345 réponses à ce sujet

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

Well I sure won't be buying ME:A or any future Mass Effect games. I just post in the threads because I see them on the front page of the forums.

[SofaJockey]

Well I sure won't be buying ME:A or any future Mass Effect games. I just post in the threads because I see them on the front page of the forums.

 

ok.....

and you visit the forum for games you have no interest in because...?

[Master Warder Z_]

ok.....

and you visit the forum for games you have no interest in because...?

 

Same reason I go to the Fallout forums on Beth's site despite me not going to buy a entry until Obsidian makes another one I suspect.

 

Its a franchise you enjoy discussing.

[Sylvius the Mad]

And one of the reasons I hated the end of ME3, take a pretty good villain that you can actually relate to re his motives and then RAWR! Turn him into a cartoon character villain right out of Dick Tracy. Thank god Mac Walters never got a hold of Jon Irenicus.

I agreed with TIM from the moment he appeared in ME3. Sadly, Shepard wasn't allowed to agree with him at any point before the very end.

[straykat]

I agreed with TIM from the moment he appeared in ME3. Sadly, Shepard wasn't allowed to agree with him at any point before the very end.

 

Did you take the Collector base too? I know you can't side with him still, but it's a more subtle difference of opinion, I think.

[katamuro]

Yeah that´s all fine and nice, the C64 was the computer of the day, Amiga 500 was hot in my childhood and there were no mobile phones in my childhood etc. But you are talking about stuff in decades, the asari and the salarians achieved FTL spaceflight 580-520 BCE. That´s the time of the greek citystates, etruscan league, achemenid persia. I could buy the asari as being hopelessly traditional but the salarians and the turians don´t really fit the bill. Even if we disregard that the pace of technologal advances constantly accelerates and assume that the archives were a big boost, it would be like WW1 ships of a second rate country engaging a modern US carrier group. And that´s generous.

 

Well I did think that the fictional history bit was a bit quick paced after humans discover the mass effect physics. Just over 30 years from not knowing anything about it to building dreadnoughts, thousands of warships, expanding into the galaxy, colonising dozens of planets? 

Well partially it could be explain by technology trading, other species providing technology to humanity, after all since they have already discovered the mass effect physics and built ships and weapons it wouldn't really have such impact as uplifting krogan. 

But the easiest and most probably way to explain it, the writers decided it to be so, it was much simpler from gameplay perspective and much simpler from game design perspective. They needed a galactic society and they made it. Its not the first to make that sin, its not going to be the last. 

[Selene Moonsong]

Frankly, I quite enjoy DAI and ME3 and have re-played them many times, just like I have replayed other titles such as Those listed in my signature below and have even replayed JE a couple of more times as well recently, currently on yet another replay of ME, ME 2, ME 3, DAO, DA II, DAI and JE.

 

I'm going to be cleaning up a couple of old computers for some of my other listed games to replay them as well.

 

Have I had complaints about any of them? Sure, I sometime believe things could have been done better. However, "better" is only relevant to me and my personal opinions and preferences, and 'my better' may not be the same as what anyone else thinks is 'better'.

 

In the end, I am looking to have as much fun with MEA as I have had with all their games since the Baldur's Gate series.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Did you take the Collector base too? I know you can't side with him still, but it's a more subtle difference of opinion, I think.

I did.

My complaint was with ME3. ME2 arguably handled it better, but it was hard to control because the meanings of Paragon and Renegade seemed reversed when talking to him.

[DaemionMoadrin]

Frankly, I quite enjoy DAI and ME3 and have re-played them many times, just like I have replayed other titles such as Those listed in my signature below and have even replayed JE a couple of more times as well recently, currently on yet another replay of ME, ME 2, ME 3, DAO, DA II, DAI and JE.

 

I'm going to be cleaning up a couple of old computers for some of my other listed games to replay them as well.

 

Have I had complaints about any of them? Sure, I sometime believe things could have been done better. However, "better" is only relevant to me and my personal opinions and preferences, and 'my better' may not be the same as what anyone else thinks is 'better'.

 

In the end, I am looking to have as much fun with MEA as I have had with all their games since the Baldur's Gate series.

 

I played all BioWare games, most of them multiple times. I think I have more than a dozen ME1 and ME2 playthroughs, three of ME3 (but I put 1200+ hours into the multiplayer), around ten for DA1+2, at least four for JE, at least 20 for BG1+2, probably more than 8 for KotOR and so on. Only one for DA:I and even that was a chore.

 

The most important aspect of a game is always: Is it fun? I can forgive a lot if a game is entertaining. That doesn't mean I'll just accept everything, if it was up to me the ME trilogy would look and play vastly different.

 

I don't think it's too much to ask for the writers to fact check things before they make them the canon of their franchise. Internal consistency and common sense shouldn't be an optional luxury.

 

Could the games be better? Definitely. Not just subjectively, but objectively as well. I would enjoy them even more if they made more sense.

 

My hope (well, the last remnants of it) for ME:A is that they do better than before. That they don't just create wonderful characters and throw them into a convenient plot that only works if the player is distracted by shiny effects or witty oneliners.

 

As they say, hope dies last.

[Kabooooom]

Probably.

DA:I had a big release, despite following on the heels of DA2.

I think Bioware's reputation might be in serious trouble however if the game ends up being a disappointment with fans. After DA2, the ME3 ending controversy, the disastrous release of SWTOR, and the polarizing reaction to DA:I among fans...they need a game that's both a hit commercially and praised by both fans and critics. They seemed to have lost some of their mojo in recent years.

The last game they released that was a commercial hit and didn't trigger significant criticism from fans was Mass Effect 2, way back in 2010. That's practically ancient history, by industry standards.

I think they might be trying to do too much, please too many. ME1 was an 80s style Sci fi story with a straightforward, tried and true plot with a background emphasis on exploring planets that were representative of the lifeless emptiness that space really is. Many didnt appreciate that last part. I did, because it felt realistic.

ME3 was a story driven shooter/rpg hybrid with an emphasis on single player but a highly supported multiplayer that obviously drew development away from single player...and if it didnt, then I am at a loss for why there were so many single player shortcomings but multiplayer was surprisingly amazing...

And MEA is trying to reaffirm ME1s exploration without making it boring, make an expansive world without detracting from story (which seems to be the downfall of Bethesda games) and then ALSO probably supporting a heavy emphasis on multiplayer?? Make up your mind, Bioware.

Honestly, I'm gonna buy it, and probably love it...because it is Mass Effect. But I am worried that people will look at it and think it sucks by comparison to what Bioware used to do. They are historically an RPG developer that is now trying to appeal to both modern rpg and shooter fans...I just dont see that really ending well.

[sjsharp2011]

I loved ME3, yeah its ending sucks, the animation is terrible specifically eye-dotting even by biowares standards and the minial quests are pointless. With that said its still one of my favourite games of all time.

Mine too.

[sjsharp2011]

Frankly, I quite enjoy DAI and ME3 and have re-played them many times, just like I have replayed other titles such as Those listed in my signature below and have even replayed JE a couple of more times as well recently, currently on yet another replay of ME, ME 2, ME 3, DAO, DA II, DAI and JE.

 

I'm going to be cleaning up a couple of old computers for some of my other listed games to replay them as well.

 

Have I had complaints about any of them? Sure, I sometime believe things could have been done better. However, "better" is only relevant to me and my personal opinions and preferences, and 'my better' may not be the same as what anyone else thinks is 'better'.

 

In the end, I am looking to have as much fun with MEA as I have had with all their games since the Baldur's Gate series.

Yeah me too that's what I'll be looking at out of MEA t o be able to have as much fun as I have out of playing the both the ME trilogy and of course the DA series which I've played and sunk in a lot of hours into over th elast year since it's released I know I've spent at least 1000 hours alone just playing DAI I think. In fact just got to Skyhold with my second of my 2 characters I have on the go atm.

[Spectr61]

^Yeah, but that doesn't mean it will not sell 5 million copies and be considered a success.  ME3 despite the controversy was a hit.

Yes, but the question, especially to the financial types, is under-performing.

You have caught lightning in a bottle(ME1). Did it again with ME2.

This creates huge expectations, in the gaming community, in the designer community, and most importantly in the financial community.

You launch ME3, based on past popularity a ton of them pre-order and sell, your stock price initially goes up, then the the reviews and fan outrage hit resulting in your stock tanking. (To the tune of around 1.5 Billion or so in market cap)

Do you really think a good line on your resume would be "Designer - ME3 endings" or a anything similar?

What about devs amongst themselves? When they hang out at the bar at CES or someplace, do you think think they say "Boy, Casey Hudson and Mac Walters really did well with ME3"?

My guess is nope.

MEA will definitely be a hit, the level of fan anticipation is apparent, but let's hope they don't squander this chance with another mediocre product.

[ZipZap2000]

Maybe, maybe not.

1 game has MP the other doesn't with only a 10k difference you're looking at a near 50-50 split with MP advantage.

Id say ME2 is doing well to have it so close with outdated graphics and combat. Superior story/ character interactions seem to be drawing similar numbers to ME3 even with MP.

That isn't a good thing.

Imo the ending makes the difference, I'd otherwise say ME3 was on par with ME2.

[Steelcan]

BioWare has done nothing to show that they deserve one cent for ME:A

 

it being in the same franchise as 2.5  good games is not a good reasons

[ZipZap2000]

Yes, but the question, especially to the financial types, is under-performing.

You have caught lightning in a bottle(ME1). Did it again with ME2.

This creates huge expectations, in the gaming community, in the designer community, and most importantly in the financial community.

You launch ME3, based on past popularity a ton of them pre-order and sell, your stock price initially goes up, then the the reviews and fan outrage hit resulting in your stock tanking. (To the tune of around 1.5 Billion or so in market cap)

Do you really think a good line on your resume would be "Designer - ME3 endings" or a anything similar?

What about devs amongst themselves? When they hang out at the bar at CES or someplace, do you think think they say "Boy, Casey Hudson and Mac Walters really did well with ME3"?

My guess is nope.

MEA will definitely be a hit, the level of fan anticipation is apparent, but let's hope they don't squander this chance with another mediocre product.

It will sell.

But if they **** it up again there will be real questions about how viable the franchise is. We've seen popular games get ditched for less.

By the same token a wonderful unique atmospheric experience can get shelved for years if they're uncertain about what do next. Dante's Inferno for example.

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

BioWare has done nothing to show that they deserve one cent for ME:A

it being in the same franchise as 2.5 good games is not a good reasons

Finally someone speaking sense in this thread.

[AlanC9]

Still, I miss when Bioware games felt like they were made with the mindset of "let's make whatever we want and whatever serves our story" because it really feels like story is written around the gameplay more and more in their latest games especially ME3 and DA:I. Both things have their strengths, but there's always a suspend-disbelief thing going on when you increasingly try to explain things that seem kind of BS because they're first made as gameplay, like Cerberus enemies in ME3 or almost every side-quest in DA:I. At the end of the day you know the incentive from a creator-standpoint was to make the game-design first and explain it with the story and not the other way around which is how KOTOR and alike were made.

I don't see how anything's changed in the later games. Bio's never let gameplay and story interfere with each other. Bhaalspawn aren't resurrectable, except when they are. FR magic rules only applied during NWN gameplay, not cutscenes. ME biotics are asymmetrical because it'd be no fun for someone to Throw Shepard to his death over a balcony. Jack can blow up multiple heavy mechs in cutscenes because it looks cool, but can't in gameplay because that wouldn't play well. KotOR lightsabers don't actually dice their targets into chunks. And so on.

[Iakus]

BioWare has done nothing to show that they deserve one cent for ME:A

 

it being in the same franchise as 2.5  good games is not a good reasons

I think 2.5 is being generous.  But the point is well-taken.

[Dantriges]

Well I did think that the fictional history bit was a bit quick paced after humans discover the mass effect physics. Just over 30 years from not knowing anything about it to building dreadnoughts, thousands of warships, expanding into the galaxy, colonising dozens of planets? 

Well partially it could be explain by technology trading, other species providing technology to humanity, after all since they have already discovered the mass effect physics and built ships and weapons it wouldn't really have such impact as uplifting krogan. 

But the easiest and most probably way to explain it, the writers decided it to be so, it was much simpler from gameplay perspective and much simpler from game design perspective. They needed a galactic society and they made it. Its not the first to make that sin, its not going to be the last. 

 

Oh that the Alliance has current tech levels is ok. A bit farfetched perhaps, but well, unless they wanted humanity to be space Bangladesh, they had to do something to provide current tech level. There is enough lampshade with  the prothean archives and tech trade/gifts. They joined the Citadel species after all and it seems that you get a whole bunch of stuff then. It´s just rather unnecessary to let the Alliance win against anything bigger than a reinforced patrol of frigates and a few cruisers.That Goyle was able to issue a threat which wasn´t an empty threat was way into haha, LOL, territory.

If I was mastering a ME RPG setting and one of my players went bonkers like this, I would have told him "unless you want to have this Earth Alliance to have their own very special version of B5´s Battle of the Line, apologize, resign your post and let your assistant tell the council that it seems you have sudden health issues."

[katamuro]

I think they might be trying to do too much, please too many. ME1 was an 80s style Sci fi story with a straightforward, tried and true plot with a background emphasis on exploring planets that were representative of the lifeless emptiness that space really is. Many didnt appreciate that last part. I did, because it felt realistic.

ME3 was a story driven shooter/rpg hybrid with an emphasis on single player but a highly supported multiplayer that obviously drew development away from single player...and if it didnt, then I am at a loss for why there were so many single player shortcomings but multiplayer was surprisingly amazing...

And MEA is trying to reaffirm ME1s exploration without making it boring, make an expansive world without detracting from story (which seems to be the downfall of Bethesda games) and then ALSO probably supporting a heavy emphasis on multiplayer?? Make up your mind, Bioware.

Honestly, I'm gonna buy it, and probably love it...because it is Mass Effect. But I am worried that people will look at it and think it sucks by comparison to what Bioware used to do. They are historically an RPG developer that is now trying to appeal to both modern rpg and shooter fans...I just dont see that really ending well.

 

The multiplayer was made by a different team, after all we had it in almost complete form when they released ME3 demo. So basically there were 2 parallel teams, one working on singleplayer and one on multiplayer. 

Yeah I think that the marketing team is pushing the whole "appeal to the wider audience" too much. RPG's especially ones with mature themes don't really appeal to a wider audience. Some people would end up buying it just for the multiplayer like people have done with Battlefield or COD. The thing is they need to stay strong and not simplify the story or the SP aspects of the game just because they want people who have never played such games to have full access to story. 

[AlleyD]

The multiplayer was made by a different team, after all we had it in almost complete form when they released ME3 demo. So basically there were 2 parallel teams, one working on singleplayer and one on multiplayer. 

Yeah I think that the marketing team is pushing the whole "appeal to the wider audience" too much. RPG's especially ones with mature themes don't really appeal to a wider audience. Some people would end up buying it just for the multiplayer like people have done with Battlefield or COD. The thing is they need to stay strong and not simplify the story or the SP aspects of the game just because they want people who have never played such games to have full access to story. 

 

Respectfully, I dispute that RPG's with mature themes don't appeal to wider audiences in today's game market. Bethesda's success with Skyrim (20 million+) sales, Fallout 4 (Record breaking pre-sales of 12 million) and the success of CDPR in 2015 all suggest that there is a very large market for these games developed since ME3.

 

I cannot find a pre-order sales figure for Skyrim, but Fallout series grew from around 600,000 pre-orders (Fallout 3), slightly over 1 million (Fallout:NV), to 12 million (Fallout 4). This is even more impressive when you consider Fallout is a series with a relatively small mainstream consumer awareness footprint. The only game that had anything like that consumer pre-release sales was GTA V, the series with the largest mainstream cultural awareness foot print and one of the most saturated marketing campaigns in modern times. I recall that virtually every outlet that carried computer games in the UK was dominated by GTA V advertisements, the majority of floor and shelf space allocated to that game in mainstream game outlets (Supermarkets etc) was reserved for GTA V almost a year before release. You hit any mall or large supermarket in the UK, GTA V was in your face. Regardless of all other factors that influence a mainstream consumer to spend on entertainment (The notoriety of the franchise, pester-power, etc), simply filling the eyeline of a consumer is one of the more effective marketing techniques. Eyeline is Buyline is not a cliche 

 

Fallout 4 in contrast had one of the shortest marketing campaigns I can recall. Bethesda broke the mould in a lot of respects, not adopting a long term campaign that has engineered leaks and teaser trailers that reveal nothing on gameplay and may increase consumer expectations. Rather choosing to reveal an almost developed product to the market and following through with release in a remarkably short timescale for a major AAA game.

 

Fallout 4 was reported to have generated substantial sales of the previous franchise installments in July 2015, Fallout 3 experienced 1163% increase in sales and F:NV 409% upswing with the announcement of Fallout 4. Signs of substantial numbers of new consumers buying into a franchise product history.

 

It can be argued that Bethesda's succeesses with Fallout 4 was a more evolutionary model, a long term franchise that was able to retain core audience brand equity and still experience phenomenal growth, or that the marketing/product release timeline struck the consumer base while the excitement levels are high and before anticiapation anxiety starts to form ion the social media phase space of the brand. But there is another developer who develops adult themed RPG's recently and adopted an industry standard marketing strategy, but their growth is revolutionary model:- CDPR

 

Report in Sept 9th 2015 Total Witcher 3 volume sees around 6 million in sales, an impressive figure for what has rapidly become one of the industry's leading RPG developers. In 1H15, the company generated $27.2 million from box edition sales of the Witcher, with $73 million from digital sales and distribution channels. Net profit was illustrated as 236 million Zlotys, or $62.5 million USD. Witcher 3 sales were around 321% increase over Witcher 2.

 

I save Dragon Age:Inquisition for last place simply because EA have not revealed sales figures for the game. They only report that it was the biggest selling game in the franchise. Looking deeper into EA financial data for 2014/15 reveals a drastic upswing in profits and the company has experienced a 6 fold increase in share value from the bad old days of 2012. Dragon Age:Inquisition is one of the major factors of influence quoted by EA in that growth

 

ME3 did appear to chase a new market and compromise some of the core brand attributes. I can understand the reasoning, Bioware had quoted in 2010 that they NEEDED to generate sales around 10 million. Something that the brand had never experienced previously in its history of dedicated RPG's, but was possible for games with a multiplayer component and improved shooter mechanics. Also, the focus in EA at the time was to generate sales through micro transactions and multi player support. Something revealed to the market in a Y/T video of John Ritticiello in 2011.

 

EA are in a very different place now, with a new CEO and a new gamer focussed strategy that will take massive financial hits if a game is perceived to be substandard on release. The days of rush released products do not fit with this new culture and the results speak for themselves, massive increase in share value and profits and a better PR profile.

[Laughing_Man]

...

 

EA are in a very different place now, with a new CEO and a new gamer focused strategy that will take massive financial hits if a game is perceived to be substandard on release. The days of rush released products do not fit with this new culture and the results speak for themselves, massive increase in share value and profits and a better PR profile.

 

I have my doubts, but I hope you're right.

[katamuro]

Respectfully, I dispute that RPG's with mature themes don't appeal to wider audiences in today's game market. Bethesda's success with Skyrim (20 million+) sales, Fallout 4 (Record breaking pre-sales of 12 million) and the success of CDPR in 2015 all suggest that there is a very large market for these games developed since ME3.

.

 

What I meant by that is that marketing usually tries to lower the age rating of the game, just like the movies where more popularity is gained if the age rating is lower because more people can go watch it. Part of it is that some parents will buy a game rated 15 to their 12-14 year olds but they will not buy a game rated 18 even if the only difference between those games would not be the amount of blood on the screen or lack of criminal acts but rather some references to sex or slight nudity. 

And there is still a large population of couch gamers(read console) who buy titles like COD or Battlefield, FIFA to play with their friends and they have no interest in story or any kind of themes in the game. The whole option of switching Shepard into NARRATIVE mode was an appeal to them. Not that I am against games like that, I love Uncharted series and Tomb Raider. 

And you are right more people than ever are buying games like DA, Witcher, Fallout but considering that those games first installements(by their current studios) came out 7-8 years ago there is a whole generation of teenagers who grew up with them it is to be expected. 

And you must agree that the time spent on narrative mode or digitising that ign reported could have been spent on polishing up other things, for example the whole Tali face reveal, you must agree that the photoshopped image was quite badly done, non-professionals took ten minutes and did a better job. The colourless "dancers" in the club in citadel, I mean come on, how long would have it taken them to put colour textures on them? And the list goes on and not just for ME3. 

[Gambit458]

To date I have never captured a game the likes of ME or DA franshise.

 

There are just "critiques" to be made like for any game.

 

The plusses outways the  minusses so much I honestly don't care about the ending of ME3, like the  game  is just that!!  The in between all of a sudden is vanished because of an "bad" ending.

 

The story + gameplay elements is what Bioware  stands for and yes in other games you mostly get one or the other.  For me none other  games rivels Bioware despite not generating blockbuster sales numbers.

 

I am just gratefull they exist and make games I end up playing for hours and hours.

That's because a conclusion is how you end your story, what it should be remembered by. 

 

"For me none other  games rivels Bioware despite not generating blockbuster sales numbers."

Bethseda and CD Projekt Red rival Bioware, as does Obsidian. 

 

Anyways, bioware's problem is that the quality of writing has gone down, and they're making it more and more apparent as to how little our choices matter. People bring up DA I but DA I was initially a disappointment. The story drops the ball a little bit halfway through and the final fight with Cory was disappointing, especially considering the pain in the a$$ he was in 2. When Trespasser came out however, it more than made up for any flaws in the writing the game had before. Trespasser's ending and epilogue was how ME 3's should have been. Mass effect has more to prove now than Dragon Age does because if they have a foul up with ME again like they did 3, I don't see ME's popularity surviving the long run or being as relevant as it use to be.