874 réponses à ce sujet

[M 3 i m 0 n]

Besetment wrote...

Why would you reduce the reality down to categories which don't describe what it is properly? Thats unnecessary reductionism. Everyone does it I know and I write my own music so thats always a battle over classification and genre even when its not necessary and is actually harmful to originality in music that transcends genre or tries to subvert it.

I think u need 2 read again the previous post

Modifié par M 3 i m 0 n, 17 mars 2010 - 03:20 .

[M 3 i m 0 n]

Double post.

Modifié par M 3 i m 0 n, 17 mars 2010 - 03:19 .

[Jebel Krong]

M 3 i m 0 n wrote...

Besetment wrote...

Why would you reduce the reality down to categories which don't describe what it is properly? Thats unnecessary reductionism. Everyone does it I know and I write my own music so thats always a battle over classification and genre even when its not necessary and is actually harmful to originality in music that transcends genre or tries to subvert it.

I think u need 2 read again the previous post

no he's right - the experience is more than just the sum of it's parts, and whilst you can dislike many of the small changes if you wish, the entire experience is greater than pretty much any other game, and even, mass effect 1. as the review scores will testify (though they are hardly the only or best barometer).

[Murmillos]

Jebel Krong wrote...

M 3 i m 0 n wrote...

Besetment wrote...

Why would you reduce the reality down to categories which don't describe what it is properly? Thats unnecessary reductionism. Everyone does it I know and I write my own music so thats always a battle over classification and genre even when its not necessary and is actually harmful to originality in music that transcends genre or tries to subvert it.

I think u need 2 read again the previous post

no he's right - the experience is more than just the sum of it's parts, and whilst you can dislike many of the small changes if you wish, the entire experience is greater than pretty much any other game, and even, mass effect 1. as the review scores will testify (though they are hardly the only or best barometer).

As for the scores...

On day 1 thru the end of my first play thru, I would have given (and did in my own mind) ME2 a 9+ (out of 10).  After playing it again, and finally finding the cracks, the nagging problems, my score to ME2 has dropped to 7.

ME1 for compairson; started at a mid 8 and continues to remain around a mid 8.

Again, its not that ME2 is a bad game, it just ME2 doesn't continue the same feeling, flow, expectations presented in ME1.  A lot of people look at ME2, and say (and we see it here) "at least ME2 doesn't have the broken part ME1 had."  Like its either-or.  Either have it done ME1 way.. or the other extreme of how ME2 did it.

[Andaius20]

I have to agree too, I am not a fan of game revolution within a series. I think it should be evolution of the existing gameplay.

Modifié par Andaius20, 17 mars 2010 - 10:32 .

[cityhunter357]

I agree too



If Bioware wanted to do something totally different, then they would made another game, not Mass effect.



I'm ok with new features added as the series advance, but not on revolution in a trilogy, and especially "cuts" of many parts of the game just as happened in ME2.

[spernus]

What I get from this is not even related to Mass effect.

It more or less confirm why it took a lot longer for wrpgs to step out of the garage or underground to console and mainstream gamers.

I knew that Bioware/Bethesda or Obsidian/Black Isles started with one stength and held on to it until recently.

You knew about the writers of Bioware or Black Isles for example,but nothing about those gameplay designers and for good reasons.Most of them were mediocre or probably sucked since the priority was writing/roleplaying (was very obvious by looking at ME 1 or Jade empire).Bethesda had the world mass going for them,but thats about it.You can still see that Obsidian are rather one dimensional since they probably have the best videogame writers and are experts at roleplaying,but Alpha protocol doesnt look good and the gameplay/gunplay look mediocre at best (lack of polish is already showing,deficient art direction,bad animations,etc).

I think I perfectly understand the panel about the importance of having a gameplay/design team and focusing more on that.

[Cross1280]

While I agree with what alot of you are saying, this arguing over what is an RPG and what is not is kind of redundant as we will all have our own opinions.
 
   Thru the last page alone i could quote 5 different people and use there comments to argue using their words that MW2 mulitplayer in an RPG by their definition as you have stats on the weaons, You gain EXP per kill, can level up during a match, have different unique skills you have to unlock as you level up,  I could probably even stretch it as far as you get loot by means of airdrops, remote guns, gunships, and airstrikes, based off of your kill ratio.

 This all sounds kinda stupid right, but yet it is there and that game is no where near the quality of what ME2 was.

[Guanxii]

The mission complete screens worked in the context of the story of ME2 - they were Miranda's reports to the Illusive Man It was her active role on the team. It worked to reinforce the belief that you were being constantly monitored. 

I don't expect them to return in ME3 because I doubt progress reports and protocol are going to be an important consideration in the middle of a reaper invasion and if you aren't being evaluated on a mission to mission basis and without mission complete screens it no longer makes sense to reward you with mission xp anymore so i expect the old xp system to return.

[yoda23]

LoweGear wrote...

Destructo-Bot wrote...

Unato wrote...

the game sold over 2 million copies, last checked I don't think there's even 100K ppl on this forum. whatever the complaints on this forum are, it's hardly representative of a lot of ppl. the dev comments are interesting tho I gave you that

This is NOT logically valid. Sample size doesn't have to be enormous to be representative.

But it is logically valid: The validity of a sample depends on the quantity of the sample: If I were to ask just the opinion of 1 person to ascertain the needs of ten thousand people that would be a very poor sample. The larger the sample size, the more consistent the average data becomes, hence to have a better and hence more consistent representation you'd need to have a much larger sample.

From my experience in several other message boards, I don't even believe there's even more than 10,000 registered (forums, not game) accounts here (which woud likely to include duplicates), and of those only a comparative fraction post, and an even smaller fraction of that are like us who are frequent - constant posters. Hence despite what we may like to think, neither of us represent the majority or the minority of the gaming community as a whole. We are just the most visible to the developers due to us visiting the official forums, and unfortunately our individual views and opinions do not conform to the views and opinions of other people elsewhere.

Incorrect. Conducting US national polls on a sample size greater than ~1400 does not yield results with any additional significance. As you surpass the ~1400 sample size you only gain very small, .01  or less, increments in the model. For this reason you can conduct a national opinion poll of a relatively small sample and reliably predict what the outcome is going to be. The validity of the sample does not depend on the quantity of the sample alone, it also depends on the quality of the questions that are asked. Simply adding a larger sample size to a statistical model does not necessarily yield results with greater significance. <3

[yoda23]

scyphozoa wrote...

sadly most of the criticism ME2 gets is in the form of either an extremely positive or extremely negative hyperbole. most posts on these forums are filled with logical fallacies presented to justify the poster's "demands"
this thread is no exception.

I reserve the right to cast Ad Hominem attacks against the "controller".

[yoda23]

Terror_K wrote...

Here's a mock-up I made of the basic thing I would have liked to have seen for ME2 and would like to see for ME3:-

+1 See folks. Adding a little more complexity shouldn't be that big a deal. XBOX'er FPS fans need to ease up on Bioware a bit. That crowd is leading Bioware down the WRONG path! <3

[yoda23]

killingsheep24 wrote...

1000's of crap guns are crap, love the new change, more time spent kicking arse less time playing with stats.

I rest my case!

[yoda23]

Fritz3D wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Here's a mock-up I made of the basic thing I would have liked to have seen for ME2 and would like to see for ME3:-

Nice work but I really don't think this will improve the gameplay more than it will damage it by the added complexity (consider you'll have to do this for 12 squadmates).

Absolutely wrong. I fail to see the connection between adding depth to a game and the game play mechanics. Bioware made a wonderful reputation for themselves by offering very deep games that also played extremely well. You knew in the past that purchasing a Bioware game was going to be an intellectual investment as well as a solid gaming experience. It's really very sad to see Bioware moving away from the very things that made their games unique.

[yoda23]

Bob5312 wrote...

I appreciate all the effort that went into making that, Terror_K, and it looks fantastic.  It's not what I would like to see done, but you actually put in the effort to make your idea tangible, and I respect that.  The problems I can foresee are the (previously mentioned) need to do this for multiple squad members and the need to bring looting back to supply the necessary inventory variety and upgrades. 

Managing weapon upgrades, armour upgrades, different weapons, etc. for upwards of a dozen people would be time-consuming and frustrating to me.  I hate inventory management in games in general; in DA:O and other 'classic' RPGs I regard it as a necessary chore, but I derive no joy from it.  Rather like planet scanning.  The return of interchangeable weapon upgrades would be nice, but not at different 'levels', and not as many as in ME.  And the need to loot bodies to find them would turn the game into more of a 'grind', which just makes the game feel like it wants me to do chores before I get to have fun.

Your design is much better than the current one, and it would be nice to see it adopted in a limited form in future games.  Thank you, and well done.

Then go play a shooter and leave Bioware alone!

[yoda23]

Andaius20 wrote...

I have to agree too, I am not a fan of game revolution within a series. I think it should be evolution of the existing gameplay.

+1

[Murmillos]

yoda23 wrote...

LoweGear wrote...

Destructo-Bot wrote...

Unato wrote...

the game sold over 2 million copies, last checked I don't think there's even 100K ppl on this forum. whatever the complaints on this forum are, it's hardly representative of a lot of ppl. the dev comments are interesting tho I gave you that

This is NOT logically valid. Sample size doesn't have to be enormous to be representative.

But it is logically valid: The validity of a sample depends on the quantity of the sample: If I were to ask just the opinion of 1 person to ascertain the needs of ten thousand people that would be a very poor sample. The larger the sample size, the more consistent the average data becomes, hence to have a better and hence more consistent representation you'd need to have a much larger sample.

From my experience in several other message boards, I don't even believe there's even more than 10,000 registered (forums, not game) accounts here (which woud likely to include duplicates), and of those only a comparative fraction post, and an even smaller fraction of that are like us who are frequent - constant posters. Hence despite what we may like to think, neither of us represent the majority or the minority of the gaming community as a whole. We are just the most visible to the developers due to us visiting the official forums, and unfortunately our individual views and opinions do not conform to the views and opinions of other people elsewhere.

Incorrect. Conducting US national polls on a sample size greater than ~1400 does not yield results with any additional significance. As you surpass the ~1400 sample size you only gain very small, .01  or less, increments in the model. For this reason you can conduct a national opinion poll of a relatively small sample and reliably predict what the outcome is going to be. The validity of the sample does not depend on the quantity of the sample alone, it also depends on the quality of the questions that are asked. Simply adding a larger sample size to a statistical model does not necessarily yield results with greater significance. <3

While you are correct, the polling sample must be unbiased.  A questioning of 1400 random ME2 players would bring better accurate results then from the 1400 players who frequent this forum or other ME2 related forums.

[yoda23]

Murmillos wrote...

yoda23 wrote...

LoweGear wrote...

Destructo-Bot wrote...

Unato wrote...

the game sold over 2 million copies, last checked I don't think there's even 100K ppl on this forum. whatever the complaints on this forum are, it's hardly representative of a lot of ppl. the dev comments are interesting tho I gave you that

This is NOT logically valid. Sample size doesn't have to be enormous to be representative.

But it is logically valid: The validity of a sample depends on the quantity of the sample: If I were to ask just the opinion of 1 person to ascertain the needs of ten thousand people that would be a very poor sample. The larger the sample size, the more consistent the average data becomes, hence to have a better and hence more consistent representation you'd need to have a much larger sample.

From my experience in several other message boards, I don't even believe there's even more than 10,000 registered (forums, not game) accounts here (which woud likely to include duplicates), and of those only a comparative fraction post, and an even smaller fraction of that are like us who are frequent - constant posters. Hence despite what we may like to think, neither of us represent the majority or the minority of the gaming community as a whole. We are just the most visible to the developers due to us visiting the official forums, and unfortunately our individual views and opinions do not conform to the views and opinions of other people elsewhere.

Incorrect. Conducting US national polls on a sample size greater than ~1400 does not yield results with any additional significance. As you surpass the ~1400 sample size you only gain very small, .01  or less, increments in the model. For this reason you can conduct a national opinion poll of a relatively small sample and reliably predict what the outcome is going to be. The validity of the sample does not depend on the quantity of the sample alone, it also depends on the quality of the questions that are asked. Simply adding a larger sample size to a statistical model does not necessarily yield results with greater significance. <3

While you are correct, the polling sample must be unbiased.  A questioning of 1400 random ME2 players would bring better accurate results then from the 1400 players who frequent this forum or other ME2 related forums.

Precisely! Agree Totally!

[yoda23]

Murmillos wrote...

yoda23 wrote...

LoweGear wrote...

Destructo-Bot wrote...

Unato wrote...

the game sold over 2 million copies, last checked I don't think there's even 100K ppl on this forum. whatever the complaints on this forum are, it's hardly representative of a lot of ppl. the dev comments are interesting tho I gave you that

This is NOT logically valid. Sample size doesn't have to be enormous to be representative.

But it is logically valid: The validity of a sample depends on the quantity of the sample: If I were to ask just the opinion of 1 person to ascertain the needs of ten thousand people that would be a very poor sample. The larger the sample size, the more consistent the average data becomes, hence to have a better and hence more consistent representation you'd need to have a much larger sample.

From my experience in several other message boards, I don't even believe there's even more than 10,000 registered (forums, not game) accounts here (which woud likely to include duplicates), and of those only a comparative fraction post, and an even smaller fraction of that are like us who are frequent - constant posters. Hence despite what we may like to think, neither of us represent the majority or the minority of the gaming community as a whole. We are just the most visible to the developers due to us visiting the official forums, and unfortunately our individual views and opinions do not conform to the views and opinions of other people elsewhere.

Incorrect. Conducting US national polls on a sample size greater than ~1400 does not yield results with any additional significance. As you surpass the ~1400 sample size you only gain very small, .01  or less, increments in the model. For this reason you can conduct a national opinion poll of a relatively small sample and reliably predict what the outcome is going to be. The validity of the sample does not depend on the quantity of the sample alone, it also depends on the quality of the questions that are asked. Simply adding a larger sample size to a statistical model does not necessarily yield results with greater significance. <3

While you are correct, the polling sample must be unbiased.  A questioning of 1400 random ME2 players would bring better accurate results then from the 1400 players who frequent this forum or other ME2 related forums.

And that is why a good pollster will conduct focus groups in different geographical locations. I think performing any kind of statistical model on a forum or message board would be ineffective. Much more diverse data is required to accurately measure what the opinion on X may or may not be.

[Kolos2]

well i kinda asume Christina gonna be in charge with the ME3 gameplay and considering her talk in GDC; i do hope some proper form of inventory gonna be in ME3; I for one hope for more costumization , playing with mods even if basic was fun in me1; And bring the licenses back, at least one reason to visit the vendors other that the fish and the toy ships.

[Embrosil]

Well I must admit that I got a bit angry. The presentation looks to me as if they needed to justify all those stupid decisions they made. Especially the video comparing shooting in ME1 vs. ME2. That is simply lame. But now some comments.

Inventory

We all agree that in ME1, inventory was really unfortunate. Too many items without sorting. And too much loot which was mostly useless at the end. But still, I was always happy to find a Colossus or something as useful as this. The decision to remove it completely was unhappy as well. But what I really miss in ME2 is the possibility to change look of my companions. I think the best solution would be to have those lockers as in ME1 where you could change/update/customize armor for each squadmate. There does not have to be inventory or loot. They will have their armors in locker and you can obtain it by buying or by research perhaps. Regarding weapons. Am I the only one who was surprised that when you get that new pistol/SMG/sniper rifle by some miracle all squadmates have it? In the middle of a mission? They appeared from a thin air? Or what?

Upgrades

Nice try, but the ME1 system is still better. Moreover in ME2 you can upgrade damage up to 50% But 50% of what? What the hell is the basic damage? I am affraid even Bioware does not know Not to mention ammo types made as skill. WTF? If today I want to load AP ammo, I just repeat in my mind AP ammo, AP ammo and boom, my rifle miraculously shoots AP rounds? I do not think so. So please, revert back to the ME1 model where we know what we are upgrading, how we are upgrading and what is the final effect.

Ammo

Yes, ammo, oh pardon, it is called heatsinks. The worst and most stupid change from ME1. If you wanted ammo, you should put it in in the ME1. Now it is nothing more than stupid. Show me any army which would willingly change unlimited ammo back to limited ammo. Every general proposing this would be removed as insane. And when speaking of ammo, it is universal right? So why the hell can not I use ammo from my shotgun in my sniper rifle. IT IS THE SAME. And no, I do not want to use the shotgun, I want to use the sniper rifle. I am an inflitrator. And finaly why do I have to run around like an idiot collecting ammo, oh sorry, heatsinks, when enemies and even my squadmates have unlimited ammo? Yes, in ME1 you could fire indefinitely at the end. But the same applied to enemies. So you should make enemies smarter to use this to their advantage, not to give them unlimited ammo while I have to run in front of their guns when I run out ammo for my weapons!

Weapons

There really should be more variety. 2 or 3 pieces from each is not enough. Especially when there is no way for me to know the difference. Assault rifles have all the same description. There are not any stats (damage, rate of fire, nothing).  And please give us the choice NOT TO take some wepons. Why do I have to run around encumbered by weapons as a Chritmas tree if I plan to use only one or two? All my companions in ME2 can carry only two weapons, why can not I?

Exploration

I like MAKO. Yes, it can be pain in the arse when you get stuck, but that is not a problem of the MAKO, but the lousy level design. And I like open space. Every side mission in ME1 was taking place on a large area where you could really use sniper rifles. Some planets like Virmire had so nice environment that everytime I was there I stopped and watched the ocean and the storm on the horizon (I bet every ME1 veteran did the same ). There is nothing like that in ME2. Not a single place you visit is memorable. Every mission is in closed corridor space. No exploration (and no, planet scanning is boring beyond believe, that is not an exploration), no planet surfaces, no open space, nothing. Just go straightforward and shoot whatever moves. And if it is too hard for you, we will place nice things to hide behind so you are NEVER surprised when ther is a fight coming.

So that is all what came on my mind watching that lame excuse. I am sorry, but ME1 is much better game for me. If ME2 was a standalone game with no connection to ME1, it would be perfect. But by completely changing the gender in a sequel, they made a terrible mistake and they will have to work hard to fix it in ME3. For me, I will not preorded ME3. I will wait and see what the game is like.

[exxxed]

Embrosil wrote...

Well I must admit that I got a bit angry. The presentation looks to me as if they needed to justify all those stupid decisions they made. Especially the video comparing shooting in ME1 vs. ME2. That is simply lame. But now some comments.

Inventory

We all agree that in...

Seconded, exactly my feelings, plus the Virmire part... dead on, absolutely beautiful, in ME 2 except for the Illium view when you come from the Space Port i don't remember any particular place that had a great visual impact, unlike Mass Effect 1 where every planet was unique and had it's awesome strange/alien skyboxes.

 Anyway, is it me or every N7 map takes place in a canyon or some such, i swear besides the MSV:Estevanico  every bloody environment was the same +/- weather effects.

EDIT: 
 Oops typo.

Modifié par exxxed, 18 mars 2010 - 03:30 .

[Murmillos]

Zaeeds "loyalty" mission.



Best map in the game.

[exxxed]

Murmillos wrote...

Zaeeds "loyalty" mission.

Best map in the game.

Yup. just love the waterfall!

[Jebel Krong]

exxxed wrote...

Embrosil wrote...

Well I must admit that I got a bit angry. The presentation looks to me as if they needed to justify all those stupid decisions they made. Especially the video comparing shooting in ME1 vs. ME2. That is simply lame. But now some comments.

Inventory

We all agree that in...

Seconded, exactly my feelings, plus the Virmire part... dead on, absolutely beautiful, in ME 2 except for the Illium view when you come from the Space Port i don't remember any particular place that had a great visual impact, unlike Mass Effect 1 where every planet was unique and had it's awesome strange/alien skyboxes.

 Anyway, is it me or every N7 map takes place in a canyon or some such, i swear besides the MSV:Estevanico  every bloody environment was the same +/- weather effects.

EDIT: 
 Oops typo.

really? what about the huge spaceships flying overhead on korlan? the ravaged wastes of tuchunka? jacob's side-mission world? the creepy collector-ship interior? the illium skyline? the base in jack's mission?

any of these are equal to virmire or better.