10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Epic777]

grey_venger wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

Yes.But without to take out the inventory.Without taken out such things like repair and lockpicking what is breaking the gameflow according to some people in this thread.Stat based weapon combat. The game has still perks.So what were the complaints?

According to the Old Guard, FO3 was so dumbed down that it wasn't a Fallout game any more, like having only one value for the effectiviness of armor, and several values for different damage types.  The plot was shallow, the characters not as well written as in FO 1 + 2 .... you get the picture (and it is eerily similar to some of the complaints brought forward here)
In essence, they were dissapointed that FO3 was not an expanded version of Fo2, but something new.
Gamers always want lots of new stuff that's the same as before.

That it wasnt possible to kill kids anymore?

Was possible, with mods. And given little lamplight (a whole village of the litte pests) I can understand the urge to rid the virtual Washington DV from them.

Fallout has a bigger broken base than mass effect, some of these old guards believe the only true fallout was the 1st. 

[tonnactus]

bjdbwea wrote...

ArchDemonXIII wrote...

If you don't like this series, wait for them to make another dedicated RPG.

Yeah, like DA 2. Oh, wait...

And i have enough of forests,elves and swords rpgs anyway. There arent many sci fi rpgs(and to make it more worse/i didnt like star wars) and Mass Effect delivered what i wanted.

Modifié par tonnactus, 14 août 2010 - 10:54 .

[bjdbwea]

Yet one thing is for sure: Fallout 3 sold very well. And that proves that there's a profitable market for RPGs even on consoles. No need to dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator.

[ArchDemonXIII]

Pocketgb wrote...

It is NOT fair to not only make an NPC unkillable but also annoying as hell.

 

Like Udina? 

bjdbwea wrote... 

Yeah, like DA 2. Oh, wait...

 

What are they changing that makes it not a dedicated RPG? (not being sarcastic, I don't follow the DA series.)

bjdbwea wrote...

Yet one thing is for sure: Fallout 3 sold very well. And that proves that there's a profitable market for RPGs even on consoles. No need to dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator.

 

Stop being elitist. Lack of interest does not denote a lack of intellect.

Modifié par ArchDemonXIII, 14 août 2010 - 10:59 .

[Fanbus]

Haven't read the 300+ posts so only going to offer my 2 cents.
I admit I didn't play Mass Effect 1. Mostly because my love affair with Bioware ended after NWN+all expansions.
I was sort of "tricked" into buying ME2 by a couple friends who hailed it as deep and rich as BG1 and 2 and NWN.
Anyhow, that aside...

I got my $29.99's worth, and that's it. I treated it like an extension to Half Life 2, only better. If I could get rid of the over the shoulder view then I'll be pretty happy with it (obviously a Deathmatch or multiplayer CTF gameplay mode would finish the package for me).

If I had any problem with ME2, it’s just that. It felt like Quake, or Half Life, or an FPS with a few more bells and whistles nothing more. RPG, for me, it wasn’t. The progression to me felt like a flip book, and it’s a shame that its 2010 and Bioware hasn’t really progressed. Here’s hoping that SW:OR fills that void.
Graphically, I couldn’t ask for anything better. My computer ate this game like a peanut butter jelly sandwich without a hitch. Aside from z-buffer glitching in the Tuchunka hub and in a one other location, everything was pretty good.
Storywise, cliché, but pretty much what I’ve come to expect from off the shelf overly marketed titles. So overall I felt meh about it. Felt a lot like a film I’d see now days, lots of flash, hype, and no thick story, *shrug*.
The team mates were made of wood, hence why I liked Jacob and Zaeed the most. They mirrored the wooden atmosphere of the whole game. Only liked Miranda because she was eye candy. Everything seemed planned and forced, even the relationships. Nothing felt natural or evolving. The game told me what to do and when to do it. I knew when to talk to the NPCs and when not to. It wasn’t like other titles where you could build relationships (friendly or romantic) at your own pace. Here it was all pre-scripted, and pre-timed. I was half expecting the game to just play itself and me to just control the FPS moments.
I figured that most of that stuff was added on top of the core gameplay, with the core gameplay being the focus. Hence why I treat it as an FPS title instead of an RPG.
Have no interest in any further Bioware titles aside from SW:OR. My money will go to that instead.

[Il Divo]

bjdbwea wrote...

Yet one thing is for sure: Fallout 3 sold very well. And that proves that there's a profitable market for RPGs even on consoles. No need to dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator.

But, of course, to any Fallout 1 or 2 fan mentioned, you are the lowest common denominator.

[Il Divo]

Darth Drago wrote...

Very true on the lack of middle ground on the poll. Plus I doubt everyone who has posted in the BioWare Mass Effect forums has seen the poll or even voted let alone those who don’t come here more than a few times.

This is true, but even more problematic I would say is the phrasing of the poll. It's been a few years since I've taken a statistics course, but from what I remember it is possible to receive a biased response depending on what questions you ask or how you ask them. The creator of the poll for example mentions how the reason he made it is that there seems to be alot of disappointment with Mass Effect 2 and he seems hopeful to see that this isn't the case. As a result, voters might be more biased to respond 'not disappointed' when prompted. I'm gonna check this out more to be sure.
 

Working on something a project I should have done a long time ago) to add to the original posting in here I have read a lot of postings where a lot of people like ME2 overall but still do have a few issues with the game. No matter how small of an issue it may have been, that just tells me that ME2 was not as perfect or near perfect as everyone claims it to be especially by those game reviewers. Enjoyable yes, perfect no.

Mass Effect 2 is far from perfect. I miss the elevators, decontamination, and integration of combat into the game world (which I think you mentioned). I personally view those game reviews as being an overall rating of their enjoyment rather than a measurement of a game's flaws.

Example: I personally rate Assassin's Creed much higher than Assassin's Creed II. I acknowledge that Assassin's Creed may be 'more flawed', but on the whole I found my enjoyment or the "sum total experience" to be so high that any complaints I had with the game were miniscule in comparison. Imo, that's what reviewers are doing when we see these nigh perfect scores. No game can really achieve perfection, but a rating of 10 (or close to it) is an indication of how much enjoyment a reviewer obtained from the experience.

Morrowind is another good example, especially the console version. That game is literally filled to the brim with glitches, terrible pacing, steep learning curve, etc, yet I would still give it a solid 9.3-9.4 overall.

Modifié par Il Divo, 15 août 2010 - 02:17 .

[Whatever42]

Il Divo wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

Yet one thing is for sure: Fallout 3 sold very well. And that proves that there's a profitable market for RPGs even on consoles. No need to dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator.

But, of course, to any Fallout 1 or 2 fan mentioned, you are the lowest common denominator.

I'm sorry but any fallout game where I can't sleep with both a mob boss's wife and daughter is no true successor!

[Epic777]

Il Divo wrote...

Darth Drago wrote...

Very true on the lack of middle ground on the poll. Plus I doubt everyone who has posted in the BioWare Mass Effect forums has seen the poll or even voted let alone those who don’t come here more than a few times.

This is true, but even more problematic I would say is the phrasing of the poll. It's been a few years since I've taken a statistics course, but from what I remember it is possible to receive a biased response depending on what questions you ask or how you ask them. The creator of the poll for example mentions how the reason he made it is that there seems to be alot of disappointment with Mass Effect 2 and he seems hopeful to see that this isn't the case. As a result, voters might be more biased to respond 'not disappointed' when prompted. I'm gonna check this out more to be sure.
 

Working on something a project I should have done a long time ago) to add to the original posting in here I have read a lot of postings where a lot of people like ME2 overall but still do have a few issues with the game. No matter how small of an issue it may have been, that just tells me that ME2 was not as perfect or near perfect as everyone claims it to be especially by those game reviewers. Enjoyable yes, perfect no.

Mass Effect 2 is far from perfect. I miss the elevators, decontamination, and integration of combat into the game world (which I think you mentioned). I personally view those game reviews as being an overall rating of their enjoyment rather than a measurement of a game's flaws.

Example: I personally rate Assassin's Creed much higher than Assassin's Creed II. I acknowledge that Assassin's Creed may be 'more flawed', but on the whole I found my enjoyment or the "sum total experience" to be so high that any complaints I had with the game were miniscule in comparison. Imo, that's what reviewers are doing when we see these nigh perfect scores. No game can really achieve perfection, but a rating of 10 (or close to it) is an indication of how much enjoyment a reviewer obtained from the experience.

Morrowind is another good example, especially the console version. That game is literally filled to the brim with glitches, terrible pacing, steep learning curve, etc, yet I would still give it a solid 9.3-9.4 overall.

Know what you mean, despite having an awful battle system and very broken gameplay it remains fun to play.

[Ji99saw]

I love Mass Effect 2, because unlike some people I see it for what it really is a video game, made purely for entertainment purposes sure it problems but what game doesn't, but all see is people b***h and moan about how it wasn't perfect. So how about this you show me a perfect game and I'll call you my battle master and serve you for eternity. That being said I want to feel like a specter again and force my will upon people in council space.

[Terror_K]

Of course more people like Mass Effect 2; that's what happens when you make a game more mainstream.

[ArchDemonXIII]

Terror_K wrote...

Of course more people like Mass Effect 2; that's what happens when you make a game more mainstream.

 There's nothing inherently wrong with being more mainstream. Developers need to eat, too. It's not like music where it takes a few months to write an album. Games take years of time and millions of dollars to make nowadays. Which includes paying a staff of 100 or so employees that whole time. Nobody goes into business to break even.

 Besides, some things are mainstream because they "aim for the lowest common denominator", others just resonate with a lot of people. 

[Terror_K]

ArchDemonXIII wrote...

 There's nothing inherently wrong with being more mainstream. Developers need to eat, too. It's not like music where it takes a few months to write an album. Games take years of time and millions of dollars to make nowadays. Which includes paying a staff of 100 or so employees that whole time. Nobody goes into business to break even.

 Besides, some things are mainstream because they "aim for the lowest common denominator", others just resonate with a lot of people. 

I'm just sick of seeing all the things I (used to) enjoy constantly being ruined and reimagined and rejigged to suit the mainstream audience (Star Trek, Stargate, Star Wars, pretty much every Hollywood remake or adaptation in the last decade, etc.). And that includes Mass Effect, and now it seems like Dragon Age is suffering too.

[ArchDemonXIII]

Terror_K wrote...

ArchDemonXIII wrote...

 There's nothing inherently wrong with being more mainstream. Developers need to eat, too. It's not like music where it takes a few months to write an album. Games take years of time and millions of dollars to make nowadays. Which includes paying a staff of 100 or so employees that whole time. Nobody goes into business to break even.

 Besides, some things are mainstream because they "aim for the lowest common denominator", others just resonate with a lot of people. 

I'm just sick of seeing all the things I (used to) enjoy constantly being ruined and reimagined and rejigged to suit the mainstream audience (Star Trek, Stargate, Star Wars, pretty much every Hollywood remake or adaptation in the last decade, etc.). And that includes Mass Effect, and now it seems like Dragon Age is suffering too.

 

I can understand that. But when A level games and movies now cost more to make than the average person will make in their adult life and with there being a worldwide recession going on, unfortunately not many investors are going to take big risks. BW isn't big enough to self-publish, so unfortunately the guys cutting the checks get a lot more say than they should. 

[CatatonicMan]

Terror_K wrote...

I'm just sick of seeing all the things I (used to) enjoy constantly being ruined and reimagined and rejigged to suit the mainstream audience (Star Trek, Stargate, Star Wars, pretty much every Hollywood remake or adaptation in the last decade, etc.). And that includes Mass Effect, and now it seems like Dragon Age is suffering too.

Sad, but true.

[CatatonicMan]

ArchDemonXIII wrote...

I can understand that. But when A level games and movies now cost more to make than the average person will make in their adult life and with there being a worldwide recession going on, unfortunately not many investors are going to take big risks. BW isn't big enough to self-publish, so unfortunately the guys cutting the checks get a lot more say than they should. 

It is quite possible to make a game (and make it good) without spending millions of dollars on it.

[grey_venger]

CatatonicMan wrote...

ArchDemonXIII wrote...

I can understand that. But when A level games and movies now cost more to make than the average person will make in their adult life and with there being a worldwide recession going on, unfortunately not many investors are going to take big risks. BW isn't big enough to self-publish, so unfortunately the guys cutting the checks get a lot more say than they should. 

It is quite possible to make a game (and make it good) without spending millions of dollars on it.

True, if you you have something in mind like tetris. But then it is a game without visual and audio appeal,

But technological or entertainment products do not stand alone, but are part of an industry that has an evolution that defines what people expect from a new product.
Take cars. I can remember a time where electric windows were a novelty, when they became an upgrade you had to pay for, and nowadays its a standard. Take the numbers of airbags.

The same with special effects in movies. Star Wars was made with stop motion technices, light overlaying and coloring the laserswords by hand after filming. Won't be accepted today.

A game that want's to sale nowadays has to have certain features today that cost a lot of money and simply were not there in the 80'ies or 90ies.
- Soundtrack: In the good ole 8bit sound times, one person could programm the "music" in a short time, nowadays a game needs a composer and an orchestra to record the soundtrack.
- Graphics: past are the times where an animated sprite would be piloted over a background picture. Nowadays tje standard is 3D, with hd textures, raytraycing and anti-aliasing. 
- Voiceacting: Did not even exist earlier, and today at least the cutscenes have to have voice acting. One of the critisicms in dragon age was that the main character was mute.

A game needs things to be accepted, and those things need lots of money.

[Halo Quea]

Terror_K wrote...

ArchDemonXIII wrote...

 There's nothing inherently wrong with being more mainstream. Developers need to eat, too. It's not like music where it takes a few months to write an album. Games take years of time and millions of dollars to make nowadays. Which includes paying a staff of 100 or so employees that whole time. Nobody goes into business to break even.

 Besides, some things are mainstream because they "aim for the lowest common denominator", others just resonate with a lot of people. 

I'm just sick of seeing all the things I (used to) enjoy constantly being ruined and reimagined and rejigged to suit the mainstream audience (Star Trek, Stargate, Star Wars, pretty much every Hollywood remake or adaptation in the last decade, etc.). And that includes Mass Effect, and now it seems like Dragon Age is suffering too.

But to what end?  This is what really concerns me.   After the latest C.Hudson article, I'm really starting to think that Bioware may actually not be finished gutting things from Mass Effect.   Although I'm not sure what else they could remove, there's not much left to mass appeal. 

What happens to Dragon Age 2 will probably give us a good clue as to what direction Bioware is going for the future.   I'm still holding out hope, but I'm starting to see the hand writing on the wall.

[FataliTensei]

Halo Quea wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

ArchDemonXIII wrote...

 There's nothing inherently wrong with being more mainstream. Developers need to eat, too. It's not like music where it takes a few months to write an album. Games take years of time and millions of dollars to make nowadays. Which includes paying a staff of 100 or so employees that whole time. Nobody goes into business to break even.

 Besides, some things are mainstream because they "aim for the lowest common denominator", others just resonate with a lot of people. 

I'm just sick of seeing all the things I (used to) enjoy constantly being ruined and reimagined and rejigged to suit the mainstream audience (Star Trek, Stargate, Star Wars, pretty much every Hollywood remake or adaptation in the last decade, etc.). And that includes Mass Effect, and now it seems like Dragon Age is suffering too.

But to what end?  This is what really concerns me.   After the latest C.Hudson article, I'm really starting to think that Bioware may actually not be finished gutting things from Mass Effect.   Although I'm not sure what else they could remove, there's not much left to mass appeal. 

What happens to Dragon Age 2 will probably give us a good clue as to what direction Bioware is going for the future.   I'm still holding out hope, but I'm starting to see the hand writing on the wall.

It's not just the latest article that should worry you, BW's handling of any criticism lately has been nothing more than deflection or borderline insulting to people who point out flaws or complain.

[Firesteel]

I feel like the gap between shooters and Mass Effect's story is unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective) getting smaller. What I mean is that many sci-fi shooters are getting more and more story, while it seems like Mass Effect is getting less and less in depth, less conversations, and a seemingly simpler story with more focus on pure combat. What I loved about ME1 was that the story element was so good that it made up for the engine trouble with graphics and frame rate, but now, ME2 seems to have fallen back on graphics and shooter mechanics, which I felt were still not as good as games like Halo, Borderlands, or Gears of War. I would also like to see a leveling system in between ME1 and ME2, the ME1 was perfeclty fine, just each level did not necissarily make that big a difference, but added together the difference was astronomical, and ME2 where each level still did not get you that much, and you had to be careful with your skill points because of the bizarre way that Bioware decided to do the system. I am fine with less levels and more instant gratification with levels, but at least let us use all the skill points without having to be vigilant and still wind up with un-used, especially on squad members because they are so weak as it is.

[Halo Quea]

FataliTensei wrote...

Halo Quea wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

ArchDemonXIII wrote...

 There's nothing inherently wrong with being more mainstream. Developers need to eat, too. It's not like music where it takes a few months to write an album. Games take years of time and millions of dollars to make nowadays. Which includes paying a staff of 100 or so employees that whole time. Nobody goes into business to break even.

 Besides, some things are mainstream because they "aim for the lowest common denominator", others just resonate with a lot of people. 

I'm just sick of seeing all the things I (used to) enjoy constantly being ruined and reimagined and rejigged to suit the mainstream audience (Star Trek, Stargate, Star Wars, pretty much every Hollywood remake or adaptation in the last decade, etc.). And that includes Mass Effect, and now it seems like Dragon Age is suffering too.

But to what end?  This is what really concerns me.   After the latest C.Hudson article, I'm really starting to think that Bioware may actually not be finished gutting things from Mass Effect.   Although I'm not sure what else they could remove, there's not much left to mass appeal. 

What happens to Dragon Age 2 will probably give us a good clue as to what direction Bioware is going for the future.   I'm still holding out hope, but I'm starting to see the hand writing on the wall.

It's not just the latest article that should worry you, BW's handling of any criticism lately has been nothing more than deflection or borderline insulting to people who point out flaws or complain.

I know, there isn't even a willingness to say, We acknowledge that some gamers didn't like everything we did"    It's all very disingenuous. 

[Lumikki]

Halo Quea wrote...

I know, there isn't even a willingness to say, We acknowledge that some gamers didn't like everything we did"    It's all very disingenuous. 

Why?

Only totally idiot company would say ANYTING negative about them self. Point is, that companies own people who talk about they company product should allways try to avoid anything negative about they products. What means they only say the positive stuff in public, but keep the negative inside the company. Company only admits negative stuff, when it's directly asked and the information is common knowledge.

Only very young people who haven't yet been working with companies customers think the truth is good thing for company. Customers wants the truth, but it's never good for company unless it's positive truth.

Modifié par Lumikki, 15 août 2010 - 10:10 .

[bjdbwea]

It's nothing new though. As long as the sales numbers are there, the single customer matters not, unfortunately. This is how it works. It used to be different in the gaming industry back when "by gamers, for gamers" had a meaning, but even then few companies really cared. BioWare was one of them, but we have to accept that now they're becoming like everyone else.

Thing is, when the sales numbers aren't there anymore, a company might not be for long either. BioWare/EA obviously feel very strong right now and justified in ignoring those old-timers who are just afraid of change (= everyone who criticizes anything in the games). We'll see how it turns out and if they are right.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 15 août 2010 - 10:11 .

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Only totally idiot company would say ANYTING negative about them self. Point, is that people who talk about they company product should allways try to avoid anything negative about they products. What means they only say the positive stuff in public, but keep the negative inside the company. Company only admits negative stuff, it's directly asked and the information is common knowledge.

Only very young people who haven't yet been working with companies customers think the truth is good thing for company. Customers wants the truth, but it's never good for company unless it's positive truth.

Except that post ME1's release BioWare fully admitted many of the problems the game had, and were actually very vocal about discussing it with the fans, even to the point where they'd create topics asking fans for suggestions on how to improve things. Much of the PC version's changes came from feedback from the old boards from the original 360 one, and that's why we got an improved Mako, a better mini-game, less texture-pop, faster elevators and a slightly better inventory out of it in that version. The basic point is that back then BioWare admitted the faults and were quite humble about them and willing to discuss and listen.

Now, in the post ME2 release, we barely even get a peep out of the developers at all, let alone discussing anything to do with making a better ME3. They pop in with the odd announcement and to lock a topic and/or give the odd warning, perhaps make a little comment that's not really related to Mass Effect that much and that's about it. BioWare used to be known for their community interaction, but ever since ME2's release they've been pretty damn quiet. And on top of it all whenever there's an interview out there that brings up the fact that some fans felt the second game was a little lacking in the RPG department there's a snide, bordering on insulting comment about how they feel Mass Effect 2 was pretty much perfect and won't be changing much, along with them pointing at review scores. They don't seem to want to acknowledge the fact that ME2 has faults at all, let alone discuss it with the fans on the board and ask for suggestions like they used to.

Simply put, this doesn't seem like the same BioWare I was use to a few years back.

Modifié par Terror_K, 15 août 2010 - 10:13 .

[Lumikki]

bjdbwea wrote...

Thing is, when the sales numbers aren't there anymore, a company might not be for long either. BioWare/EA obviously feel very strong right now and justified in ignoring those old-timers who are just afraid of change (= everyone who criticizes anything in the games). We'll see how it turns out and if they are right.

Do they?

I ask, because it's your criticizes and not everyone here agrees with you criticizes. If company makes product that is very liked, but some players don't like it, because they taste of games is different. So, you judge company as not listen your criticizes. Why should they, if the product wasn't even ment for you, as you are not been target customer. If how ever you where target customer, then yes, they should listen carefully about your criticizes.

Terror_K: Same to you, are you sure you are ME2's target customer?

Modifié par Lumikki, 15 août 2010 - 10:20 .