684 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

Aliens ressurection is GARBAGE of hte highest caliber.

[SkittlesKat96]

sympathyforsaren wrote...

The older games were singleplayer games with a focus on singleplayer. Back when Mass Effect was good, before multiplayer, energy swords, railgun sequences and plastic FemShep.

Mass Effect 3 is the new Dragon Age 2

Wasn't your old account sympathy4saren?

Did you get banned on that account and made this account and your now on a 'criticize a game that hasn't came out yet' spree? O.o

[Ghost-621]

Montezuma IV wrote...

TheRealJayDee wrote...

Funny thing is, there was never any need to promote ME3 to me. After I was through with DA2 I finally got to play the first two ME games, and I really love them both. So despite my dissapointment with preordering DA2 (first game I ever preorderd) there was never any doubt for me that I needed to have ME3, so I preorderd the N7 edition as soon as it was possible.

Then came minor things like the Ashley outfit discussion (sue me, I love the character and I want to see them do her justice), major things the whole multiplayer affair and how the announcment was handled, and things like exactly the irritating PR speak we are talking about here. We now have a singleplayer affecting MP feature, which is heavily promoted (for a good part by defending it's inclusion against the wishes of lots of fans); and all that "ME3 is the perfect place to start your ME experience" talk just doesn't sound good at all for fans of the first two games. All this (and the less than satisfying BioWare experience that was DA2) worries me. And don't even get me started on the possibility of Origin.

ME3 should be a perfect finale to a great trilogy, with an absolute focus on story and characters (okay, gameplay can be improved too, but it's not as important), with the player's previous decisions being a very important factor. Yes, it's all out galactic war, but it's also supposed to be the epic conclusion of your own Shepard's journey.

Anyways, I'm tired and confused. What I wanted to say was this: ME3 was a definite buy for me (as well as some of my friends). Right now BioWare actually needs to start trying to sell it to me. I need some PR that isn't just addressing the precious potential new fans, I need PR that is addressing and reassuring me.

And the funny thing is...I would've thought they would've tried to sell the game to old fans at this point in production and then focus on new players closer to the release date. What's that mean?

It means ME1 and ME2 won't matter past an email or a quick "oh yeah thanks for that" line. We have officially been pissed on.

[SkittlesKat96]

EDIT: NVm

Modifié par SkittlesKat96, 04 novembre 2011 - 09:32 .

[Candidate 88766]

Terror_K wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

It's like watching Return of the King. It's a good movie on its own, but if you feel like you want to know more, then you have to watch the other movies.

To be honest, I'd find Return of the King near-on meaningless without the prior two. Same goes for Return of the Jedi, because these are proper trilogies.

And that's kind of the issue I (and others) have: that BioWare made us believe this was a proper trilogy akin to Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings, when what we've really got is a stand-alone game with a stand-alone sequel and a third stand-alone sequel on the way, more akin to the Aliens, Die Hard or Indiana Jones films (of which there were only three in each case. (Shut up, there were!))

This was marketed as a trilogy where choices imported across all three games and mattered. What we've got so far is three seperate stories (no, we've had two stories so far) set around the same protagonist where the choices import and merely colour the experience a little more. Sure, the walls look a little different with each import playthrough, but none of them appear to be load-bearing in any real way so far. Even if they initially seemed they would be holding more up than they turned out to be. (if thats the case after ME3 then complain all you like, but its been clear since the start that most choices will have their impact seen in ME3 because the story doesn't have to continue after that)

And now we're told that the previous entries are largely superfluous. Nice. <_<

The problem is that its harder to make a 'proper' game trilogy due to the greater investment of money and quite possibly time required by the customer. You can end a book or a film on a cliffhanger because the next installment won't be that expensive to enjoy.

However, ending a game on a cliffhanger is a bit of a dick move - you don't want to spend £50 on an unfinished story and have to pay another £50 to find out how it ends. With the amount of money required, a game should be a complete package. If part of a larger story it should have ties into the other games - ME1 and ME2 have lots of ties into ME3, ME2 in particular setting up lots of story points, but each one must have its own story that is completed within it. Say somone buys ME1 but doesn't like the gameplay enough to buy the next one - they deserve to get their money's worth with the first game alone. You can't be expected to pay out like £80 or £90 just so they can finish the story.

With games it is almost impossible to do a true trilogy wherein one story is split into three - its more three stories that are part of one greater story. Think of it more as a TV mini-series - you have the overall plot that covers the whole series, but each episode has its own story. At the start you get a 'previously on' to get viewers up to speed, whether they're new or old.

[Il Divo]

Balek-Vriege wrote...

A great point made there.  However, Mass Effect isn't a novel with whole chapters sometimes dedicated to the development of one character.  ME1 and ME2 can be very well explained in a few paragraphs and the characters within the games can be summarized in 1-3 sentences each.  Remember this is a video game in movie format, not a novel.

This is true, and it's one advantage of other mediums. In a novel, the amount of information present that you are retaining at any point is significantly greater than in a film or game, so I would agree that it would be easier to "fill in the details" here.

That means Bioware has ample opportunity with a couple hundred words to explain the plot of ME1 and ME2 within the entire span of ME3.  So far we know they can do this by:

-  Using the intro format they have used since ME1
-  ME3 starts with a trail concerning actions in Arrival and will most likely tie into other actions in ME1 and ME2.
-  Using James Vega ignorance of Shepard's real exploits to explain certain parts of the story specifically.

Hopefully it doesn't come off as a mission debriefing every two seconds like JRPGs do it.  If done correctly new players should know everthing they need to know by the end of ME3, while finding the events of ME1 and ME2 interesting enough to feel like playing them out.

Ah, but that's the thing here: will newcomers know all the information? To put it another way, it would be like considering a wikipedia plot summary to be the equivalent of watching the first two Star Wars films, then jumping into Return of the Jedi. Context is everything to a story and without playing ME1 or 2, you have no contact with any of the characters, or complete understanding in how events came about.
 
In this case, Mass Effect 3 still isn't the best starting point, if it's relying on plot points in the manner you are suggesting. Instead, the developers would be providing a better ease of entry, but that would never compare to starting from the beginning. I'll refer us back to that one line: "Who cares about the regular season?", the indicator being that what happened in ME1 and ME2 didn't matter, hence there is a lack of need to explain (taking that one article in isolation).

Basically to answer your question I would say "yes," because Mass Effect's storyline and plot is not complicated and can be easily digested.  Even in ME2 I thought the two-three paragraphs at the beginning summed up ME1 pretty well.  The same way ME1's intro summary presented "the story so far" well.  I do agree in principal that playing all the games leads to the most enjoyment storywise.  The question is how much more?

That's up to each individual and their experience with the series.

I thought it summed up the ending well, but keep in mind that one criticism of ME2 is how it's remarkably not reliant of ME1, compared to other stories. A new player might not know who Cerberus is or the original crew, but the game also featured an entirely new setting and cast of characters in telling its story. ME2 didn't rely on the Cipher, or the Prothean Beacon, etc. Keep in mind, the goal isn't just to recap the ending of the previous game, but to ensure that ME3 is actively reliant on its predecessors in telling its story, utilizing plot twists, investment in characters, foreshadowing , etc.

My point is, regardless of whether Bioware considers ME3 their best product, it cannot be the best jumping point if it does rely on ME1 and ME2's narrative, because the "recap" will always be condensed in comparison to playing through that 40+ hour experience, where everything is being explained in full. In which case if the player is looking for maximum investment in the series, the best result is to play through the whole series.

I would agree however that there are ways of making ME3 easier to understand for newcomers, as the Assassin's Creed series demonstrates.

Modifié par Il Divo, 04 novembre 2011 - 12:56 .

[onelifecrisis]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

It's like watching Return of the King. It's a good movie on its own, but if you feel like you want to know more, then you have to watch the other movies.

To be honest, I'd find Return of the King near-on meaningless without the prior two. Same goes for Return of the Jedi, because these are proper trilogies.

And that's kind of the issue I (and others) have: that BioWare made us believe this was a proper trilogy akin to Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings, when what we've really got is a stand-alone game with a stand-alone sequel and a third stand-alone sequel on the way, more akin to the Aliens, Die Hard or Indiana Jones films (of which there were only three in each case. (Shut up, there were!))

This was marketed as a trilogy where choices imported across all three games and mattered. What we've got so far is three seperate stories (no, we've had two stories so far) set around the same protagonist where the choices import and merely colour the experience a little more. Sure, the walls look a little different with each import playthrough, but none of them appear to be load-bearing in any real way so far. Even if they initially seemed they would be holding more up than they turned out to be. (if thats the case after ME3 then complain all you like, but its been clear since the start that most choices will have their impact seen in ME3 because the story doesn't have to continue after that)

And now we're told that the previous entries are largely superfluous. Nice. <_<

The problem is that its harder to make a 'proper' game trilogy due to the greater investment of money and quite possibly time required by the customer. You can end a book or a film on a cliffhanger because the next installment won't be that expensive to enjoy.

However, ending a game on a cliffhanger is a bit of a dick move - you don't want to spend £50 on an unfinished story and have to pay another £50 to find out how it ends. With the amount of money required, a game should be a complete package. If part of a larger story it should have ties into the other games - ME1 and ME2 have lots of ties into ME3, ME2 in particular setting up lots of story points, but each one must have its own story that is completed within it. Say somone buys ME1 but doesn't like the gameplay enough to buy the next one - they deserve to get their money's worth with the first game alone. You can't be expected to pay out like £80 or £90 just so they can finish the story.

With games it is almost impossible to do a true trilogy wherein one story is split into three - its more three stories that are part of one greater story. Think of it more as a TV mini-series - you have the overall plot that covers the whole series, but each episode has its own story. At the start you get a 'previously on' to get viewers up to speed, whether they're new or old.

That sounds like a good point, but the AAA game industry is now made almost exclusively on franchises, with many publishers openly stating that they won't make a game unless it has sequel potential. Hardcore gamers' spending habits indicate that they WANT to spend £100+ on a single franchise.

[Thompson family]

Ghost-621 wrote...

Montezuma IV wrote...


And the funny thing is...I would've thought they would've tried to sell the game to old fans at this point in production and then focus on new players closer to the release date. What's that mean?

It means ME1 and ME2 won't matter past an email or a quick "oh yeah thanks for that" line. We have officially been pissed on.

Let us assume for the sake of argument the accuracy of this statement bewailing the ample and close-range voiding of liquid waste upon the heads of some long-time fans of the franchise.

1. Leave. If you have the self respect God gave an earthworm, why are you still here? When "Age of Kings" morphed into "Age of Mythology," and when the Total War series went to muskets and bayonets, I took my business and my forum participation elsewhere.

2. It's perfectly clear that a rather vocal segment of the forum cannot be pleased by anything less than ME3 being released as a patch or DLC for ME1. That will not happen. BW has clearly made the decision to write you off. Why would they do that?

There are many valid criticisms to make of VGChartz.com's numbers, but they do have one considerable merit: We can get to them.

By those numbers, ME2 outsold ME1 by 30 percent. We can also assume it was vastly more profitable with expanded DLC content sales and the throttling of the used game market. In addition, it is very much a "prestige" product. Critical acclaim and industry awards were splendid. Futhermore, the buzz about ME3 is apparently contributing to increased sales of ME2 on the PS3. It sold 15K copies in its 40th week, compared to Dragon Age: Origins sales of less than 5K in its 40th week.

Therefore, it's safe to assume that the ME1 + ME2 fanbase is only 70 percent of the new fanbase.

Now, lets make the assumption that half the "old" fanbase is very unhappy with ME2. I consider that highly doubtful. Bewailers are always comparing ME2 with DA2, or whatever that game was. Fine. Compare them. Go look at the users rating and even the critics ratings of DA2 on any gaming site you trust. Note how DA2 took a huge hit in all standings. Now look for the same thing with ME2.

It's not there.

So I'm going to be extremely generous here and say half the "old" fanbase is really p*****. That means this group is 35 percent of the overall fanbase.

Now there's moany and p*****, then there's p***** enough to actually do something about it. Let's say half of that 35 percent actually back up what they say an don't buy the game. Again, I think that estimation is more than fair.

We're down to 17.5 percent, or a little bit more than 1 in 6.

So less do the math: 100 percent + 30 percent + 30 percent (assuming only an ME2-type gain for ME3) - 17.5 percent = 151.5 percent, once you factor in the effects of compound interest.

And that's the worst case scenario. If ME3 is the blockbuster BW is clearly swinging for -- something the old RPG niche market clearly holds no potential to deliver -- the logic of their decisions will move from irrefutable to "Well, duh."

3. It is the last game in the series. The payoff from keeping "real" fans happy as opposed to (What? Fake fans?) "new arrivals" is clearly pretty limited.

Modifié par Thompson family, 04 novembre 2011 - 03:30 .

[DNRB]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

Funny thing is, there was never any need to promote ME3 to me. After I was through with DA2 I finally got to play the first two ME games, and I really love them both. So despite my dissapointment with preordering DA2 (first game I ever preorderd) there was never any doubt for me that I needed to have ME3, so I preorderd the N7 edition as soon as it was possible.

Then came minor things like the Ashley outfit discussion (sue me, I love the character and I want to see them do her justice), major things the whole multiplayer affair and how the announcment was handled, and things like exactly the irritating PR speak we are talking about here. We now have a singleplayer affecting MP feature, which is heavily promoted (for a good part by defending it's inclusion against the wishes of lots of fans); and all that "ME3 is the perfect place to start your ME experience" talk just doesn't sound good at all for fans of the first two games. All this (and the less than satisfying BioWare experience that was DA2) worries me. And don't even get me started on the possibility of Origin.

ME3 should be a perfect finale to a great trilogy, with an absolute focus on story and characters (okay, gameplay can be improved too, but it's not as important), with the player's previous decisions being a very important factor. Yes, it's all out galactic war, but it's also supposed to be the epic conclusion of your own Shepard's journey.

Anyways, I'm tired and confused. What I wanted to say was this: ME3 was a definite buy for me (as well as some of my friends). Right now BioWare actually needs to start trying to sell it to me. I need some PR that isn't just addressing the precious potential new fans, I need PR that is addressing and reassuring me.

This (except I didn't play DA2, and started with mass effect a view years ago) .

Modifié par BRND, 04 novembre 2011 - 02:11 .

[Il Divo]

Thompson family wrote...

3. It is the last game in the series. The payoff from keeping "real" fans happy as opposed to (What? Fake fans?) "new arrivals" is clearly pretty limited.

Which leads to a question: with any sequel or series, how common is it for developers to actively disregard their previous products in promotions? I'm posing this as a serious question. Obviously there are certain exceptions. Ex: Prior to ME2's release, developers explained what they thought could have been fixed in ME1, but this was purely a gameplay issue and during a new release, developers are typically more willing to outline what went wrong with older products.

But the notion of "who cares about the regular season" seems foreign to me, and I'm curious how much other series (God of War, Assassin's Creed, Halo, Gears of War 3) have employed this approach in marketing their latest product, from a narrative perspective.

Modifié par Il Divo, 04 novembre 2011 - 02:12 .

[DNRB]

Il Divo wrote...

Thompson family wrote...

3. It is the last game in the series. The payoff from keeping "real" fans happy as opposed to (What? Fake fans?) "new arrivals" is clearly pretty limited.

Which leads to a question: with any sequel or series, how common is it for developers to actively disregard their previous products in promotions? I'm posing this as a serious question. Obviously there are certain exceptions. Ex: Prior to ME2's release, developers explained what they thought could have been fixed in ME1, but this was purely a gameplay issue and during a new release, developers are typically more willing to outline what went wrong with older products.

But the notion of "who cares about the regular season" seems foreign to me, and I'm curious how much other series (God of War, Assassin's Creed, Halo, Gears of War 3) have employed this approach in marketing their latest product, from a narrative perspective.

It doesn't happen often, because most studio's advertise all the improvements that are made in the gameplay and presentation.

[Il Divo]

That was pretty much what I thought. At worst, I've heard studios avoid talking about their previous insallments, but not disregard them as completely irrelevant, and other studios aren't even as narrative-focused as Bioware.

Modifié par Il Divo, 04 novembre 2011 - 02:24 .

[crimzontearz]

Thompson, you seem to be assuming that getting new fans and keeping old fans happy are mutually exclusive concepts.

[Thompson family]

crimzontearz wrote...

Thompson, you seem to be assuming that getting new fans and keeping old fans happy are mutually exclusive concepts.

I strongly believe (as you seem to) that both can be done, crimontearz, but that would be impossible if the "p****** all over the old fans" allegation were true, and that was what I was responding too.

[Thompson family]

Il Divo wrote...

Thompson family wrote...

3. It is the last game in the series. The payoff from keeping "real" fans happy as opposed to (What? Fake fans?) "new arrivals" is clearly pretty limited.

Which leads to a question: with any sequel or series, how common is it for developers to actively disregard their previous products in promotions? I'm posing this as a serious question. Obviously there are certain exceptions. Ex: Prior to ME2's release, developers explained what they thought could have been fixed in ME1, but this was purely a gameplay issue and during a new release, developers are typically more willing to outline what went wrong with older products.

But the notion of "who cares about the regular season" seems foreign to me, and I'm curious how much other series (God of War, Assassin's Creed, Halo, Gears of War 3) have employed this approach in marketing their latest product, from a narrative perspective.

I agree with that. Very early in this very long thread I posted that the "Superbowl" analogy was a cring-inducing mistake. It needlessly gave the "BW has betrayed us all!" crowd a good-sized straw to grasp.

Modifié par Thompson family, 04 novembre 2011 - 03:38 .

[Thompson family]

Pardon me for repeating myself from another thread, but here's my main point:

My Cmdr. Frank Shepard is an orphaned kid with no biotics or special tech talents. He joined the service just to get out of the hole he was in. Now he's about to become the greatest hero in history — all of history, which includes the histories of every species aware of and in contact with the rest of the galaxy.

I get to take the whole journey, from beginning to end.

All of us did, the old school players who started with ME1 years ago.

No one else will.

Do not begrudge new players whatever consolations BioWare can still offer them, even if some of it comes at our expense. They will never be able to go where we have already been. Their final victory can never mean so much to them as ours will to us.

[crimzontearz]

and yet, Thompson, the truth is that Bioware has gone down a path that does seem gto disregard old fans in certain ways.

Take ME2, where ME1 appealed to the hardcore sci fi and RPG fans (who enjoyed a certain degree of versimilitude while still retaining a certain level of cool factor) ME 2 went the "rule of cool" route. You know what I am referring to, Space catsuit armor, cleavage of steel, breathers, thermal clips, severely reduced customization and blah blah blah. Now if we are to say that in order to get more fans the game had to have its gameplay improved and some appealing visual rehaul that could have been done while retaining a greater depth and not allowing naked women covered in tattoos to run around in HCl atmosphere planets for funzies.

Appealing to the fans could also have been achieved without reducing the importance of the first two games but rewarding those who did play them (without crushing the newcomers) in greater ways than say a few extra dialogue lines here and there and e-mails.

Understandably the marketing lines have shifted since the first ME but seriously would it take so very much for Casey or Ray to come down and simply reassure the fanbase who wants nothing more than ritually sacrifice D Silverman tossing him within the Etna because of his ridiculous blurb (that assuming of course that the marketing is just that....marketing, and not an accurate representation of what Bioware actually plans to do with ME3)?

putting it under the perspective of what was done and what could have been done at parity of expenses and effort should the older fans not feel at least miffed by all this?

[Fault Girl]

I can somewhat agree to both side's of the argument. Firstly Bioware shouldn't totally rely on the current fanbases loyalty to buy ME3. I understand needing to promot the game to new players but there's not really a 50/50. Even if ME3 is a stand alone the new players wont get as much enjoyment and immersion as those who have played ME1/2. I used the Genesis comic and if I hadn't played ME1 first I think I would have found it difficult and would end up on wiki every hour. Which I do anyway and I've played both games!

The point is Bioware should say although ME3 is a standalone and new comers will enjoy it. Our current fanbase will love it beyong anything due to what we have done *talk about story etc, how shepard has evolved and why you guys have waited for the 3rd to complete the story.*

Is it so hard just to promote ME3 to those who have played since ME1 and put the money forward. It should be 50/50. Not all about getting the new fans in.

I cant talk, I have it on pre-order already but I'm feeling a bit annoyed with the "standalone" issue.

[Thompson family]

crimzontearz wrote...

and yet, Thompson, the truth is that Bioware has gone down a path that does seem gto disregard old fans in certain ways.

Take ME2, where ME1 appealed to the hardcore sci fi and RPG fans (who enjoyed a certain degree of versimilitude while still retaining a certain level of cool factor) ME 2 went the "rule of cool" route. You know what I am referring to, Space catsuit armor, cleavage of steel, breathers, thermal clips, severely reduced customization and blah blah blah. Now if we are to say that in order to get more fans the game had to have its gameplay improved and some appealing visual rehaul that could have been done while retaining a greater depth and not allowing naked women covered in tattoos to run around in HCl atmosphere planets for funzies.

Fair enough, crimzontearz, but let's acknowledge that BioWare didn't strike the right balance either time. Customization was severely reduced, but that was an oversimplification of a tedious system in the first game. (Now before somebody jumps in with the arrogant claim of "dumbing down," nobody's impressed with your ability to either craft a perfect character point by point or with your skill at needlepoint embroidery.)

BW has admitted that. They say they are working to correct it in ME3. If you don't trust them, well, that can't be helped. But the fact remains that they have apologized for the simplistic character-building of ME2 and claim to be working on putting meat back on the bones, which would require some trouble and expense.

EDITED P.S. For the record, I thought Miranda's goofy high-heeled boots and booty outfit looked like it came right out of an Austin Powers movie. The lack of space suits didn't bother me so much because I assumed they carried small mass effect field generators in them that acted like "barrier suits." After watching Shep get spaced and losing air out of an rip in an old suit while the Normandy, even in its death throes, had it's holes covered with Mass Effect fields, the suits just didn't bother me that much.

Appealing to the fans could also have been achieved without reducing the importance of the first two games but rewarding those who did play them (without crushing the newcomers) in greater ways than say a few extra dialogue lines here and there and e-mails.

See my earlier post, about getting to take the journey.

Understandably the marketing lines have shifted since the first ME but seriously would it take so very much for Casey or Ray to come down and simply reassure the fanbase who wants nothing more than ritually sacrifice D Silverman [by] tossing him within the Etna because of his ridiculous blurb (that assuming of course that the marketing is just that....marketing, and not an accurate representation of what Bioware actually plans to do with ME3)?

Well, first off, it was somebody besides Silverman who made this latest mistake, and complicity in ritual human sacrifice would be a criminal act. At this point, I think they're not replying directly because they don't want to make this situation worse.

putting it under the perspective of what was done and what could have been done at parity of expenses and effort should the older fans not feel at least miffed by all this?

All I can say is that I'm an older fan and I'm not miffed.

Modifié par Thompson family, 04 novembre 2011 - 04:52 .

[onelifecrisis]

Thompson family wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

and yet, Thompson, the truth is that Bioware has gone down a path that does seem gto disregard old fans in certain ways.

Take ME2, where ME1 appealed to the hardcore sci fi and RPG fans (who enjoyed a certain degree of versimilitude while still retaining a certain level of cool factor) ME 2 went the "rule of cool" route. You know what I am referring to, Space catsuit armor, cleavage of steel, breathers, thermal clips, severely reduced customization and blah blah blah. Now if we are to say that in order to get more fans the game had to have its gameplay improved and some appealing visual rehaul that could have been done while retaining a greater depth and not allowing naked women covered in tattoos to run around in HCl atmosphere planets for funzies.

Fair enough, crimzontearz, but let's acknowledge that BioWare didn't strike the right balance either time. Customization was severely reduced, but that was an oversimplification of a tedious system in the first game. (Now before somebody jumps in with the arrogant on claim of "dumbing down," nobody's impressed with your ability to either craft a perfect character point by point or with your skill at needlepoint embroidery.)

 awesome

YEAH! WHAT HE SAID!

*hides behind Thompson*

Modifié par onelifecrisis, 04 novembre 2011 - 04:22 .

[Candidate 88766]

onelifecrisis wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

It's like watching Return of the King. It's a good movie on its own, but if you feel like you want to know more, then you have to watch the other movies.

To be honest, I'd find Return of the King near-on meaningless without the prior two. Same goes for Return of the Jedi, because these are proper trilogies.

And that's kind of the issue I (and others) have: that BioWare made us believe this was a proper trilogy akin to Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings, when what we've really got is a stand-alone game with a stand-alone sequel and a third stand-alone sequel on the way, more akin to the Aliens, Die Hard or Indiana Jones films (of which there were only three in each case. (Shut up, there were!))

This was marketed as a trilogy where choices imported across all three games and mattered. What we've got so far is three seperate stories (no, we've had two stories so far) set around the same protagonist where the choices import and merely colour the experience a little more. Sure, the walls look a little different with each import playthrough, but none of them appear to be load-bearing in any real way so far. Even if they initially seemed they would be holding more up than they turned out to be. (if thats the case after ME3 then complain all you like, but its been clear since the start that most choices will have their impact seen in ME3 because the story doesn't have to continue after that)

And now we're told that the previous entries are largely superfluous. Nice. <_<

The problem is that its harder to make a 'proper' game trilogy due to the greater investment of money and quite possibly time required by the customer. You can end a book or a film on a cliffhanger because the next installment won't be that expensive to enjoy.

However, ending a game on a cliffhanger is a bit of a dick move - you don't want to spend £50 on an unfinished story and have to pay another £50 to find out how it ends. With the amount of money required, a game should be a complete package. If part of a larger story it should have ties into the other games - ME1 and ME2 have lots of ties into ME3, ME2 in particular setting up lots of story points, but each one must have its own story that is completed within it. Say somone buys ME1 but doesn't like the gameplay enough to buy the next one - they deserve to get their money's worth with the first game alone. You can't be expected to pay out like £80 or £90 just so they can finish the story.

With games it is almost impossible to do a true trilogy wherein one story is split into three - its more three stories that are part of one greater story. Think of it more as a TV mini-series - you have the overall plot that covers the whole series, but each episode has its own story. At the start you get a 'previously on' to get viewers up to speed, whether they're new or old.

That sounds like a good point, but the AAA game industry is now made almost exclusively on franchises, with many publishers openly stating that they won't make a game unless it has sequel potential. Hardcore gamers' spending habits indicate that they WANT to spend £100+ on a single franchise.

You can have sequel potential without cliffhangers or major unresolved plot points. Take ME1 for example - the plot of Saren and Sovereign is wrapped up, and wrapped up very well, in ME1 but there is obvious sequel potential in that the Reapers were still out there.

Also bear in mind with ME1 that Bioware was testing a new IP and a new gameplay direction for them - they had to bear in mind that ME1 may flop, so it needed to be fairly wrapped up in case they couldn't make a sequel. That made things much harder for ME2 - everything except the Reapers were wrapped up in ME1, and you can't have the Reapers arrive in ME2 without ending on a cliffhanger, so they had to introduce a new antagonist in the form of the Collectors. You get this in films too - the original Star Wars wrapped up its plot in one film in case it flopped but had hooks into Empire in case it suceeded. However, this is much more of an issue with games - the industry as a whole doesn't seem to like original IPs.

[onelifecrisis]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

It's like watching Return of the King. It's a good movie on its own, but if you feel like you want to know more, then you have to watch the other movies.

To be honest, I'd find Return of the King near-on meaningless without the prior two. Same goes for Return of the Jedi, because these are proper trilogies.

And that's kind of the issue I (and others) have: that BioWare made us believe this was a proper trilogy akin to Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings, when what we've really got is a stand-alone game with a stand-alone sequel and a third stand-alone sequel on the way, more akin to the Aliens, Die Hard or Indiana Jones films (of which there were only three in each case. (Shut up, there were!))

This was marketed as a trilogy where choices imported across all three games and mattered. What we've got so far is three seperate stories (no, we've had two stories so far) set around the same protagonist where the choices import and merely colour the experience a little more. Sure, the walls look a little different with each import playthrough, but none of them appear to be load-bearing in any real way so far. Even if they initially seemed they would be holding more up than they turned out to be. (if thats the case after ME3 then complain all you like, but its been clear since the start that most choices will have their impact seen in ME3 because the story doesn't have to continue after that)

And now we're told that the previous entries are largely superfluous. Nice. <_<

The problem is that its harder to make a 'proper' game trilogy due to the greater investment of money and quite possibly time required by the customer. You can end a book or a film on a cliffhanger because the next installment won't be that expensive to enjoy.

However, ending a game on a cliffhanger is a bit of a dick move - you don't want to spend £50 on an unfinished story and have to pay another £50 to find out how it ends. With the amount of money required, a game should be a complete package. If part of a larger story it should have ties into the other games - ME1 and ME2 have lots of ties into ME3, ME2 in particular setting up lots of story points, but each one must have its own story that is completed within it. Say somone buys ME1 but doesn't like the gameplay enough to buy the next one - they deserve to get their money's worth with the first game alone. You can't be expected to pay out like £80 or £90 just so they can finish the story.

With games it is almost impossible to do a true trilogy wherein one story is split into three - its more three stories that are part of one greater story. Think of it more as a TV mini-series - you have the overall plot that covers the whole series, but each episode has its own story. At the start you get a 'previously on' to get viewers up to speed, whether they're new or old.

That sounds like a good point, but the AAA game industry is now made almost exclusively on franchises, with many publishers openly stating that they won't make a game unless it has sequel potential. Hardcore gamers' spending habits indicate that they WANT to spend £100+ on a single franchise.

You can have sequel potential without cliffhangers or major unresolved plot points. Take ME1 for example - the plot of Saren and Sovereign is wrapped up, and wrapped up very well, in ME1 but there is obvious sequel potential in that the Reapers were still out there.

Also bear in mind with ME1 that Bioware was testing a new IP and a new gameplay direction for them - they had to bear in mind that ME1 may flop, so it needed to be fairly wrapped up in case they couldn't make a sequel. That made things much harder for ME2 - everything except the Reapers were wrapped up in ME1, and you can't have the Reapers arrive in ME2 without ending on a cliffhanger, so they had to introduce a new antagonist in the form of the Collectors. You get this in films too - the original Star Wars wrapped up its plot in one film in case it flopped but had hooks into Empire in case it suceeded. However, this is much more of an issue with games - the industry as a whole doesn't seem to like original IPs.

But you also get films like FotR which didn't really end at all, and which also could have flopped. Your counterpoint to that is the price of entry, and my counterpoint to your counterpoint is that gamers are, if anything, even more inclined to pour their money into big franchises than moviegoers.

[Candidate 88766]

onelifecrisis wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...
You can have sequel potential without cliffhangers or major unresolved plot points. Take ME1 for example - the plot of Saren and Sovereign is wrapped up, and wrapped up very well, in ME1 but there is obvious sequel potential in that the Reapers were still out there.

Also bear in mind with ME1 that Bioware was testing a new IP and a new gameplay direction for them - they had to bear in mind that ME1 may flop, so it needed to be fairly wrapped up in case they couldn't make a sequel. That made things much harder for ME2 - everything except the Reapers were wrapped up in ME1, and you can't have the Reapers arrive in ME2 without ending on a cliffhanger, so they had to introduce a new antagonist in the form of the Collectors. You get this in films too - the original Star Wars wrapped up its plot in one film in case it flopped but had hooks into Empire in case it suceeded. However, this is much more of an issue with games - the industry as a whole doesn't seem to like original IPs.

But you also get films like FotR which didn't really end at all, and which also could have flopped. Your counterpoint to that is the price of entry, and my counterpoint to your counterpoint is that gamers are, if anything, even more inclined to pour their money into big franchises than moviegoers.

I suppose, but then again LotR isn't a new IP so didn't have quite as much risk as something like Star Wars or Mass Effect. There are lots of LotR fans out there, and given that the story was already written the film had a reasonable chance of success.

But you do have a point - when gamers start being invested in a franchise they are more likely to continue to invest. I agree, but at the same time this kind of franchise loyalty makes it harder to attract new fans - people that didn't buy ME1 and ME2 obviously had their reasons, so if Bioware wants more people to buy ME3 then they need to distance it from the previous installments even if it means that new fans won't get the full ME experience.