131 réponses à ce sujet

[Icinix]

Who knows - but there is no Mass Effect future from where I'm sitting personally.

Unless they bring out a Mass Effect 4x or Mass Effect: Privateer..

..maybe...

[Terror_K]

Thalamask wrote...

I'm not sure I agree. One of the biggest problems I have with most franchises is that nothing every changes! There might be the odd new gimmick, or they swap out the story a bit, but by game 3 I'm usually left going "ho-hum, seen it all before". It's... formulaic.

Look at Assassin's Creed as an example. There've been what? Five games now? Not even counting the spinoffs. I didn't even buy the latest one because it just looked like more of the same to me.

Of course, I did look up the storyline because the AC universe is still interesting to me, it's just that the gameplay is repetitious and stale.

Yeah, I know they're trying to "appease the core audience" or whatever, but even the core audience gets bored of same-game-different-wrapper. As evidenced by these forums. A lot!


Just once, I'd like to see them shake up the formula, which is why I kinda support the ideas in the original comment even though I probably wouldn't play half of 'em!

I have to disagree. I actually think Assassin's Creed did it right. I personally thought the first game was tedious and laughably simple, as well as repetitive and even poorly designed in some areas, but the second game managed to fix a lot of the issues without deviating from the core principles, and then Brotherhood took that a step further by building on and refining things even further, and IMO really brought the series alive after a pretty poor start. Revelations was admittedly not as big a leap in terms of innovation, but when Brotherhood pretty much nailed the formula, it didn't need to. AC3 looks more interesting still, setting the game in a uncommon setting for games and adding even more factors, as well as deviating away from the standard roof-top and building gameplay, yet still sticking true to the roots. Overall, I'd call Assassin's Creed a success, even if it is now one of many very similar titles in one of the most common hybrid genres today: the cinematic, story-driven action game.

The point here is, BioWare did it wrong by not following the same (or similar model). While the AC series changed slightly over each game, it actually evolved in a natural manner, and changed while also sticking to its roots. What worked was kept, and what didn't work was altered so it did. And while Revelations may not have been as big a leap, it was a good example of UbiSoft knowing that when something wasn't broken, there was no need to fix it.

BioWare's treatment of Mass Effect and Dragon Age is almost the opposite of this. They didn't let the game evolve naturally, and instead of building upon existing models and sticking to the game's roots, they completely changed things up, seemingly more for the sake of growing their audience than anything. They made changes for the sake of following trends and copied simpler, more action-oriented game elements and slapped them in rather than evolving what was there. If something didn't work it wasn't fixed, it was just thrown out and replaced by a simpler alternative that didn't have the depth or complexity, and was only "fixed" due to being more functional because it was too simple to even go wrong. BioWare never innovated, they just copy'n'pasted tried-and-true TPS elements. When things weren't broken, they often changed them anyway, resulting in aspects being broken in different ways (e.g. The Journal system in ME3, autodialogue, less dialogue choices, weak fetch-quests, etc.). BioWare make changes where changes aren't needed or wanted, and too oft change things for the sake of making their game appeal to a larger audience rather than because it's what's best for the game. They don't innovate, they just follow popular trends. They don't stick to the roots of the series, they damn near retcon and reboot it without actually doing so because they feel it's what potential fans want, despite the fact it's often what the current fans don't want.

The point is, not every game has to be a massive innovation, and things that aren't broken don't need to be changed just for the sake of it. And I personally believe that this is more the case for games with a strong focus on story like most RPGs, because as long as the story and content itself is different, that should be more than enough. Because that's what really matters: the story, the emotions and the characters. If you've perfected the formula for the gameplay, the innovation and change can come in the story. When a game doesn't have much you need to innovate and change things to keep them interesting, but in an RPG the story and characters should be what holds your interest more, and that's what should really matter.

Modifié par Terror_K, 23 août 2012 - 01:55 .

[Thalamask]

Terror_K wrote...

Lots of good stuff

You have a lot of good points, and I agree that what AC did wasn't bad. What I was getting at is that after 2/3 games, it just feels stale. I honestly can't tell the different (yeah, I know... I'm exaggurating) between AC2, Brotherhood and Revelations. If I had to pick up one blindfolded, I really couldn't tell. It's just more of the same.

That works well, but it really puts a 2-3 game cap on a series (for me anyways) and we all know that big publishers like to churn out an annual (or at least, biennial) sequel, and that just gets old really quickly.

ME made a lot of innovations, really fast. The gamplay of 3 is utterly unrecognisable compared to 1.

That said... I've just replayed the trilogy. One's story and writing were good, but I hated the gameplay, and I felt constrained by the tiny squad. Two was awesome. The writing was good (not as good as 1 though), everything flowed smoother, there was less "dead" gametime, I enjoyed the gameplay MUCH more and they really got the "interesting characters" thing going. Three felt like a step backwards. Same fun gameplay, but much worse writing and far less of the trademark Bioware "awesome characters".

Let's not talk about Mako's or Planet Scanning. I far preferred ME3's "War Asset" system that came by playing the game, rather than grinding VERY unfun minigames. That was GOOD innovation. That said... I still hated the way War Assets essentially meant nothing other than an increase in an arbitrary number that also meant basically nothing. They could have done so much more with that system.

I'm not really suggesting that innovation is required in EVERY game. That would be absurd. But I really wish that they'd put a 2-3 game cap on same-old-same-old.

I'm not going to be getting AC3. Running about on trees just simply isn't different enough for me to be interested any more. I'm bored, is what it comes down to.

Now... if they made an AC on the Splinter Cell stealth model, where you're more spy and less action hero, I'd totally be interested again. And that's what I'm looking for in more ME. If they made another ME action-RPG, I'm honestly not sure I'd buy it. But an ME detective game, ala Noire, or a strategy game (possibly set during the First Contact War) ala Starcraft/DOW, or a tactical strategy game ala XCOM, or a stealth-based Spectre / STG game ala Splinter Cell? Those I'd totally buy.

It would also get the franchise exposure to a far larger audience. People that won't plan an action-RPG may well pick up a strategy. And if it was good, they might go:  "Hey... this was great. And look... the first game is on a Steam Sale. Why not... let's have a go." and that can only be good for the series.

Modifié par Thalamask, 23 août 2012 - 02:46 .

[davidshooter]

If there is another Mass Effect game it will largely be multiplayer/co-op with minimal story based single player.

What Ea has learned from the release of Mass Effect 3 is that the money is in microtransactions and multiplayer.

Leviathan will also underperform compared to previous (ME2) DLCs and this will only further their belief that multiplayer/co-op is the future of Mass Effect

[RebelTitan428]

for me, the mass effect universe died with ME3

[Snypy]

davidshooter wrote...

If there is another Mass Effect game it will largely be multiplayer/co-op with minimal story based single player.

What Ea has learned from the release of Mass Effect 3 is that the money is in microtransactions and multiplayer.

Leviathan will also underperform compared to previous (ME2) DLCs and this will only further their belief that multiplayer/co-op is the future of Mass Effect

That's precisely what we're all afraid of. Ultimately, there won't be any need for BioWare as an independent studio within EA company structure, because it will be making the very same type of games as the other studios. It's possible that EA will fall apart before that happens, though. The value of its shares has slumped sharply YOY.

[Midz]

Snypy wrote...

davidshooter wrote...

If there is another Mass Effect game it will largely be multiplayer/co-op with minimal story based single player.

What Ea has learned from the release of Mass Effect 3 is that the money is in microtransactions and multiplayer.

Leviathan will also underperform compared to previous (ME2) DLCs and this will only further their belief that multiplayer/co-op is the future of Mass Effect

That's precisely what we're all afraid of. Ultimately, there won't be any need for BioWare as an independent studio within EA company structure, because it will be making the very same type of games as the other studios. It's possible that EA will fall apart before that happens, though. The value of its shares has slumped sharply YOY.

If  you refer to share price circa Oct  2008 maybe  have a point ,
Apart from  the normal sensationalist headlines the  share price range has been fairly similar over the last 2 years with  plus and  minus fluctuations .

Before  too much  joy look at  the finance  of  Bioware before it  needed a partner   far  from  positive  more likely  the road to closure. Maybe they made  good  great games  but   they needed  also financial stability and there structure  was not efficiant..They  also wanted  to make KOTOR  independently  they  could not.
.The  costs  of  that were high very high , if  that becomes  a  loss. Then probably  you  will   see the break up of  EA  and  the  end  of  Bioware .
It seems   just overt correctness  to blame EA   .Whereas  Bioware have  a lot of independence  within EA from many articles written .Since development of   KOTOR  started  EA  has basically   granted funding  enormous  funding  to Bioware ,and  told them simply  how  much return  they want , the same as a bank  would require intrest.
,How Bioware achieved  that was  pretty much left in there hands .To claim  EA heavy hand  at every turn  is  simply incorrect.

The hatred of EA  has become  like an urban  myth the devil to scare children ,some of it  is true  a lot of it is  not .
Throw away phrases repeated till many  think there are true without thought a bit like a cult even .

[FaWa]

If its not an RPG its not Mass Effect, hence why ME3 was only half Mass Effect

[Snypy]

Midz wrote...

Snypy wrote...

davidshooter wrote...

If there is another Mass Effect game it will largely be multiplayer/co-op with minimal story based single player.

What Ea has learned from the release of Mass Effect 3 is that the money is in microtransactions and multiplayer.

Leviathan will also underperform compared to previous (ME2) DLCs and this will only further their belief that multiplayer/co-op is the future of Mass Effect

That's precisely what we're all afraid of. Ultimately, there won't be any need for BioWare as an independent studio within EA company structure, because it will be making the very same type of games as the other studios. It's possible that EA will fall apart before that happens, though. The value of its shares has slumped sharply YOY.

If  you refer to share price circa Oct  2008 maybe  have a point ,
Apart from  the normal sensationalist headlines the  share price range has been fairly similar over the last 2 years with  plus and  minus fluctuations .

Before  too much  joy look at  the finance  of  Bioware before it  needed a partner   far  from  positive  more likely  the road to closure. Maybe they made  good  great games  but   they needed  also financial stability and there structure  was not efficiant..They  also wanted  to make KOTOR  independently  they  could not.
.The  costs  of  that were high very high , if  that becomes  a  loss. Then probably  you  will   see the break up of  EA  and  the  end  of  Bioware .
It seems   just overt correctness  to blame EA   .Whereas  Bioware have  a lot of independence  within EA from many articles written .Since development of   KOTOR  started  EA  has basically   granted funding  enormous  funding  to Bioware ,and  told them simply  how  much return  they want , the same as a bank  would require intrest.
,How Bioware achieved  that was  pretty much left in there hands .To claim  EA heavy hand  at every turn  is  simply incorrect.

The hatred of EA  has become  like an urban  myth the devil to scare children ,some of it  is true  a lot of it is  not .
Throw away phrases repeated till many  think there are true without thought a bit like a cult even .

Perhaps you should've checked the latest data before you replied to my post. Let me show you some figures:

• YTD: -37.98% in share price.
• 2Y: -14.55% in share price.
• 3Y: -31.52% in share price.

Granted, you and I probably have a different definition of stable.

By the way, I meant SWTOR (not KOTOR) in my previous post, but it seems you understood me after all.  I couldn't dig up BioWare's financial statements from the time when they were still an independent company. But it's true that they had never really intended to create the game on their own -- too costly.

Hm, I'm not sure what level of freedom we're talking about. But I find it hard to believe that BioWare would basically change from a developer which puts emphasis on its fanbase and RPG elements in its games to a studio which talks about "appealing to a broader audience at the cost of losing its loyal fans" without any interference from EA. Just read the comments above, barely anyone is happy with the way things are. And I'm probably one of few optimists here.

Anyway, if EA ever fell apart, it wouldn't necessarily be the end of everything. It's far more likely that EA would sell its studios and perhaps there would be a bright future for BioWare and the current IPs.

Having said all that, I'm hoping for a change to the better in DA3 and ME4.

Modifié par Snypy, 23 août 2012 - 06:17 .

[Ed B]

A prequel might be interesting or skip several generations into the future.It might be interesting to experience the Contact War or the Rachni war. There are lots of possibilities.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Quite frankly, the recent talk of Synthesis possibly ending up as canon leaves the future of the series questionable for me. It would change everything we've grown to love about this universe.

[BatmanPWNS]

Before or after EA turns into a huge cashcow?

Modifié par BatmanPWNS, 23 août 2012 - 06:23 .

[darthnick427]

If there is another Mass Effect it will be a Prequel, 200 years + in the future, or an MMO......none of which I will be too happy about since Garrus won't be around regardless.... :'(

[CroGamer002]

Rubios wrote...

Snypy wrote...

Anyway, if EA ever fell apart, it wouldn't necessarily be the end of everything. It's far more likely that EA would sell its studios and perhaps there would be a bright future for BioWare and the current IPs.

inb4 CD Projekt buys Bioware Edmonton?

I'll keep dreaming...

Riiight, like we need more of CD Projekt's "excellent" portrayal of woman.

[CroGamer002]

Rubios wrote...

Because publishers develop the games now, right?

CD Projekt is not a publisher.

[Vlk3]

Mesina2 wrote...

Rubios wrote...

Because publishers develop the games now, right?

CD Projekt is not a publisher.

Actually, CD Projekt is a publisher.

[MerchantGOL]

Mesina2 wrote...

Rubios wrote...

Snypy wrote...

Anyway, if EA ever fell apart, it wouldn't necessarily be the end of everything. It's far more likely that EA would sell its studios and perhaps there would be a bright future for BioWare and the current IPs.

inb4 CD Projekt buys Bioware Edmonton?

I'll keep dreaming...

Riiight, like we need more of CD Projekt's "excellent" portrayal of woman.

 CD Projekt: Charachter Custmization? Roleplaying? LIs? LMAO

[Spinotech]

I think Bioware could pull off a ME4, ME5, and ME6 if developed properly. Throw in a few spin-offs along the lines of an RTS game or a Star Wars: Battlefront style game and Bioware will have quite the franchise.

[Phantom089]

You should have The Title The Future of Mass Effect based on someone else's thoughts. I'm just saying.

Mass Effect should be kept the way it is. Mass Effect should be more improved and better, have things the way it is.

I'm not interested in RTS or a MMO, anything else is welcomes and I will buy, not those two genres though.

[MerchantGOL]

Rubios wrote...

MerchantGOL wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

Rubios wrote...

Snypy wrote...

Anyway, if EA ever fell apart, it wouldn't necessarily be the end of everything. It's far more likely that EA would sell its studios and perhaps there would be a bright future for BioWare and the current IPs.

inb4 CD Projekt buys Bioware Edmonton?

I'll keep dreaming...

Riiight, like we need more of CD Projekt's "excellent" portrayal of woman.

 CD Projekt: Charachter Custmization? Roleplaying? LIs? LMAO

https://en.wikipedia...iki/The_Witcher

yeah were talking about the one people actualy played, thanks.