50 réponses à ce sujet

[laudable11]

I really liked Vigil's keep. Add a little bit more stuff and I'm happy.

Skyhold was pretty cool too. Another example would be Mother base from MGS5, which had potential but felt dead and empty.

[ZipZap2000]

Stuff like this scares me because it nearly always end up being semi-mandatory and extremely tedious. It often doesn't make any sense either. DAI: I'm the Inquisitor. One of the most powerful people in all of Thedas, yet I cannot allocate personnel to retrieve my plants and metals for crafting. It's utterly stupid.

Yes you can.

Via the war table.

[SardaukarElite]

I don't think you can successfully build a multiple settlement economy around a game that is essentially 3-4 people going out and having exciting adventures. It throws the scale off, you're in charge of a small nation that provides you tiny rewards which have a minimal impact on your adventuring and for some reason the adventuring is still more important than running several communities.

 

If they have to do it I'd like it to be largely out of our control. Maybe we get to influence where colony is, but once it's established it grows on its own, it provides us benefits by being there but we don't run it - because you know, we're just a space scout. 

[NKnight7]

I like the idea of making settlements on uncharted worlds, colonizing them. I don't know if I'd want it the same as Fallout though, maybe change it a little for Andromeda.

[rapscallioness]

Didn't a leak mention that we may have to help defend the colonies against, uh, bandits and khmet, or khet?

[ZipZap2000]

This colony expansion doesn't sound very fun. I'm seeing shades of AC:R with the defense aspect. All that was, was a flashing red icon and a tower defense game. Granted it wasn't mandatory but it was still terrible.

[Kabooooom]

If they do, I would prefer it was not limited to just inhabitable worlds. For example,mining colonies should be able to be founded on inhospitable, but resource-rich worlds.

It would be very difficult for Bioware to pull this off in a way that doesn't suck.

[TheBunz]

Settlement Building in Mass Effect: Andromeda

 

Source: http://www.eurogamer...s-effect-4-leak

 

Settlement building was mentioned back in the initial survey leak but it hasn't really been mentioned since so I'd like to get an idea of what guys think of the concept in general? Do you have any thoughts about recent examples (e.g. ACIII, FO4)? If so what did you enjoy about SB in those and more importantly what pitfalls should be avoided? What are you hopes for settlement building in ME:A?

 

Are you more excited or apprehensive about the potential for settlement building in ME:A?

 

I don't know. I've seen so many games do it wrong that I fear that it'll feel tedious. If they made it to where you didn't have to micromanage everything, that'd be great.

[DarthSliver]

Thresher Maw breeding in MEA, weaponizing the Thresher Maw should be our top priority in MEA

[KamuiStorm]

I would find this quite enjoyable and hope it is implemented into the game. While I wouldn't want it to be mandatory I would prefer to have the option to do so, as well as being able to set up mining colonies and for all established colonies to as stated have the option to take control and have to manage all or none or to be able to appoint leaders. If I have five colonies I would love to be able to manage them all, but if I ever find it too tedious due to not being able to maintain all the demand I would want my to be able to appoint a leader for colony 1 & 2 while I remain supreme overlord of the remaining three colonies.

I think having a system where I could appoint a council that takes care of the grunt work but when it comes time for colony altering choices to come to me. Say a mining colony went on strike well the council would come to me to solve the problem while depending on what I choose they will do my bidding. Kinda like the inquisitors throne judging.

Perhaps a mix of skyhold & fallout 4's settlement building/management would result in something acceptable.

[Helios969]

Yes you can.

Via the war table.

Yeah, you're right.  Whistles for 15 minutes while twiddling his thumbs.  5 elfroots and 5 irons.  Jee, thanks.  Now I just got a do that like 150 more times.  No thanks.

[ZipZap2000]

Yeah, you're right. Whistles for 15 minutes while twiddling his thumbs. 5 elfroots and 5 irons. Jee, thanks. Now I just got a do that like 150 more times. No thanks.

Nobody told you to twiddle your thumbs you could be gathering more elfroot.

[Helios969]

^Well I guess if you find that fun I can't really argue.  Not my cup of tea.

[heinoMK2]

Here is what i'd like to see.

 

3 types of outposts: surveillance, production, pioneer.

 

Surveillance:

A small type of outpost packed to the brim with all sorts of information gathering technology(from conventional like radiotelescopes and simple antennaes to something exotic like "quantum beam interceptors" etc), like combination of NSA and NASA on steroids, that basically lifts the fog of war in a specific area, allowing you to have an idea what kind of species are in the known(!) systems, where are the directions to look for potential new civilizations/threats/objects of interest and what kind of traffic there is in an area of space. It would also provide you with a somewhat advanced astrometrical data concerning any sort of astronomical phenomena etc.

 

Pioneer outpost:

This one is where there are people putting their feet on the ground of space objects and starting digging for interesting stuff. Depending on the scope of the game these could be also large settlements with the intent of simple colonisation of new planets.

These outposts would provide you with (side) missions where you explore all sorts of ruins, artifacts, old spaceship wrecks and similar objects of interest inside a single solar system where the outpost resides.

 

Production outpost:

Main use could be to provide fuel to allow you to travel further into space, just like refueling stations in ME3 did. Other than that depending on the story of the game these could produce food and supplies for both other types of outposts, process all sorts of minerals, forge weapons, ships etc. These outposts could be a similar type of mission hub as for example Omega, Noveria of Feros were. I.e. crime investigations, manhunts, doing drugs in the clubs or just something simple like "we were working hard on some stuff as suddenly space bugs broke out from the underground, pleaso go kill some" - and explore some crazy natural underground caves with all sorts of wild animals and maybe even an ancient sunken city or whatever a dev high on shrooms could think of.

 

All of these outposts type could feature their own specific core layout with a slight variation depending on what kind of space object they are currently based on. Some cool views into space for asteroid-based structures or some crazy alien skies would help to further differentiate facilities of the same type from each other - after all, unlike the geth, we like our windows quite much .

[AlleyD]

I honestly cannot think of any real benefits for adding a settlement building and management mechanic into a RPG type game that has story based formats. It isn't only personal preference, my opinion is more on maximising and protecting the brand equity and identity of the brand.

 

Brands with strong identity and high equity values have built that from concentrating on the areas that the brands excel and seek to mastercraft these attributes. Very few adopt a JOAT approach because they have learned that this approach is more risky,  installs reduced equity and identity perceptions and rarely performs to expectations in attracting new consumers to the brand

 

This isn't a case of not employing innovation or embracing change, its applying innovation to the areas that enhance the key performance of the product and not wasting investment or embracing changes that dilute the real world performance or consumer perceptions.

 

Virtually all RPG/story driven games I know that built this into the games were perceived to have been compromised. AC3 added a more demanding settlement mechanic, but the character design and story suffered, as did the amount of focus on actually playing as an assassin.

 

Fallout 4 has more freedom to experiment because Bethesda's brand equity is not built on strong story or characters, but in allowing freedom for the gamer to "explore" and devote time to the game in a random and undirected fashion. The settlement mechanic works to an extent because it plays into an already established identity feature in the brand. Also, Bethesda games are buggy and unstable, almost by design and the consumers have accepted this somehow. The settlement building in Fallout 4 was buggy and frustrating, but that also builds on an already established identity feature of the brand.

 

The brand that experienced the highest amount of equity boost and also achieved remarkable sales growth was TW3. This was gained from applying the maximum amount of innovation to story, world building and attention to detail. The gameplay was the weakest part of TW3, but this was compensated by the strengths in other areas of design and consumer interaction/support.

 

Bioware are in the unfortunate position to have experienced a brand identity and equity crisis with ME3. A significant number of core consumers perceived the game did not live up to the expectations derived from the qualities they identified in the brand's previous products; story and characters. This is the area that would be wiser to apply maximum investment and innovation, rather that trying a more risky design that might not work, is essentially filler and is chasing a market trend that may not actually add any value and has been shown in other products to be difficult to master, reduce product quality overall.

[saladinbob]

I honestly cannot think of any real benefits for adding a settlement building and management mechanic into a RPG type game that has story based formats. It isn't only personal preference, my opinion is more on maximising and protecting the brand equity and identity of the brand.

 

Brands with strong identity and high equity values have built that from concentrating on the areas that the brands excel and seek to mastercraft these attributes. Very few adopt a JOAT approach because they have learned that this approach is more risky,  installs reduced equity and identity perceptions and rarely performs to expectations in attracting new consumers to the brand

 

This isn't a case of not employing innovation or embracing change, its applying innovation to the areas that enhance the key performance of the product and not wasting investment or embracing changes that dilute the real world performance or consumer perceptions.

 

Virtually all RPG/story driven games I know that built this into the games were perceived to have been compromised. AC3 added a more demanding settlement mechanic, but the character design and story suffered, as did the amount of focus on actually playing as an assassin.

 

Fallout 4 has more freedom to experiment because Bethesda's brand equity is not built on strong story or characters, but in allowing freedom for the gamer to "explore" and devote time to the game in a random and undirected fashion. The settlement mechanic works to an extent because it plays into an already established identity feature in the brand. Also, Bethesda games are buggy and unstable, almost by design and the consumers have accepted this somehow. The settlement building in Fallout 4 was buggy and frustrating, but that also builds on an already established identity feature of the brand.

 

The brand that experienced the highest amount of equity boost and also achieved remarkable sales growth was TW3. This was gained from applying the maximum amount of innovation to story, world building and attention to detail. The gameplay was the weakest part of TW3, but this was compensated by the strengths in other areas of design and consumer interaction/support.

 

Bioware are in the unfortunate position to have experienced a brand identity and equity crisis with ME3. A significant number of core consumers perceived the game did not live up to the expectations derived from the qualities they identified in the brand's previous products; story and characters. This is the area that would be wiser to apply maximum investment and innovation, rather that trying a more risky design that might not work, is essentially filler and is chasing a market trend that may not actually add any value and has been shown in other products to be difficult to master, reduce product quality overall.

 

That's not entirely correct. Settlement building in Fallout 4 allows for local militia forces to be called upon to assist you in a fight if you join the minutemen. Similarly if you build artillery at these settlements, it allows for the use of artillery strikes to be called in if your'e in range of the settlement. If Andromeda did something similar, insofar as it having a tangible, visible and, most importantly, a playable difference then yes, it would work well. 

[AlleyD]

That's not entirely correct. Settlement building in Fallout 4 allows for local militia forces to be called upon to assist you in a fight if you join the minutemen. Similarly if you build artillery at these settlements, it allows for the use of artillery strikes to be called in if your'e in range of the settlement. If Andromeda did something similar, insofar as it having a tangible, visible and, most importantly, a playable difference then yes, it would work well. 

 

I would argue about how much benefit that feature was in Fallout 4. It wasn't essential material and its function in Fallout 4 wasn't helped by its clunky nature, thus devaluing the perception of the rest of the game. Instead of focussing resources on making their RPG leaner, meaner and stronger (ie building on RPing, Story, animations and improving the core stability of the engine)- Bethesda chose to bloat the game with a non essential functions that, I do not believe brought enough benefit to the game.

 

Bioware are not as fortunate as Bethesda due to the nature of the controversy in the last generation. Their consumers were very vocal about the areas they wish Bioware concentrate their development budget and apply less compromise. I didn't hear many people complain about ME3's lack of settlement building and other filler material 4 years ago, and I haven't heard many voices requesting functions like these since

[Midnight Bliss]

Sounds like supplementary busy work that will probably be 90% irrelevant to the storyline and help excuse there being few substantive missions compared to ME3. Just like how DAI's "zones" And MMO crafting system were supposed to make that awkward and clunky main quest somehow less offensive.

[Dunmer of Redoran]

HELL NO.

 

It's the worst aspect of Fallout 4 to my mind. Instead of allowing me to explore the world at my leisure I have to keep almost every piece of (s)crap I find, return daily to the settlements to build more beds, grow more food, or defend them from incursions when they already have 20 turret guns to protect them!

 

All they had to do was establish a defensive threshold where attacks on that settlement cease outright. That's it!

 

Hopefully Bioware doesn't make such a glaring mistake.

[dielveio]

No settlement building. NO.

I had enough of this minecraft crap in fallout 4 and I don't need it poluting mass effect andromeda.

[DarthSliver]

Maybe this could be something that unlocks after you beat the games story and it goes towards helping you in MP part of the game. Pretty much we lay the foundations for this while playing the main game.

[SomberXIII]

I love building. I have been a fan of building since my childhood. SimCity and The Sims were my first ever games. I do not hate the settlement system in Fallout 4. It's just that it was deeply flawed in execution.

[DarthSliver]

I love building. I have been a fan of building since my childhood. SimCity and The Sims were my first ever games. I do not hate the settlement system in Fallout 4. It's just that it was deeply flawed in execution.

 

I am just sitting over here waiting for fallout dlc lol as dlc for Battlefront and Black Ops 3 lol. 

 

I don't want it to be like Fallout 4's settlement building but something that you can do after you complete the story too so you don't have to do it while playing the main story but you certainly can if you wished

[Ahriman]

Of several non-strategy games with 'settlement' feature I can recall only one somewhat successful example - Crossroad. I was fan of it, but later games with similar features brought only disappointment. I don't even know if I want to see this ever again.

In my opinion main mistakes in those games were

- Making it a chore. Similar predictable sequences of actions over and over again. Basically a time sink. I know some people enjoyed building dozens of settlements in Fallout, but have I told you the definition of insanity?

- Over-complication for no reason. Basically what MGS did. You have hundreds of people on your base, they have skills, unique names and looks, even traits. But what's the damn point? You have Slimy Eagle with 4 engineering and 1 combat. Who the hell would put him into security? His other skills serve no purpose.

- Over-simplification. Behold! You, the lord of Skyhold, have a choice between a garden and a chantry. Your limitless authority allows you to decide what will you see in the center of location you'll visit three times through the game. If you don't care about player's choice, then make the choice itself fun or don't give it at all. Don't make me an idiot by giving me a choice nobody will ever care about.

So in short, if there are strategy elements I want them to be unpredictable in sense that when pushing a button I can't be 100% sure about result. If there is construction I want to build anything only once, ten different things in one place is better than same thing in ten locations. And no calls for help, if you can't defend yourself stay on damn Ark and scrub floors, give me reports and request orders only when I ask for it.

[saladinbob]

I would argue about how much benefit that feature was in Fallout 4. It wasn't essential material and its function in Fallout 4 wasn't helped by its clunky nature, thus devaluing the perception of the rest of the game. Instead of focussing resources on making their RPG leaner, meaner and stronger (ie building on RPing, Story, animations and improving the core stability of the engine)- Bethesda chose to bloat the game with a non essential functions that, I do not believe brought enough benefit to the game.

 

Bioware are not as fortunate as Bethesda due to the nature of the controversy in the last generation. Their consumers were very vocal about the areas they wish Bioware concentrate their development budget and apply less compromise. I didn't hear many people complain about ME3's lack of settlement building and other filler material 4 years ago, and I haven't heard many voices requesting functions like these since

 

I don't disagree, I'm just saying that outposts as window dressing would be a waste of resources better put into other areas of the game. If they want to put Outposts in then these Outposts must come with a tangible gameplay element beyond some ephemeral 'control of the local area' like they were in Inquisition.