BioWare's difficult third album is nearly upon us.
For two years, the studio has been battling with one of the toughest questions ever faced by a games development unit: How do you follow-up one of the best-rated games of all time?
The Canadian giant wants to woo two audiences that don't easily snuggle together: the RPG heads who first sung about Mass Effect's brilliance, and the action-hungry mainstream crowd.
The former wants to make an idiosyncratic imprint, controlling the complex evolution of minutiae; the latter just wants to blow **** up.
Whose side are you on: The geeks or the luddites? You can only pick one - can't you?
We're talking to you, David Silverman - BioWare marketing boss and willing multi-audience fathomer.
I simply could not get started playing ME2 right after playing the first one, seeing as there's not a single trace of an RPG element in the sequel that's worth talking about. I hate it when developers dumb down a sequel. It happens way too often, imo.
If the Mass Effect series was supposed to be an action rpg, why implement it in the first game, only to remove it in the second game, only to implement it again in the third game? Really great logic there, BioWare.
No developer has tried something like this, but, what would work:
When you begin the game, you get a menu and choose whether you'd like a lot of customization and interaction or not (There would need to be more depth in the menu but that's the gist of it).
Those that chose all the customization and option (dialogue, loyalties, etc.) play the same game as those players, which chose the 'dumbed down' version but instead of just cut scenes and basic interaction with npc to receive missions, etc, more menus and interaction become available.
IE> Character Development: May be setup to have a choice of increasing either stamina, strength or tech one point per level and choose to increase biotics, weapons or tech another point of that level. OR You can have more detailed menus allowing players to micromanage small weapons, sniper rifles, tech, etc. The latter allows for fine tuning while the first option allows certain automatic ups of these sub-skills based on the broad selections.
IE> Interaction: Basic players can be led around with map markers and have short (right or wrong, help or deny) quests and most side quests can be outright ousted. Players wanting a more immersive experience would have all side quests open and more dialogue options.
Consider that the above is already done albeit on a smaller scale, in many games (for instance, some rpg's allow certain interactions with npc's based on your characters skill level in a particular area - this shouldn't be that difficult to transition to the above).
IMHO, the first developer to do this will score unprecedented sales of their IP.
I don't see it happening. ME1/2 were both garbage and if they're going to try to appeal ME3 to all party's it will suck even more. The scores on metacritic mean nothing to me either. The gameplay in ME is extremely easy, requires no critical thinking skills or strategy, and the dialogue is very mundane and stereotypical of a high budget RPG game.
No developer has tried something like this, but, what would work:
When you begin the game, you get a menu and choose whether you'd like a lot of customization and interaction or not (There would need to be more depth in the menu but that's the gist of it).
Those that chose all the customization and option (dialogue, loyalties, etc.) play the same game as those players, which chose the 'dumbed down' version but instead of just cut scenes and basic interaction with npc to receive missions, etc, more menus and interaction become available.
IE> Character Development: May be setup to have a choice of increasing either stamina, strength or tech one point per level and choose to increase biotics, weapons or tech another point of that level. OR You can have more detailed menus allowing players to micromanage small weapons, sniper rifles, tech, etc. The latter allows for fine tuning while the first option allows certain automatic ups of these sub-skills based on the broad selections.
IE> Interaction: Basic players can be led around with map markers and have short (right or wrong, help or deny) quests and most side quests can be outright ousted. Players wanting a more immersive experience would have all side quests open and more dialogue options.
Consider that the above is already done albeit on a smaller scale, in many games (for instance, some rpg's allow certain interactions with npc's based on your characters skill level in a particular area - this shouldn't be that difficult to transition to the above).
IMHO, the first developer to do this will score unprecedented sales of their IP.
The more choices, the more work you give devs and the more time it takes to get it done, playtested and polished.
Although I enjoyed ME1 and ME2, I have a feeling I may not like ME3 as much, considering how much I "liked" DA2. I just fear that BW may indeed sell out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheStealthyOne
Yeah, that's the joke. Mass Effect 2 is very, very overrated. But again, it's a matter of taste. Enjoy the games you want to enjoy.
Comes down to personal opinion. You may think Crysis 2 is the best game ever but I may think its rubbish. Just because one person thinks a certain way about something doesn't mean its true.
They already sold out in ME2 by adding weapon clips, removing heat and reducing the RPG combat to a very FPS experience. ME2 was any other shooter with a dialogue tree. The dialogue of course was excellent and it's a premium game. I never ever, ever will say it was a BAD game~ but it was a bad RPG and subpar as a Mass Effect game versus the first one. I don't see the third one being any different. The soul of this series is lost, but they can make it up with a quality story and some great dialogue and characters~ so I'm not going to complain... but the argument of it having sold out to the mainstream is done already. It ended quite awhile ago.
I think I'll just wait until the game is out. Mass Effect 2 dropped the ball on a number of levels after interviews like this, and the fact that they've set their sites on just about every audience under the sun leaves me very skeptical.
I'll be content if they at least offer a decent story this time around. It has to be good right? It's the conclusion after all.
The first Mass Effect was a stellar game in my opinion, and I just couldn't get myself to feel comfortable with the sequel. It just felt completely off, and from what little I have seen of ME3, I'm also not sure how I feel about purchasing the game before I can get it cheap. I wish those at Bioware were able to stick with their roots and continue to put out the quality of games that got the amount of acclaim their previous titles did. But I guess that is what happens when big companies want to keep buying out smaller ones and saturate the market with derivatives of previous releases.
And it worries me that the devs can't stop mentioning games like Gears of War and Assassin's Creed. What does AC have to do with ME?
Not sure how much I'll like this game as I was a bit disappointed with the squeal but I already know that I'll be getting it so here's hoping its awesome.
Actually, it isn't "unbeknownst" to me. I didn't argue the point. I was simply stating that this particular thread is on whether the game can sell big without selling out. My statement is based on this reality.
If you are saying that my 'proposal' is unrealistic, please explain how. Development costs, when juxtaposed to sales, are negligible. I'm not talking about companies like BreakAway Games or GameHouse. The biggest dogs in the kennel are being represented here.
I love that the guy before was implying that it was over-rated. You can say that about anything basically. The more mature way would have been to say "I don't like Mass Effect" and left it at that. And even then, your post is still pointless because nobody cares.
The Mass Effect series has done something that I really admire. They have taken the FPSRPG genre to a whole new level. The game is deep/worth exploring/well written like any RPG but it's got the action of a blockbuster FPS (COD, Halo, BF, etc). That's why I love Mass Effect and why I will definitely be buying 3 no matter what.
Originally Posted by Article
And even if you've played the games multiple times before - Mass Effect came out almost eight years ago - you're not going to remember all the details from when you played that game, right?
As long as it has the same amazing storytelling and character development I couldn't care less about overheating vs. ammo clips. Frankly I liked the overall storyarch of ME1 better than 2, but 2 had some great character interaction. I'm always "skeptical", and DA2 certainly was garbage, but so far ME series has brought nothing but fun.
Also, from various interviews I've seen with Bioware developers, they seem to genuinely care about player opinion and criticism. They're quite active with their fanbase on forums, and take everything they hear to heart. Obviously they can't appeal to everyone, but they do a good enough job.
@"overrated"
No one cares whether or not you think the reviews were deserved, the fact is ME2 was one of the highest rated games in recent times.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Ask a question
Ask a question
Overclock.net
27.8M posts
541.5K members
Since 2004
A forum community dedicated to overclocking enthusiasts and testing the limits of computing. Come join the discussion about computing, builds, collections, displays, models, styles, scales, specifications, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!