302 réponses à ce sujet

[-Skorpious-]

You can design a game with the fanbase in mind and still attract new audiences. People like me are simply worried that newcomers will be favored over longtime fans of the trilogy.

For example, the entire crew could die in ME2. If the game was bring designed for newcomers, then the obvious solution would be to design an entirely new crew for ME3. That is not something I would like to see happen. If the game was designed with the fans in mind however, it would be more likely that fan favorite characters would make an appearance as a recruitable teammate.

The game can be made to be understood by a new player, but the final act of a trilogy should't cater specifically to their needs. The final act of the trilogy should wrap up any loose ends from all 3 games; not just one.

Modifié par -Skorpious-, 18 avril 2010 - 07:46 .

[Burdokva]

Pocketgb wrote...

The first Star Wars movie I saw was the Empire Strikes Back. The first Harry Potter book I read was the third one. Both of them were enough to get me into the franchise, so I don't see why Bioware would require such a large need to do so for ME3.

Not to mention I feel that people are freaking out a bit too much about "making ME3 standalone" statement, since he considered ME2 to be relatively standalone. Could be true, but you're missing quite a lot without playing ME1.

Yes, but in your case you became a fan and got the other parts of the story as well. The same happened to me when I read one of Terry Brook's Shannara books, even though it was the 7th chronologically. 

Keep in mind, though, there are a lot of players who don't care about the story at all. Whether they'll get Mass Effect 3 for the hype and forget about it (and the series) after a single play-through, they're "casual" FPS players who look for some fun shooting game, or they simply have no desire to play the first two chapters after seeing the end. Such an audience requires cutting back on the decisions and consequences that carry from the first two games and making very intricate, diverse ending options - exactly the opposite of what "old-time" players want.

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

Not to mention I feel that people are freaking out a bit too much about "making ME3 standalone" statement, since he considered ME2 to be relatively standalone. Could be true, but you're missing quite a lot without playing ME1.

Yes, but that's one of the reasons I felt ME2 failed as a sequel. It was bad enough that half the RPG got taken out of it, but on top of that it felt so far removed from the original game plot wise and they did such a horrible job with the consequences from ME1 imports. I can't help but feel that if ME2 was made mostly for the established fans that we would have both A) not lost as much RPG as we did, and had far more meaningful decisions in our transfers.

Of course whole Council thing is going to be almost swept under the rug when you make the default choice for new players who don't import that they got iced. And on top of that we've got the whole Spectre thing, one of the most defining moments of the original game, basically a non-issue entirely. I'd like to be wrong, but I'd like to think that in ME3 the state of The Council and my Spectre status are more than just a few minor comments that effect nothing at all really.

[-Skorpious-]

Solution - develop ME3 with fans who supported ME/ME2 in mind so that the entire trilogy ends in a way that the consequences of your choices are easily apparent, and that all loose ends are satisfactorily wrapped up.

[GreenSoda]

-Skorpious- wrote...

Solution - develop ME3 with fans who supported ME/ME2 in mind so that the entire trilogy ends in a way that the consequences of your choices are easily apparent, and that all loose ends are satisfactorily wrapped up.

This. Really.

The percentage of ppl starting with ME3 has to been quite insignificant. I mean it's even going to be released on the same console.

Catering ME3 to newcomers really means two things:

-Most (if not all) squadmembers of ME2 won't come back as full partymembers
-ME2 decisions won't really change anything in ME3 in a significant manner. (Just like ME1->ME2)

...and that's disappointing.

[spacehamsterZH]

Shockwave81 wrote...

I've been searching through old interviews/press releases for ME2, and came across this quote from Ray Muzyka:

"The uncharted worlds, the fidelity's been amped up and so has the integration of those uncharted worlds with the main story arc, so they're gonna have more of an impact on how the story progresses - even changing the end of the game depending on what optional content you do."

I'm left wondering which uncharted worlds were integrated with the main story arc, and specifically, whether he's referring to the main story arc of ME2, or the trilogy's story arc?

If we are to link it with the main arc of ME2, then I fail to see how malfunctioning robots and merc bands had ANYTHING to do with the Collector problem, and perhaps most importantly, the Reapers themselves.

All of the loyalty missions are optional, and whether you complete them (and in some cases, how you complete them) is part of what determines who lives and dies during the suicide mission. So "changing the end of the game depending on what optional content you do" is a perfectly accurate description.

It wouldn't have taken much to script the game in such a way that you needed Jacob to be loyal before he coughed up info on the new armor plating, would it? At least I would have had a reason to trudge through his mission.

Granted, they could have done more with the ship upgrades in terms of what's required to get them, but the reason to do Jacob's loyalty mission is to make him a viable choice as a fireteam leader in the suicide mission and generally increase his chances of survival. If you think that's pointless, then there's also no need to acquire the Normandy upgrades one way or another because all they do is prevent crew members from dying. I'm not sure I understand your complaint here.

By the way, to come back to the whole "standalone" issue, my previous comment about this obviously being marketing spin has gone almost entirely ignored, so I don't expect anyone to be deterred from their rampage of shakily justified complaints by this, but here's something else that just occurred to me. The first time in ME2 that you run into a character from ME1 that acts like you're supposed to know her, potentiallly a confusing and alienating moment for new players, is in the first mission on Freedom's progress, barely out of the tutorial. Tali. So if by "standalone", Muzyka means "you'll barely have started the game before the first thing happens that doesn't make a lick of sense to you unless you've played the previous chapter(s)", uh, I'm fine with that.

[Shockwave81]

spacehamsterZH wrote...
All of the loyalty missions are optional, and whether you complete them (and in some cases, how you complete them) is part of what determines who lives and dies during the suicide mission. So "changing the end of the game depending on what optional content you do" is a perfectly accurate description.

I'll accept that one of my complaints was pretty weak, but perhaps I can clarify/modify my position on the 'optional' mission issue (less nerd rageyness).

The loyalty quests have been painted as being optional and by definition (do or don't complete) they are, however; as we all know they not only provide background information on your squad mates, but also directly affect the outcome of the game. NONE of the other side quests do this.

Based on this argument, and if there was an 'optionality spectrum', I would say that the loyalty quests fall very much toward being an integral part of the game, and more importantly, the primarily character driven storyline, as opposed to being on par with any of the N7 missions - which are scarcely (if at all) acknowledged by your squad while you're out and about. This goes without mentioning that without the loyalty quests, you could probably cut a good 6-8 hours (TBC) of play time from the game proper. 

Phew!

Modifié par Shockwave81, 20 avril 2010 - 05:45 .

[Fiery Phoenix]

So is Shepard going to die again with the Normandy SR-2 torn to pieces? I mean, I really hope that's not what Hudson was implying. ME3 is supposed to be a conclusion, and you can't make a conclusion newcomer-friendly unless you screw it up somehow.



In any case, thanks for the link, OP. Too bad I'm late to the party.

[Terror_K]

The problem is, despite being optional, the loyalty quests are actually listed as being primary quests and not secondary ones. Therefore they really can't be considered as sidequests really, but more as optional main-story quests. If one counts the loyalty quests as being optional primary quests and not as secondary sidequests, then overall if one looks at ME2's sidequests they are 1) extremely limited compared to ME1 and 2) very much lacking in depth or consequences compared to ME1.



I could probably could on one hand the amount of sidequests in ME2 that feel like they might have some depth and consequences in them that may carry over to the third game. In ME1 there were at least a couple of dozen sidequests that felt like they were going to amount to something (and most did, even if a majority of them were only realised in emails or news reports on The Citadel.)

[Terror_K]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

So is Shepard going to die again with the Normandy SR-2 torn to pieces? I mean, I really hope that's not what Hudson was implying. ME3 is supposed to be a conclusion, and you can't make a conclusion newcomer-friendly unless you screw it up somehow.

In any case, thanks for the link, OP. Too bad I'm late to the party.

I don't think so. Aside from the fact that having Shepard die yet again and having a third Normandy would be incredibly trite, that was mostly done for tthree reasons A) to help set us up with Cerberus and the two-year gap,  To give us a bigger Normandy,  and C) to legitimise the level nerfing and introduce the new skill and level systems of ME2.

As I understand it from dev comments in the past, ME3 will essentially be using the same system, and will be set up for us to continue the story by porting our character over fully, meaning that all our level, powers and abilities and the like will also transfer over this time and not just our past choices and appearance. I believe they intend import characters to come in at around Levels 25 to 30 and continue on from 31 through to 60 in the final game. That plan could change though.

I personally have mixed feelings about this. While it'll be good not to have to be nerfed again, it also means it's highly likely that we're going to be stuck with the same ME2 system for the last game, meaning more shallow mechanics and a complete lack of non-combat and non-class skills, which IMO sucks.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Terror_K wrote...

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

So is Shepard going to die again with the Normandy SR-2 torn to pieces? I mean, I really hope that's not what Hudson was implying. ME3 is supposed to be a conclusion, and you can't make a conclusion newcomer-friendly unless you screw it up somehow.

In any case, thanks for the link, OP. Too bad I'm late to the party.

I don't think so. Aside from the fact that having Shepard die yet again and having a third Normandy would be incredibly trite, that was mostly done for tthree reasons A) to help set us up with Cerberus and the two-year gap,  To give us a bigger Normandy,  and C) to legitimise the level nerfing and introduce the new skill and level systems of ME2.

As I understand it from dev comments in the past, ME3 will essentially be using the same system, and will be set up for us to continue the story by porting our character over fully, meaning that all our level, powers and abilities and the like will also transfer over this time and not just our past choices and appearance. I believe they intend import characters to come in at around Levels 25 to 30 and continue on from 31 through to 60 in the final game. That plan could change though.

I personally have mixed feelings about this. While it'll be good not to have to be nerfed again, it also means it's highly likely that we're going to be stuck with the same ME2 system for the last game, meaning more shallow mechanics and a complete lack of non-combat and non-class skills, which IMO sucks.

You make a good point. The ME2 system may or may not change; it's really not too much of an issue either way. BUT, the Normandy and Shepard (including everything in between) should remain as they are. I mean it makes sense how/why they had to essentially start you over in ME2, but if done again in ME3, well, like you said, it'd be plain ridiculous. Totally a cheap idea.

I'm sure BioWare are smarter than that, though -- or at least let's hope they are.

[Darth Drago]

Terror_K wrote...

The problem is, despite being optional, the loyalty quests are actually listed as being primary quests and not secondary ones. Therefore they really can't be considered as sidequests really, but more as optional main-story quests. If one counts the loyalty quests as being optional primary quests and not as secondary sidequests, then overall if one looks at ME2's sidequests they are 1) extremely limited compared to ME1 and 2) very much lacking in depth or consequences compared to ME1.

I could probably could on one hand the amount of sidequests in ME2 that feel like they might have some depth and consequences in them that may carry over to the third game. In ME1 there were at least a couple of dozen sidequests that felt like they were going to amount to something (and most did, even if a majority of them were only realised in emails or news reports on The Citadel.)

-Yet when I mention how there is any real variety in the ME2 N7 quests from the ME1 UNC or how more there were, I get ripped into because the ME1 reused the same structures on barren worlds… lol!

But your right there are a lot of UNC missions that have a real consequence to the outcome of the mission. Several cases involve the life or death of a person like Corporal Toombs or Major Kyle to name just to. The ONLY N7 mission that has any evident consequence from a decision is N7: Javelin Missiles Launched in which you choose what target gets hit by the missile. Oh and you don’t even earn any paragon or renegade point for you choice.

The loyalty missions are main quest ones and in more than one instance you are practically slapped in your face with dialog about doing them. “need to have the team focused” is something that Jacob mentions I believe.

[Dick Delaware]

Darth Drago, you are conflating choices with consequencs. Neither ME1's nor ME2's side quests/N7 missions had any consequences that affected things later in the game. Whether or not Corporal Toombs shot himself, you killed the scientist, or you had the scientist arrested, you did not see these people again and what they did had no impact on future missions. Still some fun cutscenes, but those aren't consequences.

[srzyski89]

Hopefully Mr. Hudson realizes emails and short, meaningless cameos do not equal choices mattering.

[Massadonious1]

I heard that storylines typically resolve themselves during the second act of a trilogy.

[Dick Delaware]

Terror_K wrote...
I don't think so. Aside from the fact that having Shepard die yet again and having a third Normandy would be incredibly trite, that was mostly done for tthree reasons A) to help set us up with Cerberus and the two-year gap,  To give us a bigger Normandy,  and C) to legitimise the level nerfing and introduce the new skill and level systems of ME2.

As I understand it from dev comments in the past, ME3 will essentially be using the same system, and will be set up for us to continue the story by porting our character over fully, meaning that all our level, powers and abilities and the like will also transfer over this time and not just our past choices and appearance. I believe they intend import characters to come in at around Levels 25 to 30 and continue on from 31 through to 60 in the final game. That plan could change though.

I personally have mixed feelings about this. While it'll be good not to have to be nerfed again, it also means it's highly likely that we're going to be stuck with the same ME2 system for the last game, meaning more shallow mechanics and a complete lack of non-combat and non-class skills, which IMO sucks.

If you can import your character so that they're Level 25 to 30 in ME3, then that's very encouraging. If it's a direct continuation, it is far more likely our choices in the previous game will have satisfying consequences in the finale. Of course, I'll remain skeptical until we get some solid dev feedback, but that would be some very encouraging news, IMO.

I understand some of your frustration with non-combat skills, but this does not bother me as much because the only non-combat skills in the original were charm/intimidate anyways. What do you mean by non-class skills?

[Darth Drago]

Sorry, I'm a bit more tired than I thought... need to keep my topics straight.



But never the less the loyalty missions in ME2 do seem forced down your throat. Both in how the game reminds you about them and again when every other squad mate "need to talk to you" after a mission ends.

[noobzor99]

kraidy1117 wrote...

Well it looks like ME3 is closer to being a huge failure then an epic success.

One or the other... they do have almost 2 years to get it right...

[Wittand25]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

So is Shepard going to die again with the Normandy SR-2 torn to pieces? I mean, I really hope that's not what Hudson was implying. ME3 is supposed to be a conclusion, and you can't make a conclusion newcomer-friendly unless you screw it up somehow.

In any case, thanks for the link, OP. Too bad I'm late to the party.

I think that they would more likely go for a different approch like setting ME3 a few years after ME2. This way they can get rid of the ME2 crew (some of whom Shepard can meet and recruit again later in the game) use a short scene to set up the reaper threat for new players and have a story that works both for new and old players alike.
This skipped time could work as explanation for either a Normandy 2.5 (current ship updated) or a Normandy 3.

[Terror_K]

Dick Delaware wrote...

Darth Drago, you are conflating choices with consequencs. Neither ME1's nor ME2's side quests/N7 missions had any consequences that affected things later in the game. Whether or not Corporal Toombs shot himself, you killed the scientist, or you had the scientist arrested, you did not see these people again and what they did had no impact on future missions. Still some fun cutscenes, but those aren't consequences.

No, but at least ME1's UNC quests felt like they would have an effect on things in the future and that you might see the results of your choices there, and in many cases they did in ME2, even if most were simply emails of Citadel news reports commenting about how your choice in a particular sidequest  worked out later. ME2 is pretty much devoid of this, with anything that feels substantial relegated almost entirely to the main plot.

Dick Delaware wrote...

I understand some of your frustration with non-combat skills, but this does not bother me as much because the only non-combat skills in the original were charm/intimidate anyways. What do you mean by non-class skills?

No, there were other non-combat and non-class skills. Charm/Intimidate were two, but there was also Decryption and Hacking, your armour classes (light, medium and heavy) and First Aid.

Wittand25 wrote...

I think that they would more likely go for a different approch like setting ME3 a few years after ME2. This way they can get rid of the ME2 crew (some of whom Shepard can meet and recruit again later in the game) use a short scene to set up the reaper threat for new players and have a story that works both for new and old players alike.
This skipped time could work as explanation for either a Normandy 2.5 (current ship updated) or a Normandy 3.

It'll probably jump forward a little, but it would feel odd to have another two years pass again with you not being able to control what happened in that period. It worked with ME2 simply because you weren't around for those two years. For them to advance two years without you being able to choose what you did during them would be rather annoying... I mean, how will all those with Paragon characters who hate Cerberus feel if the game goes "Another 2 years have passed after The Collector threat and you're still tooling around for TIM?"

I hope there isn't a Normandy 3... that would just be lame. It would the the equivalent of destroying the Enterprise A in Star Trek IV or V after you only just got it at the end of III. All I want is to see The SR2 Normandy again but no longer covered in all that Cerberus garbage. Give me the SR2 with the SR1's paintjob and I'll be a very happy person.

Modifié par Terror_K, 20 avril 2010 - 08:15 .

[Kalfear]

gmartin40 wrote...

People when you complain put a solution to the problem because if you don't it makes you look like a ****, excuse my language.

Look at my signature and follow the link!

Lots of solutions been posted but Casey and others dont comment on those threads so why should anyone continue to post solutions to the problems?

Biggest problem im seeing from Casey and Norman is they seem to think there is no problem!

[Wittand25]

Terror_K wrote...
It'll probably jump forward a little, but it would feel odd to have another two years pass again with you not being able to control what happened in that period. It worked with ME2 simply because you weren't around for those two years. For them to advance two years without you being able to choose what you did during them would be rather annoying... I mean, how will all those with Paragon characters who hate Cerberus feel if the game goes "Another 2 years have passed after The Collector threat and you're still tooling around for TIM?"

I hope there isn't a Normandy 3... that would just be lame. It would the the equivalent of destroying the Enterprise A in Star Trek IV or V after you only just got it at the end of III. All I want is to see The SR2 Normandy again but no longer covered in all that Cerberus garbage. Give me the SR2 with the SR1's paintjob and I'll be a very happy person.

You can choose to stay with Cerberus or leaf them already in ME2. Several choiches in ME2 will need some months or even years for a proper payoff (like the quarians will need time to act an Shepards suggestion, or the issue with the genophage will even take a genius like Mordin a couple of months to figure out). not to mention that the reaper fleet has quite some space to cover before you can have your final confrontation with them.

If they have the tutorial area and the setup for the main story before the timejump and allow to choose if shepard rejoins the Alliance or stays indepentend(cerberus) right before the timejump actually happens it would be a good compromise between providing something for old and new players. If you have the story of ME3 directly after ME2 you get problems because a new player would need to much explanations which would only be tiresome for the veteran players.

[Dick Delaware]

Terror_K wrote...
No, but at least ME1's UNC quests felt like they would have an effect on things in the future and that you might see the results of your choices there, and in many cases they did in ME2, even if most were simply emails of Citadel news reports commenting about how your choice in a particular sidequest  worked out later. ME2 is pretty much devoid of this, with anything that feels substantial relegated almost entirely to the main plot.

Meh, I guess a lack of side quests doesn't really bother me. I really don't want there to be many side quests in ME3: fighting space pirates when there are a fleet of Reapers coming towards the Milky Way at lightning speed is a great way to kill the sense of atmosphere and urgency. I thought the side quests in the first game were dreadful and obviously weren't related to the main plot, but you do get to see a few faces. The Corporal Toombs e-mail was a little annoying since I wanted to meet him (especially considering it's implied that he will try to hunt you), but you do get to meet Helena Blake, you get some extra dialogue with Nassana (she still gets killed by Thane, obviously), but it wasn't a complete lack of carryover. For the sidequests, all I really expected was a few lines of extra dialogue and a little cameo, so it wasn't an issue for me. It's not like they're supposed to matter that much anyways.

The disappointment was the lack of big choices in the first game affecting the sequel (though, hopefully this might be rectified in the finale), not stuff like sidequests. I didn't really expect helping Emily Wong out to have galaxy-changing implications.

Dick Delaware wrote...
No, there were other non-combat and non-class skills. Charm/Intimidate were two, but there was also Decryption and Hacking, your armour classes (light, medium and heavy) and First Aid.

I guess it's all about preferences, I didn't mind this change either. I don't like mini-games much to begin with, but I liked the ones in ME2 way better than Simon Says in ME1. Still would have preferred an option to skip them altogether like ME1, though.

I would like to see armor classes however, combined with a small, manageable inventory. You know how when you open up lockers, it reveals a list of weapons? I'd like there to be an inventory that looks something like that - it tells you what's there, but it's not bogged down by hundreds of items of stuff that you'll never use and takes forever to get rid of. It's not high on my list, but it would be nice.

Terror_K wrote...
It'll probably jump forward a little, but it would feel odd to have another two years pass again with you not being able to control what happened in that period. It worked with ME2 simply because you weren't around for those two years. For them to advance two years without you being able to choose what you did during them would be rather annoying... I mean, how will all those with Paragon characters who hate Cerberus feel if the game goes "Another 2 years have passed after The Collector threat and you're still tooling around for TIM?"

I hope there isn't a Normandy 3... that would just be lame. It would the the equivalent of destroying the Enterprise A in Star Trek IV or V after you only just got it at the end of III. All I want is to see The SR2 Normandy again but no longer covered in all that Cerberus garbage. Give me the SR2 with the SR1's paintjob and I'll be a very happy person.

Completely agreed on The Normandy. Other than maybe a few upgrades/renovations, keep the ship as is. Likewise, if you're a Paragon, to add insult to injury for TIM, you get a nice new paintjob. If you've decided to give them the base, the Cerberus logo remains. It would be a nice reminder of what you've done up to that point.

Not sure about when ME3 should take place, though. Wittand25 makes a couple of good points on why it would make sense to set the finale a couple of years from now. Then again, setting it shortly after ME2 would make for a frenetic pace, which IMO would be very cool considering the circumstances.

Modifié par Dick Delaware, 20 avril 2010 - 09:50 .

[Fiery Phoenix]

Yup, I do NOT want a Normandy SR-3, either. I'm more than happy with the SR-2. They could upgrade it a little and maybe add a few extra features to it (rooms, items, characters, etc), but that's about it.



I was really sad when I first heard of the destruction of the SR-1, as I had more or less grown emotionally attached to that ship.