Polygon's open-letter to BioWare regarding their open-world-like games.

this is the problem. Everything in the game...the main quests the allied quests and side quests all serve one thing. Even the main plot is just a small part of what the game is about. Making heleus viable.

True, but they (usually) weren't too far off the beaten path.  

Constantly respawning wolves or hobgoblins were still a pita though.

100% agree on that, actually I HATED the corridor shooter of the second mass effect, it was a horrible thing because it took me out of the experience for several reasons.

The first mass effect may not had an open world, but it certainly had exterior where I could visualize the world where I was, It made me feel part of a universe.

While in mass effect 2, lots of planet made me feel like in a fucking prison, tuchanka is among the worst. It was more claustrophobic than ever, when I was told I was going to visit the krogan homworld, I was super excited, UNTIL I saw what was to "visit". Which was a claustrophobic base with four walls and no way to see the exterior, I got to visit the urdnot base which may have been on on another world and It would have been the fucking same because its simply an underground base like many before, and if its not one, it fucking looks like it

That was Immersion breaking, because when I realize I could not go outside unless it was for mordin or grunt mission, (and there was no reason why shepard could not go outside and see the world of tuchanka for what it was), I was reminded that it was the limit of the developper made. I was reminded that this limit exists because its a game that was not program to be more open, that is the part where it reminded me I am not part of a universe, but of a game, it was a less bad version of an invisible wall but still immersion breaking.

Because there is no reason that our favorite comander could not visit this planet, AT ALL. especially When you remember that shepard has the time to solve the problem of fucking everyone : miranda's sister, jacob's father, samara's daughter, thane's son, zaeed's previous associates, etc. We have all the time in the world in mass effect 2 to fucking visit tuchanka, but no, we only got and underground base and fade to black in-between mission...

I hated that part because it made me feel less part of a living universe and more part of a game that put limits very quickly to his world. It was god awful and had no justification at all.

Here in mass effect andromeda, the context more than justifies the exploration because as Scott ryder said : "We're explorer not an army", we go into a galaxy we don't know, we go on planets we don't know everything about, the iniative do not fight only the ketts, outlaws or remnants or roekar.

The initiative has to fight for survival, their ressources are rare and disminishing constantly, we are not just a soldier fighting an ennemy, we are there to explore a new galaxy to find a new home for the species of the milky way.

Except it won, like, every award known to man. I've seen statistics that place it as the most agreed upon GOTY in the last decade. You really want to call that niche? Again, I'm not the game's biggest fan, but I can see a game that captures people's hearts, and that's The Witcher 3.
OK, sure. I want BioWare to stop pandering to the masses and produce a niche game like The Witcher.

The Witcher isn't really niche though. Dark fantasy, open worlds, and Batman-ish combat were all the "in" thing at the time of its release (and still kinda are). It's a very casual, mainstream game that just had a really good atmosphere, quality writing, and great characters. It was bound to be the success it was.

BioWare on the other hand, had almost the exact same things going for them, but just couldn't follow through.

Really, Tuchanks didn't bother me much. It's a blasted radioactive wasteland, staying on the surface for prolonged periods of time without a good reason probably isn't such a good idea and we see the shuttle go into a pretty long access tube on the fly-in. After that, I didn't really expect anything else but a bunker environment. If anything, it might actually have added some flair to make it even more claustrophobic.

That said, I am all for the open environment approach and I did miss the open environments in ME2 and 3, especially during missions. As I said above, other games (especially older games) have proven beyond a doubt that open environments can be done well with story content, without it dissolving into a lawn-mowing Ubisoft experience. All it takes is the right design approach.

Game developers should stop making open world games all together. It was fun and all but they're becoming frustrating and are being filled with fetch quests. Every open world game except TW3 has this. I just want to play games without having to run around gaint maps

Well yes, yes it is, hence optional part of the story. That's why they are way better than the side content in DA:I. What exactly was the problem? I still feel the game would've been better if Bioware would play on their strength/reputation and have this sort of stuff affect the main plot or have a more cohesive narrative. In the end you find a home and all is well, you can go finish fixing Helius if you hadn't already or don't.  I'd rather they'd be part/have of a more focused story rather than mostly a bunch of isolated plots with an over reaching context.

Yes, but it won less. Significantly less.

And I honestly don't care about awards. Since you seem continually unable to address the actual point at hand, I'll rephrase: I want a BioWare game to get the same sort of reception TW3 got, because I think BioWare can great games that deserve a lot of praise, they just haven't. Look, I wish I lived in a world where Inquisition wasn't remembered so poorly and The Witcher 3 wasn't regarded  such fervent praise, because I want better games and I want a more critical fan base, but the fact of the matter is that CDPR did something right to gain the following they have and BioWare have been quickly loosing their charm.

Here is the problem, call it a personality disorder, I just can't leave things un-done.  Now a lot of people want to blame it on open world.  I think keeping an open world in balance is a lot tougher but I have played games, like Red Dead and TW3 (hope not to draw Kabraxal's wrath) that seemed to find a very good balance and I never seemed to lose sight of things or just get plain bored like I do in MEA.

Actually, the way it goes with pretty much every BioWare game since ToB, is an initial tidal wave of hatred from a vocal minority, while the rest of us try to find a rock to hide under and weather the storm until it becomes acceptable to voice the pinion that each game is actually pretty darn awesome.

If we did not have the population that forever yearns for the rapturous experience they had once had c.1998 or whatever other year they lost their Bio virginity, we'd have a way more favourable reception.

I dare predict that CD project will see that when they release their Cyberpunk.

That's an obvious answer. Staying the same and never changing leads to stagnancy and irrelevancy. BioWare has never done that. They invented the dialogue wheel with a voiced protagonist. They invented the concept of importing previous games' choices into a subsequent game for differing consequences. BioWare has never just stayed the same.

If you think going back to the days of Baldur's Gate or Knights of the Old Republic will bring BioWare back, you are living in a fantasy world. The only way to compete in this industry is to be a pioneer and constantly outdo the competition. Skyrim set a new standard for open world RPGs and The Witcher 3 expanded that envelope even further in ways gamers didn't even know they wanted. Now, BioWare has to figure out a way of remaining relevant while still trying to be distinct.

In truth, making great games is hard. It's especially hard when you have a legacy of excellence and everybody expects perfection from you every time. BioWare can't strike gold every single time, and it's unrealistic to believe they can. The same is the case with Bethesda, Blizzard, Rockstar, and even CDPR. No studio is impervious to faults or mistakes, and eventually they will all make them.

That's not a significant portion of the playerbase. The Witcher appeals to the same crowd that goes for Assassin's Creed and Batman games, not the minuscule portion of the RPG fanbase that absolutely need character creators.
I would love to see the statistics you have to back up this claim, because Game of Thrones, The Walking Dead, Breaking Bad, and so many others would prove that wrong.
Yes, in your opinio, the one clearly not shared by the droves who love it and shower it with praise and awards. And it's not as if Geralt is the only person in the game. The game introduces you to a new secondary or tertiary character nearly every few hours. The game is much livelier for having such a diverse and consistent supporting cast.
Why is it that you insist that the game just didn't do well. Do you have any statistics as proof? Or is it just a feeling? Evidently, you just didn't pay attention. The game sold well, reviewed well, and is still well regarded in many gaming circles both hardcore and casual.