Mass Effect 3 Appears on EA Store, Disappears Very Quickly

[manythings]

how is mass effect's story unique? they use the same 'lets all band together for the final battle" for years. Want mass effect 3's ending? play dragon age.

I'll just let you re-read my posts and search for the word "unique" being used once...

well technically it was for unique but more along the lines of questioning the quality of story. The story is copypasta and has been for years.

So, in other words, you don't want to admit I didn't say the thing you accused me of saying.

wait what? No, i accuse you of giving undue credit to mass effect's story. It's copypasta and was the least worked on story in gaming aside from cheetah men.

Then you've clearly never played a first person shooter or a Tom Clancy game.

First person shooters are excusable since they were designed for the fratboy crowd. In an RPG a bad story is inexcusable.

So you grade things differently because that helps your argument? Go join the debate team, they'll be glad to have you.

 

[manythings]

So you grade things differently because that helps your argument? Go join the debate team, they'll be glad to have you.

wait what? you're saying that all games should be graded on the same criteria regardless of genre? and audience? If we graded halo on an RPG scale halo would fail pretty badly as it had no skills or any role play. If we judged dragon age: origins on a FPS scale it would fail as it had no guns what so ever. There is a reason there are scales based on each genre.

no, you said ME2 had the worst story ever, I said FPS's are habitually without stories, you said yes that's true but because it's an FPS suddenly story is no longer actually relevant. You're argument is spurious because you are pointing to something and saying it is bad and that is bad while also saying something that is also bad is wholly acceptable because it's not the same.

Bad things are bad. An action movie with a shitty story isn't anymore acceptable than a drama with a shitty story, the action film just happens to have explosions and maybe tits. This doesn't make it a better movie.

 

[Orthon]

what? obsidian and bethesda are nothing alike.

obsidian =
- level design focuses on immersion and practicality such as police cars, etc to simulate an actual believable locale.
- writing produces diverse people with many views, personalities, and sexualities.
- Humor
- choices are abundant.
- relies on companion game play. solo game play is suicide.
- has black isle original team, their influence show up in their games.
- party game play. You rely on your party to buffer the skills you don't specialize in.
- uses a C-rpg (classic 90s rpg) model.

Bethesda =
- level design overlooks practicality, focuses on spectacle.
- writing lacks diversity and sometimes even acts more juvenile than the character should be.
- have stated they don't use humor in their games.
- little to no choices, quests usually have one ending and all require shooting someone in the face.
- solo game play encouraged if not required. companion game play is almost nonexistent.
- composed of new blood, old team bought out and replaced.
- rambo game play, you act more like a john everyman merged with superman than an actual person.
- uses a newer Fps-Rpg model.

Maybe when I'm thinking about Bethesda games I'm thinking more about Fallout 3 than say, Oblivion. And in fallout 3 you could have companions, you had some (not much) humor, choices did matter somewhat. And well, Bethesda did try that immersion thing when it came to the cities, and we all pretty much knew how that turned out. Also, that FPS-RPG model is what Fallout: New Vegas is using, developed by Obsidian.

Comparing them to Bioware, it's true that Bethesda might be a further stretch away from Bioware than Obsidian, but to me, the differences you're naming are kind of small, really.

While it's not true that they're all the same, it's also not true to say that they are nothing alike each other.

 

[manythings]

I said mass effect's story was copypasta. That means they use the same structure over and over again. Even in the characters they write they have the same archetypes. This repetitive writing only makes the story quality worse with each passing game. A joke repeated multiple times loses its edge. It was the same with cheetah men as it practically stole things from popular culture and tried to peddle it back to the same people who heard it multiple times before. It was like they scoured Tvtropes.com and made cheetah men using the most used tropes in existence. Cheetah men ripped off teenage mutant ninja turtles but tried to mask enough so children wouldn't notice the difference and buy the toys (which where planned but not released). You say actions movies with shitty stories are bad yet they get praise because its follows the bare criteria. Look at the expendables. Action movies follow the same formula of explosions of tits. If it has a good story then its a bonus if not it wont affect the criteria. Just because the story in a FPS is irrelevant doesn't mean it has to be half assed. The criteria is just the BARE BONES of what a certain product should be, it doesn't define the MAXIMUM a product can be. The difference is the back bone of the genre. Action movies rely on the violence and action as its back bone. RPG games rely on the story and characters as a backbone. Can you add action to an RPG? sure. Can you have a good RPG with no fighting? absolutely. Can you have a good RPG with badly written or heavily reused characters and story? Absolutely not.

Ok, I think we both agree that story is important, but you still seem to be saying that genre should determine story quality which is something I think is counterproductive. Even if something is for the Fratboy crowd that doesn't mean it can't be used to greater effect, the story can easily bypass the majority of fratboys since they will be teabagging (or whatever the new thing in Multiplayer FPS) but there are bound to be some who at least care slightly more than just for the chance to shoot some more ambiguous foreign people in the face.

Lets place the idea of the ranking of story importance based purely on genre. At the top of the scale are games with almost no mechanics beyond advancing the story (point and clicks, or the likes of Heavy Rain which was primarily a story vehicle as opposed to a traditional game) and on the lowest end we have games that are almost totally based purely on their mechanics (casual stuff, solitaire and the likes of Torchlight and Diablo since 99% of those was really just the monster killing). What your saying is that the nature of a given genre means that it is graded on a curve against what we can call good writing? This idea breaks for me when you can point to games of given low ranking genres which had magnificent stories even in comparison to higher genres and vice versa.

A story has to be good independant of it's genre if it's going to play well.

 

[Shroomhell]

yeah I see what you're saying. But I think they should stick to RPGs. Just my personal preference. I find a good story is the cornerstone to a good game, good gameplay can only take you so far.

 

[Shroomhell]

what? obsidian and bethesda are nothing alike.

obsidian =
- level design focuses on immersion and practicality such as police cars, etc to simulate an actual believable locale.
- writing produces diverse people with many views, personalities, and sexualities.
- Humor
- choices are abundant.
- relies on companion game play. solo game play is suicide.
- has black isle original team, their influence show up in their games.
- party game play. You rely on your party to buffer the skills you don't specialize in.
- uses a C-rpg (classic 90s rpg) model.

Bethesda =
- level design overlooks practicality, focuses on spectacle.
- writing lacks diversity and sometimes even acts more juvenile than the character should be.
- have stated they don't use humor in their games.
- little to no choices, quests usually have one ending and all require shooting someone in the face.
- solo game play encouraged if not required. companion game play is almost nonexistent.
- composed of new blood, old team bought out and replaced.
- rambo game play, you act more like a john everyman merged with superman than an actual person.
- uses a newer Fps-Rpg model.

Maybe when I'm thinking about Bethesda games I'm thinking more about Fallout 3 than say, Oblivion. And in fallout 3 you could have companions, you had some (not much) humor, choices did matter somewhat. And well, Bethesda did try that immersion thing when it came to the cities, and we all pretty much knew how that turned out. Also, that FPS-RPG model is what Fallout: New Vegas is using, developed by Obsidian.

Comparing them to Bioware, it's true that Bethesda might be a further stretch away from Bioware than Obsidian, but to me, the differences you're naming are kind of small, really.

While it's not true that they're all the same, it's also not true to say that they are nothing alike each other.

Yes new Vegas was an FPS RPG yet they mostly specialized in the classic party RPG games such as never winter. The companions were useless in fallout as you were a walking tank in fallout 3. You couldn't do that in the originals or it was suicide. The choices boiled down to ONE town and the choice being black and white when the choices in obsdian's games end up taking entirely new meanings in the gray area.

Trust me in fallout 3 you were not a walking tank. If you want to see what I mean play the first two. They're better written anyway. I wish I knew what you are talking about in the differences between the developers, but I haven't played a Bethesda game long enough (except Fallout 3, worst of the series/disapointment) to see. And, I don't remember what Obsidian has made, except that I really liked the original fallout. Wait I do, I do see what you mean about Obsidian. They are so much more awesome than Bethesda.
Bethesda being graphically spectacular is an overstatement of spectacular proportions.

 

[Orthon]

Yes new Vegas was an FPS RPG yet they mostly specialized in the classic party RPG games such as never winter. The companions were useless in fallout as you were a walking tank in fallout 3. You couldn't do that in the originals or it was suicide. The choices boiled down to ONE town and the choice being black and white when the choices in obsdian's games end up taking entirely new meanings in the gray area.

Well, I disagree. There were choices beyond Megaton(which is what I assume you meant with "one town") and some I felt were more in the gray area than truly black & white(The Tenpenny Tower quest where you let ghouls into the tower). But I guess that's up for debate. Anyway, now this just feels like a totally derailed topic, since it's hardly about Bioware or Mass 3 anymore, but rather about certain western RPG developers and their similarities.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

wow didnt even have more content than the last game? Can you say "this is DLC"!