OK, I love you right now. Sometimes I think Bioware "directs" like this:
Now that i think of it, ME's plot is ultimately dumber than Plan 9 from Outer space. Plan 9's spot revolved around aliens creating zombies in order to to stop humans from creating a bomb that destroys the universe, and as stupid as that sounds, it's not self-contradicting, unlike say, creating machines to kill organics to prevent organics from being killed by machines.
Except that isn't true, because The Witcher allows a ton of player input and has better and more believable choices and consequences than any Mass Effect game despite Geralt being a pre-defined character.
I dunno if I'd say tons of player input. There are 5 choices(ish) that directly effect the ending you get. Each dialogue has a few options, but quite a bit of Geralt's talking is auto-dialogue and those options have a small amount of variance as opposed to something like DAI or DA2 (although there is some). The Witcher 3 isn't a traditional or build-your-own-character type of RPG, that's a fact, but it is a good game.
As I've said numerous times: Comparing DA/ME and Witcher is apples and oranges. They differ in pretty much all aspects. That they are both called RPGs just shows how loose the term RPG really is, it doesn't show any kind of actual link between the two series'. There is much, much more different than similar between the games.
Now i think of it, ME's plot is ultimately dumber than Plan 9 from Outer space. Plan 9's spot revolved around aliens creating zombies in order to to stop humans from creating a bomb that destroys the universe, and as stupid as that sounds, it's not self-contradicting, unlike say, creating machines to kill organics to prevent organics from being killed by machines.
I guess a lot of people actually still don't get the logic behind that.
The thinking of the Catalyst was that if Sythetics went unchecked they wouldn't just kill their creators, they would kill all organics. The way it came up with to save organics was to prune them when they became advanced enough to create AIs capable of this level of destruction, and then preserve their knowledge/culture/dna digitally. The Catalysts idea was that had it not killed the organics, then by the time humans came around the Synthetics would have eliminated all organic life in the galaxy, and thus the humans never would have existed. So by killing advanced organics it ensures the survival of primitive organics. Resulting in a net gain in the lives in the galaxy over the long run.
It is kinda loopy logic, but it is 100% logic that makes sense if you try and understand it. It is also a cheap cop out as to why the Reapers exist and is terrible story telling, but the logic is there.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
I think I'm gonna finally fire up Witcher 3 and see the hype for myself. I've been spending too much time mocking games I don't like.... not good.
I dunno if I'd say tons of player input. There are 5 choices(ish) that directly effect the ending you get. Each dialogue has a few options, but quite a bit of Geralt's talking is auto-dialogue and those options have a small amount of variance as opposed to something like DAI or DA2 (although there is some). The Witcher 3 isn't a traditional or build-your-own-character type of RPG, that's a fact, but it is a good game.
As I've said numerous times: Comparing DA/ME and Witcher is apples and oranges. They differ in pretty much all aspects. That they are both called RPGs just shows how loose the term RPG really is, it doesn't show any kind of actual link between the two series'. There is much, much more different than similar between the games.
Assuming you're only talking about TW3 now (unlike I, who was talking about the entire series):
There are more than 5 choices that affect the ending. Theres those 5 choices with Ciri, yes, but your choices with the assassination of Radovid questline also directly affect the ending you'll get.
Then there are 5 sub-plots in TW3 with each having their own choices that directly influence the ending of that specific sub-plot. Some of those sub-plot endings also affect the final ending of the game.
Then there are a lot of side-quests with their own choices and consequences and many of them aren't just fluff consequences but actual gameplay consequences (for example how you deal with the Bothling directly affects how the follow-up quest plays out).
As for dialogue, I wouldn't say the dialogue in TW3 is less varied than DAI's dialogue. DAI has its fair share of auto-dialogue and quite often there isn't any inherent difference between the multiple reply options you get. As much as a hate the paragon/renegade crap in Mass Effect, at least both paths were significantly different in tone and presentation, whereas in DAI the Inquisitor is mostly acts the same way no matter what dialogue choices you pick.
Honestly, I fully believe DAI would have been better if it had a pre-defined character ala Geralt instead of trying to give us a self-insert character and ultimately failing at it.
I just remember something that the DA team said about something similar in regards to the human-centric stories. It was something like, "Well, we're human and it's easiest to write for a human." ME has been known for having a human character with some options to tweak personality, looks and playstyle.
I also enjoy it, because it's a good player avatar. Someone from the outside to ask questions that are obvious to everyone else. Unlike, say, FFXIII, where everyone talked to each other like they knew what they were talking about, and the player has to scour the massive Codex to figure out what's going on.
I'm not opposed to the idea, at all. However, I prefer human-only for ME:A. This allows us to learn more about the new galaxy and possible new races while avoiding things like, "Who was Mythal?" as an elven player. (DA:I) I'll admit, I like being a human hero out saving the galaxy. Unlike DA, ME takes place in more or less our future, and I like being a human hero saving the day in my "what-if" future.
I want DA to keep multiple races, because I feel it works much more there, and I don't think a set PC would have made a difference in the End Product. I think DA:I's problem is that someone wanted to cram every idea in their head for exploration and quest variety to where parts of it came out pretty incoherent and jumbled. Also, spreading themselves too thin in general.
Plus, DA only had 3 other races to choose from besides human. That's pretty much all there is for civilized races in Thedas, for the most part. With ME, you have: Turian, Quarian, Bartarian, Human, Drell, Hanar, Volas and more, including any new races that ME:A might introduce. That would make it way too hard to keep a somewhat unique story for the PC. Meaning that if you thought race reaction in DA:I was bad, I think it would be a non-existent in ME.
Nah, let's keep it human only for the Mass Effect series. It'll produce a much more tightly focused story, and I think a richer experience overall.
<avoiding the latest set PC vs custom PC debate in relation to TW>
Assuming you're only talking about TW3 now (unlike I, who was talking about the entire series):
There are more than 5 choices that affect the ending. Theres those 5 choices with Ciri, yes, but your choices with the assassination of Radovid questline also directly affect the ending you'll get.
Then there are 5 sub-plots in TW3 with each having their own choices that directly influence the ending of that specific sub-plot. Some of those sub-plot endings also affect the final ending of the game.
Then there are a lot of side-quests with their own choices and consequences and many of them aren't just fluff consequences but actual gameplay consequences (for example how you deal with the Bothling directly affects how the follow-up quest plays out).
As for dialogue, I wouldn't say the dialogue in TW3 is less varied than DAI's dialogue. DAI has its fair share of auto-dialogue and quite often there isn't any inherent difference between the multiple reply options you get. As much as a hate the paragon/renegade crap in Mass Effect, at least both paths were significantly different in tone and presentation, whereas in DAI the Inquisitor is mostly acts the same way no matter what dialogue choices you pick.
Honestly, I fully believe DAI would have been better if it had a pre-defined character ala Geralt instead of trying to give us a self-insert character and ultimately failing at it.
I was just focusing on TW3 yes.
And I was talking about How you treat Ciri as 1 choice, Radovid as another, Emperor as a 3rd. And you are right that some of the slides change based on other factors. So there are a fair number of 'unique' endings.
As for sub-plots and the botchling you certainly won't get me to say that W3's side quests were not miles ahead of DAIs, because clearly they were.
For dialogue there is no way TW3 has anywhere near the variance in dialogue DAI does. In DAI you can be nice, joking, rude, and lots of points in between. TW3 you are always gruff and short. Even the nice options will have short answers and things like 'Get to the point already!' in there. Geralt's overall attitude is predefined, you do get to choose whether to ask for money, or be nice, or just say go away, but the tone inside all those choices is much less varied than DAIs is. Its just hard to tell with DAI cause you can go 10hrs without a single real dialogue...
I was just focusing on TW3 yes.
And I was talking about How you treat Ciri as 1 choice, Radovid as another, Emperor as a 3rd. And you are right that some of the slides change based on other factors. So there are a fair number of 'unique' endings.
As for sub-plots and the botchling you certainly won't get me to say that W3's side quests were not miles ahead of DAIs, because clearly they were.
For dialogue there is no way TW3 has anywhere near the variance in dialogue DAI does. In DAI you can be nice, joking, rude, and lots of points in between. TW3 you are always gruff and short. Even the nice options will have short answers and things like 'Get to the point already!' in there. Geralt's overall attitude is predefined, you do get to choose whether to ask for money, or be nice, or just say go away, but the tone inside all those choices is much less varied than DAIs is. Its just hard to tell with DAI cause you can go 10hrs without a single real dialogue...
I agree on must stuff you say except for DAI having more variance in dialogue.
It might have more variance on paper but I never felt there was much of a difference between the nice, joking or rude replies. The rude replies were usually very mild and I never really noticed much of a difference between the nice replies and joking replies.
Not to mention that these type of responses were few and far between. Most responses that didn't have these 'nice', 'joking' or 'rude' labels were pretty straight forward and more or less the same.
As Geralt in TW3 you basically have the same type of responses as DAI and the have as much variety as in DAI (not much), the only difference is that in TW3 these responses aren't speficially labeled as 'nice' or 'joking' or 'rude'.
I think I'm gonna finally fire up Witcher 3 and see the hype for myself. I've been spending too much time mocking games I don't like.... not good.
You should also get a SNES emulator and an english translated rom of Seiken Densetsu 3 while you're at it. That game has six different main characters(of which you have to pick three at the beginning), each with their own storylines(that you actually play, like DA:O) and three different main plots(the one the player ends up getting depends on whom they selected as their party).
That's a proper RPG with tangible divergence based on choice, unlike the glorified TPS that is ME.
I agree with you about everything save your opinion on ME. We'll just agree to disagree there. 
Otherwise, Seiken Densetsu 3 is very good, and the character stories all tie into each other. I'd highly recommend it. The gameplay is tight, it improves on everything from Secret of Mana, and all in all is an excellent sequel.
The more set the protagonist, the better. I'm tired of shoehorned and half-baked plots, and adding too much variation just makes that even worse.
After re-reading the "leak" for the hundreth time, and the bioware blog, I've came to the conclusion that we will only be able to play as human in the campaign mode.
After re-reading the "leak" for the hundreth time, and the bioware blog, I've came to the conclusion that we will only be able to play as human in the campaign mode.
that was in doubt?
that was in doubt?
Never was, and I'd prefer it to be human only. However, people are making arguments as to why we should be able to play as other races. And for the information provided, I don't see that happening at all in ME:A.
that was in doubt?
When I think of ME, one of the things I think of is "human hero." I think this is going to be another trilogy, so it makes more sense to have a human-only hero. DA does not have a history of having a set trilogy, and focus more on different stories and one big main story arc per game.
Again, I have no problems with multiple races, but for simplicity sake in ME it's easier to keep the hero human-only.
Never was, and I'd prefer it to be human only. However, people are making arguments as to why we should be able to play as other races. And for the information provided, I don't see that happening at all in ME:A.
Lulz. Like the part where it was officially confirmed to be a human only protagonist? Yeah, that ship has sailed many times over, but what can you do on BSN?
I guess a lot of people actually still don't get the logic behind that.
Mass Effect would definitely benefit from having a predefined protagonist with a predefined set background and predefined set personality. Whether that protagonist would be human or alien doesn't matter (though I'd prefer a male human).
It's not a terrible idea. Writing a predefined character allows BioWare to write a better and more coherent story with a more emotionally involved protagonist who actually has some depth. There is a long list of videogame characters that are memorable and really left a mark on me, but boring blank-slate self-insert characters like Shepard aren't on that list. Geralt however, who isn't a boring blank-slate self-insert character is definitely on that list.
I don't understand people like you. You already HAVE a game that gives you what you want. You like Witcher 3, go play Witcher 3. Better yet, go interact with Witcher fans on a Witcher forum. Why waste your time on something you don't enjoy, just to ruin it for those who do enjoy it?
To play as a non-human I'd say do Mass Effect: Chronicles. Play as an Asari, Turian, Salarian, or Krogan during the Rachni Wars and the Krogan Rebellion. No humans around during that time period.
To play as a non-human I'd say do Mass Effect: Chronicles. Play as an Asari, Turian, Salarian, or Krogan during the Rachni Wars and the Krogan Rebellion. No humans around during that time period.
I don't know about that one....People wanted to see more of the Forerunners in Halo and humanity somehow wormed their way back to that point in history as well. 
Never was, and I'd prefer it to be human only. However, people are making arguments as to why we should be able to play as other races. And for the information provided, I don't see that happening at all in ME:A.
Hence why people are bringing it up in the hopes that Bioware changes their minds.
Plus, DA only had 3 other races to choose from besides human. That's pretty much all there is for civilized races in Thedas, for the most part. With ME, you have: Turian, Quarian, Bartarian, Human, Drell, Hanar, Volas and more, including any new races that ME:A might introduce. That would make it way too hard to keep a somewhat unique story for the PC. Meaning that if you thought race reaction in DA:I was bad, I think it would be a non-existent in ME.
Nah, let's keep it human only for the Mass Effect series. It'll produce a much more tightly focused story, and I think a richer experience overall.
If they ever did add race selection chances are they would choose only the main races as options and leave the non-main races out. Just like how in DA we play the main races but can't play things like spirits, golems, etc.
Mass Effect would definitely benefit from having a predefined protagonist with a predefined set background and predefined set personality. Whether that protagonist would be human or alien doesn't matter (though I'd prefer a male human).
I doubt BioWare will ever not have gender selection but that doesn't matter that much.
They could still have had a John or Jayne Shepard that was a survivor of Mindoir, was responsible for the bloodbath on Torfan, and while saddened that such things had to happen isn't afraid to make further sacrifices if necessary.
I don't understand people like you. You already HAVE a game that gives you what you want. You like Witcher 3, go play Witcher 3. Better yet, go interact with Witcher fans on a Witcher forum. Why waste your time on something you don't enjoy, just to ruin it for those who do enjoy it?
I don't understand people like you who jump to conclusions that are completely false and on top of that present false dichotomies.
You act as if I must choose between playing The Witcher or playing Mass Effect / Dragon Age. I should either play ME/DA or The Witcher. That's ofcourse complete nonsense. One can play and enjoy both.
I did enjoy playing Dragon Age and Mass Effect and I'm merely giving my opinion on how I think Mass Effect and Dragon Age would be made even better.
Yes, I enjoy The Witcher 3 more than ME/DA, but I play more than just 1 game you know? I don't exactly plan on sticking to just playing The Witcher 3 for the rest of my life.
I have as much reason and right to post here as you. Nothing in the forum rules says you have to be a total blind fanboy/fangirl in order to be allowed to post here.
I don't play the Witcher series. I've tried and it just isn't appealing to me. However, this stupid rivalry between the fanbases (that both sides are encouraging) is a waste of time. People like different games for different reasons. Shoot, I can't count how many RPGs where I had a set protagonist that were just as good if not better than games with customized races for the player character.
For example, I feel that the Final Fantasy series as well as the ME series was much better than NW2. I could decide my looks and race in NWN2, and yet, other than the DLC, it turned out pretty bland. There was little-to-no mention of race outside of a very few cutscenes, and while it tied into D&Ds history of race selection, I thought it fell pretty flat.
I personally think that the TW/DA2 method of a hero works the best for the ME series in my opinion. I don't think it would work as well in most DA games, but I think it works well here. It's the story that they want to tell.
@Daisy Spirits are not a civilization in Thedas, which is why we can't play as them. Every race I mentioned for ME, and with the possible exception of the Vorcha, has it's own unique government and cultural structure. A few wouldn't be available obvious animation reasons, such as Hanar or Elcor, but otherwise, it seems like there is too many races to offer a selection. I thought ME's structure with Shepard was great, and out of all of my complaints about DA2, having Hawke as a set hero was not one of them. It fit the story of one human in Kirkwall and the impact that s/he had.
I figure that if it fits the story, and has room for some personality options, and makes the most sense for telling a set trilogy, then why not?
Retour en haut