10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Terror_K]

tonnactus wrote...

Really not? First time i played the game,at a point kelly told me:"The illusive man wants to talk with you".

I: "The nicotin junkie could wait".

Shepardt went to the galaxy map,want to do a side mission.
Suprise,the galaxy map is deactivated.
Joker: "Plan changed shepardt,the illusive wants to talk with you."

So shepardt talked with the illusive man went like this: Shepardt,you go now to this place.
Shepardt, a former spectre would could stop talking with the council nearly everytime in the first game when he wish to do that is now a cerberus
puppy who just approves.

What the ****?!? What rpgs in the past ever dictacted the missions the player had to in which order and are there really people who liked it to be commanded around in a game like a fool???

The one that really annoyed me was when TIM betrayed me and I didn't even get a chance to tell the others about it. No... instead there he is telling me not to do it, despite me wanting to drive as big a wedge between him and my squaddies as possible, and then it cuts to Jacob saying, "well I guess The Illusive Man didn't sell us out after all."

What the hell?! Where's the roleplaying in that? Where was the choice? One of the only real chances I finally get to stick it to him and make my squaddies side with me over him and it's just totally taken away, and Shepard just automatically agrees to something that, as far I was concerned, SHE. NEVER. WOULD.

It's bad enough I have to world with TIM and have no choice, but when you take away my choice to actually stick it to him that's just plain frustrating and wrong, IMO.

[tonnactus]

Terror_K wrote...


The one that really annoyed me was when TIM betrayed me and I didn't even get a chance to tell the others about it. No... instead there he is telling me not to do it, despite me wanting to drive as big a wedge between him and my squaddies as possible, and then it cuts to Jacob saying, "well I guess The Illusive Man didn't sell us out after all."

Yes,and mordin thought it was a "necessary risk". And what squadmates are there to tell them anything anyway? 3 out of 12 in this case, sometimes only jacob or miranda. In the first game, real squadmeetings existed where everyone of the team participate in and have something to say at time to time. Guess besides miranda, jacob and mordin no other was really important...
So lame.

Modifié par tonnactus, 17 août 2010 - 01:27 .

[bjdbwea]

Isn't it interesting that you have to visit the DA forums if you want to hear a developer comment on Mass Effect? Mr. Woo had this to say:

Stanley Woo wrote...

And that will accomplish precisely nothing. If someone decided to make Shepard into a transvestite cocaine
addict (and, of course, we thought that it would work and sell and make money), all your raging and flaming would not change the direction of the game. It would not magically change Shepard into the character you want him to be. In fact, we could do whatever we wanted with Shepard without your permission, approval, or knowledge, and you'd have precisely zero control over it. That's what people mean when they say it's not your character.

Interesting, isn't it.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 17 août 2010 - 02:01 .

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

bjdbwea wrote...

Isn't it interesting that you have to visit the DA forums if you want to hear a developer comment on Mass Effect? Mr. Woo had this to say:

Stanley Woo wrote...

And that will accomplish precisely nothing. If someone decided to make Shepard into a transvestite cocaine
addict (and, of course, we thought that it would work and sell and make money), all your raging and flaming would not change the direction of the game. It would not magically change Shepard into the character you want him to be. In fact, we could do whatever we wanted with Shepard without your permission, approval, or knowledge, and you'd have precisely zero control over it. That's what people mean when they say it's not your character.

Interesting, isn't it.

I guess thats why Shepard acts like a retard throughout ME2!

[Vena_86]

So it IS a linear shooter. Thanks for making that clear, half a year after the release, in another forum.

[FataliTensei]

bjdbwea wrote...

Isn't it interesting that you have to visit the DA forums if you want to hear a developer comment on Mass Effect? Mr. Woo had this to say:

Stanley Woo wrote...

And that will accomplish precisely nothing. If someone decided to make Shepard into a transvestite cocaine
addict (and, of course, we thought that it would work and sell and make money), all your raging and flaming would not change the direction of the game. It would not magically change Shepard into the character you want him to be. In fact, we could do whatever we wanted with Shepard without your permission, approval, or knowledge, and you'd have precisely zero control over it. That's what people mean when they say it's not your character.

Interesting, isn't it.

Wow this post, this post right here just clarified BW's stance on everything. Especially when they market the game as "your shepard" and "your story". In effect he basically told us all of the promotional material for mass effect is a lie.

I think this deserves it's own thread

Modifié par FataliTensei, 17 août 2010 - 03:00 .

[tonnactus]

They have to fail hard at least one time to come back to reality and to understand that rpgs would be never be able to compete with Modern Warfare in sales no matter how much simplifying and railroading is going to happen. To bad that this come at the costs of the  Mass Effect franchise and now,like it seems,even dragon age.

Modifié par tonnactus, 17 août 2010 - 03:02 .

[Whatever42]

Vena_86 wrote...

So it IS a linear shooter. Thanks for making that clear, half a year after the release, in another forum.

All Bioware games are linear. Every single one of them. The decisions in the game amount to being able to pick out the wallpaper for the single corridor of the story you can march down.  Kill Wrex or let Wrex live wallpaper but in the end, Saren will die. But that was not at all the point of Stanley's post, which was about how characters change.

And Stanley's point is very correct. Characters change. Different artists explore different aspects of the character. That first paragraph was in response to a bitter internet rager and Stanely goes on to make his point quite well.

And the poster he's responding to sound like a number of posters here. At least he's being honest about trying to intimidate the developers into making the game that he personally wants.

oh yes we do. If you make me believe a character is like this, and make me love him for it, do not present it to me in a radically new form or you'll make me rage, and not only will I not buy your comic/movie/game/novel, but I will also flame you in your blog/forum/deeepest corner of the internet you hide in.

[Sparda Stonerule]

Stanley Woo wrote...

oh yes we do. If you make me believe a character is like this, and make me love him for it, do not present it to me in a radically new form or you'll make me rage, and not only will I not buy your comic/movie/game/novel, but I will also flame you in your blog/forum/deeepest corner of the internet you hide in.

And that will accomplish precisely nothing. If someone decided to make Shepard into a transvestite cocaine addict (and, of course, we thought that it would work and sell and make money), all your raging and flaming would not change the direction of the game. It would not magically change Shepard into the character you want him to be. In fact, we could do whatever we wanted with Shepard without your permission, approval, or knowledge, and you'd have precisely zero control over it. That's what people mean when they say it's not your character.

I understand that you can feel a great connection to a character, and you want him to be a certain way, but guess what? Characters can change. Look at Batman, for example, or, rather, The Bat-Man. Look at the very different ways he is written and drawn. At some point, people started drawing him a different way, people started writing him a certain way. Times changed, comics changed, the world changed, and of course, Batman's stories changed to reflect what was happening in the world.

Is Batman "your" character? he's been around much, much longer than Dragon Age has. how much control do Batman fans have in what Batman scripts get approved? How much influence do Batman fans have on who's chosen as the next actor to play Batman, or what actor voices Batman, or who dubs him in foreign language versions of movies? How many times has DC Comics phones you to ask you what the next Batman game is going to be? Where's the website Batman fans go to in order to vote for which writer we want to write which Batman story featuring which Batman villain next?

What's that you say? All of these things are done by creative professionals under some kind of contract with the owner of the Batman license? And that these products are then marketed to Batman fans to enjoy or not, as they choose? You're saying that fans of a given character or setting or license or property are not active creators of those stories and games and movies? that they are consumers who "merely" love, consume, empathize with, and perhaps become attached to the character or property?

I'm being a little sarcastic because I think it's an important lesson to learn. As much as we love the characters and stories and worlds that affect us, we all are really only passive consumers of those characters, stories, and worlds. we would love for them to remain the way we love them, unchanging. But time and product move on. I don't like all Batman stories, I don't like all Batman actors, and I certainly don't like all the Batman films. but I love the character, and when a good writer writes (or a good artist draws) a good Batman story, I'll pick it up and I'll enjoy it for what it is. I will also enjoy it for how it expands my view of the character or world. If 1940's the Bat-Man is all you ever want to know or have of the character, that's fine. You can do that, and no one should judge you for that. but you'll be missing Dark Knight Batman, Knightfall Batman, killing Joke Batman, No Man's Land Batman, JLA Batman, OMAC Batman, as well as missing out on Tim Drake Robin, Spoiler, Year One Batman, the movies, and the animated series.

Yes, you may not like the directions taken by certain creators, but wouldn't it be better to go along for the ride to see what will happen in this world, or to these characters rather than lock everything into a single, restrictive paradigm? I dunno, it seems weird to me that people would rather hold onto one unchanging view than to explore views that one might never have thought of: Knightfall Batman, Spider-Man revealing his identity to Aunt May, Wash's demise in Serenity, Angel in charge of Wolfram & Hart, etc. We love characters and stories because of how they're portrayed and written and acted and drawn, whatever. Why, then, are we so against having those same characters do something in addition to something we already know and love and enjoy?

Maybe you could do us some favors and quote the entire thing. I always enjoy how you don't quote the entire post but just the part you don't like the most. I think his ending point is entirely valid that even if you don't like a turn the character takes there are still effects that alter the game world. Shepard is still your Shepard since you can choose to say various things during dialog and it isn't always the same between players. So no it isn't a lie. Just because you don't see how big an effect your playstyle will have on the last game doesn't mean that the third game won't be vastly different depending on the decisions you made. If the game isn't vastly different depending on past decisions I will be fairly disappointed.

You are taking things slightly out of context and trying to use those out of context sayings to justify your assessment that ME 2 is bad. That's what politicians do. I didn't think game fans did that type of thing, but I guess I was wrong about my hobby entirely.

Some people were happy with ME 2, some liked it but didn't like some of the changes, some people didn't like the some of the changes and generally didn't like it, and some people hated the changes. Just because you don't like the direction it took does not make it bad. This is the precise reason I was trying to show that it's just your opinion because you are back to saying things like "they have to fail hard at least once to come back to reality" like it's a fact that ME 2 failed hard. Things like "So it IS a linear shooter. Thanks for making that clear, half a year after the release, in another forum." As if these are clear facts that can never have any argument.

In closing I'll post a comment from the same thread.

Stanley Woo wrote...

Ensgnblack wrote...

I just caught up to reading the whole thread, and Stanely, I agree with everything you said there. COnsumers are not the ones creating the game. Let the designers design and purchase it if you endorse their product.

True. And let me reiterate that there's nothing wrong with loving a product, character, or setting so much that you don't want it to change, or so much that it becomes a part of you. Nothing wrong with that, despite my aversion to some of the fanfic and fan art out there. but stamping one's feet and saying "no, it can't change" and holding one's breath as if to stop creators from doing their job is a little nonsensical.

Where would some of our most beloved characters and settings be without some kind of change or addition? i already used Batman as an example. Look at how much more popular the Lord of the Rings became after the movies came out. And the movies changed things, and purists were outraged! didn't stop the movies from being good and enjoyable and spawning many different board game products and RPGs and action figures and things.

i may be biased, but I don't think Dragon Age 2 is going to be the "death of all RPGs" or "killing of my favourite puppy" that some folks fear it will be. It certainly won't be quite the same as DAO, but we think it'll have more than enough "Dragon Age-ness" in it to keep folks satisfied. And even if you don't agree, that's just us having a difference of opinion rather than us deliberately ruining your favourite game and your favourite genre and the industry as a whole for no reason other than money money money money money bwahahahaha. it's a big difference.

I think that's very fair, but then again it really just is my opinion.

Modifié par Sparda Stonerule, 17 août 2010 - 03:18 .

[Il Divo]

I also find this interesting because if you look at threads like this:

http://social.biowar...1/index/4456830

There are users out there who refuse to even consider Mass Effect 1 as an rpg. And they use many of the same criticisms which are directed at Mass Effect 2.

Modifié par Il Divo, 17 août 2010 - 04:21 .

[Xeranx]

I have to say that just quoting that piece is extremely polarizing... especially after going through how Shepard couldn't rip TIM a new one for taking a risk with their life and the life of the crew. Just how I felt at that comment, not to mention how I think Woo comes across generally, pissed me off and made me realize I'm way too close. I didn't think I cared so much for this and I think people really need to understand that bit.

The people discussing their disappointment, offering their praise, and/or suggesting new ways to do things hold this world very close to them. It's incredible how we do that. I thought it was quite a coincidence that Woo actually watched the same shows I did and had some of the responses I did for those shows. That Wash died in Serenity...if I were at the screenings (*grumble*didn't have one in NY*grumble*) I would have told Whedon off. Sorry.



I agree with Sparda that we should be more pliable and avoid being caustic or we can actually choose to ignore what is said and understand what is meant though it often times is hard to look passed something that seems to put you in a negative light. My point is you can't be here reading, lurking, posting, showing ire, or showing admiration if you didn't care about the world presented to you.  

If nothing else, I hope that if the developers understand that no matter how scathing the comments may be and how much they just want to ignore said comments that the people feel they have a stake in what you're doing. That only happens when you put out something someone believes is worthy of attention.

Just an aside (another one I know):  Can we (really) lay off the 'in your opinion', 'that's your opinion', 'that's my opinion' stuff?  This is a message board.  Everything you say is opinion.  Orchonmere made a reference that professional reviews are opinions.  If you are able to reasonably question the validity of statements made then the statement you would make a response to is an opinion.  Understand that and move on because it seems to me that it's getting annoying and isn't productive unless you're looking to get a rise out of someone.  I know it's been that annoying itch you can't seem to scratch for me since before page 200.

[DreDk]

People please add this to my disappointment with ME2:

http://social.biowar...3/index/4474314

Modifié par DreDk, 17 août 2010 - 05:28 .

[tonnactus]

DreDk wrote...

People please add this to my disappointment with ME2:

http://social.biowar...3/index/4474314

I doubt that there are many people who really waited to play the game on the ps3. Either they bought an xbox for it
or played on the pc.They just wanted to attract new players to the game without "confusing them" to much.(not only ps3
players)

[kalle90]

FataliTensei wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

Isn't it interesting that you have to visit the DA forums if you want to hear a developer comment on Mass Effect? Mr. Woo had this to say:

Stanley Woo wrote...

And that will accomplish precisely nothing. If someone decided to make Shepard into a transvestite cocaine
addict (and, of course, we thought that it would work and sell and make money), all your raging and flaming would not change the direction of the game. It would not magically change Shepard into the character you want him to be. In fact, we could do whatever we wanted with Shepard without your permission, approval, or knowledge, and you'd have precisely zero control over it. That's what people mean when they say it's not your character.

Interesting, isn't it.

Wow this post, this post right here just clarified BW's stance on everything. Especially when they market the game as "your shepard" and "your story". In effect he basically told us all of the promotional material for mass effect is a lie.

I think this deserves it's own thread

Well to be honest ME1 was like that too. Usually the choice of words lead to same results. However that sort of ignorant and arrogant comment on these forums is terrible and shows why new Bioware games are what they are. The endless Bioware praise has finally shown negative impact as they think they're always right even when they say things contradicting their actions.

[bjdbwea]

DreDk wrote...

People please add this to my disappointment with ME2:

http://social.biowar...3/index/4474314

Indeed. At least some things make a little more sense now. I mean, they were obviously working under a (too) short time limit. Saving time and money was important. And still they didn't reuse existing things like the Normandy, the Citadel, well liked characters? Instead everything was made and introduced anew. Is the PS 3 version of ME 2 the explanation, since apparently ME 1 will not be available on that platform? Was ME 2 actually a new start? Is that the reason why so little effort was invested in making our decisions count? Yes, at least some things make sense now.

<_<

Modifié par bjdbwea, 17 août 2010 - 06:34 .

[tonnactus]

bjdbwea wrote...

DreDk wrote...

People please add this to my disappointment with ME2:

http://social.biowar...3/index/4474314

Indeed. At least some things make a little more sense now. I mean, they were obviously working under a (too) short time limit. Saving time and money was important. And still they didn't reuse existing things like the Normandy, the Citadel, well liked characters? Instead everything was made and introduced anew. Is the PS 3 version of ME 2 the explanation, since apparently ME 1 will not be available on that platform? Was ME 2 actually a new start? Is that the reason why so little effort was invested in making our decisions count? Yes, at least some things make sense now.

<_<

Just to get some ps3 players in? I didnt thing that this was worth the effort.Most of them,who wanted to play this game
for sure didnt wait so many years just to get only the second part.They either bought an xbox or played it on their pcs.

So i doubt this was only made for a ps3 release.

[haberman13]

Its sad really, I would liken it to the "new" Star Wars movies.



Over time profits become more important than art, ME has been forever tainted by the almighty dollar, not that I blame them; we all need money and frankly the lives of Bioware employees should be more important than the games they produce... so meh.

[bjdbwea]

But don't forget that, for all we know, BioWare were always making profits. I never heard that a lack of finances would have been the reason for the sell-out to EA.

[gosensgo88]

DreDk wrote...

People please add this to my disappointment with ME2:

http://social.biowar...3/index/4474314

I actually think it was their desire to appeal to casual gamers that made them change things up for ME2, rather than some longstanding decision to bring the series to the PS3.

I hope ME3 will go back to the roots.

Modifié par gosensgo88, 17 août 2010 - 07:10 .

[haberman13]

bjdbwea wrote...

But don't forget that, for all we know, BioWare were always making profits. I never heard that a lack of finances would have been the reason for the sell-out to EA.

Old chinese proverb: no money is enough money for those interested in money.

Uh, ok, my proverb ... but true none-the-less.

Another proverb: everyone is interested in money.

[Max Legend]

bjdbwea wrote...

But don't forget that, for all we know, BioWare were always making profits. I never heard that a lack of finances would have been the reason for the sell-out to EA.

If they were making profits then why didnt they became a publishing company like Ubisoft or Bethesda but instead  they went under the ownership of M$ and later EA?

[Vena_86]

If BioWare wants to create their Shepard and their game however they want thats fine. Thats not just fine, thats how it should be. But spreading lies or bending reality to get more sales is not. Its the attitude and disrespect for former fans, that makes the company as a whole less attractive.

[Sparda Stonerule]

Xeranx wrote...

I have to say that just quoting that piece is extremely polarizing... especially after going through how Shepard couldn't rip TIM a new one for taking a risk with their life and the life of the crew. Just how I felt at that comment, not to mention how I think Woo comes across generally, pissed me off and made me realize I'm way too close. I didn't think I cared so much for this and I think people really need to understand that bit.

The people discussing their disappointment, offering their praise, and/or suggesting new ways to do things hold this world very close to them. It's incredible how we do that. I thought it was quite a coincidence that Woo actually watched the same shows I did and had some of the responses I did for those shows. That Wash died in Serenity...if I were at the screenings (*grumble*didn't have one in NY*grumble*) I would have told Whedon off. Sorry.



I agree with Sparda that we should be more pliable and avoid being caustic or we can actually choose to ignore what is said and understand what is meant though it often times is hard to look passed something that seems to put you in a negative light. My point is you can't be here reading, lurking, posting, showing ire, or showing admiration if you didn't care about the world presented to you.  

If nothing else, I hope that if the developers understand that no matter how scathing the comments may be and how much they just want to ignore said comments that the people feel they have a stake in what you're doing. That only happens when you put out something someone believes is worthy of attention.

Just an aside (another one I know):  Can we (really) lay off the 'in your opinion', 'that's your opinion', 'that's my opinion' stuff?  This is a message board.  Everything you say is opinion.  Orchonmere made a reference that professional reviews are opinions.  If you are able to reasonably question the validity of statements made then the statement you would make a response to is an opinion.  Understand that and move on because it seems to me that it's getting annoying and isn't productive unless you're looking to get a rise out of someone.  I know it's been that annoying itch you can't seem to scratch for me since before page 200.

You are very reasonable. I have to agree with you on your assessment of the opinion deal. I guess I just got swept up since both sides seem to be rather static and unmoving in their feelings no matter what evidence is brought forth or how many well reasoned posts there are. I will relent and if I really did anger anyone I am sorry. I just happen to get a little... disappointed when neither side really gives way to anything at all. It really makes it feel like nothing is getting done and people are just being steadfast for the sake of it. That probably isn't the case but some level of agreement would be fantastic.

I really do want ME 3 to be a fantastic game, I just wish so many people won't so stubborn no matter how they feel about the game. Heck I wish I weren't so stubborn, it certainly hasn't helped my point at all.

Modifié par Sparda Stonerule, 17 août 2010 - 07:41 .

[Il Divo]

I'm sorry, but people need to actually read the thread in question. Stanley Woo was responding to these comments:

1. because one newbie writer has no rights to change decades of tradition.

if they made mass effect 4 and a new contracted writer made shepard a transexual cocaine addict, you'fd have all the right to criticise him. After a few years, a character is equally property of the fans and the creators.

2. oh yes we do. If you make me believe a character is like this, and make me love him for it, do not present it to me in a radically new form or you'll make me rage, and not only will I not buy your comic/movie/game/novel, but I will also flame you in your blog/forum/deeepest corner of the internet you hide in.

There is no 'subjectivity' in this, there are no opinions. Filetemo is straight up telling Bioware that somehow this character [Shepard] is just as much the fans' property as it is Bioware's. Legally, that's 100% untrue and Woo's response is very appropriate. It doesn't matter how much you love the character. It doesn't matter if Mass Effect is your favorite franchise in the world. That character is not your property unless Bioware sells him to you. Your 'ownership' doesn't extend any farther than deciding for yourself what is or isn't cannon which is the case with Star Wars, Batman, or any super hero comic.

[bjdbwea]

Yes, that's what he said, in an interesting choice of words. And for once, it was a clear statement. Anyway...

Max Legend wrote...

If they were making profits then why didnt they became a publishing company like Ubisoft or Bethesda but instead they went under the ownership of M$ and later EA?

Microsoft never owned BioWare. They published one of their games. Before that, other publishers published BioWare's games. While the publishers obviously already had a say, the contracts no doubt granted BioWare a significant amount of artistic freedom and independence. They only lost that once they sold out to EA. To me, the results are obvious enough.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 17 août 2010 - 08:01 .