

So yes, the majority of devoted fans dislike the endings. The majority of players in general don't care. And the majority of players overall still like ME3 as a game.

I still have faith that Bioware will continue to make fantastic games, but I just think that this next dlc will be mediocre at best because they have sort of been winding down on Mass Effect since the release of Leviathan.

Actually... no... you DON'T make a game for your devoted fans.  You make a game that will sell the most... (i.e. appeals to the widest player base possible).  You always have to expand your fanbase, because your "devoted fans" are a constantly shrinking pool.  With each game, you lose "devoted fans" for one reason or another (sometimes legitimate, sometimes for absurd, reasons).  With each iteration of a series, your "devoted fanbase" WILL get smaller unless you expand to bring more "devoted fans" in.

This isn't exactly a secret... and it's hardly something unique to Mass Effect.  It's not a concidence that damn near ALL series start drifting to the "mainstream", "Call of Duty" audience.

"For us, our primary goal -- and I know people say this a lot but it’s actually true -- it’s not to make money; it’s to make awesome games.


  Quoted from Chivalry.  Well then I hope that you don't make games yourself because clearly you don't know what game making is about.  The first goal should be to make awesome games and making money should be a secondary concern.  The money isn't an issue because it will naturally follow if you make awesome games.  See the Witcher 2 and CD Projekt Red.

[liggy002]

EnvyTB075 wrote...

chemiclord wrote...
And here's the problem with focusing on your "devoted fans."

First of all... what is a "devoted fan?"  Let's assume, for the sake of argument, it's the posters on this forum.  Okay... let's make a game for us.

Do you see the problem already?  You should.  For every decision you make... you ****** off an entirely different group of "devoted fans."  You can't make them all happy, because often one group of "devoted fans" wants something mutually exclusive to another group.

So... boom.  You've lost whichever group of "devoted fans" got the short straw for your next game.  But hey, let's keep working for our "devoted fans"... oh... that group is smaller... and new players aren't interested because they clearly aren't your target audience.  It's a completely unsustainable model.

So what is a game company to do?  Well, it's pretty simple... make the game THEY want to make and cast as broad of a net as they realistically can to maximize sales.  If the "devoted fans" don't like it... well it's a shame... but they can't make games for you specificially.  They're sorry you don't like it, but that's the way it is.

Theres a difference between making a game for a devoted fan, and making a game that lives up to its predessesors, which is what was expected. I don't think anyone expected the middle dialogue option to be removed, investigate options almost non-existant and the "paragon/renegade" options pretty much being the exact same thing or absolutely nothing that took the possibility of a variety of Shepards into account.

ME2 did it fine, why all of a sudden was it deemed "unworkable" in ME3? Why dilute your identity in the fear of losing dedicated fans and create a game that is functionally "ok" but not a true follow up to your previous works which would have been a far greater game?

TurianRebel212 wrote...

Well your playing the infiltator
to it's fulliest ability with a black widow and energy drain. This is
one of the OP classes in ME3. So insantity might be easy for you. Go try
a vanguard on insanity. That's when things get fun. 

Uh, no, because the game should be difficult no matter what class you used. I shouldn't have to play as a specific class for the game to be balanced.

   Multiplayer and the limited time schedule that EA forced on them make it unworkable.  This game needed more time for development and it should not have re used any levels from Multiplayer.  It greatly cheapened the experience.

[TurianRebel212]

liggy002 wrote...

chemiclord wrote...

Kabooooom wrote...

Let's be perfectly honest here, the "majority" likely doesn't care all that much. The ending being this source of rage (or even significant dislike) is probably limited to a very small segment of fans.

Absolutely. Obviously, in fact. But as a developer, do you create games for the people who don't give half a crap about them, or do you create games for your devoted fanbase?

The answer to that is also obvious.

In ME3, they attempted to appeal to a wider audience. That's totally fine. Perfectly reasonable. Hell, I actually enjoyed the tweaks to the combat system and the addition of multiplayer to the game. I have no problem with that at all. But they didn't make ME3 for people that play the game halfway and don't finish it, they made it for people like us - who love Mass Effect.

So yes, the majority of devoted fans dislike the endings. The majority of players in general don't care. And the majority of players overall still like ME3 as a game.

I still have faith that Bioware will continue to make fantastic games, but I just think that this next dlc will be mediocre at best because they have sort of been winding down on Mass Effect since the release of Leviathan.

Actually... no... you DON'T make a game for your devoted fans.  You make a game that will sell the most... (i.e. appeals to the widest player base possible).  You always have to expand your fanbase, because your "devoted fans" are a constantly shrinking pool.  With each game, you lose "devoted fans" for one reason or another (sometimes legitimate, sometimes for absurd, reasons).  With each iteration of a series, your "devoted fanbase" WILL get smaller unless you expand to bring more "devoted fans" in.

This isn't exactly a secret... and it's hardly something unique to Mass Effect.  It's not a concidence that damn near ALL series start drifting to the "mainstream", "Call of Duty" audience.

"For us, our primary goal -- and I know people say this a lot but it’s actually true -- it’s not to make money; it’s to make awesome games.


  Quoted from Chivalry.  Well then I hope that you don't make games yourself because clearly you don't know what game making is about.  The first goal should be to make awesome games and making money should be a secondary concern.  The money isn't an issue because it will naturally follow if you make awesome games.  See the Witcher 2 and CD Projekt Red.

Don't compare ME3 or Bioware to Cdprojekt red or the Witcher 2. It's a disservice to the latter. 

[BleedingUranium]

EnvyTB075 wrote...

chemiclord wrote...
Hence my particular heavy usage of quotation marks.

The "CoD audience" really is nothing more than changes made to make them more appealing to as broad of an audience as possible.  It's why ME3 was declared the "best time to enter the series" (or something to that effect).  You want new players... you don't want potential customers to feel that they shouldn't bother because they didn't buy the first two.

I suspect it's also why Bioware backed off on how many decisions you made in the first two games would drastically impact the third (or even from the first to second)... and why there wasn't any particularly special rewards for being a "devoted fan" right from the start.

The problem is that it almost never works. The closest CoD clone of last year that wasn't Blops II was MoHW, and that flopped HARD.

People who play CoD play CoD, they don't play something else thats trying to be CoD. The problem is publishers fail to recognise this. Its not CoD's fault, and i still rank CoD4 as one of the best FPS's of all time. Its just the way all these unique games with their individual gameplay traits are being sacrificed for a crowd that'll give it one look and go back to playing what they love.

I agree, it's very good, one of my favourite games of all time! If I could have a custom avatar (read: if I bothered to) here, it would likely be Captain Price.

The same thing happened to CoD that happened to Guitar Hero: the first few games were fairly popular and known, then CoD4/GH3 comes out and becomes a huge hit, and then every game after that suffers in quality because they just keep pumping out more and more of them.

[PainCakesx]

I recently bit the bullet and decided to give ME3 another Insanity run.

I went literally from finishing up ME2 to going straight into ME3 the same night.

After having gotten through ME2 on Adept and figuring all the little tricks of the class out (it's not nearly as hard as people say it is in ME2), ME3's Insanity definitely is markedly *much* easier.

Then again, I am abusing Liara's Stasis Bubble and my Double Throw a bit much :-p

But nevertheless, while I personally feel that ME3 was a step up in terms of pure gameplay mechanics, they DID seem to dumb down the difficulty levels a fair bit. I have to constantly check to make I'm on Insanity. I also liked the aspect of having to tailor your class to the enemy types - it added a certain level of strategy. In ME3, even shielded enemies are affected by certain biotic abilities *cough* Stasis *cough* that make it that much easier.

Modifié par PainCakesx, 17 février 2013 - 07:47 .

[BleedingUranium]

I recently bit the bullet and decided to give ME3 another Insanity run.

I went literally from finishing up ME2 to going straight into ME3 the same night.

After having gotten through ME2 on Adept and figuring all the little tricks of the class out (it's not nearly as hard as people say it is in ME2), ME3's Insanity definitely is markedly *much* easier.

Then again, I am abusing Liara's Stasis Bubble and my Double Throw a bit much :-p

But nevertheless, while I personally feel that ME3 was a step up in terms of pure gameplay mechanics, they DID seem to dumb down the difficulty levels a fair bit. I have to constantly check to make I'm on Insanity. I also liked the aspect of having to tailor your class to the enemy types - it added a certain level of strategy. In ME3, even shielded enemies are affected by certain biotic abilities *cough* Stasis *cough* that make it that much easier.

Yes, I agree with this. Insanity being too easy relative to the first two is one of the very few complaints I have with ME3. And I do miss that standard troops got shields on higher difficulties in ME2, that helped with immersion. Husks with armour I miss quite a bit less.

Modifié par BleedingUranium, 17 février 2013 - 07:50 .

[chemiclord]

liggy002 wrote...

"For us, our primary goal -- and I know people say this a lot but it’s actually true -- it’s not to make money; it’s to make awesome games.


  Quoted from Chivalry.  Well then I hope that you don't make games yourself because clearly you don't know what game making is about.  The first goal should be to make awesome games and making money should be a secondary concern.  The money isn't an issue because it will naturally follow if you make awesome games.  See the Witcher 2 and CD Projekt Red.

You don't honestly believe that bull****, do you?

If they got a message from their future selves saying "this game won't make you any money", guess what they'd do?  That game would not be made.  Full stop.  It's ALL about the money.

...

Ya know what?  Fine.  Your "devotion" makes you more valuable to a company.  Go ahead and believe that.  And when that company "betrays" you again (and they will), I'll look forward to drinking those tears once more.

Modifié par chemiclord, 17 février 2013 - 08:19 .

[AlanC9]

EnvyTB075 wrote...

Sounds like ME3 to me. In ME2 i'm using my powers (squad and my own) to demolish enemy defenses, leaving them exposed to my SMG.

Isn't that backwards? The SMG is better for stripping defenses than for kills -- if I was using an SMG I'd be using it to strip defenses so someone could kill the target with powers.

But both games are pretty damn easy. I just found ME2's combat to be a duller kind of easy, most of the time.

Modifié par AlanC9, 17 février 2013 - 08:30 .

[AlanC9]

EnvyTB075 wrote...
Theres a difference between making a game for a devoted fan, and making a game that lives up to its predessesors, which is what was expected. I don't think anyone expected the middle dialogue option to be removed, investigate options almost non-existant and the "paragon/renegade" options pretty much being the exact same thing or absolutely nothing that took the possibility of a variety of Shepards into account.

Actually, I was happy enough with losing investigate options. The only function most of them serve is to let the player skip dialogue by not asking about stuff, and since I do ask about stuff I'm often better served by integrating the info into the conversation proper.

It's not like ME3 had less dialogue than ME; it had more. Just implemented in different areas.