10273 réponses à ce sujet

[tonnactus]

bjdbwea wrote...

ME 2 fails to introduce anything new or innovative.

I would disagree in the case of charge.But thats it basicly.

Modifié par tonnactus, 04 août 2010 - 09:38 .

[PHub88]

Mass Effect 1 was a great game...



Mass Effect 2 was a great game....although instead of building on the obviously already great things ME1 had...it simply cut some of them out all together and made it into a shooter



The people who dont understand this...Well...its not that they dont understand...its that they dont care...they are shooter fanboys who fail to understand that not every game involving guns is strictly meant to be %100 focused on the combat itself...Now im not saying ME1 wasnt mainly focused on combat, but it was focused a lot more on other things than ME2 is....ME2 is pretty much all combat...and to a fan like me...its pretty ridiculous to take a concept that ME1 was...which was very unique...and had a mass of potential...only to basically take steps backwards for the next game for the sake of making it LESS unique...and more like a typical dull shooter



The biggest problem is modern gaming....You have people like me who have tastes that enjoy more than one thing, unlike the shooter fanboys who dont like anything that isnt %100 based on nonstop firing guns....Its like a child who only wants to eat Pizza....ME1 was MADE for people like me who enjoy having other things to focus on rather than nothing but mindless shooting...and like I said earlier its like people who are so obsessed with shooters see a game with gunplay in it...and its like their minds automatically cant accept the fact the game wasnt meant to be strictly sold on its combat...and eventually go to the net to cry about it...and Bioware...like all companies...are sadly but truly going to go where the money is...and in these days thats shooters...multiplayer shooters...just watch ME3 get ruined by them turning it into a multiplayer.

[Kyzzo]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

I studied a bit of marketing back in university and this is what is known as cognitive dissonance. In marketing, this is a huge deal. For example, car companies spend tens of millions trying to reduce it.

From wikipedia:

Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding contradictory ideas simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance. They do this by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and actions. Dissonance is also reduced by justifying, blaming, and denying. It is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.

_________________

Essentially, people have preconceptions of what ME2 should be. ME2 is not what they anticipated, so they hold two contradictory ideas of the game in their head, making them uncomfortable. To justify their discomfort, they attack and blame the game.

Personally, I pretty much forgot about ME1 right after I played it. I had zero expectations of ME2 so no cognitive dissonance. Other people had their expectations met so no problem. Others had no expectations and disliked the game, which again does not cause "disappointment".

Just some very amateur psycho-babble. No need to take this overly seriously! 

Actually, simply confirming one of the contradictory ideas (by rational or irrational means) while keeping the other one constant would not reduce cognitive dissonance. If one wants to apply the concept of cognitive dissonance reduction to this situation (It's not really applicable here but whatever. Let's assume it can be applied), one could say that 1) Some players had the preconception that Bioware would definitely deliver a superb game (A case of a certain type of "fallacy" also well studied); however, when they started playing it, they realized it wasn't the case, which caused cognitive dissonance, so, to reconcile the two conflicting ideas, they justify and rationalize every aspect of the game which contributes to the conflict and convince themselves that ME2 is indeed the great game they expected it to be, or 2) Some players expected ME2 to be an outstanding game but later when they played it, they realized that their expectation had not been fulfilled. So now they reduce the cognitive dissonance by claiming that they never expected the game to be that good anyway, or by claiming that they did not have any expectations whatsoever to begin with.

Sorry for going off-topic.

[bjdbwea]

PHub88 wrote...

The biggest problem is modern gaming....You have people like me who have tastes that enjoy more than one thing, unlike the shooter fanboys who dont like anything that isnt %100 based on nonstop firing guns....Its like a child who only wants to eat Pizza....ME1 was MADE for people like me who enjoy having other things to focus on rather than nothing but mindless shooting...and like I said earlier its like people who are so obsessed with shooters see a game with gunplay in it...and its like their minds automatically cant accept the fact the game wasnt meant to be strictly sold on its combat...and eventually go to the net to cry about it...and Bioware...like all companies...are sadly but truly going to go where the money is...and in these days thats shooters...multiplayer shooters...just watch ME3 get ruined by them turning it into a multiplayer.

Indeed. With the exception that BioWare/EA obviously don't care much about what people write on their forums. They won't listen to this thread of course, like they didn't listen to the people who complained about combat in ME 1. It was certainly always the intention to shooterize and dumb down ME 2 to decrease development time and increase sales. A common thing these days, unfortunately. The complaints on the forums were more like a convenient excuse for introducing all the changes. After all, if you really read the posts, most people certainly wanted improvement, not things to be cut out completely.

But as someone above said: ME 2 was indeed developed with people in mind who didn't like = buy the first game. The reasoning was of course that most people who did like ME 1, would buy the successor anyway, and the few who wouldn't was acceptable losses. From a purely business perspective, there is some sense in it. Only that the suggested sales numbers don't indicate a very large number of new players. And of course everyone who was disappointed with ME 2 will now be much more wary when deciding whether to buy or even pre-order ME 3.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 04 août 2010 - 10:26 .

[Lumikki]

PHub88 wrote...

Now im not saying ME1 wasnt mainly focused on combat, but it was focused a lot more on other things than ME2 is....ME2 is pretty much all combat...

Yes, ME2 is too much combat, in my opinion. How ever, if you take Mako out of ME1, ME1 isn't much better at all.

My point, both of them where too much combat to my taste. How ever, that's just my taste. Some other player may think ME1 and ME2 had too much dialogs. Other point here is, what you want the game to be, is how you define it should be. That's not allways the truth as what the game is by defined developers who design the game.

Way too many these complains are based idea, ME serie should be design for me as what I like.

[Super ._. Shepard]

i wanted more dialogue

[tonnactus]

bjdbwea wrote...


Indeed. With the exception that BioWare/EA obviously don't care much about what people write on their forums. They won't listen to this thread of course, like they didn't listen to the people who complained about combat in ME 1. It was certainly always the intention to shooterize and dumb down ME 2 to decrease development  time and increase sales.

 They took out inventory not because people complained about it but to sold "weapon and armor packs" that every moder could do in five minutes.

Modifié par tonnactus, 04 août 2010 - 10:23 .

[Super ._. Shepard]

and more of a storyline

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Way too many these complains are based idea, ME serie should be design for me as what I like.

And that goes for those defending ME2 as well, since they seem to think that ME2 is what Mass Effect should be like merely because they prefer it. I'm of the belief it should be like the first game not simply because I mostly prefer it but because it set the standard and it did come first. Whatever the ME series is supposed to be should remain consistent, and I suppose if ME3 comes out and is more like ME2 than ME3 (which I suspect will, sadly, be true) then people will probably say that that's what Mass Effect should be just because there's more of it in that style. I suppose it's up to the devs, but to me ME1 set the tone and style of Mass Effect and it's why I became a fan in the first place. To say that ME2 is closer to what Mass Effect should be, even if the devs say so, just strikes me as wrong, and rings of a similar set of bells to a certain movie-maker named Lucas who changed his "original vision" later on.

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

No, I admitted that it wasn't a pure RPG and that it was RPG-Lite. That doesn't mean I thought what was there was weak.

But it does imply that the RPG elements will indeed be weak.

Terror_K wrote...

Actually, beyond the inventory and shooting being stat-based I don't recall many ME1 fans complaining about the RPG elements that much.

Either A. you were pleased with the game, and thus saw any discontent as minor, or B. you weren't on the forums when it was first announced that Mass Effect would attempt to meld RPG and shooting mechanics (where many, many Bioware fans pleaded endearingly not for Bioware to follow such a route, especially given how upset people were with JE).

Regardless, us holding our personal experiences of what we saw on the forums is kind of crap evidence, because I can just as easily say "nuh-uh there were tons that were pissed" and it becomes just as valid of a statement.

Terror_K wrote...

This may sound arrogant, but I do think that if ME2 had come out and been closer to my own vision and expectations that while there would admittedly be some discontent, it would not have been anywhere near as much.

Yes, a belief based on nothing is indeed pretty arrogant.

Terror_K wrote...

Exactly. Especially your last point. If you look at what was changed it was more to appease the casual gamer who happened to play Mass Effect and those who played it expecting more of a shooter than an RPG more than the actual Mass Effect fan.

You do know why I asked you to stop saying things like this, right?

It's because they serve no other purpose than to simply state "your wrong because you don't think how I think". Such a statement is a prime example of both arrogance and ignorance.

Nevermind that people have devoted huge amount of time to both games, that people have bought numerous copies of the sequel and the prequel (moi!), or that there are people who love both games equally, they're not "real" fans.

This is pretty much why I'm always responding to your posts, because more often than not, all you've been able to say is "stop liking what I don't like!".

tonnactus wrote...

 They
took out inventory not because people complained about it but to sold
"weapon and armor packs" that every moder could do in five minutes.

If someone could design this in five minutes I'd suggest they apply to every single big gaming company out there because they'll get hired on the spot.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 04 août 2010 - 11:07 .

[bjdbwea]

Pocketgb wrote...

This is pretty much why I'm always responding to your posts, because more often than not, all you've been able to say is "stop liking what I don't like!".

And "start liking what I like" is better, I presume? <_<

[Terror_K]

[quote]Pocketgb wrote...

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

No, I admitted that it wasn't a pure RPG and that it was RPG-Lite. That doesn't mean I thought what was there was weak.[/quote]

But it does imply that the RPG elements will indeed be weak.[/quote]

Not at all. There is a difference between the amount of something and the strength of something. Just because there are few RPG elements doesn't automatically mean that said elements are weak, just like just because there are a lot of elements doesn't mean it'll be strong. And there's a difference between whether there is enough of something or not and whether something is well-balanced or not.

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

Actually, beyond the inventory and shooting being stat-based I don't recall many ME1 fans complaining about the RPG elements that much.[/quote]

Either A. you were pleased with the game, and thus saw any discontent as minor, or B. you weren't on the forums when it was first announced that Mass Effect would attempt to meld RPG and shooting mechanics (where many, many Bioware fans pleaded endearingly not for Bioware to follow such a route, especially given how upset people were with JE).[/quote]

I was actually referring more to the period shortly after ME1's release, when we had all already played the game, rather than prior to it. Aside from people complaining about some things being missing such as interrupts, Mako customisation, etc. the only real complaints I remember seeing were cumbersome inventory, texture pop, UNC worlds being kind of bland, the 360 Mako controls and omni-gelling and selling items being annoying. And even with these complaints I recall a great majority of people saying they wanted them improved rather than ditched, and offering solutions to this as well. And the PC version came out and the inventory was a bit better and The Mako controls were improved, and BioWare were praised for that, but many still hoped it was taken further in ME2. I even remember one of the devs making a thread offering suggestions for improving the inventory and loads of people piled in with suggestions.

[quote]
Regardless, us holding our personal experiences of what we saw on the forums is kind of crap evidence, because I can just as easily say "nuh-uh there were tons that were pissed" and it becomes just as valid of a statement.[/quote]

While there is a certain degree of truth to this, it really is honestly how I remember things. And would you really say that as a response? Do you really think ME1 was as badly received on the forums as ME2 was?

[quote]
Yes, a belief based on nothing is indeed pretty arrogant.[/quote]

It's not based on nothing. It's based on the fact that many of the issues I have with ME2 are mirrored by others in this and other threads, and that if ME2 had been made in a manner I wished those things wouldn't have been an issue and others wouldn't also be complaining about them. I admit fully that it may have led to more problems and different problems, but I think we would have had a deeper, richer and more customisable ME2 that wasn't dumbed-down, linear and lacking.

[quote]
You do know why I asked you to stop saying things like this, right?

It's because they serve no other purpose than to simply state "your wrong because you don't think how I think". Such a statement is a prime example of both arrogance and ignorance.

Nevermind that people have devoted huge amount of time to both games, that people have bought numerous copies of the sequel and the prequel (moi!), or that there are people who love both games equally, they're not "real" fans.

This is pretty much why I'm always responding to your posts, because more often than not, all you've been able to say is "stop liking what I don't like!".[/quote]

I've said all I have to say about the specific problems themselves countless times and don't feel the need to repeatedly repeat myself repeatedly.

I'm not saying people are "wrong because they don't think how I think" at all. I'm just looking at the evidence before me and making a judgement based on how things went with ME2. I'm sick of being on a board where as soon as you try and speak your mind about the direction you feel things are going in (not just with ME2 and BioWare, but with the gaming industry as a whole) that you get dubbed as an arrogant elitist. Which I actually find somewhat hypocrtical almost every time it happens, since pretty much everybody on the other end takes on a "how dare you!" approach and becomes very superior themselves in a rather subtle manner.

I'm not trying to say "don't like what I don't like!" I'm trying to say "Mass Effect 2 was a flawed game that could use some improvement, and all praising it at every turn and defending it is going to do is result in an equally if not more flawed Mass Effect 3." Because I don't honestly understand why so many people are trying to step in the way of Mass Effect 3 possibly being improved and given more depth and more options. If you really want ME3 to just becomes Gears of War with Dialogue Options then you're certainly on the right track. God forbid some of us offer some constructive criticism and try and get a better game for all of us.

[Pocketgb]

bjdbwea wrote...

And "start liking what I like" is better, I presume? [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/angry.png[/smilie]

No.

Terror_K wrote...

Not at all. There is a difference between the amount of something and the strength of something. Just because there are few RPG elements doesn't automatically mean that said elements are weak, just like just because there are a lot of elements doesn't mean it'll be strong. And there's a difference between whether there is enough of something or not and whether something is well-balanced or not.

So then you can understand the discontent many had for ME1, yes?

Terror_K wrote...

While there is a certain degree of truth to this, it really is honestly how I remember things. And would you really say that as a response? Do you really think ME1 was as badly received on the forums as ME2 was?

The disappointment I've seen here has pretty much been the same for any and every sequel, and for every game Bioware's made since KotOR (which is when I started going to game forums in general). Although I will agree that it's been the most heated for the Mass Effect series, but I think this is largely due to the success of it.

Terror_K wrote...

It's not based on nothing. It's based on the fact that many of the issues I have with ME2 are mirrored by others in this and other threads, and that if ME2 had been made in a manner I wished those things wouldn't have been an issue and others wouldn't also be complaining about them.

Yes, that's based on something. Saying "there would be less people complaining", however, is not.

Terror_K wrote...

I admit fully that it may have led to more problems and different problems, but I think we would have had a deeper, richer and more customisable ME2 that wasn't dumbed-down, linear and lacking.

I've been asking for "deep" and "rich" combat from Bioware for ten years. I don't think it's coming. Dragon Age confirmed this.

Terror_K wrote...

I've said all I have to say about the specific problems themselves countless times and don't feel the need to repeatedly repeat myself repeatedly.

Then simply quote to your post that highlights your views the best. People aren't willing to dig through a 300 page thread.

Regardless, you don't have to repeat yourself, you just have to explain yourself. That's something very few people have done in this thread, and the only person that honestly comes to mind is Iakus. To start off just look at my previous comment to your post. You've yet to post about it.

Terror_K wrote...



I'm sick of being on a board where as soon as you try and speak your mind about the direction you feel things are going in (not just with ME2 and BioWare, but with the gaming industry as a whole) that you get dubbed as an arrogant elitist..

I've already pointed this out, too, and it's due to you making comments like this:

Terror_K wrote...

Everybody who just praises ME2 and says it was so much better just means the likelihood of getting an equally or more dumbed-down ME3 just goes up.

Stop that, and you'll look less like an arrogant douchebag. There are much, much, much better ways to get your point across.

Terror_K wrote...

Because I don't honestly understand why so many people are trying to step in the way of Mass Effect 3 possibly being improved and given more depth and more options.

Il Divo, Ecael, and I have never been against that. We've been arguing against the claims of ME2 being "dumbed down" and "for the casuals", however.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 04 août 2010 - 12:18 .

[Il Divo]

haberman13 wrote...
I cede your point, I can't define a perspective that encompasses every person's definition of special or bland.

That being said, trying to be objective, I would say that ME2's combat was bland and uninspired (objectively, for me)

Fair enough. I try to do the same. It can be difficult, but I try to do the same.

Pocketgb wrote...
Il Divo, Ecael, and I have never been against that. We've been arguing against the claims of ME2 being "dumbed down" and "for the casuals", however.

This. I really don't care if someone hates Mass Effect 2; that is their right. But I always jump on the people who make comments like "true Mass Effect fans" or "real RPG players" because it's extremely insulting, especially when we still love playing all the same RPGs they do.

Terror_k wrote...
It's not based on nothing. It's based on the fact that many of the issues I have with ME2 are mirrored by others in this and other threads, and that if ME2 had been made in a manner I wished those things wouldn't have been an issue and others wouldn't also be complaining about them.

So, your argument is that because a few people on an internet forum agree with you (which is a very small number of the Mass Effect 2 player base), that the forums would be less inflamatory. This sounds like an invalid conclusion. All this means is you/your supporters wouldn't be complaining. Instead, we'd have a different group in here making the exact same thread calling you a shooter fan.
 

I admit fully that it may have led to more problems and different problems, but I think we would have had a deeper, richer and more customisable ME2 that wasn't dumbed-down, linear and lacking.

Once more, the comparative degree is comparative.

"Son of the Mask is a better film than Battlefield Earth." This doesn't prove Son of the Mask is a good film.

"Mass Effect is a deeper/richer experience than Mass Efect 2". You haven't proved that Mass Effect is deep or rich. All you've said is that the 'true fans' prefer Mass Effect, which you've given no support to show. Mass Effect's rpg elements are neither rich nor deep for many.

Modifié par Il Divo, 04 août 2010 - 01:21 .

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Way too many these complains are based idea, ME serie should be design for me as what I like.

And that goes for those defending ME2 as well, since they seem to think that ME2 is what Mass Effect should be like merely because they prefer it. I'm of the belief it should be like the first game not simply because I mostly prefer it but because it set the standard and it did come first.

People defend, because someone is attacking. In the end, I and you should allready know after this long thread, both of the ME1 and ME2 have they own problems and who like what better, is personal taste.

Whatever the ME series is supposed to be should remain consistent, and I suppose if ME3 comes out and is more like ME2 than ME3 (which I suspect will, sadly, be true) then people will probably say that that's what Mass Effect should be just because there's more of it in that style. I suppose it's up to the devs, but to me ME1 set the tone and style of Mass Effect and it's why I became a fan in the first place. To say that ME2 is closer to what Mass Effect should be, even if the devs say so, just strikes me as wrong, and rings of a similar set of bells to a certain movie-maker named Lucas who changed his "original vision" later on.

It will be interesting to see what kind of design ME3 will be. I don't really have any fear about it, because I liked both ME's so far. 

As for changing vision, I ques sertain style did get change between ME's alot, but in other hand, they don't look so different from other perspective. It depense what the player is valued. If you put high value for combat and traditional RPG, then there was big change. If You put more value to cinematic action game with dialogs, then the difference wasn't so big. It's all about players own view points and values.

bjdbwea wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

This is pretty much why I'm always responding to your posts, because more often than not, all you've been able to say is "stop liking what I don't  like!".

And "start liking what I like" is better, I
presume? [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/angry.png[/smilie]

What you say here is pretty much same what you quoted as message.

More like this: "Like what you want and allow others like what they want".

Modifié par Lumikki, 04 août 2010 - 01:04 .

[bjdbwea]

Pocketgb wrote...

We've been arguing against the claims of ME2 being "dumbed down" and "for the casuals", however.

Why? Because you feel insulted for still liking the game? You shouldn't. After all, the changes were made precisely because they should appeal to many people.

We could just as well use the term "simplified" to make it sound less derogatory. But if even the developers admit that the game had to be made easier accessible and more "immediate" to introduce shooter fans and other new players to BioWare games, your arguing against the facts becomes somewhat pointless. As I said, you may like it, but why deny the reasons?

[Il Divo]

bjdbwea wrote...
Why? Because you feel insulted for still liking the game? You shouldn't. After all, the changes were made precisely because they should appeal to many people.

Of course, much like how Mass Effect introduced a fully voiced Shepard, a simplistic dialogue wheel, focus on vehicular combat, and TPS-style combat. I would say these changes were made to appeal to many people.

Edit: I'd also like to point out that saying we 'argue against the facts' is extremely arrogant. You have no objectivity to call this a fact. You have not demonstrated this with mathematical certainty. A fact is true in all cases, now and forever.

Modifié par Il Divo, 04 août 2010 - 01:30 .

[Spartas Husky]

Il Divo wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...
Why? Because you feel insulted for still liking the game? You shouldn't. After all, the changes were made precisely because they should appeal to many people.

Of course, much like how Mass Effect introduced a fully voiced Shepard, a simplistic dialogue wheel, focus on vehicular combat, and TPS-style combat. I would say these changes were made to appeal to many people.

but that isn't a genre. Market group targeted by ME2 was shooters. Great deal of people got into it because of it.

[bjdbwea]

ME 1 didn't have a predecessor. I for one wouldn't complain if they produced a shooter series in the Mass Effect universe. But a second part of a trilogy should not be changed so much without need.

And come on, you know the statements from the developers. You know they changed the game to make it more appealing to shooter fans and casual gamers. It's laughable to deny what they admitted themselves.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 04 août 2010 - 01:36 .

[Il Divo]

Spartas Husky wrote...
but that isn't a genre. Market group targeted by ME2 was shooters. Great deal of people got into it because of it.

Tps isn't a genre? A great deal of people got into Mass Effect because of the movie-style effects, real-time shooter combat, etc. People who wouldn't play Baldur's Gate or Kotor because they thought they were "too slow", etc. It was different from anything Bioware had done before in many ways.

[Lumikki]

bjdbwea wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

We've been arguing against the claims of ME2 being "dumbed down" and "for the casuals", however.

Why? Because you feel insulted for still liking the game? You shouldn't. After all, the changes were made precisely because they should appeal to many people.

We could just as well use the term "simplified" to make it sound less derogatory. But if even the developers admit that the game had to be made easier accessible and more "immediate" to introduce shooter fans and other new players to BioWare games, your arguing against the facts becomes somewhat pointless. As I said, you may like it, but why deny the reasons?

It's not what is sayed, but how it's sayed.

Yes, those are insult agaist player groups. Behind it is very elite attitude and not so good behavior for forum.

Modifié par Lumikki, 04 août 2010 - 01:37 .

[Il Divo]

bjdbwea wrote...

ME 1 didn't have a predecessor. I for one wouldn't complain if they produced a shooter series in the Mass Effect universe. But a second part of a trilogy should not be changed so much without need.

Pointing out that it's the start of a new series is never an excuse for dumbing down. It's still "dumbed down" regardless.
 
I didn't notice much of a jump from Mass Effect to Mass Effect 2, besides combat segments being isolated which I didn't like. They still had the same breaks in combat, the same type of hub worlds, dialogue system, etc. It still very much was the Mass Effect series for me.  

[Pocketgb]

Well, I had a post I was about to submit until I refreshed a tab and saw Il Divo beat me to the point I was to make. Good show.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 04 août 2010 - 02:17 .

[Whatever42]

bjdbwea wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

We've been arguing against the claims of ME2 being "dumbed down" and "for the casuals", however.

Why? Because you feel insulted for still liking the game? You shouldn't. After all, the changes were made precisely because they should appeal to many people.

We could just as well use the term "simplified" to make it sound less derogatory. But if even the developers admit that the game had to be made easier accessible and more "immediate" to introduce shooter fans and other new players to BioWare games, your arguing against the facts becomes somewhat pointless. As I said, you may like it, but why deny the reasons?

I've been playing RPGs since the Gold Box Series. I played BG, BG2, Planescape Torment, Fallout, Fallout 2, Fallout 3, NWN, KOTOR, Morrowind, Oblivion, a few old JRPGs, and a probably a dozen other games that don't spring immediately to mind.

The ME series was always sold as shooter RPG hybrid. It's not merely there to introduce new players to anything but to try to create a new experience. The RPG elements they "simplified" did not fit well into that mechanic.

You can compare this to strategy games. There are games which are much more focused on the action and games that are much more into micromanagement. Micromanagement isn't harder to do, its not smarter, its simply a mechanic that some people enjoy and some people don't. It doesn't take any more skill to play, it doesn't add to the story or immersion, it just takes more time and far more patience.

You can compare that to RPGs. For example, looting the battlefield, picking out perhaps 1 useful item out of 50 and selling the rest for gold so you can buy a 2nd useful item. In most RPG games, you even run out of upgrades and things to buy but you still end up accumulating bags and bags of useless junk and gold. Managing that does not take skill. It is not more immersive. Its simply micromanagement that many people do not enjoy. 

So perhaps simplification is a better term, a more accurate term, but its not done to simply attract grunters who only like shooters.
 

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 04 août 2010 - 02:25 .

[Darth Drago]

From the forum posting:
http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/103/index/3342050
Or the article itself:
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=258534

Casey Hudson:
"We plan out the larger plot points of the story from one game to the next, but it would be impossible to plan it all in advance," he told PC Zone issue 224 (in all good stores now, folks).

-I guess this explains why each game is going to be a stand alone game. If your working on a trilogy shouldn’t you have the main plot line (the larger plot points) worked out for the whole series? Shouldn’t there be a basic outline for what happens in this trilogy already established after ME1 was already done?

Casey Hudson:
"If you define an RPG as a game where you equip your hero by sifting through an inventory of hundreds of miscellaneous items and spend hours fiddling with numerical statistics, then Mass Effect 2 isn't one," he added.

"In Mass Effect 2 we focused on what we love about RPGs: An awesome sense of exploration, intense combat, a deep and non-linear story that's affected by your actions, and rich customisation of your armour, weapons and appearance…”

I think I see the problem, they have no clue what a RPG is outside of their little boxed in world. So by his statement ME1 was a RPG and because ME2 has no inventory, its not? Oh wait, I forgot ME2 is a shooter game that gave the illusion that your playing anything but a shooter because there is selectable dialog that you can choose from.

-What awesome sense of exploration? All I see is small levels built to make everything a convenience for the player so they wont have to walk to far (to miss all the combat moments I guess) to do anything.

-What non linear story that affected by what actions I make? All I recall is having to kill everyone I met, choosing an outcome for my loyalty missions that didn’t have any affect on the squad mate in question at all or whether to keep or destroy a Collector base. Not a lot really is there.

-What rich customization of your armor, weapons and appearance? A handful of armor pieces and weapon upgrades that I really didn’t notice even did anything is rich customization? The appearance thing is subjective if its supposed to mean how your Shepard’s look when you create him/her.

Is Casey even looking at ME2 when he made those comments? But then isn’t he the one that said planet scanning is fun and addictive (could be wrong on that though but someone in the ME2 Bioware team said it)?


Arg! The bottom of the page posting curse strikes again… lol!

Modifié par Darth Drago, 04 août 2010 - 02:45 .