10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Max Legend]

Mesina2 wrote...

Max Legend wrote...

QFT

Off topic.
What QFT means?!

Quoted for truth.

[Mister Mida]

Mesina2 wrote...

Max Legend wrote...

QFT

Off topic.
What QFT means?!

Quoted For Truth

[Siegdrifa]

Max Legend wrote...

Siegdrifa wrote...

I just hope it won't turn like a Dragon Age like scenario...

QFT.Still it's way too early for what the story might be.Till then we can only speculate.

Yes, about spéculation.
But but from ME1 and ME2 story, it appears to be a logical case.

If it's too early, may be not. Because there is a hight probality that mass effect 3 was written months ago.

I can assure you (from being part the this industry for some years) that studio don't go on a new big serie such as Mass Effect or Dragon age, working like crazy on a strong background without planing what will happen for the main plot for many games to come.
They change details to the story yes, but they don't spend 5 ou 6 years on Mass Effect without knowing what they will do as a story for the third while making it.

edit:
Well sorry guys, i'm out of the subjet and anyway, anything i could say / write won't change what ME3 will be.
It's just that Bioware is having a bad habit to make the same structure for their recent games.
In Dragon age: gather allies, beat the bad dragon
in ME2: gather allies beat the collector
In Awakening: gather allies beat the .... what f*** again ? november, february, march, i feel i played the same vidéo games because Bioware use the same strings.
I'll stop here, back to the subject.

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 08 juin 2010 - 06:00 .

[Mister Mida]

Siegdrifa wrote...
Because there is a hight probality that mass effect 3 was written months ago.

I can assure you (from being part the this industry for some years) that studio don't go on a new big serie such as Mass Effect or Dragon age, working like crazy on a strong background without planing what will happen for the main plot for many games to come.
They change details to the story yes, but they don't spend 5 ou 6 years on Mass Effect without knowing what they will do as a story for the third while making it.

Sounds more like common sense to me, honestly.

[Siegdrifa]

Mister Mida wrote...

Siegdrifa wrote...
Because there is a hight probality that mass effect 3 was written months ago.

I can assure you (from being part the this industry for some years) that studio don't go on a new big serie such as Mass Effect or Dragon age, working like crazy on a strong background without planing what will happen for the main plot for many games to come.
They change details to the story yes, but they don't spend 5 ou 6 years on Mass Effect without knowing what they will do as a story for the third while making it.

Sounds more like common sense to me, honestly.

You should have quoted all the post.
I was refering that the scenario of ME3 is already complet even if the game won't be released before many many month.
Many people don't know the process of making games and assume when they see a trailer six month or eight month before the game come out, that the game can be changed in a lot of way (graphic, engine, animation, story) but they can usualy correct bug and try to implant everything they made before the dead line, no time for big change.

[Mister Mida]

Siegdrifa wrote...

Mister Mida wrote...

Siegdrifa wrote...
Because there is a hight probality that mass effect 3 was written months ago.

I can assure you (from being part the this industry for some years) that studio don't go on a new big serie such as Mass Effect or Dragon age, working like crazy on a strong background without planing what will happen for the main plot for many games to come.
They change details to the story yes, but they don't spend 5 ou 6 years on Mass Effect without knowing what they will do as a story for the third while making it.

Sounds more like common sense to me, honestly.

You should have quoted all the post.
I was refering that the scenario of ME3 is already complet even if the game won't be released before many many month.
Many people don't know the process of making games and assume when they see a trailer six month or eight month before the game come out, that the game can be changed in a lot of way (graphic, engine, animation, story) but they can usualy correct bug and try to implant everything they made before the dead line, no time for big change.

My reply wouldn't change if I quoted your entire post. Making big changes when the foundation has been set long before kills any creative property nine out of ten times.

[AlanC9]

Are you two disagreeing about not disagreeing?

[AlanC9]

Siegdrifa wrote...

It's just that Bioware is having a bad habit to make the same structure for their recent games.
In Dragon age: gather allies, beat the bad dragon
in ME2: gather allies beat the collector
In Awakening: gather allies beat the .... what f*** again ? november, february, march, i feel i played the same vidéo games because Bioware use the same strings.

The alternative structure, from KotOR and ME1, is gather information, find the bad guy, kill him. Or , as in BG2, gather money, chase the bad guy, kill him. BG1 was a little different, since it was more like "do something completely unrelated to the bad guy, find out that this guy reported to another bad guy, and so on up the chain until you find out that you've actually been fighting the main bad guy the whole time."

[tonnactus]

Lumikki wrote...

I'm gonna recomment moderators to close this thread and open new one if needed. .

How this could help when the trolls are still around??

[Kalfear]

Jebel Krong wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Your problem is that you expect ME2 to made what you desire it to be.

No, I expected a proper successor to ME 1. Nothing more, nothing less. I expected a game of the quality BioWare used to deliver. I for one didn't play ME 1 for the combat either. Pew-pew, the enemy is dead, next please. Once you gained a few levels and credits, that was true even with the RPG system. Been there, done that (one reason I don't understand the popularity of single player shooters). I don't mind challenging combat, but that would be Fallout 3 (with mods) or OFP. Or in the RPG genre DA, more so the old DnD games. What I love ME 1 for is the story, fully voiced and believable characters, dialogue, choices and different outcomes. That's where ME 2 disappointed me the most, not with the dumbing down of RPG and gameplay elements. These changes are unfortunate too, but I could overlook them.

er, except for the fact that me2 clearly was the successor to me1, improving the combat, yes, but all those wonderful other factors you mentioned were also in the sequel - often also improved, like with the interrupt system for conversations, or having a larger cast of at-least-as-deep characters. the choices and the outcomes of me2 can't be fully judged yet because we don't know how they'll play out in #3, i don't expect much more than what led from #1-#2 though, simply because as a technical challenge, currently, it maybe BWs ambition outweighs their ability to deliver. still i appreciate that they did reach for the highs and attempt something no other developer has done, no matter how it eventually turns out. if you want a traditional RPG play DA:O, but that's not what Mass effect is or has ever tried to be.

Thats flat out wrong Jebel!
That like saying, if you want to play a traditional shooter, go play Modern Warfare.
Mass Effect 1 and 2 were suppose to be action / RPG mixes.
Not all shooter
Not all RPG

What many of the ME2fangirls dont/wont/cant accept is ME2 went to far Shooter and not far enough RPG!  And I gotta say thats fustrating to argue as they have such closed little minds on the topic.
All the RPG fans have granted the combat was better so they not asking for the combat to be dumbed down
All the RPG fans have granted the graphics were better so they not asking for lesser graphics
They are asking for the story and immesion and interactiveness (the RPG Elements) of the game to be put back in cause that DID get dumbed down wrongly and this is where the fighting starts.

Really this whole fight/arguement is just ME2 crowd being greedy. They got vanilla removed from the flavor list and know they fighting to keep it off where as the ME1 and RPG fans simply want a wider menu of flavors!

This isnt about Mass Effect being one or anouther genre because they were never designed, advertised, or intended to be a straight RPG or a straight shooter!

All the Original fans want is balance!

PS: The characters were not even remotely as deep as some fangirls state in ME2, they were shallow, undeveloped sketches of what the origuinal ME1 crew was. Thats discussed in lenght in thread in signature if you want to read a real discussion on the topic and not pages upon pages of drivel to find a decent post.

[StodgyFrost98]

AlanC9 wrote...

Siegdrifa wrote...

It's just that Bioware is having a bad habit to make the same structure for their recent games.
In Dragon age: gather allies, beat the bad dragon
in ME2: gather allies beat the collector
In Awakening: gather allies beat the .... what f*** again ? november, february, march, i feel i played the same vidéo games because Bioware use the same strings.

The alternative structure, from KotOR and ME1, is gather information, find the bad guy, kill him. Or , as in BG2, gather money, chase the bad guy, kill him. BG1 was a little different, since it was more like "do something completely unrelated to the bad guy, find out that this guy reported to another bad guy, and so on up the chain until you find out that you've actually been fighting the main bad guy the whole time."

It seems like the same structure will carry over into ME3 where you have to assemble armies to take down the Reapers in the final battle and Harbinger.

[Siegdrifa]

AlanC9 wrote...

The alternative structure, from KotOR and ME1, is gather information, find the bad guy, kill him. Or , as in BG2, gather money, chase the bad guy, kill him. BG1 was a little different, since it was more like "do something completely unrelated to the bad guy, find out that this guy reported to another bad guy, and so on up the chain until you find out that you've actually been fighting the main bad guy the whole time."

Yeah, this is Bioware style.
But focusing on "spend your time to find allies" 3 times in a row is a little too much.
To begin with, spending your quest time gathering budys is rarely a good focus.
Meeting people in vidéo games (ennemi or allies) is more intresting while it happens when you are on your maine quest.
Why ?
Because meeting caracters while progressing in the quest is always a suprise (good or bad) and they usualy have a tie to your quest (commun goal,... traitor, many things is possible, but whatever you do, all the actions of those caracters will be part and be justified by your quest). It allow the main plot to become more clear, of have more mysterys.

In ME2, Dragon age, the big mistake is "you know the final bad guy from the beggining of the game" let what caracters are up to from the begining until the end maens you won't have much to tell during the games.
Since you can't beat him alone, you need friends !
But, the second big mistake used too much by Bioware is "hi! i can be you budy but i have some personnal matter not related to the main plot to fix first". This is the open door for "put any sub scenry you want".

It can cut you from the epic goal of your quest, i doesn't help having a good depth of the main plot.

There is a lot more to tell about "why", i just want to make it short.


Bioware having lot of experience, they know "how" to tell you a story, no matter the story.

[tonnactus]

Jebel Krong wrote...

5. combat mechanics (both are TPS shooters in that respect, with almost identical squad/power mechanisms).

(just took one example out of the list)
Oh yes.Weapon talents exists in Mass Effect 2. Special weapon attacks exists in Mass Effect too.Mass Effect 2 didnt have a global cooldown and "protection" didnt block biotic and tech powers.
Armor has a percentage based damage reduction, isnt just shield  +enchantement.
Just completly the same thing, really.

Like fishes and whales are the same animals.There live in the sea and swim.

Modifié par tonnactus, 08 juin 2010 - 07:32 .

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

It may or may not be.. it depends..

It depends on what everyone wants.

For Mass Effect 2, everyone wanted something different. This will be true for every sequel.

Terror_K wrote...

Rather than trying to come up with an A+ system, it seems like the devs just went for the C- one: it just passes, but that's it.

Under whose grading scale, exactly?

Modifié par Pocketgb, 08 juin 2010 - 07:33 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

NewMessageN00b wrote...

If ME3 will be this shooterism, will go pirates or ignore it altogether.

Have fun with that

[AlanC9]

Kalfear wrote...
=What many of the ME2fangirls dont/wont/cant accept is ME2 went to far Shooter and not far enough RPG!  And I gotta say thats fustrating to argue as they have such closed little minds on the topic.

Italics mine. Anyone else burst out laughing at this?

[StodgyFrost98]

Siegdrifa wrote...

Hello, i wanted to give my point of view... since it's a forum
But in advance, i'm sorry for my poor english.

ME2 is more focused on game play :
ME1 has some unclear fight, sometimes hidding behind somerthing, sometimes running and shoot at every moving things.
ME2 is clear; find a good spot, hid then shoot, take a few shot and you could die. And i love this way of playing so i'm not desapointed for this aspect.

The  skills in ME2 is a part of the gun fight but more appropriate then ME1 :
In ME1 it was more a matter a quantity, not quality. So having your squad unleashing lot of crowd control could take away all the difficulty / strategy of every encounter that's why i think their use is more appropriate in ME2 because they need to be used smartly.
The bad side is, they cutted too much, from 12/13 skils with 12 ranks, now we have 5/6 with 4 ranks.

The inventory in ME2 took a hard it too :
But ME1 inventory is far from being perfect, we have many choice yes, but there was so many mod and item that i get bored when i have to equip my squad with the most appropriate weapon/mods and armor/mods.
In ME2 i like for the armor the idea to purchase new parts with their own bonus to build your own armor adapted for you carreer, but there is not enough part IMO.
I Like the ME2 mods +10% that gives you other bonus to the weapon but i'm no sure it is better than controling the firepower, firerate, etc, either way it's fine by me.
I don't like the amunition being a skill in ME2. Sure it is a pain to change so often in ME1 but they should use a quick menu allowing the player to switch the amunition type quicly in the middle of the fight.

The ME2 level designe is totaly build for the gameplay and you can play on the map in different ways.
I find it totaly awsome. The only problem is, because ME2 is so focused on gameplay, all the map appear to have an "unnatural construction" and just by the looks, you know you will have a fight here.
ME1 level design seemed more natural toward his surounding environement.

No mako in ME2.
To be honest, i don't mind, because exploring with the mako is fun at the beggining but it's boring quikly, especialy on none flat ground.
Plus, the control and the "emptyness" of the planets would have made a bad look to ME2.
I mean, in ME1 after you play a misson like feros then spend time on 10 planets with the mako... looking for 1 bunker (always the same!) to kill a fews guys, spending 20 minutes to find ressources, it BORING !
A SF RPG need a way to explor planet and other worlds, but the mako way in ME1 was not well made, we could discover only empty planets anyway.

The plot !
For this part, i say ME1 is better all the way !
In ME1, there is a main plot (pursue Saren), then we discover a bigger threat with a unknowne purpuse
(giving the main plot a more dramatic aspect). And for the protheans,
from what we know about them at the beggning of the story, it changes
totaly at the end of the game (evolution) and the change is linked to
the discovery of the bigger threat. Plus, every time we go on a maine
mission we discover a little more of what Saren plans to do, his purpuse (and everything he try to do is a smart move to achieve his goal).
ME2 plot is just a compil of mini story, and for the main plot... "hi! i m the elusive man and you will build your team of badass guys to kick the collectors" nothing more. We spend most of our time in ME2 playing sub-scenary that have no link to the main plot of mass effect.
Anyway, Bioware have lot of experience and know how to make any sub-story intresing.
But still, the main plot is THE big fail of ME2, no surprise, nothing new (or near), no evolution, no traitor, no conspiracy, no depth, no creativity (i'm still talking of the main plot of ME2).

The game lenght.
For this part i say ME2 all the way.
I need at least 35 hours everytime i want to finish ME2 (insanity) and i don't get bored at all.
For ME1 i need a little more then 30 hours and i spend more than 60% in the mako exploring the empty planets.
ME1 is definitly too short if i keep only the real game, between 12 and 15 hours. The mako is a good way to play more but i'm not this kind of player who enjoy wasting time in repeatitiv task that doesn't serve a real intrest for the game. For me there is a big difference between "spending your time playing" and "wasting your time playing".
No offence for the mako fan, if they enjoy playing with the mako exploring planets they are lucky, because they enjoy everything ME1 can offer, me i enjoy only the main missions.


Well that's all, congratulation if you read all this

If i have to make a conclusion, i would say that ME2 have a really polished gameplay in compar of ME1, Some sacrifice was a need to achieve that goal, but at some point, they sacrified too much (amunition, only 4rank etc).
The RPG style is still here, the RTC are well made and Bioware know how to make any story intresting, but the non explorable planet plus a bad main plot cut the "magic touch" of ME1.
Lets hope that ME3 will keep the gameplay of ME2 but will introduce a new way to explore planets more appropriate than the mako and for a better main plot !

But i fear that the main plot of ME3 will be "hey! we need to kick the reapers, so lets go gather alies among all species and fight the reapers !"
You will need to solve their problem before they agree to follow you to war, exemple: turian don't have anymore toilet paper in their battle ship, you will have to find new toilet paper dealer with the volus to provide the turian fleet "thanks Shepard, you saved our ASS! we can go to war now !

I play on pc.
And i got ME2 before ME1 if it can help understand my point of view.

The main problem with ME2 is that people complain about the loss of the RPG aspect that ME1 had.  If Bioware can somehow find a right balance of RPG and Shooter while one doesn't supercede the other, then ME3 will please everyone.

[tonnactus]

Jebel Krong wrote...

6. in me2 balances better with the character you play. you don't start as a green recruit, and even in me1 where you didn't, in essence you were because of the traditional rpg mechanics that were stuck to, despite being completely immersion-breaking and universe-unrealistic (what soldier is given a gun that cannot hit a target, even now?)..

Someone has to really explain why this comlain is and was only made concerning weapons.

Why shepardt has to learn biotics? You would expect,shepardt would be trained to use biotics beginning in his childhood  and evolved them in the army?

Why shepardt has to learn tech attacks? Didnt he learn that in his military training?

If shepardt could use all things perfectly fine from the start, how this game could persists to be an Rpg.

Its impossible.

Modifié par tonnactus, 08 juin 2010 - 07:43 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

AlanC9 wrote...

Kalfear wrote...
=What many of the ME2fangirls dont/wont/cant accept is ME2 went to far Shooter and not far enough RPG!  And I gotta say thats fustrating to argue as they have such closed little minds on the topic.

Italics mine. Anyone else burst out laughing at this?

I actually chuckled at a different part of his post, which all I could think was "typical"

Damn patterns

[Iakus]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

StodgyFrost98 wrote...

Its hard for the ME3 team to take which notes specifically. Some notes are false claims while other are legitimate claims. 

Yeah, same as with his plot analysis. Some really good points unfortunately lost in a sea of irrelevant nitpicks, completely unjustified remarks ("no you di'n, haw haw") and flat-out false claims.

I'm getting kind of a hankering to type up my list of grievances with ME2, just to see if it'll make certain people's heads explode.

On a lark, I decided to write up a post on what exactly i find to be wrong with ME 2's story. Basically distilling everyting that I've been writing on these boards and citing examples.

It's not done yet.  I'm up to six pages on a Word document...

[CroGamer002]

Kalfear wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Your problem is that you expect ME2 to made what you desire it to be.

No, I expected a proper successor to ME 1. Nothing more, nothing less. I expected a game of the quality BioWare used to deliver. I for one didn't play ME 1 for the combat either. Pew-pew, the enemy is dead, next please. Once you gained a few levels and credits, that was true even with the RPG system. Been there, done that (one reason I don't understand the popularity of single player shooters). I don't mind challenging combat, but that would be Fallout 3 (with mods) or OFP. Or in the RPG genre DA, more so the old DnD games. What I love ME 1 for is the story, fully voiced and believable characters, dialogue, choices and different outcomes. That's where ME 2 disappointed me the most, not with the dumbing down of RPG and gameplay elements. These changes are unfortunate too, but I could overlook them.

er, except for the fact that me2 clearly was the successor to me1, improving the combat, yes, but all those wonderful other factors you mentioned were also in the sequel - often also improved, like with the interrupt system for conversations, or having a larger cast of at-least-as-deep characters. the choices and the outcomes of me2 can't be fully judged yet because we don't know how they'll play out in #3, i don't expect much more than what led from #1-#2 though, simply because as a technical challenge, currently, it maybe BWs ambition outweighs their ability to deliver. still i appreciate that they did reach for the highs and attempt something no other developer has done, no matter how it eventually turns out. if you want a traditional RPG play DA:O, but that's not what Mass effect is or has ever tried to be.

Thats flat out wrong Jebel!
That like saying, if you want to play a traditional shooter, go play Modern Warfare.
Mass Effect 1 and 2 were suppose to be action / RPG mixes.
Not all shooter
Not all RPG

What many of the ME2fangirls dont/wont/cant accept is ME2 went to far Shooter and not far enough RPG!  And I gotta say thats fustrating to argue as they have such closed little minds on the topic.
All the RPG fans have granted the combat was better so they not asking for the combat to be dumbed down
All the RPG fans have granted the graphics were better so they not asking for lesser graphics
They are asking for the story and immesion and interactiveness (the RPG Elements) of the game to be put back in cause that DID get dumbed down wrongly and this is where the fighting starts.

Really this whole fight/arguement is just ME2 crowd being greedy. They got vanilla removed from the flavor list and know they fighting to keep it off where as the ME1 and RPG fans simply want a wider menu of flavors!

This isnt about Mass Effect being one or anouther genre because they were never designed, advertised, or intended to be a straight RPG or a straight shooter!

All the Original fans want is balance!

PS: The characters were not even remotely as deep as some fangirls state in ME2, they were shallow, undeveloped sketches of what the origuinal ME1 crew was. Thats discussed in lenght in thread in signature if you want to read a real discussion on the topic and not pages upon pages of drivel to find a decent post.

Agreed on all, except on last one. That's one giant B.S.

[AlanC9]

StodgyFrost98 wrote...
The main problem with ME2 is that people complain about the loss of the RPG aspect that ME1 had.  If Bioware can somehow find a right balance of RPG and Shooter while one doesn't supercede the other, then ME3 will please everyone.

Different people want that balance in different places. It is simply not possible to satisfy all of them.

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...
On a lark, I decided to write up a post on what exactly i find to be wrong with ME 2's story. Basically distilling everyting that I've been writing on these boards and citing examples.

It's not done yet.  I'm up to six pages on a Word document...

I look forward to reading it. I guess you'll have to put it on the ME2 spoilers board, though.

[Jebel Krong]

Kalfear wrote...

Thats flat out wrong Jebel!
That like saying, if you want to play a traditional shooter, go play Modern Warfare.
Mass Effect 1 and 2 were suppose to be action / RPG mixes.
Not all shooter
Not all RPG

What many of the ME2fangirls dont/wont/cant accept is ME2 went to far Shooter and not far enough RPG!  And I gotta say thats fustrating to argue as they have such closed little minds on the topic.
All the RPG fans have granted the combat was better so they not asking for the combat to be dumbed down
All the RPG fans have granted the graphics were better so they not asking for lesser graphics
They are asking for the story and immesion and interactiveness (the RPG Elements) of the game to be put back in cause that DID get dumbed down wrongly and this is where the fighting starts.

Really this whole fight/arguement is just ME2 crowd being greedy. They got vanilla removed from the flavor list and know they fighting to keep it off where as the ME1 and RPG fans simply want a wider menu of flavors!

This isnt about Mass Effect being one or anouther genre because they were never designed, advertised, or intended to be a straight RPG or a straight shooter!

All the Original fans want is balance!

PS: The characters were not even remotely as deep as some fangirls state in ME2, they were shallow, undeveloped sketches of what the origuinal ME1 crew was. Thats discussed in lenght in thread in signature if you want to read a real discussion on the topic and not pages upon pages of drivel to find a decent post.

look i wouldn't mind deeper rpg mechanics in #3 (ironically it should be easier to take me2's more stripped-down approach and add things, rather than try and fix the mess me1's sytems were), certainly in the areas of equipment, mods etc but to say the character in #2 were underdeveloped compared to me1 is nonsense and crazy talk. and yes if they can do more content with characters/conversations/locations etc, i'm all for it! depth is the holy grail, but i disagree when you say me2 lacked it, because in most (and important) areas, it most certainly didn't.

tonnactus, you're a complete tool - i'm ignoring everything you post from now on - and i should have stuck to that before.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 08 juin 2010 - 09:26 .