10273 réponses à ce sujet

[bjdbwea]

Epic777 wrote...

I would lay off the conspiracy theories for the moment. Both me1 and me2 has were commercial and critical successes. me1 was received well. I doubt the mass effect developers are being controlled by an evil CEO (EA). I like RPG as much as anyone but I will not lie, RPGs like all genres need to adapt to survive. I dismiss the idea that gamers outside the RPG realm are too stupid to appreciate said genre. If the Bioshock can sell well whose story has roots in ayn rand philosophy, then proves its not impossible, even FPS games have evolved from paper thin stories with the player shooting a zombie in a corridor.

It has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. Nor did I ever say that EA was evil. It has to do with this being a business. Obviously, BioWare always existed to make money.

Yet there is a difference between making profit and making profit at whatever costs to the product. Now, I'm not saying they're there yet. After all, they could have completely transferred the ME series into yet another of the short, linear shooters that sell so well these days. They didn't do that, thankfully. But there does already seem to be an approach of decreasing development time, cutting corners, and sacrifing depth and quality.

The question of course is: Would it still be profitable at all to produce games in the way BioWare used to, taking their time, making games with a certain depth and complexity that are perhaps not so much for the mainstream? I don't know a definite answer to that, but I think it could be.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 03 septembre 2010 - 12:05 .

[Bourne Endeavor]

bjdbwea wrote...

Epic777 wrote...

I would lay off the conspiracy theories for the moment. Both me1 and me2 has were commercial and critical successes. me1 was received well. I doubt the mass effect developers are being controlled by an evil CEO (EA). I like RPG as much as anyone but I will not lie, RPGs like all genres need to adapt to survive. I dismiss the idea that gamers outside the RPG realm are too stupid to appreciate said genre. If the Bioshock can sell well whose story has roots in ayn rand philosophy, then proves its not impossible, even FPS games have evolved from paper thin stories with the player shooting a zombie in a corridor.

It has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. Nor did I ever say that EA was evil. It has to do with this being a business. Obviously, BioWare always existed to make money.

Yet there is a difference between making profit and making profit at whatever costs to the product. Now, I'm not saying they're there yet. After all, they could have completely transferred the ME series into yet another of the short, linear shooters that sell so well these days. They didn't do that, thankfully. But there does already seem to be an approach of decreasing development time, cutting corners, and sacrifing depth and quality.

The question of course is: Would it still be profitable at all to produce games in the way BioWare used to, taking their time, making games with a certain depth and complexity that are perhaps not so much for the mainstream? I don't know a definite answer to that, but I think it could be.

It should be possible, given Final Fantasy XIII sold over five million copies world wide. Now say whatever you will in regards to JRPG, there was heavy criticism lobbied at FFXIII for its remarkable linearity, horrendous restriction on players and overabundance of cut scenes in addition to more preference complaints such as VA, story and what have you. The game still sold well and the fanbase has been on the fence since FFXI. If a Final Fantasy could sell then I imagine a roleplaying game under Bioware's thumb could do so without complication. They have been known and loved for well thought out and complex story depth, if even the initial basis of their storylines run into cliches.

I suppose it comes down to whether or not they realize that or simply continue to drive home that FPS titles are the future of gaming. Frankly it will be a grim future for many gamers if all we have to look forward to is generic rehashings of FPS games.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 03 septembre 2010 - 12:15 .

[Epic777]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

Epic777 wrote...

I would lay off the conspiracy theories for the moment. Both me1 and me2 has were commercial and critical successes. me1 was received well. I doubt the mass effect developers are being controlled by an evil CEO (EA). I like RPG as much as anyone but I will not lie, RPGs like all genres need to adapt to survive. I dismiss the idea that gamers outside the RPG realm are too stupid to appreciate said genre. If the Bioshock can sell well whose story has roots in ayn rand philosophy, then proves its not impossible, even FPS games have evolved from paper thin stories with the player shooting a zombie in a corridor.

It has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. Nor did I ever say that EA was evil. It has to do with this being a business. Obviously, BioWare always existed to make money.

Yet there is a difference between making profit and making profit at whatever costs to the product. Now, I'm not saying they're there yet. After all, they could have completely transferred the ME series into yet another of the short, linear shooters that sell so well these days. They didn't do that, thankfully. But there does already seem to be an approach of decreasing development time, cutting corners, and sacrifing depth and quality.

The question of course is: Would it still be profitable at all to produce games in the way BioWare used to, taking their time, making games with a certain depth and complexity that are perhaps not so much for the mainstream? I don't know a definite answer to that, but I think it could be.

It should be possible, given Final Fantasy XIII sold over five million copies world wide. Now say whatever you will in regards to JRPG, there was heavy criticism lobbied at FFXIII for its remarkable linearity, horrendous restriction on players and overabundance of cut scenes in addition to more preference complaints such as VA, story and what have you. The game still sold well and the fanbase has been on the fence since FFXI. If a Final Fantasy could sell then I imagine a roleplaying game under Bioware's thumb could do so without complication. They have been known and loved for well thought out and complex story depth, if even the initial basis of their storylines run into cliches.

I suppose it comes down to whether or not they realize that or simply continue to drive home that FPS titles are the future of gaming. Frankly it will be a grim future for many gamers if all we have to look forward to is generic rehashings of FPS games.

Who complained FFXIII was too linear?.......the gaming media (They are not as anti RPG as people make them out to be). I fear the day RPGs don't evolve and fade following adventure games and WWII FPS or worse BG clones....Why is it in RPGs there is a morality system? Does  it work? Do we need it? These are the questions the RPGs need to ask to develop. Also not bow down to old classics and praise them for what they never had but analyze them carefully. Notice Deus Ex the player progresses the game linearly. You go to NY, China, etc. You just go, the player never chooses even the order on his/her progression. Same with Planecape, the player never chooses where to go. In KOTOR and ME a player chooses which order of planets they want to go to. You can recruit  liara after noveria for example.

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

FataliTensei wrote...

I think you missed the point all together

I may
not have caught on to who Terror was replying to (if anyone) but
Bioware's 'gameplay' part of their games has always left a lot to be
desired.

That's a matter of opinion. I was perfectly happy with the gameplay of Baldur's Gate 2, NWN, KotOR and Dragon Age: Origins. Jade Empire and ME1 were okay-ish. ME2 was a horrible failure.

Regarding other comments, I don't think in any way that BioWare took the series in the right direction at all. I just can't see how making the game more of a shooter and reducing the complexity mechanics to make them work simply through oversimplification is a good move. It's kind of backwards in a world where action and shooter titles are getting more RPG aspects that BioWare should make an RPG more of an action/shooter game. All that's going to result in is more of the same brown mush that games seem to be heading towards, where everything is the same hybrid instead of being well-defined and original.

It amuses me when people say that BioWare should "get with the times" and consider leaving classic RPG tropes and mechanics behind as being "innovation" when all they're replacing them with are even more tired, overused and old-fashioned shooter ones. I just can't see how that's moving the genre forward at all. It's only doing so because that's what the mainstream audience of gamers today wants. That's not making it original at all, it's making it the same as everything else because that's where the money is.

I'll admit that certain aspects regarding ME2's changes were steps in the right direction, but in almost every case they went too far and overcompensated for the problems to the point of removing any semblance of depth at all. On top of it all the whole thing is presented in a rather juvenile manner to cover up any RPG elements it can that are left, coming across as a sort of "Fisher Price: My First RPG" deal. I'll admit that Mass Effect never suited the whole D&D treatment, but nor does it suit the Gears of War treatment either. As it stands the game is barely any more of an RPG than something like Hitman: Blood Money or Batman: Arkham Asylum are (and even the former has better customisation and upgrading than ME2 did).

I think part of the problem is that developers these days look at the big sellers (Halo, Gears of War, CoD, etc.) and see that this is where the money is, and try to make more games like that rather than making something that suits what they're going for. I think there's also a big misconception that the RPG audience isn't out there when it is, thanks largely to this same market. So either they know there's a market out there for RPGs and are ignoring it in favour of the masses or they are under the false impression that all gamers just want simplicity and that's it.

Also, for the record, I personally found ME2's writing and story mostly acceptable. I do think there was a lack of focus and the story itself was kind of trite overall, but I found the writing within more than decent (kind of like how the main story of DAO was rather trite, but the quality of the narrative and stories within more than made up for it). It went a bit "Modern Hollywood" here and there, but beyond that was mostly fine, IMO. So it's not the main issue I have, and even if the story was better it wouldn't be enough for me to not see the issues with ME2's gameplay and be disappointed by them. As far as I'm concered pretty much every element of ME1 could have worked and fit in with what Mass Effect is trying to achieve as long as it had been implemented properly. Just look at Ecael's threads and you can see right away several good examples and ideas that bring more depth to the table while suiting the Mass Effect universe and style. ME1 was admittedly flawed to a great degree, but at least it tried. ME2 just went for the easy answers and decided to go for the simplest answer possible.

And regarding them not having enough time to properly polish and make the game work, I agree and also disagree. While ME2 definitely feels like it could have done with a couple more months in the oven, there's also that overall uneven style and polish to it that I feel best suits the term "schizophrenic" in that there are many aspects that I'd consider important that were really lacking in depth and polish, while other elements that aren't really that important seemed to get loads of polish. Which is kind of why I never understand it when people say that ME2 felt like a more polished game, because to me it seemed like BioWare's laziest and more unpolished and "shoved out the door" effort yet. The gameplay itself was admittedly tighter, but everything else was all over the place in terms of how connected and polished it felt. In a way ME2 feels like Frankenstein's monster with body parts of varying degrees of functionality and success.

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...
That's a matter of opinion.

It also depends on what you put emphasis on. On paper the systems are rather intriguing. But JE, ME1 + 2 all contain shallow depth while DA:O has little to no grasp on balance. KotOR was probably the best they got after the BG series and even then it was pretty much the D20 system.

Terror_K wrote...
Regarding other comments, I don't think in any way that BioWare took the series in the right direction at all.

I agree. I thought attempting to meld shooter + RPG gameplay was a terrible idea from the start. I still think it's a terrible idea, I just find it more bearable in ME2.

Terror_K wrote...
I'll admit that Mass Effect never suited the whole D&D treatment, but nor does it suit the Gears of War treatment either. As it stands the game is barely any more of an RPG than something like Hitman: Blood Money or Batman: Arkham Asylum are (and even the former has better customisation and upgrading than ME2 did).

You're starting to see how I view Bioware's mechanics as a whole, this is good, because compared to games that put sole emphasis on the mechanics Bioware look like they flat-out fail. If that's all that there was in a Bioware game they wouldn't be even *near* as successful as they are now.

Terror_K wrote...
I think there's also a big misconception that the RPG audience isn't out there when it is, thanks largely to this same market.

Yeah, where's *that* misconception come from? Final Fantasy, World of Warcraft, Pokemon. All RPGs that got to where they are by being RPGs. Plus Bioware need only look at the sales for their own game - Dragon Age - to see that RPGs can sell as long as they're good.

Terror_K wrote...
And regarding them not having enough time to properly polish and make the game work, I agree and also disagree. While ME2 definitely feels like it could have done with a couple more months in the oven, there's also that overall uneven style and polish to it that I feel best suits the term "schizophrenic" in that there are many aspects that I'd consider important that were really lacking in depth and polish, while other elements that aren't really that important seemed to get loads of polish. Which is kind of why I never understand it when people say that ME2 felt like a more polished game, because to me it seemed like BioWare's laziest and more unpolished and "shoved out the door" effort yet. The gameplay itself was admittedly tighter, but everything else was all over the place in terms of how connected and polished it felt. In a way ME2 feels like Frankenstein's monster with body parts of varying degrees of functionality and success.

The least you could've done was bring out just one example and explain why it is indeed "schizophrenic". Instead you've given us a wall of text.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 03 septembre 2010 - 05:30 .

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
And regarding them not having enough time to properly polish and make the game work, I agree and also disagree. While ME2 definitely feels like it could have done with a couple more months in the oven, there's also that overall uneven style and polish to it that I feel best suits the term "schizophrenic" in that there are many aspects that I'd consider important that were really lacking in depth and polish, while other elements that aren't really that important seemed to get loads of polish. Which is kind of why I never understand it when people say that ME2 felt like a more polished game, because to me it seemed like BioWare's laziest and more unpolished and "shoved out the door" effort yet. The gameplay itself was admittedly tighter, but everything else was all over the place in terms of how connected and polished it felt. In a way ME2 feels like Frankenstein's monster with body parts of varying degrees of functionality and success.

The least you could've done was bring out just one example and explain why it is indeed "schizophrenic". Instead you've given us a wall of text.

I'll use the example I most often use when referring to this: the fact that there's so much effort that's been put into being able to customise your quarters aboard The Normandy with fish and ships and space hamsters, etc. while we have sidequests where a silent Shepard is sent places via emails and runs around collecting datapads. The former is extremely polished but (while admittedly cool and fun) essentially pointless, while the latter is something that feels slapped on with almost no polish. Add to that the lazily-programmed PC version with poor control allocation (i.e. take cover, leap over cover, run and activate/interact all being assigned to a single key, no quick-keys for codex, journal, map, etc.) and the overall lack of squadmate interaction, as well as true consequences for import stuff (as well as completely broken import stuff). Meanwhile they have time to give Joker a dozen different things to day while you stand still in the cockpit, as well as programming Legion to do "The Robot" in the A.I. core. All these extra-polished things are neat and great, but there were more important things that were simply lacking.

[lazuli]

Terror_K wrote...
Add to that the lazily-programmed PC version with poor control allocation (i.e. take cover, leap over cover, run and activate/interact all being assigned to a single key...)

I'd like to add here that it's the same on the xbox.  "A" handles all of the tasks described above, and that's pretty standard for games with similarly structured combat.  It was roughly the same in Mass Effect 1 with the notable difference of taking cover being bound to clicking the left thumbstick or pressing yourself into it by moving.  I can't tell you how many times I failed to sprint and instead closed the door I was trying to pass through in ME1.  This doesn't really happen in ME2, though I'd say that's more due to level layout than anything else.

[Terror_K]

lazuli wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
Add to that the lazily-programmed PC version with poor control allocation (i.e. take cover, leap over cover, run and activate/interact all being assigned to a single key...)

I'd like to add here that it's the same on the xbox.  "A" handles all of the tasks described above, and that's pretty standard for games with similarly structured combat.  It was roughly the same in Mass Effect 1 with the notable difference of taking cover being bound to clicking the left thumbstick or pressing yourself into it by moving.  I can't tell you how many times I failed to sprint and instead closed the door I was trying to pass through in ME1.  This doesn't really happen in ME2, though I'd say that's more due to level layout than anything else.

It's more understandable on a console version since you have a more limited set of buttons. A PC version should have been done better. Run + Interact is my most hated one, since it was never that way with ME1 on the PC. That and trying to get into cover after being knocked out and accidentally vaulting over it because in desperation you pressed it one too many times.

[Pacifien]

Okay, the vaulting with the press of the same key must be annoying. At least there's two elements to that with the XBox. But I do envy the ability to hotkey more than 3 powers for Shepard and 1 power per squadmate. Watching gameplay videos where they never have to pause the game as they run through the battlefield makes me jealous.

[bzurn]

I always hope that someday they would take the small amount of time to patch the PC version of the game to include the same mappable keys as ME1 had. Playing a solider in ME2 involves a lot of pausing if you are going to maximize your potential and use all of the weapons available depending on your position and the type of opponent you are facing. In ME1 all I need to do is press F1-F4 to change out my weapons, keeping the game very fluid.

[Heldelance]

I love both the games but found some parts which could be changed on each one.

+ Travel/Exploration. The planet scanning / mako, I disliked both singularly, combined, it would be rather awesome. Think about it, the scanner locates points of interest, with the accuracy being varied depending on the upgrades. When you scan, you locate say a mine, if you've got a lv1 scanner, it's going to give you a vague idea of where it is making you have to search a bigger area with the vehicle.



+ The weapons and armor. Again, I like both realms but I prefer ME1's system more. I loved upgrading stuff and having a plethora of items. The Ammo system peeved me off, what could have been done is meld both. Like this: Same as ME1, the weapon overheats. Once it overheats, you can wait for it to cool off, or if it's an emergency, have the ME2 system, eject the heatsink and reload a cool one.



+ Gameplay. I absolutely disliked ME2's "Mission" system. Every time you accomplished something, say recruiting someone, it completes as a singular mission. This is VERY disruptive to the flow, it's very disjointed and makes it feel more like a Japanese RPG.



+ Controls. Seriously, we're PC gamers here. PC!!!(pretend it's in bold and size 40). We have an ENTIRE keyboard. Would it kill you to revert to ME1's control set and expand it?



+ Design. We have BETTER hardware (mostly). Design it FOR THE PC then port it to a console. Doing it the other way around is like trying to get Barney the Dinosaur to an adult audience. It's still pretty retarded.



Other than that, there's only a few other minor beefs, mostly glitches like the one where you sometimes float.

All in all, I love the series and hope ME3 is built for PC owners first then downsized.

[Kavadas]

Pocketgb wrote...
...Bioware's 'gameplay' part of their games has always left a lot to be desired.

Very, very, true.  I'd go so far as to argue that basic gameplay is easily Bioware's weakest development area.

[bjdbwea]

bzurn wrote...

I always hope that someday they would take the small amount of time to patch the PC version of the game to include the same mappable keys as ME1 had. Playing a solider in ME2 involves a lot of pausing if you are going to maximize your potential and use all of the weapons available depending on your position and the type of opponent you are facing. In ME1 all I need to do is press F1-F4 to change out my weapons, keeping the game very fluid.

I agree. It's one thing that most games are developed primarily with consoles in mind these days. But at least they could properly adapt the controls to keyboard and mouse when developing the PC version. It's not that much additional work. It's worse enough that many other developers don't care, but I really expected better from BioWare. Now, perhaps the game had to be pushed out of the door and there wasn't enough time for polishing anymore. It would not be an excuse, but an explanation. But then deliver a patch, instead of ignoring the problem. But with this approach of simply ignoring the problems, it almost wouldn't suprise me if they put the same control scheme into ME 3.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 03 septembre 2010 - 09:54 .

[zakahir]

removal of skills, oh god that upset me, also didn't like the fact i couldn't make the decisions *i wanted* to make because i knew if i did i couldn't actually keep everyones loyalty.  especially since i'm a person who does everything before doing the suicide mission i'd be upper 20's easy and i had to basically be all para/rena with helmet to deal with some of the fights that happened.  really upset me.  give me back my charm and intimidate skills dang it.

i don't mind adding in different types of weapons, but i'd still like the ability to get better versions of them, the armour system was terrible i thought.  also didn't like the ammo system , ruined the fluff that was already there, and seemed to catter to the fps crowd, something i don't like.

exploration was jack, zero and well...you know.

it seemed they went more away from the actual science that they used in the first game.

Dear god is there a way i can kill both ashley and kaiden?  they both deserve it for what they pulled, made me hate both characters so much.  i mean i hated ashley because she killed **** in my first game but how they talked to you just....didn't make sense.  it was like a kid who says his life is worse then yours woe is me pity party yey and that's about it.

Mining system...volcano throw it inside said volcano

really it was just too many flubs that screwed up the successes.

so here's what i'd like done in the next game
1) Bring back Charm + Intimidate and keep interrupts those were cool
2) Keep the different type of weapons, bring back different versions of guns and armour, this might be a little more difficult but i'd love it, to me there's nothing better then getting a better piece of gear to replace some one, or actually sitting there doing the number crunching, it's fun.  also bring back the item upgrades
3)  Exploration, it's not something to be scared of bring it back./
4) keep in mind the fluff you had already set up, and get rid of the ammo system, or at least have the choice to if you over load your heat sink have the choice of switching it out, or waiting for it to cool down.
5)  Better conversations i guess, don't make them...so emo, yeah they can feel betrayed but don't go overboard at least let you try and sway them to the point they go "yeah that makes some sense, let me go make a report and think on it" or something not such hostiliaty that it poisons you against them.
6)  Just tell the mining system to go straight the garbage, it sucked so much i wanted to drink myself to death just so i wouldn't remember doing it.

[Lumikki]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

This here is something Bioware should read, reread, glance over a third time, absorb every single word and read through once more. It is the basis of the shooter mindset. They do not desire the length of depth and dialogue that we RPGers yearn for. To them it is an impediment to gameplay, a design flaw. They wish for quick paced action, trigger happy gun flair and a quick storyline, riddled with horrendous cliches and stereotypes just so long as it is complying enough to warrant attention. ME2 is not remotely at the level of Call of Duty, Gears of War and etc however it is approaching that direction unless Bioware grabs the clutch and pulls fast to turn this flagship around.

ME2 was definitely a good attempt at branching into a different area and at the core the gameplay is thorughly entertaining. As I have said previously, if they offer more customization and open up the skill section again, this will be a truly rewardinng experience. What they have to accept is they will never appeal to the FPS crowd unless the RPG elements are stripped away completely. There are certainly a large variety of hybrid gamers - I myself was a huge Halo fan back with Halo 2 - however we are generally the exception, not the norm. Example, my cousin raves about CoD, yet when I mentioned ME2 the first words out of his mouth was "too much talking."

If Bioware progresses further into the FPS scene they are in immediate danger of alienating their original fanbase and still not appealing to the FPS crowd. They would be better suited doing a turn around and giving to the RPG crowd and make a seperate Mass Effect title for the shooter fans, if there desire is to lure them over. You know, a spin off game that is just combat, just battling. Make it about the Rachni wars or Krogan rebellion for all I care. They need to focus on one direction for the main series and unless they are prepared to completely trash the dialogue, it is wasteful to push ahead for the FPS group because ME2 is as close as it will get.

Some comment about this. When I have been mmorpg forums, there is allways "war" between PvP and PvE players. Like game has to be PvE or PvP. Same here with RPG or FPS. When you people wake up that world isn't so black and white, there is alot of people between these extreme players. People who like both playing styles equal much and don't require that game has to be just one way or other. Why does ME2 have to be RPG or FPS, why can't it be it's own type, something in the middle.

ME2 isn't design for extreme RPG or FPS fans.

Modifié par Lumikki, 03 septembre 2010 - 11:29 .

[zakahir]

Lumikki wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

This here is something Bioware should read, reread, glance over a third time, absorb every single word and read through once more. It is the basis of the shooter mindset. They do not desire the length of depth and dialogue that we RPGers yearn for. To them it is an impediment to gameplay, a design flaw. They wish for quick paced action, trigger happy gun flair and a quick storyline, riddled with horrendous cliches and stereotypes just so long as it is complying enough to warrant attention. ME2 is not remotely at the level of Call of Duty, Gears of War and etc however it is approaching that direction unless Bioware grabs the clutch and pulls fast to turn this flagship around.

ME2 was definitely a good attempt at branching into a different area and at the core the gameplay is thorughly entertaining. As I have said previously, if they offer more customization and open up the skill section again, this will be a truly rewardinng experience. What they have to accept is they will never appeal to the FPS crowd unless the RPG elements are stripped away completely. There are certainly a large variety of hybrid gamers - I myself was a huge Halo fan back with Halo 2 - however we are generally the exception, not the norm. Example, my cousin raves about CoD, yet when I mentioned ME2 the first words out of his mouth was "too much talking."

If Bioware progresses further into the FPS scene they are in immediate danger of alienating their original fanbase and still not appealing to the FPS crowd. They would be better suited doing a turn around and giving to the RPG crowd and make a seperate Mass Effect title for the shooter fans, if there desire is to lure them over. You know, a spin off game that is just combat, just battling. Make it about the Rachni wars or Krogan rebellion for all I care. They need to focus on one direction for the main series and unless they are prepared to completely trash the dialogue, it is wasteful to push ahead for the FPS group because ME2 is as close as it will get.

Some comment about this. When I have been mmorpg forums, there is allways "war" between PvP and PvE players. Like game has to be PvE or PvP. Same here with RPG or FPS. When you people wake up that world isn't so black and white, there is alot of people between these extreme players. People who like both playing styles equal much and don't require that game has to be just one way or other. Why does ME2 have to be RPG or FPS, why can't it be it's own type, something in the middle.

ME2 isn't design for extreme RPG or FPS fans.

big reason on mmo forums is this.  It's a balance issue, in pve at higher levels you will fight bosses that will have 100 times to 1000 times more health/mana then you, and when you are doing a group against them , you have to do more damage, but when you go to pvp that same spell that hardly did anything against that big pve boss, just one shot someone of your same level(big reason why is they don't seem to do two codes one for pvp and one for pve) and so they have to start interducing stupid stats that are only there for one expansion and is then gone.

[Lumikki]

Yes, but my point is that those issues are for players who are in extreme positions. People who are in middle don't care those issues so much, because they understand need of compromise, if it allows them to enjoy full ways of the game with nice working features, not necassary best working details. It's like if you go one way too much, other side allways suffers. If you are extreme position, you don't want something in what you don't like. How ever there are people who are in middle, they don't need best possible FPS or RPG to make they gameplay good.

Who says ME2 is for extreme RPG's or FPS'ers. There is other players in world too.

Modifié par Lumikki, 03 septembre 2010 - 01:23 .

[bjdbwea]

Lumikki wrote...

ME2 isn't design for extreme RPG or FPS fans.

Yeah, but the shooter fans were catered to very much this time. Only that they obviously still didn't buy the game in as large numbers as BioWare/EA no doubt hoped. So what conclusion to draw from that? "Streamline" ME 3 even more, so that it's in effect really nothing more than another shooter? A shooter that will probably still not work as well as the shooters from developers who are experts in developing shooters? Or perhaps concentrate more on the players that they know will want to buy the game, because there are so few good RPGs available each year?

Modifié par bjdbwea, 03 septembre 2010 - 01:20 .

[Terror_K]

bjdbwea wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

ME2 isn't design for extreme RPG or FPS fans.

Yeah, but the shooter fans were catered to very much this time. Only that they obviously still didn't buy the game in as large numbers as BioWare/EA no doubt hoped. So what conclusion to draw from that? "Streamline" ME 3 even more, so that it's in effect really nothing more than another shooter? A shooter that will probably still not work as well as the shooters from developers who are experts in developing shooters? Or perhaps concentrate more on the players that they know will want to buy the game, because there are so few good RPGs available each year?

It should be the latter. Sadly it'll likely be the former. In either case, ME1 got the balance far closer to the middle-ground, even if the mechanics were questionable. ME2 was far too tipped on the TPS side of things.

[bjdbwea]

Terror_K wrote...

It should be the latter. Sadly it'll likely be the former. In either case, ME1 got the balance far closer to the middle-ground, even if the mechanics were questionable. ME2 was far too tipped on the TPS side of things.

I agree, ME 1 had a much better balance. The shooter fans that can accept a good story, choices and RPG elements in a game had no reason not to buy it. And those who didn't, apparently still mostly ignored ME 2. So the sales numbers of ME 1 and ME 2 seem to be about the numbers you can get with a game like this. It's sad that some mindless games sell better than good quality games created with a lot of effort and dedication, but what can you do. What's important is that, for all we know, ME 1 still made a profit. So what's wrong with continuing to create games like that? If you can make a profit without having to sacrifice everything you once stood for, that's a pretty good thing, I would say.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 03 septembre 2010 - 01:57 .

[lazuli]

Terror_K wrote...
That and trying to get into cover after being knocked out and accidentally vaulting over it because in desperation you pressed it one too many times.

I've done that a few times.  Honestly, though, I don't mind that one button governs all of the cover functions.  That's probably because the first game with cover in it that I played was Gears of War, and the systems are very similar.  And I am thankful that I still have access to the power wheel when Shepard is reeling.  The closest ME1 equivalent to the reeling motion was the dreaded ragdoll.  It would, more often than not, lead to a chain of subsequent ragdolls and then death because I couldn't order my squadmates to use their powers to cover me.  Not fun.  I'm glad they addressed that.

[Lumikki]

bjdbwea wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

It should be the latter. Sadly it'll likely be the former. In either case, ME1 got the balance far closer to the middle-ground, even if the mechanics were questionable. ME2 was far too tipped on the TPS side of things.

I agree, ME 1 had a much better balance.

Depends who's looking at it and what's wanted. Also who say the balance is looked between RPG and TPS, as what game developers are looking. Lets bring other attributes in the table, maybe they want ME serie to be more adventure game than RPG? So, maybe it's balance between TPS and adventure game they look. My point it all depends who's looking and what.

Modifié par Lumikki, 03 septembre 2010 - 02:09 .

[kinedave]

At this point in both their lifecycles, Mass Effect 2 has the higher number of sales.



Mass Effect 2 has higher ratings on Metacritic from both the public and critics.



Mass Effect 2 has a better average rating on both Amazon.co.uk and Amazon.com.



Checking Amazon.co.uk's historical sales, it looks like ME1 only ranks as the 53rd highest seller in the entire month of November 2007, when it was released.



At the moment, ME2 stands at number 8 for the whole of 2010 to date.



In the US, Amazon.com has it as the 19th bestseller in the whole of 2010 so far, while ME1 is the 48th bestseller for the whole of 2007.



It will be interesting to see where ME2 stands when the last quarter of the year is over, but, at this point on Amazon, discounting outside factors, it looks like it will perform better.

[Xeranx]

You know, I don't want to be confrontational (and keep in mind that there's no malice here), but I have to say that for weeks I've been wondering what the point of downing Bioware's other works had anything to do with people comparing ME2 to ME.  For so long people that expressed disappointment in ME2 were labled haters.  They were scoffed at, and belittled (heavily in this thread I would say).  And a few people on the other side made mention that Bioware has continuously gotten worse as time went on as though that had any real merit in terms of comparing two like items or what is supposed to be two like items.

I feel that all that has led me to look at the following as some kind victory for those who called people like Terror_K and such ME2 haters.

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
I'll admit that Mass Effect never suited the whole D&D treatment, but nor does it suit the Gears of War treatment either. As it stands the game is barely any more of an RPG than something like Hitman: Blood Money or Batman: Arkham Asylum are (and even the former has better customisation and upgrading than ME2 did).

You're starting to see how I view Bioware's mechanics as a whole, this is good, because compared to games that put sole emphasis on the mechanics Bioware look like they flat-out fail. If that's all that there was in a Bioware game they wouldn't be even *near* as successful as they are now.

Now, the other side: the side you belong to were called Bioware apolgists.  I know it's not great.  It makes you look like they think of you as a bunch of airheads, but I don't think the title of apologist would fit you and those like you considering the sweeping remarks made to Biowares other games.  

It made me scratch my head to see people come out and blast people like Iakus, Terror_k, Smudboy yet not take issue with anyone who made any statement that Bioware has been poor in many respects to their gaming franchises.  I would ask who exactly is the hater.  One person says this piece isn't as good as the piece it's based on and that person is told none of the pieces are as good as the pieces that came before.  That doesn't sound like focusing on the discussion, but more like forcing your own agenda.

Now, again, there's no malice here and I don't bring this up to be confrontational.  I also don't bring this up to say that you can't say that the Mass Effect franchise isn't as good as the games that came before it.  I bring this up because I've been wondering what is the goal of anyone who brings Bioware's whole catalog into a thread titled "Disappoint With Mass Effect 2? An Open Discussion", whose premise is the discussion of ME2 which will have it compared to ME because its supposed to be its sequel,  and downs their whole catalog since BG2 (I think it was said that was the best Bioware's done)? 

[nelly21]

I find it fascinating how the ME 2 haters have now turned on each other and are arguing to what extent they hate ME 2.



This my friends is workplace entertainment at its zenith.