310 réponses à ce sujet

[xxSgt_Reed_24xx]

MonkeyLungs wrote...

The OP doesn't want ME3 to copycat TW2. The OP wants to see true BRANCHING GAMEPLAY.

Why is this so hard for so many of you to understand?

That's what I tried to tell them... but was completely ignored. lol

[Bryy_Miller]

MonkeyLungs wrote...

The OP doesn't want ME3 to copycat TW2. The OP wants to see true BRANCHING GAMEPLAY.

Why is this so hard for so many of you to understand?

Because TRUE BRANCHING GAMEPLAY can either only be done really decently or really badly.

It can't be done well, because in order for a game to have TRUE BRANCHING GAMEPLAY, it would need to be able to generate random plotlines that work in the context of the main campaign/

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

Quyk Sylvyr wrote...

I don't think the OP can compare the Witcher series to the Mass Effect series. From what I've seen so far, Bioware is trying to complete a seamless series from ME 1 > ME2 > ME3. This means that each "decision" has to be imported to the next game. Before the final game, Bioware couldn't deviate from one central storyline. If Bioware deviated from that too much, it would end up with a mess by the final game. As choosing 1 or 2 would have led to 1a or 1b or 2a or 2b by ME3. I expect that choices made in previous games and in ME3 will have a bigger effect during the course of ME3 as the storyline constraints have finally been lifted.

On the other hand, the Witcher 2 imported NOTHING besides a brief dialogue on the final decision from Witcher 1. I will also bet that if there is a Witcher 3, that trend will continue.

Yeah, I also think (and hope) that this is what will happen. As you said, Witcher 2 gets that level of responsiveness by retconning choices in Witcher 1. Even though Bioware had significant reason to minimize consequences for your choices in the first two games, they don't have that restriction now and will be as free as CDPR was to branch the story as much as they want. Assuming the development cycle (*glares meaningfully at EA*) allows it, I would be very suprised if they didn't have significant storyline branching.

Modifié par DaveExclamationMarkYognaut, 19 juin 2011 - 09:49 .

[Father_Jerusalem]

MonkeyLungs wrote...

The OP doesn't want ME3 to copycat TW2. The OP wants to see true BRANCHING GAMEPLAY.

Why is this so hard for so many of you to understand?

Because if he wanted to talk about TRUE BRANCHING GAMEPLAY, he could have titled this thread "I'd like to see true branching gameplay in ME3" Or "Will there be true branching gameplay in ME3?" Or "True branching gamplay in ME3: A discussion" or even "I like bacon".

He did not.

He titled this thread "Linearity - "The Witcher 2" is the new standard of Quality".

So yeah, no, I totally believe you when you say he doesn't want ME3 to copycat TW2. Really. 

He made the choice to bring up TW2 as an attempt to have ME3 be a copy of TW2 in space, and in an attempt to bring the little TW2 drones here to defend their perfect game and ruin the ME forums the same way they did the DA forums. 

[MonkeyLungs]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

MonkeyLungs wrote...

The OP doesn't want ME3 to copycat TW2. The OP wants to see true BRANCHING GAMEPLAY.

Why is this so hard for so many of you to understand?

Because TRUE BRANCHING GAMEPLAY can either only be done really decently or really badly.

It can't be done well, because in order for a game to have TRUE BRANCHING GAMEPLAY, it would need to be able to generate random plotlines that work in the context of the main campaign/

Branching gameplay does not need to rely on random content. We might be getting singals of definition crossed here.

The branching doesn't have to be some kind of revolutionary AI controlled procedurally generated game content.

What Bioware tends to do is give you options 1 - 5 but all the choices lead to same gameplay scenarios with some slightly different twists on the scene in question. It would be nice to get something like choices 1- 3 and then have the game go into a completely different direction depending upon your choice. It means people that choose 1 would not see or play the same content that people who chose 2 and 3 did etc. It also mean a lot more work and it means most players will never see all the content since most players don't even finish games let alone play them more than once.

[MonkeyLungs]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

MonkeyLungs wrote...

The OP doesn't want ME3 to copycat TW2. The OP wants to see true BRANCHING GAMEPLAY.

Why is this so hard for so many of you to understand?

Because if he wanted to talk about TRUE BRANCHING GAMEPLAY, he could have titled this thread "I'd like to see true branching gameplay in ME3" Or "Will there be true branching gameplay in ME3?" Or "True branching gamplay in ME3: A discussion" or even "I like bacon".

He did not.

He titled this thread "Linearity - "The Witcher 2" is the new standard of Quality".

So yeah, no, I totally believe you when you say he doesn't want ME3 to copycat TW2. Really. 

He made the choice to bring up TW2 as an attempt to have ME3 be a copy of TW2 in space, and in an attempt to bring the little TW2 drones here to defend their perfect game and ruin the ME forums the same way they did the DA forums. 

From the thread title I understand the OP to mean that Witcher 2's approach to linearity is the new standard of quality. You seem to be reading alot more into it.  

[Icinix]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

MonkeyLungs wrote...

The OP doesn't want ME3 to copycat TW2. The OP wants to see true BRANCHING GAMEPLAY.

Why is this so hard for so many of you to understand?

Because if he wanted to talk about TRUE BRANCHING GAMEPLAY, he could have titled this thread "I'd like to see true branching gameplay in ME3" Or "Will there be true branching gameplay in ME3?" Or "True branching gamplay in ME3: A discussion" or even "I like bacon".

He did not.

He titled this thread "Linearity - "The Witcher 2" is the new standard of Quality".

So yeah, no, I totally believe you when you say he doesn't want ME3 to copycat TW2. Really. 

He made the choice to bring up TW2 as an attempt to have ME3 be a copy of TW2 in space, and in an attempt to bring the little TW2 drones here to defend their perfect game and ruin the ME forums the same way they did the DA forums. 

With all due respect, DA2 did more damage to the DA forums than TW2 could ever have done.  I think he was also just using TW2's example of changing the game so massively for his argument.

Besides the title means, to re-use a phrase *insert game of choice* drones won't ask "What games offer game changing choice and consqeuneces?"

[Cyberfrog81]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

He titled this thread "Linearity - "The Witcher 2" is the new standard of Quality".

So yeah, no, I totally believe you when you say he doesn't want ME3 to copycat TW2. Really. 

He made the choice to bring up TW2 as an attempt to have ME3 be a copy of TW2 in space, and in an attempt to bring the little TW2 drones here to defend their perfect game and ruin the ME forums the same way they did the DA forums.

Let me quote the creator of the thread for you:

I don't want them to write a similar story or to copycat. Mass Effect
story's must be what it is from the very beggining and must not change
to get itself more ''Witcherish''. I talk about how the scenario vary
from a choice to another.

Would you kindly stop now? Believe it or not, I also found the Witcher threads obnoxious. But I can hardly support you the way you're behaving. If that makes me a "TW2 drone", so be it.

[Pedro Costa]

MonkeyLungs wrote...
From the thread title I understand the OP to mean that Witcher 2's approach to linearity is the new standard of quality. You seem to be reading alot more into it.  

Still, it isn't "The new standard of Quality in non-linear gameplay". It was done at the expense of retconing all of the first game, basically.

I mean, if a BioWare title did that I can only imagine the amounts of rage that would ensue.

Did it raise the bar for stand-alone titles? Yes, and how. 
Is it the new standard? If I have to give up all of the choices I had made in a previous game, I'd rather not, thank you. However meaningless they may ultimately amount to, I still made them.

edit:

Cyberfrog81 wrote...

Would you kindly stop now? Believe it or not, I also found the Witcher threads obnoxious. But I can hardly supportyou the way you're behaving. If that makes me a "TW2 drone", so be it.

Heh, that reminded me of BioShock =P

Modifié par DarkLord_PT, 19 juin 2011 - 10:37 .

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

DarkLord_PT wrote...

MonkeyLungs wrote...
From the thread title I understand the OP to mean that Witcher 2's approach to linearity is the new standard of quality. You seem to be reading alot more into it.  

Still, it isn't "The new standard of Quality in non-linear gameplay". It was done at the expense of retconing all of the first game, basically.

I mean, if a BioWare title did that I can only imagine the amounts of rage that would ensue.

Did it raise the bar for stand-alone titles? Yes, and how. 
Is it the new standard? If I have to give up all of the choices I had made in a previous game, I'd rather not, thank you. However meaningless they may ultimately amount to, I still made them.

That's an interesting point. I think that, since ME3 is the last Mass Effect installment, it makes since to have it branch made on both previous and current choices, especially since Mass Effect has thus far prevented the choices from making the story branch significantly. But hopefully it's not going to be a choice between having previous choices have no consequences and retconning them.

[In Exile]

HoldenJ_C wrote...

But you shouldn't have to choose, because CD Projekt RED showed it was possible to do both with The Witcher 2. 

A single playthrough of The Witcher 2 lasts over 40 hours which is longer than either Mass Effect 1 or 2 was.  So Bioware should be able to do it.  

Actually, my ME1 playthrough was 40 hrs and my ME2 playthrough was 45, without DLC. My first TW2 playthrough was 40, and every subsequent one was 25, in each case will all quests completed.

TW2 is 50% shorter than TW1, if not more. The main quests for TW2 are high quality, especially with their grinding quests being greatly improved.

CD Projekt showed that you can have a branching storyline if you pay a prince in environments (you had 4 unique settings for TW2) and length (3 short acts compared to 4 longer acts in TW1).

[1136342t54_]

Better branching gameplay can and will likely be done in ME3. The problem is that some Witcher fans want some gameplay to change the main plot in major ways and that can present many problems with the story. In ME3 you have to stop the Reapers which is your main objective. Changing the main plot too much can screw with the story.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be any branching but it can't be too much or it would make ME3 and the other stories in the games building up to ME3 pointless.

[Clonedzero]

the thing is, in ME1 and ME2, they had to have specific things happen because its a trilogy.

its extremely hard to make a trilogy if theres massive branching stories. like i havent played the witcher 2, but if it branches so dramatically like you said, there wont be a direct sequel, if if there is they'll make a canon series of events and use that as a story template.

mass effect and the witcher are different styles of games, they dont have to be the same. im all for branching storylines, but hey, you can have other types of games as well.

[In Exile]

MonkeyLungs wrote...
What Bioware tends to do is give you options 1 - 5 but all the choices lead to same gameplay scenarios with some slightly different twists on the scene in question. It would be nice to get something like choices 1- 3 and then have the game go into a completely different direction depending upon your choice. It means people that choose 1 would not see or play the same content that people who chose 2 and 3 did etc. It also mean a lot more work and it means most players will never see all the content since most players don't even finish games let alone play them more than once.

Having replayed Tw2 recently (after geting over the wow, the story really branches) CD Projeckt was quite clever in how they handled the branch. They had the branch take place in the same environment, but from the perspective of the other side.

Essentially, TW2 was a game with content for 4 acts actually handled as 3 acts, with the middle act swapping out.

[In Exile]

Clonedzero wrote...
its extremely hard to make a trilogy if theres massive branching stories. like i havent played the witcher 2, but if it branches so dramatically like you said, there wont be a direct sequel, if if there is they'll make a canon series of events and use that as a story template.

TW2, as a sequel to TW1, retconned a few choices that Geralt made. For example, they had a cannon LI. They also imported very few decisions from TW1, by switching the setting entirely.

[1136342t54_]

In Exile wrote...

TW2, as a sequel to TW1, retconned a few choices that Geralt made. For example, they had a cannon LI. They also imported very few decisions from TW1, by switching the setting entirely.

I would have a major problem if Mass Effect did that. The Witcher not so much.

[Il Divo]

In Exile wrote...

TW2, as a sequel to TW1, retconned a few choices that Geralt made. For example, they had a cannon LI. They also imported very few decisions from TW1, by switching the setting entirely.

So, they pulled a "Baldur's Gate II" in a sense, like how the game assumed that Jaheira/Khalid were alive at the end of the previous game.

[Pedro Costa]

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...
That's an interesting point. I think that, since ME3 is the last Mass Effect installment, it makes since to have it branch made on both previous and current choices, especially since Mass Effect has thus far prevented the choices from making the story branch significantly. But hopefully it's not going to be a choice between having previous choices have no consequences and retconning them.

Yes, and I semi-completely agree. Were ME3 the true final game of the Mass Effect Universe, I'd love to see it diverge into as many branching paths as possible.

However, one must also account that it seems ME3 is only the final game of Shepard's trilogy.
Let's assume that in one ending the Reapers are vanquished, but only Humanity survived, and in another, the Reapers are vanquished at the expense of Humanity? How would you make a new story post-ME3 to account for both branches that are mutually exclusive? Either it'll hurt the game's characters and plot (can't be too defined due to uncertainty of the character's race and surrounding environment), or you'll actually be making *two* whole different games to account for both possibilities.

That said, I *do* hope we'll see far more meaningful branching paths in ME3. It adds to replayability and to the sense of what you did before actually amounting to something.

[Alpha-Centuri]

DarkLord_PT wrote...

MonkeyLungs wrote...
From the thread title I understand the OP to mean that Witcher 2's approach to linearity is the new standard of quality. You seem to be reading alot more into it.  

Still, it isn't "The new standard of Quality in non-linear gameplay". It was done at the expense of retconing all of the first game, basically.

I mean, if a BioWare title did that I can only imagine the amounts of rage that would ensue.

Did it raise the bar for stand-alone titles? Yes, and how. 
Is it the new standard? If I have to give up all of the choices I had made in a previous game, I'd rather not, thank you. However meaningless they may ultimately amount to, I still made them.

edit:

Cyberfrog81 wrote...

Would you kindly stop now? Believe it or not, I also found the Witcher threads obnoxious. But I can hardly supportyou the way you're behaving. If that makes me a "TW2 drone", so be it.

Heh, that reminded me of BioShock =P

Retcon? You must be talking about Shani. It's not a retcon, its a plot progression. Jan Bartkowicz promised that she is in their plans, and its a plot point for those than romanced her as to why Geralt is waking up in the bed of Triss. Remember, Geralt aint the most monogomous, from the books to the game.

I did an order run, and seeing Siegfried let me in Loc Muinne on faith (if you do any other path or not upload, Siegfried is dead and its harder to enter, especially with the Iorveth path), made me so happy. It was almost like a wrex moment where you see someone and get happy.

There is a Vivaldi in Vizima that you can have a conversation with, you still have Dandelion, Zoltan, of coursee Triss. Radovid's conversation changes a little bit I think depending on path. Thaler sends a guy to Flotsam to give you a gift and info on Vizima (cant remember what, might be money) if he is alive.

Only substantial people missing are Shani (addressed earlier) and Yaevinn for Scoi'atel playthroughs. Where's the retcon?

edit: Adda (Foltest's striga daughter) could possibly be married to Radovid which gives him possibly more leverage in Loc Muinne (I heard, I haven't finished the playthrough where Adda is alive).

Modifié par Alpha-Centuri, 19 juin 2011 - 11:09 .

[AlanC9]

I kind of like the idea of just picking one endgame and going with it for the sequel. DAA should have just assumed that your Warden didn't do the US, and future DA games should just assume that the DR happened.

Of course, that's easy for me to say since I typically replay an RPG enough to hit most of the major branches. A lot of players don't replay, and some seem to only replay with the same character -- though I don't know if NG+ players do different paths on their NG+ runs or not.

[In Exile]

Il Divo wrote..

So, they pulled a "Baldur's Gate II" in a sense, like how the game assumed that Jaheira/Khalid were alive at the end of the previous game.

Yes. Something Bioware couldn't afford to do without this forum exploding in a hellfire of pitchforks and lynch mobs.

[AlanC9]

Alpha-Centuri wrote...
Retcon? You must be talking about Shani. It's not a retcon, its a plot progression. Jan Bartkowicz promised that she is in their plans, and its a plot point for those than romanced her as to why Geralt is waking up in the bed of Triss. Remember, Geralt aint the most monogomous, from the books to the game. 

So there was no real choice between them in TW1 in the first place, and so nothing to retcon? OK, but they still have to retcon the journal entries.

[Father_Jerusalem]

So this really has turned into another Witcher forum now? That's... that's super.

All hail our new Witcher overlords.

[Alpha-Centuri]

AlanC9 wrote...

Alpha-Centuri wrote...
Retcon? You must be talking about Shani. It's not a retcon, its a plot progression. Jan Bartkowicz promised that she is in their plans, and its a plot point for those than romanced her as to why Geralt is waking up in the bed of Triss. Remember, Geralt aint the most monogomous, from the books to the game. 

So there was no real choice between them in TW1 in the first place, and so nothing to retcon? OK, but they still have to retcon the journal entries.

I guess if you want to look at it like that until they release the DLC or whatever, you're well in your right. I'd like to think of it as a "Oooh my Geralt is gonna get his ass kicked by Shani when we see her next". YMMV

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...

Il Divo wrote..

So, they pulled a "Baldur's Gate II" in a sense, like how the game assumed that Jaheira/Khalid were alive at the end of the previous game.

Yes. Something Bioware couldn't afford to do without this forum exploding in a hellfire of pitchforks and lynch mobs.

Ironically, the pitchfork wielders would almost certainly be self-described BG2 fans.