@Any Bioware Staff(That's working in the next ME, Lol): You guys have come up with a title? I mean... An official title that will be released with the game? Or you haven't reached that part yet? Or just playing around with the titles that can somehow tie into the game?
There is a working title, and some people said last year that they'd heard it was Mass Effect: Contact.
No idea if that will end up being accurate, though.
If the devs are acting as though the narrative in DAI was aided, not hindered, by the open-world elements, then they probably do believe it. And they'll probably take a similar approach with NME.
We'll never know what the devs think of DA:I because you just don't criticize the work of your colleagues in public. I'm sure they are very much aware of the games short-comings and flaws because they had to make these design decisions and compromises during development.
This was Bioware's first attempt at creating an open-world RPG with a strong narrative. Something nobody has really done before. And while I enjoyed the game very much, I can see a lot of room for improvement. I'm certain the good people at Bioware do too. But it's probably really hard to find the right balance between story and exploration/side content.
And if ME:N isn't the best game ever made, we'll just blame everything on Jos.
-- I never liked that, just to mention, one member of the team dies in the end because I didn't do a totally unrelated thing times and times before. --
That, however, is exactly how choice&consequence system is supposed to work. If you can easily predict all the consequences of your choices and they are all presented immediatelly it ultimately feels shallow and unsatisfying. There's a reason why the Witcher series is praised for handling this well (not cross-game tho). FWIW neither DA nor ME series have done it properly because of sheer number of variables a.k.a Quantity>Quality.
There is a working title, and some people said last year that they'd heard it was Mass Effect: Contact.
I hope not, that's possibly the most boring and the least attention-attracting title conceivable. I'll say it again, the title ends with -ion, as ME tradition dictates, or bust 
Confirmed: They are watching us, and they are laughing at us.
I hope not, that's possibly the most boring and the least attention-attracting title conceivable.
I really like it. At this point they've already used a lot of "cooler" subtitles on random comics and book projects, and "Contact" is one of the better ways to get across the idea of exploring new places and meeting new species.
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Not saying ME3's model is fundamentally bad; it differed little from ME2 which is one of my all-time favorite games. But in both ME2 and ME3 I always found myself wishing I could just go to some uncharted planet on my own initiative, explore places there that interest me, and always be able to get in a fight without having a main quest telling me to do so.
On the other side, I'm not fond on leveling up powers: I hope there will be a switch to make it happen automaitcally.
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
And honestly, I mean, I take a look at all the other upcoming games I'm hyped for -- Zelda (Wii U), Xenoblade Chronicles X, MGSV, FFXV, Uncharted 4 -- and all but one of those is going for an "open world" or "open-esque" approach, and even Naughty Dog's sole exception keeps having its devs asked if they're considering it. e_e It's a very bad era to be a narrative junkie gamer who has perceived a measure of necessary disposal of some of that difficult-to-pinpoint story-on-the-regular hook that's haunting this transformation of he industry. (Yeah, I realize Zelda's always been sort of one of the grandfathers of the concept, but I've always been a bit weird what with even liking it in the first place. It's the only franchise I love that isn't very story-centric. The new one has a lot of folks excited, and I'll probably be OK with it since there isn't exactly much to sacrifice, but I think it'll be plagued with rote tedious mini-quests I'll routinely avoid, as I've done with DAI.)
For what it's worth, FF has always had open-world elements (in most FFs in fact grinding was almost necessary to not get curbstomped) and they've managed a heavy story focus just fine. Consider FF XII for an example of a 3D game with the same focus (and everything indicates that XV will be the same).
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
That, however, is exactly how choice&consequence system is supposed to work. If you can easily predict all the consequences of your choices and they are all presented immediatelly it ultimately feels shallow and unsatisfying. There's a reason why the Witcher series is praised for handling this well (not cross-game tho). FWIW neither DA nor ME series have done it properly because of sheer number of variables a.k.a Quantity>Quality.
I dunno if jay reads this, but as a creative director myself (yes a very small game company) naming thins is uber tricky....
One thing to consider is DA:I was done by BioWare Edmonton whereas NME is being done mainly by BioWare Montreal. Even if they're being inspired by the work on DA:I I guess NME will be a fundamentally different game since this exchange begun only in the past few months and by now the core mechanics and story of the game (should) already be done. For now I don't have any reason to worry NME will ultimately be DA:I in space.
That, however, is exactly how choice&consequence system is supposed to work. If you can easily predict all the consequences of your choices and they are all presented immediatelly it ultimately feels shallow and unsatisfying.
I don't mean an immediate consequence, but the effects must be understandable once they happen; even after finishing the game, do you really understand what shaped your experience?
Don't you feel too much happened out of nowhere?
There already is, called "auto-level up."
Yes, just hoping it will continue to exist
Are you sure you played ME2? Because ME2 and ME3 are completely different in their approach.
In ME2 I could roam around the galaxy for hours doing side missions before I bothered to recruit anybody, while in ME3 you're railroaded to the plot or the two/three plot-relevant "play this multiplayer map" missions that come up every act.
They are nothing alike. For what it's worth, I vastly, vastly prefer ME2's approach.
They're not completely different. ME2 just had stuff like the non-critical N7 missions and the Hammerhead surveilance series, and ME3 didn't. Those missions were still one-off and their locations could never be revisited. From a design standpoint they were fundamentally similar to the ME3 MP map missions you mentioned. Eventually in ME2, you'd get to the point where the only places you can return to and run around at are the Hubs and the Normandy, just like in ME3, except ME2 had a bit more to do before you get to that point. In Inquisition I can go back to pretty much any map whenever I wish, and even if I've completed every side quest in the game there will still be at least *some* stuff to fight. That's the major difference between DA:I and the previous Mass Effect games that I was attempting to highlight.
They're not completely different. ME2 just had stuff like the non-critical N7 missions and the Hammerhead surveilance series, and ME3 didn't. Those missions were still one-off and their locations could never be revisited. From a design standpoint they were fundamentally similar to the ME3 MP map missions you mentioned. Eventually in ME2, you'd get to the point where the only places you can return to and run around at are the Hubs and the Normandy, just like in ME3, except ME2 had a bit more to do before you get to that point. In Inquisition I can go back to pretty much any map whenever I wish, and even if I've completed every side quest in the game there will still be at least *some* stuff to fight. That's the major difference between DA:I and the previous Mass Effect games that I was attempting to highlight.
Actually, the Citadel DLC added a lot of side content plus, repeatable content in the form of the Armax Arsenal arena, hopefully stuff like that is included in the next ME main game. I always feel a little sad in ME2 when i've completed everything and the only thing to do is visit hub worlds which is pretty useless. i wish that for the next ME they'll add some optional side content that Mass Effect fanatics like me can spend countless hours on. Something like the Armax arena, a deep crafting system, hunting down artifacts, random generated combat missions, mini-games or something completely different.
...that reason is not, however, because in The Witcher the consequences don't make sense with relation to the choice (in fact, TW has a bad habit of jumping up and down in front of the gamer and saying "LOOK THIS HAPPENED BECAUSE YOU MADE THAT CHOICE").
Would you mind pointing out some examples? It's been quite some time since I played TW2.
The problem might be the absence of explanation how a choice influenced an outcome.
Also, if we're talking semantics, any choice can be associated with a certain event and become it's cause as a result of the butterfly effect. I don't think deciding whether a war erupts on killing/sparing a random wild animal in a game is a good idea, it's still certainly realistic, however illogical and disconnected it may seem.
I don't mean an immediate consequence, but the effects must be understandable once they happen; even after finishing the game, do you really understand what shaped your experience?
Don't you feel too much happened out of nowhere?
IMHO upgrades in ME2 was a fair game. It's nice to have one of those moments when you bash your head against the wall thinking "why didn't i do it?!" represented in a game. The effects are also very well understandable in this case. I don't see any problem here.
Wait, do you really mean that, without reading on the net, you can understand that, for example, that half of the crew dies in ME2 because of the number of mission played between opening and using Omega-4 relay?
Or that Tali can die because yuo didn't have time to help Garrus before?
I couldn't figure this without looking at the scheme.
Wait, do you really mean that, without reading on the net, you can understand that, for example, that half of the crew dies in ME2 because of the number of mission played between opening and using Omega-4 relay?
Or that Tali can die because yuo didn't have time to help Garrus before?
I couldn't figure this without looking at the scheme.
Of course not, you are not supposed to predict that but it's understandable in retrospect. IIRC it works like that IRL 
Wait, do you really mean that, without reading on the net, you can understand that, for example, that half of the crew dies in ME2 because of the number of mission played between opening and using Omega-4 relay?
Or that Tali can die because yuo didn't have time to help Garrus before?
I couldn't figure this without looking at the scheme.
Giving agency to the player should never mean that every consequence of doing something, or not doing something, is telegraphed beforehand. I feel the systems underlying choices and consequences are more successful when they're less transparent, not more. If the player or the player-character can predict beforehand the results of every choice, that's both boring and unrealistic.
(And yes - in many cases huge consequences can come from relatively minor events.)
I think there should be more instances of major plot points being significantly changed as a result of large or small decisions we made much earlier in the game.
IMO, that whole ME2 sequence after entering the Omega 4 relay was without a doubt the best and most exciting thing Bioware's done in a game, ever, and the closer they can get to recreating it the better. Very few things in other games have accomplished what they did in that mission, and a significant part of that was in the way it tied together most of the other game systems - upgrading the Normandy, the loyalty missions, the player's understanding of their squadmates' strengths and weaknesses...
Priority: London felt so drab precisely because they'd knocked it out of the park with the Suicide Mission.
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
They're not completely different. ME2 just had stuff like the non-critical N7 missions and the Hammerhead surveilance series, and ME3 didn't. Those missions were still one-off and their locations could never be revisited. From a design standpoint they were fundamentally similar to the ME3 MP map missions you mentioned. Eventually in ME2, you'd get to the point where the only places you can return to and run around at are the Hubs and the Normandy, just like in ME3, except ME2 had a bit more to do before you get to that point. In Inquisition I can go back to pretty much any map whenever I wish, and even if I've completed every side quest in the game there will still be at least *some* stuff to fight. That's the major difference between DA:I and the previous Mass Effect games that I was attempting to highlight.
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Would you mind pointing out some examples? It's been quite some time since I played TW2.
The problem might be the absence of explanation how a choice influenced an outcome.
Also, if we're talking semantics, any choice can be associated with a certain event and become it's cause as a result of the butterfly effect. I don't think deciding whether a war erupts on killing/sparing a random wild animal in a game is a good idea, it's still certainly realistic, however illogical and disconnected it may seem.
Retour en haut
