891 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Well the one thing that actually is consistent is that they're all weapon mods and not swapping out the ammo block. Mods were their own documented thing in Mass Effect 1.

Right, so swapping out the whole ammo block could be super powerful without breaking the lore.

I've just solved the ammo problem.

That depends on how often you're doing quests. Major ones don't occur all that often, but there are a number of minor ones.

How often?

In-character decision-making is all roleplaying is. I'd like to do it as often as possible. Every 30 seconds would work nicely.

I'm pretty sure most people around here were already aware of the costs of new features, we just decided they were acceptable costs.

If anyone isn't, I'm soing them a service.

And they're not particularly likely to be if they're new players who never experienced the old design.

Why do you think people know these things? Because you do? Stop projecting.

The improvement to paraphrasing are simply a natural progression of continued use. Anybody gets better at doing something the more they do it.

Funny how we saw no improvement during the ME series so far then.

Also, how many of the MEA writers worked on previous paraphrase games?

Are your conclusions based on any relevant information?

The exploration will have to be seen how much emphasis there is on it in ME:A. One of the major complaints about DA:I was that the exploration came at the cost of interesting side content in most of the zones. We have no idea how they're going to address that, but BioWare does have a history of being overly zealous in addressing complaints.

More exploration is a good thing. If MEA has more exploration than ME3 did (which had none at all), then that's an improvement. That's a step in my direction.

It does happen. It is happening.

I would rather just get the combat we've been getting while allowing cutscenes to have additional uses of biotics that make sense in an out of combat context.

That sounds a lot easier and doesn't have to retcon the majority of the game's technology and how pretty much everything works.

A retcon breaks the setting once. Inconsistent cutscenes break the setting every time.

And this is the perfect time for a retcon. Without significant returning characters, there's no danger of running over anyone's headcanon (the primary downside of retcons).

I would think the more likely one is that they figured it didn't matter.

I say this because biotics in general are already basically space magic whenever they want it to be. Even combat abilities like Reave and Dominate were lore breaking.

That's entirely consistent with what I said.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Perhaps, but the extremely small size of the projectile is the only thing that can explain why the gun can fire nearly unlimited bullets.

As far as actually propelling the bullet through the air, there are a lot of unknowns. Don't know the ballistic coefficient, don't know the composition of standard rounds, don't really even know muzzle velocities. Only muzzle velocity I recall being specifically stated in ME is the Alliance dreadnought main gun at 0.013c. Seen all sorts of guesstimates by fans on small arm velocities.

Tungsten is supposedly an upgrade in density for the AP ammo, but if they could already make exotic materials with mass effect fields, why weren't the bullets super-dense already? The main limitation on the material should just be that it is ferromagnetic... at the least it would need a ferromagnetic armature.

That's enough information. We know that standard ammo is less dense than tungsten, and we can assume the air is something close to standard temperature and pressure. From that, we don't need the velocity. We can just plot the curve for all possible velocities.

[capn233]

On that note they probably should have made a proper minigun.

 

Isn't the whole rotating barrel design to counteract overheating of the weapon? Seems like that would have been a brilliant design adaptation for the Mass Effect universe to use.

 

Basically.  Your rate of fire per barrel is lower, so you can get a higher overall rate of fire while keeping temps safe for the barrel.

I don't know how well it would lend itself to a railgun with mass effect fields.  I don't really like exaggerated ramped rate of fire, or the standard video game "chaingun" or minigun type though, so if they avoided copying it in the future it would be fine with me.

[capn233]

That's enough information. We know that standard ammo is less dense than tungsten, and we can assume the air is something close to standard temperature and pressure. From that, we don't need the velocity. We can just plot the curve for all possible velocities.

 

I had forgotten about the Cain's entry.  25g at 5000m/s.

 

In any event, I am not sure we know much of anything about the "real numbers" unfortunately.

[Cyonan]

Right, so swapping out the whole ammo block could be super powerful without breaking the lore.

I've just solved the ammo problem.

 

Congratulations on solving the first issue.

 

Now solve the one where not all the guns actually use an ammo block =P

 

How often?

In-character decision-making is all roleplaying is. I'd like to do it as often as possible. Every 30 seconds would work nicely.

 

 

 

I'm talking about story decisions, not character RP ones.

 

I wont argue that Mass Effect in general was bad for minimizing the ability to RP your character in general, mostly because I agree with that notion.

 

If anyone isn't, I'm soing them a service.

And they're not particularly likely to be if they're new players who never experienced the old design.

Why do you think people know these things? Because you do? Stop projecting.

 

 

 

I assume most people do because this is BioWare's official forum, which means there is a higher than normal number of die hard Mass Effect fans. This means more of us are likely to have played all 3 games instead of just 1 or 2.

 

I already acknowledge I know more than a lot of people =P

 

Funny how we saw no improvement during the ME series so far then.

Also, how many of the MEA writers worked on previous paraphrase games?

Are your conclusions based on any relevant information?

 

I don't know how many writers worked on previous games, paraphrasing or otherwise.

 

My conclusions about paraphrasing getting better is based on the information that I felt they got better over the course of the series.

 

More exploration is a good thing. If MEA has more exploration than ME3 did (which had none at all), then that's an improvement. That's a step in my direction.

It does happen. It is happening.

 

The question is will they emphasis the exploration or the side content. If they sacrifice the exploration for more cinematic quests then it might be a step in your direction but it was two steps back afterwards. That's not much of a victory.

 

A retcon breaks the setting once. Inconsistent cutscenes break the setting every time.

And this is the perfect time for a retcon. Without significant returning characters, there's no danger of running over anyone's headcanon (the primary downside of retcons).

 

Yeah, but I feel like it'd be at risk of changing too much of what makes Mass Effect what it is which it's already a risk they're running by going to Andromeda.

 

I'd prefer they spend the time making the game better elsewhere, because it doesn't bother me enough to actively ask for this over other things.

[Cyonan]

Basically.  Your rate of fire per barrel is lower, so you can get a higher overall rate of fire while keeping temps safe for the barrel.

I don't know how well it would lend itself to a railgun with mass effect fields.  I don't really like exaggerated ramped rate of fire, or the standard video game "chaingun" or minigun type though, so if they avoided copying it in the future it would be fine with me.

 

I'll admit to not actually knowing enough about real world firearms to actually know if it's something that would work well in Mass Effect or not. It could also be that the gun's internal systems are overheating and not just the barrel with ME guns.

 

Although I suppose one could also just carry like 5 sniper rifles and switch out after each shot. It seems like something I would do if they let me.

[Mikael_Sebastia]

In-character decision-making is all roleplaying is. I'd like to do it as often as possible. Every 30 seconds would work nicely.
 

 

When you say roleplaying, are you referring to assuming a certain role / character and immersing oneself to it, or participating in a social action named as a role-playing game* (be it a tabletop or playing CRPG)? Or do you perhaps propose that there's no difference?

 

*You know, those games which were born from wargames roughly around 1970s. First commercials releases being Chainmail and D&D created by Gary Gygax, et al. Games which conceived and inspired CRPGs.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Congratulations on solving the first issue.

Now solve the one where not all the guns actually use an ammo block =P

Those weapons can't use the special ammo.

I'm talking about story decisions, not character RP ones.

Those are all decisions that need to be made. I'd like to make more of them.

Also, whetherwhether a decision is a "story decision" isn't discernable from an in-character perspective.

I wont argue that Mass Effect in general was bad for minimizing the ability to RP your character in general, mostly because I agree with that notion.

That's pretty much my entire complaint about the game.

I assume most people do because this is BioWare's official forum, which means there is a higher than normal number of die hard Mass Effect fans. This means more of us are likely to have played all 3 games instead of just 1 or 2.

What about designs that pre-date ME? Some of these players may never have seen a silent protagonist or a detailed combat log.

The question is will they emphasis the exploration or the side content. If they sacrifice the exploration for more cinematic quests then it might be a step in your direction but it was two steps back afterwards. That's not much of a victory.

That's not even possible. There's no way MEA can have less exploration than ME2 or ME3 had.

Any at all is an improvement. Whether the exploration leads to cinematics doesn't change the fact that we got some exploratiin.

Yeah, but I feel like it'd be at risk of changing too much of what makes Mass Effect what it is which it's already a risk they're running by going to Andromeda.

I doubt "what makes Mass Effect what it is" could be any more clearly defined than we manage with "RPG".

[Sylvius the Mad]

When you say roleplaying, are you referring to assuming a certain role / character and immersing oneself to it, or participating in a social action named as a role-playing game* (be it a tabletop or playing CRPG)? Or do you perhaps propose that there's no difference?

The former.

I maintain that some game designs impede roleplaying by forcing the player to acknowledge that the world the character perceives isn't real. That awareness requires that the player break character.

*You know, those games which were born from wargames roughly around 1970s. First commercials releases being Chainmail and D&D created by Gary Gygax, et al. Games which conceived and inspired CRPGs.

My ideal CRPG would recreate the experience of playing a tabletop RPG, but without the need for other players. That's what the first single-player CRPGs were trying to do, and I'd like to see CRPGs to continue to pursue that objective

[Cyonan]

Those weapons can't use the special ammo.

 

You already said the special ammo would be required on higher difficulties, which means I don't find it acceptable to say "Well some guns just can't use this required resource".

 

If something is required for guns to be viable, all guns must be able to use it.

 

Those are all decisions that need to be made. I'd like to make more of them.

Also, whetherwhether a decision is a "story decision" isn't discernable from an in-character perspective.

 

This isn't an in-character discussion so there is a distinction between RP choices and story choices.

 

I'm saying the game possess a good number of story choices.

 

What about designs that pre-date ME? Some of these players may never have seen a silent protagonist or a detailed combat log.

 

Those designs weren't lost as it pertains to this forum because Mass Effect never had them.

 

We might as well start discussing adding blind fire from cover if this is the route you wish to go. I have quite a few shooter mechanics that we've "lost" over the years I can start bringing up if you're going to talk about old RPG mechanics. That BioWare used to make some of those old RPGs is irrelevant, because Mass Effect isn't trying to be Baldur's Gate or Neverwinter Nights any more than it's trying to be Quake or Unreal Tournament.

 

That's not even possible. There's no way MEA can have less exploration than ME2 or ME3 had.

Any at all is an improvement. Whether the exploration leads to cinematics doesn't change the fact that we got some exploratiin.

 

But it would still clearly not be the exact direction you had in mind.

 

I doubt "what makes Mass Effect what it is" could be any more clearly defined than we manage with "RPG".

 

It couldn't, but I thought it was pretty clear from the start of this particular chain that my desire to see them work on other parts of the game instead of retconning how most of the technology works is purely my subjective opinion on the matter anyway.

[Sylvius the Mad]

You already said the special ammo would be required on higher difficulties, which means I don't find it acceptable to say "Well some guns just can't use this required resource".

If something is required for guns to be viable, all guns must be able to use it.

Why? Some weapons becoming ineffective reduces versatility. Reducing versatility increases difficulty.

You said you wanted a challenge.

This isn't an in-character discussion so there is a distinction between RP choices and story choices.

I'm saying the game possess a good number of story choices.

I'm saying the game contains far too few character RP choices. Story choices count, but there aren't enough story choices alone in any game I've seen to allow decent RP. The other choices are necessary, and ME doesn't have enough.

Those designs weren't lost as it pertains to this forum because Mass Effect never had them.

So when the first ME game came out, there wss no basis at all to ask about features that weren't there but had been in previous BioWare games?

That's nonsense.

How about features that were in early builds of ME but didn't make the final release? The ability to tale direct conteol of squadmates, for example. The earliest ME design contained this feature (it would have worked just like KotOR, I imagine). If a player has never seen such a feature, why can't I point out what we might have had?

We might as well start discussing adding blind fire from cover if this is the route you wish to go.

By all means. If there's some feature you think would make the game better, champion that feature.

I have quite a few shooter mechanics that we've "lost" over the years I can start bringing up if you're going to talk about old RPG mechanics. That BioWare used to make some of those old RPGs is irrelevant, because Mass Effect isn't trying to be Baldur's Gate or Neverwinter Nights any more than it's trying to be Quake or Unreal Tournament.

What Mass Effect os trying to be doesn't matter in the slightest. What matters is what it is and what it isn't. That's the discussion.

BioWare sometimes adds new features to the series which weren't there previously, such as ammo, or the interrups, or planet scanning. Are you saying we're not allowed to discuss those features until they appear?

But it would still clearly not be the exact direction you had in mind.

And you think I will only be satisfied with a perfect game?

No game is perfect. That's an absurd standard.

It couldn't, but I thought it was pretty clear from the start of this particular chain that my desire to see them work on other parts of the game instead of retconning how most of the technology works is purely my subjective opinion on the matter anyway.

When they add new features, I'd like them to explain them from an in-character perspective. That's all I'm saying.

They could just not bother having them make sense across games. That would also be fine. I don't mind that they introduce new mechanics in new games. I do mind when their explanations for those mechanics are dumb. They'd be better off just not explaining them; then they wouldn't be giving us evidence that they don't care about lore consistency.

Filling in blanks is of limited value, but filling them in with wrong answers is counter-productive.

[Cyonan]

Why? Some weapons becoming ineffective reduces versatility. Reducing versatility increases difficulty.

You said you wanted a challenge.

 

Rendering certain weapons useless isn't more challenging, unless those were the top tier weapons of the game. Since they can't use specialized ammo that is required to kill anything on the higher difficulties, that clearly isn't the case.

 

If something is required for weapons in basic play at the higher difficulties, every weapon needs to be capable of it.

 

So when the first ME game came out, there wss no basis at all to ask about features that weren't there but had been in previous BioWare games?

That's nonsense.

How about features that were in early builds of ME but didn't make the final release? The ability to tale direct conteol of squadmates, for example. The earliest ME design contained this feature (it would have worked just like KotOR, I imagine). If a player has never seen such a feature, why can't I point out what we might have had?

 

There's nothing wrong with talking about features from other games one thinks would serve Mass Effect well, however since Mass Effect never had features like a silent protagonist then it's silly to talk about how it has been lost to the game because Mass Effect never had that to begin with.

 

The same goes with blind fire. It might be a mechanic some people think would fit nicely but I'm not ensuring it's remembered that we lost it by bringing it up, because it's not a mechanic Mass Effect ever had.

 

And you think I will only be satisfied with a perfect game?

No game is perfect. That's an absurd standard.

 

I never used the word perfect.

 

I am however saying that even if you think getting exploration means what you're doing is working, that exploration being filled with a bunch of content you don't like means you were not as effective as you could have been at your goal.

 

When they add new features, I'd like them to explain them from an in-character perspective. That's all I'm saying.

They could just not bother having them make sense across games. That would also be fine. I don't mind that they introduce new mechanics in new games. I do mind when their explanations for those mechanics are dumb. They'd be better off just not explaining them; then they wouldn't be giving us evidence that they don't care about lore consistency.

Filling in blanks is of limited value, but filling them in with wrong answers is counter-productive.

 

What I'm saying is that it's nice to get lore explanations for things but at the end of the day I care more about good game mechanics than I do about all of their lore lining up with no inconsistencies. That and I want Mass Effect to still feel like Mass Effect to me, which yes is completely subjective.

 

We've had inconsistencies since day 1, but I would rather them work on making a better game elsewhere than spend all of the time needed to fix every last inconsistency with a massive retcon.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Rendering certain weapons useless isn't more challenging, unless those were the top tier weapons of the game. Since they can't use specialized ammo that is required to kill anything on the higher difficulties, that clearly isn't the case.

If something is required for weapons in basic play at the higher difficulties, every weapon needs to be capable of it.

Already, some weapons aren't useful at higher difficulties. Some abilities aren't useful at higher difficulties. How is this different?

There's nothing wrong with talking about features from other games one thinks would serve Mass Effect well, however since Mass Effect never had features like a silent protagonist then it's silly to talk about how it has been lost to the game because Mass Effect never had that to begin with.

The same goes with blind fire. It might be a mechanic some people think would fit nicely but I'm not ensuring it's remembered that we lost it by bringing it up, because it's not a mechanic Mass Effect ever had.

Is blind fire precluded by some ME feature, or is it just not there?

ME is wholly designed around a third-person camera. This means that it doesn't have a first-person camera. If someone really values some perceived benefit of a first-person camera, he might point out that the game's reliance on a third-person camera eliminates that benefit.

This isn't just about features that are not there. It's about features that cannot be there because they are precluded by other features. The point here isn't to promote the missing feature, but to highlight the increased cost of the existing one.

I never used the word perfect.

I am however saying that even if you think getting exploration means what you're doing is working, that exploration being filled with a bunch of content you don't like means you were not as effective as you could have been at your goal.

We don't know how effective I could have been. Maybe what we're getting is as far as the devs could go in that direction.

What I'm saying is that it's nice to get lore explanations for things but at the end of the day I care more about good game mechanics than I do about all of their lore lining up with no inconsistencies. That and I want Mass Effect to still feel like Mass Effect to me, which yes is completely subjective.

We've had inconsistencies since day 1, but I would rather them work on making a better game elsewhere than spend all of the time needed to fix every last inconsistency with a massive retcon.

If, as a result of discussions like this one, they pay more attention to consistency going forward, that's a win for me.

[Cyonan]

Already, some weapons aren't useful at higher difficulties. Some abilities aren't useful at higher difficulties. How is this different?

 

Weapons and abilities should all be useful on Insanity. They don't need to all be useful in every situation, but they should all have their role. Just because it isn't currently that way doesn't mean I'm accepting of a change that introduces even more of this.

 

Abilities like Slam need reworking from the ME3 variant so that it's not virtually useless on Insanity.

 

Is blind fire precluded by some ME feature, or is it just not there?

ME is wholly designed around a third-person camera. This means that it doesn't have a first-person camera. If someone really values some perceived benefit of a first-person camera, he might point out that the game's reliance on a third-person camera eliminates that benefit.

This isn't just about features that are not there. It's about features that cannot be there because they are precluded by other features. The point here isn't to promote the missing feature, but to highlight the increased cost of the existing one.

 

Nothing is really preventing blind fire, it's likely just not there because BioWare wasn't too concerned about making Mass Effect a good shooter at the beginning as evidenced by ME1 having weak gunplay. In either case, the core point is that nothing was lost because it's not a feature the game ever had.

 

The biggest conflict I can think of is that in proper shoot gameplay there shouldn't be PC stats affecting combat. What determines damage output is your gun, what determines bullet spread is your gun, what determines how accurate you are is you as a player. Health is either universal for all PCs or determined by class and shouldn't be standardized with enemies.

 

Most of that symmetric gameplay you go on about wanting so badly shouldn't happen in a well designed shooter. Enemy variety tends to be a much bigger deal, and I can't say as I think that a game like Halo would be improved by making the Covenant all be statistically standardized with the Master Chief.

 

If, as a result of discussions like this one, they pay more attention to consistency going forward, that's a win for me.

 

I wouldn't complain about it either as long as it didn't get in the way of good game mechanics, though I'm expecting nothing will change as a result of discussions like this one when it comes to their lore consistency.

[capn233]

Blind-fire would make the game a worse shooter, IMO.  They don't need to waste time on that.

 

It would be nice if all the guns had their role to play.  I would rather they go with quality distinctions between weapons rather than shoehorning in a bunch of weapons just for the sake of increasing the weapon count.  Of course MP will likely have the whole gambling aspect for weapon unlocks to subsidize it.

 

Weapon balance is a bit of a cluster in ME3.

[Ulysses101]

If it has the same amount of RPG elements as Fallout 4 or ME3 I'm not buying it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The biggest conflict I can think of is that in proper shoot gameplay there shouldn't be PC stats affecting combat. What determines damage output is your gun, what determines bullet spread is your gun, what determines how accurate you are is you as a player.

Explain that to me. How are stats different from equipment? Why is one permissable and the other isn't?

Especially since you'll apparently permit class differences. Stats and class differences are basically the same thing.

Health is either universal for all PCs or determined by class and shouldn't be standardized with enemies.

Most of that symmetric gameplay you go on about wanting so badly shouldn't happen in a well designed shooter. Enemy variety tends to be a much bigger deal, and I can't say as I think that a game like Halo would be improved by making the Covenant all be statistically standardized with the Master Chief.

I don't think you understand my symmetry argument. I don't require that all of the characters be equal, just that they all follow the same rules.

A high-level character and a low-level character under the same ruleset might be wildly dissimilar in their capabilities. Even characters of the same level with different builds could be very different.

[Cyonan]

Explain that to me. How are stats different from equipment? Why is one permissable and the other isn't?

Especially since you'll apparently permit class differences. Stats and class differences are basically the same thing.

 

It's because in a shooter the gun's stats are what they are. The Hurricane doesn't increase in accuracy as you level up and if applied fully to Mass Effect 3, it shouldn't even be able to increase its damage with levels.

 

Classes in shooters also tend to work differently and it would be more accurate to call them kits or loadouts. If I kill somebody as Tracer in Overwatch, I can't take their gun because I already chose my hero and I'm stuck with that. Tracer can only use her dual machine pistols that she starts with.

 

When it comes to shooter combat you should be good with a gun because you personally are good at the game, not because your character has good stats. On the other side of things I shouldn't miss with a sniper rifle because the game arbitrarily rolled that I didn't shoot where I aimed at due to character stats.

 

It's the opposite of RPG combat. Instead of it being all about how good or bad your character is, it's all about how good or bad you are as a player.

 

I don't think you understand my symmetry argument. I don't require that all of the characters be equal, just that they all follow the same rules.

A high-level character and a low-level character under the same ruleset might be wildly dissimilar in their capabilities. Even characters of the same level with different builds could be very different.

 

The statement still stands because enemies don't typically follow the same rules as PCs do in shooters.

 

Good enemy variety and gunplay is generally considered more important in shooters than anything to facilitate RPG or symmetric mechanics.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Good enemy variety and gunplay is generally considered more important in shooters than anything to facilitate RPG or symmetric mechanics.

Those things aren't mutually exclusive.

[CronoDragoon]

Those things aren't mutually exclusive.

 

Good gunplay is mutually exclusive with solid role-playing combat for reasons Cyonan mentioned: one relies on the player, the other relies on the character. Going halfway and sort of relying on the character and sort of on the player is the worst of both worlds, because you only ever feel half in control.

[Cyonan]

Those things aren't mutually exclusive.

 

but ignoring them results in a better shooter.

[Mikael_Sebastia]

The former.

I maintain that some game designs impede roleplaying by forcing the player to acknowledge that the world the character perceives isn't real. That awareness requires that the player break character.

 

Alright, but isn't that a bit confusing (and tautological)? if the context of discussion is these roleplaying games*. why refer a character immersion as roleplaying, since without a clarification the sentence is equivocal as stating either that in-character decision making is all what character immersion is, or that in-character decision making is all what playing a roleplaying game is.  

 

It wouldn't be particularly sloppy rhetoric otherwise, but unfortunately I encounter this quite vexing reification fairly often, where people try to define roleplaying games* as a character immersion (I guess, because they consider that the term "roleplaying" is definitive rather than descriptive of roleplaying games*. Results are about as fruitful as trying to define what "true" football is from the word football alone. Like that a football you see in a TV isn't "true" football because you can also guide a ball with your head, instead of just with your feet).

 

It's not that using the word like that is wrong exactly, but at the very best a natural language is ambiguous and vague as it is.  

 

*D&D ones, etc. 

[Mikael_Sebastia]

My ideal CRPG would recreate the experience of playing a tabletop RPG, but without the need for other players. That's what the first single-player CRPGs were trying to do, and I'd like to see CRPGs to continue to pursue that objective

 

I usually appreciate when people have idiosyncratic tastes when it comes to CRPGs, even if I don't find your ideal to be attainable at any level or even desirable. Although pursuing that goal could still yield interesting and good games. I certainly wouldn't mind, if some game devs somewhere were trying to create your ideal CRPG. Hopefully you can cope that results are likely to be just shinier Neverwinter Nights I. Also that unless you are directly involved in making of it, nothing you do or say here or anywhere will affect the possibility of it being made nor its qualities (ofc, it's nothing personal, this applies to pretty much everybody including myself).

 

I in the other hand couldn't even formulate my ideal CRPG to anything that specific. I guess, my ideal world tend to favor more pluralistic outcome for the whole field of CRPGs, rather than wishing for some singular "perfect" game or subgenre of CRPGs.  As for MEA all my current hopes are related to gameplay. Actually I would be perfectly satisfied as long as the game would play like ME3, but the difficulty and style would be something closer to doing MP Gold solo* than SP insanity. At this point, for me the narrative can be retelling of Wizard of Oz in Andromeda with Krogans, as long there's truly satisfying gameplay.

 

*not counting doing a solo with something tastelessly OP. More like soloing with FQI with Viper than Kroguard Reegar.

[straykat]

I usually appreciate when people have idiosyncratic tastes when it comes to CRPGs, even if I don't find your ideal to be attainable at any level or even desirable. Although pursuing that goal could still yield interesting and good games. I certainly wouldn't mind, if some game devs somewhere were trying to create your ideal CRPG. Hopefully you can cope that results are likely to be just shinier Neverwinter Nights I. Also that unless you are directly involved in making of it, nothing you do or say here or anywhere will affect the possibility of it being made nor its qualities (ofc, it's nothing personal, this applies to pretty much everybody including myself).

 

I in the other hand couldn't even formulate my ideal CRPG to anything that specific. I guess, my ideal world tend to favor more pluralistic outcome for the whole field of CRPGs, rather than wishing for some singular "perfect" game or subgenre of CRPGs.  As for MEA all my current hopes are related to gameplay. Actually I would be perfectly satisfied as long as the game would play like ME3, but the difficulty and style would be something closer to doing MP Gold solo* than SP insanity. At this point, for me the narrative can be retelling of Wizard of Oz in Andromeda with Krogans, as long there's truly satisfying gameplay.

 

*not counting doing a solo with something tastelessly OP. More like soloing with FQI with Viper than Kroguard Reegar.

 

I can barely call ME an RPG. It's barely trying. This isn't the best place to expect reform for CRPGs, when other games go the extra mile much more. Currently, I suggest rpg fans to play Original Sin to get their fix.

[Cyonan]

I can barely call ME an RPG. It's barely trying. This isn't the best place to expect reform for CRPGs, when other games go the extra mile much more. Currently, I suggest rpg fans to play Original Sin to get their fix.

 

Well realistically nobody should expect to reform anything unless they're the ones making the games. It's pretty absurd to claim that one person posting on an internet forum is going to change anything.

 

Though with games like Original Sin, Shadowrun Returns, and Pillars of Eternity there definitely isn't a shortage for fans of the old CRPG games.

 

I don't think Mass Effect ever was really trying that hard to be a RPG. It seems like cinematic story based shooter with RPG-lite was always the way that BioWare wanted to go with it. People often blame EA for it because Mass Effect 1 was a bit less shooter and a bit more RPG focused, but we can still see the signs there to want to go shooter.

 

and the signs to want to go cinematic go all the way back to KotoR.