10273 réponses à ce sujet

[CatatonicMan]

Lumikki wrote...

It's not about wanting shooting game. It's about wanting smooth adventure story without drowning players to huge amount of numbers, what distract player from the story. Game can be done even without combat at all. It's about keeping good impression vs numbers. Old RPG's have too many numbers distracting players from the main goal and causing some other problems. When player should just have fun with good adventure story.

But then you wouldn't have a TPS/RPG - you would have a TPS/Adventure game. There's nothing wrong with this, of course, unless you are trying to sell it as something it isn't.

[Pocketgb]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...
No, its not funny, since its not true. A lot of people, like myself dont care for reviews at all. I think you might have noticed I havent once brought up some of the "perfect" scores ME1 got. Simple reason is, I dont care. Not only do I think reviewing a game with a score that implies "perfection" is the height of idiocy, I simply dont care about people who are paid to review these games opinions. I instead browsed forums, and I cared much more that, for all the criticism about ME1s flaws, most gamers still found something to love about the game.

Such an approach can really skew one's opinion of a game. Forums have a tendency to harbor a lot of criticism as opposed to praise. This becomes more and more applicable as a developer gets popular.

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...
Thats the difference between what I have seen with ME2, where its much more of a mixed bag, where you have people claiming ME2 is gaming perfection, then people who feel the same way about ME2 as ME1 (flawed but still excellent), and there are also plenty of people like me who dont like the game very much at all due to the changes made to try and draw in people who didnt care about this franchise before.

It's not because they changed it for the worse, it's because they changed it period. There are plenty examples of this:

The most notable is of course WoW. A simple glance at a page of threads help one easily come to the conclusion that it's the most terrible game in existence. Yet there are still tons of people thoroughly enjoying the game. It would not have grown to such an incredibly massive amount of popularity if it was of such quality.

Another game people here continually refer to here is Fallout 3. When the direction of changes were realized people grew dangerously vivid, and many even still consider it to be as close to the Fallout series as Brotherhood of Steel was. (On a related note one can recall the hate that spewed forth when Oblivion was released).

And to hit close to home you can just looks at Bioware's own forums: Jade Empire, Mass Effect 1, there are plenty of instances in Bioware's history where there's been a chunk of criticism.

Simply put, Bioware's a great company with a massive fanbase. The problem is that very few of their fans want the same thing.

[Il Divo]

bjdbwea wrote...

What's that you say? It's hard to give non-shooting missions more interesting gameplay? Depth usually has to come through dialogue? Like in the Samara or Thane missions too? Indeed. And that's why the side missions in ME 1 are so much superior. We get to talk to NPCs, we get some interesting moral questions, we get decisions. And there you have your variety too.

Depth comes through deep concepts: something that extends beyond the surface level in some way. Perhaps its a philosophical concept or an emotion you experience or might not have previously associated with a character. It could be  a plot twist. There are any number of possibilities.

But where is all this depth you speak of? Is it really just talking to npc's? When Hackett orders me to take out 5 geth platoons, is that depth? When I'm ordered to take out the rachni on Listening Post Alpha, do you think that's deep? Our "moral questions" don't extend any farther to 'kill this corrupt scientist' or 'let them go'. I don't find the side quests intellectually challenging. They don't force me to ask questions about myself, nor do they trigger any sort of emotions in how I feel about something, except perhaps Corporal Tombs. That is the extent of 'depth' in side quests.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 20 août 2010 - 01:06 .

[Halo Quea]

Il Divo wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

What's that you say? It's hard to give non-shooting missions more interesting gameplay? Depth usually has to come through dialogue? Like in the Samara or Thane missions too? Indeed. And that's why the side missions in ME 1 are so much superior. We get to talk to NPCs, we get some interesting moral questions, we get decisions. And there you have your variety too.

Depth comes through deep concepts: something that extends beyond the surface level in some way. Perhaps its a philosophical concept or an emotion you experience or might not have previously associated with a character. It could be  a plot twist. There are any number of possibilities.

But where is all this depth you speak of? Is it really just talking to npc's? When Hackett orders me to take out 5 geth platoons, is that depth? When I'm ordered to take out the rachni on Listening Post Alpha, do you think that's deep? Our "moral questions" don't extend any farther to 'kill this corrupt scientist' or 'let them go'. I don't find the side quests intellectually challenging. They don't force me to ask questions about myself, nor do they trigger any sort of emotions in how I feel about something, except perhaps Corporal Tombs. That is the extent of 'depth' in side quests.  

As usual you lay down a great argument Divo, but in the end your deep and philosophical concepts have to be PLAYABLE my friend.   Feelings and questions are nice but the gamer needs something to play.

I think that's the point bjdwea was trying to make.  You don't remove game elements and replace them with just mood and atmosphere.  That's just not enough.

And before you or anyone else misunderstands me, THIS is the only problem I have with your otherwise eloquent arguments.  The things that you love to describe as role playing elements ARE NOT  things that a gamer can play. 

Wanna dump the inventory, stats, XP, customizations, side quests etc?  FINE.   But you better have more than the mood and atmosphere that Bioware provided to replace them.  You better have equal or better concepts TO PLAY than those things that you removed, or gamers will grumble about what's missing.

Modifié par Halo Quea, 20 août 2010 - 01:43 .

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

Pocketgb wrote...

It's not because they changed it for the worse, it's because they changed it period. There are plenty examples of this:

No its because they changed it for the worse for most people except those who love shooter mechanics.

Its no use arguing, since I can recognise varied changes in ME2 and appreciate them. The only problem is, they are so far between and so insignificant compared to the oppressive changes to a shooter game, they dont get much of a look in.

Changes I liked:

Interrupts - Skewed horribly towards renegades in this game, but still adds a nice touch of dynamism to dialogue scenes. Some of the "heads up" were very well done indeed.

Problem: Not a whole lot of these crop up that much, and when they do they are often renegade.

An attempt to create more vibrant dialogue scenes - ME2 clearly made more of an effort than ME1 to make characters more active during cutscenes. It worked a few times actually, and it was nice to see some really vartied actions in cutscenes.

Downsides? While not directly related, I find it funny that as the quality of the cutscenes up, the quality of dialogue went down. Instead of removing useless dialogue options, I felt I was being forced into useless dialogue too often. On the whole I just thought the dialogue written for Shepard was inferior. Yeah, they might not write three identical dialogue options anymore, and instead have Shepard just say it, but they also write now simply two ways of saying something, usually renegade. Arriving on purgatory is an example of the weaker dialogue and roleplaying I saw.

There are a few others I could list, but they are small chips compared to how shooter combat has saturated the game.

Dismiss it as "fear of change" if you want to, but thats just a dodge. Half of all change is bad change for most folks, not because they are "afraid" of change, but because they know the frequency people make mistakes.

Just because I dont like that they gutted the RPG elements and made the game into a series of linear, segmented
shooting galleries doesnt mean I wanted an ME1 part 2.

The irony is, they could be very well on the way to making ME2 part 2 with ME3. I wonder how many complaints well see about that then, that if Bioware simply repeats the formula of ME2?

[Lumikki]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

I instead browsed forums, and I cared much more that, for all the criticism about ME1s flaws, most gamers still found something to love about the game.

I ques then, I and you are very different.

I my self like to get more wider opinion from multible reviews and from forum too, because reviews gives more postive side of the situation, while ALL game forums has alot of complainers. Who think something should be changed because they want it to be different. Sure, game forums can also good place to look information about the game, if you can avoid these whiners. If You look only forums, you get too negative view about the game. If you look only reviews you get too positive view about situation.

[FataliTensei]

Lumikki wrote...

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

I instead browsed forums, and I cared much more that, for all the criticism about ME1s flaws, most gamers still found something to love about the game.

I ques then, I and you are very different.

I my self like to get more wider opinion from multible reviews and from forum too, because reviews gives more postive side of the situation, while ALL game forums has alot of complainers. Who think something should be changed because they want it to be different. Sure, game forums can also good place to look information about the game, if you can avoid these whiners. If You look only forums, you get too negative view about the game. If you look only reviews you get too positive view about situation.

See I don't put much stock in reviewers though, I've got games they said were mediocre and enjoyed them more than games they a 9/10 to, i.e. mass effect 2.

Being honest they're no different than anyone on the forum, they just paid to spout their opinions, it's not like they have a greater understanding of videogames or are somehow superior to any other game player. They just got in the industry and hooked a job on a website or at a magazine and had a decent skill level in writing.

So while they can be a useful source sometimes, you can go to a gaming review blog or site and find more varied opinions from people who actually do it for free and because they enjoy it.

Modifié par FataliTensei, 20 août 2010 - 01:59 .

[Lumikki]

CatatonicMan wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

It's not about wanting shooting game. It's about wanting smooth adventure story without drowning players to huge amount of numbers, what distract player from the story. Game can be done even without combat at all. It's about keeping good impression vs numbers. Old RPG's have too many numbers distracting players from the main goal and causing some other problems. When player should just have fun with good adventure story.

But then you wouldn't have a TPS/RPG - you would have a TPS/Adventure game. There's nothing wrong with this, of course, unless you are trying to sell it as something it isn't.

If You mean by RPG as traditional number based RPG, then yes it's more adventure game. How ever, RPG can also be more about impression, talking and roleplaying, than just numbers. Why you need numbers to play game? Hide numbers from player, the game is still same. But now player can conserate to playing story more than looking optimize numbers. Numbers doesn't make game better if they are pushed to players face all the time. Unless someone likes to play with numbers and doesn't care impression or story.

Modifié par Lumikki, 20 août 2010 - 02:03 .

[bjdbwea]

Il Divo wrote...

Depth comes through deep concepts: something that extends beyond the surface level in some way. Perhaps its a philosophical concept or an emotion you experience or might not have previously associated with a character. It could be a plot twist. There are any number of possibilities.

But where is all this depth you speak of? Is it really just talking to npc's? When Hackett orders me to take out 5 geth platoons, is that depth? When I'm ordered to take out the rachni on Listening Post Alpha, do you think that's deep? Our "moral questions" don't extend any farther to 'kill this corrupt scientist' or 'let them go'. I don't find the side quests intellectually challenging. They don't force me to ask questions about myself, nor do they trigger any sort of emotions in how I feel about something, except perhaps Corporal Tombs. That is the extent of 'depth' in side quests.

So now you expect a game to equal a philosophical essay. But of course that standard only applies to ME 1. ME 2 is better because it doesn't even try. Could it be that you set out to defend the game no matter what, for whatever other reasons you might have? Because if you really believe in all your nice theories, and if you measure both games by those standards, you would have to consider ME 1 to be the better game still.

Apart from that, the spoken briefings and interactions with NPCs not only did add some depth indeed, they also added something called atmosphere. I know some consider it just a tedious interlude between the shooting, but I also know that many do not that share that view, especially not of course RPG fans.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 20 août 2010 - 03:07 .

[Solaris Paradox]

bjdbwea wrote...

Varied - perhaps. Complicated? Ha ha. It's either "shoot everything that moves" (like in most ME 1 side quests), or it's a mission "objective" that's so simple and dumb that it should belong in a game for little children.

"More" complicated. Like how a hexagon is more complicated than a triangle. I don't mean ME2's missions are "complicated," just moreso than the ones in ME1.

"And now you press a button to pick up a battery. Press the button again to feed it to a Mech. Repeat that two times more. Well done, mission completed!"

Didn't like that mission, but at least it wasn't my fifteenth visit to the same four-room warehouse.

What's that you say? It's hard to give non-shooting missions more interesting gameplay? Depth usually has to come through dialogue? Like in the Samara or Thane missions too? Indeed. And that's why the side missions in ME 1 are so much superior. We get to talk to NPCs, we get some interesting moral questions, we get decisions. And there you have your variety too.

We get to visit the same four-room warehouse for the sixteenth time, too. Don't leave that part out!

Yeah, I liked having those dialogue elements in the sidequests. Unfortunately, the quests attached to them left a LOT to be desired. And personally, given the choice between a good action level and a dialogue sequence, I'll take a good action level. Anything not to visit the blasted warehouse again.

[Lumikki]

FataliTensei wrote...

See I don't put much stock in reviewers though, I've got games they said were mediocre and enjoyed them more than games they a 9/10 to, i.e. mass effect 2.

Being honest they're no different than anyone on the forum, they just paid to spout their opinions, it's not like they have a greater understanding of videogames or are somehow superior to any other game player. They just got in the industry and hooked a job on a website or at a magazine and had a decent skill level in writing.

So while they can be a useful source sometimes, you can go to a gaming review blog or site and find more varied opinions from people who actually do it for free and because they enjoy it.

It's not about who does the reviews or what score they give. It's about how much information you can get from those review.

[Pocketgb]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...
No its because they changed it for the worse for most people except those who love shooter mechanics.

Hence why I was upset with Mass Effect 1. In Jade Empire, the only thing that was really "mainstream'd" was the combat and mechanics revolving around it. The depth of the story, the depth of the characters, and the depth of the role-playing was still top-notch.

The only thing that existed anywhere close to this was in Noveria. The rest of Mass Effect didn't follow suit: Romances felt rushed, role-playing was simply choosing between "good", "bad", or "meh" (the rest of the role-playing was already created for the player (Shepard)), and the combat and mechanics revolving around it was based nearly completely around the players' skill with shooting i.e. the least RPG thing ever. It did not help that the RPG mechanics in question had little to no depth.

Much of the changes from ME1 to ME2 are either questioningly fair trade-offs (less total abilities to use per squadmate, more squadmates in general) or don't affect the depth (removing ME1's nearly completely static gear progression). Weapon customization is possibly the only if not at least largest exception to being 'dumbed down'.

And that's my disappointment with ME2: Things didn't really change. Streamlining is great when it paves the way for more goodness, but it wasn't followed through with ME2. It's good that they cut out the useless fat, but I'm still hungry!

Then again, I don't really believe that Bioware's actually capable of making 'in-depth' systems, and for me this was proven with Dragon Age: Years in development and I get an incredibly imba and broken format with a "taunt" skill!?

[Solaris Paradox]

BioWare shouldn't be tied down to just making games about roleplay. Let them diddle around with various "degrees" of RPG as much as they like, it just means there'll be a flavor for every taste.



Personally, I find the "middle-ground" feel of the Mass Effect series refreshing. Most games I play are either full-tilt "deep"-type games or full-tilt "action" games, and when it's not one of those, it's probably a Final Fantasy game or a Legend of Zelda game. Mass Effect, and most particularly Mass Effect 2, are more in-between. Sometimes you want to spend six hours managing your inventory and sometimes you just want to kill a sucker. The Mass Effect series does both.



And to be honest, I wanted to see a shooter/RPG hybrid done properly ever since Dirge of Cerberus failed t--wait. Wait. Cerberus. That can't be a fudging coincidence. >_>

[Il Divo]

bjdbwea wrote...

So now you expect a game to equal a philosophical essay.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Every game must be a philosophy essay. You really enjoy pigeon-holing my arguments, don't you? I believe I said there are many ways to create depth in a game. Philosophical concepts are one of them. Kotor II deals with philosophical ideas through Kreia. So does Bioshock through Andrew Ryan. Neither of them are philosophy papers. Try again.
 
But of course, if I know your posts by now, you're probably going to quit and start ranting about Mass Effect 2 in some other way, like you always do instead of having an actual debate.
 

But of course that standard only applies to ME 1. ME 2 is better because it doesn't even try. Could it be that you set out to defend the game no matter what, for whatever other reasons you might have? Because if your really believe in all your nice theories, and if you measure both games by those standards, you would have to consider ME 1 to be the better game still.

Really? Objectively speaking is Mass Effect the better game? How about you actually read my posts, for a change?

Depth comes through deep concepts: something that extends beyond the surface level in some way. Perhaps its a philosophical concept or an emotion you experience or might not have previously associated with a character. It could be  a plot twist. There are any number of possibilities. 


"An emotion you experience". Mass Effect 2's loyalty missions involved depth in different ways. Some filled me with emotions, others had an interesting choice to consider. This is what I consider depth. Mass Effect's main quest has plenty of instances of depth. I felt terrible for murdering the Rachni Queen. But we're not talking about that right now.

Your claim specifically had to do with side quests and how 'deep' Mass Effect's were. So defend that claim. Show me depth. Show me how even half of them extended beyond the surface level. Show me how they force you to consider something of moral significance, how they were an exercise in critical thinking, or how they triggered some deep emotion within you. The only quest that did it for me was Jacob, the guy you find in a coma on the husk ship. Beyond that, I do not consider any Mass Effect side missions to be "deep".   

Apart from that, the spoken briefings and interactions with NPCs not only did add some depth indeed, they also added something called atmosphere. I know some consider it just a tedious interlude between the shooting, but I also know that many do not that share that view, especially not of course RPG fans.

So where is this "depth" you speak of? Please, if it exists tell me about it. Atmosphere, I understand. I love atmosphere. In fact, I demand it from my games. But you keep throwing around words which you don't seem to understand. Explain to me how it is "deep" when Admiral Hackett tells me to destroy the VI on Luna. It is surface level. Your claims that npc's create atmosphere are valid. You however also claim that Mass Effect's quests are deep. I'm an idiot. I can't understand this 'depth'. Help an idiot learn about depth. Show this idiot Mass Effect's large array of deep and meaningful side quests instead of spewing more lines about how dumbed down Mass Effect 2 is.   

Modifié par Il Divo, 20 août 2010 - 02:31 .

[Solaris Paradox]

Il Divo wrote...

So where is this "depth" you speak of? Please, if it exists tell me about it. Atmosphere, I understand. I love atmosphere. But you keep throwing around words which you don't seem to understand. Explain to me how it is "deep" when Admiral Hackett tells me to destroy the VI on Luna. It is surface level. Your claims that npc's create atmosphere are valid. You however also claim that Mass Effect's quests are deep. I'm an idiot. I can't understand this 'depth'. Help an idiot learn about depth. Show this idiot Mass Effect's large array of deep and meaningful side quests instead of spewing more lines about how dumbed down Mass Effect 2 is.   

Well, the dialogue and story elements in ME1's sidequests aren't something to scoff at. ME2 could have used some of that in the N7 missions. This being said, it makes up for the N7 missions' lack of this both by making its action missions more complex and by having those nifty Loyalty Missions (yes, these count as sidequests--sidequests which you are strongly encouraged to complete, mind you, but sidequests nonetheless). ME1's sidequests are undermined by the obscene aura of laziness that only the blatant recycling of a small handful of very basic level environments can emit. Hell, even the goddang Bring Down the Sky DLC used the dreaded Four-Room Warehouse no less than three times, albeit with more crates and the like. It's hard to immerse yourself in the intrigues of the mysterious Cerberus organization when all you're doing is revisiting the same basic labratory building with a few minor alterations, different enemies to shoot, and a few new text blurbs for story purposes. That moonbuggying over mountains to each of these locations got old after so many planets of it didn't help matters much.

[Il Divo]

Halo Quea wrote...

As usual you lay down a great argument Divo, but in the end your deep and philosophical concepts have to be PLAYABLE my friend.   Feelings and questions are nice but the gamer needs something to play.

I think that's the point bjdwea was trying to make.  You don't remove game elements and replace them with just mood and atmosphere.  That's just not enough.

And before you or anyone else misunderstands me, THIS is the only problem I have with your otherwise eloquent arguments.  The things that you love to describe as role playing elements ARE NOT  things that a gamer can play.

Wanna dump the inventory, stats, XP, customizations, side quests etc?  FINE.   But you better have more than the mood and atmosphere that Bioware provided to replace them.  You better have equal or better concepts TO PLAY than those things that you removed, or gamers will grumble about what's missing.

Well, it depends what we mean here. To be clear, when you say 'play' the game, are you referring simply to combat sequences? In Jade Empire, am I only playing the game when I fight people or run around? In a Bioware game, I consider myself playing even when talking to companions or following the main story (for example). When I'm talking to Ashley, I consider myself playing the game. In fact, I care more about that than I do blowing up some random Geth soldier.

This is exactly why I consider Heavy Rain to be such an incredible achievement. I don't consider it an rpg, but it features many ideas that I'd love to see adapted to the genre. Heavy Rain was a game which tossed aside all the stuff I really don't care about (shooting people, swinging swords, etc). Instead, the gameplay was tied entirely into the narrative. Playing the game essentially was experiencing the story. I would love it if games would progress to the point where I don't need to worry almost at all about shooting mechanics. I'm not saying every game should be Heavy Rain, but it has many concepts which can help the rpg genre evolve.  

[haberman13]

ME2's atmosphere was marred by the loading screens and other "immersion" breaking moments.



The graphics, and feeling of the levels were great, but those were only surface level; to be truly immersive and create that atmosphere we all enjoy I would argue that merging ME1's more immersive world with ME2's "new ****" combat would be the ideal.

[MrnDvlDg161]

I must say...

About 95% of what some are disappointed about ME2 came from changes made by the fans who complained from ME1. That's the funny part in my view. The whole change up of the items/menu/equipment. The Mako being taken out. The shooter part being pumped up. The condensed travel times from one section to another. The smaller level environments.

Its that whole " I need things fast and right now" factor again, gamers complaining about " painful" loading times or how something made someone bored, too much " dialogue". You can tell where the changes went, it was the influence of the FPS crowd whom thought Mass Effect 1 was a shooter. Just like when the same crowd bought Fall Out 3 and complained to no end how boring and crappy it was because they went into the game thinking it was a Shooter rather than an RPG.

I mean that's what it boils down to me. They didn't like the slow elevator scenes, they didn't like walking to places, they didn't like having to listen and pay attention to dialogue, micromanagement of weapons and upgrades were too " complicated" ( see how they fixed that?), they even cut some corners by insuring the poor impatient fans could just run through e-mails if they wanted to and saved that scary game time they otherwise would have had to invest in.

Why now I even see people who would be happy to have an add on to the ME games where you can just play the short end --- quasi-cliff note version where you can just run through  BIG decisions in case they got bored playing the game for No.3. 

Its obvious to me where the attitude and demand came from.

Modifié par MrnDvlDg161, 20 août 2010 - 02:56 .

[Il Divo]

Solaris Paradox wrote...

Well, the dialogue and story elements in ME1's sidequests aren't something to scoff at. ME2 could have used some of that in the N7 missions. This being said, it makes up for the N7 missions' lack of this both by making its action missions more complex and by having those nifty Loyalty Missions (yes, these count as sidequests--sidequests which you are strongly encouraged to complete, mind you, but sidequests nonetheless). ME1's sidequests are undermined by the obscene aura of laziness that only the blatant recycling of a small handful of very basic level environments can emit. Hell, even the goddang Bring Down the Sky DLC used the dreaded Four-Room Warehouse no less than three times, albeit with more crates and the like. It's hard to immerse yourself in the intrigues of the mysterious Cerberus organization when all you're doing is revisiting the same basic labratory building with a few minor alterations, different enemies to shoot, and a few new text blurbs for story purposes. That moonbuggying over mountains to each of these locations got old after so many planets of it didn't help matters much.

But it depends what I'm scoffing at. I agree that spoken voice overs do make the game more atmospheric. So do npcs. So do elevator conversations, decontamination, etc. But where does 'depth' come into the picture precisely? I agree that Mass Effect's side quests have a better presentation than most of Mass Effect 2's, assuming we are excluding the loyalty missions. But depth is something that transcends the surface level in some way. It might trigger a thought or an emotion. Is UNC: Geth Incursions really deeper because I have a spoken npc telling me what I need to do instead of a journal entry, or something? This is what I don't understand.

Edit: I also love your analysis of the recycled textures. Just thought I should mention that since you spend a good amount of time discussing it.

Modifié par Il Divo, 20 août 2010 - 02:59 .

[Epic777]

bjdbwea wrote...

I don't get it. You want a 20 hour long movie? You want gameplay that's nothing more than a virtual shooting range? That's supposed to be the evolution of video gaming?

It's funny you'd mention Deux Ex in that regard, because oh yes, that fantastic game (the first, non-streamlined part) did have an inventory and a combat system that combined "boring numbers" and FPS action. ME 2 can't hold water to it.

Ah Deus Ex, great game but don't kid yourself it had flaws, look at an review from the time it was not a good fps at all, combat could be clunky especially with a bad AI. Unlike the mass effect series inventory worked because you had lots of stuff to manage, more weapons, multi-tools and lockpicks,food etc. One personal dislike with Deus Ex and a is a common complaint with most rpgs the discrepancy between the highest and lowest skill is huge.

[Epic777]

MrnDvlDg161 wrote...

I must say...

About 95% of what some are disappointed about ME2 came from changes made by the fans who complained from ME1. That's the funny part in my view. The whole change up of the items/menu/equipment. The Mako being taken out. The shooter part being pumped up. The condensed travel times from one section to another. The smaller level environments.

Its that whole " I need things fast and right now" factor again, gamers complaining about " painful" loading times or how something made someone bored, too much " dialogue". You can tell where the changes went, it was the influence of the FPS crowd whom thought Mass Effect 1 was a shooter. Just like when the same crowd bought Fall Out 3 and complained to no end how boring and crappy it was because they went into the game thinking it was a Shooter rather than an RPG.

I mean that's what it boils down to me. They didn't like the slow elevator scenes, they didn't like walking to places, they didn't like having to listen and pay attention to dialogue, micromanagement of weapons and upgrades were too " complicated" ( see how they fixed that?), they even cut some corners by insuring the poor impatient fans could just run through e-mails if they wanted to and saved that scary game time they otherwise would have had to invest in.

Why now I even see people who would be happy to have an add on to the ME games where you can just play the short end --- quasi-cliff note version where you can just run through  BIG decisions in case they got bored playing the game for No.3. 

Its obvious to me where the attitude and demand came from.

they?

[MrnDvlDg161]

See when you introduce the lazy add on, the whole thing goes up in smoke. Calculated decisions because your calculated for a certain end result, so much so, playing the game is a boring thing to do where you would just want to sit in your lazy chair and press a few buttons --- then claim your up to speed. lol.



Mass Effect turned into Resistance: Fall of Man in one sitting. Its a tragedy.

[MrnDvlDg161]

Yes --- they. Them. The shooter crowd. Where a few seconds suddenly becomes tedious and a paragraph suddenly becomes a college essay in their world. You can see the imprint all over from the general complaints the RPG side submits. Its a dual Game. Action/RPG. The RPG part suffered this round for the other side.

[bjdbwea]

MrnDvlDg161 wrote...

I must say...

About 95% of what some are disappointed about ME2 came from changes made by the fans who complained from ME1. That's the funny part in my view. The whole change up of the items/menu/equipment. The Mako being taken out. The shooter part being pumped up. The condensed travel times from one section to another. The smaller level environments.

Its that whole " I need things fast and right now" factor again, gamers complaining about " painful" loading times or how something made someone bored, too much " dialogue". You can tell where the changes went, it was the influence of the FPS crowd whom thought Mass Effect 1 was a shooter. Just like when the same crowd bought Fall Out 3 and complained to no end how boring and crappy it was because they went into the game thinking it was a Shooter rather than an RPG.

I mean that's what it boils down to me. They didn't like the slow elevator scenes, they didn't like walking to places, they didn't like having to listen and pay attention to dialogue, micromanagement of weapons and upgrades were too " complicated" ( see how they fixed that?), they even cut some corners by insuring the poor impatient fans could just run through e-mails if they wanted to and saved that scary game time they otherwise would have had to invest in.

Why now I even see people who would be happy to have an add on to the ME games where you can just play the short end --- quasi-cliff note version where you can just run through  BIG decisions in case they got bored playing the game for No.3. 

Its obvious to me where the attitude and demand came from.

You're right, but with one exception: The complaints on a forum were never the reason, they were merely a convenient excuse. Besides, I doubt all that many people wanted to have exploration or interaction between the companions (like in the elevators) taken out of the game completely. As I said, the complaints were merely convenient excuses to cut features out, cut corners and as a result cut down on development time and costs.

BioWare/EA obviously figured that the people you describe are large enough in number to make them the new target audience. This audience is also much easier and quicker to please than those annoying RPG fans, so they could get away with all their changes, and even be praised for "streamlining" the way to the next round of pew-pew. Of course they figured most RPG fans would still buy any game with the name BioWare on it anyway, so it's a win-win situation. And everyone else was acceptable losses.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 20 août 2010 - 03:21 .

[Epic777]

MrnDvlDg161 wrote...

Yes --- they. Them. The shooter crowd. Where a few seconds suddenly becomes tedious and a paragraph suddenly becomes a college essay in their world. You can see the imprint all over from the general complaints the RPG side submits. Its a dual Game. Action/RPG. The RPG part suffered this round for the other side.

Who complained about about the dialogue being too long? All I remember about the me1 reviews was the complaining about the combat environments. Also would have it been better if the shooter part suffered this round for the other side.