Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: Det. Bullock on November 25, 2017, 08:56:15 am
-
Pretty sure Bioware ruined Mass Effect all on their own.
It's clear they have NDAs up their collective bum but many of the problems of their games after the EA aquisition reek of EA being EA and imposing stuff on them like the unnecessary multiplayer in Mass Effect 3.
-
Except Mas Effect 3's multiplayer was the best part of the game. ****ty writing is what ruined Mass Effect 3, and you can lay that squarely on the shoulders of Mac Walters.
-
Except Mas Effect 3's multiplayer was the best part of the game. ****ty writing is what ruined Mass Effect 3, and you can lay that squarely on the shoulders of Mac Walters.
The writing is no worse than in the first two, it's still the same kind of shlocky b-movie stuff but with endearing character interactions.
You can clearly see the influence of EA focus groups all over the place, the presence of multiplayer ("all games must have multiplayer!") and the new art style (which started with 2 ditching spacesuits for the leves that should require them, ME3 only took it farther) are what really makes it visible.
Multiplayer was stupid and unnecessary, it's like saying that the single bay-esque action scene in what would otherwise be a subdued family drama is done better than the rest of the movie.
Hell at launche muyltiplayer was necessary to get the best ending, because EA wanted to sell Mass Effect to the people who play multiplayer even though it wasn't the franchise original target audience.
And note: this isn't the first time EA screws with the software houses it buys, remember Origin Systems.
-
Writing in ME2 and 3 was absolutely worse than it was in ME1. ME2's godawful story was saved by the character stuff, but ME3's wasn't. This isn't just the ending. ME3's story is a cluster**** from start to finish. Calling out the multiplayer makes no sense, because ME3's gameplay was by far the best of the series, and the multiplayer was damn fun. If it wasn't for the multiplayer, I wouldn't have touched ME3 again after finishing the story. As it is, I played the MP far longer than I played the SP.
It's so weird to me how people are completely unwilling to give Bioware responsibility for **** over which they have complete control, like bad writing. By all accounts, EA gave Bioware a huge amount of freedom in developing ME. Yeah, EA's a ****ty company, but no, ME3 wasn't ruined by EA meddling. It was ruined by writing. I can say that definitively because the gameplay got better with each game.
Here, have a read. (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=27792)
-
Writing in ME2 and 3 was absolutely worse than it was in ME1. ME2's godawful story was saved by the character stuff, but ME3's wasn't. This isn't just the ending. ME3's story is a cluster**** from start to finish. Calling out the multiplayer makes no sense, because ME3's gameplay was by far the best of the series, and the multiplayer was damn fun. If it wasn't for the multiplayer, I wouldn't have touched ME3 again after finishing the story. As it is, I played the MP far longer than I played the SP.
It's so weird to me how people are completely unwilling to give Bioware responsibility for **** over which they have complete control, like bad writing. By all accounts, EA gave Bioware a huge amount of freedom in developing ME. Yeah, EA's a ****ty company, but no, ME3 wasn't ruined by EA meddling. It was ruined by writing. I can say that definitively because the gameplay got better with each game.
Here, have a read. (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=27792)
Multiplayer is an extraneous element to the series, nothing more it's a symptom of trying to follow gaming trends rather than trying to make the best game they could.
I never play multiplayer because my connection sucks for a number of reasons I cannot control.
I don't see how that article proves your point, even there it's clear the changes in negative mostly happened with the so-called "EA phase" and a lot of stuff in 3 and 2 was made to reflect gaming trends of the time building the plot around them.
-
Multiplayer is an extraneous element to the series, nothing more it's a symptom of trying to follow gaming trends rather than trying to make the best game they could.
I never play multiplayer because my connection sucks for a number of reasons I cannot control.
I don't see how that article proves your point, even there it's clear the changes in negative mostly happened with the so-called "EA phase" and a lot of stuff in 3 and 2 was made to reflect gaming trends of the time building the plot around them.
Given the way ME was developed and how the multiplayer portion of it was handled, I don't think you can seriously make an argument that ME3 would have been a better game without it. Yes, it didn't need to be in there. But, flipside, ME3 provided a good enough framework to make it happen, and let's not forget that a Mass Effect multiplayer ~thing~ was in development during ME2's dev cycle.
And as for "making the best game they could"? That's, sorry, bull****. As aesaar pointed out, the one area where the ME series got worse over time was writing; the gameplay got better and better with each installment (specifically including ME Andromeda in this). You are making a false distinction here between "popular" and "good"; ME1 is a good game that I have no desire whatsoever to play again, whereas ME2 (and ME3 and MEA) are good to mediocre games that I still revisit. Bottom line: Making a game accessible to more players by streamlining its various systems and its UI is never a bad thing. No developer sets out to make a mediocre game.
-
Multiplayer is an extraneous element to the series, nothing more it's a symptom of trying to follow gaming trends rather than trying to make the best game they could.
I never play multiplayer because my connection sucks for a number of reasons I cannot control.
I don't see how that article proves your point, even there it's clear the changes in negative mostly happened with the so-called "EA phase" and a lot of stuff in 3 and 2 was made to reflect gaming trends of the time building the plot around them.
Given the way ME was developed and how the multiplayer portion of it was handled, I don't think you can seriously make an argument that ME3 would have been a better game without it. Yes, it didn't need to be in there. But, flipside, ME3 provided a good enough framework to make it happen, and let's not forget that a Mass Effect multiplayer ~thing~ was in development during ME2's dev cycle.
And as for "making the best game they could"? That's, sorry, bull****. As aesaar pointed out, the one area where the ME series got worse over time was writing; the gameplay got better and better with each installment (specifically including ME Andromeda in this). You are making a false distinction here between "popular" and "good"; ME1 is a good game that I have no desire whatsoever to play again, whereas ME2 (and ME3 and MEA) are good to mediocre games that I still revisit. Bottom line: Making a game accessible to more players by streamlining its various systems and its UI is never a bad thing.
I don't say that the multiplayer was the cause but that it was a symptom of EA interference, a game that is mostly a sort of hybrid of FPS and choose-you-own-adventure doesn't need it and most of all making it compulsory (at first) was a colossal dick move for a good chunk of this game audience since multiplayer wasn't the main appeal of the series.
And yes, even writing getting worse is part of it, if you look at it all the attempt at trying to be hard sci-fi of the first game got chucked out of the window to make it look more like Halo or Gears of War (also getting some more boobies/asses in, see Samara and Miranda) while the narrative about Shepard became more and more messianic to make the power fantasy even more over the top (I cannot find any better explanation for the death and resurrection at the start of 2).
-
Multiplayer is an extraneous element to the series, nothing more it's a symptom of trying to follow gaming trends rather than trying to make the best game they could.
Please look at this sentence you wrote again. You're setting up a false dichotomy here between "trying to follow gaming trends" on one side and "making the best game they could" on the other. A game that is following trends (in ME's case, by reducing clunky RPG elements and making the act of playing the game more exciting) isn't worse than a game that doesn't do this.
-
I don't say that the multiplayer was the cause but that it was a symptom of EA interference, a game that is mostly a sort of hybrid of FPS and choose-you-own-adventure doesn't need it and most of all making it compulsory (at first) was a colossal dick move for a good chunk of this game audience since multiplayer wasn't the main appeal of the series.
Hang on, are you saying that if you took ME3 exactly as it is, and then removed the multiplayer, the game would be better? This isn't a case of MP diverting resources away from other aspects of the game, because no way did the writing staff devote significant chunks of time to the multiplayer, and writing is where the series collapses.
You're saying MP proves EA meddled with the series and made it worse, but you're not getting that it's writing that ****ed ME over, and writing is one place where, by all accounts, EA left Bioware completely alone.
-
MP was from a separate studio and also very surprisingly good. Put a lot of hours into it.
I'm pretty sure ME2-as-soft-reboot was a consequence of ME2 effectively beginning the series for Playstation players.
-
I don't say that the multiplayer was the cause but that it was a symptom of EA interference, a game that is mostly a sort of hybrid of FPS and choose-you-own-adventure doesn't need it and most of all making it compulsory (at first) was a colossal dick move for a good chunk of this game audience since multiplayer wasn't the main appeal of the series.
Hang on, are you saying that if you took ME3 exactly as it is, and then removed the multiplayer, the game would be better? This isn't a case of MP diverting resources away from other aspects of the game, because no way did the writing staff devote significant chunks of time to the multiplayer, and writing is where the series collapses.
You're saying MP proves EA meddled with the series and made it worse, but you're not getting that it's writing that ****ed ME over, and writing is one place where, by all accounts, EA left Bioware completely alone.
Perhaps because writing in Mass Effect was never particularly good in the first place?
Do you remember that ridiculous romances in the first game where the only way to dismiss someone's advances was being a complete asshole for example?
There was some good lore and a will to try and make some sort of modern Star Trek (adventurous but also with an eye for some hard science here and there), but once that was gone only the bad parts remained.
Yes, it got worse but not that much worse.
-
If you believe the writing was never good and you don't believe its declining quality is a significant factor, then the ME games only got better as time went on, which in no way supports the idea that EA ruined Mass Effect.
I'm pretty sure ME2-as-soft-reboot was a consequence of ME2 effectively beginning the series for Playstation players.
I don't think so. ME2 was only released for PS3 a year after it was released for PC and Xbox 360.
-
If you believe the writing was never good and you don't believe its declining quality is a significant factor, then the ME games only got better as time went on, which in no way supports the idea that EA ruined Mass Effect.
It depends on what you think it's better, even gameplay isn't objective and I never liked the excessive streamlining of the character customization and the more conventinal gunplay of the sequel (got a bit better in 3 though), the thermal clips are one of the most ridiculous concepts ever.
It still works as a schlocky trek-like power fantasy though, more or less.
-
Do you remember that ridiculous romances in the first game where the only way to dismiss someone's advances was being a complete asshole for example?
Wait, hang on. When I played ME1, I dismissed a romance by saying "sorry, but I'm not interested". That's "being a complete asshole"?
-
Do you remember that ridiculous romances in the first game where the only way to dismiss someone's advances was being a complete asshole for example?
Wait, hang on. When I played ME1, I dismissed a romance by saying "sorry, but I'm not interested". That's "being a complete asshole"?
I remember the tone being rude, perhaps it changes depending on when you interrupt the romance?
Remember when this thread was about Battlefront? :D
It was a long time ago in a galaxy far away...
-
I've been playing through these games again lately. I think ME3 has easily the best main quest of the series, if you leave out the last 15 minutes or so. The other two feel short and insignificant, especially ME2. The writing and script are occasionally brilliant and usually merely decent in all three games, but by game standards I would say it's still pretty good. ME3 has fewer dialogue options, which is not a bad thing as there were too many very similar choices in the previous games. The one thing I really didn't like is what they did with the Reapers, which start off mysterious and awe-inspiring but become progressively dumbed down in the later games. I tried out ME3's multiplayer briefly but never played it much. Gameplay is not a strong point of this series in general and not why people play it, but did get better in each game in the series.
-
The main quest was dead to me once Shepard gets to the council and has probably the dumbest dialogues with them ever. I had to close my brain and pretend that didn't happen, but it was too late. I never got myself "immersed" in the story from that moment on.
And don't get me started on what they did to this nuanced interesting character they developed in ME2
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DPyZsnGX4AArhPA.jpg)
-
The main quest was dead to me once Shepard gets to the council and has probably the dumbest dialogues with them ever. I had to close my brain and pretend that didn't happen, but it was too late. I never got myself "immersed" in the story from that moment on.
And don't get me started on what they did to this nuanced interesting character they developed in ME2
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DPyZsnGX4AArhPA.jpg)
An urgent need to pit he player against hordes of evil space racists, in contrast to the blue, honorable and noble (and boring AF IMO)Alliance. It felt like they completely forgotten what they created in the previous game.
-
Even though Cerberus in ME2 was pretty stupid already
-
I found the inter-race dynamics more interesting than the overall
Shivan Reaper plot. The Reapers were portrayed best in the first game, where they seemed like a genuine threat and hadn't been relegated like they were in ME3. Still, I think the writers should have gone full Shivan and have the characters have 0 communication with the Reapers - no dialogue, no exposition, just a complete mystery, as if they were a force of nature.
Failing that, I would've liked to see the fallout from ME1, particularly if the player picks all-human council. ME2 completely missed a trick with that one, the consequences from this could've been huge, but they were subdued or non-existent in ME2 if memory serves.
I didn't even know ME3 had multiplayer when I played it.
-
Bioware tries to go full Shivan with the Reapers at the end of ME3 and says they exist to preserve the galaxy, but by then the Reapers have become lame and are revealed to be just another synthetic creation like the Geth. I thought Illusive Man was actually pretty good in ME3, and the control ending he wants feels like the best one in the end.
I'm just starting to play Andromeda, but have heard it's worse than any of the original games. I also don't see any way to speed up the game like you can in the Unreal engine. In ME1-3, I bind two keys to "slomo 1" and "slomo 3", which let me skip past all the boring parts and running around.
-
Here, have a read. (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=27792)
REAL-TIME KESTRELLIUS REACTION:
"Is this going to be Shamus's retrospective?"
*mouses over link*
"It IS Shamus's retrospective!"
I'm happy to find one more person who recognizes that ME2's writing was hot garbage. Although I dunno if I'd give that much credit to the character stuff -- it's competent, but not great. It's mostly just standard Hollywood-type stuff; daddy issues and whatnot. Not including Legion and the geth; all of that is phenomenal. (In 2, not 3. 3's treatment of the geth is in the running for the worst thing in the entire series.)
-
It's me. I ruined Mass Effect.
-
Thank you Battuta for finally admitting it. I had a suspicion for a while what with you and Mass Effect but you finally confirmed it. I appreciate that.
Here, have a read. (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=27792)
REAL-TIME KESTRELLIUS REACTION:
"Is this going to be Shamus's retrospective?"
*mouses over link*
"It IS Shamus's retrospective!"
I'm happy to find one more person who recognizes that ME2's writing was hot garbage. Although I dunno if I'd give that much credit to the character stuff -- it's competent, but not great. It's mostly just standard Hollywood-type stuff; daddy issues and whatnot. Not including Legion and the geth; all of that is phenomenal. (In 2, not 3. 3's treatment of the geth is in the running for the worst thing in the entire series.)
Me as a kid in high school was insanely disappointed by Mass Effect 2. I point to my number of playthroughs to my mounting disappointment ME1: 30ish. ME2: like 4. ME3: 2 (point whatever for videos)
-
My 4 year old told me while playing ME2 with his finger, "This particular piece of art feels cliché, derivative and overall lacking in any subtlety in its thematic outlook".
Then he went to poop in his pants. Oh well.
-
I played ME1 maybe 4 times.
I do not know how much I played ME2 and ME3. As interesting as ME1 was, I found it thoroughly unpleasant to actually play; the few excellent moments are thoroughly buried under a mountain of BioWare not having figured out how to make a good action game at this point.
ME2 and 3, for all the damage they did to the overall story of the ME universe, are just more enjoyable to experience for me. As much as I respect the time and effort Shamus Young and other commenters on the Internet have put into painting ME2 and later games as the worst thing ever, I cannot completely agree with them (That retrospective is, in my opinion, quite far off the mark in some of its criticisms)
-
To maybe get this thread into something resembling usefulness or interest, could you elaborate on where Young gets far off the mark?
-
I agree with The_E insofar as I enjoyed playing through ME2 more than ME1. The gameplay is just such a huge improvement. Shooting things feels better, there's way more variety in weapons and classes, and the levels are usually better designed. I ended up playing through it a lot more than ME1.
I haven't played through any of them since the first time I completed ME3 though. The gameplay was even better (so I played the **** out of MP), but the story collapse reached the point where I could no longer push through it, and it killed the earlier games too. Closing ME3 and refusing to make the final ABC choice is probably the last ME story experience I will ever have.
-
They did add a D option in the extended cut which is Shepard refusing to choose by the by :)
-
Personally, I think Shamus is right about the whole "story not adding up" but, as are the folks who talk about lore retcons. I also believe that these concerns are frankly immaterial. Mass Effect 2 is carried by interpersonal interaction - whether it is moments of Shepard doing (anti)heroic things or getting cozy with the Normandy's crew. The overreaching plot is a vast and distant thing, a story retold many times in various formats with slight variation, but the little moments are soundbites of Shepard's adventure are close and memorable. What do you think is more exciting - a discussion of biotics as explained by ME1 and why ME2 violated established canon, or a compilation of Shepard Badass Moments? Or should the better question be what can excite a larger audience?
As evidence for my case I present to you Avatar, the AAA blockbuster as evidence that for the salesman, what story you tell is less important than how you tell it.
-
IMO, the badass Shepard moments might be more immediately exciting, but they're way less interesting. In the same way Avatar is very visually striking but the story is vapid and shallow.
I actually have a very low opinion of Avatar because how just how much it put style before substance.