402 réponses à ce sujet

[EatChildren]

They're accessible, easy to understand and play, conjure an excellent sense of adventure and scope, drip feed incremental rewards/upgrades, offer a sandbox-like environment with decent agency, and reward investment in a single character/playthrough instead of multiple. People like them because most people have a natural sense of adventure and desire to explore the unknown. Bethesda games provide that within the framework of an experience that is easy to pick up and play right out the gate, put back down, and later pick up exactly where you left off. The multitude of quest threads and emphasis on freeform exploring also allow people to pick the game back up at any point and not necessarily feel lost or like they've forgotten where they are. Easy to jump back in and continue ticking boxes.

I've personally grown more and more disinterested in Bethesda Game Studios' titles starting with Oblivion, because they don't appeal to what I love about both the RPG and sandbox genre, and have issues with some elements within the design, but I can see why they're very popular.

[Rusty Sandusky]

I LOVE FALLOUT 3 AND I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK

[Battlebloodmage]

The same reason why minecraft is so popular.

[Frozen Mind]

The answer might be easier - because they're not "EA". And the original ME3 ending didn't make more fans. I know few people that didn't like this game until I actually persuaded them to do so. Then they found it nice. So what made "it's a crap" opinion for people before even trying it?

[Catastrophy]

Actually, you can't really compare them. Skyrim is an open world and ME is not.
I like ME3 more only because of the MP part and because Sci-Fi with blue aliens. I'd usually prefer an open world over a story heavy game - it usually offers more replayability and caters to the discoverer in me.

[cap and gown]

I see the idea of exploration coming up in a number of posts here. And it is true. I love poking around Skyrim and stumbling across stuff the designers have seeded the landscape with. (Plus Skyrim is beautiful, and the music is fantastic.) I have also seen ME1 fans (which I am not) talk quite a bit about landing on a planet and exploring as one reason they love that title. I suppose. It never did much for me. Not as many oddities to find as you might in Skyrim. Then they ramped that exploration bit down in ME2. You could still stumble across quests by scanning planets, but it certainly wasn't the same as roving around a planet. Then you get to ME3 and there is no real exploration at all. Instead of stumbling across quests, they are just shoved down your throat. In the context of the story, that made sense, but it took away the exploration aspects.

So one thing BW could do, it would seem, would be to rethink the exploration parts of ME.

Modifié par cap and gown, 02 décembre 2013 - 12:21 .

[Daemul]

It's strange, Bethesda and Rockstar(with the exception of the abomination that was GTA IV) open world games are the only type of open world games I can actually enjoy, the rest just bore me to death, so I avoid them. When during E3 many devs announced that their next gen games would be open world I felt dread, it seems as if too many of them are trying to copy the winning formula of Bethesda and Rockstar and get their 20m+ sales without even realising why they are so popular with the masses in the first place.

I seriously worry that this gen we are going to get a massive influx of extremely crappy open world games, we will end up missing those days when devs were copying COD instead.

[shodiswe]

I don't know, I play both. I havn't tried the fallout ones though. I thought Oblivion and Skyrim were ok, same with... What was that vulcano one called.... Morrowind?

[Guanxii]

Emergent gameplay will always be more popular than highly scripted gameplay; Bethesda offers a unique experience to everybody who plays one of their games. If you want RPG elements in a BioWare game you have to remember to tick the right box in the options menu.

BioWare games are the complete opposite... linear and scripted to the detrement of actual role playing coupled the marketing department chasing the dudebro demographic which are big turn offs to a large portion of the potential audience while Bethesda understand their audience and what they want.

Modifié par Guanxii, 02 décembre 2013 - 05:11 .

[Dean_the_Young]

StreetMagic wrote...

Guanxii wrote...

Emergent gameplay will always be more popular than highly scripted gameplay because it offers a unique experience to everybody who plays it. BioWare games just seem to get more and linear and the marketing department is too busy chasing the dudebro demographic while Bethesda understand their audience and what they want.

True enough.

Bioware had bits of emergence in their games before though. Like a mix of script and openness that was just great. Not quite open world, but little things made it personal depending on quest order, differing squad banter in quests, consequences of multiple choices, etc.. Not as much anymore though.

Hm?

Baldur's gat may have had random encounters, but that was more a reflection of the sort of game world and narrative being presented. Companion development and focus has bloomed, though, especially with squad banter. ME3 also had far more Consequences in its internal quests compared to any Bioware game in the last decade, so that's not exactly a negative trend there.

Honestly, ME2 was probably the worst offender of all the things you mention, but ME2 was the real outlier in the ME series.

[Dean_the_Young]

Frozen Mind wrote...

The answer might be easier - because they're not "EA". And the original ME3 ending didn't make more fans. I know few people that didn't like this game until I actually persuaded them to do so. Then they found it nice. So what made "it's a crap" opinion for people before even trying it?

Wrong question. Ask, rather, why should it be as popular?

Being produced by EA or not isn't the reason behind most people's consumer and enjoyment choices. Bioware has always been a smaller, more niche, developer, even before EA, and it's chosen focus (in 40-60 hour 'epic' stories that are largely linear) has always been a on the smaller end of the fan spectrum. One of the common strengths of open world games with shorter main narratives (like Bethesda games) is that it's easier for a player to drive through the main story while still having plenty of more content to delve into. Unlike the effectively linear Bioware narratives, where you have to go through everything whether you like it or not, open-world games where most content is optional mitigates the risk of having large sections that bore the players away (like the Fade in DAO).

[Dean_the_Young]

cap and gown wrote...

I see the idea of exploration coming up in a number of posts here. And it is true. I love poking around Skyrim and stumbling across stuff the designers have seeded the landscape with. (Plus Skyrim is beautiful, and the music is fantastic.) I have also seen ME1 fans (which I am not) talk quite a bit about landing on a planet and exploring as one reason they love that title. I suppose. It never did much for me. Not as many oddities to find as you might in Skyrim. Then they ramped that exploration bit down in ME2. You could still stumble across quests by scanning planets, but it certainly wasn't the same as roving around a planet. Then you get to ME3 and there is no real exploration at all. Instead of stumbling across quests, they are just shoved down your throat. In the context of the story, that made sense, but it took away the exploration aspects.

So one thing BW could do, it would seem, would be to rethink the exploration parts of ME.

While ME1's exploration was a great tone setter for being part of the wider universe, as far as exploration goes it was pretty pathetic and its flaws generated many of its own complaints. Having to drive for three to five minutes to get to the one relevant sidequest on the planet was little more than time padding, and was frequently a slog.

There were some great atmospheric moments and shots you could come across... but big empty padding spaces wasn't the winning formula for getting those.

[Guanxii]

StreetMagic wrote...

Bioware had bits of emergence in their games before though. Like a mix of script and openness that was just great. Not quite open world, but little things made it personal depending on quest order, differing squad banter in quests, consequences of multiple choices, etc.. Not as much anymore though. 

I think it's down to a number of factors. Mass Effect 3 and DA2 were obviously rushed out of the gate, their collective priorities have changed under EA and the nature of the plot of ME3 didn't really allow much wiggle-room for deviating too far from the main plot.

With ME4 bioware are free do whatever they want. They can either revert back to the original premise and promise of the series or they can continue their current trajectory and make another bland frostbite 3 corridor shooter. BioWare should play to their strengths and let go of the idea of trying to be everything to all people.

Modifié par Guanxii, 02 décembre 2013 - 05:58 .

[Derpy]

Its obvious. Freedom of play. In Skyrim I can be whatever I want, a thief, an assassin or whatever. I can choose what quests I do, want artifacts I get, if I sacrifice people for evil gods. And if im bored, I can make super-duper OP stuff and massacre any town I wish. Its in the freedom.
                                                        

[Han Shot First]

One thing that scares me is that Bioware will look at the success of games like Skyrim, and start churning out similar RPGs. I can understand why Bethesda games have mass appeal, but they bore me to tears.

[Dean_the_Young]

StreetMagic wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Honestly, ME2 was probably the worst offender of all the things you mention, but ME2 was the real outlier in the ME series.

I don't see how. ME2 let me complete quests and prioritize my squad stories in ways ME3 doesn't. ME3 wants to tell a more linear narrative. It's not bad, but it's definitely a different direction.

ME2 also didn't care what order you did any of the missions in- it didn't even track them. With the exception of taking Legion to Tali's Loyalty Mission, the game simply didn't recognize the order you did missions because they were all isolated and lacked connection to eachother. The resolutions of the missions you take and the very fact that you do them is only reflected in the Suicide Mission by a very cut-and-paste non-personalized death scene if you kill them off.

ME3 had less opportunities for playing order (but then, fewer big missions in general), but more reflections (and consequences) for doing so or not doing so. Besides the numerous import factors for what you did or did not play in the previous games popping up as dialogue changes, things like the playing order for Tuchanka Bomb could get an alternate end for the quest, reflections in the Quarian Fleet's status in the Rannoch battle, and minimal but present differences in the final battle (Wrex. vs. Wreave vs. STG presence, fleet pre-cinematic rally, global news). Plus, the Genophage plotline with Wrex- best in-game consequence reflection in a Bioware game to date.


The problem with Bioware's approach to Big Creamy Middles of 'pick which order you do these missions' is that, well, they are self-contained plotlines that didn't matter what order you did them as they didn't impact eachother. DAO is the most notorious abuser, but unlike in Alpha Protocol (where sequence is very significant)  the Bioware games of old were just as linear as the rest- they just obfusicated filler arcs.

The first two are more like DAO. It gave me more branching dialogue with squad. It also let me interact with civilians in more ways than just randomly bumrushing them and getting some Zaeed like dialogue about war assets.

There are still civilians and side-quest related people you can interact with in ME3 with dialogue wheels. Those didn't go away, and most civilian NPCs in ME1 and ME2 were just as uninteractible.

I don't even get to walk around with squadmates to get their funny input either.

And, in exchange, you get far more individualized banter and inter-companion interaction on missions and the ship. Squadmate interaction and banter is far higher in ME3 than both the previous games combined.

Populated areas are just Shepard solo acts, with occassional autodialogue cutscenes fading in and out.

Solo-acts, yes. Just autodialogue cutscenes? Not so much more than the short sidequest conversations with minor NPCs of the previous games.

[Lazengan]

The sad Truth is that Skyrim is a terrible, repetitive, buggy game, with no actual gameplay. You spam the same spells and attacks over and over again on cube hitboxes until it dies, spamming potions because there is no cooldown and no choices to be made.

People like Skyrim because you download a new waifu mod every week and play dress up with her along with other mary sue self insert gratification fanfics that you imagine in your head. Skyrim is a do what you want sandbox simulator.

Hell I still play it with over 300 mods downloaded. It's mindless degenerate fun, but its still fun.

Unless you're an idiot who bought it on console

Obsidian at least learned from Bethesda's mistakes and Fallout New Vegas is a vastly superior game with true balance and decision making.

[Han Shot First]

I'm having a mental image of an EA suit telling Bioware they need to make games like Skyrim, because that's where the money is at.

*pukes*

[cap and gown]

Not sure I understand the thought that ME is "linear, scripted." Yes, there is that aspect. But nothing like Assassins Creed II or Far Cry 3 or the last Tomb Raider. Yeah, those games had various collecting objectives (Japanese war diaries collected, number of eagle feathers collected) but no real side quests at all. Yet they appear to be popular. ME, OTOH, has quite a bit of freedom in quest order and not only that, the dialogue is often changed depending on the ordering. Try the Tuchanka bomb duo before and after the Coup. Pick up Javik early, then pick him up late. My first playthrough of ME2 was blind so I was quite surprised when the game forced me into certain missions. I thought I could do whatever missions I wanted, when I wanted, and mostly I could. How is that different than Skyrim's quest lines? Get the dragon stone, fight the dragon at the western watch tower, go meet the greybeards, etc. Totally linear. I guess the difference is something like Skyrim has lots of smaller story lines rather than one overarching story. OTOH, they hardly have any impact on each other. Not that they could. There would be too many variables to account for.