Mass Effect Andromeda Will Have Witcher-Like Meaningful Side Quests

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

I say we really need to remind ourselves that its people who make games, not the name of the development team behind it.
(I can't be bothered to google and look into it but) if creative force behind Mass Effect 3 and the new game are different people, why not give them the chance?

I wish them luck nonetheless. I just finished Witcher3: Hearts of Stone 20 minutes ago and it reminds me how ambitious of a goal they're trying to reach here.

fix-the-spade:

Dalisclock:
Hey, I'm willing to play Witcher 3 IN SPACE!

Remember what EA and Bioware said about the end of Mass Effect 3? Remember how it wouldn't boil down to a simple choice of good, bad and neutral?

The Witcher 3 is a mighty lofty goal to aim for. I'll believe that Bioware can do it when I see them do it, not when a Bioware talking head name checks a particularly excellent game.

As I said, I'd love to see Bioware pull it off, but I'm not holding my breath.

not gonna lie little worried because while the witcher 3 was a good game the side quest were, to put it bluntly, stupid time wasting bullshit that was needed to beat the game. I like games that respect my time but tell a good story, I don't like games that have side quests that take 4 hours to do and are dam near mandatory to beat the game.

MC1980:

Nimcha:

fix-the-spade:

Oh I'm sorry I forgot that in Bioware land moral choices are called Blue, Red and Green.

Silly me.

None of the final choices corresponded with good evil or neutral.

That's your argument? Semantics? If you're going to defend the game, atleast do so with an actual point. What, so instead of morality, it's different RGB values. Big whoop. Next you'll tell me the endings are each so incredibly different because of a few seconds of difference in cutscenes and the (DLC) epilogue jpegs have extra shit put on them in Photoshop. Oh, and Lance Henriksen has a few extra lines. Please.

Way to not tackle the core of the issue that was raised.

Semantics? Have you even played the game at all? The different choices have a huge impact on the universe. As do a lot of the choices you make in the game.

Nimcha:

MC1980:

Nimcha:

None of the final choices corresponded with good evil or neutral.

That's your argument? Semantics? If you're going to defend the game, atleast do so with an actual point. What, so instead of morality, it's different RGB values. Big whoop. Next you'll tell me the endings are each so incredibly different because of a few seconds of difference in cutscenes and the (DLC) epilogue jpegs have extra shit put on them in Photoshop. Oh, and Lance Henriksen has a few extra lines. Please.

Way to not tackle the core of the issue that was raised.

Semantics? Have you even played the game at all? The different choices have a huge impact on the universe. As do a lot of the choices you make in the game.

Have you? Your response seems to come from being starstruck by the game telling you "OMG, your decisuns mattereded soooo much to the galaxey!?!?!?". Mine comes from the actual game being 96% the same no matter what the fuck you do and did, upto and including the ending.

"OMG, the red ending I destroyed the Rupors, but the blue ending I become the rupors as DA SHEPPARD that protects the galaxy, and the green one is a magic machine synergy thing that is soooo different too! What stark difference!"

Yet, the presentation is 90% percent the same between each of them, the only difference being how much extra 5 second cutscenes they have, which also happens to correlate to how progressively stupid each of them is.

And don't even try to bring up the dlc PowerPoint presentation narrated by Lance Henriksen as a show of how 'vast' and 'long-reaching' the consequences of your actions were. You get a variety of jpegs depending on your choices, while Lance Henriksen talks about how you totally rebuilt everything, and stuff is jiffy. That is literally the dirt cheapest, laziest, flaccid, non-satisfying and underserving thing you could have possibly done, except for maybe not doing anything at all. Which they did originally.

Look, I got to look at a picture of a cartoon baby krogan for 3 seconds! Man my choice in how to deal with an issue in the making for 3 games sure payed off. Oh, look, quarians and geth are hanging out on that kinda sloppily made image, they bros now! I sure feel the result of 100 hours worth of game in this, 20 of which dealt with stuff like this!

Your choices only matter as much as the game is spending time and effort in showing off the result of each choice. As it stands, across about a 100 hours of game across 3 titles, it amounts to 3 minutes of showing a slim menagerie of jpegs. You what.

No amount of "buh-but my choices are sooo huge and impactful, the game is telling me that constantly" will make that be true, when 95% of the game is presented in the same manner with only the slightest, most token changes, most of which exists just to funnel the game along to the same path.

And, have you heard the news? Andromeda even shitcanned that. The whole ark thing started at the same time as ME2. 3 is not even canon to the new game baby, and most of 2 isn't either. Genophage is back, woohoo.

Also, you still ignored the main point of the original quoted posters argument. Because you got bogged down on a complaint of semantics. Again. Oh, so I was a meanie to the game, so fucking what, argue the point that was made, not the word that hurt your poor soul.

Darth Rosenberg:

Steven Bogos:
Either way it looks like Andromeda is going to be bigger and better than any prior Mass Effect game.

C'mon, man, you're a better writer than that... That reads like a paid-for preview or PR. Unjustified, empty hype is the last thing this industry or medium needs more of. [...]

Well, it's going to be bigger, certainly. Better? I'm skeptical.

Better... how? My hands-down favorite of the trilogy was Mass Effect 1, despite the horrible inventory system and Mako missions. The story was and remains unique to RPGs - a hard science fiction setting with a story that made sense. ME2 and ME3 were fun, but from a story perspective they were a huge disappointment, particularly ME2.

If it's the same writing team on ME:A (and I believe it is), I'm not holding out a lot of hope for a return to the franchise's roots. I'm sure we'll get great characters and beautiful locations... and a story that makes no sense and disintegrates into a steaming mess instead of reaching a satisfying conclusion.

MC1980:

Nimcha:

fix-the-spade:

Oh I'm sorry I forgot that in Bioware land moral choices are called Blue, Red and Green.

Silly me.

None of the final choices corresponded with good evil or neutral.

That's your argument? Semantics? If you're going to defend the game, atleast do so with an actual point. What, so instead of morality, it's different RGB values. Big whoop. Next you'll tell me the endings are each so incredibly different because of a few seconds of difference in cutscenes and the (DLC) epilogue jpegs have extra shit put on them in Photoshop. Oh, and Lance Henriksen has a few extra lines. Please.

Way to not tackle the core of the issue that was raised.

Objectively speaking, he is correct. It wasnt a moral choice technically. Being good is different to it being a moral or not being a moral choice.

Also technically, Witcher 3 doesnt have much of an effect with 99% of quests either. Little changes if at all.

Stupid game, the books are better.

Charcharo:

MC1980:

Nimcha:

None of the final choices corresponded with good evil or neutral.

That's your argument? Semantics? If you're going to defend the game, atleast do so with an actual point. What, so instead of morality, it's different RGB values. Big whoop. Next you'll tell me the endings are each so incredibly different because of a few seconds of difference in cutscenes and the (DLC) epilogue jpegs have extra shit put on them in Photoshop. Oh, and Lance Henriksen has a few extra lines. Please.

Way to not tackle the core of the issue that was raised.

Objectively speaking, he is correct. It wasnt a moral choice technically. Being good is different to it being a moral or not being a moral choice.

Yeah, if you're a smartalec and want to argue in bad faith. The crux of the argument was that the devs promised it wouldn't be a simple choice between A, B, C endings, yet it totally was, and even then all the endings were mostly the same.

That was the object of the original posters complaint. So the original comment didn't phrase it 100% correctly, whoop-de-fucking-doo. Nimcha here decided to contribute with a completely pointless tangent that doesn't in any way refute anything said, thinking he really showed him what for. All it was was a slight correction of terms. Guess what, no one gives a fuck, rebuke the actual argument.

Sorry for the hostile tone. Just slightly annoyed at textbook non-arguments as illustrated by Nimcha here.

MC1980:

Yeah, if you're a smartalec and want to argue in bad faith.

You're the one arguing in bad faith(EDIT: a visit to wikipedia revealed that -i did not know what that meant. Apologies for an honest mistake). You assume that Nimcha had bad intentions. From where I sit it's possible that Nimcha thought the most important aspect of the ending was the lack of clearly game-defined morality in the ultimate choice. I haven't played any Bioware game but it is my understanding that they usually use strictly defined Good path/Bad path choices(Open palm vs. Closed Fist; Jedi vs. Sith). Having a game that actually has some ambiguity in its final choice can be compelling enough if hard coded moral choices is where you're coming from. I understand that a choose-an-ending-o-tron 3000 can be disappointing but if it is not a deal-breaker but having a strictly defined moral label on the choices would be then it is not bad faith to address that point.

MC1980:

The crux of the argument was that the devs promised it wouldn't be a simple choice between A, B, C endings, yet it totally was, and even then all the endings were mostly the same.

Thank you for clarifying. It was not obvious from fix-the-spade's original post.

MC1980:

That was the object of the original posters complaint. So the original comment didn't phrase it 100% correctly, whoop-de-fucking-doo. Nimcha here decided to contribute with a completely pointless tangent that doesn't in any way refute anything said, thinking he really showed him what for. All it was was a slight correction of terms. Guess what, no one gives a fuck, rebuke the actual argument.

If the most important aspect is the lack of attributed morality in the choice then it wasn't a pointless tangent, and it refuted the crux of the argument. What Nimcha thought of the discussion is irrelevant, but I think you're reading too much into his/her posts.

Regarding the point that choices only matter as much as they are able to show-case the result of the choices... yeah, that's the ideal scenario, and it's using the medium at it's strongest. However if the lore up to that point has been strong enough then the very little visual difference between the endings can be enough for the player to reflect upon his/her choices and consider what their entire adventure has lead them to choose and what their choice meant. That enough can carry enough meaning for it to be meaningful, regardless of the small differences. You might consider it cheating to claim that it's the player that has to derive meaning, but the meaning of the game itself is non-existant; all that has happened is that a whole bunch of ones and zeros has switched values.

This is a Bioware game right? MAss Effect.....let's see....yep still Bioware. That means this claim to "meaningful" side quest is nothing but hype bullshit. Bioware can tell some great main stories, but their side quest game is weak.

CritialGaming:
This is a Bioware game right? MAss Effect.....let's see....yep still Bioware. That means this claim to "meaningful" side quest is nothing but hype bullshit. Bioware can tell some great main stories, but their side quest game is weak.

Idk man. Techinically the "loyalty" quests in 2 and 3 (and the dragon age games) were considered side quests since you didn't have to do them. And they were good and meaningful.

I mean sometimes Bioware learns the wrong lessons from their failures but they've shown the desire to at least attempt to improve in some fashion every game. Maybe this is the time they learn about non companion side quests. I mean maybe.

undeadsuitor:

CritialGaming:
This is a Bioware game right? MAss Effect.....let's see....yep still Bioware. That means this claim to "meaningful" side quest is nothing but hype bullshit. Bioware can tell some great main stories, but their side quest game is weak.

Idk man. Techinically the "loyalty" quests in 2 and 3 (and the dragon age games) were considered side quests since you didn't have to do them. And they were good and meaningful.

I mean sometimes Bioware learns the wrong lessons from their failures but they've shown the desire to at least attempt to improve in some fashion every game. Maybe this is the time they learn about non companion side quests. I mean maybe.

we can only hope. If they give me a Mass effect game with Witcher side quests then I will be a very happy man.

Bedinsis:

MC1980:

Yeah, if you're a smartalec and want to argue in bad faith.

You're the one arguing in bad faith(EDIT: a visit to wikipedia revealed that -i did not know what that meant. Apologies for an honest mistake). You assume that Nimcha had bad intentions. From where I sit it's possible that Nimcha thought the most important aspect of the ending was the lack of clearly game-defined morality in the ultimate choice. I haven't played any Bioware game but it is my understanding that they usually use strictly defined Good path/Bad path choices(Open palm vs. Closed Fist; Jedi vs. Sith). Having a game that actually has some ambiguity in its final choice can be compelling enough if hard coded moral choices is where you're coming from. I understand that a choose-an-ending-o-tron 3000 can be disappointing but if it is not a deal-breaker but having a strictly defined moral label on the choices would be then it is not bad faith to address that point.

Here's the thing, Nimcha didn't express anything of the sort in his original response to fix-the-spade. The basic logic of the situation is this:
- Content of article: Guy at Bioware says they know DAI's sidequests were rancid, so they're making them like W3's
- fix-the-spade: Brings up instance where the lead designer of a Bioware game outright lied about a major part of the game, thus openly questioning if the statement in the article should even be taken in good faith, as the company has, to the public, lied before. (Cynical implication being that they're trying to latch onto the success of a far more well recieved game, Witcher 3, to sell their game.)
- Nimcha: The word you used is inaccurate.

...How is that, in any form, a reasonable and focused response to fix-the-spade? His first response was barely a sentence! "And it didn't." Second comment ain't any better. He took offence to the fact that spade used the word 'morality' as a shorthand to describe the situation. That's it. He didn't express any type of platitudes, about how the tricolor ending's morality is so unique or whatever. He just burped up a short sentence that, on its own, comes of as a snide 'No, you're wrong', and that's it. Also, as a result, shoving spade's original point about the questionability of BioWare's word under the rug with a semantics argument about words, which is why I wrote he is arguing in bad faith.

Bedinsis:

MC1980:

That was the object of the original posters complaint. So the original comment didn't phrase it 100% correctly, whoop-de-fucking-doo. Nimcha here decided to contribute with a completely pointless tangent that doesn't in any way refute anything said, thinking he really showed him what for. All it was was a slight correction of terms. Guess what, no one gives a fuck, rebuke the actual argument.

If the most important aspect is the lack of attributed morality in the choice then it wasn't a pointless tangent, and it refuted the crux of the argument. What Nimcha thought of the discussion is irrelevant, but I think you're reading too much into his/her posts.

Sadly enough, I'm reading only as much into his words as he has written. There wasn't any debate about morality or lack thereof, and how important it was/wasn't between spade and Nimcha. Spade didn't even imply to start a conversation in that direction, either, and Nimcha sure as hell didn't try to lead into an argument about morality. All he did was make snappy remark saying spade is wrong.

Bedinsis:

Regarding the point that choices only matter as much as they are able to show-case the result of the choices... yeah, that's the ideal scenario, and it's using the medium at it's strongest. However if the lore up to that point has been strong enough then the very little visual difference between the endings can be enough for the player to reflect upon his/her choices and consider what their entire adventure has lead them to choose and what their choice meant. That enough can carry enough meaning for it to be meaningful, regardless of the small differences. You might consider it cheating to claim that it's the player that has to derive meaning, but the meaning of the game itself is non-existant; all that has happened is that a whole bunch of ones and zeros has switched values.

See, here's the thing. Saying that the whole thing is a meaningless excersise anyway and all that matters is what you get out of it is true, not really relevant, but true. However, that in no way describes the quality of the game. Neither does my or your ability to think hours on end in a mental masturbation session about it. I can do that whenever, at the behest of any given thing if I have time. Taking away all this personal faff, and seeing if the game goes to lengths to give meaning to choices is what shows the quality of the game, design, writing, etc., not me going out of my way to feel meaningful about it.

It must be nice to have such little imagination. A tip for when you're next playing an RPG: the idea is that you participate in the story. If the story fails to immerse you then the game is not for you. It happens.

SlumlordThanatos:
When talking about CDPR vs. Bioware, remember that Bioware has been making great story-driven games for longer than CDPR has even existed. The Witcher is a high bar to aim for, but then again, what Bioware needed was to realize that their most recent games aren't nearly as good as their classics, like the original Mass Effect, DA: Origins, Balder's Gate, and so on.

What does it matter how long Bioware has been making games, it's just the company name. A lot of the people who worked on the classics have left for other jobs and well you know, people in creative fields can end up losing the skills that made them special in the first place. Francis Ford Coppola made what are widely regarded as some of the best films ever 40 years ago, but nobody's queuing up to see his new movies.

Also on the subject of time Mass Effect 2, the last Bioware game to get near-universal praise is now 7 years old. At this point I'm really doubtful Bioware can turn it round.

You know guys, Bioware ain't trying to reach the bar of Witcher 3. They're trying to go for the first Witcher's standard of sidequests.

Will all the meaningful side quests involve banging aliens? This is important to me. I want to RP my main being on the quest for space dongs.

Maybe they'll have a side quest that explains why all the characters in the game look like they've had their faces caved in by a shovel.

The Lunatic:
Maybe they'll have a side quest that explains why all the characters in the game look like they've had their faces caved in by a shovel.

It was a long trip from Earth to Andromeda. You can only play "Headbutt the Krogan" for so long.

OT; I wonder if Preston Garvey has somehow sneaked aboard, and will tell you your Settlements are in trouble, or send you out somewhere to establish a new outpost. I did like the side quests in Witcher 3, but what took me out of that game was the Skald region, and all the random loot locations out in the middle of the ocean. Took me almost 9 hours to get all that random side loot. Though selling it did make me more money than what I know what to do with.

Oh yes, sidequests. As long as they aren't "Go there, get 50 flowers and/or ore." It's hard to mess up sidequests.

Valok:
Yeah.. and Mass Effect 3 has 16 meaningful, different endings right?

It is LOOKING good but that's the thing isn't it? It always looks good. I'll keep an eye on trustworthy reviews because my faith on Bioware is pretty much zero after that disaster.

Thing of it is?

image

image

image

They aren't even managing THAT much. At least as far as character design.

SlumlordThanatos:
When talking about CDPR vs. Bioware, remember that Bioware has been making great story-driven games for longer than CDPR has even existed. The Witcher is a high bar to aim for, but then again, what Bioware needed was to realize that their most recent games aren't nearly as good as their classics, like the original Mass Effect, DA: Origins, Balder's Gate, and so on.

The vast majority, if not all of Bioware's original personnel involved in those classics have left for other companies or retired. Outside of those people Bioware is just another name.

Nimcha:
Can't blame them too much for just catering to the safe audience.

There was NOTHING new or innovative about Dragon Age 2 or Mass Effect 3. Dwarves without beards? Superfluous at best, like saying "the main character in trailers has a mustache", it doesn't mean shit.

Maybe it was "new" to Bioware, but if Bioware has been THAT formulaic they consider "Dwarves without beards" new, then they need to retire.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.