Mass Effect 4 survey suggests BioWare are paying attention to Dark Souls, Diablo and Dota
85 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Diet Kane;45400494]well they were both generic gears of war corridor cover shooters
soooooo[/QUOTE]
If we're being honest though, Mass Effect 1 was guilty of it too. Yeah, we had the Mako to break things up a bit but just about every combat environment I can remember was [I]clearly[/I] designed with cover in mind, especially on the high difficulty levels. All 2 and 3 did was make it "press-to-snap-to" cover instead of the slightly more organic feel of the first one. I can't say I blame Bioware for their decisions on the combat system, at least not with how it balanced out in the 3rd game. For any faults the series has, Gears of War is the gold standard for cover-based TPS gameplay.
I've sunk probably over three hundred hours in to the series and I still don't see how anyone can think that 1 has the best combat in any way. The abilities are boring, moving/taking cover is clunky and feels stiff as hell, and using the weapons is all together uninteresting. The skill system isn't any better than 3's, which I'd argue is probably much more fun to work with considering the bonuses are actually noticeable and change abilities, not just "10% more shields are you feeling the fun yet". Honestly think 3 had easily the best skill/combat system, by miles.
[QUOTE=Jackald;45402431]I think ME1 was the most like an actual RPG, with skills and stats and stuff. ME2 felt like a third person shooter with RPG elements tacked on, and ME3 was a straight gears clone, melee weapon and all.[/QUOTE]
I think you mixed up ME2 and ME3 there. 2 was a straight up Gears clone; 3 went out of its way to bring RPG mechanics back.
[QUOTE=Zeos;45396687]I really hope that they use the Dark Souls influence for worldbuilding, creating interest in mysteries.[/QUOTE]
I thought they [I]created[/I] mysteries really well. The whole first half of ME1 was spent wondering who and what the protheans were and what happened to them, the Collectors were extremely mysterious and weird in ME2, and 3's Leviathan arc was also really good in that way. The way they [I]resolve[/I] mysteries needs a lot of work. There's never any question of whether or not Saren might actually be on your side, they just straight-up say [sp]"The Collectors are protheans"[/sp], and Leviathan's resolution really does come out of the blue.
What I'd like is for the whole main plot to be mysterious and unclear until the conclusion. They've shown they can build up a mystery really well, but it's almost like they prefer writing the action bits because that sense of "what's happening?" is never really sustained further than absolutely necessary.
ME1 was the best at creating a huge sense of scale, amazement and wonderment in the midst of a huge galaxy
All the worlds you visited were great and even though the Mako handling wasn't the best I just loved the atmosphere of its exploration parts
[QUOTE=Jackald;45402431]I think ME1 was the most like an actual RPG, with skills and stats and stuff. ME2 felt like a third person shooter with RPG elements tacked on, and ME3 was a straight gears clone, melee weapon and all.[/QUOTE]
2 was the most like GoW easily and it still wasn't at all like a clone, more like they were both similar considering they both did TPS-cover shooter gameplay well. Otherwise, they don't play that similarly at all aside from both having guns and cover mechanics. I mean, the abilities/squad commands in ME2 were enough to have the game feel different from GoW for me.
And I don't get what you mean about the melee weapons making it play like gears considering gears didn't have anything that similar?
[QUOTE=Jackald;45402465]How, by giving you 2 paths of abilities for rank 5 and 6? I've seen deeper RPG mechanics from fucking Lollipop Chainsaw.[/QUOTE]
Well, Gears of War had 1 path of abilities until the final choice at the end where you chose between one bonus or another. Mass Effect 3 had the split early on and it (at least attempted) to make inventory and customization more meaningful, as well as having small loot incentives.
I really want an exploration focused Mass Effect. Sort of like Assassin's Creed 4 where you're given a ship and a million places you can go.
[QUOTE=Jackald;45402465]How, by giving you 2 paths of abilities for rank 5 and 6? I've seen deeper RPG mechanics from fucking Lollipop Chainsaw.[/QUOTE]
The passives in the fitness/class trees in 3 weren't at all together that different from going in to the other skill lines in ME1. They accomplished more or less the same things, cooldowns, health, barriers, etc. ME3's just weren't as gradual and mixed in stuff to mess around with weapon weights, etc.
I honestly liked ME3's power upgrades way more than 1's. At least it let you change up your powers to behave differently whereas ME1's were just boring-as-fuck stat increases.
Fair enough, outside of gameplay and upgrades, I'll agree the rest is by far the weakest
[QUOTE=Skyward;45398564]Anyone that says ME3 doesn't have the most solid and polished gameplay in the series is in horrible denial.[/QUOTE]
If ME3 has the most solid and polished gameplay in the series I'd hate to see the rest of it.
[QUOTE=gk99;45402642]If ME3 has the most solid and polished gameplay in the series I'd hate to see the rest of it.[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5EKrGRlNrU[/media]
[QUOTE=Jackald;45402514]Bioware doesn't care about intrigue and mystery, they think their core audience are dumb idiots who can't follow lore, plot or characters unless they're as simple as possible. They also hate gating content, so they won't make any choices that make significant impacts, nor will they make the game in any way challenging because otherwise games journalists would complain about "archaic" game mechanics, and how boss fights are "too video gamey" in a fucking video game.
I mean they clearly thought the audience was too dumb to understand the dark energy plotline that ME2 set up under Drew Karpyshyn, so they changed it to a contradictory explanation that wrecked all mystery or even basic logic behind the reapers' actions.
Bioware have been targeting a dumber and dumber audience sine ME2 onwards, and it's painfully obvious as the mystery lessens, and the plot gets simpler and simpler. I fully expect ME4 to just drop all pretentious of a science fiction plot, in which a core idea, namely the presence of a substance that can alter the mass of objects, is applied to the world, and just say "FUCKING MAGIC DID IT".
Like how in ME1, shields are explicitely stated to only work by altering the mass of incoming objects, rendering things like fire or explosions just as dangerous as ever, but then in ME2 they were like "fuckit, shields can also hold back air now, because. uh. UH. UHM.", or how in ME2 they said "Yeah, entire galaxy is outfitted with thanix cannons which can 1 hit collector ships" then forgot about it in ME3.
Or how they had a fucking ground-based assault on a space station. Seriously, this kind of stuff is the basic level of competency i expect out of a science fiction world, but Bioware just don't care. They just want things to be cool. A coherent plot and depth of gameplay mechanics are too hard for Bioware's new audience. They'd rather just have all buttons make "awesome" happen.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMcVZQI6ybw[/media][/QUOTE]
I liked the part where they outfitted the entire galaxy with thermal clips in just two years.
Also thermal clips fucking sucks, having one as a tool that you can use to avoid heating your weapon instead of just "SPACE AMMO", it would be cool, because it would introduce the notion of gathering and considering the time to where you use this resource.
They should've expanded on the game's inventory and customization instead of cutting down because they didn't know how to fix it. I think ME3 did some things right, and maybe it was a better overall game compared to ME2, but after seeing what they're doing if DA:I, I'm not surprised with ME4 is shit.
[QUOTE=Jackald;45402514]Bioware doesn't care about intrigue and mystery, they think their core audience are dumb idiots who can't follow lore, plot or characters unless they're as simple as possible. They also hate gating content, so they won't make any choices that make significant impacts, nor will they make the game in any way challenging because otherwise games journalists would complain about "archaic" game mechanics, and how boss fights are "too video gamey" in a fucking video game.
I mean they clearly thought the audience was too dumb to understand the dark energy plotline that ME2 set up under Drew Karpyshyn, so they changed it to a contradictory explanation that wrecked all mystery or even basic logic behind the reapers' actions.
Bioware have been targeting a dumber and dumber audience sine ME2 onwards, and it's painfully obvious as the mystery lessens, and the plot gets simpler and simpler. I fully expect ME4 to just drop all pretentious of a science fiction plot, in which a core idea, namely the presence of a substance that can alter the mass of objects, is applied to the world, and just say "FUCKING MAGIC DID IT".
Like how in ME1, shields are explicitely stated to only work by altering the mass of incoming objects, rendering things like fire or explosions just as dangerous as ever, but then in ME2 they were like "fuckit, shields can also hold back air now, because. uh. UH. UHM.", or how in ME2 they said "Yeah, entire galaxy is outfitted with thanix cannons which can 1 hit collector ships" then forgot about it in ME3.
Or how they had a fucking ground-based assault on a space station. Seriously, this kind of stuff is the basic level of competency i expect out of a science fiction world, but Bioware just don't care. They just want things to be cool. A coherent plot and depth of gameplay mechanics are too hard for Bioware's new audience. They'd rather just have all buttons make "awesome" happen.[/QUOTE]
Rant about BioWare all you want, the truth is, from a scenaristic point of view, no Mass Effect game is perfect. You're acting like ME1 was flawless, but look around a bit and you'll see it has a fair share of plotholes too.
I just googled "Mass Effect 1 plotholes" and here's one of the comments I found:
[QUOTE]Mass Effect is an awesome game, but lets face it the plot was horribly riddled with problems from game 1. 1.(most obvious) Why didn't Saren just activate the Citadel Mass Relay while he was still trusted. Why openly betray anyone or invade with the Geth when the Reapers could just be summoned from the get go? 2. The conduit. What was the point of it? If you remember, the Normandy is grounded at the citadel and Sherperd has to escape to pursue Saren on Ilos. All that ends up happening is you arrive on Ilos only to be told the same thing about the reapers from a Prothean VI that you have heard already and then transport yourself back to the Citadel. If all the conduit does is transport you back to the Citadel why even bother spending the entire game searching for it? If this was Sarens plan all along, or worse yet Sovereigns plan, it can be safe to say that the "reapers" have either become really arrogant, really dumb, or else the Protheans and all other civilizations before them were even dumber. 3. When Sovereign attacks the citadel it easily bypasses the defenses and alliance ships and gets in the station. If it was that easy to surprise everybody why not just do that in the first place with Saren on board and get him to activate the Citadel Mass relay that way. Sovereign literally just smashes into other ships to get to the Citadel because it is so huge. It would take no time at all and there would be no reason to involve the Geth or search for the Conduit. 4. The reapers themselves don't make much sense. I guess they are supposed to be mysterious and alien but the whole argument against advanced Organics building Synthetics that is put forward in later games just does hold up. The concept of the Reapers is fantastic, but they really should have put more thought into their motivations and their true nature.
Sure Mass Effect games are awesome, but as far as plot is concerned they don't hold a candle to games Knights OF the Old Republic (also Bioware) which to this day is one of the best Sci-Fantasy stories of any role playing game. Even Halo has less plot issues then Mass Effect.[/QUOTE]
I could add that the ending of ME1, with Sovereign's bit almost killing Shepard, appeared to make no sense at all to me. What happened with the oxygen, depressurization and everything?
And I don't think the series got dumber/dumbed down with the following games, it's just that the scenarists probably couldn't keep the standard set by Karpyshyn in ME1. It's not easy to write well, you know. And all things considered, ME3 did pretty good.
Besides, I don't understand how you can say ME2 was less complicated/dumber than ME1. The universe was expanded intelligently in many ways, and if you're talking about the main plot; well, ME1's plot wasn't exactly the greatest plot in the universe either.
Thermal Clips was a fucking shitty idea and I fucking hate it. Instead of refining the existing system they were fucking lazy cunts and went "let's just do what every fucking 3rd person shooter since GoW has done!"
Fuck you BioWare, ya Killed Mass Effect, ya killed Dragon Age, ya killed KOTOR.
I still don't get why people only pick at Mass Effect 3 for the ending when the entire game was ass.
I haven't played ME before and all these posts praising it lately make me want to get it
GameStop is closed though
Fuck
[QUOTE=igamiwarr;45413105]I still don't get why people only pick at Mass Effect 3 for the ending when the entire game was ass.[/QUOTE]
My guess is that it was so horrible it distracted people from how shit the rest of the game was.
[quote]Dota[/quote]
wat
[QUOTE=igamiwarr;45413105]I still don't get why people only pick at Mass Effect 3 for the ending when the entire game was ass.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't say the entire thing was ass, but I do think the game is the definition of a "mixed bag."
Pros:
- Polished combat and combat-based RPG elements
- Subplot writing (Tuchanga and Rannoch specifically, the rest was kinda meh)
- Majority of character moments and banter
- An entertaining villain in The Illusive Man
- Atmospheric as hell on main missions
- An unnecessary, but surprisingly good multiplayer
Cons:
- Main narrative was weakest
- Fucking fetch quests and a broken Journal
- Weak art direction relative to ME2
- Sidelined characters
- A shitty villain in Kai Leng and the Reapers themselves
It really did end up one of those games where every good point I found in it was offset by a bad point. Much as I'd like to go back into it with an open mind, I still struggle to want to replay the trilogy again, and that's the biggest shame of all because each game still has a lot of genuinely good elements to them.
[QUOTE=Jackald;45414540]It's hard to replay Mass Effect when you already know how meaningless every single decision is. I'm not even talking about the ending, just that nothing ever matters. None of them.
The council doesn't matter
The Rachnai doesn't matter
The Human Reaper doesn't matter
Even the final choice of the whole series doesn't matter! No choices matter. What's even the point.[/QUOTE]
I ended up getting past that by thinking more about how a particular Shepard impacted the galaxy he/she was leaving behind as opposed to how it would go in the future, but even that one is built on a shaky foundation. It certainly doesn't help that quite a few of the major events had a negligible impact, making the differences much smaller than they could have been.
Ah well, either Bioware will learn in future titles or someone else will take their place. Can't dwell too much on wasted potential, especially almost 2 1/2 years after the fact.
[QUOTE=Jackald;45414540]It's hard to replay Mass Effect when you already know how meaningless every single decision is. I'm not even talking about the ending, just that nothing ever matters. None of them.
The council doesn't matter
The Rachnai doesn't matter
The Human Reaper doesn't matter
Even the final choice of the whole series doesn't matter! No choices matter. What's even the point.[/QUOTE]
Read: suspension of disbelief.
No choice in any game matters.
You have to give weight to your decisions yourself. Sounds like you a burnt out.
[QUOTE=G3rman;45414672]Read: suspension of disbelief.
No choice in any game matters.
You have to give weight to your decisions yourself. Sounds like you a burnt out.[/QUOTE]
To an extent. The whole premise of the Mass Effect series was that your decisions do, in fact, matter. And while one could easily make a case that any particular Shepard's story could still be dramatically different from another, Jackald is right in that the ball was really dropped on a lot of the bigger decisions. It doesn't help that the ending to the entire trilogy fell flat on its face, with 3 DLCs (Leviathan, Extended Cut, and Citadel) still not quite managing to fix that.
I really wish they didn't do the whole 'next generation' thing. So many games fuck themselves over when they switch protagonists. To see them switch-out every good character they've made so far is going to be painful.
That, and I wonder how they're going to respond to the ending. Obviously, the choices matter a lot.
I cant wait for [B]MASS DIABLO OF THE ANCIENTS SOULS EFFECT 2: [/B]Three Color Choice Special Edition.
[QUOTE=Monkah;45414722]I really wish they didn't do the whole 'next generation' thing. So many games fuck themselves over when they switch protagonists. To see them switch-out every good character they've made so far is going to be painful.
That, and I wonder how they're going to respond to the ending. Obviously, the choices matter a lot.[/QUOTE]
It's going to be tough, but I think just about every character got their fair shake in the original trilogy so I'm not too sad to be leaving them behind.
Besides, ME4 is (likely) going to have to be set a good deal into the future for the galaxy to stabilize itself after the ending of ME3.
Like how in the question about your fav. part of RPGs, NOWHERE DID IT MENTION FUCKING ROLE PLAYING.
[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;45414749]It's going to be tough, but I think just about every character got their fair shake in the original trilogy so I'm not too sad to be leaving them behind.
Besides, ME4 is (likely) going to have to be set a good deal into the future for the galaxy to stabilize itself after the ending of ME3.[/QUOTE]
I disagree, to be honest. I know I'm going to miss the hell out of Garrus. The worst part is, there's a slowly growing trend of making new characters more and more edgy. I'm honestly not entirely trusting of what they'd create as 'replacements' to all of our favorites.
maybe with this iteration they'll learn how to make animations. cause they just got worse and worse with every sequel
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.