393 réponses à ce sujet

[novaseeker]

Yes, the NYT is not a gaming publication, but its game reviewer, Seth Schiesel, is quite good, generally, in his appraisal of games.  I think it was a balanced review and well worth reading:

 http://www.nytimes.c...effect.html?hpw

Money quote:

"Hybrids are certainly possible. The original Mass Effect was a role-playing game that BioWare was ambitiously, almost rambunctiously, trying to cram into the form of an action game. With Mass Effect 2, by contrast, BioWare clearly decided to build the game as a shooter type first, leaving in only the lightest of customization options for each character — with far fewer skill options than in the first game — and fuse them with a combat system that can be played almost entirely as a real-time shooter. In terms of the combat dynamics, imagine Gears of War lite with some science-fiction magic powers.
There’s nothing wrong with that; it works well. But it leaves Mass Effect 2 feeling a bit generic. By role-playing-game standards, it is unacceptably thin in its core play systems. ...

Mass Effect 2 is a wonderful example of what a world-class developer can produce when it wants to create a comfortably popular and profitable sequel in an established mass-market franchise. It is not, however, an example of what a world-class developer can produce when it challenges itself to new heights. BioWare, we’re waiting."



 

[Cpt Pooch]

interesting..

[Agent_Dark_]

It is not, however, an example of what a world-class developer can produce when it challenges itself to new heights. BioWare, we’re waiting."

Like Dragon Age perhaps?  Maybe they should go play that.

[lyravega]

Very good review.

Agent_Dark_ wrote...

Like Dragon Age perhaps?  Maybe they should go play that.

Dragon Age or any kind of similar RPG isn't a new challenge. Mass Effect 1 was a challenge. And it is unique. ME2 is not. Read completely first.

Modifié par lyravega, 03 février 2010 - 12:04 .

[raptor113]

harsh...

[Kalfear]

novaseeker wrote...

Yes, the NYT is not a gaming publication, but its game reviewer, Seth Schiesel, is quite good, generally, in his appraisal of games.  I think it was a balanced review and well worth reading:

 http://www.nytimes.c...effect.html?hpw

Money quote:

"Hybrids are certainly possible. The original Mass Effect was a role-playing game that BioWare was ambitiously, almost rambunctiously, trying to cram into the form of an action game. With Mass Effect 2, by contrast, BioWare clearly decided to build the game as a shooter type first, leaving in only the lightest of customization options for each character — with far fewer skill options than in the first game — and fuse them with a combat system that can be played almost entirely as a real-time shooter. In terms of the combat dynamics, imagine Gears of War lite with some science-fiction magic powers.
There’s nothing wrong with that; it works well. But it leaves Mass Effect 2 feeling a bit generic. By role-playing-game standards, it is unacceptably thin in its core play systems. ...

Mass Effect 2 is a wonderful example of what a world-class developer can produce when it wants to create a comfortably popular and profitable sequel in an established mass-market franchise. It is not, however, an example of what a world-class developer can produce when it challenges itself to new heights. BioWare, we’re waiting."

 

Pretty much agree fully!

Appearently NYT didnt get their cheque in the mail to give it a 10/10 rating

[Kalfear]

page timed out and double posted

Modifié par Kalfear, 03 février 2010 - 12:02 .

[Fhaileas]

I'm so glad to see a more rational and objective perspective emerging amongst some of the newer reviews. Lends credence to not only the true nature of the game but also to the repute of a respected publication like the NYT.

[Twitchmonkey]

Kalfear wrote...

Pretty much agree fully!

Appearently NYT didnt get their cheque in the mail to give it a 10/10 rating

Yes, it makes plenty of sense that if BW/EA was paying off reviewers that they would start qith Eurogamer Portugal (which gave it a 10) and just never managed to get around to the NYT.

Getting away from Kalfear's inane ramblings, it's pretty much the same debate that consumes these forums. What I did find interesting is that the reviewer equates removing some of ME2's traditional RPG systems with something of a safe move. I would argue that sticking with the same systems that RPGs have used for decades would have been safer.

[Agent_Dark_]

lyravega wrote...
Dragon Age or any kind of similar RPG isn't a new challenge. Mass Effect 1 was a challenge. And it is unique. ME2 is not. Read completely first.

How was ME1 a challenge?  You're telling me there have been no third person shooters with a cover system?  Or no shooter/rpg hybrids before?  Hell, it was even done on licensed technology (Unreal engine) which meant much easier development. 

Dragon Age was built from the ground up in an entirely new engine with an extensive and consistent lore made up for it.  It's hardly similiar to any RPG that's come out in recent years, but more like the older school ones.  I'd say Bioware challenged themselves fairly decently both technically and artistically on that.   Oh and what about the MMO they're developing?  Considering it's their first, I'd say there's a bit of challenge in that despite I guess now being able to draw on Mythic's experience in that genre.

[Faust1979]

Mass Effect 1 was just as much an action game as the second one. I remember when the game came out and there were people crying about that it focused to much on the action and then they cried about the elevators to now instead of listening to my characters talk to each other and get mission updates I have to watch a boring loading screen.

[Grumpy Old Wizard]

That's pretty much what primary rpg fans have been saying.



ME 2 is a good game, but it is a shooter with some rpg elements. And the biotics need work on higher difficulty levels.



I love the cinematics.

[T1l]

I completely agree with what that particular reviewer said. It's calling a spade a spade.

[Veex]

Twitchmonkey wrote...

What I did find interesting is that the reviewer equates removing some of ME2's traditional RPG systems with something of a safe move. I would argue that sticking with the same systems that RPGs have used for decades would have been safer.

That's an interesting point. BioWare, a tried and true RPG developer, took more "risk" or "challenge" in making more of the same with Mass Effect, and less risk in doing something almost completely different with Mass Effect 2. If making a game that shares traits with a genre is all this reviewer needs to qualify something as not innovative, innovation won't ever happen in his opinion.

[DarthCaine]

Reviewers are people like you and me, everyone has different tastes and opinions

[maladosteo]

I gotta agree with the NYT on this one. Not much innovation, instead they took out a lot of stuff that was enjoyable.



And his thoughts on what a world class game dev "can/should" be doing...SPOT ****ING ON

[Giantevilhead]

Well, you can't deny the similarities between the ME2 and Gears of War combat systems.

[Veex]

maladosteo wrote...

And his thoughts on what a world class game dev "can/should" be doing...SPOT ****ING ON

BioWare challenging itself to new heights would be to repeatedly make single player RPGs?

[kiyyto]

 An honest review.

[Endurance_117]

I never found the appeal of single player at all

[Agent_Dark_]

Veex wrote...

BioWare challenging itself to new heights would be to repeatedly make single player RPGs?

YEAH MASS EFFECT 2 SHOULD HAVE BEEN MOAR LIEK FALLOUT 3 THAT IS TRU RPG COS I HAV ITEMZ

[Grumpy Old Wizard]

Veex wrote...

That's an interesting point. BioWare, a tried and true RPG developer, took more "risk" or "challenge" in making more of the same with Mass Effect, and less risk in doing something almost completely different with Mass Effect 2. If making a game that shares traits with a genre is all this reviewer needs to qualify something as not innovative, innovation won't ever happen in his opinion.

I don't know that dumbing down the rpg part was a risk though, at least not for the sell of ME 2. The ME 1 fans were going to buy it and hope for the best.

I think their gamble is if what they did in ME 2 will drive away more rpg fans than they gain by going more shooter. They won't really know that until ME 3.  Some rpg fans are going to at least delay buying ME 3 until they see what it is like.  Some of the shooter fans they gained will be bored by the long conversations, scanning, ect and so might not stay with the series.

[Darkmoone1]

Though I respect the review:

This is an example when people set a standard way too high.

Modifié par Darkmoone1, 03 février 2010 - 12:21 .

[newcomplex]

Their is a thread for reviews stickied onto the top of the forum.

No, your not that important.    You don't warrant your own special thread.   

In some ways, I agree with the review, and its refreshing to see a critic be more...critical, so bioware has a better idea with what to do with the sequel.   The tone it sets in many ways is is incredibly funny to read, if somewhat unproffesional.

Modifié par newcomplex, 03 février 2010 - 12:21 .