129 réponses à ce sujet

[wolfhowwl]

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.

 

Removing it did help though. If a certain feature is bad enough to bring down the overall game and you aren't able to improve it because your limited resources are being spent elsewhere then it should be scrapped rather than forcing people to deal with it again.

 

People like to blame ME2 for removing things instead of nebulously "improving" them but maybe ME1 shares some blame for leaving so many things in a state that they would have to be scrapped and rebuilt from scratch.

[StrangerPasingBy]

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".

 

It's just me bringing a challenge to bioware about seeing just how unique they can make something. Playing these bioware games lately (DA series, Mass effect series, kotor) it's obvious they know how to make a great game with a great story where we the players have options and can shape the world around us. But then play it again making different choices and see how similar either way is when it comes to dialogue or just what events unfold. In other words, If they were making these games great games years ago during the time of kotor or the first ME then I think it's only a matter of time before Bioware makes the next leap in the uniqueness of the choices where choice A, B and D now don't just lead to one outcome but choice A leads to one and Choice B leads to another. Some choices are already like that but most are like the former. I mean look at the recent games and the time of Kotor and the first ME. Only real difference is graphics. In other words I can't wait to see Bioware make that next innovative leap that makes the world come alive even more so than they are now. The Mass Effect series was a masterpiece after just beating it and look forward to their next installments.

[Majestic Jazz]

Removing it did help though. If a certain feature is bad enough to bring down the overall game and you aren't able to improve it because your limited resources are being spent elsewhere then it should be scrapped rather than forcing people to deal with it again.

People like to blame ME2 for removing things instead of nebulously "improving" them but maybe ME1 shares some blame for leaving so many things in a state that they would have to be scrapped and rebuilt from scratch.

ME1 was the first in the series so of course everything wont be fleshed out. ME2 came and fleshed out the cinematics and combat, but also TOOK OUT exploration instead of just fleshing it out like they did with combat.

[Kurt M.]

They'll surely won't say anything until E3 at least. But having in mind the engine change, maybe some official info is even further away

[ShadyKat]

I hope we don't see anything from ME:N at E3. Bioware needs to stop being forced into rushing it's games out. The more time they take to get this game right, the better. Considering some of the fails BW has had in it's past couple titles, I really don't want to see the franchise become a lackluster or watered down version of it's previous self. Please take all the time you need Bioware, I can wait for 2017 if it means getting a complete and amazing game.

Bioware has been working on the next ME for like 3 years now. That isn't exactly rushing a game out. Especially if it's not coming out until next year. That will be 4 years the game will be in production.

[Sanunes]

 

ME1 was the first in the series so of course everything wont be fleshed out. ME2 came and fleshed out the cinematics and combat, but also TOOK OUT exploration instead of just fleshing it out like they did with combat.

 

Just because it wasn't in the final product doesn't mean they didn't try to get it to work in some fashion, but they couldn't get it to work out.

 

They'll surely won't say anything until E3 at least. But having in mind the engine change, maybe some official info is even further away 

 

It has been in development for probably two to three years which is a pretty standard cycle for full development for a sequel and they basically had two teams working on getting the functions working in Frostbite since they were also developing tools the same time as the Dragon Age: Inquisition team.  I am thinking they will be giving us new information during E3 or at least one of the major showcases this year.

 

Bioware has been working on the next ME for like 3 years now. That isn't exactly rushing a game out. Especially if it's not coming out until next year. That will be 4 years the game will be in production.

 

I agree three to four years is generally the length of a cycle for a game to be release anything less rarely turns out good and anything more has its own set of issues.

[JeffZero]

ME2 was put out in 26 months, so the possibility is always there. But when shifting so many things, as ME4 is, that would never turn out half as well.

[Torgette]

ME2 was put out in 26 months, so the possibility is always there. But when shifting so many things, as ME4 is, that would never turn out half as well.

 

ME2 was also a sequel where they could refine a lot of concepts and had a pretty tight narrative as well. Say what you will about ME:N going to another galaxy and going open world but that's a pretty ambitious move and will need a lot more time and breathing room to get right. If it needs 18 more months that's cool with me, just drip feed me twitter stuff and i'll be good. 

[themikefest]

ME2 was also a sequel where they could refine a lot of concepts and had a pretty tight narrative as well. Say what you will about ME:N going to another galaxy and going open world but that's a pretty ambitious move and will need a lot more time and breathing room to get right. If it needs 18 more months that's cool with me, just drip feed me twitter stuff and i'll be good. 

Too bad ME3  couldn't have the extra time it needed for the amount of stuff that was in the game

[Sanunes]

Too bad ME3  couldn't have the extra time it needed for the amount of stuff that was in the game

 

I really don't know if any extra time would have helped some of the issues in Mass Effect 3. To me one of the issues I think I saw with the game is there wasn't enough new blood to the team so they developed blind spots.

[Oldren Shepard]

You know one thing, when they release something, the wait will even be worse.

[themikefest]

I really don't know if any extra time would have helped some of the issues in Mass Effect 3. To me one of the issues I think I saw with the game is there wasn't enough new blood to the team so they developed blind spots.

I believe it would've made a difference. How much? I don't know. That opportunity has come and gone

[JeffZero]

ME2 was also a sequel where they could refine a lot of concepts and had a pretty tight narrative as well. Say what you will about ME:N going to another galaxy and going open world but that's a pretty ambitious move and will need a lot more time and breathing room to get right. If it needs 18 more months that's cool with me, just drip feed me twitter stuff and i'll be good.

And switching studios, and plenty of creative positions within carried-over personnel, and switching engines, and and and. Yeah, no, I completely agree.

[wolfhowwl]

ME1 was the first in the series so of course everything wont be fleshed out. ME2 came and fleshed out the cinematics and combat, but also TOOK OUT exploration instead of just fleshing it out like they did with combat.

Yeah, it's almost like they had finite time and resources and chose to focus on some things instead of spreading themselves thinly...again.

[Majestic Jazz]

Yeah, it's almost like they had finite time and resources and chose to focus on some things instead of spreading themselves thinly...again.

The point is that Bioware lost focus. Instead of refining the weaknesses of ME1 while expanding on what made ME1 great, they choose to focus mainly on the shooter demographic which meant they had to take out the core RPG elements (like exploration).

So it had nothing to do with them not having enough time or resources but rather them not sticking with the formula.

If the leaks are to be true, ME4 is taking more inspiration from ME1 and not ME2 or even ME3 for that matter. I say thank God!

[Sanunes]

The point is that Bioware lost focus. Instead of refining the weaknesses of ME1 while expanding on what made ME1 great, they choose to focus mainly on the shooter demographic which meant they had to take out the core RPG elements (like exploration).

So it had nothing to do with them not having enough time or resources but rather them not sticking with the formula.

If the leaks are to be true, ME4 is taking more inspiration from ME1 and not ME2 or even ME3 for that matter. I say thank God!

 

There were plenty of weaknesses in the first Mass Effect game and the combat was one of them too and if they focused on the exploration and left the horrible combat in people would be saying they ignored the core gameplay to focus on the optional boring content.  Exploration needed a complete overhaul and it could be a simple bit of not having enough time or people to get it to work the way they wanted.

 

If BioWare lost focus with Mass Effect 2 it would have been a flawed game and they would have shoehorned every feature people wanted into the game instead of making a good game while removing what they needed to so the game would work.

[RoboticWater]

The point is that Bioware lost focus. Instead of refining the weaknesses of ME1 while expanding on what made ME1 great, they choose to focus mainly on the shooter demographic which meant they had to take out the core RPG elements (like exploration).

So it had nothing to do with them not having enough time or resources but rather them not sticking with the formula.

If the leaks are to be true, ME4 is taking more inspiration from ME1 and not ME2 or even ME3 for that matter. I say thank God!

It's entirely about not having enough resources. The only reason ME2 had vastly improved level design and detail was because the levels were smaller. And the only reason ME2 had good gameplay was that they started from scratch, worked exclusively on the core mechanics, and didn't add any half-assed systems on top of it. Had BioWare spent their time refining all the awful parts of ME1, they would have spread themselves just as thinly and we probably would have ended up with a slightly less crappy version of ME1.

 

Like it or not, shooting takes up the vast majority of Mass Effect's gameplay, and BioWare were keen to refine that. They didn't forget what Mass Effect was about, which, incidentally, is more about exploring cultures than barren rocks. They built a fun game from the ground up so that subsequent iterations could expand on a firm foundation.

 

ME4 is quite lucky. Because of ME2 and ME3's success (due in no small part to their tight combat), BioWare have all the time in the world to add in all the RPG mechanics they dropped after ME1. Had they not appealed to the shooter audience (and become generally more fun along the way), Mass Effect might not have made it this far.

 

Honestly, I'd prefer ME4 didn't lean so much on ME1's ideals. Exploration is all well and good, but when I hear "100s of explorable planets," I get the sense that every planet's going to look visually indistinct and house the same 5 boring activities.

[wolfhowwl]

The point is that Bioware lost focus. Instead of refining the weaknesses of ME1 while expanding on what made ME1 great, they choose to focus mainly on the shooter demographic which meant they had to take out the core RPG elements (like exploration).

So it had nothing to do with them not having enough time or resources but rather them not sticking with the formula.

If the leaks are to be true, ME4 is taking more inspiration from ME1 and not ME2 or even ME3 for that matter. I say thank God!

 

Combat is the primary means of interaction in Mass Effect (and BioWare games in general). It had to be a priority. When your game design requires the player to gun down a battalion of Geth, mercenaries, and husks it needs to be at least halfway decent. ME1 was abysmal.

 

ME1 is a classic example of a developer overextending themselves and delivering a game that had severe problems across the board. There is bad implementation piled on top of bad design.

 

-Terrible combat

-RPG elements that were both shallow and poorly implemented

-Possibly the worst inventory ever

-Very poor loot

-Exploration that consisted of boring filler in lifeless terra-gen wastelands and sidequest asset reuse rivaling DA2

-Severe technical problems

 

What exactly made ME1 "great" and what is the "formula" here? Is it to spread yourself thin again and only be able to make marginal improvements to bad mechanics and hope that you'll get away with it again? You can't handwave away having to deal with all that with finite resources with vaguely "refining weaknesses" here. 

 

You say that BioWare lost focus. However the core of ME1 was the story missions which consisted of TPS combat and the NPC interaction through the dialogue trees. This is what they focused their limited resources on and they consolidated their resources there to work on more robust scenarios and a more interesting cast in ME2. Mordin and Legion's content contained more meaningful world building than all the uncharted worlds combined.

 

What they dropped was wandering boring not-Mars planet #35 picking up Matriarch writing #43 on the way to copy-paste dungeon #8 in the poorly implemented, tacked-on, optional exploration and tedious RPG elements like the loot. The exploration was very bad and requires significant investment to do right (there is also reason to believe that this is outside BW's skillset) and things like looting were superfluous anyways.

 

Also if we want to talk about meaningful RPG elements for the next ME game we should look more at what Alpha Protocol and Deus Ex: Human Revolution did right and less at ME1's shallow boring features.

[KaiserShep]

The point is that Bioware lost focus. Instead of refining the weaknesses of ME1 while expanding on what made ME1 great, they choose to focus mainly on the shooter demographic which meant they had to take out the core RPG elements (like exploration).

So it had nothing to do with them not having enough time or resources but rather them not sticking with the formula.

If the leaks are to be true, ME4 is taking more inspiration from ME1 and not ME2 or even ME3 for that matter. I say thank God!

 

Focusing more on the shooting mechanic was probably one of the best things they could have done. ME1 feels like a confused hybrid that isn't sure if it actually wants you to use weapons. And I hope to never see an inventory system like ME1's. Ever. Again.

 

As for exploration, the sad reality of ME1 was that you landed on one terrestrial world, you pretty much landed on all of them.

[JeffZero]

I find it kinda strange that MJ is so happy about what ME4 sounds to be doubling down on when he was decidedly unhappy with DAI.

I know you find exploration as a focus more fitting here, but if it comes at the expense of segmenting (and at times, truncating) the cinematic aspects of the game, will you not be dissatisfied?

[Booth]

The point is that Bioware lost focus.

 

The point is that they had to make a decision. More RPG or more Shooter. To build another not so good hybrid would have been the worst thing they could do. So they DID make a decision... against RPG and they DID focused... but on the shooter. To say that focussing on shooter would be losing the focus is for me rather strange.

 

Of course anybody can dislike this kind of focus and this kind of decision they made. I liked it, although I also like playing RPGs... but in my opinion they made a good decision, because ME2 and ME3 are much better shooter-games than ME1 is. Story is in my opiniion MUCH better, because the crew-members are all unique and deeply build characters. Especially the crew-members known from ME1 show much more depth in ME2 than in ME1.

 

But you are right... avatar char development, looting stuff, exploring a world... this all was nearly terminated. And I doubt that Bioware is able to create such an emotionally deep story in combination with lots of exploring stuff in the game. But... we will see another try in ME4 - and I do hope that I am wrong

[Helios969]

I believe it would've made a difference. How much? I don't know. That opportunity has come and gone

Only if that assumes we'd have gotten an entirely different ending...which is the root problem of the game.  All other perceived flaws would have been largely ignored/accepted if ME3 would have left us feeling the way ME2 had.  Personally, I don't think another year of development would have changed that 'cause a certain person or people were keen on delivering the ending we got.

[JeffZero]

I'm of the strong opinion had the ending been a flawless universally-celebrated success story plenty of people would have lit the fires of internet vitriol over other issues.

[Helios969]

Yeah, people will complain regardless, but not to the extent ME3 had during the first year of release.  Not sure if you were around but it was an absolute tsunami of negativity.

[JeffZero]

I was at ground zero, even. I was aware of the endings ten days ahead of the release. It was a nightmare, I know.