Actually, this is a bad example, because P:T was more linear than ME will ever be. Both games sacrificed freedom for story, but still - while P:T was really a great game, it wasn't particularly known from possibility to make many meaningful choices. Of course, you could choose between many options, but you usually didn't get to see the consequences. You never get to see what happens to the people in the Curst you has saved. You can't return several years later to the Hive and see if the Razor Angels really was a better choice than the Shivs.
I was referring to his characterisation comment. =p
But okay.
To be fair, you're asking a video game to be as deep as a book. While that sounds reasonable, you have to realize that an author just writes what he wants. BioWare has to write in multiple storylines and bits of dialogue and coding, etc. for every single choice a player makes. It's far more difficult, and a far greater accomplishment in my eyes.
Again, Planescape: Torment. EASILY as deep as a book. It's also pretty damn funny. That's what someone did ten years ago. Are you telling me that with all the advances in technology, we can't advance in writing?
First, what the guy above me said. Second, you seem rather quick to say "BioWare can't have intended this, it was by accident." Why is that?
I'm not saying they didn't intend it, I'm just saying that, to me, it seems more like a way to reduce the player's effect on the setting. It's how I'd do it if I couldn't do lots of different options (say because of full voice-acting, which is fairly expensive and hard drive space hogging).
Word of mouth, my over-assuming friend. Word of mouth. I paid some minor attention to Mass Effect 2 of course, I saw maybe a 3-minute demo of a segment of Omega and promptly forgot about it. And I ran across a few old diaries of the first game entirely by accident. By a few, I think I meant 1, actually. The rest I've just heard other people quoting.
So, it's pretty much stuff other people have been spouting that you're claiming came from the mouths of the developers? :p
But if all these people do nothing but rant and rave about how superior Obsidian's games are, I think they'd have the influence to fix one of their most successful games, right?
It's not the same thing. Oomph in the gaming industry comes down to sales, not review scores. Since all of Black Isle's / Obsidian's (they're not the same company, by the by, Obsidian has some Black Isle employees but they're missing some key figures) games have had great reviews in terms of storytelling etc, but not great sales (the fact they're mainly PC only contributes to this, although Alpha Protocol was an exception) means that they don't have as much power as other developers.
The problem with your description of Kreia is that she actually is evil, by the standards of the universe she is in. She is horribly selfish and more or less wants nothing but her own benefit. Even all the things she does for "you" are really just benefiting her by proxy. She goes to morally questionable lengths to meet these desires of hers. For all intents and purposes, she is the quintessential Sith Lord, hence Dark Sider, hence evil. Like I said, doing it in your own universe makes for some good bait for thought, but in one where your ideas have already been described as impossible, it's a little silly.
I've tried to look at it objectively, and all I can see if a horribly mangled game with a few shining examples of good characterization, and a few muscle strings of good storylines that are the only recongizable pieces of what was once a living creature. The rest is charred flesh and bone, and some of it's just missing entirely.
I'm fairly certain Kreia wanted the death of the Force as a whole in order to "free the galaxy" of it. She also wanted you to focus on your goals instead of helping or harming people (which is something Luke Skywalker did, and yet he really wasn't a Sith). She wasn't REALLY a character of either morality (even if she sort've changes into a Sith Lord at the end) since she surpassed morality as a whole. She's basically a Ubermensch.
At the least, the game mechanics are better, the characterisation is better and the storyline was better. None of it was really complete, but it would've easily outshone the first game if it'd been truly finished.
The expansion was good, but it won't bring back all the characters that needlessly died and were left behind like it didn't even matter. And no Neeshka romance was just a kick in the balls.
Then they can't claim finesse, as they didn't even bother to use BioWare's musclework. And for building/using a new engine, they did a dang good job at making it look exactly like the old one. Why was a new engine necessary if they weren't going to make any visual changes at all?
Still, they should at least share their "secrets" with BioWare if they're going to be working with them time and time again.
Yeah, beautiful until they fuck up the one attempt they make at an idealistic story, because they just can't get a full wank without a pointlessly depressing ending.
You mean like at the end of Mass Effect 2? :p
We're discussing Black Isle, not Obsidian. They ARE different companies.
And why? It's not their fault Bioware has bad writers.
Actually, it might not be a good idea for you to play Planescape Torment. You're probably complain about how the ending is depressing or something.
Author
Topic: Mass Effect 3 (Read 53466 times)