129 réponses à ce sujet

[wolfhowwl]

I don't like DAI, but it doesn't seem rushed to me.. I know it lost some of the "keep"/military unit gameplay, but it seems like the game is accomplishing what it set out to be, for the most part. I also would've preferred they stuck with a more indepth human protagonist like they originally planned, but it still works. The issues with the fetch/sidequests seem more like design, rather than a result of being rushed. It seems like they got quite a lot of time, compared to ME3 especially....which was definitely rushed. A big chunk of ME3 had to be rewritten, because they couldn't get an extension.

 

That is where the "well managed" part mrjack mentioned comes in. Stretching your content budget so thin across so many areas, what were they thinking?

 

This isn't even the first time they've screwed up like that either, ME1's Uncharted Worlds were also filler hell and received a negative reception.

[Sanunes]

That is where the "well managed" part mrjack mentioned comes in. Stretching your content budget so thin across so many areas, what were they thinking?

 

This isn't even the first time they've screwed up like that either, ME1's Uncharted Worlds were also filler hell and received a negative reception.

 

 

I agree and that is what I never understand, people will complain about Dragon Age: Inquisition, but will say Mass Effect did it right which always baffles me for to me both were pointless and empty feeling.

[Majestic Jazz]

I agree and that is what I never understand, people will complain about Dragon Age: Inquisition, but will say Mass Effect did it right which always baffles me for to me both were pointless and empty feeling.

1) The Uncharted World missions werent the bulk of the game nor was it required to progress the story.

2) The open world design of the UC worlds werent the main draw for ME1. It was interactive dialog with a fully voiced protagonist and the ability to make choices and have to live with them. With DAI, the open world was part of the main marketing.

3) The UC "fetch quest" didnt account for ~90% of the game's content like they did with DAI.

4) ME1 didnt play like an offline MMO.

[blahblahblah]

That is where the "well managed" part mrjack mentioned comes in. Stretching your content budget so thin across so many areas, what were they thinking?
 
This isn't even the first time they've screwed up like that either, ME1's Uncharted Worlds were also filler hell and received a negative reception.

But the linear corridor shooter mechanic of the sequels are not well receive either.

[Sanunes]

1) The Uncharted World missions werent the bulk of the game nor was it required to progress the story.

2) The open world design of the UC worlds werent the main draw for ME1. It was interactive dialog with a fully voiced protagonist and the ability to make choices and have to live with them. With DAI, the open world was part of the main marketing.

3) The UC "fetch quest" didnt account for ~90% of the game's content like they did with DAI.

4) ME1 didnt play like an offline MMO.

 

1) I disagree, those side missions are only required for a little while because you can complete the game without doing them all which is the complaint I see.  Combine that with needing to do those planets for the Tali's quest makes them just as mandatory.

 

2) If you bought Dragon Age: Inquistion because it was an open world game, then I don't see the complaint because that is what the game is.  You can play it as a dull open world game or skip a lot of the game and focus on the primary story missions.

 

3) I can complete Mass Effect 1 in about three hours, but when I go looking for everything it takes about 30 hours, Dragon Age: Inquisition has been reported to take about 20 hours if you rush, but my 100% took about 110 hours.  It seems to be a high ratio to get all those uncharted missions done.

 

4) You got me there, but then again Dragon Age: Origins felt a lot like Dragon Age: Inquisition to me.

[wolfhowwl]

But the linear corridor shooter mechanic of the sequels are not well receive either.

 

The sequels? ME1's story missions, the strongest (and arguably only worthwhile) content, also consisted of almost entirely small linear areas to play around in (as far as shooter mechanics go ME1's combat was terrible and the cover mechanism was busted).

 

What changed between ME1 and ME2 was that they cut the bolted-on exploration with the poorly received terra-gen wastelands filled with amateurish filler leaving the core story content which consisted of BioWare's usual corridors.

 

While BioWare's level design certainly deserves criticism some of the complaints about "corridor shooters" felt a little disingenuous given how the combat spaces in ME1's story missions were designed. The amount of retroactive praise that ME1's exploration (and the game in general) got as some sort of contrarian backlash against ME2 chopping the feature entirely was a little ridiculous. There is probably some rose-tinted goggles in effect given that the planets weren't too different from DA:I's overstuffed filler zones and those are being absolutely blasted with vitriol.

 

On the subject of level design, I would like to see them improve it and since BioWare Montreal handled the multiplayer, I hope something that they took away from it is how much better it felt to play on the larger MP maps that gave you multiple ways to approach an enemy mob, flanking routes, and lines of retreat. The combat really benefited from room to breathe as opposed to the corridor-heavy campaign.

[Torgette]

1) I disagree, those side missions are only required for a little while because you can complete the game without doing them all which is the complaint I see.  Combine that with needing to do those planets for the Tali's quest makes them just as mandatory.

 

2) If you bought Dragon Age: Inquistion because it was an open world game, then I don't see the complaint because that is what the game is.  You can play it as a dull open world game or skip a lot of the game and focus on the primary story missions.

 

3) I can complete Mass Effect 1 in about three hours, but when I go looking for everything it takes about 30 hours, Dragon Age: Inquisition has been reported to take about 20 hours if you rush, but my 100% took about 110 hours.  It seems to be a high ratio to get all those uncharted missions done.

 

4) You got me there, but then again Dragon Age: Origins felt a lot like Dragon Age: Inquisition to me.

 

I just think DAI can slow to a grind in the open world due to its style of gameplay, give the horse a gun like the mako and we're in business! 

[Majestic Jazz]

4) You got me there, but then again Dragon Age: Origins felt a lot like Dragon Age: Inquisition to me.

And thats the point. ME1 played like an Action-RPG while DAI was an attempt to be like Skyrim which in the end felt like an offline MMO.

As for my point about the game being open world. I did not buy it cause of that, but that does not mean you can ignore the fact that Bioware was touting over 100 hours of gameplay that can be done in these massive diverse worlds "full of life". I mean, the hub worlds of Mass Effect werent busting with life either, but they had WAY more interaction than what we got with the Orlesian Market. Compare that place to ME1's Citadel.

[Helios969]

I'm definitely ready for ME Next.  Very curious how they will blend "open-worldness" with that 3rd person shooter style we've come to know and love.  I am very excited to see what kind of imaginative and expansive environments they can create after see what they did with DAI.  The visuals should be epic.  They definitely need to achieve a better balance between openness and narrative; putting mechanisms in place to keep us focused on story and having exploration purely as something a player chooses to engage in.  After seeing how much they improved with JOH I'm perhaps more optimistic than others.  They also need to figure out a way to keep difficulty balance so the OCD completionist remains challenged similarly as someone who focuses purely on story.  Not sure how that is best accomplished (some type of enemy level scaling,) but one of the downsides of DAI is you can quickly over-level the game.

[TheJester000]

I disagree. I'm pretty sure what problems DA:I had (and I contend that they were very minor) were the result of scope management issues at the management level, which all the time in the world wouldn't cure.

 

I'm not even talking about content or quality of the game, DAI needed another year just to fix all the bugs and glitches and in that regard, it had huge problems. How many patches have we recieved and the game is still a mess. No game should launch incompletely like that, but it happens so often these days that people are starting to accept it as normal.

[pdusen]

I'm not even talking about content or quality of the game, DAI needed another year just to fix all the bugs and glitches and in that regard, it had huge problems. How many patches have we recieved and the game is still a mess. No game should launch incompletely like that, but it happens so often these days that people are starting to accept it as normal.

 

Not that I'm belittling your problems, but I'm not convinced that the bugs people experience are really all that widespread. When a Triple-A game has serious and widespread problems, you hear about it practically everywhere, like when Mortal Kombat launched recently. With DA:I, on the other hand, you practically never hear about major issues except for here.

 

Certainly, in my case, aside from one or two CTDs in my whole playtime, I haven't run into any issues, although I realize that's anecdotal.

[KaiserShep]

With software, any site dedicated to it is gonna be like a hospital: sick people everywhere.

[ShadyKat]

E3 isn't that far off. Pretty sure we will get something at E3 about Mass Effect 4.

[TheJiveDJ]

I really don't blame BW; they are being cautious. They don't want to over-hype the new game because of what happened with ME3. They probably want to maintain low expectations for as long as possible until EA starts pushing for pre-orders. Also, its almost a brand new start for the IP; they probably haven't much to show until now. I'm guessing they want the unveiling of this game to be as perfect and show-stopping as possible so people forget about ME3; this requires a careful, well thought out marketing strategy, and razor precision when it comes down to what they will and won't show.

 

Just some thoughts.

[Sanunes]

And thats the point. ME1 played like an Action-RPG while DAI was an attempt to be like Skyrim which in the end felt like an offline MMO.

As for my point about the game being open world. I did not buy it cause of that, but that does not mean you can ignore the fact that Bioware was touting over 100 hours of gameplay that can be done in these massive diverse worlds "full of life". I mean, the hub worlds of Mass Effect werent busting with life either, but they had WAY more interaction than what we got with the Orlesian Market. Compare that place to ME1's Citadel.

 

I would agree there was more NPC banter at The Citadel (that got annoying when it cycled), but I would argue the point that I think Skyhold was done better then the Normandy, so wouldn't it just be a draw for one area was better in each game?

 

At the end of the day I think its all about a personal bias and how a person interprets what is being said, for I had an English Professor once say "English is a messy language and it is very easy to interpret something in a manner that wasn't intended by the author."

[Golden_Persona]

But the linear corridor shooter mechanic of the sequels are not well receive either.

Pure ignorance. ME1 had just as many corridors. However, ME1 also had small boxed in areas that were all nearly identical that you were told to shoot around in. At least ME2 designed each area of the game to feel unique. Having several new areas of each hub world unlock during recruitment and loyalty missions was also well done. It was only poorly received by people too blind to see that "corridor shooting" had always been a part of ME's gameplay since the beginning, or people who disliked ME1's design as well.

 

I also laugh at the notion that being a corridor shooter is a bad thing, considering ME2's corridors had upgrades, guns, and resource crates that helped you with your mission, that were decently scattered throughout each mission compared to ME1 where 98% of loot crates carried useless garbage in them. It also meant that depending on the class you were playing, the recommended mission order would change as Engineers would want to do Garrus' mission early to get the tech damage upgrade, while Adepts would probably enjoy doing Jack's for the biotic upgrades. Which in turn affected which party members you had available for each mission, which meant different varieties of dialogue for each squadmate.

 

Being that the corridor shooting is part of the core gameplay of any ME game in reality, and that ME will always be regarded as one of the best series in gaming, and definitely either at the top or in the top 5 for best series of the last generation, I'd say that "poorly received" is reserved for the minority. Also ME3 wasn't poorly received because of its gameplay. It was the ending which then paved the way for nitpick after nitpick to keep the hate bandwagon alive. ME1 and ME2 had their own fair share of writing flubs, but notice how hardly anyone mentions them, because it had enough good things in the eyes of gamers to keep them satisfied. Mess up even a little bit with the ending of a beloved franchise though and you've set off a bomb of fan disdain.

[Torgette]

Pure ignorance. ME1 had just as many corridors. However, ME1 also had small boxed in areas that were all nearly identical that you were told to shoot around in. At least ME2 designed each area of the game to feel unique. Having several new areas of each hub world unlock during recruitment and loyalty missions was also well done. It was only poorly received by people too blind to see that "corridor shooting" had always been a part of ME's gameplay since the beginning, or people who disliked ME1's design as well.

 

I also laugh at the notion that being a corridor shooter is a bad thing, considering ME2's corridors had upgrades, guns, and resource crates that helped you with your mission, that were decently scattered throughout each mission compared to ME1 where 98% of loot crates carried useless garbage in them. It also meant that depending on the class you were playing, the recommended mission order would change as Engineers would want to do Garrus' mission early to get the tech damage upgrade, while Adepts would probably enjoy doing Jack's for the biotic upgrades. Which in turn affected which party members you had available for each mission, which meant different varieties of dialogue for each squadmate.

 

Being that the corridor shooting is part of the core gameplay of any ME game in reality, and that ME will always be regarded as one of the best series in gaming, and definitely either at the top or in the top 5 for best series of the last generation, I'd say that "poorly received" is reserved for the minority. Also ME3 wasn't poorly received because of its gameplay. It was the ending which then paved the way for nitpick after nitpick to keep the hate bandwagon alive. ME1 and ME2 had their own fair share of writing flubs, but notice how hardly anyone mentions them, because it had enough good things in the eyes of gamers to keep them satisfied. Mess up even a little bit with the ending of a beloved franchise though and you've set off a bomb of fan disdain.

 

Yeah, ME1 had open areas connecting corridors but the corridor part was always part of it. Also I loved the combat in ME2 and ME3, not sure how they were poorly received?

[Seyd71]

First, I loved the combat in ME2 and ME3, ME1 was okay, but when I played Insanity I basically spammed Immunity and had to shoot a few guys for ten minutes straight to kill them. 

 

Second, I doubt the new ME game is getting much coverage because it's a new game sharing the universe with the Shepard Trilogy, whose ending insulted and disappointed gamers everywhere. Also, I use the word sharing loosely, considering they're supposedly throwing out the Milky Way.

[mrjack]

They just announced Assassin's Creed: Syndicate and it's coming out in October! Yes it will probably be buggy and crap but oh how I wish ME:Next was coming out in 2015. If ME:N came out on that exact date, ME:N and DAI would have had the same amount of dev time.

 

I keep reading dev tweets about how amazing the game looks and I wanna SEE.

[blahblahblah]

Pure ignorance. ME1 had just as many corridors. However, ME1 also had small boxed in areas that were all nearly identical that you were told to shoot around in. At least ME2 designed each area of the game to feel unique. Having several new areas of each hub world unlock during recruitment and loyalty missions was also well done. It was only poorly received by people too blind to see that "corridor shooting" had always been a part of ME's gameplay since the beginning, or people who disliked ME1's design as well.

 

I also laugh at the notion that being a corridor shooter is a bad thing, considering ME2's corridors had upgrades, guns, and resource crates that helped you with your mission, that were decently scattered throughout each mission compared to ME1 where 98% of loot crates carried useless garbage in them. It also meant that depending on the class you were playing, the recommended mission order would change as Engineers would want to do Garrus' mission early to get the tech damage upgrade, while Adepts would probably enjoy doing Jack's for the biotic upgrades. Which in turn affected which party members you had available for each mission, which meant different varieties of dialogue for each squadmate.

 

Being that the corridor shooting is part of the core gameplay of any ME game in reality, and that ME will always be regarded as one of the best series in gaming, and definitely either at the top or in the top 5 for best series of the last generation, I'd say that "poorly received" is reserved for the minority. Also ME3 wasn't poorly received because of its gameplay. It was the ending which then paved the way for nitpick after nitpick to keep the hate bandwagon alive. ME1 and ME2 had their own fair share of writing flubs, but notice how hardly anyone mentions them, because it had enough good things in the eyes of gamers to keep them satisfied. Mess up even a little bit with the ending of a beloved franchise though and you've set off a bomb of fan disdain.

What I mean is that they remove the exploration part of the game instead of improving it. Yeah, the exploration part sucks but removing it doesn't help either. The Hammerhead exploration is good but short. Heck, they even remove the inventory part instead of improving it.

[Sanunes]

 

What I mean is that they remove the exploration part of the game instead of improving it. Yeah, the exploration part sucks but removing it doesn't help either. The Hammerhead exploration is good but short. Heck, they even remove the inventory part instead of improving it.

 

They changed the inventory system and didn't remove it.  It might not have been a system you like, but there is still an inventory system they just removed picking up endless loot that you just discard, but you still pick from an assortment of weapons and armors to wear.  Then improved it greatly with Mass Effect 3 with having more options and mods.

[StrangerPasingBy]

I just hope our major decisions will matter as in which species you let live since that's about the only decisions that will have an effect on ME4. For example, if you let the krogans or geth live it should show in ME4 but I know Bioware likes to do a one size fits all things so I'm guessing they'll make it so whether you did or did not help the krogans some conflict will results or maybe not the krogans or something else. Just hoping that some of those decisions still matter since what was the point of saving certain species from extinction and uniting everyone if it's all going to hell at the end for the sake of making everything equal for everyone? you get what I mean?

[mrjack]

Even if you didn't cure the genophage there is no reason to think that the krogan would go instinct.They were still having offspring , it was just that the survival rate was reduced to what it was to pre-industrial levels, which in turn kept the population stable.

 

They managed to survive for thousands of years with the genophage so I don't know why they would die out all of a sudden.

[Sanunes]

I just hope our major decisions will matter as in which species you let live since that's about the only decisions that will have an effect on ME4. For example, if you let the krogans or geth live it should show in ME4 but I know Bioware likes to do a one size fits all things so I'm guessing they'll make it so whether you did or did not help the krogans some conflict will results or maybe not the krogans or something else. Just hoping that some of those decisions still matter since what was the point of saving certain species from extinction and uniting everyone if it's all going to hell at the end for the sake of making everything equal for everyone? you get what I mean?

 

The problem is personal expectations for if you just want to have some dialogue that is what BioWare does, if you want entire sections of the game to be designed to accommodate a selection I just don't see that happening because its a no-win situation for they will get critized that they "our decisions don't matter" but if they do they will get "they are lazy because the game doesn't go far enough to acknowledge 'x' choice".