Dont get me wrong i think Witcher games all 3 are good really good, but Bioware shouldnt look any other game to make ME A (i know at this point they really arent looking).
What make ME 1,2,3 great is they are unique. I really dont want ME A to look or play nothing close to Witcher 3, really i dont want to get bored and stop playing it like i did with witcher 3.
Because fans only look at the game to serve what they want, instead of what is good for the game as a whole.
Mass Effect 3 being a huge example.
Its more criticized for not being what the fans want instead of for what it is.
However, the quest writing and direction in Pillars is no where near the level of TW3's and for mixing RP with cinematic storytelling, no one does it better.
there is 0 RP/cinematic storytelling on Witcher 3.
/sigh..... having a 1-2-3 option during a dialogue that isnt RPG. RPG is what Pillars do, that give you a slate where you need to take a decition and that decition affect the outcome of the situation. Witcher 3 is a story drive game that play close to choose you story books.
Mass Effect 3 being a huge example.
Its more criticized for not being what the fans want instead of for what it is.
But Mess Effect 3 whatever "cry" was there the game as a close, was great. For me it wasnt a masterpiece but the DLC compensate alot, Citadel for me is probably the best DLC i have play ever, since it touch every feeling i have for all the character i met along the way.
Citadel probably will be the best DLC i have play as a fan of a franchise.+
Really probabbly the biggest porblem on Mess effect 3 was the ending but the game as a whole isnt bad.
Dont get me wrong i think Witcher games all 3 are good really good, but Bioware shouldnt look any other game to make ME A (i know at this point they really arent looking).
What make ME 1,2,3 great is they are unique. I really dont want ME A to look or play nothing close to Witcher 3, really i dont want to get bored and stop playing it like i did with witcher 3.
So, no good side quest integration into the main plot, so a bunch of fetch and kill quests without substance, so characters divorced from the plot and their development relying of talking codex entries.....no thank you.
poisons his enemies, use bombs, etc.
In fact, I am more aggressive with the green witcher as his bladed oils poison and its DOT is insane.
but once again it doesn't really change how combat plays out. You're still just waiting for the enemy to attack and then counter attacking.
When it comes to combat gameplay, Mass Effect 3 is miles ahead of The Witcher 3.
there are some things they can learn from it and vice versa.Dont get me wrong i think Witcher games all 3 are good really good, but Bioware shouldnt look any other game to make ME A (i know at this point they really arent looking).
What make ME 1,2,3 great is they are unique. I really dont want ME A to look or play nothing close to Witcher 3, really i dont want to get bored and stop playing it like i did with witcher 3.
So, no good side quest integration into the main plot, so a bunch of fetch and kill quests without substance, so characters divorced from the plot and their development relying of talking codex entries.....no thank you.
i really dont know waht you speaking about, bc those thing you naming there Witcher 3 suffer it from too.
Since plz explain me where did you learn the complex relationship between Geralt and Yenifer, during Witcher 1 or 2, it was just throught there on withcer 3. Non to speak about other character too.
And ME have great side quest, with good substance. I really dont remember fetch quest and kill quest like Fallout 4 suffer from on ME.
but once again it doesn't really change how combat plays out. You're still just waiting for the enemy to attack and then counter attacking.
When it comes to combat gameplay, Mass Effect 3 is miles ahead of The Witcher 3.
I will definitely give you the second sentence.
With the green witcher, you are the aggressor, as his skill tree is based on aggression. The alchemist has a skill where the game slows down on enemy counterattack, for example.
I will definitely give you the second sentence.
With the green witcher, you are the aggressor, as his skill tree is based on aggression. The alchemist has a skill where the game slows down on enemy counterattack, for example.
see this is the example i speak early someone forcing the combat to force the illusion the combat is different and no repetitive.
Enemies dont force you to use this, you forcing yourself, combat itself is the same doge counter attack. And that is terrible repetitive.
i really dont know waht you speaking about, bc those thing you naming there Witcher 3 suffer it from too.
Since plz explain me where did you learn the complex relationship between Geralt and Yenifer, during Witcher 1 or 2, it was just throught there on withcer 3. Non to speak about other character too.
And ME have great side quest, with good substance. I really dont remember fetch quest and kill quest like Fallout 4 suffer from on ME.
Here is the deal.....when you are given a kill quest in The Witcher 3, several things can occur.
1) You have to investigate how to expose the monster and the story behind it.
2) Can choose not to kill the monster or be given a false contract as well.
3) One quest, it isn't a monster at all.
Witcher 3 quests are not straightforward. they are unpredictable, which is why they get acclaim.
Whats the deal with Yennifer? You know its a novel series. A some quests reference the books, such as The Last Wish.
i really dont know waht you speaking about, bc those thing you naming there Witcher 3 suffer it from too.
Since plz explain me where did you learn the complex relationship between Geralt and Yenifer, during Witcher 1 or 2, it was just throught there on withcer 3. Non to speak about other character too.
And ME have great side quest, with good substance. I really dont remember fetch quest and kill quest like Fallout 4 suffer from on ME.
Shrug, the first one had a decent amount of, land here, drive mako to target, kill target/targets, come back to normandy, i just restarted my play through of the series so i cant remember on 2 and 3 since i havent really played it for 2 years, but thats going to be subject to change soon.
I will definitely give you the second sentence.
With the green witcher, you are the aggressor, as his skill tree is based on aggression. The alchemist has a skill where the game slows down on enemy counterattack, for example.
Slowing down time doesn't change how the combat plays out, it simply allows for slower reaction times to perform just as well as people with fast reaction times.
I can play aggressively as any type of witcher, but the combat still boils down to:
1. Block/Dodge/Stun enemy
2. Hit them a few times
3. Go back to step 1 until enemy is dead
see this is the example i speak early someone forcing the combat to force the illusion the combat is different and no repetitive.
Enemies dont force you to use this, you forcing yourself, combat itself is the same doge counter attack. And that is terrible repetitive.
Wrong.....the game plays different based on your build.
1) Red Witchers are based around counterattacking, that's where their skills the style lies at.
2) Green Witchers are based on risk and reward, it rewards aggression and planning
3) Blue Witchers are based on breaking enemy defenses and crowd control. Thats what signs are for.
Slowing down time doesn't change how the combat plays out, it simply allows for slower reaction times to perform just as well as people with fast reaction times.
I can play aggressively as any type of witcher, but the combat still boils down to:
1. Block/Dodge/Stun enemy
2. Hit them a few times
3. Go back to step 1 until enemy is dead
Most games combat consists of that though, You could argue Mass effect essentially has the same combat too, substituting blocking for cover and active shield recharge as dodge, and well any form of crowd control from your class
Here is the deal.....when you are given a kill quest in The Witcher 3, several things can occur.
1) You have to investigate how to expose the monster and the story behind it.
2) Can choose not to kill the monster or be given a false contract as well.
3) One quest, it isn't a monster at all.
Witcher 3 quests are not straightforward. they are unpredictable, which is why they get acclaim.
Whats the deal with Yennifer? You know its a novel series. A some quests reference the books, such as The Last Wish.
Well that is a strong point and the weak point on Witcher 3 side quest, does step you name there repeat over all the side quest on the game (worst are the monster contrants, go there, track this, kill the monster); just some are unique and beautiful.
Plus really is only for the initial boom on the monster that you need to "investigate" how to deal with them, after a while it become repetitive as hell.
And While i agree with you about Witcher novels, the Game is base on the novel, and no everyone will go and read a book to find out about a relationship that just happen to appear on the last game and the game surround around it.
On ME on the other hand the relationships you build developed on the game since the game isnt base on any novel
Agreed, best game with best attention to detail. I loved when characters cried there were actual tears and the gun you had equipped was the one shown in many of the cutscenes. Small things like that were just incredible.That's a hard thing to do. And Mass Effect 2 is Bioware best game.
Shrug, the first one had a decent amount of, land here, drive mako to target, kill target/targets, come back to normandy, i just restarted my play through of the series so i cant remember on 2 and 3 since i havent really played it for 2 years, but thats going to be subject to change soon.
agree with you about ME 1, probably for me is the hardest to play of the 3. The whole driving the mako over empty planets make me want to shoot myself.
But after ME 2 they switch the structure to a more story drive game, and that improve alot.
Mass Effect 3 being a huge example.
Its more criticized for not being what the fans want instead of for what it is.
It was always Bioware's game. We just paid $60 to play it, not to design and produce it the way we want. I don't get where some people actually believed they were writing the story, and that Shepard was actually their character, and not Bioware's.
Well that is a strong point and the weak point on Witcher 3 side quest, does step you name there repeat over all the side quest on the game (worst are the monster contrants, go there, track this, kill the monster); just some are unique and beautiful.
Plus really is only for the initial boom on the monster that you need to "investigate" how to deal with them, after a while it become repetitive as hell.
And While i agree with you about Witcher novels, the Game is base on the novel, and no everyone will go and read a book to find out about a relationship that just happen to appear on the last game and the game surround around it.
On ME on the other hand the relationships you build developed on the game since the game isnt base on any novel
Wrong
Some monster contracts don't involve killing the monster and one contract is fake and the tables are turned. Blood and Wine does not have straightforward monster contracts as well.
But fans are buying the novels and the games have lead the entire saga to get translated into English, with Lady of The Lake, which Wild Hunt and Blood and Wine basically continues, coming officially next year.
Agreed, best game with best attention to detail. I loved when characters cried there were actual tears and the gun you had equipped was the one shown in many of the cutscenes. Small things like that were just incredible.
No way.
Attention to detail is so entirely absent during the Horizon mission for example. In fact the scene showing the Collector attack on Horizon should have been cut, nevermind the Collector swarm bug from nowhere that Mordin has.
attention to detail in cutscenes is NOT what the series was good at.
agree with you about ME 1, probably for me is the hardest to play of the 3. The whole driving the mako over empty planets make me want to shoot myself.
But after ME 2 they switch the structure to a more story drive game, and that improve alot.
2 and 3 imo are much more story driven then ME 1, the only reason my play through was 20 hours on that one was because i did some side missions, (i didnt do them all, the combat was killing me and i just wanted to get started on 2 where the combat had improved so much) i do need to continue my 2 play through though, because my memory is so damn bad about the content now
<<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>
The studio must prove to the market and fans, that the magic is still there. In this, I agree with the OP. So far, Bio has kept things very close to their chests. However, you can push exploration and the visuals as the bees-knees only so far. Sooner or later, you must put meat on the bones.
EA/Bio has a marketing problem if we compare W3 against Andromeda. That is, we are comparing a full played game vs one trailer and limited information. A 2:40 min video cannot adequately convey a story, side quests, romance and story telling risks. Even five of those trailers will be insufficient. In this regard, their hands are tied. The studio, must execute an alternate marketing strategy, until a proper comparison can be made. What can that be if there is one?
In the mean time, I expect Bio to keep things hidden and market what can be shown or are willing to show. However, comments that Andromeda has Battlefront like visuals (from Shinobi) may not help, as I see little people running around. Would one consider Battlefront like camera combat as a Mass Effect game? EA Play will show either another game representation with a cinematic trailer or a live game demo or a recording of one. The former will reveal nothing about the game play while the latter may reveal to us if the visuals are Mass Effect like.
With ten+ months to go, my prediction is another cinematic trailer showing the ship's interior, a new alien, one or two companions from the MW Galaxy, the Mako, some combat pyrotechnics.
Wrong
Some monster contracts don't involve killing the monster and one contract is fake and the tables are turned. Blood and Wine does not have straightforward monster contracts as well.
But fans are buying the novels and the games have lead the entire saga to get translated into English, with Lady of The Lake, which Wild Hunt and Blood and Wine basically continues, coming officially next year.
Good lord. ok dude you have your view and i have mine ( and i know other to share my view). But i telling you, coming from a game that do alot of novels. that is WOW. players dont like to need to go and buy a novel to find out stuff about the game. Just hardcore fans do that and really that isnt something good.
And plz while Blood and Wine or Heath stone DLC are excellent, both feel super disconnect of the main story on the game, that the important part on the story was finding CIri and dealing with the Wild hunt.
As a Story Drive game having a DLC that make you move away from the main story that is present as you trying to find a person as soon as you can since is in danger it bad.
Retour en haut