Aside from Dragon Age 2 (which was still a good game just not Dragon Age Origins), they have been pretty damn stellar in my opinion.
I think this looks good. I like the "explorer" idea behind the game instead of rehashing the Sheppard storyline. Granted, it's most likely going to turn into a crazy awesome story with some far away enemy but it doesn't seem to be about politics but exploring worlds. The funny thing is.....if the exploration works as people think (flying to world and driving around), it's probably going to turn out like No Man Sky should of been (in people's eye).
It might not have a bajillion amount of planets but if there is like 10-15 planets that are highly detailed I would be a happy duck.
Originally posted by Smasandian
Aside from Dragon Age 2 (which was still a good game just not Dragon Age Origins), they have been pretty damn stellar in my opinion.I think this looks good. I like the "explorer" idea behind the game instead of rehashing the Sheppard storyline. Granted, it's most likely going to turn into a crazy awesome story with some far away enemy but it doesn't seem to be about politics but exploring worlds. The funny thing is.....if the exploration works as people think (flying to world and driving around), it's probably going to turn out like No Man Sky should of been (in people's eye).
It might not have a bajillion amount of planets but if there is like 10-15 planets that are highly detailed I would be a happy duck.
Dragon Age Inquisition talked big about itself during pre-alpha, and what we got at the end was not the same game. It's not a bad game, but it wasn't what was promised.
Just like ME3.
Don't get me wrong; I want this to be good. But this isn't the same team that gave us the Mass Effect trilogy, and has even less of the staff that gave us the first two. I don't think it's unreasonable to be a bit cautious.
I guess I don't get caught up about what they promised and base my opinion on a game after I finish it. Dragon Age Inquisition was a lot of fun and pretty great game. What did they promise and not deliver? I couldn't really find anything with a very basic Google search.
And I ****ing loved Mass Effect 3. It was exactly what I wanted from a game. I can understand people frustration with the ending but I don't see how 10 minutes ruins a great game.
Originally posted by Smasandian
I guess I don't get caught up about what they promised and base my opinion on a game after I finish it. Dragon Age Inquisition was a lot of fun and pretty great game. What did they promise and not deliver? I couldn't really find anything with a very basic Google search.And I ****ing loved Mass Effect 3. It was exactly what I wanted from a game. I can understand people frustration with the ending but I don't see how 10 minutes ruins a great game.
For me, if something is advertised as having something and then doesn't have it, that's bad form.
As far as what they changed, here's an example:
http://kotaku.com/dragon-age-inquisition-used-to-be-a-way-different-game-1684304172
I enjoyed ME3. I won't pretend I didn't. I just would have enjoyed it a lot more if I felt like my choices actually mattered. But I digress.
I just don't see enough so far to take them at their word, when they've pulled stuff like this before. That's all I was trying to say.
I just see that as showing off a demo. You can't expect companies to keep everything they show as a demo into the game.
Valve showed a weird water tentacle thing in Half Life 2 demo's prior to release. They worked on it for months trying to get it right and at the end of it, it sucked to play against so they scrapped it. That's what happens in game design.
That article suggested that some of the stuff within the game were used in other areas so it's clearly Bioware making changes to the game when still in development. It's a year prior to release.
It's a catch-22. Publishers need to sell copies and getting hype allows games to sell. They show video of what the game is going to be like however it's a year or two away from release. Development is on-going process where change happens regularly.
Wonder why sequels are generally better than previous games? It's because a lot of those ideas were brought up during the initial game development of the first. It happens all the time. You always hear, "we wanted to do this but we couldn't due to time restraints".
And it's just not games but music, movies and other sorts of media. Radiohead plays new songs live all the time and then when it's put on the official release, it's completely different than those initial stages.
I can understand a lot of cases, publishers/developers lie and it's ****ing annoying. Alien: Colonial Marines is a perfect example of this. Same with No Man's Sky but I don't see this being the case with the article from Kotaku. That looks like a developer showcasing something and during the year, they changed it. You gotta give developers some leeway on that type of stuff. It works both ways.....Goldeneye MP was added last minute and it turned out great. Other games ideas could of been tweaked or added or changed during the last year of development to betterment of the game.
Maybe in the end, that shit wasn't fun? Maybe it didn't work with the AI? Or maybe it was to taxing on the consoles/PC? There could be endless reasons why it was changed.
Personally, and people will disagree and that's cool but I rather have the developer be allowed to change things during development even if the game was shown prior to that. I would not want developers to be held against their will just because they showed some video a year before. I believe that the mass majority of these "changes" turn out to a positive effect on the game. However, this doesn't mean that developers/publishers should be able to get away with lying to the public (aka the Alien: Colonial Marines) when it's clearly them trying to get around the fact that the game is shit. Faking video is not cool.
And I believe that as long as the developer showcases the game later on showing how the game has changed and giving ample opportunity to tell potential customers what the game is about, I'm OK with it.
Originally posted by Smasandian
And I ****ing loved Mass Effect 3. It was exactly what I wanted from a game. I can understand people frustration with the ending but I don't see how 10 minutes ruins a great game.
For starters there's a lot more wrong with ME3 then the ending.
But to answer this specific point, it helps ruin any willingness to do another play through of the series, because at the end of it all, none of my choices matter and I'm left with unsatisfying red blue green plot hole trash.
Originally posted by FinalAnswer
For starters there's a lot more wrong with ME3 then the ending.But to answer this specific point, it helps ruin any willingness to do another play through of the series, because at the end of it all, none of my choices matter and I'm left with unsatisfying red blue green plot hole trash.
👆
I completely agree. I didn’t hate ME3, but after I beat the game I haven’t wanted to play through any of the games again. Comparatively, after I beat ME2, I immediately started a new play through.
Of course, the ending was disappointing for sure and it's baffling they decided to release the game like that. But I never really felt that my decisions were ultimately going to affect the ending though. I always took it as choices affecting how the story played out during the course of the last game.
But the rest of the game was phenomenal in my opinion.
It's been announced that Ryder, unlike Shepard, will have both male and female versions living in the same world for they're brother and sister.
http://www.polygon.com/2016/9/8/12847812/mass-effect-andromeda-has-two-heroes-a-brother-and-a-sister