10273 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

ShakeZoohla wrote...
No drastic doesn't mean bad, as some people liked the changes and some did not, but I do think it's bad to make a trilogy of games that barely resemble each other (we'll see what ME3 is like).

That would be bad. But Bioware did no such thing, as far as I can tell.  The cinematic style, the universe, Shepard himself.... all the elements that made Mass Effect distinctive to me are still present in Mass Effect 2. The only really distinctive thing about ME1 that went away was the Mako, and since I didn't like that at all I'm fine with that.

The old levelling and inventory systems, besides not being very good, weren't very important.

One would think that first and foremost the sequel to such a game would do its best to appeal to fans of the original, and not entirely change its style in hopes of sucking in new ones.  

Again, they didn't do that. When you eliminate people who didn't play ME1, the changes made to ME2 are still popular. Most ME1 fans liked ME2 better.

Edit: unless by "fan" we don't mean people who liked ME1, but instead mean people who are RPG fans first and only incidentally ME1 fans.

I personally think you have the situation flipped backwards; ME1 seems to me to be the game of a company making something unique and to the best of their ability, while ME2 seems to be the game of a company making something samey that will suck in as many fans and as much revenue as possible.  One is art, the other is business.

We utterly disagree. Without access to Bioware design documents, that's where we'll have to leave it.

Modifié par AlanC9, 10 juin 2010 - 06:19 .

[Orchomene]

AlanC9 wrote...
Most ME1 fans liked ME2 better.

I'm sorry to insist on this point, but what make you believe that this point is true ?
Is it based on the people on the forum ? Is it based on gamer reviews ?
As far as I know, it's pretty difficult to know if "most ME1 fans liked ME2 better" or not.
I've seen a lot of people having one or the other position to the point where I think that the division is around half and half.

[Terror_K]

Orchomene wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Most ME1 fans liked ME2 better.

I'm sorry to insist on this point, but what make you believe that this point is true ?
Is it based on the people on the forum ? Is it based on gamer reviews ?
As far as I know, it's pretty difficult to know if "most ME1 fans liked ME2 better" or not.
I've seen a lot of people having one or the other position to the point where I think that the division is around half and half.

Indeed. I'll fully accept that most players preferred ME2, and most gamers out there preferred it, and most critics preferred it. Existing fans... I'm not so sure. It seems pretty divided, and one also has to keep in mind there are also many who while preferring ME2 fully admit that it has problems and did remove a few too many elements.

[Some Geth]

I am a ME1 fan I will not say ME2 is better but I will say it was more fun to play and I am not into the ME1 vs ME2 war hell I think it needs to die. I think ME3 needs to be the best game out of BioWare.

[Orchomene]

iakus wrote...

Okay, I went and did it.  It's about nine pages long and reads like a "greastest hits" list of my thoughts and postings on ME 2's storyline.  I'll warn you right now it has spoilers for ME 1 and ME 2, and is subject to change as I get inspired:

social.bioware.com/718939/blog/5734/

"In ME 1: Commander Shepard learns of a threat to the entire galaxy. Few
people believe him. With the aid of a few allies and a top of the line
ship, the Commander foiled the servants of the Reapers, is proven 100%
right, and is determined to find a way to repel the impending Reaper
invasion."
This is the main problem with the stories and Bioware : almost all their games have the exact same story. Only the background is effectively changing. Even the structure is the same (yet not the same balance) with a main intro railroading, three or four locations your are free to do in any order (but you have to do all the locations) to collect either informations or objects, then the main ending part totally railroaded.
NWN OC, KOTOR, ME1/2.

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

Orchomene wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Most ME1 fans liked ME2 better.

I'm sorry to insist on this point, but what make you believe that this point is true ?
Is it based on the people on the forum ? Is it based on gamer reviews ?
As far as I know, it's pretty difficult to know if "most ME1 fans liked ME2 better" or not.
I've seen a lot of people having one or the other position to the point where I think that the division is around half and half.

Indeed. I'll fully accept that most players preferred ME2, and most gamers out there preferred it, and most critics preferred it. Existing fans... I'm not so sure. It seems pretty divided, and one also has to keep in mind there are also many who while preferring ME2 fully admit that it has problems and did remove a few too many elements.

"Damned if you do..."

[Foolsfolly]

Terror_K wrote...

Orchomene wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Most ME1 fans liked ME2 better.

I'm sorry to insist on this point, but what make you believe that this point is true ?
Is it based on the people on the forum ? Is it based on gamer reviews ?
As far as I know, it's pretty difficult to know if "most ME1 fans liked ME2 better" or not.
I've seen a lot of people having one or the other position to the point where I think that the division is around half and half.

Indeed. I'll fully accept that most players preferred ME2, and most gamers out there preferred it, and most critics preferred it. Existing fans... I'm not so sure. It seems pretty divided, and one also has to keep in mind there are also many who while preferring ME2 fully admit that it has problems and did remove a few too many elements.

You do realize only a slim minority of the fans of these games get on these forums, right? By your own admission a lot of people like ME2 better but then you create an arbitary term 'existing fans' that somehow execludes critics, gamers, and players.

General thought here is "Well, I'm pissy and I speak for the real fans and ME1's better because we're real fans."

Any flaw ME1 had, and it had many, was fixed in ME2. ME2 has its own flaws but they're less than the amount in ME1. The formula BioWare uses to make games was broken too by giving us a caper story of assembling the best of the best and doing the impossible instead of travel to 3-4 places collect info/item and then locked to the finale.

This is a great game. Threads like this are saddening.

[bjdbwea]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Any flaw ME1 had, and it had many, was fixed in ME2.

Sure, if by "fixing" you mean removing the feature altogether.

[Foolsfolly]

bjdbwea wrote...

Foolsfolly wrote...

Any flaw ME1 had, and it had many, was fixed in ME2.

Sure, if by "fixing" you mean removing the feature altogether.

I do miss having to break down useless items I didn't want to pick up in the first place into omni-gel so I could hold a slightly better suit of armor that looks exactly the same as every other armor of that type.

I'd call removing that a huge fix.

[Orchomene]

Foolsfolly wrote...

You do realize only a slim minority of the fans of these games get on these forums, right? By your own admission a lot of people like ME2 better but then you create an arbitary term 'existing fans' that somehow execludes critics, gamers, and players.

General thought here is "Well, I'm pissy and I speak for the real fans and ME1's better because we're real fans."

Any flaw ME1 had, and it had many, was fixed in ME2. ME2 has its own flaws but they're less than the amount in ME1. The formula BioWare uses to make games was broken too by giving us a caper story of assembling the best of the best and doing the impossible instead of travel to 3-4 places collect info/item and then locked to the finale.

This is a great game. Threads like this are saddening.

I'm not isolated thinking that ME2 has flaws that are worse than ME1's flaws. I've read a lot of comments in different fora of CRPG where a lot of people said that ME1 was ok and ME2 was "just a shooter like any other".
How many people express their opinion among the million (in order of magnitude) that bought the game ? less than 1%. You can't base your idea on 1% because this is not at all a representative part of the gamers that bought the game. This 1% only represents the gamers that have something to say about the game. Those that just find the game "like any shooter" do not find there is some necessity to share their opinion.
So, I'm not either telling that a minority of people enjoyed ME2, or enjoyed ME2 over ME1. I just say that those affirtmations, on one side or the other have no real fundations.
The only thing that will matter in the end are : how many people bought ME2 and how many will buy or not ME3 because of the quality (or lack of) they found in ME3. Some people here expressed they won't buy ME3. I can say you I won't buy ME3. On the other hand, ME3 may also attract other people. We will see what will be the result.
I'm pretty sure we will see that ME3 will attract more people than ME2 and will be heavy shooter-like. The video game market is huge on shooter games. When we see that some shooters cost 50 bucks for a playthrough of 15 hours and sold in millions whereas they have no specific originality, we can almost assure that the market is consistent. It will be good for Bioware in the end and I will find companies that go on delivering quality over plain market targeting and heavy action. Everyone happy.

Edit : another interesting article on choices and consequences of said choices.
www.bitmob.com/articles/consequences-are-what-count-not-choices

Modifié par Orchomene, 10 juin 2010 - 07:38 .

[Massadonious1]

Foolsfolly wrote...
I do miss having to break down useless items I didn't want to pick up in the first place into omni-gel so I could hold a slightly better suit of armor that looks exactly the same as every other armor of that type.

Blasphemy!

Such a mechanic is the pinnacle of RPG gaming!

Burn the heretic!

[bjdbwea]

Orchomene wrote...

When we see that some shooters cost 50 bucks for a playthrough of 15 hours and sold in millions whereas they have no specific originality, we can almost assure that the market is consistent. It will be good for Bioware in the end and I will find companies that go on delivering quality over plain market targeting and heavy action. Everyone happy.

I don't know about that. I certainly won't buy ME 3 either if it doesn't improve. The problem is, there just aren't many good RPGs - or companies "that go on delivering quality over plain market targeting and heavy action" in general anymore. That's why it's so annoying that the shooter crowd tried (and pretty much succeeded in) taking over this franchise too. And why it's so disappointing that BioWare gave in to that and went down the route of totally catering to this mainstream. Especially since everything indicates they still always made a profit before too. But, losing your independence comes at a price.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 10 juin 2010 - 07:50 .

[Pocketgb]

bjdbwea wrote...

I don't know about that. I certainly won't buy ME 3 either if it doesn't improve. The problem is, there just aren't many good RPGs - or companies "that go on delivering quality over plain market targeting and heavy action" in general anymore.

Er, Dragon Age? That sold incredibly well especially considering how traditional of an RPG it is. It's still getting a lot of support as well as a sequel on the way.

bjdbwea wrote...

That's why it's so annoying that the shooter crowd tried (and pretty much succeeded in) taking over this franchise too...

Some could easily argue that that happened with ME1...

[Orchomene]

bjdbwea wrote...

I don't know about that. I certainly won't buy ME 3 either if it doesn't improve. The problem is, there just aren't many good RPGs - or companies "that go on delivering quality over plain market targeting and heavy action" in general anymore. That's why it's so annoying that the shooter crowd tried (and pretty much succeeded in) taking over this franchise too. And why it's so disappointing that BioWare gave in to that and went down the route of totally catering to this mainstream. Especially since everything indicates they still always made a profit before too. But, losing your independence comes at a price.

Video game is a business. Any time in business that there is some "void" left after the change of market of a company, there is a new company that goes inside the breach.
There are already companies that do game involving characters interactions. Obsidian did a better job than BW in Kotor2 with this aspect : less black and white, less caricatural. The Witcher is a good first game for CD Projekt.
Seeing the size of such companies compare to BW, I think that they did a lot better with fewer resources. Alas, there are bugs, but playing on PC allow you to correct the bugs with the help of the community. Bioware delivered games in the past with a lot of bugs too.
You will quickly see that if Bioware goes on another market, there will still be good RPG delivered. I've seen the end of Black Isle and thought that this was the end of the good wrpg market. I've been proven wrong for which I'm happy.

Just for fun :
www.explicitgamer.com/article/14-reasons-hate-mass-effect-2

Modifié par Orchomene, 10 juin 2010 - 08:02 .

[Foolsfolly]

Massadonious1 wrote...

Foolsfolly wrote...
I do miss having to break down useless items I didn't want to pick up in the first place into omni-gel so I could hold a slightly better suit of armor that looks exactly the same as every other armor of that type.

Blasphemy!

Such a mechanic is the pinnacle of RPG gaming!

Burn the heretic!

The crazy thing is the new system work better! Instead of 20 powers situational powers there's a handful of general more all-purpose powers. Instead of a vast thousands and thousands of useless items (despite all those different items we all ended up having Savant omni-tools, Colossus or Predator H/M/S armor, and Spectre weapons and if you didn't have those it was because you were still early in the game or they hadn't dropped yet) we now get fewer more distinct and simply better weapons and armor.

How dare we have a streamlined system instead of the illusion of choice! I want all that junk stuff until about mid-game where I get the stuff I'll never replace as I sell more items at the store despite having long ago reached the credit limit.

[bjdbwea]

Pocketgb wrote...

Er, Dragon Age? That sold incredibly well especially considering how traditional of an RPG it is.

Yes, that makes one. And how many shooters are released every year? You could argue that numbers don't equal quality, but many are very good within their scope of being a shooter. And there are also numerous shooters where combat works better than in ME 2, even after all the "improvements" in that regard.

And if DA sold well, then isn't that prove enough for the existance of an audience which appreciates RPGs, even on consoles? Why then couldn't BioWare just continue to produce RPGs? Why did it have to be another shooter?

And just to clarify once more: When I make the distinction between RPG and shooter, I don't just mean the combat, customization and inventory. Because it wasn't just that which was dumbed down and "streamlined", but the most important thing too, the story and presentation, as well as that which we call immersion.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 10 juin 2010 - 08:10 .

[Orchomene]

Foolsfolly wrote...
The crazy thing is the new system work better! Instead of 20 powers situational powers there's a handful of general more all-purpose powers. Instead of a vast thousands and thousands of useless items (despite all those different items we all ended up having Savant omni-tools, Colossus or Predator H/M/S armor, and Spectre weapons and if you didn't have those it was because you were still early in the game or they hadn't dropped yet) we now get fewer more distinct and simply better weapons and armor.

How dare we have a streamlined system instead of the illusion of choice! I want all that junk stuff until about mid-game where I get the stuff I'll never replace as I sell more items at the store despite having long ago reached the credit limit.

It works better for you, maybe. Don't consider your opinion as universal. You know, having three power to chose among 4. Having 1 or 2 guns to chose among 4 is just not enough for me. In the end, in every play with the same class, you end up using the same powers and the same guns. Why ? Because as you stated, there is no choice. There was no choice in ME1, there is still no choice in ME2.
On the contrary, in DAO, you can have different kind of fighters, different kinds of rogues and different kinds of mages. In all the RPGs I've found good, there was a real choice for customizing my PC. There is absolutly none in ME1/2.

[Foolsfolly]

Pocketgb wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

I don't know about that. I certainly won't buy ME 3 either if it doesn't improve. The problem is, there just aren't many good RPGs - or companies "that go on delivering quality over plain market targeting and heavy action" in general anymore.

Er, Dragon Age? That sold incredibly well especially considering how traditional of an RPG it is. It's still getting a lot of support as well as a sequel on the way.

bjdbwea wrote...

That's why it's so annoying that the shooter crowd tried (and pretty much succeeded in) taking over this franchise too...

Some could easily argue that that happened with ME1...

Dragon Age is a great fun game too! It's 100% all the time RPG. There's even floating numbers allowing you to take out a pen and pad and break down how to level your character. I know because I've done it with my Assassin/Dueling rogue trying to get the most DPS possible with the right gear and stats.

And the makers of Dragon Age, in case you haven't noticed, BioWare. The same people you're demonizing for dumbing down their swill and forcing you to play it.

Dragon Age's a great game. I loved it a lot more than I thought I would (I really though I was done with swords and magic for a while but it pulled me back in) and Mass Effect is so great at being new. I love the feel of something different. Is it a pure RPG? No. Is it a pure shooter? No. It's both and it's FUN! It's not stupid fun either it's actually enjoyable fun. There's just enough RPG and Shooter to be fun for both! 

Hell, if you're that disappointed with the game then don't buy the next one. The rest of us will be tearing up the Reapers and then when Dragon Age 2 comes out we'll be kicking in the new Archdemon's teeth in with our insanely detailed character builds.

Because, ya know, it's just a game. We can play others and expect different things from the others. Like rational people.

[Foolsfolly]

Orchomene wrote...

Foolsfolly wrote...
The crazy thing is the new system work better! Instead of 20 powers situational powers there's a handful of general more all-purpose powers. Instead of a vast thousands and thousands of useless items (despite all those different items we all ended up having Savant omni-tools, Colossus or Predator H/M/S armor, and Spectre weapons and if you didn't have those it was because you were still early in the game or they hadn't dropped yet) we now get fewer more distinct and simply better weapons and armor.

How dare we have a streamlined system instead of the illusion of choice! I want all that junk stuff until about mid-game where I get the stuff I'll never replace as I sell more items at the store despite having long ago reached the credit limit.

It works better for you, maybe. Don't consider your opinion as universal. You know, having three power to chose among 4. Having 1 or 2 guns to chose among 4 is just not enough for me. In the end, in every play with the same class, you end up using the same powers and the same guns. Why ? Because as you stated, there is no choice. There was no choice in ME1, there is still no choice in ME2.
On the contrary, in DAO, you can have different kind of fighters, different kinds of rogues and different kinds of mages. In all the RPGs I've found good, there was a real choice for customizing my PC. There is absolutly none in ME1/2.

Then go play those games. Or start a thread demanding Shepard have the ability to jump because 'other better games' allow the player to jump.

You admit that the costumization was poor in ME1 where every armor looked like a different colored version of the same armor and every weapon was only in your hands for as long as it took you to buy Spectre weapons.

There was no choice. Those were 100% the best items you could get. It was about grinding to get to that.

So when ME2 comes around you get to pick your armor's color, modify it, and get better weapons and use those weapons while upgrading their stats. That's an improvement, streamlines the system, and stays completely truthful to the first game.

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

Indeed. I'll fully accept that most players preferred ME2, and most gamers out there preferred it, and most critics preferred it. Existing fans... I'm not so sure. It seems pretty divided, and one also has to keep in mind there are also many who while preferring ME2 fully admit that it has problems and did remove a few too many elements.

Sure, many of those who likes ME2 does admit that ME2 has problems and it did REDUSE (simplifyed or less variety) few too many elements.  Only two thing removed was inventory and mako. Also you keep forgeting that those same people who  likes ME2 and admits that ME2 has problems, also often say ME1 has problems.

I don't prefer ME2 over ME1. I think they are equal good, just different ways.

Modifié par Lumikki, 10 juin 2010 - 08:43 .

[Pocketgb]

bjdbwea wrote...

And if DA sold well, then isn't that prove enough for the existance of an audience which appreciates RPGs, even on consoles? Why then couldn't BioWare just continue to produce RPGs? Why did it have to be another shooter?

You probably should've asked this when ME1 was released.

In retrospect, I'd probably be just as pleased if Bioware was able to nail a topdown Dawn of War 2-esque cover-based RPG. Sounds awesome.

bjdbwea wrote...

And just to clarify once more: When I make the distinction between RPG and shooter, I don't just mean the combat, customization and inventory. Because it wasn't just that which was dumbed down and "streamlined", but the most important thing too, the story and presentation, as well as that which we call immersion.

All of which have been proven to be little else than issues concerning tastebuds, although there are fair points across both games.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 10 juin 2010 - 08:51 .

[FlintlockJazz]

Orchomene wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

I don't know about that. I certainly won't buy ME 3 either if it doesn't improve. The problem is, there just aren't many good RPGs - or companies "that go on delivering quality over plain market targeting and heavy action" in general anymore. That's why it's so annoying that the shooter crowd tried (and pretty much succeeded in) taking over this franchise too. And why it's so disappointing that BioWare gave in to that and went down the route of totally catering to this mainstream. Especially since everything indicates they still always made a profit before too. But, losing your independence comes at a price.

Video game is a business. Any time in business that there is some "void" left after the change of market of a company, there is a new company that goes inside the breach.
There are already companies that do game involving characters interactions. Obsidian did a better job than BW in Kotor2 with this aspect : less black and white, less caricatural. The Witcher is a good first game for CD Projekt.
Seeing the size of such companies compare to BW, I think that they did a lot better with fewer resources. Alas, there are bugs, but playing on PC allow you to correct the bugs with the help of the community. Bioware delivered games in the past with a lot of bugs too.
You will quickly see that if Bioware goes on another market, there will still be good RPG delivered. I've seen the end of Black Isle and thought that this was the end of the good wrpg market. I've been proven wrong for which I'm happy.

Just for fun :
www.explicitgamer.com/article/14-reasons-hate-mass-effect-2

Aye, and CDProjekt are actually doing rather well, they are running Gog.com where they sell good old games online with no DRM whatsoever and actually making it work.  Hell, they even have some of Bioware's first three games, Shattered Steel and MDK1 and 2, none of which are RPGs despite Bioware's subsequent renown for being an RPG dev.  Obsidian released the awesome Alpha Protocol that is more RPG than even ME1 ever was! 

The real problem is that unless it's made by Bioware or Bethesda people just don't seem to be interested, which is a damn shame because these other guys are doing things that are quite different from the run of the mill stuff (not to say the two Bs only do run of the mill stuff, they are the main players in their respective areas of RPG games, it's just that these other guys make some amazing stuff too).  Really, people need to start looking around more otherwise there truly won't be more RPGs around anymore.

[Mister Mida]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

Orchomene wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

I don't know about that. I certainly won't buy ME 3 either if it doesn't improve. The problem is, there just aren't many good RPGs - or companies "that go on delivering quality over plain market targeting and heavy action" in general anymore. That's why it's so annoying that the shooter crowd tried (and pretty much succeeded in) taking over this franchise too. And why it's so disappointing that BioWare gave in to that and went down the route of totally catering to this mainstream. Especially since everything indicates they still always made a profit before too. But, losing your independence comes at a price.

Video game is a business. Any time in business that there is some "void" left after the change of market of a company, there is a new company that goes inside the breach.
There are already companies that do game involving characters interactions. Obsidian did a better job than BW in Kotor2 with this aspect : less black and white, less caricatural. The Witcher is a good first game for CD Projekt.
Seeing the size of such companies compare to BW, I think that they did a lot better with fewer resources. Alas, there are bugs, but playing on PC allow you to correct the bugs with the help of the community. Bioware delivered games in the past with a lot of bugs too.
You will quickly see that if Bioware goes on another market, there will still be good RPG delivered. I've seen the end of Black Isle and thought that this was the end of the good wrpg market. I've been proven wrong for which I'm happy.

Just for fun :
www.explicitgamer.com/article/14-reasons-hate-mass-effect-2

Aye, and CDProjekt are actually doing rather well, they are running Gog.com where they sell good old games online with no DRM whatsoever and actually making it work.  Hell, they even have some of Bioware's first three games, Shattered Steel and MDK1 and 2, none of which are RPGs despite Bioware's subsequent renown for being an RPG dev.  Obsidian released the awesome Alpha Protocol that is more RPG than even ME1 ever was! 

The real problem is that unless it's made by Bioware or Bethesda people just don't seem to be interested, which is a damn shame because these other guys are doing things that are quite different from the run of the mill stuff (not to say the two Bs only do run of the mill stuff, they are the main players in their respective areas of RPG games, it's just that these other guys make some amazing stuff too).  Really, people need to start looking around more otherwise there truly won't be more RPGs around anymore.

Exactly the reason why I ordered 'The Witcher' last week. Even if Bioware goes 'mainstream', someone will take their place in the RPG market.

[Fraevar]

iakus wrote...

Okay, I went and did it.  It's about nine pages long and reads like a "greastest hits" list of my thoughts and postings on ME 2's storyline.  I'll warn you right now it has spoilers for ME 1 and ME 2, and is subject to change as I get inspired:

social.bioware.com/718939/blog/5734/

Great write-up. You managed to nail many of my qualms with ME2.

[bjdbwea]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

The real problem is that unless it's made by Bioware or Bethesda people just don't seem to be interested, which is a damn shame because these other guys are doing things that are quite different from the run of the mill stuff (not to say the two Bs only do run of the mill stuff, they are the main players in their respective areas of RPG games, it's just that these other guys make some amazing stuff too).  Really, people need to start looking around more otherwise there truly won't be more RPGs around anymore.

That's not true in my case. I already own the Witcher, but unfortunately that didn't really impress me either, and so far I didn't even finish it. I didn't like the combat system, and especially not the fact that it forces me to use one predefined character. The same unfortunately is the case with AP, and like ME 2 that game seems to lack polish, from what I've read. Part of the problem for me is that BioWare used to deliver such outstanding quality RPGs, that I find it hard to accept the flaws and shortcomings of other games, including ME 2.