211 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr.House]

Maconbar wrote...

stormhit13 wrote...

I actually thought the complete and total lack of on screen impact that the war assets had on the game was easily the most disappointing part of ME3. Rounding up assets was basically the entire point of the game, but in the end it was just an abstract number. And you really had to try hard to fail to even see how the number mattered.

I'm not really sure if I'm disagreeing or agreeing with you though. I had no problem with the concept of building up resources, but the execution where it mostly only paid off as an obscure number check was incredibly disappointing.

Complaining about a game using abstract numbers while talking about an rpg seems funny to me.

Ya, comparing stats to choices, sounds legit.

[n7stormrunner]

Maconbar wrote...

stormhit13 wrote...

I actually thought the complete and total lack of on screen impact that the war assets had on the game was easily the most disappointing part of ME3. Rounding up assets was basically the entire point of the game, but in the end it was just an abstract number. And you really had to try hard to fail to even see how the number mattered.

I'm not really sure if I'm disagreeing or agreeing with you though. I had no problem with the concept of building up resources, but the execution where it mostly only paid off as an obscure number check was incredibly disappointing.

Complaining about a game using abstract numbers while talking about an rpg seems funny to me.

I find the fan reaction to ME 3 as a whole funny... I'm not sure what some where expecting but I get the feeling they weren't ever going to get it. than again I had no problrms with the ems
 because shocking enough I don't find it abtract at all or at least no more so then any other number in the game.

[Neon Rising Winter]

Maconbar wrote...

stormhit13 wrote...

I actually thought the complete and total lack of on screen impact that the war assets had on the game was easily the most disappointing part of ME3. Rounding up assets was basically the entire point of the game, but in the end it was just an abstract number. And you really had to try hard to fail to even see how the number mattered.

I'm not really sure if I'm disagreeing or agreeing with you though. I had no problem with the concept of building up resources, but the execution where it mostly only paid off as an obscure number check was incredibly disappointing.

Complaining about a game using abstract numbers while talking about an rpg seems funny to me.

Using them is one thing, but it plonked them on the screen in front of you in lieu of providing a visual or textual interpretaion of the effect of the numbers.

Call it the difference between you obtaining a wonderful new sword in a game and it coming with an impressive and detailed model and great visual effects when you use it to do massive damage, or it looking the same as everything else and just having a bigger number appear when you hit stuff. End of the day it's having the same effect, bigger numbers, but the first is much more fun.

[n7stormrunner]

Mr.House wrote...

Maconbar wrote...

stormhit13 wrote...

I actually thought the complete and total lack of on screen impact that the war assets had on the game was easily the most disappointing part of ME3. Rounding up assets was basically the entire point of the game, but in the end it was just an abstract number. And you really had to try hard to fail to even see how the number mattered.

I'm not really sure if I'm disagreeing or agreeing with you though. I had no problem with the concept of building up resources, but the execution where it mostly only paid off as an obscure number check was incredibly disappointing.

Complaining about a game using abstract numbers while talking about an rpg seems funny to me.

Ya, comparing stats to choices, sounds legit.

your right... wait how did ems effect choices again outside that last one again?

[Shaftell]

I have a feeling something similar to this might happen in DAI. Trying to gather support for the inquisition. Rallying troops etc. I can totally see this happening. I really hope they implement a proper mechanic if this is the route they take.

[daveliam]

I absolutely agree with the OP. The EMS system was a total dud for me. I also HATED how it lowered over time, forcing me to play multiplayer, which I HATE. I know that it is possible to get a high enough EMS score that the multiplayer "readiness" rating wouldn't have an effect, but then that severely limits the choices you can make in the game in order to compensate.

I started playing Bioware games WAAAY back in the original Baldur's Gate days and I've loved them as my go-to, gold-standard for modern western single player RPGs. I understand that companies need to keep up with shifting times (which is becoming increasingly geared to multiplayer), but I would prefer for Bioware, at least, to keep the single-player campaigns untouched and separate from the multiplayer additions. The EMS system played directly into this blending that, IMHO, weakened the ME3. I still loved the game, but that part was a giant disappointment.

[Modius Prime]

How about, don't let muliplayer be required to get the best ending - especially since multiplayer is required in all EA games? I think the EMS system could work well, but we should see our choices. If we unite Orlais/Fereldan then we should see those units that we fought for in the final battle. However, all the stuff that I've just said isn't anything new; it's a similar concept that was mentioned in the ME3 threads, and I don't want history to repeat itself.

[addiction21]

[quote]daveliam wrote...

I absolutely agree with the OP. The EMS system was a total dud for me. I also HATED how it lowered over time, forcing me to play multiplayer, which I HATE. I know that it is possible to get a high enough EMS score that the multiplayer "readiness" rating wouldn't have an effect, but then that severely limits the choices you can make in the game in order to compensate. 

[quote]

Maybe I am wrong but the only portion or EMS that decayed over time was the multiplayer portion of that over all score.
Multiplayer acted as a multiplier for the base score.

I don't see how that limits choices when it provides everyone  another path to the same goal.

[Foolsfolly]

SamilTane wrote...

Please don't include a mechanic similar to ME3's "effective military strength" (EMS) system.

For those unfamiliar with ME3, EMS was a single score that substantially affected the ending of the game. Among other things, higher EMS made more choices available in the ending, and resulted in more people being saved. Many choices during the course of the game affected the EMS. I'm a little worried that there will be a similar system in DAI.

The problem with EMS is that it reduced many choices in the game to a single metric. Depending on your perspective, it measured how "ready" you were for the finale, or how completionist you were.

This is perfectly fine for players who only play games to be as completionist as possible (nothing wrong with that), but in my humble opinion one of the strengths of the DA series is in how choices are ambiguous, sometimes morally ambiguous, and how these choices could directly affect the world in a variety of ways, rather than being reduced to a single metric which then affects a limited set of outcomes.

At best, EMS was an unnecessary distraction that encouraged players to make certain choices in the game, and at worst it encouraged players to make decisions only on a single metric: whether to increase EMS.

Bottom line: let us decide how we make our decisions - there's no need to impose an artificial metric for our decisions to add up towards.

QFT.

I like this human. He understands.

[Foolsfolly]

Modius Prime wrote...

How about, don't let muliplayer be required to get the best ending - especially since multiplayer is required in all EA games? I think the EMS system could work well, but we should see our choices. If we unite Orlais/Fereldan then we should see those units that we fought for in the final battle. However, all the stuff that I've just said isn't anything new; it's a similar concept that was mentioned in the ME3 threads, and I don't want history to repeat itself.

And don't connect multiplayer to singleplayer in any way. Simple enough. EA gets to put "Now Online!" on the damn box, people get to... frag one another? What ever the hell they get to do with multiplayer Dragon Age, and those of us who care not at all can play a damn Dragon Age game.

[Vortex13]

The problem I had with the EMS was it's execution, and the fact that it was a constant visual indicator of how "good" you were doing.

I personally like the process of gathering allies and building up an army, upgrading your defenses and trying to prepare to face the enemy. DA:O, DA:A, and ME 2 are three very recent example of Bioware games that had such a structure. But unlike ME's EMS system, they were not visible, staring the player in the face whenever they started up their game. As others have said, such a system really just detracts from the game and essentially the story becomes: "Fill up the meter" rather than engaging in roleplay, deciding what choices to make. Granted, all the games listed could get the 'best' ending if one had a completionist playthrough, but the indicator of your 'chances of success' was not visible, and more importantly, the game didn't show certain choices as 'better' than others by assigning a higher point value.

For example, the Genophage arc in ME 3, the fact that the game assigns the greater EMS value to the paragon ending really detracts (IMO) from the immersion of the game. There is this subconscious drive to fill up the meter, and choices that offer the greatest return in EMS points would be chosen more likely then those that did not, completely destroying any passive roleplaying.

The EMS system in and of itself is not a bad system, but (IMO) it has to be kept hidden from the player, and if the narrative is structured around gathering resources to confront the big bad at the end, please let those choices have an actual impact on the gameplay. Picking the Dalish clan or the Werewolves, Mages or Templars, and Dwarves or Golems; all of these choices had a direct impact on DA:O endgame, and could alter the strategies that players utilized in approaching the ending, thereby increasing replayablity.

If the Warden's army was the same, no matter who you sided with, then the choices made would not have any real weight IMO.

[Vortex13]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Modius Prime wrote...

How about, don't let muliplayer be required to get the best ending - especially since multiplayer is required in all EA games? I think the EMS system could work well, but we should see our choices. If we unite Orlais/Fereldan then we should see those units that we fought for in the final battle. However, all the stuff that I've just said isn't anything new; it's a similar concept that was mentioned in the ME3 threads, and I don't want history to repeat itself.

And don't connect multiplayer to singleplayer in any way. Simple enough. EA gets to put "Now Online!" on the damn box, people get to... frag one another? What ever the hell they get to do with multiplayer Dragon Age, and those of us who care not at all can play a damn Dragon Age game.

Requiring MP to get the best SP ending was a very bad (IMO) decision that ME 3 made, luckily it was patched, but I completely understand how annoying a restriction on one's SP experience is.

That being said, I actually wouldn't mind it if a hypothetical MP would influence the SP game in terms of 'cameos' by your MP characters.

For example, say your Inquisitor recruited the Qunari for the final battle, and the player had a Qunari MP character with hot pink armor. I think it would be a cool little nod to have the player's hot pink Qunari charging the field during a cut scene; nothing that would impact gameplay, just a simple model swap, I think that would add a nice touch to the experience. 

[Sanunes]

What I am gathering from the BioWare boards is that Mass Effect 2 was awesome because it has a hidden system to determine your squad's outcome during the suicide mission, but Mass Effect 3's visible system that does the same thing is bad.

You could even consider Dragon Age: Origins having something similar with how the different ending slides are calculated with choices you make during the game, or course each choice is independent instead of a sum event.

[Vortex13]

Sanunes wrote...

What I am gathering from the BioWare boards is that Mass Effect 2 was awesome because it has a hidden system to determine your squad's outcome during the suicide mission, but Mass Effect 3's visible system that does the same thing is bad.
.

Yes, in a manner of speaking, by having a very visible meter in ME 3 the immersion to the game's choices was dropped in favor of picking (at least subconsciously) the one that gives you the most EMS points (IMO). Plus the ME 2, and DA:O systems had a direct impact on the gameplay, wereas the EMS only really tied into whether the 'better' endings were unlocked to the player.

ME 2's EMS system actually would determine the survival of squadmates on the SM, thereby directly affecting the players' actions for the endgame. Likewise DA:O, depending on which faction you sided with, would offer several different methods of call in support, complete with there own strengths and weaknesses.

[Paul E Dangerously]

In one of the videos, it's already stated that it won't be like ME3's system.

[JWvonGoethe]

I'm currently doing my first playthrough of ME3 as my secondary Shepard. I've not got any DLC installed (except the EC) and I'm kind of wanting it to end badly on this run so that my main Shepard's playthrough will feel more heroic. Secondary Shep killed Wrex, lost 8 companions at the end of ME2 (only Jacob, Miranda, Morinth and Grunt survived) is pro-genophage, anti-geth and anti-Rachni. She also thinks that side missions are a waste of time when the galaxy is at stake. (I based her on Admiral Cain and she's actually a Paragon.)

Anyway, I quite like having the EMS because it helps me to make sure she's going to do as badly as possible. Yes, it's some pretty heavy meta-gaming, but I enjoy that kind of thing.

If DA:I has a similar system, I wouldn't complain.

[Allan Schumacher]

Using them is one thing, but it plonked them on the screen in front of you in lieu of providing a visual or textual interpretaion of the effect of the numbers.

If I am understanding you correctly, then, your issue isn't actually with the EMS itself, it's that the other types of reactivity you wanted to see weren't there?

[Foxhound2121]

Never really saw EMS that way. I always saw it a way for them to advertise their multiplayer. Fairly obvious that is the only reason it was there.

I would say I hated it, but it wasn't an issue as I played on PC and modded or hacked the game to boost my EMS.

[Sanunes]

Foxhound2121 wrote...

Never really saw EMS that way. I always saw it a way for them to advertise their multiplayer. Fairly obvious that is the only reason it was there.

I would say I hated it, but it wasn't an issue as I played on PC and modded or hacked the game to boost my EMS.

I never modded it and I never needed multiplayer for it either.

[Foxhound2121]

Sanunes wrote...


I never modded it and I never needed multiplayer for it either.

When the game first came out, it wasn't possible to get a certain endings without playing multiplayer. This was eventually confirmed and fixed.

[Featuringdark087]

What if there was no Readiness number in EMS, but only the support you have?

for example
-Lord blank has promised you forces for the seige of blank
-The Templars have pledged their armies to your cause
-Ferelden and Orlais have signed a treaty; they will fight alongside the Inquisition

[Vortex13]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Using them is one thing, but it plonked them on the screen in front of you in lieu of providing a visual or textual interpretaion of the effect of the numbers.

If I am understanding you correctly, then, your issue isn't actually with the EMS itself, it's that the other types of reactivity you wanted to see weren't there?

That was one of my main gripes with it; that and the visual nature of the system, at the very beginning of the game I had an EMS rating that said I needed X number of EMS to deploy the Crucible. 

Cure the Genophage, Sabatogue the Cure, save the Rachni, kill the Rachni, Side with the Quarians, Side with the Geth, or make peace; the fact that none of those assets factored into the final battle and that all you saw fighting were the same humans and Turians made the EMS system seem rather pointless IMO. 

I actually enjoy the process of gathering allies, and supplies, but being able to see the finale as a numerical goal wit all of my choices reduced to numbers adding up to that goal kinda took me out of the game's immersion. If the system had been behind the scenes; like DA:O or Me 2 I wouldn't have minded as much. 

[Iakus]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Using them is one thing, but it plonked them on the screen in front of you in lieu of providing a visual or textual interpretaion of the effect of the numbers.

If I am understanding you correctly, then, your issue isn't actually with the EMS itself, it's that the other types of reactivity you wanted to see weren't there?

That's a pretty good way of putting it.  The EMS system isn't necessailly bad, but in ME3 at least, its capabilities weren't really used.

Recruit forces, rescue ships, find technology, everything got rendered down to an arbitrary number, which gets added to another arbitrary number, which unlocks a predetermined ending.  In the end, EMS amounted to about the same thing as the gold pile in Fable 3:  Get x amount for a "good" ending (using the term loosely, because ME3 after all)

Whether you recruit the krogan, the salarians, or both didn't actually change anything except altering some numbers.  At least in DAO if you kept the Anvil of the Void you got some golems to fight for you in Denerim.

Of course, I don't even know if such a system is to be used in DAI.  Though if it is, I hope the allies the Inquisition gathers has some impact on the story's progression.

[Vortex13]

iakus wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Using them is one thing, but it plonked them on the screen in front of you in lieu of providing a visual or textual interpretaion of the effect of the numbers.

If I am understanding you correctly, then, your issue isn't actually with the EMS itself, it's that the other types of reactivity you wanted to see weren't there?

That's a pretty good way of putting it.  The EMS system isn't necessailly bad, but in ME3 at least, its capabilities weren't really used.

Recruit forces, rescue ships, find technology, everything got rendered down to an arbitrary number, which gets added to another arbitrary number, which unlocks a predetermined ending.  In the end, EMS amounted to about the same thing as the gold pile in Fable 3:  Get x amount for a "good" ending (using the term loosely, because ME3 after all)

Whether you recruit the krogan, the salarians, or both didn't actually change anything except altering some numbers.  At least in DAO if you kept the Anvil of the Void you got some golems to fight for you in Denerim.

Of course, I don't even know if such a system is to be used in DAI.  Though if it is, I hope the allies the Inquisition gathers has some impact on the story's progression.

^ This

[devSin]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

If I am understanding you correctly, then, your issue isn't actually with the EMS itself, it's that the other types of reactivity you wanted to see weren't there?

I think there is also an issue with expressing it that way, but that's my main problem with it. Narrative choice should have narrative consequence; ME3 simply gave choice and then distilled it to a completely interchangeable value and then expressed that value in place of any sort of further consequence.

If you give the player a narrative choice, it should matter within the narrative. Showing us the variable that got set when you made the choice is not consequence; it's just an illusion of progression, and it was unconvincing and unfulfilling, given how generic and undifferentiated the variations of the so-called ending to that game were.

I don't think it was ever necessary to expose point values (though as I noted, all Sylvia's descriptions were pretty boss), and it certainly was not a substitution for relevant narrative impact.

Modifié par devSin, 10 août 2013 - 05:35 .