Aller au contenu

Photo

I'm tired of the DAI coverage, where is the ME4 hype?


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
129 réponses à ce sujet

#126
Sanunes

Sanunes
  • Members
  • 4 384 messages

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.

 

The problem for something like that is it might sound easy, but the problem is if you make the world too dependent on choices you can lead into buggy issues and people will then be upset.  Look at EMS for Mass Effect 3, too many people couldn't accept it was an error from somewhere during development and instead started to blame multiplayer so they would be forced to pay for microtransactions or even the issue with Conrad Verner in Mass Effect 2.



#127
JeffZero

JeffZero
  • Members
  • 14 400 messages

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?


It's entirely possible we'll only see a CG reveal trailer, a la the one used to announce DAI. Just pointing it out.

#128
wolfhowwl

wolfhowwl
  • Members
  • 3 727 messages

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.


Well it is clear that by "losing focus" you actually mean disagreeing with you on cutting an entirely optional feature from the first game.

Here is the thing, Mass Effect 1 ALREADY focused on the combat. The game required you to shoot your way through a small army (in linear levels just like the sequels) and yet the combat mechanics were absolute trash. This is a problem.

You blame it on action crowd pandering but the combat was widely disliked and BioWare was always going to have to focus on it since after all it is the PRIMARY way players interacted with the game. ME2 at least got it up to something halfway decent that wouldn't actively get in the way of the player and arguably threaten the commercial viability of the series.

The "exploration" in ME1 was terrible and unacceptable. You can try to downplay it but the fact is that they had two years to make a sequel to a game that was released in shambles and limited resources are a factor. Designing interesting large environments (not like ME1), creating worthwhile (not like ME1) content, and testing it all is something that is demanding.
 

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.
...
Remember, ME1 was an RPG game that had shooter elements. ME2 and ME3 are really shooter games with RPG elements.


Mass Effect 1 was already very shallow. The series was always designed as an RPG-lite that would have mainstream appeal, the sequels just continued with that direction.
 

Looks like ME4 is going to be more of a RPG game.....with shooter elements.


The next game is going to have ME3's combat and be bloated with vast amounts of Ubisoftian trash like DA:I. You'll just drive around instead of walking when collecting filler and liberating outposts/towers/whatever.

#129
Torgette

Torgette
  • Members
  • 1 422 messages

The problem for something like that is it might sound easy, but the problem is if you make the world too dependent on choices you can lead into buggy issues and people will then be upset.  Look at EMS for Mass Effect 3, too many people couldn't accept it was an error from somewhere during development and instead started to blame multiplayer so they would be forced to pay for microtransactions or even the issue with Conrad Verner in Mass Effect 2.

 

Side content informing the ending for sure, but a non-linear structure main quest would have fewer issues with that as it would simply be one variable switched on or off.



#130
Sanunes

Sanunes
  • Members
  • 4 384 messages

Side content informing the ending for sure, but a non-linear structure main quest would have fewer issues with that as it would simply be one variable switched on or off.

 

Ah, I read a little too deep into what you were saying.  So something a lot like the Mage and Templar choice, but with a third option of failing your first pick.  Its been a bit since I played Inquisition (trying to clear up my backlog of games) the choice impacted the enemies you face at Haven, unlocks one of two paths to open the Shrine, then influences which state you find the Shrine in, and finally impacts the final boss encounter in Arbor Wilds.  Which all I believe have some influence in the slides at the end.