Guest_simfamUP_*
For ME1, there was actually one scene where if you did the rescue mission for Liara last, she is delirious from hunger after being captured so long.
A funny bit of dialogue, and nothing on the level of what I was talking about, but still - they did do something.
Yeah.
But you could side quest the hell out of that game before heading to the last planet.
It's hilarious xD
Guest_simfamUP_*
I think anything more open than TW2 has a non-functional main plot, in the sense that, like DA:O, the plot spin its wheels the entire game and nothing significant happens between the prologue to the endgame.
I think it's hard to come by any game that's as open as the Witcher 2.
I think it's hard to come by any game that's as open as the Witcher 2.
Sure, but TW2 has a clear prologue, then 3 Act structure.
TW2 really has an illusion of openness though. It's not truly "open" and CDPR even admits this. Sure, there are some quests that are scattered throughout Act 1 and Act 2 that require some exploration, but it's far from really being open.
TW3 seeks to rectify this by removing that illusion for the most part, while retaining it in some respects for the purpose of the story. I'm really curious to see how well TW3's approach compares to that of TW2, which is an incredibly linear game, but gives an illusion of openness.
DAI is more or less following TW2 approach, although we'll be able to return to previous areas unlike TW2 once you move to the next act. With the exception of some tougher creatures and perhaps some dragons, I'm not certain of the purpose of returning to previous locations.
Guest_Caladin_*
Like World of Warcraft, for good or bad, defined a genre for years to come, i believe Skyrim has done the same, the two games even if you yourself dont like them have shown without a doubt what a massive player base of the two genre's want.
Me i liked DA:O i liked DA2 an i liked the ME series with particular emphasis on ME1, i like skyrim i love going in an being and doing what i want, but it aint enough, the quests are bad for me an i mean real bad, the consequence of those quests are non existent which i hate and basically nothing you do has any impact all of which i expect BioWare to do and be reasonably good at, so couple that with there excellent story capabilities and a semi - open world which i like and think will dominate RPG now for a long time i think DA:I will be that bridge so to speak of what i want in a game, just need to unlock armors and weapons and make players be what the hell they want an it be great.
Without the rant i guess bit of linear, more emphasis on exploration an open world, impact-full an consequential choices/decisions an more power to the player to make and be whoever they want
bet i post this re-read it an it dont make sense......typical
I never noticed this. In all my playthroughs I always did either the Dalish quests first or Redcliffe first. The reasons where dalish for the cutscene of Leliana singing and on the PC you could get a mod that allowed you ask her to sing it again, with Redcliffe it was because it was my favourite of the 4.
I had no idea doing them in different order cause the content to change.
They didn't, Fast Jimmy was saying that's something he would have liked to have seen happen.
They didn't, Fast Jimmy was saying that's something he would have liked to have seen happen.
My bad, misread his post.
No problem. Happens to everyone now and then.
It really depends, each is a product of the game itself so it's hard to justify what I prefer.
I 100% prefer linear or rather "narrative" mode.
Episodic mode is annoying it makes everything separate and you lose the story. ME2 was pure crap when it came to story. Just a bunch of loose quests.
I am not looking to play; cop shows with the bad guy of the week motif. That is the worst kind of story telling for a game.
A game is a narrative with a story weaving through it.
Examples:
ME1 was a masterpiece in story (not the gameplay) because it really had a proper antagonist and a progression in the story and a narrative. You were this group hunting Saren down and discovering things along the way, making it bigger and bigger. That is the type of story telling I like.
ME2 was better in combat but an EXTREME letdown in actual narrative main story (non existent to be honest), it was like hey lets put together 100 writers and they can each write a "companion" and their loyalty missions.
I use these as examples because I have this nagging fear that they use the same technique as in ME2/3. Both those games were done by Bioware Edmonton (or am I wrong).
The motif is pretty clear, it is the constant of gathering "resources" to lead up to a big fight. ME3 was just as guilty of that as ME2.
This sums it up; the go to each faction, convince them to fight for us, but in order to convince them you have to do something for them or they refuse. leading you on a quest to bla bla and then they say "yes we accept". On to the next faction rinse and repeat.
Now, everyone realizes that it sounds awfully familiar with DAI.
If Bioware does the same as ME2/3 I am basically done with them, they would have proven they somehow lost all skill at making stories and they just do the same in every single game since ME2.
DAI is more or less following TW2 approach, although we'll be able to return to previous areas unlike TW2 once you move to the next act. With the exception of some tougher creatures and perhaps some dragons, I'm not certain of the purpose of returning to previous locations.
the reason to go back have been said that new stuff will open up depending on choices made and I believe also that some major things may happen after we are done in the area like doing stuff in the crestwood gain a keep come back later when they are attacked though that last part wasn't what you meant it but may be similar to what happens
Episodic has actually been BioWare's traditional philosophy of storytelling and plot progression. It has been used in all of their games except for DA2. Even ME3 was episodic, as you still have freedom to explore the galaxy and really go places on your own initiative. I'd say the overall plot was more driving than in ME2, but it was still very much an episodic experience.
BioWare even admitted that DA2 was largely an experiment to try something entirely different from their long-accepted episodic approach. The theory behind DA2 was incredibly interesting. Watch the city of Kirkwall progress and change over the period of 10 years based on Hawke's choices. Had BioWare actually delivered on this promise, I think BioWare games may have developed quite differently post-DA2.
Personally I'd like BioWare to try something entirely different more along the lines of TW3 or Skyrim. Let us explore and discover on our own terms. I don't want to be confined or guided at all really. It made sense for older games due to technological limitations, but it's not really needed now. The only reason DAI has any restrictions is for the purposes of story and plot progression.
I'm hoping we'll eventually get to the point where we really can just build the experience how we'd like, and then participate in story missions. There's just something more organic and memorable about a game when I drive my exploration rather than being limited to the confines of the story. That's an issue with heavily story-based games. CDPR is trying to cure that with TW3 by making a truly non-linear RPG experience.
DAI appears to actually be more so linear than episodic as the Inquisitor will have to gain enough influence before he is able to unlock new areas, of which generally require progressing far enough into the main story plot.
Did you play ME1? It was NOTHING like ME2 or even ME3.
I can't even remember if ME1 even had side quest because the story was really strong.
It was way more focused on a tighter story and narrative, it was the best of the 3 hands down. ME3 did have a little more narrative but it still had that ME2 "collect resources" and just a general main thread of a threat (Earth under attack) as the main story but most often it was just about each factions.
This doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense. ME1 had plenty of missions that had nothing whatsoever to do with Saren. Your description only works if we don't play the side missions or if they don't count because reasons.ME1 was a masterpiece in story (not the gameplay) because it really had a proper antagonist and a progression in the story and a narrative. You were this group hunting Saren down and discovering things along the way, making it bigger and bigger. That is the type of story telling I like.[/size]
ME2 was better in combat but an EXTREME letdown in actual narrative main story (non existent to be honest), it was like hey lets put together 100 writers and they can each write a "companion" and their loyalty missions.
This doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense. ME1 had plenty of missions that had nothing whatsoever to do with Saren. Your description only works if we don't play the side missions or if they don't count because reasons.
ME 1 had a coherent narrative. Like a Serialized show that continues the story from last weeks episode.
Side quests has NOTHING to do with a main story, it's fillers.
ME1 you progressed in the story in a linear fashion in the sense that you move from planet to planet to hunt him down, chasing him and the story evolves with new twists etc. Most of the missions you undertook was about Saren and where he had been and what he was up to.
Mass Effect 2 had a very VERY small 'main story', in fact out of 50 hours game time 2-3 hours was the 'main story'. The rest was just episodic content, such as; go fetch companion, then do companion mission that had NOTHING to do with anything. Just a filler to drag out a game with MINIMAL story. Set pieces to have shooting and bang bang action in it.
Just look at it this way, if you watch CSI TV show ( same for any cop show) THAT is episodic storytelling, each "mission" is self contained story. Some of these types of shows have a little 'main narrative' in them too, like X-files had their on going stories about a bigger threat (the alien stuff and mulders search for his sister). But most episodes were just self contained EPISODIC content. ME2 was exactly like that, separate companion stories in that you go and get them and then do a little mission for them. Interspersed with 1-2 main missions. It was pathetic.
ME1 all missions was main story, except the smaller side mission fillers.
Now go watch Game of Thrones, that is a narrative serialized show.
I prefer the narrative/serialized/linear type of story. That doesn't mean the world can be "open world" and also contain side missions/quests.
I really hope DAI is not like that. However that seems to be the Bioware motif as of late. ME2 and ME3 just being a rehash of the "story technique" .
Am I the only one that saw that ME2 and ME3 was basically the same thing? The gather companions in ME2, change it out to 'faction's in ME3, all in the name of fighting this "suicide mission' at the end.
So cheap.
This whole war table and the seemingly same story of the : "big threat, must gather the warden faction, mage faction, templar faction and your resource meter increases so your 'inquisition becomes strong enough to fight the main threat." PLEASE do not be like that, and IF it is like that, please have more main missions and deeper story.
Talk about recycling.
This seems like a strange dichotomy to me.
ME 1 had a coherent narrative. Like a Serialized show that continues the story from last weeks episode.
ME1 didn't have a coherent narrative at all. It had 4 marginally connected episodes - Therum, Noveria, Feros, Virmire - and then a big action set-piece at Ilos and back at the Citadel. It's exactly the same structure Bioware used in DA:O, just that they had more barely connected episodes in DA:O.
The fact that there's an overarching plot across episodes doesn't make it less episodic. ME1 is like Arrow or Supernatural in terms of plotting, and I use that quality of show for a reason.
The only game Bioware's ever done that's had a coherent act structure since NWN was JE.
I don't know if I would classify the DAO/ME/ME2 style as 'Episodic' but I can't really think of any better word at the moment 
I definitely prefer non-linear Episodic style structure to the more linear path that DA2 and ME3 had.
This seems like a strange dichotomy to me.
I love this chart, it really shows the difference between the two styles. Neither effects the ending, only the journey there. I'm just hoping DAI follows DAO more than DA2, with the power requirements being mostly for Important Points (ME examples: Leaving the Citadel, Virmire unlock, Ilos), so after a certain power requirement 2-3 main missions unlock, and after completing those (or a subset of them) and gaining another certain power requirement 1-2 more missions unlock, and then after that the ending branch unlocks.
I much prefer episodic. I think episodic gives a lot more freedom to the players story and choices and thats not just down to the order in which you tell a story "Okay we go here and then afterwards we'll go and deal with them and leave these guys last" but also leaves room for repercussions of those decisions "If I go here, the people over there will most likely die." I think that presents a much more immersive story and game because it makes you weigh the options instead of being told what to do and having to deal with it, whether you like it or not.
In RPGs, I think the narrative should be episodic as an unwritten rule. You can make good RPGs with a linear narrative but you have to rely on other factors instead of player choice to make it work well compared to an episodic story. With games like Dragon Age and Mass Effect which is all about player choices, giving a set path to the end destination distracts from the players story and rather tells the story that the writers want to tell, not the story you want to see.
About your structure for DA I, I was wondering if, between each power requirement check, you could select any mission you want among those you have unlocked or not ?
I think anything more open than TW2 has a non-functional main plot, in the sense that, like DA:O, the plot spin its wheels the entire game and nothing significant happens between the prologue to the endgame.
ME1 didn't have a coherent narrative at all. It had 4 marginally connected episodes - Therum, Noveria, Feros, Virmire - and then a big action set-piece at Ilos and back at the Citadel. It's exactly the same structure Bioware used in DA:O, just that they had more barely connected episodes in DA:O.
The fact that there's an overarching plot across episodes doesn't make it less episodic. ME1 is like Arrow or Supernatural in terms of plotting, and I use that quality of show for a reason.
The only game Bioware's ever done that's had a coherent act structure since NWN was JE.
the reason to go back have been said that new stuff will open up depending on choices made and I believe also that some major things may happen after we are done in the area like doing stuff in the crestwood gain a keep come back later when they are attacked though that last part wasn't what you meant it but may be similar to what happens
We'll see. There may be one or two reasons to return, but that largely depends on what there is to actually find or achieve. Otherwise, it may just be a waste of time.
Did you play ME1? It was NOTHING like ME2 or even ME3.
I can't even remember if ME1 even had side quest because the story was really strong.
It was way more focused on a tighter story and narrative, it was the best of the 3 hands down. ME3 did have a little more narrative but it still had that ME2 "collect resources" and just a general main thread of a threat (Earth under attack) as the main story but most often it was just about each factions.
I did play ME1. It's gameplay design was identical to ME2 and ME3 (explore the galaxy via the Normandy) except instead of scanning planets for resources, you actually landed on them.
I'd actually argue ME2 was the best in terms of execution and consistency. ME1 was good, but extremely unpolished: Mako exploration was bad, planets were too large with little reason to explore, combat was bad and crippled by the RPG side, etc.
I'd actually argue ME2 was the best in terms of execution and consistency. ME1 was good, but extremely unpolished: Mako exploration was bad, planets were too large with little reason to explore, combat was bad and crippled by the RPG side, etc.
I agree with you there. It was easily the best. I remember watching a BioWare Mass Effect panel and they asked the audience what there favourite game in the trilogy was and everyone 'woooed' for Mass Effect 2 and not so much for Mass Effect 3. There were some things from Mass Effect 3 that I liked such as the refurbished way in which you collect resources, people, credits and fuel from planets. I also preferred the weapon customisation and the multiplayer aspect of the game. Apart from that, the story and dialogue was a lot poorer than that of Mass Effect 2.
I agree with you there. It was easily the best. I remember watching a BioWare Mass Effect panel and they asked the audience what there favourite game in the trilogy was and everyone 'woooed' for Mass Effect 2 and not so much for Mass Effect 3. There were some things from Mass Effect 3 that I liked such as the refurbished way in which you collect resources, people, credits and fuel from planets. I also preferred the weapon customisation and the multiplayer aspect of the game. Apart from that, the story and dialogue was a lot poorer than that of Mass Effect 2.
While I didn't enjoy the Mako exploration on planets from ME1, it was better, in my opinion, than the planet scanning mini-game in ME2 and ME3. The mini-game was certainly improved in ME3, but I still found it to be lazy game design and not nearly as ambitious as what they attempted to do with ME1.''
Gameplay overall in ME3 was definitely improved over ME2. I didn't personally care for the multiplayer myself as it merely just ripped off Gears of War and Halo. Not to mention people found exploits to more or less defeat the entire purpose of the challenge to begin with. I actually really did enjoy the story and dialogue in ME3, even more so than ME2.
The last moments of Mordin and Thane were beautifully done. I also enjoyed the final scene with Garrus, as well, on the Citadel. The game overall was just more emotional. The only criticism people generally agree on is the questionable ending, of which I personally did not mind, besides the lack of clarity and closure. Thankfully the extended cut largely resolved those issues.
Retour en haut