129 réponses à ce sujet

[Torgette]

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!

 

I bought a 360 just for Mass Effect 1, loved that game and its combat, but long term i'm glad they made the changes they did. The combat in ME2 and 3 is fantastic and still very fun, while 1 hasn't exactly aged very well.

[Golden_Persona]

The endings imo are what opened the flood gates. ME2 had its fair share of problems with...

 

Hub worlds being smaller with less in them.

A lot of party members that got focus during their recruitment, loyalty missions and Normandy conversations, but didn't say much outside of generic battle quotes

Having the least amount of powers

Lazarus Project totally shattering the lines between science fiction and just pure fantasy

Lesser main story arc than ME1

A more linear mission structure that had a set way to complete them, where ME1 allowed you to take different routes to solve the problem depending on morality

A more complicated paragon and renegade system that wasn't clearly explained

Not forwarding the overall ME story arc enough, which paves the way for the implausibly convenient Reaper off-switch

 

However the game goes out with an absolute bang with the suicide mission which, if you do it without a guide, is nothing short of nervwracking wondering how many people are going to make it, and who should be used for which job (with hints spread out throughout the game that only a keen eye would able to catch, which meant actually learning your crew and their strengths and weaknesses). Heck, even the final boss of the game is one of the laughing stocks of the series, but people look past it because of a satisfying ending.

 

Maybe they couldn't change a lot with an extra few months of development, and maybe the ending stays exactly the same. But Priority: Earth is by far the worst mission in the series, even as someone who will defend the endings until the end. It's linear, it's quite short, it doesn't challenge the player beyond a "lets throw 100 Banshees at the player for the obligatory massive horde mode" final push a lot of games have, and your choices don't change how the mission is structured. It would have been better if Shepard was allowed to command certain forces, depending on who is around, to do different tasks. Imagine having spared the Rachni Queen and the Geth, and being allowed to choose who joined Shepard to complete task A while the other tries to complete task B, which would result in group B's annihilation. You would then get to fight alongside who you chose as you took down that 100 Banshee wave. I'd love to watch updated Rachni AI fight against Reaper ground troops with Shepard. If Bioware could have done those things with the final mission, I doubt the backlash would have been as bad. Then again, a charity group wouldn't have gotten some nicely colored and baked cupcakes. At least the irrational backlash produced some good in the community.

 

I mean thanks to the endings we'll never hear the end of how awful people think the writing was (translation: things didn't happen the way they personally wanted), auto-dialogue, choices that didn't matter even though arguably they never mattered much beyond a few changes here or there. Oh, and completely nonsensical claims that ME3 is a Gears of War clone that somehow has less RPG elements than ME2 (huh?) that leads to irrational fears of ME:N being a CoD FPS clone (what is this I don't even...)

 

You know, despite classes having far more potential for specialized and unique builds. A huge arsenal of guns that have their own unique situations where they excel at or fail it which adds an element of pre-preparing for a mission which also plays into creating unique builds, compared to ME1's awful inventory system and leveling system filled with boring passive boosts which means the second you unlock a power it stays the same for the rest of game with no real sense of evolution or progression. Don't even get me started on multiplayer and how it massively extended the variety of powers in the series that will hopefully make their way to the SP campaign without needing mods in ME:N.

[Golden_Persona]

Oh, and I agree with everything that was said about the transition between ME1 and ME2/3. ME excels when there is a balance between combat, and conversations with NPCs that give so many unique details and angles to see the Mass Effect universe in. Them focusing on those things made Mass Effect a better series. Now that those things have been established to the point that not so many resources need to be poured into them to change them, if they can just nail down the other parts of ME1 that needed serious fine-tuning we can all hopefully be happy. If every aspect of the series can be refined with ME:N we could be in the midst of another golden trilogy...

 

....Or it can lead us into Inquisition in space (I didn't mind the side quests, but the overall story suffered dearly for it. That's not a compromise I'm willing to make). Maybe that's why the leak, if true, decided to focus on those exploration aspects because we already expected the other aspects. Cheers for hope.

[Sanunes]

The endings imo are what opened the flood gates. ME2 had its fair share of problems with...

 

Hub worlds being smaller with less in them.

A lot of party members that got focus during their recruitment, loyalty missions and Normandy conversations, but didn't say much outside of generic battle quotes

Having the least amount of powers

Lazarus Project totally shattering the lines between science fiction and just pure fantasy

Lesser main story arc than ME1

A more linear mission structure that had a set way to complete them, where ME1 allowed you to take different routes to solve the problem depending on morality

A more complicated paragon and renegade system that wasn't clearly explained

Not forwarding the overall ME story arc enough, which paves the way for the implausibly convenient Reaper off-switch

 

However the game goes out with an absolute bang with the suicide mission which, if you do it without a guide, is nothing short of nervwracking wondering how many people are going to make it, and who should be used for which job (with hints spread out throughout the game that only a keen eye would able to catch, which meant actually learning your crew and their strengths and weaknesses). Heck, even the final boss of the game is one of the laughing stocks of the series, but people look past it because of a satisfying ending.

 

Maybe they couldn't change a lot with an extra few months of development, and maybe the ending stays exactly the same. But Priority: Earth is by far the worst mission in the series, even as someone who will defend the endings until the end. It's linear, it's quite short, it doesn't challenge the player beyond a "lets throw 100 Banshees at the player for the obligatory massive horde mode" final push a lot of games have, and your choices don't change how the mission is structured. It would have been better if Shepard was allowed to command certain forces, depending on who is around, to do different tasks. Imagine having spared the Rachni Queen and the Geth, and being allowed to choose who joined Shepard to complete task A while the other tries to complete task B, which would result in group B's annihilation. You would then get to fight alongside who you chose as you took down that 100 Banshee wave. I'd love to watch updated Rachni AI fight against Reaper ground troops with Shepard. If Bioware could have done those things with the final mission, I doubt the backlash would have been as bad. Then again, a charity group wouldn't have gotten some nicely colored and baked cupcakes. At least the irrational backlash produced some good in the community.

 

I would agree the Priority: Earth wasn't very good, but the complaints rarely included the mission for I think a majority of them purely focuses on the final fate of Shepard or how bad the final choice was for it didn't include their choices or it was unrealistic to how they believed their Shepard would have acted.

[Sanunes]

Oh, and I agree with everything that was said about the transition between ME1 and ME2/3. ME excels when there is a balance between combat, and conversations with NPCs that give so many unique details and angles to see the Mass Effect universe in. Them focusing on those things made Mass Effect a better series. Now that those things have been established to the point that not so many resources need to be poured into them to change them, if they can just nail down the other parts of ME1 that needed serious fine-tuning we can all hopefully be happy. If every aspect of the series can be refined with ME:N we could be in the midst of another golden trilogy...

 

....Or it can lead us into Inquisition in space (I didn't mind the side quests, but the overall story suffered dearly for it. That's not a compromise I'm willing to make). Maybe that's why the leak, if true, decided to focus on those exploration aspects because we already expected the other aspects. Cheers for hope.

 

The big problem with Inquisition and why I don't think it will be the same issue in Mass Effect is because they felt players would stop grinding areas to completion and move on, at least that is what I took from an interview.  For my personal preference I rather have exploration like Inquisition (without the Power system) then what was in Mass Effect 1. Aside from the two characters I imported to Mass Effect 2, I never landed on any uncharted world unless it was for a primary or companion mission and then I basically just went to the point already on the map and left.

 

If it is any indication a lot of the core systems in Mass Effect have been flushed out and only require tweaking now even with moving to a new engine they have the framework and designs that work they just need to re-create them.

[Majestic Jazz]

Lol you guys are funny. Say what you want but it WAS about Bioware losing focus. It wasnt about having thin resources but about EA wanting ME2 to appeal to a base that is more than just RPG. EA wanted a part if the Gears of War/COD crowd and thus they (Bioware) made the design decision to ditch exploration which was too RPG centric and focus on combat. It was a decision that was about $$$$, and not time/resources.

As for me hating DAI, well, it wasnt about exploration but other stuff like:

- Bland protagonist due to multiple races
- Lack of cinematic conversations

Also I liked the exploration, I just felt like it wasnt meant for someone of the IQ's status to be doing. With ME4, I doubt we will be the leader of some large organization. We will probably be some junior N7 military officer so exploration would make sense in the context of the story.

Finally, I am glad that it "seems" that ME1 is being used as the template instead of ME2 and ME3. The exploration needed more polishing in ME1 but instead they dropped it like a hot potatoe in the next games. Its great to know that they are looking into it for a 2nd time with the refined mako and all.

When I think of space I think of the unknown, which opens the door for exploring.....the unknown. With ME1 I felt like I was small because the depths of space was so expansive. I didnt get that in ME2/ME3 as they felt more like corridor shooters. Back during ME2's time RPGs werent the huge fad that shooters were. Now with hits like Witcher 2 and Skyrim, RPG exploration is making a comback and for Bioware it started with DAI but will be refined with ME4 like it or not.

Remember, ME1 was an RPG game that had shooter elements. ME2 and ME3 are really shooter games with RPG elements. Looks like ME4 is going to be more of a RPG game.....with shooter elements.

[JeffZero]

I still maintain my somewhat unfortunate predictions that BioWare as a developer is pursuing more exploration-based, open-world-ish systems as a rule, and that we won't be seeing ME2/ME3 levels of uber-focus on cinematic content again. In analyzing their previous efforts and in relative financial terms to rival studios, the writing is likely on the wall to them that courting a large quantity of newcomers involves approaching their projects with a stronger emphasis on things which will have a higher degree of monetary priority than story flow and "real" conversations with all the NPCs in the game world.

I hope I am wrong, and I will very likely still find ME4 worth its price tag, especially when DLC which may go further toward giving existing fans more of what they want is factored into the equation. But unless the marketing campaign ends up suggesting otherwise, I'll hold on to the lingering belief that "Inquisition in Space" is indeed what we'll be seeing... just, better-realized in some ways thanks to things like a better handle on Frostbite and a lack of cross-gen concerns.

[Cheviot]

Wow, the camera being zoomed out a bit during conversations really hit you hard, didn't it, Jeff?

[JeffZero]

Wow, the camera being zoomed out a bit during conversations really hit you hard, didn't it, Jeff?

Don't get me wrong, I like DAI. More than MJ, anyway! That was a design decision I was pretty adamantly against from the day it was announced, though, as it did what I feared: made all non-essential conversations appear distant, impersonal. There's a lot of script in that game that's brilliantly delivered but missing the facial presence to drive it home.

That said, there's still a fair amount of full cinematic conversation content, so it's not a total loss. Some claim there's as much as there was in Origins, but... I dunno that I'd go that far!

[Vazgen]

I'm not sure if protagonist being bland is due to having multiple playable races. Dragon Age Origins has multiple playable races and Warden is not bland IMO.

 

Non-cinematic dialogue of DAI is an evolved version of Zaeed-style conversations from ME2 and ME3. If anything, I'd say that was an improvement. But I do agree that those do not carry the same impact as cinematic conversations. 

I'm not sure how widespread are those non-cinematic conversations in DAI. I've watched Solas's romance arc on YT and there a lot of cinematic conversations. 

[JeffZero]

They're pretty widespread. Virtually anyone you ever encounter in any of the game's 11 open world regions converses with you evolved-Zaeed style, for starters. Ditto with every non-essential NPC at the game's version of the Normandy.

[Laughing_Man]

Regarding the original question, to ask "where is the hype" is to invite trouble.

Perhaps the biggest failing of many video game in the last few years, was too much hype, and too little actual quality gaming.

[JeffZero]

Regarding the original question, to ask "where is the hype" is to invite trouble.
Perhaps the biggest failing of many video game in the last few years, was too much hype, and too little actual quality gaming.

Many publishers have seen the possible permanency of the backlash against initiating marketing campaigns too early, too, which is why I believe ME4 could have been initially unveiled a while ago but it was decided that refraining would be far wiser.

[Vazgen]

It's the mix of multiple races + little origin story (which DAO had). Also, the Chantry and Orlesian crisis are pretty specific conflicts. It would be better served with a specific problem solver too. Not the generic handwavey messiah crap. The Inquisitor would be better as someone truly invested in all of this ---  a person, and not mere symbol. The "blights" and the "wardens" are more generalized conflicts and symbols. And they're trying to apply that general heroic mesh on to DAI. I don't think it works as well. Maybe this is a more convoluted point that I feel like explaining atm though.

Tbh, I'm pretty tired of being a "goddamn hero". I think the story should allow for more variety in the protagonist. Ability to deviate from the knightly path. So in the end you do save the galaxy, but your methods are different and the future will be different... 

[Torgette]

Tbh, I'm pretty tired of being a "goddamn hero". I think the story should allow for more variety in the protagonist. Ability to deviate from the knightly path. So in the end you do save the galaxy, but your methods are different and the future will be different... 

 

Like an anti-hero basically? Victorious but flawed in many ways.

[Majestic Jazz]

Don't get me wrong, I like DAI. More than MJ, anyway! That was a design decision I was pretty adamantly against from the day it was announced, though, as it did what I feared: made all non-essential conversations appear distant, impersonal. There's a lot of script in that game that's brilliantly delivered but missing the facial presence to drive it home.

That said, there's still a fair amount of full cinematic conversation content, so it's not a total loss. Some claim there's as much as there was in Origins, but... I dunno that I'd go that far!

And as much as I want exploration in ME4, I am afraid that ME4 will have that same 3rd person zoomed out camera for conversations that DAI had. This to me also added to the IQ being bland because we were disconnected from the comversations. Like we were some secondary person "listening in" on other peoples conversations rather than actually being part of them like in DAO and DA2.

Again, this is why E3 cannot come fast enough, I need to know how ME4 works. Is it really a DAI copy and paste with a Mass Effect reskin? Is it more of a refined ME1 with elements from DAI and ME3 used? Or is it something different?

[Booth]

Bioware losing focus [...] they (Bioware) made the design decision

 

Either they "lost focus" or they made their decision. Not both. To lose a focus is not something you decide. If you decide it, you CHANGE your focus - but dont lose it.

 

But the whole stuff where you want to explain the motivation (which is for me absolutely irrelevant - either I like a game or I dont... but I dont care what motivation made the company to do so) shows that you do not accept the change of the focus. Thats OK. That a decision of a company that you dislike automatically must be "losing the focus" because the only focus that you can accept is the one you like... thats not OK. Accept it... there are design decision possible you dont like... but many, many others.

 

I dont like a LOT design decision of a LOT game companies. Thats life. But I dont think, they did these decision by accident cause they "lost focus". Not - they made their decision. They may do so. They SHOULD do so. Thats what a company has to do in this society. And of course... one main reason to create a product is to get paid for it. This is ridiculous trivial.

 

 

Remember, ME1 was an RPG game that had shooter elements.

 

Not it never was for me. For me it was a hybrid from the very beginning. You are running around shooting almost all the time. The exploration was in ME1 much DRIVING around over emtpy planets. Not in a full world. The story levels had their little different possibilities to got through... but it was still linear game play - almost like levels in casual shooters.

 

People like you WANTED ME1 to be a RPG - it never was. You WANTED ME2 to become the RPG that ME1 never was... but they made the opposite decision. And obviously... you never got over it.

[Vazgen]

Like an anti-hero basically? Victorious but flawed in many ways.

Yes, but it should be a choice the player makes. Either to deviate towards the darker path or follow the light. Both get results but at a different cost and with different outcomes.

 

That's what Hawke was though.. Or could be.

Haven't played DA2 either. I have seen multiple people praise that aspect of the game though. Unfortunately, the game was rushed.

[Torgette]

Yes, but it should be a choice the player makes. Either to deviate towards the darker path or follow the light. Both get results but at a different cost and with different outcomes.

 

Haven't played DA2 either. I have seen multiple people praise that aspect of the game though. Unfortunately, the game was rushed.

 

The ME trilogy already did that though - there were plenty of chances for you to make bad choices, get people killed, ****** people off and generally approach things with bad preparation or timing. I do think it would be more interesting if you couldn't always 100% things, you should be able to try your hardest to save everybody but in doing so you have to sacrifice something else - or if you don't care about saving everybody and want to accomplish the mission there should be a compromise as well. I like how Zaeed's loyalty mission kicks you in the gut no matter which outcome you choose. It would be interesting if those decisions could also have a cumulative effect on our PC personalities.

[Vazgen]

The ME trilogy already did that though - there were plenty of chances for you to make bad choices, get people killed, ****** people off and generally approach things with bad preparation or timing. I do think it would be more interesting if you couldn't always 100% things, you should be able to try your hardest to save everybody but in doing so you have to sacrifice something else - or if you don't care about saving everybody and want to accomplish the mission there should be a compromise as well. I like how Zaeed's loyalty mission kicks you in the gut no matter which outcome you choose.

ME does not do that. You can be a total jerk, screwing people and killing entire races but in the end "you're still a hero to these man and women". That's what I'm talking about, choosing a different path should have its consequences. Different allies, NPCs and the world having different opinions on the player based on his/her choices... Options to fail in some missions and succeed in others will only reinforce the idea. 

[Torgette]

ME does not do that. You can be a total jerk, screwing people and killing entire races but in the end "you're still a hero to these man and women". That's what I'm talking about, choosing a different path should have its consequences. Different allies, NPCs and the world having different opinions on the player based on his/her choices... Options to fail in some missions and succeed in others will only reinforce the idea. 

 

Sounds good to me, the failable missions is something they could do if the main quest is nonlinear in structure at least at some point during the game. Take DAI for example where you can choose to help the mages or templars (but not both) - now imagine you can fail one of those and then have to go do the other to make up for it - only now the other one is much harder to complete ideally and the failure informs later missions/ending.