You know I was just thinking of this the other day. DA:I was Biowares first venture into a new engine and market and considering they got a GOTY I say thet did pretty decent 
I am confident DA:I and its feedback will help smooth ME4's rough edges at the very least, and I for the most part loved DA:I (7.9 - 8.0/10.0) but a few issues with the flow, dumbed down tatics, fetch quests, and a lack of Tali & Garrus ( ) hampered my experience a bit.
DA:I is the open beta for NME.
On a more serious note, the one main advantage of having a multiplayer is the possibility of a beta to smooth out the basic gameplay. I would LOVE for NME to have an open beta, I wouldn't play it, but it will mean that the final game will be more polished. But it won't happen because open beta can cause story leaks (much less important in a game like Starcraft 2 where the multiplayer is the main focus) and it delayes the game and god forbit affect sales becuase it doesnt come out in holiday season or whatever.
I do agree BioWare would be best looking at their past games, but I am not sure how much better the story of Mass Effect 1 is over the other games. Now I did feel it had a better flow and really enjoyed how there felt like there was some choice in the order I completed the missions except for unlocking Ilos. I don't want to say one is better then the other, but I just wonder if it would be impossible to recapture the feeling of how great the story is when I think part of the reason why it was so good was because it was completely new and fresh.
For me, the magic of ME1 had multiple causes:-- The feeling that I was co-creating the story via role-play. Being allowed to complete some of the main missions in whatever order I chose, and doing the side missions - or not - gave me a lot of control over my character and role-play experience. By ME3, it was all on rails, punctuated by constant cutscenes that take control away from the player - making me feel like more of an observer than an active participant. The way they force-fed you the Horizon and Collector Ship missions in ME2 irks me to this day.-- The Citadel felt big and contiguous, with connecting walkways. There was quite a bit of area to the Citadel in ME3, but the separate bits were all treated like separate bits. More areas were developed for ME3's Citadel coup mission and ME2's Garrus & Thane loyalty missions, but those areas were only accessible during those missions. I think part of the reason the Citadel seemed more alive and reactive by ME3 is because the player was restricted to areas that had content to explore.-- Actually walking in and out of the airlock, instead of having screen loads dump you at some access point. If I wanted to do some silly little role-play thing like take the fish I just bought to my aquarium or change clothes, I had to watch cutscenes of the Normandy actually leaving port - and then dock again if I had more business in that port. It really restricts role-play.-- Having stairs (ladders) between decks on the Normandy. All of these little things make it seem less video-gamey, and more immersive.I could go on and on, but this is probably already too long.The bottom line for me is that ME1 gave me a toolset and palette (a menu from which to order) that allowed me to create my own experience; ME2&3 served the catch of the day and delivered the experience the chef wanted to serve.
For me, the magic of ME1 had multiple causes:
-- The feeling that I was co-creating the story via role-play. Being allowed to complete some of the main missions in whatever order I chose, and doing the side missions - or not - gave me a lot of control over my character and role-play experience. By ME3, it was all on rails, punctuated by constant cutscenes that take control away from the player - making me feel like more of an observer than an active participant. The way they force-fed you the Horizon and Collector Ship missions in ME2 irks me to this day.
-- The Citadel felt big and contiguous, with connecting walkways. There was quite a bit of area to the Citadel in ME3, but the separate bits were all treated like separate bits. More areas were developed for ME3's Citadel coup mission and ME2's Garrus & Thane loyalty missions, but those areas were only accessible during those missions. I think part of the reason the Citadel seemed more alive and reactive by ME3 is because the player was restricted to areas that had content to explore.
-- Actually walking in and out of the airlock, instead of having screen loads dump you at some access point. If I wanted to do some silly little role-play thing like take the fish I just bought to my aquarium or change clothes, I had to watch cutscenes of the Normandy actually leaving port - and then dock again if I had more business in that port. It really restricts role-play.
-- Having stairs (ladders) between decks on the Normandy. All of these little things make it seem less video-gamey, and more immersive.
I could go on and on, but this is probably already too long.
The bottom line for me is that ME1 gave me a toolset and palette (a menu from which to order) that allowed me to create my own experience; ME2&3 served the catch of the day and delivered the experience the chef wanted to serve.
I would agree elements like those are something that did make Mass Effect 1 stand out a little more, but at the same time I don't consider them story elements which is what I was focusing solely on. I did miss the airlock or having to walk up and down the levels on the Normandy, but they were more of an environmental touch over a story element to me.
As far as The Citadel itself goes I know people that feel the same as you do and the thing is there are people that prefer how it was laid out in ME2 and ME3 because it was lifeless in ME1 where ME2 and ME3 made if feel fuller.
I would agree elements like those are something that did make Mass Effect 1 stand out a little more, but at the same time I don't consider them story elements which is what I was focusing solely on. I did miss the airlock or having to walk up and down the levels on the Normandy, but they were more of an environmental touch over a story element to me.
As far as The Citadel itself goes I know people that feel the same as you do and the thing is there are people that prefer how it was laid out in ME2 and ME3 because it was lifeless in ME1 where ME2 and ME3 made if feel fuller.
-- The Citadel felt big and contiguous, with connecting walkways. There was quite a bit of area to the Citadel in ME3, but the separate bits were all treated like separate bits. More areas were developed for ME3's Citadel coup mission and ME2's Garrus & Thane loyalty missions, but those areas were only accessible during those missions. I think part of the reason the Citadel seemed more alive and reactive by ME3 is because the player was restricted to areas that had content to explore.
I disagree with this. Imo I think Mass Effect 2 had the best version/interpretation of the Citadel. Whilst i agree ME1's was bigger, i felt in going for that scope it sacrificed depth & detail in the process. It was as wide as an ocean but as deep as a puddle. Quanity over quality. Whereas the Citadel in ME2, while smaller(noticbly it was cut down in the Presidium), it actually had an excellently realised appearance in the game. I think it felt less of an uninhabited, empty boxy space(ME1), but now something with hustle and bustle, live and alive.. frequented and used by a multitude of races. It lived upto the lore. I felt the bars were really well done in this game too, loved the way they sonically worked. I seem to remember you got a lot more depth in locations regarding the shops, the medical facilities. Not sure about C-sec though.
(In addition to that, i remember the other inhabited worlds were awesome, and all crafted to the same level of detail and scope (this bit Mass Effect 3 got wrong... it just got rid of these worlds for some unknown reason). I remember how alive, real & lived in the galaxy felt, how better realised the galaxy was, how just oozing with attention to detail & care it felt throughout. I loved the rich atmosphere also(ME1 hooked me in, but it was ME2 that truly engrossed me, made me fall in love with the universe). I really hope Bioware are able to recapture that vibe. Though i feel like for sme reason that won't be the case. Games like that don't come around to often. But i do agree with you on the airlocks/docking/lifts etc. That should've never of gotten axed. I hope they bring that back for ME:N. The immersion factor from that you can't beat).
I disagree with this. Imo I think Mass Effect 2 had the best version/interpretation of the Citadel. Whilst i agree ME1's was bigger, i felt in going for that scope it sacrificed depth & detail in the process. It was as wide as an ocean but as deep as a puddle.
I loved the rich atmosphere also(ME1 hooked me in, but it was ME2 that truly engrossed me, made me fall in love with the universe).
I really hope Bioware are able to recapture that vibe. Though i feel like for sme reason that won't be the case. Games like that don't come around to often. But i do agree with you on the airlocks/docking/lifts etc. That should've never of gotten axed. I hope they bring that back for ME:N. The immersion factor from that you can't beat).
ME2 had three towns, Omega, Illium, and Zakera Ward, it let us visit instead of focusing on the Citadel like ME1 so the content was going to be a little thinner at each location.
They did a much better job of making the areas feel livelier in ME2, too often ME1's Citadel just felt like a giant empty warehouse.
With a reaper invasion in ME3, the additional hustle and bustle makes sense - though there have been times when the Citadel activity in ME3 sort of overstimulates me. The constant news announcements plus ambient conversations plus anytime I access a shopping kiosk, it starts talking... there are times when I mute the sound in that area so I can think.
You ever live in New York? It is overstimulating as a large city tends to be.
Or even more appropriate, New York during September 11th?
One of the aspects that I really liked, but also sort of disturbed me, was how they treated the Citadel in crisis mode; over-crowded, people panicking, people looking for help, a bombardment of senses and feelings as folks were busy cajoling each other to find a semblance of security or comfort when you feel like the world is ending. Top it off with a memorial wall, and the sinking realization that,for a lot of these people, their lives have changed completely both good and bad...
I don't know, that really hit me in a way that maybe not everyone else will understand. I mean I was 14 when that happened here, and I had no family involved in the cleanup or lost anyone, but I completely got what the point of the Citadel was in Mass Effect 3, which made the emotional weight of the story all the more investing.
For me, the magic of ME1 had multiple causes:
-- The feeling that I was co-creating the story via role-play. Being allowed to complete some of the main missions in whatever order I chose, and doing the side missions - or not - gave me a lot of control over my character and role-play experience. By ME3, it was all on rails, punctuated by constant cutscenes that take control away from the player - making me feel like more of an observer than an active participant. The way they force-fed you the Horizon and Collector Ship missions in ME2 irks me to this day.
-- The Citadel felt big and contiguous, with connecting walkways. There was quite a bit of area to the Citadel in ME3, but the separate bits were all treated like separate bits. More areas were developed for ME3's Citadel coup mission and ME2's Garrus & Thane loyalty missions, but those areas were only accessible during those missions. I think part of the reason the Citadel seemed more alive and reactive by ME3 is because the player was restricted to areas that had content to explore.
-- Actually walking in and out of the airlock, instead of having screen loads dump you at some access point. If I wanted to do some silly little role-play thing like take the fish I just bought to my aquarium or change clothes, I had to watch cutscenes of the Normandy actually leaving port - and then dock again if I had more business in that port. It really restricts role-play.
-- Having stairs (ladders) between decks on the Normandy. All of these little things make it seem less video-gamey, and more immersive.
I could go on and on, but this is probably already too long.
The bottom line for me is that ME1 gave me a toolset and palette (a menu from which to order) that allowed me to create my own experience; ME2&3 served the catch of the day and delivered the experience the chef wanted to serve.
I hope it's nothing like DA:I ... I did not like the game. I gave it a chance. I bigger Mass Effect fan.. But I wouldn't mind if they polished ME because of DA:I
You ever live in New York? It is overstimulating as a large city tends to be.
Or even more appropriate, New York during September 11th?
One of the aspects that I really liked, but also sort of disturbed me, was how they treated the Citadel in crisis mode; over-crowded, people panicking, people looking for help, a bombardment of senses and feelings as folks were busy cajoling each other to find a semblance of security or comfort when you feel like the world is ending. Top it off with a memorial wall, and the sinking realization that,for a lot of these people, their lives have changed completely both good and bad...
I don't know, that really hit me in a way that maybe not everyone else will understand. I mean I was 14 when that happened here, and I had no family involved in the cleanup or lost anyone, but I completely got what the point of the Citadel was in Mass Effect 3, which made the emotional weight of the story all the more investing.
i didn't like the menu for the weapons, armors, mods in the first one if i wanted to see what any member of the team were using, i had to get out of the store and saw what they were wearing.
If they could change that, it would add more variety.
Retour en haut