999 réponses à ce sujet

[Seboist]

ratzerman wrote...

I think the Wrex-Wreav situation from ME2 is a pretty good indicator of what our choices will amount to in ME3. Cosmetic differences, altered dialogue trees, but that's about it.

Gotta make it super duper easy for the newer players to win, after all. All us returning fans are buying the game anyway.

That's how it is with Balak,Mordin and others as well.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Zu Long wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Izhalezan wrote...
Seems silly to think that with 1,000 decisions being ported that none of them would consqeuences, none of them helped you out. Sure it hasn't been outrighted stated, but I feel it's safe to assume that all previous choices will have their impact, big or small, good or bad. Especially in a Bioware game.

What worries me is the impression that the big decisions have only cosmetic consequences, things that should really change the storyline significantly, like the death of the Council. From a technical viewpoint, it's easier to, say, let a minor character you helped in ME1 appear in ME3 to give you additional resources and add to those "war assets" they've been talking about, than to change the main plot to accommodate things like the destruction of the DA or having kept the Collector base.  I'm worried they're taking the easy way there.

Okay, but what kind of scope are we talking about for these "major" changes? An entirely different set of missions/game plot? Altered dialogue? What kind of changes are you expecting?

No, of course not. But for instance, if we killed the Rachni queen there should be no Rachni in ME3. If we didn't kill her, they might end up helping us or end up indoctrinated by the Reapers as they've already been once. Instead, what I fear is that if killed her they'll pull another Rachni queen out of their ass just to justify the presence of Rachni Husks or suchlike, and that we'll end up - again - with a scenario where the Renegade decision has removed the future allies but not the future enemies.

That's what strutting around the galaxy like an enormous jackwagon will get you back in return, though.

(And in the schitzo presentation of Renegade that Bioware gives us, that's just what about half the Renegade decisions amount to.)

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 12 novembre 2011 - 06:27 .

[armass]

ratzerman wrote...

I think the Wrex-Wreav situation from ME2 is a pretty good indicator of what our choices will amount to in ME3. Cosmetic differences, altered dialogue trees, but that's about it.

Gotta make it super duper easy for the newer players to win, after all. All us returning fans are buying the game anyway.

Yep thats how it pretty much goes. However if you were a realist about it like me and dind't expect much else, you can still enjoy the game. Can understand why some people are pissed tough. Bioware promised them a moon from the sky and what they got was some lunar rocks.

Modifié par armass, 12 novembre 2011 - 05:05 .

[CaptainZaysh]

ratzerman wrote...
I think the Wrex-Wreav situation from ME2 is a pretty good indicator of what our choices will amount to in ME3. Cosmetic differences, altered dialogue trees, but that's about it.

What's the alternative, though?  What were you expecting beyond cosmetic differences and different dialogue?

Personally the bits of spoiler I've read are making me incredibly excited about the writing quality that ME3 can reach.  It really feels like a galaxy at war, the missions are epic and huge, and the dialogue seems to be closer to LOTSB than baseline ME2.  There are so many little snippets and references that only the hardcore fans will appreciate.  I'm honestly not seeing the reason for all the negativity.

[Dean_the_Young]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

ratzerman wrote...
I think the Wrex-Wreav situation from ME2 is a pretty good indicator of what our choices will amount to in ME3. Cosmetic differences, altered dialogue trees, but that's about it.

What's the alternative, though?  What were you expecting beyond cosmetic differences and different dialogue?

Personally the bits of spoiler I've read are making me incredibly excited about the writing quality that ME3 can reach.  It really feels like a galaxy at war, the missions are epic and huge, and the dialogue seems to be closer to LOTSB than baseline ME2.  There are so many little snippets and references that only the hardcore fans will appreciate.  I'm honestly not seeing the reason for all the negativity.

I think significantly different dialogue, and even re-vamped levels, could help a lot on the differentiation angle. While story similarities have to be consistent (there must be someone in charge of the Krogan), execution doesn't have to be.

To take a totally outrageous example just to demonstrate the point: take the Lazarus Project.

Let's call route one 'Renegade'. In ME1, you took the Renegade options (it wasn't, but pretend), and did NOT do the Kohaku chain. While you might have stumbled over the Rachni, you never made enemies with Cerberus or fought them.

In ME2, you have the canon experience of Lazarus with no real exposure. Shepard wakes up, is unsure is what's going down. Miranda is shepherding Shepard. You're going along with Jacob because you don't have a clue what's going on, and he's friendly while the mechs aren't. Eventually Jacob admits to being Cerberus, Wilson is exposed as the traitor, Cerberus is established as bringing you back.

At the end, Shepard joins Miranda and Jacob in seeing the Illusive Man, but wary. They promise that if Shepard doesn't like what the Illusive Man has to say, they'll drop Shepard off with the Alliance.

The canon experience, pretty much. Now consider an alternative route.


Call this route two, 'Paragon'. In ME1, you took the Paragon options, and did the Kohaku chain. You fought Cerberus, wiped them out in revenge.

In ME2, your Lazarus experience is entirely different.

Wilson is the one who wakes you up and Shepherds you: warning you that the Cerberus personnel are trying to disect you, he claims to be your friend in helping you out. He's smuggled a pistol and armor to the medbay, and a groggy Shepard begins to shoot his/her way out, as Cerberus doctors and personnel try and stop you by force. They're shooting tranquilizers, but going for increasingly lethal means to 'restart' the project if necessary.

When the player meets Jacob, Jacob saves them from some Cerberus who were trying to kill Shepard. Jacob claims to be Alliance, and that he's here to protect Shepard and get Shepard safe. (Emergency orders from Miranda, who's trying to get Shepard calmed down.)

Events in the station are re-arranged: it's established that Cerberus brought Shepard back, that the hacked mechs are trying to kill Shepard as well and not just be a distraction, etc. By the end, Wilson is exposed as the traitor who was trying to provoke Shepard into getting him/herself killed (Miranda shoots Wilson when Wilson was about to shoot Shepard in the back), Jacob comes clean about his affiliation (it was Miranda's scheme to protect Shepard and expose the traitor).

At the end, Shepard leaves with Jacob and Miranda to see the Illusive Man, willing but wary after the near-miss. They promise that if Shepard doesn't like what the Illusive Man says, Shepard will be dropped off with the Alliance.


===

Two different experiences, but the same narrative roles. Shepard encounters Cerberus, has a less than pleasant start. After surviving near-death, Shepard agrees to listen to TIM, soon after which Shepard can join forces with Cerberus.

Same role. Same level design even. Very different feel.

But what would have needed to be changed? The grunts Shepard fights. Instead of mechs, Cerberus personnel shooting tranquilizer darts. The supporting dialogue.

[Liec]

But why would doing the Kahoku quest make Wilson and Jacob act any different or change the enemies in that scenario? Choices should have consequences that make sense, actions ->reactions, etc. Those changes seem arbitrary.

[Derahu]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

ratzerman wrote...
I think the Wrex-Wreav situation from ME2 is a pretty good indicator of what our choices will amount to in ME3. Cosmetic differences, altered dialogue trees, but that's about it.

What's the alternative, though?  What were you expecting beyond cosmetic differences and different dialogue?

Personally the bits of spoiler I've read are making me incredibly excited about the writing quality that ME3 can reach.  It really feels like a galaxy at war, the missions are epic and huge, and the dialogue seems to be closer to LOTSB than baseline ME2.  There are so many little snippets and references that only the hardcore fans will appreciate.  I'm honestly not seeing the reason for all the negativity.

I think significantly different dialogue, and even re-vamped levels, could help a lot on the differentiation angle. While story similarities have to be consistent (there must be someone in charge of the Krogan), execution doesn't have to be.

To take a totally outrageous example just to demonstrate the point: take the Lazarus Project.

Let's call route one 'Renegade'. In ME1, you took the Renegade options (it wasn't, but pretend), and did NOT do the Kohaku chain. While you might have stumbled over the Rachni, you never made enemies with Cerberus or fought them.

In ME2, you have the canon experience of Lazarus with no real exposure. Shepard wakes up, is unsure is what's going down. Miranda is shepherding Shepard. You're going along with Jacob because you don't have a clue what's going on, and he's friendly while the mechs aren't. Eventually Jacob admits to being Cerberus, Wilson is exposed as the traitor, Cerberus is established as bringing you back.

At the end, Shepard joins Miranda and Jacob in seeing the Illusive Man, but wary. They promise that if Shepard doesn't like what the Illusive Man has to say, they'll drop Shepard off with the Alliance.

The canon experience, pretty much. Now consider an alternative route.


Call this route two, 'Paragon'. In ME1, you took the Paragon options, and did the Kohaku chain. You fought Cerberus, wiped them out in revenge.

In ME2, your Lazarus experience is entirely different.

Wilson is the one who wakes you up and Shepherds you: warning you that the Cerberus personnel are trying to disect you, he claims to be your friend in helping you out. He's smuggled a pistol and armor to the medbay, and a groggy Shepard begins to shoot his/her way out, as Cerberus doctors and personnel try and stop you by force. They're shooting tranquilizers, but going for increasingly lethal means to 'restart' the project if necessary.

When the player meets Jacob, Jacob saves them from some Cerberus who were trying to kill Shepard. Jacob claims to be Alliance, and that he's here to protect Shepard and get Shepard safe. (Emergency orders from Miranda, who's trying to get Shepard calmed down.)

Events in the station are re-arranged: it's established that Cerberus brought Shepard back, that the hacked mechs are trying to kill Shepard as well and not just be a distraction, etc. By the end, Wilson is exposed as the traitor who was trying to provoke Shepard into getting him/herself killed (Miranda shoots Wilson when Wilson was about to shoot Shepard in the back), Jacob comes clean about his affiliation (it was Miranda's scheme to protect Shepard and expose the traitor).

At the end, Shepard leaves with Jacob and Miranda to see the Illusive Man, willing but wary after the near-miss. They promise that if Shepard doesn't like what the Illusive Man says, Shepard will be dropped off with the Alliance.


===

Two different experiences, but the same narrative roles. Shepard encounters Cerberus, has a less than pleasant start. After surviving near-death, Shepard agrees to listen to TIM, soon after which Shepard can join forces with Cerberus.

Same role. Same level design even. Very different feel.

But what would have needed to be changed? The grunts Shepard fights. Instead of mechs, Cerberus personnel shooting tranquilizer darts. The supporting dialogue.

If you have expectations like that for ME3 then I will gurantee you that you will be disappointed.  All of that takes a lot of time and money that Bioware just doesn't have with EA breathing down there necks.

[Sisterofshane]

Liec wrote...

But why would doing the Kahoku quest make Wilson and Jacob act any different or change the enemies in that scenario? Choices should have consequences that make sense, actions ->reactions, etc. Those changes seem arbitrary.

Actually, it makes perfect sense.  Not knowing who Cerberus is would be paramount to any reaction Shepard may have towards being rebuilt by them.
In fact, you could simplify the decision chain from Dean above, and make the flag import on whether or not Shepard completing the Kohaku quests.  So, regardless of a Renegade or Paragon Shepard, you could have a completely different beginning and feel based upon one simple (and sometimes easily missed) side quest.

*Thumbs up to Dean for the the original idea, I really like it, and it could have been easily implemented without dramatically changing the strory arc for imports into ME3

[onelifecrisis]

Derahu wrote...

...time and money that Bioware just doesn't have with EA breathing down there necks.

Baseless.

[John Renegade]

Basically what Dean says. My opinion is that impact of your choice is not as much about something being drastically different, but about how long that impact lasts. A changed line lasts as long as the person speaks it, but environment, which is changed only a little (but noticeable) bit affects you as long as you're in it.

For example the Citadel in ME2 - if sacrificing the Council caused the Citadel hallways to have a different feeling, it would constantly remind you of the choice you made: More human C-Sec guards, alliance marines, english ads as opposed to ads in alien gibberish (the gibberish would be there if you saved the Council), said ads promoting human companies like Binary Helix and Hahne-Kedar instead if Armali and Serrice Cuncil (the ads would go with Illium too), actually seeing someone getting bullied because he/she is human or someone being taken away by C-Sec (police state and violence against humans hinted by Avina; could be miniquests too), Avina being human instead of asari, some of the things already in original ME2 (different news reports, different attitudes of vendors and other people to Shepard) or (as a bonus) seeing the human Council - ideally face to face, but with no big choices present as not to further branch the storyline in ME3. If not that, at least seeing them on some vids (similar to the Shadow Broker videos) would be nice - possibly in the midst of passing a new law or some such. Of course, the best would be both, the vids and face to face. Getting a few Codex entries on the new councilors would be nice too.

The above may seem as a long list, but all it takes is recording a few more lines, swapping some turian models for human and adding a few visual advertisements (the original game had plenty of them). And you got the biggest choice of the first game covered to everyone's full satisfaction.

EDIT: And examples I mentioned are only about tilting the Citadel atmosphere from the neutral (original ME2) to more pro-Alliance. If saving the Council tilted the experience from neutral to more pro-Alien, the effect could be twice as big.

Modifié par John Renegade, 12 novembre 2011 - 07:25 .

[1136342t54_]

onelifecrisis wrote...

Derahu wrote...

...time and money that Bioware just doesn't have with EA breathing down there necks.

Baseless.

Just as baseless as most of the claims made on these forums.

[RiouHotaru]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
I think significantly different dialogue, and even re-vamped levels, could help a lot on the differentiation angle. While story similarities have to be consistent (there must be someone in charge of the Krogan), execution doesn't have to be.

To take a totally outrageous example just to demonstrate the point: take the Lazarus Project.

Let's call route one 'Renegade'. In ME1, you took the Renegade options (it wasn't, but pretend), and did NOT do the Kohaku chain. While you might have stumbled over the Rachni, you never made enemies with Cerberus or fought them.

In ME2, you have the canon experience of Lazarus with no real exposure. Shepard wakes up, is unsure is what's going down. Miranda is shepherding Shepard. You're going along with Jacob because you don't have a clue what's going on, and he's friendly while the mechs aren't. Eventually Jacob admits to being Cerberus, Wilson is exposed as the traitor, Cerberus is established as bringing you back.

At the end, Shepard joins Miranda and Jacob in seeing the Illusive Man, but wary. They promise that if Shepard doesn't like what the Illusive Man has to say, they'll drop Shepard off with the Alliance.

The canon experience, pretty much. Now consider an alternative route.


Call this route two, 'Paragon'. In ME1, you took the Paragon options, and did the Kohaku chain. You fought Cerberus, wiped them out in revenge.

In ME2, your Lazarus experience is entirely different.

Wilson is the one who wakes you up and Shepherds you: warning you that the Cerberus personnel are trying to disect you, he claims to be your friend in helping you out. He's smuggled a pistol and armor to the medbay, and a groggy Shepard begins to shoot his/her way out, as Cerberus doctors and personnel try and stop you by force. They're shooting tranquilizers, but going for increasingly lethal means to 'restart' the project if necessary.

When the player meets Jacob, Jacob saves them from some Cerberus who were trying to kill Shepard. Jacob claims to be Alliance, and that he's here to protect Shepard and get Shepard safe. (Emergency orders from Miranda, who's trying to get Shepard calmed down.)

Events in the station are re-arranged: it's established that Cerberus brought Shepard back, that the hacked mechs are trying to kill Shepard as well and not just be a distraction, etc. By the end, Wilson is exposed as the traitor who was trying to provoke Shepard into getting him/herself killed (Miranda shoots Wilson when Wilson was about to shoot Shepard in the back), Jacob comes clean about his affiliation (it was Miranda's scheme to protect Shepard and expose the traitor).

At the end, Shepard leaves with Jacob and Miranda to see the Illusive Man, willing but wary after the near-miss. They promise that if Shepard doesn't like what the Illusive Man says, Shepard will be dropped off with the Alliance.


===

Two different experiences, but the same narrative roles. Shepard encounters Cerberus, has a less than pleasant start. After surviving near-death, Shepard agrees to listen to TIM, soon after which Shepard can join forces with Cerberus.

Same role. Same level design even. Very different feel.

But what would have needed to be changed? The grunts Shepard fights. Instead of mechs, Cerberus personnel shooting tranquilizer darts. The supporting dialogue.

But your example, while detailed, runs completely COUNTER to the plot.  Wilson wants to kill Shepard because the Shadow Broker wants your body.  So the entire station fiasco is his fault.  And the Jacob as you described also runs counter to the personality he's established as having.  He works for Cerberus, but he's an honest, serious soldier.  Miranda lectures him briefly on his conscience getting in the way when Shepards states that he/she knows Miranda is working for Cerberus.

It's not a bad example, but it flies in the face of what was already established.  The opening as we already get it fits both instances.  Shepard can claim to know exactly who Cerberus is, or blink and ask "Who the heck are you?"  I understand that you want things to be different enough to provide for two different experiences, but I know absolutely NO WRPG that offers such an experience.  Sure, some choices changes things, but altogether the changes are either cosmetic or short-term.

The idea being that you want to deliver an experience that can be satisfying to both parties.  It's unfair to do otherwise, or one side will claim they don't get something the other side has, etc, etc.  The other problem with offering such different views on the same story is that you cannot account for every single outcome.  In your example, what's to say a "Renegade" Shepard wouldn't have run Kohaku's quest-line?  Or perhaps only run it half way?  How do you deal with that?

Also, regardless of the "re-vamp" your idea provides, it's still roughly the same thing as what ME2 does: A narrative that differs in the fine details based on a prior decision, but whose end result is still the same regardless of which path you took.  Dialog changes and level alterations are at best, cosmetic.  While it's true, it would be nice if everything could change based on individual decisions, that's asking too much of any game.

At that point you'd have to procedurally generate everything down to the smallest detail, the budget on such a game would be enormous, and it'd be stuck in Development Hell for decades.

I for one am glad the game even acknowledges my previous decisions at ALL, even if it's only emails or minor dialog changes.  Because while it doesn't have any lasting impact on the story, at least it says "Hey, you did this in the last game, here's something to show for it."

[AquamanOS]

The supporting cast is already going to be drastically different depending on who you got killed. That's probably as much as choice can affect.

It's simply not possible to have a completely different game for every possible branch. No game has ever done that. Not even older Bioware games.

[onelifecrisis]

RiouHotaru wrote...
But your example, while detailed, runs completely COUNTER to the plot.

It's not a bad example, but it flies in the face of what was already established.

No offense Riou, but it does my head in when people make this argument.

Firstly, if Dean's example had been used in-game then obviously other dialogues would have been different as well. No biggy.

Secondly, and more importantly, what really does my head in is the way people tend to focus on the specifics of a given example rather than the point it's designed to make. In this case, Dean was making the point that divergence does not have to be costly, and for the purpose of making that point his example works fine. I don't like the specifics of the example, but I agree with what Dean was using it to illustrate.

Modifié par onelifecrisis, 12 novembre 2011 - 10:27 .

[RiouHotaru]

onelifecrisis wrote...

No offense Riou, but it does my head in when people make this argument.

Firstly, if Dean's example had been used in-game then obviously other dialogues would have been different as well. No biggy.

Secondly, and more importantly, what really does my head in is the way people tend to focus on the specifics of a given example rather than the point it's designed to make. In this case, Dean was making the point that divergence does not have to be costly, and for the purpose of making that point his example works fine. I don't like the specifics of the example, but I agree with what Dean was using it to illustrate.

...I like you point out those specific points, then somehow ignore the rest of my post where I point out why the general gist of what Dean is pointing out isn't really that much different than what happens in-game.  I'm not going to assume you quote-mined on purpose though.  What Dean is suggesting in general is just a slightly more complex version of what already happens in-game.

[onelifecrisis]

RiouHotaru wrote...

But your example, while detailed, runs completely COUNTER to the plot.  Wilson wants to kill Shepard because the Shadow Broker wants your body.  So the entire station fiasco is his fault.  And the Jacob as you described also runs counter to the personality he's established as having.  He works for Cerberus, but he's an honest, serious soldier.  Miranda lectures him briefly on his conscience getting in the way when Shepards states that he/she knows Miranda is working for Cerberus.

It's not a bad example, but it flies in the face of what was already established.  The opening as we already get it fits both instances.  Shepard can claim to know exactly who Cerberus is, or blink and ask "Who the heck are you?"  I understand that you want things to be different enough to provide for two different experiences, but I know absolutely NO WRPG that offers such an experience.  Sure, some choices changes things, but altogether the changes are either cosmetic or short-term.

The idea being that you want to deliver an experience that can be satisfying to both parties.  It's unfair to do otherwise, or one side will claim they don't get something the other side has, etc, etc.  The other problem with offering such different views on the same story is that you cannot account for every single outcome.  In your example, what's to say a "Renegade" Shepard wouldn't have run Kohaku's quest-line?  Or perhaps only run it half way?  How do you deal with that?

All of that is what I was answering. I didn't "quote mine". The next bit starts with the words "also, regardless" which I took to mean it's a seperate point (it certainly reads like one).

RiouHotaru wrote...

Also, regardless of the "re-vamp" your idea provides, it's still roughly the same thing as what ME2 does... [etc etc]

[RiouHotaru]

Okay, I'm sorry I jumped the gun. I'm use to other forums where people do the same thing and wind up cherry-picking and it drives me bonkers.

[onelifecrisis]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Okay, I'm sorry I jumped the gun. I'm use to other forums where people do the same thing and wind up cherry-picking and it drives me bonkers.

No biggy

[CaptainZaysh]

Stop being so f**king reasonable. It's BSN.

[Dean_the_Young]

Never mind.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 12 novembre 2011 - 11:34 .

[onelifecrisis]

While it's sort of being discussed...
I really felt they could have done more in ME2 without increasing cost. A "cheap and cheerful" idea I had was to have certain loyalty missions only accessible dependent on ME1 decisions e.g. Wrex dead = can't do Mordin's loyalty mission, Wrex alive = can't do Grunt's loyalty mission (the specifics of why could be anything, and are irrelevant to my point). This would have created divergence with no extra cost, and would have had improved the (way too easy) SM by ensuring that there is no way to get everyone loyal. Of course, this would have required that Genesis be included in the original release of ME2, but I can't see that interactive comic being a very costly development.

[RiouHotaru]

onelifecrisis wrote...

While it's sort of being discussed...
I really felt they could have done more in ME2 without increasing cost. A "cheap and cheerful" idea I had was to have certain loyalty missions only accessible dependent on ME1 decisions e.g. Wrex dead = can't do Mordin's loyalty mission, Wrex alive = can't do Grunt's loyalty mission (the specifics of why could be anything, and are irrelevant to my point). This would have created divergence with no extra cost, and would have had improved the (way too easy) SM by ensuring that there is no way to get everyone loyal. Of course, this would have required that Genesis be included in the original release of ME2, but I can't see that interactive comic being a very costly development.

...I cannot disagree more.

[onelifecrisis]

RiouHotaru wrote...

...I cannot disagree more.

OK, but aren't you even going to say why?

[RiouHotaru]

Well, for starters, making it so you cannot get a perfect ending, in essence forcing you lose someone because of a decision you made a whole game ago that likely no one will even remember. Also, those sorts of "forced decisions" don't actually make the game better.

You'll only make people either hack their saves (Already been done, Zulu did it where everyone on the Normandy of the 12 members were dead stating he was going to try and import that save), or you'll drive them away from the game completely. You should never force a player's hand like that except in a few particular moments, and those should be used sparingly (like Virmire)

[onelifecrisis]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Well, for starters, making it so you cannot get a perfect ending, in essence forcing you lose someone because of a decision you made a whole game ago that likely no one will even remember. Also, those sorts of "forced decisions" don't actually make the game better.

You'll only make people either hack their saves (Already been done, Zulu did it where everyone on the Normandy of the 12 members were dead stating he was going to try and import that save), or you'll drive them away from the game completely. You should never force a player's hand like that except in a few particular moments, and those should be used sparingly (like Virmire)

You can still get a perfect ending with a couple of non-loyal squaddies.