Payne by name wrote...
“It's the nostalgia factor. Most people like the first best because it's when everything was fresh and new”. I can see the logic in that and I think that could have played out had ME1 been almost a stand alone game and due to it’s success Bioware green lighted a second. When the studio though were so adamant from the beginning that it was an inter-connected trilogy and kept reminding us that actions in the first would have repercussions in the second, I think it understandable that people would expect more of the same.
Problem is, more of the same is boring. I like every game in a series to be different from the first one. Not every change they made to ME2 was a good thing, but the fact that there were changes at all made it fun to play. I don't like it when development stagnates, because when that happens, everything might as well be an expansion pack.
I remember the lead programmer talking how ME2 would be the dark one, like Empire Strikes Back. Now TESB was darker but it didn’t lose what made it a Star Wars film. Many people went into ME2 expecting it to be the same because that’s what we’d been told to think and expect.
It was still Mass Effect to me. Sure, there was more combat and cool explosions, but the core elements were still there. And, like I said, more of the same is boring. Even the best food in the world will start to lose its flavor if you eat it every day. Mix it up!
You also used the example of FOTR, which is a good one. To me, that was the best of the three, maybe because of the introductory material but also because of the way it played. Unfortunately, although Jackson had filmed all three together, he edited the 2nd after having listened to feedback from the 1st. It was just a shame that the stuff he listened to were elements that damaged a relationship that had the chance to be really great in Legolas/Gimli. Gimli became the comedy bringer and Legolas always struggling to find the ‘cool’ moves to appease the screaming fanboys.
Is it bad when I say
Two Towers is my favorite of the three?
Obviously that is just one example but I think it’s indicative of feedback affecting the ‘purity’ of a story. You can’t help but think that the whole trilogy would have been better had the makers trusted their instincts after making FOTR and not listened to the feedback.
And this is the part where I completely disagree. Going on your own instincts is fine if you're making something just for yourself, like a painting, but sometimes your own intuition can give you bad feedback. Listening to the fans is important since they're the ones ultimately buying your product, and a lot of them can pick out things you missed. It's simply a matter of recognizing which suggestions are bad advice and knowing when following your own intuition is a better idea. Bioware seems to have overcorrected, but hopefully they've learned their lesson.
Besides, fanbase reaction saved Han Solo. He was supposed to be dead at the end of
Empire, but George Lucas brought him back, tweaking the story so he was "just frozen." And, let's face it,
Return of the Jedi wouldn't have been as fun without him. Also, Garrus romance: cheap fanservice suddenly becomes some of the sweetest and most hilarious dialogue in the game. Epic win.
Part of me feels the same for ME1 (which I understand makes my rambling diatribe pointless) but it’s like they got rid of everything that people screamed they disliked but didn’t try to factor in the things they did like. With the subsequent financial success of ME2, I can’t help but see Bioware continuing down the road they’re on of dumbing down, ‘cooling’ up and making more cash.
With all the people crabbing about how ME2 was too dumbed down, I don't think you have to worry. Christina Norman herself has said that they're putting some more focus on RPG elements. Oddly enough, listening to the fans may just be what "saves" ME3 from becoming a typical shooter.
Retour en haut
