129 réponses à ce sujet

[Amirit]

Mass Effect and BioWare are universally praised for their stories? 
Mass Effect is better known for having terrible writing(the ending) than just about anything else and BioWare is still mocked for DAII.

Not true! As you said yourself - "terrible writing(the ending)" - only and exclusively the ending. Las 5 minutes of the game. It's not a problem with the stories in every game in general. 

And DA2 was criticized for many things but not for the story. More so for "not being DAO". 
 

We're in the Andromeda to colonize it. Hence the Ark and such(which is all but confirmed). What better reason is there to visit a bunch of different worlds?
And why would the game be "limitless"? Not even MMOs are limitless.

 

As far as I know, we are not leading the Ark. And at any rate - here, you already have the beginning "coming to Andromeda". If game is not limitless (btw, MMO ARE limitless) - to what end are you going "to visit a bunch of different worlds"? When would your journey finish? Because if it does supposed to finished some-when, you WILL get your ending.

 

What you are suggesting is planetary story Ark from SWTOR. Good stuff, no doubt, but even that had some central story in it. 

[Linkenski]

I prefer the Bioware type RPG where it's sort of linear to put emphasis on story beats in 3-act structure, but with open areas to explore without having a main emphasis on player-driven exploration. I prefer that type of RPG over Bethesda games where it's all "emergent gameplay" or whatever they call it. It can be fun, but it ensures I won't care about the main narrative.

I did think Witcher 3 found a nice balance but at the cost of "your princess is in another castle" syndrome in the main story which dragged out a lot.

[AlanC9]

Suddenly I'm thinking of Ultima VII, where you could go most anywhere in any order you chose, but if you didn't go in the plot-driven order the people you were looking for would always be someplace else.

[Sylvius the Mad]

VATS actually slows down time as well, allowing you to get many more shots than you normally could.

It shouldn't do that. Now I like it less.

It should pause to allow me to make decisions, but then the actual shots should happen at regular speed (even if they are shown slower).

[Killroy]

Not true! As you said yourself - "terrible writing(the ending)" - only and exclusively the ending. Las 5 minutes of the game. It's not a problem with the stories in every game in general.

I'm of the opinion that most of ME3 is terribly written and so are a lot of other people. My point remains, BioWare is not universally praised for their storytelling.

And DA2 was criticized for many things but not for the story. More so for "not being DAO".

 
DAII is criticized for everything. Hardly anyone says "DAII was crap, but the story was exceptional!" Most people only seem to like the second act. 

As far as I know, we are not leading the Ark.

And what is it that you know, exactly? Do you have insider knowledge that the rest of us do not?

And at any rate - here, you already have the beginning "coming to Andromeda". If game is not limitless (btw, MMO ARE limitless) - to what end are you going "to visit a bunch of different worlds"? When would your journey finish? Because if it does supposed to finished some-when, you WILL get your ending.

No MMO is endless. If MMO's were endless there wouldn't be a need for expansion packs. Being endlessly repeatable is not the same as being endless. And why wouldn't a journey end at some point? If we're colonizing a new star system(which is very likely the case) we have a finite number of planets that even fit our criteria. Once we find the worlds to colonize the journey is over.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Suddenly I'm thinking of Ultima VII, where you could go most anywhere in any order you chose, but if you didn't go in the plot-driven order the people you were looking for would always be someplace else.

That was a bit clumsy. I preferred Ultima IV and Ultima VI on this point. Ultima IV required you to go basically everywhere, but the order didn't matter (since you were only collecting information), and Ultima VI had a defined order, but you could skip great swaths of that sequence by exploring and finding plot advancing events.

[Cyonan]

It shouldn't do that. Now I like it less.

It should pause to allow me to make decisions, but then the actual shots should happen at regular speed (even if they are shown slower).

 

Those are mostly number tweaking issues. The core system is pretty solid, but making it happen in real time during the actual shots and not having a limit on AP probably would have been better. It would have prevented action combat from being able to exploit its' mechanics.

 

Then again I also tried pause to aim in Mass Effect 1 and thought it was almost as clunky and terrible as KotoR's combat, so my opinion that something is better than ME1's pause to aim mechanics probably doesn't say a whole lot.

[Drone223]

Stop.

Given Bioware track record with style over substance plot devices, being skeptical about the next game is going to help avoid a lot disappointment.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Those are mostly number tweaking issues. The core system is pretty solid, but making it happen in real time during the actual shots and not having a limit on AP probably would have been better. It would have prevented action combat from being able to exploit its' mechanics.

I agree with this.

Then again I also tried pause to aim in Mass Effect 1 and thought it was almost as clunky and terrible as KotoR's combat, so my opinion that something is better than ME1's pause to aim mechanics probably doesn't say a whole lot.

I didn't use it much in ME1 because of the unlimited ammo, but in ME2 the pause-to-aim feature was necessary to make the game playable for me.

But I preferred the ME1 version because of the stat-driven accuracy. It basically turned aiming into a sort of analog target selection rather than actual aiming.

The player's skill at aiming should only matter if the player wants it to matter (and I never do).

[Hiemoth]

I'm of the opinion that most of ME3 is terribly written and so are a lot of other people. My point remains, BioWare is not universally praised for their storytelling.

 

Really? In my opinion ME3 was extremely well written. It is an opinion shared by a lot of other people. As we plan how to objective determine which of our groups is larger, we can try to determine how large my group needs to be in order for us to accept Bioware's writing generally praised or how proportionally large does your group need to be in order for us to accept that Bioware's writing is not considered that good universally.

 

Or, on the other hand, we could both just accept how meaningless it is to drag an ambigious group of faceless people in to arguments and use them as justification. Whichever works best.

 

 

DAII is criticized for everything. Hardly anyone says "DAII was crap, but the story was exceptional!" Most people only seem to like the second act.

 

Actually I've seen a lot of people say pretty much that, so I guess by this nebolous group argument I have a pretty strong argument for it.

 

Besides that thought, DA2 discussions years after the release were so toxic that it can't be used as evidence for anything. There was almost no healthy discussion on the pros and the cons of the game, instead each thread that tried to even have a slightly positive tone to it was descended by righteous people who had apparently made their sole mission to make it clear that everything about the game was horrible. Only now we are seeing those balanced discussion and, if you follow those, there is actually a lot of love for writing in it. Not universal, but putting that as the standard is just insane, as there is no work of fiction that meets it. Even Dark Knight had loud voices against it.

 

Besides, saying that the story in isn't liked, and then saying that about one of the central story arcs which produced one of the more iconic Bioware antagonists is liked, is just kind of contradictory.

 

 

No MMO is endless. If MMO's were endless there wouldn't be a need for expansion packs. Being endlessly repeatable is not the same as being endless. And why wouldn't a journey end at some point? If we're colonizing a new star system(which is very likely the case) we have a finite number of planets that even fit our criteria. Once we find the worlds to colonize the journey is over.

 

But this would basically require in insane amount of resources. Either each of those worlds has the exactly the same story attributed to it or then we have no story since they can't create an effectively flowing story with numerous possible colony locations.

[Killroy]

Really? In my opinion ME3 was extremely well written. It is an opinion shared by a lot of other people. As we plan how to objective determine which of our groups is larger, we can try to determine how large my group needs to be in order for us to accept Bioware's writing generally praised or how proportionally large does your group need to be in order for us to accept that Bioware's writing is not considered that good universally.
Or, on the other hand, we could both just accept how meaningless it is to drag an ambigious group of faceless people in to arguments and use them as justification. Whichever works best.
Actually I've seen a lot of people say pretty much that, so I guess by this nebolous group argument I have a pretty strong argument for it.
Besides that thought, DA2 discussions years after the release were so toxic that it can't be used as evidence for anything. There was almost no healthy discussion on the pros and the cons of the game, instead each thread that tried to even have a slightly positive tone to it was descended by righteous people who had apparently made their sole mission to make it clear that everything about the game was horrible. Only now we are seeing those balanced discussion and, if you follow those, there is actually a lot of love for writing in it. Not universal, but putting that as the standard is just insane, as there is no work of fiction that meets it. Even Dark Knight had loud voices against it.

 
So you just have no idea what the word universal means?

Besides, saying that the story in isn't liked, and then saying that about one of the central story arcs which produced one of the more iconic Bioware antagonists is liked, is just kind of contradictory.

No it isn't. The second act and the villain of the second act are the entirety of the story of DAII. The second act is actually the shortest act and most people on the BSN and around the internet seem to dislike or not particularly care for the first and third acts.
 

But this would basically require in insane amount of resources. Either each of those worlds has the exactly the same story attributed to it or then we have no story since they can't create an effectively flowing story with numerous possible colony locations.

You're making a lot of unfounded, asinine assumptions. Why would it be an insane amount of work? Why would every world have to be identical? Why would we only colonize one world? Why would the game become a colony management simulator just because we find a suitable planet? Colonies take generations to establish and not every race thrives in the same environment. And do you even know what thread you're in? I specifically said the premise would be avoiding traditional story structure so there would be no need for "flowing" story arcs.

[Hiemoth]

 So you just have no idea what the word universal means?

 

No, I pretty much now exactly what means. In the rather specific example I gave I pointed out that if our definition is universally loved is that literally everyone needs to love it, there is no work of fiction that fits it. I know people who think Citizen Kane is boring, so it is not universally loved. There are people who don't like Witcher 3, this it is not universally loved. So either the argument has simply no weight, as nothing can be universally loved under such strick views, or we accept that there is a proportionality in this argument. However, just mentioning this faceless, ambigious group of people disliking it doesn't really establish is it universally loved or not under the latter.

 

No it isn't. The second act and the villain of the second act are the entirety of the story of DAII. The second act is actually the shortest act and most people on the BSN and around the internet seem to dislike or not particularly care for the first and third acts.

 

Out of curiosity, how you actually played DA2? As this argument is false on so many levels, just from the absurdity that the second act would be shorter than the third. Also the antagonist for the second act is actually introduced and established in the first act.

 

 

You're making a lot of unfounded, asinine assumptions. Why would it be an insane amount of work? Why would every world have to be identical? Why would we only colonize one world? Why would the game become a colony management simulator just because we find a suitable planet? Colonies take generations to establish and not every race thrives in the same environment. And do you even know what thread you're in? I specifically said the premise would be avoiding traditional story structure so there would be no need for "flowing" story arcs.

 

 

Because they'd have to use resources to create each of those worlds? And yeah, I did see the thread and I am simply expressing that I wouldn't like to see a game you are proposing since I like story and character arcs and the freeflow approach you are proposing would basically make that impossible since it is difficult to pace a story when the order of events is pretty much random. Hence why in DAO each of the army collections is completely separate and there is no real character progression for the NPCs outside single scenes unrelated to anything actually happening at that moment. It is a question of preference and I don't quite understand why you feel this is a controversial statement.

[blahblahblah]

Given Bioware track record with style over substance plot devices, being skeptical about the next game is going to help avoid a lot disappointment.

Stop complaining and leave BSN at once. 

[Drone223]

Stop complaining and leave BSN at once. 

If you don't like people expressing their concern with the next title then that's your problem.

[blahblahblah]

If you don't like people expressing their concern with the next title then that's your problem.

If you don't like Bioware's decision then that is your problem and free to leave here. You keep complaining on the same thing again and again without giving your own ideas on how they can fix their contrived plots. 

[Drone223]

If you don't like Bioware's decision then that is your problem and free to leave here. You keep complaining on the same thing again and again without giving your own ideas on how they can fix their contrived plots. 

If people were allowed to express their discontent about what Bioware did with the endings on BSN than they should be allowed to do the same with moving to another galaxy.

[blahblahblah]

If people were allowed to express their discontent about what Bioware did with the endings on BSN than they should be allowed to do the same with moving to another galaxy.

That's the problem, you are just here to complain and never give any ideas on how they will improve their storytelling.

[Kappa Neko]

To me Bioware is not that good at storytelling on a creative level. In fact, Bioware usually just copies ideas shamelessly, puts a different paint job on the whole mix and then sells it as their own. I don't even have a problem with this because what Bioware actually is good at is presentation. They know how to tell am emotional story, even if the story is totally unoriginal and mediocre. Like DAO. Much of their ability to make people care lies in the characters and how they are tied to said unoriginal main story.

 

TW2 had a story so much superior to anything Bioware has ever come up with that it wasn't even funny. But it lacked that emotional impact. So ultimately, something important was missing for me. It comes down to personal preference, of course. Personally, I value emotion over an original or well-written plot. Would be great to have both, of course. But if I can only have one, I will always choose characters/emotion which still means Bioware to me and not CDPR or any of the others that are better at story.

 

Bioware's stories are functional plot-wise. They don't usually have amazing twists, but they get the job done. The villains are usually quite bad/boring. But as I said, they present everything well. The Temple of Mythal quest in DAI is one of my favorite Bioware experiences ever. I thought it was absolutely beautifully presented. I was enchanted. When Bioware gets a scene right, it's a thing of beauty. It stays with me for a long time. I'll always remember these special Bioware fairy dust moments.

 

Sometimes we confuse good presentation with good writing. They are not the same.

[Drone223]

That's the problem, you are just here to complain and never give any ideas on how they will improve their storytelling.

Actually I gave lots of suggestions on how to improve the story long before the game was announced, I'm just skeptical on the direction they're taking.

[blahblahblah]

Actually I gave lots of suggestions on how to improve the story long before the game was announced, I'm just skeptical on the direction they're taking.

Then give an idea on how they can make ME:A's storytelling more consistent since the previous trilogy is totally not.

[Drone223]

Then give an idea on how they can make ME:A's storytelling more consistent since the previous trilogy is totally not.

Except I've already given them, less rule of cool/space magic plot devices i.e. lazarus project serves no purpose what-so-ever.

[Linkenski]

Except I've already given them, less rule of cool/space magic plot devices i.e. lazarus project serves no purpose what-so-ever.

I think you're talking past each other. Drone's saying consistency within one game entity and Blahblabla is talking about consistency for Mass Effect as a whole franchise.

[blahblahblah]

I think you're talking past each other. Drone's saying consistency within one game entity and Blahblabla is talking about consistency for Mass Effect as a whole franchise.

Exactly.

[Cyonan]

I didn't use it much in ME1 because of the unlimited ammo, but in ME2 the pause-to-aim feature was necessary to make the game playable for me.

But I preferred the ME1 version because of the stat-driven accuracy. It basically turned aiming into a sort of analog target selection rather than actual aiming.

The player's skill at aiming should only matter if the player wants it to matter (and I never do).

 

The thing with Mass Effect 1 is that you don't get the choice. You have to have your weapon's bullet spread based on your skill in the respective weapon. The only saving grace is that most weapon's aren't bad except for the Assault Rifle, and Sniper Rifles get gun sway instead of bullet spread(meaning player skill can overcome it). Fallout 3/NV actually do the same thing with the guns skills affecting weapon spread.

 

I feel like if you're going to try for a hybrid system like that, it's better to have the penalty that you get in action mode be something that can be overcome with skill like the gun sway. It's annoying to aim myself and have an arbitrary chance to miss on top of that. If they give you a choice, it should be one or the other.

 

As I recall, ME1 doesn't lock your crosshairs to the target though so if they're a moving target you essentially have to pause and re-adjust your aim every second if you want to actually hit anything, or you have to start aiming in real time.

[Drone223]

I think you're talking past each other. Drone's saying consistency within one game entity and Blahblabla is talking about consistency for Mass Effect as a whole franchise.

Using contrived plot devices does cause problems for the consistency in the franchise since they can result in bad retcon's that begin to add up across the series and breaks SoD i.e. Cerberus is portrayed very inconstantly in the franchise, from small rogue alliance faction in ME1 to massive organization with fleets in ME2