69 réponses à ce sujet

[Queen Skadi]

I mean instead of galaxy spanning adventures about saving the universe that feature most of the game's content in one long playthrough, why not create a game based around smaller scale events in a smaller area that focuses more on branching narrative like the Way of the Samurai series only with better production values? I mean each individual playthrough would be shorter but in order to get the full story you would have to play through the game multiple times and play through multiple branching paths using what you had learned on previous playthroughs to eventually solve the case.

 

Lets say for instance the game places you in the role of a Turian (lets call him Garrus Vakarian), once a C-sec officer he grew tired of the red tape and decided to go at it alone creating his own private detective agency with fedoras and ****. A gorgeous Quarian dame walks through the door swaying her ample hips, she come to the citadel looking for her sister and a few other Quarians who went missing on their pilgrimage, C-sec refuses to touch the case leaving Garrus as her only hope, despite his better judgement he accepts the case, something about this gal reeks of trouble but he never could refuse a gorgeous dame in an Exo suit.

 

It is up to you to chase down suspects and choose which leads to follow up on, but you only have a limited amount of time before the case runs cold and you lose the trail.

[Dermain]

Then they'd have another Dragon Age 2 on their hands.

 

They can't have that.

[Ashii6]

Then they'd have another Dragon Age 2 on their hands.

 

They can't have that.

DA2 was fine, even with all its flaws. Hella better than Inquisition, imo.

[Queen Skadi]

Then they'd have another Dragon Age 2 on their hands.

 

They can't have that.

 

Ok lets clear one thing up, Dragon Age 2 did not suck because they tried something different, Dragon Age 2 sucked because it was bad and was rushed out the door with little effort put into it.

[Dermain]

Ok lets clear one thing up, Dragon Age 2 did not suck because they tried something different, Dragon Age 2 sucked because it was bad and was rushed out the door with little effort put into it.

 

I recall a time on this forums when that was one of the reasons it sucked as well as the other stuff.

 

I also recall a time when off topic was a thing.

 

How times have changed

[Queen Skadi]

I recall a time on this forums when that was one of the reasons it sucked as well as the other stuff.

 

Naw, it was one of the reasons those defending it gave in an effort to try and deflect criticisms by making out that anyone hating on the game was a blind xenophobe that hates anything new, it was the sort of statement that was made along with comments like "if this game were released by any other company it would be considered good, the only reason people are calling it **** is because of the high standard set by Bioware", the truth of the matter was the game was just **** and would be considered **** no matter who released it.

[Kappa Neko]

Yup, DA2 had a pretty great narrative. I wouldn't mind something more personal for a Mass Effect game at all.

Currently replaying DA2 and enjoying it more than the first time. It's an awesome game, especially considering how little development time it had.

 

They actually put a lot of thought into the friendship/rivalry system. I wish people could get over the map recycling and appreciate what Bioware tried to do with the game.

It had a lot of good ideas.

 

I've enjoyed all Dragon Age and Mass Effect games so far. Especially the Dragon Age games are all different, have different weaknesses and strengths. Keeps things interesting imo.

 

So I don't really care what kind of game ME:A is as long as they keep their focus on character interactions. They could release a Telltale-style game and I'd gladly buy it. What I don't want is a Halo clone with heavy multilayer focus and lame tacked on singleplayer with half the dialogue of the previous games.

[Dermain]

It had a lot of good ideas.

 

Exactly, but did BioWare decide to learn from any of them for DAI? 

 

Nope.

 

Naw, it was one of the reasons those defending it gave in an effort to try and deflect criticisms by making out that anyone hating on the game was a blind xenophobe that hates anything new, it was the sort of statement that was made along with comments like "if this game were released by any other company it would be considered good, the only reason people are calling it **** is because of the high standard set by Bioware", the truth of the matter was the game was just **** and would be considered **** no matter who released it.

 

It was both.

[Kappa Neko]

Exactly, but did BioWare decide to learn from any of them for DAI? 

Of course not! They always flip-flop from one extreme to the other.

 

But I did enjoy DAI a great deal. It just had the opposite issues of DA2. Until a few weeks ago I would even have considered DAI the best in the series so far, but now that I'm replaying DA2 I actually want something with a tight narrative again...

 

My ideal Bioware game would have a tight cinematic narrative with MODERATE exploration tied to interesting side quests. The sidequests in DA2 were good because they all served the purpose to further illustrate why Krirkwall was going batshit crazy. I want something similar for a Mas Effect game. A limited number of sidequests that are all thematically connected to the main story.

Sort of like ME2 but not as recruitment missions. Both DA2 and ME2 had the problem of feeling claustrophobic. Very small areas. Make them larger, add exploration. But don't overdo it like in DAI.

 

It's really not that difficult... the problem is that Bioware always chases what's most popular without knowing how to actually recreate any of it properly. This "strategy" is always going to fail. They should stick to what they are actually good at, and it's neither exploration nor combat. Hell, not even an interesting main story (except ME1). They shine at character interactions, party banter is always the best part of their games (to me).

If they want to make a game like Witcher 3 (that I haven't played yet, mind you), then they need to step up their game in all those areas they suck at. And chances of success are better when they focus on improving things on a reasonable scale, not go all out like in DAI, trying to do everything at once. Bigger is not always better.

[Felya87]

DA2 shouldn't have been a DAO sequel, since it was basically a limited, rushed fantasy ME clone. Even on its own wouldn't have been much liked anyway. But surely being a sequel who had basically nothing to do with the first game didn't helped.

I think DAO was the better approach. You have to work a lot to get the respect and power necessary to end the treat.

DAI should start that way, basically. But in very little time the character became from a prisoner to the leader if the Inquisition. Way too soon. Not a bad thing to play sometime - political intrigue like in the whinter palace would not be possible otherwise - but for MEA I'd like something more like DAO - start from the lower rank to than prove that the protagonist is competent, and have her becaming slowly a powerful person and leader. Shepard start already a hero and a powerful character, spectre in little time at the start, and basically the only treat to the reapers. A little too much. I'd like something more balanced and slow building.

[Kappa Neko]

Then DA2 should have been to your liking? You work your way up to a position of wealth and power...

 

I never want to go back to DAO gameplay-wise. It was just as bad as ME1 combat.

ME1 had by far the best narrative and story of the trilogy. DA2 had the best story of the franchise imo. The Well of Sorrows in DAI, however, is one of the best scenes they ever wrote.

 

I agree that the beginning of DAI was ******-poor writing. Very rushed, just as the prologue of ME3 was very rushed. The inquisitor was the weakest protagonist of them all to me. The DAO origins really helped, though I wish they had mattered beyond the introduction.

 

Like I said, all games did some things well and others poorly. That's why I find it difficult to rank them. I guess it depends on which aspects matter to us the most.

[Cheviot]

If Bioware focused on smaller scale stories, people would complain about Bioware not focussing on larger-scale stories then, a few years down the line, when complaining about Bioware's focus on larger-scale stories, would say that their complaints about smaller scale stories a few years earlier were actually about something else.

[Kappa Neko]

If Bioware focused on smaller scale stories, people would complain about Bioware not focussing on larger-scale stories then, a few years down the line, when complaining about Bioware's focus on larger-scale stories, would say that their complaints about smaller scale stories a few years earlier were actually about something else.

I think it boils down to with what mindset we approach something. If we have very specific expectations, then it's bound to be disappointing. I believe the reason everyone hated DA2 at release had more to do with wanting another DAO than the game itself. It was shockingly different from DAO. That didn't go down well with a lot of people. Took me some time to adept too.

 

I'm not surprised that people change their opinion on games over time. We compare everything all the time. When DAI came out, people now had two games to compare it to. And some of the things people didn't like about DAI could be found better implemented in both DAO and DA2.

So not surprising at all DA2 has seen much more positive feedback lately. I recommend everyone to replay it and see for themselves how perception can change. It works both ways, of course. Many games we once thought were so great now pale in comparison to others.

[Navasha]

I have no problem with small scale stories.   If done well, they are just as engaging as the big epic scale attempts (sometimes even better).  

 

As for the multiple playthroughs though, don't count on that.    As developers they are still developing the game for the largest amount of players and sorry to say, but the simple fact is that MOST players of a game will only finish it one time and many won't even make it that far.   Developing a ton of branching content that will be missed if only played one time is largely a waste as far as developers are concerned.  

 

While it would make for an awesome game for many of us who replay games over and over.   The simple fact is the vast majority of people that buy a game are never going to touch it a second time. 

[Panda]

DA2 was great and I really enjoyed it's smaller scale of story. Something similar would be nice.

[Han Shot First]

I'd love to see a Mass Effect game where the protagonist and his or her crew were space pirates, with the main quest being personal in nature rather than a save the galaxy story. 

 

So I'd totally be down for a smaller scale story. 

[Helios969]

It might be necessary to scale back and make the story more personal.  If they try to come up with an enemy more overwhelming and terrifying than the Reapers it's gonna end up being really silly.  DAI suffered from that...and DA:Next is gonna be even more over-the-top ridiculous.  DA2 while limited in scope is probably the better way to go...and the humble beginnings is a good way to start.  I think the tone should reflect a fair degree of desperation on the part of the Ark races to establish themselves and survive in the Helios Cluster since I doubt we'll roll into the area with enough firepower to subdue even an ant colony.  So we'll be outgunned with extremely limited material and personnel resources just trying to find a habitable planet (or ten) that isn't already heavily populated and/or populated with hostiles.  If Bioware throws in some overwhelming "ancient evil" to threaten galactic existence then it's going to be hard to take it seriously.

[Dermain]

It might be necessary to scale back and make the story more personal.  If they try to come up with an enemy more overwhelming and terrifying than the Reapers it's gonna end up being really silly.  DAI suffered from that...and DA:Next is gonna be even more over-the-top ridiculous.  DA2 while limited in scope is probably the better way to go...and the humble beginnings is a good way to start.  I think the tone should reflect a fair degree of desperation on the part of the Ark races to establish themselves and survive in the Helios Cluster since I doubt we'll roll into the area with enough firepower to subdue even an ant colony.  So we'll be outgunned with extremely limited material and personnel resources just trying to find a habitable planet (or ten) that isn't already heavily populated and/or populated with hostiles.  If Bioware throws in some overwhelming "ancient evil" to threaten galactic existence then it's going to be hard to take it seriously.

 

Well it's a "new" galaxy so of course there can be a different galactic threat than the reapers! 

[sjsharp2011]

Yup, DA2 had a pretty great narrative. I wouldn't mind something more personal for a Mass Effect game at all.

Currently replaying DA2 and enjoying it more than the first time. It's an awesome game, especially considering how little development time it had.

 

They actually put a lot of thought into the friendship/rivalry system. I wish people could get over the map recycling and appreciate what Bioware tried to do with the game.

It had a lot of good ideas.

 

I've enjoyed all Dragon Age and Mass Effect games so far. Especially the Dragon Age games are all different, have different weaknesses and strengths. Keeps things interesting imo.

 

So I don't really care what kind of game ME:A is as long as they keep their focus on character interactions. They could release a Telltale-style game and I'd gladly buy it. What I don't want is a Halo clone with heavy multilayer focus and lame tacked on singleplayer with half the dialogue of the previous games.

Yeah that's the main reason why I like them all as well along with all the various different ways things can play out in them. I'm currently doing a playthrough of both series side by side. I've done ME1 and Origins and now I'm working my way through ME2 still early on in it but enjoying it immensely as I usually do. Was then going to go back to DA to play 2 and DAI after that and finish the run with ME3

[Vapaa]

If only...

 

Saving humanity all the goddam time will soon become really tiresome.

[Dermain]

If only...

 

Saving humanity all the goddam time will soon become really tiresome.

 

It wasn't already?

[Vapaa]

It wasn't already?

 

All the side stories like the Genophage or the Quarian/Geth conflict made a good distraction, but if we have to save the humanity we already saved in the original trilogy, that'll really be grating.

[Sanunes]

Ok lets clear one thing up, Dragon Age 2 did not suck because they tried something different, Dragon Age 2 sucked because it was bad and was rushed out the door with little effort put into it.

 

There were plenty of complaints about how Dragon Age II didn't feel "epic" enough.  They weren't the majority of the complaints about the game, but they were definitely common enough.  It might not have sucked to you because of this decision, but there are plenty of people that took an issue with it just like any decision BioWare makes there will be people complaining about what they tried to do and claim they speak for everyone who ever played or might play the game.

[LostScout61]

I believe that you can have a large scale story, one that takes up a long playthrough without having a story which involves a world ending or galaxy ending threat.  More detail to the story and less galaxy ending.  I think you should be able to write an interesting story arc with more detail involving exploration and discovery of a completely new galaxy without having it end with something that tops the "Reaper Threat".  Maybe discovering a lost civilisation and exploring what happened to it.  You can have an enemy who threatens the player character's continued existence without threatening the end of life as we know it.  Maybe tone down the abilities of the PC, instead of making superman in charge of the whole military apparatus of the whole galaxy.

 

But, maybe I'm the only one who feels that way.

[Battlebloodmage]

DA2's story is the least of its problem, it's more like endless waves which disrupt the positions of your characters, especially mages, repetitive dungeons which break immersion, lack of customization and races, glitches, uneven level scaling which make the enemies become ridiculously powerful which make equipment become less effective the higher level you are, choices don't matter and contradictory like even if you don't give Merrill the mirror shard she would still have it without any explanation, etc.

 

Smaller scale stories are fine but seeing as the next game is about rebuilding and the first ME game after the trilogy, they make need to make it grand to attract more players. 

 

Alternatively, they could make it a personal story for the protagonist, at the same time, make it a grand story overall, something like the Witcher 3 which has a personal story for Geralt finding Ciri and becomes like a parent to her but also has a grand story behind it.