There wasn't much dialogue concerning those two in the trilogy. Very few and far between. Especially class. So, they're gonna have to incorporate it into the next game much more than previously seen in order to consider it "a lot of work".
That's precisely the point. BioWare haven't exactly nailed down all the options they've given us so far and adding more isn't going to help that. If anything, more variation will only make the existing, albeit relatively poor, depth even worse.
That is an opinion, not a fact. I didn't give one **** about Shepard's back story, because it wasn't one I would've written. It didn't enhance my gaming experience, it hampered it because I felt shoehorned into a specific person, whereas leaving it more open allows the player to interpret the character as they'd like to.
It's not that hard, it's called imagination.
Sounds like you should try out a Bethesda game instead. The Elder Scrolls and Fallout 3 + NV have a looot of room for the kind of imagination you seem to miss. I'd rather Bioware kept to their own way of story-telling, however.
A way I thought of doing this would be to write a bunch of characters and let the player pick which one to play while using the others as squadmates. Each one would have a surname and a default class, personality, appearance, and first name. Although there would be more dialogue to write, there would be no additional voice actors needed and from a storytelling replay perspective you could learn about a characters back story as a companion and then delve into more depth by playing as them. The writers wouldn't have to write any more back stories at all, just flesh them out and change opening depending on player choice.
Now that's actually really interesting! Kudos for coming up with something original 
it would be quite different from Bioware's style, but if done correctly it could provide a really fascinating story with a tonne of replayability. Especially if choosing Character A would lead you to, say, one of two possible endings because of their personality, while Character B would branch out in a different conclusion due to a different personality. Maybe choosing Character C would mean Character A objects to their leadership and either leaves the party or fights you. There could be an unparalleled degree of character interaction and tension.
It's got loads of potential, but I don't really see it happening. I think Bioware would deem it too likely to alienate their core playerbase (and they'd probably be right). But maybe a different developer picks it up, if they haven't already, or Bioware could try it out if their current recipe for RPGs grows too stale?
you have to feel sorry for Bioware, it going to be hard to please both side here, not impossible but hard.
Indeed. There are many people for and against this. I'm really excited to see what they end up doing.
I wish E3 would hurry up. I'm sure we're going to get tons of Mass Effect info there (hopefully).
Indeed. There are many people for and against this. I'm really excited to see what they end up doing.
I wish E3 would hurry up. I'm sure we're going to get tons of Mass Effect info there (hopefully).
it should be around the time for a teaser trailer then, assuming MEnot4 will be a 2016 game.
Switching to companion characters during combat would let you switch classes on the fly which is something I've always wanted in single player.
This would defeat the purpose of role-playing for half the gameplay experience. Taking you out of the role of a single entity you're trying to play as, renders you as a type of puppet master rather than someone that's an individual grounded in the game world.
If you allow players to experience every class on a single playthrough, it hurts replayability and essentially makes it stale. I'm not against limited species selection (Human, Asari, Turian), but I'm not for watering down the immersion anymore than it already has been. Allowing us to step into the shoes of any class on a single playthrough would certainly do exactly that.
If they're only going to allow us to play as a human protagonist, then just make multiplayer for the aliens. No need to spread the singleplayer experience thin.
The only way I'll accept multiple races is if I can play as a Turian. Otherwise, gtfo.
you have to feel sorry for Bioware, it going to be hard to please both side here, not impossible but hard.
Damn it Bioware, if only you just stopped making such great games I'd feel less opinionated about them.
Still, assuming that everything else is constant or only slightly affected, having a great game WITH playable aliens would make a lot more people happy than having a great game WITHOUT them.
No matter what they do, they will not please everyone.
Guest_Caladin_*
No matter what they do, they will not please everyone.
And with that in mind, hopefully they just knuckle down and make the game they want and not one that will have alot of half arsed features to keep the "majority" pleased with the end result being an overall poorer game
Well, we tend to agree. I've always said that fan service is a detriment to creativity and overall quality.
I don't believe that multiple races are workable at all in this franchise. One of the things that always draws people toward turian, asari or krogan characters is that they often have dialogue that greater reflects what they are and their respective roles in galactic society. When mashed together into a single protagonist, much of this is bound to be simplified. You won't have those special dialogue options littered all over the place for that turian, or drell, or asari, or batarian, or krogan or quarian whatever. It would basically amount to window dressing for a human protagonist.
Unless they replaced that respecitive squadmate with a human if you choose to go with an alien protagonist. Those conversations are still possible.
This would defeat the purpose of role-playing for half the gameplay experience. Taking you out of the role of a single entity you're trying to play as, renders you as a type of puppet master rather than someone that's an individual grounded in the game world.
If you allow players to experience every class on a single playthrough, it hurts replayability and essentially makes it stale. I'm not against limited species selection (Human, Asari, Turian), but I'm not for watering down the immersion anymore than it already has been. Allowing us to step into the shoes of any class on a single playthrough would certainly do exactly that.
If they're only going to allow us to play as a human protagonist, then just make multiplayer for the aliens. No need to spread the singleplayer experience thin.
The vast majority of players stick to the solider class and don't even make it to the end of the game let alone replay it which says to me that the current arrangement isn't working particularly well for the majority of players. Rather than detract it would encourage players to sample more of the game mechanics and it would enhance variety by giving you just a small taste of the full suite of other class(es)/powers; featuring a handful of largely character and race specific powers for each character with unique movement, gear and play styles which couldn't necessarily be replicated. I'd think of it more as a logical extension of the tactical view which you could use or not at your leisure to break up boredom during lengthy combat sequences. Dragon age inquisition had a similar feature... Did it spoil your immersion?
The vast majority of players stick to the solider class and don't even make it to the end of the game let alone replay it which says to me that the current arrangement isn't working particularly well for the majority of players.
When you say the "majority of players" you are essentially referring to the casual crowd. Whom, yes, don't even finish the game and would much rather play multiplayer in the first place.
So yeah, I don't care, nor relate to them. If the relevance is on the story and a role-playing experience, then let Bioware focus their talents on that. Leave the alien class experiementing to multiplayer for 'most' of the casuals. Which is the embodiment of the majority. Not the 'core' base.
I understand how a more predefined character is a better option for some people because it allows them to better connect with that character. However it also runs the risk of creating a major disconnect for other people. think of ME1 Shepard vs ME3 Shepard ME1 shepard was less defined and allowed for a greater amount of role playing while on the other hand ME3 shepard is more defined and for some people it improve their connection with shepard while people like myself, this ruined shepard for me at certain moments in ME 3 I wanted to strangle shepard likewise in halo 4 I play through the single player once. I didn’t care about master chief or his story however my Spartan from the Spartan OPS I loved and was very invested in their story after all I had a hand in creating them choosing their armor I was given more agency there and grew a stronger attachment to them just like in Skyrim I’ve put in a 1000 plus hours into that game and that’s because I get to create my characters which I become more invested in them and care more about them.
I just hope bioware gives us more freedom with the next protagonist to role play this time
I don't see how you really were able to have a lot of agency over your Spartan in Spartan Ops. All you did was customize the armor. Otherwise, there was literally no definition given or customization ability than being the stock mute protagonist with no past or background.
I agree with the idea that ME1 and ME2 allowed a certain amount of customization to the PC that ME3 seriously lacked. However, there's a fine line between acceptable customization, and going too far with it that it impedes the story.
I don't know, i mean of course we can all write down where our sweet-spot is between predefined characters vs. as much freedom as possible.
Both sides of the spectrum have their positives and negatives, at least potentially. I don't think there is the best way to do it. It's up to taste, basically.
And isn't that really something BioWare has to decide for themselves? Because that is one of the fundamental questions they have to ask themselves at the very beginning of the conceptual phase and then try to do the best what they can while sticking to that decision. Pretty similar to how slick and clean the overall graphical design should be vs. dirty and gritty. There is no right or wrong, just a decision based on taste (or artistic expression if you will).
So, let them do that and see what comes.
I guess I don't really care about this argument about resources. EA is a billion dollar company, either they are willing to invest the resources necessary to make a great game or they are not. Its not like the few extra million dollars it takes to make playable species is going to make or break ME4, Bioware or EA. They have that much in their couch cushions and they surely will make it all back with their shitty Gamestop Exclusive DLC and XBox One timed-exclusive Payola. Please, don't sympathize for EA's finances, they have more than enough to make an incredible game and they have absolutely no problems milking us for every penny.
All games are expensive, no one is creating a AAA game with a discount or on a cheapo budget.
Nah, i'm actually not argueing from a budget point of view.
It's just that there are limits to what makes sense when you give the player too much freedom and still want a tight narrative which is told in pretty, moving pictures.
But the more urgend question is really: what is it that you want to let the player experience: minecraft or a telltale adventure? Those two can meet somewhere in the middle, sure. But a perfect experience with the strength of both? It's not physically possible. Never ever.
EA may be a billion dollar company, but they have more than just BW making games for them. As well, you can throw as much money as you want at a game and all you'll get back is a game that's never finished. Budgets exist for a reason.
It really is a case of not having your cake and eating it too.
Guest_TrillClinton_*
EA may be a billion dollar company, but they have more than just BW making games for them. As well, you can throw as much money as you want at a game and all you'll get back is a game that's never finished. Budgets exist for a reason.
It really is a case of not having your cake and eating it too.
I guess I don't really care about this argument about resources. EA is a billion dollar company, either they are willing to invest the resources necessary to make a great game or they are not. Its not like the few extra million dollars it takes to make playable species is going to make or break ME4, Bioware or EA. They have that much in their couch cushions and they surely will make it all back with their shitty Gamestop Exclusive DLC and XBox One timed-exclusive Payola. Please, don't sympathize for EA's finances, they have more than enough to make an incredible game and they have absolutely no problems milking us for every penny.
All games are expensive, no one is creating a AAA game with a discount or on a cheapo budget.
I'm not sympathizing with EA, I'm sympathizing with the developers. They're given finite time and finite resources and have to turn that into a work of art. EA isn't worried about about making great games, they're worried about making money. Conveniently, making great games will probably make them a lot of money. I won't argue that EA has a ton of money or that a bit too much of it goes towards marketing, but we can't change that. We also can't change how much money BioWare is going to get for their project; it's determined by EA execs who, despite what you might think, actually know what they're doing.
What we can "change," (as much as any forum of fans can actually change anything) is where BioWare decides to focus their efforts.
Hey God, can I have a pony?
No.
How about a toy truck.
Retour en haut