631 réponses à ce sujet

[Ledgend1221]

Of course it's overrated.
Like Skyrim.

[ShepnTali]

Choices don't do a lot for me replay wise, unless they result in something vastly different,,as I generally stick to a similar path anyways. With something like Infamous 2, atleast some allies and enemies flip flop in the end.


Generally, it just comes down to if I enjoy playing a game, and revisiting it over and over for that reason alone.

[IntelligentME3Fanboy]

SNascimento wrote...

Mass Effect is the single greatest series this gen. Simple as that.

www.youtube.com/watch

[IntelligentME3Fanboy]

StreetMagic wrote...

ShepnTali wrote...

Choices don't do a lot for me replay wise, unless they result in something vastly different,,as I generally stick to a similar path anyways. With something like Infamous 2, atleast some allies and enemies flip flop in the end.


Generally, it just comes down to if I enjoy playing a game, and revisiting it over and over for that reason alone.

Fair enough. I'll just speak for myself then. The only games I end up playing over are RPGs with choices and puzzle or strat type of games. Regular action games are still great, but don't hold much replay value. I don't really compare them to the RPG experience. I like a lot of them, in fact.. I'd play more of them, but it gets expensive after awhile to keep buying new ones. With something like Dragon Age or Mass Effect, I end up saving a lot more money just on replay value.

so this is money related?For me,no game has a lot of replay value-1 or 2 playthroughs and never touch it again (except games like FIFA or CoD).If you're just trying to save money then play CoD.1 game=hundreds of hours

[IntelligentME3Fanboy]

StreetMagic wrote...

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

ShepnTali wrote...

Choices don't do a lot for me replay wise, unless they result in something vastly different,,as I generally stick to a similar path anyways. With something like Infamous 2, atleast some allies and enemies flip flop in the end.


Generally, it just comes down to if I enjoy playing a game, and revisiting it over and over for that reason alone.

Fair enough. I'll just speak for myself then. The only games I end up playing over are RPGs with choices and puzzle or strat type of games. Regular action games are still great, but don't hold much replay value. I don't really compare them to the RPG experience. I like a lot of them, in fact.. I'd play more of them, but it gets expensive after awhile to keep buying new ones. With something like Dragon Age or Mass Effect, I end up saving a lot more money just on replay value.

so this is money related?For me,no game has a lot of replay value-1 or 2 playthroughs and never touch it again (except games like FIFA or CoD).If you're just trying to save money then play CoD.1 game=hundreds of hours

I'm talking replay value story wise, for the most part. I could play CoD multiplayer a lot, but the single player campaigns get old before they're even over. I just borrow those from friends. Won't pay for one.

Something like Uncharted is badass, and hardly overrated.. but I can't bring myself to replay. There's no variation in the story. They're fun and immersive while they last -- but $60 a pop.

wait a minute-it's overrated because it's shorter?Just so you know,longer doesn't necessarily mean better.

[o Ventus]

Where in that entire pyramid of quotes was the notion that longer = better?

[ShepnTali]

StreetMagic wrote...

ShepnTali wrote...

Choices don't do a lot for me replay wise, unless they result in something vastly different,,as I generally stick to a similar path anyways. With something like Infamous 2, atleast some allies and enemies flip flop in the end.


Generally, it just comes down to if I enjoy playing a game, and revisiting it over and over for that reason alone.

Fair enough. I'll just speak for myself then. The only games I end up playing over are RPGs with choices and puzzle or strat type of games. Regular action games are still great, but don't hold much replay value. I don't really compare them to the RPG experience. I like a lot of them, in fact.. I'd play more of them, but it gets expensive after awhile to keep buying new ones. With something like Dragon Age or Mass Effect, I end up saving a lot more money just on replay value.

I would like to add, just to be clear, I love having lots of choice within games. Just because I tend not to deviate much, the option to switch things up is always welcomed, and appreciated by me.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

iakus wrote...

I don't see why a game developer can't get away with side quests just as easily as a novelist can get away with "filler" content. 

The mistake assumption here being that novelists should be allowed to get away with this. Still, this isn't the best comparison since your typical novel is only told in a linear fashion. The fact that most Bioware games tend to have the option to choose what order you complete them in demonstrates how little significance they have to the overall story.

Also,  your typical novel's filler content still doesn't compare to the sheer non-sensical nature of side quests in games like Mass Effect.

More so, really, since side quests aren't (or shouldn't be) required material.  Much like DLC.

Side quests are fine, when (as you say) they're not required. Your general Bioware plot however is devoted entirely to performing side quests, with only minimal ties to the main plot. Now that's fine, if you don't care about your main plotline. But I'd say that sort of thing is better suited to a sandbox.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 30 juillet 2013 - 08:56 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

CronoDragoon wrote...

True, but I think that's because they are self-aware of how much better they do "filler" content than main quests. Even Mass Effect 3, ostensibly a war against the Reapers, uses them more as a backdrop and impetus for action than as a focus for what you are doing. Tuchanka, Cerberus, Rannoch, sidequests, it's all the same structure as Dragon Age Origins, in which you spend the game building enough forces to take back Earth and, later, to build the Crucible.

I've noticed this at times too. It does make me wonder though what a Bioware game without filler content would look like? Jade Empire and Mass Effect 1 I'd argue are the closest they've come to it, and even they had a good amount of filler content.

[Jorji Costava]

Another model that might be worth looking at here is television. I'm specifically thinking of a couple of series from the late 90's and early 00's when serialized TV storytelling was in its incipient stages. Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and Babylon 5 all had long story arcs that ran across multiple episodes, often spanning across whole seasons or even multiple seasons. Even so, each series had a rather large number of relatively stand-alone episodes. To take a few examples, DS9 episodes like "The Visitor" and "Far Beyond the Stars" had little to do with the over-arching plot of the Dominion War, but were still among the best-received episodes of the series. Buffy episodes like "The Zeppo" or "The Wish" had little to do with the main Season 3 plot of the Mayor, but were still important character milestones.

I wouldn't say that this is a flawless or great model of story structure, and it's been largely phased out in the wake of 13-episode-per-season cable shows, but I still think it makes for a useful comparison particularly with a game like ME2, which you could easily say is very episodic in nature. It's possible that we're in a similar transitional state with RPG storytelling that we were with TV in the early 00's, so it will be interesting to revisit these games again in a few years time.

[DarthLaxian]

ioannisdenton wrote...

I would lock this thread. i do sound like an idiot but this how i feel after reading the title.
Let me mention overated games this gen:
Uncharted 3 which was so NOT to 2's level, god of war all pf them, Halos all of them, all of assassin's creed games, CoD, gears of wars, Grand theft auto .
Wanna know what all these overated games have in common? Once you ve played them once you will not play them again, you ve seen everything there is. Once you ve played one part of the series you need not to play the next installemnt, it will be the same.
Unlike Mass effect games which gave me reasons to play the HELL out of them again again and made me fit into shepards shoes (do not know the exact expression but i ll use it anyway for the goofy part).
With mass effect i had a reason why to shoot people or why i had to care about characters.

well, while i don't know most of those games and i can agree on their replay-value (if you - like me - give a crap about those achievment systems) is low, i would simply can't agree with what you say about Assassin's Creed (except maybe the last one - i was simply to drawn out for me, but otherwise still a good game (and the other's before that were nice, too, if you don't compare them to games like: Dragon Age, Mass Effect (1 and 2 - 3 is worse!), the witcher, KOTOR, Alpha Protocol etc.

BUT: Those Games (Assassin's Creed, COD etc.) are not aimed at the same people, those games are more casual fun (that's what ruins ME3 - it is casual fun, no depth what so ever IMHO...unless you played the games before and even then it comes up wanting (to be a better game)!)

greetings LAX
ps: close your own thread(s) - sorry but demanding to close a thread is flaming and i hate that! (you can voice dissagreement, no one stops you - as long as you stay on the level (i don't flame you, do i?))

[DarthLaxian]

osbornep wrote...

Another model that might be worth looking at here is television. I'm specifically thinking of a couple of series from the late 90's and early 00's when serialized TV storytelling was in its incipient stages. Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and Babylon 5 all had long story arcs that ran across multiple episodes, often spanning across whole seasons or even multiple seasons. Even so, each series had a rather large number of relatively stand-alone episodes. To take a few examples, DS9 episodes like "The Visitor" and "Far Beyond the Stars" had little to do with the over-arching plot of the Dominion War, but were still among the best-received episodes of the series. Buffy episodes like "The Zeppo" or "The Wish" had little to do with the main Season 3 plot of the Mayor, but were still important character milestones.

I wouldn't say that this is a flawless or great model of story structure, and it's been largely phased out in the wake of 13-episode-per-season cable shows, but I still think it makes for a useful comparison particularly with a game like ME2, which you could easily say is very episodic in nature. It's possible that we're in a similar transitional state with RPG storytelling that we were with TV in the early 00's, so it will be interesting to revisit these games again in a few years time.

1. sorry for double posting (if no one posted after my last one)

2. Very insightful (!) and i agree (also: i would love a return to the "old days" (at least quality wise) for TV-Shows...hell Babylon 5 (main show - and not season 5 IMHO) is the best Science Fiction Show on TV up to now IMHO (most things that came later were neither as good, nor as well made IMHO (character design and story)

greetings LAX
ps: Note: Transitional-Stage or not, it does not excuse bad games IMHO!

[IntelligentME3Fanboy]

DarthLaxian wrote...

ioannisdenton wrote...

I would lock this thread. i do sound like an idiot but this how i feel after reading the title.
Let me mention overated games this gen:
Uncharted 3 which was so NOT to 2's level, god of war all pf them, Halos all of them, all of assassin's creed games, CoD, gears of wars, Grand theft auto .
Wanna know what all these overated games have in common? Once you ve played them once you will not play them again, you ve seen everything there is. Once you ve played one part of the series you need not to play the next installemnt, it will be the same.
Unlike Mass effect games which gave me reasons to play the HELL out of them again again and made me fit into shepards shoes (do not know the exact expression but i ll use it anyway for the goofy part).
With mass effect i had a reason why to shoot people or why i had to care about characters.

well, while i don't know most of those games and i can agree on their replay-value (if you - like me - give a crap about those achievment systems) is low, i would simply can't agree with what you say about Assassin's Creed (except maybe the last one - i was simply to drawn out for me, but otherwise still a good game (and the other's before that were nice, too, if you don't compare them to games like: Dragon Age, Mass Effect (1 and 2 - 3 is worse!), the witcher, KOTOR, Alpha Protocol etc.

BUT: Those Games (Assassin's Creed, COD etc.) are not aimed at the same people, those games are more casual fun (that's what ruins ME3 - it is casual fun, no depth what so ever IMHO...unless you played the games before and even then it comes up wanting (to be a better game)!)

greetings LAX
ps: close your own thread(s) - sorry but demanding to close a thread is flaming and i hate that! (you can voice dissagreement, no one stops you - as long as you stay on the level (i don't flame you, do i?))

i hope this is a joke.If you haven't played a game you have no right to judge it or compare it to another game.Even worse when you compare them to garbage like Alpha protocol

Modifié par IntelligentME3Fanboy, 30 juillet 2013 - 10:44 .

[mopotter]

StreetMagic wrote...

ShepnTali wrote...

Choices don't do a lot for me replay wise, unless they result in something vastly different,,as I generally stick to a similar path anyways. With something like Infamous 2, atleast some allies and enemies flip flop in the end.


Generally, it just comes down to if I enjoy playing a game, and revisiting it over and over for that reason alone.

Fair enough. I'll just speak for myself then. The only games I end up playing over are RPGs with choices and puzzle or strat type of games. Regular action games are still great, but don't hold much replay value. I don't really compare them to the RPG experience. I like a lot of them, in fact.. I'd play more of them, but it gets expensive after awhile to keep buying new ones. With something like Dragon Age or Mass Effect, I end up saving a lot more money just on replay value.

Me too.  I've been playing xcom and it's fun, but mainly  i just keep replay games like Fall Out FONV, the Elder scrolls group and all of BW's older games. I pull out Jade Empire and KOTOR every couple of years and I'm still replaying the two DA games.  it does save money.  

[mopotter]

ShepnTali wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

ShepnTali wrote...

Choices don't do a lot for me replay wise, unless they result in something vastly different,,as I generally stick to a similar path anyways. With something like Infamous 2, atleast some allies and enemies flip flop in the end.


Generally, it just comes down to if I enjoy playing a game, and revisiting it over and over for that reason alone.

Fair enough. I'll just speak for myself then. The only games I end up playing over are RPGs with choices and puzzle or strat type of games. Regular action games are still great, but don't hold much replay value. I don't really compare them to the RPG experience. I like a lot of them, in fact.. I'd play more of them, but it gets expensive after awhile to keep buying new ones. With something like Dragon Age or Mass Effect, I end up saving a lot more money just on replay value.

I would like to add, just to be clear, I love having lots of choice within games. Just because I tend not to deviate much, the option to switch things up is always welcomed, and appreciated by me.

Most of my Shepards, Hawkes, whoever,  are on the paragon side.  Even the ones I try to balance out have a touch more paragon than not.  I also make quite a few of the big choices the same, but yeh, I want as many choices as possibled for those times I do want to say or do something snarky or downright rude.  

[Iakus]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Side quests are fine, when (as you say) they're not required. Your general Bioware plot however is devoted entirely to performing side quests, with only minimal ties to the main plot. Now that's fine, if you don't care about your main plotline. But I'd say that sort of thing is better suited to a sandbox.

the only Bioware story that had truly optional side content tie directly into the main story was Mass Effect 2.  And that got hammered in with the loyalty system. 

As has been mentioned before, the Star Maps in KOTOR was to find the Star Forge.  Nothing forces you to take on any other quest.  If it somehow offends you that you have to do other stuff as intermediate steps to the overall goal, well, that's a staple of the epic tale:  passing through many smaller challenges on the way to the true goal.  It's been used for thousands of years.  Have you ever read the Odyssey?  

[BaladasDemnevanni]

iakus wrote...

As has been mentioned before, the Star Maps in KOTOR was to find the Star Forge.  Nothing forces you to take on any other quest. 

As I said, this is nothing more than using a premise to justify side quest content. Finding the Star Forge exists so the player can explore all these other self-contained conflicts which have no overarching relevance. There is no point where anything the player does in those missions is even referenced later on. If 75% of your typical Bioware game is filler, what does that say about what the player spends most of his time doing?

If your crusade against ME2 is against the fact that they didn't do a great job justifying the same side quests the same as most other Bioware games, well, I'd say it's a very bad criticism because you're still engaging in pointless shenanigans. Instead of doing side quests disguised as main quests, I'd rather focus on developing a single main quest. Hence the Witcher 2 point. Hell, you can throw in Deus Ex: HR or Planescape's main quest on that. You can have hubs. You can have side quests. You can have small moments. But it would be nice to think that what you're doing on the main quest is, well, an actual main quest.

If it somehow offends you that you have to do other stuff as intermediate steps to the overall goal, well, that's a staple of the epic tale:  passing through many smaller challenges on the way to the true goal.  It's been used for thousands of years.  Have you ever read the Odyssey?  

Small things does not have to equal irrelevant things. Again, see the second half of Jade Empire. It's not unheard of for people to dislike filler content. It is not necessary that an epic tale also contain irrelevant tales along with it, hence why I'm able to cite other RPGs and other stories where the viewer/player is not forced to engage in side quests pretending to be main quests for the majority of the experience.

Having read a good amount of the Odyssey (and I admit it's been a while since), I have never enjoyed that mentality of Odysseus sailing from island to island engaging in random adventures. It's why I prefer the Illiad (and the second half of the Aeneid).

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 31 juillet 2013 - 01:03 .

[Iakus]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

iakus wrote...

As has been mentioned before, the Star Maps in KOTOR was to find the Star Forge.  Nothing forces you to take on any other quest. 

As I said, this is nothing more than using a premise to justify side quest content. Finding the Star Forge exists so the player can explore all these other self-contained conflicts which have no overarching relevance. There is no point where anything the player does in those missions is even referenced later on. If 75% of your typical Bioware game is filler, what does that say about what the player spends most of his time doing?

So, what, you're problem is too much exploration?

If your crusade against ME2 is against the fact that they didn't do a great job justifying the same side quests the same as most other Bioware games, well, I'd say it's a very bad criticism because you're still engaging in pointless shenanigans. Instead of doing side quests disguised as main quests, I'd rather focus on developing a single main quest. Hence the Witcher 2 point. Hell, you can throw in Deus Ex: HR or Planescape's main quest on that.

My "crusade" against ME2 was that in other games, I could say "I may be dabbling in dearven politics/booting Czerka off Kashyyk/taking on the local assassin's guild rather than kicking the main antagonist's ****, but I know that once this is finshed, I'll gain something or someone that will get me one step closer to my goal.

ME2 I can't justify that.  I've basically solved the daddy issue of a grownup galactic bad**** who should know better.

Other games may have similar quests, bit those generally aren't required to complete the game, or even get the optimal result.

Small things does not have to equal irrelevant things. Again, see the second half of Jade Empire. It's not unheard of for people to dislike filler content. It is not necessary that an epic tale also contain irrelevant tales along with it, hence why I'm able to cite other RPGs and other stories where the viewer/player is not forced to engage in side quests pretending to be main quests for the majority of the experience. 

Having read a good amount of the Odyssey (and I admit it's been a while since), I have never enjoyed that mentality of Odysseus sailing from island to island engaging in random adventures. It's why I prefer the Illiad (and the second half of the Aeneid).

So what is "irrelevant"?  The thing with the Odyssey (and Arthurian Grail legends, and so on) is that it's one massive journey broken down into several smaller ones.  A megaquest, you could say.  Along the path the hero finds others having difficulties.  the hero helps out, and they in turn help the hero.

Modifié par iakus, 31 juillet 2013 - 01:21 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

iakus wrote...

So, what, you're problem is too much exploration?

No, filler content, as I outlined above.

If what the player manages to achieve in acquiring each Star Map is: 1/4, 2/4, 3/4, 4/4, then whoever's writing the story needs to reconsider what they're doing, from a narrative perspective.

My "crusae" against ME2 was that in other games, I could say "I may be dabbling in dearven politics/booting Czerka off Kashyyk/taking on the local assassin's guild rather than kicking the main antagonist's ****, but I know that once this is finshed, I'll gain something or someone that will get me one step closer to my goal.

Which in my eyes still amounts to glorifying a side quest with no overarching narrative significance. How much did Dwarven politics, which you spend a good 4+ hours doing, play a role in the Land's Meet? A whole lot of nothing. I'd prefer that the writers develop a plot where things actually happen on the journey, not put the whole narrative on hiatus for 15+ hours straight. Hence my reference to the Witcher 2, where the player is constantly engaged with the main narrative, even while engaging in the various subplots.

So what is "irrelevant"?  The thing with the Odyssey (and Arthurian Grail legends, and so on) is that it's one massive journey broken down into several smaller ones.  A megaquest, you could say.  Along the path the hero finds others having difficulties.  the hero helps out, and they in turn help the hero.

See above. Megaquests are fine, assuming you're actually going to tie it all together.

To use Deus Ex, Human Revolution as an example, you have subplots/hubs which Jensen visits, but the story is constantly evolving. It's a mystery: who attacked Sarif Industries? And it's a linear narrative, along which the player is also gaining answers to those questions. And you even have sidequests which tie into/benefit the main plot! Looking into Megan's "murder", for example.

This is fundamentally different from what KotOR does. You have Dantooine, followed by a good 20 hours of filler content during which nothing of narrative significance happens. That's a damn lot of filler content, period.

[chemiclord]

iakus wrote...

So, what, you're problem is too much exploration?

I think the issue is more empty exploration for the sake of empty exploration, really.  When it comes to Bioware games, the locations that you explore in order to complete the McGuffin Du Jour are largely arbitrary.  I'm trying to think of how many times in ALL Bioware games that those early quests really figure into the main plot later... and that number is pretty small.  I think Eden Prime is about the ONLY one that gets any significant reference later on in the ME series by either the characters or the story as it develops itself (though there could be others that slip my mind).

Modifié par chemiclord, 31 juillet 2013 - 03:33 .

[Iakus]

chemiclord wrote...

iakus wrote...

So, what, you're problem is too much exploration?

I think the issue is more empty exploration for the sake of empty exploration, really.  When it comes to Bioware games, the locations that you explore in order to complete the McGuffin Du Jour are largely arbitrary.  I'm trying to think of how many times in ALL Bioware games that those early quests really figure into the main plot later... and that number is pretty small.  I think Eden Prime is about the ONLY one that gets any significant reference later on in the ME series by either the characters or the story as it develops itself (though there could be others that slip my mind).

DAO:  The location where your Origin takes place becomes far more personal when that leg of the campaign comes up.  Check out the greeting you get in Orzamaar as an Aeducan Warden.  Or Denerim as a city elf.  Arle Howe and a Cousland Warden have a bit more to say to each other.

[Mr.House]

SNascimento wrote...

Mass Effect is the single greatest series this gen. Simple as that.

If by greatest, you mean greatest waste of all time.