reply to post by GambitVII
The draw was the flaw. A relatively small development crew making ME1. It was (a few bugs..happens) overall a really great title. There was
consequences of your actions, the story and universe was highly compelling, it really stood out for its time (reviews, user feedback of the time).
ME2 came out, and pretty much every decision you made from the first game reflected in the second game..this was not done before (outside of stats
import). It was groundbreaking
But, it started to get complex programming. the development team didn't expand massively, it was still relatively the same amount of people, but now
they had to make like 2 different games based on your decisions. Still, it was executed flawlessly, expanded the universe, feel, and depth even
ME3. barely even a token few added...but now the plot hooks were grown exponentially. Now under the gun, a victim of their own success, they had to
made almost 8 distinctly different games crunched into one.
Complexity is actually what killed off this story.
I don't believe there can be a ME4 that tags along the same story as what is given, nor do I see any potential unless they define a offical storyline
(they should). Also, they should perhaps never again attempt such complexity. This both made this game absolutely brilliant, but also completely
limited (without a quantum computer to start calculating all the different paths people have taken.
the last 15 minutes can be debated from now till the cows come home as to if it was brilliant, stupid, or whatever..but the experience going through
the games was unlike anything I have experienced ever in gaming history.
I still am not sure what general timeframe your discussing as a sort of glory days of gaming..I played through all "eras" of gaming so far, and
loved each one as it has grown.
Battlefield 1942 was an epic game. it worked fantastic, then battlefield vietnam came out, which had better physics, better gun handling, etc...still
similar engine, so same lines..then they did some future thing...wasn't as good in my opinion due to my preference of historical over futuristic,
etc..not that the game sucked, just my preference for FPS's in general.
MOHAA was a fantastic game also, but putting it next to todays stuff makes it look all lame and dated. Doesn't mean it was for the time..for the time
it was beautiful, just as counterstrike was, or duke nukem 3d, or etc..
I guess you are talking about the feel, where I am talking about the dynamics. I however got super impressed by the sims when it came out and about
the new complexity within elements and have great appreciation over that size. In games, say a FPS, I will hide and just watch NPCs ambiant behavior
and find that brilliant (I remember playing the games when NPCs had no ambiant behavior...just things to shoot or talk to for shopping or quest
purposes...otherwise, they were furniture.
Hell, the people sweep the floor in skyrim when they aren't doing anything, or go have dinner, or go out and make armor, or...etc. ambiant
programming is awesome and relatively new.
Naa, not sure what your really complaining about...something you might want to do however, give yourself a date, say 1995..and for 3 or so years, play
absolutely no games that were published after that arbitrary date...immerse yourself in the limitations and fairly mundane games of that time. After
those three years, almost any game you pick up will blow your mind as to how good it is...
Some say gamers moan too much, expect too much, too spoiled..
And ya, we are..but thats a good thing. It forces the gaming industry to keep pushing the boundries of creativity and technical achievements..thereby
pushing technology. But, if you can manage perspective, you can drift from spoiled, to amazed at the drop of a hat.
Meh, either way...gaming > television.
Can't wait till we are critiquing virtual reality "well ya, but when it rains, you barely feel it on your skin, and they got the texture feel of the
grass wrong also!"
-dreams a bit-