177 réponses à ce sujet

[Ace of Dawn]

Bluko wrote...

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.

Here's the thing no one understands, which is a real shame:

Do you understand how much of a logistical nightmare it would be to account for every single variable?

The council can either live or die with a human council at the helm. Realistically, how things are run in the galaxy would be radically different. Even within the game, things should be noticeably different, but that would essentially mean two games.

Now imagine that for every single major and minor choice in the game. You would have to account for every single choice, and make the appropriate situation for it. On top of that, you have to account with how they would react to each other.

Then there's Mass Effect 3, which would have to respond to all of those variables. That is so many different combinations and time spent, the games would take forever to develop, and largely pointless (so much time spent on the game, when not all options got fair selection).

Instead, the impact on ME2 is minimal, so that they can make ME3 and easily account for all variables.

There's a reason it's called Chaos Theory...

[Arken]

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.

Actually the United States actively provided weapons and intelligence to European allies before Japan attacked. America was involved in World War II before they get their hands dirty.

The reason Japan attacked America was because America was the errand boy who was too afraid to fight. By knocking America down they would cut resources to England and its allies and help the Axis nations by crippling the Allied nations.

Now why did I mention this? Because without knowing that America was already part of World War II then people would only know half of the story of their part in the war. Knowing how America was involved before explains the motivations for Pearl Harbor as well the official joining of the Allied Nations. Without that part of the story you're just left with half of a plot. Only the climax but none of the build up of America's story in the war.

The same with the trilogy. This is essentially the same thing. Will Bioware just ignore Shepard's story before the climax of the series the same way people today ignore what America did before the climax of World War II?

I have faith in Bioware. It is possible for them to go this route though. They could decide that all that matters are the flavor of the choices. Though I am going to be positive and hope that Bioware saved all the Mass Effect 2 variables for Mass Effect 3.

Modifié par Arken, 12 septembre 2011 - 03:34 .

[el master pr]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

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?

It was. Well, I did say on my first post that I may end up looking stupid for using that example... But my point still stands: just because ME3 is a good entry point for new people doesn't mean it's gonna alienate the first two games. It can be a good trilogy, with previous decisions affecting the universe, for us all-time fans and a good entry point for those who haven't had the chance to play ME1 and 2. One can actually cater to everyone once in a while, and I hope it works this way in ME3.

[Gatt9]

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.

Did you ever seen Star Wars?  Either of them?  Did you notice how events in the first affected the second?  How about LotR?  Did you notice how the Battle of Helm's Deep setup saving Gondor?

It's a funny thing about trilogies,  strangely,  events from the first entry make a difference in the second.  I don't know about you,  but I don't remember either of the second entries in Star Wars being completely unrelated to the first.  I don't recall the Two Towers being completely unrelated to Lord of the Rings either.

I'd have to say that someone doesn't understand how trilogies work,  but I'd venture it isn't the people who are complaining.

[Bluko]

Ace of Dawn wrote...

Here's the thing no one understands, which is a real shame:

Do you understand how much of a logistical nightmare it would be to account for every single variable?

Yes I do, and that's exactly why I believe what I do. However Bioware could actually have saved themselves some trouble by creating actual branching content in ME2. You could greatly limit potential headaches by having more restrictive alternate playthroughs. You know Renegades meet Matt and Paragons meet Mark.The problem is they've taken this all encompassing approach of keeping track of things that shouldn't even really matter.  So everyone meets Marko and he can live, die, be happy, or pissed. By doing so they literally have to account for everything and that leaves them with a lot less to devote then to each respective decision.

Ace of Dawn wrote...
The council can either live or die with a human council at the helm. Realistically, how things are run in the galaxy would be radically different. Even within the game, things should be noticeably different, but that would essentially mean two games.

No they wouldn't. But do we even get to meet the human lead or newly formed councils? Heck we end up in the same Embassy as we did in ME1. Could we not have gotten a different area or something?

Ace of Dawn wrote...
Instead, the impact on ME2 is minimal, so that they can make ME3 and easily account for all variables.

You were doing good up til this point. They did not "limit" the consequences in ME2 so they could have an easier time making ME3. Just because ME2 could have had more branching content does not make ME3 anymore difficult to create, especially if you know they had actually resolved stuff in ME2. In short they probably purposefully left so many loose ends so people would convince themselves that ME3 is going to have all the "big" consequences. Well it will be end of the series...

But look the Rachni are going to be in ME3 for everybody (probably as shooting targets to boot). Heck they this with ME1 itself. Even though you kill the Rachni Queen you find afterwards there's still plenty of Rachni out there. Without a Queen yes, but Cerberus has been more then happy to clone them for us.

The example of Cerberus being every player's enemy should be a no brainer for what it is come. Granted I thought this was pretty much inevitable after ME2, but they've literally been indoctrinated so you have to fight them. So whether you thought T.I.M. was cool or not in ME2 you still have him as an enemy. Look you can hold onto the belief destoying or keeping the Collector Base will have some big impact on ME3. I ain't though. Some characters will mention and think more or less of me, but I highly doubt you'll even get so much as a different weapon. You'll probably talk to whatever character and getting exactly the same XP/Credits.

Modifié par Bluko, 12 septembre 2011 - 04:05 .

[robarcool]

OP, your argument is flawed. ME2 was released on PS3 a year after its release date on PC and XBOX 360. There is no way that Bioware did all those things you mention just to keep PS3 players in the loop who will play the game after a year. That is just preposterous.

[Kaiser Shepard]

robarcool wrote...

OP, your argument is flawed. ME2 was released on PS3 a year after its release date on PC and XBOX 360. There is no way that Bioware did all those things you mention just to keep PS3 players in the loop who will play the game after a year. That is just preposterous.

The PS3 release was planned long before the other two versions even came out.

[robarcool]

Oh. My bad. Didn't know that. But, I am still not convinced from OP's argument. If people like a series so much, they will most likely play the first game on other platform to complete their experience.

[AtreiyaN7]

*yawn*

[Bluko]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

robarcool wrote...

OP, your argument is flawed. ME2 was released on PS3 a year after its release date on PC and XBOX 360. There is no way that Bioware did all those things you mention just to keep PS3 players in the loop who will play the game after a year. That is just preposterous.

The PS3 release was planned long before the other two versions even came out.

You sure?

I thought EA basically did this after ME2 came out on the Xbox and PC. And then a few poor sods got tasked with making a PS3 port probably in March 2010 or something. I can't really imagine a PS3 version of ME2 was planned ahead of time as it came out a year later.

[Cpt-Kirrahe]

Bluko wrote...

The example of Cerberus being every player's enemy should be a no brainer for what it is come. Granted I thought this was pretty much inevitable after ME2, but they've literally been indoctrinated so you have to fight them. So whether you thought T.I.M. was cool or not in ME2 you still have him as an enemy. Look you can hold onto the belief destoying or keeping the Collector Base will have some big impact on ME3. I ain't though. Some characters will mention and think more or less of me, but I highly doubt you'll even get so much as a different weapon. You'll probably talk to whatever character and getting exactly the same XP/Credits.

Well now that you mentioned that it all makes sense. Our choices will more than likely not have a big impact on the main Mass Effect story at all... I know it didn't make much of a difference going from an imported ME1 to ME2. Sure I got to see Conrad Verner, heard from the rachni queen (sort of) and got a bunch of emails BUT the story didn't feel like it would have been different. I mean Wrex was replaced by a different Krogan who did the SAME exact job as him and had pretty much the same exact lines... Same with with Ashley/Kaiden... Sure it was a great story, but I didn't feel like any of my decisions from Mass Effect 1 made a noticeable difference in the story. 

If you think your decisions from the first two games are going to make a HUGE difference in Mass Effect 3 I think you're going to be let down. For example whether you kept or destroyed the collector base in Mass Effect 2 the story of Mass Effect 3 will be largely unchanged except for a few lines here and there.

Oh well... As long as the good Captain from Virmire plays a good role in ME3 I'll be happy 

[Heather Cline]

Dear OP,

One thing you forget is that the PS3 version of ME2 didn't come out until like six months or so after the Xbox/PC versions were launched. You're argument that because the PS3 gamers for ME2 did not get ME1 that our decisions from that first game have no affect on ME2 or ME3 does not make any sense. Really it doesn't.

Sincerely,

Me.

[didymos1120]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

robarcool wrote...

OP, your argument is flawed. ME2 was released on PS3 a year after its release date on PC and XBOX 360. There is no way that Bioware did all those things you mention just to keep PS3 players in the loop who will play the game after a year. That is just preposterous.

The PS3 release was planned long before the other two versions even came out.

Considered?  Sure.  But planned "long before"?  No.  Had it really been so "long before", it would have released on all three platforms simultaneously, just like ME3 will.

[Kaiser Shepard]

didymos1120 wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

robarcool wrote...

OP, your argument is flawed. ME2 was released on PS3 a year after its release date on PC and XBOX 360. There is no way that Bioware did all those things you mention just to keep PS3 players in the loop who will play the game after a year. That is just preposterous.

The PS3 release was planned long before the other two versions even came out.

Considered?  Sure.  But planned "long before"?  No.  Had it really been so "long before", it would have released on all three platforms simultaneously, just like ME3 will.

There's a reason that one slip of the tongue back in late 2009 happened, the one where a dev mentioned ME2 appearing on all three platforms.

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 12 septembre 2011 - 05:03 .

[shenlonzero]

Well, if you didn't play, you use the canon story. it's totally different than it not mattering. it just assumes you made the worse possible combined decisions. i mean, if you have seen how the conversation and interaction trees work, and how dynamic it is in a Mass Effect game, you'd see that this is a bad assumption to make.

[didymos1120]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

There's a reason that one slip of the tongue back in late 2009 happened, the one where a dev mentioned ME2 appearing on all three platforms.

That happened just a few months before ME2 came out, and at that point it was still just a "probably".  I'd hardly call that "long before" and it seems more consistent with the idea that they'd been considering it for awhile, as I said.

Modifié par didymos1120, 12 septembre 2011 - 05:20 .

[el master pr]

AwesomeEffect2 wrote...

Ace of Dawn wrote...

“We’ve really struck a great balance. Obviously, if you’ve played the game before you’ll see things that apply to you… And even if you’ve played the games multiple times before – Mass Effect came out almost eight years ago – you’re not going to remember all the details from when you played that game, right? Even I can’t recall everything that happened to me when that came out in 2007. It’s human nature. We’re not Rain Man​…"

Well, that stills says nothing.

It pretty much tells that a lot of our decisions from ME1 and ME2 will be ignored.

You don't remember every single choice you've made, so things will come out of nowhere.

In fact, I do remember every single choice I've made in both ME1 and ME2. Why? Because I played both games multiple times and Bioware said that our decisions would matter a lot. I also have only two Shepards, so it's easy for me.

And the romance thing very clearly just means that YOU can decide to do anything about that. You know? Have a choice? Shocking, this whole choice thing.

‘Well, what about when I had this love affair?’ It’s like, who cares? It’s all out war! <_<

Quite honestly, I just love that the OP of that topic you linked to left this out:

“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!’

Really, that says it all right there. New people will be able to get into the game and understand, but existing fans will see their choices have impact.

The two paragraphs above say otherwise. There's also this:

Since the established fan base doesn’t need any more reason to get hyped for the game’s launch, it’s players who have been somewhat intimidated by the size and scale of the series being targeted by statements like these. And for those who have been thinking of hopping in for Mass Effect 3, it’s good to know that the game will be just as satisfying. That being said, these comments will likely be some of the worst things a hardcore, RPG-loving, emotionally-invested Mass Effect player could hear. Serious choices carrying lasting impact have become the trademark of the games, and most fans are already imagining how their past decision will change the face of the coming battle.
Even if Silverman is exaggerating, the idea of the highly-touted choices amounting to little more than after-the-fact nods and reminders isn’t going to go over well with those fans who are still longing for a deeper RPG. Everyone will have to reserve judgment until the game is released, and we hope that BioWare can bring the series to more fans than ever before. But hopefully not at the expense of those who helped get them
here.

But we've both made up our minds, why bother saying otherwise? In fact, I envy you. Your pessimism means that either you're right, and you can say as much. Or you're wrong, and you will be pleasently surprised.

Whereas I will either be right, and enjoy the game without ever doubting Bioware or anything of the sort. Or will be wrong, and see my choices have little impact on the game.

So you'll always gain something. Whereas I don't have 100% guarantee on anything. Oh well, still going to enjoy it.

Now this is spot on.

You're right about this. I am pessimistic about ME3, so there's little chance that I'll be disappointed. The game may turn out to be great, but I'll keep my expectations very low.
In the end, I guess we'll both enjoy the game once it comes out.

Hint: it's the marketing guy talking. His job is to sell the game, and he does that assuming it's a given that those who played ME1 & 2 are already into the series and are buying ME3. I don't blame him for saying those words, as that's his job. Besides, many times have actual designers said that decisions made in the previous games have an impact in ME3.

[KotorEffect3]

Gatt9 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.

Did you ever seen Star Wars?  Either of them?  Did you notice how events in the first affected the second?  How about LotR?  Did you notice how the Battle of Helm's Deep setup saving Gondor?

It's a funny thing about trilogies,  strangely,  events from the first entry make a difference in the second.  I don't know about you,  but I don't remember either of the second entries in Star Wars being completely unrelated to the first.  I don't recall the Two Towers being completely unrelated to Lord of the Rings either.

I'd have to say that someone doesn't understand how trilogies work,  but I'd venture it isn't the people who are complaining.

Mass Effect 2 isn't completely unrelated to Mass Effect 1 either so you fail and still have no understanding how a trilogy works, you wanted your ME 3 with your ME 2 and that isn't how it works.

[MasterShepardN7]

Mass Effect isn't just for PS3

[didymos1120]

MasterShepardN7 wrote...

Mass Effect isn't just for PS3

No...really?  Ya don't say.

[SandTrout]

This thread is stupid. We should all let it die now.

[King Minos]

Mr Kusy, I admit I never agreed with you in the past but I am with you all the way on Mass Effect as being a trilogy, Mass effect main selling point is the story.

[Dariuszp]

It's like you start playing ME 2 without ME 1. Simple as that - ME 1 events happened but you didn't see them. Same thing here.