1470 réponses à ce sujet

[remydat]

Megaton_Hope wrote...

I don't consider the third game to consist of still images that were added after the official conclusion had been finalized. In-game, you kill the Rachni Queen instead of freeing her, and then you're confronted with an option to kill the Rachni Queen or free her.

That is a repetition of our task, to quote Kirrahe.

Reaper Easy-bake DNA aside, it's just pretty tacky to craft the narrative that way.

That is beside the point it matters.  You save the Queen and the bulk of Arlakh company dies.  If it is the fake Queen, she abandons the War Effort.  The still images at the end is just another potential impact. 

You kill Reapers in ME1 and you have to kill them in ME2.  That is a repetition of our task.

Look all you are going is personally deciding when it is ok to repeat tasks or how big the impact has to be for it to matter to you.  That is fine.  But the decisions matter period.

[Bleachrude]

IanPolaris wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

And inventory might have been the same process. What I took away from the ME1 system was that Bio really didn't believe in making a lot of different items in different tiers on the merits, so they implemented the reskins and statistical progression as a way to get the feature in without thinking too much about it.

And that (the bolded part) was the problem here.  The inventory system needed a complete overhaul, but what BW did in ME2 and 3 in response seemed cheap and lazy (at least to me).

-Polaris

What was wrong with the inventory systm in 3? More importantly, did ME actually need an inventory system? Most inventory systems are used to hold spare weapons and ammo but that was never really an issue with ME.

[Reorte]

Bleachrude wrote...

One thing I do agree though is that Bioware needs to remember that at the end of the game, players want to know what happened to the characters involved. Skyrim can get away without this since frankly, I don't think you're expected to get attached to the actual characters/world but in BW games, they REALLY do this nicely so yes, they should've had the extended cut endings already.

Skyrim is a totally different type of game though. Even ignoring the fact that there's precious little to any character in it (Serana in the DLC gets some I suppose - another one to add to all the complaints about ME characters with daddy issues ) the fact that you can carry on messing around in the world until you get bored makes a great deal of difference - there isn't an end, just an end to a main plot that only feels like it's there to give you something to do in the world, rather than being the primary reason for it.

[Reorte]

AlanC9 wrote...

Reorte wrote...
It's like the removal of various elements from ME1 that people objected to - people didn't like the fiddly inventory or the horrible samey terrain to lug the Mako over, so the response was "People don't like customisation and exploration, so we'll remove them."

In the case of the terrain, are you sure the answer wasn't that expending enough resources to do exploration right just wasn't worth it? The whole point of the ME1 design was to get cheap exploration. If that doesn't work out, it doesn't therefore follow that you should implement more expensive exploration, when the plot of the game isn't actually about exploration.

And inventory might have been the same process. What I took away from the ME1 system was that Bio really didn't believe in making a lot of different items in different tiers on the merits, so they implemented the reskins and statistical progression as a way to get the feature in without thinking too much about it.

Possibly, for the terrain at least. I find it an unconvincing justification for the removal of the inventory. It's a pity though, because at least at first the exploration really added a hell of a lot. I've just finished my first ME1 playthrough since ME3 came out and, it being so long since I'd played it (and therefore the repetition problems had faded), the feeling of being on another world for the first few planets came back, and was great. Just started ME2 again too and damn, it's atmospheric (admittedly that's partially nostalgia-driven since it's the ME game I played first).

[IanPolaris]

Bleachrude wrote...

What was wrong with the inventory systm in 3? More importantly, did ME actually need an inventory system? Most inventory systems are used to hold spare weapons and ammo but that was never really an issue with ME.

You go to a five star-restaurant with a grenade belt....but no armor or weapons.....

-Polaris

[remydat]

IanPolaris wrote...

Frankly yes.  The whole point of the game up unti the last 10 minutes was the defeat the reapers.  The only two endings that stay true to this are destroy and refuse (and refuse is a glorified 'game over' screen that IMHO is a middle finger from the Devs to the fans)

-Polaris

Maybe for you.  A large part of the game for me was trying to figure out what their motives were.  Once I did, I could then decide what to do.  I don't like making decisions with trillions of lives at stake without knowing why.

[IanPolaris]

remydat wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Frankly yes.  The whole point of the game up unti the last 10 minutes was the defeat the reapers.  The only two endings that stay true to this are destroy and refuse (and refuse is a glorified 'game over' screen that IMHO is a middle finger from the Devs to the fans)

-Polaris

Maybe for you.  A large part of the game for me was trying to figure out what their motives were.  Once I did, I could then decide what to do.  I don't like making decisions with trillions of lives at stake without knowing why.

I would say it was (or should have been) pretty much for everyone.  In ME1 it's Stop Saren (so you can stop the Reapers).  In ME2 it's Stop The Collectors (who work for the Reapers).  Finally even in ME3, it's "Stop the Reapers" (you say so directly to TIM and can even get TIM to shoot himself over this...vs control).  It's only at the VERY END does it stop being "Stop the Reapers".

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

remydat wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Frankly yes.  The whole point of the game up unti the last 10 minutes was the defeat the reapers.  The only two endings that stay true to this are destroy and refuse (and refuse is a glorified 'game over' screen that IMHO is a middle finger from the Devs to the fans)

-Polaris

Maybe for you.  A large part of the game for me was trying to figure out what their motives were.  Once I did, I could then decide what to do.  I don't like making decisions with trillions of lives at stake without knowing why.

Refering to the bolded statement:  You still do.  You have no reason to trust or believe anything the Star-kid says, and you have no reason to think that even if he is telling the truth, that he is correct (and you have a lot of reasons not to think this).

So in the end, you are still making decisions for trillions without knowing why.

-Polaris

[The Night Mammoth]

How could a large part of the game been about trying to figure out what their motives were if the game doesn't give us the opportunity to do that until the last ten minutes? Until the Catalyst, they remained in the same ambiguous state that they've been in since we first met Sovereign with only one revelation at the end of the last game.

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 12 mai 2013 - 11:31 .

[IanPolaris]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

How could a large part of the game been about trying to figure out what their motives were if the game doesn't give us the opportunity to do that until the last ten minutes? Until the Catalyst, they remained in the same ambiguous state that they've been in since we first met Sovereign with only one revelation at the end of the last game.

Indeed.  The only real exception to this is the Leviathan Arc, and that was DLC, and DLC made AFTER people complained about the endings at that, and even then you don't get much of a view into Reaper motives.

-Polaris

[Bleachrude]

Reorte wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Reorte wrote...
It's like the removal of various elements from ME1 that people objected to - people didn't like the fiddly inventory or the horrible samey terrain to lug the Mako over, so the response was "People don't like customisation and exploration, so we'll remove them."

In the case of the terrain, are you sure the answer wasn't that expending enough resources to do exploration right just wasn't worth it? The whole point of the ME1 design was to get cheap exploration. If that doesn't work out, it doesn't therefore follow that you should implement more expensive exploration, when the plot of the game isn't actually about exploration.

And inventory might have been the same process. What I took away from the ME1 system was that Bio really didn't believe in making a lot of different items in different tiers on the merits, so they implemented the reskins and statistical progression as a way to get the feature in without thinking too much about it.

Possibly, for the terrain at least. I find it an unconvincing justification for the removal of the inventory. It's a pity though, because at least at first the exploration really added a hell of a lot. I've just finished my first ME1 playthrough since ME3 came out and, it being so long since I'd played it (and therefore the repetition problems had faded), the feeling of being on another world for the first few planets came back, and was great. Just started ME2 again too and damn, it's atmospheric (admittedly that's partially nostalgia-driven since it's the ME game I played first).

Honestly, I think the use of the MP maps for the N7 missions in ME3 was in direct response to the complaints about the exploration in ME1 and ME2.

In the first two games, the actual side missions would quickly devolve into the player going into ANOTHER pre-fab building and I definitely remember many a complaint on BSN that this was evidence of lazy work on the part of Bioware.

The N7 maps are all distinct but this comes at the cost of having a smaller number of maps. Which admittedly I prefer.

(personally, I would've paid $5 for all of the MP maps added to the SP and integrated into the storyline as the N7 maps were...Even if only Cortez mentions them as opposed to all of your squaddies, I'd be happy with that)

Of course, the BEST option is to combine the planetary exploration of ME1 with the distinct maps of ME3, but that gets a tad too expensive...

[Reorte]

Bleachrude wrote...

Honestly, I think the use of the MP maps for the N7 missions in ME3 was in direct response to the complaints about the exploration in ME1 and ME2.

In the first two games, the actual side missions would quickly devolve into the player going into ANOTHER pre-fab building and I definitely remember many a complaint on BSN that this was evidence of lazy work on the part of Bioware.

The N7 maps are all distinct but this comes at the cost of having a smaller number of maps. Which admittedly I prefer.

(personally, I would've paid $5 for all of the MP maps added to the SP and integrated into the storyline as the N7 maps were...Even if only Cortez mentions them as opposed to all of your squaddies, I'd be happy with that)

Of course, the BEST option is to combine the planetary exploration of ME1 with the distinct maps of ME3, but that gets a tad too expensive...

The ME3 MP maps certainly had the variety, in a small area. In ME1 the "going into a small number of identical prefabs, just with a bit of differently-placed junk on the floor" grew old very quickly but was pretty good the first couple of times. I didn't get bothered by any repetition in 2.

I'm not sure what the compromise that's practical is, to be honest. Certainly the overall terrain could be improved without too much effort (it all looked randomly generated, with the very occasional flattening to make a ramp or flat place for a building - just an hour spent manually tweaking it per map would've made a huge difference). Buildings though would all have to be done manually and time-consumingly. Still, even though Skyrim's dungeons grew rather samey too they had a much greater range (and there were more of them), so something better is doable. Getting Skyrim's level of detail into enough outside parts though is impossible, when you'd need big enough worlds to not whizz across in 10 seconds in the Mako. Which would get stuck in the forests anyway.

That said even ME1's same buildings could've been used a little better. Bring Down the Sky managed to make them feel a bit different.

Modifié par Reorte, 12 mai 2013 - 11:42 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

remydat wrote...
Maybe for you.  A large part of the game for me was trying to figure out what their motives were.  Once I did, I could then decide what to do.  I don't like making decisions with trillions of lives at stake without knowing why.

First thing you say to the Catalyst is "I need to stop the Reapers, do you know how?". Even battle worn and emotionally drained that's still the driving force.

Followed by what the Reapers are actually trying to do and how it's now your problem.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 12 mai 2013 - 11:50 .

[Bleachrude]

IanPolaris wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

What was wrong with the inventory systm in 3? More importantly, did ME actually need an inventory system? Most inventory systems are used to hold spare weapons and ammo but that was never really an issue with ME.

You go to a five star-restaurant with a grenade belt....but no armor or weapons.....

-Polaris

*LOL*

Only thing I got is gameplay vs story segregation...

(As an aside, I know many found that sequence freaking hard but my 1st playthrough with my canon Shep was infiltrator FOR THE WIN

Now...how the hell do I STILL have my cloaking ability in the casual clothes I was wearing....same goes for my omni-tool)

[drayfish]

IanPolaris wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

I loved how In on zuhr publicly said DA][ was rushed and every dev posting on the boards said otherwise for the longest time....

honesty is such an underrated quality

This was part of what I was talking about how the DA][ team has slowly started to come clean.  I even recall a post by Priestly recently doing a Mea Culpa in this regard not too long ago.

-Polaris

...Priestly admitted a misstep on Bioware's behalf?

Let me just sit down to catch my breath.

Okay...

Um - phew...  Well at least tell me he was self-righteous and snotty when he did it.  Please - let me know that he was dismissive and vaguely contemptuous in what he said so that I know I've not tumbled into some kind of nonsense Wonderland.

:devil:

[Argolas]

Bleachrude wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

What was wrong with the inventory systm in 3? More importantly, did ME actually need an inventory system? Most inventory systems are used to hold spare weapons and ammo but that was never really an issue with ME.

You go to a five star-restaurant with a grenade belt....but no armor or weapons.....

-Polaris

*LOL*

Only thing I got is gameplay vs story segregation...

(As an aside, I know many found that sequence freaking hard but my 1st playthrough with my canon Shep was infiltrator FOR THE WIN

Now...how the hell do I STILL have my cloaking ability in the casual clothes I was wearing....same goes for my omni-tool)

Omni-tools shouldn't be a big deal, everyone has those.

[chemiclord]

What blows my mind was that Shepard DOESN'T have a sidearm on him at all times. That's just irresponsible. You're a freakin' SPECTRE man. The doorman telling you to leave your weapon should be responded to along the lines of, "It would be stupid for me to not be armed. Get out of my way then blow it out your ass."

[crimzontearz]

chemiclord wrote...

What blows my mind was that Shepard DOESN'T have a sidearm on him at all times. That's just irresponsible. You're a freakin' SPECTRE man. The doorman telling you to leave your weapon should be responded to along the lines of, "It would be stupid for me to not be armed. Get out of my way then blow it out your ass."

seconded.....but is hardly the most mind boggling issue with their logic

[Bleachrude]

Argolas wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

What was wrong with the inventory systm in 3? More importantly, did ME actually need an inventory system? Most inventory systems are used to hold spare weapons and ammo but that was never really an issue with ME.

You go to a five star-restaurant with a grenade belt....but no armor or weapons.....

-Polaris

*LOL*

Only thing I got is gameplay vs story segregation...

(As an aside, I know many found that sequence freaking hard but my 1st playthrough with my canon Shep was infiltrator FOR THE WIN

Now...how the hell do I STILL have my cloaking ability in the casual clothes I was wearing....same goes for my omni-tool)

Omni-tools shouldn't be a big deal, everyone has those.

Good point, but does this mean that even random Joe Blow can use his omni-tool to create tech powers like Snap freeze, incinerate and overload?

[BSpud]

angol fear wrote...
So I'm insane? I'm actually literature teacher, cinema critic and writer. I think I know a little what I'm talking about. So yes, the standard of writing in video game is low and yes, Mass Effect 3 (original ending) is the highest level of writing ever seen in the video game history but to understand that you need to understand literature from its origins till the experimental books in the 20th century, you need to understand what is the strucutralism to make a real analysis of Mass Effect you need to understand the theories of reception... I stop here : there's so much to explain to you and I don't have time to do this. You can dislike Mass Effect 3 but I wouldn't be proud to show my ignorance like you did and, most important, the way you did.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[IanPolaris]

chemiclord wrote...

What blows my mind was that Shepard DOESN'T have a sidearm on him at all times. That's just irresponsible. You're a freakin' SPECTRE man. The doorman telling you to leave your weapon should be responded to along the lines of, "It would be stupid for me to not be armed. Get out of my way then blow it out your ass."

Agreed except IMO the response should have been the same as Renegade's response on Noveria or Purgatory (also no-weapon zones):

"I will relinquish one bullet.  Where do you want it?"

-Polaris

[drayfish]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

You have to keep in mind that BioWare is known for not wanting to admit mistakes were made or trying to admit mistakes were made without actually admitting it. They could have leveled with the fans and said "Yeah, we screwed up and we'll try harder next time." That's all that needed to be said. But instead they defended their flawed work and acted like everyone else "just didn't get it."

Also keep in mind that they did the same thing with Dragon Age 2. All criticism leveled towards that game was met with resistance from BioWare, and that game was far worse than ME3. It isn't that BioWare doesn't listen to us. It's that they refuse to accept criticism openly.  Perhaps it's EA policy to not admit your mistakes until the next game is about to come out, I don't know.

Compare their response to criticism with Bethesda's response when dealing with Skyrim on the PS3. They didn't blame Sony or act like there weren't any issues or bring up "artistic integrity." They openly said it was their fault and that they were trying their hardest to fix the issues and eventually did. That is how you respond to criticism. And while fans did give Bethesda a lot of **** (fans will always complain about something), I still think they appreciated their honesty in the end.

BioWare needs to stop putting up a sound proof wall every time someone has a legitimate criticism. Acknowledging these flaws a year or two after the game comes out is not going to make people happy, and neither will having your lead designer make excuses and deflect criticism like Mike Laidlaw did in his "Dragon Age 2 defense" article.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

At least from my perspective, I think that this attitude (even above the truly vile message that they decided Mass Effect 'had' to have in its final moments) is the most demaging aspect of this whole debacle. 

Bioware were once defined by the quality of their games and the admirably open relationship that they had with their fan base.  Devs spoke to their audience, legitimately sought out feedback and tried to implement it in their projects.

Around the point of Mass Effect 2, though, it seems they started overcorrecting, giving up and stripping out components rather than tweaking them (Mako; customisation, etc), calling this answering fan concerns.  And by the time Dragon Age 2 arrived, they had begun wholly denying there were issues at all (game wasn't rushed; people appreciate the new visceral combat; etc), allowing the contradiction between product and message to fester.

And that's at the heart of the contradiction - the hypocrisy that now seems to haunt them.  You cannot continue to claim that you want (and have) an open relationship with fans when you choose to only accept what you want to hear - to cherry-pick the compliments ('75 perfect review scores!') and ignore, dismiss, or belittle the criticism ('vocal minority'; 'just wanted more time to say goodbye'; etc).

Claiming to 'understand' your fanbase's concerns, while actively going out of your way misintrpret, or miscontextualise these complaints in a faux-revisionism, makes a lie of that claim to respect audience response.

As I said, the point of difference in the industry for Bioware was that they were once known for quality products and an open dialogue with their fans.  Now they ship unfinished games (riddled with bugs, plotholes, and missing content), and slather the feedback with mealymouthed PR doublespeak so that the next one will be more likely to sell - just like almost every other company.

It is a truly disheartening thing to see.

Modifié par drayfish, 13 mai 2013 - 01:24 .

[Morty Smith]

Those quotes make me wonder what exactly "Lessons Learned" does apply to.

In the end only the next finished game can answer that honestly.

[Annihilator27]

Kroitz wrote...

Those quotes make me wonder what exactly "Lessons Learned" does apply to.

In the end only the next finished game can answer that honestly.

Yeah,Considering that leak script fiasco. Time to play the waiting game.

[Bill Casey]

Kroitz wrote...

Those quotes make me wonder what exactly "Lessons Learned" does apply to.

In the end only the next finished game series can answer that honestly.

Mass Effect 3 was the end of a five year story many got thoroughly invested in by playing Mass Effects 1 & 2...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 13 mai 2013 - 01:38 .