65 réponses à ce sujet

[fchopin]

I think DAI will be episodic but it will depend on what is needed to open other areas before we are allowed to explore them.

[LightningPoodle]

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.

 

The relationships they had created spanning across all three games was never going to dim. If those relationships failed to meet what people had grown to love, they would have no real fan base. If Legion hadn't become what he did, you wouldn't have felt the way you did. Emotional.

 

The ending. I don't know what to make of the ending. Sure, it wasn't what I and many others wanted, but then, what would we have wanted? I haven't found a reasonable answer that anyone has come up with for how the game should have ended. If Shepard hadn't gone out in a bang, we would think there could be a sequel; there shouldn't be and I'm cool with Mass Effect 4 splitting away from Shepard.

[Loyal Tevinter]

I prefer episodic. One thing I'd like to know for DAI is if we can take our time between the main quest to complete side quests.

[N7 Spectre525]

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.

You must not have played DAO, because gathering factions to fight the big bad at the end was basically what you did in that game also. It is kind of funny that Bioware keeps telling the same type of story over and over. Im relatively excited for DAI to see what Bioware does with a semi open world but I have no illusions about the story structure being any different than previous games.

[QueenofPixals]

 

I have no illusions about the story structure being any different than previous games.

Thank the Maker!

[Burricho]

Telltale make episodic games... DAO was not episodic.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

DAO AND ME2 did it perfectly. Do what mission you want in any order you please.

[RedIntifada]

The advantage of how DA:O did it is that there were clumps of time where you became invested in a sub story... the characters became meaningful, and then when they would be referenced in a future "episode" even as a side note... they instantly came to mind, had meaning and my past interactions with them felt weighty.

By contrast there were so many little threads in DA2 after 30 hour coming back to a character who I had only saved in one 5 minute sequence made it difficult for me to remember who they were... particularly if I couldn't sit down and play the game continuously within the time span of a week. When playing while working and only having a couple of hours a day (and being a completionist) it would take me a month to complete DA2. You could see they compensated for this a bit in DA2 with lines like "do you remember me I..." which worked ok given the lapse in time between the acts but still it would have been nicer to be able to hold on to the significance of a character before moving on to another side quest. 

[Sartoz]

 

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.

 

This implies that the "Choices you make" are really minor plot points which are either done, not done, closed or open. Mike laidlaw, I believe, said you can follow just the main story arc to finish the game.... linear? perhaps.

 

What I'd like to see in DAI is a story that ends with a variation of these events:

 

1, Breach closed/not closed or Demons win/lose.

2. Mages vs Templars win/lose

3. Celine vs Duke win/lose the civil war

4. Chantry wins/loses influence/power

 

Then, at the end of the game.. in a summary screen show :

 

a. Alternative major plot endings.

b. Unexplored map areas.

c. Missing high level weapons/armour that may have affected key battles.

 

The replay value of this game will be in the stratosphere.

 

 

A fourth DA game, perhaps a century in the future should reflect one of the above endings that became a CANON of Thedas lore and the rest explained away in an intro narrative from syncing your save file.

 

Romance options are a side show. You already know your choices here. So is Ferelden/Orlais exploration. These choices are "minor" and have no effect on the major plot endings.

 

 

 

Linear story telling (as in DA2) contains a rigid script that made your "choices" laughable...

[finc.loki]

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 do not agree.

 

I look at it this way, using an analogy of TV show storytelling:

 

All TV shows are episodic in that, well they have episodes. Some are completely "monster/bad guy" of the week and you can miss episodes and you lose nothing of the story, there barely is one, just the same characters. Some have the same format but with a main story woven into it as some "mythos" basically. Missing an episode here and there can make you lose track of the story and you feel there IS an overarching story in the episodic content, still 80% of the episodes are of no importance just monster of the week.

 

Then you have the shows that are serialized and completely narrative driven where every single episode is a continuation, even if it take place in different areas it is all connected. Almost like one giant movie split up in pieces.

 

Here are some examples :

CSI shows, totally episodic and has virtually no "main" story in them at all, just the same characters, don't even delve deep into them either.

 

Grimm, X-files, Person of Interest, supernatural etc:

Episodic, with a mythos/main story progression here and there as episodes, but still many of the episodes are just "monster/bad guy of the week".

 

Game of Thrones,"24" and so on. Completely narrative and serialized with an ongoing story. Even then Game of thrones is hopping between 'areas' of interest it is still an ongoing main story.

 

It is easy to see ME2 falls into the middle category with mostly disjointed non essential story missions with a FEW main story missions.

ME1 is more like Game of Thrones in that all the bigger missions (not small side quests fillers) are ALL connected to the main story. Even if you can do them in different order, they are ALL about Saren, hunting him down, finding out what he is up to, learning more and more what is going on.

 

That is how I see the difference with narrative story and episodic.

I know OP said "linear" (ME1 you can do choose which mission, up to a point, but still connected), but I interpret that as serialized storytelling in contrast to episodic.

 

Hell, in ME2 you can even skip recruiting some team members because there is no connection to the story, you're not really missing anything, except bigger chance of losing at the suicide mission. 

 

 

Do you see the difference?

[finc.loki]

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.

 

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 am talking about STORY.

 

There is no way anyone on this planet or the universe that can say ME2 and ME1 was alike in story.

 

ME2 had extremely few connected main story missions, the rest was COMPLETELY outside the actual main story. There was no info or bearing on the story of the collectors and it's threat, rescuing or finding the "suicide squad members" except you "need them to win". All of their stories was disjointed. Go here rescue the tough chick that has issues, do her loyalty mission. In none of them do I get to learn more about the Collectors or the threat they pose.

 

In ME1 all the major missions were connected in that they told the story about Saren, what he was up to.

 

Do all these games have the choice to choose which mission to tackle first, sure. But story wise they are extremely far apart.

ME1 is well known to have the best story with a proper antagonist and progression IN the main story.

ME2/3 is about collecting resources. ME3 at least had more story missions and it felt more connected but still had that ME2 of collecting resources.

 

I am not against the episodic mission form as long as it all contain main story aspects. Making me feel I am playing a story game, not an action set piece just so I can wave my wand and do cool powers. Because that was what ME2 felt like. It had no main story.

[finc.loki]

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.

You guys are talking about game play. ME1 was clunky in inventory, weapon mechanics etc.

But it definitely had the STORY. ME2 had better game mechanics but a Sh*t story. The whole game felt like a set piece for the action. Conveniently placed barriers to do the cover shooting mechanics. Recruiting team members and no main story at all.

 

I would have loved the ME2 mechanics but ME1 story.

[finc.loki]

You must not have played DAO, because gathering factions to fight the big bad at the end was basically what you did in that game also. It is kind of funny that Bioware keeps telling the same type of story over and over. Im relatively excited for DAI to see what Bioware does with a semi open world but I have no illusions about the story structure being any different than previous games.

I did play DAO, but I didn't complete it. The real time combat was kind of a downer it was so slow and the whole had to wait for animation to complete etc.

The game was otherwise great.

 

I enjoyed the combat of DA2 and I prefer voiced protagonists, I can't stand silent ones, a big part of why I gave up on DAO, the whole silence just rubbed me the wrong way when all the others talked.

DA2 story was kind of generic, but still OK, the biggest flaw was the repetition of the areas, more or less my only gripe, I finished the game.

 

DAI will be great, the best of both games and some new stuff. I hope there will be a lot of main story.

 

I am starting to get really sick of Bioware games just doing the same stuff over and over again. The constant resource gathering for the big fight. It is OK if it has a deep story, but if most of the story is disjointed stuff that is just about 'local bandit bla bla, fix it get power points". It will be boring.

[Jagrevi]

 

This seems like a strange dichotomy to me.

I love this chart, it really shows the difference between the two styles. (...)

 

Thank you, by my intent was to underline that pretending that there are two style for us to discuss the relative merits of is kind of over simplifying things in a not-super-helpful way. I don't think it needs to lean towards one or the other, there are a lot of substantively distinct "directions" to move in. I think this thread kind of promotes a false choice.

[natalscar]

Episodic, definitely. Whether it's merely an illusion or not, I feel more in control of how the story branches and develops. 

[Lady Luminous]

I'm a fan of episodic narrative that has a linear arc. Like... don't go to the Brecillian Forest when you're supposed to go to the Tower to keep a 10 year old from destroying Redcliffe.