Skyrim and the recent Fallouts both suffer from the same there is another horrible monster/dungeon every 10 feet.
There were rumours of Geth activity. Investigating them made sense.
They don't get to decide what the plot is.
Of course they do, they're the writers. The game is you experiencing the story they wrote. Nothing more, nothing less.
There were rumours of Geth activity. Investigating them made sense.
The only rumors of Geth activity lead to the plot worlds, barring the Armstrong cluster quests, and they are only picked up on Feros (and by that point, the fact that Feros was a valid lead should clue you into the fact that the other places the council pointed you at are also valid).
Also, the council doesn't think Saren's responsible; why would Shepard?
Um....because of what happened on Eden Prime perhaps?
To make the game world believable. There's more going on in the galaxy than just your quest (assuming you even want to pursue it).
Except it makes the world less believable by not having Saren just win while you're off pissing around ignoring him.
Remember, they're not making a game. They're making a world; the game is what we do with that world.
Of course they're making a game. The fact that you have some limited freedom to chose what you do in the game doesn't change anything.
There are parts of the real world I don't want to visit. Why should the game world be any different?
Perhaps my next character will want to go there.
The game should be different because it's not the real world but a selection of interesting things laid out by the designers for our entertainment. I guess they won't make procedural worlds where you hope for an interesting world seed to come by. Though some procedurals might do good for e.g. random encounters, built structures and the multiplayer.
If that were true, we wouldn't get to make any decisions at all.Of course they do, they're the writers. The game is you experiencing the story they wrote. Nothing more, nothing less.
We don't know what he's doing when we're not watching him. Clearly, though, in playthroughs where Shepard does sidequests, Saren's progress is slower.Except it makes the world less believable by not having Saren just win while you're off pissing around ignoring him.
I object both to the gamist design your describe, and the narrativist design advanced by others.The game should be different because it's not the real world but a selection of interesting things laid out by the designers for our entertainment.
TO OP:
seen your threads. you like bethesda games, we get it. cool for you.
This is bioware however and we do like it.
Bioware has nothing to learn from bethesda, the exact opposite however is true.
Story and characters are the only aspects we all want bioware to focus.
Bethesda should focus too, this willmake their games enjoyable and not just video games with tickboxes , checklists and exploration that feels like homework.
yes i dislike bethesda. Very much
I object both to the gamist design your describe, and the narrativist design advanced by others.
I want simulationist design.
It's just not what I expect coming from Bioware looking at what they've done in the past.
I object both to the gamist design your describe, and the narrativist design advanced by others.
I want simulationist design.
But BioWare doesn't. They excel (not by chance, but by deliberate artistic choice) at providing controlled narratives that allow the player to participate and walk their way through BioWare's plot. You can make up your own stories and internal character development to some degree (as much as you can in any book or film that doesn't outline every moment of their characters' existence), but at the end of the day, every scene is pre-made and every outcome is accounted for. That's not weaker design, that's different design.
What you want is far from unreasonable, but only for another developer who is clearly geared more towards simulation. On the other hand, BioWare fans, as with the vast majority of media consumers, have the expectation that it is not their job to make BioWare's story and gameplay enjoyable. Pointless locations, hollow content, and bland choreography may leave ample room for the imagination, but only by leaving the burden on imagination. For those used to BioWare's signature cinematography and focus on presentation, that sort of design philosophy is at best boring and at worst, jarring and tedious.
As I see it, they got it just about right with the original Baldur's Gate, and then immediately started moving in the wrong direction.But BioWare doesn't. They excel (not by chance, but by deliberate artistic choice) at providing controlled narratives that allow the player to participate and walk their way through BioWare's plot. You can make up your own stories and internal character development to some degree (as much as you can in any book or film that doesn't outline every moment of their characters' existence), but at the end of the day, every scene is pre-made and every outcome is accounted for. That's not weaker design, that's different design.
I still think of BioWare's cinematography as a new feature, and one to which I objected as soon as it appeared. NWN is the dialogue presentation to which they should aspire. Most everything from KotOR on has been wrong-headed.What you want is far from unreasonable, but only for another developer who is clearly geared more towards simulation. On the other hand, BioWare fans, as with the vast majority of media consumers, have the expectation that it is not their job to make BioWare's story and gameplay enjoyable. Pointless locations, hollow content, and bland choreography may leave ample room for the imagination, but only by leaving the burden on imagination. For those used to BioWare's signature cinematography and focus on presentation, that sort of design philosophy is at best boring and at worst, jarring and tedious.
I don't care who is making them; I want the same thing from all roleplaying games, regardless of developer or medium.It's just not what I expect coming from Bioware looking at what they've done in the past.
As I see it, they got it just about right with the original Baldur's Gate, and then immediately started moving in the wrong direction.
OK, that seems like more of a you problem than a them problem. If that's the direction they want to go, and people seem to enjoy it, then it's fine.
I still think of BioWare's cinematography as a new feature, and one to which I objected as soon as it appeared. NWN is the dialogue presentation to which they should aspire. Most everything from KotOR on has been wrong-headed.
KoTOR came out 12 years ago. BioWare has released 7 (I think?) games since then. Cinematography isn't a new feature; it's the norm.
Finally, in DAI, they started to get away from cinematics again.
Evidently not out of deliberate choice. BioWare clearly still prioritized cutscenes and visual storytelling but couldn't effectively distribute it to every aspect of the game.
I don't care who is making them; I want the same thing from all roleplaying games, regardless of developer or medium.
I judge all RPGs by the same standards.
Then you should give up on BioWare as a developer, because clearly they have different standards for RPGs than you.
It's a mistake.OK, that seems like more of a you problem than a them problem. If that's the direction they want to go, and people seem to enjoy it, then
KoTOR came out 12 years ago. BioWare has released 7 (I think?) games since then. Cinematography isn't a new feature; it's the norm.
Except that's not true. They experimented with non-cinematic conversations in DA2's DLC, and then wilfully expanded it in DAI.Evidently not out of deliberate choice. BioWare clearly still prioritized cutscenes and visual storytelling but couldn't effectively distribute it to every aspect of the game.
People keep telling me that, but DAI was an amazing game. BioWare's most recent game is the best CRPG in the past 15 years.Then you should give up on BioWare as a developer, because clearly they have different standards for RPGs than you.
I want Mass Effect to be more like FIFA. Gameplay = story
It's a mistake.
The first time I ever followed the development of one of their games was wasn't developed as a PC exclusive was DA2. The list before that was the BG games, NWN, and DAO (that was made multiplatform late in development). That's my baseline.
Except that's not true. They experimented with non-cinematic conversations in DA2's DLC, and then wilfully expanded it in DAI.
They sold it as a positive feature (which it is). They planned it through all of DAI's development.
People keep telling me that, but DAI was an amazing game. BioWare's most recent game is the best CRPG in the past 15 years.
Also, they've long made the best RPG combat around.
You don't still go on the codex with that talk yeah? Also I know you don't think DAI's combat or skill system is up to par with DAO.
It's a mistake.
Your opinion is not fact.
The first time I ever followed the development of one of their games was wasn't developed as a PC exclusive was DA2. The list before that was the BG games, NWN, and DAO (that was made multiplatform late in development). That's my baseline.
Different games need different baselines, and baselines change. I'm sorry that you don't like the direction of the Mass Effect series or changes that BioWare have made as a whole, but that's no foundation to objective criticisms.
Except that's not true. They experimented with non-cinematic conversations in DA2's DLC, and then wilfully expanded it in DAI.
And yet there are still plenty of cinematic sequences in DA:I. If cinematics weren't a priority, they wouldn't be in the game because they're more expensive to make.
They sold it as a positive feature (which it is). They planned it through all of DAI's development.
I'm not saying it's a mistake. BioWare clearly knew that cinematic dialog wouldn't be very feasible in an open world setting, so they cut it down. A design restraint just so happened to work out in favor of your preferred design philosophy.
People keep telling me that, but DAI was an amazing game. BioWare's most recent game is the best CRPG in the past 15 years.
In your opinion. I think that it's a poorly paced game with combat that can't decide whether it wants to be ARPG or tactical and ends up being the worst of both worlds: actiony combat without decent mobility, response time, and feedback and tactical combat with poor AI, little customization, and excessive restrictions. I'd have liked it more had the game stuck to and polished a single design philosophy.
It's fine to like DA:I, but you can't call your opinion fact.
Also, they've long made the best RPG combat around.
Again, in your opinion. Many others think that BioWare's combat mechanics have been mainly passable and occasionally good.
The best RPG combat in my opinion is probably Dark Souls', but I don't mind that other games do their own thing.
I haven't been to RPG Codex for probably 10 years.You don't still go on the codex with that talk yeah? Also I know you don't think DAI's combat or skill system is up to par with DAO.
We need standard definitions if we're going to have meaningful discussions. It's a mistake if they're trying to make roleplaying games.Your opinion is not fact.
That's absurd. How could we compare games or across different eras (or different media) without a consistent standard?Different games need different baselines, and baselines change.
Unless I'm criticizing objective facts. Like how it's not possible to know what Shepard is going to say until after the dialogue option has been selected.I'm sorry that you don't like the direction of the Mass Effect series or changes that BioWare have made as a whole, but that's no foundation to objective criticisms.
Priorities aren't binary.And yet there are still plenty of cinematic sequences in DA:I. If cinematics weren't a priority, they wouldn't be in the game because they're more expensive to make.
I don't care why they did it (partly because others' motives aren't knowable). I care only that they did. I judge the game for what it is, not what it was meant to be.I'm not saying it's a mistake. BioWare clearly knew that cinematic dialog wouldn't be very feasible in an open world setting, so they cut it down. A design restraint just so happened to work out in favor of your preferred design philosophy.
Yes. In my opinion.In your opinion. I think that it's a poorly paced game with combat that can't decide whether it wants to be ARPG or tactical and ends up being the worst of both worlds: actiony combat without decent mobility, response time, and feedback and tactical combat with poor AI, little customization, and excessive restrictions. I'd have liked it more had the game stuck to and polished a single design philosophy.
And yet the other side often does do with impunity.It's fine to like DA:I, but you can't call your opinion fact.
Outside of Jade Empire, they've always offered a non-action option while remaining accessible.Again, in your opinion. Many others think that BioWare's combat mechanics have been mainly passable and occasionally good.
Action combat has no place in a roleplaying game. It breaks the game's setting by making the player's skill matter. My character shouldn't make a bad decision because I panicked and pressed the wrong button. There's no possible in-game explanation for that.The best RPG combat in my opinion is probably Dark Souls', but I don't mind that other games do their own thing.
You speak as if game design is a perfect science. It isn't. It's a malleable art form like any other.We need standard definitions if we're going to have meaningful discussions. It's a mistake if they're trying to make roleplaying games.
If they're trying to make interactive novels, then it's not a mistake.
We compare aspects of games to each other. I'm not going to critique Skyrim for not being like Halo, but I can critique Skyrim's characters for being less charismatic as Halo's. Newer games might be less open to roleplaying room, but are more visually engaging. You don't have to like it, but that doesn't make newer games worse.That's absurd. How could we compare games or across different eras (or different media) without a consistent standard?
That's not an objective fact though. It could be argued that the mystery behind the options makes the dialog more interesting because it's a surprise. I'd never argue that because I don't believe that, but that doesn't make the criticism any less subjective. At the very least you could consider opinions that oppose yours potentially valid when addressing them rather than dismissing them as sacrilege.Unless I'm criticizing objective facts. Like how it's not possible to know what Shepard is going to say until after the dialogue option has been selected.
That's what I'm disputing: I think your assessments aren't valid within the context of Mass Effect (and somewhat for BioWare as a whole) because the series clearly isn't trying to conform to your strict standards for an RPG.You can dispute whether that knowledge is important, but not whether it is available.
This one is. Either BioWare wants cutscenes or they don't. Either they want to have visual flair/storytelling or they want to leave it up to the player to imagine the events. You could argue that BioWare would be obliged to add cutscenes to the big story moments regardless of their priorities; however, BIoWare included cutscenes for a wide range of story content, large and small. Accepting that, it seems reasonable to assume that the static conversations were used as a result of the restrictions imposed by the larger world.Priorities aren't binary.
One can infer motive by observing the result. The fact that there are cinematics for scenes outside of big main story events in DA:I and that BioWare have prioritized cinematics in the past, I can safely assume that BioWare more than likely cares about cutscenes now. But you're right that games should be judged as they are. However, discerning intent is important when discussing sequels and requesting new features. If I believed that BIoWare were trying to eschew cutscenes from their game entirely as part of a new design imperative from the company, then I might be more amenable to the idea and suggest options that attempt to work within that ideal. Of course, I don't think that's the case, so I will continue to urge BioWare down the path that they're going and ask that they keep up the cinematics.I don't care why they did it (partly because others' motives aren't knowable). I care only that they did. I judge the game for what it is, not what it was meant to be.
And many feel otherwise. Personally, I think it's a safer bet to provide consistently paced, crafted material, as it's easier to lose an average player to disinterest than lose a roleplayer to too much hand crafted gameplay. However, I think it's wise for developers to play to their strengths and BioWare's is clearly guided narrative. To many, DA:I's structure was jarring: unless you're a hardcore roleplayer like yourself, it's pretty hard to ignore the vast difference in quality between main quests and sidequests. Therefore, I feel it's only reasonable that BioWare focus their efforts on the good driven content they can clearly make.Yes. In my opinion.
I don't think pacing is the developer's job, except to ensure that there's enough content that the game doesn't go too quickly (like in KotOR).
I'm not talking about combat style or difficulty, I'm talking about general design. I honestly prefer DA:O's combat simply because it was a tactical RPG that knew it was a tactical RPG. It's not the best of its kind, but at least it had customizable tactics, a large hotbar, and some interesting ability combos. It seems like DA:I tried to make the combat more actiony, but didn't go all the way. To me, the combat is left in some dull limbo.Games that focus on just one combat style tend to aim for difficulty. But I don't find difficulty valuable, especially if it interferes with the ability to play suboptimal builds.
That doesn't justify your position any, certainly not on the Mass Effect Forums.And yet the other side often does do with impunity.
Most people I know criticize BioWare's combat because it can be fairly dull and repetitive. That's what I hear about DA:I and that's what I heard about KoTOR. I think it's quite telling that Aspyr though KoTOR's combat system would sell quote well on mobile.Outside of Jade Empire, they've always offered a non-action option while remaining accessible.
They just need to improve their documentation.
Your definition of RPG is simply too strict, or at least too purist. RPGs can apply their roleplaying mechanics in any number of ways and therefore can come in many flavors.Action combat has no place in a roleplaying game. It breaks the game's setting by making the player's skill matter. My character shouldn't make a bad decision because I panicked and pressed the wrong button. There's no possible in-game explanation for that.
An RPG should be playable by a quadriplegic. Just like tabletop.
Considering how Fallout 4 is currently getting slammed (a first for Bethesda, really), I'm not sure that Bioware should anywhere near their direction when it comes to inspiration. The Bethesda model is dated. Other games (including TW3 and, indeed, Inquisition) have showed that exploration can go hand in hand with good writing and stories. Beth have lost their crutch in that they were the only ones that really did big open world RPGs.
Now that RPGs, hell even action games such as Mad Max, Shadows of Mordor and MGSV have showed that they can also make nice open worlds, Beth games have lost their uniqueness and selling point, I think.
Considering how Fallout 4 is currently getting slammed (a first for Bethesda, really), I'm not sure that Bioware should anywhere near their direction when it comes to inspiration. The Bethesda model is dated. Other games (including TW3 and, indeed, Inquisition) have showed that exploration can go hand in hand with good writing and stories. Beth have lost their crutch in that they were the only ones that really did big open world RPGs.
Now that RPGs, hell even action games such as Mad Max, Shadows of Mordor and MGSV have showed that they can also make nice open worlds, Beth games have lost their uniqueness and selling point, I think.
I don't know. We have many decent and some good open worlds today, and they offer a great deal of flexibility, but they don't let you do anything like a Bethesda game. Incidentally, that level of freedom makes the game unfocused and loose mechanically, but the sheer novelty of doing anything at any time is apparently enough for people (especially the critics it seems). A small part of it is the roleplaying freedom, but I think the majority of the appeal comes from the ability to just jump in, mess around with some stuff, and jump out without any fuss. The pure accessibility of that design sort of precludes more advanced stories and deeper combat.
I'd like to see a developer (not BioWare) actually copy Betheda's design exactly just to see how far the company name actually carries them. So far, it seems that the name gives them general immunity from critiques of bugginess, weak graphics, and poor writing.
Yeah.... no.
There are few enough strongly story driven big RPGs out there, and story driven RPGs are what Bioware does best.
Don't get me wrong, I like Skyrim, and I like Inquisition, but especially Skyrim felt a bit "cold"; not emotionally engaging at all, to me. That's what usually happens in sandbox games; exploration is fun, up to a point, but without strong story elements to engage you emotionally, and keep you engaged emotionally, the experience in the end becomes not that memorable; more like a form of luke-warm time killing.
That's why I managed one and a half playthroughs of Skyrim only - just lost interest, and haven't really reacquired it - at least yet.
I've got no problem if exploration is included, but exploration should be tied more tightly to the main story, whatever it is, than it was in Inquisition; so that it feels like you are doing something towards your ultimate goal by the way of exploring, rather than wasting time on trivialities, keeping the greater threat - the main story - waiting.
I want Mass Effect to be more like FIFA. Gameplay = story
To be like FIFA, it'd have to be corrupt as f***.
Retour en haut
