81 réponses à ce sujet

[Pasquale1234]

But how much roleplaying does an open world offer Mass Effect? I can understand how a freeform approach can enhance a loose narrative or loose gameplay (or quite often, both) and I fully endorse more open hubs and level design; however, I don't see the appeal of absolute freedom if it means muddled down mechanics.

I believe I mentioned the open world approach being at odds with Bioware games. I'm not sure what 'mechanics' has to do with it.
 

How much roleplaying value did ME1's terrain actually offer? That's a legitimate question. For me, it was mostly busywork going from one end pf the map to another, but I don't tend to get into character. I can see a certain novelty in picking your own path, but it didn't offset the boring linear bits I'd ultimately had to do.

Is there an important mission on the planet? How urgent is it? How urgent does Shepard think it is? Does Shepard care about searching for resources? Is Shepard curious about the contents of downed space probes? Will Shepard rush to complete an urgent mission, and then take her time exploring - or check everything out en route to the mission location? How much does Shepard care about the mission? What are her personal motivations for doing it? Would she rather take the Mako over mountaintops, or drive the long way around? Will Shepard drive around the enemy outpost, picking off enemies from afar - or rush in with the Mako? What kind of strategist is the character?

Role-play can be about a lot more than which dialogue option you select, if you choose to make it so.

And I'll take this opportunity to reiterate that role-play in open worlds works much better in games like Fallout and Dragon's Dogma than in games with tight story agendas, like Bioware's.
 

I must disagree entirely about your first point. If anything, ME3 showed that BioWare are expanding the size and design of their levels. I remember quite a few of ME3's battles occurring on open fields or large atria.

Some of the levels in ME3 were indeed bigger than ME2's corridors. But since it uses duck-n-cover mechanics, most areas were cluttered with cover. Or just stuff. On more than one occasion, Shepard got killed trying to take cover behind something that looks like cover, but isn't.

The way the controls are mapped (on PS3) is a real problem for me. The same button (X) is used to sprint, take cover, climb over a barricade, and roll - so what Shepard does on any given press of X is entirely contextual. So if you want to, for example, sprint to a barricade and take cover behind it, you have to time the release and re-engagement of controls just right, or you'll climb over the barricade instead of taking cover behind it. Try to take cover with the camera at not quite the right angle, and you'll roll away from cover. It's frustrating when your character doesn't do what you want them to do. And, yeah, some of that is on me - but I've had a lot of fun with other action games with control mapping that works for me.
 

That's much better than ME1's pointless walking and prefab missions.

You mean the optional sidequests? I sometimes use optional sidequests for the rewards and / or role-play purposes.

[RoboticWater]

You gotta keep in mind ME1 was well the first, and as such was just as much one huge experiment as it was a game. I think there quite a few people who overlook that fact(not asumeing you are just saying).

While ME1 was an experiment, I don't want to give it too much leniency. Good design starts on a solid foundation and expands from there. It's clear that ME1's core mechanics weren't very well polished, yet BioWare went forward and layered content on top of it anyway. They kept adding more and more levels despite the fact that the ones they had were only decent at best. IMO, BioWare should have nailed down depth before they moved onto breadth. Although I might give the impression that I think ME1 is just the worst pile of garbage, I do think it's fun. I just don't like its design philosophy.

 

I think there are inherent problems with open world game design, and ME1 fell for all of them: wide yet hollow environments, uninspired level design, and pointless repetition. It's important I stress the "design" part of that statement, because open worlds are fantastic in theory. As I said earlier in this thread, ME1 looks great on paper. Heck, who doesn't like the idea of more freedom? Why would anyone oppose having more stuff to explore? The answer is in the execution.

 

Simply put, big environments are hard to make. They require a bunch of resources just to put together and demand even more to be put together well. Level design, shooting mechanics, art assets, story, and AI all have to work on a larger scale, and that's not an easy task. Often, it forces developers to cut corners.

 

I'm not opposed to BioWare expanding a little, but they need to be careful. ME1 cut too many corners in the vital aspects of its gameplay to cater to its size, and I hope MENext doesn't do the same.

[RoboticWater]

I believe I mentioned the open world approach being at odds with Bioware games. I'm not sure what 'mechanics' has to do with it.

It has everything to do with it. ME1's size required time and effort to pull off. Time and effort which could have been better spent on the core gameplay mechanics.
 

Is there an important mission on the planet? How urgent is it? How urgent does Shepard think it is? Does Shepard care about searching for resources? Is Shepard curious about the contents of downed space probes? Will Shepard rush to complete an urgent mission, and then take her time exploring - or check everything out en route to the mission location? How much does Shepard care about the mission? What are her personal motivations for doing it? Would she rather take the Mako over mountaintops, or drive the long way around? Will Shepard drive around the enemy outpost, picking off enemies from afar - or rush in with the Mako? What kind of strategist is the character?

Role-play can be about a lot more than which dialogue option you select, if you choose to make it so.

And I'll take this opportunity to reiterate that role-play in open worlds works much better in games like Fallout and Dragon's Dogma than in games with tight story agendas, like Bioware's.

Alright, I can see the appeal in that (that's just not how I play).

But I must ask; why didn't ME2/3's side missions provide the same roleplay value? Everything except the Mako bits could easily apply to them.
 

Some of the levels in ME3 were indeed bigger than ME2's corridors. But since it uses duck-n-cover mechanics, most areas were cluttered with cover. Or just stuff. On more than one occasion, Shepard got killed trying to take cover behind something that looks like cover, but isn't.

The way the controls are mapped (on PS3) is a real problem for me. The same button (X) is used to sprint, take cover, climb over a barricade, and roll - so what Shepard does on any given press of X is entirely contextual. So if you want to, for example, sprint to a barricade and take cover behind it, you have to time the release and re-engagement of controls just right, or you'll climb over the barricade instead of taking cover behind it. Try to take cover with the camera at not quite the right angle, and you'll roll away from cover. It's frustrating when your character doesn't do what you want them to do. And, yeah, some of that is on me - but I've had a lot of fun with other action games with control mapping that works for me.

ME2/3's controls certainly weren't the greatest, but I think they did improve the cover design. ME1 often had the same 3 crates copied, pasted, and strewn about the level in some inscrutable fashion.  I'd usually find myself just running at an enemy flinging every power in my arsenal and ending up just fine. In fact, I basically swore of cover entirely because ME1's controls were absolutely terrible. 
 
Though I may not be a huge fan of the chest high wall trope, I think abundant cover is worth it for the more methodical gameplay. It makes that game more about positioning and power usage than just shooting. 
 

You mean the optional sidequests? I sometimes use optional sidequests for the rewards and / or role-play purposes.

Again, this is mostly a matter of opinion, but I don't like the concept of missions purely for roleplay value. If they aren't that fun to play, I don't see a reason why BioWare should waste their time making them. Making a story for yourself is an important part of a game, but fun is paramount.

[StealthGamer92]

But I must ask; why didn't ME2/3's side missions provide the same roleplay value? Everything except the Mako bits could easily apply to them.
 

 

Can't speak for the person you quoted but I play with the same mindset as them, and the ME1 side quests were more vague which let me fill in blanks how I wanted and ME2&3 side quests already had their story.

[Vazgen]

I find one button approach much easier to control than ME1 "get close to get in cover". I ended up avoiding cover because getting into it took time and character was too exposed when shooting from cover. It is easier for me to time pressing Space than to rely on the game's perception of whether you are in cover or not.

[Hoge]

It's been said in this thread plenty of times already but, don't remove or cut exploration; expand and improve up on said concept. Take Mass Effect 1 maps, make them smaller but fill them with more. The next ME seems to be (from what is known/rumored) about exploration, to an extent so it wouldn't make sense to make a game focused on exploration with little to explore. I have faith.

[RVallant]

ME1 was as easy as ME2 to learn and easier to play. As soon as you get immunity or barrier and any CC the game becomes trivial, even on insanity. EA wants games easier to learn, not things that you will faceroll your way through.

 

Yeah, sure ME is an easy game as it is. The gaming crowd isn't that hot on learning things though, look at the first reply to your post; "infiltrator, insanity", I'd put money on most of the purchasers of the ME series playing on Easy or Normal and plenty struggling with anything more complicated than a boring soldier. 

 

Don't believe me? Check out most casual gaming sites, the 'big name' ones and trawl their forums, the amount of people who can't deal with simple concepts is staggering. People still struggle to get their noggins around FF8's draw system and that was as easy as 1 +1 = 2.

 

 

 

First of all, I'd like to point out that squad dialog is in no way related to shooting mechanics. ME2 might have had less squad banter (I actually don't think it does, at least on missions), but that doesn't prove that ME2 "sacrifices a lot." In fact, I think ME2 has more squad dialog in general, it's just all on the Normandy. (Don't quote me on that though)

 

Second of all, AP was criticized for a great many things, not just its poor shooting. Poor camera controls, bugs, and glitchy cover made AP feel generally awkward. Even so, I'll argue that mixing active skill and stats doesn't always work out well. If I'm aiming directly at an enemy and miss because of some stat value, I don't like it. Not because I'm dense, but because I feel cheated. Turn based games can get away with it because they focus on the player's ability to plan rather than to aim. It simply isn't fun when the game is getting in the way of my skills.

 

But most importantly, ME1 isn't an "RPG shooter," it doesn't have percentage based shooting mechanics, it's just a failed version of ME2. Of course ME2 is easier to understand, the mechanics aren't clumsily built and the maps have an actual flow to them. Sure, ME1 had a few extra stats and an inventory system, but they're just complex systems laying over a poor foundation. They don't add depth, they add confusion and a set of meager buffs. So no, ME1 wasn't all that good at what it was trying to do. While ME2 had to sacrifice a few systems, but all for the sake of fun. It made weapon choice have a significant impact and it made level ups feel significant.

 

I too fear EA statement oversimplifying their games. I don't want MENext to be a simple shooter, but I'll still advocate for as streamlined experience. Unnecessary RPG tropes like fetch quests and charisma stats should be taken out and replaced with more fluid gameplay. That doesn't mean I want BioWare to take out every complex system in the game. Quite the opposite, I want them to expand upon the solid foundation the had in ME3, but they should do so carefully. Size and complexity are not the same as fun and depth.

 

 

Squad dialog =/= shooting mechanics is a bit of a redundant statement, I was pointing out an improvement everyone latches on to that is considered a 'shooter' element and a degradation of an element that is considered an RPG element. 

 

And yes the point was the dialog on the Normandy was limited, doesn't matter how many lines there is, that's a flawed argument anyway as we're talking a team of 12 over a team of 6 it was the frequency and depth of those conversations, they were limited or felt limited a lot more than ME1 ever did. That's why you have all these memes running about of Garrus being busy with his calibrations and so on. ME3 mocked it, ME3 improved it, after each gated or casual mission there was dialog to find, new ways of conversing on a variety of different topics. Beats being stuck with Garrus calibrating for 80% of the journey until he had a tidbit to divulge.

 

Point was, the conversations were so clearly gated it didn't feel natural, it didn't lend any credence to the building of relationships and crew, not as much as ME1 and 3 did - not saying ME1 was the best out of the trio but it did things a bit more smoothly than 2. 

 

Moreover, while ME1 isn't a strict RPG % shooting element like Alpha Protocol it still retains its mechanics as an RPG-shooter. You're firing through the sight where the bullet can land anywhere in that circle as opposed to on the dot of where you aim, you're investing points to improve that accuracy as opposed to having 100% aim right off the bat. You're shooting like a moron rather than a fully trained N7 operative at the start of ME1 until you've invested enough points throughout.

 

I don't mind the changes, they were good changes but they were different. Add on the modifications of weapons, ammo and so on and you had a lot more customisation and freedom to operate Shepard and his crew in ME1 as opposed to ME2, but this is precisely why I said it was one thing among many, I don't want this post to become a full fledge post listing absolutely everything. @_@

 

As for Alpha Protocol, yeah it got hammered for a lot of things but the MAIN point was the shooting mechanics, the combination of skill point investment improving the shooting and the shooting % hit that operates in real time. See, here's *your* flaw, not because you're dense, but because you expect your 'skill' to have a straight pound for pound impact. In an RPG its your character build and skill that generally supersedes your skill. You're approaching the AP mechanics as a shooter, I approach it from the RPG method. Did you have problems with the shooting? Frustrating? Annoying?

 

Cos it was easy as buttering bread for me. *shrug*

 

It's all about how you approach these things, -let me clarify- I'm not dissing you here, you obviously game, as do I and we approach it in different ways, which means we favour different things. I like the charisma stat, I like the investment into skill points for weapons (having grown up on CRPG and D+D so...) and as a hardcore RPG fan, I dislike fetch-quests that have no grand sense of investment (hello DA:I) but there is a fineline between easy and streamlined and there's also a fine line between streamlined and watered-down linear - something I personally feel the entire ME trilogy came very close to crossing. We'll just have to wait and see what happens with 4 I guess, at least its a good thing they're giving assurances it won't be DA:I in space.

 

You gotta keep in mind ME1 was well the first, and as such was just as much one huge experiment as it was a game. I think there quite a few people who overlook that fact(not asumeing you are just saying).

 

Sums up a lot of the retrospective nitpicking on ME, for its time it was good, it still holds up well given how old it is but if it was released today it'd be shredded to bits.

[Pasquale1234]

It has everything to do with it. ME1's size required time and effort to pull off. Time and effort which could have been better spent on the core gameplay mechanics.

Uh, okay. You're assuming that all available resources could be re-assigned to develop some other aspect of the game and that the 'core gameplay mechanics' might somehow benefit if there were fewer / smaller planets to explore.
 

Alright, I can see the appeal in that (that's just not how I play).

But I must ask; why didn't ME2/3's side missions provide the same roleplay value? Everything except the Mako bits could easily apply to them.

 

Can't speak for the person you quoted but I play with the same mindset as them, and the ME1 side quests were more vague which let me fill in blanks how I wanted and ME2&3 side quests already had their story.

Pretty much this. Most of the side missions in ME2&3 are tightly orchestrated with cinematics and radio chatter. You're not freely exploring and creating your own story; you're playing through a storyline that Bioware wrote.

BTW, this whole discussion started with a very casual comment I made about role-play opportunities in open world games. I am not advocating that Bioware go that route - the biggest appeal of their games are the companion characters (and other NPCs) and stories they tell. I was not happy to learn that DAI was to have huge open areas to explore. The open world games I've played do not offer the depth of companion characters or primary storylines that I've come to expect from Bioware.
 

ME2/3's controls certainly weren't the greatest, but I think they did improve the cover design. ME1 often had the same 3 crates copied, pasted, and strewn about the level in some inscrutable fashion.  I'd usually find myself just running at an enemy flinging every power in my arsenal and ending up just fine. In fact, I basically swore of cover entirely because ME1's controls were absolutely terrible.

When I play ME1, I rarely need to take cover - and when I do, I simply step behind a crate or through a doorway.

In ME1, I have health regen, shield boost, immunity, and medi-gel. I also have a dynamic mini-map displaying enemy movements, and a HUD that displays the status of my squadmates' health, shield, barriers. ME2 took most of that away, and made me much more reliant on cover.

ME1 gave me actual numeric values I could use to select equipment. ME2 gave me a text description. ME3 bought forth a bar graph where I can compare 2 different weapons at a time - but still no numbers I could use to determine relative dps - and you don't know the actual capacity of a weapon until you equip it in combat. Weapon selection in ME2&3 is all trial and error.

I'm sorry, but I really don't understand how the removal of vital skills and information is an improvement.

In ME1, I can go all out run-and-gun fun. I could boost squadmates' shields, barriers, and use medi-gel to heal them before they went belly-up. I played it enough to get all of the trophies before I ever loaded ME2. In ME2&3, I spend a lot of time stuck behind cover (when I'm not unexpectedly climbing over it or rolling away from it). I doubt that I'll ever attempt to play either of them past Veteran difficulty. It just isn't fun for me.
 

Though I may not be a huge fan of the chest high wall trope, I think abundant cover is worth it for the more methodical gameplay. It makes that game more about positioning and power usage than just shooting.

I don't disagree with that point, but the return of HUDs for squadmates and the mini-map would make the positioning game a lot more interesting. Otherwise, you're just guessing or using metagame knowledge.
 

Again, this is mostly a matter of opinion, but I don't like the concept of missions purely for roleplay value. If they aren't that fun to play, I don't see a reason why BioWare should waste their time making them. Making a story for yourself is an important part of a game, but fun is paramount.

People have different ideas about what's fun. AAA budgets - and consumer expectations - have swollen so big, they need to appeal to a fairly broad market to get the sales needed to support the thing. Of course, as typical consumers, we all want them to devote all of their resources to the aspects of the game we like, and ignore the parts we don't.

[MrMrPendragon]

People think that making a giant map with pretty surroundings is good enough. There actually needs to be a lot meaningful stuff in it before it can be considered good.

 

What's the use of a giant map/level when all you can do is walk in it and collect something stupid like 100 shards or something.

[Mcfly616]

Can't recall anyone saying they wanted a big empty map...

[Mathias]

You can never overdue planetary exploration.

I think DA:I just proved you can.

 

Exploration is great and should be encouraged. But if there's a 95/5 ratio between Side Content and Story, then there's a problem.

[marcelo caldas]

I think you can.

 

DA:I, while not set in space, overdid exploration. You have lots of beautiful maps to explore. Unfortunately a good chunk of the content those maps are filled with is uninteresting. DA:I could have benefited from smaller maps, or from a map or three being cut, with the saved time and resources instead being used on creating more interesting side quests.

 

agreed

[marcelo caldas]

I think DA:I just proved you can.

 

Exploration is great and should be encouraged. But if there's a 95/5 ratio between Side Content and Story, then there's a problem.

 

I got lost sometimes between quests, I was on a mission than I began exploring/searching for money/herbs/metals/shards and the immersion broke several times.

Maybe if we could just buy herbs/metal from stores, or find a mine or even have someone to look for a specific kind of them would be way better.

 

Also, large maps with almost no dialog... I remenber Zhu's Hope, it had the perfect balance, exploration, sidequests, dialog. 

[Arppis]

I'm afraid they will underdo it.

 

And while I did enjoy ME2, the game was just lacking something special when it comes to side missions. And that's exploration.

 

You can always skip content if you aren't up for it. I was just dissapointed how linear the ME2 and 3 sidequests were.

[Arppis]

[DanishViking]

If you dont like to explore planets and do like sidequests well then dont xD

[Malanek]

I'm afraid they will underdo it.

 

And while I did enjoy ME2, the game was just lacking something special when it comes to side missions. And that's exploration.

 

You can always skip content if you aren't up for it. I was just dissapointed how linear the ME2 and 3 sidequests were.

Adding exploration (DAI style at least) is unlikely to make quests less linear, in fact probably the opposite because resources are diverted away.  Having a linear driving portion preceding a linear shooting portion does not make it a non-linear quest.

 

When I think about games that could be described as having non-linear missions it only applies to games where your goals can be accomplished through multiple different ways (Vampire : Bloodlines, Dishonored, Arcanum, Deus Ex) or have the outcomes change the game in a non-cosmetic manner (very difficult, only Witcher 2 really springs to mind).

 

You could say that games like Dishonored and Deus Ex allowed the player to solve things in an alternative manner through exploration, but that is a very different exploration to hopping into the Mako and driving around a planet. That was done by NOT having huge maps but having well designed secrets hidden in the maps.

[katamuro]

I hope they create different exploration and vehicle missions. Missions where you need to sneak up on enemy camps or just do some drive by shootings on some pirates. Have mission areas that are large enough to feel like its exploration but small enough for it not to feel like a chore. Make them varied enough so they are not basically the same 3 types of planet copy pasted like ME1. Taking out enemy strongholds while riding in on a tank, or using a silent, covert approach, let the player choose the way they complete the mission. 

[saladinbob]

The last thing I want to see is the next Mass Effect fall in to the same trap DA:I  did. Bioware created a big open world and then failed to fill it with interesting things to do. It's not the size of the world that's important, it's the content the world has that is, and that content needs to be fun and not endless fetch quests. I'd much rather a smaller game in size that keeps me occupied with fun and interesting things because it will result in more hours of game play than a large open world game with nothing to do.

[DanishGambit]

Not with my Infiltrator it wasn't. I never did beat it on Insanity even though I started at lvl 60 with the best gear(I even used a glitch to give him Collusus heavy armor the last 5 attempts) in the game. I gave up on it because I never saved and on Therum I kept getting killed by the collosus you have to fight on foot. Even with Ash and Wrex set up as tanks we would always die followed by hearing Joker saying "I'm getting some strange readings ahead Comander." I know it was my fault for not saveing but still.

Even if you used no biotics you still had access to dampening and overload-type abilities which took away the enemies means of defending themselves. The only problem would be Krogans since you would have no easy way to deal with them. The collosus is a pretty tedious boss and you basically just have to stay behind cover and nail it till it dies. Biotics don't affect it so those characters have to pew pew it with the pistol lol.

[StealthGamer92]

Even if you used no biotics you still had access to dampening and overload-type abilities which took away the enemies means of defending themselves. The only problem would be Krogans since you would have no easy way to deal with them. The collosus is a pretty tedious boss and you basically just have to stay behind cover and nail it till it dies. Biotics don't affect it so those characters have to pew pew it with the pistol lol.

The problem was Shep leaning out to use a tech mine then staying there and getting killed by the darn thing. I beat it yesterday though I didn't use cover just good timeing. Yay.

[StealthGamer92]

Yeah, sure ME is an easy game as it is. The gaming crowd isn't that hot on learning things though, look at the first reply to your post; "infiltrator, insanity", I'd put money on most of the purchasers of the ME series playing on Easy or Normal and plenty struggling with anything more complicated than a boring soldier. 

 

Don't believe me? Check out most casual gaming sites, the 'big name' ones and trawl their forums, the amount of people who can't deal with simple concepts is staggering. People still struggle to get their noggins around FF8's draw system and that was as easy as 1 +1 = 2.

 

 

Why point my post out? That is the only thing in ME1(which I finally beat on Insanity)that gave me any trouble. You saying that fight shoulda been easy or something? I'm not offended or anything, just curious.

[Rannik]

the mechanics dont matter as much to me as the atmosphere does. 

 

This is the mantra that characterizes bad videogames.

 

If someone is frustrated because they want to make a movie just go make a movie, even if they're not good enough for the big industry there are crowdfunding platforms and all kinds of stuff now, just don't bring more "Press X to Jason" and "The Letterbox 1886" into this world...

 

It physically hurts to see talent wasted on such trash.

 

/rant over

[goishen]

That was the thing with ME that made it such a fun game to play though.  It had okay mechanics.  The first game had okay RPG elements.  The atmosphere is what did it though.  It was what pulled you in and made you start believing.  It was what made me start believing, I know that.  Everything there was supposed to be there whether you knew it or not.  And they didn't fill the game with pictures of people's cats.

 

Also, the booming visual novel database kind'a proves you wrong.  It's mostly Japanese, so no points off for missing it though.

[Rannik]

I absolutely loved the mechanics of Mass Effect, way more than ME2/ME3.