317 réponses à ce sujet

[Fogg]

I'm such a big BioWare-fan, that for years I even refused to play The Witcher II because people on this forum started pointing out that it was a game in which player choices really mattered. Now I have played all three of The Witcher-games and have to admit that The Witcher III: Wild Hunt is by far the best game ever made. Nonetheless, BioWare is still the best company ever and I think that the people of CD Project RED got a lot of inspiration from BioWare-games.

 

That was sort of a disclaimer, because this post is about what Mass Effect should and shouldn't learn from other rpg's.

 

Character

 

BioWare lets gamers choose gender, appearance and nowadays even sexual preference. But other aspects that identify you are set in stone, like your last name or job.

 

How do others do it? Hardcore rpg's like Pillars of Eternity give you way more options, so many that throughout the game there are hundreds of options only available to very specific choices you could make in character customization. Even with a flashier engine this world of customization makes it very uneconomical to make each and every possible character combination come to life beyond text (with voice acting, facial expressions and lively animations).

 

The Witcher on the other hand, gives you no choice at all because it tells the story of a character that already existed in books and a horrible television show. Because of that, every encounter in the game, every NPC or event, is hand tailored for that specific character. You get comments on hair color, eye color, background history, country of origin. Pretty immersive.

 

I know a lot of fans would've liked to be able to play Krogan or Asari, more or less like The Elder Scrolls lets you choose between quite a lot of different races. But the way BioWare handles the limits of character customization, you can implement more immersive dialogue. Something Bethesda games don't offer. Therefore it's (within all reason, budget wise) a pretty good choice BioWare sticks with a protagonist that's always human and has a preset last name. (It could be cool to reintroduce the KOTOR battle system in which you can switch to and control squadmates, so still fight as a Krogan or Asari, this was also the original idea for the first Mass Effect).

 

Choices

 

It's true, in The Witcher II you get one specific choice that makes a giant difference. But in truth that's also a pretty simple intersection, not an effect based upon a cumulative of several choices. While playing the trilogy of Geralt I noticed some nice changes that alter outcomes within the specific game you play, but they don't cary over in any significant way to the next game.

 

Should choices matter in the short run, or the long run? To be honest, the further you delay the effects of choices, the more difficult (and ambitious) it becomes for a game developer to really make them count. How are you ever going to make Mass Effect games set after part three, while staying in our own milky way and not make one of the three 'color endings' canon, or deal with the situation on Rannoch or the fertility of the Korgan? It's nice Dragon Age II acknowledged your choice in who became the ruler of Ferelden, but it doesn't matter for the story at hand. Perhaps the focus on short term choices and consequences are more satisfying.

 

Choices are also one of two things in which The Witcher proofs to be more 'mature' than BioWare games. It's like cable television versus public-access. The choices are often about what's the lesser of two evils. It's nuanced. Not boy scout versus evil bastard.

 

Romance

 

The second thing that makes The Witcher more mature is romance and sexuality. Graphical of course, which might be too graphical for lots of (commercial) reasons. But also the way the game handles sexuality is more grownup than in BioWare games. Compared to The Witcher romances in Mass Effect and Dragon Age feels like a dating simulator that – if you press the right buttons – gives you a sexy scene as a prize in the end. While in The Witcher sex isn't the thing you work up to, but woven trough the relationships from early on, making them about more than getting someone out of their clothes and on a stuffed unicorn.

 

Story

 

All rpg's overdo the 'god complex' thing, and probably they should to make your journey feel epic and glorious. Almost all are about saving the world, or even the entire universe. I wish for once they'd give you a more modest role. If Star Citizen doesn't end up being the most sophisticated scam in history, that game might actually let players just wander around an amazing universe without the constant urge of saving it. As I said, all rpg's overdo it. In Bethesda games for example, you will not only end being the hero of the main story, but also the big star of several smaller guilds and brotherhoods. Even in The Elder Scrolls: Online, which could've given players a more modest part, you immediately meet a ghost in your dungeon that tells you you're the 'chosen one'.

 

Open world

 

The world of The Witcher III is huge, gorgeous, with little loading screens and great music. Too many smuggler's caches, but still. You can go around, explore and find quests everywhere. Because Geralt is a witcher that travels around working for money, all little quests feel pretty natural. The fact that the stories take place in the 'normal world' and not specific locations designed as a level, is pretty cool. It also has a downside. Sometimes exploring too much is discouraged because you will end up finding places and killing targets that were actually part of quest you didn't pick up yet. This is also the case in the sandboxes by Bethesda. Some sequencing to streamline questing fits a game like Mass Effect and has it's own benefits and downsides.

 

Now the next point might cause some flaming, but again: I'm a big BioWare-fan. I'm not out to bash. But it's important that with open worlds bigger is not always better. For example: the hubs in Mass Effect (Omega in part 2, the Citadel in part 3) were pretty small but made you feel like you're in a big and amazing place. If an actual physical world is too big, there's the chance the quests to fill it might end up being MMO-like fetch quests. Like in Dragon Age: Inquisition. I have played SWTOR and many of the side quests there feel less MMO-fetchy than the ones in Inquisition, while they actually are.

 

Cool story, bro

 

So, these are some thoughts I'd like to throw out here. Why this wall of text? Because I hope this game will be the best ever and the Mass Effect franchise will live a long and prosperous life, with many more games, novels and comics. Even with games like Star Citizen and Cyberpunk 2077 coming up.

[laudable11]

Nice post. Its a shame some folks will only see it as a stab at Bioware. (Could be, i dont know)

I played the Witcher 2 for 20 minutes and took it back. Couldn't stand it. The Witcher 3 on the other hand is one of the greatest games I've played in my 41yrs on this Earth. I wouldn't mind if Bioware learned a thing or two from Witcher 3.

Things like playing as different races will only dilute the immersion. Generic fetch quest are a blight. Witcher 3 proves that side quest can be compelling. BioWare can do the same because I still believe they have the best writers in the business.

I do hope Mass Effect: Andromeda is regarded as one of the best rpg's of all time. It has the potential.

[Lonely Heart Poet]

Some parts I couldn't agree more.

"I know a lot of fans would've liked to be able to play Krogan or Asari, more or less like The Elder Scrolls lets you choose between quite a lot of different races. But the way BioWare handles the limits of character customization, you can implement more immersive dialogue. Something Bethesda games don't offer."

Very well put.

Although I couldn't never start Witcher 1 or 2, I always ended up playing BioWare games instead but this third was a hit and there is actually much to look after.

[RedHawk007]

When i heard that you had to play human was like having a grenade blowing up in your face. Painfull, i would have loved to play a turian or asari bad ass

[Elhanan]

One thing that all Devs should consider: the PC remains the top platform choice for many gamers. The controls, UI, AI, etc should reflect that understanding.

That said, the only RPG I have played recently that is in the same classroom as Bioware is Skyrim. XCOM is also a top fave, but is not a RPG. Don't care to try the TW series, FO series, and some others due to a focus on Action mode among other content.

[Mummy22kids]

I think Bio is smart to limit the PC to a human character.  In DAI the Inquisitor was originally supposed to only be human and have a playable background.  There was a whole bunch of complaints about "human only" and then Bio brought in other races.  Everyone was thrilled until they found out that meant no more playable backgrounds.  Then the game came out and a whole bunch of people (many of the same people who wanted different races) complained that the stories weren't different enough, and about how (some of them) wished Bio had stuck with human only and playable backgrounds.  I can see the same thing happening with DAI.  If they were to implement other races/species as playable I think they'd get just as much complaints about the races being too similar as they will about having human only PCs. Better they spend the time and money making the story of one race really excellent than trying to spread that over other races, get a result that isn't as good, and have everyone complain.

[Queen Skadi]

I'm such a big BioWare-fan, that for years I even refused to play The Witcher II because people on this forum started pointing out that it was a game in which player choices really mattered. Now I have played all three of The Witcher-games and have to admit that The Witcher III: Wild Hunt is by far the best game ever made. 

 

You lost boi? We dun take kindly to witcherlovers round these parts, best you turn around and go back from where ye came.

 

 

[Jen-Yu]

I'm such a big BioWare-fan, that for years I even refused to play The Witcher II because people on this forum started pointing out that it was a game in which player choices really mattered. Now I have played all three of The Witcher-games and have to admit that The Witcher III: Wild Hunt is by far the best game ever made. Nonetheless, BioWare is still the best company ever and I think that the people of CD Project RED got a lot of inspiration from BioWare-games.

 

That was sort of a disclaimer, because this post is about what Mass Effect should and shouldn't learn from other rpg's.

 

Character

 

BioWare lets gamers choose gender, appearance and nowadays even sexual preference. But other aspects that identify you are set in stone, like your last name or job.

 

How do others do it? Hardcore rpg's like Pillars of Eternity give you way more options, so many that throughout the game there are hundreds of options only available to very specific choices you could make in character customization. Even with a flashier engine this world of customization makes it very uneconomical to make each and every possible character combination come to life beyond text (with voice acting, facial expressions and lively animations).

 

The Witcher on the other hand, gives you no choice at all because it tells the story of a character that already existed in books and a horrible television show. Because of that, every encounter in the game, every NPC or event, is hand tailored for that specific character. You get comments on hair color, eye color, background history, country of origin. Pretty immersive.

 

I know a lot of fans would've liked to be able to play Krogan or Asari, more or less like The Elder Scrolls lets you choose between quite a lot of different races. But the way BioWare handles the limits of character customization, you can implement more immersive dialogue. Something Bethesda games don't offer. Therefore it's (within all reason, budget wise) a pretty good choice BioWare sticks with a protagonist that's always human and has a preset last name. (It could be cool to reintroduce the KOTOR battle system in which you can switch to and control squadmates, so still fight as a Krogan or Asari, this was also the original idea for the first Mass Effect).

 

Choices

 

It's true, in The Witcher II you get one specific choice that makes a giant difference. But in truth that's also a pretty simple intersection, not an effect based upon a cumulative of several choices. While playing the trilogy of Geralt I noticed some nice changes that alter outcomes within the specific game you play, but they don't cary over in any significant way to the next game.

 

Should choices matter in the short run, or the long run? To be honest, the further you delay the effects of choices, the more difficult (and ambitious) it becomes for a game developer to really make them count. How are you ever going to make Mass Effect games set after part three, while staying in our own milky way and not make one of the three 'color endings' canon, or deal with the situation on Rannoch or the fertility of the Korgan? It's nice Dragon Age II acknowledged your choice in who became the ruler of Ferelden, but it doesn't matter for the story at hand. Perhaps the focus on short term choices and consequences are more satisfying.

 

Choices are also one of two things in which The Witcher proofs to be more 'mature' than BioWare games. It's like cable television versus public-access. The choices are often about what's the lesser of two evils. It's nuanced. Not boy scout versus evil bastard.

 

Romance

 

The second thing that makes The Witcher more mature is romance and sexuality. Graphical of course, which might be too graphical for lots of (commercial) reasons. But also the way the game handles sexuality is more grownup than in BioWare games. Compared to The Witcher romances in Mass Effect and Dragon Age feels like a dating simulator that – if you press the right buttons – gives you a sexy scene as a prize in the end. While in The Witcher sex isn't the thing you work up to, but woven trough the relationships from early on, making them about more than getting someone out of their clothes and on a stuffed unicorn.

 

Story

 

All rpg's overdo the 'god complex' thing, and probably they should to make your journey feel epic and glorious. Almost all are about saving the world, or even the entire universe. I wish for once they'd give you a more modest role. If Star Citizen doesn't end up being the most sophisticated scam in history, that game might actually let players just wander around an amazing universe without the constant urge of saving it. As I said, all rpg's overdo it. In Bethesda games for example, you will not only end being the hero of the main story, but also the big star of several smaller guilds and brotherhoods. Even in The Elder Scrolls: Online, which could've given players a more modest part, you immediately meet a ghost in your dungeon that tells you you're the 'chosen one'.

 

Open world

 

The world of The Witcher III is huge, gorgeous, with little loading screens and great music. Too many smuggler's caches, but still. You can go around, explore and find quests everywhere. Because Geralt is a witcher that travels around working for money, all little quests feel pretty natural. The fact that the stories take place in the 'normal world' and not specific locations designed as a level, is pretty cool. It also has a downside. Sometimes exploring too much is discouraged because you will end up finding places and killing targets that were actually part of quest you didn't pick up yet. This is also the case in the sandboxes by Bethesda. Some sequencing to streamline questing fits a game like Mass Effect and has it's own benefits and downsides.

 

Now the next point might cause some flaming, but again: I'm a big BioWare-fan. I'm not out to bash. But it's important that with open worlds bigger is not always better. For example: the hubs in Mass Effect (Omega in part 2, the Citadel in part 3) were pretty small but made you feel like you're in a big and amazing place. If an actual physical world is too big, there's the chance the quests to fill it might end up being MMO-like fetch quests. Like in Dragon Age: Inquisition. I have played SWTOR and many of the side quests there feel less MMO-fetchy than the ones in Inquisition, while they actually are.

 

Cool story, bro

 

So, these are some thoughts I'd like to throw out here. Why this wall of text? Because I hope this game will be the best ever and the Mass Effect franchise will live a long and prosperous life, with many more games, novels and comics. Even with games like Star Citizen and Cyberpunk 2077 coming up.

 

 

    what about;

 

gameplay

 

combat

 

combat mechanics

 

visual and sounds

 

polishing

 

controls

 

ports,UI

 

originality

 

customization

 

art style

 

immersive ambiance

 

etc etc.......

[SarenDidNothingWrong]

I'm such a big BioWare-fan, that for years I even refused to play The Witcher II because people on this forum started pointing out that it was a game in which player choices really mattered. Now I have played all three of The Witcher-games and have to admit that The Witcher III: Wild Hunt is by far the best game ever made. Nonetheless, BioWare is still the best company ever and I think that the people of CD Project RED got a lot of inspiration from BioWare-games.

 

That was sort of a disclaimer, because this post is about what Mass Effect should and shouldn't learn from other rpg's.

 

Character

 

BioWare lets gamers choose gender, appearance and nowadays even sexual preference. But other aspects that identify you are set in stone, like your last name or job.

 

How do others do it? Hardcore rpg's like Pillars of Eternity give you way more options, so many that throughout the game there are hundreds of options only available to very specific choices you could make in character customization. Even with a flashier engine this world of customization makes it very uneconomical to make each and every possible character combination come to life beyond text (with voice acting, facial expressions and lively animations).

 

The Witcher on the other hand, gives you no choice at all because it tells the story of a character that already existed in books and a horrible television show. Because of that, every encounter in the game, every NPC or event, is hand tailored for that specific character. You get comments on hair color, eye color, background history, country of origin. Pretty immersive.

 

I know a lot of fans would've liked to be able to play Krogan or Asari, more or less like The Elder Scrolls lets you choose between quite a lot of different races. But the way BioWare handles the limits of character customization, you can implement more immersive dialogue. Something Bethesda games don't offer. Therefore it's (within all reason, budget wise) a pretty good choice BioWare sticks with a protagonist that's always human and has a preset last name. (It could be cool to reintroduce the KOTOR battle system in which you can switch to and control squadmates, so still fight as a Krogan or Asari, this was also the original idea for the first Mass Effect).

 

Choices

 

It's true, in The Witcher II you get one specific choice that makes a giant difference. But in truth that's also a pretty simple intersection, not an effect based upon a cumulative of several choices. While playing the trilogy of Geralt I noticed some nice changes that alter outcomes within the specific game you play, but they don't cary over in any significant way to the next game.

 

Should choices matter in the short run, or the long run? To be honest, the further you delay the effects of choices, the more difficult (and ambitious) it becomes for a game developer to really make them count. How are you ever going to make Mass Effect games set after part three, while staying in our own milky way and not make one of the three 'color endings' canon, or deal with the situation on Rannoch or the fertility of the Korgan? It's nice Dragon Age II acknowledged your choice in who became the ruler of Ferelden, but it doesn't matter for the story at hand. Perhaps the focus on short term choices and consequences are more satisfying.

 

Choices are also one of two things in which The Witcher proofs to be more 'mature' than BioWare games. It's like cable television versus public-access. The choices are often about what's the lesser of two evils. It's nuanced. Not boy scout versus evil bastard.

 

Romance

 

The second thing that makes The Witcher more mature is romance and sexuality. Graphical of course, which might be too graphical for lots of (commercial) reasons. But also the way the game handles sexuality is more grownup than in BioWare games. Compared to The Witcher romances in Mass Effect and Dragon Age feels like a dating simulator that – if you press the right buttons – gives you a sexy scene as a prize in the end. While in The Witcher sex isn't the thing you work up to, but woven trough the relationships from early on, making them about more than getting someone out of their clothes and on a stuffed unicorn.

 

Story

 

All rpg's overdo the 'god complex' thing, and probably they should to make your journey feel epic and glorious. Almost all are about saving the world, or even the entire universe. I wish for once they'd give you a more modest role. If Star Citizen doesn't end up being the most sophisticated scam in history, that game might actually let players just wander around an amazing universe without the constant urge of saving it. As I said, all rpg's overdo it. In Bethesda games for example, you will not only end being the hero of the main story, but also the big star of several smaller guilds and brotherhoods. Even in The Elder Scrolls: Online, which could've given players a more modest part, you immediately meet a ghost in your dungeon that tells you you're the 'chosen one'.

 

Open world

 

The world of The Witcher III is huge, gorgeous, with little loading screens and great music. Too many smuggler's caches, but still. You can go around, explore and find quests everywhere. Because Geralt is a witcher that travels around working for money, all little quests feel pretty natural. The fact that the stories take place in the 'normal world' and not specific locations designed as a level, is pretty cool. It also has a downside. Sometimes exploring too much is discouraged because you will end up finding places and killing targets that were actually part of quest you didn't pick up yet. This is also the case in the sandboxes by Bethesda. Some sequencing to streamline questing fits a game like Mass Effect and has it's own benefits and downsides.

 

Now the next point might cause some flaming, but again: I'm a big BioWare-fan. I'm not out to bash. But it's important that with open worlds bigger is not always better. For example: the hubs in Mass Effect (Omega in part 2, the Citadel in part 3) were pretty small but made you feel like you're in a big and amazing place. If an actual physical world is too big, there's the chance the quests to fill it might end up being MMO-like fetch quests. Like in Dragon Age: Inquisition. I have played SWTOR and many of the side quests there feel less MMO-fetchy than the ones in Inquisition, while they actually are.

 

Cool story, bro

 

So, these are some thoughts I'd like to throw out here. Why this wall of text? Because I hope this game will be the best ever and the Mass Effect franchise will live a long and prosperous life, with many more games, novels and comics. Even with games like Star Citizen and Cyberpunk 2077 coming up.

 

 

I disagree with a few things.

 

1. Witcher 3s handeling of choice

 

I thought Mass Effect handeled choices far better. Take the Witcher 3 for example, every choice had a clear cut 'correct' option. Why would you side with Radovid or Djikstra over Roche? Djkistra is a backstabber who turned his back on you and Radovid is a mad man who hates Geralts kind whereas Broche has always had your back since the Witcher 2. Why would anybody spare Whoreson Jr, he's an unreedemable bastard who is a threat to Ciri. Why would anyone choose the brother over Cerys to rule Skellige? Why would anybody not go with Ciri to bury her friend? All these choices seemed like an afterthought and felt more like the developers saying "Well, it's an RPG after all, we need to give them SOME sort of a choice to choose from"

 

Get me one choice in the Witcher games that had the downsides/upsides of say the Geth/Quarian conflict, trusting the Rachni queen, choosing between Ashley or Kaiden, preventing Mordin from curing the genophage for additional military support etc. All of those choices had clear cut pros and negatives with heavy consequences regardless of what you choose. I always thought CDPR handeled choice rather poorly and the illusion of them being morally grey was down moreso to the 'mature' themes of the series as a whole rather than breaking it down objectively.

 

2. Open world

 

I don't know what point you were trying to make exactly here, all I want for Bioware is to give us back the planetary exploration from ME1 but with additional variety and a lot more detail in the planets. An open world wouldn't work with this type of game.

[Mdizzletr0n]

I don't think it's fair to compare ME:A with PoE. ME will never be that "pure" of an RPG.

That said, there's some really good suggestions in there, OP.

[Fogg]

    what about;

 

gameplay

 

combat

 

combat mechanics

 

visual and sounds

 

polishing

 

controls

 

ports,UI

 

originality

 

customization

 

art style

 

immersive ambiance

 

etc etc.......

 

It's far from a complete list, so everyone please contribute with comparisons between Mass Effect and other games and what is good and what could be better. There are many trends to be seen in recent games, like the traditional class system vanishing (Fallout) and being able to switch between two or more protagonists (Divinity, GTA, Assassins Creed).

 

I disagree with a few things.

 

1. Witcher 3s handeling of choice

 

I thought Mass Effect handeled choices far better. Take the Witcher 3 for example, every choice had a clear cut 'correct' option. Why would you side with Radovid or Djikstra over Roche? Djkistra is a backstabber who turned his back on you and Radovid is a mad man who hates Geralts kind whereas Broche has always had your back since the Witcher 2. Why would anybody spare Whoreson Jr, he's an unreedemable bastard who is a threat to Ciri. Why would anyone choose the brother over Cerys to rule Skellige? Why would anybody not go with Ciri to bury her friend? All these choices seemed like an afterthought and felt more like the developers saying "Well, it's an RPG after all, we need to give them SOME sort of a choice to choose from"

 

Get me one choice in the Witcher games that had the downsides/upsides of say the Geth/Quarian conflict, trusting the Rachni queen, choosing between Ashley or Kaiden, preventing Mordin from curing the genophage for additional military support etc. All of those choices had clear cut pros and negatives with heavy consequences regardless of what you choose. I always thought CDPR handeled choice rather poorly and the illusion of them being morally grey was down moreso to the 'mature' themes of the series as a whole rather than breaking it down objectively.

 

2. Open world

 

I don't know what point you were trying to make exactly here, all I want for Bioware is to give us back the planetary exploration from ME1 but with additional variety and a lot more detail in the planets. An open world wouldn't work with this type of game.

 

On the first point: true, Mass Effect had some big choices that made me ponder in front of my screen for minutes, while The Witcher had enough no-brainers. But in the more smaller choices ME always had the Paragon thing to do, and the Renegade option. While in The Witcher setting a prisoner free could mean he would return later on and turn out to be some evil civilian slayer. Or that 'living tree', the strange monster under the ruins somewhere. There were a lot of choices where the real question was 'Can you trust this person?'. And then there was the whole Ciri stuff, guiding her or giving her freedom.

 

With the second thing, I actually thought the exploration in ME1 was overrated because the 'open' planets were a bit dull. In ME2 I felt much more like an explorer. I remember the cut scene of flying to the flotilla and being thrilled, even when the map itself was pretty small. There were a lot of small impressions of the giant universe.

[Sylvius the Mad]

One thing BioWare needs not to learn from other developers is their insistence on action combat.

Only in Jade Empire has BioWare made action combat mandatory. CDPR and Bethesda both do so, however, and their games suffer for it. I tolerate Bethesda's insistence on action combat by modding the games, though I'm not sure I'll be able to turn VATS into a proper pause in FO4. I've never been able to tolerate Witcher combat, however, so I haven't really played those games. And I won't, because action combat is awful.

Pausable tactical combat is what BioWare does, and they should keep doing that.

[Beerfish]

There is one very simple trade off that you can't get around.

 

More choice for the player in how he or her makes their characters makes a loser less engaging story in most cases.

Less choice for the player by having restrictions put on the player means a tighter more engaging story.

 

You really can't have both.  Games such as the Witcher series and PST had defined heros and thus the ability to work them into the story.  Other games lets you have all sorts of choice but the developers have to account for these choices all through the game which put shackles on them.

[Arcian]

I'm such a big BioWare-fan, that for years I even refused to play The Witcher II because people on this forum started pointing out that it was a game in which player choices really mattered. Now I have played all three of The Witcher-games and have to admit that The Witcher III: Wild Hunt is by far the best game ever made. Nonetheless, BioWare is still the best company ever and I think that the people of CD Project RED got a lot of inspiration from BioWare-games.

Best how? What have they done lately that no other developer has been able to match?

[Broganisity]

One thing BioWare needs not to learn from other developers is their insistence on action combat.

CDPR and Bethesda both do so, however, and their games suffer for it. I tolerate Bethesda's insistence on action combat by modding the games, though I'm not sure I'll be able to turn VATS into a proper pause in FO4. I've never been able to tolerate Witcher combat, however, so I haven't really played those games. And I won't, because action combat is awful.

I always feel necessary to point out that the key part of your name is the 'The Mad' part, but that's all differences in interest and hilarious elbow bumping.

------------

As far as Action-Combat in an RPG-like setting goes, I'd say that, in a comparison of combat quality between the current big three RPGs we're all talking about (Fallout 4, Witcher Three, Inquisition.) that Mass Effect 3 trumps them in performance. (not whether or not action combat is better or lesser in an RPG-like game)

- While leagues better than its predecessors in functionality, Witcher 3 still holds that level of 'only numbers matter' and the gameplay felt rough and boring to me...uuuugh Witcher One's gameplay was horrible and, while the story might have been good, the gameplay mechanics were so bad I uninstalled the game after the tutorial.

- Fallout 4's gameplay, while improved over its predecessor Fallout 3/New Vegas, still feels soft, unresponsive, and even I've found myself using VATS more than I ever did in its predecessor. It's not truly an action game...but its not truly an RPG, either.

- Inquisition attempted an action-combat gameplay...but it felt horrible. When you hit an enemy, they should react and not just by certain moves that will make them stagger or stumble. They attempted to mix both the 'classic' combat of the first Dragon Age with the more action-oriented direction of the second one and...well...it just wasn't as good, and the multiplayer helped show that a little more in my eyes no matter how much I wanted to like it (There was also a lack of playable Mabari. )

OF course, then the fact that you were forced to do general 'side quests' to advance the main story, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

------

Mass Effect 3's gameplay is much more responsive, action-oriented, and all together fun without having to worry about 'numbers' and 'if I equip this gun, my chance of hitting will go up but my damage will go down but my critical chance will go down, oh but this armor piece will lower my perception by one which means that my accuracy will go down a little bit but it increases my strength so I can move something a little heavier than usual but my grenade will do this much damage in this area with a chance of activating its special effect by X% which is affected by my charisma passive which yadda yadda'.

Bleh. It's a gun. Its a grenade. Your ability to hit with it should rely on your ability to aim and, for the most part, the gameplay of Mass Effect Three matches this (except the Reegar. The Reegar does whatever it wants). While you can crunch numbers to operate as best as possible, the nature of the weapons and the mechanics itself means that smart movement, strategy, teammwork, and targeting will win the day in the end.

-------

Does the 'RPG part of the game' suffer in these four games? Yes, I would say so. Does it correlate to the gameplay? Yes, but not as a matter of preference (I.E the type of combat), but as a matter of the quality of that gameplay.

Regardless of how battles are fought, be they turn based or action based, if the mechanics are faulty and lackluster then the player will lose interest. If we are here, for the most part, to experience a story, and the gameplay is supposed to carry us between story points, how can we get to those points if the gameplay is lackluster? If the gameplay feels 'wrong' in terms of function(too clunky, glitchy, floaty, Other buzzwords here) we are less inclined to play it and would be better off just watching videos of the story points and, in general, be better off just watching/playing a choose-your-own-adventure movie/game without experiencing the actual adventure.

If Bioware continues the action-combat route for Mass Effect, and I do hope they do because Krogan Headbutts should not have a Percent chance to hit based on stat allocation and should not be paused, they must improve it only as needed, and focus moreso on the RPG route which lost steam in the third one: There's a reason The multiplayer is replayed more than the single-player.

[Jimbo_Gee79]

I was thinking about this a little bit earlier today. Best RPG ever doesn't exist. It's subjective. Personally I think Bioware and Bethesda have made some great games over the years with Baldurs Gate still being my personal favourite.

 

Sadly, with today's mass consumption of video games and people not having enough time on their hands the above companies have made their games too wishy washy to appeal to a wider audience rather than a defined demographic. 

 

The other point is they still believe they can please everyone, or at least the majority of people. Bethesda suffered for years under the claim that Fallout 3 was just Oblivion with guns simply because it shared the same engine.

 

I personally dont have an issue with games the borrow mechanics or even story lines from other games. However until games designers learn that creating a great game takes both vision and time they will continue to suffer. This coupled with the fact that they need to stop listening to the mass public as much as they do, because the mass public can and does complain simply because its their "god given right" to do so.

 

In my opinion you either buy a game or you don't. For example I will never play a Dark souls game. It just doesn't appeal to me. Even if they changed the combat system, got rid of those horrible graphics I still wouldn't play it. It's not their job to change their game for me and I don't expect them to. 

 

I dont feel like I'm missing out on anything and that's the key. I dont believe Bioware are receiving abuse/hate because they are making sub par RPG's, I believe they are trying to appeal to the masses, convinced that they will eventually be able to appease them all.

[AlanC9]

- Inquisition attempted an action-combat gameplay...but it felt horrible. When you hit an enemy, they should react and not just by certain moves that will make them stagger or stumble. They attempted to mix both the 'classic' combat of the first Dragon Age with the more action-oriented direction of the second one

What's the definition of "action" here? i don't see much difference between DA:O and later games in this regard except that it isn't just enemy mages who have abilities that you have a couple of seconds to react to before they fire.

Mass Effect 3's gameplay is much more responsive, action-oriented, and all together fun without having to worry about 'numbers' and 'if I equip this gun, my chance of hitting will go up but my damage will go down but my critical chance will go down, oh but this armor piece will lower my perception by one which means that my accuracy will go down a little bit but it increases my strength so I can move something a little heavier than usual but my grenade will do this much damage in this area with a chance of activating its special effect by X% which is affected by my charisma passive which yadda yadda'.

Complexity in gear and builds is bad?

[Sylvius the Mad]

As far as Action-Combat in an RPG-like setting goes, I'd say that, in a comparison of combat quality between the current big three RPGs we're all talking about (Fallout 4, Witcher Three, Inquisition.) that Mass Effect 3 trumps them in performance. (not whether or not action combat is better or lesser in an RPG-like game)

- While leagues better than its predecessors in functionality, Witcher 3 still holds that level of 'only numbers matter' and the gameplay felt rough and boring to me...uuuugh Witcher One's gameplay was horrible and, while the story might have been good, the gameplay mechanics were so bad I uninstalled the game after the tutorial.

- Fallout 4's gameplay, while improved over its predecessor Fallout 3/New Vegas, still feels soft, unresponsive, and even I've found myself using VATS more than I ever did in its predecessor. It's not truly an action game...but its not truly an RPG, either.

- Inquisition attempted an action-combat gameplay...but it felt horrible. When you hit an enemy, they should react and not just by certain moves that will make them stagger or stumble. They attempted to mix both the 'classic' combat of the first Dragon Age with the more action-oriented direction of the second one and...well...it just wasn't as good, and the multiplayer helped show that a little more in my eyes no matter how much I wanted to like it (There was also a lack of playable Mabari. )

OF course, then the fact that you were forced to do general 'side quests' to advance the main story, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

The best thing about ME3's action combat is that it's optional.

The Witcher games offer no such luxury. And Fallout less and less.

I remain largely unaware that Inquisition had any action combat, as it also offered an excellent tactical mode (that really could have been more mathy - I like mathy combat).

Mass Effect 3's gameplay is much more responsive, action-oriented, and all together fun without having to worry about 'numbers' and 'if I equip this gun, my chance of hitting will go up but my damage will go down but my critical chance will go down, oh but this armor piece will lower my perception by one which means that my accuracy will go down a little bit but it increases my strength so I can move something a little heavier than usual but my grenade will do this much damage in this area with a chance of activating its special effect by X% which is affected by my charisma passive which yadda yadda'.

That's exactly how ME3's armour worked, though. Equipping different armour pieces offered all sorts of tradeoffs on your combat stats.

I liked to maximize power damage.

And carrying weapons affected your cooldown times. ME3 was far mathier than you give it credit for.

Though the extreme example you described would have been better, yes.

Bleh. It's a gun. Its a grenade. Your ability to hit with it should rely on your ability to aim...

Shepard's ability. Having the player's ability be relevant makes no sense within the game's setting.

...and, for the most part, the gameplay of Mass Effect Three matches this (except the Reegar. The Reegar does whatever it wants). While you can crunch numbers to operate as best as possible, the nature of the weapons and the mechanics itself means that smart movement, strategy, teammwork, and targeting will win the day in the end.

We can pause-to-aim. Targeting is a non-event from a gameplay perspective.

I am intentionally ignoring the multiplayer. If people want a multiplayer roleplaying game, that's what tabletop is for.

If we are here, for the most part, to experience a story, and the gameplay is supposed to carry us between story points, how can we get to those points if the gameplay is lackluster? If the gameplay feels 'wrong' in terms of function(too clunky, glitchy, floaty, Other buzzwords here) we are less inclined to play it and would be better off just watching videos of the story points and, in general, be better off just watching/playing a choose-your-own-adventure movie/game without experiencing the actual adventure.

This assumes that the gameplay isn't part of the story, which I flatly deny.

[RoboticWater]

What's the definition of "action" here? i don't see much difference between DA:O and later games in this regard except that it isn't just enemy mages who have abilities that you have a couple of seconds to react to before they fire.

With the severe limit on powers in the hot bar, no toggle on auto attack, less emphasis on preparing squad tactics, and enemies with directional shields, DA:I kinda comes off as more of an action game. While it may not be entirely correct to say that DA:I is overtly more "action-oriented," The only major systems that seemed to have improved were the attack animations and movement controls. That doesn't change its genre from its previous titles, but there is some sort of action trajectory here.
 

Complexity in gear and builds is bad?

I wouldn't say it's unilaterally bad, but there's a point where tracing small stat buffs gets tedious. It might not make the game worse per se, but I don't think complexity for the sake of complexity is very beneficial. 

[SarenDidNothingWrong]

It's far from a complete list, so everyone please contribute with comparisons between Mass Effect and other games and what is good and what could be better. There are many trends to be seen in recent games, like the traditional class system vanishing (Fallout) and being able to switch between two or more protagonists (Divinity, GTA, Assassins Creed).

 

 

On the first point: true, Mass Effect had some big choices that made me ponder in front of my screen for minutes, while The Witcher had enough no-brainers. But in the more smaller choices ME always had the Paragon thing to do, and the Renegade option. While in The Witcher setting a prisoner free could mean he would return later on and turn out to be some evil civilian slayer. Or that 'living tree', the strange monster under the ruins somewhere. There were a lot of choices where the real question was 'Can you trust this person?'. And then there was the whole Ciri stuff, guiding her or giving her freedom.

 

With the second thing, I actually thought the exploration in ME1 was overrated because the 'open' planets were a bit dull. In ME2 I felt much more like an explorer. I remember the cut scene of flying to the flotilla and being thrilled, even when the map itself was pretty small. There were a lot of small impressions of the giant universe.

 

I thought neither game handeled smaller choices better and as for setting the prisoner free I only saw that happen once in Velen. The whispering tree also did have a clear cut answer, there was a book in the game that essentiallty explained the tree as being an evil spirit making it a no brainer to destroy it but I admit that the tree choice was probably the best done choice in the game.

 

As for exploration ME1 handeled it poorly due to the tech and it being an experimentation of the concept, what I meant was a more refined version of ME1s exploration in that there is a lot more to see and do in the planets as well as more variety.

 

 

Best how? What have they done lately that no other developer has been able to match?

 

 

 

"Lately" is an unfair term to use against a company as consistent as Bioware. Name me an RPG developer team that has this track record

 

• Jade Empire (89 metacritic)
• KOTOR (93 metacritic, on every top RPG list)
• Baldur's Gate 1 (93 metacritic, on every top RPG list)
• Baldur's Gate 2 (95 metacritic, on every top RPG list)
• Neverwinter Nights (90~metacritic, on every top RPG list)
• Dragon Age Origins (93 metacritic)
• Dragon Age Inquisition (89 metacritic, on every top RPG list)
• Mass Effect 1 (91 metacritic, on every top RPG list)
• Mass Effect 2 (96 metacritic, on every top RPG list)
• Mass Effect 3 (93 metacritic)

 

Even their worst games (Dragon Age 2) are still above average. Compare them to the latest hyped up company CDPR who's first games included Witcher 1 (even hardcore witcher fans can't stomach that dreadful Act 1 and 2 with all the fetch quests and mediocre combat system), Witcher 2 (convoluted plot that didn't feel much like the Witcher at all and still a mediocre combat system, imo it's worse than the first one) and Witcher 3 (fantastic game that still pales in comparison to the best of Bioware or even the Mass Effect trilogy).

 

Bioware are a fantastic company, a few slip ups are inevitable especially considering how strongly they started off and even in their slip ups they produce fantastic games.

 

I really hate the latest "it's cool to hate on Bioware" meme that everybody insists on circlejerking about.

[Chealec]

... Witcher 1 (even hardcore witcher fans can't stomach that dreadful Act 1 and 2 with all the fetch quests and mediocre combat system), Witcher 2 (convoluted plot that didn't feel much like the Witcher at all and still a mediocre combat system, imo it's worse than the first one) and Witcher 3 (fantastic game that still pales in comparison to the best of Bioware or even the Mass Effect trilogy)...

I am one of those Witcher fans and, for me, as a little "greater than" chart for TW vs DA vs ME (comparing like for like, first games, then second, then third):

TW1 > DAO > ME1
ME2 > TW2 > DA2
TW3 > ME3 (not played DAI)

I prefer the setting, style and the twitch-play combat in TW series over DA... but ME2 was a bit better than TW2... unless you sided with Roche rather than Iorveth then they're about on a par (I'm not keen on TW2 Act 2 if you go the Scoia'tael route). They both use bad boss fights but TW2 sinks to the depths of QTEs where as ME2 just has "weak spot" bosses.


 

You lost boi? We dun take kindly to witcherlovers round these parts, best you turn around and go back from where ye came.
 
 

 
... run away ...

[The Elder King]

I thought neither game handeled smaller choices better and as for setting the prisoner free I only saw that happen once in Velen. The whispering tree also did have a clear cut answer, there was a book in the game that essentiallty explained the tree as being an evil spirit making it a no brainer to destroy it but I admit that the tree choice was probably the best done choice in the game.

 

As for exploration ME1 handeled it poorly due to the tech and it being an experimentation of the concept, what I meant was a more refined version of ME1s exploration in that there is a lot more to see and do in the planets as well as more variety.

 

 

 

 

 

"Lately" is an unfair term to use against a company as consistent as Bioware. Name me an RPG developer team that has this track record

 

• Jade Empire (89 metacritic)
• Baldur's Gate 1 (93 metacritic, on every top RPG list)
• Baldur's Gate 2 (95 metacritic, on every top RPG list)
• Neverwinter Nights (90~metacritic, on every top RPG list)
• Dragon Age Origins (93 metacritic)
• Dragon Age Inquisition (89 metacritic, on every top RPG list)
• Mass Effect 1 (91 metacritic, on every top RPG list)
• Mass Effect 2 (96 metacritic, on every top RPG list)
• Mass Effect 3 (93 metacritic)

 

Even their worst games (Dragon Age 2) are still above average. Compare them to the latest hyped up company CDPR who's first games included Witcher 1 (even hardcore witcher fans can't stomach that dreadful Act 1 and 2 with all the fetch quests and mediocre combat system), Witcher 2 (convoluted plot that didn't feel much like the Witcher at all and still a mediocre combat system, imo it's worse than the first one) and Witcher 3 (fantastic game that still pales in comparison to the best of Bioware or even the Mass Effect trilogy).

 

Bioware are a fantastic company, a few slip ups are inevitable especially considering how strongly they started off and even in their slip ups they produce fantastic games.

 

I really hate the latest "it's cool to hate on Bioware" meme that everybody insists on circlejerking about.

This post is based on a lot of personal opinions, regardless of the fact that if you want to use Metacritic, you have to use both user and critic's reviews, since they're on the same level (both flawed). Also, Bioware made KOTOR as well.

 

For 'lately' I'd guess one could mean the games Bioware made from DAO. And those games should be used to compare other developers' games.

[Commander Rpg]

One thing BioWare needs not to learn from other developers is their insistence on action combat.

Because ME2, ME3, DA2, DA3 are not STRONGLY action? What are you saying man? Have you been living in a parallel dimension until now?

[The Elder King]

Because ME2, ME3, DA2, DA3 are not action? What are you saying man?

He doesn't consider them action because they have tactical pause/cam (in DAI). He doesn't have to use the action part of the gameplay even in ME since he can pause-to-aim.

[SarenDidNothingWrong]

I am one of those Witcher fans and, for me, as a little "greater than" chart for TW vs DA vs ME (comparing like for like, first games, then second, then third):

TW1 > DAO > ME1
ME2 > TW2 > DA2
TW3 > ME3 (not played DAI)

I prefer the setting, style and the twitch-play combat in TW series over DA... but ME2 was a bit better than TW2... unless you sided with Roche rather than Iorveth then they're about on a par (I'm not keen on TW2 Act 2 if you go the Scoia'tael route). They both use bad boss fights but TW2 sinks to the depths of QTEs where as ME2 just has "weak spot" bosses.


 
 
... run away ...

 

 

I disagree

 

I have it ME2 > ME1 > Witcher 3 > ME3 > Dragon Age Origins > Witcher 1 >= Dragon Age Inquisition > Witcher 2 > Dragon Age 2

 

I found Witcher 1 and 2 pretty damn weak and extremely clunky but then again, these are our opinions.

 

I also enjoyed the world of Mass Effect much more and imo it's a lot more impressive given it having no source material to my knowledge as well as being different from the standard "High Fantasy" setting that have bloated the RPG genre a whole, I know the Witcher brings the "but it's alot darker!" gimmick that Game of Thrones implements but really, is it any different from the Baldur's Gate, Planescape or even Dragon Age Origin/Elder Scrolls settings?

 

Overall I just found the consistency in the Witcher games pretty underwhelming with Witcher 1 and 2 leaving a lot left to be desired but the Witcher 3 being a definite landmark for CDPR as RPG developers whereas Mass Effect was consistent from the start, sure the ending was a huge controversy but I would argue that the Witcher 3s ending wasn't much better. The way they handeled Emyhr and the Wild Hunt was extremely underwhelming and they were in essence cartoon villains and we didn't even see how Ciri (a walking Deus Ex Machina that would make the Star Child proud) defeated the White Frost nor what he White frost even was. We don't see how Ciri dies (if you get this ending) and we really don't see anything apart from the bittersweet "Well, Ciri defeated the White Frost I guess?" ending that in my opinion was even worse than the Mass Effect 3 (post Epilogue DLC) ending.

 

I think the reason nobody kicked up **** over the Witcher 3s disappointing climax was because nobody really cared about itt hroughout the trilogy, Mass Effect was building up to this epic finale, Witcher never was and I would even argue that this is because of the more consistent quality of writing found in the Mass Effect series in that it kept us engaged throughout.

 

Would you agree?

 

 

This post is based on a lot of personal opinions, regardless of the fact that if you want to use Metacritic, you have to use both user and critic's reviews, since they're on the same level (both flawed). Also, Bioware made KOTOR as well.

 

For 'lately' I'd guess one could mean the games Bioware made from DAO. And those games should be used to compare other developers' games.

 

It's not opinionated, Bioware are undeniably reverred RPG developers, their games always make it into the top lists and using userscores on Metacritic is flawed in that anybody can make them without proving purchase.

 

If you use steam reviews then Mass Effect 1 has 93% User rating, Mass Effect 2 has a 96% user rating whereas Witcher 1 has 85~% and Witcher 2 has 88~% (Mass Effect 3 isn't on steam).

 

You can't write off Biowares achievements like that, Baldur's Gate 1&2, KOTOR and Neverwinter Nights were some of Biowares first RPGs and they arguably redefined the genre (definitely Baldur's Gate) whereas in comparison CDPRs first games were Witcher 1 and 2 which were very polarizing to the community and at best were just 'great' games (I found them pretty mediocre in my opinion), definitely not redefining in any way, same with the Witcher 3 (which I admit to have enjoyed). If you're going to compare veterans like Bioware to newer companies like CDPR then you at least need to compare their early creations to make the comparison relative to their lifespans.