Are multiple endings artificial replayability
>>322062832
That one was.
all replayability is artificial, dumbass
>>322062832
Not for Mass Effect. You can just youtube those.
But something like The Witcher 3 where throughout the whole game you can make different outcomes for various quests and you see a sort of trickle down effect then sure that has replayability. But i don't know if that's "artificial" in the way you're implying. Like the difficulty arguement.
Maybe now that im thinking about it Mass Effect IS the prime example of the replayability being artificial or hollow because there isnt much difference between each outcome where as TW3 there are a ton of various outcomes to a ton of quests.
>Reminder that ME2 had one of the best endings of an RPG ever as it was a culmination of choices made throughout the game and the final choice of whether to keep or destroy the Collector Base was a morally difficult decision that was leagues ahead of the general good/bad choice most RPGs offer at the end
>Reminder that most people hate ME2's ending and demanded that BioWare follow what RPGs traditionally do by offering an A, B or C ending choice
The only think BioWare fucked up was not having an epilogue that had a couple different varients in it explaining what happened to some of the characters based on choices you made in the game.
>>322062832
Not if the multiple endings are significantly different from one another.
Take New Vegas for instance; there's a very, very large number of ways for the game to end.
>>322062832
The game itself is artificial
>>322062832
>artificial replayability
what the fuck does that even mean
>>322062832
>VNs
No.
>xbox marketplace
>advertisement for ME3
>"YOUR CHOICES MATTER"
>>322064171
"artificial" is a buzzword these days and it's fuckin stupid. OP doesn't even understand engrish. He should have said "hollow replayability" Because there are games out there that have multiple outcomes that are pretty rich in the choices and situations. where as there are plenty where the outcomes are hollow as fuck and mean nothing in the end.
>>322064539
That's the most disappointing thing about ME3. Our choices never mattered. Everything we thought mattered was hollow and pointless. Take the Rachni queen from ME1 for example. If people let her live she's in ME3 if they killed her then another queen is in her place. Pointless. If Mordin dies in ME2 another salarian is in his place for that mission. Pointless. You choose Anderson to be on the council? Too bad in ME3 he's a soldier no matter what. You killed the council in ME1? It's mentioned in passing a few times as there is a new council made up of the same shit.
None of the deaths in ME2 meant anything because they just got replaced in ME3, None of the big choices made a difference in ME3 at all. It was the laziest form of making a game. "Oh lets just retcon that or lets just put another character of the same race in that spot" And in the end it came down to ABC and nothing at all you chose to that point made a single bit of difference.
Fuck Casey Hudson, he's a lazy hack. Fuck bioware for making a lazy game. They didnt want to invest in making multiple games like TW2 or didnt want to make a massive branch system like TW3. Generally fuck them all.
>>322063345
>and the final choice of whether to keep or destroy the Collector Base was a morally difficult decision that was leagues ahead of the general good/bad choice most RPGs offer at the end
What the actual fuck are you smoking.
>>322062832
YouTube.
>implying replayability isn't a meme
The only games that are replayable to me are the ones I really fucking like. There's absolutely no defining mechanic or feature that adds to a game's "replayability". It's such a bullshit concept.
>>322066768
This
I hate it when people say games have replay value.
Replayability to me is whether or not its fun.
>MGR
>Bayonetta
>Snake Eater
Etc
>>322065437
>choice never mattered
No, that's not it. People were too fucking retarded to see the writing on the wall after Dragon Age II.
The fact that ME3 was a complete shitstorm that it was, was mainly due to the fact that people pretty much pretended that DA II happened in a vacuum and that the reflection of that title had no real reflection on ME3's development, even though 90% of the staff on DAII worked on ME3.
>fuck developers for being hacks
Nah, fuck you for being an ignorant fucktard. Half of /v/ cried "yeah, this is what's gonna happen next."
There's ENOUGH history in the video game industry that this shit was predicted a light year in advance. On top of that, there is an overwhelming precedent that when a video game's marketing campaign cost exceed it's development budget, that the title is going to be absolutely shit.
>>322063345
Reminder that the last words in the mass effect trilogy were "downloadable content."
Shit ending aside i dumped hundreds of hours into multiplayer.
>>322068702
/v/ says everything is going to be bad. If you listen to anything /v/ says as a group, you're stupid. Even a blind squirrel's right twice a day.
>>322068702
This post, gentlemen. Read and learn.
>>322069150
Not anymore, they took that out in the extended cut
I know this as I, like you, sunk hundreds of hours into the multiplayer and finally beat the game a year and a half ago
>>322068129
George?
>>322062832
No, you're just as retarded as those "artificial difficulty" assholes.
If a game has a reason to replay it, then it has reply value. If a game's hard, then it's hard. PERIOD.
If multiple endings aren;='t a good enough reason for you to replay a game, then who cares? Someone else may or may not like it. Jesus Christ.
I think all this shit comes from the fact hat modern gamers think that they have to like everything and that every single game that's good should be enjoyable to absolutely everyone. So whenever they don't understand something, it's "artificial", :bad" or "unplayable".
Well I'm sorry kiddo, but that's bullshit. There are tons of games that are perfectly great and fun, and I don't care for them at all. Why? Not because I harbor some kind of delusions that my taste is the will of god, and that everyone who feels differently is simply wrong. Nope, I just don't enjoy certain genres, or games. And that's it. Hell, even the atmosphere can turn me off to a perfectly good game.
Like Zelda: OoT. It's a perfectly good game, and I get why it's beloved, but I can't stand the fucking thing. It's too slow for me, and the atmosphere is just not my thing. And I don't go calling it "artificial fun" because I just don't appreciate it's supposedly fun elements that I don't get. I just let it go and move the fuck on.
And then there's this undertale business. "GOTY" and all that, sure, but what the shills don't realize is that it's a very niche kind of game that simply won't appeal to everyone. So when I say "I don't like it", I get called out. But once again, I'm not making up bullshit about artificial this or that. I'm just stating that it's particular style and mechanics aren't my taste. And that's it.
So try that. If you don't care to replay a game for a reason like plot, then just beat it once and move on. Or say "I didn't care for it" and move on. Whatever. But don't make up bullshit reasons why it's the gam's fault you don't like it.
>>322062832
Saying 'artificial x' when talking about vidya is retarded, but you're right. Why would having different endings make me want to play the game again if the game itself doesn't make me want to play it again? I ain't going through 40 hours of trash all over again just to see a 1 minute cutscene that I didn't last time. You could argue 'muh branching paths' and shit but you're still playing the same game, and if it ain't engaging andfunenough to make me want to spend all those hours on it again, then I probably won't.
>>322068129
But that's literally what replayability is. Multiple endings adding to replay value is just a marketing meme that works on normalfags.
>>322062832
Kind of. It's really dumb when you're forced to play the game a different way and literally nothing in the game is different besides the ending cutscene
If its something like Undertale genocide (the grinding was awful though) then I think it's alright, all interactions change, you get new fights, different music, less people in the overworld, and a different ending.
>>322069617
Were you any good? Did you ever get the thrill of playing a claymore carrying half blast novaguard with a team of primers against platinum collectors?
>>322062832
>Are multiple endings artificial replayability
Only if the game itself is shit. The game should make you want to earn the best possible endings. It should make you want to explore all it's secrets and learn everything it has to offer.
>>322069954
There is no need to be upset.
Instead of "artificial" difficulty think of it as poorly designed difficulty. If you choose hard over normal and all it does is double the enemy health, it is technically harder because it takes longer but no extra challenge was implemented, the same principal is applied to bosses or mobs that 1 shot, the fight isn't asking for better analysis or reaction from the player, it is just asking for you to do the same input in several times in a row with no errors.
It is actually harder to do but it requires no improvement in skills and does not ask for more from the player.
>>322069473
/v/ doesn't say everything is bad, but a lot of /v/ does shitpost. However, EA is notorious for putting out bad titles; be it bad gameplay, bad story, exceptionally buggy, or a combination of all of the above.
There was a time when EA wasn't quite like that, but that was a long time ago. Further, since the purchase of BioWare, EA and BioWare have been consistently putting out bad games.
BioWare was bought out around the time ME1 was midway through it's dev cycle. The game got lucky. DA II was the writing on wall, ME2 was the big white elephant in the room. The literal moment when they killed off the protagonist from the first game and bought him/her back in a span of a 10 minute cutscene, should've set off red flags everywhere.
On top of that, a writer change between game 1 and 2, should've set off additional flags.
Finally, the last flag that should've made you take a big step back was ME2 itself. The game had the most flimsiest story written to date. It was basically a 5 minute story expanded into several hours by very well written character interaction dialogue. It was funny, sometimes thoughtful.
The dialogue carried the game, but the story was pretty much irrelevant.
Are Visual Novels killing Steam?
Branching stories in video games typically work in several ways:
Good/Bad/Neutral endings. Usually the core story is exactly the same every time but there are a few flagged text box choices to choose from at key save points. The game looks at the flags and then plays whatever movie it needs to based on your choices.
The 'Clip Show.' Kind of the same thing as above, but instead of playing one of three movies, there's instead a large selection of tiny ones. The game looks for flags on whether you 100% subquests. If you did, it jams that video into the sequence. You're effectively getting a Choice A, Choice B ending, just for a lot of insignificant events.
The 'waveform.' The most complicated of the choose-your-own-adventure type games. There are basically two paths you're allowed to go down every 15 minutes or so, but they always lead to the same conclusion regardless of your choices, because there're only so many assets you can make for a game about choice. The way your path weaves to a central point and then back away makes a 'waveform' pattern of gameplay, where your choices in fact do not matter at all, but each portion of the game is its own A/B route. Ever so often a small dialogue blurb will reinforce a decision you made much earlier to try to sell the idea that your experience has been personalized, when it hasn't been at all.
I'm of the opinion that if you're telling a story, tell a story. Don't lie and try to tell me that I can do anything in a game that requires you to make assets for anything I could ever do, which is never going to be possible.
