177 réponses à ce sujet

[alperez]

While the Op may have gone a bit over the top in the reasoning justifying their concerns, the concerns themselves are actually valid.

A lot of people on these boards put a lot of faith into what bioware have continually said about the trilogy, that choices do matter and you will see the repurcussion of those choices.

People were dissappointed with how me2 incorporated these choices and basically reduced them down to simple nods and winks, but most accepted that the true repurcussions of choices could really only be shown in me3.

We're now hearing all the same things we heard before me2 was released and people once again start to worry that perhaps rather than see any real differences due to choices we've made we'll instead once again be given little nods and winks to those choices.

When you start to give the impression that the crew of me2 actually don't really matter and will in all likelihood play a reduced role in me3, when you show that no matter what choice you made at the end of me2, the collector base still ends up being used by cerberus and you still end up fighting cerberus forces, it begins to look as if choices may only affect flavour rather than have any significant ramifications.

Bioware keep trotting out the same standard replies when pushed on certain topics, choices matter, squadmate status can't be discussed as its too spoilery and you need to play me3 to see how the choices actually do affect the story.

The problem though is partly the whole Bioware/Ea connection and more so me2 and da2 and how they were perceived in certain regards.

Unlike pre these 2 events when people could and did trust bioware at their word, people are much more skeptical simply because 1. EA are the devil and 2. The ramifications of choice was reduced to its simplest form in me2, default games (inc. ps3's genesis) removed so many elements that people wonder if the choices they made will carry forward, 3. Dragon age 2 showed bioware are not above releasing an extremely flawed experience.

For some people mass effect 3 is a last chance saloon for bioware, if they find the game is dumbed down (their terms not mine) and that choices are in the end meaningless from the 2 games so far, then bioware will lose a large part of the fanbase and goodwill they have so clearly earned.

With new fans and with their attempts to appeal to a larger market share perhaps the loss of these people may not in the end bother them, however its a slippery slope for a company to start down that route, one that some companies never truly recover from.

Personally i believe bioware have earned the right for people to still trust what they say, that in the end they will deliver something we all hope for in mass effect 3, but if they don't and if what we get is not the culmination of a trilogy where choices do indeed matter, then for me its time to say adieu to another great rpg company.

[Kusy]

essarr71 wrote...

Mr.Kusy wrote...


Then please explain to me good sir... how does a trilogy work when it's third installment is advertised as a best point of entry for new fans? Hmmm?

Key word: advertised.

Not learning from history are we? 
I honestly don't expect any more in the matter than what was shown in Mass Effect 2... emails.

[Ace of Dawn]

Mr.Kusy wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

oh brother it is another complainer that doesn't understand how trilogies work.

Then please explain to me good sir... how does a trilogy work when it's third installment is advertised as a best point of entry for new fans? Hmmm?

http://t3.gstatic.co...xCxy0fmp8Uw2qBA

Except it wasn't.

The guy said that it would be a natural starting point.

Resident Evil 4 game out in 2005, and I got it. Never really played RE games, but because of the revamped mechanics and such, it was a great time to get into the series. From there, I played and learn the rest.

“New people will get it, but existing fans will see the stakes being
raised. It will still have levels of nuance – I don’t want to spoil
anything – but you’re definitely going to be seeing things that you’ll
be like: ‘Oh, I remember that!’

That's how he ended that interview. Something the OP conveniently forgot to quote and elaborate on (because it would destroy his entire argument). This is a galactic war. Do you know how appealing that is to people? This isn't some secret agent mission, this is David v Goliath. So of course newcomers are going to join in. With how this story must end, people will just go to see it that way.

[el master pr]

Mr.Kusy wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

oh brother it is another complainer that doesn't understand how trilogies work.

Then please explain to me good sir... how does a trilogy work when its third installment is advertised as a best point of entry for new fans? Hmmm?

http://t3.gstatic.co...xCxy0fmp8Uw2qBA

I didn't like that statement, either.

As for trilogies, I'm going to risk it by giving this example (may not be the best one since I haven't seen them in a long time and may end up looking stupid): Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. IIRC, you could watch Last Crusade before seeing the first two movies just fine. I guess it will be the same with ME3: you could play it and still understand what's going on, but playing the first two would be very gratifying. I could be wrong, though.

[essarr71]

Mr.Kusy wrote...

Not learning from history are we? 
I honestly don't expect any more in the matter than what was shown in Mass Effect 2... emails.

History has nothing to do with it.  Youre talking about it being caled great for new players.

Or do you think the better business plan is: "don't even think about buying this without getting the other two."? 

[didymos1120]

Mr.Kusy wrote...

I honestly don't expect any more in the matter than what was shown in Mass Effect 2... emails.

Yes, because absolutely nothing we did in ME1 was mentioned outside of an email.  You know, there's hyperbole, and then there's just plain being inaccurate.

[spirosz]

I understand that some of hype for the choices were a bit much for ME2 (the emails and such), but there was a lot of choices that seemed to be meant for ME3, for example - The Rachni, Wrex, Council, etc. Bioware can't fit in everything or make every side quest we do be a big impact because then they would have to cut out content to fit in something small, that really has no effect towards the bigger picture. Also, if they don't show something or do mention something, but it's small, why not use your imagination? You can't expect every choice to reoccur in a game, especially since it's the second of the trilogy. Using your imagination allows you to come up with something creative (fanfiction for example) and expand what's already there or take it even further. There's only so much we can have from gaming at this point and I think that's a good thing for now because what makes me love this franchise even more are what us fans create when we explore the lore, characters, and expand what's already there.

Modifié par spiros9110, 12 septembre 2011 - 02:43 .

[Thompson family]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

oh brother it is another complainer that doesn't understand how trilogies work.

Harsh but fair.

LeVaughnX wrote...

The entire game Mass Effect 1 does not
count anymore.....How can I prove this? I'll use five quick examples out
of the million I could list.

1.) Scanning the Keepers.

This is so obviously a side quest for nothing but credits and experience points, I neve did it until this year, and I owned ME1 since a few months after it came out.

2.) Feros! One would imagine
that the actions of Feros would actually affect the Galaxy!

Eh, the Cipher? Saren needed it. He got it, then tried to destroy the Thorian. Had he succeeded and Shep failed, that would have been the end of things.

3.) Noveria! Another
mission that could be bypassed because the PS3 users didn't get ME1.[emphasis added]

First off, this is starting to sound like an Xbox (Maybe a PC) player who thinks this thing going mulit-console is the end of the world.

Shep finds out the location of the Mu Relay. No getting to Ilos w/o that info.

Also, the PS3 didn't get ME2 for how long after ME2 came out. It was not a done deal that it was going to be ported, what, a year later?

4.) Ilos! Oh my word how the fu*k come we can't go to Ilos
and check anything out?

Because Vigil was 50K fu*king years old and croaked after accomplishing its main mission.

5.) The VS (Kaidan /
Ashley)! If you are in a romance with them they open up and kind of
remove that "shell" about them (Kaidan becomes a little less boring and
more awesome while Ashley becomes less of a cu*t and more of a nice
woman). Romance or not though they can and do travel with you possibly
to the very end of ME1 - but in ME2 they rage like a two year old
throwing a tantrum. Let me explain....Lets say you romanced Ashley...She
is alive but you die..Liara of all people saves your dead body while
Ashley basically moves on right away....The Alliance doesn't give a
flying fu*k annnnd Cerberus wants to bring you back to life....When you
meet Ashley later after she totally fu*ks up Horizon she (instead of
being happy, crying, and loving like any REAL HUMAN BEING WOULD - my
girlfriend even agrees that her actions are very poor) she got angry,
said she nearly killed herself (or IMPLIED rather) because you died, and
generally is very butt-hurt that you aren't sucking on the Alliance's
all-mighty penis (which Kaidan suddenly loves...no idea why hes such an
Alliance hound...). You try to explain the truth but they don't believe
in the Reapers or Collectors and think that Cerberus is behind all of it
- which makes no sense....

You're girlfriend'a an authority on what a "real person" would do after seeing somebody she loved fail to escape a ship that blew up a-- right after that person ordered her to get in an escape pod when she didn't want to go?

"Survivor's guilt" is a commonly known response.

Then here Ashley is, grieving for two years, only to find out that Shep is not only alive but in command of a Cerberus ship? Some Marine's missing for two years and then shows up working for a terrorist group, and you ask him where he's been, and he says "I've been dead. Cerberus, an organization you know well, spent two years waking me up but I'm completely fine now."

Tell you what. Disappear three or four nights, come back to your girlfrend wearing gang tatoos and tell her you were in a car crash and the gang rescued you and see what kind of response you get.

[Kusy]

Indiana Jones is not a trilogy, just like James Bond movies are not part of one great story. They are movies playing around the same character. Three Scooby Doo episodes are not a trilogy.

Of course we might argue if ME3 will or will not be a good entry point, but I don't think this thread was about that, it's more or less about how does ME3 being a good entry point affects importance of previous games and choices made in them.

And nope... four Resident Evil games are not a tetralogy. A game having sequels doesn't instantly makes it a single story arc.

Obviously not only haters and complainers don't understand how trilogies work.

Modifié par Mr.Kusy, 12 septembre 2011 - 02:47 .

[Thompson family]

Mr.Kusy wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

oh brother it is another complainer that doesn't understand how trilogies work.

Then please explain to me good sir... how does a trilogy work when its third installment is advertised as a best point of entry for new fans? Hmmm?

http://t3.gstatic.co...xCxy0fmp8Uw2qBA

Kind of like how Pearl Harbor worked on the United States, which wasn't real interested in that WWII thing up to that point.

It will also be a good place to start because all the major flaws of the earlier two will be addressed. I have confidence in that becasue ME2 was a vast improvement over ME1, but it "overcorrected" some things like roleplaying. If BW corrects that balance, ME3 will be great.

Modifié par Thompson family, 12 septembre 2011 - 02:49 .

[Kusy]

Thompson family wrote...
Kind of like how Pearl Harbor worked on the United States, which wasn't real interested in that WWII thing up to that point.

And to this day we hear how the United States singlehanded won the war... but I digress.

Again, you guys convinced me to my very soul that Mass Effect 3 might be a great and glorious point of entry into the series for many people... but since it's not exacly the point of this discussion, let's move on.

Modifié par Mr.Kusy, 12 septembre 2011 - 02:51 .

[Thompson family]

Mr.Kusy wrote...

Thompson family wrote...
Kind of like how Pearl Harbor worked on the United States, which wasn't real interested in that WWII thing up to that point.

And to this day we hear how the United States singlehanded won the war... but I digress.

Not from me, you don't.

[Kusy]

Thompson family wrote...
Not from me, you don't.

And Lord praise you for that.

[Ace of Dawn]

Mr.Kusy wrote...

And nope... four Resident Evil games are not a tetralogy. A game having sequels doesn't instantly makes it a single story arc.

Obviously not only haters don't understand how trilogies work.

That wasn't the point I was trying to make there.

RE4 was an entry point to many fans because gameplay was revamped. It being apart of a trilogy or the sort is irrelevant. It was a great entry point because it provided a dramatic shift that attracted more people while still providing stuff for the original base.

That was what he was referring to. With the story involving such a major conflict, they are making the game a bit more accessible to those they know will get this game specifically because it's the final game, but also making it so that they realize that the other games will have a much greater impact (either in the choices made or simply understanding) and go to play those.

Mr.Kusy wrote...

Again, you guys convinced me to my very soul that Mass Effect 3 might be
a great and glorious point of entry into the series for many people...
but since it's not exacly the point of this discussion, let's move on.

It was really only brought up because someone tried to use a topic claiming the game was a great entry for newcomers (in the sense that it must be the 1st game they play) to refute another's point that was relevant to the topic at hand.

Modifié par Ace of Dawn, 12 septembre 2011 - 02:55 .

[Kusy]

Ace of Dawn wrote...
RE4 was an entry point to many fans because gameplay was revamped. It being apart of a trilogy or the sort is irrelevant. It was a great entry point because it provided a dramatic shift that attracted more people while still providing stuff for the original base.

But Mass Effect is a trilogy, advertised as one and seen as one by fans. It is relevant in this particular example of storytelling and continuity. As much as I like fluent gameplay that both ME1 and ME2 sometimes lack, story is the selling point of Mass Effect, because combat mechanics are poop - if I wanted combat I'd play another game.

[essarr71]

Mr.Kusy wrote...

Indiana Jones is not a trilogy, just like James Bond movies are not part of one great story. They are movies playing around the same character. Three Scooby Doo episodes are not a trilogy.

Obviously not only haters and complainers don't understand how trilogies work.

Sure.. but comparing a game trilogy to a movie trilogy is pointless.  Mind as well compare ME to a book series.

ME is a game product, one that crossed platforms mid-series.  And as I mentioned before, making your product deliberately exclusive is a bad idea (unless your demographic is very specific - ie: aston martin producing a 15k car).  ME3 will soar or plummet on it's own, regardless of what it in corporates.  A horrible game won't be made because we never got anything from Bhatia's body and I don't see any indication that the real major choices won't play a role. 

Modifié par essarr71, 12 septembre 2011 - 03:00 .

[Thompson family]

jreezy wrote...

I think you misinterpreted that statement a bit. Why would a Xbox or PC user wish content in ME1 was cut because PS3 players don't get to play it?

I interpret the statement as: OMG, they erased the meaning of much of ME1 becaue they had to acommodate PS3 players!!!

[Ace of Dawn]

Mr.Kusy wrote...

Ace of Dawn wrote...
RE4 was an entry point to many fans because gameplay was revamped. It being apart of a trilogy or the sort is irrelevant. It was a great entry point because it provided a dramatic shift that attracted more people while still providing stuff for the original base.

But Mass Effect is a trilogy, advertised as one and seen as one by fans. It is relevant in this particular example of storytelling and continuity. As much as I like fluent gameplay that both ME1 and ME2 sometimes lack, story is the selling point of Mass Effect, because combat mechanics are poop - if I wanted combat I'd play another game.

The RE4 analogy is in reference to how they're treating the story in ME3. It will be self-sufficient for those who haven't played before, but the game will make it apparent that there is so much more to be provided that you go back to the prvious games and play them to change how ME3 played out.

I guess another example would be Halo 3. Halo 3 itself has a story that could help accomodate anyone who was new to the series (which was a serious issue to consider. It was a new console, meaning the chances of someone never owning the first xbox or first 2 games is possible)., but by playing Halo 1 and 2, you will fully understand what is going on.

[el master pr]

Mr.Kusy wrote...

Indiana Jones is not a trilogy, just like James Bond movies are not part of one great story. They are movies playing around the same character. Three Scooby Doo episodes are not a trilogy.

Of course we might argue if ME3 will or will not be a good entry point, but I don't think this thread was about that, it's more or less about how does ME3 being a good entry point affects importance of previous games and choices made in them.

And nope... four Resident Evil games are not a tetralogy. A game having sequels doesn't instantly makes it a single story arc.

Obviously not only haters and complainers don't understand how trilogies work.

The same thing could be said about ME1-3, or is it that the games do not follow the actions of the character, Shepard in this case? From thefreedictionary.com, trilogy is "a group of three dramatic or literary works related in subject or theme." Aren't the Indiana Jones movies related in subject or theme?

Seriously, this discussion is very relative and we could keep it up until ME3 launches and beyond. Add to that, it would derail the thread even more. And I'm not in any way looking for a fight here... just sayin'.

[Arken]

Nyoka wrote...

Wow, I've been writing it wrong. Cipher it is.

I know Shiala explains it. And I know since it is all you get from one of the four main missions, it has to be important-sounding, even if it isn't. I'm not talking in-game, I'm talking about the Cipher as a story driver. Its function could have been assumed by Liara with no problem: we have info we don't understand, so we go get the expert who will help us understand it. The mind melding that follows Feros is also inconsequential, because it doesn't advance the story. If there had been only two mind-meldings: after Therum and after Virmire, we wouldn't have missed anything. The additional mind-melding after Feros got us nowhere. Again, this is not from the in-game perspective.

Compare it to the rachni queen. Binary Helix has been doing experiments with Rachni; both Saren and Benezia are important investors. It makes sense nobody knows where the mu relay is except for a rachni. It's all connected, and it all gets us somewhere. You can't remove Noveria without changing the story (who knows where the mu relay is? and if it's not lost, how come nobody knows about Ilos? etc.), but you can remove Feros.

Maybe Shiala will do another cameo; I can't think of any other consequence from Feros in ME3.

Remember what Shiala said when we freed her. She basically absored the knowledge of a prothean that only the Thorian has. Shiala was the only one who could help Shepard obtain the Cipher.

Liara has a knowledge of the protheans, but she doesn't know what it is like in the mind of a prothean. Only the Thorian, Saren, and Shiala knew this. Feros is integral to the story in my opinion.

[Kaiser Shepard]

el master pr wrote...

Mr.Kusy wrote...

Indiana Jones is not a trilogy, just like James Bond movies are not part of one great story. They are movies playing around the same character. Three Scooby Doo episodes are not a trilogy.

Of course we might argue if ME3 will or will not be a good entry point, but I don't think this thread was about that, it's more or less about how does ME3 being a good entry point affects importance of previous games and choices made in them.

And nope... four Resident Evil games are not a tetralogy. A game having sequels doesn't instantly makes it a single story arc.

Obviously not only haters and complainers don't understand how trilogies work.

The same thing could be said about ME1-3, or is it that the games do not follow the actions of the character, Shepard in this case? From thefreedictionary.com, trilogy is "a group of three dramatic or literary works related in subject or theme." Aren't the Indiana Jones movies related in subject or theme?

Seriously, this discussion is very relative and we could keep it up until ME3 launches and beyond. Add to that, it would derail the thread even more. And I'm not in any way looking for a fight here... just sayin'.

The Indiana Jones trilogy is a trilogy that consists of three seperate stories, while Mass Effect is supposed to have one overarching plot. It's not that difficult to understand, is it?

[Bluko]

didymos1120 wrote...

Mr.Kusy wrote...

I honestly don't expect any more in the matter than what was shown in Mass Effect 2... emails.

Yes, because absolutely nothing we did in ME1 was mentioned outside of an email.  You know, there's hyperbole, and then there's just plain being inaccurate.

Yeah, but nothing really changes save the role of a few NPCs being there or not. And there's a few conversations as well, but it's not really all that ground breaking. While I appreciate these minor features none of them are what I'd consider "substantial". You can basically go through ME2 the same way as you can with an import with no real loss. Why would ME3 be any different? Okay yes... you lose a few cameos and or conversations, but the actual missions and all that remains the same. You don't get different missions, different enemies, or even different bosses. And I really truly doubt ME3 will be any different in this regard.

The most substantial thing I see being possible in ME3 is you might have a playthough with one or two less characters because you got them killed in ME2. That's something. Although I don't think cutting out squadmates really counts as actually adding content.


As for the OP...

They aren't limiting cause of PS3 users. This was how they intended things from the start, that or they've found there's limitations to what they can make variable in each new installment. It has nothing to do with marketing to PS3 folks or new people in general.

I'm quite sure they intended each game to be a standalone title. You'll get some extra fluff if you import, but ME3 is not going to be radically different other then what Paragon/Renegade decisions you make in ME3 itself. I mean if you want to believe otherwise I guess you can... I just think a lot of folks are setting their expectations way too high. And I'd rather stem any potential rage now rather then try to later.

And for the record I'm fine with doing things this way. Sure more meaningful consequences would be nice, but as long as the core game is solid and my Shepard remains the same class etc. I don't see any reason to freak out.