Why was Mass Effect successful?

[Mudran]

I saw today a video from a game called Dark Void from year 2010

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgpfUMW-gbk

 

And it remind me a lot of Mass Effect which is even older - year 2007 and a bit of Anthem with that flying.

 

And it made me thinking - the game doesn't look much different, why the first Mass Effect became classic, while Dark Void was forgotten?

 

 

For me the reason was immersion - it reminded me Battlestar Galactica, all the details were fitting the setting like in a movie, all characters, the mothership, dialogues were really cool and fitting. It made me feel like a soldier, it had background, so I could really feel and roleplay the character. and even if others wouldn't describe it like this - maybe the feeling like you are playing someones story is important?

ME got me hooked instantly, after I tried several times to get into freely offered Mass Effect 2 and demo ME3 and the only reason why I started to play ME2 was because some mod made it more interesting for me with playable alien race, so I wanted to know the beginning of the series. But after I started playing ME1 I didn't care about playable alien races anymore. I just fell in love with the game. And I don't usually play or watch scifi.

And I think the reason why people did remember Mass Effect was someones vision - someone had this movie in his mind and made it real. It wasn't - lets make some scifi game, but lets make this specific imagination real.

But I didn't play Dark void, so maybe I would like it aswell, so am I wrong and is the reason something else? Maybe for someone else it was the opposite - he wished Dark Void would be hit and ME1 forgotten?

Edited April 18, 2019 by Mudran

[Kartoflator]

Hi,
personally I think that the main reason behind original "Mass Effect" trilogy popularity was the basic premise: it was supposed to be original, mature-themed, western RPG with science-fiction setting. The key words here being: "western", "science-fiction" and "RPG".

 

First off, how many role-playing games with strictly science-fiction setting is out there? Not many. Not when you compare it to the amount of fantasy based RPGs. Do you want an adventure full of dragons, wizards and ancient gods? No problem, there's so many of such games, that you probably die of old age before trying them all out. But what choice do you have, if you are a science-fiction fan and you want to roleplay a character from a game universe that is set in future, is full of fantastic technologies or - on the other hand - shows you a vision of alternative history, where Earth is just a scorched rock after some major disaster, like a nuclear war? Here, let me help you:

 

"Mass Effect" (the original trilogy)

"Fallout" (first two)

"Deus Ex" (not all of the games)

"Shadowrun" (by HBS)

 

That's basically IT. Here's hoping, that "Cyberpunk 2077" will be actually good. I think part of the hype around this game comes from the fact that gamers crave for that science-fiction experience. Some of them may be simply fed up with dungeons and scrolls, some - like me - are more attracted to S-F genre, rather than fantasy.

I've also omitted some game titles on purpose. "KotOR" may be absolutely great game, I won't argue with that, but it's not strictly science-fiction. "Star Wars" have always been more fairy-tales than S-F, classic stories about fight between Good and Evil, without much grey in the middle, and the "science" aspect never played major part there. If anything, it's a "science-fantasy" (which is not to say it is a bad thing). Also, "KotOR" is not truly "original", in the sense that it's a part and addition to already existing, massive lore of "Star Wars". Hell, even "Shadowrun" is not strictly S-F, as it is a mixture between cyberpunk and fantasy. On one hand, you've got zaibatsus running the show and deckers fighting them, on the other there are elder races like orcs and elves, and there is magic too - demons, familiars et c.

As to games I've mentioned - I've made some exceptions for obvious reasons. For example, some games that belong to "Deus Ex" universe plainly suck, or they don't represent much in the way of role playing. Similarily, I don't consider Bethesda's "Fallouts" to be fully-fleshed RPGs. That's debatable, I know, but somehow I don't think that many people with defend, say, "Fallout 4" as a "true RPG". Not with its "YES-YES-(sarcastically) YES-No (just kidding, YES)" dialogue system. Beth's "Fallouts" gravitated towards action and gunplay right from the start. As a side note, similar thing happened to "Mass Effect 3", which is probably why almost nobody would consider that part to be the best in trilogy, at least when it comes to role-playing aspect.

One more thing here: sure there is a lot more games with science-fiction setting, but they still don't qualify for various reasons. Have you heard about "The Fall - Last Days Of Gaia"?

Great game, great RPG in a post-apocalyptic setting. Some consider it to be the spiritual successor of original "Fallout". But nowadays it's probably unobtainable, besides even if you somehow managed to get your hands on it, there's a good chance it won't work on a modern system. Then there are games like "Borderlands" or "S.T.A.L.K.E.R.". Yeah, these are fantastic games with really "meaty" game worlds, but not RPGs. A skill tree or rarity system is NOT what defines a role-playing game.

 

OK, so we've got that "RPG" and "science-fiction" parts covered. On to the next, very important key word: "WESTERN".

By this time, some gamers would be probably screaming: "Final Fantasy! Final Fantasy!"

Right. There's a lot of jRPGs. Except as far as I know, Bioware never wanted to simply copy elements from popular japanese games. They wanted to make western-themed game for westerners. It is kind of important to understand difference in culture, tradition and mindset in Japan and the "western" world. In japanese culture, modern technologies and spirituality never seem to go apart, not too far at least. This is why anime or video game where energy weapons and futuristic exoskeletons co-exist with demons and spirits are kinda normal for Japanese. In western superhero movies good guys with superpowers fight other guys with superpowers, just evil ones, but usually not demons or mythical creatures. Have you seen movie "GANTZ: O"? I've seen the one from 2016, made with CGI, there's also live-action version and original anime. It's a good example of japanese mindset. A bunch of heroes in matrix-like reality fight against invasion of strange creatures. Except those creatures are not some random aliens. They have asian facial traits (when they have faces, of course), but also big eyes or huge, fat noses - that's a typical representation of japanese evil "onida" from legends. If you pay attention, you will also notice, that these creatures often stand in a big puddles or pools of water. Water in japanese culture is traditionally tied to the world of spirits and demons - hence "demon kids" in japanese horror movies often crawl from bathtubs et c.

But as you can see, fully enjoying such movie or game requires from a "westerner" some minimum of knowledge about a culture, that may be completely "exotic" to them. This is why jRPGs sometimes feel too...grotesque, I guess. And that can totally ruin game immersion. Problem is, role playing is ALL about immersion, so these games are not equally enjoyable for everyone.

Bioware wanted to make a game, which would feel kinda like "tabula rasa", a game that can be approached by anyone, regardless of ethnical or cultural roots, where YOU write your own story. And, for the most part, they succeeded. Even including characters, that were gay or lesbian was at the time fine, because it wasn't forcefully shoved in our faces. If it wasn't your thing, you just didn't have to romance anyone, gay or straight, and focus solely on main plot and how the game world was put together. And it was put really well, although there were some hiccups. Namely, there was this character from "ME 3", called Kai Leng, or as I like to call him - Kai "Lame" Leng. This actually felt like Bioware's attempt to import an element straight from anime or jRPG. Exactly - straight, or direct, meaning without any explanation, backstory (in the games, at least) or context whatsoever. Without any rhythm or rhyme. Because "everybody" love ninjas, right? As it turned out, they were wrong. "ME" was supposed to be not only western, but also mature RPG. Kai Leng was just a "space ninja" from "nowhere, U.S.A.". On paper, his character was supposed to be some kind of intimidating boss, in reality he was a meme generator. He was grotesque, pretentious and completely out of the place. Not to mention his ridiculous plot armor, when it was convenient. He wasn't really any "boss" or challenge, more like annoying fly and killing him didn't feel like an achievement, but like scratching an itch. Still, they could have built his character properly, so he would fit this "western" fantasy a little more. But they haven't. He's a character from a freaking "Sailormoon". Waving a japanese-like sword doesn't make you a ninja, especially with a plot-armored gunship behind your back. Also, what's up with this whole katana-thing?! Not every japanese sword is katana. Leng's weapon doesn't even look like wakizashi. More like glorified kitchen knife for peeling potatoes, but I'm digressing...

 

Anyway, "Mass Effect" was, for the most part, truly "western", dark-themed RPG with lots of morally grey choices. Granted, these choices were often kinda "forced" by somewhat crude paragon-renegade morality system, but at least they WERE there. In "Fallout 4" you can't even roleplay a truly evil character. That major choice was arbitrarily taken from you.

As for the originality - well, it's nearly impossible to create something that's 100% original these days. And I admit, that similarity between "ME" main theme - conflict between naturally evolved intelligence and its artificially created equivalent - and "Battlestar Galactica" is striking. Often, exactly same questions are raised, but it is far from being a plagiarism. Yet, I think that "ME" trilogy was heavily influenced by "BG" ,at least at some point. After all, even some characters from "ME" are voiced by actors playing in "BG" series (the remake, of course). EDI, who is AI in robot body in "Mass Effect" is voiced by Tricia Helfer, who played "Number Six" in "BG" - also AI, but in advanced, human-like body. Michael Hogan plays similar roles of a "supporting character" officer in both TV series and "ME" games, so...

 

But there's a lot more to "Mass Effect" success, than just theme and setting. After all, these games weren't THAT good, when it comes to just execution. Visuals were never that great, UI in first game was horrible, combat was wonky. As an example, gunplay in first game divided the gamers. That's because cover system was already there, but it was utterly broken. You could use it, but enemies would simply rush you, no matter what. Not just melee attackers, even those with sniper rifles... So while gamers, who wanted to use this cover system were disappointed, those who played it like oldschool shooter were rather satisfied.

On the other hand, there were fantastic soundtracks, some of the best in gaming history. Voiceovers played a major part too - Jennifer Hale is THE commander Shepard. Actually, whenever she voices any character in any game, that game's "score" raises automatically - she's a real professional. Mark Meer's delivery was for the most part flat and wooden, which is why "Femshep" was probably the most often played character. To be fair, Meer's got actually quite skilled and tolerable in "ME 3", but as they say - it was sadly "too little, too late." He still beats any voice actor from "ME: Andromeda".

Characters were truly memorable, and you cared for them. Best evidence is, gamers long after finishing "ME 3" were speculating, whether Bailey and Aria T'Loak survived - even though they weren't "key" characters. Kaidan was whiny muppet and Ashley was xenophobic b**ch, yet choosing which one to save was still tough. Losing Mordin was painful, Wrex felt like a best drinking buddy and Garrus could have been anybody's real-life friend.

All of that is what makes a difference between average and forgettable production (even if it has a huge budget) and a truly legendary experience. A legendary game MAKES YOU REMEMBER. You remember the landscapes, music in the background, you can quote characters' one-liners by heart. You remember specific moments, those funny as well as horrible, decisions you've made, both good and evil, and how even minor success felt better than any artificial "Steam" achievement. And this is where "Mass Effect" trilogy delivered, even though at the finish it felt wrong on so many levels. "But it was hell of a ride. Probably our last..."

So...that's my take on this.

 

We'll bang, OK?

[Mudran]

Nice, detailed, I agree with everything. Maybe it was reason why it was appealing for a lot of players and it was interesting for me for different reasons. I forgot to say the storytelling was also of course important. I feel like it would be connected - like that story required detailed immersive setting. For example - the start was introduction into the world - ship which looks functional, a lot of characters looking like borrowed from battlestar galactica, then you enter the cabin with surprising guest and the whole quite dynamic and very tense story starts. so you need all of it in order to have that impact.

 

But as I said, I'm not fan of scifi, or realistic human RPGs, they bore me usually - so that is why it is fascinating for me that I love ME1. It is the same like if you would play a fantasy game trilogy and loved the first the most ugliest and oldest one from them.

 

I love being immersed in a game. I always watched movies and regret and I cannot be there, that it is not interactive. That doesn't mean realistic - like making poopies. But I like if it is following its inner laws. I agree with G. Lukas, who said that his worlds were successful because he was always creating them with every detail as it would be real, even if people would never see it.

I'm not saying that all games like that will be success. Only that I love if it happens.

 

If I look at examples from different games.

I guess reason why Dragon's Dogma was successful was combat, and gothic setting, so it was appealing for different kind of players. But it is not really good looking game.

Borderlands had interesting crazy design. So it would be crazy graphic design+narratives

JRPGs would be story+interactivity - I was surprised when I watched some videos how much you can talk to different people in a good way.

STALKER was successful because of the immersive world - yea I know devastated plains, but it did fit somehow, and after I experienced radstorms, I was hooked. So it is setting+effects.

 

So lets say the game has to shine in atleast 2 areas to get fans for whom it is important? LOL my midnight logic...

Edited May 17, 2019 by Mudran

[HadToRegister]

Also, your Decisions were supposed to matter in the Original game, and carry over to the next two installments

Once they were acquired by EA for ME2, and ME3, the gameplay, started to take on the generic "Every game that EA publishes" action, and interface

[Kartoflator]

 

So lets say the game has to shine in atleast 2 areas to get fans for whom it is important? LOL my midnight logic...

 

Well, personally I'd say that a good game is always more than just a sum of its basic elements, which is also true for any other form of art: literature, films, even music.

Note, how silence is basically lack of any sound, yet moments of precisely timed silence play crucial role in music, and can make a difference between forgettable "summer song" and truly great composition. Silence as a single element is absence, it is "void", you can't even describe it. But when mixed in a proper way with sound, it can possibly result in something that people will listen to for the decades to come.

A video game can be composed of rather mediocre elements and yet turn into a "cult thing" for many. There are also games with high-budget, new-gen graphics, professionally recorded music et c., which can bore you to death.

I mean, look at "Mass Effect: Andromeda". It was made with new, yet very familiar and recognizable elements. Theoretically, it should be a success, at least moderate. But it bombed quite hard. Why was it? Because of horrible animations? That was (partially) fixed in official patch. Some shady SJW's agenda? That can be annoying and hilarious to some, when major part of expedition, meant to establish new human society turns to be gay or transgender. But that's not the theme of the game, I can get past this, or just pay no mind to it. I want to be an explorer, a Pathfinder, I'm here for the adventure. So maybe the problem was with visuals or bugs? That can be refined too, with fixes and mods.

If you ask me, the problem was, that ALL of the "puzzle pieces" just wouldn't want to fall into proper places.

 

The protagonist is a "man without properties". Gender aside, what can you REALLY tell about Ryder? Do they have any personal charisma? Are they strong, foolhardy, funny, neurotic? What does their body language in cutscenes tell about them (except for the permanent, absent, "autistic" smile)? I've already seen many comments comparing Ryder to "an empty shell, remote controlled by SAM". And I'm kinda inclined to agree with that. Often I feel like Ryder is not truly "mine" character, but a puppet with their strings resting NOT in my hand. I can't even be a "renegade" a**hole. In Poland we have this expression for a character, that lacks personality - "warm noodles".

 

How about main antagonists? It isn't possible to completely avoid comparisons with the original trilogy - and the "bad guys" from "ME: A" don't stack up to Reapers. There's this big problem with game franchises (and movies, too) - escalation. Every time somebody makes a sequel to a popular title, they want it to be "bigger, faster, deadlier" et c. In case of "Mass Effect" Bioware kinda shot their own foot, when they've created Reapers - an enemy so ridiculously overpowered, huge, almost immortal and so on - that anything else in comparison looks just like a minor hoop on the way to glory. But even Geth are more intimidating than Kett, since they were great unknown for their own creators and everyone else for what - three centuries? Even Shepard wasn't sure what to expect from Legion and whether they should help the Geth, erase them or make peace between Geth and Quarians - which is why that moment on Rannoch was so powerful (regardless what outcome you have ultimately chosen). Kett? So...they're angry and warlike. What of it? They're just another random race of aliens. In the Codex section in previous games you could learn, that humans were originally at full-blown war with turians. And then they became BFFs... This is something, that you actually couldn't even see in the games, that was just an episode from a history of humans as spacefaring species. Conflict between human colonists and Kett seems to be comparable in scope to that, maybe even less "important". Anyway, how can that even stack up to the the threat posed by the Reapers, who can patiently wait in dark space for millenia, silently observe the evolution of biological entities only to suddenly reappear and wipe out all intelligent life from the whole galaxy?

 

And the main villain? Sorry, but Archon is a cardboard cutout. He's evil, because...well, because. That's it. He's evil for the sake of being evil, so the protagonist may find their opposite. Remember "The Illusive Man"? He was the villain we "loved to hate". He wasn't one-sided, he was conflicted. He wasn't "evil", he believed himself to be a good guy and genuinely believed, that what he was doing was right. Moreover, Illusive Man's and Shepard's ultimate goal was largely the same - protecting the galaxy from Reapers. What made Illusive Man "evil" were his methods, sacrificing anything and anyone and his obsession with Reapers, that proved to be his undoing. Yet, even if he commited suicide at the end of trilogy, his last words prove that he's still a human being with some greater GOOD in mind, not a raging monster that just "wants to see the world burn". If you were doing the "full renegade run" in the trilogy, it was quite possible to be worse d*ck, than the "IM" himself...

Archon..."warm noodles", again.

 

All in all, I'd say that "Andromeda" failed to be a success comparable to original "ME" not because technical deficiencies or some social controversies, but mainly because of rather poor writing, that for the gamer translates as a lack of incentives to play. Seriously, I've got "ME: A" patched, so animations or bugs are not that big of an issue for me, yet I can just stop playing it for weeks on end. That never happened to me with the original games. The game just fails to "pull me" into its world. Nomad is just a Mako with a new coat of paint. I can't believe that I'm saying this, but I think I've actually enjoyed mining in "ME2" more. Mysteries are kinda underwhelming. It's really thrilling to discover some ancient ruins, made by civilization you know nothing about, until you realize that those ruins are largely empty, with only occasional sentinels here and there. At least in "ME 1" you could collect weird things, like asari manuscripts - and they would turn out to be useful two games later. I can't find even ONE character, that would be at least somewhat convincing. Friendly buddy, like Garrus, Wrex or Grunt. Or opera-loving scientist with ADHD, like Mordin. All that makes characters different in "ME:A" are weird hairdos. Combat is the element that gets defended the most in "ME: A" by gamers. For me even that feels unsatisfying. I have the impression, that it is the same combat, as in "ME1" again, except with jetpacks. And you can't even control your squadmates' powers in fight...

So...is it a playable game? Yes, sure. It's not "Big Rigs" or "Ride To Hell: Retribution"; it is not "totally broken". But does it have anything on original trilogy? Oh, hell no. No amount of patches will ever fix that.

That's the thing: "ME: A" feels like a bunch of loose cogs, that could've made a perfect clockwork, IF they worked TOGETHER. If somebody likes shooters, they may enjoy it for awhile, but the rest will put them off soon enough. Don't care much for shooting, want to roleplay? That won't work for long, either, since combat is integral part of gameplay here; and then you start to notice incosistencies and plain stupidities of writing. Just want to admire landscapes? Poor optimization will ruin your day. If only this game was worth more than this "sum of its elements"... Which is not to say, that you "can't" enjoy it. Ultimately, GAMER is the element, which determines the game value the most. There are people, who actually enjoy playing "Big Rigs", you know... :laugh:

 

 

Also, your Decisions were supposed to matter in the Original game, and carry over to the next two installments

 

Once they were acquired by EA for ME2, and ME3, the gameplay, started to take on the generic "Every game that EA publishes" action, and interface

 

Yeah, the "decision thing" was one of the main selling points for the trilogy. I know it worked for me. Since I've played the games after all three of them were already out, I wasn't really "outraged" with the whole sh**storm around endings and all the things that were promised and not delivered. Sure it was annoying - why everybody wants to be so "original" with those convoluted endings and forcing the "Jesus Christ sacrifice act"? Videogames are not movies. In case of movies, we're passive observers, so we are willing to accept potagonist's decisions, even when we don't always agree with them. In games, we are creating our own reality, and we often want to have those "best outcomes". So while a simplistic "happy-ending" may seem cliched in a movie, it still works well in a videogame, I think. As an evidence, lots of "ME" veterans play the trilogy up to the Citadel party and pretend that everything that follows never happens. I believe there is even a mod in which Shepard defeats Reapers, survives, and everybody gets wasted at the party, which ends the game. I've never used it personally, though. I got over it. What REALLY bugged me, was that all my efforts, all my work, all decisions, all the people I've saved et c., was reduced to a spreadsheet with numbers in "ME3"...

 

As to your "Every game that EA publishes" statement... Did anybody else notice, how incredibly similar "Dead Space" and "Mass Effect" franchises are?

 

"Mass Effect": there's this race of space monsters, called [Reapers], that eviscerate living beings and transform them to [Husks] and also absorb their DNA to create more [Reapers],

"Dead Space": there's this race of space monsters, called [brethren Moons], that eviscerate living beings and transform them to [Necromorphs] and also absorb their DNA to create more [brethren Moons].

 

"Mass Effect": you find this [Ancient Alien City] with the so-called [Conduit], which you must use to protect humanity from [Reapers],

"Dead Space": you find this [Ancient Alien City] with the so-called [Conduit], which you must use to protect humanity from [brethren Moons].

 

"Mass Effect": in order to defeat [Reapers] you have to use this [Alien Machinery - Citadel] with the help of [Crucible],

"Dead Space": in order to defeat [brethren Moons] you have to use this [Alien Machinery - just that...] with the help of [Codex].

 

"Mass Effect": twist! The [Crucible] can blow up in everybody's collective face, if used by the villainous [illusive Man],

"Dead Space": twist! The [Codex] can blow up in everybody's collective face, if used by the villainous [Jacob Arthur Danik].

 

OK, I could go on, and probably I'm stretching it a bit, but...damn :laugh:

[HadToRegister]

 

 

Yeah, the "decision thing" was one of the main selling points for the trilogy. I know it worked for me. Since I've played the games after all three of them were already out, I wasn't really "outraged" with the whole sh**storm around endings and all the things that were promised and not delivered. Sure it was annoying - why everybody wants to be so "original" with those convoluted endings and forcing the "Jesus Christ sacrifice act"? Videogames are not movies. In case of movies, we're passive observers, so we are willing to accept potagonist's decisions, even when we don't always agree with them. In games, we are creating our own reality, and we often want to have those "best outcomes". So while a simplistic "happy-ending" may seem cliched in a movie, it still works well in a videogame, I think. As an evidence, lots of "ME" veterans play the trilogy up to the Citadel party and pretend that everything that follows never happens. I believe there is even a mod in which Shepard defeats Reapers, survives, and everybody gets wasted at the party, which ends the game. I've never used it personally, though. I got over it. What REALLY bugged me, was that all my efforts, all my work, all decisions, all the people I've saved et c., was reduced to a spreadsheet with numbers in "ME3"...

 

As to your "Every game that EA publishes" statement... Did anybody else notice, how incredibly similar "Dead Space" and "Mass Effect" franchises are?

 

"Mass Effect": there's this race of space monsters, called [Reapers], that eviscerate living beings and transform them to [Husks] and also absorb their DNA to create more [Reapers],

"Dead Space": there's this race of space monsters, called [brethren Moons], that eviscerate living beings and transform them to [Necromorphs] and also absorb their DNA to create more [brethren Moons].

 

"Mass Effect": you find this [Ancient Alien City] with the so-called [Conduit], which you must use to protect humanity from [Reapers],

"Dead Space": you find this [Ancient Alien City] with the so-called [Conduit], which you must use to protect humanity from [brethren Moons].

 

"Mass Effect": in order to defeat [Reapers] you have to use this [Alien Machinery - Citadel] with the help of [Crucible],

"Dead Space": in order to defeat [brethren Moons] you have to use this [Alien Machinery - just that...] with the help of [codex].

 

"Mass Effect": twist! The [Crucible] can blow up in everybody's collective face, if used by the villainous [illusive Man],

"Dead Space": twist! The [codex] can blow up in everybody's collective face, if used by the villainous [Jacob Arthur Danik].

 

OK, I could go on, and probably I'm stretching it a bit, but...damn :laugh:

 

 

Good points.

 

Here's the thing.

 

I LOVED and played the "Splinter Cell" games, A STEALTH GAME, then the Blacklist (IIRC) installment, had me run through this Tutorial of "running towards a barricade, hitting a certain button and automatically taking cover" UBI

 

I started playing ME2, the tutorial had me "running towards a barricade, hitting a certain button and automatically taking cover" EA

 

It's the Game Devs or the Publishers, who are making me feel like I'm just playing the SAME game over and over and over again.

 

Also, how many games have you played now, where you immediately think to yourself, "I bet this person guiding me through all this is the person that betrayed me at the beginning of the game"

And it turns out you were right?

 

Because not only do I feel like I'm playing the same game with the same interface, but I'm also playing the SAME Game, with the SAME interface, with the SAME Combat/Cover Actions, with the SAME Story.

 

I'm starting to feel that there's this Interface/Action template that Developers buy, and they just have to fill in the Blanks and they get an instant game

[fftfan]

It's the Game Devs or the Publishers, who are making me feel like I'm just playing the SAME game over and over and over again.

 

Also, how many games have you played now, where you immediately think to yourself, "I bet this person guiding me through all this is the person that betrayed me at the beginning of the game"

And it turns out you were right?

 

Because not only do I feel like I'm playing the same game with the same interface, but I'm also playing the SAME Game, with the SAME interface, with the SAME Combat/Cover Actions, with the SAME Story.

 

I'm starting to feel that there's this Interface/Action template that Developers buy, and they just have to fill in the Blanks and they get an instant game

I feel exactly the same. It feels like with these games that there is no creativity or passion whatsoever, with such games no one involved cares even slightly to try to create something great. They are happy to do nothing more than copy/paste the exact same template, even though the template itself is mediocre at best.

 

I used to want to go into Game Development but not anymore since my views on what games should be and what development should aim for could not be further apart from the people who make ME Andromeda, Anthem, everything else EA/Activision/Ubisoft/etc.

 

As a result I buy far fewer games from the AAA giants and increasingly stick to Nintendo / modding / replaying older games. The only AAA I genuinely anticipate outside of Nintendo right now is Cyberpunk 2077. I ignore everything else and only read up on them after the fact so I am getting to read about what people ended up thinking in conclusion about the games when they are finished rather than getting info from the marketing hype blitz.

 

Here's hoping, that "Cyberpunk 2077" will be actually good. I think part of the hype around this game comes from the fact that gamers crave for that science-fiction experience. Some of them may be simply fed up with dungeons and scrolls, some - like me - are more attracted to S-F genre, rather than fantasy.

For me it's the excellent development studio CD Projekt RED. I can trust them to be fair to consumers, offer a great value, not shy away from innovation and to not forget that games are supposed to be fun.

[Kartoflator]

 

I LOVED and played the "Splinter Cell" games, A STEALTH GAME, then the Blacklist (IIRC) installment, had me run through this Tutorial of "running towards a barricade, hitting a certain button and automatically taking cover" UBI

 

I started playing ME2, the tutorial had me "running towards a barricade, hitting a certain button and automatically taking cover" EA

 

It's the Game Devs or the Publishers, who are making me feel like I'm just playing the SAME game over and over and over again.

 

Also, how many games have you played now, where you immediately think to yourself, "I bet this person guiding me through all this is the person that betrayed me at the beginning of the game"

And it turns out you were right?

 

Because not only do I feel like I'm playing the same game with the same interface, but I'm also playing the SAME Game, with the SAME interface, with the SAME Combat/Cover Actions, with the SAME Story.

 

I'm starting to feel that there's this Interface/Action template that Developers buy, and they just have to fill in the Blanks and they get an instant game

 

 

So much this.

Though I have the the feeling, that these are not developers, or even publishers (as in: guys, who dole out the money, expecting the project to turn profit without getting into technicalities), who decide about game's final shape. Videogame industry has been making annually more money than the whole Hollywood in the last decades. The "passion" has been largely out of equation in game developing process for some time now, at least in case of the big companies. Something tells me, that those, who call the shots about what we are getting in the end, are marketing department guys. I can almost imagine such guy, who never played any videogame for longer than 10 minutes, doing his "market research", then coming to a meeting with devs and saying something like:

 

[Marketing dep]: "Current research shows, that there's a social demand for >inclusiveness<. Also, robots. Kids want robots."

[Developers]: "Wait, what? But...but...We're making World War II shooter... Actually, we'd like it to be at least somewhat historically accurate"

[Marketing dep]: "What, wouldn't you like to have a robot hand?! EVERYBODY want that!"

 

Erm...Anybody played "Battlefield 5"?

 

Obviously, I'm generalizing, it's not that simple. You can't blame just one guy for everything that's wrong in this business. Although after playing "Far Cry" from part 3 to 5 I'm starting to think, that those UBI devs have serious drug-related problems... :pinch: It actually starts to look like a drug promotion... "Let's have a trip! And another one! Yaay, that's such fun!"

This is really becoming tedious. Is that the best they can come up with? It wouldn't be a problem, if it was optional - but it isn't. Especially fighting quite well developed villain in a - you guessed it - drug fuelled QTE sequence. A well-rounded game should appeal to most players from any culture. I can't truly relate to people from some fictional country, that are seemingly all drug addicts. Never tried any drugs, never will; I already smoke cigarettes and drink buckets of coffee, which is enough, thank you very much. "Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel" faced similar problem. It wasn't that bad game, it was just...too "aussie". Majority of jokes, pop-culture references et c. was "lost in translation" for anyone outside of Australia. I had no idea, that "Boganella" talking shotgun was voiced by actress, who starred in some famous australian sitcom. I didn't even know, what "bogan" means. As a result, game was just a series of boring fetch-quests for many people, with some incomprehensible slang in the middle.

 

Yet the problem with the sad state of things seems to be deeper than just "it's all about greed and laziness". We, gamers, can be blamed for that as well. Namely, how we are currently settling for things, that would've been unacceptable just a couple of years ago. A lot of gamers have been cursing the industry for "streamlining the gameplays", making games more and more "casual", or simply "dumbing them down".

Yeah, but what is the reason for that? We all crawl before we can learn to walk, walk before we run. First, we read superhero comics, listen to run-of-the-mill pop music, watch "easy" action movies. Then, one day, we discover valuable literature, jazz, progressive rock, classical music, Alfred Hitchcock, Ingmar Bergmann, Stanley Kubrick...

But, what if "your world" is limited to smartphone and informations on the internet? What if all you can hear on the radio are simple "summer hits"? What if all you can see on TV are "Avengers", "Transformers" and pointless "telenovelas"? It is quite natural, that you would consider all this to be the apex of cultural development. Not because you are "dumb", but because you don't know any better. You lack the comparison. Play the record with the classical music to the kid. They will hate it. Play it again. They'll be bored. Play it every day. Finally, your kid will be able to recognize specific melodies and passages, will be intrigued and will start to look for similar experience for themselves, possibly sparking an interest in various musical genres.

 

This is how we acquire taste for different things. But you can't really acquire a taste without wanting and demanding MORE. If we are silently settling for the pulp we're getting, it's the pulp we're going to get in the future, too. Burgers are tasty; let's just eat only burgers for the rest of our lives, right?

How come Bethesda was thinking they're going to get away with "Fallout 76"? Because they've had reasons to think that, and they were right to some extent. There are gamers, who are satisfied with just any title containing "Fallout" slapped on the box. They're "fine" with just that, even if the game was a clusterf**k of bugs and glitches, with zero substance in between. I'm actually happy, that "Mafia III" failed so hard. It was nowhere near the previous installments, whether we consider graphics, gameplay, story or character development. An example of a game, that should be forgotten. Don't know, how to expand on an existing universe? Well, don't do it, then.

 

As to CD Projekt Red and "Cyberpunk 2077" - the most promising thing for me is that they work with the creator of original "Cyberpunk". I'm hoping, that whenever they get any "funny" ideas (if they do that), he's like: "screw you, that totally wouldn't work in my world". And they are like "OK, you're the man". :laugh:

But I mostly want to see Ciri there. Personally, I'd wish it to be some "unobtrusive" encounter, something that you can actually miss, if you are not paying attention. Like going about your business down the street in the middle of a busy day and randomly catching a glimpse of white-haired woman, standing still in the middle of crowd and just watching the city with wide opened eyes and her jaw dropped (kinda like in my avatar, only waayy prettier) :cool:

 

Also, I hope that there WON'T be "The Witcher 4". The story was told. No "prequels", no "alternative stories", please.

"Either you stop and remain a hero, or you continue and become a villain" - recognize that? It's too true with too many game and movie franchises, that wen't to crap, because somebody wanted to milk it one more time.

And "Cyberpunk 2077" can still suck - anything is possible, I guess. Unlikely, but possible. After all, CDPR make their games with their hearts not wallets, true, but they still don't have THAT much experience as many western companies. Still, they don't try to fry your brain with constant hype, they don't spend money on countless trailers and don't force half-baked product onto the shelves, because some "deadline" - which is overall a good sign.

[HadToRegister]

The most fun I had with a "recent" game (I use "Recent" loosely, because I'm willing to wait a year or two for a GOTY version on Steam during a sale) was PREY.
I haven't had game play like that since the original System Shock back in 1994
On my second play through of it now as "Power Only", then a third with a mix of powers, because not taking some human powers that amplify the alien powers is a bit crippling.

Enemies are limited, but the story was excellent, and in this day and age, the most original in a while. (Unless I'm missing the obvious here, please correct me if I'm wrong, and am just seeing Prey through Rose-Colored glasses)

[Kartoflator]

The most fun I had with a "recent" game (I use "Recent" loosely, because I'm willing to wait a year or two for a GOTY version on Steam during a sale) was PREY.

 

I do that almost always - I'm patient, why would I pay for a product, that sometimes may be even unplayable due to some bugs or glitches, and then pay separately for DLCs or season passes? I just wait a bit, usually you can later buy "full package" with all add-ons for the same price, as the base game on release. Plus, usually you get the game with all the possible patches and fixes. This seems like a good practice, works for me at least. Also, I don't play any multiplayer games or MMOs, so I don't care if servers are "alive"; a good, singleplayer game can be "new" to me even if it's couple of years old. Right now, I'm trying "Divinity: Original Sin 2" - I just played it for an hour or so (I went on a modding rage with Battletech's .json files), but I'm really enjoying it. I feel like I'm playing good, old, very narrative title, like "Baldurs Gate" or "Planescape: Torment". On a side note, as to the "modern games being made around one template": how come so many fantasy games start with your main char being imprisoned? :laugh:

 

I have to give "Prey" another chance. I really liked the original game, I stopped playing the "new" one after a couple of hours. It felt kinda...repetitive. Lots of backtracking, multiple times. I guess I didn't have that feeling of progress, when I had to basically run in circles every so often. But yeah, when I have time, I will play it again. I've noticed, that some games need to grow on you, just like some music albums.