How good it can look (or be designed) will also depend on whether it will be a cross generational game (at least the first of the new trilogy).
I seriously don't get all the ME3 hate. ME2 was a dramatically better game than ME1 (sure, you lost some RPG elements but the core gameplay loop was infinitely better because of it), and ME3 was a revision on that.
And people cared about the story? It's a fucking BioWare RPG story - GO SAVE THE WORLD IN X WAY, HAVE FUN. Christ.
The setting in the Mass Effect universe has always outshined the story. The side stories with characters, races, locations and so on were way better than "REAPERS? OH SHIT SHIT REAPERS".
The multiplayer was fucking fantastic as well. The best part of ME3, hands down. Actual, legitimate challenging content. The unlock system left something to be desired, but... baby steps.
I could not be happier that BioWare Montreal is making ME4. They're already proven in my eyes from the multiplayer, and let a completely different team get a crack at the universe. Maybe it won't be mired in BioWare Edmonton's overwrought story bullshit.
I seriously don't get all the ME3 hate. ME2 was a dramatically better game than ME1 (sure, you lost some RPG elements but the core gameplay loop was infinitely better because of it), and ME3 was a revision on that.
And people cared about the story? It's a fucking BioWare RPG story - GO SAVE THE WORLD IN X WAY, HAVE FUN. Christ.
The setting in the Mass Effect universe has always outshined the story. The side stories with characters, races, locations and so on were way better than "REAPERS? OH SHIT SHIT REAPERS".
It's your only save? Why would your only ME2 save be one where everybody dies? You'd think people in general would make sure all of Shepard's friends are alive so you could see what happen with them in ME3.
I'll argue until I'm blue in the face that ME3 is a good contender for the best combat system across all three games,
The more I think about ME 3, the DLC's and the Mass Effect story the more I conclude they didn't really have any fucking clue what to do after Mass Effect 1 so they just made it up as they went along and it SHOWS. This is one of the main reasons why I have no interest in continuing the Mass Effect series, I have absolutely no faith in them being able to produce a competent engaging series anymore since they literally winged it with Mass Effect.
Based on what's known about the original plot, there was a clue, it's just that Hudson & Walters decided to throw it out once Drew K was out of the picture sorting out the crap down in Austin with SW:TOR and concocted their own 'synthetics are the threat' BS out of their own ass fumes and hubris.
Ammo and armor customization are in multiplayer for ME3 =P Explosive and new Drill rounds are pretty sweet. I think they can take what they learned from that and put it in 4.I'm replying Mass Effect 1 right now on PS3, and I hate how Bioware removed armour and weapon customization from the later games. They also got rid of the on the fly equipment switching which kinda sucks. While the latter games tightened up the gun play and combat, the sense of scale and exploration nose dived. And by ME3, even things like side missions, were extremely pathetic *over hear a conversation and then go scan a planet*
Give me a Mass Effect 4 that has the combat of 2/3, a modified and efficient loot/inventory, and story/exploration in the vein of Mass Effect 1 and/or KOTOR. Bioware needs to stop watering down their games to appeal to the CoD crowd, who really don't care about these type of games to begin with. They did the same thing to Dragon Age and look where that took them.
Also, I'm not sure they're done watering down DA. =/
And by ME3, even things like side missions, were extremely pathetic *over hear a conversation and then go scan a planet* .
Ammo and armor customization are in multiplayer for ME3 =P Explosive and new Drill rounds are pretty sweet. I think they can take what they learned from that and put it in 4.
Also, I'm not sure they're done watering down DA. =/
Man, you are so spot-on with your posts about this series, it's clear how much you love (and hate) it.People were disappointed with the story because story, no matter how good/bad or typically BioWare, was a significant component of all three games, and the reason many players invested in individual characters, the universe, and lore. Mass Effect 3's ending was disappointing not because of typical BioWare tropes, but because of it's total ignorance towards what players had come to love about the series, and disregard towards what was established. It's an anti-ending; pandering to nobody, answering no questions, and solving nothing. Like the ending to a completely separate story shoe-horned into Mass Effect.
And I think fans often struggle to grasp this. Like, some readily fall back on the "I wanted a happy ending!" argument when I don't think they really mean that. They only say it because its the first place their mind goes in a better alternative. Every fan would have been happy had the ending simply be thematically relevant and consistent with the series up until that point. It could have been melodramatic, sad, depressing, or whatever, and fans would still be satisfied if it kept context and consistency. It did neither of those things, leaving fans with a sense of complete and utter dissatisfaction. And that's the worst way to end anything.
As for the gameplay, it simply comes down to preference. I'll argue until I'm blue in the face that ME3 is a good contender for the best combat system across all three games, and the first game's inventory/loot was faux-RPG garbage masquerading as real depth while providing almost none, and thus was culled for good reasons. But the first game still did embody certain design qualities, notably exploration and scale, that both ME2 and ME3 abandoned.
ME3 went even further, actually. Where ME2 toned down the scale quite significant and compartmentalised zones, it still switched up missions between hub->shoot->hub->shoot with downtime and questing seamlessly integrated into the encounters. You could engage in a shoot-out, win, holster your weapon, and explore a couple of side rooms and maybe meet an NPC for a sub mission. ME3 completely removed this and every single level is a very straight forward combat scenario.
There are side quests that are more substantive than that. I think of the 'overhear a conversation and then go scan a planet' sidequests as being a replacement for the mineral/medallion/writings collection quests in ME1, which had you accidentally finding an unmarked spot on a desserted wasteland of a planet, or scanning a planet. In that role, I think ME3's "overhear a conversation" quests worked well.
There is no armor customization in the multiplayer mode. But the campaign though, give you a lot of choices for helm, gloves, chest, pants, shoulderpads depending on what stats you prefer. Then you can change the color to your liking too. There is more armor customizarion in ME2 and ME3 than ME1, i never understood that complaint. In ME1, you just take the strongest armor you can find and stick with it. Is it just the loss of armor slots or what?
If you're referring to the dark energy thing, there was an interview with Drew (by a gaffer, I believe) quite recently where he shot down the idea that these plot threads were in any way well developed and then cast aside. He actually addresses the notion there was something he had different from Walters and Hudson that was a better, and that such things didn't exist. Dark energy was just one of many ideas being thrown around by the entire team.
What does such is how they just upped and abandoned it, which was another consistent fuck-up in the writing department. The team routinely forgot, deliberately or accidentally, plot threads and lore sewn in the previous game and just went with whatever. I think that's actually the reason so many people cite the genophage story as one of the better ones; it's consistent across all three games, in characters and themes. It's not like the Geth story, as established in ME2. Or the dark energy. Or the rachni. Or every other plot thread the writers decided no longer mattered or wasn't worth exploring.
I wouldn't say the "over heard" quests worked well personally. Especially when you consider the nature of the game. Here we have Commander Shepard desperately trying to unite the universe to fight a nearly invincible foe, yet he has time to find a fucking fridge for a Salarian that he overheard talking about it
I saw a graphic once that gave a breakdown of quests between the 3 games and it really does illustrate how cheap and shoddy Bioware actually went with ME 3 :-
Now I am realistic and all games have "padding" but really compared to the series ME 3 took the padding and pointless quests to new levels. I expect it to be even worse with the next ME I am expecting it to be more multiplayer focused and leave less resources for Single player.
I think they're referring to the customization through modifications. Mass Effect 3 has non consumable mods for guns that closely resemble the ones used in ME1, and in multiplayer, ME3 also has consumable mods for both armor and weapons that sort of take the place of the armor mods in ME1.
truestatic said:I'd take a handful of Mass Effect 3's conversation quests over finding Matriarch Dilinaga's writings again any day
Oh right, THOSE mods. Like +30% shield or +10% speed or +20% power damage for one match. For someone like me that put hundreds of hours into the multiplayer, i sure quickly forgot about that.
Huh... ME1 had A LOT of quests that wasn't "search for minerals or medallions". And those quests all had a little backstory too, their own planet to explore and actually had dialogue choices unlike the eavesdropping quests of ME3 that were mostly "scan and probe" and "find an item while doing an unrelated primary or secondary mission."
More to the point, it's not just about the number of quests, but the time investment and quality of each. Each fetch quest in ME3 had you overhearing a conversation, finding an item through scanning, and then returning the item to the person in need. There were lots of these quests, but they were brief, and each one had a little bit of backstory. In Mass Effect 1, there may have only been 5 quests, but they were fucking enormous, and had no absolutely no pay off. I'd take a handful of Mass Effect 3's conversation quests over finding Matriarch Dilinaga's writings again any day.
I don't think side quests need to be an and/or sort of thing though. With a more rounded game there should be more opportunities for using side quests as a means to simply flesh out characters, experiences, locations etc without necessarily making them physical reward heavy. Also I'd like to see side quests contingent on certain criteria such as relationship status etc. I can't quire recall whether Bioware did a bit of that in DA2, but I think it's a good way to personalize the play experience beyond 'This was what I did in that situation'.
People were disappointed with the story because story, no matter how good/bad or typically BioWare, was a significant component of all three games, and the reason many players invested in individual characters, the universe, and lore. Mass Effect 3's ending was disappointing not because of typical BioWare tropes, but because of it's total ignorance towards what players had come to love about the series, and disregard towards what was established. It's an anti-ending; pandering to nobody, answering no questions, and solving nothing. Like the ending to a completely separate story shoe-horned into Mass Effect.
And I think fans often struggle to grasp this. Like, some readily fall back on the "I wanted a happy ending!" argument when I don't think they really mean that. They only say it because its the first place their mind goes in a better alternative. Every fan would have been happy had the ending simply be thematically relevant and consistent with the series up until that point. It could have been melodramatic, sad, depressing, or whatever, and fans would still be satisfied if it kept context and consistency. It did neither of those things, leaving fans with a sense of complete and utter dissatisfaction. And that's the worst way to end anything.
As for the gameplay, it simply comes down to preference. I'll argue until I'm blue in the face that ME3 is a good contender for the best combat system across all three games, and the first game's inventory/loot was faux-RPG garbage masquerading as real depth while providing almost none, and thus was culled for good reasons. But the first game still did embody certain design qualities, notably exploration and scale, that both ME2 and ME3 abandoned.
ME3 went even further, actually. Where ME2 toned down the scale quite significant and compartmentalised zones, it still switched up missions between hub->shoot->hub->shoot with downtime and questing seamlessly integrated into the encounters. You could engage in a shoot-out, win, holster your weapon, and explore a couple of side rooms and maybe meet an NPC for a sub mission. ME3 completely removed this and every single level is a very straight forward combat scenario.
I agree that there's too much reliance on a limited number of frameworks here. Conversation/fetch quests probably would've been given a pass if they were just one of several ways in which low effort sidequest padding was brought to the table, but instead they were used over and over and over again until they became a joke.
With the "different quests depending on past choices here," I agree it'd be nice, but they end up asking "how much money do we spend on content only half/a quarter/a tenth of which can be seen in one playthrough, which is all most people will do?" They softballed this aspect by having quests available to everyone, but which featured potential cameos, based on past choices. I thought that was a reasonable compromise, although it got out of hand at times. Like when the game provided a replacement Legion, a replacement rachni queen, and blatantly ignored your decision about the reaper core.
How good it can look (or be designed) will also depend on whether it will be a cross generational game (at least the first of the new trilogy).
Denied again lol.
Denied again lol.
but given we are so used to disappointment from Bioware, we can all afford to remain magnanimous.
I seriously don't get all the ME3 hate. ME2 was a dramatically better game than ME1 (sure, you lost some RPG elements but the core gameplay loop was infinitely better because of it), and ME3 was a revision on that.
And people cared about the story? It's a fucking BioWare RPG story - GO SAVE THE WORLD IN X WAY, HAVE FUN. Christ.
The setting in the Mass Effect universe has always outshined the story. The side stories with characters, races, locations and so on were way better than "REAPERS? OH SHIT SHIT REAPERS".
The multiplayer was fucking fantastic as well. The best part of ME3, hands down. Actual, legitimate challenging content. The unlock system left something to be desired, but... baby steps.
I could not be happier that BioWare Montreal is making ME4. They're already proven in my eyes from the multiplayer, and let a completely different team get a crack at the universe. Maybe it won't be mired in BioWare Edmonton's overwrought story bullshit.
This is supposed to be a positivity thread damn it lol.
Yea wasn't planning on asking more until next week or something. Anyway, see those GIFs are CG and are a little difficult to fully compare to. On my phone so hard for me to post pics but truthfully I think what we saw from the character models in Dragon Age Inquisition and BF4 is the minimum.Well you can ask them how close they can get to these in terms of character model fidelity since graphics are the only thing they can or they will respond to:
Shepard 2
Wrex
Thane
Subject Zero
Mordin
PS: Give it some cool down time because I don't expect him to respond again for some time. You can always link him one of the gifs. In the mean time, how close do you think we'll come to these?
It does provide a reference but it ought to be better:
http://i.minus.com/i2ygIxfncqeAy.gif[IMG]
[IMG]http://i.minus.com/iKPonEtema8W6.gif[IMG][/QUOTE]
Yeah I don't think Dragon Age is a great comparison point on the basis that Dragon Age needs to handle vastly more characters on screen at once.
From a technical constraint perspective Mass Effect is closer to Battlefield, but it will probably be a 30 FPS game instead of a 60 FPS game, so it could be better than that despite needing more model/animation/AI variety than Battlefield.
Something like Mirror's Edge 2 mgiht be the best comparison point now that I think about it.
Yeah I don't think Dragon Age is a great comparison point on the basis that Dragon Age needs to handle vastly more characters on screen at once.
When, outside of prerendered cutscene, does Dragon Age need to do this? The giant battle at Ostagar in the beginning of DAO was achieved through smoke and mirrors, same way ME3 conjured up hordes of fleeing civilians in the opening sequence in Vancouver. Worth saying I'm still making my way through DA2, if you're referring to that.
Indeed, Yanick already confirmed it isAs a whole I'm still imagining Mass Effect 4 as an over the shoulder third person shooter,
Fabrice Condominas ‏@Faburisu
When you're asked "when can I actually play that?", you know you had an awesone sprint review. Huge congrats to the #masseffect team!
So I was discussing the ending of the series again with a friend yesterday and he said that the writers from 1 and 2 were completely replaced for ME3? I honestly hadn't been following the news regarding how the ending was made very closely at the time but that explains a lot if it was true.
Also (according to my friend), the original writers were apparently going to have Shepard destroy the Reapers with something having to do with a star? As he was saying this I recalled the mission in Mass Effect 2 where you recruit Tali on a planet whose sun is dying (can't remember the name of the location, it's been a while since I've actually played the game). Is there any truth to this or is my friend just full of it?
So I was discussing the ending of the series again with a friend yesterday and he said that the writers from 1 and 2 were completely replaced for ME3? I honestly hadn't been following the news regarding how the ending was made very closely at the time but that explains a lot if it was true.
Also (according to my friend), the original writers were apparently going to have Shepard destroy the Reapers with something having to do with a star? As he was saying this I recalled the mission in Mass Effect 2 where you recruit Tali on a planet whose sun is dying (can't remember the name of the location, it's been a while since I've actually played the game). Is there any truth to this or is my friend just full of it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M0Cf864P7E
Watch the whole thing if you're interested, Joe explains it fairly well. Note this was before the Extended Cut DLC.
Suck it EC