|
Erhm m4ini... Disengaged just said that people are hating it because it's cool to hate it, which directly implies people aren't hating it because its flaws, which is a way to cast aside any legit criticism as hate, and then play it down, even tho how important those flaws are entirely subjective.
The hipster (what's cool to do = mainstream, right ?) is just a stupid analogy on how silly it is to actually put labels and polarize the discussion to characterize people who criticize the game as haters, and the oppossite would be characterize people who praise it as shills. I wasn't saying that people were defending it here specifically.
And to be honest, most of the criticism online is more humorous than pure hating or bashing (except some GG weirdos left, who as always, they have to be complete pricks and open up for "gamers are mysoginists dickheads" headlines). I am sure it has worked better for bioware than worse, as free advertisiment and reminder that the game is being released.
|
Disengaged has a point though. I don't know if you were part of the Witcher 3 discussion here? People went absolutely crazy after some morons on the interwebs pointed out that there seemed to be a graphical downgrade, literally calling "shitty graphics now" etc a valid argument. For Witcher 3, a game that to this date is pretty much still one of the best looking games out there.
Again, i have zero problem with criticism, at least if it's valid (which for some part, it certainly is with ME:A as i said multiple times). Going out telling people not to buy it because.. well, quite literally, it boils down to "because the facial animations are shit", to me personally would actually count as hating. There's a difference between me accepting that the game isn't for me and moving on, and NOT accepting that the game isn't for me, so i decide to go after it not just by telling people "be aware of those faults", but by trying to impact sales by saying "these faults make the game unplayable". edit: which is more glaringly obvious in this case where you actually have the option to suggest a 10 hour trial.
Hipster never stroke me as "what's cool to do" though, the weird trousers that end somewhere halfway on the shin with bright red socks etc never stroke me as "cool" or even perceived cool hehe. Hipster is "against mainstream", that's why fixed gear bikes etc are "hipster".
Thankfully, my character animations came with an actual game attached to it, which is enjoyable.
edit: regardless of definition, we can agree that labeling people doesn't get us anywhere though.
|
Well I do not think they are "hating" hating, they are just disappointed.
Many people loved Mass Effect 1-3, they were counting on a successor that embraces the good things, tosses out the bad and invents a whole new experience.
People have seen games with grpahic just as witcher, tomb raider and what not and they expected mass effect andromeda to be a decicive step forward because it is a new beginning in the Mass effect universe.
And from what we have seen there are no decisive steps. It does not feel like a new beginning, a new core with some remanescent traces of the old. It feels like the same old same old with some alterations, many mistakes and missing polish and we all hope we do not experience a game full of width and length but without any depth to it.
It does not mean that the game is unplayable or bad in general, it just has many aspects that lead to great disappointment in some important areas that can not or should not be overlooked.
My hope as of now, is that the story and the questing is thrilling and addicting and the characters and squadmates are interesting, because the graphics are not the wow effect in this game and the gunplay never has really been the driver of the game. It was just something you did that was enjoyable, but you just did it to get to the next piece of story, to the next dialog, to the next part of the puzzle.
|
Bringing a game from tubes to a huge open world (multiple, actually, as far as i can tell) is rather decisive i'd say. In fact, it makes it an entire subgenre.
Nobody is arguing that it's polished, it's not. Hell, i absolutely hate the DA:Inquisition type quest table real time thing. Already did in DA:I.
Also, the gunplay actually is great now. That's exactly what i mean: you're disappointed because it's not Mass Effect 3.5. Which is fair i guess, but that's on you. It was always known that ME1-3 is a closed trilogy, and that IF something else comes out, it'd be different. Hell for the longest time we actually thought "that's it" in regards to Mass Effect.
I enjoy the open world part, driving around with the Rover seeing a little ruin barely visible far in the distance - and then drive there, check it out. Maybe find a datapad. I enjoy the new fast gunplay with hovering while shooting and whatnot. Story obviously is hard to judge, but from what i've been able to gather, the setup at least is great. Is puzzling fun? Hell yes. Did i see any so far? Sadly, apart from a sudoku, no. But the problem might be that the game stopped right in front of where i'd suspect trials and puzzles.
|
On March 20 2017 04:29 m4ini wrote:
Bringing a game from tubes to a huge open world (multiple, actually, as far as i can tell) is rather decisive i'd say. In fact, it makes it an entire subgenre.
Nobody is arguing that it's polished, it's not. Hell, i absolutely hate the DA:Inquisition type quest table real time thing. Already did in DA:I.
Also, the gunplay actually is great now. That's exactly what i mean: you're disappointed because it's not Mass Effect 3.5. Which is fair i guess, but that's on you. It was always known that ME1-3 is a closed trilogy, and that IF something else comes out, it'd be different. Hell for the longest time we actually thought "that's it" in regards to Mass Effect.
I enjoy the open world part, driving around with the Rover seeing a little ruin barely visible far in the distance - and then drive there, check it out. Maybe find a datapad. I enjoy the new fast gunplay with hovering while shooting and whatnot. Story obviously is hard to judge, but from what i've been able to gather, the setup at least is great. Is puzzling fun? Hell yes. Did i see any so far? Sadly, apart from a sudoku, no. But the problem might be that the game stopped right in front of where i'd suspect trials and puzzles.
No, people are not disappointed its not Mass Effect 3.5 (well some no doubt are).
They are disappointed that the animations look terrible to someone who has lived in a cave since 2000.
That the writing is (at time) worse then a tumblr fanfic.
This is a 2017 AAA game and while the gameplay may be great and smooth, everyone else around it looks to, many people, like shit.
|
Let me be clear. I'm not defending Andromeda because its the "hipster" thing or the fact that I'm a big Mass Effect fan. I'm defending it because majority of the criticisms that I've seen is on the animations and only the animations. Those people fail to provide more valid criticism besides the animations and those are the people are who I am calling sheep. There are people who have valid legitimate criticisms and have more to go off of then just animations. Those are the people I have no problem with because they have actual reasoning and thought put behind their criticisms other then "LUL facial animations". They state their reasoning and thought behind why they have a problem with the story(so far), the combat, gameplay, character customization, etc. Those people are cool. The ones who only have "bad animations" in their vocabulary when it comes to Andromeda, are not.
As I said, the game is definately not without its flaws but even with its flaws, its a good game from what I have played so far. We still don't know where the story is going to go in Andromeda and that will help with determining if its a good game for the gameplay/combat or the story or even both. Also, like I said, the original trilogy had its fair share of flaws and bad animations but that doesn't make it any less of a good bunch of games.
I don't have a problem with people criticizing Andromeda, but they should at least have something more then the animations being bad to at least show they aren't just following the bandwagon.
|
On March 20 2017 04:36 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2017 04:29 m4ini wrote:
Bringing a game from tubes to a huge open world (multiple, actually, as far as i can tell) is rather decisive i'd say. In fact, it makes it an entire subgenre.
Nobody is arguing that it's polished, it's not. Hell, i absolutely hate the DA:Inquisition type quest table real time thing. Already did in DA:I.
Also, the gunplay actually is great now. That's exactly what i mean: you're disappointed because it's not Mass Effect 3.5. Which is fair i guess, but that's on you. It was always known that ME1-3 is a closed trilogy, and that IF something else comes out, it'd be different. Hell for the longest time we actually thought "that's it" in regards to Mass Effect.
I enjoy the open world part, driving around with the Rover seeing a little ruin barely visible far in the distance - and then drive there, check it out. Maybe find a datapad. I enjoy the new fast gunplay with hovering while shooting and whatnot. Story obviously is hard to judge, but from what i've been able to gather, the setup at least is great. Is puzzling fun? Hell yes. Did i see any so far? Sadly, apart from a sudoku, no. But the problem might be that the game stopped right in front of where i'd suspect trials and puzzles. No, people are not disappointed its not Mass Effect 3.5 (well some no doubt are). They are disappointed that the animations look terrible to someone who has lived in a cave since 2000. That the writing is (at time) worse then a tumblr fanfic. This is a 2017 AAA game and while the gameplay may be great and smooth, everyone else around it looks to, many people, like shit.
Yeah, animations do look partially shit. I don't actually understand why, considering the Asari have extremely humanlike features (apart from weird penises for hair), and for the most part their animations are actually fine. It literally is only human NPC/PC. And even there you have to differ between a default male character which isn't amazing, but fine for the most part, and custom chars/females, which are way worse.
Judging the writing based on not even 2% into the game is ballsy at best. No, the conversations don't raise deep philosophical questions yet, but then again, we don't have any bigger story characters revealed yet. Saying "writing is shit" is fair once you played through or at least a decent story portion, but you can hardly judge it now.
In regards to your last sentence, you might want to read that again. "Gameplay might be great and smooth but everything else is shit" - who gives a shit? Without attacking you, if the game is a blast to play, and you decide not to because "reasons other than it not running on your PC" (which is another thing i hate, it doesn't run on my wifes PC - crashes), you really don't have that legitimate of a claim to call it a bad game. Might just be me though.
|
On March 20 2017 04:37 Disengaged wrote:
Let me be clear. I'm not defending Andromeda because its the "hipster" thing or the fact that I'm a big Mass Effect fan. I'm defending it because majority of the criticisms that I've seen is on the animations and only the animations. Those people fail to provide more valid criticism besides the animations and those are the people are who I am calling sheep. There are people who have valid legitimate criticisms and have more to go off of then just animations. Those are the people I have no problem with because they have actual reasoning and thought put behind their criticisms other then "LUL facial animations". They state their reasoning and thought behind why they have a problem with the story(so far), the combat, gameplay, character customization, etc. Those people are cool. The ones who only have "bad animations" in their vocabulary when it comes to Andromeda, are not.
As I said, the game is definately not without its flaws but even with its flaws, its a good game from what I have played so far. We still don't know where the story is going to go in Andromeda and that will help with determining if its a good game for the gameplay/combat or the story or even both. Also, like I said, the original trilogy had its fair share of flaws and bad animations but that doesn't make it any less of a good bunch of games.
I don't have a problem with people criticizing Andromeda, but they should at least have something more then the animations being bad to at least show they aren't just following the bandwagon.
People are judging a cover, because that's the only thing it's avaible to them. If you are expecting more nuanced critics, you will have to wait until the game is released.
And i do think you are downplaying how poor animations can work against suspension of disbelief for a good chunk of the playerbase who are not that much into game systems as we might be, and it's the storytelling the part they are more interested in.
|
And i do think you are downplaying how poor animations can work against suspension of disbelief for a good chunk of the playerbase who are not that much into game systems as we might be, and it's the storytelling the part they are more interested in.
As we know, facial expressions were the reasons for bestselling books. Or bestselling movies, for that matter.
Story telling is not just about facial expressions, i'd argue that it's actually a small part of it. I agree that a good story can be destroyed by goofy characters, but you can also have a superb story with them - story telling is about pace, drama, suspense, "speed" (don't know how to word it better) etc.
Facial expressions don't convey story, but emotions. You can have an amazing story/universe and shitty facial expressions. The emotions part is where facial expressions let you down. And in this case, yes they do. The father/pathfinder thing at the beginning, without spoilering much, comes off as "meh" because emotions are not shown properly. Partially because of it being rather badly written (no argument from me there), the rest is lack of emotions.
|
Lets say it from one of the guys, who is highly critical towards ME:A in its current form, that people would call me a hater.
ME:A had insane expectations uppon itself, since it was announced. I am not different from that, I had very very high expectations to this game.
Now these expectations clash with the reality, as a very large amount of different people with different high expectations judge the prereleased contents and go online to "talk about it".
The expectations come from the legacy of Bioware (which is dead for alot of people under the unfluence of EA) since BG and the best RPG in the Star Wars Universe, one of the best RPGs after the BG/classic RPG era and being extreme close to the perfection of the "bioware formula", KotoR are very high. On top Mass Effect followed alot of the now ME:A awating crowd over 6 years, being played and loved and thus obviously watched with alot of nostalgic feelings, that make you think good about things, that the ME games might have done not really good. For example:
Alot of you say the face animations of ME 1 werent good either, while I see it in my nostalgic way, the way my brain thinks about ME 1, as one of the best facial animations I've met till 2007 and it took games long time to transfer emotions and just conversations to me like ME 1 did. Is this the objective truth? I guess nah. But it is how people remember Mass Effect 1. And from here come the expectations for ME:A, that its once again such a big leap, that you expect it to at least be top notch, better the best up to now.
Why I dislike ME 3s Story, not the ending, the whole game in very short:
+ Show Spoiler +Then for me comes another thing, I deeply dislike ME 3s story and atmosphere. My Sheppard was never the hero the council or the Aliance wanted, she (my Femsheps are always renegade, my low amount of male shepards tended to be paragon) was the hero humanity needed. Humanity first was not only Cerberus concept, it was often times the one of my Sheppard. She killed the ones in the way, the killed the ones she didnt like, destruction of planets and species, she didnt what hat to be done to stop the threads of mankind. And then, my Sheppards kept the secret cerberus data you find in a blue suns hideout for cerberus, she cleared the freaking collector base because she knew everything is a possible tool against the reapers... only to return to the never helping Alliance after saving the Galaxy for 6 more months to get grounded and to watch the days pass till the reapers come? No, my sheppard would have stayed with Cerberus and do what had to be done, no matter what the price was.
Then comes the DA:I. Half you us hate it, half of us like it. I deeply disliked its concept of how to give me work and not plessure, how to drive the game just far enough to return myself to work. And alot of people thought so and Bioware said, they were aware and didnt want that to happen in ME:A. DA:I is practically the Ghost Recoon Wildlands of Bioware, when it comes to this concept of games, where the soul of the game dies in front of the altar of "flashing open world with nonstop things to do". People liked DA:I, people like GR:W. But others do not.
And now ME:A comes, clashing with the expection to be a groundbreaking game, to renew the legacy of Bioware, to be over the top in every regard, the expectation that all people disliked in previous Bioware games is gone...and this ME:A cant meet the expectations, that was obvious, because they were often times very unrealistic. But is more, this ME:A has flaws it shouldnt have, sins that are not allowed on an AAA game that has been in development for 5 years. The flaws like some of the writing (I mean, the game itself seems to be aware... "kill me now"), the acting, the perfectly still standing persons in some conversations, the face animations, the eyes, the broken character creator, which tends to give you a very good looking father, when you take a bad looking generic preset and gives you a god damn abomination when you worked 2 hours to get your Char to look as good as possible and then the open world style, which smells like Ubisoft formula, a formula, that way more people dislike then classic bioware formula. Will this be the case? We dont know, the pregame only shows very minimal amount of free roam, but enough to have the fear of ubisoftisation.
And when peoples expectations are crushed or at least not met, they do what: They talk about it. And as nobody as friends anymore, they do it online. And here I am and say, even as a person who would buy ME:A only in 1 year with the release of the last DLC, I dislike what I saw so far, I am annoyed by the things and my expectations were crushed. And so do I post about it. I wont say "hur dur stupid SJW made this game supershit, fucking tumblr girls writing our games", but I say that I am quite disapointed of this game and Bioware... once again. Objectivly ME:A will be 80 out 100, most likely, flawed but still good, especially for people who want to sit back and crush some fools in a 3rd person combat with a story that is not bullshitly stupid and on top get 3 more friends on and grind some simple horde shooter.
But this is not what I expected it to be... or hoped it to be. And as the animations are the most eyecatching, people who are not happy with the released preversion overall, will jump on it first, at its really big sin for such a game.
|
On March 20 2017 05:04 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +And i do think you are downplaying how poor animations can work against suspension of disbelief for a good chunk of the playerbase who are not that much into game systems as we might be, and it's the storytelling the part they are more interested in. As we know, facial expressions were the reasons for bestselling books. Or bestselling movies, for that matter. Story telling is not just about facial expressions, i'd argue that it's actually a small part of it. I agree that a good story can be destroyed by goofy characters, but you can also have a superb story with them - story telling is about pace, drama, suspense, "speed" (don't know how to word it better) etc. Facial expressions don't convey story, but emotions. You can have an amazing story/universe and shitty facial expressions. The emotions part is where facial expressions let you down. And in this case, yes they do. The father/pathfinder thing at the beginning, without spoilering much, comes off as "meh" because emotions are not shown properly. Partially because of it being rather badly written (no argument from me there), the rest is lack of emotions.
... Your saying that animations are a minor thing before mentioning that a major character building moment is (kinda) ruined by bad animation and bad writing...
You won't find a lot of best selling novels with bad story telling and bad sentence construction (the book equivalent of animations one might say).
|
I would argue that emotional investment is one of, if not THE most important aspect of a single player game, even moreso for an RPG. The best stories will not be appreciated if you don't care for the protagonist.
Well-written movies have been ruined by bad acting plenty of times. And games are in another category anyways, as YOU ARE the protagonist, which makes immersion/identification with that character even more important.
|
On March 20 2017 05:04 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +And i do think you are downplaying how poor animations can work against suspension of disbelief for a good chunk of the playerbase who are not that much into game systems as we might be, and it's the storytelling the part they are more interested in. As we know, facial expressions were the reasons for bestselling books. Or bestselling movies, for that matter. Story telling is not just about facial expressions, i'd argue that it's actually a small part of it. I agree that a good story can be destroyed by goofy characters, but you can also have a superb story with them - story telling is about pace, drama, suspense, "speed" (don't know how to word it better) etc. Facial expressions don't convey story, but emotions. You can have an amazing story/universe and shitty facial expressions. The emotions part is where facial expressions let you down. And in this case, yes they do. The father/pathfinder thing at the beginning, without spoilering much, comes off as "meh" because emotions are not shown properly. Partially because of it being rather badly written (no argument from me there), the rest is lack of emotions. Small part ? Man, i think you should really self-reflect on what you are saying. Or maybe we should just hire an army of Arnold Schwarzenegers for every movie, because facial and physical expression doesn't matter that much as a comunication device. Emotions ? That's overrated! (Not trying to be offensive btw)
|
So if Bioware had just gone with static portraits for conversations (as in their classical BG games) we would have much less complaints about the game?
I didn't play the single player since the trial was only 10h and I didn't see the point. If animations are shit and conversations take 2 times the time to read the subtitles (as always) I guess I will not be looking at the screen during most of the longer conversations and enjoy it as an audio book. Just as in most 3D games such as Witcher 3 (which is a good game with a shit conversation system in my opinion), Skyrim or Fallout 3/4.
I mostly play 3D RPGs in spite of their conversation systems which fall far short of movies and take a lot of time. I simply enjoy the combat systems more than in 2D systems and the story they can tell is the same, even if it takes longer.
Edit
As for the overall DA:I and so on complaints. I can agree with them to a degree. I still say that was a good game with too much pointless content. I played it and didn't regret it. Nor did I finish it since the main plot was pointless, same as for Fallout NW, Fallout 4, Skyrim and to a lesser degree Witcher 3.
I enjoy those types of games and have fun with their systems and characters. Then I stop playing them and am still mostly happy with the games. If they cut their content breadth for depth I would likely finish them but open sandbox games generally don't encourage me to finish them. (True sandbox games I don't even play since I don't enjoy that type of content.)
I don't tend to get to max level in a MMO before getting bored with exploring their combat system and play style. I more likely re-roll as something else in most cases. I don't see that as a fault with the genre, more a case of what I actually enjoy in games. This is probably also why I enjoy Dota after a decade, there is both breadth and depth to the game while it doesn't tie you down for 60h to enjoy a story.
|
In terms of the male main character voice acting, its average but its not an abomination like male Shepard. Male Ryder at least has some emotion in his voice, maybe not in the right moments, can't say much else cuz spoilers, whereas Male Shep/Mark Meer literally sounded like a robot reading a script. Took him 3 games to at least get 5-10% better in his voice acting but it was still terrible and yet some people haven no problem with it.
From what I've seen so far, some characters/actors know how to put emotion into what they are saying but there are some that don't. That character thats voiced by a game of thrones actor for example. Shes not that good.
|
On March 20 2017 05:39 Yurie wrote:
So if Bioware had just gone with static portraits for conversations (as in their classical BG games) we would have much less complaints about the game?
I didn't play the single player since the trial was only 10h and I didn't see the point. If animations are shit and conversations take 2 times the time to read the subtitles (as always) I guess I will not be looking at the screen during most of the longer conversations and enjoy it as an audio book. Just as in most 3D games such as Witcher 3 (which is a good game with a shit conversation system in my opinion), Skyrim or Fallout 3/4.
I mostly play 3D RPGs in spite of their conversation systems which fall far short of movies and take a lot of time. I simply enjoy the combat systems more than in 2D systems and the story they can tell is the same, even if it takes longer.
Edit
As for the overall DA:I and so on complaints. I can agree with them to a degree. I still say that was a good game with too much pointless content. I played it and didn't regret it. Nor did I finish it since the main plot was pointless, same as for Fallout NW, Fallout 4, Skyrim and to a lesser degree Witcher 3.
I enjoy those types of games and have fun with their systems and characters. Then I stop playing them and am still mostly happy with the games. If they cut their content breadth for depth I would likely finish them but open sandbox games generally don't encourage me to finish them. (True sandbox games I don't even play since I don't enjoy that type of content.)
I don't tend to get to max level in a MMO before getting bored with exploring their combat system and play style. I more likely re-roll as something else in most cases. I don't see that as a fault with the genre, more a case of what I actually enjoy in games. This is probably also why I enjoy Dota after a decade, there is both breadth and depth to the game while it doesn't tie you down for 60h to enjoy a story.
TL;DR: you are not the typical player of single player RPGs, which is why it's ok for you if one of the main selling points for that genre is badly done. I respect your opinion, but you surely realize that a genres let's call them core values should be done well for it to be called a good game. And to the average RPG player, the main story is equally if not more important than say the combat. If MEA had been advertised as a story driven shooter game, people would not be so overly critical towards this failure.
|
|
|
Just watched TBs stream, he was also laughing so hard at the animations and story telling flaws ...
He stopped the stream because of frame rate issues after landing on the first planet with the tempest.
Well I could run it on high without any issues, I only noticed if you are playing a video on the second monitor the frame rate goes to shit (some games have this issue, I suppose it was a problem in conjunction with the recording software.)
The game is not broken on a technical level and one can still ignore the issues and have fun, especially in combat, but the animations and ugly modeling is still an issue that bioware/EA needs to address...
|
On March 20 2017 06:57 InFiNitY[pG] wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2017 05:39 Yurie wrote:
So if Bioware had just gone with static portraits for conversations (as in their classical BG games) we would have much less complaints about the game?
I didn't play the single player since the trial was only 10h and I didn't see the point. If animations are shit and conversations take 2 times the time to read the subtitles (as always) I guess I will not be looking at the screen during most of the longer conversations and enjoy it as an audio book. Just as in most 3D games such as Witcher 3 (which is a good game with a shit conversation system in my opinion), Skyrim or Fallout 3/4.
I mostly play 3D RPGs in spite of their conversation systems which fall far short of movies and take a lot of time. I simply enjoy the combat systems more than in 2D systems and the story they can tell is the same, even if it takes longer.
Edit
As for the overall DA:I and so on complaints. I can agree with them to a degree. I still say that was a good game with too much pointless content. I played it and didn't regret it. Nor did I finish it since the main plot was pointless, same as for Fallout NW, Fallout 4, Skyrim and to a lesser degree Witcher 3.
I enjoy those types of games and have fun with their systems and characters. Then I stop playing them and am still mostly happy with the games. If they cut their content breadth for depth I would likely finish them but open sandbox games generally don't encourage me to finish them. (True sandbox games I don't even play since I don't enjoy that type of content.)
I don't tend to get to max level in a MMO before getting bored with exploring their combat system and play style. I more likely re-roll as something else in most cases. I don't see that as a fault with the genre, more a case of what I actually enjoy in games. This is probably also why I enjoy Dota after a decade, there is both breadth and depth to the game while it doesn't tie you down for 60h to enjoy a story. TL;DR: you are not the typical player of single player RPGs, which is why it's ok for you if one of the main selling points for that genre is badly done. I respect your opinion, but you surely realize that a genres let's call them core values should be done well for it to be called a good game. And to the average RPG player, the main story is equally if not more important than say the combat. If MEA had been advertised as a story driven shooter game, people would not be so overly critical towards this failure.
I agree the story should be well done or I won't finish the game after the actual game system novelties wear off. The main complaints doesn't seem to be on the story but its presentation though. The actual gameplay seemed fun from my test, which likely makes actually going through the parts that aren't story fun and interesting (some story driven games the gameplay is so bad that I would have greatly preferred a visual novel). Giving me plenty of reasons to withhold judgement on that until I actually play it.
If the story is passable I'll likely rate it a good game. If the character dialogue is great and its dialogue animations suck I'll likely rate it great since graphics outside of that seems good enough to not matter. Since it seems to have a big fault it will likely not make game of the year which isn't such a major thing since I play more than 1 game a year.
Something I consider interesting when it comes to RPGs is what people actually want and mean. Do you want a sand box game where you can truly role play your character with minor creator influence outside of what they enable? Or do you want a tightly scripted story with some decent game play thrown in to space it out? The genre is quite wide and any open world game sacrifices a lot of focus on the overall story in my mind, making other parts of the game more important (since they take up more time).
|
On March 20 2017 12:49 Yurie wrote:
Something I consider interesting when it comes to RPGs is what people actually want and mean. Do you want a sand box game where you can truly role play your character with minor creator influence outside of what they enable? Or do you want a tightly scripted story with some decent game play thrown in to space it out? The genre is quite wide and any open world game sacrifices a lot of focus on the overall story in my mind, making other parts of the game more important (since they take up more time).
Or basically Bioware is well-known for having tight narratives, strong story and developed, engaging characters at the expensive of somewhat sloppy gameplay mechanics.
Whereas a company like Bethesda is known for environments and open worlds, and massive modding platforms, at the expense of focus and overall story (though they still offer very good overall lore and disconnect story) and loads and loads of bugs.
And maybe Bioware did branch out from their formula, I haven't really seen enough of MEA to know, and if it is a truly open world environment where the main story is simply for setting and the rest of the galaxy is at your leisure, then that would be cool.
But from what I've seen from trailers so far, it's basically the exact same Bioware story formula except the explorable boxes in between the plot points have grown again (a la difference between KotoR and ME). And if they screwed up the story and characters badly enough, then Bioware basically lost the one thing they consistently had a good reputation for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
