10273 réponses à ce sujet

[TyDurden13]

Massadonious1 wrote...

You're right, it's all about teh monies.



Wait a minute. Their better RPG's made teh monies too? Oh noes! Conundrum.

I am not an "ME1 was better" guy, but I'm not sure that this graph really illustrates the point that well.  You can't really compare XBOX only sales with Dragon Age because it was designed primarily for the PC, and unnlike either ME game, also came out on the PS3 which would eat into XBOX sales.  As for comparison to ME1, sequels almost always start off with better sales than the original because people who got into the first game a year or more after release are more likely to pick up the sequel  - so the second game is dealing with a larger built-in audience ready and waiting for more.

[Pocketgb]

I think all that graph really shows that "if Bioware then $$$."

They've pretty much reached that status.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 15 juin 2010 - 02:28 .

[SkullandBonesmember]

Pocketgb wrote...

Here's the question: How sure can we be that we wouldn't see the same amount of complaints if ME2 followed more along ME1's path? Players become upset when the formula changes, players become upset when it doesn't. The problem is that both "sides" are huge fans of ME1.

The shooter fans would again be disappointed.

TyDurden13 wrote...

As for comparison to ME1, sequels almost always start off with better sales than the original because people who got into the first game a year or more after release are more likely to pick up the sequel  - so the second game is dealing with a larger built-in audience ready and waiting for more.

+1

And sales also don't equal quality by default. McDonalds anybody? Twlight?

[Pocketgb]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

The shooter fans would again be disappointed.

Don't assume because there are those who are RPG fanatics that did appreciate ME2's direction.

[Massadonious1]

Pocketgb wrote...

I think all that graph really shows that "if Bioware then $$$."

Right-o good sir.

Or who knows, maybe I secretly implied something I didn't. Wouldn't be the first time!

[Orchomene]

About sales and video game market. An interesting article. Sorry to be a bit out of topic, but it's related to current remarks :
http://www.escapistm...ryone-Except-Me

Extract : "Best-sellers notwithstanding, videogames once
had economics similar to book publishing or music publishing, and now
they don't. Now they have economics similar to movie publishing, where
you have "blockbusters" aimed at mass audiences, and "made for TV" and
"B" movies aimed at niches. The result is that the number of genres
that can be supported with high-end product collapses. If you want to
make specific niches, you can't develop high-end games. If you want to
make high-end games, you have to develop for the widest possible
audience.
This is harmful to our industry, of course, because the ability to
target niches goes hand in hand with the ability to take creative
risks, while the demand for wide audiences leads to stultification and
decay. But the industry has found ways to still innovate: The
burgeoning indie games movement, for instance, provides continuous new
innovation. But niche consumers who used to enjoy premium content still
lose out. Indie games, no matter how innovative, can no more satisfy my
tastes than YouTube videos about cowboys can satisfy those who want
Hollywood to do blockbuster Westerns again."

Modifié par Orchomene, 15 juin 2010 - 02:51 .

[Fraevar]

Orchomene wrote...

About sales and video game market. An interesting article. Sorry to be a bit out of topic, but it's related to current remarks :
http://www.escapistm...ryone-Except-Me

[snipped]  "because the ability to
target niches goes hand in hand with the ability to take creative
risks, while the demand for wide audiences leads to stultification and
decay. But the industry has found ways to still innovate: The
burgeoning indie games movement, for instance, provides continuous new
innovation. But niche consumers who used to enjoy premium content still
lose out." [snipped]

I read the article last night and that point is the one that really hits home for me. This is essentially my disappointment with ME2 paraphrased. It could have been deep, original and innovative. But it isn't. Because they had to "bring in new players". Which is so not the way to handle a game that's supposedly the second part of an interconnected trilogy. Oh wait, I forgot. - the only thing interconnected here is that "bad guys are called Reapers".<_<

[SkullandBonesmember]

Pocketgb wrote...

Don't assume because there are those who are RPG fanatics that did appreciate ME2's direction.

They're few and far between and they're perfectly OK with massive overhauls.

Palidine_0225 wrote...

Put simply I buy Bioware games for the story not some ground breaking gameplay. I buy Valve, id Software, and Epic if I want to see some new earth-shattering combat in a game.

[Pocketgb]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

They're few and far between...

Based on what?

[sausageson]

Let me post what I said in another thread

I am almost done with ME2 (finshed all the side missions and towards the
end). While a good game it is far inferior to ME1.



-Scanning
planets boring



-Upgrade system is stupid as soon as an
upgrade pops up as researchable i just buy it regardless, while in ME1
you would look at the stats of equipment, also the best part of it was
gaining loot. Also not being able to customize how your teamates look
like is lame.



-No Mako or wide planet exploration, In ME1
I remember i went to a level 3 hazard ice planet it was beautiful and
looking up at the sky I could see the stars and I was wondering how far
this planet would be from earth irl. I was totally immersed. Also the
Mako was not that bad. Bioware just needs to put something on these
planets, it doesn't have to be a quest but it could be random events
such as two groups fighting each other (random events), or wildlife or
just some enemies. To my dismay ME2 is full of corridor levels and my
god its so boring, I feel like im playing a shooter game and not an rpg,
you cant even revisit most of the places.



-Not enough
cities and they are not large enough, while both ME1 and 2 suffer from
this, ME1 citadel was actually well done, unlike ME2 settlements which
are a few corridors and tiny rooms.



All in all I
would say ME2 is inferior in every way except character dialogue and the
characters in general, which ME2 nailed. I would also like ME3 to get
rid of the loading screens and the mission complete screen, the elevator
ride and airlocks are way better than that.

I would like to add that the people who complained about ME1 probably were not looking for an rpg but a shooting or action game. ME1 combat was not boring, it was far more strategic that ME2 where youdont even need to use special abilities unlessyou are fighting a mech or something, most of the time I can go in guns blazing. Also to all those who say good story make an rpg, thats not true; there is much more to it than that. Is starcraft an rpg? An rpg involves drawing you into its world, something which ME2 doesnt do at all, ME1 immersion was better but there was still room for improvement.

Modifié par sausageson, 15 juin 2010 - 03:54 .

[Lumikki]

Delerius_Jedi wrote...

Orchomene wrote...

About sales and video game market. An interesting article. Sorry to be a bit out of topic, but it's related to current remarks :
http://www.escapistm...ryone-Except-Me

I read the article last night and that point is the one that really hits home for me. This is essentially my disappointment with ME2 paraphrased. It could have been deep, original and innovative. But it isn't. Because they had to "bring in new players". Which is so not the way to handle a game that's supposedly the second part of an interconnected trilogy. Oh wait, I forgot. - the only thing interconnected here is that "bad guys are called Reapers".<_<

I looked new single player game to pass time, so was consedering Alpha Protocol. So, first I check that it isn't first person shooter, because I get motion sickness from those very easyly. Then I check that I can customize my character enough and what I found? Customation is good, but player can't play femele character. Why?

It turns out that the choice of not allowing the player to create a female lead came down to not having enough money to hire a female voice actor.

My point is that wanting more will also cost more. Now wonder about Mass Effect series how much they have voice acted content. Not just ability play as male & female, but all those squad members. Those stuff cost money and they need bigger enough customer base for it. So, not wanting to attract sertain type of players can also cause that players have to give up from something else in the game, because it would cost too much to make for smaller customer base.

So, I don't buy Alpha Protocol, because I can't play female character on RPG.

Modifié par Lumikki, 15 juin 2010 - 04:17 .

[Fraevar]

Lumikki wrote...

I looked new single player game to pass time, so was consedering Alpha Protocol. So, first I check that it isn't first person shooter, because I get motion sickness from those very easyly. Then I check that I can customize my character enough and what I found? Customation is good, but player can't play femele character. Why?

It turns out that the choice of not allowing the player to create a female lead came down to not having enough money to hire a female voice actor.

My point is that wanting more will also cost more. Now wonder about Mass Effect series how much they have voice acted content. Not just ability play as male & female, but all those squad members. Those stuff cost money and they need bigger enough customer base for it. So, not wanting to attract sertain type of players can also cause that players have to give up from something else in the game, because it would cost too much to make for smaller customer base.

So, I don't buy Alpha Protocol, because I can't play female character on RPG.

It's not wanting more, it's wanting them to live up to the basic
premise. I didn't want a "new" game, I wanted the second act of a big,
overarching story. Instead I got ME2, which is more reset-button than
sequel.  There's plenty of little things I like in ME2. I actually like the new gunplay and most of the characters. But I ultimately still feel like the game fails to live up to its premise of being the middle part of a larger story because BioWare decided to press the reset button at the start. The second part of the game is where the plot is supposed to thicken, but that doesn't happen in ME2 - you're just spoonfed some random bits of data about the Collectors and that thing about the Reapers making people into slushies to procreate. I just think ME2 is one big missed opportunity.

[AlanC9]

Terror_K wrote...

No. All that amounts to is the fact that some people can't separate gameplay mechanics from narrative.

Or don't want to separate them. You keep showing a devotion to existing CRPG conventions without actually expressing any reason why those conventions are good.

This is an RPG, and its supposed to be about character building and progression. If Shepard was as apparently badass as is made out, there'd be next to no character building and progression.

Exactly what I was saying. The plot says that Shepard should start as maybe a level 50 character, assuming the universe works on a 1-60 scale. If your definition of an RPG requires more character progression than 50-60 then by your definition of RPG ME2 not only isn't an RPG, but ME1 shouldn't have been an RPG.

Gameplay elements are gameplay elements, and story and narrative is story and narrative. They don't always completely gel, and this is true for any game.

They should. To the extent they don't , it's bad design. Of course, a game can be a good one despite failing here. I don't expect perfection from a design.

D&D RPG examples. In BG2 the PC had the Slayer problem, and in MotB the PChad a similar situation with the Spirit Eater issue. The narrative issues are similar. But on the mechanics level, BG2 utterly failed. The Slayer change became one more item in the PC's bag o' tricks. The MotB mechanics succeeded, because they made the curse a bad thing that the character would actually want removed.

Modifié par AlanC9, 15 juin 2010 - 04:54 .

[AlanC9]

Pocketgb wrote...

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

The shooter fans would again be disappointed.

Don't assume because there are those who are RPG fanatics that did appreciate ME2's direction.

You haven't been paying attention. If you like ME2 you're not a real RPG fan.

[AlanC9]

Lumikki wrote...
So, I don't buy Alpha Protocol, because I can't play female character on RPG.

You should be more flexible. Not being able to play male means missing out on Planescape:Tormnet and The Witcher.

Oddly enough , I can't think of any female-protagonist-only RPGs. But in other genres I'd have missed out on The Longest Journey and No One Lives Forever if I wouldn't play females.

[spacehamsterZH]

AlanC9 wrote...
You haven't been paying attention. If you like ME2 you're not a real RPG fan.

Also, if you're not a real RPG fan, it follows automatically that you're a shooter fan. This includes people who aren't RPG fans because they don't play videogames.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

The shooter fans would again be disappointed.

Don't assume because there are those who are RPG fanatics that did appreciate ME2's direction.

You haven't been paying attention. If you like ME2 you're not a real RPG fan.

That's not true!  It just means you have a very broad view of what an rpg is

[cachx]

http://www.joystiq.c...-mass-effect-2/

You guys read this yet?

Figure it will give some ammo for at least 100 pages more

[Lumikki]

AlanC9 wrote...

You haven't been paying attention. If you like ME2 you're not a real RPG fan.

I assume you sayed this with humor.

Mostly because there are people who likes many diffrent kind of games, not just one type. So, they are very flexible with game categories. I'm not my self so flexible, but I can play most roleplaying, adventure and few strategy games. I can't stand first person shooter and sport games

Modifié par Lumikki, 15 juin 2010 - 06:53 .

[Iakus]

cachx wrote...

http://www.joystiq.c...-mass-effect-2/

You guys read this yet?

Figure it will give some ammo for at least 100 pages more

The funny thing is that people will say "other than gathering your crew and building your team and getting ready for this mission, there's not much story there." But that is the story.

You mean that was deliberate!?   

Running around killing every merc you see just to recruit another merc or for the loyalty on/off switch was the point of the game? 

That pounding sound you're hearing is my forehead banging on the desk.

Wasted, wasted opportunities!

Bah, just read part 5 of my blog post, not gonna repeat myself again.

The only thing we've heard a lot of complaints about is the game's final boss. Were you guys happy with how that came out? Anything you would approach differently?

I've heard those criticisms, but I've also heard a lot of amazing praise of it. I think it was just the visual design of the final boss that I've heard criticism about, and even that, I think when people play Three, there will be more reasoning behind that.

I'm gonna take that "praise" thing with a very large grain of salt.  There'd better be a very, very good reason behind that boss.  All I'm gonna say about that.

I think we were really happy with how the moment-to-moment gameplay felt but a lot of people wanted some of the RPG system "richness" to come back to the experience

I'm glad something's getting through, at least.  Depending on what they're calling "richness".  More "glad you're not dead"  emails I can do without.  Bioware has a long history of rich storytelling.  Don't abandon that tradition!

Modifié par iakus, 15 juin 2010 - 07:29 .

[tonnactus]

Lumikki wrote...

You seem to complain that you have ability learn something, what is what you want?

Still not understand? When shepardt have to learn biotic and tech abilities,learning to use weapons better also make sense. Rpgs without skill progression dont exist as far as i know...

[tonnactus]

cachx wrote...

http://www.joystiq.c...-mass-effect-2/

You guys read this yet?

Figure it will give some ammo for at least 100 pages more

"But I think mostly we wanted to create an
experience that was less about being a game and more about being an
experience. "

Lol. The loading and mission complete screens really help to achieve this goal.Whatever drugs he take,i want them too.

Modifié par tonnactus, 15 juin 2010 - 11:01 .

[Iakus]

tonnactus wrote...

cachx wrote...

http://www.joystiq.c...-mass-effect-2/

You guys read this yet?

Figure it will give some ammo for at least 100 pages more

"But I think mostly we wanted to create an
experience that was less about being a game and more about being an
experience. "

Lol. The loading and mission complete screens really help to achieve this goal.Whatever drugs he take,i want it too.

ME 1 was an experience.  ME 2 was very much a game.  Complete with load-bearing boss.

[ShakeZoohla]

iakus wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

cachx wrote...

http://www.joystiq.c...-mass-effect-2/

You guys read this yet?

Figure it will give some ammo for at least 100 pages more

"But I think mostly we wanted to create an
experience that was less about being a game and more about being an
experience. "

Lol. The loading and mission complete screens really help to achieve this goal.Whatever drugs he take,i want it too.

ME 1 was an experience.  ME 2 was very much a game.  Complete with load-bearing boss.

I agree.  TPS and RPG aside, this is what is really wrong with ME2.

[Pocketgb]

tonnactus wrote...

Lol. The loading and mission complete screens really help to achieve this goal.Whatever drugs he take,i want them too.

Dunno 'bout ya'll, but *I* had a great time being immersed in it