Established how exactly?
I will say this one last time. It is a cheap knockoff of Firefight from Halo and Horde from Gears of War. The feature itself is nothing new and has been done plenty of times before for quite some time. Feel free to scroll back through the thread for any other questions.
I will say this one last time. It is a cheap knockoff of Firefight from Halo and Horde from Gears of War. The feature itself is nothing new and has been done plenty of times before for quite some time. Feel free to scroll back through the thread for any other questions.
You have people disagreeing with you. It is therefore not established even if you were "correct" in this subjective argument.
Kotor is not a hybrid shooter-rpg, I cant even begin to understand where you are coming from. I have already told you I haven't played shadowrun, but none of the other games you have suggested are at all similar.
Comprehension skills... Did I ever say KotOR was a hybrid shooter-rpg? No. What I did say is that the Mass Effect team was originally the KotOR team, and that many of the ideas for the universe and franchise came from Star Wars. Feel free to re-read my post as you didn't not understand it at all apparently.
You made the argument that combining "powers and a shooter" are brand new and have not happened in a MP before for a game. I proved you wrong and offered you a plethora of games that prove you wrong. Feel free to go on wikipedia, look at videos, and understand why your point is wrong. You claimed ME3 MP is original. I told you it was not. Educate yourself on games that have come before ME3 MP. It's certainly not the first.
Also, feel free to look up "Star Wars: Jedi Knight Jedi Academy" as it was mixing "powers and a shooter" 11 years ago and nine years before ME3 MP.
You have people disagreeing with you. It is therefore not established even if you were "correct" in this subjective argument.
There is nothing subjective about ME3 MP being based off of Firefight and Horde. That is fact. The only subjective part is the fact that I don't believe it's very good because it is objectively unoriginal and nothing new. ME3 MP's originality cannot be argued. Disagreeing with a known fact just makes you wrong.
OP seems to be trying to make the case that ME3 mp as it currently stands is nothing more than a mildly popular throw away add in to ME3 that is barely worth mentioning let alone expanding upon in the next game.
So let's take a look at some numbers to get an idea of how popular the mp portion of Mass Effect is:
One of the most popular general discussion Mass Effect boards is Scuttlbutt at 33, 823 topics.
Singleplayer combat snd strategy, 4189 topics.
Story, campaign & characters, a really popular board comes in at 67, 804 topics.
Now let's take a look at the multiplayer board:
105,890 topics..........oh my
Yes because number of topics correlates to popularity? You've got to do better than that. You are also assuming all of those threads are praising ME3 MP, which I seriously doubt, as many threads are actual criticisms or methods for feedback to BioWare.
Here is what ME3 MP copied:
Here is what MENext Coop could be:
Those are just two examples. I could link plenty more.
Yah, that's just what I want to do. I wanna be swinging a big purple ****** bat in my next ME game.
j/k
Yah, that's just what I want to do. I wanna be swinging a big purple ****** bat in my next ME game.
j/k
Sarcasm aside, what is important here is that Saint's Row 2, Saint's Row: The Third and Saint's Row IV can either be solo or cooperative. Volition even went the next step and incorporated coop with the main story. I'm suggesting something more in line with FC4 and the task of taking down fortresses. The main story for MENext can be left for the solo experience while other things in the world can be open for cooperative opportunities. It's just another aspect that would make MENext incredible.
I don't believe I ever claimed this would be mandatory. If you are actually familiar with Far Cry 4 and Assassin's Creed Unity, you would know it's purely optional. This wouldn't impact your "immersive single player experience" at all as you wouldn't have to use it.
Ubisoft games should have no influence on any Bioware games if we hope for them to remain original, well done and fun.
Sarcasm aside, what is important here is that Saint's Row 2, Saint's Row: The Third and Saint's Row IV can either be solo or cooperative. Volition even went the next step and incorporated coop with the main story. I'm suggesting something more in line with FC4 and the task of taking down fortresses. The main story for MENext can be left for the solo experience while other things in the world can be open for cooperative opportunities. It's just another aspect that would make MENext incredible.
Now this idea, I like. Have them take a room, try and hold the room. Have us fail/succeed at holding the room. If we fail at holding it, then we have a certain time frame to get it back and hold it again. But all of this could be done in "horde" mode that we have now. I dunno. If they can pull it off without making it seem cheesy, then I'm all for it. Even though I would prolly never play it.
Ubisoft games should have no influence on any Bioware games if we hope for them to remain original, well done and fun.
Ubisoft is just an example of a publisher that has been making the jump to integrated cooperative experiences as of late. It's certainly nothing new to open world games and the ones that have done it well have shined bright. Nice profile pic. Is that cat supposed to be Char Aznable?
Now this idea, I like. Have them take a room, try and hold the room. Have us fail/succeed at holding the room. If we fail at holding it, then we have a certain time frame to get it back and hold it again. But all of this could be done in "horde" mode that we have now. I dunno. If they can pull it off without making it seem cheesy, then I'm all for it. Even though I would prolly never play it.
The problem is that ME3 MP is separate from the main game. If it were to actually be incorporated so it wasn't happening in isolation, then it would make more sense. I would much rather have the Firefight/Horde mechanic in a integrated coop rather than a separate MP which serves no purpose to the main game itself. FC4's approach is just one way of handling a coop experience, although it's certainly an interesting approach that BioWare could potentially use.
Ubisoft is just an example of a publisher that has been making the jump to integrated cooperative experiences as of late. It's certainly nothing new to open world games and the ones that have done it well have shined bright. Nice profile pic. Is that cat supposed to be Char Aznable?
The problem is that ME3 MP is separate from the main game. If it were to actually be incorporated so it wasn't happening in isolation, then it would make more sense. I would much rather have the Firefight/Horde mechanic in a integrated coop rather than a separate MP which serves no purpose to the main game itself. FC4's approach is just one way of handling a coop experience, although it's certainly an interesting approach that BioWare could potentially use.
Yah, I know what you mean. However, meh. It just feels like too personal a story to be shared with anyone. Of course, maybe that's just my issue.
Far Cry 4 is essentially the "Skyrim of shooters" as the franchise has been referred as. What makes it fun and unique is the fact that you drive the experience and decide what you want to do. It's not like a typical shooter where you are on rails. While Mass Effect has largely been linear, especially with ME2 and ME3, its philosophy and core values have been built in exploration. This is why we have the Normandy and the various space mini-games. This is why we have all the Mass Relays to travel around the galaxy.
"Skyrim with guns" - Adam Kovic I'm fully aware of what Far Cry is. Again, I understand that you like the open world stuff. Me? Not so much. Yes, there's an element of exploration to Mass Effect, but it's more the exploration of cultures, peoples ,and ideas. Personally, I think those things are better explored in a tighter, more polished experience. Exploring the nicks and crannies of an expansive landscape, to me, doesn't seem like an effective way to discuss more abstract concepts.
Mass Effect games have a "casual" difficulty. It's there for those who don't want to get bogged down on gameplay, focus on story, and can't play it on Insanity like those of us who are well-versed in shooters. Pause isn't there to make the game more accessible, but was merely a tool for tactical purposes, of which are largely pointless because of the bad companion AI. I wouldn't be opposed to companions being more efficient like Republic Commando as it was an incredible game, but again my point is a pause feature isn't necessary.
You should see my sister play on casual. It's quite hilarious. She was simply unable to play until I told her to use the power wheel. Though accessibility might not have been an intended effect, it's certainly a benefit.
On the contrary, the pause menu makes up for the poor AI. The more control you have over your squadmates from moment to moment, the less stupid things they'll do. No, the pause menu isn't "necessary," it's just incredibly helpful.
I'm not saying the heavily-controlled experience will dissipate into nothingness. What I'm saying is that the experience will be incorporated into an open world experience. Take DAI, for example. The BioWare storytelling is still there, but there are plenty of other activities to do besides the story. They are merely adding more tools and activities for players to participate in. Expanding the horizon of the game and its borders.
And what are these extra activities? A heap of fetch quests. No, not every bit of content is pointless or poorly implemented, but imagine if Bioware condensed things a little. More resources could have gone into new enemies or powers or just overall polish.
It's quite detrimental to the overall experience of a game if the landscape is dotted with perfunctory content. While there's more to do, it's all cheap entertainment.
Again, it depends on what BioWare puts in the world that matters. An open world experience can either be incredible, or terribly mundane and boring. As I said before, the one of the core elements of Mass Effect was always exploration, going to unknown worlds, and seeing exotic species. It has a lot in common with Star Trek with that respect.
And most of Star Trek was spent on the Enterprise. To explore a culture, one doesn't need to explore landscape, merely interact with its people. Could MENext have both? Yes, but I don't want depth in character (both in terms of people and setting) to be discarded for breadth in landscape.
That's your opinion on Skyrim and not fact. On the contrary, it has the most player-driven progression of any game out there (you aren't bound to a class and can use whatever weapons and armor you want). It does have amazing stories. Look at all the guild quests (besides College of Winterhold) and the DLC (Dawnguard and Dragonborn) and even the main quest is largely great, besides the lame fight with Alduin. Lets not forget about Cicero, Sheogorath, Aela the Huntress, Molag Bal, Parthurnaax, Serana, Miraak, Hermaeus Mora and the plethora of other great characters that really make the experience that much better. People love to use Skyim as a target board for reasons I don't understand as oftentimes their criticisms aren't true.
I don't need mods to replay Skyrim. It adds more possibilities, but is far from necessary. This is a game that sold 20 million copies (BioWare could only dream of those numbers), and PC (mod community) is a minority of that fan base. Most of those sales came purely from consoles, where they only have the base game you seem to think is terrible.
In the words of another: "Skyrim is the best worst game ever made." Skyrim works much like how a mobile game works. It isn't deep, so you can get right in. It isn't lacking in things to do, so you're always occupied. The things you do aren't ever complex, so you complete them quite easily. It's a game that leads you on with an unending trail of tiny sweets, just enough to keep you fixed, but not enough to ever be that great.
The "most player-driven progression" does not mean the best progression. Most, if not all the perks lack any active effect, and merely have a small passive boost. And the weapons you can use are: sword, faster less damage sword, slower more damage sword, two hand sword, bashy things that basically do what swords do, and projectile weapons. Armor ranges from: heavy defensive armor to light not-so-defensive armor. Enemies come in varieties: human melee, monster melee, human projectile, monster projectile, and mage (which is projectile with a few fancier effects).
The sound and animation design is weak. No matter what weapon you use, the game still feels like a click fest. Magic is unbalanced, which is surprising since it has very limited variety. I can go on, but I won't. The reason Skyrim is still playable is the fact that it is shallow. It's cheap thrills you can jump in and do any time.
I'm not going to debate story with you. I know your opinion, and I disagree with it. I found the story shallow, unreactive, and lacking in character, but that's just me.
If you provide a great example of how they can do a separate amazing coop. Feel free. Otherwise, experience and plenty of other games have proven it's a terrible idea. I don't follow with your integrated coop point, as any developer who incorporates it into the main game always does it in a way that makes sense and is enjoyable.
ME3's co-op. Done.
It's all about being fun. If it isn't fun, it isn't good. Obviously. Separate game modes likely won't be very fun because they're usually done haphazardly. Does that mean every separate game mode won't be very fun? No.
If the developer gives enough time to the separate game mode, then it can be good.
It's not that I don't "like" it. The point is it's unoriginal, a generic copy of other MP games, and was merely placed in the game as an excuse to add micro-transactions. I'd rather have coop with actual meaning rather than a separate MP that doesn't add any value to the product. That's all that I want.
No, you don't like it, so you'r asserting that any separate co-op will be bad. An assertion based on an opinion.
I loved ME3's MP, and thought it added a decent bit of value. Does this mean that any separate co-op is automatically good? No. Does it mean that if MENext were to have separate co-op, that it would be good? No, but there's a good chance it would be.
How would micro-transactions be incorporated into an integrated coop? BioWare has never had micro-transactions in their main game and that certainly won't happen now. What they would do, instead, is add more DLC you have to pay for. That would replace the "free" multiplayer DLC that they recoup the cost from micro-transactions.
Look at what happened to DS3. Look, there's going to be microtransactions no matter what. DLC can't replace microtransactions, they would presumably cost too much.
The point of a microtransaction is to tempt the player into making multiple small payments rather than one large one, because one large payment isn't as attractive.
Fantastic. I don't believe it's a defining feature at all. When I think about Mass Effect, I see the characters, the Normandy, the third person shooter gameplay overall, and the BioWare story as the defining features. Having a fish tank has always been an aspect of Mass Effect, for example, but I certainly wouldn't call it a "defining feature." Pause, again, was put in there to try and incorporate a tactical approach to the experience. As you have indicated, that tactical shooter component needs a lot of work, and the pause feature really isn't adding to it.
And what makes Mass Effect's gameplay not like your average TPS? The ability to use powers and control your team. Two things perfectly suited for the power wheel. Just because you don't care for it, doesn't mean it's irrelevant.
Like hell the pause feature isn't adding to it. Did you read what I said? It makes the game more accessible while not taking away from the combat. It allows you to use more powers. It gives you control over squadmate's powers, guns, and AI (increasing tactical depth). Lets you better observe your environment. Lets you switch between 2+ weapons.
Factually, there are significant tangible benefits provided by the power wheel.
The dialogue wheel was an invention in order to make BioWare storytelling more effective and engaging. It didn't exist prior, and while KotOR, JE, and DAO were great, didn't have that same level of immersion. If BioWare can come up with something better than the dialogue wheel, you better believe they should toss it. That's what BioWare does. They innovate. The dialogue wheel was an innovation. Real time combat has been an innovation. Larger, more open worlds has been an innovation. Cut scenes and romance arcs have been innovations. Nothing is set in stone and BioWare is always looking to evolve and build upon what it has done in the past. Their philosophy isn't to just create a sequel, but an entirely brand new experience that blows away what came before. That's what BioWare has been doing for a very long time.
I'm not saying don't innovate. I'm saying don't innovate poorly:
Going open world is a trade off: breadth for depth. Bioware should be mindful of that going forward. More content isn't better if most of that content is filler. Integrated co-op would mean loosing the power wheel. Could Bioware potentially make up for the restrictions with a new system? Yes, but the loss of pausing is, in itself, pretty damaging. Co-op simply isn't worth losing this objectively beneficial mechanic.
Taking risks is a necessary part of the artistic process, but don't take stupid risks.
Yes because number of topics correlates to popularity? You've got to do better than that. You are also assuming all of those threads are praising ME3 MP, which I seriously doubt, as many threads are actual criticisms or methods for feedback to BioWare.
Those are just two examples. I could link plenty more.
None of your examples have the depth of meta-gameplay and strategy of ME3 mp. Last time I checked neither Halo firefight or Gears had eight different playable races with at least 40 different classes that all play totally differently. Not to mention the mountain of permanent and consumable equipment that you have to manage in between matches combined with the dozens and dozens of different weapons and multiple attachments for each weapon to contend with plus having to spend weeks tweaking the skill tree of a SINGLE character out of the 40 to 50 available ones.......I could go on and on.
Your comparison doesn't even qualify as a comparison because those games don't even compare to ME3 mp......nothing does. There are no games like it. Period.
Also that Far Cry 3 video looks aimless and boring.
I remember that quest in ME1. It certainly wasn't that in-depth though. You had a paragon and renegade choice (if you had enough reputation) and then you had a neutral option to resolve the dispute. Yes, you receive an email later in ME2. ME is largely nothing but fan service and nods to previous decisions and choices people made. Does that make it more personal? Not really, as BioWare is just trying to give a sense of reactivity. ME did a lot of small things well, but large reactivity was much harder for it to pull off, and as a result ME stumbled quite a bit in this regard. It's one of the major criticisms fans attack it for.
I don't see how integrated coop would in any way impact BioWare's ability to continue to put in those little, minute, details. They are mutually exclusive. One does not impact the other. I find your argument unconvincing.
I'm saying it's an "excuse" and "ridiculous" because people are arguing "it can't be done." That is nonsense. It can be done. It's a matter of whether BioWare wants to go that direction or not. There is no limitation here. Many seem to forget, but ME innovated BioWare storytelling with its dialogue wheel and cinematic cut scenes. BioWare is always looking to innovate, and so far this generation going more open world is one of those innovations. MP was also another innovation, and hopefully that is something that is constantly refined and improved as I believe it is less than ideal currently.
Everybody is welcome to have a difference of opinion. That is what the forums are for. I just do not appreciate people coming into a thread that poses it is an idea and suggests "it's not possible." You don't have to agree with the concept, but it is far from not being possible.
Of course that makes it more personal. It's all those little decisions that define your character and make ME a role-playing experience. Am I the sort of player that allows someone to be killed in cold blood to satisfy a thirst for revenge, or do I feel compelled to intervene? And implementing those things in an environment conducive to co-op play would be extremely difficult. Take the example I gave - how would Toombs react if there were two separate players there with different backgrounds? Would there be squadmates there to affect the dialogue? BW would have to ensure that the range of possible reactions could cater to both SP and co-op modes, requiring either more time and resources to implement (which I think could be better spent on improving the SP experience) or, as I am most worried about, watering-down these interactions so that they have less player-specific dialogue and consequences.
If they can somehow get around all this and still produce a stellar SP experience that is recognisable to me as Mass Effect, isn't affected by MP and doesn't get delayed until late 2017, then fine, integrate co-op. I have grave doubts about whether or not they can do this tho.
And I never said that the integrated co-op can't be done or isn't possible at all. I essentially said that successful implementation of such co-op would put particular features of gameplay, NPC interaction, etc, at risk. You've pretty much dismissed this by saying that the features that I and others have mentioned aren't important or are worth sacrificing to get the open world co-op experience you want. That's your opinion and I strongly disagree. Again, that's not being ridiculous.
Anyway, I've made my point and we obviously won't see eye to eye. Which is fine.
"Skyrim with guns" - Adam Kovic I'm fully aware of what Far Cry is. Again, I understand that you like the open world stuff. Me? Not so much. Yes, there's an element of exploration to Mass Effect, but it's more the exploration of cultures, peoples ,and ideas. Personally, I think those things are better explored in a tighter, more polished experience. Exploring the nicks and crannies of an expansive landscape, to me, doesn't seem like an effective way to discuss more abstract concepts.
You should see my sister play on casual. It's quite hilarious. She was simply unable to play until I told her to use the power wheel. Though accessibility might not have been an intended effect, it's certainly a benefit.
On the contrary, the pause menu makes up for the poor AI. The more control you have over your squadmates from moment to moment, the less stupid things they'll do. No, the pause menu isn't "necessary," it's just incredibly helpful.
And what are these extra activities? A heap of fetch quests. No, not every bit of content is pointless or poorly implemented, but imagine if Bioware condensed things a little. More resources could have gone into new enemies or powers or just overall polish.
It's quite detrimental to the overall experience of a game if the landscape is dotted with perfunctory content. While there's more to do, it's all cheap entertainment.
And most of Star Trek was spent on the Enterprise. To explore a culture, one doesn't need to explore landscape, merely interact with its people. Could MENext have both? Yes, but I don't want depth in character (both in terms of people and setting) to be discarded for breadth in landscape.
In the words of another: "Skyrim is the best worst game ever made." Skyrim works much like how a mobile game works. It isn't deep, so you can get right in. It isn't lacking in things to do, so you're always occupied. The things you do aren't ever complex, so you complete them quite easily. It's a game that leads you on with an unending trail of tiny sweets, just enough to keep you fixed, but not enough to ever be that great.
The "most player-driven progression" does not mean the best progression. Most, if not all the perks lack any active effect, and merely have a small passive boost. And the weapons you can use are: sword, faster less damage sword, slower more damage sword, two hand sword, bashy things that basically do what swords do, and projectile weapons. Armor ranges from: heavy defensive armor to light not-so-defensive armor. Enemies come in varieties: human melee, monster melee, human projectile, monster projectile, and mage (which is projectile with a few fancier effects).
The sound and animation design is weak. No matter what weapon you use, the game still feels like a click fest. Magic is unbalanced, which is surprising since it has very limited variety. I can go on, but I won't. The reason Skyrim is still playable is the fact that it is shallow. It's cheap thrills you can jump in and do any time.
I'm not going to debate story with you. I know your opinion, and I disagree with it. I found the story shallow, unreactive, and lacking in character, but that's just me.
ME3's co-op. Done.
It's all about being fun. If it isn't fun, it isn't good. Obviously. Separate game modes likely won't be very fun because they're usually done haphazardly. Does that mean every separate game mode won't be very fun? No.
If the developer gives enough time to the separate game mode, then it can be good.
No, you don't like it, so you'r asserting that any separate co-op will be bad. An assertion based on an opinion.
I loved ME3's MP, and thought it added a decent bit of value. Does this mean that any separate co-op is automatically good? No. Does it mean that if MENext were to have separate co-op, that it would be good? No, but there's a good chance it would be.
Look at what happened to DS3. Look, there's going to be microtransactions no matter what. DLC can't replace microtransactions, they would presumably cost too much.
The point of a microtransaction is to tempt the player into making multiple small payments rather than one large one, because one large payment isn't as attractive.
And what makes Mass Effect's gameplay not like your average TPS? The ability to use powers and control your team. Two things perfectly suited for the power wheel. Just because you don't care for it, doesn't mean it's irrelevant.
Like hell the pause feature isn't adding to it. Did you read what I said? It makes the game more accessible while not taking away from the combat. It allows you to use more powers. It gives you control over squadmate's powers, guns, and AI (increasing tactical depth). Lets you better observe your environment. Lets you switch between 2+ weapons.
Factually, there are significant tangible benefits provided by the power wheel.
I'm not saying don't innovate. I'm saying don't innovate poorly:
Going open world is a trade off: breadth for depth. Bioware should be mindful of that going forward. More content isn't better if most of that content is filler. Integrated co-op would mean loosing the power wheel. Could Bioware potentially make up for the restrictions with a new system? Yes, but the loss of pausing is, in itself, pretty damaging. Co-op simply isn't worth losing this objectively beneficial mechanic.
Taking risks is a necessary part of the artistic process, but don't take stupid risks.
While I do love open world games (BGS is my favorite developer), this is more about the fact that the next Mass Effect will have exploration as one of its core pillars. Exploration has always been something done poorly and BioWare feels that this is one way they can truly innovate Mass Effect and make it better. For an open world game to work, the environment has to be interesting enough to want to explore.
The problem with the previous Mass Effect games (although ME1 tried) was that you never once felt like you were in a galaxy. You were on this very tight shooter-on-rails with choice-driven storytelling. I never really felt like I was exploring the galaxy, and that's something BioWare has verbally addressed and are trying to rectify with the next Mass Effect. Part of what is so compelling for an RPG to really feel as if you are there. Bringing these worlds to life, and part of that is making them more open world, would go along way to raising that believability and immersion to really see these locations as places rather than set pieces for the story.
My only suggestion is the pause menu shouldn't be a crutch for poor AI. I'm rather indifferent on the feature as it won't remarkably change Mass Effect one way or the other from my perspective. Again, there are ways to deal with it. One idea is when a player uses the pause menu, it provides synergy opportunities between the players as well as more abilities. It could actually enhance and add to the cooperative experience depending on what BioWare wanted to do.
I'm not suggesting DAI was perfect. On the contrary, it could use some work, and it's a great foundation for BioWare to understand what works and what doesn't. It's implementation that matters and you overall philosophy of what you want the player to do. I think BioWare had the right idea that all the extra activities in DAI needed to be centered around the progression of the Inquisition. I just don't believe their execution was necessarily there. You have to realize that this was their first massive RPG and that they were going into uncharted territory. As they become more familiar with open world games, their execution will improve.
I'm not asking for interaction with others to be replaced. I'm asking for interaction with the places they live in to be added. I loved going to Tuchanka, Thessia, and various other planets in ME3. Unfortunately, we were at those places for mere plot points and never really got to explore these great civilizations. That is my problem. We could learn so much more about these various species if we not only interacted with them directly, but saw and experienced how they live and how their culture works. It's the entire package that would bring these different species to life. They can talk about their culture all they want, but we won't truly appreciate it until we actually see it in action for ourselves. That's what I want.
Again, our views on Skyrim are vastly different. I've been a major fan of TES since Morrowind, still my favorite RPG of all time, and I believe Skyrim is a great game. Part of that reason is because of the ambition and what a team of 100 people were able to accomplish in three years. Freedom is the ultimate tool in Skyrim, and the game is what you make it. I don't want to get off-topic discussing Skyrim, however. We clearly will not see eye to eye. You either love it or hate it.
ME3 MP isn't "coop" in the traditional sense. When I am referring to coop, I am referring to experiences that generally allow you to partner up with another person in the main game or a secondary campaign built for coop. ME3's MP is, again, a Firefight/Horde multiplayer game type. Feel free to link me to a post, thread, article, anything where someone actually enjoyed Far Cry 3's separate coop. How about Battlefield 3's separate coop? I can assure you, they are both reviled by the gaming community and because of their poor execution were not seen in their sequels (BF4 didn't have coop at all and FC4 put in true coop). This isn't my opinion. This is merely how the execution of separate coops has performed and it has had less than ideal results. The only coop experiences that ever seem to flourish are the integrated ones. Take Borderlands as an example of a very popular cooperative game.
Dead Space 3 was actually an amazing game and the cooperative experience was done well. Where it failed is that it lost its solo player base. The game wasn't built to be played by yourself, and it turned away from its survival horror roots into more of a cooperative third person shooter. Had they not required two protagonists for the game, it probably would have done better overall. Great game still though if you play with a friend.
You do realize BioWare didn't have micro-transactions before ME3? Right? They made all of their revenue on DLC. I don't see why they could not do that again, especially if they released more expansions like Awakening. I honestly don't know why they don't go that direction. Much better than shorter DLCs that only last a few hours.
The problem is you are equating your views to what you believe would be a "stupid risk" or "innovat[ing] poorly." There is no point in criticizing a system BioWare hasn't even made. You have no idea how it would ultimately turn out and you might be pleasantly surprised. Regardless, I'd suggest you get on board soon and realize the next Mass Effect is going to be innovating a lot. It may not have coop, but it's going to focus on exploration, a much larger world, and changing the way we travel the galaxy. We are not going to have the linear, shooter-on-rails experience that we have come to expect from Mass Effect, and we don't even know what innovations combat, itself, will have. I just wouldn't get too settled on features you consider "definitive" to Mass Effect.
Change is coming. I know it is in the nature of many to be averse to any sort of change and fear its repercussions. I, on the other hand, openly accept change. You can't expect games to get better if developers do not take risks. BioWare wouldn't be where it is today if it didn't take risks. Neither would BGS, Rockstar, CDPR, and many other well-known developers that put their reputations and livelihoods on the line to make the best games they possibly can. I do not expect them to make "ME4" and certainly nobody else should either. This is a new generation of BioWare games. Jump on the bandwagon or be left in the dust of history and obscurity.
None of your examples have the depth of meta-gameplay and strategy of ME3 mp. Last time I checked neither Halo firefight or Gears had eight different playable races with at least 40 different classes that all play totally differently. Not to mention the mountain of permanent and consumable equipment that you have to manage in between matches combined with the dozens and dozens of different weapons and multiple attachments for each weapon to contend with plus having to spend weeks tweaking the skill tree of a SINGLE character out of the 40 to 50 available ones.......I could go on and on.
Your comparison doesn't even qualify as a comparison because those games don't even compare to ME3 mp......nothing does. There are no games like it. Period.
Also that Far Cry 3 video looks aimless and boring.
There is no depth or strategy to ME3 MP. It's literally pick a class, pick a load out, and survive through a pre-determined number of rounds before the game ends. Get your credits. Get your experience. Get your galactic readiness. Game over. Rinse and repeat.
What's ironic and what drives the game is not strategy, but rather OP classes. Anytime I pick a Gold or Platinum game set, it's always players using the same predictable classes with the same OP weapons. There is no skill or strategy. It's merely a game of who has the best class and best weapons, like most shooters. What makes BioWare money is the fact that progression is slow as games go on for 15+ minutes. This entices players to spend money on their game shop in order to unlock weapons and classes quicker, making an endless money sink for BioWare. It's a simple model, yet an effective one.
Halo doesn't have classes at all, which are limiting. You just choose your load-out and powers, which is actually more freedom. I haven't played Gears of War since the original, as I'm not a fan. I am aware it also has customization and you can change the load-out as well. Not to mention Halo and Gears of War have infinitely more game types as well as each of their kits offers more abilities and opportunities than ME3 MP's limited options. It's not even on the same level, and it's not meant to be. BioWare isn't a master at making MP experiences. That's not what they do.
It's Far Cry 4, by the way. You probably didn't even bother to watch it. You enjoy ME3 MP. That's abundantly clear. You will defend it no matter how irrational your argument is. That was certain the moment you proclaimed it "the greatest MP ever." Trust me friend, very few share you sentiments in that regard. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.
Of course that makes it more personal. It's all those little decisions that define your character and make ME a role-playing experience. Am I the sort of player that allows someone to be killed in cold blood to satisfy a thirst for revenge, or do I feel compelled to intervene? And implementing those things in an environment conducive to co-op play would be extremely difficult. Take the example I gave - how would Toombs react if there were two separate players there with different backgrounds? Would there be squadmates there to affect the dialogue? BW would have to ensure that the range of possible reactions could cater to both SP and co-op modes, requiring either more time and resources to implement (which I think could be better spent on improving the SP experience) or, as I am most worried about, watering-down these interactions so that they have less player-specific dialogue and consequences.
If they can somehow get around all this and still produce a stellar SP experience that is recognisable to me as Mass Effect, isn't affected by MP and doesn't get delayed until late 2017, then fine, integrate co-op. I have grave doubts about whether or not they can do this tho.
And I never said that the integrated co-op can't be done or isn't possible at all. I essentially said that successful implementation of such co-op would put particular features of gameplay, NPC interaction, etc, at risk. You've pretty much dismissed this by saying that the features that I and others have mentioned aren't important or are worth sacrificing to get the open world co-op experience you want. That's your opinion and I strongly disagree. Again, that's not being ridiculous.
Anyway, I've made my point and we obviously won't see eye to eye. Which is fine.
This is a non-issue. There are a variety of ways BioWare could resolve this if there were dialogue situations. First, they could take the Saint's Row approach and have the players in their own personal dialogue instances. That way you wouldn't have to worry about the other person impacting what you do and everybody wins. You would meet again once the dialogue is over. Or, the person visiting another game would merely be a spectator, which is the case in SWTOR. They don't have a say in the conversation at all. They just stand there and watch, like a companion. Either way works, or just don't let players in coop engage in conversations at all. It doesn't really matter how BioWare does it.
The only "feature" I have heard would "suffer" was the pause mechanic. Again, that could remain, or be altered. There are a variety of ways to rectify that issue as well. My issue is many are claiming this can't be done. That is nonsense. It can be done, and there are solutions to all of these supposed problems. Again, coop isn't anything new and BioWare does have experience through SWTOR.
While I do love open world games (BGS is my favorite developer), this is more about the fact that the next Mass Effect will have exploration as one of its core pillars. Exploration has always been something done poorly and BioWare feels that this is one way they can truly innovate Mass Effect and make it better. For an open world game to work, the environment has to be interesting enough to want to explore.
The problem with the previous Mass Effect games (although ME1 tried) was that you never once felt like you were in a galaxy. You were on this very tight shooter-on-rails with choice-driven storytelling. I never really felt like I was exploring the galaxy, and that's something BioWare has verbally addressed and are trying to rectify with the next Mass Effect. Part of what is so compelling for an RPG to really feel as if you are there. Bringing these worlds to life, and part of that is making them more open world, would go along way to raising that believability and immersion to really see these locations as places rather than set pieces for the story.
My only suggestion is the pause menu shouldn't be a crutch for poor AI. I'm rather indifferent on the feature as it won't remarkably change Mass Effect one way or the other from my perspective. Again, there are ways to deal with it. One idea is when a player uses the pause menu, it provides synergy opportunities between the players as well as more abilities. It could actually enhance and add to the cooperative experience depending on what BioWare wanted to do.
I'm not suggesting DAI was perfect. On the contrary, it could use some work, and it's a great foundation for BioWare to understand what works and what doesn't. It's implementation that matters and you overall philosophy of what you want the player to do. I think BioWare had the right idea that all the extra activities in DAI needed to be centered around the progression of the Inquisition. I just don't believe their execution was necessarily there. You have to realize that this was their first massive RPG and that they were going into uncharted territory. As they become more familiar with open world games, their execution will improve.
I'm not asking for interaction with others to be replaced. I'm asking for interaction with the places they live in to be added. I loved going to Tuchanka, Thessia, and various other planets in ME3. Unfortunately, we were at those places for mere plot points and never really got to explore these great civilizations. That is my problem. We could learn so much more about these various species if we not only interacted with them directly, but saw and experienced how they live and how their culture works. It's the entire package that would bring these different species to life. They can talk about their culture all they want, but we won't truly appreciate it until we actually see it in action for ourselves. That's what I want.
Again, our views on Skyrim are vastly different. I've been a major fan of TES since Morrowind, still my favorite RPG of all time, and I believe Skyrim is a great game. Part of that reason is because of the ambition and what a team of 100 people were able to accomplish in three years. Freedom is the ultimate tool in Skyrim, and the game is what you make it. I don't want to get off-topic discussing Skyrim, however. We clearly will not see eye to eye. You either love it or hate it.
ME3 MP isn't "coop" in the traditional sense. When I am referring to coop, I am referring to experiences that generally allow you to partner up with another person in the main game or a secondary campaign built for coop. ME3's MP is, again, a Firefight/Horde multiplayer game type. Feel free to link me to a post, thread, article, anything where someone actually enjoyed Far Cry 3's separate coop. How about Battlefield 3's separate coop? I can assure you, they are both reviled by the gaming community and because of their poor execution were not seen in their sequels (BF4 didn't have coop at all and FC4 put in true coop). This isn't my opinion. This is merely how the execution of separate coops has performed and it has had less than ideal results. The only coop experiences that ever seem to flourish are the integrated ones. Take Borderlands as an example of a very popular cooperative game.
Dead Space 3 was actually an amazing game and the cooperative experience was done well. Where it failed is that it lost its solo player base. The game wasn't built to be played by yourself, and it turned away from its survival horror roots into more of a cooperative third person shooter. Had they not required two protagonists for the game, it probably would have done better overall. Great game still though if you play with a friend.
You do realize BioWare didn't have micro-transactions before ME3? Right? They made all of their revenue on DLC. I don't see why they could not do that again, especially if they released more expansions like Awakening. I honestly don't know why they don't go that direction. Much better than shorter DLCs that only last a few hours.
The problem is you are equating your views to what you believe would be a "stupid risk" or "innovat[ing] poorly." There is no point in criticizing a system BioWare hasn't even made. You have no idea how it would ultimately turn out and you might be pleasantly surprised. Regardless, I'd suggest you get on board soon and realize the next Mass Effect is going to be innovating a lot. It may not have coop, but it's going to focus on exploration, a much larger world, and changing the way we travel the galaxy. We are not going to have the linear, shooter-on-rails experience that we have come to expect from Mass Effect, and we don't even know what innovations combat, itself, will have. I just wouldn't get too settled on features you consider "definitive" to Mass Effect.
Change is coming. I know it is in the nature of many to be averse to any sort of change and fear its repercussions. I, on the other hand, openly accept change. You can't expect games to get better if developers do not take risks. BioWare wouldn't be where it is today if it didn't take risks. Neither would BGS, Rockstar, CDPR, and many other well-known developers that put their reputations and livelihoods on the line to make the best games they possibly can. I do not expect them to make "ME4" and certainly nobody else should either. This is a new generation of BioWare games. Jump on the bandwagon or be left in the dust of history and obscurity.
I agree with your first point. For an open world to work, it needs to be interesting. The problem is, as the landscapes get bigger, content gets stretched thin. It is harder to make a bigger world feel more alive because there is quantifiably more surface area to cover.
You might not have felt like you were in a galaxy, but I sure did. I guess that's because we approach exploration differently. To me, a more realistic world isn't a bigger one, it's a denser one. I would rather Bioware focus their efforts on enhancing detail and authenticity and strengthening gameplay. To me, open world filler content and respawning enemies defeats that. I'll advocate levels with more room to be creative and ME1 sized landscapes to traverse, but any more seems pointless and possibly detrimental.
It would only have to be a crutch if the AI in MENext was horrible. If the AI isn't horrible, then the pause menu is still quite an enhancement. In fact, if the AI is significantly improved, the pause menu would be even more effective in coordinating squad tactics.
There's simply no way a pause system could work with co-op. If one person is paused, then the other must be as well, and that'll lead to annoyance.
Their execution may improve, but the fact still remains: less resources would be going towards depth. Why not remove that problem entirely? Bioware doesn't need to go open world. I'm absolutely fine with larger hub worlds and improved ME1 exploration, but they needn't go any bigger than that. The bigger they go, the more likely they are to succumb to the open world tropes and turn Mass Effect into just another open world game. There are already complaints that DA:I plays too much like an MMO. Bioware have carved out this brilliant niche in the ARPG genre, and I don't see any reason to leave it if they're just going to follow the paths of others into sameness and mediocrity.
Precisely, and it's better to dive into a culture if their world isn't as shallow as a puddle. I've yet to see an open world that fleshes out a community or culture quite as well as a more controlled game. I loved seeing the cramped slums and run down people in Metro: Last Light and the worried refugees and dystopian streets in HL2. I admired Bioshock Infinite's brilliant tableaux and character rich environments of Portal 2. What I don't love are idiot NPCs lumbering around an open world they can hardly interact with. The massive amount of NPCs in AC:U may seem impressive until you walk up to them an realize they're basically mannequins. What I don't love are procedural buildings and the feeling of absence in a clearly uninhabited home. I realize that as technology improves, these issues will be mitigated and eventually made obsolete, but we're not there yet. We don't have the technology to create both the breadth and the depth and the depth deserving of a Mass Effect game simultaneously. I know DA:I made some leaps, but I don't think its enough, and I honestly don't trust Bioware to stay away from the tropes. ME3 was mostly linear and still manages to have a heap of filler quests. I say keep it small, and keep it strong.
Fantastic.
Look, my argument has never been that FC3's co-op is good. As you said, FC3's and BF3's co-op were done poorly and were appropriately reviled. My position is, and always has been that any supplemental game mode, be it horde, campaign, or otherwise, can be good as long as it's made well. That should be obvious. Generally speaking, supplemental content is done quickly at the last minute and is consequently quite lame, but it doesn't have to be.
I wasn't making a comment about the quality of the DS3, I was merely pointing out that a single player game can, in fact, have microtransactions.
Of course they didn't have microtransactions before ME3, the concept had only come into vogue after ME2. The reason they became so popular was because they made more money than DLC. Apparently, people are more likely to buy a lot of little things rather than one big thing. I would prefer Boiware stick to a DLC only policy but it would be more lucrative for them to use both. Now, because of EA's multiplayer mandate and their tendency to want money, MENext will more than likely feature some sort of microtransaction feature (preferably in a separate MP mode).
I'm not criticizing a system they haven't made, I'm pointing out that removing the old one isn't the best idea. As I said, Bioware may very well invent some elegant solution to accommodate co-op, I'm just saying they don't have to. The one they have right now is brilliant and effective. Why throw it away? Actually, I am sort of criticizing the new system, because I believe that the compromises necessary to integrate co-op would likely result in a less tactical and less accessible game. Again, it's not impossible that Bioware could pull it off well, merely improbable.
Look, I know you have this brilliant vision for the next Mass Effect, but saying "Mass Effect is changing, deal with it," isn't going to convince me to deal with it. And it doesn't make you right. I have no doubt MENext will have some big changes, many of which I'll take in stride (other's I'll obviously question, there's no denying that), but open world isn't better than linear and no pause menu isn't better than yes pause menu. They're entirely debatable subjects and absolutely pertinent to the future of the franchise especially given the problems surrounding AC:U and DA:I. This glorious "change" you go on and on about doesn't need to be in the direction of other games or even this direction I keep going on and on about. Mass Effect can go where it pleases, augment what it likes, and cut out what ever fat necessary, but in order for it to retain the niche it carved out and thrived in, I think there are certain aspects which should remain present and mostly unchanged.
I agree with your first point. For an open world to work, it needs to be interesting. The problem is, as the landscapes get bigger, content gets stretched thin. It is harder to make a bigger world feel more alive because there is quantifiably more surface area to cover.
You might not have felt like you were in a galaxy, but I sure did. I guess that's because we approach exploration differently. To me, a more realistic world isn't a bigger one, it's a denser one. I would rather Bioware focus their efforts on enhancing detail and authenticity and strengthening gameplay. To me, open world filler content and respawning enemies defeats that. I'll advocate levels with more room to be creative and ME1 sized landscapes to traverse, but any more seems pointless and possibly detrimental.
It would only have to be a crutch if the AI in MENext was horrible. If the AI isn't horrible, then the pause menu is still quite an enhancement. In fact, if the AI is significantly improved, the pause menu would be even more effective in coordinating squad tactics.
There's simply no way a pause system could work with co-op. If one person is paused, then the other must be as well, and that'll lead to annoyance.
Their execution may improve, but the fact still remains: less resources would be going towards depth. Why not remove that problem entirely? Bioware doesn't need to go open world. I'm absolutely fine with larger hub worlds and improved ME1 exploration, but they needn't go any bigger than that. The bigger they go, the more likely they are to succumb to the open world tropes and turn Mass Effect into just another open world game. There are already complaints that DA:I plays too much like an MMO. Bioware have carved out this brilliant niche in the ARPG genre, and I don't see any reason to leave it if they're just going to follow the paths of others into sameness and mediocrity.
Precisely, and it's better to dive into a culture if their world isn't as shallow as a puddle. I've yet to see an open world that fleshes out a community or culture quite as well as a more controlled game. I loved seeing the cramped slums and run down people in Metro: Last Light and the worried refugees and dystopian streets in HL2. I admired Bioshock Infinite's brilliant tableaux and character rich environments of Portal 2. What I don't love are idiot NPCs lumbering around an open world they can hardly interact with. The massive amount of NPCs in AC:U may seem impressive until you walk up to them an realize they're basically mannequins. What I don't love are procedural buildings and the feeling of absence in a clearly uninhabited home. I realize that as technology improves, these issues will be mitigated and eventually made obsolete, but we're not there yet. We don't have the technology to create both the breadth and the depth and the depth deserving of a Mass Effect game simultaneously. I know DA:I made some leaps, but I don't think its enough, and I honestly don't trust Bioware to stay away from the tropes. ME3 was mostly linear and still manages to have a heap of filler quests. I say keep it small, and keep it strong.
Fantastic.
Look, my argument has never been that FC3's co-op is good. As you said, FC3's and BF3's co-op were done poorly and were appropriately reviled. My position is, and always has been that any supplemental game mode, be it horde, campaign, or otherwise, can be good as long as it's made well. That should be obvious. Generally speaking, supplemental content is done quickly at the last minute and is consequently quite lame, but it doesn't have to be.
I wasn't making a comment about the quality of the DS3, I was merely pointing out that a single player game can, in fact, have microtransactions.
Of course they didn't have microtransactions before ME3, the concept had only come into vogue after ME2. The reason they became so popular was because they made more money than DLC. Apparently, people are more likely to buy a lot of little things rather than one big thing. I would prefer Boiware stick to a DLC only policy but it would be more lucrative for them to use both. Now, because of EA's multiplayer mandate and their tendency to want money, MENext will more than likely feature some sort of microtransaction feature (preferably in a separate MP mode).
I'm not criticizing a system they haven't made, I'm pointing out that removing the old one isn't the best idea. As I said, Bioware may very well invent some elegant solution to accommodate co-op, I'm just saying they don't have to. The one they have right now is brilliant and effective. Why throw it away? Actually, I am sort of criticizing the new system, because I believe that the compromises necessary to integrate co-op would likely result in a less tactical and less accessible game. Again, it's not impossible that Bioware could pull it off well, merely improbable.
Look, I know you have this brilliant vision for the next Mass Effect, but saying "Mass Effect is changing, deal with it," isn't going to convince me to deal with it. And it doesn't make you right. I have no doubt MENext will have some big changes, many of which I'll take in stride (other's I'll obviously question, there's no denying that), but open world isn't better than linear and no pause menu isn't better than yes pause menu. They're entirely debatable subjects and absolutely pertinent to the future of the franchise especially given the problems surrounding AC:U and DA:I. This glorious "change" you go on and on about doesn't need to be in the direction of other games or even this direction I keep going on and on about. Mass Effect can go where it pleases, augment what it likes, and cut out what ever fat necessary, but in order for it to retain the niche it carved out and thrived in, I think there are certain aspects which should remain present and mostly unchanged.
That depends on what the developer focuses on. It could be an issue for BioWare, but again they have started to collaborate with more than one of their studios to build these games. I don't believe it would be out of the realm of reason for BioWare Edmonton to work on certain features while BioWare Montreal works on the rest. Double the man power to get the job done. BioWare didn't have that luxury years ago.
It has nothing to do with exploration. If I do not have the impression this is a place people actually live in, then it doesn't feel real to me. Nothing in the previous games seemed like a real place. They were all merely set pieces for the story. The best way to describe the Mass Effect Trilogy is it was one big, interactive movie. You don't feel like you are in a galaxy when watching a film. You are merely the audience enjoying the main story and the encounters the characters overcome. I want Horizon and Eden Prime to actually be colonies that people live in. I do not want a linear pathway directing me to get to the next big "bad guy" scene. That takes away from the immersion.
Again, just because the other person is paused isn't necessarily a detriment. It depends on what kind of tools BioWare gives the players. Also, there could be a cooldown applied to pausing as to not let it be spammed and treating it as an ability in its own right. We can use Focus in DAI as a perfect parallel.
What exactly is this "depth" you are referring to? Outside of the main story, everything else in Mass Effect has been filler that I wouldn't consider to be high quality. That high quality main story will still be present in an open world, so I'm not following how quality would be lost due to size. Look to ME2 as a game that had way worse filler than a lot of open world games. Size has nothing to do with quality. It's execution and the philosophy behind the game that matters.
Any BGS game fleshes out cultures far beyond any BioWare game. Ever take a moment to read all the books in Skyrim or Fallout 3? Talk to various NPCs littered throughout the world? The different races? Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyrim alone have established more lore and culture than any other game in the industry. Feel free to check out two of the main sources of all things The Elder Scrolls:
http://www.imperial-library.info/
http://uesp.net/wiki/Main_Page
The games have established mythology, religion, culture, politics, history, social issues, war, and much more. Each race is thoroughly fleshed out with their own interpretations of the same divines, all have their own provinces with their own customs, their own styles for building homes and establishing a form of government, you'd be surprised how much depth is actually in TES.
BioWare games are great at telling a story, but are on the contrary very shallow in terms of depth of society and culture, which is a shame. The writers draft hundreds of pages of documents creating these species, their cultures, and how they live. Sadly, only fragments of these documents actually make it into the game as the story always drives it rather than the environments. So I have to absolutely disagree with you that BioWare games even come close to the amount of depth that a BGS game has.
You didn't link any reviews. You merely typed in google "Far Cry 3 co op good." I'm not sure if you understand how search engines work, but when you use natural language without specific modifiers, such as quotes around the words, you are going to find any article that mentions Far and Cry and 3 and co and op and good regardless if they have any connection to one another. To put it bluntly, you proved nothing.
That's fine. As long as micro-transactions do not cripple the actual game to the point where you need to buy items, then they can be incorporated. As I said before, ME3 MP was created as an excuse to add micro-transactions. BioWare can certainly find other ways of making money.
Brilliant and effective to you. It's a mash-up between Firefight/Horde with CoD Prestige on top, not to mention the micro-transactions driving the service. I find it to be a waste of resources as BioWare could do better and create an experience that actually connects and makes sense with the main game. Again, I fail to see your argument as I believe BioWare could find workable solutions to your problems. Pausing certainly can be reworked to be practical in a cooperative experience.
This has nothing to do with being right. I'm merely pointing out that Mass Effect is changing, regardless of how much you love how ME3 approached the franchise. Every game has changed some aspect of its predecessor. Sometimes the changes were significant, and other times they were minute. It was a bit different with the original trilogy as they all released within a small period between each other. The next Mass Effect is the next generation interpretation of a BioWare game, so it's going to be vastly different. I'm just suggesting you shouldn't have unrealistic expectations and realize a lot more than you'll probably like will change.
As long as BioWare continues to tell a great story, with great characters, and give us a ship to explore the galaxy with, that is the Mass Effect experience in a nutshell. It's not the fact it's linear. It's not the fact it has a pause function. It's the story and relationships that are built to overcome obstacles that matter. That's the core of Mass Effect. Everything else is subject to change as long as the core pillars remain.
I'm not a fan of Skyrim at all. The game is soul crushingly boring to me. Even fans of the game that I have come across say that the game isn't any good without mods.
Speakung of Skyrim mods those are another thing I don't understand. I mean ok you dressed up the game to look pretty but what now?
How do the mods enhance player agency? Srs question because I honestly don't know how mods could overcome this inherent weakness in open world games.
Big open world games where players simply run around looking for something to do without any immediate driving purpose are the most boring thing in the world to me.
I don't care about randoim skydiving and and boat jumps and jumping off skyscrapers for no reason. Its all empty junk food and boring. This is the fatal flaw of nearly all open world games that I have come across.
The missions from Mass Effect give you a sense of immediacy and purpose. The single player aspect of it all gives you the opportunity to think and feel the interactions on a deeply personal level that is nearly impossible to achieve with other players running around bunny hopping, standing on railings and smashing chairs against walls.
Well I don't know what "fans" you talk to, but I'm actually active on the Bethesda Forums when a new BGS title has been announced. There is always the vocal minority that will bash the game regardless, as with BSN, but the majority of posters actually love the game. Again, Skyrim sold over 20 million units (only GTA can compare to those numbers) and that was predominantly on console. PC is a minority, and while I love mods, they do not make Skyrim the success it is. The base game is more than sufficient enough to make the experience a game changer (influencing the development of DAI, TW3, and many more AAA games). Mods are just merely icing on the cake for those on PC, giving Skyrim limitless hours of more fun.
Mods aren't just merely texture replacements or enhanced natural beauty overhauls. Mods can be anything the author wants them to be, and there are some truly ambitious mods out there. To answer your question on improving player agency, one mod referred to as "The Civil War" increases the amount of skirmishes and battles all over Skyrim between various groups (Imperials and Stormcloaks predominantly). You can find battles of well over 50 enemies engaging to make for large scale conflicts. There was also the reconstruction mod that completed the Civil War questline in Skyrim. You probably don't know this, but what was released by BGS was not the initial vision or final product.
BGS very much wanted reactivity in the Civil War, meaning you had to constantly fight for keeps and outposts to maintain dominance over various areas in Skyrim. Otherwise enemy troops would dynamically move in and take over territory. It was incredibly ambitious and would have been amazing, but BGS ran out of time and had to make the Civil War a very linear and mundane experience instead. The problem is there are a lot of cool ideas that were planned for Skyrim that never made it into the game because of time constraints. Another was the Arena that was supposed to be at Windhelm, that would have reflected the Arena in the Imperial City from Oblivion. Hopefully ZeniMax Inc. will give BGS more than three years to create a game that is so large and ambitious as Skyrim was. When you only have 100 employees (small compared to most AAA studios, including BioWare) there is only so much you can do.
You appreciate structure and order then. You enjoy a theme park with a railroad experience where the developer guides you and tells you what to do and where to go. While those experiences can be fun, they generally lack re-playability and lack longevity. I prefer freedom, choice, and the ability to drive my own narrative and experiences. That's what TES does, and it does it well. Ever since Morrowind, BGS has made the largest, most ambitious, and immersive experiences one can have in a video game. BioWare games are great for the story that is told, but they offer little else outside of that. There is so much more that a BGS game has that I could talk about it for hours, but I will not.
I don't know what open world games you play. That certainly isn't the main feature in any of the ones I've played. Depends on what you are looking for in a game. I haven't really felt like BioWare games had a really deep connection until they started voicing the main protagonist. The games with a silent protagonist were well-done and had compelling stories, but there was always a disconnect because you knew you were playing a lifeless avatar that wasn't really a part of the world. Rumor has it Fallout 4 will have a voiced protagonist (male or female) so the storytelling woes in a BGS game may be disappearing and provide a more impactful experience than you could possibly imagine.
That depends on what the developer focuses on. It could be an issue for BioWare, but again they have started to collaborate with more than one of their studios to build these games. I don't believe it would be out of the realm of reason for BioWare Edmonton to work on certain features while BioWare Montreal works on the rest. Double the man power to get the job done. BioWare didn't have that luxury years ago.
It has nothing to do with exploration. If I do not have the impression this is a place people actually live in, then it doesn't feel real to me. Nothing in the previous games seemed like a real place. They were all merely set pieces for the story. The best way to describe the Mass Effect Trilogy is it was one big, interactive movie. You don't feel like you are in a galaxy when watching a film. You are merely the audience enjoying the main story and the encounters the characters overcome. I want Horizon and Eden Prime to actually be colonies that people live in. I do not want a linear pathway directing me to get to the next big "bad guy" scene. That takes away from the immersion.
Again, just because the other person is paused isn't necessarily a detriment. It depends on what kind of tools BioWare gives the players. Also, there could be a cooldown applied to pausing as to not let it be spammed and treating it as an ability in its own right. We can use Focus in DAI as a perfect parallel.
What exactly is this "depth" you are referring to? Outside of the main story, everything else in Mass Effect has been filler that I wouldn't consider to be high quality. That high quality main story will still be present in an open world, so I'm not following how quality would be lost due to size. Look to ME2 as a game that had way worse filler than a lot of open world games. Size has nothing to do with quality. It's execution and the philosophy behind the game that matters.
Any BGS game fleshes out cultures far beyond any BioWare game. Ever take a moment to read all the books in Skyrim or Fallout 3? Talk to various NPCs littered throughout the world? The different races? Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyrim alone have established more lore and culture than any other game in the industry. Feel free to check out two of the main sources of all things The Elder Scrolls:
http://www.imperial-library.info/
http://uesp.net/wiki/Main_Page
The games have established mythology, religion, culture, politics, history, social issues, war, and much more. Each race is thoroughly fleshed out with their own interpretations of the same divines, all have their own provinces with their own customs, their own styles for building homes and establishing a form of government, you'd be surprised how much depth is actually in TES.
BioWare games are great at telling a story, but are on the contrary very shallow in terms of depth of society and culture, which is a shame. The writers draft hundreds of pages of documents creating these species, their cultures, and how they live. Sadly, only fragments of these documents actually make it into the game as the story always drives it rather than the environments. So I have to absolutely disagree with you that BioWare games even come close to the amount of depth that a BGS game has.
You didn't link any reviews. You merely typed in google "Far Cry 3 co op good." I'm not sure if you understand how search engines work, but when you use natural language without specific modifiers, such as quotes around the words, you are going to find any article that mentions Far and Cry and 3 and co and op and good regardless if they have any connection to one another. To put it bluntly, you proved nothing.
That's fine. As long as micro-transactions do not cripple the actual game to the point where you need to buy items, then they can be incorporated. As I said before, ME3 MP was created as an excuse to add micro-transactions. BioWare can certainly find other ways of making money.
Brilliant and effective to you. It's a mash-up between Firefight/Horde with CoD Prestige on top, not to mention the micro-transactions driving the service. I find it to be a waste of resources as BioWare could do better and create an experience that actually connects and makes sense with the main game. Again, I fail to see your argument as I believe BioWare could find workable solutions to your problems. Pausing certainly can be reworked to be practical in a cooperative experience.
This has nothing to do with being right. I'm merely pointing out that Mass Effect is changing, regardless of how much you love how ME3 approached the franchise. Every game has changed some aspect of its predecessor. Sometimes the changes were significant, and other times they were minute. It was a bit different with the original trilogy as they all released within a small period between each other. The next Mass Effect is the next generation interpretation of a BioWare game, so it's going to be vastly different. I'm just suggesting you shouldn't have unrealistic expectations and realize a lot more than you'll probably like will change.
As long as BioWare continues to tell a great story, with great characters, and give us a ship to explore the galaxy with, that is the Mass Effect experience in a nutshell. It's not the fact it's linear. It's not the fact it has a pause function. It's the story and relationships that are built to overcome obstacles that matter. That's the core of Mass Effect. Everything else is subject to change as long as the core pillars remain.
Or both could be working on refining the game. Ubisoft have countless studios working on their games, but apparently not enough of them are going towards the actual gameplay. It doesn't matter how many studios Bioware has access to, it matters how they put them to work. If either studio is stuck trying to fill up some landscape with activities rather than reinforce a much smaller area with polish, we'll still end up in the same situation.
Oh yea, have bigger hub worlds. That's fine, just keep them small enough to give them life. As I said, nothing gives a worse impression of lived-in than an open world. There may be a lot of people and homes, but it all feels like set dressing. Static environments have been a problem in Mass Effect, but now that they have better tech, they can liven things up a bit. Why work towards spreading things out, when Bioware can work on tightening things up?
That's an incredibly inelegant solution for a problem that need not exist. The marginal and quite subjective benefits gained by integrated co-op are vastly outweighed by the known tangible benefits provided by the power wheel. I know I'm biased towards this mechanic, but you can't deny all the facts. It provides quantifiably more tactical options, it makes the game more accessible without compromise, and it's a simple framework that has much more capability for expansion. Look, I can see that I'm just saying the same stuff over and over again, so I'll make this simple. I don't think Bioware should get rid of a solid mechanic for something MENext doesn't need.
Yea, depth has been a problem in Mass Effect. Why not solve it? Going bigger will only smear the problem over a bigger terrain. Mass Effect has made great characters and a bunch of pretty interesting locations. If they keep the scale around where it's currently at (though, I'm not opposed to a small increase in scale), they can spend more time on deeper content both in gameplay and story. It's simple math. With the same volume of resources, one can either make a large thin product or a smaller, denser product.
I was never one for reading a bunch of dusty books when there's still people to stab. Writing and distributing a bunch of short texts is easy. Adequately presenting the culture of a world through the environment and people is hard. If Biware want to write a ton of books and magazines for MENext, they can go right ahead, but they need to keep in mind that no extraneous text can make up for a poorly constructed world. I've spoken to the inhabitants of Skyrim and heard an interesting tale or two, but between those two tales was a heap of repeated dialog and idiots commenting on how I should join the College while looking straight at my Arch Mage vestment.
The problem is I don't really get that much depth from most people. Sure there's a couple people with some interesting views, but then I stumble across a pile of robots labeled "Bandits," who recycle clothing and dialog as if its going out of style. To me, a more cohesive world is a more consistent one. It doesn't matter how much lore is crammed into a world. If it's not presented consistently or very well, I won't care about it. So I say let's not worry about keeping the masses interesting. Tighten the scope, and keep the fewer number of people lively.
No, but what Bioware does it make me care. They don't drop the word "dragon" all over the place and expect me to think that their lame boss battles are any more epic. They don't lather me up in lore in the hopes that a word or two will stick. Bioware employs the much more effective emotional depth.They hook you onto an interesting cast, each with an individual lens into their own culture. Yea, Boiware could do a bit more to present their world, but they're erring on the interesting side of things rather than coming off as long-winded and encyclopedic.
Alright, I see no reason why you had to evaluate my Googling skills. As someone who worked in IT, I'm quite insulted. I am fully aware that I only half-assedly linked you to people who like FC3's co-op. But in this case, it might be more appropriate to asses you observational skills. You asked for a forum post of someone who liked the co-op. Lo and behold, the 7th result: Co-op is great! - Far Cry 3 Message Board. Also, you could have actually looked at the first review, it actually had some nice things to say about the co-op.
But more importantly, I said that I didn't care about FC3's co-op. That's not my point. Please read what I said.
ME3's MP was created because EA mandated multiplayer. Sure, microtransactions were probably implied by that mandate, but Bioware didn't start by saying "let's make an MP mode specifically for microtransactions." Regardless, it worked out in the end. We got a great MP mods and a lightweight microtransaction system.
And forgive me if I don't believe that EA wouldn't somehow mess with pacing to urge people to get microtransacations. Besides, it's just tacky. I don't want to see that crap in my in-game shop.
But integrated co-op does't make sense in a singleplayer story-driven RPG. Look, co-op resources are co-op resources. Either they can be spent on a separate mode or shoehorning in some unnecessary integrated co-op. Obviously, I'd prefer if all resources went to the singleplayer, but I know that's not going to happen.
We have no idea what to expect. We're both speculating here. The only facts are that Bioware is focusing more on exploration, to what extent we don't know.I understand you're debating my opinion directly, but if you end your argument with junk like "jump on the bandwagon or be left in the dust of history and obscurity," I can't help but assume you're dismissing me just because I think Bioware shouldn't change certain aspects of their game. It's an entirely reasonable position to have.
The Mass Effect story experience, sure. But Mass Effect has distinguishing gameplay features as well. It's a tactical, ability-based, squad-centric, TPS. They could change that genre, but I don't know why. The gameplay niche Mass Effect is currently in is original, fun, and accessible. Making MENext "Far Cry but in 3rd person" just doesn't seem that appealing to me.
Or both could be working on refining the game. Ubisoft have countless studios working on their games, but apparently not enough of them are going towards the actual gameplay. It doesn't matter how many studios Bioware has access to, it matters how they put them to work. If either studio is stuck trying to fill up some landscape with activities rather than reinforce a much smaller area with polish, we'll still end up in the same situation.
Oh yea, have bigger hub worlds. That's fine, just keep them small enough to give them life. As I said, nothing gives a worse impression of lived-in than an open world. There may be a lot of people and homes, but it all feels like set dressing. Static environments have been a problem in Mass Effect, but now that they have better tech, they can liven things up a bit. Why work towards spreading things out, when Bioware can work on tightening things up?
That's an incredibly inelegant solution for a problem that need not exist. The marginal and quite subjective benefits gained by integrated co-op are vastly outweighed by the known tangible benefits provided by the power wheel. I know I'm biased towards this mechanic, but you can't deny all the facts. It provides quantifiably more tactical options, it makes the game more accessible without compromise, and it's a simple framework that has much more capability for expansion. Look, I can see that I'm just saying the same stuff over and over again, so I'll make this simple. I don't think Bioware should get rid of a solid mechanic for something MENext doesn't need.
Yea, depth has been a problem in Mass Effect. Why not solve it? Going bigger will only smear the problem over a bigger terrain. Mass Effect has made great characters and a bunch of pretty interesting locations. If they keep the scale around where it's currently at (though, I'm not opposed to a small increase in scale), they can spend more time on deeper content both in gameplay and story. It's simple math. With the same volume of resources, one can either make a large thin product or a smaller, denser product.
I was never one for reading a bunch of dusty books when there's still people to stab. Writing and distributing a bunch of short texts is easy. Adequately presenting the culture of a world through the environment and people is hard. If Biware want to write a ton of books and magazines for MENext, they can go right ahead, but they need to keep in mind that no extraneous text can make up for a poorly constructed world. I've spoken to the inhabitants of Skyrim and heard an interesting tale or two, but between those two tales was a heap of repeated dialog and idiots commenting on how I should join the College while looking straight at my Arch Mage vestment.
The problem is I don't really get that much depth from most people. Sure there's a couple people with some interesting views, but then I stumble across a pile of robots labeled "Bandits," who recycle clothing and dialog as if its going out of style. To me, a more cohesive world is a more consistent one. It doesn't matter how much lore is crammed into a world. If it's not presented consistently or very well, I won't care about it. So I say let's not worry about keeping the masses interesting. Tighten the scope, and keep the fewer number of people lively.
No, but what Bioware does it make me care. They don't drop the word "dragon" all over the place and expect me to think that their lame boss battles are any more epic. They don't lather me up in lore in the hopes that a word or two will stick. Bioware employs the much more effective emotional depth.They hook you onto an interesting cast, each with an individual lens into their own culture. Yea, Boiware could do a bit more to present their world, but they're erring on the interesting side of things rather than coming off as long-winded and encyclopedic.
Alright, I see no reason why you had to evaluate my Googling skills. As someone who worked in IT, I'm quite insulted. I am fully aware that I only half-assedly linked you to people who like FC3's co-op. But in this case, it might be more appropriate to asses you observational skills. You asked for a forum post of someone who liked the co-op. Lo and behold, the 7th result: Co-op is great! - Far Cry 3 Message Board. Also, you could have actually looked at the first review, it actually had some nice things to say about the co-op.
But more importantly, I said that I didn't care about FC3's co-op. That's not my point. Please read what I said.
ME3's MP was created because EA mandated multiplayer. Sure, microtransactions were probably implied by that mandate, but Bioware didn't start by saying "let's make an MP mode specifically for microtransactions." Regardless, it worked out in the end. We got a great MP mods and a lightweight microtransaction system.
And forgive me if I don't believe that EA wouldn't somehow mess with pacing to urge people to get microtransacations. Besides, it's just tacky. I don't want to see that crap in my in-game shop.
But integrated co-op does't make sense in a singleplayer story-driven RPG. Look, co-op resources are co-op resources. Either they can be spent on a separate mode or shoehorning in some unnecessary integrated co-op. Obviously, I'd prefer if all resources went to the singleplayer, but I know that's not going to happen.
We have no idea what to expect. We're both speculating here. The only facts are that Bioware is focusing more on exploration, to what extent we don't know.I understand you're debating my opinion directly, but if you end your argument with junk like "jump on the bandwagon or be left in the dust of history and obscurity," I can't help but assume you're dismissing me just because I think Bioware shouldn't change certain aspects of their game. It's an entirely reasonable position to have.
The Mass Effect story experience, sure. But Mass Effect has distinguishing gameplay features as well. It's a tactical, ability-based, squad-centric, TPS. They could change that genre, but I don't know why. The gameplay niche Mass Effect is currently in is original, fun, and accessible. Making MENext "Far Cry but in 3rd person" just doesn't seem that appealing to me.
Ubisoft is incompetent. They had ten different studios working on ACU for four years and yet they still couldn't release a polished experience. Regardless of the bugs and the terrible performance, ACU is still a technological marvel with how complex the game actually is. Fully integrated open world with up to 5000 NPCs rendered with a revamped parkour/navigation system, overhauled combat, integrated stealth mechanics, seamless cooperative experience. etc. One studio with another one supplementing would not be able to make that game with that short amount of time.
BioWare has been slowly developing Montreal, giving them bigger projects over time. The whole point of the studio is so that BioWare can do more and be more efficient. With both studios on the same page, they essentially have double the man power and resources. I am failing to see a downside to this. As long as BioWare stays true to their development philosophy, I don't see how this would be a negative towards making more ambitious titles. BioWare can just do more with more developers.
That depends on the open world game. Many have lifeless NPCs that have no actual purpose or task. That's not the same with respect to TES. Radiant AI gives NPCs jobs, schedules, they go to sleep at night, they eat and drink, etc. BioWare games have never had any such complexity or ecosystem in any of their games. Their quest hubs and areas are just static NPCs standing around waiting to give the player a quest. Again, it's not necessarily the size of the hub that matters, but how it is executed.
I really do believe you are overplaying the pause function's significance. It allows you to more easily mark targets or to order your companions to do something. You also seem to use it as a tutorial feature of sorts in order to aid those not well-versed in shooters. That's fine. However, saying its benefits significantly outweigh that of integrated coop is just insane. Do you realize what kind of impact having another player with you in Mass Effect would mean? How that would change the experience? That has a much larger impact on the game than a simple pause function. They aren't even remotely close in terms of significance. BioWare could even go as far as making a tactical camera mode for ME, similar to DA, and you would have your pause function that way. DA's tactical view would be much better and more efficient that ME's poor pausing function anyways.
Having a more dense environment doesn't lead to more immersion, culture, or depth. There is no causation there. Thessia is not one street and a few bridges. The Citadel isn't just a few pathways in the Zakera Ward. Adding more content to those places will not fix the problem. The issue is lack of scale. Why can't I explore all of the Citadel? Why can't I explore entire cities in Thessia? The only way to create that culture and depth, as I said before, is building actual cities populated with people and all sorts of activities. Much like I said with TES, it would be even better if these NPCs actually had schedules, homes, and moved about during the day rather than staying in the same place 24/7. There is a lot BioWare can do to increase depth and the amount of culture in their games, but lack of space is the issue.
All I'm hearing are excuses and double standards. First you argue Skyrim is shallow, yet I refute that by saying it has more lore than Mass Effect and you deflect by saying "I was never one for reading a bunch of dusty books when there's still people to stab." You then say "Adequately presenting the culture of a world through the environment and people is hard," yet this is exactly what TES has been doing for a long time. I'll just assume you never played Morrowind, but it is by far the most realized and fleshed out world in any video game. The books have always been a source of lore, but you learn plenty more from talking to people, exploring and seeing the various cities and cultures, learning about their biases and religious views, the politics and what they think of other races, etc. Skyrim and Oblivion were not as successful at fleshing out a world, but they are still far from dead and lifeless. They have much more depth and culture than any Mass Effect game.
You complain about the overuse of bandits and yet all you fight in Mass Effect are limitless numbers of Geth, Collectors, mercenaries, Husks, Cerberus, I can go on... Every complaint you seem to have is something that Mass Effect fails to address, and even more so because it is smaller. In TES, at least most of the NPCs actually have unique names and schedules. Most NPCs in Mass Effect you either can't talk to or they are just labeled as the name of their species. They are merely ambient sound to give an illusion there is life in the game.
The only aspect BioWare games have done exceptionally well in is telling a story and building relationships. They have never made believable worlds with depth. That is why they are going the open world route. That is why DAI was the first step. BioWare realizes one of their biggest flaws is the fact these locations don't come across as places that are lived in. They want to build an actual galaxy for us to explore, while also maintaining those relationships with the companions and everything that comes with that. If you want depth and culture, you should be in favor of increasing the size as that's exactly what more space will do. As it is right now, BioWare literally has no space to actually simulate a culture and cramming more content in an already small environment will not resolve anything.
Many people do not understand how search engines works. I'm not trying to offend, but based off of reading the sort descriptions under the links, nowhere did any of them say "Far Cry 3 co op good." Most of them only said Far Cry 3 co op with good nowhere in sight. Again, it would have been more beneficial to use connectors to make sure that certain words were within a certain amount of other words or within the same paragraph, etc. Either way, I guess even trash will appeal to some players. Ubisoft Montreal clearly listened to the majority though, as they gave us the coop we actually wanted in the sequel.
If the items are purely cosmetic in the main game, why would you care? I am 100% anti micro-transactions and as long as they don't impede my ability to play the game, they can throw in as many as they want. I'd rather not see them at all, but video games are a business and EA has to get those gullible enough to waste money on imaginary pixels. I'd much rather have micro-transactions that produce different armor sets or weapons that can be achieved in the game instead of their ME3 MP gambling system of buying crates to get crap nine times out of ten.
Coop makes a lot of sense, on the contrary. Consider what your companions are. BioWare games are not truly "solo" like most games actually are. You always have a party and companions with you. There are very few exceptions when you are alone in ME. I don't see why another player somehow defies everything Mass Effect is. It would actually make sense to be able to call in friends in the N7 or Systems Alliance if you need backup. You aren't Superman. Shepard always had helped, and I don't see the difference between either having a companion or a player. The biggest benefit is we wouldn't have to rely on a lousy AI system.
That's an interesting way of describing Mass Effect. Sure there is some level of tactical control and you have abilities to compliment the shooter aspect, but they far from define the franchise, in my opinion. On the contrary, quite a few fans actually hate Mass Effect's combat and preferred how it was in ME1. Some never liked the combat at all, which is why BioWare put in a casual mode so people could just enjoy the story. It's the story that really is the defining aspect of Mass Effect. Combat is important, but it's far from perfect, and I hope it continues to receive massive overhauls like it did in the previous games. Whether they have a niche or not, you don't get better by staying the same. Also, where did I say MENext would be Far Cry in third person? Please refer me to that comment.
I want integrated coop. Something many BioWare fans have wanted since KotOR 1. Far Cry 4 is merely an example. There are plenty of others. You don't have to care for my suggestion and clearly you don't, as you believe a pause function is more valuable than coop. Fantastic. We'll see what BioWare thinks of the matter.
Bioware nearly nailed the formula for their franchise in ME3....nearly. If it wasn't for the ending and making the game a little bit too streamlined (which I didn't have a problem with at all) for fans of the previous games it would have probably been lauded as one of the greatest games of all time. (Which I think it is anyway)
If they had made another 20 singleplayer dlc's for ME3 I would have bought them all. That's how much I love the singleplayer experience. That's how dialed in the games format is at this point. If they had kept giving me new stories to play through I would have bought them all without a second thought. This is coming from a guy that thinks that ME3 multiplayer is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
My point is there is no need to reinvent the wheel with ME4. All they really need to do is REFINE and EXPAND upon the current sp and mp formats which are already great while making absolutely sure they totally nail the story and character portion of the game.
BioWare did nail the formula, regardless of what people think of the ending. However, that was last generation. Every new generation of hardware BioWare revamps and overhauls their previous game philosophy. What was "perfect" then will no longer be "perfect" now. Expectations change. Technology changes. The franchise needs to grow and not fall into stagnation. Mass Effect 3 was very good at what it was created to do. It's still a very poor game in many other aspects, specifically with lack of and linearity in environments. Change is good.
Again, I would value much more a multiplayer experience that actually makes sense with the main game and follows the core pillars of a BioWare experience. The ME3 MP has no connection to the main game at all, other than the forced EMS requirement. I don't want a cheap, generic multiplayer that I can play in other shooters. What I want is a multiplayer experience that is unique to BioWare and that ties into their philosophy of gaming. That is what an integrated cooperative experience has the capacity to do. The ME3 MP is stagnant and has nowhere to go or expand to. It's just a separate entity built for micro-transactions. It may as well just be a standalone game that another studio creates. It has no bearing on Mass Effect at all.
Retour en haut