Maybe have multiple modes. Keep the horde mode. But have the new mode be more of a progression through a level and co-op mission.
What ME4MP really needs are game modifers like Citadel DLC's Armax Arena has.
Mixed enemies, adjustable wave composition, selectable objectives, more/less health+shields, optional Cobra+Heavy Weapons etc.
I'd keep "coop missions "away from MP and add an option to join other players SP missions as squadmates.
Really? Wow, I'm gonna have to ignore you. You are so full of yourself it's bordering on hubris. I used to know people like you. Note, used to. Watch Dogs, a beautiful game? Wow.
If I'm so full of myself, why are you still here? Don't like what I have to say...? Don't respond.
On a side note, Watch_Dogs is actually a great game and deserves more respect than it receives. Faults on the part of an incompetent publisher should not tarnish what is a great start to a brand new IP. Thankfully there are great mods that restore the game to its original graphic prowess during E3 2012.
Maybe have multiple modes. Keep the horde mode. But have the new mode be more of a progression through a level and co-op mission.
The MP would be more tolerable if there was at least more variety. Having something that offers more depth and a bit more purpose would be nice. I just find killing waves of mindless mobs to be terribly boring as games have been doing this particular game type for over a decade. I'd still prefer outright coop, but that's just me.
What ME4MP really needs are game modifers like Citadel DLC's Armax Arena has.
Mixed enemies, adjustable wave composition, selectable objectives, more/less health+shields, optional Cobra+Heavy Weapons etc.
I'd keep "coop missions "away from MP and add an option to join other players SP missions as squadmates.
This is definitely an idea. If players had more control over the MP in terms of options, that could help avoid its current failings of being a tedious, redundant grind. Definitely an integrated coop has nothing in common with a separate MP and should be treated entirely differently in that regard.
Really? Wow, I'm gonna have to ignore you. You are so full of yourself it's bordering on hubris. I used to know people like you. Note, used to. Watch Dogs, a beautiful game? Wow.
Just quoted this to state my view to you. Which is a ME3 MP system while it did kinda fit the "hight of the reaper war" theme in ME3 would not fit the theme of exploration next ME is wanting to present. It is also not co-op in the way it just replaces the other team with AI and rounds with waves.
Someone earlier sugested side-ops and free roam have the option to be co-op, and to have a dedicated co-op story that does not cfoss over to the SP story or effect SP in any way. This is a method I believe would succede in the next ME if it indeed does what we're being told
Just quoted this to state my view to you. Which is a ME3 MP system while it did kinda fit the "hight of the reaper war" theme in ME3 would not fit the theme of exploration next ME is wanting to present. It is also not co-op in the way it just replaces the other team with AI and rounds with waves.
Someone earlier sugested side-ops and free roam have the option to be co-op, and to have a dedicated co-op story that does not cfoss over to the SP story or effect SP in any way. This is a method I believe would succede in the next ME if it indeed does what we're being told
Right. But they can't have a game full of exploration and nothing else. Or, rather, let me say that they can't have a game that's full of exploration and nothing else and have it not suck.
Right. But they can't have a game full of exploration and nothing else. Or, rather, let me say that they can't have a game that's full of exploration and nothing else and have it not suck.
Tell that to ME1. 75%-85% of it was exploring. It was just made trying to accomplish too much in the remaining 25%-15%. They learned theire lesson. Now we need to give them a chance. ME was never intended to be the ultimate TPS future war sim it became known as. It was people over-reacting to a new game that was obviously going to need refinement that made devs scared to even try improving on the ME1 formula. I often wonder how great 2 &3 could have been if people had gave the devs a chance. Hopefully with the next ME I'll get my answer.
Tell that to ME1. 75%-85% of it was exploring. It was just made trying to accomplish too much in the remaining 25%-15%. They learned theire lesson. Now we need to give them a chance. ME was never intended to be the ultimate TPS future war sim it became known as. It was people over-reacting to a new game that was obviously going to need refinement that made devs scared to even try improving on the ME1 formula. I often wonder how great 2 &3 could have been if people had gave the devs a chance. Hopefully with the next ME I'll get my answer.
Agreed. Exploration is an underrated feature in many games. People hear the terms "large environments" or "open world" and they just assume the worst and that the game lacks depth and consistency. This is patently false and some of the most successful games of all time (GTA, Skyrim, WoW, etc.) have proven that people love open world experiences and exploration. There is a sense of wonder and joy you can gain from exploration and nothing else. In ME2/3 we were increasingly limited in what we could explore and see. I don't want that for Mass Effect going forward.
There is so much great material from ME1 that BioWare could revisit. As well as the integration of coop to enjoy that massive experience with a friend? Already an instant success. Not everything in a BioWare game has to be driven by cinematics and set pieces. Sometimes, it's just nice to let the player decide and make the decision rather than the game doing it.
Agreed. Exploration is an underrated feature in many games. People hear the terms "large environments" or "open world" and they just assume the worst and that the game lacks depth and consistency. This is patently false and some of the most successful games of all time (GTA, Skyrim, WoW, etc.) have proved that people love open world experiences and exploration. There is a sense of wonder and join you can gain from exploration and nothing else. In ME2/3 we were increasingly limited in what we could explore and see. I don't want that for Mass Effect going forward.
There is so much great material from ME1 that BioWare could revisit. As well as the integration of coop to enjoy that massive experience with a friend? Already an instant success. Not everything in a BioWare game has to be driven by cinematics and set pieces. Sometimes, it's just nice to let the player decide and make the decision rather than the game doing it.
People assume the worst because people have seen the worst. Consistently. Pointless collectibles strewn about the AC games, towers pervading every Ubisoft franchise, bugs and instability plaguing Bethesda games, and fetch quests littering the Hinterlands and beyond. Are any of these guaranteed to happen in open world? No, of course not but unfortunately, they are common pitfalls of the genre. While MENext has the potential to pull a quality open world (though, I find it unlikely given Bioware's history), It takes simple mathematics to prove that less covering area allows for more depth to occur. I think that's a very acceptable trade off. I can say with a decent degree of confidence that DA:I would have been better had its environments been cut down a little. It didn't need to be mutilated to the point of linearity, but a smaller scope helps maintain consistent quality.
I don't question the relevance of open worlds in gaming, but I don't think it's necessary in the Mass Effect universe. I may be skeptical towards the supposed benefits that going open world may provide, but I do not, nor have I ever, question the relevance of exploration in Mass Effect. It is absolutely imperative for a sci-fi game like Mass Effect to have some form of discovery. Contrary to what you may or may not believe, this can be achieved without wandering some landscape. Some of the greatest exploration I've ever done was in the confined rooms of Gone Home. Obviously, I don't expect MENext to contain the same level of minute detail nor the level of linearity required to achieve it, but it can strike a balance between the two.
Even if MENext were to have larger areas, why restrict it to only a few large landscapes? Why not have a large variety of smaller areas? Mass Effect is about the galaxy, it shouldn't keep the player occupied with one large region.
I too have grown tired of the needless haste Bioware has shoved into Mass Effect's pacing, but that has little to do with linearity. Once Bioware looses their obsession with grand wars with ancient evils, they'll begin to slow down. All open worlds would likely do is needlessly pad out the pacing with meaningless activities like hunting parties and tower raids which aren't characteristic of Mass Effect.
Smaller scope doesn't mean more cinematics and set pieces, it means more focus. Do I want Mass Effect to be on rails? Of course not, but a bit of focus can help keep the game engaging and consistently detailed. It doesn't matter if it's with a friend or not; if the game suffers from pacing issues or a bunch of padded content, the overall experience will be worse.
People assume the worst because people have seen the worst. Consistently. Pointless collectibles strewn about the AC games, towers pervading every Ubisoft franchise, bugs and instability plaguing Bethesda games, and fetch quests littering the Hinterlands and beyond. Are any of these guaranteed to happen in open world? No, of course not but unfortunately, they are common pitfalls of the genre. While MENext has the potential to pull a quality open world (though, I find it unlikely given Bioware's history), It takes simple mathematics to prove that less covering area allows for more depth to occur. I think that's a very acceptable trade off. I can say with a decent degree of confidence that DA:I would have been better had its environments been cut down a little. It didn't need to be mutilated to the point of linearity, but a smaller scope helps maintain consistent quality.
I don't question the relevance of open worlds in gaming, but I don't think it's necessary in the Mass Effect universe. I may be skeptical towards the supposed benefits that going open world may provide, but I do not, nor have I ever, question the relevance of exploration in Mass Effect. It is absolutely imperative for a sci-fi game like Mass Effect to have some form of discovery. Contrary to what you may or may not believe, this can be achieved without wandering some landscape. Some of the greatest exploration I've ever done was in the confined rooms of Gone Home. Obviously, I don't expect MENext to contain the same level of minute detail nor the level of linearity required to achieve it, but it can strike a balance between the two.
Even if MENext were to have larger areas, why restrict it to only a few large landscapes? Why not have a large variety of smaller areas? Mass Effect is about the galaxy, it shouldn't keep the player occupied with one large region.
I too have grown tired of the needless haste Bioware has shoved into Mass Effect's pacing, but that has little to do with linearity. Once Bioware looses their obsession with grand wars with ancient evils, they'll begin to slow down. All open worlds would likely do is needlessly pad out the pacing with meaningless activities like hunting parties and tower raids which aren't characteristic of Mass Effect.
Smaller scope doesn't mean more cinematics and set pieces, it means more focus. Do I want Mass Effect to be on rails? Of course not, but a bit of focus can help keep the game engaging and consistently detailed. It doesn't matter if it's with a friend or not; if the game suffers from pacing issues or a bunch of padded content, the overall experience will be worse.
I think we are seeing different things when I say open world(I admit it covers a broad definition to me. Skyrim style huge to Sniper Elite 3 style open areas are all open world to me). I mean a series of decently made open areas. I will use ME1 to clarify. I think ME1 had too many planets. If there were half as many planets they could have better made each environment. I also agree AC is a bad example, but because it focuses on 1-3 environments(motly cities). I think ME1 could have had flora and fauna we could learn about on each planet as well as mineral deposits minus the button press mini-game.
People assume the worst because people have seen the worst. Consistently. Pointless collectibles strewn about the AC games, towers pervading every Ubisoft franchise, bugs and instability plaguing Bethesda games, and fetch quests littering the Hinterlands and beyond. Are any of these guaranteed to happen in open world? No, of course not but unfortunately, they are common pitfalls of the genre. While MENext has the potential to pull a quality open world (though, I find it unlikely given Bioware's history), It takes simple mathematics to prove that less covering area allows for more depth to occur. I think that's a very acceptable trade off. I can say with a decent degree of confidence that DA:I would have been better had its environments been cut down a little. It didn't need to be mutilated to the point of linearity, but a smaller scope helps maintain consistent quality.
I don't question the relevance of open worlds in gaming, but I don't think it's necessary in the Mass Effect universe. I may be skeptical towards the supposed benefits that going open world may provide, but I do not, nor have I ever, question the relevance of exploration in Mass Effect. It is absolutely imperative for a sci-fi game like Mass Effect to have some form of discovery. Contrary to what you may or may not believe, this can be achieved without wandering some landscape. Some of the greatest exploration I've ever done was in the confined rooms of Gone Home. Obviously, I don't expect MENext to contain the same level of minute detail nor the level of linearity required to achieve it, but it can strike a balance between the two.
Even if MENext were to have larger areas, why restrict it to only a few large landscapes? Why not have a large variety of smaller areas? Mass Effect is about the galaxy, it shouldn't keep the player occupied with one large region.
I too have grown tired of the needless haste Bioware has shoved into Mass Effect's pacing, but that has little to do with linearity. Once Bioware looses their obsession with grand wars with ancient evils, they'll begin to slow down. All open worlds would likely do is needlessly pad out the pacing with meaningless activities like hunting parties and tower raids which aren't characteristic of Mass Effect.
Smaller scope doesn't mean more cinematics and set pieces, it means more focus. Do I want Mass Effect to be on rails? Of course not, but a bit of focus can help keep the game engaging and consistently detailed. It doesn't matter if it's with a friend or not; if the game suffers from pacing issues or a bunch of padded content, the overall experience will be worse.
That's a nonsensical statement as I have seen some pretty terrible linear experiences that weren't open world. Assassin's Creed hasn't even been an open world game until arguably AC4. Before that, there were load screens between cities and they were contained cells. Dragon Age Inquisition is receiving astounding reviews and it won Game of the Year at The Game Awards, of which all of the judges were major gaming journalist companies. I'm not quite sure where you are concluding that DAI was somehow not successful. On the contrary, BioWare has proven that open world works and that it actually does make their games better. This is merely more evidence they should follow suit in the next Mass Effect.
Again, I think it's better if you see BioWare Montreal's vision for the next Mass Effect instead of discrediting the entire idea before it's even shown. The original trilogy did some things well (story, although some will argue this), but many other things poorly. This is the time for BioWare to truly revamp the franchise and make it better than it has ever been.
Retour en haut