TCP Posted December 7, 2014 Report Share Posted December 7, 2014 Wait, IDDQD, are you saying... that not everyone wants complex RPG mechanics in games? So when developers DON'T do put htat stuff in, they're not actually betraying us and being cruel, mean, evil people, they're actual making games that will be profitable and allow them to feed their families and produce future games? Woah... In all seriousness, I love that he called the Mass Effect games casual, like Bejeweled or Candy Crush Saga or something! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toxicitizen Posted December 7, 2014 Report Share Posted December 7, 2014 (edited) Oh man, whenever someone bumps one of these threads I kinda miss TC. Dude was gloriously batshit insane. He single-handedly created more drama over the span of a few short weeks than we've had in like 2-3 entire years. It was kind of amazing. Godspeed, you crazy motherfucker. Hopefully you got the psychiatric help you so desperately needed. Edited December 7, 2014 by FLD 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDDQD Posted December 7, 2014 Report Share Posted December 7, 2014 So when developers DON'T do put htat stuff in, they're not actually betraying us and being cruel, mean, evil people, they're actual making games that will be profitable and allow them to feed their families and produce future games? Betraying who? People who will complain endlessly no matter what's put in the final game, or people who don't like it because it didn't rise to their expectations? You can't bash something only because it isn't what you wanted it to be, man. Which is why I brought up the fact that people complained about the same thing in ME1, and now they treat it as a good example, while it clearly isn't. Maybe it was a bit more robust, but it was far from being a legit RPG. Besides, that's not what I meant. I said that they do things that will turn profit, but based on feedback from the community, which is way better than churning out shit and hoping that it will make cash only because it has a brand name attached to it. This of course is only part of my speculation based on interviews and behind the scenes footage that I saw. Can't say for sure if that's what happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted December 7, 2014 Report Share Posted December 7, 2014 (edited) I wish people would stop saying that ARPGs aren't "real" RPGs. *Edit* - I also want to say that while generally I agree that you shouldn't criticize a game just for not being what you wanted it to be, I have two exceptions to that: 1) It's a sequel to another game, and they changed things you liked in the original, and 2) It's marketed a certain way, and then doesn't live up to that. Edited December 7, 2014 by TheMightyEthan 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toxicitizen Posted December 7, 2014 Report Share Posted December 7, 2014 Yeah, I think it's missing the point to suggest that people are criticizing Mass Effect 2 and 3 for not being what they want it to be. That's not what's happening. They're criticizing them for changing what made them like the original Mass Effect in the first place. Likewise Dragon Age: Origins and criticizing Dragon Age II for being a shameless display of lazy/rushed cut-and-paste game development. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDDQD Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 Yeah, I think it's missing the point to suggest that people are criticizing Mass Effect 2 and 3 for not being what they want it to be. That's not what's happening. They're criticizing them for changing what made them like the original Mass Effect in the first place. Hmm... If that's the case then what exactly made them like ME1 more than any of the sequels, because... Likewise Dragon Age: Origins and criticizing Dragon Age II for being a shameless display of lazy/rushed cut-and-paste game development. ...while DA2 was lackluster in many ways, ME2 saw nothing but improvement over it's predecessor. Well, maybe it was a bummer that they bid adieu to Mako completely, because this was a cool feature, which could have been improved by making planet surfaces less vapid, but aside from that everything was more refined and polished up. 2) It's marketed a certain way, and then doesn't live up to that. Yep. Two words: Colonial Marines. Probably the most striking example of that. Although nowadays it seems like almost every "gameplay" trailer is doctored, pre-rendered or rehearsed in some way, sometimes they manage to live up to their false advertisements. The only two examples that I can think of now is Killzone 2 and Crysis. Both these games ended up looking like in their fake trailers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 Wanders into thread... Re: ME -> ME2 and DA:O -> DA2. Alien was a horror film. Aliens was an action film. Both are awesome films. Just because something changes tone, or genre, or whatever doesn't mean it has been dumbed down, or is worse, or that anyone has been betrayed. For every person that doesn't like the change, there will be someone who does. To avoid a sense of betrayal, disabuse yourself of the idea that a sequel has been made for you. No one cares what you (as an individual) thinks. Companies care what communities as whole think, they care what (they think) the wider market thinks, but there is not a single game company in the world that makes games for FLD, or for TheMightyEthan, or for that Tornado lunatic, who I never had the pleasure of meeting, he seems as bad as that guy from the original Kotakuites forum... the lemon guy... captain logic... what a tool that guy was... was his name Dick? Or was he just one? Anyway, I digress. In short, take each game on its merits, don't expect a sequel to be the same as the last instalment, don't make the mistake of thinking that any company cares what you think and you will not feel betrayed in the future. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 ME2 saw nothing but improvement over it's predecessor. Well, maybe it was a bummer that they bid adieu to Mako completely, because this was a cool feature, which could have been improved by making planet surfaces less vapid, but aside from that everything was more refined and polished up. You state this like it's an indisputable fact. Many people (myself included) feel that Bioware dumbed down the leveling and equipment systems far too much compared with ME1 (which is not to say ME1's equipment system didn't need fixing, because it certainly did). I personally feel that ME3 corrected most of the mechanical mistakes of ME2, though I still would have preferred to have as much control over your party's equipment as you do over your own. Playing through DA:I right now, I think they finally hit on a good system for armor. The only thing I would change about it is I would make the helmets armor upgrades the way legs and arms are, rather than separate items as they are now. The only reason for that though is because all the helmets look terrible with the armor, and if it were an upgrade they could do like the arms and legs and have it match. Part of me suspects Bioware intentionally made the helmets look awful so you'd be forced to turn them off and see the characters' faces. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 The only thing I would change about it is I would make the helmets armor upgrades the way legs and arms are, rather than separate items as they are now. The only reason for that though is because all the helmets look terrible with the armor, and if it were an upgrade they could do like the arms and legs and have it match. 100% agreed. Helmets look rubbishhhhhh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 As an EA insider, you should attempt to confirm my suspicion that they did it on purpose! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 Who says I didn't check? As a result of a keen desire to remain an EA insider I shall remain mute on the motivations. (I actually haven't checked, but I doubt it is the case). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toxicitizen Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 Hmm... If that's the case then what exactly made them like ME1 more than any of the sequels, because... ...while DA2 was lackluster in many ways, ME2 saw nothing but improvement over it's predecessor. Well, maybe it was a bummer that they bid adieu to Mako completely, because this was a cool feature, which could have been improved by making planet surfaces less vapid, but aside from that everything was more refined and polished up. What Ethan said. Also, ME2 and ME3 are certainly better made games, but they arguably suffered from a genre change. The original really was more of an RPG that happened to have third-person shooter combat while ME2 and ME3 were straight up shooters with light RPG elements. And I mean the overall game structure here, not just character progression. Most of ME1's main areas were these big hubs that you explored and found/completed quests in. The Citadel was this massive area that felt like a real place, you could go from any point A to any point B completely on foot. It felt like you were exploring real locations. Then in ME2, every single mission was essentially a corridor shooter level that you picked out on the galaxy map. It felt like a massive step down for some people, myself included. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.