Recent games like Metal Gear and Witcher were able to have good stories while being in an open world setting, they're not perfect but they did a decent enough job. I have faith Andromeda will have a good story while having a lot to do in the open world itself.
I wouldn't say that, there are a lot of fans disappointed with MGSV's storyline, especially now that it's confirmed to be unfinished.
You should check out the comments at Kojima's tweet:
https://twitter.com/...617414778548228
The problem is that one person's "unnecessary stuff" is another person's primary reason for playing the game.
What you call "better pacing", I would call enforced pacing. Control of pacing works very well in other types of fiction, but I really dislike it in games, since I prefer to play at my own pace.
That's true. However ME is not open world game so anyone's primary reason for playing ME:A won't likely be open worldness (unless they didn't like franchise before and only plan to buy ME:A, because it's open world).
Pacing in games keeps the story going forward and being immersive.
I don't think having a linear, well-executed story has anything to do with the open world setting, though. I'm playing TW3, and as far as open worlds go, it's one of the best I've ever had the pleasure to run around in, but the story is super linear (and very well-told, as those things go). Same deal with any given GTA game, but those are really cited for lousy storytelling (emphatically not my favorite games, but they have focused, linear narratives).
Beth games are generally weak in this regard (subjective) but that's because Beth has just never been great at that anyway (subjective - I actually love the main storyline for Skyrim, myself).
From my experience it does. Resources are used to something and focusing making world big size wise seems to hurt story aspect of the games. After DAI it seems like open worldness and Bioware don't belong together. ME:A is free to try again, however I'll be worried over the game.
^ jesus gamers are so obnoxious (@ the tweet responses)
That's true. However ME is not open world game so anyone's primary reason for playing ME:A won't likely be open worldness (unless they didn't like franchise before and only plan to buy ME:A, because it's open world).
Pacing in games keeps the story going forward and being immersive.
From my experience it does. Resources are used to something and focusing making world big size wise seems to hurt story aspect of the games. After DAI it seems like open worldness and Bioware don't belong together. ME:A is free to try again, however I'll be worried over the game.
But open world games can have well-paced stories. I gave a few examples in my earlier post.
And ME1 was close, at times. It wasn't super linear (though neither was it particularly expansive) - you could tackle anything in any order you wanted, and there were a ton of wide open uncharted planets to explore. Conversely, DAI is open world in the same sense that BG was open world - which is to say, it's kinda not at all. It just has big zones.
That said, it really doesn't sound like you've played many great open world games. Which I can't necessarily blame you for, if the subject matter doesn't appeal to you (hell, I played GTA5 once, solely because it seemed like a neat open world game, which it was. And while I think crime stories are stupid, if it's your cup of tea, I think the storyline was probably pretty good. I don't think it suffered for being massively open world).
I think in this case, it's much more likely that Bioware screwed up a little bit with DAI. Old gen co-development and engine changes made for wonky priorities, and it showed in the uneven execution.
I think the bigger problem is what kind of story do you really want?
Open world is impossible fully, because being able to do what we want precludes a power fantasy in our direction; we simply should have no goals but what we pre-determine for ourselves to experience the world. Bethesda, for all of its faults, was good at this; finding random things like a campsite with a dead body, a secret cave or a hidden chest adds to that feeling, it fits perfectly on the exploration category of the bartle test.
When you add narrative to it, Bethesda fails because the narrative is short by design. There is not much going on because the star of the game is you, not the people around you. This is why a game like Witcher 3 also gets away with it; the problem with Witcher 3 is narratively speaking, there is not much to it- linear by design of course, like all RPGs are to a degree, but also focusing on smaller, minutiae details I personally think to add flavor to the game, but to also pad it out. There is a reason why branching storylines and story complexity were abandoned in Witcher 3, to fuel the open world and compromise going where you want and smaller arced questlines. Even the mundane quests, while having a small scene or two, is really akin to The Old Republic in how they tackle questline presentation (just with better cinematography and overall some better quests.)
Inquisition did a hybrid of it with mixed results as well. The filler content is obvious because its what folks focus on; collecting shards and the like. However, the worlds have their own hidden treasures, much like The Witcher 3 and Bethesda Games. One of my favorite side-quests is actually something I found on accident; it was an ancient ruin on the Exalted Plains which had a light puzzle to it, with a pretty neat reward for your troubles and a tough fight against a demon. Completely throwaway, and likely only a few people know what I am talking about, the Dead Hand room, but it was a great moment, and it didn't need a cutscene to show it off, it just needed to be found.
We can argue which game did what better, but the question is what are we actually asking for? An open world game, be it an RPG or crime game or shooter or what have you, by it's design will always force other elements of the game to take a backseat. "Story-driven" content is a very vague statement, because if you really think about it, the only way to properly pace, control and drive a plot, with a semi-branching narrative, is to curb your sense of exploration of the world around you. No BioWare game has ever been non-linear. We get some elements of choosing our path, but the destination is always the same; and that is by design. Witcher and MGS, Skyrim and Inquisition, each of them tackles it a different way, and all of them have strengths and weaknesses in attempting to showcase story and open worlds.
The real trick now is simple- what kind of story are you really after here? Do you want cut-scenes and framed shots, do you want peripheral storytelling, relegated to found notes and lost treasures? Do you want to make your own story in the end?
That to me is a better question in solving this "problem"
Kind of odd that people who were biblicaly butt-hurt at the super-narrow narrative choices in 2 and 3 are now saying "DO THAT SOME MORE, I DON'T WANT TO HAVE THE STORY I HATED SO MUCH DILUTED BY STUFF LIKE FREEDOM OF CHOICE OR DOING THINGS IN A COMPLETELY NONLINEAR FASHION"
What are you talking about? When did people cry against this? Are you talking about choices not mattering in ME2 and ME3? Cause that's a separate issue.
Also calling the narrative in MSG V directed means you haven't actually finished it, cause the overarching word circumscribing it is kinda the opposite of that. Literally.
What do you mean by "directed"?
The myriad unforgivable I-can't-believe-this-game-actually-shipped-like-this problems with MGSV's narrative are not apparent until further in. Let's just leave it at that.
After DAI? Yea, worried is the operative word... I will not preorder anything this time, that's for sure.
Kind of odd that people who were biblicaly butt-hurt at the super-narrow narrative choices in 2 and 3 are now saying "DO THAT SOME MORE, I DON'T WANT TO HAVE THE STORY I HATED SO MUCH DILUTED BY STUFF LIKE FREEDOM OF CHOICE OR DOING THINGS IN A COMPLETELY NONLINEAR FASHION"
Well, you can rest assured, I was not one of those people.
Well, there was a conceptual problem with putting exploration in a game with ME1's plot, but that's not quite the same thing as having a problem with the exploration concept itself.
Even if you didn't like ME1's exploration implementation, it wasn't likely that it really hurt your experience too much. You could blow off all of it without any repercussions, and it was so obviously a cheap implementation that you knew you weren't having tons of dev time directed to something that was worthless to you. ( I complained about ME1's exploration plenty, and I was glad it got yanked, but I don't think having it hurt the game.)
Oddly enough, I think DAI was hurt by being more integrated. Not only do you have to do a bit more exploration, but a lot of players seem to have been fooled into thinking that they have to do more of it than they actually have to.
I would say that the problem there was with ME1 thinking that "exploration" meant throwing together a bunch of maps where the player could dick around filling bars or doing mercenary work completely unrelated to the main plot 100 light years away from where you should be.
BioWare could still include exploration as an organic extension of the story. For example, rescuing Liara in ME1 could involve approaching her dig site through an open sandbox map of a ruined Prothean city where there could be things like alternate approaches, bonus objectives, and collectibles or artifacts.
There is a reason why branching storylines and story complexity were abandoned in Witcher 3, to fuel the open world and compromise going where you want and smaller arced questlines.
No, they weren't. Maybe TW3 didn't give you a completely different second act based on a lone decision like TW2 did, but it's narrative certainly branches. Much more so than anything Bioware has done in recent memory.
The myriad unforgivable I-can't-believe-this-game-actually-shipped-like-this problems with MGSV's narrative are not apparent until further in. Let's just leave it at that.
Myriad? Chapter 51 is the only one I can think of. I'm totally fine with everything else.
No, they weren't. Maybe TW3 didn't give you a completely different second act based on a lone decision like TW2 did, but it's narrative certainly branches. Much more so than anything Bioware has done in recent memory.
Not from what I have seen or heard, at least from people playing.
Keep in mind most of this is an observation of fan chatter. I played Inquisition, Elder Scrolls and the like, not Witcher 3 yet.
Well, I hope story doesn't take a back seat. But ME1 was exploring the galaxy. And considering this is a new galaxy, people would want to be able to explore. I don't mind if it has the options for those to explore and options for those who don't. I'll probably be exploring much of the galaxy as I can before progressing through to the story.
Myriad? Chapter 51 is the only one I can think of. I'm totally fine with everything else.
I admit I indulge in my love of the word "myriad" a bit overmuch.
But there's more than Mission 51 missing, I'd say.
Because that's exactly what happened in Inquisition, right?
Kind of odd that people who were biblicaly butt-hurt at the super-narrow narrative choices in 2 and 3 are now saying "DO THAT SOME MORE, I DON'T WANT TO HAVE THE STORY I HATED SO MUCH DILUTED BY STUFF LIKE FREEDOM OF CHOICE OR DOING THINGS IN A COMPLETELY NONLINEAR FASHION"
You forgot to include ME1. The breadth of narrative choice wasn't any larger than the subsequent games. 
I admit I indulge in my love of the word "myriad" a bit overmuch.
But there's more than Mission 51 missing, I'd say.
Spoiler
Yeah, ultimately the pacing is the biggest slayer there.
You forgot to include ME1. The breadth of narrative choice wasn't any larger than the subsequent games.
I liked TW3, but I couldn't complete it. I don't really complete too many RPGs. Only a few. Still struggling to beat DA:I.
I didn't used to have a problem completing RPGs. I grew up on Final Fantasy VII, Xenogears -- games that took me 60+ hours and were packed to bursting with plot. I like those games.
Nowadays so many of them thrive on super-supplemental busywork. 60 hours has become 100+, but not in a way I'd prefer. I dunno. It's harder.
The breadth of narrative choice in ME1 was huge compared to subsequent games. You could do any main mission, side mission, or pure exploration in just about any order you'd choose. You could re-visit some locations even after having completed the main missions there. ME1 also provided multiple means of mission acquisition - you could learn about them by hacking a terminal, or simply enter the system.
Both ME2 & 3 parceled out much of their content step by step.
How did the order of the missions affect the narrative? It did not, outside of a couple lines of dialogue. The story is largely identical either way.
Side missions do not affect the narrative substantially in any installment, and they affected it the least in ME1.
How did the order of the missions affect the narrative? It did not, outside of a couple lines of dialogue. The story is largely identical either way.
Side missions do not affect the narrative substantially in any installment, and they affected it the least in ME1.
Retour en haut