302 réponses à ce sujet

[WilliamShatner]

Ray Joel Oh wrote...

WilliamShatner wrote...
It wouldn't have been a wildly
different game.  They would just have to replace the cutscenes were TIM
gives you the missions with cutscenes were the Council/Alliance gives
you the missions.  There were like 3/4 of them? 

That'd still mean writing ME3 as if you had just been working for TIM versus writing ME3 as if you had just been working for the Alliance. That's a pretty big split to branch off from.  And then why would you have met Jacob and Miranda, and why would you have a new ship, and why would the Alliance pay to bring one of their many excellent soldiers back to life?

Obviously you wouldn't work for the Council/Alliance until you meet then at the Citadel.  The beginning of the game would be its same crappy self.

Modifié par WilliamShatner, 17 avril 2010 - 07:49 .

[ThisIsMadness91]

jlb524 wrote...

Devs on the old forums had likened the ME series to series such as 'Indiana Jones' or 'James Bond' rather than 'Star Wars' or 'LotR'.

I'm not surpirsed ME3 will follow in ME2's footsteps.

Seriously? Why market it as a trilogy if it's nothing like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings? Those are true trilogies!

PetrySilva wrote...

PetrySilva wrote...

Collider wrote...

Think of this. If you saved the council in ME, instead of having to join Cerberus, you join the Council and they help you against the Reapers. The game would be entirely different. That's a lot of work for something that many players wouldn't do, in the middle of the trilogy. ME3 is different because they CAN have those wildly different scenarios because you won't be importing to anything.

Exactly! It is unfortunate that some people doesn't undestand the limits that exist in a game.

A fair point, but quoting your own post doesn't make it any more valid.

[eternalnightmare13]

I have to wonder what the point of making a trilogy and the whole import/choices matter is if you're going to consider them all ''stand alone'' games...

[JMA22TB]

He hit the nail right on the head about ME2 - it makes sense that they had the most trouble making the story fit because it's the middle child - you don't have the sexiness of starting everything out or finishing the story. Hopefully ME2's story is incredibly meaningful in ME3 though, and I would be ecstatic if it was in a way that wasn't contrived or entirely obvious, like a little theory i've taken the time to put together about the Collectors.

We can all be sure that ME3 is going to rock story wise because it's the final battle - hard to screw up fighting off the Apocalypse considering the buildup leading up to it and personal reasons we all play ME for, like love interests, Paragons doing the right thing, Renegades wanting to kick ass, and the general RPG motive of saving everyone from doom. Plot gets resolved, you get to run off in the sunset with your LI (if you or they don't die) and you get to see how your story unfolds.

[Ray Joel Oh]

WilliamShatner wrote...
Obviously you wouldn't work for the Council/Alliance until you meet then at the Citadel.  The beginning of the game would be its same crappy self.

That'd just be bad storytelling.  As somebody who had saved the Council I would spend the rest of the game wondering what ever happened with that TIM guy and why he seemed to be such a big deal a few hours ago even though I can turn my back on him a few hours into the game and be done with him.

[Burdokva]

iNixiRir wrote...

We really want to look at Mass Effect 3 as a standalone title

I was afraid of this. It's one thing, from a company/business kind of view, to attract new players. But another thing is to keep your current costumers happy. But screwing around with the word "standalone" while they have clearly stated that Mass Effect is a trilogy, is just wrong.

They already used their 'get outta jail free card' once, using it for the second time makes people really doubt the overall plotline and storytelling abilities of Bioware. They can't just remove the squad again because that would be easier for them and would be better understandable for new players. The reason for this is because of the plot. Every squadmember knows the threat. The council doesn't want to believe it(they have dismissed that claim), the civilians don't know about it, so the only people that do know about it, is your squad.

And like I said before, killing or making Shepard disappear again, would just be a case of bad storytelling and that would really, really break ME3 for current players. Then the whole idea Bioware had, about making this a rpg-trilogy, failed big time.

Why is this post more about your squad? Well, because that's what most people are afraid off. That your squad gets sidelined once again because it would be easier(which wouldn't btw, because then they have to come up with a lot of new characters)


Storywise, I think it's kinda obvious they're doing this. Mainly because the plot isn't so difficult anymore - stop all the reapers. The only real problem they would have, is how it begins. People want to make their own Shepard and change his/her class. ME2 did this the smart way - by killing Shepard off and remaking him/her. But they can't do this the second time(as I explained).

But we'Il see..

While catering to a new audience, expecting the "old fans" to follow, is a sound business idea, I think it's also very risky. You create very large hype and expectations amongst people, especially those who have been there since the start.

If Mass Effect 3 pulls through, it's a huge win for BioWare. If it flops, it would be a catastrophe - newcomers don't have any longstanding attachment, while such a big failure could alienate your long-time supporters. I'm not of the type that quits on a company for a single faulty product, but if I've invested money and a lot of time into a series and it flops badly at the end, because they wanted to expand the audience at the expense of the old-timers, I'm out for good.

I really hope Mass Effect 3 can go wild and tie every single thing, as they don't have to worry about future sequels (at least they shouldn't, until properly ending the trilogy). But if as someone said a few posts above, it all ties up with a few short cutscenes... <_<      

Modifié par Burdokva, 17 avril 2010 - 07:57 .

[Dick Delaware]

Kalfear wrote...

Naaa Bere, It cant be a mistake cause they say 1000 for ME2 to ME3 and ME2 had way less decisions then ME1 had.

It was a lie, plain and simple

Something Bioware did alot of for Mass Effect 2 product and will have a negative effect on Mass Effect 3 sales because of it.

There were more important choices in ME2 than in the first one, it's just the question is whether we'll see fully fleshed out consequences for those choices. The quarian flotilla (they either become Balkanized, go to war, or remain at peace) the genophage (either you cure it or you don't) the geth (the heretics are destroyed or make the geth more powerful by joining with them), and of course either siding with Cerberus or not at the end. In ME1, the only important choices that felt like they would have long-term consequences were in Noveria and the Council.

If BioWare has the balls, there's also an interesting possibility to see how the choices interact. A potential result I see is this: if the quarians go to war with a completely united geth, (heretics + original geth) they lose. If not, they win. Likewise, I want to see how Wrex responds to seeing the rachni queen again. This stuff should have serious consequences and affect what kind of allies and enemies you get.

Oh, and what makes you think it'll have a negative effect on sales, anyways? Mass Effect 2 easily outsold the first game, and I'm sure ME3 will sell like crazy.

[cachx]

I'll just say one thing: "storm in a glass of water".

You worry too much...

[MassEffect762]

Imho an epic ME3 is a hail mary pass I don't see Bioware delivering.

Modifié par MassEffect762, 17 avril 2010 - 08:03 .

[WilliamShatner]

Ray Joel Oh wrote...

WilliamShatner wrote...
Obviously you wouldn't work for the Council/Alliance until you meet then at the Citadel.  The beginning of the game would be its same crappy self.

That'd just be bad storytelling.  As somebody who had saved the Council I would spend the rest of the game wondering what ever happened with that TIM guy and why he seemed to be such a big deal a few hours ago even though I can turn my back on him a few hours into the game and be done with him.

Would fit right in with ME2 then.

If a player made a conscious choice to join up with the Council/Alliance rather than continue to work for TIM then I think they are intelligent enough to figure out what's going on in that respect.

Of course you could also have TIM cutscenes still in, but have the addition of the Council/Alliance where you feed them the information you received from TIM or something like that.

[kraidy1117]

This is not good news at all............

[Wolverfrog]

You can't read the second book in a trilogy without being confused. So why do games take a different stance?

[TheTWF]

Don't forget Bioware, these mainstream audiences include the exact same people who threw poopfits over the sideboob in ME1. Gambling away established gamers, who might pirate the game out of spite, in favor of those types is a pretty big gamble...

[Sad Dragon]

Ray Joel Oh wrote...

That'd still mean writing ME3 as if you had just been working for TIM versus writing ME3 as if you had just been working for the Alliance. That's a pretty big split to branch off from.  And then why would you have met Jacob and Miranda, and why would you have a new ship, and why would the Alliance pay to bring one of their many excellent soldiers back to life?

Yes it would mean more work for the writers - what did they expect when they wanted to go down the road of a storydriven RPG trilogy? Though jlb524 said that they had expressed that they where going more for a indinana jones type "trilogy" - thats to say one game with two sequals, not realy a trilogy.

That might be the main problem - the word trilogy should never have been used. I honestly thing alot of grief would have gone away if they didnt try and sell it as a trilogy.


Sorry for taking so long to get to my point with the quoting but had to get that off my chest :/

They wouldnt have to kill Shepard if you would have been working for the Council, they could have instead opened with a different cut scene. This wouldny have made any major impact on the plot of ME2, you would instead have been sent to try and find out what happened.

They could have let you run into Miranda and Jacob on Freedoms Progress and let the player dealt with the situation there - am i going to mercilessly gun them down as they are Cerberus or do i give them the benefit of the doubt to hear them out and maybe even recruit them. And after that the plot could play out more or less the same.
Hell you could even have let Shepard gotten news of that Cerberus was
building the Normandy 2 and have a intro mission to steal it. They could have let you run into Jacob and Miranda during that mission as well.
Or a final one. TIM sees that Shepard is running around trying to find out about the abductions and as he also is intrested sends Jacob and Miranda to offer their assistance and try to show that Cerberus isnt as bad as Shepard belives. The overall story and plot structure would not be effected too much due to these changes. It would  however required more work.

Another way would be to have it start the same and make the break once you talk to the council. That would mean Shepard would still have died, met Jacob and Miranda and the plot wouldnt have needed to change much at all - except how the council was handled.

Edit: some structure and some typos

/TSD

Modifié par Sad Dragon, 17 avril 2010 - 08:19 .

[MassEffect762]

Wolverfrog wrote...

You can't read the second book in a trilogy without being confused. So why do games take a different stance?

$.

[cruc1al]

Wolverfrog wrote...

You can't read the second book in a trilogy without being confused. So why do games take a different stance?

Because games have a largely different target audience; many gamers are casual players who just want to be entertained. That's not the case with most people who read books. Plus, people who both play games and read books don't expect the same thing from games as they do from books. With games, they usually just want to lie back and enjoy the game, but with books, they're willing to be more intellectually involved with it.

[Ray Joel Oh]

It's already not like Indiana Jones though, because there is carry over of characters, overarching plot, and decisions. I'm betting a better analogue would be something like Harry Potter. Each book/movie can be experienced on its own, but things make more sense if you've already been following along. Yeah, that makes for more redundancies in story than in something like Lord of the Rings, but it's also a much safer investment from a production end of things. Making the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy was a huge financial gamble.

Modifié par Ray Joel Oh, 17 avril 2010 - 08:21 .

[AlbertoAquilani]

I'm hoping from a gameplay perspective, ME 3 is more like ME 1. This interview doesn't exactly inspire confidence but, I'll wait and see. I doubt we'll see ME 3 until the end of the year. We can only speculate.

[Ray Joel Oh]

AlbertoAquilani wrote...

I'm hoping from a gameplay perspective, ME 3 is more like ME 1. This interview doesn't exactly inspire confidence but, I'll wait and see. I doubt we'll see ME 3 until the end of the year. We can only speculate.

It's going to be a lot longer than that until ME3 comes out...

[ThisIsMadness91]

makalathbonagin wrote...

Karimloo wrote...

Seriously?

Just listen to the fans BioWare...

Curse you!  I'd only just gotten over the horror of seeing that on ED, and then you go and post it here.

[xCirdanx]

Ray Joel Oh wrote...
But your icon is an ME2 Tali picture, which wouldn't exist if they didn't listen to fans.

i have never seen any indication that Tali wouldn´t be in ME2 or 3. Or Quarians in general. Their relationship with the Geth and the fact that they have the biggest fleet makes them to important to be not there. Besides that, every party member from ME1 is there, Tali is the only one who can join you again, however thru "cheats" you can access the secret dialogue from her, that clearly shows, that she was recruitable from almost the start. I mention that because that shows (as i see it) that she was planned to be there and was not a middway or late decision based on player feedback.

[xCirdanx]

xCirdanx wrote...

Ray Joel Oh wrote...
But your icon is an ME2 Tali picture, which wouldn't exist if they didn't listen to fans.

i have never seen any indication that Tali wouldn´t be in ME2 or 3. Or Quarians in general. Their relationship with the Geth and the fact that they have the biggest fleet makes them to important to be not there. Besides that, every party member from ME1 is there, Tali is the only one who can join you again, however thru "cheats" you can access the secret dialogue from her, that clearly shows, that she was recruitable from almost the start. I mention that because that shows (as i see it) that she was planned to be there and was not a middway or late decision based on player feedback.

eternalnightmare13 wrote...

I have to wonder what the
point of making a trilogy and the whole import/choices matter is if
you're going to consider them all ''stand alone'' games...

think the same way.

[yuncas]

Casey Hudson es un CORPORATE TOOL. Thank You.

[-System]

They'll probably just add a separate dialog branch for certain conversations pertaining to previous ME plots that says "oh, remind me what happen?" which explains to the new person what's going on. No big deal.

Modifié par -System, 17 avril 2010 - 09:17 .