Need to re-read that article it seems, as it indicates that arbitrary scores are used in place of some reviews; hence the inaccuracy of the totals. The use of Metacritic as a defense is unwise.
The claim that reviewers reviewed the Mass Effect games without completing it only to completely ignore my asking of a source is unwise.
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.
Practically every game in that list, even when having a little option to pause a little, is based on fast paces, little time to decide a long course of actions (I'm not saying there isn't tactic at all, but it lacks of strategy), and most importantly few choices about things like equipment, personalization and so forth.
The claim that reviewers reviewed the Mass Effect games without completing it only to completely ignore my asking of a source is unwise.
Never claimed that was the case, and it does not matter. One cannot prove that the scores are valid, as the site allows non-user to review said game. Burden of proof is on those using the data; not those indicating that the flaws are extant.
My bad, mixed you up with the other dude.
"One cannot prove that the scores are valid"
They are valid. They serve as an arbitrary ranking on a game which was the initial discussion and it is what they achieve. What they do not observably validate is a games quality, which was never the initial discussion (while I do fully believe and would be willing to argue that the Mass Effect trilogy is superior to the Witcher trilogy as a whole to whatever extent they may be comparable). The initial statement I made were:
A: Bioware are the more successful developers both critical and commercially in regards to their gaming achievements (KOTOR, Baldur's Gate 1+2, Mass Effect trilogy, Neverwinter Night, Dragon Age Trilogy etc), this is irrefutable as the Mass Effect trilogy alone is both more critically and at the very least "as" commercially successful as the Witcher games.
B: The Mass Effect series of games is more critically acclaimed than the Witcher series of games.
A: Bioware are the more successful developers both critical and commercially, this is irrefutable as the Mass Effect trilogy alone is both more critically and at the very least "as" commercially successful as the Witcher games.
B: The Mass Effect series of games is more critically acclaimed than the Witcher series of games.
In people's defense, the Internet is full of "Love CPDR / Hate BioWare" bandwagoners. They tend to be vocal. This distorts the distribution of success towards CPDR's favor.
Didn't hear much about TW3's massive amount of bugs on release. Sure they weren't as pronounced as DAI's but the difference in uproar was hilariously skewed.
I'm sorry, guys. The best RPG that will ever be made has already been made. They called it Dark Souls.
Bioware games are still awesome, though.
My bad, mixed you up with the other dude.
"One cannot prove that the scores are valid"
They are valid. They serve as an arbitrary ranking on a game which was the initial discussion and it is what they achieve. What they do not observably validate is a games quality, which was never the initial discussion (while I do fully believe and would be willing to argue that the Mass Effect trilogy is superior to the Witcher trilogy as a whole to whatever extent they may be comparable). The initial statement I made were:
A: Bioware are the more successful developers both critical and commercially in regards to their gaming achievements (KOTOR, Baldur's Gate 1+2, Mass Effect trilogy, Neverwinter Night, Dragon Age Trilogy etc), this is irrefutable as the Mass Effect trilogy alone is both more critically and at the very least "as" commercially successful as the Witcher games.
B: The Mass Effect series of games is more critically acclaimed than the Witcher series of games.
Invalid algorithms and arbitrary adjustments to said reviews invalidates all the data; not useful for a defense.
Going to indv reviews and reading the opinions and insights offered there could be helpful in building information useful to that Player. For instance, finding that TW3 does not offer a Pause function helps me to avoid wasting funds on a game I am unlikely able to play. And discovering that the default settings for DAI on PC were not recommended allowed me to avoid frustration by making the alterations early.
As far as the success of games, Skyrim rules over both. However, I prefer the story-driven material of Bioware, and purchased most games; only have Skyrim from Bethesda titles. It is subjective for each Player.
"
Invalid algorithms and arbitrary adjustments to said reviews invalidates all the data; not useful for a defense"
It was never a defense in the first place, it was my exact statement.
"As far as the success of games, Skyrim rules over both."
Yep. It absolutely does, well, critically it draws (both have 96) with Mass Effect 2 and arguably loses as Skyrim has a far inferior user score but going by commcercial success it stomps both Mass Effect and Witcher but going by critical success it beats the Witcher but draws (and arguably loses) to Mass Effect.
I see nothing wrong with that statement.
That's the first installment, when you compare the combat in Mass Effect 1 and 2 to TW1 and TW2 the Witcher games look unplayable in comparison. In fact, TW1 is literally unplayable to some people with how weak the combat system is and TW2 is borderline unplayable without the combat mod, the targeting system is a joke.
I completely disagree, the Council actually offer reason with their points, especially in Mass Effect 1 in that some of them are torn on your position as Spectre as well as them only listening to the fact. Emyhr is far more cartoonish in comparison, even compared to literal machines in the Reapers the Reapers look more morally gray with their intentions. Udina himself has you questioning where is alliances lies, he always seem to be wanting to better the Human race offering a nice contrast to say a Paragon Shepard in that despite knowing that Udina wouldn't be the best representitive for the HUman race he sure would most likely be the best thing that happened to them.
Emyhr had something like 12 lines the whole time for **** sake. He almost wasn't a character at all.
Just compare the the Wild Hunt to the reapers
Wild Hunt - We wanna **** Ciri and get the powers because standard generic villainy of seeking power
Reapers - Wanting to strike a balance between synthetic and organic life
Ciri is absolutely a Deus Ex Machina as much as she is a Mary Sue. The White Frost pop out of nowhere in the game and surprise surprise, Ciri is the "chosen one" who can stop it, this is some Lord of the Rings level of cliche bullcrap. By definition that is a Deus Ex Machina, they don't even explain how she stops it, it's completely absurd and forced.
The duration of which the characters are thrown into the mix doesn't somehow nullify them from their status...
World building has never been a strong point of the Witcher books and I absolutely find the Mass Effect world more impressive...
The closure is forced and the ending gave us now explanation as to how we got there. You see Ciri go into the portal thing and based on some arbitrary choices she either dies "because reasons" or she defeats the white frost "because reasons", it was perhaps the most rushed thing i've seen in the Witcher trilogy.
)Because the trilogy's excellent writing kept you engaged in a current surge of excitement and threat. The Reaper threat was always looming and hopeless, the characters progressed and developed with each game fantastically and even died based on choices only to never be seen in the sequels.
I never questioned how the Witcher trilogy would end and franklly it didn't seem like anybody cared, it just felt disjointed and muddled up. The games never felt as a continuation, they each felt as their own individual stories which made the arbitrary "continuing of past game choices" meaningless to the point that I didn't care that Letho had survived.
Witcher 3 is in essence one giant hunt for Ciri only to get this White Frost bombshell dropped on you with no explanation as to how it was defeated.
The Witcher 2 ends on a weak cliffhanger in relations to Mass Effect 2s cliffhanger, ME3 picks up essentially directly after whereas TW3 has you hot on the trail of some character that was a mere whisper in prior games and the game is like "Well, love her, the books say so", Triss is essentially some rat control master in Novigrad and Geralt apparently left her because "**** it, Yen needs to fit into this somehow" and it just felt disjointed as ****.
Mass Effect dropped the ball because the build up was so well done. Witcher 3 didn't seem to be as disappoitning because there was almost no buildup to be found, you never felt a direct connection between the games, certainly not even close to the level Mass Effect games provided...
They don't force that on the player, though (DA2 sort of did). The action content is optional.Because ME2, ME3, DA2, DA3 are not STRONGLY action? What are you saying man? Have you been living in a parallel dimension until now?
Torment sort of did get around that. It's praised for its story, but I found the restrictions on the character very light.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.
The council, to me, are just weak political satire - shown as being ineffective and indecisive; a bland statement that democracy doesn't work... best to just let them die in ME1 - not that the replacement is any different to further hammer home the previous statement.
What do you consider the rightful role of the Council to be?
The role isn't the issue - the ham-fisted way in which it's executed is.
You hand them a cyber-zombie-Saren complete with giant robo-Cthulhu action set at the end of ME1, you might let the original council fall as casualties of a terrorist attack... and what do they do? I'm not really sure, you're still in command of the Normandy when the Collectors wipe you out. You return as some kind of clone working with a suspected terrorist organisation - or at least a rogue black ops cell.
Imagine what would happen if you hijacked an actual alien-tech UFO and dropped it on the Whitehouse killing the President of the USA.
Logically humanity should have probably been ostracised from council space at the end of ME1 - perhaps the whole species branded as terrorists and given the same treatment as the Batarians. The politicians would want to be seen to be doing something... anything.
... but no - those silly bumbling political jokers, oh what a laugh they are, they're just going to pontificate and "Ah yes, Reapers - we have dismissed this claim"
I think I would have preferred some kind political paranoia, some "reds under the bed" McCarthyism... almost anything. Instead BioWare spend three games ramming political incompetence down your throat leaving the fight to be fought by some plucky, rebellious resistance fighters in ME3.
Even Star Wars episodes 2 & 3 showed better political machinations.
I'm sorry, guys. The best RPG that will ever be made has already been made. They called it Dark Souls.
Bioware games are still awesome, though.
Ouch! You know I've been playing a lot more SWTOR and they really did a bang up job in many ways, it's got all the cool animations and stuff from KOTOR. The Hutt Cartel and Revan thingy seem cool too...
KotFE totally borked like everything though, at least in he patch, like I haven't done the actual stuff but like just everything stopped working.
And to be on topic, uh well ME should learn from SWTOR because it's like a typical Bioware game, not like DA:I and ME3 where it's all movie movie.
As to the citadel choice?
Nah, the Council runs the universe.
I think they have this agenda against the "straight male gamer" and I'm like... I'm sorry.............................. but that "straight" gamer? It's a myth, most of the people who play games are something else, well, partially straight partially... I don't know, because I couldn't speak for those people, only to say I think their sexual interests often have latent LGBT or closested desires and stuff like that, maybe just combined with a lack of interest in committing themselves wholly to being LGBT or whatever, hence all this spat and blah blah....
Their target has really been the fake straight male/female gamer, which is like well whatever knocks yourselves out or something this really isn't my business it seems.
Just like most people who play games also watch TV show comic things or read comics or maybe read manga or something, the reality is there are very very few who basically only play video games, and if they did really exist, I bet they would actually be kind of enthusiastic about a random Bioware game, LGBT stuff being a totally harmless blob across what should ultimately be a compelling entertainment experience on some level, as well as keenly aware of the fact that there is no agenda being shoved down the throat.
Maybe boring or uninspired characters or worlds or ideas or places, sure, that has been known to happen.. for both canonically "straight" "gay" and everything in between characters.
It turns out arbitrarily-assigned-due-to-pandering-or-based-in-reality-sexual-preference does not discriminate in it's inability to do anything at all to boring video game characters, such characters will forever be boring, just like interesting characters are interesting regardless of not arbitrarly-assigned-due-to-pandering-or-based-in-reality-sexual-preference.....
So essentially, the best thing to do is just create the thing that is most honest, the thing that is just "This is what I like, this is what I want to see," and just go with that! There's no need for all this extra stuff that makes it feel like it's supposed to be for X group or Y group, it should just be, hey I think this is cool and we're going to make it, and hopefully people respond to it!
Now all that said, I'm sure there are also obviously plenty of "straight male gamers" and that's GREAT, it's great that all kinds of people play these games, I'm just saying it's a "myth" that these people are all of gamers, in fact, I think that's what makes gaming special, that it can attract a certain type of "straight male" player or people who are LGBT or whatever.
But they only reason they have this kind of appeal is becuase they are the honest creations of the people that make them, and so, that's the way these things should be approached.
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?
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.
Oy, let me just clear the air here, everyone can't stand when I do that but I've played like every other CDPR/Bioware game close to if not on release and plenty of JRPGs and D&D and blah blah blah, this is here.
Bioware RPGs are kind of fun RPGs in general, however, they did not re-define the genre.
I treat them as enthusiastially cheesy and over the top kind of RPG homages with occasional RPG elements, the chief reason they have so much interest and attention is because they're massively mega AAA, without abandoning those elements to Batman Arkham levels of over gloss and easiness. I guess you could say they re-defined AAA gaming.. but actually the more precise thing to say is they along with Square........
created AAA gaming. 6 CDs and heaping piles of cinematics were not the norm in 1998.
I've played random games without any massive interest or attention that are better but aren't massively mega AAA (and this has been true all throughout Bioware's history), I know this fact massively triggers the hardcore fans here but it's just been too heretical of late.
As to the experiences.. I know that their quality has been bipolar, everything up to really SWTOR and recently has been pretty engaging stuff that is really not very different from 10 years ago with KOTOR or even NWN.
ME3, DA:I, and now KotFE are really brazen in the opposite direction, like I keep trying to wonder if it's really the same company at all.
It's not like Blizzard where you had things that were like less fun maybe in one expansion or another by some moment, it's like literally everyone was just replaced one day by a completely different group of people... which I'm pretty sure isn't true... feels that way though.
TW games on the whole seem to have more engaging source material than Star Wars or Forgotten Realms, or at least it was leveraged better by CDPR, but the games themselves can be kind of grating at times. I think TW1 and maybe 2, and parts of 3 are still really pretty fun though, especially the scenery and environments in TW3 is kind of nice.
I feel like there's always this werid mileu of Obsidian, Black Isle, CDPR, Bioware, but like they're all heavily story driven RPGs on some level, basically. The games that felt most clearly like direct RPGs with a focus on RPG elements were the early Fallout games and maybe one or two Troika ones, the others just sort of deal with it indirectly or like as KotFE did they just streamline those aspects.
In fact, pretty much every sequel to every Bioware game was the streamlining, all the way back to Throne of Bhaal which was like 3 and a half zones.
Also saving Citadel council is pretty obviously the best choice in ME1.
Also saving Citadel council is pretty obviously the best choice in ME1.
I have to say the major area i'd love to see Bioware learn from the witcher series is the side quest area. It's something that i feel has been getting progressively worse in recent Bioware games. TW3 is littered with side quests chock full of story and characterising choices.
I'd agree with the OP on the issue of sticking with human only character.
Romance is an area on the other hand where i still think Bioware just about prevails. That doesn't mean they can't learn from the successes in this area. It doesn't mean they have to copy the explicit stance(though i'd have no issues if they did)
As much as TW3 did best possible job in terms of incorporating the open world it still glaring at times the negative effects such an open world approach has on the story. Definitely think the myth of the open world needs challenging and if less open provides a better story then it shouldn't be ignored.
Is it? The Council's rescue comes at the cost of many Alliance soldiers. In Shepard's shoes, I'd probably value their lives more than the Council, as well as the Destiny Ascension's personnel. Maybe I've been hanging with Ashley Williams too long.
Nah, the Council runs the universe... I mean basically lol.
If you sacrifice the council you end up with a big power vacuum and lots of galactic civilization problems that need solving, etc.
The role isn't the issue - the ham-fisted way in which it's executed is.
The politicians would want to be seen to be doing something... anything.
... but no - those silly bumbling political jokers, oh what a laugh they are, they're just going to pontificate and "Ah yes, Reapers - we have dismissed this claim"
I think I would have preferred some kind political paranoia, some "reds under the bed" McCarthyism... almost anything. Instead BioWare spend three games ramming political incompetence down your throat leaving the fight to be fought by some plucky, rebellious resistance fighters in ME3.
Errrr... Guys, do you know that an openworld RPG taking place on an alien planet and featuring the human colonisation was released this year? You even play a Pathfinder, finding ressources, building relationships with alien species...
His name is Xenoblade Chronicles X. I played it some hours and, so long, he give a strong feeling of "we are alone, cut from our bases and we must survive". And the humanity has the short stick, being totally overpowered by alien races in militaristic domain. Yeah it is on the WiiU, yes a lot of parts are rubbish... But the game is FULL of content, a good lore and with F***** MECHAS you can take at any time. It is only the first of a trilogy : Bioware must stay on their toes if they want to stay first.
Retour en haut