243 réponses à ce sujet

[Onyx Jaguar]

The only reason GTA4 was good was because of its story though...



Also the current generation of gamers? You had the overly simplified computers and the arcades of the 70's. Slightly more complex games on computers in 80's with simple yet attempting to progress Arcades, and console's that didn't know what they could do properly.



The 90's saw a boom in computer game creativity and technology. Consoles became simplified due to hardware limitations. Arcades tried to keep up technology wise but the simple nature of the usual gameplay killed them off.



2000's marketing took over, PS2 leaching off the success of the Playstation saw a boom in market. Early on Computer games were getting more focused in order to react to constant tech upgrades. With Xbox more American/Western companies started to make console games and that leads to the current generation where the markes are more intertwined due to what the companies are doing now.



Epic was never known for making thought provoking games.



Valve hasn't changed and their games work fine on consoles, plus they sell well and due to the puzzle nature of their games require some thought. Same goes for the LOZ games (Nintendo)



Many other companies have died.



I could write an essay about this, but I don't really feel like it, I'm just gonna leave with an incomplete thought :|

[glasgoo21]

EVen do I did not see the game as an RFP failure, I can concur with your feedback

[SkullandBonesmember]

[quote]GodWood wrote...

I'll at least try to be civil..[/quote]

OK cheers.



[quote]GodWood wrote...

ME2 was far more immersive than ME1 cinematic wise and environment wise, ME1 felt like a sandbox to me, ME2 felt like a dynamic world.
The outfits I agree with you (and actually just never use Miranda because of it)[quote]

Cut scenes don't necessarily add to plot by default.
 
[quote]GodWood wrote...

That was a tiny sidemission from ME1, it showed how it turned out, what more do you want?[/quote]

Conrad was tiny side mission. To actually put them back in the game, without Shepard being able to converse with them made no sense. It would have been implented better by just receiving an email from Rebeckah or Michael.
 
[quote]GodWood wrote...

As you know in those 2 years you were gone Garrus became a vigilante and had his own squad that eventually got betrayed from within.
He currently knows the whereabouts of the person that betrayed him and wants to kill him, in reality this isn't you earning his loyalty just more or less getting rid of all distractions. (you could argue Garrus' sidequest in ME1 is even more pointless)
Same with Tali, shes loyal to you, just distracted that she might be exiled if she doesn't hurry back to the Flotilla for her trial.
And Wrex didn't have a sidequest technically...[/quest]

No. Tali and Garrus are not loyal. They're "normal". And if you don't do their side mission they can die. I would have done the side mission anyway, but it's still really weak.


[quote]GodWood wrote...

There was more dialogue actually but the problem (it annoys me too) is that because the game is so big the characters eventually run out of personal dialogue for inbetween missions.
Personally I hope they fix the spacing of dialogue inbetween missions for ME3.[/quote]

Everybody stopped talking to me with 2 main missions left, even though they were all loyal.

[quote]GodWood wrote...huh? [/quote]

Combat was a lot easier in ME1. There wasn't much need for "tactics". Tactics take up precious time in combat. Combat and dialogue time was fairly even in ME1. Not in ME2.

[Raanz]

The reason you shouldn't hold your breath is the fact that the percentage of "gamers" that like heavy story-driven games with little "action" is small, and some might call it a niche.

Companies like BW and publishers like EA are not interested in making games for a niche market. It costs a crap load of money to make a AAA title these days, and if you can't sell close to a half a million units (or more), it's considered "fail" (for all platforms I am assuming).



That's why I am more then happy to shell out $2 for alternate uniforms, $10 for Kasumi, $40 for the Dragon Age expansion, I want to let BW know that I like what they do in the industry and to keep it up.

[SkullandBonesmember]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Plus, character interaction was better in pretty much every way with ME2. People, you see, actually aren't like robots when they interact. They move around, stand up, sit down, turn their heads, etc. This beats talking to Tali for 10+ minutes while she stands there, reciting Quarian history to me.

Qaulity over qauntity. Yes, they may do more things, but there's not as much depth.

[SkullandBonesmember]

Raanz wrote...

The reason you shouldn't hold your breath is the fact that the percentage of "gamers" that like heavy story-driven games with little "action" is small, and some might call it a niche.
Companies like BW and publishers like EA are not interested in making games for a niche market. It costs a crap load of money to make a AAA title these days, and if you can't sell close to a half a million units (or more), it's considered "fail" (for all platforms I am assuming).

That's why I am more then happy to shell out $2 for alternate uniforms, $10 for Kasumi, $40 for the Dragon Age expansion, I want to let BW know that I like what they do in the industry and to keep it up.

In addition to my last post, just because something is popular doesn't mean it is rich in quality.

Twilight, McDonalds, High School Musical are all popular and they're all crap.

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

No
basically I said that if I thought like the OP the only RPG's that
wouldn't fail in my mind were Planescape Torment and KOTOR 2. 

But I also gave my own opinon that KOTOR 2 did actually fail because it was incomplete.

Said it before, but...

Look.
Shooter fans have all these games that cater to their tastes released
every year. How many story driven games are released for RPG fans every
year? Not many. But it's not enough that you guys have Halo, Resident
Evil, Gears Of War, Grand Theft Auto, Dead Or Alive, among countless
other 'SPLOSHUN games. You had to whine, moan, and bi*** until you got
your way and the result was ME2. I'm not saying YOU PERSONALLY were one
of the ones who complained, I don't know. But there were A LOT who saw
the trailer for ME1, thought 'SPLOSHUNS, and weren't happy with the
product, despite the fact the RPG fans were happy with the product.

Yes, SPLOSHUNS are what makes money, but it's not like there isn't a market for story driven fans. We'd welcome a 40 hour hybrid of ME1, Alan Wake, and Heavy Rain with open arms.

Modifié par SkullandBonesmember, 21 mars 2010 - 02:47 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Qaulity over qauntity. Yes, they may do more things, but there's not as much depth.

Quality over quantity? Are you trying to illustrate my point for me? Most conversations were shorter, just as informative, and included realistic visual interactions. I think that fits the definition of 'quality over quantity'.

Mordin does a great job of explaining the background on the Krogan Genophage.
Thane provides a great account of Drell culture and he didn't sound like a walking dictionary.
Legion himself is a walking testament to how the Geth mind works.

Kaidan and Garrus both had no depth or realistic character interactions.

Shall I keep going or has the point gotten through?

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 21 mars 2010 - 02:49 .

[JThompson6577]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Snip Snip Snip

Hey!  Look Guys!

It's a post on a message board!  And they're ****ing!

 I know! 

I was suprised too, especially when I noticed they were ****ing because the game wasn't exactly what they personally wanted out of the video game even though Bioware has to make games for more than one person.

I've never seen this before!

At least I don't think I've seen this before but I blew out my short term memory and....

Hey!  Look Guys!

Modifié par JThompson6577, 21 mars 2010 - 02:52 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

Don't forget Wrex and Tali were basically just walking encylopdias on their prospective racial predicaments.

[Daurf815]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Don't forget Wrex and Tali were basically just walking encylopdias on their prospective racial predicaments.

But Wrex was cool so he's forgiven.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Daurf815 wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Don't forget Wrex and Tali were basically just walking encylopdias on their prospective racial predicaments.

But Wrex was cool so he's forgiven.

This is true+++++++++

[JThompson6577]

wiggles89 wrote...

Has anyone heard of a shooter called Tekken? I dunno if this makes me a dullard, but I think ME3 should totally lift its shooter elements.

Wasn't Tekken a Mortal Street Fighter type game?

[SkullandBonesmember]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Quality over quantity? Are you trying to illustrate my point for me? Most conversations were shorter, just as informative, and included realistic visual interactions. I think that fits the definition of 'quality over quantity'.

Mordin does a great job of explaining the background on the Krogan Genophage.
Thane provides a great account of Drell culture and he didn't sound like a walking dictionary.
Legion himself is a walking testament to how the Geth mind works.

Kaidan and Garrus both had no depth or realistic character interactions.

Shall I keep going or has the point gotten through?

You obviously don't get MY point. I share Nozy's sentiments that plot above all else is the way to go. The focus on combat OVER plot and character interaction sucks in my opinion. And the squad had very little to say. I acknowledge that others don't mind, but ME1 was the complete opposite which is why I purchased ME2, hoping it would be as good, if not better than ME1.

JThompson6577 wrote...

Hey!  Look Guys!

It's a post on a message board!  And they're ****ing!

I know! 

I
was suprised too, especially when I noticed they were ****ing because
the game wasn't exactly what they personally wanted out of the video
game even though Bioware has to make games for more than one person.

I've never seen this before!

At least I don't think I've seen this before but I blew out my short term memory and....

Hey!  Look Guys!

Again. Casey Hudson thanks you for your loyal service.

[SkullandBonesmember]

[quote]JThompson6577 wrote...

Wasn't Tekken a Mortal Street Fighter type game?/quote]

Yes.

[jasonontko]

JThompson6577 wrote...

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Snip Snip Snip

Hey!  Look Guys!

It's a post on a message board!  And they're ****ing!

 I know! 

I was suprised too, especially when I noticed they were ****ing because the game wasn't exactly what they personally wanted out of the video game even though Bioware has to make games for more than one person.

I've never seen this before!

At least I don't think I've seen this before but I blew out my short term memory and....

Hey!  Look Guys!

Yes absolutly, any and all criticism must be supressed otherwise the game might be improved or might be improved in a way I disagree.  So we must ridicule all contrary opinion without positing any opinion of our own.

Please post again, I have not read this before.

Modifié par jasonontko, 21 mars 2010 - 03:03 .

[JThompson6577]

jasonontko wrote...


Yes absolutly, any and all criticism must be supressed otherwise the game might be improved or might be improved in a way I disagree.  So we must ridicule all contrary opinion without positing any opinion of our own.

And every single one of these criticisms is valid and requires their very own threads even if there's already fifteen threads of people saying the exact same thing.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

You obviously don't get MY point. I share Nozy's sentiments that plot above all else is the way to go. The focus on combat OVER plot and character interaction sucks in my opinion. And the squad had very little to say. I acknowledge that others don't mind, but ME1 was the complete opposite which is why I purchased ME2, hoping it would be as good, if not better than ME1.

Then explain what you mean by 'character interaction'. I'm not talking about the plot here, but on every page you keep saying how character interaction took a back seat. I know of only two ways in which characters can interact with each other in your typical video game.

1) Speech.
2) Body language.

ME uses #1. ME2 uses both. So explain to me what you consider to be character interaction. I really don't want to hear your life story about how disappointed you were with ME2.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 21 mars 2010 - 03:07 .

[jasonontko]

JThompson6577 wrote...

jasonontko wrote...


Yes absolutly, any and all criticism must be supressed otherwise the game might be improved or might be improved in a way I disagree.  So we must ridicule all contrary opinion without positing any opinion of our own.

And every single one of these criticisms is valid and requires their very own threads even if there's already fifteen threads of people saying the exact same thing.

Oh ok, so we should ressurect a thread even when doing so gives us the exatct same forum.  Weak argument my man. Weak.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Here's the thing. Comparing ME 1 and ME 2's plot really doesn't work because both have major, huge issues. Bringing Heavy Rain into this discussion doesn't work either because it has a BIG HUGE MASSIVE PROBLEM. If you want story over gameplay then either ME game doesn't really work, and that is why its subjective. ME 2 failed as an RPG doesn't make sense because RPG has NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to do with how the story is presented. ME 2 failed as a story would work but we already have two threads going full steam, this just seemed like a ploy for comments than a needed criticism.



I played ME 1 11 times, then played ME 2 4 times. I wasn't sure how I felt about ME 2, but it was going back to ME 1 where it just seemed like the game fell apart in how the storyline was presented. ME 2 the characters were more developed, the plot was fully defined and your character had constant interaction with the enemy. ME 1 felt like you were running on errands in your investigation hoping to find something of use, which it wasn't until after you did all the missions did you find out why you went and got LIara, why you went and got the Cipher. In ME 2 the missions are settled around investigating the Collectors and it is presented in a more coherent manner.



I don't know how else to approach this discussion because I have played way, WAY too many games.

[Onyx Jaguar]

jasonontko wrote...

JThompson6577 wrote...

jasonontko wrote...


Yes absolutly, any and all criticism must be supressed otherwise the game might be improved or might be improved in a way I disagree.  So we must ridicule all contrary opinion without positing any opinion of our own.

And every single one of these criticisms is valid and requires their very own threads even if there's already fifteen threads of people saying the exact same thing.

Oh ok, so we should ressurect a thread even when doing so gives us the exatct same forum.  Weak argument my man. Weak.

There are two threads up right now about the exact same topic though.  And that is not coutning the non-spoiler forum.

[Masticetobbacco]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Been putting this off. For a second I considered posting in the "Plot wise did ME2 accomplish anything?" but felt this deserved its own thread. In a way, I thought the jab at us RPG fans on the Citadel was mildly amusing, minus them being way off. I don't know of ANY RPG fan that doesn't like choices. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I've never encountered them, and I've encountered a lot of RPG fans both online and off.

ME1 had a few immersion problems, but not like ME2. First, why don't Jacob and Miranda have any body armor or helmets? Second, Michael and Rebeckah. So Shepard could recognize everybody and talk to them but won't/can't talk to those two? It would have been better if there were excluded from the game all together. Third, the side quests of Garrus, Tali, and Wrex were pointless and there was only a throw away line referencing the geth data. It makes no sense that Garrus and Tali aren't loyal upon joining Shepard. Fourth, I heard leading up to release a lot more dialogue was recorded. Uhhh, I don't think so. Almost every single time I went to talk to somebody they go "not now". Even with Tali who I romanced every time I went to speak with her she just repeats "I can't tell you how much what you said means to me". Tali, you rock, but you've made that perfectly clear the last 15 times.

This is all even after another's loyalty mission or post main mission. My entire team survived the suicide mission and when I went to speak to my entire crew, they act like nothing happened. And I'm sure it's the same damn thing even if only Shepard and one other squad mate survives. So much for this being the game where you get to know your team. There wasn't really an abundance of dialogue in the first, no. But that was compensated by the fact missions didn't take forever because of a need to "strategize". We got an overload of combat with a watered down plot in every way possible. But at least the Halo tards got their 'SPLOSHUNS.

your obviously terrible at shooters and probably in multiplayer in general, and you quit ecksbox due to buttrage. ME2 wasnt a pure RPG, go play final fantasy XIVVVXVVXVXVVXVXVXV if you want that. Hell final fantasy games have limited choices, and still people love that franchise. It wasn't also a pure shooter, but mixing in both genres was fun.

I agree with you in one point. The citadel was too small

[SkullandBonesmember]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Then explain what you mean by 'character interaction'. I'm not talking about the plot here, but on every page you keep saying how character interaction took a back seat. I know of only two ways in which characters can interact with each other in your typical video game.

1) Speech.
2) Body language.

ME uses #1. ME2 uses both. So explain to me what you consider to be character interaction. I really don't want to hear your life story about how disappointed you were with ME2.

Damn, I'll try this one last time BD.

The plot(which branches out to character interaction), was even, if not engulfed, the combat in ME1. The combat in ME2 was more difficult which calls for the player to utilize "tactics". Using tactics makes combat longer. So be it. But despite the combat being longer, the character interaction and dialogue was not increased.

fortunesque wrote...

Saberwolf116 wrote...

Wow, you guys have been way too harsh on the OP-if anything, I almost agree with him.

Yes, ME2 was watered down plot-wise, but that's only because we asked for it.

I agree, but I sure as hell didn't ask for it.

Everything that people complained about even *slightly* was completely axed and/or maimed beyond recogniton.

When they announced that there was 30% more dialogue but a larger amount of squadmates, I knew there would be trouble. So now we have a doubling in squadmates and a small increase in dialogue in comparison to the amount of new squaddies.

AND we're getting yet another squadmate. I'm kind of scratching my head on this one. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/wondering.png[/smilie]

I mean, seriously. You return from the suicide mission, with NO casualties mind you, head to the Citadel to chat with Anderson, and he says not a damn thing.

Modifié par SkullandBonesmember, 21 mars 2010 - 03:15 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

There is a lot more dialogue in ME 2. The character interactions on board are primarily the same between game but you also have a loyalty mission in ME 2, and a recruitment mission (those don't really count).



ME 1 had a definite end, ME 2 does not. If ME 2 did have a definite end the lack of post game support wouldn't be a problem. It isn't a story/rpg problem its a lack of post game support, same problem that DA had. IT's there for a placeholder for future DLC, nothing more.

[jasonontko]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Here's the thing. Comparing ME 1 and ME 2's plot really doesn't work because both have major, huge issues. Bringing Heavy Rain into this discussion doesn't work either because it has a BIG HUGE MASSIVE PROBLEM. If you want story over gameplay then either ME game doesn't really work, and that is why its subjective. ME 2 failed as an RPG doesn't make sense because RPG has NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to do with how the story is presented. ME 2 failed as a story would work but we already have two threads going full steam, this just seemed like a ploy for comments than a needed criticism.

I played ME 1 11 times, then played ME 2 4 times. I wasn't sure how I felt about ME 2, but it was going back to ME 1 where it just seemed like the game fell apart in how the storyline was presented. ME 2 the characters were more developed, the plot was fully defined and your character had constant interaction with the enemy. ME 1 felt like you were running on errands in your investigation hoping to find something of use, which it wasn't until after you did all the missions did you find out why you went and got LIara, why you went and got the Cipher. In ME 2 the missions are settled around investigating the Collectors and it is presented in a more coherent manner.

I don't know how else to approach this discussion because I have played way, WAY too many games.

IMO ME2 would have worked better had it preceeded ME1. 

I dont know how the ME1 storyline fell appart, it seemed well contained IMO.  There was major plot advancements with each major missions.  The side quests I agree were tangential to the story like MOST loyalty missions were tangential in ME2.  Either your running errands for 5th fleet or your running errands for crew I dont see the difference. 

Modifié par jasonontko, 21 mars 2010 - 03:23 .