79 réponses à ce sujet

[RoboticWater]

I know CoD's reputation makes it hard to believe, but I think there's a few things to glean from BLOPS2's reactivity.

 

1) In Game Choice

There's a scene in the game where you're forced to shoot a hostage with a bag over his head. You can either shoot his head and kill him or shoot his knee and only wound him. I particularly like this choice because it's built into the core gameplay mechanics and not tied to some arbitrary button prompt. Although, It might have been nice if the game actually told you that going for the knee was a valid choice given that Call of Duty isn't known for it's non-lethal takedowns.

 

I don't mean to bash the dialog wheel and interrupts, as they're perfectly acceptable methods of offering choice; however, a few in-game decisions would only enhance the game's flow and immersion.

 

2) Failure

Other in-game choices aren't really choices at all, but rather pass/fail challenges. A few times in the game will have a character die because you failed to complete the mission within certain parameters. Again, this kind of thing helps with immersion, keeping the players cognizant of their actions both in and out of dialog sequences.

 

It might be tough on those who aren't very good with TPSs, but maybe Mass Effect could occasionally fail players based on their diplomatic or problem solving abilities. 

 

3) Surprise

One or two of BLOPS2's consequences come out of nowhere, and I think that's fantastic.

 

Incidentally, killing one of you allies (or letting him die by failing a mission) will end up giving you a better outcome than if you let him live. More importantly, the game does not give any sort of hint that this choice will have any relationship to the outcome it has. The player has no way of knowing that they've screwed up until it's too late.

 

I wouldn't want it to happen all the time, but that feeling of unwittingly screwing yourself over is something I like to experience.

[dreamgazer]

No it isn't. 

 

Spoiler

The wording of the title and the "RPG" comment? Mild trolling involved, yeah.

 

The suggestion that BioWare might want to up their C&C game so as not to draw comparisons to "a Call of Duty game"? Not trolling whatsoever.  

 

Whether I'm screwing around or not, I won't start a topic unless there's actually something worth discussing there.

[Schmonozov]

 

Lets hope a mod will remove this pointless comment soon.

 

*Chuckles* What's the point of removing a pointless comment in a pointless thread? And taking an obvious troll thread and the posts in it seriously.... *Facedesk*

[dreamgazer]

*Chuckles* What's the point of removing a pointless comment in a pointless thread? And taking an obvious troll thread and the posts in it seriously.... *Facedesk*

 

I think aspiring to do C&C better than Call of Duty is a perfectly worthwhile point.

[Zazzerka]

I do like Michael Rooker.

[Dubozz]

actually CoD BO 2 was pretty great in terms of "choice - consequences". Endings were different as well. 

[Drone223]

The way choices were handled in BO:2 was surprisingly good another feature BO:2 did well was that failing to complete certain objectives would affect how the story play's out.

[The Heretic of Time]

*Chuckles* What's the point of removing a pointless comment in a pointless thread? And taking an obvious troll thread and the posts in it seriously.... *Facedesk*

 

Why do you think it's an obvious troll thread? Asking BioWare to do choices & consequences better than Call of Duty Black Ops 2 is a perfectly worthwhile point to discuss.

 

In a way it's actually sad that a FPS does c&c better than an RPG, but it is the truth. BioWare could learn a thing or two from CoD:BO2.

[The Antagonist]

+1 SP should be 5 hours and bioware should focus on MP

[NWN-Ming-Ming]

If Mass Effect can learn to implement more detailed and meaningful choice and consequences, I won't look the source 'gift horse' in the mouth, but I personally despise CoD and related shooter games.  Mass Effect to me was at its strongest as a RPG first, before 'streamlining' to appeal to the shooter console crowd. 

[The Heretic of Time]

Spoiler

The wording of the title and the "RPG" comment? Mild trolling involved, yeah.

 

The suggestion that BioWare might want to up their C&C game so as not to draw comparisons to "a Call of Duty game"? Not trolling whatsoever.  

 

Whether I'm screwing around or not, I won't start a topic unless there's actually something worth discussing there.

 

Spoiler

Of course I understood that you're trying to drive home how sad it is that an FPS has better c&c than BioWare's RPGs. But everything you wrote in the OP is completely true. Telling the truth is not trolling.

[NWN-Ming-Ming]

+1 SP should be 5 hours and bioware should focus on MP

 

I propose that MP be cut from the game entirely.  ME3 and DAI MP are ghost towns and Bioware knows the demographic is not there, it's in the RPG fans.

[Deebo305]

I find it hilarious how quickly this was dismissed by the majority despite Blacks Op having the best campaign in the history of CoD (not sure about BO3 though)

Still I would chosen Black Ops 1 as my template, the insanity with Alex Mason blew my mind near the end

[Drone223]

 

 

I propose that MP be cut from the game entirely.  ME3 and DAI MP are ghost towns and Bioware knows the demographic is not there, it's in the RPG fans.

The MP in ME3 got 5 DLC packs and was highly praised MP will no doubt return.

[blahblahblah]

 

I propose that MP be cut from the game entirely.  ME3 and DAI MP are ghost towns and Bioware knows the demographic is not there, it's in the RPG fans.

It's ironic that ME3's MP is still running and EA earn a lot of profit from its microtransactions.

[The Heretic of Time]

 

I propose that MP be cut from the game entirely.  ME3 and DAI MP are ghost towns and Bioware knows the demographic is not there, it's in the RPG fans.

 

DAI's MP might be a ghost town but don't think for a second that ME3's MP is. Granted, the last time I played ME3's MP was over a year ago but in 2014 the ME3 MP was still very active. I'm sure there are still people playing ME3's MP today.

[Drone223]

ME would benefit from having completing certain objectives affect the outcome of the story in addition to player choices.

[NWN-Ming-Ming]

ME would benefit from having completing certain objectives affect the outcome of the story in addition to player choices.

I am pretty sure that already happened in ME2 and ME 3, in regards to the Suicide Mission character outcomes and the War Effort contributions on the final battle for Earth.

[The Heretic of Time]

I am pretty sure that already happened in ME2 and ME 3, in regards to the Suicide Mission character outcomes and the War Effort contributions on the final battle for Earth.

 

Correct, but it was very minor. I'd suggest to take it a step further and take player skill into account. What I propose is certain missions having multiple goals and some of them should be pretty hard to complete. Failing such a goal should lead to a different outcome than completing it.

On top of that: Missions should have multiple goals that are mutually exclusive. Completing goal A will automatically fails goal B and vice-versa. Choosing which goal to complete will alter the outcome of the story.

 

ME2 already had this but the execution was horrible. Zaeed's mission would be an example of what I'm proposing, except that Zaeed's mission was a cop-out for multiple reasons:

1) Letting the nameless and faceless workers die had no consequences whatsoever. I really didn't care about abandoning the nameless and faceless workers to get Zaeed's loyalty.

2) If you do decide that for whatever reason the lives of these nameless and faceless workers are more important than Zaeed's loyalty, you can still get Zaeed loyal through Paragon talk-jutsu if you have enough Paragon points. This makes the entire decision between going after Vido or rescuing the workers completely pointless. Basically the Paragon player gets his cake and eats it too. It's cheap and a cop-out.

Missions like Zaeed's loyalty mission but without the cop-outs that I described above is what I like to see more of in ME:A.

[BabyPuncher]

Correct, but it was very minor. I'd suggest to take it a step further and take player skill into account.

 

Nope.

 

I should save this somewhere so I can just copy and paste it. This is a video game. It's a mass-produced product specifically and deliberately designed to be beatable with a reasonable minimum of frustration by players are young as 11 or 12 and of not only average, but significantly below average intelligence and skill.

 

It's a product you, the player, completes by sitting on a couch in an air conditioned room and pressing buttons on a plastic controller or keyboard. That's what a video game is.

 

If you want a more difficult video game, play on a higher difficulty mode. That's what developers put it there for. But the concept of "I'm a more tactical, smarter, more skilled player and therefore deserve a better story' is really very silly.

[The Arbiter]

I find it hilarious how quickly this was dismissed by the majority despite Blacks Op having the best campaign in the history of CoD (not sure about BO3 though)

Still I would chosen Black Ops 1 as my template, the insanity with Alex Mason blew my mind near the end

Nope! this was the best COD campaign in the history of COD 

 

/THREAD

 

[Quarian Master Race]

Some great suggestions OP. It's always fun to see the RPGtards froth at the mouth at the mere mention of a shooter or MP game, despite the fact that BO2 had a cohesive narrative, compelling villian and meaningful C&C, all things which every ME game has thus far lacked.

If Mass Effect can learn to implement more detailed and meaningful choice and consequences, I won't look the source 'gift horse' in the mouth, but I personally despise CoD and related shooter games. Mass Effect to me was at its strongest as a RPG first, before 'streamlining' to appeal to the shooter console crowd.

ME started as a console exclusive, and has always been an action TPS. Hurr durr

ME's combat was fixed in ME2 because the former was terrible design from a company that obviously hadn't done a shooter before.

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

I am pretty sure that already happened in ME2 and ME 3, in regards to the Suicide Mission character outcomes and the War Effort contributions on the final battle for Earth.

 

I wouldn't call whether Big Ben is shown getting destroyed or not in an ending cutscene a very compelling or satisfying consequence to dozens of variables calculated into the war effort calculation.

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

Some great suggestions OP. It's always fun to see the RPGtards froth at the mouth at the mere mention of a shooter or MP game, despite the fact that BO2 had a cohesive narrative, compelling villian and meaningful C&C, all things which every ME game has thus far lacked.



ME started as a console exclusive, and has always been an action TPS. Hurr durr

ME's combat was fixed in ME2 because the former was terrible design from a company that obviously hadn't done a shooter before.

 

 

They certainly improved the combat, but removed many RPG elements as well, which disappointed many RPG fans. They could have had better combat and still develop a better inventory and crafting system instead of cutting them. They could have then kept the ability to find or make companion gear instead of cutting that RPG element.

[NWN-Ming-Ming]

ME started as a console exclusive, and has always been an action TPS. Hurr durr

ME's combat was fixed in ME2 because the former was terrible design from a company that obviously hadn't done a shooter before.

It was an action-RPG that happened to be console first, doesn't make it a 'shooter'.  And I felt the first game was superior in interface than the subsequent designs.... for an RPG. 

 

BTW- you're muted.