That's what targeting a specific enemy is for.
locking to a single target with multiple enemies around you is suicide. Would have worked if the EFFING CAMERA DOESN'T FOLLOW THE ENEMY and made Geralt locked onto one while maintaining camera angle freedom and combat fluidity but NOPE. I sure hope this mistake doesn't carry over to Andromeda as well yikes...
@ least give us a freedom of choice whether to play the hero of the story or a villain or neutral. I don't like the idea of being forced into a path that I don't want playing my character, let me choose of what I want @ least. That's what I love about Fallout series it's freedom of choice of how I want to play my character whether to be good, evil, or neither one and endings that reflect your influences in the wasteland depending on whether you do good or evil deeds. I think they should give that option on ME:A.from the looks of it I think Andromeda is going to be a sandbox game similar to Skyrim or the Witcher... but they have to try really hard with the writing though. Also I think this time mankind or the Milkyway explorers [lol] or us for short are intruders.. I HOPE
I also agree that being always the hero is... well getting old already
@ least give us a freedom of choice whether to play the hero of the story or a villain or neutral. I don't like the idea of being forced into a path that I don't want playing my character, let me choose of what I want @ least. That's what I love about Fallout series it's freedom of choice of how I want to play my character whether to be good, evil, or neither one and endings that reflect your influences in the wasteland depending on whether you do good or evil deeds. I think they should give that option on ME:A.
That will never happen. You will always be the hero in BioWare games due to limited resources. They do not have the means of actually having a story where you can choose to be good or evil. The only BioWare game I know of that is somewhat an exception to the rule is KotOR 1 where you could either save the Republic or become the new Dark Lord of the Sith. Of course, you still defeated Malak either way.
As far as Mass Effect and Dragon Age are concerned, you are forced into the role of the hero. What BioWare tries to do is make difference shades to add variety to the hero.
They won't because of resources? What kind of a lame excuse is that?! If resources are the problem then no wonder their games starting to suck. But I think it's not "resources" they just want to stick with hero and nothing else, but it will lose its substance by forcing people to keep on playing the hero again and again. That's why they should introduce freedom of choice whether to play hero or a villian that's suitable only for you, not forcing down your throat to play hero and not have the opportunity to be someone else. They're should be options to choose and not chosen for us.That will never happen. You will always be the hero in BioWare games due to limited resources. They do not have the means of actually having a story where you can choose to be good or evil. The only BioWare game I know of that is somewhat an exception to the rule is KotOR 1 where you could either save the Republic or become the new Dark Lord of the Sith. Of course, you still defeated Malak either way.
As far as Mass Effect and Dragon Age are concerned, you are forced into the role of the hero. What BioWare tries to do is make difference shades to add variety to the hero.
@ least give us a freedom of choice whether to play the hero of the story or a villain or neutral. I don't like the idea of being forced into a path that I don't want playing my character, let me choose of what I want @ least. That's what I love about Fallout series it's freedom of choice of how I want to play my character whether to be good, evil, or neither one and endings that reflect your influences in the wasteland depending on whether you do good or evil deeds. I think they should give that option on ME:A.
I see the appeal for some people, but personally I have to say: Don't care about the bad side. Because it always boils down to being rude to potential questgivers, killing potential questgivers, reducing yourself in content and so on.
And I also don't see much way how to handle two very seperate ways to handle the main quest. Of course, we can be cruel, wiping out planetary population maybe or some things to further the colonization-efforts etc, and I think that's what you would like to see. But at the end of the day, all these evil/good decisions will probably feel like the Rachni-Queen anyway, in regards to the greater things: Pointless, and potentially in need of serious retconning for sequels ...
Even with Fallout ... you nuke Megaton, or not, a rather artifical evil thing to do just to make one feel evil. Something you usually do ONCE to see teh mushroom cloud, but the majority will probably never care much after that.
But then I am a person that actually struggles to play evil and had a hard time to be mean in Kotor and co ... 
Indeed. My Grandad served in the Polish Army from 1939-45; this sort of bollocks really irritates me.
Poland as a nation wasn't involved much in the war. Being attacked by Germany and Soviet at the same time didn't help.
Still the feats Polish soldiers, pilots and civilians performed throughout the entire war are amazing.
Witold Pilecki should be mentioned in particular.
Poland as a nation wasn't involved much in the war. Being attacked by Germany and Soviet at the same time didn't help.
Still the feats Polish soldiers, pilots and civilians performed throughout the entire war are amazing.
Witold Pilecki should be mentioned in particular.
there were polish pilots in the RAF if I recall taking part in the Battle of Britain but after the war their country was sold off by the Allies to the Soviet Union xD
But then I am a person that actually struggles to play evil and had a hard time to be mean in Kotor and co ...
I fail to see the appeal. The 'evil path' in video games tends to be cartoony and unrealistic. There's no nuance there.
By contrast, I could play my Warden like an arrogant, selfish dick without falling into silly "mwahahaha" territory, kicking puppies and stealing candy from little kids.
They won't because of resources? What kind of a lame excuse is that?! If resources are the problem then no wonder their games starting to suck. But I think it's not "resources" they just want to stick with hero and nothing else, but it will lose its substance by forcing people to keep on playing the hero again and again. That's why they should introduce freedom of choice whether to play hero or a villian that's suitable only for you, not forcing down your throat to play hero and not have the opportunity to be someone else. They're should be options to choose and not chosen for us.
Actually, it's not a lame excuse. Think about this for a second. For one, think about how divergent the endings and choices need to be in the game. Think about the amount of dialogue that would have to be used to accommodate the differences (for three different languages). Think about having to craft different cinematics to accommodate being good or evil. The problem here is entirely because of a lack of resources and funding. This is not something BioWare can easily rectify.
BioWare can't just do what it wants. The more it tries to do, the more it has to cut features or limit systems somewhere else. It's a seesaw effect. Game development is all about prioritizing. The more BioWare tries to implement something like this, the more something else will suffer or be removed. It's just not possible, with all the dialogue, how the companions perceive you, and how the story plays out. To truly make a game where you can be "good" or "evil" is just never going to work with the BioWare formula.
I fail to see the appeal. The 'evil path' in video games tends to be cartoony and unrealistic. There's no nuance there.
By contrast, I could play my Warden like an arrogant, selfish dick without falling into silly "mwahahaha" territory, kicking puppies and stealing candy from little kids.
The problem is the evil path is generally never handled well. If you are going to make an evil side, the writers need to make that side in such a way that the player can empathize with the PC's struggle. There needs to be an emotional investment in the evil side and it has to be reasoned in such a way people would understand. Just like the good side, there has to be justifiable reasons for why you are doing what you are doing. Some sort of ideology or philosophy to encapsulate why they are committing these evil deeds. One good theme for the evil side would be the ends justify the means. Loghain from Dragon Age could be an example of an "evil" character who was also somewhat relateable.
You have a point. I'll just hope for the best then.Actually, it's not a lame excuse. Think about this for a second. For one, think about how divergent the endings and choices need to be in the game. Think about the amount of dialogue that would have to be used to accommodate the differences (for three different languages). Think about having to craft different cinematics to accommodate being good or evil. The problem here is entirely because of a lack of resources and funding. This is not something BioWare can easily rectify.
BioWare can't just do what it wants. The more it tries to do, the more it has to cut features or limit systems somewhere else. It's a seesaw effect. Game development is all about prioritizing. The more BioWare tries to implement something like this, the more something else will suffer or be removed. It's just not possible, with all the dialogue, how the companions perceive you, and how the story plays out. To truly make a game where you can be "good" or "evil" is just never going to work with the BioWare formula.
By contrast, I could play my Warden like an arrogant, selfish dick without falling into silly "mwahahaha" territory, kicking puppies and stealing candy from little kids.
Witcher does it so why can't they? I think they need to revamp their formula of making games if that's the problem that they can't do. Excuses are over hut we'll wait and see what they will offer @ E3.Actually, it's not a lame excuse. Think about this for a second. For one, think about how divergent the endings and choices need to be in the game. Think about the amount of dialogue that would have to be used to accommodate the differences (for three different languages). Think about having to craft different cinematics to accommodate being good or evil. The problem here is entirely because of a lack of resources and funding. This is not something BioWare can easily rectify.
BioWare can't just do what it wants. The more it tries to do, the more it has to cut features or limit systems somewhere else. It's a seesaw effect. Game development is all about prioritizing. The more BioWare tries to implement something like this, the more something else will suffer or be removed. It's just not possible, with all the dialogue, how the companions perceive you, and how the story plays out. To truly make a game where you can be "good" or "evil" is just never going to work with the BioWare formula.
Witcher does it so why can't they? I think they need to revamp their formula of making games if that's the problem that they can't do. Excuses are over hut we'll wait and see what they will offer @ E3.
How so? Geralt is a pre-established character and he has always preferred neutrality over picking sides. That being said, Geralt has always proven to be a genuine hero and kind person at heart. There is no "evil" variant of Geralt based on any of the decisions in The Witcher games. The only RPG that comes to mind where you could truly either be good or evil is Fable, and that game doesn't have a dialogue wheel.
Well based on that we already know we are going to be a rookie explorer who is incredibly talented, I wouldn't get your hopes up that there will be an "evil diabolical" path in which you can control the reapers and commit mass genocide.
If you're going to carry out an armed rebellion against muh big government, just raid the Bastille like everyone else you big conservative baby.Eh, I don't like the franchise but that's just because I have never really found shooters all that interesting.
I'm of the mind if you want to shoot a gun, you go out, buy one, and shoot it.
And or move to a country where gun laws aren't repressive and indicative of a government that fears its people being armed and denies the right of both possession of firearms and the safety those implements bestow.
The problem is the evil path is generally never handled well. If you are going to make an evil side, the writers need to make that side in such a way that the player can empathize with the PC's struggle. There needs to be an emotional investment in the evil side and it has to be reasoned in such a way people would understand. Just like the good side, there has to be justifiable reasons for why you are doing what you are doing. Some sort of ideology or philosophy to encapsulate why they are committing these evil deeds. One good theme for the evil side would be the ends justify the means. Loghain from Dragon Age could be an example of an "evil" character who was also somewhat relateable.
Right. KotOR being the exception that proves this rule, because falling to the Dark Side is supposed to be a bit non-rational.
Not really. That's not what the Dark Side is about at all. It's quite rational. Power. Greed. Accessibility. Freedom. The path of least resistance is preferred by most over the one with the most obstacles. The Light Side is always the more arduous one to travel, and thus less rational. The entire point is to show your resolve is beyond folly and that you can overcome your own desires through sheer will.
The way Light/Dark choices are often presented in KotOR are overly cartoonish. KotOR II did a slightly better job of presenting more credible choices. KotOR I simplified a moral concept far more complex, and as a result mischaracterizes what that concept was meant to achieve.
People told me the Battle in Kaer Morhen is a homage or reference to BioWare and was intentionally put there. I mean they could just made Yen and Triss do the planning but instead made Geralt do it... made me laugh so hard and I already imagined I was back in the collector base instead inside of a castle xD
Also I find the Barron Quest the most... disturbing and detailed quest ever.
The Bloody Baron plot is, arguably, the best written part of the whole game - it's one of the best-handled stories I've played for a while actually.
... though living in the West Mids I can't help having a little smile at his accent whenever I talk to him.
The Bloody Baron plot is, arguably, the best written part of the whole game - it's one of the best-handled stories I've played for a while actually.
... though living in the West Mids I can't help having a little smile at his accent whenever I talk to him.
Arguably being a key point. Having watched this quest to see what all the fuss was about, it left me underwhelmed while Geralt followed the floating glowing baby. This seems to be a case where Telling may have been a better choice than Showing for crafting the horror for this quest.
That's right at the end of the plotline ... (well, almost) ... and is the weakest part; it's the piecing things together, discovering the background of the family that's interesting. Seeing as the Baron is intended to almost hold a mirror to Geralt - there, but for the grace of God, goes your or I - it's a reflection on the character you're playing; this could have been Geralt had he not become a Witcher.
... and yes, the Baron is a s*** but he's not an evil s*** as such.
But I'm rather partial to murder mysteries and that's pretty much what that quest is.
That's right at the end of the plotline ... (well, almost) ... and is the weakest part; it's the piecing things together, discovering the background of the family that's interesting. Seeing as the Baron is intended to almost hold a mirror to Geralt - there, but for the grace of God, goes your or I - it's a reflection on the character you're playing; this could have been Geralt had he not become a Witcher.
... and yes, the Baron is a s*** but he's not an evil s*** as such.
But I'm rather partial to murder mysteries and that's pretty much what that quest is.
Arguably being a key point. Having watched this quest to see what all the fuss was about, it left me underwhelmed while Geralt followed the floating glowing baby. This seems to be a case where Telling may have been a better choice than Showing for crafting the horror for this quest.
The purpose of the lubberkin is mostly to lead Geralt to crookback bog and Oxenfurt and not really the sole focus of the narrative, Its the family drama between the baron and his daughter/wife and the crones that makes those multiple quests so good.
Witcher does it so why can't they? I think they need to revamp their formula of making games if that's the problem that they can't do. Excuses are over hut we'll wait and see what they will offer @ E3.
Eh? Geralt is a good guy in The Witcher no matter what. The choices you make are usually more of a pragmatic or "do I prefer X or Y person" nature, but pretty much never good vs evil. At best you can play him as a jerk, but that's not the same as being evil, all Bioware games allow you to be a jerk.
I liked the idea that one could be torn between choices, but I would have eliminated the Baron every time regardless. Still not a fan of this Action title; certainly not enough to warrant a purchase.
That's your prerogative ... personally I quite liked the Baron, though he was a horribly flawed human being with serious drink problems, and (sort of) tried to patch things up between him and his wife... well, as best you can. The relationship with his daughter was beyond redemption though. There was never going to be a happy, happy outcome to that story.
Well, yeah. Witcher ruined everything for me too. It made me understand how crappy DAI really was and that bioware at some point turned in the wrong direction.
I love asinine statements like this. I really do.
Retour en haut