874 réponses à ce sujet

[Kaiser Shepard]

The lack of any VO during this powerpoint and then seeing that class vid near the end made me realize how much I love Christina's voice.



Ms. Norman, please take it upon yourself to voice ME3's female lead.

[Khayness]

Wow Prezi! University flashback...

As for the combat: Besides crouching, 3 functions on 1 key fix, it doesn't need drastical changes for my taste.

Visible weapon stats and more weapons (not heavy ones you use like 4 times overall) would be nice.

RPG side: Hmmm. The main missions:sidequest ratio was fine, if only the Loyality quests had been integrated into the main plot better. Like Shep saving the crewmembers arses a few times during Collector encounters or something. But I know they were supposed to be loyal to the cause and not to you etc. group therapist mode on.

Polishing, indeed. Want Mass Effect 3 shiny!

[yoda23]

makenzieshepard wrote...

ME2 is a Game where you Play a R[/b][b]ole.

Q.E.D. It is a Role Playing Game (RPG), savvy?

What subcategory exist and which one ME2 falls under could be argued indefinately.  Whether it's the type of RPG YOU like to play is up to the individual.  It's RPG status is however not in question by those with the most basic grasp of the english language.

Also please no Appeal to tradition, regarding what an RPG is, that logical fallacy is tiresome.

QED - A Spinoza reference? My gosh there is intelligent life on these boards after all!

Modifié par yoda23, 13 mars 2010 - 11:52 .

[Meistr_Chef]

JKoopman wrote...

Meistr_Chef wrote...

Are you serious? Crouching has been a first person shooter mechanic since...the mid 90s? It's not "richness to detail" it's something that hardcore shooter players would expect; taking it out won't please them. I thought the lack of crouching was still a sign that this is a RPG-game first and foremost geared towards the Xbox 360; I understand why they did it though. They wanted to reduce the number of controls and decided that with the new cover system the crouch is one control too many. This freed up another button for hotkey powers (on the Xbox 360 system where button real estate is precious)...well on the PC I'm not as affected but I still like having all the important keyboard keys at my fingertips.

Not that I think crouching is some sort of must-have feature, but that's a load of bologna. A crouch button could've easily fit on the Xbox gamepad... right where it was in ME1 (on the left thumbstick button). Instead, BOTH thumbsticks now open the minimap, which is pointlessly redundant. So I fail to see how saving space on the Xbox gamepad can be a rationalization for removing that feature.

I would have to defer to Xbox 360 players there. I do not have the X360 version...so bad assumption on my part?

Do you have a picture of the X360 control scheme handy? I'm interested to see how the keys are bound.

[yoda23]

Meistr_Chef wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Meistr_Chef wrote...

Are you serious? Crouching has been a first person shooter mechanic since...the mid 90s? It's not "richness to detail" it's something that hardcore shooter players would expect; taking it out won't please them. I thought the lack of crouching was still a sign that this is a RPG-game first and foremost geared towards the Xbox 360; I understand why they did it though. They wanted to reduce the number of controls and decided that with the new cover system the crouch is one control too many. This freed up another button for hotkey powers (on the Xbox 360 system where button real estate is precious)...well on the PC I'm not as affected but I still like having all the important keyboard keys at my fingertips.

Not that I think crouching is some sort of must-have feature, but that's a load of bologna. A crouch button could've easily fit on the Xbox gamepad... right where it was in ME1 (on the left thumbstick button). Instead, BOTH thumbsticks now open the minimap, which is pointlessly redundant. So I fail to see how saving space on the Xbox gamepad can be a rationalization for removing that feature.

I would have to defer to Xbox 360 players there. I do not have the X360 version...so bad assumption on my part?

Do you have a picture of the X360 control scheme handy? I'm interested to see how the keys are bound.

Yes, HERE

[Maugrim]

yoda23 wrote...

makenzieshepard wrote...

ME2 is a Game where you Play a R[/b][b]ole.

Q.E.D. It is a Role Playing Game (RPG), savvy?

What subcategory exist and which one ME2 falls under could be argued indefinately.  Whether it's the type of RPG YOU like to play is up to the individual.  It's RPG status is however not in question by those with the most basic grasp of the english language.

Also please no Appeal to tradition, regarding what an RPG is, that logical fallacy is tiresome.

QED - A Spinoza reference? My gosh there is intelligent life on these boards afterall!

Sorry twas not though looking at wikipedia seems he was an interesting guy I will be reading more on him. thanks for the link.

Was trying to add some levity into my arguments so it was actually a Jack Sparrow/Pirates reference.

[Tasker]

Meistr_Chef wrote...

I have trouble reconciling the importance of inventory in an RPG. It's always been there, but I have always doubted its importance when trying to make a hybrid game with a stronger story and pace focus. The inventory feeds a certain gamer's need for loot, is basically what I can come up with. Borderlands is the most recent game to make this abundantly clear; that some gamers just want to collect loot.

Yes it's addictive but does from a big picture standpoint, how much does an inventory make you feel like you're inhabiting a role in the game, in a meaningful way? Does an item define you as a person? Given a finite time and human resource to produce a game, do you spend your resources crafting more unique levels, or do you create an inventory and lessen the impact but including more cut and paste areas to masquerade as "exploration"? I believe there is more interaction between the inventory and game development compromises than some would like to admit.

I think the reason inventories and looting work is partly because people like having something to aim for and also partly because they like to gain something for all their effort.

If you spend 10 hours on a mission and you know you'll get a nice shiny object that's better than the one you're currently using, then you'll tend to go out of your way to get it.

However, If you spend 10 hours on a mission and then get nothing at the end of it, what's the point? Why bother doing it?


Inventory and looting is a gaming equivalent to the worm on the hook.

[Chala]

Orkboy wrote...

El_Chala_Legalizado wrote...

Orkboy wrote...

Whoa, whoa, whoa...

I'm sorry, but I have to comment on this...

The reason they screwed us over on the team mate armour was because they based it on the fact that you could end up naked - IN A TOTALY SEPERATE GAME USING A TOTALY UNRELATED ENGINE?

That reasoning is just retarded.

it was a joke, a simple way to say "too many squadmates to manage"

If that's the case then the simple answer is don't add so many bloody squad mates.


Too many squad mates to manage...?  

So that's the excuse for the pisspoor recolours and lack of space suits?
And it's not as if we only have to organise two at a time.

 hey fo me the game is fine, but in this you win and is true (not the part of the "so many bloody squamates")
so yes, I'd like to manage the armor of my squad mates using the armor's customisation that we use for shepard's armor. but is not MY game and I can't ask too much, even the heaven can have some injustice

Modifié par El_Chala_Legalizado, 13 mars 2010 - 11:59 .

[slyguy07]

Meistr_Chef wrote...

I have trouble reconciling the importance of inventory in an RPG. It's always been there, but I have always doubted its importance when trying to make a hybrid game with a stronger story and pace focus. The inventory feeds a certain gamer's need for loot, is basically what I can come up with. Borderlands is the most recent game to make this abundantly clear; that some gamers just want to collect loot.

Yes it's addictive but does from a big picture standpoint, how much does an inventory make you feel like you're inhabiting a role in the game, in a meaningful way? Does an item define you as a person? Given a finite time and human resource to produce a game, do you spend your resources crafting more unique levels, or do you create an inventory and lessen the impact but including more cut and paste areas to masquerade as "exploration"? I believe there is more interaction between the inventory and game development compromises than some would like to admit.

I disagree as inventory and loot is a simple and uncomplicated(or should be) way of feeding someone's need for material progression in a game as goes on. The problem is that in a lot of games there is one "ultimate" item that trumps all the others. The endgame in ME3 should have 3 endgame armors or 2 endgame weapons per class.

Example: Armax Arsenal's top line armor provides the most shielding and grants good protection from physical damage. Kass Fabrication provides the most damage protection with good shielding. Throw in something to make each manufacturer's endgame armor unique and customizable then you have trumped both ME1 and ME2's loot and armor systems a dozen times over.

One other thing. I think BW put a lot of effort in what they tried to do in ME2. They did accomplish the "shooter and action packed" feel to it. Unfortunately either to due to time constraints or budget constraints or maybe both they couldn't do the inventory everyone would have liked. Only the ME2 fanboys are the ones I have seen that like the dull and simple affair about 3 weapons per class.

My poll shows that people like customization - and would like the opportunity to use that on their weapons and armor.

social.bioware.com/965313/polls/3066/

While I have heavily criticized the biotics and tech powers, (mainly due to many of them being useless due to the barrier/shields/armor system rendering many of them pointless as gunfire kills quicker when they drop to their health bar) the ammo system which is a codex-breaking and technological step backwards, and lack of an inventory  I applaud Christina Norman's gutsiness and boldness in the direction she took for the game in ME2. I may not agree with a lot of it, but I certainly have to give her props for courage and effort.

[Tasker]

El_Chala_Legalizado wrote...

 hey fo me the game is fine, but in this you win and is true (not the part of the "so many bloody squamates")
so yes, I'd like to manage the armor of my squad mates using the armor's customisation that we use for shepard's armor. but is not MY game and and even in heaven can have some injustice but is not MY game and i can't ask too much, even the heaven can have some injustice

Something i've said before, all they had to do was expand the N7 armour creator to cover the team mates too.

They didn't even have to add a lot of  pieces to it, just a couple for each body part for each race would have done.

And it's not as if they had to do both sexes.  The only races that need both sexes portrayed in armour are humanoid, and they have that covered with Shepard.
 
Hell,t hey could have just taken the armour models from ME1, chopped them into bits and polished them up a bit.

It would have been infinately preferable to the lazy cop-out system they actually used.

Modifié par Orkboy, 14 mars 2010 - 12:06 .

[MassEffect762]

slyguy07 wrote...

*Snip*.....
 Unfortunately either to due to time constraints or budget constraints or maybe both they couldn't do the inventory everyone would have liked.

I'd bet the farm this is what happened. Their lack of shooter experience caused them to waste precious time/money.

I'd hate to think this was the plan all along.

[DaBigDragon]

LOL @ the mining rap vid in the presentation.

[yoda23]

makenzieshepard wrote...

yoda23 wrote...

makenzieshepard wrote...

ME2 is a Game where you Play a R[/b][b]ole.

Q.E.D. It is a Role Playing Game (RPG), savvy?

What subcategory exist and which one ME2 falls under could be argued indefinately.  Whether it's the type of RPG YOU like to play is up to the individual.  It's RPG status is however not in question by those with the most basic grasp of the english language.

Also please no Appeal to tradition, regarding what an RPG is, that logical fallacy is tiresome.

QED - A Spinoza reference? My gosh there is intelligent life on these boards afterall!

Sorry twas not though looking at wikipedia seems he was an interesting guy I will be reading more on him. thanks for the link.

Was trying to add some levity into my arguments so it was actually a Jack Sparrow/Pirates reference.

Nevertheless, kudos for using QED correctly and for asking what exactly an RPG is... What RPG elements were left out of ME2? If we are forming an opinion on RPG elements I think it should be based upon the first game and the differences between the two games, ME1 & ME2. If we try to hold ME2 to a classical RPG standard then I feel the classification simply would not hold. Indeed these games have very little similarity with the original pen and paper RPG's, at least those elements are not presented to the user. (Think Hit Dice, roll modifications, etc)

To Meistr_Chef's point regarding inventory, I think the lack of inventory options for your squad is precisely what I am referring to as "lacking in RPG" elements. In a nutshell, removing the ability to customize your squad mates, i.e. they always wear the same clothes, reduces the games RPG effectiveness.

Ultimately, though, Christina put the Game Mechanics premise at the forefront of the development priority list rather than the RPG elements that were prevalent in the first game. Ultimately I think her argument is best characterized thusly, Premise 1: the original ME scored ~9.0 by reviewers, Premise 2: fans on the Bioware message boards wanted more shooting elements and less RPG elements, Therefore ME2 ought to have more shooter and less RPG elements. And ME2 scored 9.6 by the reviewers. Therefore, ME2 was more successful than ME1. QED

I am not sure I am convinced by this logic that the design team should have taken this path. However I am also not sure of the importance a .6 increase in a games review score actually equates to 1. a better game or 2. a better selling game. Indeed, I have seen a lot of posts on these message boards to the contrary.

Now, what exactly do those RPG elements actually offer the user or how do they effect the user experience? Again, simply comparing ME1 to ME2 I personally feel less connected to the game. Understandably the original ME1 inventory screen did not port well on the XBOX. Granted, many of the XBOX users probably complained that the game was too difficult to play. Indeed Christina solidified her position with the actual stats from the ME1 message boards. Unfortunately this is not, in my opinion, the Bioware way. Perhaps too much attention was payed to the XBOX users experience. A la, "the mako is too hard to drive", "the planets are too boring", "I can't hold down one button and make Shepherd do everything I want him/her to do". I have seen references in this topic to the notion that too much attention to the fans was payed for this iteration of the game. Hopefully we will see more Bioware and less fan suggestions in the next, last, part of the trilogy. QED.<3

Modifié par yoda23, 14 mars 2010 - 12:19 .

[slyguy07]

DaBigDragon wrote...

LOL @ the mining rap vid in the presentation.

Lol thanks for pointing that out I skipped through it.

[Maugrim]

yoda23 wrote...

makenzieshepard wrote...

yoda23 wrote...

makenzieshepard wrote...

ME2 is a Game where you Play a R[/b][b]ole.

Q.E.D. It is a Role Playing Game (RPG), savvy?

What subcategory exist and which one ME2 falls under could be argued indefinately.  Whether it's the type of RPG YOU like to play is up to the individual.  It's RPG status is however not in question by those with the most basic grasp of the english language.

Also please no Appeal to tradition, regarding what an RPG is, that logical fallacy is tiresome.

QED - A Spinoza reference? My gosh there is intelligent life on these boards afterall!

Sorry twas not though looking at wikipedia seems he was an interesting guy I will be reading more on him. thanks for the link.

Was trying to add some levity into my arguments so it was actually a Jack Sparrow/Pirates reference.

Ultimately, though, Christina put the Game Mechanics premise at the forefront of the development priority list rather than the RPG elements that were prevalent in the first game. Ultimately I think her argument is best characterized thusly, Premise 1: the original ME scored ~9.0 by reviewers, Premise 2: fans on the Bioware message boards wanted more shooting elements and less RPG elements, Therefore ME2 ought to have more shooter and less RPG elements. And ME2 scored 9.6 by the reviewers. Therefore, ME2 was more successful than ME1. QED

I am not sure I am convinced by this logic that the design team should have taken this path. However I am also not sure of the importance a .6 increase in a games review score actually equates to 1. a better game or 2. a better selling game. Indeed, I have seen a lot of posts on these message boards to the contrary.

Just to argue this one little point in your post, since the rest of it was pretty spot on in what questions should be asked.  It could be argued that the .6 jump is relatively significant because quite frankly at an average rating of 9.0 you have almost no where to go but down.  Going from a 6.5 to a 7 for example would be nothing to squawk about.  But to earn 50% more of the avalible points is more significant especially when coupled with that fact that many people and publications are also reluectant to give out perfect score.  Just my two cents as I don't think that was the entirtey of her argument. 

I think it was as I kinda showed with Yahtzee, that Bioware has the good dialogue/writing/choices part down pretty damn good so not much work needs to be done on it.  You don't draft a QB when what you really need is a wide reciever.  Now the shooting part they were never as good and that compared to the other factors so of course that is where they focused there efforts and the score was just one supporting fact, in addition to sales and other feedback.

Did that make sense?

[Tasker]

blackrhubarb 2.0 wrote...

gmartin40 wrote...

At least BW listens to its fans but people still criticize them.

Harsh but true. We should stop criticizing them, otherwise they might remove themselves.

Aye, Bioware only need a minor tweak and we know what they do with things that only need a minor tweak. 

[yoda23]

makenzieshepard wrote...

yoda23 wrote...

makenzieshepard wrote...

yoda23 wrote...

makenzieshepard wrote...

ME2 is a Game where you Play a R[/b]ole.

Q.E.D. It is a Role Playing Game (RPG), savvy?

What subcategory exist and which one ME2 falls under could be argued indefinately.  Whether it's the type of RPG YOU like to play is up to the individual.  It's RPG status is however not in question by those with the most basic grasp of the english language.

Also please no Appeal to tradition, regarding what an RPG is, that logical fallacy is tiresome.

QED - A Spinoza reference? My gosh there is intelligent life on these boards afterall!

Sorry twas not though looking at wikipedia seems he was an interesting guy I will be reading more on him. thanks for the link.

Was trying to add some levity into my arguments so it was actually a Jack Sparrow/Pirates reference.

Ultimately, though, Christina put the Game Mechanics premise at the forefront of the development priority list rather than the RPG elements that were prevalent in the first game. Ultimately I think her argument is best characterized thusly, Premise 1: the original ME scored ~9.0 by reviewers, Premise 2: fans on the Bioware message boards wanted more shooting elements and less RPG elements, Therefore ME2 ought to have more shooter and less RPG elements. And ME2 scored 9.6 by the reviewers. Therefore, ME2 was more successful than ME1. QED

I am not sure I am convinced by this logic that the design team should have taken this path. However I am also not sure of the importance a .6 increase in a games review score actually equates to 1. a better game or 2. a better selling game. Indeed, I have seen a lot of posts on these message boards to the contrary.

Just to argue this one little point in your post, since the rest of it was pretty spot on in what questions should be asked.  It could be argued that the .6 jump is relatively significant because quite frankly at an average rating of 9.0 you have almost no where to go but down.  Going from a 6.5 to a 7 for example would be nothing to squawk about.  But to earn 50% more of the avalible points is more significant especially when coupled with that fact that many people and publications are also reluectant to give out perfect score.  Just my two cents as I don't think that was the entirtey of her argument. 

I think it was as I kinda showed with Yahtzee, that Bioware has the good dialogue/writing/choices part down pretty damn good so not much work needs to be done on it.  You don't draft a QB when what you really need is a wide reciever.  Now the shooting part they were never as good and that compared to the other factors so of course that is where they focused there efforts and the score was just one supporting fact, in addition to sales and other feedback.

Did that make sense?

Yes it makes sense. I just simply lack the necessary information know know if #2, sales figures, is accurate or not. I only am able to judge the game based on my subjective interpretation of #1, i.e. is ME1 a better game? But none should belie the fact that IGN is now owned by News Corp... Meaning the previous release, ME1, [b]could have been judged by very different criteria than the new game was judged by the new owners of IGN and their goals... As a result it is also impossible to determine if the new game is more or less successful based only upon the review score. Ultimately I think Christina and her team did a very good job with ME2, very few bugs, plays great, etc. However I still reject the notion that ME1 was lacking in good shooter fundamentals. ME1 was not a FPS. So, why did they feel it necessary to try to make ME2 into more of a FPS and less like an RPG. If it was not based upon review score then it must have been the calculations that were made from the old ME1 forums. Indeed Christina provides the rationale for making this decision. I just humbly feel it was the wrong one to make.<3

[Stinkface27]

This was incredibly refreshing to read. Thanks so much for posting.

[Murmillos]

I think by now they realize their biggest mistake was over simplify the loot aspect. Everybody agrees that ME1 system needed a good serious overhaul and polishing, but I don't think they realize that in their current system was going to be as negativity receptive as it has been.

[Empiro]

I wish I could have been there to actually see the presentation, but the slides were very illuminating. I don't think I was surprised by anything on there, but it really confirmed my suspicions on the choices that were made, like for the inventory and skill system.

I enjoyed ME2 far more than ME1 (which was still very good), so in my mind the changes worked. I like both shooters and I'm an even bigger fan of RPGs (I own every RPG by Bioware, Interplay, and Bethesda since BG1 days), so I think ME2 has really hit that sweet spot for me.

More RPG elements for ME3 would be welcome too, but I hope they keep up with the streamlined, annoyance-free skill and inventory system of ME2.

Modifié par Empiro, 14 mars 2010 - 01:20 .

[WilliamShatner]

Another saddening thing about this presentation is the admittance that they pretty much copied other games wholeshale and would rather be another copycat than their own thing. That's sad. For a self-proclaim "ground-breaking" series like ME, it should strive to play like nothing else, to offer a unique experience. ME1 did this because of the combination of biotic/tech powers and shooting, but because ME2 is so heavily shooter focused it's just another Gears of War copycat.



Of course this is the industry where Uncharted 2, one of the most derivative and unimaginative games ever made wins countless Game of the Year awards.