10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

SkullandBonesmember wrote...
Look at the marketing for ME2 and tell me that wouldn't make a shooter fan's eyes widen.

And the ME1 marketing was different? From what I've seen ME1 brought in a lot of shooter fans..

www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_OrYTQEMAc

This is the ad that really sold me on ME 1. 

Notice the "Best RPG of 2007" and "RPG of the Year"  blurbs mixed in

"I am the vanguard of your destruction"  Still way cooler than "Assuming direct control"

[Pocketgb]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

And I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum where the immersion I feel with silent protagonists is practically null when compared to voiced protagonists. I feel more immersion playing Tidus from Final Fantasy X even though I can't choose anything he says or make choices than I do playing the Lone wanderer in Fallout 3.

Exactly, part of the reason why being "immersed" in Shepard as a character is generally going to be subjective: some things he'll say won't be agreed on by everyone. Sometimes the voice-acting can be off putting to some (just as much as if he sounded like a grunt badass). There's always going to be something offputting to someone based on the dialog choices, and Mass effect being strictly limited in doing this by having each choice represented by a voice-over also hinders this.

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Let me save you the trouble in case you didn't read my specific post...

That's really nothing terribly "objective" in there., and the "overall less said" could be a win/lose situation in this case. How much more could've been said if we had only three squad members in ME1?

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Find me one post, just ONE, or feel free to try for multiple, where I've said no ME1 fans like ME2

I've seen plenty of "shooter fan" labels thrown about simply because someone liked the combat more than the original. Is that close enough, or does that not qualify (even though it's still overall assuming that's they liked Me2 solely for the combat?)

SkullandBonesmember wrote...


(and I've stated for the record I do, just that it was vastly sub par).

Based on?

SkullandBonesmember wrote...
Look at the marketing for ME2 and tell me that wouldn't make a shooter fan's eyes widen.

And Mass Effect didn't? Aesthetics were cool, graphics looked great, effects looked sick. Both have an appeal of "action" in them, but they're still not worth buying the game over (although ME2 was rather enjoyable for me this time around).

Terror_K wrote...

It's all very well to say "perhaps ME2
isn't the type of game for you" and all, but if ME1 really was the
type of game for Me (or anybody else), then shouldn't ME2 also
therefore be the type of game for me? .

Depends if it was for everyone else. And remember: Repair or recycle?

Terror_K wrote...


The point is that the sequel should carry-on the legacy and style
that's started by the first one, and gameplay wise it largely doesn't
except perhaps at its most basic level. One can say that the "bread and
butter" of controlling Shepard is still there, but that's only one
element of many.

Right, just like the leveling system or inventory system. Different people put different emphasis on different things.

Terror_K wrote...


The main point remains as this overall: good game or not, a direct sequel should be just as much a game for the fans of the first one as the first one was. While this is true for some, there are a great number of those this is not true for.

Thrice time: "Damned if you do..."

Modifié par Pocketgb, 22 juin 2010 - 04:02 .

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

SkullandBonesmember wrote...
Look at the marketing for ME2 and tell me that wouldn't make a shooter fan's eyes widen.

And the ME1 marketing was different? From what I've seen ME1 brought in a lot of shooter fans..

www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_OrYTQEMAc

This is the ad that really sold me on ME 1. 

Notice the "Best RPG of 2007" and "RPG of the Year"  blurbs mixed in

"I am the vanguard of your destruction"  Still way cooler than "Assuming direct control"

Thanks. Never saw that trailer. But if I was a shooter fan looking at that cold I think would have guessed ME1's gameplay was more shooterish than it turned out to be. Of course, there's almost no gameplay in that trailer -- which is one of the reasons I don't generally pay attention to them

[Darth Drago]

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

It's all very well to say "perhaps ME2
isn't the type of game for you" and all, but if ME1 really was the
type of game for Me (or anybody else), then shouldn't ME2 also
therefore be the type of game for me? .

Depends if it was for everyone else. And remember: Repair or recycle?

-To bad BioWare didn’t do either for ME2. There was no repairing or recycling, it was rebuilt and rebooted.

Pocketgb wrote...

SkullandBonesmember wrote...
Look at the marketing for ME2 and tell me that wouldn't make a shooter fan's eyes widen.

And Mass Effect didn't? Aesthetics were cool, graphics looked great, effects looked sick. Both have an appeal of "action" in them, but they're still not worth buying the game over (although ME2 was rather enjoyable for me this time around).

-Um, no. Even with the preview trailers you get RPG mentioned twice and BioWare boldly put on the screen right from the start. Even in the preview they don’t show that much actual shooting for gameplay. Oh, and when I think of shooter game companies, BioWare doesn’t come up on the list at all. When I saw the previes I though ****** was going to be another RPG like Knights of the Old Republic.

Modifié par Darth Drago, 22 juin 2010 - 04:36 .

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

It's all very well to say "perhaps ME2
isn't the type of game for you" and all, but if ME1 really was the
type of game for Me (or anybody else), then shouldn't ME2 also
therefore be the type of game for me? .

Depends if it was for everyone else. And remember: Repair or recycle?

Well, one would think that Mass Effect 1 was a game for Mass Effect fans, since otherwise how would they have become fans? That's not to say that it was flawless, but that what it generally was and tried to be was generally liked by those who became fans.

Also, I don't think ME2 repaired or recycled. If it did anything that started with "re" it was "replace"

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

The point is that the sequel should carry-on the legacy and style
that's started by the first one, and gameplay wise it largely doesn't
except perhaps at its most basic level. One can say that the "bread and
butter" of controlling Shepard is still there, but that's only one
element of many.

Right, just like the leveling system or inventory system. Different people put different emphasis on different things.

While this is true, just because a single emphasis that is preferred by some remains intact doesn't mean the others should not. Yes, different people prefer different aspects, but by and large all facets of the game should remain fairly consistent and stay true to themselves. Just because a lot of people loved the narrative doesn't mean the RPG and even shooter aspects should take a backseat, and just because some people loved the shooter aspects shouldn't mean the RPG and narrative should take a backseat, etc.

Mass Effect is not and should not be one thing: its a combination of many. And the fact is the RPG aspects didn't need to suffer for the shooter ones to become stronger. And yet they did.

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

The main point remains as this overall: good game or not, a direct sequel should be just as much a game for the fans of the first one as the first one was. While this is true for some, there are a great number of those this is not true for.

Thrice time: "Damned if you do..."

Not really though. Most sequels generally stay pretty close to their predecessors and generally do consist of being essentially "the same game, but with more" when it comes down to it. There are exceptions of course, such as Dune and Dune II, UFO: Enemy Unknown and pretty much every X-Com game that followed, and Fallout 1 & 2 and Fallout 3 (though I would still say Fallout 3 is closer to its predecessors at heart than ME2 was to ME1.) But the likes of the Halo games, the GTA games, Gears of War I & II, BioShock I & II, Assassin's Creed I & II, The Spinter Cell games, The Hitman games, The Tomb Raider games, Baldur's Gate I & II, KotOR I & II, etc. are all pretty damn similar to each other and are mostly a case of "the same game, but with more." Mass Effect 2 was actually more like "a similar game, but with less"

[Pocketgb]

Darth Drago wrote...

-To bad BioWare didn’t do either for ME2. There was no repairing or recycling, it was rebuilt and rebooted.

By 'recycle' I meant 'trash what you have and start again'. Probably chose a bad word for it.

Darth
Drago wrote...

-Um, no...

The first commerical trailer was pretty much "ACTION! DRAMA! SPACESHIP! ROMANCE! 'SPLOSIONS!".

But a lot of this is history and varies from person to person. I've only seen the above commerical twice and a lot of its reveals by Bioware focused a lot on the conversation dialog and a lot on playing through the combat.

Darth Drago wrote...

Oh, and when I think of shooter game companies, BioWare doesn’t come up on the list at all.

What about for action games?

Terror_K wrote...

Well, one would think that Mass Effect 1 was a game for Mass Effect fans, since otherwise how would they have become fans? That's not to say that it was flawless, but that what it generally was and tried to be was generally liked by those who became fans.

Nothing's going to be able to tell if they succeeded or not. We cannot tell how many fans who loved ME1 actually liked the way systems were designed in ME2. It's garunteed that people who liked the way mechanics were designed in ME1 will not like what they receive with ME2.

Pocketgb wrote...

While this is true, just because a single emphasis that is preferred by some remains intact doesn't mean the others should not...

"Should" is what should've happened, yes, just like the combat in ME1 "should've" been enjoyable for a lot of people. But when designing new systems from the ground up in the hopes of having something better, that's generally likely to happen, which is why I'm hoping the variety is increased with ME3. 

Bioware's done nothing wrong in attempting new territories. Have the succeeded with the attempt? Can't tell you, and you can't tell me.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 22 juin 2010 - 05:37 .

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

The first commerical trailer was pretty much "ACTION! DRAMA! SPACESHIP! ROMANCE! 'SPLOSIONS!".

But a lot of this is history and varies from person to person. I've only seen the above commerical twice and a lot of its reveals by Bioware focused a lot on the conversation dialog and a lot on playing through the combat.

The first trailer may have been "ACTION! DRAMA! SPACESHIP! ROMANCE! 'SPLOSIONS!" but that's still a far cry from simply "ACTION! 'SPLOSIONS!" with little to none of the in-between. I remember people commenting at the time that with ME2, as well as saying this with Dragon Age Origins' marketing: the fact that the focus is far more on dark gritty action and violence rather than giving a good mix of all the elements. Many of those who love DAO even now still think back to the advertising and shake their heads. ME2 wasn't quite as bad, but it had its moments where there were a lot of trailers and teasers that made it look absolutely horrible. The original teaser, post-E3 trailer and original Fight for the Lost one were the only really good ones, with the rest making it look like something it wasn't.

I recall viewing the old ME1 teasers and trailers back before playing the game, and the whole thing seemed like a trailer for an epic sci-fi movie with many elements and a style that reminded me of a lot of classic late 1970's to early 1990's sci-fi that I was a huge fan of. ME2's advertising for the game on the other hand did just come across as advertising an action game more than anything else, and it looked far worse than it turned out to be... with a few exceptions here and there (the Illium section with the flying cars was always awesome).

Nothing's going to be able to tell if they succeeded or not. We cannot tell how many fans who loved ME1 actually liked the way systems were designed in ME2. It's garunteed that people who liked the way mechanics were designed in ME1 will not like what they receive with ME2.

That's not really what I meant. All I said, when you get down to it, was that fans of the original game were fans of the original game. They were fans for a reason... no, for many reasons. One also has to remember that there's a difference between a fan and a player to whom Mass Effect is just another game on the list of hundreds. Also, people may not have necessarily liked the way the mechanics were designed in ME1, but they probably at least liked that they were there. ME1 was definitely a flawed game, but it was what it was. And ME2 just didn't have the same style or feel to it that ME1 did, because so much has changed.

Pocketgb wrote...

"Should" is what should've happened, yes, just like the combat in ME1 "should've" been enjoyable for a lot of people. But when designing new systems from the ground up in the hopes of having something better, that's generally likely to happen, which is why I'm hoping the variety is increased with ME3. 

Bioware's done nothing wrong in attempting new territories. Have the succeeded with the attempt? Can't tell you, and you can't tell me.

Its a personal thing, and thus something that can really only be an opinion rather than a fact. But if they had succeeded I doubt we would have seen as many people with issues as we have. What works better is up to interpretation and preference, but the fact that many RPG elements were toned down, simplified or removed is pretty much a stone cold fact. It's just that some people think it works better that way and others don't.

I'll even concede that many elements technically work better in the sense that they're less broken and flawed, but from an RPG standpoint and retaining the depth and full functionality of the first game I don't think they're actually better systems. Many may have been if things hadn't been taken too far; if BioWare had only stripped so much out of the existing systems. They admitted that they literally threw the RPG systems away entirely, focused solely on the shooter stuff and then added the RPG elements back in. Unfortunately it seems this method has resulted in something akin to pulling apart a complex machine, putting it back together and turning around to find half the parts still lying there on the floor.

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

The first commerical trailer was pretty much "ACTION! DRAMA! SPACESHIP! ROMANCE! 'SPLOSIONS!".

The first trailer may have been "ACTION! DRAMA! SPACESHIP! ROMANCE! 'SPLOSIONS!" but that's still a far cry from simply "ACTION! 'SPLOSIONS!" with little to none of the in-between.

ME1 Launch Trailer
ME2 Launch Trailer

Both are more or less the same.

Unless you mean there's more emphasis on 'action' on the sole basis that Bioware redesigned the combat, then I suppose good luck with that?

Terror_K wrote...

It's just that some people think it works better that way and others don't.

/thread

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

ME1 Launch Trailer
ME2 Launch Trailer

Both are more or less the same.

Unless you mean there's more emphasis on 'action' on the sole basis that Bioware redesigned the combat, then I suppose good luck with that?

Yes, but this was one of the exceptions I listed and came very late into things, after a whole lot of really bad trailers and teasers. I loved this one and I remember after seeing it thinking "Thank God! Finally a trailer that makes it look good!"

[Pocketgb]

Eh, I *guess* the press details for it were alright. Given that they were giving a complete new overhaul to the combat system it's a bit understandable they'd want to 'show it off'. Would've definitely been cool to see them put a bit more emphasis on the hubs, though. It was pretty much just brown-old Omega (which isn't to say I don't like Omega - it's my favorite city - rather that a bit more variety would've been sweet to see pre-release).

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

Its a personal thing, and thus something that can really only be an opinion rather than a fact. But if they had succeeded I doubt we would have seen as many people with issues as we have. What works better is up to interpretation and preference, but the fact that many RPG elements were toned down, simplified or removed is pretty much a stone cold fact. It's just that some people think it works better that way and others don't.

I'll even concede that many elements technically work better in the sense that they're less broken and flawed, but from an RPG standpoint and retaining the depth and full functionality of the first game I don't think they're actually better systems. Many may have been if things hadn't been taken too far; if BioWare had only stripped so much out of the existing systems. They admitted that they literally threw the RPG systems away entirely, focused solely on the shooter stuff and then added the RPG elements back in. Unfortunately it seems this method has resulted in something akin to pulling apart a complex machine, putting it back together and turning around to find half the parts still lying there on the floor.

RPG was redused in ME2 I agree on that, but mostly traditional RPG side, few impression stuff and exloration with Mako. You say like redusing traditional RPG side was bad thing? Is that because you are RPG player, what about all other players? I'm my self RPG player, but I don't bash ME2, I just hope they get it better in ME3. I was able to enjoy both games fine. Why can't you? It's not the game, it's your taste of games, is it?

You make assumptions that ME1 was the "right" way, because you liked it and it was first one. What if ME2 is the real way, but developers did not just get it right at first try. I mean if they would have got it right, then why to change at all. What if even ME1 or ME2 isn't the right way and ME3 will show it to us? My point is that you make assumption that ME1 is the correct path, but that's not necassary true. As for players liking, both games has got alot of success.

[Vena_86]

Lumikki wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Its a personal thing, and thus something that can really only be an opinion rather than a fact. But if they had succeeded I doubt we would have seen as many people with issues as we have. What works better is up to interpretation and preference, but the fact that many RPG elements were toned down, simplified or removed is pretty much a stone cold fact. It's just that some people think it works better that way and others don't.

I'll even concede that many elements technically work better in the sense that they're less broken and flawed, but from an RPG standpoint and retaining the depth and full functionality of the first game I don't think they're actually better systems. Many may have been if things hadn't been taken too far; if BioWare had only stripped so much out of the existing systems. They admitted that they literally threw the RPG systems away entirely, focused solely on the shooter stuff and then added the RPG elements back in. Unfortunately it seems this method has resulted in something akin to pulling apart a complex machine, putting it back together and turning around to find half the parts still lying there on the floor.

RPG was redused in ME2 I agree on that, but mostly traditional RPG side, few impression stuff and exloration with Mako. You say like redusing traditional RPG side was bad thing? Is that because you are RPG player, what about all other players? I'm my self RPG player, but I don't bash ME2, I just hope they get it better in ME3. I was able to enjoy both games fine. Why can't you? It's not the game, it's your taste of games, is it?

You make assumptions that ME1 was the "right" way, because you liked it and it was first one. What if ME2 is the real way, but developers did not just get it right at first try. I mean if they would have got it right, then why to change at all. What if even ME1 or ME2 isn't the right way and ME3 will show it to us? My point is that you make assumption that ME1 is the correct path, but that's not necassary true. As for players liking, both games has got alot of success.

I played shooters long before RPGs. I played through some of the first shooters ever made as a kid and still play most of the major modern ones. However I think that the Mass Effect franchise only scratches its potential by beeing turned into another GoW clone. The thing with Mass Effect 1 is that it could not be forced into a specific genre. It consisted of so many parts, which individually could have been implemented better but together offered an experience which was unique and interesting.
Mass Effect 2, reduces the gameplay and focuses on something that has been done before, again and again and again. Unreal Tournament for example is a shooter at heart, it could not possibly be any other kind of game and still be as good. Mass Effect is something that has other things to offer, which other games and genres can not. Open space exploration with and without vehicles, character development and fluent NPC interaction. In Mass Effect I could step on another planet far away from earth. A lifeless planet, with a deadly atmosphear. But just seeing me and two of my team stand there in protectife suits, far away from earth, gazing at two suns in the sky was fascinating. These are things that would not work as good in a game such as CoD or GoW, but that can work great in a game such as Mass Effect and make it stand out. Then why did BioWare focus so much on the things that so many other games, specially the two mentioned ones, did before? Well, I know the answer, but it's not a satisfying answer and I always throught BioWare is above the need for more and more money, where nothing is ever enough. Business changes everything over time and the art stays behind.

[Some Geth]

Vena_86 wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Its a personal thing, and thus something that can really only be an opinion rather than a fact. But if they had succeeded I doubt we would have seen as many people with issues as we have. What works better is up to interpretation and preference, but the fact that many RPG elements were toned down, simplified or removed is pretty much a stone cold fact. It's just that some people think it works better that way and others don't.

I'll even concede that many elements technically work better in the sense that they're less broken and flawed, but from an RPG standpoint and retaining the depth and full functionality of the first game I don't think they're actually better systems. Many may have been if things hadn't been taken too far; if BioWare had only stripped so much out of the existing systems. They admitted that they literally threw the RPG systems away entirely, focused solely on the shooter stuff and then added the RPG elements back in. Unfortunately it seems this method has resulted in something akin to pulling apart a complex machine, putting it back together and turning around to find half the parts still lying there on the floor.

RPG was redused in ME2 I agree on that, but mostly traditional RPG side, few impression stuff and exloration with Mako. You say like redusing traditional RPG side was bad thing? Is that because you are RPG player, what about all other players? I'm my self RPG player, but I don't bash ME2, I just hope they get it better in ME3. I was able to enjoy both games fine. Why can't you? It's not the game, it's your taste of games, is it?

You make assumptions that ME1 was the "right" way, because you liked it and it was first one. What if ME2 is the real way, but developers did not just get it right at first try. I mean if they would have got it right, then why to change at all. What if even ME1 or ME2 isn't the right way and ME3 will show it to us? My point is that you make assumption that ME1 is the correct path, but that's not necassary true. As for players liking, both games has got alot of success.

I played shooters long before RPGs. I played through some of the first shooters ever made as a kid and still play most of the major modern ones. However I think that the Mass Effect franchise only scratches its potential by beeing turned into another GoW clone. The thing with Mass Effect 1 is that it could not be forced into a specific genre. It consisted of so many parts, which individually could have been implemented better but together offered an experience which was unique and interesting.
Mass Effect 2, reduces the gameplay and focuses on something that has been done before, again and again and again. Unreal Tournament for example is a shooter at heart, it could not possibly be any other kind of game and still be as good. Mass Effect is something that has other things to offer, which other games and genres can not. Open space exploration with and without vehicles, character development and fluent NPC interaction. In Mass Effect I could step on another planet far away from earth. A lifeless planet, with a deadly atmosphear. But just seeing me and two of my team stand there in protectife suits, far away from earth, gazing at two suns in the sky was fascinating. These are things that would not work as good in a game such as CoD or GoW, but that can work great in a game such as Mass Effect and make it stand out. Then why did BioWare focus so much on the things that so many other games, specially the two mentioned ones, did before? Well, I know the answer, but it's not a satisfying answer and I always throught BioWare is above the need for more and more money, where nothing is ever enough. Business changes everything over time and the art stays behind.

Yes lifeless planets how fun .

[bjdbwea]

Vena_86 wrote...

In Mass Effect I could step on another planet far away from earth. A lifeless planet, with a deadly atmosphere. But just seeing me and two of my team stand there in protectife suits, far away from earth, gazing at two suns in the sky was fascinating.

This. The main reason I always liked the Mako missions. The space exploration part in ME 1 added a lot of atmosphere. Whereas during the ME 2 side missions, I never get the feeling of exploring a real galaxy. Nor in the Hammerhead missions. It's all too obviously designed to be a video game, too "streamlined" and "immediate" for the easily bored mainstream gamer.

Vena_86 wrote...

Then why did BioWare focus so much on the things that so many other games, specially the two mentioned ones, did before? Well, I know the answer, but it's not a satisfying answer and I always throught BioWare is above the need for more and more money, where nothing is ever enough. Business changes everything over time and the art stays behind.

This too. Of course any company only exists to make money. But for all we know, BioWare still always used to make a profit, even with their old approach of "quality first". But unfortunately, it's not their decision anymore. Comes with giving up your independence.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 22 juin 2010 - 11:36 .

[Some Geth]

So what you want is for video games to not be video games and have more Mako odd I must say.



Oh and it was BioWare who made ME2 the way it is from what they got out of the fans not EA.

[bjdbwea]

Some Geth wrote...

So what you want is for video games to not be video games and have more Mako odd I must say.

Yes, I like video games that try to be more than video games. Art for example. And I like games that don't always push me down the fastest route to the next action part. ME 1 provided both, ME 2 not so much.

Some Geth wrote...

Oh and it was BioWare who made ME2 the way it is from what they got out of the fans not EA.

Whatever you say. I'm sure everyone who complained about the Mako controls and bad planet design wanted to see planet exploration cut out altogether. Certainly they couldn't have wanted simply an improvement, right? Same goes for other things that were criticized. The truth is, it was decided by BioWare/EA to dumb down the game to appeal to a new kind of audience. Plus, the developers were obviously working under time constraints. So a lot of things were cut out. And to me it is quite obvious that the complaints from some people (just like now, there were also people who said everything was fine) were more a convenient excuse than a reason.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 22 juin 2010 - 11:56 .

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

RPG was redused in ME2 I agree on that, but mostly traditional RPG side, few impression stuff and exloration with Mako. You say like redusing traditional RPG side was bad thing? Is that because you are RPG player, what about all other players?

I enjoy RPGs more than most genres, especially BioWare ones, since they have such strong storytelling and great writing and characters. I play (and have played) a lot of pen and paper RPGs in my time, and I like building the character and having the options for customisation and varied builds and styles of character before me just as much as I like playing the character themselves for narrative and story reasons. I like the complexity of it all and the depth that means I have to make the right choices in building my character and truly making them mine at the same time just as much as I like making the story choices. ME1 wasn't brilliant at it, but it was still present, even if a little ham-fisted here and there. ME2 just did away with it and simplified it far too much for my liking, especially the weapons system and the fact that the entire game is centred around combat now (I prefer RPGs that have both combat skills and non-combat skills). ME2 overall has become very narrow and focused and good RPGs shouldn't do that, IMO.

I'm my self RPG player, but I don't bash ME2, I just hope they get it better in ME3. I was able to enjoy both games fine. Why can't you? It's not the game, it's your taste of games, is it?

Yes and no. I've said it before, but I'll say it again, the original Unreal Tournament is my favourite game of all time and it's a pure shooter. But Mass Effect is something more to me than that, and I feel that the sequel should continue that trend. The original game set the precedent of what this was supposed to be, and was very much an RPG, but also more than that. Mass Effect was one of the first real attempts at making a truly interactive cinematic experience, and on top of that it was a sci-fi epic, while appealed to me a lot because I'm a huge fan of sci-fi from the late 70's through to the early 90's (and even beyond, but mostly the stuff of this area). It really seemed like it was an RPG made for sci-fi nerds and wanted to me more than just another game. I thought it got the balance between RPG, TPS and Interactive Cinema pretty much dead on, and I thoroughly enjoyed most aspects of the game.

Mass Effect 2 feels more like its just another game rather than anything special or above and beyond that. It doesn't feel like it's more than the sum of its parts, and seems to favour simplicity over complexity. While the first also feels like it was a game made for sci-fi and RPG nerds, ME2 feels more like its geared towards mainstream gamers of today. This may have been fine and good if this is what the style of things was like from the start, but as I said before Mass Effect 1 set the precedent, and therefore I think Mass Effect 2 should stick to that precedent. BioWare themselves even admitted to trying to bring in a larger audience and changing things up (recent interviews had them saying things along the line of "normally with a sequel the developers take what's already there and refine it and add to it, but we did something drastic instead."). This is particularly the case when the game is supposed to be a direct follow-up and the middle of a trilogy, rather than a separate sequel.

And the thing is, Mass Effect 1 may have been a bit broken here and there, but it at least tried to bring something new to the table. It may have been far from perfect, but as the Asgard said to O'Neill in Stargate SG-1 it had "great potential." Mass Effect 2 feels far more generic and like a big step backwards, with a few exceptions. It may be a good game, but it doesn't feel like its trying to be more than that. Most of the potential set up in the original game went with all the rest of the elements that were thrown out in its creation.

You make assumptions that ME1 was the "right" way, because you liked it and it was first one. What if ME2 is the real way, but developers did not just get it right at first try. I mean if they would have got it right, then why to change at all. What if even ME1 or ME2 isn't the right way and ME3 will show it to us? My point is that you make assumption that ME1 is the correct path, but that's not necassary true. As for players liking, both games has got alot of success.

 

Actually if you look at the earliest videos the original intent was to make Mass Effect an even more involved RPG than even the first one ended up being. Its also easier to have point-and-aim shooting than tie it into a skill-based system, so I doubt that it was their intent to have the combat like that of a standard TPS from the start. The simple fact is, if they had intended to make the trilogy like it was with ME2 from the very start, we would have seen it in the first game. I was actually a little worried that the first game was actually going to be like what ME2 turned out to be before it came out, and I was glad it wasn't. If ME1 had been like ME2 gameplay wise I probably wouldn't have become such a big fan of it at all. I would have played it and got it, but it would have just been "another game" to me. As it stands Mass Effect 2 almost is just "another game" to me now, and its only because of my love of the universe, setting and characters that the first game introduced me to and opened up my interest into the novels, comics, etc. that keeps it from slipping into that territory.

As it stands I think ME1 is more the "correct path" as you say because it came first, and judging from the early videos and evidence that's really what the game was supposed to be like for the most part. To me saying that Mass Effect 2 is how the games are "supposed to be" would be like saying that the Star Wars prequels are how they're supposed to be. I don't care how much effort Lucas puts into trying to push them down my throat  by changing the original films, producing The Clone Wars and The Force Unleashed titles and keeps sprouting contradictory "original vision" BS to try and justify it... that dog won't hunt, monsignor. And the same applies to ME2.

[Orchomene]

Honestly, it's the same that we can see with cinematography and literacy. Advertisements and hype goes to the "best-sellers" that follow the rules imposed by the market and the true art remains in small niches. Thus, real originality comes from the ones that will take the risk to deliver a product that isn't predefined by the business.

This movement is still new in video games, so there is yet no strong underground network, but it is already there. One can see games like Mount&Blades that offer a unique experience with little money invested. Indie companies are growing and will at some moment go out of the ambient nostalgia and will experiment more and more.

So big companies will still exist and keep earning the majority of the benefices of the market, like in many arts, but the one of us that expecting something different in a game than what is expected by the majority will still find what they are looking for.

I don't think going on discussing about ME franchise will go anywhere here. If you liked the way they changed ME1 to build ME2, you will end being happy with ME3. On the other hand, if you think that ME2 is worse than ME1, ME3 won't be the game you are expecting. The success of ME2 and the reviews that have been made is a direct sign for Bioware that they went in the good direction if their goal is to fulfil the expectations of the majority of the market. And of course it's their goal. The communication done around the modifications in ME2 is exactly toward this goal.

Being good or not depend on the persons. I know I'm not any more in the target market part Bioware wants to satisfy. I thus have no hope at all on what will be ME3.

[Terror_K]

I was at least very happy when I read recently that one of the SWTOR devs directly said that it wasn't being made for the casual and mainstream gamer and in fact is being made for BioWare fans, Star Wars fans and RPG fans above all else.

[bjdbwea]

And you believe that?

[Lumikki]

I can only say for this, if developers would have thinked that ME1 was the right way or perfect way, they would never change anything. So, who is more right, you or the developers as define what THEY game should be? Before you answer that, think who's the target customer, is it allways you? Meaning if you did not like it, maybe you aren't the target customer for this game.

Developers listen our opinions, but they do define what kind of games they want to do. We don't choose what kind of games developers make, we affect it with our money as buying or not buying the game. We may say as feedback what we liked and not liked, what is very important for game developers. How ever, bashing game because it was not design for you is just bad behavior.

Yes, we all have hope for ME3. So, I would put more effort to make wishes for ME3 than just try to be so damm negative about ME2. Every game in world has it's own "perfect" customer base.

Did I think that ME2 has too much combat. Yes, both ME's had too much combat for my taste. Would I have wanted more RPG. Yes, but not traditional RPG. There is different between impression based RPG and number based RPG.

Modifié par Lumikki, 22 juin 2010 - 01:35 .

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

I was at least very happy when I read
recently that one of the SWTOR devs directly said that it wasn't being
made for the casual and mainstream gamer and in fact is being made for
BioWare fans, Star Wars fans and RPG fans above all else.

bjdbwea wrote...

And you believe that?

Yeah if the 'casuals can't dig it' it won't be a successful MMO, especially given the announcement that it had to keep at least 1 million subscribers.

Bioware's going into risky territory with the MMO business.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 22 juin 2010 - 01:14 .

[Dem_B]

In the ME was catchy music (form the wreckages) after the destruction of Sovereign, when went Shepard.

And amazing final music.



Soundtrack: Faunts m4 part II is one of my favorite songs, thanks to Mass Effect.



For me it was a great disappointment in the lack of such ME2.



In ME2 dramatic moments, but the music in these moments did not seem to me worthy.



Do not want to offend anyone, it may be because of darkness going on.

But in ME3, I would like to hear the track - form the wreckages in a new sound.



For me, there were few surprises in story of the game, a lot I could think out before it happened.



I hope, would be something totally unexpected in the final part.

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

I can only say for this, if developers would have thinked that ME1 was the right way or perfect way, they would never change anything. So, who is more right, you or the developers as define what THEY game should be? Before you answer that, think who's the target customer, is it allways you? Meaning if you did not like it, maybe you aren't the target customer for this game.

I have the distinct feeling I was the target audience for the first game, but not for the second. Or at least not completely for the second. Given what's changed and some of BioWare's comments, I'm pretty sure their target audience altered somewhat for the second game. I don't believe they purposefully went out of their way to alienate some of their existing fans, but that in trying to branch out to gain new ones they did so in the process. It's like they made ME2 with the idea of bringing in the casual gamer as the main focus, yet tried to hold on to the bare minimum of elements to try and not lose some of the existing fans in the process.

Developers listen our opinions, but they do define what kind of games they want to do. We don't choose what kind of games developers devlopment, we affect it with our money as buying or not buying the game. We may say as feedback what we liked and not liked, what is very important for game developers. How ever, bashing game because it was not design for you is just bad behavior.

I don't "bash the game because it was not designed for me" exactly, though there's a certain degree of that being the reason for my dislike of where things went. Aside from ME2 being really shallow in the RPG department, as I said earlier I don't feel that it's a proper follow-up to the original. The original after all was a game for me, while the sequel is not. If you're going to create a trilogy of games that are directly linked to each other they should at least remain consistent to each other.

In either case, I don't just senselessly bash the game. What I do is point out where I felt the game was a let-down and made some bad choices. And I try to give reasons as to why and sometimes present solutions that I feel would help the issue. And I do this because I want to get a better Mass Effect 3 from it. That's why I designed that alternate mock-up idea for ME3's weapon system based on a hybrid of both existing systems, and why I fully support Ecael's threads that explore alternates and solutions to add more depth to ME3 that was severely lacking in ME2. The devs aren't going to make any changes and make the third game better if everybody just keeps saying ME2 was so great and that BioWare made the right move with their changes.

I wouldn't be surprised if Mass Effect 2 wasn't the game they wanted to make, but was merely the game they intended to make. Only Casey and the other devs can really answer that though, and I doubt that they would.

Yes, we all have hope for ME3. So, I would put more effort to make wishes for ME3 than just try to be so damm negative about ME2. Every game in world has it's own "perfect" customer base.

The problem is though, to make ME3 great they need to get rid of the problems ME2 has. Most of my wishes for ME3 are pretty much just that it be less like ME2.

Did I think that ME2 has too much combat. Yes, both ME's had too much combat for my taste. Would I have wanted more RPG. Yes, but not traditional RPG. There is different between impression based RPG and number based RPG.

ME1 was never a traditional RPG though; it was a hybrid. I just felt that they had the balance closer to hybrid perfection with ME1 than they did with ME2. ME1 was broken, I'll admit that, and in some cases some RPG aspects did admittedly get in the way here and there. But the ratio of RPG to TPS was still better than it was with ME2, where they simply took too much RPG out of the game and pretty much only really focused on the shooter aspects. Many say that BioWare have now nailed the shooter aspects of the game. I don't entirely agree, but if most people feel that way, fine... leave the shooter stuff as is for the third game and just make the RPG richer. If BioWare wanted to have ME2 as their little experiment in making the shooter stuff work for Mass Effect, then I'll be fully willing to forgive them for that providing the third game brings back the RPG stuff. Sadly, given the style and nature of ME2, I don't actually feel that's the case.

[bjdbwea]

Terror_K wrote...

I wouldn't be surprised if Mass Effect 2 wasn't the game they wanted to make, but was merely the game they intended to make. Only Casey and the other devs can really answer that though, and I doubt that they would.

I don't believe for a second that the same people who created BG 2, Mass Effect and several masterpieces in between, the developers, would think that ME 2 would be the next logical step of evolution. Of course they know the ways in which it was a step back. Of course they know that mass appeal does not equal quality, but can easily mean it's a worse game as far as the features are concerned for which BioWare once stood. But of course they did what they were told to do, it's not their decision after all.