267 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

I want Mass Effect to be more like FIFA. Gameplay = story

 

So, basically a series of microtransactions, only instead of getting a game, you just get an option to pay for more things by way of microtransaction? 

[Spectr61]

Why do we love Mass Effect?
For the gunfight?
For the Multiplayer?
For the space fights?
 
No, we play it for the solo story and the massive replayability.
 
If you prefer the gunfight, play at Gear of Wars.
If you prefer the multiplayer, play any Callof.
If you prefer the space fight, play Elite.


But let us keep Mass Effect Story mode.

Uh, co-op ME3MP (still very active, at least on PC anyway), would like a word with Callof.

[Sylvius the Mad]

You speak as if game design is a perfect science. It isn't. It's a malleable art form like any other.

If it matters, measure it. If you haven't measured it, how do you know if it matters?

Strict definitions are nice when defining things, but not when critiquing them.

Lacking strict definitions, we have no basis to critique them.

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.

It makes them worse at roleplaying, which matters if they are roleplaying games.

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.

I didn't say the absence was bad. I just said it was an absence, which is indisputable.

Once people agree on that, then we can discuss the merits in detail. But I've actually had people dispute that fact.

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.

I know they aren't. I'm trying to draw attention to that.

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.

In Inquisition, BioWare clearly wanted cutscenes for some types of content, but not for other types of content.

It's not binary. Otherwise, why isn't combat just a cutscene? You can't possibly think the preference is binary once you give this even a moment's thought.

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.

Except, again, they did it in DA2 Legacy. And, as I just mentioned, combat isn't a cutscene. If what you say is true, why isn't ME3's combat resolved in cutscenes?

One can infer motive by observing the result.

Inferrence = Making things up.

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.

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.

I'll stop expecting these to be roleplaying games when they stop calling them roleplaying games.

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.

I know you're not. That's the problem. I'm pointing out that those two things come together. DAO's more focused combat design produced significantly more challenging combat than either DAI or ME3.

If I can't have solid tactical combat like DAO (or ToEE, or better yet, Wizard's Crown), I basically want to skip combat. The laughable difficulty of DAI and ME3 lets me do that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

So, basically a series of microtransactions, only instead of getting a game, you just get an option to pay for more things by way of microtransaction?

And if you pay enough, eventually someone else gets to play.

[Seraphim24]

Not every way. ME2 had individually designed maps instead of ME1's cookie cutter prefabs, and Shepard can actually land where he wants to go.

 

The cookie cutter prefabs weren't that prefab though, like you had the small variations like one with the tunnels the one with more of a comprehensive base, and things like that. Moreover the individually designed maps were so small as to be prefabs basically.

[Zekka]

Skyrim wasn't very good but then again, a hiking simulator might be better than a dating simulator.

[Cyberpunk]

No just the opposite. More story and less filler please. 

[shodiswe]

Biowares strength has Always been characters story and character interaction.

 

I would welcome added content and gameplay if they Think they are capable of doing it good. But I don't Think they should abandon the few things they know how to do decently well.

 

Once Star Citizen is "finnished" and released then it might have some of that exploration the OP is talking about. Exploration is supposed to be one of the activities and there might even be wrecks and bases and places with weird stuff in it... Least they talked about adding it and it's a goal.

 

I wouldn't mind if Bioware expanded their horisons but it shouldn't be at the cost of the few things they are known to be good at.... That would be a seriously bad business decision.

[Blooddrunk1004]

That's exactly what made Inquisition such a chorefest. Main quest numbers is too small, side quests are nothing but grind and most of them had no plot and the overall exploration of areas just took way too much time.

 

You wanna make Andromeda good?

Yeah, mix ME1 & ME2 when it comes to companions, Mako exploration, companions missions and open areas. It doesn't need to copy Skyrim or Fallout, it needs to do only one thing and that is to BE MASS EFFECT and not anything else.

[AlanC9]

The cookie cutter prefabs weren't that prefab though, like you had the small variations like one with the tunnels the one with more of a comprehensive base, and things like that. Moreover the individually designed maps were so small as to be prefabs basically.

I don't understand the point about size.

As for the rest, this is all a difference in tastes. Driving around in the Mako has nearly zero value for me -- it'd be different if it made RP sense, so ME:A might be superior in this regard. The ME1 prefabs got dull for me after the second time I saw each one, while the ME2 designed areas did not. And while the ME2 N7s have minimal dialogue, I prefer that the resources go into the important content. And so, ME2 > ME1 in this aspect. Of course, YMMV.

[Seraphim24]

I don't understand the point about size.

As for the rest, this is all a difference in tastes. Driving around in the Mako has nearly zero value for me -- it'd be different if it made RP sense, so ME:A might be superior in this regard. The ME1 prefabs got dull for me after the second time I saw each one, while the ME2 designed areas did not. And while the ME2 N7s have minimal dialogue, I prefer that the resources go into the important content. And so, ME2 > ME1 in this aspect. Of course, YMMV.

 

I could go into this more in depth, but taking as a given Mako wasn't fun, there simply isn't any planetary exploration at all in 2, ergo you lost a bonus you didn't care about, so it can't be worse for not having it.

 

At best, we're in a netural position still.

 

ME1 prefabs got dull the second time around you say, meaning at least the first in it's full breadth was compelling (a sizable thing)

 

As for ME2's, they didn't just have minimal dialogue, they had minimal everything. The abandoned research station (Jarrahe space station) was essentially like 4 tiny rooms and one small hallway, although don't quote me on that exactly since I don't remember every detail.

 

Moreover, every N7 mission follows a pretty basic structure, room here, 2 doors leading one way or the other, a small final and beginning area, they are almost like mini frosted flakes or something.

 

It's kinda cute I guess but even a single ME1 sprawling prefab with the kind of weird yawning caverns and tunnels or something which is more immersive generally.

[AlanC9]

I could go into this more in depth, but taking as a given Mako wasn't fun, there simply isn't any planetary exploration at all in 2, ergo you lost a bonus you didn't care about, so it can't be worse for not having it.

At best, we're in a netural position still.

That's only true if Mako exploration was free to develop. Though since ME1's implementation was apparently super-cheap, I agree that it doesn't bring the game down much. The interesting question is the cost of crappy procedural worlds and prefabs relative to small built areas, but I don't see any way to analyze that without internal project management data which we're never going to get. At relatively high costs for ME2 I might be better off with the ME1 approach, though of course I'd still have to put up with the extra driving-around time. RP-wise it's much easier to skip ME1 content than ME2 content, since in ME1 there's no reason to even be in most of those systems.

ME1 prefabs got dull the second time around you say, meaning at least the first in it's full breadth was compelling (a sizable thing)

I wouldn't go with "compelling" there, myself. "Adequate" would be closer, shifting to "lame" as the game progresses. Second playthroughs, naturally, start at "lame."

As for ME2's, they didn't just have minimal dialogue, they had minimal everything. The abandoned research station (Jarrahe space station) was essentially like 4 tiny rooms and one small hallway, although don't quote me on that exactly since I don't remember every detail.

Yep. I wouldn't have wanted that mission to be any longer than it was. Did you?

It's kinda cute I guess but even a single ME1 sprawling prefab with the kind of weird yawning caverns and tunnels or something which is more immersive generally.

And that's where we part company on immersion. Like I said last time, this is a taste thing.

[Seraphim24]

Yep. I wouldn't have wanted that mission to be any longer than it was. Did you?

 

Yeah definitely.

 

I don't want something to be longer and blander, but if something is bigger and more interesting at the same time.

 

I wouldn't go with "compelling" there, myself. "Adequate" would be closer, shifting to "lame" as the game progresses. Second playthroughs, naturally, start at "lame."

 

Sure, fair enough.

 

That's only true if Mako exploration was free to develop. Though since ME1's implementation was apparently super-cheap, I agree that it doesn't bring the game down much. The interesting question is the cost of crappy procedural worlds and prefabs relative to small built areas, but I don't see any way to analyze that without internal project management data which we're never going to get. At relatively high costs for ME2 I might be better off with the ME1 approach, though of course I'd still have to put up with the extra driving-around time. RP-wise it's much easier to skip ME1 content than ME2 content, since in ME1 there's no reason to even be in most of those systems.

 

Honestly it seems like ME2's implementation was probably more energy intensive, because they tried to implement the feeling of uniqueness for every area.

 

RP issue depends on how you play Shepard, are you somewhere in between Spectre commander and mercenary for hire or are you a duty-driven galactic soldier?

 

People forget that tidbit in the beginning where you get those ME1 options to decide your background and kind of generic approach (War Hero I think was one of them?), that was a decidedly nice touch.

[Synthetic Turian]

There should be a balance of both.

[Quarian Master Race]

Skyrim is almost as garbage as FO4, saved only by the Macho Dragons mod.

[GnusmasTHX]

Skyrim is almost as garbage as FO4, saved only by the Macho Dragons mod.

 

No, Skyrim and FO4 are both good.

[Sidney]

No, Skyrim and FO4 are both good.

They are good at being pointless murder and collection simulators. There is soooooo much to do....but no good reason to do any of it. You start getting a lot of "killing wights to loot stuff so you can buy more stuff so you can kill more wights" type logic. Borderlands is actually a better version of both games because at least murder and collection is fun in those games.

[Eelectrica]

No, Skyrim and FO4 are both good.

As in the game boxes make good paperweights? Or doorstops?