319 réponses à ce sujet

[ssanyesz]

A BioWare game with less story, no thank you, i felt bore already in DA:I often enough, don't need that feeling extended to other BW games too.

 

Don't know why, but sometimes doing planetary discovery with Mako in ME1 felt more exciting, than doing some "quest" in DA:I.

 

I would rather like to see ME:A filled with more story, not less.

[Nashiktal]

I never said it doesn't?
 
but GTA doesn't offer the roleplaying choices that Mass Effect does. It's just a big sandbox to go play in.

I think a better way to frame it is this.
 
In a Bioware style game like ME, being a dick and killing people is usually framed with added emphasis on who you are killing. The choice is specifically framed as do the "Paragon" thing or do the "Renegade" thing.
 
Off the top of my head an example would the Zaeeds Loyalty mission. While hunting down the merc leader, you are told about the workers being oppressed in his camp, you are shown the workers being trapped by fire, and then when you make the choice to either save or kill them the repercussions of your decision have this framing from your previous choices, as well as the results specifically being emphasized by the game.
 
On the other hand in GTA the framing, outside of very few and specific story missions (mianly the ending of GTA V), there is no framing. It is a sandbox filled with plastic dolls that react in predetermined ways.
 
Like if you fire a gun in the air, they all react in a specific way. If you keep doing it you eventually see a repeating pattern of animation, movement, etc. So you stop seeing those npc's as people, but rather as dolls. You can go on killing spree's without really feeling anything because they are just fake dolls.
 
So in Mass Effect the framing puts you into the situation, and makes your choices more palpable. While GTA lacks that framing, and feels less immersive.
 
Does that make sense?

[Cyberstrike nTo]

I have complete control over the character as soon as I finish character creation. Otherwise the gameplay is absurd.

I don't ignore the story setup. I just refuse to draw the expected conclusions based on it. If BioWare wants to ensure that my character has a certain objective or a certain world view, they need to make that explicit. And they need to make that explicit before I buy the game.

 

Maybe you should play games like Fallout 4, Skyrim, or maybe the Saints Row, and the GTA series.

[RoboticWater]

I'd love it if the game let us kill absolutely anyone, like in Morrowind. When you killed an essential NPC, you received the message:

"With this character's death, the thread of prophecy is severed. Restore a saved game to restore the weave of fate, or persist in the doomed world you have created."

Granted, allowing you to continue playing after ruining the storyline might not work as well in the Mass Effect series, but non-standard game overs are always fun.

I suspect this mechanic was discontinued because of players loosing progress after accidental casualties, but there might also be a stylistic angle to it as well. I can accept not being able shoot non-hostile NPCs; much like not taking fire damage from stepping into camp fires, it's a limitation on our interactions in the world. Some games don't let us jump, others don't let us talk, and Mass Effect doesn't let us kill civilians. It's a reality that most are probably prepared to suspend their disbelief for. However, I might find it annoying if a game starts explicitly slapping my wrist every time I try to go off the beaten path. I think I prefer being unable to do something than having the game flash some text at me for doing something wrong.

 

It may work in a sandbox game where you have no obligations and practically no reputation, but in a game like Mass Effect, it just doesn't really work. I can't just shoot a civilian on the Citadel out in the open and still have the same story of Mass Effect.

 

Of course, the problem isn't any doom scenario. I'd imagine that writing some flavor text or making a quick cutscene for mid-game failures would be fairly easy (in fact, DA:I did this at certain points in the game). The real difficulty is reacting to the doom-1 scenarios, i.e. every choice that would leave the player in the worst non-failure state possible. If I kill every nonessential NPC, how will the world react to me? If I fumble up most of a rescue mission, what's the outcome? If I loose most of my crew, how will the game play?

 

The only way I could see this working in Mass Effect is if the game were modular and only barely interconnected. Given the setting of ME:A this could be perfectly possible. If we had to gain the support/resolve the conflicts of several disparate colonies that don't communicate between each other, then we could fail individual the individual quests without confounding the other ones. BioWare would still need to create all the various failure content for each quest and any reactions from our superiors and squadmates, but it is potentially doable. I wouldn't advocate for this kind of design though, because I'd hate for each narrative to be completely sequestered from each other. BioWare's stories work best when they build on each other.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maybe you should play games like Fallout 4, Skyrim, or maybe the Saints Row, and the GTA series.

Fallout 4 has too much story that's too hard to avoid. And while Skyrim is excellent, the combat gameplay is pretty poor, largely by virtue of it being action combat.

What makes BioWare's RPGs stand out is the pause-and-play combat. Every one of their RPGs (except Jade Empire) has allowed the player to largely avoid action elements in combat (either because they weren't there, or because they were optional). Mass Effect's pause-to-aim mechanic was vital to my enjoyment of the game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

It may work in a sandbox game where you have no obligations and practically no reputation, but in a game like Mass Effect, it just doesn't really work. I can't just shoot a civilian on the Citadel out in the open and still have the same story of Mass Effect.

That's sort of the point. Each playthrough is its won story. This is always going to be true as long as we have any input into the game at all; allowing us to break BioWare's story is just one extra step.

Of course, the problem isn't any doom scenario. I'd imagine that writing some flavor text or making a quick cutscene for mid-game failures would be fairly easy (in fact, DA:I did this at certain points in the game). The real difficulty is reacting to the doom-1 scenarios, i.e. every choice that would leave the player in the worst non-failure state possible. If I kill every nonessential NPC, how will the world react to me? If I fumble up most of a rescue mission, what's the outcome? If I loose most of my crew, how will the game play?

The game might play very differently with no crew (some would say badly, but that's a value judgment I'm not willing to make), but as long as the consequences flow from your actions, that's a good thing.

I'm not sure what you mean by "fumble up most of a rescue mission".

The only way I could see this working in Mass Effect is if the game were modular and only barely interconnected. Given the setting of ME:A this could be perfectly possible. If we had to gain the support/resolve the conflicts of several disparate colonies that don't communicate between each other, then we could fail individual the individual quests without confounding the other ones. BioWare would still need to create all the various failure content for each quest and any reactions from our superiors and squadmates, but it is potentially doable. I wouldn't advocate for this kind of design though, because I'd hate for each narrative to be completely sequestered from each other. BioWare's stories work best when they build on each other.

This design would have worked fairly well in DAO, KotOR, ME1, and ME3. Each of the major story quests stood alone. ME2 could have handled critical mission failure much the same way it did the failure to do loyalty missions (reducing chances of ultimate success).

In fact, what this could do is provide a means to eliminate mandatory quests entirely, effectively making everything into a side quest. And that's something I've actually been requesting for years.

BioWare's stories always involve some villain taking action, and the player character responding to that action. I suggest that the line of quests that make up the core of the story should have failure conditions along the way without breaking the story - just changing the nature of the final conflict or the ultimate outcome. And if they did, those quests could even be skipped, thus invoking the failure event by default.

[RoboticWater]

That's sort of the point. Each playthrough is its won story. This is always going to be true as long as we have any input into the game at all; allowing us to break BioWare's story is just one extra step.

I'm perfectly aware of the kind of storytelling you want, but it's not what everyone wants, nor is it "just one extra step." It'd have to be a complex compromise between various design imperatives.
 

The game might play very differently with no crew (some would say badly, but that's a value judgment I'm not willing to make), but as long as the consequences flow from your actions, that's a good thing.

Of course consequences would be easier if we had far fewer people examining our actions, but that's not what we want. We don't want to just input our actions into a box and get a number of different cutscenes as a result, we want frequent feedback, preferably tailored to our specific actions.

I'm fairly confident in saying that a BioWare game without companions would be almost assuredly worse than one with companions. Given how critical characters are to BioWare stories, it may even be plain bad.
 

I'm not sure what you mean by "fumble up most of a rescue mission".

The doom scenario is where we mess up the whole mission, i.e. a plot-critical character dies so we get a failure state or a "doomed story" indicator. The doom-1 scenario is where we save the plot-critical character(s), but everyone else dies. How will these people act differently if one of the nonessential characters is a family member? What if we could save two of this essential NPCs children, but only one survives? If we're given full control of our actions, what happens if we save the essential NPCs, but deliberately kill the others?
 

This design would have worked fairly well in DAO, KotOR, ME1, and ME3. Each of the major story quests stood alone. ME2 could have handled critical mission failure much the same way it did the failure to do loyalty missions (reducing chances of ultimate success).

The design would work fine (though scaling it beyond 50-ish of hours would be extremely difficult), but complete modularity isn't what I want. I want characters stories that interlock and react to each other, and I don't want the individual quests to seem suspended in time until I arrive. I'm perfectly willing to relinquish some of my roleplaying freedom to have that.
 

BioWare's stories always involve some villain taking action, and the player character responding to that action. I suggest that the line of quests that make up the core of the story should have failure conditions along the way without breaking the story - just changing the nature of the final conflict or the ultimate outcome. And if they did, those quests could even be skipped, thus invoking the failure event by default.

What quests are necessary? How far do they need to be progressed? What does the final conflict look like if I don't complete certain quests? How will the game achieve a smooth sense of progression if I'm popping in and out of various individual missions?

This is especially true if ME:A is another trilogy (or just maintains continuity like DA). What happens in the next game if you don't begin a certain plot thread? What happens if you failed it? I'm particularly attached to the notion of save importing, and I do like the idea of more branching stand-alone games, but I do think the continuity of BioWare's IPs gives them a great degree of appeal. I don't think BioWare will ever go back to single-game story arcs with Mass Effect (or Dragon Age for that matter).

[Sylvius the Mad]

What quests are necessary? How far do they need to be progressed? What does the final conflict look like if I don't complete certain quests? How will the game achieve a smooth sense of progression if I'm popping in and out of various individual missions?
This is especially true if ME:A is another trilogy (or just maintains continuity like DA). What happens in the next game if you don't begin a certain plot thread? What happens if you failed it?

I'm not sure what "a smooth sense of progression" is, but on the others I've already proposed a solution for that with regard to DLC, but it should work on any quest.

First of all, if quests are failable this problem goes away, because we could invoke the failure state. But if they're not failable, this is exactly the same problem with plot-critical DLC that someone didn't play. Currently, BioWare just forces your character to complete the DLC successfully, even if you never played it. But that's not the only option. Instead, they could have the quest be completed, off-screen, by someone else. I originally suggested this for DA2: Legacy, because any member of the Hawke family could have done it, and there were already gaps in the story (the time skips) where Bethany or Carver could have gone off and done it.

This keeps the plot moving while preserving player agency.

I'm particularly attached to the notion of save importing, and I do like the idea of more branching stand-alone games, but I do think the continuity of BioWare's IPs gives them a great degree of appeal. I don't think BioWare will ever go back to single-game story arcs with Mass Effect (or Dragon Age for that matter).

I'm not a big fan of save imports, because they really limit how different the in-game outcomes can be.

But eliminating save imports doesn't mean we can't have continuity. It just means that each game has to stem from a specific world state. And what's even better, the canonical world state doesn't even need to be consistent across multiple games. Much like what BioWare did with the Darkspawn Chronicles in DAO, where that ending was completely ignored by subsequent entries.

[slimgrin]

Fallout 4 has too much story that's too hard to avoid. And while Skyrim is excellent, the combat gameplay is pretty poor, largely by virtue of it being action combat.

 

 

 

I don't know if you're being serious here, but if you are, your bias undermines any point you have to make. And why, pray tell, are you playing Fallout when it has action combat? 

[RoboticWater]

I'm not sure what "a smooth sense of progression" is

If all quests are held completely separate from one another, doable in any order, or entirely optional, then will each part of the the story seem to flow into each other naturally? Will the conflict with the villain continually get more intense until it climaxes at the end or will it get reset (or even ignored) at the beginning of every major mission? For example, DA:O had a few main quests that were good in their own right, but they didn't interact with each other. It left the world seeming very fractured and barely gave any time for Loghain to develop as an antagonist.
 

First of all, if quests are failable this problem goes away, because we could invoke the failure state. But if they're not failable, this is exactly the same problem with plot-critical DLC that someone didn't play. Currently, BioWare just forces your character to complete the DLC successfully, even if you never played it. But that's not the only option. Instead, they could have the quest be completed, off-screen, by someone else. I originally suggested this for DA2: Legacy, because any member of the Hawke family could have done it, and there were already gaps in the story (the time skips) where Bethany or Carver could have gone off and done it.

This keeps the plot moving while preserving player agency.

Again, you still have to account for doom-1 scenarios. If all you want to do is decide whether or not you want to do a quest, then what you propose would work, but presumably you want to have choices within the quests as well. So again, we'd need to deal with all the things the player could do without triggering an immediate fail state.

 

In fact, having some other guy resolve the conflict may complicate the plot even more. Mass Effect 3 assumed you completed LotSB and Arrival not only because it needed those events to be completed, but because Liara's dialog was written assuming Shep was with her during LotSB and Shep needed to be on trial for destroying the Alpha Relay. Those things could have easily been glossed over (no one referencing LotSB plot points and Shep being on trial for working for Cerberus), but the core issue still remains that future relationships and plot points would need to be altered to accommodate the player's decision to skip over certain quests.

 

I'm not a big fan of save imports, because they really limit how different the in-game outcomes can be.

But eliminating save imports doesn't mean we can't have continuity. It just means that each game has to stem from a specific world state. And what's even better, the canonical world state doesn't even need to be consistent across multiple games. Much like what BioWare did with the Darkspawn Chronicles in DAO, where that ending was completely ignored by subsequent entries.

I'm not a huge fan of save importing either, but the appeal continually of shaping a persistent world across multiple games is undeniable. People certainly love the idea, and I'd be lying if I said that DA"s Tapestry didn't make me feel at least somewhat more invested in DA's world.

 

Arbitrary canon may work well for spin-offs and DLC, but I don't think consumers would react well if numbered entries (or entries advertised as direct sequels) didn't maintain a single continuity.

[RagingCalgarian]

If you wanna be evil, go play GTA or something, and stop trying to poison this franchise with your toxic masculinity. 

[Jedi Comedian]

If you wanna be evil, go play GTA or something, and stop trying to poison this franchise with your toxic masculinity.

GTA is only mindless psychopathy, while in RPGs you generaly can roleplay your character as ruthless, utilitarian, or pragmatic. It's not the same "evil", at least IMHO.

[Nashiktal]

GTA is only mindless psychopathy, while in RPGs you generaly can roleplay your character as ruthless, utilitarian, or pragmatic. It's not the same "evil", at least IMHO.

I'd argue that GTA is more akin to playing with dolls in a sandbox.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't know if you're being serious here, but if you are, your bias undermines any point you have to make. And why, pray tell, are you playing Fallout when it has action combat?

VATS.

[Hammerstorm]

If you wanna be evil, go play GTA or something, and stop trying to poison this franchise with your toxic masculinity. 

 

And at this point the thread was lost. You will all be remembered in the next thread.

 

 

(A notice to the mods: This is not an attack or insult or in any way meant to harm anybodys feelings.)

 

Not that it matters.................................

[Monk]

I'd argue that GTA is more akin to playing with dolls in a sandbox.

 

Just watch the coffee!

[Halfdan The Menace]

Don't wash your hands, ok?

 

[Medhia_Nox]

Bioware, I would like to find a primordial world filled with a perfectly operating ecosystem... and then blow up the Arks in orbit so they never pollute it.  

[Abeloth]

Don't wash your hands, ok?

Never. Blood stays where it is.

[Monk]

Never. Blood stays where it is.

 

That's probably the only downside to having an omni-blade attachment, you can't leave it gore encrusted or stained with blood. If we can be evil, i demand we have old-fashioned bayonets. Hell, just bring back bayonets, we can show how evil we our by the type of blade we fashion as one.