Suspire wrote...
I loved fighting Saren, it was really video gamey but that's why I loved it. Made me nostalgic of older, simpler times, it was kinda like a Streets of Rage boss, really fun and really satisfying!
Another reason why ME1 was awesome...
Edit: I love you 3DandBeyond
fainmaca wrote...
This gives me the vibe that maybe some of the people in creative control of certain aspects of the company want to move over to another media outlet. I mean, you've got to admit that out of all of the forms of entertainment media, video games are probably looked down on the most by the other creative genres. You say you're a Movie Director, people start imagining glitzy houses overlooking Hollywood. You say you're a Novelist, people imagine a quiet writing spot on a beach somewhere, or a very luxurious library filled to the brim with the most intellectual fare. You say you do video games, people will generally imagine Mom's basement.
Maybe somebody's a little tired of being in a creative industry tied to such preconceptions, along with the 'Video Games are rotting the brains of our youth!' 'These murder-simulators will create the next mass murderer!'.
You take somebody wanting to get away from that, and you end up with a game that the creators wanted to be a movie. Kind of like the girl whose parents wanted a boy, so she grew up with a room that was already painted blue and a first name that really belongs on a boy.
emanziboy wrote...
The whole analogy of minor conflict = minor enemies and major conflict = boss fight only applies to ....... They are just there to be minor obstacles in the way to the real conflicts which are story related.
So what people really mean when they say a boss fight is too "videogamey" is that the boss fight has been put in for entirely gameplay-related reasons at the expense of the story. Examples of this include the Titan Joker from Arkham Asylum, the Human-Reaper from ME2.
Modifié par thefallen2far, 08 septembre 2012 - 03:39 .
3DandBeyond wrote...
I think part of it goes along with what was said about what they wanted ME3 to be early in development and even a bit later on I think even just before release or before the delay of the release. It was to be their blockbuster break out of this franchise-their Star Wars and fighting at the end was going to be intense. I don't know if the release delay and leaked script had anything to do with it not ending up that way, but I do think someone got worried they would not be taken seriously. They wanted this game to make its mark and to elevate the franchise. The odd thing is they decided to go more Kubrick (not making a direct comparison) and less Star Wars. I'm not saying it had to be Star Wars-like at all, but I think they worried it would seem cheesy if it was at all like that.
But they had already shown how to end games with ME1 and 2 and all they had to do was grow and build off of that. Don't try for intellectualism, go for the gut and the heart and you get the brain along for the ride. If you go right for the brain you damn well better make it good or it will fall flat. It's why Star Wars' ending succeeds. Was it smart and intellectual? No way. Was it cheesy? Sure thing. Did it work? Yes, abso-frackin'-lutely. Why? Because no matter how much you maybe didn't want to smile, you did and you felt like you'd been on a ride and it was fun and it appealed to your emotions. The bad guy got smacked, the renegade came back to help, the good guy prevailed, the day was won. Imagine it ending with Luke choosing synthesis or destroy or control because Darth Vader said they might help him get rid of the Empire. Not fun. Not smile-worthy. Not enough Han Solo.
thefallen2far wrote...
My parrallel was between gameplay and story. Mass effect up until the end stayed true to a videogame experience and story element that both commonly use and abandoned both in the end. It's possible the intent may have been art, but it comes across as "they had too much of a budget/time constraint".
Did you think Arkham Asylum was a bad game because of TJ? Did you think Mass Effect 2 was a bad game because of Human-Reaper? Not many people say those games were bad because of the boss fights at the end. It's a part of the whole, cheesy, yes...but it keeps with the genre. If you hate that aspect of the game, you only hate that aspect, however, most people say Mass Effect as a game was horrible because of the ending. Because the game was anti-climactic. You didn't fight to the end, you just kinda rolled over and died.
now, don't get me wrong, nihilists, hipsters and fatalists love the ending. It's not an ending. it didn't follow the conventions of the norm, so it sticks out as a story and breaks the convention of gameplay. It's fine that the did so, but you're limiting the audience from a general appeal to solely those that want something that doesn't appeal to everyone. It's fine that it doesn't follow conventions of gameplay, Shadow of the Collosus abandoned the minor conflict. It's still a great story and brilliant piece of art. Sims abandoned most elements of storytelling, it's known as one of the most popular games of all time. Kafka abandoned most conventional stortelling elments and is considered on of the best surrealistic writers. ME3 abandond these elements and it didn't work as well. it followed conventonal gameplay and story until the end, abndoned both and resulted in what's know as "the game with the bad ending".
Now, if you're happy that 90% of the comments people talk about about the game is the end, then it's successful.
legion999 wrote...
I would say the war assets, health kits, ammo and easter eggs were ‘too video-gamey' and yet they're still there.
There are still different paths that can be taken in the dialogue especially when TIM can kill Shepard.Hydralysk wrote...
No you aren't stuck with one point, but you might as well be, if you met the other dialogue requirements he shoots himself, if you didn't, you shoot him yourself, either way it cuts to the same clip. You can be bipolar as hell in the last conversation and the direction and tone never shifts or gives a different result, the only way you can fail is with a non standard game over.
MGS has a lot of verbal combat that doesn't end up as a physical fight.Hydralysk wrote...
I think you are confusing what I'm refering to as a verbal battle with what I'll call 'combat dialogue'. If you want to have a verbal battle I need to be choosing what to say and have the possibility of failure, otherwise it's no different than going through a normal boss with an invincibility cheat. MGS and the RE4 fight do weave dialogue into fight scenes, but the dialogue itself is never the gameplay portion.
DE: HR isn't anything new especially when that heavily borrows from the MGS series. It also has a lot of influences like Fallout and ME.Hydralysk wrote...
DE:HR had you picking from different options as conversations advanced over intervals. At each interval the player had to use what they'd heard or know about the person to figure out the best possible line to get the person to agree with you or give you want you want. If you failed, the scene played out and the game continued with that in mind. That's how you play out a verbal battle, you have the player make decisions that will influence where it goes, and the possibility for failure, else I'm just listening to a very dramatic cutscene that requires me to click a mouse button once in awhile.
Ithurael wrote...
A boss fight would be too difficult for them to implement given the time that EA gave them to complete ME3. Look at everything post rannoch. Sanctuary was the best level after that - anything else was just barren, souless, and had no real effort put into it.
There really wasn't a time problem even when ME3's production and developement started at the same time as ME2 was started. Hindsight is 20/20 and the only people that really know the answer to that question is Bioware. Btw there was a lot of effort put into ME3 whether or not you have issues with it.Ithurael wrote...
A boss fight would be too difficult for them to implement given the time that EA gave them to complete ME3. Look at everything post rannoch. Sanctuary was the best level after that - anything else was just barren, souless, and had no real effort put into it.
To be fair the Suicide Mission in ME2 and Priority Earth in ME3 are both broken up into multiple missions.AresKeith wrote...
If the Earth mission was like Suicide mission 2.0 with more missions or something better with what we got then I wouldn't have mind a final boss battle. But pls make the Kal Leng fight much better
Modifié par Blueprotoss, 08 septembre 2012 - 07:06 .
emanziboy wrote...
thefallen2far wrote...
Video games have a similar criteria. Rising action is you controling the character through the space of the game. The sense is that you're advancing in the story, if a gae or a story mianders and you don't feel like you're advancing, it gets boring quickly. It's usually seperated into sections whereas books have chapters, games have levels. Minor conflict is like minions in games. Mushrooms with eyes and turtles that fling hammers for Mario, Brutes and Banshees for Shepard, or [as an example] ebineezer Scrooge seening another example of the misery he caused someone in his life. It's primarily to flesh out the action. This could become abundant, but I needs to be broken up with Major conflict. This is when an apex of minor action acumulates to a point. Too much minor conflict becomes redundent, and you need to continue the sense of accomplishment. The major conflictis usually a very memorable moment. When you think of your favorite stories, the major conflict is usually the event you think "that was awesome". That's the major conflict in a story, it's a boss fight in games
The whole analogy of minor conflict = minor enemies and major conflict = boss fight only applies to gameplay-driven games like Mario. The story in Mario games is usually only there to provide context to what you're doing. You're primary purpose in playing Mario is to beat levels using your platforming skills to advance through levels and defeat ememies. Boss battles function like final tests, where you use what you've learned over the course of either the past few levels or even the entire game to beat an extra hard challenge.
However, a game like Mass Effect is the complete opposite of Mario as it is a story-driven game. What gameplay is in the game is only there to reinforce the story. Sure, in gameplay you may be fighting cerberus mooks, but the point of the game isn't that you're trying to kill foot soldiers. They are just there to be minor obstacles in the way to the real conflicts which are story related.
So what people really mean when they say a boss fight is too "videogamey" is that the boss fight has been put in for entirely gameplay-related reasons at the expense of the story. Examples of this include the Titan Joker from Arkham Asylum, the Human-Reaper from ME2.
The Joker fight is terrible mostly because it ruins the characterization of him as a manipulator and schemer by turning him into a brute who wants to overpower Batman physically simply so it could have a boss fight with joker. It doesn't help that the boss fight involves him falling for the same trick multiple times, which makes him look like a moron.
The Human-Reaper was terrible because it was completely redundant and thrown in there for the sake of having a boss fight. There was no story reason for it to be there. If it was taken out, the story would have played out exactly the same way: bomb/emp armed, shep and crew escape, collectors defeated, story conflict solved. This makes the boss fight feel extraneus and makes it seem like it was added for the sole reason of "this is a videogame and hey, don't video games usually have boss fights? lets have them fight this reaper."
Archilus5 wrote...
Why are people so obsessed with boss fights? ME doesn´t need them, never did. ME1´s "Saren´s skeleton" fight is boring. ME2´s Reaper Larva is a boss fight for the sake of boss fight, and look at Deus Ex: Human Revolution, that would be the best game ever made if there were no silly bossfights
The last battle would be a verbal confrontation with TIM.The Angry One wrote...
Archilus5 wrote...
Why are people so obsessed with boss fights? ME doesn´t need them, never did. ME1´s "Saren´s skeleton" fight is boring. ME2´s Reaper Larva is a boss fight for the sake of boss fight, and look at Deus Ex: Human Revolution, that would be the best game ever made if there were no silly bossfights
A final confrontation can occur in any number of ways, including verbal.
We got nothing.
Modifié par Blueprotoss, 08 septembre 2012 - 07:10 .
We got a beam to the face from Good Guy Harby, after he politely waited for our friends to leave. It shows a growth of character on his side, that he decided to show respect to his enemy. Or it shows that he got lobotomized I forget which.The Angry One wrote...
Archilus5 wrote...
Why are people so obsessed with boss fights? ME doesn´t need them, never did. ME1´s "Saren´s skeleton" fight is boring. ME2´s Reaper Larva is a boss fight for the sake of boss fight, and look at Deus Ex: Human Revolution, that would be the best game ever made if there were no silly bossfights
A final confrontation can occur in any number of ways, including verbal.
We got nothing.
Blueprotoss wrote...
The last battle would be a verbal confrontation with TIM.The Angry One wrote...
Archilus5 wrote...
Why are people so obsessed with boss fights? ME doesn´t need them, never did. ME1´s "Saren´s skeleton" fight is boring. ME2´s Reaper Larva is a boss fight for the sake of boss fight, and look at Deus Ex: Human Revolution, that would be the best game ever made if there were no silly bossfights
A final confrontation can occur in any number of ways, including verbal.
We got nothing.
The Angry One wrote...
I am not even going to humour you on this. TIM was a side villain at most. The end. Don't insult our intelligence by pretending otherwise.
Retour en haut