3 réponses à ce sujet

[Linkenski]

 

I was browsing some YouTube today, and stumbled on yet another great video from MrBtongue. It's about the revival of the infinity engine for the recent successful kickstarters, Pillairs of Eternity by Obsidian Ent. and Wasteland 2, and tying into a larger subject it's about RPGs in general and modern vs old-school RPG. The argument is that there are qualities from old-school RPGs that have been discarded at the expense of design and balance of modern games.

 

The reason I bring it here is because we had a topic about old-school Bioware games recently and in it I said something to the effect that I felt the reason Bioware games are different now since ME2 and onwards is that they're mostly written around the game-design.

 

Well, whoop-dee-do! MrBtongue supports my argument it seems, and I just wanted to share it. I think Andromeda is obviously going to be what MrBtongue refers to as the "RPG A" where a game is first designed sort of like a backbone or skeleton where it's all abstract but put into boxes and systems and then the writing starts trying to reinforce the ideas dictated by game-design.

 

We know Bioware's usual modern approach has been to first write a story-draft containing the general idea for the entire plot, mapped out with dramatical ups and downs so it fits a nice tension-curve and a 3-act structure, but there's no denying the fundamental game-design of ME3 dictated the fact that each group of enemies had one type of every class for example and thus creating a lesser variety of overall enemy factions in the game. You had Cerberus, The Geth and Reaper enemies (for singple-player). Each has an ordinary soldier, a super-soldier with shields and a special weapon, a tactitian, an elite and a boss. Even compared to ME2 that is quite systematized, where, in both ME1 and ME2 while there were obviously enemy classes it wasn't overly balanced necessarily but instead it was more there to suit whatever the story needed, hence a lot more variety. In ME1 we got thugs, biotic crazies, Asari commandoes, inodctrinated salarians, Krogan, Rachni, Thorian creepers, husks, slavers etc., overall, a generally wide variety of enemies specifically created for whatever the story would dictate. In ME2 things got slightly more systematized but overall liberal as well. There was factions and classes within those, this time around. There was the LOKI-mechs, dog-mechs and YMIR-mechs as a faction, the Geth, and of course, the Collectors were generally structured into classes too and then we had mercenaries, featuring specific types of enemies of each faction. Blue Suns; Human, Batarian. Eclipse; Salarians and Asari. Blood Pack; Krogan and Vorcha. Though, even aside from this structuring of enemies there were exclusives like on Jack's mission there is that one unarmored guy in an office and a bunch of prisoners loose outside of the hallways. Generally speaking though, there was some variety for the writers to play with, at least with such a wide array of enemy-types.

 

That brings us forth to ME3 again, where we had 3 factions with very similar types of enemies structured into the same kinds of classes... and I believe, because each group had to be extra balanced and make unique abilities for specific enemies, designing more factions or enemy-types outside of the 3 main forces would've been quite expensive both in cost and development time, and the downside to all this is: The writers had less to work with. As a result of that, we got problems like "How did Cerberus get this big?" and the fact that Cerberus ended up being used in more missions than Reaper enemies. Looking back, there was an opportunity to create indoctrinated C-Sec officers or side-missions where colonies yet to be hit by Reapers were attacked by mercs who had fled Omega in search of a new place to set up camp or something to show more sides to the war than just Cerberus vs Reapers vs Geth vs You, and it's all because the game was designed in a very systematic way and the writing had to adjust to that.

 

With that, we have only Andromeda and future Bioware titles to look towards. I hope Bioware can let their writers dictate the game-design for overall more creativity and playful game-design than to overbalance and oversystematize everything beforehand. I'm looking forward to doing things besides driving my Mako to complete resource-gathering objectives that fills up some kind of metagame score and I'm looking forward to doing more besides fighitng the main 3-4 factions in every mission when there allegedly are hundreds of planets or something to that effect we can freely explore.

[AlanC9]

... and I believe, because each group had to be extra balanced and make unique abilities for specific enemies, designing more factions or enemy-types outside of the 3 main forces would've been quite expensive both in cost and development time, and the downside to all this is: The writers had less to work with. As a result of that, we got problems like "How did Cerberus get this big?" and the fact that Cerberus ended up being used in more missions than Reaper enemies.

I'm confused by how you've got the cause and effect working here. How does having three factions mean that Cerberus ends up being used more than the Reapers?

And you're saying that the three-faction decision predates the outline, right? If that's the case then how can the system cause problems with the script? If the writers think their enemy types won't support Cerberus being that big, then they shouldn't make Cerberus that big.

Looking back, there was an opportunity to create indoctrinated C-Sec officers or side-missions where colonies yet to be hit by Reapers were attacked by mercs who had fled Omega in search of a new place to set up camp or something to show more sides to the war than just Cerberus vs Reapers vs Geth vs You, and it's all because the game was designed in a very systematic way and the writing had to adjust to that.

How would this work? You still need the zots to make these additional missions. Where would they come from?

[RoboticWater]

In ME1 we got thugs, biotic crazies, Asari commandoes, inodctrinated salarians, Krogan, Rachni, Thorian creepers, husks, slavers etc., overall, a generally wide variety of enemies specifically created for whatever the story would dictate.

I wouldn't describe the reduction in enemies to be a result of story-second development, but as an increase in design standards (much like a lot of design decisions were from each game to the next). Many of those enemies are just reskins of each other with potentially a few different powers. I think the sequels just spent more time making each enemy more visually and mechanically distinct.

 

In fact, the loss of all these classes was probably because of RPG B style design. Mass Effect 3 takes place during a war against the reapers, so we're probably not going to worry much about thugs or slavers. Even if that weren't the case, most of ME3's enemies could just be reskinned and have a power or two swapped to become any one of ME1's enemies. Phantoms could work similarly to commandos, creepers are just husks, cannibals are kind of like Krogan, etc. Could there have been more indoctrinated mooks? Sure, quite easily: just swap out a Cerberus Trooper model with a random human model, and we're done. There's very little strain on the art and game design department here. I honestly believe that the writers just didn't think to have indoctrinated randos on the field.

 

It's also important to note that designing a real time/skill based game involves different methodology. This excellent examination of DOOM points out how a limited set of orthogonally designed and visually distinct enemies can create a much more engaging shooter (watch the whole thing, but the relevant part starts at 1:30).

[Sanunes]

I wouldn't describe the reduction in enemies to be a result of story-second development, but as an increase in design standards (much like a lot of design decisions from each game to the next). Many of those enemies are just reskins of each other with potentially a few different powers. I think the sequels just spent more time making each enemy more visually and mechanically distinct.

 

In fact, the loss of all these classes was probably because RPG B style design. Mass Effect 3 takes place during a war against the reapers, so we're probably not going to worry much about thugs or slavers. Also, I'm fairly certain most of ME3's enemies could just be reskinned to and have a power or two swapped to become any one of ME1's enemies. Phantoms could work similarly to commandos, creepers are just husks, cannibals are kind of like Krogan, etc. Could there have been more indoctrinated mooks? Sure, quite easily: just swap out a Cerberus Trooper model with a random human model, and we're done. There's very little strain on the art and game design department here. I honestly believe that the writers just didn't think to have indoctrinated randos on the field.

 

I think it's also important to note that designing a real time/skill based game involves different methodology. This excellent examination of DOOM points howa limited set of orthogonally designed and visually distinct enemies can create a much more engaging shooter (watch the whole thing, but the relevant part starts at 1:30).

 

This is how I feel as well.  Even if you look at the armor from Mass Effect 1 it is all basically recolors of each other with very little distinction between them aside from stats.  Now moving into Mass Effect 2 armor sets look differently some are more sleek then others and other are more bulky.  With enemies you had a model for each species and then there were just recolors and the possibility of small items added to the model that didn't impact the animations, but generally looked identical. Dragon Age: Origins has a very similar design with the races for everyone from the neck down was the same, it was their heads that gave them a different look.