Mass Effect 3

[Nepenthe]

Nostalgia aside, the great 3 BW at that time. NWN, KOTOR, BG2.

Which is basically what got them the public's attention; the writing from that time was very different or maybe it was the format.

IMO just the fact that you have NWN on your list there proves that its nostalgia.

 

I tried replaying KOTOR the other day to see how much of my impressions of it were nostalgia or it actually being really good, but unfortunately I couldn't get sound out of it no matter what I did. Having trouble running IE games as well, which could possibly give me some serious bias for the current gen games, which work fine for me.

 

Of course, it seems to me like the reverse is true for a lot of people, with some people having reached a "spurned lover" stage.

[RPGmasterBoo]

With Bioware the writing was always on a similar level. BGII was slightly better than everything else, and the newer titles suggest a decline.

 

The problem is with weak uninteresting characters and endless repetition of the same personalities and similar dialog. Bioware games are full of uncinematic wankers like Carth Onasi and Jacob with mild, boring personalities.

 

They have no presence. Even BGII had a few such characters, but with a large number to choose from it wasn't an issue.

Edited April 3, 2011 by RPGmasterBoo

[Calax]

Basically, the argument boils down to,

 

TV shows can have character moments naturally during the course of the situation, while Games have to have the character moments feel forced because of the nature of the game.

[Orogun01]

@Boo: Agree, BW does a lot characters as filler.

 

@Nephente: Despite being the worst of the 3 NWN did garner attention, even though BW writing has always been similar it used to be that the bad parts weren't as bad and the good ones were better. I know that I wasn't used to be so annoyed and conscious about the storyline when I was playing KOTOR. Maybe I don't care for all the handholding in these new games. I can't make a choice without a companion butting in and telling me what to do and boiling everything down to 2 clear moral choices.

 

@Calax: Games don't have to have the moments feel forced. We are just talking about BW here and their over saturation of one on one conversations. No problem with that, except that eventually there is a big disconnect amongst characters if they aren't meant to interact with each other. Eventually I get a little conscious of the fact that these characters have no life outside of interacting with my character.

[Volourn]

"The problem is with weak uninteresting characters and endless repetition of the same personalities and similar dialog. Bioware games are full of uncinematic wankers like Carth Onasi and Jacob with mild, boring personalities."

 

I don't like Carth but like Jacob. Neither one of them are 'boring'. And, there are plenty of crappy/boring characters in BG series. *cough* Minsc *cough*

 

The newe characetrs are more interesting, deeper, more likely to grow, have more of a mind of their own (Minsc only had one such instance in BG1 where he really showed a mind of his own), and come with a lot more C&C.

 

Morrigan and Isabella are much deepper, more complex, more interesting characters than the 3 romances in BG2 9though I really like Jaheria too).

 

 

" I can't make a choice without a companion butting in and telling me what to do and boiling everything down to 2 clear moral choices."

 

What you meant to say is you don't want npcs, you want robots who do whatever the P wants them to. I loved the fact that lelina would stand up to you if youd efiled the ashes, I love the fact that Morrigan has a lot to use the PC against her mother, I love the fact that isabella will flat out leave the PC in the lurch if she doesn't trust him, I love the fact that Anders makes his hatred for mages known and that he'll stand against you at the end even if he respects you because the decision you make is wrong in his view, etc., etc.

Edited April 3, 2011 by Volourn

[Niten_Ryu]

Basically, the argument boils down to,

 

TV shows can have character moments naturally during the course of the situation, while Games have to have the character moments feel forced because of the nature of the game.

 

I think it's more like this - Games have support quality characters and character development, even thru forced encounters, but writers should always accept the possibility that players don't want that nor care about their precious characters. Let player know that he might be making a mistake or lose content if they skip / kill some party member.

 

Interestingly enough you can skip both Grunt and Legion in Mass Effect 2. I hope Mass Effect 3 will allow more such choices.

[RPGmasterBoo]

@Boo: Agree, BW does a lot characters as filler.

 

I'm starting to think they have a two word summary framework imposed on them, which is why every character is like a clone factory template.

 

However, one very important thing for me are also the graphics. I could easily get attached to the 2D portraits in BGII, but the DA doll people inspire nothing in me whatsoever. Even ME's slick faces leave me cold. Portraits may be more or less skillfully drawn but they always imply more depth and comeliness than weakly animated 3d potato faces.

 

Game devs really need to quit the stupid slider based character generators. The only thing they do well is alienate people.

[Volourn]

"Game devs really need to quit the stupid slider based character generators. The only thing they do well is alienate people."

 

Which people? the Boo Think Alike People? Because BIO games are more successful than ever. Heck, some are trying to point DA2 as a failure 9depsite no legit facts to back it up) despite it obviously selling a lot. BIO's most successful games are their more recent ones. BG series is just a nostalgic overrated wannabe that is served better as memory of simpler times because they, by and alrge, don't stand up to the modern BIO RPG. Espicially true for BG. BG2 has a stronger case though in some ways, but BG certainly doesn't.

 

BG npcs are the defintion of failure. One dies you just repalce them because they're almost nothing (except in a handful of instances) seperating them except stats/class/race. Definitely not personality, background, role-playing, C&C, or writing.

 

One example is that the crybaby elf mage with the sweet sword in BG1. That was a great set up for a character that is absolutely wasted in the way Bg handles npcs. He would thrive in a newer BIO offering. Now he's just a couple of funny quips.

Edited April 3, 2011 by Volourn

[RPGmasterBoo]

Dont stand up to what? For me - the facts are thus:

 

1. Combat gameplay in "modern BIO RPG" is generally farting in constricting tunnel like levels

2. Non combat gameplay is watching a choose your own adventure

 

Its a disjointed, fractured experience, where I'm dying to get past the boring combat to the overtly long cutscenes in which I'm little better than a passive observer - in what amounts to a stupidly linear experience.

 

I don't give a rat's ass what what statistics, you or Bio fans say. Baldur's Gate 1 is a superior game, infinitely better thought out than any new Bioware title. It had genuine exploration of a large area, a story you could play at your own leisure while letting yourself get pleasantly sidetracked in a world that wasn't afraid to let you explore it. It wasn't a bunch of rooms stuck together with chewing gum trying to convince you of fake grandeur. It never burdened you with anything and left plenty to the imagination, thus sucking you in completely.

 

BG1 was an Adventure with a capital A, unfettered by ridiculous constraints of a game crammed in the straight-jacket of a third rate film.

 

In terms of the creative freedom and pure gamecraft every new Bioware RPG is a joke compared to BG1. And I'd willingly stake my kidneys that if BG1 redone in 3D was released today, it would pummel DA sales into dust.

[GreasyDogMeat]

"Game devs really need to quit the stupid slider based character generators. The only thing they do well is alienate people."

 

Which people? the Boo Think Alike People? Because BIO games are more successful than ever. Heck, some are trying to point DA2 as a failure 9depsite no legit facts to back it up) despite it obviously selling a lot. BIO's most successful games are their more recent ones. BG series is just a nostalgic overrated wannabe that is served better as memory of simpler times because they, by and alrge, don't stand up to the modern BIO RPG. Espicially true for BG. BG2 has a stronger case though in some ways, but BG certainly doesn't.

 

BG npcs are the defintion of failure. One dies you just repalce them because they're almost nothing (except in a handful of instances) seperating them except stats/class/race. Definitely not personality, background, role-playing, C&C, or writing.

 

One example is that the crybaby elf mage with the sweet sword in BG1. That was a great set up for a character that is absolutely wasted in the way Bg handles npcs. He would thrive in a newer BIO offering. Now he's just a couple of funny quips.

You do realize how many more gamers there are now compared to back then? Flaming turd-balls today sell more than some of the better games 10+ years ago. Over 50% of Americans play games now.

 

Also, BG was better accepted for it's time than DA 2 has been, that is for damn sure. I remember how well it was received, part of the reason I gave it a try as my first RPG along with Fallout. 'It has saved the RPG genre!' etc.

 

Being Bio's first RPG and all I'd say its fair to forgive some of the early design problems like the NPCs being there for no other reason than to fill your party. A problem that was rectified fairly well in BG 2. That brings up a good point too. Look how well BG 2 improved on BG 1. Almost everything about it was better. Look at how DA 2 has improved on DA 1. For every positive there is a negative, and sometimes a big fat stinking negative.

[Jaesun]

The Mass Effect writing team is in my opinion vastly superior than Dragon Age's.

 

People take Mass Effect way too seriously. It's not an OMG SERIOUS RPG Action Game.

Edited April 3, 2011 by Jaesun

[Orogun01]

" I can't make a choice without a companion butting in and telling me what to do and boiling everything down to 2 clear moral choices."

 

What you meant to say is you don't want npcs, you want robots who do whatever the P wants them to. I loved the fact that lelina would stand up to you if youd efiled the ashes, I love the fact that Morrigan has a lot to use the PC against her mother, I love the fact that isabella will flat out leave the PC in the lurch if she doesn't trust him, I love the fact that Anders makes his hatred for mages known and that he'll stand against you at the end even if he respects you because the decision you make is wrong in his view, etc., etc.

No, I actually enjoyed that too and didn't see much handholding in DA:O

What I refer mostly is

 

"Commander Shepard we have conquered the reaper, we should plant the bomb and leave this collector base"

 

"Shepard(thinking) Mmmh but all this technology may come in handy against the reapers"

 

"Illusive man: Shepard I need you to go ahead and not destroy the base"

 

"Shepard: how the hell do you get a phone signal in the middle of a black hole? Nvm that, I was just thinking that but now that you say so it seem like the evil choice so I won't take it"

 

Fin

 

They become so outspoken that the choices the player will make are clearly outlined by them. Probably a way to counteract all the complaints about Shepard not saying what the player intended, now you know beforehand what your are getting when you take option A or B.

[Gromnir]

"Shepard: how the hell do you get a phone signal in the middle of a black hole? Nvm that, I was just thinking that but now that you say so it seem like the evil choice so I won't take it"

 

am seeing the perfect opportunity for a game product tie-in... verizon commercial mayhap?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[The4th1]

Wasn't it explained that it was OMG QUANTUM RADIO SIGNALZ in the 'Codex'?

[Orogun01]

Wasn't it explained that it was OMG QUANTUM RADIO SIGNALZ in the 'Codex'?

Inside the Collector's base in the middle of a black hole that swallows every form of energy, I don't know much about quantum entanglement but I think that energy needs to travel.

[Jaesun]

Where is it specifically mentioned the Collector Base is located within a Black Hole?

[Orogun01]

Where is it specifically mentioned the Collector Base is located within a Black Hole?

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Omega_4_Relay

"The Omega 4 Relay actually leads to the galactic core, where the Collector base resides on the edge of a black hole."

Edited April 4, 2011 by Orogun01

[Tale]

I don't know much about quantum entanglement but I think that energy needs to travel.

Well, there's a couple of things here.

 

Quantum teleportation of the sort relevant to the discussion does not need to travel. However, it can not be used to convey information and make phone calls in the first place.

[Niten_Ryu]

Quantum entanglement don't care if it's beyond event horizon... much less if it's on edge of event horizon. In quantum entanglement any change in quantum state will happen in both places. Thus as long as there's enough entangled objects / particles / bosons with Shepard, communication will be possible anywhere.

 

There ain't even information paradox (well ok, there is but it's because of Normandy mk 2. faster then light tavel) because when ship was build, enough quantum entangled objects were placed both in the ship and and into any vessel that traveled to Illusive mans HQ (if Normandy mk. 2 wasn't build there in the first place). Thus objects now share same quantum state, even if their physical location is thousands of light years apart.

[Orogun01]

And then we realize we are discussing the science of Mass Effect

 

thanks for the info though.

[Calax]

Actually Quantum Entanglement is a part of physics in the real world. We haven't figured out exactly how to use it but in theory if you designed a system that translated information by the movement of a particular set of particles a Qantum Entanglement communication system would work.

[Oblarg]

Quantum entanglement, as far as I know, isn't too useful for communication. Basically, all it does is create two particles which share the same waveform, which means that if you observe one of them, then the cross-terms disappear for both and you know the state of the other.

[Volourn]

"Also, BG was better accepted for it's time than DA 2 has been, that is for damn sure."

 

True, but I never argued otherwise.

 

 

"Look how well BG 2 improved on BG 1. Almost everything about it was better. Look at how DA 2 has improved on DA 1. For every positive there is a negative, and sometimes a big fat stinking negative."

 

I do agree with this 100%. BG2 is vastly superior to BG in every single way. there is NOT one thing BG1 does better than BG2. Not a one.

[Calax]

Quantum entanglement, as far as I know, isn't too useful for communication. Basically, all it does is create two particles which share the same waveform, which means that if you observe one of them, then the cross-terms disappear for both and you know the state of the other.

Actually it'd work but it'd probably be more one way communication than anything between two very specific points. Basically you'd entangle your particles and then cause them to "read" a message on one end and that message would appear at the other end at the exact same time.

 

But you couldn't do it like Shepard where you could order the other guy to shut up.

[Oblarg]

Quantum entanglement, as far as I know, isn't too useful for communication. Basically, all it does is create two particles which share the same waveform, which means that if you observe one of them, then the cross-terms disappear for both and you know the state of the other.

Actually it'd work but it'd probably be more one way communication than anything between two very specific points. Basically you'd entangle your particles and then cause them to "read" a message on one end and that message would appear at the other end at the exact same time.

 

But you couldn't do it like Shepard where you could order the other guy to shut up.

 

Not really. Sure, once you observe one entangled particle you know the state of the other, but that state was still randomly generated. Only the people who observed the particles first would know the states of the other particles, thus the "senders" in this case are the only ones who know the message. You don't "set" the state of an entangled particle so much as you observe it and from what you observed then know the state of the other particle. Thus, entangled particles alone cannot really send a message.

 

The main interest in quantum communication, as far as I know, is accurately conveying the quantum state of a particle which you have not already observed (quantum teleportation), and this requires the use of standard, light-speed limited communication.

Edited April 4, 2011 by Oblarg