10273 réponses à ce sujet

[DenisLaMinaccia]

NewMessageN00b wrote...

Majority vs minority... With that kind of marketing, it's better to have no marketing at all.

This is a perfect song about ME2 devs

Modifié par DenisLaMinaccia, 19 septembre 2010 - 09:37 .

[Code_R]

I really hope someone is paying attention to Terror_K

[Iakus]

Lumikki wrote...

Just one think I noticed, it's not bad taste to have different taste. Like some likes comedy while some other like sci-fi movies. It's just taste, like red or blue. Also saying word quality doens't mean same to all, like Shakespeare. If someone sayes game is like shakespeare, I would try to avoid that game like hell. We all have different taste and liking, nothing bad to have different liking.

True enough.  But I think it's less about taste and more about expectations.  I like comedies and I like science fiction.  But a series must remain consistent.  I would not expect Terry Pratchett to be able to write an Honor Harrington novel any more than I'd expect David Weber to write a Discworld story.  Readers would find this extremely jarring, and rightfully so.

You read a book, and the characters act a certain way.    You expect them to act similarly in the sequel, or, if they act differently, the reason for the difference is a driving part of the story.   Organizations are similar.  Technology too.  SWcience fiction does not mean "fantasy with gun-shaped wands"  What is and is not possible needs to be firmly established, or what's the point in calling it science fiction?  Maybe some people can overlook inconsistencies like that.  But I can't.  I don't know if that's "taste" or not, but there you go.

I used the Shakespeare term simply because Shakespeare is a classic writer of timeless stories.  I do not expect the tale of Mass Effect 1 to be read by students 400 years from know.  But the story is (to me) a masterpiece in comparison to ME 2.

[Iakus]

[quote]LordPennlocke wrote...

@All these people complaining about the flaws: You pretty much voiced all of your frustrations with the game, humanity isn't perfect (thus things humanity produces aren't perfect). We get that you don't like ME2, but many people do. I'm sorry, but the majority > minority in a stable society. Overall, ME2 was just as epic a game as ME1, sales and reviews prove that. Sure it had it's flaws, but the MAJORITY of people enjoyed this game regardless of the issues you voice. Yes, the story wasn't as epic as ME1's, but other elements made it enjoyable for me to overlook that.[/quote]

I know this isn't what you meant, but I can't resist:  Tyranny of the majority 

[/quote]
Yes, times are changing, and with that, trends are as well. It's just something that has to be expected, 2010 is a totally different time from the 90s, where RPGs flourished. This has been the decade for shooters, but in the next 10-20 years, another genre may very well force shooters into the backseat. I enjoy the RPG element as much as those who are voicing their complaints, but that's no reason to criticize others or try to force your 'opinions' on those who enjoy the game.[/quote]

Bioware is renowned fro making RPGs.  When I buy a bioware game, I know (assume) I am getting an rpg.  I have nothing against shooters or shooting, but just because this is the "decade of the shooters", whatever that means, doesn't mean I 'm going to sit back and enjoy rpg elements.  I enjoy RPGs. Action and consequences, deep consistent, and shapable  stories, customized characters,  NPCs with personality.  If I thinik Bioware's heading down the Dar Side, I'll spek up about it.
 
[quote]
For example: "But I really do not buy into the idea that I'm the one with bad taste. Since this would mean that every game Bioware has made up until now was bad."

The arrogance in that sentence is astounding, who are you to say that and make it seem like the MAJORITY is wrong?[/quote]

I said that because every single Bioware Game that has come out in the last decade (the "decade of shooters") has been thoroughly enjoyed by Yours Truly. Except ME 2 This was a halfhearted attempt at humor that, since I must have bad taste for not enjoying it, perhaps it is actually a good game and all the others (including two Game of the Year winners) are bad.  Apologies for the bad joke.
 
[quote]
I know both common sense/free thinking are rare nowadays, but just because you disagree with something doesn't mean that others have opinions as strong (or as 'valid') as yours. Just because one likes something that everyone else does, doesn't make them mindless sheep that just go along with everything that looks or seems cool. [/quote]

Yeah!

Oh, wait, you're talking to me, aren't you? 


{quote]
I'll say this again: The majority's interests always trumps the minority. Deal with it and move on. [/quote]

I wonder, if ME 3 sees a 15-20% drop in sales from ME 2, if the response will be "well, the majority liked it"

[sevach]

I've been criticising ME2 here for a long time, mainly for its repetitiviness with the recruitment and loyalty.

But after LOTSB i can't do it anymore, it's everything i wanted, variety, conversations, story, unique bosses, you name it, it's there.
  I hope ME3 follows this model for their missions.

If i must nitpick, and i do  ,  i dislike the cinematic conversations where everything is an interrupt, interrupts here and there are cool, but that was a bit overdone, i'm old school and still prefer to choose my answers on most occasions. But that's not enough to make me complain 

[Xeranx]

LordPennlocke wrote...

@All these people complaining about the flaws: You pretty much voiced all of your frustrations with the game, humanity isn't perfect (thus things humanity produces aren't perfect). We get that you don't like ME2, but many people do. I'm sorry, but the majority > minority in a stable society. Overall, ME2 was just as epic a game as ME1, sales and reviews prove that. Sure it had it's flaws, but the MAJORITY of people enjoyed this game regardless of the issues you voice. Yes, the story wasn't as epic as ME1's, but other elements made it enjoyable for me to overlook that.

Yes, times are changing, and with that, trends are as well. It's just something that has to be expected, 2010 is a totally different time from the 90s, where RPGs flourished. This has been the decade for shooters, but in the next 10-20 years, another genre may very well force shooters into the backseat. I enjoy the RPG element as much as those who are voicing their complaints, but that's no reason to criticize others or try to force your 'opinions' on those who enjoy the game. For example: "But I really do not buy into the idea that I'm the one with bad taste. Since this would mean that every game Bioware has made up until now was bad."

The arrogance in that sentence is astounding, who are you to say that and make it seem like the MAJORITY is wrong? I know both common sense/free thinking are rare nowadays, but just because you disagree with something doesn't mean that others have opinions as strong (or as 'valid') as yours. Just because one likes something that everyone else does, doesn't make them mindless sheep that just go along with everything that looks or seems cool.

I'll say this again: The majority's interests always trumps the minority. Deal with it and move on.

Considering "Roughly 50% of the people who started Mass Effect 2 finished the game" I'm wondering if there actually is a majority that like ME2 some people like to state.

The game sold 1.6 million (I think that's the number that's agreed upon).  Metacritic (last I saw it posted) registered 8000 users who proclaimed the game was the best thing ever.  

My issue with people stating that the majority like ME2 began after I saw the metacritic number considering how small of a percentage that is of total sales.  If I did my math right that's .005 of a percent or .005% out of 100%.  That leaves 99.995% of consumers who probably haven't voiced their praise or made any complaints. Compound that with the above stats Bioware released and I'm thinking that making such a statement as "the majority likes it" is more a case of wishful thinking than it is concrete fact.  In my opinion, If more than half of the people who started a game finished it they would have said "more than half" or "more than 50%"....not "roughly 50%".  

As far as ME2 being a success, I always wondered how someone could qualify any piece of software as a complete success based on the sales made considering it's a well-held idea that software cannot be returned (at the very least it can't be returned to the place of purchase or you sell it back to places like gamestop) and the software that people are clamoring about has a prequel.  My contention is that sales of a project based on its prequel suggests the success of the prequel and not on the project itself.  In other words, what the sales of ME2 tell me is ME1 was decently if not well received.  If we are to take ME2 sales as an indication of how good ME2 is then we would have to believe that people pirated it before it was released.  If that's the case I would say that ME2 is deservedly worthy of the praise receieved if 1.6 million people downloaded the game, played it, and then purchased a copy.

[FouCapitan]

Xeranx wrote...

If I did my math right that's .005 of a percent or .005% out of 100%.  That leaves 99.995% of consumers who probably haven't voiced their praise or made any complaints. Compound that with the above stats Bioware released and I'm thinking that making such a statement as "the majority likes it" is more a case of wishful thinking than it is concrete fact.  In my opinion, If more than half of the people who started a game finished it they would have said "more than half" or "more than 50%"....not "roughly 50%". 

Nice speculative conclusion there.  It's a well known social phenomenon that people who are dissatisfied voice their opinions more than people who are satisfied.  If there's a poll going around asking if you hate chicken, the people who hate chicken with a passion are going to rush to the polls, while most of the people who like chicken are just going to sit down and eat.

Dissatisfied customer are vocal.  Satisfied customers are not.  Plain and simple.

All the arguing in the world won't change that.

[Whatever42]

This has nothing to do with majority versus minority. A company can make very good money marketing towards a niche market. Bioware is making the games that they want to make. If people like them and they sell well then they will continue to make them.

Bioware clearly listens to feedback - everyone wanted more party banter and we got it in LotSB. People wanted exploration and a more open feel and we got the hammerhead and more open level maps. People wanted more personalization of armors and we got kestrel instead of whole suits. People wanted a better romance and we got that too. I suspect in ME3 we will see an improved hammerhead, more continuity, deeper talent trees (I think we are going to build on our current levels), more imaginative level design, and deeper character interactions rather than more. I also hope to see even more customization and personalization options.

And the changes weren't huge - they did it within the mechanics of their game - and everyone has raved about them.

However, if you seriously disliked ME2 and LotSB didn't do it for you, I think you are out of luck. Bioware will not change the core mechanics. And despite the holy crusade to keep Bioware a traditional RPG company only, that will not happen either. I have no doubt that they will continue to make traditional stats based RPG games with character sheets and behind the scenes dice rolling that will save civilization from the barbarian hordes. However, unleashing the holy inquisition just because Bioware wants to branch out and try to stretch themselves is ultimately pointless. That will be determined completely within the marketplace.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 20 septembre 2010 - 01:29 .

[stewie1974]

If we are to take ME2 sales as an indication of how good ME2 is then we would have to believe that people pirated it before it was released.  If that's the case I would say that ME2 is deservedly worthy of the praise receieved if 1.6 million people downloaded the game, played it, and then purchased a copy.

There were and still are demo's available for download.. Also no doubt demo's on cover disks for computer game magazines.

That example suggests you should sneak into cinema's , watch the full movie, then come back another day and pay for it legitmately....

Um...no, people won't do that... if you give something to someone for nothing , even if they enjoy it, they are not going to pay for something they can enjoy for free anytime they like...

If 1.6 million people illegally downloaded a game... you can bet 3 of em would buy the game and of those 3... 2 bought it because the pirated software gave them a trojan...

In my opinion, If more than half of the people who started a game
finished it they would have said "more than half" or "more than
50%"....not "roughly 50%".

Fair enough it's your opinion, but you can say that for exit polls for cinema viewings.... roughly half of the people who went to see this movie liked it.....


I like mass effect 2.... no... I LOVE mass effect 2. I'm happy with the status quo.

You can please some of the people some of the time..... I mistakenly purchased ME1, based on what people here on this forum were saying about it, holding it up as some holy grail of gaming experience.....

what I discovered in hindsight is this..... enjoyment of a game is purely subjective and personal, and there is never going to be a general consensus.

Modifié par stewie1974, 20 septembre 2010 - 01:47 .

[Lumikki]

iakus wrote...

True enough.  But I think it's less about taste and more about expectations.  I like comedies and I like science fiction.  But a series must remain consistent.  I would not expect Terry Pratchett to be able to write an Honor Harrington novel any more than I'd expect David Weber to write a Discworld story.  Readers would find this extremely jarring, and rightfully so.

You read a book, and the characters act a certain way.    You expect them to act similarly in the sequel, or, if they act differently, the reason for the difference is a driving part of the story.   Organizations are similar.  Technology too.  SWcience fiction does not mean "fantasy with gun-shaped wands"  What is and is not possible needs to be firmly established, or what's the point in calling it science fiction?  Maybe some people can overlook inconsistencies like that.  But I can't.  I don't know if that's "taste" or not, but there you go.

I used the Shakespeare term simply because Shakespeare is a classic writer of timeless stories.  I do not expect the tale of Mass Effect 1 to be read by students 400 years from know.  But the story is (to me) a masterpiece in comparison to ME 2.

Yes, but it's not that simple. I do get you point, but there is more in it. It's like in tv-serie, if they change something, it doesn't allways mean that serie is totally different for people.  My point is that it depense not just what changed, but also what the customer was looking from that serie. 

I mean, how big the change is also depending what the person looked from the TV-serie. Was the change important for person or not. Like if example main character did change between tv-serie seasons. Now the question is was that tv character important for people or not. Not every person look same stuff as equal ways, because they value different stuff in same tv-serie. So, for some change of main character can ruin the tv-serie, while others don't care about that, because it wasn't important point for them in tv-serie.

Same is in ME1 and ME2, it also depense what you look from it and where you put your weight.

Modifié par Lumikki, 20 septembre 2010 - 01:44 .

[Xeranx]

FouCapitan wrote...

Xeranx wrote...

If I did my math right that's .005 of a percent or .005% out of 100%.  That leaves 99.995% of consumers who probably haven't voiced their praise or made any complaints. Compound that with the above stats Bioware released and I'm thinking that making such a statement as "the majority likes it" is more a case of wishful thinking than it is concrete fact.  In my opinion, If more than half of the people who started a game finished it they would have said "more than half" or "more than 50%"....not "roughly 50%". 

Nice speculative conclusion there.  It's a well known social phenomenon that people who are dissatisfied voice their opinions more than people who are satisfied.  If there's a poll going around asking if you hate chicken, the people who hate chicken with a passion are going to rush to the polls, while most of the people who like chicken are just going to sit down and eat.

Dissatisfied customer are vocal.  Satisfied customers are not.  Plain and simple.

All the arguing in the world won't change that.

That's true, but it doesn't address my point which is based on a factual statement from Bioware that says "roughly 50%".  With stats like that it's not so cut and dried.  No matter what number we plug in as a point of reference with such a statement it can be assumed that less than half that number finished the game.  That's not a good selling point nevermind great and it doesn't hold up the claim that the majority liked it.  It can't.  

There have been people who have made claims that ME2 was terrible overall and they've been asked for proof or theories that can be qualified, but we take the absence of evidence in favor of ME2 and claim it's a success?  That's....heavily biased.  I can say the majority of people like smoking considering people who don't like smoking are the most vocal about their negative views on the subject.  It certainly doesn't mean I'm right.  It means I hope I'm right if my position is that I like smoking.

[Iakus]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

And the changes weren't huge - they did it within the mechanics of their game - and everyone has raved about them.

They weren't huge.  And they were effective.  To the point where I'm left to wonder why they were taken out to begin with.  And now it costs extra to have it put back in, even on a limited basis.  But it does rekindle hope for ME 3

After playing Lair of the Shadow Broker, I wanted to play it again.  But that would mean starting a new ME 2 game, and I just can't do that.  Not yet.

[stewie1974]

iakus wrote...


True enough.  But I think it's less about taste and more about expectations.  I like comedies and I like science fiction.  But a series must remain consistent.  I would not expect Terry Pratchett to be able to write an Honor Harrington novel any more than I'd expect David Weber to write a Discworld story.  Readers would find this extremely jarring, and rightfully so.

You read a book, and the characters act a certain way.    You expect them to act similarly in the sequel, or, if they act differently, the reason for the difference is a driving part of the story.   Organizations are similar.  Technology too.  SWcience fiction does not mean "fantasy with gun-shaped wands"  What is and is not possible needs to be firmly established, or what's the point in calling it science fiction?  Maybe some people can overlook inconsistencies like that.  But I can't.  I don't know if that's "taste" or not, but there you go.

I used the Shakespeare term simply because Shakespeare is a classic writer of timeless stories.  I do not expect the tale of Mass Effect 1 to be read by students 400 years from know.  But the story is (to me) a masterpiece in comparison to ME 2.

Stephen King just writes horror  stories right?

He never wrote stories about the human spirit like "The Shawshank Redemption" Or timeless coming of age tales like "The Body" ((stand by me)) right?

People can move out of their established niche and do so very spectacularlly... Bioware is no different.

I'm addressing the issue here that "Authors" should stick to their genre....

However I see your point that a "Single universe" must be consistant... especially when dealing with sequels, I just think the "Author" point wasn't addressing that issue...

Game mechanics however I do not see as "intergral" to the story.

"Psycho" was filmed in black and white.
"Psycho 2" was in color ....

Star Trek was a TV series... The movie was shot on celluloid....   the technicalities and technology can evolve so long as the story is consistant.

I don't believe "gameplay" affects the over all "story arc"....though of course it does affect ones enjoyment of the story.

Modifié par stewie1974, 20 septembre 2010 - 02:12 .

[MassEffect762]

iakus wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

And the changes weren't huge - they did it within the mechanics of their game - and everyone has raved about them.

They weren't huge.  And they were effective.  To the point where I'm left to wonder why they were taken out to begin with.  And now it costs extra to have it put back in, even on a limited basis.  But it does rekindle hope for ME 3

After playing Lair of the Shadow Broker, I wanted to play it again.  But that would mean starting a new ME 2 game, and I just can't do that.  Not yet.

Reload. I replay LOTSB just before the final fight for the "writing" afterwards.

I'd rather go to work then start a new game.

[Xeranx]

stewie1974 wrote...

If we are to take ME2 sales as an indication of how good ME2 is then we would have to believe that people pirated it before it was released.  If that's the case I would say that ME2 is deservedly worthy of the praise receieved if 1.6 million people downloaded the game, played it, and then purchased a copy.

There were and still are demo's available for download.. Also no doubt demo's on cover disks for computer game magazines.

That example suggests you should sneak into cinema's , watch the full movie, then come back another day and pay for it legitmately....

Um...no, people won't do that... if you give something to someone for nothing , even if they enjoy it, they are not going to pay for something they can enjoy for free anytime they like...

If 1.6 million people illegally downloaded a game... you can bet 3 of em would buy the game and of those 3... 2 bought it because the pirated software gave them a trojan...

I don't know if you're agreeing with me or not.  

I was stating that it's wrong to infer that ME2 is a success because it sold as much as it did when/if people had no prior knowledge of how it would play exactly.  It's a false foundation used to bolster a favorable stance of the person making the statement.  That foundation also finds strength in being able to avoid the idea that a few people may have sold their copy to a second-hand dealer.  It still doesn't mean it's a factual statement.  Facts are tested so they can be verified as facts or truth.  If there's an absence of evidence to back a statement or defeat a statement then it's a theory and nothing more.

Modifié par Xeranx, 20 septembre 2010 - 02:24 .

[Fishy]

It needs to be there for the sake of keeping things interesting and giving the player more choice and options. Especially when character progression is so lacking. This is supposed to be an RPG, and in an RPG progression is necessary.

There was a lot of armor in Mass effect 1. But most of them was useless . I used 3 different armor my whole playthrough




They should be there so players can make comparisons and choose what they want to best suit their playstyle and character. This is especially true when they can so easily chop and change weapons on the fly. The problem is with ME2's system is that each weapon is so isolated, gimmicky and individual and the whole system lacks options and a decent selection, so the stats aren't as key as they were in ME1. But they should still be visible to the player to give them an idea and way to compare beyond just going out there are using the things. Even some shooters have stats on the weapons for the player. In an RPG these should be the primary things that detemine the attributes of a weapon... not just feel alone.

And in either case, what harm does showing the stats actually do. All that reasoning aside, as a player I should just be able to see them because I want to. It's not like showing them greatly effects gameplay or anything. And when players want to see the stats they should be able to. People who argue against this just seem to be doing so to defend ME2 and be difficult, because I see no reason to be so against something so simple as just showing us the friggin' numbers on the weapons. If you simply don't care either way, then why stop those of us that want it getting it by arguing against it at every point? If you're actually against them being shown that's fine, but you haven't stated that or a good reason as to why you would.

It's not a multiplayer game.I don't know many single player game with very huge inventory and statistic.Why statistic are so needed anyway in a single player game?Are you trying to build a templates and compare it with your friend?Sure if fun but if i want this i will play D3 or Age of Conan and build a templates for my character.I probably end up with a cookie cutter templates but whatever.



The point is at least there was some randomness in there, as opposed to everything being linear and predictable. And sometimes you did have to go hunting for certain items.

Hunting equipement in a single player game it's like using a riffle in a cutscene when you're an infiltrator.Make no sense.I do enough phat lewt hunting in mmorpg.I finished Mass effect 1 with 6,000,000 credit .. I used 3 different armor and basicly the same gun throughout the last half of the game..It's a single player game.

[Pocketgb]

Xeranx wrote...
I don't know if you're agreeing with me or not.  

I
was stating that it's wrong to infer that ME2 is a success because it
sold as much as it did when/if people had no prior knowledge of how it
would play exactly.  It's a false foundation used to bolster a favorable
stance of the person making the statement.  That foundation also finds
strength in being able to avoid the idea that a few people may have sold
their copy to a second-hand dealer.  It still doesn't mean it's a
factual statement.  Facts are tested so they can be verified as facts or
truth.  If there's an absence of evidence to back a statement or defeat
a statement then it's a theory and nothing more.

Plenty of bad games have sold amazingly well. Plenty of good games sell poorly. Using 'sales figures' doesn't help anyone's argument when discussing the quality of a game.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 20 septembre 2010 - 02:30 .

[Iakus]

[quote]Lumikki wrote...

[quote]iakus wrote...
Yes, but it's not that simple. I do get you point, but there is more in it. It's like in tv-serie, if they change something, it doesn't allways mean that serie is totally different for people.  My point is that it depense not just what changed, but also what the customer was looking from that serie. 

I mean, how big the change is also depending what the person looked from the TV-serie. Was the change important for person or not. Like if example main character did change between tv-serie seasons. Now the question is was that tv character important for people or not. Not every person look same stuff as equal ways, because they value different stuff in same tv-serie. So, for some change of main character can ruin the tv-serie, while others don't care about that, because it wasn't important point for them in tv-serie.

Same is in ME1 and ME2, it also depense what you look from it and where you put your weight.
[/quote]

And how many customers were looking for continuation of ME 1 (though with updated graphics and gameplay)?  "The Reapers are coming, and I'm gonna find a way to stop them!"  Big dramatic conclusion to ME 1 and a nice jumping-off point for ME 2. 

Instead, a new group leaps out with no foreshadowing, kills Shepard (which is a really cheesy way to reset the game, btw) and sends the game off in an almost totally unrelated adventure.  (I say almost because the Reaper connection eventually gets made, silly though it is)

As to character changes:  it can and does happen, but it has to be explained.  If a character experiences a life-changing event between season, that's fine, but it has to be explained.  That's part of what made LOTSB a big hit, we finally get to see more of Liara and why she changed to much.  The Virmire Survivor, however, still remains bizzarelly transformed.  As does the Counci and Udina, l.  And Cerberus is still "kinder and gentler"  Debates rage to this day if it's just an act or not.  It's continuity.  These people and groups acted one way in ME 1 and a different way in ME 2, with zero explanation.

ME 2 simply does not feel like a sequel.  It changed too much.   Most of the crew and squadmates are different, Shepard's patron is changed.  New enemy, new ship, new region in space.  The characters that do return are oddly apathetic about their past with Shepard.  The mission, up until near the end, feels like a complete tangent from Shepard's true goal; to find a way to stop the Reapers.

I said before that this game could star a totally random character that Cerberus rescues and puts to work and it would make no difference.  Quite simply:  too much changed.  It's not a sequel, they completely restarted the series.  That is my perspective.

[SithLordExarKun]

Embrosil wrote...



And? What good is the statistics when the real effect is the same? And you completely misundrestood  I do not want to look to some files, I want to see those data inagame.

Its the same? According to who? You? Oh hell no sir, your unbacked claims are not absolute facts, especially when i noticed the difference between the avenger and the vindicator in a single burst. 

You might as well cry to the military that theres no point in researching and developing new combat rifles when all rifles kill human beings in a single shot. Seriously, you just got demolished and annihilated with statistical data yet to still try to dismiss it and try to prove to the world that you are right and everyones wrong.

[Iakus]

stewie1974 wrote...

Stephen King just writes horror  stories right?

He never wrote stories about the human spirit like "The Shawshank Redemption" Or timeless coming of age tales like "The Body" ((stand by me)) right?

People can move out of their established niche and do so very spectacularlly... Bioware is no different.

I'm addressing the issue here that "Authors" should stick to their genre....

However I see your point that a "Single universe" must be consistant... especially when dealing with sequels, I just think the "Author" point wasn't addressing that issue...

Game mechanics however I do not see as "intergral" to the story.

"Psycho" was filmed in black and white.
"Psycho 2" was in color ....

Star Trek was a TV series... The movie was shot on celluloid....   the technicalities and technology can evolve so long as the story is consistant.

I don't believe "gameplay" affects the over all "story arc"....though of course it does affect ones enjoyment of the story.

True some writes do cross genres (btw, King wrote the two you mentioned were originally written under the pen name RIchard Bachman.  You'd have been better off citing his "Dark Tower" series or Hearts in Atlantis.  Just sayin)  Yes, Bioware can move on to other genres.  If they can, and do so successfully, bravo!

But not in the middle of a series!

My author point is that if you radically change the focus or style of a series, it creates a jarring effect.  Much like I felt in ME 2.  It felt like it was written by a completely different writer.  Maybe not as extreme as the example I gave, but still...

Game mechanics are indeed a seperate matter.  I admit I am not happy with some of them in ME2.  But overall, I could live with them if the story had just been better.  As it is, it adds insult to injury.

Modifié par iakus, 20 septembre 2010 - 02:57 .

[SithLordExarKun]

iakus wrote...

My author point is that if you radically change the focus or style of a series, it creates a jarring effect.  Much like I felt in ME 2.  It felt like it was written by a completely different writer.  Maybe not as extreme as the example I gave, but still...

Heres a problem with your claim. Aliens was a totally different genre from Alien and adding to that it was directed and written by a completely different person and team yet it received as much, and in some cases, even more praise than the first ones.

The same can be said for terminator 2(just that the director is the same between two) seeing how the first was more of a "survival horro" while the second one was an action thriller riddles with explosions(and receiving even more praise than the first"


ME2's "change of style" isn't as monstrous as you're trying to make it out to be, you are simply over exaggerating.

[Iakus]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

iakus wrote...

My author point is that if you radically change the focus or style of a series, it creates a jarring effect.  Much like I felt in ME 2.  It felt like it was written by a completely different writer.  Maybe not as extreme as the example I gave, but still...

Heres a problem with your claim. Aliens was a totally different genre from Alien and adding to that it was directed and written by a completely different person and team yet it received as much, and in some cases, even more praise than the first ones.

The same can be said for terminator 2(just that the director is the same between two) seeing how the first was more of a "survival horro" while the second one was an action thriller riddles with explosions(and receiving even more praise than the first"


ME2's "change of style" isn't as monstrous as you're trying to make it out to be, you are simply over exaggerating.

Sequels can sometimes surpass the original.  It's rare, but can happen.  But there's a  small differencehere:

Neither of those movies was a direct sequel. 

Aliens is definitely the best of the bunch, and yes Aliens still starred Ellen Ripley, but 57 years had passed.  Nor  was it part of a preplanned series, It did not end with Ripley vowing to destroy all the aliens or "nuke the site from orbit".  They are seperate stories, and are meant to be. 

Terminator 2 draws a little bit of material that was left out of the first, but is still generally a seperate story.  The first Terminator movie had a pretty definitive ending.  In fact, Reese's statements at the police station strongly hinted that the whole time travel deal was a one-shot deal (shows what he knew I guess)

Mass Effect was supposedly a trilogy from the start, with the first game ending with the Reapers delayed but not defeated, and Shepard vowing to go forth and find a way to put a stop to them for good.  ME 1 played like a fairly hard-sf rpg.  ME 2 like a science-fantasy action gme.  ME 3 will be, what?  Stealth based action game like Metal Gear?  Mushroom-hopping star-chasing side scroll?  Okay that's exageration.

If the Mass Effect series was touted as an ongoing series that are not necessarilly directly connected to each other (like Dragon Age 2  seems to be shaping up to be) I wouldn't have as much trouble with the changes.  I can just pick and choose which ones appeal to me.  Instead, to get the whole experience.  As it is, I doubt Bioware will let me port a save from ME 1 straight to ME 3.

Here's a better example.  After Robert Jordan's death in 2007, a new writer had to be found to complete his unfinished Wheel of Time series.  There was a big question of whether the selected author, Brandon Sanderson, could properly capture the spirit of the series and complete the work.   Same deal here.  It's not a matter of  writing a story in the Mass Effect universe, but continuing the story.  FInishing the book.  Sticking to the plot.

[bzurn]

I agree  *breath* with the vol clan.

Modifié par bzurn, 20 septembre 2010 - 05:30 .

[stewie1974]

Suprez30 wrote...


They should be there so players can make comparisons and choose what they want to best suit their playstyle and character. This is especially true when they can so easily chop and change weapons on the fly. The problem is with ME2's system is that each weapon is so isolated, gimmicky and individual and the whole system lacks options and a decent selection, so the stats aren't as key as they were in ME1. But they should still be visible to the player to give them an idea and way to compare beyond just going out there are using the things. Even some shooters have stats on the weapons for the player. In an RPG these should be the primary things that detemine the attributes of a weapon... not just feel alone.

And in either case, what harm does showing the stats actually do. All that reasoning aside, as a player I should just be able to see them because I want to. It's not like showing them greatly effects gameplay or anything.

I don't need stats to know that the matlock OWNS mostly every other rifle out there..... I pick it up and I can see the effects it has on a target.
I can also tell how many shots a thermal clip will last, and what the maximum number of thermal clips are. I can also tell it dosn't have a rapid fire rate... It's a long ranged semi automatic "heavy rifle"...

Just like I can tell by firing any number of weapons... If I had stats readily available to me, might I not be in danger of just not bothering to try out other weapons?

A simple play test of each and every weapon variity eventually does the job of the stats. The Collector Rifle and The Geth Rifle i play tested and found that it didn't suit me. I could have looked at stats sure, but then I would never have bothered to use them.

In traditional pen and paper RPG stats were very important because .... that was the whole game mechanics... it was important to know what damage a weapon did on paper .... not so much in computer games, because there is no pen and paper element to it.....

Also ME1 yes you could upgrade a weapon as soon as you picked up a certian module ... not only was your soldier a soldier they were "engineers" too... regardless of their tech skill they could "upgrade" weapons on the fly and sometimes even under fire.... which in my opinion is like asking a soldier to fundementally re-engineer their weapon on the fly..... not particulally realistic... field stripping yes, engineering it to change its functionality? noo...

Also carrying a huge enormous inventory of bits and bobs while out on a mission..... wait what? How are they carrying all this gear.... I know Mass Effect guns and collapse and be extended and carried on ones back... but really ALL of that stuff?..... ME2 at least feels like you are only going out with what you have.....  you "scan" tech that you can research later .....and all money is no doubt digital ...... 

Players inventories have "never" reflected a realistic approach.... "root in inventory... I am carrying 2 billion swords and battle axes as well as 80 billion in gold coins..."..... dude... how are you moving?

I'm glad ME2 removed the obvious element of suspension of disbelief by removing the trunk made of sapient pearwood.... or in otherwords "the luggage"

Inventories that you can just rut around in during a mission , which contain more items than a war museum are stoopid. My biggest complaint about mass effect 2 is that you CAN change your load out at key points on a mission with no "rationale" behind how it happens......  every base has an identical armoury to you equiped with the same weapons you have on board your ship? How is this possible???!

No inventories, No changing load outs on mission ...with out a damn good fessible explaination is my hope for ME3.

Modifié par stewie1974, 20 septembre 2010 - 05:44 .

[Terror_K]

I was going to post a bunch of replies here, but it's good to see others have popped in and mirroed many of my thoughts. Still, I'll reiterate the basics myself as well.



It's not about gaming preference, it's about consistency and expectation. The Mass Effect series was supposed to be a trilogy, not three independent games with the same IP. Therefore there should be far more consistency, with narrative, style and gameplay, amongst all three games. I enjoy playing shooters too... in fact, my favourite game of all time is one. But that's not what I'm wanting from Mass Effect because that's not what it was (initially) trying to be. As something that's not even supposed to be the sequel, but more accurately be the second part of a three part game, ME2 falls flat on its face for the most part.



I am also somebody who has played pretty much all of BioWares titles and loved them all immensely, yet was disappointed in ME2. Just as much for what it wasn't as for what it was, and in my mind it wasn't a good sequel to ME1. It was too far removed narrative-wise and too oversimplified gameplay wise. If it really were a standalone game ME2 would mostly be a success for me, but when it so utterly fails to live up to its predecessor as it does it simply fails. ME1 admittedly had flaws, but I could look past them because there was enough great stuff there to overshadow them, and there was nothing I considered horrendous or extremely annoying... it was more a bunch of things that simply could have been executed a lot better. But I liked what was trying to be done and what the game was going for.



ME2 on the other hand is too flawed for me to ignore the issues, even if most of them are, admittedly, only issues from it being a follow-up to the first (i.e. if it really were a standalone game, or the first in a series, many issues would simply disappear, or at least not be as bad). Worst of all many of them stem from incredibly bad game design decisions that I feel were bad choices from the start, even conceptually (while ME1, IMO, had a lot of good concepts that weren't fully realised or were poorly executed). The whole thing seems purposefully geared to be as simple and mindless as possible, and it's almost as if it's embarrassed of its roots. There's a lot of stuff from ME1 that I loved that's simply gone now, or simplified to the point where I just don't like it any more and/or it does too much for you. Despite supposedly being a mature game, it's like BioWare wanted to make it so a five-year-old could play it, and despite being a mature game its style has shifted from something I could respect and take seriously to something akin to a bad Hollywood joke more suited to teenagers.



Now, if BioWare want to go ahead and make more action oriented games and make something that's more shooter than RPG, then I have no problem with that. I'd probably even buy and enjoy it. But if they want to go down that path they should make an entirely new IP, or at least a new, independent series, rather than hijacking an existing IP and putting it on new tracks suddenly because that's what "the kids these days want."



Yes, times are changing. Tastes are changing. Gaming is more mainstream and less niche and nerdy than it once was. But there's still an audience there. BioWare were kings of the genre mainly because they were so good at it, and while other developers were putting out largely the same grey/brown generic stuff as everybody else, BioWare were making games that were a cut above them and just a whole lot more original, interesting and classier. Until ME2, which has shifted into being closer to the rest of the stuff out there, especially when --rather ironically-- other developers are starting to focus on putting more story, narrative and, yes, even RPG elements into their action games. So while other developers are starting to become a bit more like BioWare, BioWare are actually becoming more like the other developers. Some would say that's good, but we'll see in a few years time whether that's the case when everything is the same brown mush of hybrid story-driven action games with RPG elements and there's little in the way of variety and genres cease to really stand out and be defined any more.



Like I said, the RPG audience is there, especially when you consider that BioWare and EA have said that DAO was one of their most profitable and popular titles last year, and actually became more popular than Mass Effect did. Why then they want to change Dragon Age to be more like Mass Effect and more action-oriented then, I have no idea, beyond more appealing to the mainstream. In either case, there's only so many that can tap the same market, and gaming used to be far more diverse in the past because game developers realised different gamers liked different things, and not everybody when for the genre where the most money was. Game developing overall seems to have become more about profit over the past decade than it has about actually creating something that's more valuable as a creation than it is money-wise.



I used to admire BioWare for being a studio that really seemed to want to craft and create great experiences that transcended gaming, were more than the sum of their parts and really did seem to be a labour of love rather than labours of greed. ME2 doesn't feel like that; it feels cold, empty and heartless. It feels manufactured and merely just another game rather than something more.