296 réponses à ce sujet

[Seival]

Fishstick wrote...

Seival wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Seival wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

uh.....the unilateralis fungus is just as likely a cause of "zombies" as the rabies mutation presented in many other fictions TYVM

The Infected are the humans contaminated by the fungus known as Cordyceps. Humans are able to inhale the fungus, and will eventually die from it. Once the fungus has infected a person, it will then mutate through their head and will take control of their body in two or less days.

There is a real fungus called Cordyceps that can infect insects , killing them and then growing out of their dead carcass, eventually releasing spores to infect other insects. One of Naughty Dog's teasers was a clip from BBC's Planet Earth showing this happening to an ant. Although the clip features ants, the fungus can infect other insects as well.

According to Game Informer (Issue 227, 2012 March), the fungus is spread throughout the air and is very contagious. However, the fungus cannot successfully infect a human in a wide open space, it needs a confined room to effectively spread within the human body.

Also, I heard that the fungus becomes more effective as population of its positional victims grows larger... Considering human overpopulation... Well... I have to admit that sounds creepy. No other zombies have such a realistic description.

As for ME3 survival setting, I think it's obvious that it has great potential. It can be even more creepy and thought-out than TLoU variant. Not realistic, but still very immersing. Much more immersing than any regular zombie setting.

this is the exact fungus you are looking for

O. unilateralis

I made a thread about it last year about how it resembled the Thorian

notice the fungus IS able to affect insect behaviour but it has not crossed the species barrier

now read up on rabies and how it could mutate to make actual zombies....and it already affects humans.....your point is?

My point is that carefully thought-out setting can attract even people who don't like such settings in general. For example, I don't like "zombie" settings in general, but I just love TLoU game.

Imagine what kind of potential has ME3-based "zombie" setting (with indoctrinated and husks as "zombies"). With best immersion level possible and good attention to details such setting can become a perfect ground for masterpiece videogame story. Don't you think so?

Such way of expanding ME3 story can even address some complaints about low level of story detail in ME3.

Please no more zombie games, I know they're interesting but it's a theme that is really being overused. A game focused on explorartion of the galaxy and going into depth about alien cultures would be interesting. Maybe we can also throw in the dropped plot on dark energy build-up and tweak it a bit so it provides a reason for wanting to save those species and their cultures from total destruction.

Well, BioWare is a large company. They can produce several games at the same time. And making several games in completely different genres and settings would be healthy for the company, don't you think so? Making some non-RPG games will not prevent them from making RPGs as well.

Modifié par Seival, 12 juillet 2013 - 09:47 .

[Erez Kristal]

Im with seival on this one. they should go back to MDK roots.
Maybe even a comic adventure game!

Modifié par erezike, 12 juillet 2013 - 09:49 .

[wright1978]

If they want to create a non RPG, they should do that in their new unique premise franchise.
As far as i'm concerned butchering a player characterised choice based RPG universe such as ME would be a major unforgivable no no.

[Seival]

BioWare has exceptional resources and experience. They are able to produce any game they want with great quality. And how creating a novel about RPG game's events is different from creating a non-RPG game about the same events? Well, a game will be much more interesting than a novel I suppose... And it will be much more profitable, obviously.

Modifié par Seival, 13 juillet 2013 - 05:01 .

[IntelligentME3Fanboy]

wright1978 wrote...

If they want to create a non RPG, they should do that in their new unique premise franchise.
As far as i'm concerned butchering a player characterised choice based RPG universe such as ME would be a major unforgivable no no.

Mass Effect is linear and choices never mattered .It's an illusion

[Nole]

I just finished The Last of Us. Please give me more of that ****.

[mass perfection]

Expand upon a broken story?

[Seival]

mass perfection wrote...

Expand upon a broken story?

ME3 story isn't broken. Besides, suggested expanding may address some remaining complaints about the story's detail and immersion levels.

[Steelcan]

Seival wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

Expand upon a broken story?

ME3 story isn't broken. Besides, suggested expanding may address some remaining complaints about the story's detail and immersion levels.

ME3's story is more broken than a vase dropped from the Empire State building

[Seival]

Steelcan wrote...

Seival wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

Expand upon a broken story?

ME3 story isn't broken. Besides, suggested expanding may address some remaining complaints about the story's detail and immersion levels.

ME3's story is more broken than a vase dropped from the Empire State building

And if you really think so, then you have even more reasons to ask for ME3 story's expanding.

The point is that devs already said that Shepard's story is over. At the same time, I think it's obvious that producing sequels or prequels is too risky. And expanding ME3 events with another RPG makes no sense, because it would be just an ME3-add-on which BioWare will never make per their own promise.

Expanding ME3 by non-RPG linear games makes sense. I just hope that if devs will choose this path, it will be something like The Last of Us, but not some silly Halo.

[Steelcan]

BioWare could learn some lessons from Halo games tbh.

[Steelcan]

Seival wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Seival wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

Expand upon a broken story?

ME3 story isn't broken. Besides, suggested expanding may address some remaining complaints about the story's detail and immersion levels.

ME3's story is more broken than a vase dropped from the Empire State building

And if you really think so, then you have even more reasons to ask for ME3 story's expanding.

The point is that devs already said that Shepard's story is over. At the same time, I think it's obvious that producing sequels or prequels is too risky. And expanding ME3 events with another RPG makes no sense, because it would be just an ME3-add-on which BioWare will never make per their own promise.

Expanding ME3 by non-RPG linear games makes sense. I just hope that if devs will choose this path, it will be something like The Last of Us, but not some silly Halo.

Sequels would have a more open path.  They can do much more with a sequel.  Any concurrent story just ends with R,G,B

[Seival]

Steelcan wrote...

Seival wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Seival wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

Expand upon a broken story?

ME3 story isn't broken. Besides, suggested expanding may address some remaining complaints about the story's detail and immersion levels.

ME3's story is more broken than a vase dropped from the Empire State building

And if you really think so, then you have even more reasons to ask for ME3 story's expanding.

The point is that devs already said that Shepard's story is over. At the same time, I think it's obvious that producing sequels or prequels is too risky. And expanding ME3 events with another RPG makes no sense, because it would be just an ME3-add-on which BioWare will never make per their own promise.

Expanding ME3 by non-RPG linear games makes sense. I just hope that if devs will choose this path, it will be something like The Last of Us, but not some silly Halo.

Sequels would have a more open path.  They can do much more with a sequel.  Any concurrent story just ends with R,G,B

Much more for who? Sequel can't just ignore ME3 ending. The risk to upset large groups of fans is too high. Games have to be profitable enough for devs. And in case of ME3, moving forward isn't really looks profitable enough, don't you agree?

Modifié par Seival, 15 juillet 2013 - 09:00 .

[Steelcan]

Seival wrote...

Much more for who? Sequel can't just ignore ME3 ending. The risk to upset large groups of fans is too high. Games have to be profitable enough for devs. And in case of ME3, moving forward isn't really looks profitable enough, don't you agree?

elephant theory

[AresKeith]

Seival wrote...

Much more for who? Sequel can't just ignore ME3 ending. The risk to upset large groups of fans is too high. Games have to be profitable enough for devs. And in case of ME3, moving forward isn't really looks profitable enough, don't you agree?

And moving backwards isn't very progressive for something like Mass Effect 

[Tyzx]

Bioware needs to find a way to address the elephant in the room if they were to make a sequel. And making a prequel is just well, lazy In my opinion. Now a reboot of the series will probably be the way to take as they would not have to acknowledge the giant elephant in the room

[Seival]

Tyzx wrote...

Bioware needs to find a way to address the elephant in the room if they were to make a sequel. And making a prequel is just well, lazy In my opinion. Now a reboot of the series will probably be the way to take as they would not have to acknowledge the giant elephant in the room

Reboot seems very unlikely. By ME3 BioWare proved they are against any remakes of their stories. At the same time they showed a desire and great results in expanding the existing story without changing its main concept (EC, Leviathan, Citadel).

...So, basically I believe expanding the existing story seems very likely. More likely than anything else. They just need to choose the right path of that expanding.

Modifié par Seival, 16 juillet 2013 - 09:01 .

[Seival]

erezike wrote...

Im with seival on this one. they should go back to MDK roots.
Maybe even a comic adventure game!

Not sure about comic adventure and MDK roots, but RPG games might already became obsolete.

I mean RPG elements at some capacity are fine. But all these choices to make, interactive dialogues, paragons, renegades etc look more like devs just made double job in cost of very much less immersion level of the game. Most people don't even want to play the game again to see where other choices will lead.

Great immersion level > a lot of interactive dialogues, and choices to make.

Maybe BioWare better stop making ME-like/DA-like games to concentrate on something much less RPG and much more immersive? I believe this is very good idea.

[Fixers0]

Seival wrote...
I mean RPG elements at some capacity are fine. But all these choices to make, interactive dialogues, paragons, renegades etc look more like devs just made double job in cost of very much less immersion level of the game. Most people don't even want to play the game again to see where other choices will lead.

Great immersion level > a lot of interactive dialogues, and choices to make.

Maybe BioWare better stop making ME-like/DA-like games to concentrate on something much less RPG and much more immersive? I believe this is very good idea.

I wasn't aware that an having interactive narrative and immersion where mutualily exlusive, quite the contrary, in fact.

Modifié par Fixers0, 20 juillet 2013 - 05:40 .

[wright1978]

Fixers0 wrote...

Seival wrote...
I mean RPG elements at some capacity are fine. But all these choices to make, interactive dialogues, paragons, renegades etc look more like devs just made double job in cost of very much less immersion level of the game. Most people don't even want to play the game again to see where other choices will lead.

Great immersion level > a lot of interactive dialogues, and choices to make.

Maybe BioWare better stop making ME-like/DA-like games to concentrate on something much less RPG and much more immersive? I believe this is very good idea.

I wasn't aware that an having interactive narrative and immersion where mutualily exlusive, quite the contrary, in fact.

Yeah i don't get how someone can claim less immersion with interactivity when it is generally the other way round as far as i can see.

[adayaday]

I can see what he mean but i don't agree,some players find a fixed character and story more stable and easier to follow.
Also apreantly players find player agency in games to be a compeling addtion to games, considering the fact that this feature find its way into more and more game genres.

Modifié par adayaday, 20 juillet 2013 - 06:13 .

[Seival]

wright1978 wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

Seival wrote...
I mean RPG elements at some capacity are fine. But all these choices to make, interactive dialogues, paragons, renegades etc look more like devs just made double job in cost of very much less immersion level of the game. Most people don't even want to play the game again to see where other choices will lead.

Great immersion level > a lot of interactive dialogues, and choices to make.

Maybe BioWare better stop making ME-like/DA-like games to concentrate on something much less RPG and much more immersive? I believe this is very good idea.

I wasn't aware that an having interactive narrative and immersion where mutualily exlusive, quite the contrary, in fact.

Yeah i don't get how someone can claim less immersion with interactivity when it is generally the other way round as far as i can see.

Well, it's quite simple. Each game development process has time constraints. For console and PC games its about 2 years. The longer the game is under development - the more it costs to developers themselves. Also, consumers can't wait for the game forever, and game must be profitable eventually. So basically, no one wants to develop games for more than 2 years.

While creating an RPG with interactive dialogues and choices you have to spend a lot of resources and time creating all sorts of voiceovers, and plot branches. Also, you have to implement and test them all. This is huge amount of work, that requires a lot of time.

But instead you can spend that amount of time concentrating much more on execution of the story. Polish each scene and encounter to the state of art condition... in cost of linear story and no interactive dialogues of course. You just don't have time to create both in sane time constraints.

Like I said - The Last of Us is the great example of what I'm talking about. The linear story that was under development as long as ME3. Polished to the state of art condition. And it's objectively better than the entire ME Trilogy in each and every possible way. Just because the immersion level, gameplay, and story have overwhelming quality... in cost of linear story and no interactive dialogues.

Modifié par Seival, 20 juillet 2013 - 06:37 .

[Fixers0]

Seival wrote...
Well, it's quite simple. Each game development process has time constraints. For console and PC games its about 2 years. The longer the game is under development - the more it costs to developers themselves. Also, consumers can't wait for the game forever, and game must be profitable eventually. So basically, no one wants to develop games for more than 2 years.

While creating an RPG with interactive dialogues and choices you have to spend a lot of resources and time creating all sorts of voiceovers, and plot branches. Also, you have to implement and test them all. This is huge amount of work, that requires a lot of time.

But instead you can spend that amount of time concentrating much more on execution of the story. Polish each scene and encounter to the state of art condition... in cost of linear story and no interactive dialogues of course. You just don't have time to create both in sane time constraints.

Like I said - The Last of Us is the great example of what I'm talking about. The linear story that was under development as long as ME3. Polished to the state of art condition. And it's objectively better than the entire ME Trilogy in each and every possible way. Just because the immersion level, gameplay and story have overwhelming quality... in cost of linear story and no interactive dialogues.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe polish and execution equal immersion. And once again, it would be foolish to assume that quality and interactivity are mutally exclusive.

[wright1978]

Fixers0 wrote...

Seival wrote...
Well, it's quite simple. Each game development process has time constraints. For console and PC games its about 2 years. The longer the game is under development - the more it costs to developers themselves. Also, consumers can't wait for the game forever, and game must be profitable eventually. So basically, no one wants to develop games for more than 2 years.

While creating an RPG with interactive dialogues and choices you have to spend a lot of resources and time creating all sorts of voiceovers, and plot branches. Also, you have to implement and test them all. This is huge amount of work, that requires a lot of time.

But instead you can spend that amount of time concentrating much more on execution of the story. Polish each scene and encounter to the state of art condition... in cost of linear story and no interactive dialogues of course. You just don't have time to create both in sane time constraints.

Like I said - The Last of Us is the great example of what I'm talking about. The linear story that was under development as long as ME3. Polished to the state of art condition. And it's objectively better than the entire ME Trilogy in each and every possible way. Just because the immersion level, gameplay and story have overwhelming quality... in cost of linear story and no interactive dialogues.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe polish and execution equal immersion. And once again, it would be foolish to assume that quality and interactivity are mutally exclusive.

QFT