Spoiler warning for those not wanting to be spoiled:
Spoiler
As pdusen said earlier, it seems like you just don't like the creative direction that Trespasser went. I don't see anything objectively or even generally bad about anything you mentioned.
Spoiler
As pdusen said earlier, it seems like you just don't like the creative direction that Trespasser went. I don't see anything objectively or even generally bad about anything you mentioned.
Agreed I've not seen anything wrong with what Trespasser was rtying to accomplish as I think it accomplished it brilliantly.
Spoiler
As pdusen said earlier, it seems like you just don't like the creative direction that Trespasser went. I don't see anything objectively or even generally bad about anything you mentioned.
I never said it was objectively bad. I said I hated it, people asked why, I explained. I even address that it's really not even the DLC itself I hate, but rather its effects on the rest of the game and the future.
Those upgrades seem to have nerfed Chain Lightning. I remember it having a paralyzing effect when used on just two targets.
I've been playing through again without any DLC and my Chain Lightning can do a very short duration stun on some enemies, if that's what you mean. It doesn't seem to actually be a status effect as much as it's just a forced animation.
I've no idea what's causing it and it doesn't seem to be consistent in being applied, though.
There's no potential. Because as Mass Effect - and DAA - shows, Bioware will as time goes on start to write-in cannon features of a PC that are by no means a necessary part of the original plot. The more you feature the same protagonist, the more you just end up with a kind of incoherent cannon hero.Then the people in charge now are stupid writers, throwing away a story with more potential for essentially a rehash. That's so much better.
If they ended at the base game, I would have no issue with that rule since there the story had an established conclusion and was complete, leaving the franchise ready to start a new story with a new cast. But with Trespasser, they set up a new story only for that story to never go anywhere.
Spoiler
I never said it was objectively bad. I said I hated it, people asked why, I explained. I even address that it's really not even the DLC itself I hate, but rather its effects on the rest of the game and the future.
The way you regard Trespasser–i.e. it "ruined" DA:I's ending. I still fail to see how Trespasser retroactively made DA:I's ending worse by doing exactly what would have happened in DA:4. It's OK to not like the direction, but it just seemed to me like you were trying to levy more objective criticism against the DLC.
Though I would say the real issue with Trespasser was either that it logically addressed plot issues from DAI that had absolutely no build up, wasted a lot of plot on a purported main plot that from a meta POV we knew was a red herring, and was otherwise about finding out a revelation we all already knew.
Basically it's a game that shows that you can't just tell a story about an in-setting reveal you already spilled the beans on at a meta level. So unlike ME1, hopefully Bioware doesn't spoil all of the plot to the game pre-release.
Now that's a critique I can get behind.
Spoiler
The way you regard Trespasser–i.e. it "ruined" DA:I's ending. I still fail to see how Trespasser retroactively made DA:I's ending worse by doing exactly what would have happened in DA:4. It's OK to not like the direction, but it just seemed to me like you were trying to levy more objective criticism against the DLC.
Oh no, it didn't just ruin DAI's ending for me. It ruined all of DAI. I have no motivation to play the game again now because of it, which sucks because DAI was easily my favorite Dragon Age game.
I'm not sure what the actual trope is called, but the "Chosen One" trope is generally a good enough short hand for "one who gains special power without earning it." By random chance our protagonist becomes not only the lynch pin in some grand plot, but they also gain an inordinate amount of influence/power without really trying with or without divine intervention. The Jesus/faith imagery didn't exactly help with the distinction either.
I think people still want to be in charge, but would rather they gained that position by merit. Shepard became a spectre based on his own prowess in battle, but he became the legendary icon by chancing upon the Beacon. I also assume that people still want to be the ones taking down the big bad, but would probably prefer that they weren't the only ones who could ever do it. It's nice to feel needed, but I'd hate to always feel like the most important person in the room.
Ultimately, this trope succeeds or fails based on how much its rubbed in your face (and/or how receptive you are towards being the ). I, for one, like to see characters who seem to have an equal amount of agency as the player, so whenever the plot tells me "you're the only one who could ever do this," I don't get excited, I get disappointed.
That's an overly broad use. Being a Specter isn't what made Shepard special, except maybe for humans. (I actually have the itch to play the first game now, thinking of the intro. That's been awhile.) There are lots of Specters. Shepard was made a Specter because he's an exceptional soldier. Now that status is what allows you to embark on the quest, but what really made Shepard special to the plot is the Beacon vision and later, the Cypher. Shepard did not really do anything to earn the beacon vision other than being good enough to be selected for that mission. "The Chosen One" is someone given special ability or called to a task by gods, fate, or something outside of his control.
I make sense.He often doesn't make much sense, and seems to think its the 1980s.
That this can happen at all is the problem with story-focused games.First, everything you just said boils down to the story going in a direction you don't like.
I'm pretty sure it was a documented feature at release. If you hit only two targets with chain lighting, you would temporarily paralyze them.I've been playing through again without any DLC and my Chain Lightning can do a very short duration stun on some enemies, if that's what you mean. It doesn't seem to actually be a status effect as much as it's just a forced animation.
I've no idea what's causing it and it doesn't seem to be consistent in being applied, though.
Exactly the right place to draw attention to their deficiencies.On the Mass Effect forums...
Shepard is frothing at the mouth like an unstable loon in every conversation about how the reapers will obliterate all organic life. Shepard knows full well that this is a clear and pressing danger.
You can, I guess, play an incompetent or stupid Shepard (who thinks Saren is hiding on a lifeless planet in the middle of nowhere) but there's no rook in the plot to believe that the threat is not immediate.
Correct, but that's only when arguing about it with the Council. You're right about what Shepard knows but it's a stretch for how he knows. It's all in service of getting things moving though. But while the actual details might merit immediate action, that is not the tone set by the game.
Correct, but that's only when arguing about it with the Council. You're right about what Shepard knows but it's a stretch for how he knows. It's all in service of getting things moving though. But while the actual details might merit immediate action, that is not the tone set by the game.
I do like how Shepard goes on about finding a way to stop the reapers at the end of ME1, then gets saddled with crappy geth hunting duty.
Spoiler
Oh no, it didn't just ruin DAI's ending for me. It ruined all of DAI. I have no motivation to play the game again now because of it, which sucks because DAI was easily my favorite Dragon Age game.
LMAO.
I see players say these things and I just laugh. Gamers complain when dev change things, the complain when they don't. They complain when they keep telling stories with the same protagonist over and over . They complain when they change the protagonist. They complain when they are left with open ended endings and complain when all the lose ends are tidied up. It is impossible to please gamers.
I swear I suspect that some people on these forums buy bioware games just so they can complain about how bioware is ruining games.
If you don't like trespasser why don't you UNINSTALL IT? you don't have to play it. If you like DA:I without trespasser then either play it without or LET. IT. GO.
That this can happen at all is the problem with story-focused games.
If you don't like a story-focused games don't play them. Seriously. I prefer strong narrative games because I always though most RPGs had sh!t stories and I prefer my RPGs (pen and paper) to be more than dungeon crawls. I want strong narrative. I get that people don't but the indie market is flooded with 'traditional' weaker narrative RPGs. The market is there for them that is true but so far Bethesda, Bioware and CDPR have all evolved into companies that want to tell story driven RPGs. They started from different directions and all arrived in more or less the same place and each of their last releases where record sales for each company showing a demand for this type of game in the market.
The so called problem is not a problem per say, it would be like saying the problem with a book is that you might not like the story the author wrote so all books should be choose your own adventure books cuz then at least you have a choice. But that isn't a problem as you can just NOT buy books from the authors who's stories you don't like vs expecting all books to become choose your own adventure. If you must only buy books that are choose your own adventure books but stop trying to change all books into them.
The market has been changing before you for decades now it can't be a surprise that this is where RPGs are headed. Your crusade to stop this from happening has failed. LET. IT. GO. I don't play Arena Net games any more or Blizzard games any more because I no longer like the games they produce. I don't think they make bad games or ignore their fans. I simply think that my tastes, which are subjective so neither right nor wrong, no longer line up with the games they makes. And that is 100% okay. It is in fact HEALTHY for the industry that developers change and sometimes that change means they no longer make games you like. DEAL. WITH. IT. and move on. Buy games from developers who line up with your vision of what a games should be. If a developer makes on franchise you like and another you don't just buy the one you like.
Bioware is NOT going back to BG or NWNs or even DA:O. At least not anytime soon.
I do like how Shepard goes on about finding a way to stop the reapers at the end of ME1, then gets saddled with crappy geth hunting duty.
Meh, genocidal toasters are genocidal toasters whether they look like Cthulu or a Maglite, so it's not all bad. Think of it like the Allies picking off Mussolini before they could figure out a way to take the fight to Hitler.
Only, this is in an alternate universe where Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt suddenly caught the idiot ball and went "ah yes, Nazis" somewhere during late 1943, leaving Tito and his Partisans as the only one doing anything about Fascism from that point on. Only then the Allies also put Tito in jail because reasons.
Good thing RL people don't get Biower NPC plot induced amnesia/stupid, or we'd all be practicing our precision goose stepping.
Correct, but that's only when arguing about it with the Council. You're right about what Shepard knows but it's a stretch for how he knows. It's all in service of getting things moving though. But while the actual details might merit immediate action, that is not the tone set by the game.
The how he knows fits as a literary device. The prothean devices fit as 'divine' knowledge given to the messianic figure that no one else has so they can save us. It is in fact so well done that people will deny till they are blue in the face that Shepard isn't a messianic figure (speaking from a literary perspective). Hell he dies and comes back to life the 'miracle' that shows the messianic figure is the messanger of god and not a fraud and people still refuse to see the connection. The protheans are even called gods by the Hanar and the asari have divine myths about what turns out to be a prothean. The literary symbolism is through out the games. When your story is that consistent that the symbolism is consistent over three games i think it is disingenuous to view the prothean device as just a plot service to get things moving. It was much more thought out then that and runs through the series. When it has this type of consistent symbolism it has to elevate it beyond plot device by definition.
The how he knows fits as a literary device. The prothean devices fit as 'divine' knowledge given to the messianic figure that no one else has so they can save us. It is in fact so well done that people will deny till they are blue in the face that Shepard isn't a messianic figure (speaking from a literary perspective). Hell he dies and comes back to life the 'miracle' that shows the messianic figure is the messanger of god and not a fraud and people still refuse to see the connection. The protheans are even called gods by the Hanar and the asari have divine myths about what turns out to be a prothean. The literary symbolism is through out the games. When your story is that consistent that the symbolism is consistent over three games i think it is disingenuous to view the prothean device as just a plot service to get things moving. It was much more thought out then that and runs through the series. When it has this type of consistent symbolism it has to elevate it beyond plot device by definition.
It's a stupid form of the "messiah" though. I think it's silly that he's called Space Jesus often. Not trying to spark too serious of an argument here, but Jesus turned the other cheek and didn't carry plasma rifles. Or any rifles, for that matter. 
I'd rather just side with Shepard's assessment of himself. "I'm just a soldier, Anderson." Why can't games just be this simple sometimes..
Whereas I don't think ME3 really gets urgency across well. The Reapers are pretty much established to be unbeatable in that game - the rate limiting factor is simply how long it takes them to finish their genocide.
My point is just that you can't really start from a premise of non-urgency because it's an established fact that Shepard believes this insanity completely.
I don't know what more the game can do that have the protagonist actually froth at the mouth in a scene about the urgency of the threat to establish the urgency of the threat.
Whereas I don't think ME3 really gets urgency across well. The Reapers are pretty much established to be unbeatable in that game - the rate limiting factor is simply how long it takes them to finish their genocide.
Well the more they can do is have the world care or at least other characters care. That would damage the mystery of it though so I know why they didn't. But however much time may be of the essence when you think about it, the game tells you to go do whatever you want.
The how he knows fits as a literary device. The prothean devices fit as 'divine' knowledge given to the messianic figure that no one else has so they can save us. It is in fact so well done that people will deny till they are blue in the face that Shepard isn't a messianic figure (speaking from a literary perspective). Hell he dies and comes back to life the 'miracle' that shows the messianic figure is the messanger of god and not a fraud and people still refuse to see the connection. The protheans are even called gods by the Hanar and the asari have divine myths about what turns out to be a prothean. The literary symbolism is through out the games. When your story is that consistent that the symbolism is consistent over three games i think it is disingenuous to view the prothean device as just a plot service to get things moving. It was much more thought out then that and runs through the series. When it has this type of consistent symbolism it has to elevate it beyond plot device by definition.
The decision to kill and revive Shepard may have come from that but if you're suggesting that the death and resurrection was planned when they wrote that part, or any part, of ME1, I very much disagree.
Those upgrades seem to have nerfed Chain Lightning. I remember it having a paralyzing effect when used on just two targets.
I remember when those upgrades were announced, they didn't just add options - they took some away.
Also, by adding more points to spend on usable skills (given the 8 slot limit), they removed some of the incentive to buy useless abilities in order to unlock cross-weapon passives (I still think the sword & shield passives are the best way to start a 2H build).
I'm not saying the new options are bad, I just wish they'd been implemented differently.
So this is my big fear with Bioware right now. Every game they make seems to be going further away from the great storylines that once were the backbone of every Bioware game. I mean Dragon Age 2 had a story that was rushed and completely nonsensical. Mass Effect 3... well that ending. And Dragon Age Inquisition had a short by the numbers story with a mustache twirling villain.
So I really hope Andromeda turns out to be more than a big space exploration sim with a tacked on story mode.
So do I. After Haven is destroyed, DAI's story was fragmented. Each segment barely covered the loose ends from the previous games. An example is the Wardens' arc. The main themes it brings along - the nature of the taint, the origin of the Black City, the Magisters' immortality, their connection to Archdemons, the awakened darkspawn - weren't even touched at all.
This open world policy didn't really work. We had tons of explorable areas, but little story to justify exploring anything. Little side missions can't replace an official story, full of dialogs and cutscenes with remarkable moments. Having to search for clues in a vast desert or to walk miles through dunes to collect rare minerals was exhausting.
And the sudden introduction of a second leitmotif - the elven gods - when we're fighting a Magister, a creature that belongs to the whole Wardens-Blight universe didn't improve matters. All coherence upto this point was thrown out of the window. And a character we meet in Origins, who had no connection whatsoever with elves was shoehorned into the plot as the Inquisitor out of the blue discovers Flemeth is an elven goddess (How come if her design is more resemblant of the dragon motif, associated with the Old Gods of Tevinter?)
I don't think BW knows where it's going with DA's mythology. Or it does, but it's doing a very poor job connecting the dots and will inevitably leave many things unexplained along the way. Let's hope the same doesn't happen to Andromeda.
In answer to the OP, I think a healthy dose of skepticism and a massive dose of grounded and reasonable expectation are in order.
All developers make grandiose claims, that, with the enthusiasm of gamers themselves is often launched into hyperbole and pure fiction.
DA:I was said to contain an abundance of features, spoken of by developers, that never materlialised in the finished product and in my opinion suffered because of it. For anyone that wants an example, the forts were touted as being major gameplay elements that players would have the choice of customizing in massive ways that would change the way the game played, opting for economy, military or research focuses. This was blatantly not the case and the forts played a much less significant role than was advertised, during development. Operations to unlock new areas of the map seemed to be promoted as "amazing features that would expand on gameplay direction and player choice" also fell flat. Where was the choice? Was a player honestly going to choose not to unlock content, when it's sitting right there!? Ofcourse not. Bad marketing maybe, or cut content due to time/resource contraints. I don't know.
Over all, DA:I wasn't terrible but it was abit of a let down and yes, the story was rubbish, immature and lacking in depth, contrast and texture when compared to Origins.
With that in mind, I find myself reading about alot of "features" that people seem to taking away from the various leaks and from those few official comments and some of them, sound remarkably like the promises made for DA:I. To my mind, not encouraging at all! As such I'm staying well away from any news, official or otherwise, because any developer (and undoubtly a publisher like EA!) is going to laud their product, even going so far as to misrepresent included features and content. The developers because they care about their product and the hard work they have put into it. Who wouldn't. The publishers because they "wantZ MONEYZ! Give uS oUR PreciouseZ! >insert corpulant wheezing here<"
I enjoy the specualtion from fellow fans and gamers but measured expectation is so very often the key to avoiding disappointment.
EDIT: Add to that, finding peace with the fact that almost any beloved series or intellectualt property, that you, yourself don't have direct control over, is inevitably going to change and more often than not, in a direction you aren't going to like. It seems to be on of those universal constants
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
