It might not impact the outcome, but it absolutely impacts the narrative. You create a distinct narrative with every playthrough - in the choices you make, the missions you accept / reject, the order in which you complete them.
True, but its just like the Witcher 2 in the fact that it is illusionary and bottlenecks, regardless of choices made.
Nothing wrong with that of course, but its simply the way things are in terms of game design.
After Trespasser, I've had this itch to replay DA:I, but then when I think about what a time sink the game is and all the busy work involved, I immediately get scared away from it. When I played DA:O, I never once felt like I was farting around and wasting my time. Yes you have to sort out other factions problems, but I felt like I was working towards something every time. DA:I was 1 part Story and 3 parts bopping around collecting stuff and completing a myriad (sorry Jeff) of side quests that offer crap experience and gold. And this irked me to no end, but most of the time you spent exploring there was hardly any music. I know some people prefer to just sit in the dark of their room and listen to nothing but the Inquisitor's footsteps for hours on end while they explore, but I like background music damn it. It's relaxing to listen to.
In that case ME2 is nearly identical to ME1, even though there are no 'big choices' there.It might not impact the outcome, but it absolutely impacts the narrative. You create a distinct narrative with every playthrough - in the choices you make, the missions you accept / reject, the order in which you complete them.
It might not impact the outcome, but it absolutely impacts the narrative. You create a distinct narrative with every playthrough - in the choices you make, the missions you accept / reject, the order in which you complete them.
I disagree that it impacts it any more than in the subsequent games. More in a bit.
In that case ME2 is nearly identical to ME1, even though there are no 'big choices' there.
Couple missions -> breakpoint -> couple missions -> breakpoint -> couple missions -> oh crap it's over.
Spot on.
Mass Effect 1 structure:
Prologue (Eden Prime) -> Investigate Saren (Citadel) -> Do 2 of 3 Story Planets to Unlock Virmire -> Complete last 2 Story Planets -> Citadel Lockdown -> Illos -> Final Battle
There is a very limited difference in a run. Additionally, the only optional bit of the main narrative is the small fork going the Barla Von/Wrex or Harkin/Garrus path on the Citadel and potentially the Wrex Family Armor side mission (depending on your persuade level). This is actually a smaller amount of nominally mainline content than you can skip in ME2. And the difference being that in ME2 it actually makes a difference within game and in ME3.
Mass Effect 2 structure:
Prologue (Lazarus) -> Investigate Collectors (Freedom's Progress) -> Recruit 4 squadmates for mission (any order) -> Horizon -> Continue Recruiting Squadmates until total number is 8 and you are 5 missions past Horizon -> Disabled Collector Cruiser -> Do whatever you want -> Reaper IFF -> nominally 2 missions -> Crew Abduction -> Do whatever you want -> Suicide Mission.
Like it or not, recruitment missions were a large part of the narrative here. And not only are recruitment missions post Horizon potentially optional, all of the loyalty missions are optional. However, unlike in ME1, this all potentially affects the outcome of the game, and subsequent availability of cameos / missions in ME3.
Not from what I have seen or heard, at least from people playing.
there's the problem with your point right there. You can't really make one if you haven't played it for yourself. Bottom line is, I've played through it twice (currently beginning my third playthrough). I had two completely different experiences and epilogues regarding everything from the world state to individual characters. When people live or die and nations rise or fall based on your decisions, that's a branching narrative any way you slice it.
Seems the overwhelming response on these forums whenever TW3 comes up in conversation: "that's what I've heard, I haven't played it."
One thing that can be said of the game - I've never been a fan of the series, and I've sunk 122 hours into it to reach 38% completion. And while I am taking a needed breather from it, I'm not tired of it.
I would not say that the story suffers for being gigantically open world at all, either.
In that case ME2 is nearly identical to ME1, even though there are no 'big choices' there.
Couple missions -> breakpoint -> couple missions -> breakpoint -> couple missions -> oh crap it's over.
Like it or not, recruitment missions were a large part of the narrative here. And not only are recruitment missions post Horizon potentially optional, all of the loyalty missions are optional. However, unlike in ME1, this all potentially affects the outcome of the game, and subsequent availability of cameos / missions in ME3.
After seeing Inquisition's crack at quasi Open World, I don't think its BioWare's best idea. The weakest parts of Inquisition were the parts that were related to or a result of the open world structure.
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:
That's why I said it wasn't perfect and I'm playing Metal Gear right now and I don't mind the story so far. The only thing I'm hoping for Andromeda is that the side quests and main quests in general have substance and are interesting to play. Inquisition definitely could've done a better job at this.
there's the problem with your point right there. You can't really make one if you haven't played it for yourself. Bottom line is, I've played through it twice (currently beginning my third playthrough). I had two completely different experiences and epilogues regarding everything from the world state to individual characters. When people live or die and nations rise or fall based on your decisions, that's a branching narrative any way you slice it.
Seems the overwhelming response on these forums whenever TW3 comes up in conversation: "that's what I've heard, I haven't played it."
Sure I can. It's a judgement on what you see, and it's a lot more than judging a book by its cover, so to speak. Seeing people play it thoroughly or what not is just as valuable as talking with people about it, also a valuable tool in a visual medium in the end. The only thing we don't get a handle on is mechanics.
Not to mention I can't play Witcher 3 due to limitations; apparently the PS4 version is terrible and my laptop is not going to run it no matter how hard I try. But I need to know about it to talk about it here, and I need to see what happens to I can make a judgement call on it's narrative, design, structure, and the like. It's called research for a reason that way, so yeah, I can make a judgement in the end about what I see. Not playing it doesn't change that much in the end, because actually playing it is a focus on a different set of judgements- the actual gameplay mechanics.
What you describe in essence is in almost all of the games discussed though. I guess that is a branching narrative in that respect, but then again what you describe sounds like the epilogues of Inquisition as well. If we are counting that as part of the branching narrative, then you are right, but most of these games have it now outside of Bethesda. Hell, GTA V has it too if I recall.
That said, you still get to the same end point in the narrative, and is there any actual deviation of that narrative in relation to the games plot? That is more or less what I am referring to when I say there is no branching.
ME1's narrative structure (the "BioWare formula") isn't a desirable model at all.
You sacrifice the story's pacing, progression, and integration of characters all on the altar of having the barest illusion of choice of choosing which order to complete a list of plot coupons in.
ME1's narrative structure (the "BioWare formula") isn't a desirable model at all.
You sacrifice the story's pacing, progression, and integration of characters all on the altar of having the barest illusion of choice of choosing which order to complete a list of plot coupons in.
I'd take it over ME2's structure
ME1's narrative structure (the "BioWare formula") isn't a desirable model at all.
You sacrifice the story's pacing, progression, and integration of characters all on the altar of having the barest illusion of choice of choosing which order to complete a list of plot coupons in.
It's not an illusion. There are very few "must do now" missions in ME1. How your character decides to prioritize and approach them has a huge payoff for role-playing.
Enforced pacing is not a desirable trait in a game. It's great in a 2-hour movie, not a 40+ hour game where the player ultimately controls the pacing, anyway. There are few things I dislike more than having some major plot point revealed or an oh-so-urgent mission assigned or some oh-the-drama! sequence of cutscenes start playing just as I need to log out for the night... or answer the phone... or run an errand... or whatever. The net result is that unless the player has a big enough uninterrupted chunk of time to finish a complete playthrough, the player has to actively resist the game's attempt to enforce pacing.
The availability of quests became so tightly controlled in ME2, they had to assign a yeoman to stand right next to Shepard and manage her appointment book. Boo.
With only a few minor modifications (which the game does not prevent the player from headcanoning), ME1 would be just about perfect:
-- Lose the "race against time" terminology wrt finding Saren
-- Give the collections missions more plot relevance. The Matriarch's writings, League of One Medallions, etc. could be rumored to include some encoded information vital to stopping Saren - and in some of my playthroughs, they were.
-- Oh, and lose the mini-game. If I have someone qualified to hack or decrypt in the party, it should happen without the player needing to pass some skill test.
I really hated the way a lot of missions started in ME3 - having the team dropped off right in the middle of a hot zone, in full view of enemy combatants. Not only did it mean the team had zero opportunity to assess the situation, plan tactics, set up ammo loads, etc., but it also made Shepard feel like a complete idiot with a death wish - and the enemies lame for having allowed them to arrive alive.
Pacing... pffft.
I wouldn't underestimate pacing. That is a major weakness in a lot of BioWare games; it takes a long damn time to get things going as it is, and the pacing of the story is uneven most of the time at best.
Hell, one of the issues with Inquisition is pacing; the open world gets in the way at times with what you can and cant do, and especially the main story because it would be hours before you go through a main story mission.
Now it shouldn't be enforced, but it should be maintained. How it was in Mass Effect 1 was kind of uneven as well, very top-heavy but it was hidden well.
In truth, the best paced game I have seen BioWare do was Dragon Age II; it had a decent amount of set-up, but everything you did was tied to something else in the game, and came to a head in the end. The first act was a bit long but it had to be for that set up, and you got payoffs for act 2 and 3 that more or less made sense.
I'd like an equal measure or story/ character focus. As much as I find the combat in ME2/3 fun it's not what I come to the series for.
With the Mako returning, a new galaxy, the protag being called The Pathfinder, and developers pointing to having a strong emphasis on exploration again, all signs are pointing towards another Open World experience, much like DA:I was.Please for the love of god no.I love having plenty of content in a game and feeling like I got my money's worth, but I'm sick of seeing pacing and storytelling take a back seat. DA:I's pacing and storytelling took a huge hit because of this. I just finished playing MGSV. Great gameplay for sure, but oh my god was it's story the worst in the series. There's also been no word that ME:A will be the start of a new Trilogy. I feel as if it's going to have this very self contained story, with a huge emphasis on exploration and side questing. Okay that's awesome for games like Fallout or TES, but I play Mass Effect for the story.
This is where linear games excell. In Story telling like the Metro Series. If it went open world sure beautiful place but then... the plot becomes meh. Very seldom you see games having great narrative and openworld gameplay this is where Borderlands 2 excell
I lked DAI, but I skipped huge parts of it. The main story and characters were good, the open world, meh. If I did all the fetch quests I'd probably end up hating DA forever. If MEA goes the same route, wich going by the leaks, it sure as hell seems so; I'd probably end doing the same.
It can be fixed very easily IMO. Take ME1, the mako exploration was bad, good idea but lazy execution. Sure, you get the ocasional bomb and cerberus base, which were good, but almost everything was collecting minerals of other crap. So if they have more of the former and less of the later, then we'll be ok. Which they should haeve done for ME2 and ME3, instead of removing it altogether and adding the scaning thing.
On the other hand while having empty rock planets devoid of life was kind of boring, it does helped with tone and realism. Most planets ARE rocks with no signs of life 
I just need some slightly more interesting things on those rocks.
Not really. While I love the story in Bioware games, they need some exploration, imo. The small little 'arenas' of the ME series were quite tiresome.
It's pretty easy to avoid busywork in DA: I on replays, especially since the Golden Nug eliminates the need for spending cash on anything but Power.
It's pretty easy to avoid busywork in DA: I on replays, especially since the Golden Nug eliminates the need for spending cash on anything but Power.
Even on subsequent plays before the nug, I've never had to grind. Just playing the game normally and not going out of my way specifically has amassed enough power to proceed
It's pretty easy to avoid busywork in DA: I on replays, especially since the Golden Nug eliminates the need for spending cash on anything but Power.
It's almost as if that nug is in there to make things easier for people...
Which I appreciate. It would make playthroughs faster as a result.
I'm very afraid. I don't want a single player MMO with unbelievably bad side quests without any presentation/cutscenes again. I also don't want to collect shards and these bullshit again. The change from linear to Open World was the worst idea ever.
Even on subsequent plays before the nug, I've never had to grind. Just playing the game normally and not going out of my way specifically has amassed enough power to proceed
Definitely, I never had to grind, even on first playtrough, which I'm grateful for 
Retour en haut