225 réponses à ce sujet

[INH56]

I think that the biggest issue was that the premise just wasn't a good fit for the game.

The gameplay consists of cover based shooting and talking to people, but the story has you fighting giant robot spaceships. You'd think that all of the important battles would be in space, but the game has no space combat elements, so the story has to constantly come up with excuses for how landing somewhere and shooting a bunch of humanoid enemies is supposed to help the war effort. As a result, we get things like the search for the Crucible data and Cerberus attacking a bunch of random places for no reason.

Another problem is that the game tries to give a sense of an epic war through big battle scenes and set pieces, but it can't quite manage it. First, the gameplay is designed for small-scale tactical battles of Shepard + 2 squadmates against a relatively small number of enemies. If you look at the multiplayer, no more than 8 enemies are ever "on the field" at one time. The single player presumably has a similar cap, and it's hard to make a battle feel epic with only 2 allies and 8-10 enemies.

Second, evidence indicates that the ME3 engine isn't good at even rendering big battle scenes. If you look through the game files, you'll find that nearly every single large scale ground battle cutscene (including but not limited to: the kid getting killed while you leave Earth, Cerberus attacking the Citadel, and all of the Hammer cutscenes on Earth) was pre-rendered. This includes things as simple as a bunch of Cerberus troops running out at the end of Jacob's mission, where the only possible reasons for pre-rendering the scene would be performance issues.

Third, CoD-style big action set pieces are expensive, and given the game's sales expectations, its budget was probably fairly low by AAA game standards. I suspect that a lot of the game's cut corners are a result of Bioware spending too much time and money on big set pieces and battle cutscenes.

Lastly, the urgency of an ongoing Reaper invasion doesn't fit well with the pacing of the gameplay. Previous games have had problems with the gameplay rewarding you for sidequests while the plot tries to provide a sense of urgency, but the extreme nature of ME3's crisis makes it much worse. Millions of people are dying every day, but if you want the best ending, you have to spend hours searching the galaxy for random stuff you overhead strangers talking about on the Citadel.

When you look at it, a Reaper invasion just isn't a good setting for a Mass Effect game.

EDIT: I researched the multiplayer enemy cap and it turned out to be even lower than I thought.

Modifié par INH56, 02 mai 2013 - 01:44 .

[Bleachrude]

INH56 wrote...


When you look at it, a Reaper invasion just isn't a good setting for a Mass Effect game.

That was a problem in ME1 as well...Saren apparently will wait on you while you're doing the side missions as well, although at least in ME, one could argue that it only takes a few hours to go from one end of the galaxy to the other end.

Explain Dragon Age: Origins though...on foot, you're taking weeks criss-crossing Ferelden just to tell 1 single guy "Hey, you've been recruited for the mercs" and the archdemon will kindly wait fr you....

[chemiclord]

That is an issue with CRPGs in general, especially ones that have a focus on exploration.

It's extremely hard to balance an "open" world with a static narrative (to some extent the game HAS to be put on a rail for the story); and it's something damn near ANY CRPG has to struggle with.

[SpamBot2000]

INH56 wrote...

Lastly, the urgency of an ongoing Reaper invasion doesn't fit well with the pacing of the gameplay. Previous games have had problems with the gameplay rewarding you for sidequests while the plot tries to provide a sense of urgency, but the extreme nature of ME3's crisis makes it much worse. Millions of people are dying every day, but if you want the best ending, you have to spend hours searching the galaxy for random stuff you overhead strangers talking about on the Citadel.

When you look at it, a Reaper invasion just isn't a good setting for a Mass Effect game.

Good point. A while back, I read a nice concise argument that ME3 should have been all about preparation for the Reaper attack, with the attack coming at the end of the game. I think it was in the comments section of a 2012 article on Gamasutra or something though, so I can't be bothered to go find it just to quote it. I do think it's correct, though, and I'd add that for me, a better solution to the problem of having built up the enemy to an unstoppable force than forcing a loss on the player is making the objective of the game into preventing full conflict with such a force. That way the game could climax in a clash with the tip of the Reaper spear and the closing off of the route for their full might.  But I guess, as the writer of that Gamasutra comment pointed out, "the Earth on fire" is a powerful image that EAware surely were hoping would help sell the game to the audience who weren't familiar with the previous episodes.

As a side note, I played that LotR: War in the North game after getting it really cheap, and I was just giggling while playing it because everyone was telling me how vitally important it was to get to some place quick and save everyone. "You must ride these Eagles, for to delay would be fatal for the hopes of the Free Peoples!" And I was like "Yeah, right dude, I'll get right on that. But first I think I'm gonna walk back to Bree and then swing by Sarn Ford to check if the merchants there happened to have the missing piece of an armor set that would give me a trophy. You know, first things first." Now you might say that I was playing it wrong. But that's the way the incentives work. 

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 02 mai 2013 - 05:06 .

[Megaton_Hope]

AlanC9 wrote...

Megaton_Hope wrote...
There should be at least something as rudimentary as Liara's "How does Asari sex work? Too bad your mom's crazy" options from ME1. Which may be repetitive, but doesn't come across as a brush-off.

I'd rather get a brush-off than a straight-up rerun of a conversation we've already had.

Hey, whose fault is it that Shepard is a dunce?

[AlanC9]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

INH56 wrote...
Lastly, the urgency of an ongoing Reaper invasion doesn't fit well with the pacing of the gameplay. Previous games have had problems with the gameplay rewarding you for sidequests while the plot tries to provide a sense of urgency, but the extreme nature of ME3's crisis makes it much worse. Millions of people are dying every day, but if you want the best ending, you have to spend hours searching the galaxy for random stuff you overhead strangers talking about on the Citadel.

When you look at it, a Reaper invasion just isn't a good setting for a Mass Effect game.

Good point. A while back, I read a nice concise argument that ME3 should have been all about preparation for the Reaper attack, with the attack coming at the end of the game.

Doesn't that just delay the pacing problem INH56 is talking about until the fourth game?

Modifié par AlanC9, 02 mai 2013 - 04:45 .

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

INH56 wrote...
Lastly, the urgency of an ongoing Reaper invasion doesn't fit well with the pacing of the gameplay. Previous games have had problems with the gameplay rewarding you for sidequests while the plot tries to provide a sense of urgency, but the extreme nature of ME3's crisis makes it much worse. Millions of people are dying every day, but if you want the best ending, you have to spend hours searching the galaxy for random stuff you overhead strangers talking about on the Citadel.

When you look at it, a Reaper invasion just isn't a good setting for a Mass Effect game.

Good point. A while back, I read a nice concise argument that ME3 should have been all about preparation for the Reaper attack, with the attack coming at the end of the game.

Doesn't that just delay the pacing problem INH56 is talking about until the fourth game?

ME2 should have been about preparation, or at least investigation on how to fight the Reapers.

ME3 should then be about applying what was learned into a method to stop the Reapers.

[SpamBot2000]

AlanC9 wrote...

Doesn't that just delay the pacing problem INH56 is talking about until the fourth game?

Only if you think it's necessary to portray the galaxy at open war. The 3rd game could end with the defeat of the Reaper advance troops, while the rest never make it into the galaxy. 

[SpamBot2000]

iakus wrote...

ME2 should have been about preparation, or at least investigation on how to fight the Reapers.

ME3 should then be about applying what was learned into a method to stop the Reapers.

Or this, but that would mean ME2 would have to be different as well.

[Iakus]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

iakus wrote...

ME2 should have been about preparation, or at least investigation on how to fight the Reapers.

ME3 should then be about applying what was learned into a method to stop the Reapers.

Or this, but that would mean ME2 would have to be different as well.

Perhaps.

But imagine if ME2 had been about this investigation, following a trail that ultimately led to the Crucible plans.  rather than ME3 starting with Liara going "Hey, you dumb humans missed a spot in these archives!" 

[NeonFlux117]

The narrative of ME3 isn't that bad. Until the final 15 minutes (after the beam run) then it gets really, really bad. But up to that point it wasn't to bad.

[SpamBot2000]

iakus wrote...

But imagine if ME2 had been about this investigation, following a trail that ultimately led to the Crucible plans.  rather than ME3 starting with Liara going "Hey, you dumb humans missed a spot in these archives!" 

Indeed. 

Which is not to say I didn't really like ME2. Because I did, and don't necessarily regard it as "pointless", as many people seem to do. But the starting point of ME3 certainly is just... off. Compounded by the folly that was "Arrival".

The Crucible project might as well have been incorporated into the Collector plot. Or any number of things. But unfortunately, that's not how BW rolls. "No thinking ahead, buddy. That ain't the Bio Way!"

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 02 mai 2013 - 05:37 .

[AlanC9]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Doesn't that just delay the pacing problem INH56 is talking about until the fourth game?

Only if you think it's necessary to portray the galaxy at open war. The 3rd game could end with the defeat of the Reaper advance troops, while the rest never make it into the galaxy. 

So there's no fourth game? There's never an open war?

[Mangalores]

SpamBot2000 wrote...
...

Which is not to say I didn't really like ME2. Because I did, and don't necessarily regard it as "pointless", as many people seem to do. But the starting point of ME3 certainly is just... off. Compounded by the folly that was "Arrival".
...

You don't have to take it as a value statement but in respect of the main story arc (the Reapers) ME2 was pointless. You can cut ME2 out of the trilogy and you don't lack any meaningful information: "The Reapers are coming and we are all going to die!" You already knew that.

Sadly in presentation and development of the main story you see already a good number of parallels (just consider the events leading up to the suicide mission which also indicate production time running out and these parts  not really being fleshed out compared to some of the loyality missions)
I liked some of the characters and loyalty missions but the main plot was already a senseless action flick barely held together by the threads.

That's not to say you could have spun it so ME2 were more meaningful but for that you'd have to take an entirely different approach how a sensible defeat of the Reapers could look like: Most likely that they are stuck in darkspace and need stuff like Sovereign or the Collectors because they can't simply waltz in withou being severly hampered in their capabilities (e.g. their energy levels dangerously exhausted or something similar).

[Redbelle]

chemiclord wrote...

And why would them having nothing to say to you change that?

If you're obsessive compulsive enough to visit them after every mission, you're going to do so whether you get a fake, meaningless dialogue wheel or not.

I actually sometimes wonder if the people who claim ME1 and ME2 have more dialogue wheel options also count those stupid ones where you actually don't have any option at all. I bet they do.

No thanks to that meaningless illusion of choice.  I don't need it or want it.  I actually LIKE the fact that every so often I'm reminded that Shepard isn't the center of the ****ing universe and that people don't always have something to say to him/her.

Think less 'obessive compulsive' and more ' Reward based behaviour'. Games are essential a set of rules that you must learn and action to a predefined level of aptitude to progress to the next task. Successfully completing the task gets you a cookie and another task. But take away the cookie and your left with tasks.

Going with cookies, ME is a game that give's out lot's of reward cookies for completing the tasks the developers create for us. Yet in ME3, there are less cookies available to be had. Having no available dialogue with certain characters is one of those cookies cruelly snatched from our reaching grubby mitt's. Thankfully there are more cookies than dialogue up for grabs as you complete other tasks available in the game.

As for Shepard being the centre of the universe......... That's the point. He is the centre of the universe, our game universe. He or she is a constant and the one thing that is alway's there. Saying that you don't like Shepard to be the guy who always get's his way is like me saying a don't like Sarah Kerrigan for being too walled off from the player as a personality in all her cutscenes. (That girl needs her own Tychus Finely). It may be what you feel. But it misses the point of what the game is about. ME is about Shepard as much as SC2 HOTS is about Kerrigan.

As for the illusion of choice. That is a difficult matter. On one hand Bioshock Infinite demonstrated the illusion of choice in a remarkable fashion by the outcomes being the same in all decision's made. (Barring letting Slate live or die, to pull the trigger, or not to pull the trigger, that is the question). Mass Effect, by contrast, has a wider window of illusion. The basic thrust of the narrative may not be one you can deviate from, but who you are as a Shepard when you arrive at the conclusion` is entirely up to you. Booker, by contrast, is alway's the developer's booker where the intent of the player has no effect on in game outcomes.

Shepard, is alway's our Shepard and has freedom's denied DeWitt.

[crimzontearz]

1 Bioware decided that they needed to torch the franchise and that grimdark=mature
2 They decided also that it would be a great idea to introduce a crapload of variables which generated even MORE variables later on and then had to cut corners
3 They chose to cater to the stupid and the lazy (no offense...I played TW2 and I am an Xbox player, I did my homework before playing, there was no need to be catered to like this, I applaud CDPR) as opposed to their core fanbase
4 EA stepped in....they can say all they want but the truth is you can see EXACTLY where EA influenced them. First ME3 had a 2 year dev cycle with a team of 250 where a game like Halo 4 took 3.5 and a team of 300.....and it's a freaking SHOOTER with borderline no plot. Second, MP in a game that has always been about SP experience from the get go (Bioware PR can spew nonsense about how they suddenly ALWAYS wanted to implement MP but certain EA fat cats BRAGGED about now green lighting any project that does not have MP and SUDDENLY poof...MP appears and it is important enough to cause a delay ....Again I applaud CDPR's candor in saying that MP has no place in their SP focused game)

I always said Bioware needed to dig deep and find the quad to say to the newcomers "sorry guys, if you are new and not truly invested the game will hold less content for you, but we will try to make it up through the genesis comics" and truly focus on the fans who remained loyal for years.....but even if they did find said quad they are just another EA owned studio now

[Redbelle]

crimzontearz wrote...

1 Bioware decided that they needed to torch the franchise and that grimdark=mature
2 They decided also that it would be a great idea to introduce a crapload of variables which generated even MORE variables later on and then had to cut corners
3 They chose to cater to the stupid and the lazy (no offense...I played TW2 and I am an Xbox player, I did my homework before playing, there was no need to be catered to like this, I applaud CDPR) as opposed to their core fanbase
4 EA stepped in....they can say all they want but the truth is you can see EXACTLY where EA influenced them. First ME3 had a 2 year dev cycle with a team of 250 where a game like Halo 4 took 3.5 and a team of 300.....and it's a freaking SHOOTER with borderline no plot. Second, MP in a game that has always been about SP experience from the get go (Bioware PR can spew nonsense about how they suddenly ALWAYS wanted to implement MP but certain EA fat cats BRAGGED about now green lighting any project that does not have MP and SUDDENLY poof...MP appears and it is important enough to cause a delay ....Again I applaud CDPR's candor in saying that MP has no place in their SP focused game)

I always said Bioware needed to dig deep and find the quad to say to the newcomers "sorry guys, if you are new and not truly invested the game will hold less content for you, but we will try to make it up through the genesis comics" and truly focus on the fans who remained loyal for years.....but even if they did find said quad they are just another EA owned studio now

Regarding MP, I think I'm right in saying that ME1 had a MP component in Pinnacle station. I'l have to check if it was an MP enabled element, but if it was then ME's MP aspect can be traced back to the first game.

Which is not to say that ME2 suffered as a result of no MP element. The mainplot, while frowned on for being unrelated to the Reaper invasion except as a side note, was, in several ways, better than ME1 in many respect's in that they left no stone unturned in providing the player with a definitive ME experience.

ME3....... is a mixed bag. While I could say that the MP hurt the SP mode. I also have to confess that I was aggressivley climbing the ranking ladder in the UK by diving into MP again and again. MP gave a very good MP experience and held it's own as another side to the ME experience. I simply wish I knew if spending development time in MP did hurt the SP, so I could decide if MP ought to stay to preserve the SP integrity, or it is didn't so as to wish the next iteration of ME MP a happy development cycle.

Either way. I know I'd buy a ME SP game. I would not buy a ME MP game. Not unless it came bundled with the SP.

[crimzontearz]

Uh....MP...MULTI player

Pinnacle station is a glorified single player horde mode

Have you not played it Redbelle?

Also my argument was more on the lines of "they say EA left them alone...I think not" but whatever resource was poured into MP inevitably COULD have gone to SP, the very presence of an MP in the main vanilla game which you were FORCED to play in order to get the SP breath scene screams foul play(yes it was rectified later on I know)

[INH56]

AlanC9 wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Doesn't that just delay the pacing problem INH56 is talking about until the fourth game?

Only if you think it's necessary to portray the galaxy at open war. The 3rd game could end with the defeat of the Reaper advance troops, while the rest never make it into the galaxy.

So there's no fourth game? There's never an open war?

Yes. Or at least the open war shouldn't last very long. Open war with the Reapers is not a good setting for a Mass Effect game, period. The gameplay can do cover based shooting with a small squad and talking to people, but it has absolutely no space combat or strategy elements, and it can't even handle large-scale infantry battles particularly well. Plus there are the aforementioned budgetary, pacing, and structural issues. Unless Bioware was going to add in  a bunch of new features, they should have avoided direct confrontation with the Reapers as much as possible.

For example, here's one way they could have done it:

You spend most of the game forming alliances and finding something that can stop the Reapers. To provide an active antagonist, the game could introduce small Reaper scouting forces that arrive before the rest of the fleet or indoctrinated agents of some kind. The full scale invasion happens just before the climax/last mission, and your alliances hold off the Reaper fleet while you take the final steps to implement the Reaper-stopping plan. Then, assuming you don't get the "bad ending," the Reapers are defeated at the end of the game, shortly after they arrive.

This way the game could concentrate on the things that it does well, while still using the crisis of a Reaper invasion to ramp up the tension near the end. Bioware could focus their "battle cutscene" budget on one big blowout at the end with a ton of different variations. In terms of pacing problems, there would still be the issue of "a Reaper invasion is imminent, and we're wasting time on these sidequests?" but it would be no worse than ME1 (or Fallout New Vegas, for instance) in that regard.

crimzontearz wrote...
Also my argument was more on the lines of "they say EA left them alone...I think not" but whatever resource was poured into MP inevitably COULD have gone to SP, the very presence of an MP in the main vanilla game which you were FORCED to play in order to get the SP breath scene screams foul play(yes it was rectified later on I know)

Given that multiplayer provides an additional source of revenue (through microtransactions in the item store), I think it's likely that EA gave Bioware additional money to implement that feature, which they wouldn't have if the game didn't have multiplayer. But there's no way for us to know for sure.

Though I agree that the whole Galaxy at War system was lame.

Modifié par INH56, 02 mai 2013 - 03:03 .

[crimzontearz]

of course they did but money is not the only resource, there is also time and manpower. Remember that the many shortcomings of the game lead to Origin refunds as well as a free 2 gig extended cut the MERE EXISTENCE of which coated Bioware 10 000 alone to upload it to XBL without counting everything else they spent on it and the impression this faux pas left on people and so on abdnso forth



Still...2 years man, only two years

[KaiserShep]

I'd have to agree completely with the war prep angle of ME3. Starting off the game with the all-out assault on earth is, in my opinion, a mistake. It's part of the reason why the DLC's somehow don't feel quite right. As much as I enjoy them, the urgency is a problem. At least with ME2, the Collector crisis is relatively smaller scale, and far more isolated, and key moments do thrust you into the plot, like when you're sent to the Collector ship, and of course when your crew is taken.

[AlanC9]

crimzontearz wrote...

Also my argument was more on the lines of "they say EA left them alone...I think not" but whatever resource was poured into MP inevitably COULD have gone to SP, )

Could have? I suppose so. But why would an ME3 without projected MP revenue get the same funding as a version of ME3 with that projected revenue?

I won't speak to EAs plans since I don't have the data, but when a product has highly-profitable add-ons and a less-profitable core, the add-ons subsidize the core. That's how academic and legal publishing do it, anyway.

[Redbelle]

crimzontearz wrote...

Uh....MP...MULTI player

Pinnacle station is a glorified single player horde mode

Have you not played it Redbelle?

Honestly? No. Thanks for setting that one straight.

But I can't help but think, year's ago, I read something about about BW having MP aspiration's for their first ME title.

Either way. I've had the time to go digging through the internet and PC was not a MP component of ME1.

crimzontearz wrote...

Also my argument was more on the lines of "they say EA left them alone...I think not" but whatever resource was poured into MP inevitably COULD have gone to SP, the very presence of an MP in the main vanilla game which you were FORCED to play in order to get the SP breath scene screams foul play(yes it was rectified later on I know)

I have to agree with this given that development time was used to make MP mode. But if MP mode had not been created, would all the time and human resources spent on MP mode been available to SP mode?

MP mode required SP mode esque programming, to be sure. But those programmers had to have been slanted towards co-operative online play as opposed to single player play.

Asset's like the guns, character's and environment's. Sound and dialogue. All these could have been built up from the ME3 asset library. And with no active dialogue or story to tell the use of writer's would not have been neccessary. Therefore the MP component only really required in game environment designers and sound engineer's, coupled with game testers to test balance and network developer's to make sure that the game ran stable on their server's and remote computer locations.......

There's probasbly more to MP than that but you get the idea of the human resources that went into MP's development.

So the question is, would allocating these resource's and money have resulted in a marked improvement in the final product that is SP. Given that alot of the problem's talked about stem from story and game handling and not the in game environment or sound?

The answer is probably yes given the ending looked like it had elements of the shadow broker ship, low res flat texture's of Ash's and Kaiden's armour's piled high as bodies and a reused design of the child, redeveloped as sparkle kid. But if we accept that the ending we got was a rushed job given the dark matter ending was leaked or rejected near the end of the development, would it have been cost efficient to pull the people working on MP to suddenly develop the ending?

Cause thus far SP, while it has issues, still deliver's, bar ending. And MP turned out ot be a surprise hit.

[crimzontearz]

Alan you are not helping their case really, merely reinforcing that for them (ea) potential revenue from microtransaction warrants more resources than a quality single player experience

Belle, coding is not the only factor here, manpower, time and money as well as extra resources to maintain the service went into the MP when the main game was clearly unpolished, unfinished and in need of a goddamn proper ending. But see, to EA such things do not matter

[AlanC9]

crimzontearz wrote...

Alan you are not helping their case really, merely reinforcing that for them (ea) potential revenue from microtransaction warrants more resources than a quality single player experience

That's a misreading. EA doesn't care where the profits come from as long as they're there. MP, like DLC, is in because it's more profitable than the SP game. ME3 without those profits has to be more profitable, not less. That would have meant even more cut corners.

It's pretty to think that we live in a universe where EA wouldn't care about projected revenue and would just throw money at ME3 because they felt like it. But I prefer to talk about things that could actually happen.

Modifié par AlanC9, 02 mai 2013 - 05:25 .