I enjoy shooters, when they’re fun. Mass Effect is simply a game that gives you no real variety in it’s gameplay. You have such a limited amount of skills that become the only possible useful thing in combat when the AI decides to stay behind a wall and make raspberries at you for wanting to actually continuing the fight. I think probably the mst damning switch from ME1 to ME2 was the fact that you had your energy weapons had clips. That is just stupid.

My favorite game of all time is Half-Life 2, a linear first person shooter in a sci-fi setting that is immensely story driven. The differences between the two franchises are numerous, but probably the biggest one is that the former has actual pacing in all its aspects as well as really believable characters. I actually feel broken when Alyx was hurt in Episode 2. I didn’t care when I had to choose between Ashley and that other guy in Mass Effect 1. It was just a choice of who to fight, and you fight the same guy regardless.

And what’s wrong with comparing games in the same genre? Take Deus Ex, one of the first popular moral choice games that had choices echo at you throughout your journey instead of just what characters still followed you. Amazing and difficult gameplay, fleshed out storyline without being overbearing, NO JUDGING YOU ON CHOICES, and also having a very neat sci-fi setting with interesting elements that transmit into gameplay. What of the Witcher, that was built of the NWN engine from Bioware? Sure, it has the benefit of being based on a literary work, but it still doesn’t judge you for what path you choose to go down just to stick to canon.

My point is that comparisons with other games are inevitable and when you look at the ideas in Mass Effect, you see something a lot greater than it is. What they have isn’t fully realized simply due to catching themselves in a rut of bad gameplay and story decisions.

You attack the characters of the other games for being such renowned one man armies, but what’s the difference between Shepard and TWO other people saving ENTIRE PLANETS full of baddies (through lengthy and unimpressive corridor shootings) and Gordon Freeman saving one single part of one planet in a game spanning over a week? Gordon did the covert work of breaking into Nova Prospekt and downing a huge prison facility, whilst the Uprising was doing the fighting in the streets and actually initiating a rebellion due to the increased morale from the victory. They had planned this for a long time, and just needed an instigator. Shepard literally pops into a planet and solves it of all its ills in one or two visits.

What also annoys me is that Shepard is renowned from every angle you can possibly imagine, but still gets zero respect from anyone actually important. Even after he saves the major support of the entire galaxy, he still is ignored by every single person in power. That’s going beyond a “politicians are dumb” statement to “everyone but these couple people are morons”. As a contrast, in the Witcher, Geralt can be practically spit upon by common folk but is always given the respect he deserves by people who know they could easily be turned on by him if they treat him badly. You may say this factors into the last decision at the end of ME, but let me remind you that regardless you get absolutely no support on your mission. As for Half-Life, you are a hero of the people but at the same time the damnation of them as well. Some characters recognize the duality, but those you are around most understand the things that were out of your control.

The problem with learning your characters over and earning their respect is that you KNOW the exact dialogue you must pick to do so. Top right, every time. There’s no decision in that and no chance of failure. And you can’t make them hate you to the point they leave the mission, so having choice in dialogue with such a system seems redundant. They don’t HAVE to be there, but they put up with your rudeness…. Just cuz. In The Witcher, the characters are there for a fully intent purpose. In the first there was only one real companion who stuck around because of her own affections, and TW2 sees your companions as outlaws looking for justice rather reluctantly. For Mr. Freeman, he does have companions, each of with are far more relatable than any of the Mass Effect characters because they are fully three-dimensional (Culture does not equal character). They’ve worked at this stuff for years, and Gordon is just giving a single necessary push in one fragment of the world.

I think it’s rather immersion breaking to be able to control other people in battle other than issuing commands. Actually being able to switch to them makes me realize “I’m in a game, not an experience”. Sure, the Witcher needs some better combat decisions when you do have actual control for companions, but Geralt is a primarily a loner regardless. It’s part of his character. Besides, I think the majority of people you fight with in the games can hold their own. They’ve their own styles of combat that are FAR different than Witcher styles, so as to take their reigns would be pushing you away from the character you can actually develop. And with Half-Life, I refuse to budge on the fact that the AI is brilliant. Look up some videos about HL2′s AI like how the Combine use pincer tactics and the fact that Alyx never got killed on my playthroughs shows how well characters can do with their own virtues.

Geralt is not god. The very prelude to the game sees him defeated, and no matter your choices throughout the game you are defeated. And you know what? That’s great. In Mass Effect, few choices of yours actually prevent the story from being hunky dory. I think there was only one in the first game. In Half-Life, you see the atrocities of a fascist dictatorship. Most of them are even HIDDEN so you actually have to PAY ATTENTION isntead of being force fed the idea of “these many people were killed”, statistics aren’t interesting. And as I’ve said before, you’re only saving a small portion of the world. Probably only one country that’s not even the majority of players’ homes. In ME3, you will save the entire Earth with three people in a corridor that looks like a corridor instead of at least making it look alive. Geralt barely saves anybody, really. He has his own agendas and you can throw people to the wolves if you wish.

If you’re going to go for such a low blow and attack the names, you could easily say that Shepard is the worst name of all time because you could conceivably put anything as the first name. That customization is cool, but it doesn’t make sense because you are still a character with a set backstory. It doesn’t enhance immersion by cutting off one part of the name. Gordon Freeman is a name that has an actual significance from the creators, actually modeling it after two famous scientists. It’s cool because Gordon is a Tabula Rasa, but at the same time has an indiscriminate backstory. Besides, you actually feel like you are Gordon once the events really start to unfold. Tell me a moment where Mass Effect actually slows down if you follow the game properly so you can admire things. There isn’t any. Half-Life did this once at the beginning of each game (except Ep 2) to give you a feeling that you’re not just an action star blowing things up. There is humanity in you.

Again, as I’ve gone in above, the Resistance does do the bulk of the work. They raze City 17 from the ground up once you provide support. You take down one major Combine base, and they lead you to the Citadel. Compartively, you did so little work. And why doesn’t Alyx “cut it” as a companion? She’s extremely well developed without CRAMMING HISTORY IN YOUR FACE and more than capable of assisting on the battlefield. I can remember more than a few times she protected me. ME companions run into walls. Alyx getting that wound in Ep 2 was a hell of a lot more than an “owie”. I suppose you regard Shepard getting blown up at the beginning og ME2 as a “flesh wound”? Why do you care more about that than her? She’s not a person your forced to like, but she’d got a personality I don’t thibk anyone wouldn’t. All of her movements, her speech, and the way she goes about things really reinforces the character. With any female “companion” in ME, they ALWAYS bring up sex. Alyx, like a normal lady would, gets embarassed when her father does it instead of going on about how her body was “specifically made to be perfect”. Is that what you call lazy character design, Bioware? Take a look at The Witcher 2 for the best example of how things can really be brought to life by being deliberately ugly.

You say the things about the “pretty scenery” like it excuses Bioware’s inability to make anything but linear set pieces that look like linear set pieces. In Half-Life, because of the mobility, you got for open spaces for the ability to maneuver combat. In the Witcher, fights always take place in open spaces and depend heavily on circumstances to effectively go through combat. Mass Effect has one strategy because every environment is the same. I have NEVER had to command my squad mates around in ME because there is no reason whatsoever to do so. I know where enemies will come from and who they will be because of how plainly things are put in aesthetic. In Half-Life, I could never tell when I was about to round into a trap. Things looked so realistic and familiar (a train station, abandoned buildings, a prison, etc.) that you could logically hide at any spot and swarm in. The Witcher was mostly wild based, thus it was logical and possible for them to come in every direction.

Well, I think I’ve gone on about this long enough. Clearly we have conflicting tastes and such, but I stand by the fact that Mass Effect will never feel like a world to me. There are jsut too many obstacles in the way that are so glaring as to the game’s shortcomings that I always feel the ‘play’ and not the ‘be’. The ideas are great, I will not dispute that, but people think they are fleshed out a lot more than they are. As it stands, ME stands as an above average Sci-fi shooter merely on the fact that effort is put into the story and not for the gameplay or ability to weave story and gameplay. Better off with DX.

“Hello. Fair enough. If you want to, go ahead and ignore everything i’ve
written. I certainly can’t address everything given time and space
although I’d like too; I found myself writing a ton as it was given the
few points I chose to address. And I suppose your opening statement is
one way to cut off a conversation when someone pulls the iconoclastic
card on you. and you aren’t comfortable with it when they go after your
sacred cows.”

The only points I didn’t address were your thinks regarding Geralt’s sexual appetite and the fact that you think that being the true center stage hero is dull. For the former, people will always think such and bring it up as a complaint within the actual gamepaly. It’s an addition, and I find it much more realistic than Mass Effect. That’s opinionated, as well as the latter. I don’t recall cutting off regarding anything else.

“First off, sorry, but I think you’re Dead Wrong here on how controlling
other characters is immersion breaking-quite the opposite.”

I think otherwise. I stated my reasoning behind that sort, and it boils down to preference. Maybe I just don’t like the fact that in order for my squad to be the least bit compitent I MUST control it. Since I don’t need them, I don’t often take the time to. Being that I specialized in the psychic powers, I never had a problem with dealing with enemies who hide behind cover. The AI in those games is embarrassing for a next gen game.

“As for the contention concerning one man armies, in the overwhelming
majority of the assignments, you aren’t saving planets. You’re fighting
small groups for control of something valuable on the planet or to
eliminate those groups as a threat to you.”

Which just happen to always be the evil gangs that are running the planet.

“As for “people being morons,” for giving Shepherd crap, not really.”

He was right before, he’s a war hero, he has no reason to be betraying other races and they give him zero support. Not only that, they insult his ideas as delusions after he proved of his weird psychic abilities. This is not like something that doesn’t touch them. It almost killed them in the last game, and they risk themselves once again merely because… Just cuz.

“I played it by calculating in advance whether my player you believed in
forging an overwhelming multilateral alliance of friends, or whether you
seek to dominate all people in the vein of Stalin.”

Just found that particular sentence funny.. Towards the actual point, the character development does not set how well they do in combat. You can learn everything you need to know about a character by going to your quarters and looking at their skill list. Maybe if progressing through getting to know them had some sort of residual impact (or changed how they respond to situations, both combat and dialogue) then there would be a reason to care for the sort of guy like me that just can’t believe the characters as anything but polygons.

“Your make managing the troops and using them sound like a chore and
treat it as if its a bad thing; its NOT”

It is, to me. When I think of this sort of sci-fi “epic” quest, I’m not imagining to be in a Stormtrooper brigade. I imagine being the rebels, the few who act as they are and mounting an offensive with what little idea they have. Because of that, I think the game suffers and does not benefit. Again, this is style of play, but I tend to like characters act of their own accord if they’ll act at all. I’m not against having partners. I’m against having to manage them constantly because the AI is not smart enough to make helpful decisions. Maybe a system like the Paradigms in FFXIII (the concept of course) would suit me better. I just find no reason to be caring about the squad mentality when I can EASILY beat the game solo. Make the game harder with better level design, then maybe I’ll give more thought into it.

And RPG elements does not equal strategy. The Witcher does have skill tress in which to advance better at certain things (and you can’t fill the whole thing on one playthrough), and the combat is still extremely difficult. Half-Life’s strategy relies on positioning. You can go all refrigerator on them, but I find my preferred style of play is flanking. Mass Effect never gave any reason for me the play any other way than stop and pop. No situations forced me out of cover due to the AI’s inability to find me, no situation left me in a place where I HAD to be near to something, and the walls are plentiful.

“But once you read the ambush and knew how to deal with it, its not that
big a deal. Just ready your appropriate gun of choice in advance the
next time.”

And this is different from ME, how?

“Show, don’t tell. Anyone can script the Resistance doing stuff.”

Let’s go back in Mass Effect’s timeline and paly out absolutely every moment in the history, because we hate being told things. Sometimes, we don’t need to always see it. We do see the Resistance pulling their weight as soon as we get back to Kleiner’s lab with Barney’s work on the front lines. Minutes later, we get our own taste of squad combat as we see the Resistance fighting it out. And we see this all the way to the Citadel. That’s a sizable portion of the game, just as the finishing touches. There could have easily been the trek back to City 17, yes, but the portal plotline gave way to some interesting development of the idea of portal technology as well as Mossman’s character. It’s subtle, and it works.

“Been there, done that, yawn.”

I have too, in Mass Effect. All three times. Shepard is an archetype as well. S/He’s a military wo/man who acts like a renegade (regardless of the P or R status) and is very assertive about his/her opinion. That is set in stone, and it’s really up to you which is worse. Gordon Freeman could be anybody, instead of having to be the hardened tough guy that game developers imagine everyone wants to be. You can say to yourself how reluctant you are to be saving the world, not having to convey it through traditional means. Saying Geralt is emo is like saying a Holocaust survivor is emo. He was experimented on from as a little child, having no chance to live a normal life and being forced to hunt monsters and follow a strict code for all of his life. Besides, he smiles occasionally anyhow because he has fun in his own ways. I won’t even get into the fact that when both Geralt and Shepard smile, it’s rather creepy (only one intentionally).

Your comments about Alyx make it seem like you want something a lot more camp than Mass Effect. Yes, she has unusual traits for a woman, but she is still someone you could sit and have a drink with. If I had a drink with Miranda, she’d espouse to me about how many necks she’s snapped. It’s not pleasant to be hanging around the Mass Effect companions as actual, simple friends that I think is a lot more enjoyable than to have the “in your face” badasses comparing sizes. And let us not forget that you had to rescue people in ME as well, such as Liara because they were unable to handle the situation. Sorry after several days of constant fighting a fucking stab in the chest is too much for a character to handle now.

“Or I could read a book. Or a few thousand. Or watch a movie. Or a couple
dozen. And enjoy both far better. Frankly, I found it tame.”

That’s because Half-Life has a background, not a history that must be reiterated every five minutes. If you actually take a moment to look at the details then you will find some much more brutal things like a man being eaten by a headcrab (with no way to save him), a massacre outside a rebel base, an amputated body of a human-combine conversion, and a pile of burning body parts. If that’s tame to you… I’d be afraid to step in your house.

“And you get to see something that still happens alot today in ME: powers
and organizations jockeying for power. And participate in something
that marked alot of history: One great power threatening the others.”

In The Witcher, you do the same, except reluctantly. Again, up to you to decide which of it is better. I personally like the idea of someone getting entrenched in politics he doesn’t like or understand, having to deal with the situation as best he can. Shepard feels like he invades where he doesn’t belong and is forceful about it. Again, it’s personal choice. In Half-Life it’s the Resistance, the Combine, and the middle ground found in Dr. Mossman that’s the “political” strife. I don’t think every story needs to delve into ideas of social leadings, though each game gives its own take on how thinks are run: Fascist, Monarchy, and democracy. Different situations, different events. It’s also a bit funny how you take upon the idea of “being involved in the history” but at the same time saying “one person cannot be the hero”.

Hello.

Oddly enough in comparing Mass Effect and Dragon Age to Half-Life and Witcher, my reaction was the reverse of yours. And yes, there are things about Dragon Age 2 I do not like.
It’s simply not plausible to me that one man (or woman) can effectively do it all by themselves like in Witcher and Half-Life. No true team, no true organizational or governmental backing. I need an ensemble and autonomously programmed help doesn’t cut it. 

That’s just not plausible, and that makes it bad storytelling to me. In Mass Effect, you’re essentially trying to build an alliance among satisfied, complacent powers to defeat a rising power or newly grown threat that seeks to dominate the international system . If that’s poor storywriting, well, then History since before Athens faced off against Sparta and to a potential coming conflict with China wasn’t worthy of Thucydides’s pen I guess. 

For me, the gameplay in Mass Effect offers a great deal of variety  by building different classes of Shepherd and then pairing them up with different groups of potential allies to see what works and what doesn’t given different enemies and situations. By developing an appreciation of the different characters skills and attributes, I developed an appreciation for the different characters themselves. You have people other than yourself, who can actually do something and make combat interesting and have variety. You have real choice in game play. 

You can play as them and then, to some extent, “become them,” as well.  As a result, I became interested in my other characters’ stories when I discovered they could actually do stuff and didn’t just have to be a scripted character, occasionally given some autonomously programmed and fake or flavored “hep”. It’s a cover and shoot game, but you can approach it in so many ways that it becomes tactically engaging for an extended period of time. You may be SuperShepard but you don’t have to play as the lone HE-RO; You can be the first among many; not just be effectively off by yourself like Freeman, and yes, Geralt (and autonomously programmed “helpers” who you have little or no true combat control over doesn’t change that). 

Half-Life, its you with different guns, until the Gravity Gun for most people. Witcher its you with magic and a sword (just once I wish it was a mace-makes far more sense against armored opponents, btw). And yes you have “companions,” who are autonomously programmed, you have little or no control or command over, and are frankly forced to be marginal by game design terms of winning. Again, you can probably play where Shepherd does it all by himself (which would be as dull as Freeman or Geralt) but you aren’t forced to play that way by virtue of game design. In terms of operational, tactical, and strategic gameplay these games for me lack the flexibility and thus creativity of Mass Effect.

For me, Witcher was the bog-standard anarchist computer geek fantasy. You’re god and you cut or blow your way through all the baddies and screw all the ladies.

You save the day, by yourself. I know I’m beating a dead horse here but this is something that should be obvious in my view and evidently isn’t to the general gaming public which is that autonomous programmed allies you have no real influence over “in the moment” don’t cut it, period. It’s lazy and it’s unacceptable, especially since the lion’s share of the fighting, again, is forced to become about you and again, it’s a de facto way of you saving the day all by yourself.  

That’s just so DULL and unimaginative to me; I’m not here to play the film Commando. 

Why should I care about my companions and what they want? It’s not like they can be made to really DO anything, or conversely, have an effect that can be truly respected in their own right. I can’t just have them truly help me gun down a Geth Juggernaut about to cut me down on Insanity level like Ashley or Wrex or blow away a pack of husks in some godforsaken mine like Samara or Jack or have Mordin burn off the armor on a YMIR mech that can chop me up in two seconds. In actual combat, Alyx can’t or won’t do that, nor can any of Geralt’s squeezes when they aren’t busy riding him. So why should I care about them and the story of Half-Life and Witcher? And if I don’t care about the characters because they can’t truly actually “do soemthing,” why bother? 

And in Half-Life its the bog-standard anarchist computer geek fantasy again, albeit Half-Life 2 giving it an X-files twist with the Combine. Here you, Gordon Freeman (cheesy name, btw) blow your way through all the baddies, with the gravity gun a fan favorite. Here, combat variety comes from matching the best guns to the best baddies at best, although the gravity gun comes to supersede much of the game. Alyx running and popping off pistol shots along with you as plot girlfriend doesn’t cut it. Eli and a joke resistance don’t either; you do all the work. Again. why should I care about them; you’re forced into doing all the real work? Alyx got an owie and was plot convience heroine capture victim number one billion-piffht, who cares? Gee, never could have seen that coming (eye roll).

Regardless of how beautiful the worlds were, moreover, I could never truly care about the the world of Witcher and Half-Life. All they were were templates for one character to act upon-its too obvious that the worlds are false fronts no matter how pretty the scenery. In Mass Effect I always had the feeling there were other people, groups, and powers out there who mattered because they had an effect on me and my objectives because they wanted things outside of me. ME doesn’t have to be an ego trip in the way that Witcher and yes, Half-Life, are. Because I have a team in Mass Effect to manage like a real commander, over time I come to care about the world because of my relationship with my teammates and their relationship with the world. ME creates the feeling of having a universe that exists beyond you so it felt like you had to do something to matter, which made action meaningful. I never got that feeling in Half-Life or Witcher, so those worlds never mattered to me. I can never see them as anything other than props for fighting “the Man”.

As for character complexity and carrying the strengths and foibles of “humanity”, take one look at major historical figures and people who were in conflicts and tough times  and you’ll see a ton of them reflecting the attributes and attitudes of Mordin Solus.

 It’s a refreshing change of pace from Everyman and Everywoman caught up and overwhelmed by extraordinary events and how they feel about it. You know, Gordon and Alyx from Half-Life 2. 

Or Emo Magical Conan, you know, Geralt.  

Nintendo have made a TON of new IP’s this generation, covering both the Wii and DS. A quick look on Wikipedia states…

Fatal Frame (which they own now)
Xenoblade
The Last Story
Endless Ocean
Pandora’s Tower
Rhythm Heaven
Zangeki no Reginleiv
Flingsmash
Disaster: Day of Crisis
Captain Rainbow
Big Brain Academy
Another Code
Wii Sports
Wii Fit

This is just counting Wii games (I could double that list with DS games), and a whole bunch of these probably never made it to America (the kickass JRPG’s like Xenoblade are the worst losses). The point is to say that Nintendo makes MORE new IP than anyone else.

Is there an IP with the power to eclipse Mario and Zelda? No, of course not. Why would they put all their resources into a game that beats their top talent?

You’re just making poor excuses to cover up the sheer laziness.

Oh… so Ubisoft don’t NEED to change their games because… well… we have no standards and Assassin’s Creed is shiny.

But NINTENDO oh no, Nintendo HAVE to change… just because…. Nintendo.

That’s literally how such a stance sounds. It sounds ridiculous.

Link was NEVER meant to be deep, just like Gordon Freeman is not meant to be deep. Saying that just because Link does not speak the series cannot have compelling storylines is shallow and downright false, as I said Majora’s Mask proves what can be done and the power of artistic gameplay in general.

Seriously if anyone wants proper voice acting, they clearly don’t know what the franchise is about and how wacky it is. It would not work.

I’m afraid that you’re entirely wrong, all 3 of those games can easily be dashed aside by me just bringing up decade old games like Majora’s Mask and Final Fantasy 7, which tells a far greater story than these games in my opinion.

I still need to play Mass Effect 2. Mass Effect 1 on the other hand was weak in all areas in my opinion, the storyline included. The characters for the most part were terribly shallow, the only ones with any sort of development throughout the WHOLE GAME were Garrus, Tali and Wrex, all of which had miniscule relevance to the plot. You could even kill off Wrex, ignore Garrus on the Citadel so he magically turns up to your ship later for no reason, and Tali does nothing after you save her but does offer plot relevant backstory.

Compare that to a game like FF7, where EVERY character has PLOT CRITICAL relevance, backstory and character arcs that they must go through.

The rest of Mass Effect’s story was nothing special (doesn’t really make too much sense either…), and the twist wasn’t at all effective because again the characters were irrelevant to the proceedings. Saren also pleading mercy (starting the worst boss battle I’ve seen in a long time) at the end was just tacked on.

Assassin’s Creed had an interesting and fresh fiction, but also a ton of plot holes (like magic at the end coming out of left field). There is not a single character in that game that is 3 dimensional, that has a PERSONALITY as opposed to just a role (this is Lucy, she works the machine, got kidnapped like you and might be an assassin even though we never touch upon that again). Not to mention Altair was so bland he may as well not have spoke.

Uncharted has a B movie storyline, it always has. The characters are shallow (who seriously didn’t think the British guy was going to be evil?), the premise shallow and really it’s game trying to be as much of a film as possible.

I find it HILARIOUS, that people can think that the best game, is a game trying to be as much like a film as possible. That’s just me though.

This generation hasn’t improved storytelling NEARLY as much as you may think it has. Bioshock is also riddled with plot holes (you play a 3 year old? Why does Ryan WANT to die? Why does the Vita chamber not bring Ryan back?) so I was underwhelmed by that as well considering its reception.

This generation has gotten prettier and more cinematic, just like the Michael Bay Transformers movies, and we all know those are the PINNACLE of cinema!

What I’m saying is that being cinematic does not instantly mean you have a strong storyline.

That said, the scripts have definitely gotten better since the 32/64 bit days.

I have a headset and free time, so I am willing good sir!

If you have a Steam account then just look up ‘Helmaroc_King’ and send a friend request, the avatar is of the baby Goron art from Twilight Princess :P .

Not exactly safe giving out any other sort of details, so that’ll have to do.

Wait, WHEN did I say I don’t like cutscenes? I think you made that one up.

No, of course Japan doesn’t do ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING better, but nearly all the games that matter the most to me are Japanese in origin, the games industry would be long dead without them and I imagine a lot of us would be leading very different lives.

The most developed Zelda character is Midna, the companion from Twilight Princess. She was VERY developed and had a proper story arc, backstory, was plot critical and was gameplay critical.

The problem with Bioshock is that it’s chock full of plot holes, the game just forgets the storyline and leads you on fetch quests and the world is basically dead when you arrive.

–

With Majora’s Mask I’d rather point you to a detailed article on the subject but since you probably won’t bother reading it I’ll try to summarize…

Majora’s Mask is a game that basically casts the apocalypse as the bad guy, the moon (with scary ass face) that is hurtling towards the earth and will wipe out the world in 3 in-game days. No game has ever toyed with this concept of imminent death before. The evil god (in the form of Majora’s Mask) that starts the apocalypse is basically evil and mischief incarnate, and again it’s rare to see such an unnerving foe.

Majora has what I would call artistic gameplay, gameplay that is designed to make you feel a particular complex emotion or get across story, not just the basic happy, angry, scared in a cheap way and regular gameplay stuff.

Majora’s Mask starts you off as a helpless Deku Scrub (you’ve been transformed into a plant creature), and the clock is immediately ticking. You rush around confused, lost and nobody will give you the time of day as they’re too busy living their own lives. Each day the moon comes closer and closer, the atmosphere of the town changes and becomes more sad and sinister. The feeling of helplessness and lonliness is completely unmatched in this game. You then manage to turn back time, and then the real adventure to stop the moon from falling begins.

The world is a living, breathing one with NPC’s going about their daily lives (as well as the N64 could be expected to handle it), over 3 separate days. Even current games have a serious problem doing this with any success.

Majora focuses on the plight of the people and how they are affected by the world around them, from domestic problems they may have to the incoming apocalyse. Pretty much every NPC is a unique character with a unique flavour, many of them offer sidequests (a big part of the game) which allow you to help them through their trouble and see things from their perspective. The biggest sidequest (Kafei x Anju quest) is an epic spanning 3 whole days where you have to reunite an engaged couple who’ve been broken apart by these events, and even then it’s bittersweet because there is no guarantee you’ll save the world in that playthrough.

Aside from the sidequests there is also the main quest where you travel around Termina trying to help the creatures and people who are also suffering because of the darkness Majora has brought to the world. This is where the dungeons come into play, and they only unlock after significant interaction with the plot characters.

The ending also changes based on how many sidequests you’ve completed,
growing more to include all the characters as their lives continue.

Majora also BASICALLY has non-linear storytelling to say the least. Every run through the games 3 given days can ONLY complete a mere FRACTION of the full story. In one run you could do a sidequest or do a dungeon run. Every playthrough is you experiencing a small part of the story in different ways.

The game has many recurring themes, such as healing wounds be they literal or mental, forgiveness, what it means to be innocent etc.

There is also quite a good deal of symbolism around, but I’ll just pick something obvious like how the name of the world ‘Termina’ basically means ‘to end’, which should go someway to explaining how dark the game can be.

Now without telling you the actual extent of the story, these things are WHY Majora’s Mask has such a powerful storyline.

This is an N64 game we’re talking about here on fitted onto a tiny cartridge, and yet it still destroys the majority of games. Not to mention, it’s freaking Zelda gameplay at heart these things make it the artistic Zelda fans favourite.

It may not have the character development of FF7, but it makes up for it in its groundbreaking approach, variety, realism, maturity and poignancy. That was fun to write actually.

–

Mass Effect is PLENTY dramatic, it may have come across as seriously cheesy but that was not the intention. The fact that it ended up looking that way should tell you they messed up with it, the whole relationship thing is one big joke when it most likely wasn’t meant to be. Just looking at the trailers will tell you they were going for epic.

No. The whole idea of ‘JRPG’s are not real RPG’s’ is an utterly bullshit FALLACY. JRPG’s and WRPG’s were based on Dungeons and Dragons, and Dungeons and Dragons was NEVER about freedom.

The whole point of Dungeons and Dragons is to follow the story being given by the Dungeon Master, and having to deal with the situation you are presented with, namely a combat situation. In NO WAY are you supposed to have control of the story. Games like Final Fantasy 7 and it’s Materia system destroys Mass Effect when it comes to COMBAT OPTIONS, because it offers far more abilities, depth, customization, variety, elemental effects, metagame complexity, statistic variation and more. It’s like comparing the strategic value of choosing a better pistol over a chess move.

The difference with WRPG’s is that they try to offer player freedom, whereas JRPG’s offer strong linear storylines and unique combat mechanics. They are both RPG’s but simply evolved in different ways.

Err…

Sorry to break it to you but I and millions of other would CERTAINLY push games like FF7 (or for some FF6) or whatever as being among the greatest games of all time. I don’t see how you haven’t come across this concept? Seeing as Noah is a huge fan of the past games.

This conversation is barely going anywhere anyway, you’re just boiling things down to a ridiculous level.

If you don’t see how Majora’s Mask’s narrative structure and storyline aren’t unique, you clearly don’t have a grasp of storytelling in games at all.

What other game can you LOSE by just stand still and putting the controller down? What other game essentially makes you only able to save a couple aspects of the world at a time, making you fail and restart time again until you can finally save everything?

You serious? You clearly haven’t played it.

It seems you care mostly about messing around in games and have given off no hint of actually caring about the storyline in games. Then clearly Western RPG’s are for you. They are more sandbox experiences.

I’m not talking about the later FF games, I am specifically talking about FF7 which is turn based and incredibly deep like chess is. You can’t say the same about a hack  & slash WRPG can you? No.

No, you’re just splitting hairs now. Fact is that Dungeons & Dragons has NEVER been about the heroes changing the story, it’s about a Dungeon Master authoring the story and the action, and the players responding based on their class. If anything JRPG’s are far more similar to this model than WRPG’s.

I’m sure a Dungeon Master COULD alter the story based the players input, but that is NOT how it was originally meant to be.

What do you mean JRPG’s don’t make you feel PART of the story, when you are essentially guiding yourself through it.

I could easily twist that and say that WRPG’s take me out of the story, because in games like Oblivion your character is completely irrelevant to the story and the story barely exists.

The fact that WRPG’s have a ‘choose your own adventure book’ vibe is cool and everything, but I PERSONALLY prefer an actual strong authored storyline with great characters. I don’t get excited at the pospect of being able to play as a douchebag for evil points.

Well apparently Final Fantasy’s success is news to you. You asked whether I thought a Final Fantasy match up to the rather obscure choices you made (aside from Planetscape, I’d like to play that someday). The answer is obviously a resounding yes.

Daggerfall is unplayable nowadays. Fallout isn’t fun. Ultima isn’t fun. Why would anybody want to play
Wizardry at this point? They may be important games but that doesn’t
change the fact that they are super old and likely have very weak
stories. FF7 is actually highly played to this day.

No strategy is required? What a false statement… Strategy is ALWAYS
best, but if you want to just poke enemies to death go for it. You can
do that in any game. FF7 is plenty challenging if you don’t do excessive
grinding and the ridiculous number of combinations possible with the
Materia system allow you create your own custom classes and playstyles.

I’m not talking about super hard hack & slash games here, I’m
talking about legitimate combat options. There is no comparison to be
made.

You can’t even beat the superbosses without exploiting the crap out of the metagame.

I could give you a giant list of all the WRPG’s I own, half of which I haven’t played because they all look so generic in terms of the whole package. What would be the point? I gave an example of a game with strong RPG storytelling to explain Mass Effect’s weakness and I’ll stick by that thanks. I’ve already talked about Bethesda enough in other comments.

So now you’re hating on Japanese art and design styles? Eh dear…

Clearly you’re a little close minded.

Who said JRPG’s are the be all and end all? Where are you getting these points from?

I’m talking about Mass Effect because that’s what this article is focusing on if you haven’t noticed…

When did I say that Japanese games are flawless? There are tons of generic and crappy JRPG’s around (the subgenre is far bigger than the WRPG subgenre).

Super Mario Bros? Truly the pinnacle of storytelling (those “Princess is in another castle” plot twists get me everytime). Bravo for giving a ridiculous example by offering a game that has practically no context or emotional resonance whatsoever….

Errr… good for Baldur’s Gate I guess? How is this relevant to me talking about how flawed Mass Effect is?

Oh wait. It isn’t.

WRPG’s these days are ALL about offering CHOICE (Mass Effect, The Witcher etc), only Bethesda games are big games that offer freedom over narrative choice.

This thread should tell you that most people think that Mass Effect is an amazing game, you are almost entirely ALONE in being a WRPG fan that doesn’t like modern WRPG’s. I didn’t think these games were all that good either, so why exactly would I be jumping at the chance to play older WRPG’s from my perspective?

I’ll happily admit that I need to crack out all the WRPG’s I own, but so far I am not that impressed.

Unlike you I don’t WANT to compare all the games in a god damn GENRE spanning COUNTLESS games worldwide, maybe you have the time for that impossible task but I don’t.

No, the fact that people actually WANT to play FF7 and DON’T want to play super old text based WRPG’s tells you they want to play what still stands as a AMAZING game.

Dude, it’s JRPG’s that actually HAVE innovative and well made combat and gameplay systems… Look at the broken combat in Morrowind (the Elder Scroll fans favourite) and then talk to me about gameplay.

I’d like to point out that FFV avoids all of the “repetitive battling” stuff, and the animesque designs. But I can see that you can’t be changed at all and that any Final Fantasy game MUST be pegged with the “OH MAN IT’S SO ANIME SO IT SUCKS” tag, which just isn’t true. I liked all the Final Fantasys before VII, ’cause I didn’t really like VII.

But anyways, don’t be dissin’ on FFV, yo.

(Also I accidentally liked that post instead of replying. Oops)

I’ve played FFV (haven’t finished it, but played through until the final lair). I liked the fact that you can actually chose your classes and some stuff like blue magic is fun, but I just can’t get behind RPGs with so little freedom (or even an illusion of freedom).

I’m mainly talking about the Playstation era Final Fantasys when I talk about the animesque stuff. It’s not really a big issue in most older consoles, since it’s not as detailed. Though, I did mention somewhere that I like FF Tactics.

Sorry, I still see nothing special about that MM story. There’s never been a story about an evil being who wants utter annihilation? Never before have there been different endings based on what you’ve completed?

As for the RPG thing, it’s not about completely affecting the story, but how you play out the story that makes an RPG. You can’t even choose your character in the later FF games. Opposite of roleplaying (and roleplaying doesn’t always mean D&D, btw, but even they allow basic freedoms, and with a good Dungeon Master, you can have an interesting gaming experience with multiple pathways). And I’m not talking about Mass Effect, a game I’ve already said I don’t care for. Have you played the other games I mentioned? Elementals? Really?.

“Sorry to break it to you but I and millions of other would CERTAINLY
push games like FF7 (or for some FF6) or whatever as being among the
greatest games of all time. I don’t see how you haven’t come across this
concept? Seeing as Noah is a huge fan of the past games. ”

So? This is supposed to be news? Popularity only means that something appeals to more people, not that it’s better than anything else.

FF combat system is good? Bollocks I say. There’s no strategy required for anything but the few bosses you fight, while in something like Baldur’s Gate 2 every enemy has to be approached differently. Good combat? Play Wizardry (a game that most jRPGs owe a large debt to) or Pool of Radiance. Good settings and story? Planescape: Torment. Skills? Fallout and Daggerfall.

Add shitty animesque character designs and cutesy Chocobo crap and I’ll continue thinking jRPGs aren’t the be all and end all of RPGs, thanks. FF may focus a lot on the story, but it doesn’t feel at all like you’re actually playing a part in it.

Just out of curiosity what Western RPGs do you like, if any? If there are none, this conversation can end here.

Nintendo spent however many years and DID change Zelda.

You talk as if shifting art styles happens in seconds, whereas asset creation is the most expensive part of development and changing the art style can have significant effects on the feel of the game. Just look at Wind Waker which suffered a huge backlash because of the art style, and now years later it’s a fan favourite. Don’t downplay the ART, because that’s what games are.

The addition of M+ controls completely reworks the dynamics of combat and item usage, and reports from this E3 have been spectacular. The combat is now far more strategic and realistic (enemies are much more aggressive and block constantly, you need precision to strike through their defense and they have tells help you accomplish this), how do button presses even compare for a game like Zelda with ever evolving methodical approach? THIS is what Zelda has been working towards.

You have the stamina meter, sprinting and parkour capabilites. This changes how you physically interact with the game world. There are stealth sections where this will be of great use.

There are two overworlds, one involves flying over a sea of clouds and the other is entirely the land under the clouds. The whole notion of there being a constant interplay between these two overworlds is a RADICAL change of pacing in a Zelda game.

You have upgradeable items (so they are constantly in use), loot mechanics, orchestrated music and more.

All this and we barely know anything about the game, it’s been said to have the most content of any Zelda, and Twilight Princess was a 50+ hour game.

What more could you possibly want? Seriously?

Ocarina of time was made for a 3D platform, it wasn’t a ‘different team’
or anything to that effect. They adapted their gameplay to 3D as best
they could (creating the lock-on to keep 2D precision) and made best
possible use of this added complexity.

What you are asking is for them to reinvent 3D gaming again, and that is asking far too much even of Nintendo’s talent.

If the Zelda team and Eiji Aonuma had made missteps I might be inclined
to agree, but they haven’t. The games set the world on fire on release.

Eiji Aonuma made Majora’s Mask which still has a groundbreaking narrative to this day, he can work on Zelda all he wants.

As explained, if you play any of the games that is not Twilight Princess
(which was meant as a homage and still has a ridiculous number of
unique aspects), you’ll find each Zelda is a very different and unique affair. Zelda is practically in its own genre, which makes the change all the more unnecessary.

Why on earth would they reinvent what works perfectly?

I’d say Assassin’s Creed is stale already, because it hasn’t changed in any significant sense for the last three games aside from having less stealth each time. Even the NES Mario games didn’t have the audacity to be this samey. I doubt they’ve been able to change revelations all that much in the span of a years development, and the E3 demo certainly didn’t show it.

I don’t bother with online multiplayer, and when it comes to Assassin’s Creed nobody else did either…

Multiplayer compared to actual innovation and differentiation is an easy, brainless addition. You take the main game, make custom maps by reworking all the single player assets (maybe make a couple more), and add networking. You can talk about balance all you want but that’s just basic testing which all games need. This does not affect the single player experience, which is the actual artistic part of the game.

People just hear what they want to hear and run with it, preferably using the least amount of effort possible as evidenced by a lot of the comments on this site recently. Yahtzee isn’t even supposed to be taken seriously, it’s his job to bash games (and he’s done lots of bullshitting too…), and it’s even funnier when he bashes a game his Nintendo hating fanbase loves and they get all confused.

I agree, it’s impossible to even boil Zelda down when it’s a game that does practically everything. It does story, combat, bosses, dungeons, multiple weapons, exploration, puzzles, minigames, horse riding, sailing, flying and more. The whole ‘save Zelda and beat Ganon’ crap is a ridiculous stretch, Majora’s Mask doesn’t even have those characters, and even if it were true since when is the story representative of the gameplay?

You can’t squash a 20-50+ hour game into a single sentence these people seriously need to learn.

The series is basically a genre unto itself and when somebody tries to copy it that game is referred to as a Zelda clone. Zelda has practically no competition and still the developers listened to the fans and created Skyward Sword which addresses pretty much any and all criticism (money is useless? Okay well here is a ton of loot and upgradeable items).

If you don’t like Nintendo stuff that’s completely fine, I don’t care to force anyone to love their games, I’m not that charitable.

What you’re saying is so completely vague that it’s impossible to rebut. Well… except me telling you to play Majora’s Mask :P . That game proves everyone wrong.

I like debate and will not stand for ignorance and hypocrisy, simple as that.

I was never talking about simple sales but critical acclaim amongst critics and players, this is not like Assassin’s Creed which was a cool but flawed concept (and also sold great). Zelda has been seen as nigh on perfect since forever for very good reason.

You should check my huge post detailing why the Majora’s Mask narrative is so good a few posts down.