10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Ecael]

Disappointment With Banjo-Kazooie 3? An Open Discussion.

[Onyx Jaguar]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Mega Man Legends, Beyond Good and Evil and Fable have similar gameplay premises to Ocarina of Time (or should I say Ocarina of Time has similar gameplay premise to Mega Man Legends since it came first).  However they do not ultimately play the same way in execution.  The way you play the Banjo Kazooie games is the same in execution and philosophy as Super Mario 64.  So much so that I would almost call Banjo Kazooie the sequel that Super Mario 64 never got.

So you think the idea for BK3 being Spore or that other similar game lite with cars was an intriguing/smart way to go? Well, the established fanbase would have preferred an "HD Banjo Kazooie" which would not have been a bad thing at all.

I don't think they would have succeeded either way.  They might have been more successful if Nuts and Bolts had nothing to do with Banjo Kazooie, but from a game design standpoint I would take Nuts and Bolts existence over a game with similar mechancis to the first two, because it is different, because it is interesting.

[Ecael]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Ecael wrote...

So what happens when critics praise the character development of each of the 12 squadmates in ME2? In general terms, BioWare is famous because of the sheer volume of information and dialogue put into the story and characters. The game world becomes more than revolving around a single plot line or character - BioWare worlds have multiple problems, multiple storylines and multiple protagonists.

On a side note, the Old Republic supposedly has enough text and dialogue to fill 40 novels (or more, now that Drew Karpyshyn's on board).

As I've said before, such development comes at the expense of way too much combat. Popular consensus is that too much combat is an oxymoron. Previous Bioware games do not have the problem of combat>characters>story. People complain to this day about how KOTOR 1's combat is dull.

Previous BioWare games before Mass Effect 1 and 2, you mean. Neither game relies on autoattacking or turn-based systems - both rely on shooting.

Since meaningful dialogue is mostly separate from combat, I don't see how the combat got in the way of character development in either game. Neither game even has more than 2 plot/character missions that require no shooting whatsoever.

[SuperMedbh]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

As I've said before, such development comes at the expense of way too much combat.

Well, that's the "agree to disagree" point betwixt us.  I'd say the character development in ME2 was primary, and the linear plot was secondary.  ME1 was the opposite.  But because they're action/adventure genre games, both have large sections of pure combat.  That's the nature of current games, and isn't a bad thing, any more so than the latest Bond flick is bad for having gobs of chase scenes.  I wouldn't call ME1 and ME2 particularly different in that regard, though.

[cachx]

Terror_K wrote...

Ecael wrote...

As I've said many times, the goal is not to get shooter fans in another shooter, but to get them interested in an RPG.

Do you believe that was BioWare goal from the start and that ME1 failed because it was too complex and/or not "shootery" enough, or do you believe that said goal only came into play when ME2 was being made?

I think they did, I was actually expecting a KOTOR approach to combat. It actually turned me off from the game, and I didn't try it again fully until a few months later.

I remember something about Bioware doing a big spreadsheet on all criticism on ME1 by both press and fans, to use as a kind of guide for ME2. Mmmm, I'm going to look for that article/video.

[SuperMedbh]

cachx wrote...

I remember something about Bioware doing a big spreadsheet on all criticism on ME1 by both press and fans, to use as a kind of guide for ME2. Mmmm, I'm going to look for that article/video.

Please do and post it here or in its own thread.  Sounds fascinating, seriously (insert "I mean it, not being flippant" emoticon here)

[instantdeath999]

Yeah, I don't really think combat got in the way of character development either. I can't remember if I've already said it, but Dragon Age Origins, and especially Awakening, had TONS of combat (and in Awakenings case, far too much), yet it was more in line of traditional RPG fighting. I don't think it's a big deal if ME substitutes traditional RPG fights with shooter like gameplay.



I'd say ME2's entire drive was character development, rather than plot like ME1 was. That's my main reason to think much of the cast will be returning for ME3, anyway. Could some characters have been developed slightly more? Sure. But I can't think of a single gaming company, let alone company that specializes in RPG's, to make better character development than Bioware.

[KitsuneRommel]

instantdeath999 wrote...

Oh yeah.  No one is ever unbiased, though critics at least give effort.  Go to a mainstream game website, like gamespot, gamefaqs, ign or whatever, and look at some of the player reviews.  Yeah, most of them aren't very good.  Critics can be total idiots, but at least they have some level of writing skills and at least try to look at a game with an open mind... even if they don't always succeed.  

I think the same can be said in reverse, too, when critics give a game a really bad score.  I've personally had a lot of fun with games that get terrible reviews.  A lot of critics are paid to play tons and tons of games, so it's only natural that they may get tired of playing video games for a little while, or want to play a good game while they're stuck playing a bad game.  I think some of that frustration occasionally comes out when reviewing average games. 

That's the beauty of local/non-mainstream magazines. Some of them have people who've played and reviewed games for more than 20 years and you have a good idea how their gaming taste matches with yours.

[cachx]

SuperMedbh wrote...

cachx wrote...

I remember something about Bioware doing a big spreadsheet on all criticism on ME1 by both press and fans, to use as a kind of guide for ME2. Mmmm, I'm going to look for that article/video.

Please do and post it here or in its own thread.  Sounds fascinating, seriously (insert "I mean it, not being flippant" emoticon here)

http://revision3.com/coop/android

about the 12 minute mark. (you don't get to actually see the spreadsheet, sadly. But the Bioware guy mentions it. It's a pretty interesting interview).

Also, if someone missed ms. Norman's GDC presentation: http://prezi.com/6xe...y-inventory-go/ .Its also a pretty interesting read.

[uberdowzen]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

As I've said before, such development comes at the expense of way too much combat. Popular consensus is that too much combat is an oxymoron. Previous Bioware games do not have the problem of combat>characters>story. People complain to this day about how KOTOR 1's combat is dull.

Who said that KOTOR's combat was dull? Those people need are insane.

[SkullandBonesmember]

Ecael wrote...

both rely on shooting.

And yet STILL people complained about ME1. Shooting alone isn't sufficient enough. It wasn't "shootery" enough. There wasn't enough headshots. However, there was more than enough dialogue and that's a bad thing, right? Cutscenes that drag and drag. UGHH! ENOUGH ALREADY.  <_<

Ecael wrote...

Since meaningful dialogue is mostly separate from combat, I don't see how the combat got in the way of character development in either game. Neither game even has more than 2 plot/character missions that require no shooting whatsoever.

I feel like I'm Bill Murray in Groundhog Day.

Unlike in ME1, most of the "development" occurred on the battlefield. There was hardly any separation from getting to know your squad and headshots. No relaxation, no breathers.

[uberdowzen]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

I feel like I'm Bill Murray in Groundhog Day.

Unlike in ME1, most of the "development" occurred on the battlefield. There was hardly any separation from getting to know your squad and headshots. No relaxation, no breathers.

I really don't get this...

Why wouldn't you want character development in missions? It breaks up the fighting and honestly the combat would probably get somewhat tedious if you removed all the story/character development from the mission. And why would Mass Effect be a relaxing game?

I also once again have to disagree with the less crew dialogue argument. The ME2 playthrough which I'm wrapping up now has seen me trying to get as much of the crew dialogue as possible and, though some squadmates do have slightly less than some of the companions from ME1, for the most part there is a lot more. And even when there is less, they manage to pack a lot more emotional punch into than in the original. Plus they very well "shot" cinematics make it much more interesting to watch, rather than ME1's talking heads.

[cachx]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

I feel like I'm Bill Murray in Groundhog Day.

We are kind of trapped in that cycle, uh?

[Massadonious1]

I'm sorry that some people prefer a little more gameplay to their games offends you so deeply. We'll get out of the way so you can properly direct studios to make virtual Choose Your Own Adventure books.

[KitsuneRommel]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Unlike in ME1, most of the "development" occurred on the battlefield. There was hardly any separation from getting to know your squad and headshots. No relaxation, no breathers.

"Hey, Grunt. Wanna come eat some ice cream with me?"

All those planets and you couldn't even take a short trip to the beach. Mass Effect 3: The Final Fantasy Edition.

[SkullandBonesmember]

Massadonious1 wrote...

I'm sorry that some people prefer a little more gameplay to their games offends you so deeply. We'll get out of the way so you can properly direct studios to make virtual Choose Your Own Adventure books.

YEP. I'm definitely stuck in Groundhog Day.

You certainly have every right to your gameplay, just as I and countless others have a right to story driven games since all forms of entertainment evolve over the years. There's a reason why there are different genres of movies for different target audiences. It should be the same for video games.

[Terror_K]

Ecael wrote...

There has to be a way of simplifying that without resorting to the ME2 upgrade system.

This is true. That's why I feel BioWare oversimplified things with ME2. Christina Norman kept quoting "make things as simple as possible, but no simpler" but, to me, it seems they forgot that last part. Most of ME2 is just too simple.

And I never said ME1 was a failure. If it was a failure, we would have never seen Mass Effect 2 (and 3).

Sorry, I was a bit vague there. I when I said "failure" I didn't mean as a game overall, but as an RPG attempting to draw in the shooter fans. I mean, it initially succeeded at getting them in, but then we got complaints about the combat system having stats tied to it, etc. so BioWare ditched that for a pure shooter approach to combat, and that seems to have worked... at least as far as gaining this new fanbase they were trying to bring in. All I'm wondering is whether you thought it was their intent from the start of just when ME2 came into play? Because if its the former, it seems far more subtle in ME1 than it was with ME2. Because right now BioWare have got some work on their hands if they want to keep some of their old fans... assuming they actually care and aren't just focused on pandering to the masses for $$$'s now.

[SkullandBonesmember]

Terror_K wrote...

Sorry, I was a bit vague there. I when I said "failure" I didn't mean as a game overall, but as an RPG attempting to draw in the shooter fans. I mean, it initially succeeded at getting them in, but then we got complaints about the combat system having stats tied to it, etc. so BioWare ditched that for a pure shooter approach to combat, and that seems to have worked... at least as far as gaining this new fanbase they were trying to bring in. All I'm wondering is whether you thought it was their intent from the start of just when ME2 came into play? Because if its the former, it seems far more subtle in ME1 than it was with ME2. Because right now BioWare have got some work on their hands if they want to keep some of their old fans... assuming they actually care and aren't just focused on pandering to the masses for $$$'s now.

Your posts just get better and better dude.

Modifié par SkullandBonesmember, 28 mai 2010 - 07:39 .

[uberdowzen]

Terror_K wrote...

Sorry, I was a bit vague there. I when I said "failure" I didn't mean as a game overall, but as an RPG attempting to draw in the shooter fans. I mean, it initially succeeded at getting them in, but then we got complaints about the combat system having stats tied to it, etc. so BioWare ditched that for a pure shooter approach to combat, and that seems to have worked... at least as far as gaining this new fanbase they were trying to bring in. All I'm wondering is whether you thought it was their intent from the start of just when ME2 came into play? Because if its the former, it seems far more subtle in ME1 than it was with ME2. Because right now BioWare have got some work on their hands if they want to keep some of their old fans... assuming they actually care and aren't just focused on pandering to the masses for $$$'s now.

Actually, it's considered fairly good game design to make games that don't appeal to the old fans as a) you're limiting your potential audience and only a small minority won't buy the game anyway. For example, most of the old Fallout fans probably bought Fallout 3, despite the fact that many of them kept on referring to it as blasphemy.

[SkullandBonesmember]

uberdowzen wrote...

Actually, it's considered fairly good game design to make games that don't appeal to the old fans as a) you're limiting your potential audience and only a small minority won't buy the game anyway. For example, most of the old Fallout fans probably bought Fallout 3, despite the fact that many of them kept on referring to it as blasphemy.

Maybe because we have no choice?

[uberdowzen]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Maybe because we have no choice?

Who's forcing you to buy ME3? Has the Mafia branched out?

[Massadonious1]

Loyalty is a funny notion. You bought Baldur's Gate or KOTOR with your lunch money. Congratulations. I'm not sure what else they owe you.

[KitsuneRommel]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

Actually, it's considered fairly good game design to make games that don't appeal to the old fans as a) you're limiting your potential audience and only a small minority won't buy the game anyway. For example, most of the old Fallout fans probably bought Fallout 3, despite the fact that many of them kept on referring to it as blasphemy.

Maybe because we have no choice?

Why not? I have still my Final Fantasy XIII and Bioshock waiting because I'm playing other games (like Mass Effect 1) at the moment. There are more games coming all the time than I could possibly hope to buy or play through. Fallout 3 is on my possible shopping list though.

[SkullandBonesmember]

uberdowzen wrote...

Who's forcing you to buy ME3? Has the Mafia branched out?

Yes. 

Seriously, as I've said(or maybe haven't said since it "hasn't happened"), shooter fans get dozens of games released for their tastes every year. Story driven fans get maybe 3. Even SuperMedbh said I had a point. So any game that gives us 10% of a deep narrative, multiple endings, and dialogue choices, no matter how little is implemented, we have no choice but to hand over our money. We need to grab any and all few such titles. It's not like we have variety.

[SkullandBonesmember]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

I'm playing other games (like Mass Effect 1) at the moment.

Woohoo. Been playing ME1 for 2 years. As great as it is, it would be nice to have something fresh, and ME2 doesn't really do that.