10273 réponses à ce sujet

[FouCapitan]

Xeranx wrote...

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.  

Well let's take a few things into account on this statistic.  First, there is a gray area in how much you can enjoy a game.  You may think it excellent, the greatest, good, okay, worth renting, not that great, has some flaws, not your style, or straight up hate it.  Whether someone who has purchased the game has completed it or not, is not a clear indicator of being dissatisfied.

ME2 is a comparitively long game to complete.  You're not going to clear it on your first day, for some it will take longer than a week, or even a month or two.  Of the roughly 50% that have yet to complete the game after purchase, many simply might not put in as much time playing video games during their day to day routines.  Complete one or two missions on a saturday night and that's it.  Others started playing, grew dissatisfied and sold them at Gamestop.  Some might have been playing it, but another game came out that piqued their interest and ME2 was set on the backburner for now.  I know that's happened for several games I've enjoyed but never finished.

If you do not like this game, and felt there were severe flaws, that is your opinion.  I cannot change it, and you are wholly entitled to it.  But fabricating stories to make it seem like a large faction of customers were dissatisfied despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary is something I will stand to argue against.

I myself was dissatisfied with a number of things in this game.  Some mild spoilers revealed in explaining them, but a few moments of forced pacing, like the time limit following the reaper IFF mission really got on my nerves.  Instead of picking and choosing missions like I expected I was coerced into finishing the game earlier than my personal preference would have liked.  The cover mechanic has its flaws.  Overall it's fine, but there are times when I wish to move in or out of cover quickly and the response of the control doesn't allow me to move in a fluid realistic fashion, or something as accidental as double tapping the A button causes me to pop out of cover and die.  The gathering of minerals seemed like a shallow waste of time, and would have rather forgone that entirely.

Yet even with these flaws my satisfaction with this game was high, and I'm still of the opinion that this is one of the top games, if not the top game, released this year.

[Xeranx]

FouCapitan wrote...

Xeranx wrote...

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.  

Well let's take a few things into account on this statistic.  First, there is a gray area in how much you can enjoy a game.  You may think it excellent, the greatest, good, okay, worth renting, not that great, has some flaws, not your style, or straight up hate it.  Whether someone who has purchased the game has completed it or not, is not a clear indicator of being dissatisfied.

I know that and my point is it isn't a clear indicator of someone being satisfied either.

FouCapitan wrote...
ME2 is a comparitively long game to complete.  You're not going to clear it on your first day, for some it will take longer than a week, or even a month or two.  Of the roughly 50% that have yet to complete the game after purchase, many simply might not put in as much time playing video games during their day to day routines.  Complete one or two missions on a saturday night and that's it.  Others started playing, grew dissatisfied and sold them at Gamestop.  Some might have been playing it, but another game came out that piqued their interest and ME2 was set on the backburner for now.  I know that's happened for several games I've enjoyed but never finished.

If you do not like this game, and felt there were severe flaws, that is your opinion.  I cannot change it, and you are wholly entitled to it.  But fabricating stories to make it seem like a large faction of customers were dissatisfied despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary is something I will stand to argue against.

But you would allow someone to make a claim that appears grandiose in light of what has been given to us and not question it because it favors your stance?

Look, this is what I meant by heavily biased.  Because I lean towards being disappointed with the game your view of me is that of someone who is against you.  I never once made a claim that a majority of people were dissatisified with ME2.  I certainly am not fabricating any stories to support my "alleged" theory.  I brought in facts that can be checked though the metacritic user count may be higher now than it was when I saw it last... as I stated earlier.  

1.6 million is the figure going around in reference to the number of units sold.  8000 users was what I saw on the metacritic score people were posting.  "Roughly 50% of people who started a game..." is a quote of a statistic released by Bioware.  I did the math which, if wrong, can be corrected.  I'm not a math whiz, but I believe I did it correctly.  I stated that a larger number of people weren't counted as to whether they fit into the majority or not.  

My argument, if you can stop viewing me as a combatant and look at what I said, is with what we have you or anyone else cannot make a statement that says a majority like ME2.  It's impossible to make such a claim without proof.  To do so is a fabrication itself especially in light of actual data received.  And you did exactly what you said you were against by making the statement that there's "overwhelming evidence contrary" to what you allege I'm saying.  I would call you false if I felt you were doing it on purpose.

Again: My argument and use of the data is not in support of a phantom number of people who may be dissatisfied with ME2.  It is against using a small number of people who like ME2 (considering the numbers I stated) in conjunction with a phantom number of people who may like ME2 to make a statement about a majority liking the game when no evidence exists to prove that a majority does like ME2.

[FataliTensei]

Xeranx wrote...

FouCapitan wrote...

Xeranx wrote...

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.  

Well let's take a few things into account on this statistic.  First, there is a gray area in how much you can enjoy a game.  You may think it excellent, the greatest, good, okay, worth renting, not that great, has some flaws, not your style, or straight up hate it.  Whether someone who has purchased the game has completed it or not, is not a clear indicator of being dissatisfied.

I know that and my point is it isn't a clear indicator of someone being satisfied either.

FouCapitan wrote...
ME2 is a comparitively long game to complete.  You're not going to clear it on your first day, for some it will take longer than a week, or even a month or two.  Of the roughly 50% that have yet to complete the game after purchase, many simply might not put in as much time playing video games during their day to day routines.  Complete one or two missions on a saturday night and that's it.  Others started playing, grew dissatisfied and sold them at Gamestop.  Some might have been playing it, but another game came out that piqued their interest and ME2 was set on the backburner for now.  I know that's happened for several games I've enjoyed but never finished.

If you do not like this game, and felt there were severe flaws, that is your opinion.  I cannot change it, and you are wholly entitled to it.  But fabricating stories to make it seem like a large faction of customers were dissatisfied despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary is something I will stand to argue against.

But you would allow someone to make a claim that appears grandiose in light of what has been given to us and not question it because it favors your stance?

Look, this is what I meant by heavily biased.  Because I lean towards being disappointed with the game your view of me is that of someone who is against you.  I never once made a claim that a majority of people were dissatisified with ME2.  I certainly am not fabricating any stories to support my "alleged" theory.  I brought in facts that can be checked though the metacritic user count may be higher now than it was when I saw it last... as I stated earlier.  

1.6 million is the figure going around in reference to the number of units sold.  8000 users was what I saw on the metacritic score people were posting.  "Roughly 50% of people who started a game..." is a quote of a statistic released by Bioware.  I did the math which, if wrong, can be corrected.  I'm not a math whiz, but I believe I did it correctly.  I stated that a larger number of people weren't counted as to whether they fit into the majority or not.  

My argument, if you can stop viewing me as a combatant and look at what I said, is with what we have you or anyone else cannot make a statement that says a majority like ME2.  It's impossible to make such a claim without proof.  To do so is a fabrication itself especially in light of actual data received.  And you did exactly what you said you were against by making the statement that there's "overwhelming evidence contrary" to what you allege I'm saying.  I would call you false if I felt you were doing it on purpose.

Again: My argument and use of the data is not in support of a phantom number of people who may be dissatisfied with ME2.  It is against using a small number of people who like ME2 (considering the numbers I stated) in conjunction with a phantom number of people who may like ME2 to make a statement about a majority liking the game when no evidence exists to prove that a majority does like ME2.

[starscreamPOL]

I am not dissapointed all, but some things could be better. What strange that better things were in first ME. But still I`m not dissaponted, ME2 is a game of the year 2010 along with other great sci-fi game Starcraft2. I love them both.

[SithLordExarKun]

iakus wrote...



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. 

According to cameron, T2 is a direct sequel considering how the first film even hinted it.

iakus wrote...
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.

Just to be clear, are you referring to "continuing the story" or referring to gameplay mechanics?

For gameplay mechanics, there isn't really much to justify the drastic change in gameplay(removal of inventory etc etc) which i agree eben though im fine with the changes, but for story? I'd say it is.

Look at the Empire strikes back, it was part of a planned trilogy yet it continues nearly nothing from the original film, it was simply another film set in the same universe, what else did we learn about the empire? What else did we learn about the galaxy? What did we learn about the Jedi? Just like ME2, only a part of it was expanded.

iakus wrote...
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.

Look, i don't deny ME2 not continuing the story is a flaw, but to have it called  a massive train wreck, titanic disaster and an absolute disaster is an over-exageration.

[stewie1974]

Yes there is nothing to justify removing the gameplay elements from the first game other than making the game run smoother and quicker. An inventory is not a character based element to the game.

It breaks fourth wall continuity and extends into the realm of meta infomation. There is no way on earth you are actually carting an enormous inventory around with you on missions.

Scanning technology for later research, and being restricted to carrying only what you can physically carry is MORE in character and so enhances the gameplay on missions... pausing the game to upgrade your weapons during a firefight seriously breaks the fourth wall. I'm sorry it's not in character, and its an overhang from old pen and paper adventuring RPG's. In fact during my Roleplay sessions be it fantasy or sci-fi... I always tell my players they may only carry X number of items on their person during a mission...everything else will have to be left at the tavern under lock and key. It's far more realistic than carrying around an armory and city bank vault .

So I've stripped out "stupid " suspension of disbelief game mechanics from my RPG sessions... Is it still an RPG? why yes it is... the characters still have to preplan....in fact they now have to think seriously ahead of a mission..... and plan for all possible encounters....they still have to make decisions.... they just don't have an omnipresent omnipotent inventory of doom traveling with them.

If you define "Inventory management" as the prerequisite of a roleplay game.... then I guess you don't understand the "role play" aspect of RPG. Given Omnipresent and omnipotent inventorys "break character"..... it's not really "roleplay"....which puts you in a characters situation.
It's "roll play" that involves you playing the dice, rather than the character.

However I will contend and this is true for both games... that there was not a lot of "tough decisions" in the game to take anyhow.

Most decisions were "say it nicely" or "say in a mean way"  and you earned points in paragon or renegade for saying it... 

ME1 had "one" tough decision really...

Hopefully ME3 will hold true to the promise that these decisions will actually bare fruit in the third act ..... but as they affect the games by themselves... not really.... Loyality missions had no consequence if you DID do them. Only if you DIDN'T.... thats not really what we call a "tough decision"... that's what we call a "forced" decision.

Modifié par stewie1974, 20 septembre 2010 - 06:57 .

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...
It's not about gaming preference, it's about consistency and expectation.

Exactly.

The issue with the Mass Effect series is that it attempts to a wide array of interests - and thus this leads to a very wide array of expectation. Look at what bands have to deal with nearly all the time when going into making another album: They receive flak for doing more of the same, they receive flak for too much change. Game developers are no less different than musical artists, and it's really tricky for Bioware who have gained massive amounts of high acclaim.

Terror_K wrote...
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."

Kids these days also don't like a lot of dialog, which ME2 is still filled to the brim with. There's just too much going against this "for deh shoota kiddies!" idea that I can't take it seriously. It's why I feel that Bioware wasn't really pushed into doing anything, rather branching out, much like a musical artist would do after doing much of the same already. Even more evidence for this belief is below:

Terror_K wrote...
*snippet*
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 essentially helped to create that audience, of course they would know it's there. They know there are a ton of RPG enthusiasts. If there weren't, why would they be where they are today?

[Iakus]

[quote]SithLordExarKun wrote...

[/quote] According to cameron, T2 is a direct sequel considering how the first film even hinted it.[/quote]

Really?  I'd never heard that.  I had heard that elements of the first movie that ended up in the cutting room floor were incorporated into it.  But not that T2 was actually preplanned.

[quote] Just to be clear, are you referring to "continuing the story" or referring to gameplay mechanics?[/quote]

You got me, it was late and I was tired when I wrote that. 

However, Now that I'm awake and alert, I can say that I have idea idea where the story is going in ME 3.  Learn about the Reapers?  Unite the galaxy?  The end of ME 1 sure implied that.  Fight a third slave race?  Gather more bad****es?  Maybe the Normandy 2 will blow up in the beginning of ME 3 to explain yet another reset.

[quote]
For gameplay mechanics, there isn't really much to justify the drastic change in gameplay(removal of inventory etc etc) which i agree eben though im fine with the changes, but for story? I'd say it is.

Look at the Empire strikes back, it was part of a planned trilogy yet it continues nearly nothing from the original film, it was simply another film set in the same universe, what else did we learn about the empire? What else did we learn about the galaxy? What did we learn about the Jedi? Just like ME2, only a part of it was expanded.[/quote]

In Empire Strikes back:

The Empire remained the primary antagonist, with Darth Vader as the lead villain.  There was no need to add something like the Chiss, the Yuuzon Vong, or Ssi-Ruuk to come out of nowhere to replace them for most of the movie, even as catspaws.  Even the bounty hunters were clearly extras hired by teh empire.  SOmething the mercs in ME 2 clearly aren't

Plus I'd say learning Vader's true identity was an important factoid about the Empire

Why was the Rebellion on the run from the Empire?  Because their hidden Rebel base was revealed at the end of A New Hope.  The whole Death Star incident wasn't swept under the rug by Rebel leadership.

Why was the Empire interested in Luke?  Not just because he blew up the Death Star, but because he was "the son of Skywalker"  A definitive reason as to why Luke is such a threat.

Luke receives his training as a Jedi, from which he "took his first step into a larger world" in A New Hope.  We see some of the stuff the Force can be used for: moving objects, pre/postcognition, physical augmentation.  We also see the dangerous lure of the Dark Side. 

Han and Leia's relationship continues to evolve.  From "Either I'm going to kill her or I"m beginning to like her" to "I love you" "I know"  The characters grew and changed, yet remained consistent to thier natures.  No radical, unexplained personality transplants.

Also at no point was anyone killed and ressurected (Obi-Won Kenobi notwithstanding), suffer abrupt career changes, serious retcons (that was saved for the other trilogy), or giant terminator-like robots.

[quote] Look, i don't deny ME2 not continuing the story is a flaw, but to have it called  a massive train wreck, titanic disaster and an absolute disaster is an over-exageration.
[/quote]

I think the biggest phrase I used was that as a sequel it was "epic fail".  I think I also said it was a terrible sequel and the story was unworthy of Bioware.  It's less A New Hope/Empire Strikes Back and more Die Hard /Die Hard 2.  Or worse, The Matrix/Matrix Reloaded

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

Kids these days also don't like a lot of dialog, which ME2 is still filled to the brim with. There's just too much going against this "for deh shoota kiddies!" idea that I can't take it seriously. It's why I feel that Bioware wasn't really pushed into doing anything, rather branching out, much like a musical artist would do after doing much of the same already. Even more evidence for this belief is below:

Branching out. More like selling out, IMO.

I don't think they went the whole way here, btw. I believe that with ME2 instead of trying to make it for the same audience as ME1 they wanted to branch out and pull more people in, namely younger, mainstream gamers. It's like with ME2 their main focus was tapping into that audience more, but they wanted to keep just enough of the old one there at the same time, but because branching out was their main focus they only left what they felt was the bare minimum of old-school Mass Effect behind. They've essentially tried to have their cake and eat it too.

The problem is, with something like this that's an almost impossible thing to pull off. Most sci-fi geeks love sci-fi not just for what it is, but for what it isn't. Namely, they like it because it's a bit more cerebral than the standard fare and isn't the same mindless, mainstream crap that the masses like. And when you take something that started off as more of a niche, nerdy sci-fi property and start making it more like the mainstream garbage out there, then it starts to lose its appeal for those who don't like that crap. You can't introduce that --not even a little-- without it annoying a good portion of the old fans in some manner. It's like if a movie studio wanted Stanley Kubrick or Ridley Scott to do a collaboration with Michael Bay. Mass Effect went from being a great homage to the great sci-fi epics of the late 1970's to early 1990's era with the first game into being closer to an over-the-top action fest more akin to modern Hollywood with the second. It sacrificed substance for style, and that goes for narrative and gameplay.

I've been sceptical about the way BioWare's going for a while, and despite so many saying "trust BioWare" over the past couple of years all I've seen as time has gone on is more proof of my fears. I was following ME2 long before it came out and worried about that, and turned out to be mostly right about how horribly lacking and dumbed down it was. Now we've got Dragon Age 2 turning into a shallow hack'n'slasher game made more for the console audience, with them abandoning DAO less than a year after its release despite promises of a "two year plan for continuous DLC" and news of their next IP series not even being an RPG at all. Sure...there are odd glimmers of hope like LotSB, which has a little of the old BioWare shine through again, but it just seems more and more likely as time goes on that this once great company is on the slippery slope to genericsville and slowly abandoning their old values, old style and old fans in favour of popularity and profit.

Bioware essentially helped to create that audience, of course they would know it's there. They know there are a ton of RPG enthusiasts. If there weren't, why would they be where they are today?

Yes. It's where it got them where they are today. But now that they're big they're willing to just abandon their fans for the dosh. It's not the first time I've seen it... in fact, it's a common factor throughout my fandom over the years I've found. Far too many IPs I once enjoyed have become retooled and reimagined for a new audience and then suck because pretty much everything that was good about them is gone and replaced by the same crap that everything else that's popular has. It happened to Star Wars, Star Trek, Stargate, etc. and it seems Mass Effect is going the same way. Not only that, but BioWare seem to be as well, and they were a company I thought were better than that. They always seemed to be the studio that was "games made by nerds, for nerds" to me. Now they're just a hop, skip and a jump from the likes of CliffyB, Bungie and the CoD studios.

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...
Branching out. More like selling out, IMO.

If they wanted to truly "sell out" they'd just keep making more traditional RPGs with 95% of the dialog cut and less 'difficult choices'. Bonus points if you make the game a sandbox and allow you to attack/kill/run over anyone.

None of that was the case for ME2, nor 1, nor JE, nor any of Bioware's games.

Terror_K wrote...
I don't think they went the whole way here, btw. I believe that with ME2 instead of trying to make it for the same audience as ME1 they wanted to branch out and pull more people in, namely younger, mainstream gamers.

See above.

Terror_K wrote...
Yes. It's where it got them where they are today. But now that they're big they're willing to just abandon their fans for the dosh.

I could've sworn I read the exact same thing was JE was released, and I swear that that's the same thing I myself said at ME1's release. Point is, they've been differenting themselves for awhile now.

[Terror_K]

But they want to sell out without it looking like they are, hence the gradual transition and trying to look like they're appealing to both sides.



And it's not just when it comes to gameplay, but tone and style as well. Jade Empire and ME1 were admittedly RPG-Lite affairs, but still felt like their tone, style and design was aimed at the smart gamer who loves good storytelling. They still felt like a cut above the standard game when it came to overall quality of writing, overall style and substance. ME2 just feels like another one of the pack, and like it's all about action and shooting and storytelling and substance took the back seat to over-the-top action and style. It's like it's so desperately trying to be cool and hip and "with it" rather than trying to be something of actual depth and quality. As another person put it, it's like BioWare just stopped caring about the integrity of the universe with ME2.

[stewie1974]

wow, a company "selling out"... outrageous!!!!!!



Breaking News... Companies are out to make money... film at eleven.

[brfritos]

stewie1974 wrote...

wow, a company "selling out"... outrageous!!!!!!

Breaking News... Companies are out to make money... film at eleven.

The problem is not "selling out".

And for that matter, I have a problem with the whole concept of "seeling you out". What a game company, movie studio or even a music group wants?
Money for their creation, there's absolutelly nothing wrong with that.

So how about we replace "selling out" for "abandoning your principles for no good reason".
Yes, people can change - no Obama jokes, please - but at what purpose?
For making more money?
Hey, I can make a lot of money selling drugs, doing porno movies or winning the lotery.

I can too make tons of money doing things more appeasable to a audience, without make things shallow.
Because that's what Bioware did with Mass Effect, the game is shallow.
I remember Bioware saying that my decisions in the first game will influence and change the course of the story in ME2.
Do they? My decisions influence and changes what happens in ME2?

I don't agree when people say that ME2 or Fallout 3 are "PoS games". They are good games and they deserved to be played, at least once.
But this don't mean there aren't problems with them and the main problem of ME2 is he feels disconnected from the first game.
It's a trilogy, remember?

And the best part of all is when I say that, people accuse me of beign a hater, whiner, dumb, self-proclaimed bastard who thinks my opinion is better than the others.
It's really ironic.

Modifié par brfritos, 21 septembre 2010 - 07:56 .

[Terror_K]

brfritos wrote...

And the best part of all is when I say that, people accuse me of beign a hater, whiner, dumb, self-proclaimed bastard who thinks my opinion is better than the others.
It's really ironic.

Indeed. Usually it's the ones that call others "elitist" are the ones that most believe their opinions are more valid than the one they're labeling, quite often because they seem to believe that the majority are always in the right.

And the whole "hater" thing is amusing too. The reason those of us who complain do so is not because we hate Mass Effect, just quite the opposite: it's because we love Mass Effect and don't want to see it become a substandard series just for the sake of appealing to the masses. ME1 had promise, and ME2 squandered almost all of it.

[stewie1974]

brfritos wrote...

stewie1974 wrote...

wow, a company "selling out"... outrageous!!!!!!

Breaking News... Companies are out to make money... film at eleven.

The problem is not "selling out".

And for that matter, I have a problem with the whole concept of "seeling you out". What a game company, movie studio or even a music group wants?
Money for their creation, there's absolutelly nothing wrong with that.

So how about we replace "selling out" for "abandoning your principles for no good reason".
Yes, people can change - no Obama jokes, please - but at what purpose?
For making more money?
Hey, I can make a lot of money selling drugs, doing porno movies or winning the lotery.

I can too make tons of money doing things more appeasable to a audience, without make things shallow.
Because that's what Bioware did with Mass Effect, the game is shallow.
I remember Bioware saying that my decisions in the first game will influence and change the course of the story in ME2.
Do they? My decisions influence and changes what happens in ME2?

I don't agree when people say that ME2 or Fallout 3 are "PoS games". They are good games and they deserved to be played, at least once.
But this don't mean there aren't problems with them and the main problem of ME2 is he feels disconnected from the first game.
It's a trilogy, remember?

And the best part of all is when I say that, people accuse me of beign a hater, whiner, dumb, self-proclaimed bastard who thinks my opinion is better than the others.
It's really ironic.

My was heavily on the sarcasm side. I LOVE mass effect 2.

Bioware is a company. It has a responsibility to make money. It owes its share holders more loyality than it does any established fan base, because share holders happen to want the company to expand, grow, and make their shares worth more.

So the ideas presented here that bioware should stay loyal to its "niche" market rather than expanding its player base strike me as somewhat naive.

Fact is as a company grows , so does expectations on its fiscial value.

Anyone that says "money is no reason to change direction"... well yes it is..... ESPECIALLY in the current economic climate, you need to make MORE money than ever...

Because the facts are, a lot of your consumers are also hit by the financial crisis... so if they have to chose "one" game to buy rather than a lot of of other compeditors... you need to make them buy yours......

So you invest heavily in your project to make sure if any game is going to be bought its going to be yours. Be thankful ME2 sold so many copies... If it didn't ...ME3 would -seriously- be in danger of not being developed at all...

A niche market won't secure the sequel, only something that appeals to a wider audience will.... ME2 wasn't cheap you know.... I doubt Martin Sheen did the voice work on gratis.

Principles are fantastic when you have a small niche market and opperate a mom & pop dinner and there are no other compeditors opperating within a 50 mile radius.....  when you are making video games in a market filled with competing forces... that -niche- market just aint going to sustain you.

Modifié par stewie1974, 21 septembre 2010 - 04:48 .

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...
As another person put it, it's like BioWare just stopped caring about the integrity of the universe with ME2.

Couldn't disagree more with you. I can't travel through Omega and be lost in the sights and amazing attention to detail and think they 'don't care'. I can't have interesting backstories and conversations with my squadmates which lead to enjoyable side missions and feel they 'don't care'. There's just too much in the game that makes it nearly impossibly to believe that ME2 is for the 'herp-derp bang-bang' crowd.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 21 septembre 2010 - 06:07 .

[Iakus]

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
As another person put it, it's like BioWare just stopped caring about the integrity of the universe with ME2.

Couldn't disagree more with you. I can't travel through Omega and be lost in the sights and amazing attention to detail and think they 'don't care'. I can't have interesting backstories and conversations with my squadmates which lead to enjoyable side missions and feel they 'don't care'. There's just too much in the game that makes it nearly impossibly to believe that ME2 is for the 'herp-derp bang-bang' crowd.

Unfortunately I can't see Miranda or Jack charging into combat in their "outfits" and think they care about the intelligence of their players

I can't see the breathing masks without helmets in dangerous enviroments and think they care as much about their universe.

I can't see the absence of squad banter, a staple in most Bioware games, and think they paid as much attention to the characters.

I can't see the multitude of retcons, resets, and overall lack of connection to ME 1 and think they cared much about creating an epic masterpiece so much as a FOTM.

I can't see the final boss and not think they just let the interns have a shot at the script.

Not that ME 2 doesn't have its good points.  Graphics and sound are indeed great, and much attention was given to them.  They went all-out on gameplay.  But the story and continuity suffered horribly.  Graphics are nice, but that's not what drives an rpg, or even an rpg hybrid.  Not for me, at least.

 I hope I'm wrong.  I hope that somehow it'll all come together in ME 3.  But I simply can't see how that can happen.  Not without it being six discs or so and costing $150 or so.  Of course if it can deliver that, it just might be worth it.

[Pocketgb]

iakus wrote...
I can't see the breathing masks without helmets in dangerous enviroments and think they care as much about their universe.

Characters wearing impractical clothing in a video game is something that we're used to. That's not to say that I don't find it a letdown, of course.

iakus wrote...
I can't see the absence of squad banter, a staple in most Bioware games, and think they paid as much attention to the characters.

12 characters, 12 backstories, 12 in-depth quests. Not saying that the lack of banter is "okay", rather that it would only make the experience even better and is not essential to immersive me into my squad.

iakus wrote...
I can't see the multitude of retcons, resets, and overall lack of connection to ME 1 and think they cared much about creating an epic masterpiece so much as a FOTM.

Well that's only if you considered ME1 an 'epic masterpiece'. I enjoyed the hell out of it but it was unable to reach the scale I felt in both KotOR and JE.

The backtracking of the lore sucks, though, slightly understood by having a more-or-less different team backing up the writing. Personally, though, it just furthers away from it being even better as an experience.

iakus wrote...
I can't see the final boss and not think they just let the interns have a shot at the script.

The presentation was rough, but I loved the overall concept of what actually made the boss, and it contrasted well with our conceptions created in ME1: Geth (a mechanical force) being the cannon fodder in the first, Collectors (an organic force) being the trash-mobs in the second.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 21 septembre 2010 - 08:29 .

[Iakus]

[quote]Pocketgb wrote...

Characters wearing impractical clothing in a video game is something that we're used to. That's not to say that I don't find it a letdown, of course. [/quote]

That's where ME 1 was a welcome breath of fresh air.  The combat outfits may have been ugly, but they were fuctional.  You wear armor when going into combat.  Not a superhero outfit!  To me this puts ME 2 well into "chainmail bikini" territory.

[quote]iakus wrote...

12 characters, 12 backstories, 12 in-depth quests. Not saying that the lack of banter is "okay", rather that it would only make the experience even better and is not essential to immersive me into my squad.[/quote]

Dragon Age did great with nine.  Baldur's Gate 2 had sixteen possible companions.  Who interacted to the point where diametric opposites could kill each other (fyi, don't let the paladin and the drow priestess hang out in the same party.  It''s not likely to end well).  ME 2 has twelve windup toys.  If cutting three or four characters would have freed up enough resources to even have the limited banter of the first game, I'd have been all for it.  In this case, less is certainly not more.

Yes the personal strories were nice.  But not enough.  Not nearly enough.
. 
[quote]iakus wrote...

Well that's only if you considered ME1 an 'epic masterpiece'. I enjoyed the hell out of it but it was unable to reach the scale I felt in both KotOR and JE.

The backtracking of the lore sucks, though, slightly understood by having a more-or-less different team backing up the writing. Personally, though, it just furthers away from it being even better as an experience.[/quote]

ME 1 was not an epic masterpiece.  It was potentially the start of one though.  Looking at it as a single standalone game, it's not bad.  As the first third of an epic trilogy, it was potentially amazing.  Groundbreaking even.  As it is, I get a distinct "Matrix Reloaded" feel from ME 2.

[quote]iakus wrote...
I can't see the final boss and not think they just let the interns have a shot at the script.[/quote]

The presentation was rough, but I loved the overall concept of what actually made the boss, and it contrasted well with our conceptions created in ME1: Geth (a mechanical force) being the cannon fodder in the first, Collectors (an organic force) being the trash-mobs in the second.
[/quote]

"Rough" is an overly generous term.  I'm withholding judgement on the general concept of it.  But in presentation, it looks like Minsc designed the thing. "Go for the eyes, Boo!  Go for the eyes!"

That's supposed to be scary?  The same company that created Saren Arterius, Darth Malak, Jon Irenicus and the Glorious Strategist made that?

The Collectors and the Collector General were a potential gold mine for material.  A direct link  to the Reapers and their methods.  A potential example of what was in store for the galaxy and humans in particular.  Perhaps an example of just how outclassed The Council and Alliance forces are militarily and technologically.   If the game had paused for a moment to really reflect on the discoveries made about the Collectors, man that could have been deep.  A pity it was all...urinated...away on mercs and...that boss...

Modifié par iakus, 22 septembre 2010 - 12:25 .

[Pocketgb]

iakus wrote...
That's where ME 1 was a welcome breath of fresh air.  The combat outfits may have been ugly, but they were fuctional.  You wear armor when going into combat.  Not a superhero outfit!  To me this puts ME 2 well into "chainmail bikini" territory.

"Function vs. aesthetics", another conflict between the fans.
Personally: I love the N7 armor in the second as opposed to the first. Not a fan of all the squad members' personal armors, although the idea makes them a bit more distinct and characterized (hard to imagine Jack *not* nearly naked at the top).

iakus wrote...
Dragon Age did great with nine.  Baldur's Gate 2 had sixteen possible companions.  Who interacted to the point where diametric opposites could kill each other (fyi, don't let the paladin and the drow priestess hang out in the same party.  It''s not likely to end well).  ME 2 has twelve windup toys.  If cutting three or four characters would have freed up enough resources to even have the limited banter of the first game, I'd have been all for it.  In this case, less is certainly not more.

And yet imagine how much backstory, depth, interaction, *everything else* could've been done for a mere few squadmates (imagine how much more could've been accomplished with minimal to zero-voice acting!). It's quality vs. quantity with the fans in an epic tug-of-war to define 'how much is too much'.

iakus wrote...
ME 1 was not an epic masterpiece.  It was potentially the start of one though.  Looking at it as a single standalone game, it's not bad.  As the first third of an epic trilogy, it was potentially amazing.  Groundbreaking even.  As it is, I get a distinct "Matrix Reloaded" feel from ME 2.

I considered ME2 more a Daggerfall than anything else, 1. Since it's the game I've been playing the most right now, so it comes to mind, and 2. It goes away from the 'prettiness' that was gained from the previous title. The setting was put into a much more mature and nastier tone. While it's "overdone" at times, I wasn't really surprised since I wasn't as big of a fan of ME1's writing, either.

iakus wrote...
That's supposed to be scary?

Conceptually yes, it is pretty messed up. Imagining it in combat isn't a pleasent thought: It could literally latch onto hulls and easily tear everything apart. Having manuverability in space is one thing, being flexible is something totally different. Being able to punch a ship is a nifty skill to have.

But none of this wasn't pulled off in the gameplay. It's Bioware, however, so no big surprise. Zombie Saren could've been an incredibly creepy adversary if he wasn't so easily squashed.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 22 septembre 2010 - 01:46 .

[Iakus]

[quote]Pocketgb wrote...


"Function vs. aesthetics", another conflict between the fans.
Personally: I love the N7 armor in the second as opposed to the first. Not a fan of all the squad members' personal armors, although the idea makes them a bit more distinct and characterized (hard to imagine Jack *not* nearly naked at the top).[/quote]

If they wanted to make Jack so distinctive, They could have done a scene of Jacob or Miranda issuing her armor, Jack telling them what they could do with their armor, and finally acquiessing.  Later we see she's made some "adjustments" to it in the form of assorted  tattoo-like designs all over a suit of Cerberus armor, particularly a red stripe through a Cerberus logo.

Customized looks.  Customized armor.  Function and aesthetics.  It can be done.  You can have both

[quote]iakus wrote...

And yet imagine how much backstory, depth, interaction, *everything else* could've been done for a mere few squadmates (imagine how much more could've been accomplished with minimal to zero-voice acting!). It's quality vs. quantity with the fans in an epic tug-of-war to define 'how much is too much'.[/quote]

I'm not sure what you mean here.  Cutting the banter made for...more depth?  I really don't see it.  The entire point of teh game was "the squad"  If anything, It needed banter just to get it's story off the ground.  Instead if I want to do Garrus' loyalty mission, I park at the Citadel, load the batteries into Garrus' back, pick a random squad member (since the third one doesn't matter at all) and go.

Yes, I'm sure voice acting cuts into the resource budget.  Sadly, I suspect DA 2 will be about half the length of DAO due to voicing Hawke.  But if you're going to introduce a dozen highly individualistic personalities and put them all on one sdhip for a specific mission, it might be nice if we could see these highly individualistic characters of diverse backgrounds and upbringings interacting a little

Honestly, a bit more could have been made of the whole "earn their trust" thing, right?


[quote]iakus wrote...

I considered ME2 more a Daggerfall than anything else, 1. Since it's the game I've been playing the most right now, so it comes to mind, and 2. It goes away from the 'prettiness' that was gained from the previous title. The setting was put into a much more mature and nastier tone. While it's "overdone" at times, I wasn't really surprised since I wasn't as big of a fan of ME1's writing, either.[/quote]

1 I didn't get into teh Elder Scrolls series before Morrowind, so I can't comment

2 I actually didn't see the setting as more mature or significantly nasiter.  The language was a bit courser, the humor a little more juvenile.  But ME 2 wasn't exactly "Blade Runner"  How is it darker?  They show blood now?
Any signs of it going into really dark or serious themes are either interupted by gunfire or simply handwaved away.  Mordin's loyalty mission and Jack's backstory (which is a bit over the top) is probably the closest you come to "dark and mature"

[quote]iakus wrote...
That's supposed to be scary?[/quote]

Conceptually yes, it is pretty messed up. Imagining it in combat isn't a pleasent thought: It could literally latch onto hulls and easily tear everything apart. Having manuverability in space is one thing, being flexible is something totally different. Being able to punch a ship is a nifty skill to have.[/quote]

I wonder if that Seargent on the Citadel  made his "maggots" quote Sir Isaac Newton's Third Law

[quote]
But none of this wasn't pulled off in the gameplay. It's Bioware, however, so no big surprise. Zombie Saren could've been an incredibly creepy adversary if he wasn't so easily squashed.
[/quote]

I dunno, I usually had a nasty time with him, but then A) I rarely bothered to purchase Spectre gear and depended on random drops and I favored the Infiltrator class. That fight is not sniper-rifle friendly

But in either case, it was less a matter of how easy the fight is and more a matter of "Oh frak, I now have the attention of the Cthulhu-like entity that'sholding off an entire fleet outside that window!" 

Termireaper, yeah "Go for the eyes Boo!  Don't worry about ammo, the Collectors will just send more!"

Dang, I'm getting the urge to play ME 1 again.

Modifié par iakus, 22 septembre 2010 - 04:46 .

[brfritos]

stewie1974 wrote...

Principles are fantastic when you have a small niche market and opperate a mom & pop dinner and there are no other compeditors opperating within a 50 mile radius.....  when you are making video games in a market filled with competing forces... that -niche- market just aint going to sustain you.

Well, George Lucas didn't change his principles with the new Star Wars trilogy, for example.
I bet if he put more nudinity or make Amidala more sexy the movies will sell even more. 

Or let loose the story in the books or comics, for example.
Everyone of them had to be aproved and contexted inside the universe, otherwise they aren't published, no matter how good they are.

Isn't curious that the NWN forums for versions 1 & 2 are separated, as well DA 1 & 2, but the ME1 section vanished?

You CAN make things fisable for a larger audience and still maintain integrity and inteligence togheter.

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
As another person put it, it's like BioWare just stopped caring about the integrity of the universe with ME2.

Couldn't disagree more with you. I can't travel through Omega and be lost in the sights and amazing attention to detail and think they 'don't care'. I can't have interesting backstories and conversations with my squadmates which lead to enjoyable side missions and feel they 'don't care'. There's just too much in the game that makes it nearly impossibly to believe that ME2 is for the 'herp-derp bang-bang' crowd.

And for me there's too much in ME2 to believe that it's not been retooled for a less mature, more action-loving and overall younger audience.

ME1 I could actually take seriously. Beyond the space magic stuff that every sci-fi gets at least a couple of, it had a style, tone and presentation that came across as serious, mature and mostly believable. One couldn't call it truly hard sci-fi, but it was never farcical or juvenile.

ME2 is another story, and seems to have just thrown too much aside in favour of having some kind of "coolness" factor. Like I've said before, it sacrifices substance for style in so many places and seems to cease to take itself seriously any more or even remain consistent. It's not incredibly prominent throughout, so don't get me wrong, but there's enough of these eye-rolling bad and farcical things there to be annoying and take away a decent chunk of credibility and believability from the thing.

The biggest culprit is probably the crewmembers suddenly running around with exposed skin and acting like the dangers of space just fly out the window as long as you wear a breathing mask, while in the first game it was always made sure that everybody was completely sealed and protected properly. It just turns the whole thing into a joke, especially with the likes of Jack. Whoever decided that this was a good idea and satisfactory should be fired, IMO. On top of that things like massive plot holes that don't even seem to be cared about, the thermal clip system and the lore behind it, people running around in garish "shoot me!" holograms, the whole Renegade Terminator Shepard, etc. don't help either. It's like they decided to throw good, locial design out the window in favour of making a bunch of people just go "that's looks awesome! Cool! Badass!" while those of us who know better are just rolling our eyes.On top of it all it doesn't help that the whole game seems to want to hide its RPG nature at every turn, including its interfaces that would suit a children's book more than an adult's game.

Like I've said before, ME2 has a whole "retooled by the network" feel to it. It feels less like homage to classic sci-fi and more like modern Hollywood pap made for the masses. There's just too much carelessness, immaturity, simplicity and style over substance for me to believe that the game wasn't altered in style to try and appeal to a different audience. Maybe not fully, but at least to some degree. And I no longer have confidence in BioWare to make a decent ME3 after making what I consider to be stupid and amateur mistakes with ME2. That "biggest culprit" I mentioned before should never have come about... it's as simple as that. It shouldn't have been something that was nixed before the game came out, it shouldn't have even been a thought, let alone a consideration. If Uwe Boll, Michael Bay or Joel Schumacher made the Mass Effect movie even they wouldn't be so idiotic to think that was a good idea... that's the level or retardedness we're talking about here. That's the degree of stupidity we're dealing with, and just how completely farcical it alone makes the Mass Effect universe.

And yet I'm supposed to take ME2 seriously and trust the same team to make ME3.

[brfritos]

Terror_K wrote...

The biggest culprit is probably the crewmembers suddenly running around with exposed skin and acting like the dangers of space just fly out the window as long as you wear a breathing mask, while in the first game it was always made sure that everybody was completely sealed and protected properly. It just turns the whole thing into a joke, especially with the likes of Jack. Whoever decided that this was a good idea and satisfactory should be fired, IMO. On top of that things like massive plot holes that don't even seem to be cared about, the thermal clip system and the lore behind it, people running around in garish "shoot me!" holograms, the whole Renegade Terminator Shepard, etc. don't help either. It's like they decided to throw good, locial design out the window in favour of making a bunch of people just go "that's looks awesome! Cool! Badass!" while those of us who know better are just rolling our eyes.On top of it all it doesn't help that the whole game seems to want to hide its RPG nature at every turn, including its interfaces that would suit a children's book more than an adult's game.

Well, they only did helmets open because the internet was plagued with jokes about Shepard trying to drink with closed ones.

And if you ask the devs, they still try to convinve you they were right.

BTW, this is for you, Terror... 


This guy rocks, very funny stuff.
http://cabal-art.dev...y/#Sphongmo-ME2

Modifié par brfritos, 22 septembre 2010 - 01:06 .

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K that last post is so full of **** it's unbelievable. there's the odd mistake/misstep, sure (the ammo clips, jack entirely, not just running around in whatever that is), but as pocketgb rightly said - the stuff that is in mass effect 2 vastly outweighs that of #1 and any negatives - the locations, variety, art design, details etc. is staggering and the gameplay even more engaging than the first (especially the conversations, increased dynamism, scripted sequences etc. even if you don't appreciate the refined combat like everyone else does). you may not like the paragon/renegade appearance thing, either, but i thought it was a nice gameplay touch, rather than a realism touch - it differentiates your shepard a little bit and you can get rid of it pretty damn early if you hate it.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 22 septembre 2010 - 01:16 .