127 réponses à ce sujet

[Dionkey]

jamesp81 wrote...

Kronner wrote...

1) Why should I be forced to take a heavy weapon? IMHO heavy weapons suck, and I do not want them, at all.

4) Seriously? No punishments? What's the point of playing at all if ALL ways lead to the same end - "winning"?
I really hope there are either severe penalties and great bonuses for each decision. Shepard should be either punished OR rewarded for each major decision IMHO. And if somehow Shepard screwed it up..then tough luck..Reapers win.

The problem wiht #4 is no matter how you do it, there's going to be a lot of "renegades go shafted" or "paragons got favortisim".  Having a path to victory from any point is about the only way they can have choices change the flow of the story without pissing off everyone, it seems.

Everyone suffers at some point. The Paragons lose for keeping the Rachni alive, the Renegades lose for encouraging the war against the geth. You aren't bottlenecked into these choices, its all about how YOU want to see the story unfoly, not how it's forced to unfold.

[In Exile]

Dionkey wrote...
The game gives you a comic to choose your main choices. You can still complete the game and win with the default choices, it will just be harder without the sidequests with the nooks and crannys of the first two games.

That just makes every choice except the ME3 choice irrelevant, though.

[wizardryforever]

Alamar2078 wrote...

@OP:

4.  Let me see if I get this right.  You are all for choices and consequences.   But you don't want any of those consequences to be negative.   I 99% disagree here.    I think you should be able to get some "winning ending" no matter your ME1 & ME2 choices if you play your cards right in ME3.   However I 100% believe there must be a set of choices that result in some sort of "failure" / "loss" at the end of ME3.

Close, but not quite.  I'm saying that in gameplay terms, the game should be completable regardless of choices, past or present.  I'm not saying there should be no negative consequences, just keep that in the background for the most part.  Don't have it alter the difficulty of the game itself.  Alter the cutscenes, alter the background stuff, alter the ending, alter the epilogue, but not the gameplay.  Those who argue for "punishments" seem to be saying that there should always be a right and a wrong choice for these big decisions.  If that were the case, there would be no reason to ever choose the wrong choice, because it penalizes you and makes the game more difficult.  Even moreso if it makes the game unwinnable.

[Dionkey]

In Exile wrote...

Dionkey wrote...
The game gives you a comic to choose your main choices. You can still complete the game and win with the default choices, it will just be harder without the sidequests with the nooks and crannys of the first two games.

That just makes every choice except the ME3 choice irrelevant, though.

What? How? I fail to understand how rewarding people who played the first 2 slightly more while giving newcomers a little bit of a rougher run makes the choices irrelevant. It's not like they are going to be fighting through the nine gates of hell, it would probably just open up more dialouge for people who played previously.

[Sylvius the Mad]

wizardryforever wrote...

Those who argue for "punishments" seem to be saying that there should always be a right and a wrong choice for these big decisions.  If that were the case, there would be no reason to ever choose the wrong choice, because it penalizes you and makes the game more difficult.  Even moreso if it makes the game unwinnable.

That's only true for players who make metagame decisions.

A player who makes in-character decisions may well choose the suboptimal path, even knowing that it's the suboptimal path.

[Ghost Warrior]

I agree on 2 and 3. Not on others,especially on 4th. Decisions should have consequences,otherwise there is not much point to them.

[Alamar2078]

jamesp81 wrote...

Kronner wrote...

<snip>

4) Seriously? No punishments? What's the point of playing at all if ALL ways lead to the same end - "winning"?
I really hope there are either severe penalties and great bonuses for each decision. Shepard should be either punished OR rewarded for each major decision IMHO. And if somehow Shepard screwed it up..then tough luck..Reapers win.

The problem wiht #4 is no matter how you do it, there's going to be a lot of "renegades go shafted" or "paragons got favortisim".  Having a path to victory from any point is about the only way they can have choices change the flow of the story without pissing off everyone, it seems.

I think there is middle ground that can be made.  I think that no matter your choices in ME1 & ME2 that you should be able to "win".   How easy / clean the win is may vary but you should be able to "win".   The default settings for ME1, ME2, or ME3 should make things where you can still "win".

On the other hand if you make "perfectly wrong" choices all the way through all 3 games then you should fail and there should be some sort of cut scenes for that.   If there is not any possible playthough that results in a Reaper win then the choices in game don't matter and I'd be seriously disappointed.

[wizardryforever]

Alamar2078 wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Kronner wrote...

<snip>

4) Seriously? No punishments? What's the point of playing at all if ALL ways lead to the same end - "winning"?
I really hope there are either severe penalties and great bonuses for each decision. Shepard should be either punished OR rewarded for each major decision IMHO. And if somehow Shepard screwed it up..then tough luck..Reapers win.

The problem wiht #4 is no matter how you do it, there's going to be a lot of "renegades go shafted" or "paragons got favortisim".  Having a path to victory from any point is about the only way they can have choices change the flow of the story without pissing off everyone, it seems.

I think there is middle ground that can be made.  I think that no matter your choices in ME1 & ME2 that you should be able to "win".   How easy / clean the win is may vary but you should be able to "win".   The default settings for ME1, ME2, or ME3 should make things where you can still "win".

On the other hand if you make "perfectly wrong" choices all the way through all 3 games then you should fail and there should be some sort of cut scenes for that.   If there is not any possible playthough that results in a Reaper win then the choices in game don't matter and I'd be seriously disappointed.

Wait, what?  Altering the story, characters, setting, ending, epilogue and so on don't matter unless the Reapers can win?  How does that track?  Just because we know that Shepard will somehow find a way to defeat the Reapers regardless doesn't mean that our choices somehow are meaningless.

[wildannie]

I'd be really surprised if there was a reaper win ending, not that I think it would be a bad thing though.

I expect reapers will always be defeated and the level of victory will be measured in the state of the world and whose still living... I could be wrong though, Maybe the Reapers always win!

[D.Kain]

4) and 5) I agree.
3) don't really care.
But 1) and 2) wth are you talking about? Game resourses? It's already in the game, notice how Shepard is going without weapons aboard normandy? It's my game, and I'm asking for a button to unequip things. It can be done via scripting by simple people, it would be even easier to do for people at bioware. Probably about 5 min. If you don't want to use it don't. I can kill anything except for thrasher maw and super big mechs without using weapons and warp, and I can do it fast.

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

I wish that your decisions involving the krogan, saving the council, the rachni on Noveria, etc. carried more weight, but for the sake of opening the game to new players, I don't think Bioware's going to punish you for them, or do much at all.

[Timberley]

Well, to throw my two-penneth into the mix;

1.  It's not a major thing to implement a toggle.  If BW themselves don't do it, then the fact that it's based on the Unreal Engine means that those who don't want their heavy weapons can mod in a Binding to toggle them 'off'.  In GP terms, it just may just make the game harder for those that don't use them.

2.  I sort of agree with you, but that's mainly because quite a few cutscenes in previous games rely on Shep drawing their weapon.  Without even a pistol to draw, things could get too complicated.

3.  I definitely agree.  I play ME as I am Commander Shepard in that circumstance, not Joker & EDI.  If there were timed decisions relating to orders you give to Joker/support fleets during space battles (a variation on save/ignore the Destiny Ascension), that showed you how these things played out, that would be ok.

4.  I can see where you're coming from with this, and I sort of agree.  I want my choices to have consequences.  If I told Mordin to destroy the genophage cure data, I want to have to jump through many more dialogue or mission-based hoops to convince the krogan to help, or alternatively not have them at all.  Similarly, if I saved the rachni, I want a fight on a planet (or wherever) that the rachni are involved with to be easier or harder depending on whether the rachni tricked you or are helping you.  The choices should lead to GP consequences as well as story ones.  Say you do everything wrong (and that doesn't mean purely Renegade either), then the 'victory' should be so bad that there's barely a galaxy left, and Shep's dead in the final mission (but that's my speculation).  On the other hand, if you did everything to ensure the best possible outcome, then it should be reflected in the GP.

5.  Who's been calling for full frontal nerdity?  I did like the ME1 scenes as they were mature, tasteful, and a lot better than the dry humping of ME2.  I hope they return to that sort of level, without having a whole "OMG!! Miranda's Bewbs!!11!!" vibe.

Just my opinions on it.

Tim

[Bluko]

wizardryforever wrote...
1.  The ability to choose "none" for heavy weapons.  The only justification I've ever heard for people wanting this they never use them and they take up space on Shepard's back.  Talk about ridiculous.  Normally I'm all for the options, but these are development resources that can best be used elsewhere.

I just don't want Heavy Weapons to be in the game honeslty. How hard is it to not include something? Come to think of it I haven't seen Shepard actually carrying an actual Heavy Weapon in ME3. It was a neat idea in ME2, but Heavy Weapons tend to be fairly useless.  I'd prefer development resources be used on making the mainstray weapons better.

wizardryforever wrote...
2.  As a follow-up to that: the ability to choose no weapons at all on biotic and tech classes.  Who really wants to spam powers the entire time?  Especially biotics, whose only damaging power is warp.  Adepts would become even more about "warp spam" than before, or would rely on their squaddies to actually kill enemies.  Again, development resources.

Agreed, if you never want to use a a weapon you are playing the wrong game. I can understand wanting to use Biotics more, but just spamming them all the time and nothing but seems silly.

wizardryforever wrote...
3.  Ship combat.  I just don't see any reason why we would be controlling a ship that isn't Normandy in combat.  And Joker flies the Normandy (or EDI).  Even if they could come up with a reason, Bioware doesn't have the best track record with vehicle combat.  Development resources.

Yep, me niether. (Although some sort of vehicular combat is nice.)

wizardryforever wrote...
4.  Punishing a style of play disproportionately to the decisions made.  I'm all for consequences, and I'd be pissed if there wasn't some kind of difference based on choices, but the game should still be completable regardless.  Each choice should have rippling effects, but not change the likelihood of winning.  For instance, saving the Rachni should have some kind of bonus.  Likewise, killing the Rachni should have some kind of bonus.  Different, but no punishments.

Yeah it boggles me that many seem to believe that oh say saving the Collector Base should give them sort of extra advantage versus those who didn't. There should be equal benefits to both actions.

wizardryforever wrote...
5.  Gratuitous nudity.  Granted, the fully clothed romance scenes in ME2 were rather ridiculous, but a full switch to total nudity is not the answer.  It doesn't fit the feel of Mass Effect, and kind of cheapens the romances when you actually see the "goods."  There are ways to show that the couple is nude and having sex without actually showing anything.  Camera angles, props, discretion shots, etc.  Tasteful, not gratuitous.

Agreed. Seeing some skin is okay (someone's bare back or butt perhaps) but I could really do without a minute long scene where Tali rides Shepard totally naked.

wizardryforever wrote...
The other big ones that I thought of had already been confirmed out, like the removal of thermal clips or ammo skills or the return of the inventory screen.  Anyone else have things to add to the list?

While I'm not a fan of Thermals Clips, I didn't really ever hold out much hope for Bioware to make any changes to it.

Modifié par Bluko, 09 juin 2011 - 11:10 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Bluko wrote...

While I'm not a fan of Thermals Clips, I didn't really ever hold out much hope for Bioware to make any changes to it.

They broke lore to change it once.  Why not again?

I abhor the ammo mechanic.  Yet another way in which I think ME's combat was superior.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 09 juin 2011 - 11:23 .

[Alamar2078]

wizardryforever wrote...

Alamar2078 wrote...
If there is not any possible playthough that results in a Reaper win then the choices in game don't matter and I'd be seriously disappointed.

Wait, what?  Altering the story, characters, setting, ending, epilogue and so on don't matter unless the Reapers can win?  How does that track?  Just because we know that Shepard will somehow find a way to defeat the Reapers regardless doesn't mean that our choices somehow are meaningless.

If you go through all 3 games trying to make the Reapers win but still can't manage it then all the suspense and drama of the life & death struggle was for nothing.  I can't think of a more boring scenario then a game that you can't possibly "lose" in.  It's kind of like a suicide mission where no matter what you do nobody can possibly die.  It takes the oomph out of "suicide mission".

Perhaps instead of saying that choices don't matter maybe I should say that the choices don't matter nearly enough IMHO.

If you don't see the point I imagine we can simply agree to disagree.

[Estelindis]

wizardryforever wrote...

Kronner wrote...

4) Seriously? No punishments? What's the point of playing at all if ALL ways lead to the same end - "winning"?
I really hope there are either severe penalties and great bonuses for each decision. Shepard should be either punished OR rewarded for each major decision IMHO. And if somehow Shepard screwed it up..then tough luck..Reapers win.

That would make choices pointless, as each choice would only have one "right" option.  This would enrage people who chose the other option, especially if these "right" options were always Paragon or always Renegade.

I think the best approach is that taken by Bring Down the Sky: both paragon and renegade are rewarded and punished, just in different ways.  What determines the choice that one makes is whether one judges tihs particular benefit to be so great as to outweigh this particular drawback - and paragons and renegades put different weights on a number of moral values.

In the context of ME3's fight against the Reapers, a number of variables would have to be tracked in terms of different factors that would help or hinder the forces of galactic civilization.  Only a very rare combination of choices would lead to total disaster.  As for victory, it could be by degrees: more or less of a final cost, depending on the choices made.  I expect/hope this is the approach Bioware is taking.

[Sylvius the Mad]

wizardryforever wrote...

Wait, what?  Altering the story, characters, setting, ending, epilogue and so on don't matter unless the Reapers can win?  How does that track?  Just because we know that Shepard will somehow find a way to defeat the Reapers regardless doesn't mean that our choices somehow are meaningless.

On the question of whether Shepard defeats the Reapers, yes it does.  If the core narrative is fixed, why does the game need us?

[Lumikki]

1. Not sure, I don't see any harm, not to choose, but make so that some missions heavy weapons really shine. *wink*

2. mm. hard choise. People should allow play the game way they like, but this isn't magic (bionic) game, weapons are part of it. I take neutral position here.

3. I think some special vehicles sub-game combat would be nice. It adds variety to the game.

4. I short of agree. Past choises should affect, but not be total judgement.

5. Yeah, no point for nudity, sex is not even main point of this game and it doesn't even make the game better anyway.

Modifié par Lumikki, 10 juin 2011 - 12:02 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

wizardryforever wrote...

3.  Ship combat.  I just don't see any reason why we would be controlling a ship that isn't Normandy in combat.  And Joker flies the Normandy (or EDI).  Even if they could come up with a reason, Bioware doesn't have the best track record with vehicle combat.  Development resources.

I missed this the first time through.

I loved the Mako in ME, and I enjoyed combat in the Maki in ME (though I admit I mostly avoided it because of the huge XP penalty).

[jakal66]

Please, heavy weapons make a lot of sense in many missions, more now that you will face the reapers, they have always been used in combat, think of rocket launchers. I mean I can't see you bringing down an Atlas mech with just biotic powers, may be some tech ones, but ultimately it makes more sense to engage heavily fortified enemies or vehicles or in ME3 reapers. I mean I used them only the necessary scenarios.No need to waste heavy ammo on wimpy enemies.

[In Exile]

Dionkey wrote...
What? How? I fail to understand how rewarding people who played the first 2 slightly more while giving newcomers a little bit of a rougher run makes the choices irrelevant. It's not like they are going to be fighting through the nine gates of hell, it would probably just open up more dialouge for people who played previously.

Essentially, it means that no matter what you did in ME1-ME2, none of that had any impact on winning, because someone who played neither would get an ending about the same as yours.

That being said, I still favour that design. I'm just saying that's the cost you pay for it.

[Splinter Cell 108]

I disagree with number 1. I don't want heavy weapons, I don't see how making heavy weapons optional to the player is going to be a "HUGE" drag on resources. I doubt its that hard, if they already did it with normal weapons, how hard could it be.

I agree with the rest, I don't know how choosing no weapons for an adept is a good idea or why anyone would want space combat.

[Destroy Raiden_]

Timberley wrote...

  I want my choices to have consequences.  If I told Mordin to destroy the genophage cure data, I want to have to jump through many more dialogue or mission-based hoops to convince the krogan to help, or alternatively not have them at all.  Similarly, if I saved the rachni, I want a fight on a planet (or wherever) that the rachni are involved with to be easier or harder depending on whether the rachni tricked you or are helping you.  The choices should lead to GP consequences as well as story ones. 

^ I agree with this just like a choose your own adventure tale when you select that choice of whom to kill and save the game situations change and you can't go back and fix that.


ME style sex scenes all the way I hated the fade to black ME2. I would like also support an extended theme for Tali sense she's in her suit.

I also like the idea of the toggle with heavy weapon carry I never used my heavy weapons and for me they're useless.

and while we're on the subject of things devs shouldn't listen to they shouldn't turn previously hetro portrayed characters bi for ME3. No past LI from ME2 - ME should be bi retconned the should remain as the end game portrayed.

Color coding the galaxy map that's a dumb thing to see why do players care of who owns what in the imaginary boarderlines of space?

giving shep a rocket pack another thing they shouldn't listen to.

making a reaper or prothean squadmate that's the equivalent to Ripley asking a xenomorph for help to fight said xenomorphs.

Modifié par Destroy Raiden , 10 juin 2011 - 05:39 .

[MegaBadExample]

Of course you would mention nudity! Doooooooooood!
I'd hate it. If some of the straight characters turned Bi. The new characters can be Bi, idc. Seriously though Garrus better not hit on me.

[TaHol100]

Only heavy weapon I used was that Black Singularity-thingy, and I wouldn't have given that away in million years.

These forums are filled with stupid ideas and complains which I wish devs never listen. I wish they are damn stubborn and keep their way and make their own game without tons of fan service. I want to play a game they made to look like they wanted. Most people don't even know what they want, so they just run after the most popular opinion.

Like elevators. First they want them out, so they get it. Then one gets in his mind to shout "I want them back!" and soon a choir follows. Same with Mako. Same with inventory. It almost seems like a sort of fashion!