1624 réponses à ce sujet

[GreasySpoon]

Just found these, totes getting one!
http://www.redbubble..._location=front

[TruthSerum]

I only wish Bioware, to show with ME:A that they still might do great games, after DA2 and mess with ME3. Good luck.

[TruthSerum]

ME3 was a great game. This is true because probably 95% of the people that bought it actually finished it.

I would say that way less than half of games actually get finished. Gamers flat dont finish bad games. Not counting the hardcore completionists that will 100% just about anything.

On the other hand EVERYBODY with very, very few exceptions finished ME3.

Also INB4 "I just wanted to see how the story ended". With the vast majority of gamers story goes right out the window and the game will sit on a players shelf or hd as just another addition to their pile of shame if the game is bad or even mediocre.

I hope MEA is closer to ME3 than DAI. ME3 was a great game so like just about everybody else that played it, I finished it. On he other hand DAI was a very mediocre game so no, I didn't finish it.I would guess that more than half of the gamers that bought it didn't finish it as well.

I'm sure BW has the numbers of who finished what and who didn't because companies track this stuff nowadays. I just hope BW is smart and puts that knowledge to good use.

[Iakus]

ME3 was a great game. This is true because probably 95% of the people that bought it actually finished it.

I would say that way less than half of games actually get finished. Gamers flat dont finish bad games. Not counting the hardcore completionists that will 100% just about anything.

On the other hand EVERYBODY with very, very few exceptions finished ME3.
 

Actually I believe it's been said less than half finished the game.

[TruthSerum]

Actually I believe it's been said less than half finished the game.

Sauce?

[Valkyrja]

Here is the completion percentage for ME3 and for comparison other BW titles.

 

ME2: 56%

ME3: 42%

DA2: 41%

ME1: 40%

DA:O: 36%

 

Source

 

That is better than some other games that had completion rates of around 10%

[TruthSerum]

Here is the completion percentage for ME3 and for comparison other BW titles.

ME2: 56%
ME3: 42%
DA2: 41%
ME1: 40%
DA:O: 36%

Source

That is better than some other games that had completion rates of around 10%

Interesting. I wonder what DAI's numbers are.

It's also interesting that DAO'S numbers are the lowest of all.

[Torgette]

Interesting. I wonder what DAI's numbers are.

It's also interesting that DAO'S numbers are the lowest of all.

 

36% is actually really high for a game like DAO.

[AlanC9]

It's just length. DA:O was too long

[AWDAJ]

Welcome to the forums!

 

We don't know how much (or little) we'll know about the galaxy we leave behind, but I wouldn't expect detailed codex entries on the Milky Way - if we even get any at all. Expect them to focus completely on Andromeda and you can only be pleasantly surprised

 

Also, in regards to a remastering: the latest word is that there are currently no plans. Sorry

I'll be guttied if thats true. In fact I think they should grab Drew Karpyshyn and get him to write another novel on the series. Hit us with some background on the races and what lead to the 'Andromeda Expedition'. You what would really twist the knife. After saving the galaxy we discover its dying so everyone has to leave and find a new home. That would be typical though wouldnt it?

 

This is one of the few games that I love to get immersed in, Halo being the other, and spend hours reading up on the universe. Anyway, ill settle for what we get. 

 

As for the remastered. I know its all speculative and might never happen. Im just showing my support for it, cause it bloody should happen!

[AresKeith]

Interesting. I wonder what DAI's numbers are.

It's also interesting that DAO'S numbers are the lowest of all.

 

Blame the Fade

[dreamgazer]

Blame the Fade

Length, Fade and Deep Roads. Absolutely.

[AresKeith]

Length, Fade and Deep Roads. Absolutely.

 

The Deep Roads weren't that bad tbh

[dreamgazer]

The Deep Roads weren't that bad tbh

Zzzz.... Soooo tedious.

[themikefest]

I like the fade and deep roads in DAO.

[robertthebard]

But synthesis entirely rewrites what 'life' is. [/size]
 
If all endings res[/size]ult in the same type of h[/size]uman, asari, krogan etc. characters, then the effects of synthesis are either negligible, which contradicts what occ[/size]urs in the epilog[/size]ue of that ending totally, or inevitable.[/size]

Or simply too far away to matter? Which Relay was it that led to the Andromeda galaxy, so that whatever ending taken in ME 3, all effects were, after all, transmitted through the relays, would affect the galaxy at all. It's entirely possible, and preferable that the events of the first three don't come up at all.

[CronoDragoon]

Interesting. I wonder what DAI's numbers are.

It's also interesting that DAO'S numbers are the lowest of all.

 

While not accounting for Xbox and PC peeps, PSNProfiles.com shows a 31% completion rate for DA: I, which I think is about 5% higher then when I checked earlier in the year. By the time DA: I is as old as DA: O it'll probably be about the same.

 

Also, with ME3, remember it had multiplayer, which will skew the SP completion rates a bit for people primarily playing for the MP.

[TruthSerum]

I think DAO's' numbers are a sign that the playerbase is moving away from more traditional rpg game mechanics and prefers a more action oriented style of play.

I think the old schoolers are a very vocal minority and no longer represent the norm. I also think BW would be wise to move away from that style of combat and work on trying to refine the real time style of combat that was so effectively implemented in ME3.

I just want to make doubly sure that BW doesn't go backwards with MEA and try to cater to this very vocal but shrinking minority. I also think the DA series would benefit greatly with an ME over the shoulder type of view but modified for swords bows & arrows and spells.


If a game company can make super solid real time action without sacrificing strategy game style depth they would absolutely crush the competition.

A DA game more focused on strategy style combat would be better served as a mobile or smaller Steam/xbl/psn style game.

[Blackguard]

I also think the DA series would benefit greatly with an ME over the shoulder type of view but modified for swords bows & arrows and spells.

 

I am an oldschooler to a certain degree, i would have prefered the DA:O style for all DA games.

But still i agree with you, that the over the shoudler style would have been better than what they did in both DA 2 and DA:I.

I didn't enjoyed any of them.

 

When it comes to ME Andromeda, i hope they stick as close to ME 3 as possible.

In my opionion it fits this setting best.

ME never was an oldschool rpg.

 

PS: And the games are not getting shorter because the people got lesser time, but because they are not satisfied with anything anymore and got zero patience.

Faster = more = better, even in the things they should enjoy. Enjoyment is confused with achievement these days all the time.

As sick as it is, i realize that on myself more often than i want to.

We are getting indoctrinated i tell you *points vague to the stars*.

But the ME games are something that shows, at least to me, the difference between entertainment and virtual experiences. I like to get lost in it and i can enjoy the experience while it lasts, not only feel the shallow illusion of satisfaction when i "achieved" the playthrough.

 

[goishen]

Yah, I mean, I once heard someone on youtube arguing for a six hour play experience.  $60...    For a six hour play experience.   Let that sink in for a second.

[k177sh0t]

Any chance a prothean manage to launch themselves to Andromeda? If bunch of dudes and dudettes manage to go there surely protheans can do that too?

[goishen]

Any chance a prothean manage to launch themselves to Andromeda? If bunch of dudes and dudettes manage to go there surely protheans can do that too?

 

 

That's kind'a what scares me.    We're gonna find out that all the races there were once in the MW galaxy.

[dreamgazer]

While not accounting for Xbox and PC peeps, PSNProfiles.com shows a 31% completion rate for DA: I, which I think is about 5% higher then when I checked earlier in the year. By the time DA: I is as old as DA: O it'll probably be about the same.

Maybe not. Inquisition was thrown in EA's Access vault, which means a lot of people might be trying it out who have zero intention of finishing it.

[MsKlaussen]

This is going to sound stupid, and I'm probably depraved and the only one of my kind, but...

 

As much as I liked the trailer, especially the world designs, the warp speed travel and the Mako, it wasn't until the very last second that I got that Mass Effect tingle that I used to get listening to the music on the menu screen from Mass Effect 1. One single synth note when the character was standing there in his armour next to the title. It just said to me, "ssssssspace opera. Agaaaain with teh......exploring of teh sssssspace 'n stuff".

 

Whispered it really.  Like right in my ear and whatnot. And then I was having teh excite

[Natureguy85]

But doesn't the ending, two out the four (destroy and control), show that this was all just bluster?  And somewhat synthesis. 

 

I mean, you come off as making no sense, sometimes.   You are expecting someone to tell what's going on in the story.  That is bad writing.  Stories are supposed to show us, not tell us.

 

The endings don't show that, though you could say the Catalyst itself does. However, this is somewhat an argument after the fact because I don't think the end of Mass Effect 3 was conceptualized when Sovereign's dialogue was written.

 

I'm with you on "show, don't tell". The way the game showed us the Reapers have a beginning was showing one being made in Mass Effect 2. However that whole thing was pretty silly. The Catalyst is 100% tell. The last scene of the game is nothing but Shepard getting lectured. However the biggest problem of all with the ending is that the series never showed us that the catalyst is correct in its premise. In fact, it showed us the opposite. Yet despite what we've seen, we are told "this is how it is and here are your options."

 

Also, being a role-playing game, not everyone is going to play Ned Stark.  Nor is everyone going to play as Walter White.  So forcing a tragedy on everyone is just a bad idea all around.  Tragedy should be a result of a player's actions.  Not DM Fiat.

 

I wouldn't agree in every case, but this is certainly true for a game like Mass Effect.

 

Sure, but the new information doesn't change that Shepard and the rest of the galaxy believe the Crucible is the only way to victory. It may change whether or not Shepard believes the galaxy is worth saving given the consequences, I suppose, but that would be quite a sociopathic, egotistical Shepard (ie, my moral integrity is more important than billions of lives).

 

Anyway, I was responding to the role-playing topic of the convo, so changing the story wasn't really in play. Given the hypothetical, Refuse is - in my mind - clearly cowardice. It can't even be arrogant stupidity, since Shepard has been on board with the Crucible precisely because he believes in the low odds of success otherwise. If it's meant as a meta commentary (ie not RPing the decision as Shepard) then I can understand Refuse as a rejection of the hypothetical entirely due to player disgust.

 

To tie this in with MEA, my preference would be DA2's approach. Contrary to what Iakus believes, I assert that the player should sometimes be subjected to unavoidable tragedy. And sometimes they should be able to avoid it. The best approach to moral choice is, in my opinion, consistent inconsistency. This is different from the ME trilogy, which was consistent all the way until the end, when it wasn't. DA2, on the other hand, is throughout the game keeping the player on his or her toes. Having the player get whatever they want or have everything determinable by their actions is a bit boring, and so is the player always winning or losing no matter what. Somewhere in between is Dragon Age 2, where you don't know how things will turn out, and sometimes your actions make a difference, and sometimes they don't. The result of this is a deep discomfort within the player in a good way, since suddenly choices presented in the game can have really dire consequences (ie, taking your sibling to the Deep Roads) and you aren't really reassured that everything will be on right. On the other hand, sometimes you can make a difference (most times, let's say), which prevents player apathy. This type of choice paradigm also has the benefit of being more true to life than either of the extremes.

 

The problem with how you're looking at it is that they had no reason to believe in the Crucible. It's just something that they hope will kill the Reapers, but even at the end, they have no idea what it does. They just have nothing else better going on, which I think was a problem. In the Matrix, the Commander doesn't believe in The One and has a plan for a conventional fight that they do their best to execute, even as some of the people continue to hope that Neo will save them. The Catalyst says the Crucible is little more than a power source and it just unlocks other functions of the Citadel, which makes no sense. The races that built it had no idea this was the case.

 

It's not about moral integrity, though Shepard's speech does seem to go that way. It's about the fact that the villain we didn't know we were fighting just told us that the device we put all our hopes in does things we never imagined and now he wants us to use it. This is a good time to at least seriously question what we're about to do.

 

I understand what you're saying about things being unpredictable, but don't point to DA2 as a good example. While it's fine that not everything going on hinges on the protagonist's actions, Hawke really doesn't affect anything. He's really just bounced around by the plot. It's too much in the other direction for my taste. The first sibling dying had little effect because we didn't know them, though it was grisly seeing them get pounded like that, I suppose. The second sibling dying in the Deep Roads was fine that you couldn't control it, but wasn't set up properly. They didn't get wounded like Ser Wesley did. You can see them touch their forehead in the background of a cutscene, but other than that, they just drop dead for no apparent reason.

 

I agree that it is good to try and keep a player on edge though.

 

ME3 was a great game. This is true because probably 95% of the people that bought it actually finished it.

I would say that way less than half of games actually get finished. Gamers flat dont finish bad games. Not counting the hardcore completionists that will 100% just about anything.

On the other hand EVERYBODY with very, very few exceptions finished ME3.

Also INB4 "I just wanted to see how the story ended". With the vast majority of gamers story goes right out the window and the game will sit on a players shelf or hd as just another addition to their pile of shame if the game is bad or even mediocre.

I hope MEA is closer to ME3 than DAI. ME3 was a great game so like just about everybody else that played it, I finished it. On he other hand DAI was a very mediocre game so no, I didn't finish it.I would guess that more than half of the gamers that bought it didn't finish it as well.

I'm sure BW has the numbers of who finished what and who didn't because companies track this stuff nowadays. I just hope BW is smart and puts that knowledge to good use.

 

Aside from it not being 95%, if you look at the outcry over the endings, people were really into Mass Effect. People really like this series, so it's perfectly reasonable that people would push through just to see how it ends.