310 réponses à ce sujet

[PaulSX]

In Exile wrote...

Haristo wrote...
I'm talking about the main scenario and how your experience can be totally different. Big example is the Rachnis. it's an entire Frickin' specie ! I just hope by saving them I totally destroyed/modified for ever the Galaxy politic world and frontiers... I also hope it wil gives me more than a ****ing email, I want a whole part of the game totally modified to fit that choice.

Would you give up 14 hours of an ME3 playthrough and accept very few environments overall to have branching content? That's the design choice in TW2. There's an Act IIa and IIb, but that meant a very short Act III and Epilogue set in the same small geographic region.

that's quite a reason that I dont like witcher 2, it focus too much on hardcore crowd, for us who doesnt have that much time to play the game over and over again, it's a pain (the combat is not fun at all). why cant they just put the game into 4 or 5 Chapters instead of a separated chapter 2? still witcher 1 is much better imo. 

[In Exile]

Haristo wrote..
Act 3 was short I agree, and the epilogue was simple... However it was The Witcher 2. the goal of this topic is to get this deep experience while getting rid of its majour problem.

Double the budget or the dev. team, or cut the actual number of unique regions by some integer factor. Those are the options.

They could fragment it, a certain choice changes a part of the scenario as well as the environment you will play on, but it is only for an two hours, happening 4 or 5 times during the game, making an ME3 walkthrough much more unique this way. they could also do a kind of ''Virmire Survivor'' for a specie or a planet, modifying where you can go and who you will meet...

They could do all these things, but these all cost development resources. If your argument is that ME3 should have nearly infinite resources, I have property on the moon you might be interested in.

Kidding aside, the problem with non-linear design is what you want to give up to keep it (even if it is money). And if you want to invest more money, you have to justify the financial return.

those may changes the epilogue enough to get something like a dozen of two differents epilogues, with some version about Shepard failing her mission... plus you must consider every single LIs.

I hate epilogue screens with a passion that I can barely express. It's the ultimate tell and not show cop-out design. Whatever Bioware does, I really hope it's content you get to see instead of read about.

another game Mass Effect could get inspired (for its epilogue) is Heavy Rain.

I never played Heavy Rain (no PS3). Can you elaborate?

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote...
Well, that's a relief. I was extrapolating from In Exile's figure, assuming 32 hours or so to be typical for ME2 and so presumably ME3.

Edit: doesn't take away from In Exile's point, though. How much length do we want to trade for more breadth? 60 hours is plenty of length for me, assuming I'd actually get that much length myself.

My runs in TW2 (aside from my first run on hard, which took about 40 hours) are 25hrs, all quests included. The thing is, TW2 has open-world exploring and poor quest markers, so you end up running around a lot of the time trying to find the objective. Even if you know what you're doing.

The length of the game tanks a fair bit when you know where everything is. It's one of the reasons I don't like exploration.

[In Exile]

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote..

Yeah, that would be pretty cool. Quality over quantity, after all, and in a game that's trying to convey a feeling of high stakes and time running out, a shorter more eventful story seems more the way to go. Plus, that and the ability to play with different classes should add a lot of replay value. (Off-topic, I think it would be cool to be able to set certain choices like saving the rachni at the beginning of the game - gives console players an alternative to downloading savegames.)

Well, I don't think the choice would be quality over quantity, in the sense that the total quanttity if you look at both potential ME3s) would be the same and the quality of each area wouldn't be different. What would happen, though, is that you coudn't see 100% of content on one playthrough (more like 60%).

So it's really more an issue of what maximizes quality.

[FluffyScarf]

No different than Skyrim which will have '300' hours of gameplay. Devs just conveniently leave out the fact that 250 hours will actually be spent pressing 'W, A, and D'.

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

In Exile wrote...

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote..

Yeah, that would be pretty cool. Quality over quantity, after all, and in a game that's trying to convey a feeling of high stakes and time running out, a shorter more eventful story seems more the way to go. Plus, that and the ability to play with different classes should add a lot of replay value. (Off-topic, I think it would be cool to be able to set certain choices like saving the rachni at the beginning of the game - gives console players an alternative to downloading savegames.)

Well, I don't think the choice would be quality over quantity, in the sense that the total quanttity if you look at both potential ME3s) would be the same and the quality of each area wouldn't be different. What would happen, though, is that you coudn't see 100% of content on one playthrough (more like 60%).

So it's really more an issue of what maximizes quality.

Well, I think a game that is insanely responsive to your choices in a series where you make massive amounts of choices is exactly what I'd define as quality And again, in terms of pacing, a game where "Earth is running out of time" does not make sense as a game that tries to maximize length at the expense of other game elements, because the goal is to create a sense of urgency and immediacy.

The other issue is that (especially in an modular/episode-based game like Mass Effect 2 was) you could use sleight of hand to maximize the number of ways you can take the story. In Witcher 2, for instance, the chapter 2 sections took place in basically the same area - you just saw different parts of that area and a few parts both paths shared in common.

And in terms of longevity, the devs are still better off maximizing replay value over making the main quest really long.

Modifié par DaveExclamationMarkYognaut, 19 juin 2011 - 06:52 .

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

double post

Modifié par DaveExclamationMarkYognaut, 19 juin 2011 - 06:52 .

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...
My runs in TW2 (aside from my first run on hard, which took about 40 hours) are 25hrs, all quests included. The thing is, TW2 has open-world exploring and poor quest markers, so you end up running around a lot of the time trying to find the objective. Even if you know what you're doing.

The length of the game tanks a fair bit when you know where everything is. It's one of the reasons I don't like exploration.

25 hours is OK for me.

Hmm.... exploration decreases replayability, then? You never get the first playthrough back; common to all story-based games, of course, but exploration makes this worse?

Modifié par AlanC9, 19 juin 2011 - 06:59 .

[FluffyScarf]

It certainly increases hesitancy in replaying knowing you have to trudge through the same boring landscape again just to complete a fetch quest.

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote...
25 hours is OK for me.

Hmm.... exploration decreases replayability, then? You never get the first playthrough back; common to all story-based games, of course, but exploration makes this worse?

For me? Yes. But to be fair, it's entirely a subjective preference. I don't like exploring as a person. I'm very goal oriented. On the other hand, combat is very fun. I'd replay the same combat encounters , but I wouldn't be able to complete the same fetch quest.

Exploration can be fun for me if there's a reasonably exciting goal and the environment is well-designed... but every other time after it becomes a chore.

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...
Well, I think a game that
is insanely responsive to your choices in a series where you make
massive amounts of choices is exactly what I'd define as quality And
again, in terms of pacing, a game where "Earth is running out of time"
does not make sense as a game that tries to maximize length at the
expense of other game elements, because the goal is to create a sense of
urgency and immediacy.

I should have been clearer. I do agree with you that a very responsive game (for the same 'total' content) would be better in virtue of that added responsiveness.

I just meant that the feature that would make the difference is whether you want your content broken apart by playthrough or all lined up for one playthrough.

The other issue is that (especially in an modular/episode-based game
like Mass Effect 2 was) you could use sleight of hand to maximize the
number of ways you can take the story. In Witcher 2, for instance, the
chapter 2 sections took place in basically the same area - you just saw
different parts of that area and a few parts both paths shared in
common.

Yes, but TW2 paid a high cost in general for its design - it had 5 unique areas.

Modifié par In Exile, 19 juin 2011 - 07:10 .

[Blooddrunk1004]

Actualy i agree with this alot.
Story completly changed in Witcher 2 especialy at the end of chapter 1, depending on your choices.
Imagine in Mass Effect 3 you would have just two choices of either siding with Geth or Quarians. The place would completely and story would completely change.  
At Geth you would either helped them take down Flottila fleet , defend Rannoch or make peace with Quarians.
At Quarians you would either helped them reclaim Rannoch or make peace with Geth.

[Malanek]

Bail_Darilar wrote...
5. The alchemist tree is useless for the most part.

No. Have you really put time into playing it? The increased stats and effects you get in it are staggering. If you are just going off the manual, the manual is badly incorrect. About half of the talents are much more powerful than what is printed.

[azerSheppard]

Agree with OP, infact Assassins of kings is a far more "bioware" rpg than any game bioware made since KOTOR, excluding DAO.

Also alchemist tree is very usefull, I find magic to be the least usefull to upgrade towards the end.

ALso the reason why TW2 fans seem to flood the bioware forum is because they where here before the game, and have bought the game due to it's similarities to bioware games/:wizard:

Modifié par azerSheppard, 19 juin 2011 - 08:18 .

[Mister Mida]

I find it pretty interesting that a relative new kid on the block like CD Project Red can do the thing Bioware said they would do with the ME trilogy in just one game; make choices have consequences and shape the story. Of course it's still to early to truly judge that since we don't know how ME3 is gonna end up like, though I'm not gonna hold my breath if I have to look at ME2.

TW2 is actually the type of game I was looking for some time: a relative long (20 - 30 hours) and more diverse experience storywise. I've played through the game twice and I know I still haven't seen everything. I've no doubt the developer learned a lot from Bioware, but I think they can teach Bioware something as well.

[TaHol100]

I just don't get it, when people like some game, they start to make demands that every other game should be like the one they liked. The arrogance! You know what, there are people who dislike TW2. I like some games like mad, still I accept that other games are different from those I like more, and find they are still interesting and entertaining.

[azerSheppard]

TaHol100 wrote...

I just don't get it, when people like some game, they start to make demands that every other game should be like the one they liked. The arrogance! You know what, there are people who dislike TW2. I like some games like mad, still I accept that other games are different from those I like more, and find they are still interesting and entertaining.

Have you played it?

[TaHol100]

azerSheppard wrote...

TaHol100 wrote...

I just don't get it, when people like some game, they start to make demands that every other game should be like the one they liked. The arrogance! You know what, there are people who dislike TW2. I like some games like mad, still I accept that other games are different from those I like more, and find they are still interesting and entertaining.

Have you played it?

What a surprise.

Yes,  I have...as much as I could take it, and that was not much. I loved the first one, by the way. I dispise the second with my whole being.

Modifié par TaHol100, 19 juin 2011 - 08:22 .

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

TaHol100 wrote...

azerSheppard wrote...

TaHol100 wrote...

I just don't get it, when people like some game, they start to make demands that every other game should be like the one they liked. The arrogance! You know what, there are people who dislike TW2. I like some games like mad, still I accept that other games are different from those I like more, and find they are still interesting and entertaining.

Have you played it?

What a surprise.

Yes,  I have...as much as I could take it, and that was not much. I loved the first one, by the way. I dispise the second with my whole being.

You like Kaidan. Your opinion is invalid.

Lol, jk. This thread is not about making mass effect exactly like witcher - they're completely different IPs,  after all. Ppl are just discussing ways that two of the more innovative rpg series out there can learn from each other.

[Cyberfrog81]

Alchemist Geralts are plenty powerful.

Heavy Rain was mentioned. Heavy Rain is a QTE-based interactive movie. Important characters can even die, and the story keeps going forward. It's good (craploads of resources put into its development with it becoming a flagship game for the PS3), but it's not Mass Effect. It would be pretty awesome if the finale of ME3 were a bit like the one in Heavy Rain though; that is, significantly differerent depending on who lived and died (depending on your choices, in general) throughout the whole trilogy.

I don't just want ME3 to be a decent game, I want it to be fantastic.

Modifié par Cyberfrog81, 19 juin 2011 - 08:22 .

[Lumikki]

Haristo wrote...

a great example in The Witcher 2 is how you can just don't give a F*ck about Triss Merigold and focus on helping the rebellion led by Saskia ....

Yes, that's why Gerald wakes in bed with Triss in The Wither 2's first prologue as default.

Modifié par Lumikki, 19 juin 2011 - 01:02 .

[crimzontearz]

odd, usually the "the witcher" fanboys remain in the Dragon age forums

Seriously, The Witcher is a great game (or so I heard) but people need to stop exalting it as the non plus ultra of all RPGs because it is not

[onelifecrisis]

I see a lot of people mentioning "replay value" in this thread, which is odd because to me that's not the point of a diverging narrative. The point, I would think, is to make the player feel that their choices actually changed things and mattered, even on a single playthrough.

Don't get me wrong, replay value is a good thing, but should it really be the objective of (or reason for) a branching narrative?

Modifié par onelifecrisis, 19 juin 2011 - 02:53 .

[this isnt my name]

Therefore_I_Am wrote...

Oh bioware is going to have a field day with this.
This is the final Mass Effect game; you can bet there will be a million and one things passed down from the other sequels, Casey has said it until his face turned blue.

They are making ME3 standalone, it will have little impact, maybe a camo or an email for some characters, but not much else.

[Bad King]

Skyrim iz b3ttr

[13commander]

i just finished my last play through on ME2, with (I hope) everything done right (including all dlc) and it took 30H and 30 minutes (that according to the clock of my last save witch was when I laid in bed with Miranda :innocent:), the thing is that i skipped most of the dialog ( this is about my 7'th play through), and I don't see the problem with liniarity.

True at most of the side-quests there is only a E-mail but take for example Lorek (in the omega sector where you have to retrieve some data from the cerberus operative) you can choose to send it to the alliance, to cerberus or keep it, i think that this deccision matters at least to some degree, true you get an e-mail but (i hope) at some point in ME3 you can use the fact that you helped one or the other to your advantage.

Another example is Project overlord where you get the option to save the 'computer' or sent him to cerberus, maybe in ME3 (this is just imho) you can convince cerberus that you are not the enemy and change their (indoctrinated ) minds (this can "maybe" be said about the collector base).

This is replay value IMO where you can make this tiny (or big) choices and see (or hope to see) these decisions in the next game, plus you get customization (even though in ME2 is kinda limited), the satisfaction (hopefully for you also and it is not just me) that you see some effect to the choices you make in the previous game, for example i don't understand why people are saying that saving the council doesn't make a differece, if you save the council you can get reinstated as a spectre (that is not smth very helpfull in ME2 but IMO that is because you are 'confined' to the Terminus systems, so we don't get to see the full merits of this, exept maybe when we are in the interogation room ,in Thanes loyalty mission :happy: )

And guys and gals please don't make TW2 one of the best games in terms of story and brancing (it is good I admit it but it is not that good), there are some flaws some mistakes (ME has them i know, but keep in mind that they are different games and Bioware are (were) limited because of the trilogy, and they experiment with different gameplay mechanics (and some story 'tactics') to see what we like and want)

TW2 lacks some things, ME lacks some thing, nothing is perfect, not a single developer can make a perfect game there will always be people who hate it, people who love, people who want more of ths ... and ... more of that, but CD-projekt (hope i spelled corect) and Bioware are great developers have made and still making awesome games.

So guys/gals i hope i have not offended any of you and that i have made my point (hopefully), this is my opinion (maybe you share it maybe you don't but please don't troll but if i have smth wrong or stupid please correct me), and we should be cautiously optimistic that Bioware comes through in the end and delivers something worth remembering, and most of the time Bioware delivered.

 and maybe the fact that the game is dellayed almost a year the game will pe FREAKING AWESOME THAT WE CAN'T STOP PLAYING IT FOR DAYS/WEEKS TO COME [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/angel.png[/smilie] , i had to do it[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/tongue.png[/smilie], i am just cautiously optimistic here .

P.S. sorry if I misspelled or if my grammar is bad, english is not my main language

Modifié par 13commander, 19 juin 2011 - 03:38 .