|
At least the star forge and archdemon dream sequences were explained in the games.
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 03:36 |
|
|
The dream sequences kind of presupposes that your Shepard has lost a lot of people by this point and it's getting to him, but again, this only works if you let most or all of your crew die, which nobody does unless they're intentionally trying to gently caress up. It's another instance in the series that only makes sense if you played in a particular way that few people ended up doing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
me3 did a lot of assuming about your Shepard I hated how much auto-dialogue you got in 3, 1-2 were really good at hardly making Shepard talk without your input 3 hosed that up
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
I partially blame the end of ME2 for making it so easy to save the entire squad. You can tell that a lot of loyalty missions had decision points that were perhaps originally intended to be "gain this character's loyalty by making a questionable moral choice," or "make the right moral choice, but now this person will probably die in the suicide mission." But I think at some point they chickened out because most missions can be resolved with your squadmates remaining loyal to you no matter what. Not letting people die in most instances just amounts to playing more of the game, and who wouldn't want to do that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
Moola posted:me3 did a lot of assuming about your Shepard If you didn't at least play Mass Effect 2 to 100% completion, then you got the default Mass Effect 3 story and dialog options and it was terrible and straight up ruins the entire game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:If you didn't at least play Mass Effect 2 to 100% completion, then you got the default Mass Effect 3 story and dialog options and it was terrible and straight up ruins the entire game. I played like 300% of mass effect 2 and there is still a lot of auto dialogue where Shepard just says things I didnt want to me3 sucks
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure that at some point in ME3's development, bioware decided that RPGs are actually old and busted and nobody wants them anymore, and that they just wanted to make slightly more complex Gears of War in space. ME3 isn't really an RPG, but it's extremely good when compared to gears of war.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/tibermoon/status/802024050432294912
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
Yeah I would kill for a game that was me1 in tone and scope with the combat from me3. Maybe this will be andromeda but I doubt it. All signs point towards bioware and ea thinking space guns aren't compatible with that kinda setup anymore. I'm expecting gears of war with aliens loving and only slightly less cringe inducing dialogue than gow4. Edit: that's not a no fetch quests comment. He would have just said so. Pozload Escobar fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Nov 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Zzulu posted:There was nothing wrong with the dream sequences It was because Shepard was guilty about running away from the fight on Earth and not particularly guilty about the Virmire KIA.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Mymla posted:I'm pretty sure that at some point in ME3's development, bioware decided that RPGs are actually old and busted and nobody wants them anymore, and that they just wanted to make slightly more complex Gears of War in space. This is defensible because the RPG mechanics are by far the worst part of ME1.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Alain Post posted:This is defensible because the RPG mechanics are by far the worst part of ME1. RPG mechanics are not the defining part of an RPG, the ability to role-play is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
A Buff Gay Dude posted:They were dumb cheap devices that betrayed exactly how drained of talent the writing squad had become after 3 games. This except "3 games" with "20 years".
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Note, he said no collecting varren bladders, he did not rule out fetch quests altogether. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Well, it'd be pretty hard to completely avoid quests where the point is to go get a thing and bring it back. Hell, the basic structure of the hero's journey is basically a fetch quest where the thing being fetched could be anything, even ~~self-actualization~~. What people hate are quests that are nothing but collecting meaningless items from meaningless enemies, then turning them in for meaningless rewards, and this guy is saying they're trying to avoid those. Whether or not they actually did, of course...
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
The ones in DAI weren't meaningless because part of the game was collecting enough power and influence to unlock story missions. This was a fairly good concept because building an organization to respectability is kinda fun, and initially you and the organization have no real power. So helping dudes makes sense. Spread the good word. They did two thing wrong. First, they should have made it clear that the rewards were just power and influence, and not maybe a super cool piece of gear. Second, the underestimated sperging completionists and their ability to both do all such quests and then also bitch incessantly about doing such quests.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Watching numbers go up is not meaningful. This is something that many RPG designers don't get. Collecting 10 animal hides does not become compelling because it makes another meter go up when I do so. A Buff Gay Dude posted:They did two thing wrong. First, they should have made it clear that the rewards were just power and influence, and not maybe a super cool piece of gear. Second, the underestimated sperging completionists and their ability to both do all such quests and then also bitch incessantly about doing such quests. I have a bold statement about game design. If there is content in a game, it should be good, and not bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Making numbers go up in a video game is a good, and worthwhile, pursuit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
Alain Post posted:I have a bold statement about game design. If there is content in a game, it should be good, and not bad. Sure, ideally, but if there's bad content in a game that's pretty much completely ignorable, I don't think that content being in the game makes the game bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
exquisite tea posted:Making numbers go up in a video game is a good, and worthwhile, pursuit. I played Borderlands, and it caused me to develop several debilitating mental illnesses, so I disagree
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Mymla posted:Sure, ideally, but if there's bad content in a game that's pretty much completely ignorable, I don't think that content being in the game makes the game bad. I love Mass Effect 2 for the specific reason that it plays like someone asked the designers of Mass Effect 1 "Why is this in the game? It's bad, shouldn't it just be taken out?" repeatedly. It's a wonderfully designed game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Alain Post posted:I have a bold statement about game design. If there is content in a game, it should be good, and not bad. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
Fetch quests aren't inherently bad and sometimes they can be good. People play games for different reasons. And ME2 was the quintessential example of a game that took out too much. It was an enjoyable game but took things in a direction I didn't appreciate. A lot of the modern Bioware focus on "memorable" fanservicy characters and cosplaying tumblr-curators can be traced to that game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Bioware is the company that created Minsc. ME2's characters are actually some of the better, least-fanservicy ones they have ever made.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
If you can't notice the massive change in the way your relationships with the crew developed in me2 relative to me1 I don't know what to say. I didn't like it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Yeah for instance Liara stopped being the worst character of the entire series and Tali stopped being a Wikipedia article about Quarians
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
everyone except wrex was poo poo in me1
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Zzulu posted:everyone except wrex was poo poo in me1 Harsh. ... but fair????
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Part of that was the fact that each character in ME1 had to both serve as the personification of an entire race and a contrast against the dominant characteristics of those races to make them interesting. But in ME2 they all became space waifus for your power fantasies. Bad. Even Garrus lmao.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
A Buff Gay Dude posted:If you can't notice the massive change in the way your relationships with the crew developed in me2 relative to me1 I don't know what to say. I didn't like it. As said, Bioware's focus on the supporting cast started with Minsc/rewriting the BG2 plot so fan-favourite Imoen would stay alive. In NWN, party members got their own subplots which would dribble out across the course of the game. In KOTOR, party members become integral to the core plot (Bastila, Carth) rather than interchangeable perma-summons. Dragon Age's Morrigan is probably the first Bioware character designed with cosplay in mind. ME2 just happened to have a core concept of "Dirty Dozen in space" and also execute it really well, because ME2 is literally one of the best games of all time, they should put it in a museum or something it is so good
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Zzulu posted:everyone except wrex was poo poo in me1 Wrex was loving terrible, though. The only good thing you can say about him is that at least he's not Grunt.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Wrex was the only squadmate in ME1 that seemed to have their own agenda other than just following Shepard because of how insanely awesome Shepard was. And ME2 is supposed to be the "power fantasy" one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Garrus in ME1 is basically like "You are insanely awesome Shepard and I desperately want to be in your cool club because of how awesome you are"
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
The only function Garrus had in the first Mass Effect was to debate police procedure with the player as a function of the Paragon/Renegade morality system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Dr. Abysmal posted:The only function Garrus had in the first Mass Effect was to debate police procedure with the player as a function of the Paragon/Renegade morality system. There's not necessarily anything wrong with this. Characters can serve as focii for specific aspects of the game universe or mechanics. Not every character needs to have some deep and meaningful personal relationship with the powerful self insert protagonist. Also ME2 wasn't one of the greatest game of all time lmao. It was fun and certain aspects were very well done but come on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
ME2 was a well crafted game that was a critically flawed overreaction to some valid complaints against ME1. It also showed the first signs of bioware suffering EAs commercial influence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
It was the best game Bioware ever made.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
So much double posting...
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
A Buff Gay Dude posted:There's not necessarily anything wrong with this. Characters can serve as focii for specific aspects of the game universe or mechanics. Not every character needs to have some deep and meaningful personal relationship with the powerful self insert protagonist. There isn't, but then they completely changed his relationship with the protagonist for the remainder of the series because a bunch of weirdos wanted to gently caress him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 03:36 |
|
|
In ME1 I enjoyed exploring the setting a whole lot, but most of the characters were kind of bland and mostly served as exposition dumps. Most of my actual "I like and care about these characters" comes from playing ME2, where returning characters like Garrus and Tali become a lot more interesting and distinct, and new ones like Mordin and Legion were great characters start to finish. But ME 2 also has a few big misses like whatever the heck they were thinking when they made Jack. I never really liked Liara in any of the games (or the asari in general). Wrex was always great though it took me a little while to warm up to him on my first ME1 playthrough because he's an rear end in a top hat to you at first. Bioware also seemed to feel the need to make the two human party members in ME1/2 "relatable" but ended up just making them kind of bland and lame instead. Zaeed/Kasumi were way more interesting characters than Kaidan/Ashley/Jacob/Miranda, but were diminished by being half-assed DLC add-ons instead of full party members. I think they kind of fixed that with Vega in ME3 though I only played through that one once and didn't use him much and I don't think I'm ever replaying that game unless its to catalog exactly why its so bad. I always found the whole space dating sim part of the series kind of creepy and embarrassing so I skipped over most of those, not sure how that colors my views of the characters. The only mistakes ME2 commits that I can't overlook are Jack, big skeletor as the final boss, and sex slavery planet. The suicide mission sequence was one of the coolest and most rewarding things I've played in a video game, and honestly it was basic as hell. Spend the game getting to know your characters and building relationships with them, then have a final level where you have to use that knowledge and those relationships to succeed. I keep waiting around for another game to rip it off and do it better, but I'm still waiting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 21:20
|
|
