|
Post by jklinders on Jun 18, 2010 0:58:11 GMT 1
It's all relative. At the end of the day, all games subject their players to some kind of plan that could be equated as being 'on rails'. The difference is how the illusion of control is presented to the player.
I found in half Life 2 (which never doubt was a well put together game) there was no illusion of control from step one. One path, one direction, no rest. I remember one oasis of respite at Black Mesa at least until all hell breaks loose and off you go to Ravenhurst. Forward forward forward, stay on track the entire game. The narrative was great with basically a couple of days worth of events with no break in the action, but I find it hard to believe anyone could manage such a feat with absolutely no rest at all. In the end I found I had no illusion of any control of the events, I was just a puppet controlling Gordan Freeman. This kind of thing put me off shooters altogether for a long time.
Other games take a different approach, sure you cannot leave the narrative path set forth, but at least you can pick the direction your path takes. Do I go to Noveria first or do I go to Feros? I can't choose to go to Earth because that is off the path I am allowed, but I can at least suspend my disbelief and feel like I actually have control over the narrative.
Half Life 2 had a decent story, but when I play a game for the story I want to think I have a bit of input into it. Instead i am a mute observer. As a shooter **puts on asbestos suit** half life does not do enough differently to hold my attention. As a story I have no input, so I never finished it. Maybe I'll pick it up again, maybe not.
So the tl,dr version of this small wall o' text is, I like the developers to throw me a bone, let me think I have control over the story and not stand behind me with a cattle prod going 'no that way dumb@$$' That does not mean everyone should feel that way, it's just me.
|
|
|
Post by ommadawn on Jun 18, 2010 3:55:52 GMT 1
I get what you're saying. Games along the lines of Deus Ex and System Shock 2 give you far more freedom to achieve your goals the way you want to, and are probably better templates for a decent treatment of the ME universe.
I have to admit, I'm really curious about what type of games will eventually be released to keep the ME franchise going once ME3 is done and dusted.
|
|
|
Post by Cali on Jun 18, 2010 5:07:42 GMT 1
I still think the idea of an RTS would be pretty cool. Doesn't matter if it's along the lines of StarCraft or Dawn of War.
|
|
renegadepoint
Lieutenant
Lets all take a step back from the weird alien impaling devices...
Posts: 188
|
Post by renegadepoint on Jun 18, 2010 10:04:08 GMT 1
Mass Effect RTS would make me wet my pants with glee. I'm not that good at strategy games, but I love them to death.
I think a ME RPG would be a very good thing if done right. Though, I can't think of many ways to do it wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Tillian Panthesis on Jun 18, 2010 11:09:34 GMT 1
I suppose an RTS would be alright if they done a good job but I'm not a big fan of RTS mind you, in a "not my cup of tea" kind of a way.
I've still prefer the RPG pathway, but a spin off ME games to be base on another character and setting. Something similar to Wing Commander: Privateer 1, where you play off as a low time merc or privateer located somewhere inside the terminus system, where you have the choice to side factions like the System Alliance, turian Hierarchy, Merchants, Slaver, Pirates, Aria's syndicate faction (if she's still a ruler by the time ME3 finishes off), etc, etc; depending on your actions and choice with them. Also it gives BioWare an excuse to let the players to chose a different alien race besides the default human we played so far.
Sadly, I think it's merely wishful thinking the way the series is heading.
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Jun 18, 2010 14:31:37 GMT 1
I don't really see a Me RTS working without breaking most of the existing lore. There are 2 problems with an ME RTS just involving the council races. 1 is they are very unlikely to fall out with each other in open war, though I do not doubt that the Turians would be more than happy to exploit the weaknesses of the other if they got weak enough. And 2, the tech is too 'samey' between all the races for any kind of diversity of tactics that is loved by a typical RTS gamer. So a lot of the game lore would have to be broken, kind of like in those old Dune RTS's where the battles played out in ways never envisioned by Frank Herbert.
I see similar problems with a council races vs reapers angle. The reapers seem to build themselves one way...big.
One area sadly lacking in the gaming spectrum is the space trader mercenary angle. Again we are likely breaking lore as only ships frigate sized or bigger seem able to use Mass relays. Further fighters and their pilots are pretty much disposable in the ME universe.
That would leave us with the very likely MMO or another installment of ME only without Shepard. My 2 pesos.
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Jun 18, 2010 14:46:47 GMT 1
I get what you're saying. Games along the lines of Deus Ex and System Shock 2 give you far more freedom to achieve your goals the way you want to, and are probably better templates for a decent treatment of the ME universe. I have to admit, I'm really curious about what type of games will eventually be released to keep the ME franchise going once ME3 is done and dusted. I'm glad you mentioned it. Alpha Protocol, which I reviewed in Knight's thread last week, handles player choice very well. Better in fact than any game I have ever played. The Witcher did well too, but it's consequences were never very large. Whole sections of story change based on your actions, and douchbag Micheal Thorton is 10 times the cretin that douchbag Commander Shepard is. As flawed as that game was I hope other developers took notice, because that is how player choice should be handled.
|
|
N7v1K0
Lieutenant
This one has no time for your solid waste excretions.
Posts: 171
|
Post by N7v1K0 on Jun 18, 2010 18:33:02 GMT 1
RTS? I love RTS!
|
|
|
Post by Knightfall on Jun 18, 2010 18:36:48 GMT 1
You guys have a good point there. See, I grew up thinking Bioware products were the pinnacle of choice-based games, but it appears that isn't so. I read this article (http://hellmode.com/2010/06/11/fallouts-forgotten-revolution) about the difference in how choices were presented in the original Fallout, and how different they were from Dragon Age. Really interesting, and kind of exciting.
I agree, I hope more game developers pay attention. Choice should be much deeper than an alternate ending or a discount in a store. It should get people killed, change the story, change the world. Fable II kinda tried to do this, though minimally so. xD
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Jun 18, 2010 23:40:16 GMT 1
Any RTS has lots of choice and open world stuff. What's special about Bioware is how they mix that with excellent story and characters. This is why I like Bioware so much - they mix story-telling and role-playing perfectly.
Fallout has a big open world, and Fable II has all its top hats and mad stuff - but only Bioware games make me really, really care about my party, or make me actually miss my protagonist when the story is over. And I still feel like my choices made a difference.
|
|
renegadepoint
Lieutenant
Lets all take a step back from the weird alien impaling devices...
Posts: 188
|
Post by renegadepoint on Jun 19, 2010 6:49:10 GMT 1
i have a hard time envisioning a Mass Effect game I wouldn't enjoy. Maybe I've turned fanboy.
hey that rhymed.
|
|
|
Post by Tillian Panthesis on Jun 19, 2010 15:24:26 GMT 1
I'm going to sound like an idiot but if BioWare have to make a ME RTS, they had to add one thing into the game to make the lore work... Wormholes. Yeah you hear me. Wormholes. I've ran into some article on wikipedia the other day about Wormholes and as I was reading through, I had a feeling that with this Dark Energy speculation crap for ME3, it might have some connection to the Wormhole theory. For those that don't know what is a Wormhole, here's the article in the question. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WormholeI know you're about to ask, "how's that speculation would work for a ME RTS?" Jk mention a few threads ago that there are certain problems when trying to implement within the RTS genre like most of the races within the Milky way galaxy is not unstable enough to have an all out open war and the idea of having a continuous fight between the organics and the reapers beyond the "Shepard" trilogy seem to be a bit of a cop out. However, the wormhole theory might be able actually to work around it. Not only it helps to make the current trilogy to come in full circle with the idea diverting it's technology away from the reaper technology pathways in order to get them off balance, but also an opening of a new game where some foolish citadel scouting fleet uses the wormhole technology and crashes into a hostile civilization, creating a war outbreak between the Milky Way sector and some unknown space area. So, yeah... that's my stupid, high in moment idea.
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Jun 19, 2010 17:11:20 GMT 1
Back when I spent time in the Bioware forums there was a bit of crazy speculation about the whole dark energy angle that was not quite so crazy. Specifically that it was possible that excessive use of Mass Effect tech was driving an increase in dark energy. This would effectively accelerate the end of the universe as it is theorized that dark energy is basically tearing matter apart. AFIK there is no link between dark energy and wormholes, but God only knows how this angle will tie into the third game.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Glow on Jun 20, 2010 4:08:56 GMT 1
Yeah, I think Mass Effect 3 will involve getting a crazy ass superweapon to take out a lot of reapers in one blow. Probably using dark energy, whatever that is.
|
|
|
Post by Knightfall on Jun 20, 2010 5:41:15 GMT 1
I would actually be somewhat disappointed if ME went the way of space/time distortion to end the trilogy. I got a face full of that during Lost's series finale...and Battlestar Galactica. xD
|
|