50 réponses à ce sujet

[Sanunes]

Metallica93 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

and those that played ME3 for multiplayer could (for the most part) care less about the endings (or most of the SP game).

I can add 'playing multiplayer in a game meant for single player' (along with people starting the trilogy at ME2) to the list of things I'll never understand. It's like reading the second book first.

And this whole "multiplayer in every game" business EA is doing is destroying what I like about gaming. The best/most recent example is "Spec Ops: The Line." One of the themes in the game made that exact sentiment known and yet the publisher made another developer create a multiplayer aspect. ME3 was extremely lucky their multiplayer was good.

The fact that BW: Montreal is making the next Mass Effect game tells me all I need to know about what part of ME3 commercially suceeded and what sort of game it is liable to be (and I am guessing not an RPG at all).

I knew nothing about Montreal or Edmonton until 5 minutes ago. No idea what that's supposed to mean, but all I know is that Edmonton were the original ME team.

And that Metacritic fan rating for ME3 was hilarious.

Edmonton is where Mass Effect 1, 2, and 3 were made and Montreal made a couple DLC for Mass Effect 2, the multiplayer for Mass Effect 3, and Omega for Mass Effect 3.

[Nitrocuban]

iakus wrote...

iPoohCupCakes wrote...

Metallica93 wrote...

Watching that E3 convention (was interesting the first time I watched it last year) and apparently ME4 is being worked on in Montreal.

Also, apparently ME3 was a "huge success." lol

It was a huge success despite the ending. 

Massive preorders tend to do that 

With all that "preorder cancelled" on BSN? Nah ....

[Metallica93]

Sanunes wrote...

Metallica93 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

and those that played ME3 for multiplayer could (for the most part) care less about the endings (or most of the SP game).

I can add 'playing multiplayer in a game meant for single player' (along with people starting the trilogy at ME2) to the list of things I'll never understand. It's like reading the second book first.

And this whole "multiplayer in every game" business EA is doing is destroying what I like about gaming. The best/most recent example is "Spec Ops: The Line." One of the themes in the game made that exact sentiment known and yet the publisher made another developer create a multiplayer aspect. ME3 was extremely lucky their multiplayer was good.

The fact that BW: Montreal is making the next Mass Effect game tells me all I need to know about what part of ME3 commercially suceeded and what sort of game it is liable to be (and I am guessing not an RPG at all).

I knew nothing about Montreal or Edmonton until 5 minutes ago. No idea what that's supposed to mean, but all I know is that Edmonton were the original ME team.

And that Metacritic fan rating for ME3 was hilarious.

Edmonton is where Mass Effect 1, 2, and 3 were made and Montreal made a couple DLC for Mass Effect 2, the multiplayer for Mass Effect 3, and Omega for Mass Effect 3.

Had no issue with the ME2 DLC, but I heard Omega wasn't that good. But thanks for the info. Polaris' comment makes sense now (and it saddens me).

erezike wrote...

I agree with metallica. its best to seperate the two. and make the multiplayer a spinoff game with more depth to it.

Originally reading about ME3's multiplayer made it seem like it actually had to do something with the story, but it was just the EMS and same enemies/maps. A game series like ME doesn't need multiplayer. It has plenty enough to focus on with an extremely in-depth campaign with high replayability.

To be honest, I'm not sure how I feel about mixing the two in one game. Most people will wind up paying $60 regardless which is why I wait a year or two to buy video games even for my PC.

[Cainne Chapel]

the multiplayer didn't bother me one bit, i played it a few times, but never very much, and its not like it took away from the game really as it used the same levels and art. Besides I do enjoy shooting cerberus with my buddies every now again.

But then I've never seen it as an either/or kind of thing.if MP is done well it adds to the experience for me, such as MP in Uncharted 2/3, uncharted didn't NEED MP either, but daggone it if it wasn't fun as heck.

its also funny that people say ME2 is the best now... back when ME2 came out... BSN would have you believe it was the worst game and/or sequel in the world.  But then the general opinion of the BSN is mercurial and flows with the tide.  Personally I much prefferred the gameplay and weapons systems from ME3, though I do wish the heavy weapons were more readily available ala ME2.  I also liked the level up system in ME3 moreso than ME2, but either way both games were great by my estimate

Modifié par Cainne Chapel, 12 juin 2013 - 12:05 .

[Remix-General Aetius]

Ninja Stan wrote...

EA likely looks at "actual number of games sold" rather than "how the internet thinks we did" when determining whether a game is a success.

OF COURSE EA would look at it like that, as opposed to No of copies bought VS No of copies KEPT. Those are two way different things, now aren't they?

EA wouldn't know a great game even if it kissed them on the ******. No wonder they're the reigning "Worst Company In America" champion.

Modifié par TheGarden2010, 12 juin 2013 - 08:03 .

[elrofrost]

I don't agree that ME3 was a terrible game. Sure the ending was crap. But overall it was a great game. All the ME games were great. It sucked me into their universe. And even after the party is over here we are STILL talking about it.

But one point: ME series has proved that we players love RPG's. That we want to care and love our characters. And since the real money in this industry is made with loyal fans I think we'll see more of these types of game. And I can't wait.

Reminds me of Skyrim. Yes parts of Skyrim were BORING. The main quest was very week. But Skyrim proved that we all want open-ended, free range worlds. Now everybody is running with that. And Skyrim (not to mention the thousands of fan mods) is STILL selling well. So is ME3 by the way.

Did BW stumbler with the ending of ME3. Yes. They also fell over with DA2. But DA3 is coming. And so is ME4. I for one can't wait to see these (and other) games.

[Erez Kristal]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

the multiplayer didn't bother me one bit, i played it a few times, but never very much, and its not like it took away from the game really as it used the same levels and art. Besides I do enjoy shooting cerberus with my buddies every now again.

But then I've never seen it as an either/or kind of thing.if MP is done well it adds to the experience for me, such as MP in Uncharted 2/3, uncharted didn't NEED MP either, but daggone it if it wasn't fun as heck.

its also funny that people say ME2 is the best now... back when ME2 came out... BSN would have you believe it was the worst game and/or sequel in the world.  But then the general opinion of the BSN is mercurial and flows with the tide.  Personally I much prefferred the gameplay and weapons systems from ME3, though I do wish the heavy weapons were more readily available ala ME2.  I also liked the level up system in ME3 moreso than ME2, but either way both games were great by my estimate

I heard this before.

this is a claimless statement. in almost all of the player reviews mass effect 2 is the players favorite greatly outscoring mass effect 3.
I havent found a site where it was opposite.

The majority of the players think mass effect 2 is a much better game than mass effect 3.
Mass effect 2 is actually one of the highest rated games of all time by the players.

[Erez Kristal]

elrofrost wrote...

I don't agree that ME3 was a terrible game. Sure the ending was crap. But overall it was a great game. All the ME games were great. It sucked me into their universe. And even after the party is over here we are STILL talking about it.

But one point: ME series has proved that we players love RPG's. That we want to care and love our characters. And since the real money in this industry is made with loyal fans I think we'll see more of these types of game. And I can't wait.

Reminds me of Skyrim. Yes parts of Skyrim were BORING. The main quest was very week. But Skyrim proved that we all want open-ended, free range worlds. Now everybody is running with that. And Skyrim (not to mention the thousands of fan mods) is STILL selling well. So is ME3 by the way.

Did BW stumbler with the ending of ME3. Yes. They also fell over with DA2. But DA3 is coming. And so is ME4. I for one can't wait to see these (and other) games.

Skyrim is far from being a perfect game. the main difference between mass effect 3 and skyrim is the love that was given to it when it was made. and that is also what made mass effect 2 such a great game. it was made with love.

What does love mean? attention for details.  atmosphere, creating an ambtious game that tries to innovate and bring the genre a few steps forward.

mass effect 3 was too quickly developed and didnt recieve enough love. it was more of a quick fix.

[Iakus]

TheGarden2010 wrote...

OF COURSE EA would look at it like that, as opposed to No of copies bought VS No of copies KEPT. Those are two way different things, now aren't they?

Bingo.  A very important distinction.

[chcknwng]

Ah the eternal argument: ME MP vs SP.

Me, and a lot of people I play with now were believers of MP having no business in MP universe. We set out to raise our EMS a little, and never went back to play SP again. The ending was crap, but you gotta give them credits for making such an addictive and excellent MP (of course, a lot of "working as intended").

For the next ME, I'm on the fence. I probably will wait out and see fans' reaction. So is with the next DA.

[Oni Changas]

Exactly my thoughts, wng.

[elrofrost]

erezike wrote...

mass effect 3 was too quickly developed and didnt recieve enough love. it was more of a quick fix.

This might be true. I kind of think Bioware knew this series was ending and tried to tie up all the charaters. Which is why the Citadel DLC was released. Sure it's a great fan DLC but more important Citadel really is the end of the series. Something ME3 didn't pull off well. 

IMHO even Citadel washes over several of the charaters. But I'm ok with that.

It's clear that Bioware wanted an end to this vein of ME. And move on to other projects. Maybe they did get bored with Shepard and company, or maybe they feared continuing the series. I don't know. 

All I know is I miss the games. I miss the chararters. I'm looking for a replacment right now. And of course, I'm replying the series again.

Modifié par elrofrost, 12 juin 2013 - 05:42 .

[N7-RedFox]

Metallica93 wrote...

Watching that E3 convention (was interesting the first time I watched it last year) and apparently ME4 is being worked on in Montreal.

Also, apparently ME3 was a "huge success." lol

Mass Effect 3 was only a huge success because ME2 was. People went straight out and pre-ordered/bought the game without waiting for reviews. We all expected it to be as good, if not better, than ME1 and 2.

The only trouble with ME3 was the last 10 mins of the game after the beam. Everything before that was fine. But in those last 10 minutes Mac and Casey single-handedly frakked up the entire trilogy. ME3 MP was a success though. Quite a few bugs left in it but still a very fun MP. 

I must admit I do find it hard to go back and play through ME1, 2 and 3 - knowing how badly 3 ends. It puts me off. I hope ME4 will put Shepard's ghost to rest and bring us an ending which makes us forgive ME3's ending. But that is very long longshot. 

[Beerfish]

meta critic is a joke that should be totally disregarded. A fine idea gone awry.

[Fixers0]

In terms of overall quality, Mass Effect 3 is mostly mediocre, Most of the critits' reviews are based on style instead of substance which explains their highers rates. In terms of sales, the sucecs of ME3 is largely dependenton loose promises and false advertisments.

[Metallica93]

elrofrost wrote...

I don't agree that ME3 was a terrible
game. Sure the ending was crap. But overall it was a great game. All the
ME games were great. It sucked me into their universe. And even after
the party is over here we are STILL talking about it.

But one
point: ME series has proved that we players love RPG's. That we want to
care and love our characters. And since the real money in this industry
is made with loyal fans I think we'll see more of these types of game.
And I can't wait.

I preferred ME2/ME3's smoother combat system, but aside from the repetitive Mako missions and prefab facilities I think ME1 was the best of the bunch. ME2's characters felt flat most of the game for me. ME3, however, was just simply rushed. It was good at times, but it shifted more towards FPS. I was happy with the balance that ME1 kept.

Miscellaneous: "RPG" as a genre always confused me. In almost every video game ever made you play as a character or characters. You're role playing.

I do agree, however, that replaying the series will be slightly difficult. I'm not one to finish a book, play a game, or watch a movie and then immediately read/play/watch it again like some, but I honestly just might skip the last 10 minutes of the game and buy the Citadel DLC.

[liggy002]

I have no interest in ME4.

[elrofrost]

[quote]Metallica93 wrote...
And I can't wait.[/quote]I preferred ME2/ME3's smoother combat system, but aside from the repetitive Mako missions and prefab facilities I think ME1 was the best of the bunch. ME2's characters felt flat most of the game for me. ME3, however, was just simply rushed. It was good at times, but it shifted more towards FPS. I was happy with the balance that ME1 kept.
[/quote]

Agreed. ME3 has the best combat system out of the 3. ME1 has the best story. Overall. But ME3 was supposed to be the end. I look at the Citadel DLC as the "end"; the last misson and goodbyes. It's a great DLC that brought tears and laughs.

[Wolfva2]

erezike wrote...

Ninja Stan wrote...

EA likely looks at "actual number of games sold" rather than "how the internet thinks we did" when determining whether a game is a success.

reputation affect future profits. mass effect 3 damaged bioware reputation.
bioware repuation after me1 and me2 was fairly high.

After dragon age 2 and mass effect 3 they will have a much harder time selling a low scoring game.
And yes 'player reviews' do matter.



For example: following mass effect 1 and mass effect 2 I knew i would play mass effect 3 the only way it wouldnt happen would have been if it received really low scores.
as things turned out it failed to check meta-critic and setteled only for gamespot player reviews. 

Same story for dragon age 2. i really loved dragon age 1 and felt it was one of the best games in recent years. but dragon age 2 was terribile in almost every way.

Dragon age 2 and mass effect 3 may have been succesful in revenue but the damage they both did to bioware reputation as video games makers is unquestionable. 

Despite the fact of dragon age 2 being worse than me3 it did less damage because it was a spinoff to the original dragon age. while mass effect 3 simply destroyed the franchise story, shepard character and our suspension of desbelief. and just to be clear. the ending play a very little part in all of this. 

I am not saying mass effect 4 wont be successful in revenue or player reviews. i am saying it will have to do a better job at proving itself worthy and ea will have a harder job selling it than mass effect 3.

Translation:  "I hated the game therefore everyone hates the game therefore BW reputation is in the crap can"

Funny thing about DA1.  A lot of people hated it.  As the forum showed back then.  Plenty of people claimed this was evidence that BW was going down hill and would soon be bankrupt.  When DA2 came out, many people doubled down on the hate parade.  No one would EVER buy a BW game because they had such a poor reputation among their 'fans'.  Then ME 2 and 3 came out and broke records. 

Ok.  You hate something.  Whoop de do.  Want a cookie?  A lot of people liked DA2.  A lot like ME3.  A lot will buy ME4 and DA3.  Ironically, YOU, the guy who haunts a forum dedicated to a game you claim sucks, will probably buy it.  So much for their bad rep, eh?

[Cainne Chapel]

erezike wrote...

Cainne Chapel wrote...

the multiplayer didn't bother me one bit, i played it a few times, but never very much, and its not like it took away from the game really as it used the same levels and art. Besides I do enjoy shooting cerberus with my buddies every now again.

But then I've never seen it as an either/or kind of thing.if MP is done well it adds to the experience for me, such as MP in Uncharted 2/3, uncharted didn't NEED MP either, but daggone it if it wasn't fun as heck.

its also funny that people say ME2 is the best now... back when ME2 came out... BSN would have you believe it was the worst game and/or sequel in the world.  But then the general opinion of the BSN is mercurial and flows with the tide.  Personally I much prefferred the gameplay and weapons systems from ME3, though I do wish the heavy weapons were more readily available ala ME2.  I also liked the level up system in ME3 moreso than ME2, but either way both games were great by my estimate

I heard this before.

this is a claimless statement. in almost all of the player reviews mass effect 2 is the players favorite greatly outscoring mass effect 3.
I havent found a site where it was opposite.

The majority of the players think mass effect 2 is a much better game than mass effect 3.
Mass effect 2 is actually one of the highest rated games of all time by the players.

How is it a claimless statement when I was on these VERY forums at the time and heard all the moaning and complaining?  ME2 got tons of compaints on the BSN for lack oc customization, the lack of overall story, change of gameplay etc etc.  Pretty much the same compaints one can levy at ME3.

and while I dont know exactly which site your talking about, my point was very much rooted in BSN and once again my "claimless statement" was based on general forum sentiment at the time.  Just like how you feel ME2 is better than ME3, a LOT of people HERE felt ME1 was better than ME2 at the time.  Funny how that works huh?

In any case< I still enjoy ME3 gameplay wise a bit more than ME2 as it feels like an expansion of ME2's gameplay, though I do miss heavy weapons.  and honestly as i have no ill feelings towards the ending, I still consider it one of my favorites.

[Cainne Chapel]

Wolfva2 wrote...

erezike wrote...

Ninja Stan wrote...

EA likely looks at "actual number of games sold" rather than "how the internet thinks we did" when determining whether a game is a success.

reputation affect future profits. mass effect 3 damaged bioware reputation.
bioware repuation after me1 and me2 was fairly high.

After dragon age 2 and mass effect 3 they will have a much harder time selling a low scoring game.
And yes 'player reviews' do matter.



For example: following mass effect 1 and mass effect 2 I knew i would play mass effect 3 the only way it wouldnt happen would have been if it received really low scores.
as things turned out it failed to check meta-critic and setteled only for gamespot player reviews. 

Same story for dragon age 2. i really loved dragon age 1 and felt it was one of the best games in recent years. but dragon age 2 was terribile in almost every way.

Dragon age 2 and mass effect 3 may have been succesful in revenue but the damage they both did to bioware reputation as video games makers is unquestionable. 

Despite the fact of dragon age 2 being worse than me3 it did less damage because it was a spinoff to the original dragon age. while mass effect 3 simply destroyed the franchise story, shepard character and our suspension of desbelief. and just to be clear. the ending play a very little part in all of this. 

I am not saying mass effect 4 wont be successful in revenue or player reviews. i am saying it will have to do a better job at proving itself worthy and ea will have a harder job selling it than mass effect 3.

Translation:  "I hated the game therefore everyone hates the game therefore BW reputation is in the crap can"

Funny thing about DA1.  A lot of people hated it.  As the forum showed back then.  Plenty of people claimed this was evidence that BW was going down hill and would soon be bankrupt.  When DA2 came out, many people doubled down on the hate parade.  No one would EVER buy a BW game because they had such a poor reputation among their 'fans'.  Then ME 2 and 3 came out and broke records. 

Ok.  You hate something.  Whoop de do.  Want a cookie?  A lot of people liked DA2.  A lot like ME3.  A lot will buy ME4 and DA3.  Ironically, YOU, the guy who haunts a forum dedicated to a game you claim sucks, will probably buy it.  So much for their bad rep, eh?

It should also be noted , people will always find ways to justify their own personal dislike of something.  I mean hey... look no further than this E3 and the whole MS vs Sony thing.  You actually have people out there claiming built in hardware DRM is a GOOD thing now.

Its.... quite a sight really..

[KaiserShep]

wngmv wrote...

Ah the eternal argument: ME MP vs SP.

Me, and a lot of people I play with now were believers of MP having no business in MP universe. We set out to raise our EMS a little, and never went back to play SP again. The ending was crap, but you gotta give them credits for making such an addictive and excellent MP (of course, a lot of "working as intended").

For the next ME, I'm on the fence. I probably will wait out and see fans' reaction. So is with the next DA.

Multiplayer in and of itself doesn't really bother me, so long as it's never necessary to have access to all possible outcomes to the game in strict single player. What does kind of bother me just a bit is how it also serves to screw with the lore a little. The Awakened Collectors are a fair example. I don't pay them much mind since there's no mention of them whatsoever in the game's actual story, but knowing they exist, it makes me wonder what other kind of lore-breaking nonsense could potentially infect future iterations of the series. 

[Cainne Chapel]

KaiserShep wrote...

wngmv wrote...

Ah the eternal argument: ME MP vs SP.

Me, and a lot of people I play with now were believers of MP having no business in MP universe. We set out to raise our EMS a little, and never went back to play SP again. The ending was crap, but you gotta give them credits for making such an addictive and excellent MP (of course, a lot of "working as intended").

For the next ME, I'm on the fence. I probably will wait out and see fans' reaction. So is with the next DA.

Multiplayer in and of itself doesn't really bother me, so long as it's never necessary to have access to all possible outcomes to the game in strict single player. What does kind of bother me just a bit is how it also serves to screw with the lore a little. The Awakened Collectors are a fair example. I don't pay them much mind since there's no mention of them whatsoever in the game's actual story, but knowing they exist, it makes me wonder what other kind of lore-breaking nonsense could potentially infect future iterations of the series. 

Thats understandable, but then if its MP only, I dont mind it very much because, hey Fun comes before lore and if people have fun shooting collectors.... why not?  But yes if it starts to invade SP, WITHOUT proper explanation, then yeah i have a problem with that.

[SilJeff]

I for one am really excited about ME"4".

I know the last ten minutes of ME3 sucked, but to me Leviathan and the EC fixed it. Plus Citadel fixed the only other real problem I had with it (the lack of ME2 squadmates outside of little cameos). Now the only problem I have with the game is Priority: Earth. I think it needs at least some cutscenes featuring my War Assets at work, but even that is not a big problem. And some more non-fetchquest side missions that don't involve Cerberus (maybe involving Irune, Dekunna, and the Hanar homeworld?), but overall I think ME3 was great, just not as great as ME2. (Which, I think a next-gen "Director's cut" Mass Effect Trilogy could add all of that)

I will pre-order the CE and I wouldn't have any regrets. Call me a fanboy if you want, but I didn't hate ME3

[CapnManx]

TheGarden2010 wrote...

Ninja Stan wrote...

EA likely looks at "actual number of games sold" rather than "how the internet thinks we did" when determining whether a game is a success.

OF COURSE EA would look at it like that, as opposed to No of copies bought VS No of copies KEPT. Those are two way different things, now aren't they?

EA wouldn't know a great game even if it kissed them on the ******. No wonder they're the reigning "Worst Company In America" champion.

Actually, they'll know how many people bought the DLC for it too.  That would give them an idea of 'No of copies kept', and probably factors into their assesment of the game's success.