Quething wrote...
don-mika wrote...
My only hope that not going to be like "Arrival". Just finish my playthrough of ME2 and most disgusted mission of the game is "Arrival".
Arrival does set an unfortunate precedent. Absolutely amazing level design and highly refined combat AI. Sorriest excuse for roleplaying I've ever seen in a BioWare product (up to and including their bloody item packs, at least those offer combat choice, aesthetic expression, and/or worldbuilding lore).
However, LotSB offers a much more promising precedent, as about 50% of it was clearly a direct response to many of the issues repeatedly raised by the fanbase about the base ME2 game, including major story issues ("let Shep show some emotion," "tell us interesting things about squadmates we're not boning," "wtf did you people do to Liara").
I'm a cynic by nature, so I don't expect ME3 to be any better than ME2 in terms of story. But I think that LotSB shows that they're listening enough that they at least won't make it any worse.
I acknowledge and agree with your observations all except Arrival because I haven't played it. So on that one I'll have to take it at your word and maybe watch some vids of it to confirm. But what your saying sounds just about right. And LOTSB was good, almost better then the entire base ME2 game...almost.
SalsaDMA wrote...
The problem in this regard is that arrival was released way after LotSB, and thus is a more recent 'window'
towards how they operate. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/uncertain.png[/smilie]
That's a fair observation.
Mesina2 wrote...
whywhywhywhy wrote...
Oh,
I'm relaxed. I'm also a realist. Combat improved in ME2 over ME1 just
like BW said they were going to do "Make it more like shooters." They've
been going on and on about Combat in ME3, once again story will suffer.
Can you explain it to me how story suffers from
improved gameplay?
How about we approach it from a different angle, you tell me what was improved over me1 that wasn't combat related. This will help you understand that resources are finite in game develpment and most were centered around "FPS" type improvements. Graphics, combat gameplay and blah blah.
Then explain to me how Shepard leaves at the end of ME1 stating that he'd find away to stop the Reapers but ends up being shot down while hunting geth in ME2 isn't from the story suffering. Or how his death and revival, which was a horrible plot device to reboot the gameplay, adds to the story.
Then how his working for Cerberus and how it was presented adds to the story(other then controversy). Also would it have been better if it was set up as a player choice ? If yes, then how does a game that's hailed as a Player choice driven game rob you of the most important choices in the game make it better ?
Simply put if players had a choice to join Cerberus or not then those who refused Cerberus would have had an entirely different story arc. Now, I stop there for the moment. After answering all of the above tell me how the story hasn't suffered in a point by point response to mine with a nice tidy conclusion.
Modifié par whywhywhywhy, 24 septembre 2011 - 10:46 .
Retour en haut
