402 réponses à ce sujet

[Guanxii]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Guanxii wrote...

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.

I don't think that's the reason why. DAO and
ME1 and ME2 and SWTOR and Jade Empire also severely lacked in emergent gameplay and were linear stories,
in part because they were mostly based on scripted encounters and lacked
the world-type concerns that bring in emergent surprises.

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.

This begs the question of what the original premise and promise of the series was. ME1 and ME2 were pretty bland and linear corridor shooters if you want to look at level design. ME3 did the favor of introducing far more tactical variety and flexibility- if anything, it should be praised for bringing more RPG elements and tradeoffs back into combat, and seriously helping the combat of the game.

If you're talking tone, I'd argue that ME1 and ME3 were closer in narrative style than ME1 and ME2. ME3 was, if anything, a return back to the premise of sci fi soap opera with nations and great powers at play, confronting and overcoming unavoidable defeats, and generally not letting everything be resolved in an ideal fashion by going pure Paragon while ignorring the main plot for 80% of the game's content.

In terms of combat gameplay the series has improved in some ways and regressed in others. Weapon design, gunplay, power usage and levelling is much better amongst other things. Level design while never stellar to begin with was more ambitious back then imo. Remember the wide the open spaces and vehicle sequences on virmire ilos, etc?  Puzzles, having an inventory system... the verticality of feros, the non-combat paths, different quest paths in noveria and virmire? Cover mechanics were crap but at least they were optional. Remember mini-games? All the interesting rough edges have been stripped out and were never allaborated upon in future installments.

Combat has improved overall but but the non combat stuff is practically non-existent. Sure Mass Effect had it’s fare share of fetch quests to the same old bunker over and over but this was back in 2007 and it’s arguably regressed since then. Mass Effect 1 was more than the some of it's parts... there was a lot of potential there that might broaden it's appeal to a wider audience that was never realized. Bioware were too busy courting a different user-base that never materialized.

Modifié par Guanxii, 02 décembre 2013 - 08:06 .

[JonathonPR]

^ I enjoyed that speaking was a skill in itself, and having a skill for technology made the game feel like it was trying to simulate the setting as much as possible instead of just combat. The Mako was also great. I have done a good bit of hiking and rafting. Natural locations are uneven and require the same amount of trail blazing. Do not try to go off the beaten path at a swamp or mountain. There are the successful routes that will get you somewhere. Astronomy has also taught me that how dangerous the planets in our own system are. I do not expect other systems to be any less.

The other thing that made me a fan was that attempt to use as much real science as possible, explain the fiction with consistent rules, and in many instances it was apparent that those rules forced Bioware to make interesting choices that made the setting feel more organic. ME2 and ME3 had diminishing amounts of all three. The setting and its rules have been changed or ignored to allow an experience that feels more like an average scifi setting. I know inspiration as a part of any creative endeavor but it felt more like Bioware was trying to latch onto the popularity of other settings by reworking their own setting to match.

[Lazengan]

cap and gown wrote...

Pointing to mods as THE selling point does not accord with the facts at all. Here are the sales figures for Skyrim:

Xbox: 7.43 million
PS3: 4.91 million
PC: 3.15 million

source: http://www.vgchartz....s=0&results=200

Yes, the majority of gamers are casual console gamers who do not have the income nor mental capacity to dedicate themselves to actual games

is this news to anyone?

[I SOLD MY SOUL TO BIOWARE]

Han Shot First wrote...

In an Elder Scrolls game the protagonist has practically no backstory at all, no personality, and NPCs primarily serve as info dumps and quest dispensers. There is no meaningful character interaction/development at all.

Because they leave the backstory up to your interpretation, and let you elaborate on it if you want through dialogue later, like the conversations with Serana. 

Who had a lot of meaningful character development and interaction, actually. For the most part you're right, but there are good characters among the cardboard ones.

Frankly, I'd take TES' approach over Shepard and Hawke, who are essentially pre-defined characters.

Modifié par SergeantSnookie, 03 décembre 2013 - 02:21 .

[slimgrin]

Bethesda knows how to do a few things really well:

-big worlds
-engaging side quests
-solid sequels

I know folks have differing opinions on their sequels, but compared to Bioware they have a much better track record with TES, going back many years. I also feel their games are more ambitious in scope, not because they are open world, but in the sheer amount of content and the way side quests interweave in the game world.

[Vort3xX]

Trying to define an rpg usually pointless since it varies between people, in my case TES would better suit "role" playing and why is that ? because it's freedom and in imo freedom is the most important part for playing a role since i as player can do whatever i want which helps immerse myself in my role since it's exactly what i decide, i don't need to do main quest, i can join guild, you can work, building house, mercenary work and the list goes on and it's hard to play a role when i can't decide everything and the game have forced moments.

Choices, background story and character interactions in ME is an important part of a rpg as well but i still can't justify to put it over freedom since role playing is me playing a role which i can make up in my mind instead of the game telling me how it went but i usually dislike linear games and that most events is set in stone when i play rpg games.

But truth is that i don't roleplay anymore, i play the game and see where it takes me but should i do i will need freedom but hey people like different games and some can overlook certain flaws more than other, nothing wrong with that just keep enjoying the game you play whatever it may be.

Modifié par Vort3xX, 03 décembre 2013 - 02:53 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Guanxii wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Guanxii wrote...

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.

I don't think that's the reason why. DAO and
ME1 and ME2 and SWTOR and Jade Empire also severely lacked in emergent gameplay and were linear stories,
in part because they were mostly based on scripted encounters and lacked
the world-type concerns that bring in emergent surprises.

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.

This begs the question of what the original premise and promise of the series was. ME1 and ME2 were pretty bland and linear corridor shooters if you want to look at level design. ME3 did the favor of introducing far more tactical variety and flexibility- if anything, it should be praised for bringing more RPG elements and tradeoffs back into combat, and seriously helping the combat of the game.

If you're talking tone, I'd argue that ME1 and ME3 were closer in narrative style than ME1 and ME2. ME3 was, if anything, a return back to the premise of sci fi soap opera with nations and great powers at play, confronting and overcoming unavoidable defeats, and generally not letting everything be resolved in an ideal fashion by going pure Paragon while ignorring the main plot for 80% of the game's content.

In terms of combat gameplay the series has improved in some ways and regressed in others. Weapon design, gunplay, power usage and levelling is much better amongst other things. Level design while never stellar to begin with was more ambitious back then imo. Remember the wide the open spaces and vehicle sequences on virmire ilos, etc?  Puzzles, having an inventory system... the verticality of feros, the non-combat paths, different quest paths in noveria and virmire? Cover mechanics were crap but at least they were optional. Remember mini-games? All the interesting rough edges have been stripped out and were never allaborated upon in future installments.

I'd hardly call the ME1 level designs for the Mako ambitious,
considering they were pretty much empty sandboxes with extremely
cut-and-paste dungeons. They had an atmosphere of scale, which was
touching, but hardly ambitious. The story-world Mako sections were even
less so (snaking linear driving paths with enemies in the way), and the
level design wasn't much to talk about- functional, not stellar. I'd
give far more props to ME2 and especially ME3 for levels that were
pretty to look at.

The simeone says puzzle is nicely summed up here, and I found
the inventory system downright atrocious and encumbering. ME3 was able
to do a great deal more effective customization, variety, and collection
without one, and I'm very skeptical of any claim that the inventory system of ME1 an interesting edge.

Combat has improved overall but but the non combat stuff is practically non-existent. Sure Mass Effect had it’s fare share of fetch quests to the same old bunker over and over but this was back in 2007 and it’s arguably regressed since then. Mass Effect 1 was more than the some of it's parts... there was a lot of potential there that might broaden it's appeal to a wider audience that was never realized. Bioware were too busy courting a different user-base that never materialized.

This really just sounds like nostalgia goggles to me, than any substantive evaluation on what its strengths and weaknesses were.

My bet, in any case, is that ME1 left you with a warm fuzzy feeling of victory in heroically delaying a resolution, while ME3 left a bitter taste due to its ending. With those aftertastes in mind, trying to schew factors to justify them comes next.

[TEWR]

The Elder Scrolls does a few things right.

1) Scenery
2) Open world
3) Characters, when given enough time on screen (Aela, Ulfric, Tullius)

What's problematic (to me) is how dull the world seems at times. They're sparsely populated (biggest towns are like... 50 people when they're supposedly a "city"). Skyrim comes across as both alive (blacksmiths, woodcutters, guards and dragon attacks) and dead as all hell at the same time.

I have a very love/hate relationship with TES, with that reason being a big part of it.

[Addai]

Ohhh, is this ever hate bait.

One word: Freeeeeedom

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Because they can walk everywhere and do every sinister thing they want that they can't do in RL AKA FREEDOM. The same reason for R* games.

[Elhanan]

Have only played Skyrim, but would have to say that replay value is extremely high. Plus it seems that support for the Modding community is a factor in keeping popularity.

But I still prefer both NWN and the DA series; more story driven games.

Modifié par Elhanan, 03 décembre 2013 - 08:02 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

The idea of being free in a world and having it change dynamically while the gameplay itself has a low barrier for accessibility is very appealing.

It's part of why quality narrative based games will lag behind games that promise emergent gameplay in a sandbox setting in terms of sales. 

Not saying that's the a bad thing - my favourite sub-genre of RPG has to be the reactive open world variety. Provided it's actually reactive and backed up by solid writing/gameplay.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 03 décembre 2013 - 08:31 .

[Gotholhorakh]

TES are better games than Mass Effect in my opinion - all the way along the spectrum from the casual newbie who wants to pick up and play and be up and running in five minutes, to the grizzled RPG veteran, they do a (sometimes marginal) better job, and more to the point, they are fun and let you have lots of choice.

You could also "console" yourself with the notion that higher quality RPGs tend to be less popular than games with a little more of an accessible hack n' slash thing going on, but I don't think this applies to Mass Effect, myself.

Personally, I think TES is way out there on the tip of a sapling branch in terms of how much I can stand to have my RPGs dumbed down and still be good, but it does *just* walk that branch successfully.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 03 décembre 2013 - 12:20 .

[JerZey CJ]

Lazengan wrote...

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.

Parden me for not being part of the elite PC master race and having fun playing a game. I've obviously been doing something wrong by enjoying the game.

[Jozape]

Elhanan wrote...

Have only played Skyrim, but would have to say that replay value is extremely high. Plus it seems that support for the Modding community is a factor in keeping popularity.

But I still prefer both NWN and the DA series; more story driven games.

I believe I would have loved Skyrim if it had a more detailed world with a decent plot like NWN or DA. I cannot get past the tedium and blandness of the majority of the world.

I agree with The Ethereal Redux in that it makes the world feel both dead and alive at the same time. This probably works in its favor in appealing to a wide range of customers though, and that reflects in its sales.

[SoulRebel_1979]

Cause of the macho man dragon mod for skyrim.

[bussinrounds]

Both are crap. (hiking/dating sims)   Waiting for some true RPGs to start rolling out.

Modifié par bussinrounds, 03 décembre 2013 - 05:57 .

[Liamv2]

I have no idea who that is ^

[Addai]

cap and gown wrote...

Pointing to mods as THE selling point does not accord with the facts at all. Here are the sales figures for Skyrim:

Xbox: 7.43 million
PS3: 4.91 million
PC: 3.15 million

source: http://www.vgchartz....s=0&results=200

It should be well known by now that PC sales are always under-reported because they don't include digital sales, nor does Bethesda release their sales figures. Bethesda has said in general terms that the PC and Xbox markets for Skyrim are about even and PS3 a distant third.  I don't know that it's "the" selling point, but mods do contribute to Elder Scrolls' games' longevity by keeping them in the news, on YouTube channels, and giving people a reason to keep the game on their hard drive. I recently started playing Skyrim again in order to play the Falskaar mod, for instance.

Modifié par Addai67, 03 décembre 2013 - 06:06 .

[Beerfish]

I mostly like the sandbox games, that is I've played them for a lot of hours but I only actually finished one of the Fallout games. The final goal just gets lost in the hours of ancillary quests and the companions I really don't care about at all. The BioWare games are shorter but have way more replay for me and I care about the companions. In the end I probably get close to the same number of hours played but as a gamer I need a push towards the final quest more than what the bethesda games give.

[bussinrounds]

CrustyBot wrote...


Not saying that's the a bad thing - my favourite sub-genre of RPG has to be the reactive open world variety. Provided it's actually reactive and backed up by solid writing/gameplay.

  Too bad Bethesda games fail in this regard.

  I wouldn't expect good/interesting writing (characters/quests/dialogs...) out of Bethesda (or a reactive game), but at least if they had better combat/gameplay, it could make it fun to play.  (look at Dragons Dogma for instance)

  But Bethesda never learn.

 "the key to failure is trying to please everyone"

Modifié par bussinrounds, 03 décembre 2013 - 07:30 .

[Addai]

I bet every developer wishes they could fail as hard as Bethesda does.

[happy_daiz]

Addai67 wrote...

I bet every developer wishes they could fail as hard as Bethesda does.

 No kidding.