383 réponses à ce sujet

[ArkkAngel007]

People do realize that a game that has a highly developed (however cheesy and ridiculous it can get) has a very limited capacity to diverge from that narrative, right?

Ash, Kaidan, Wrex...these all have an impact throughout the series. Sure, it may not change the way the entire galaxy functions, but it does have an impact.

As for the few bits on ME3 specifically, from reading and organizing the script, all of the major choices have an impact to where there will be some issues with the VS, dialogue changes, and some subtle lore changes (such as Tuchanka). No, they won't change everything, but that comes with having a narrative like Mass Effect.

You can't expect the developers to make several versions of the same game. It's just not financially or soundly possible.

[Dave of Canada]

Smaller developers with lesser budgets have done more divergence and branching than Bioware has done these past few years. While they usually change a line or two to show how your choices "matter", other companies have had far more divergence. For example, one had half the entire game change.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 04 janvier 2012 - 05:13 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Of course, those smaller developers and lesser budgets have usually produced games with less polish, less famous voice actors, and more bugs.

Just saying. Balances.

[moneycashgeorge]

I read the script.

Choices from the first 2 games are largely irrelevant. The only changes are a few different characters. All of the major "Story" decisions (i.e. Council, Collector Base, Geth Virus, Rachni) end up making no difference at all. They are all quickly explained to lead to the same thing. The only difference is some change in the exposition.

It's not a "crazy idea". It is a FACT that Bioware oversold the importance of the choices. The ability to "shape the galaxy" was a major selling point of ME1. You will not get a significantly personalized experience in ME3 because you played ME and ME2. Your VS choice is the ONLY one that will give a large difference. Everything else results i little more than a few lines of dialog.

ME3 has 3 endings, with a few variations on each. They are all decided just by what you do at the end of the game, not by what you've done in the series up to that point.

[DPSSOC]

AndrewRogue wrote...
So, out of curiosity. I know this is slightly off-topic. But what exactly is everyone's issue with DA2 anyhow? There are certainly some massively flawed design decisions and some serious corner cutting, but I'm not quite sure the particular failures of DA2 justify the pure, unadultered vitriol that game gets.

Then again, I also thought DA:O was fairly flawed as well, although in different ways.

DA:O set a high bar in story telling for many people, DA2 failed to match up.  Also like in ME2 a lot of people didn't like the drastic changes in gameplay.  Some of the lore between the games is inconsistent, the plot's railroaded, choices don't matter even within their own context, and the list goes on.

ArcanaLegacy wrote...
Some ppl now are somewhat close-minded now that they read an leak that isnt finished. If they didnt read it, they wouldnt be like that

I didn't read it, I still believe our choices aren't going to matter beyond 1-3 lines of dialogue and maybe an email or news report. Part of that is because, as I mentioned, the gap between the best and worst case scenarios is just too large to bridge. You can't write one story that works for both a Shep with loads of allies, and one who is essentially fighting the Reapers on their own. That is of course if they maintain the tone that ME2 set for the choices.

Then there's the fact they've talked about ME3 being an excellent entry point and you can't really have past choices matter without confusing new players. The comic helps but I don't think it'll be enough.

The other reason I still believe our choices won't matter is because I've played the Fable games and the whole "your choices matter" line is starting to sound a lot like Molyneux.

And last but not least, general pesimism.

[Seboist]

The existence of the "action mode" is another indicator that the "choices" will be irrelevant.

[Seboist]

moneycashgeorge wrote...

I read the script.

Choices from the first 2 games are largely irrelevant. The only changes are a few different characters. All of the major "Story" decisions (i.e. Council, Collector Base, Geth Virus, Rachni) end up making no difference at all. They are all quickly explained to lead to the same thing. The only difference is some change in the exposition.

It's not a "crazy idea". It is a FACT that Bioware oversold the importance of the choices. The ability to "shape the galaxy" was a major selling point of ME1. You will not get a significantly personalized experience in ME3 because you played ME and ME2. Your VS choice is the ONLY one that will give a large difference. Everything else results i little more than a few lines of dialog.

ME3 has 3 endings, with a few variations on each. They are all decided just by what you do at the end of the game, not by what you've done in the series up to that point.

The ending that fulfilled TIM's plan should have been exclusive to base keepers/cerberus loyalists.

Modifié par Seboist, 04 janvier 2012 - 06:22 .

[Seboist]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Of course, those smaller developers and lesser budgets have usually produced games with less polish, less famous voice actors, and more bugs.

Just saying. Balances.

Gears of War, Metal Gear Solid 3 and Red Dead Redemption were made by large developers with equally large budgets and have more C&C.

Modifié par Seboist, 04 janvier 2012 - 06:33 .

[AVPen]

moneycashgeorge wrote...

I read the script.

Choices from the first 2 games are largely irrelevant. The only changes are a few different characters. All of the major "Story" decisions (i.e. Council, Collector Base, Geth Virus, Rachni) end up making no difference at all. They are all quickly explained to lead to the same thing. The only difference is some change in the exposition.

It's not a "crazy idea". It is a FACT that Bioware oversold the importance of the choices. The ability to "shape the galaxy" was a major selling point of ME1. You will not get a significantly personalized experience in ME3 because you played ME and ME2. Your VS choice is the ONLY one that will give a large difference. Everything else results i little more than a few lines of dialog.

If you had actually read through the recent leaked information, then you would know that this whole "Choices Don't Matter" mantra that you're stating is nothing, but horsesh*t..... there are a TON of variables from ME1 and ME2 (the Genophage cure, Legion and the Heretic geths fate, Old/New Council, Wrex/Wreav leading Urdnot, ME2 character deaths, fate of Rachni Queen, etc etc) that DO factor into the events and consequences of ME3 and DO create differing story paths for players.

Modifié par AVPen, 04 janvier 2012 - 06:50 .

[GodWood]

You're listing the fate of the rachni queen as an example of choices mattering?

There are a few situations that differ due to a variety of variables but that is definitely not one of them.

[Genshie]

Seboist wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Of course, those smaller developers and lesser budgets have usually produced games with less polish, less famous voice actors, and more bugs.

Just saying. Balances.

Gears of War, Metal Gear Solid 3 and Red Dead Redemption were made by large developers with equally large budgets and have more C&C.

Hold it. Gears of War has no dialogue choices and neither does Metal Gear Solid 3. Both of those games are not even rpgs. Great job on bringing up an apples and oranges comment. Your comment is neither productive or relevant at all. The only thing even remotely worth anything in that comment is RDR and that is even pushing it. Mass Effect franchise is a hybrid shooter/rpg while Gears of War has always been a pure third person shooter and Metal Gear Solid has always been a third person/stealth shooter.

Modifié par Genshie, 04 janvier 2012 - 07:05 .

[squee365]

Dave of Canada wrote...

 It's not a crazy idea if it's the truth.

There is 1 ending?

[Kid Buu]

People are basing it on the leak and from what we have seen so far. Try thinking.

[squee365]

I have thought about it, I want other people's input, hence the thread. Thanks.

[Seboist]

Genshie wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Of course, those smaller developers and lesser budgets have usually produced games with less polish, less famous voice actors, and more bugs.

Just saying. Balances.

Gears of War, Metal Gear Solid 3 and Red Dead Redemption were made by large developers with equally large budgets and have more C&C.

Hold it. Gears of War has no dialogue choices and neither does Metal Gear Solid 3. Both of those games are not even rpgs. Great job on bringing up an apples and oranges comment. Your comment is neither productive or relevant at all. The only thing even remotely worth anything in that comment is RDR and that is even pushing it. Mass Effect franchise is a hybrid shooter/rpg while Gears of War has always been a pure third person shooter and Metal Gear Solid has always been a third person/stealth shooter.

Gears of War: In the "road to ruin" mission I can choose to go stealth or go guns blazing. Each of these two paths have unique gameplay and areas exclusive to each other unlike in ME where it's the same popamole shooting gallery each and every time. Almost every other mission has two paths as well.

Metal Gear Solid 3: I can choose to bomb a parked attack helicopter to prevent it from appearing later on(the enemy uses hovering platforms instead) or ammunition/food stores to weaken enemy troops but at the cost of alerting them due to the explosion. Once again, unlike in ME where it's the same popamole shooting gallery each time.

Red Dead Redemption:  A balanced karma meter that has pros and cons and a real impact on the gameplay unlike ME's space jesus/space troll system that amounts to nothing.

Modifié par Seboist, 04 janvier 2012 - 07:19 .

[Kid Buu]

squee365 wrote...

I have thought about it, I want other people's input, hence the thread. Thanks.

Apparently you havent though about it enough.

[squee365]

Seboist wrote...

Genshie wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Of course, those smaller developers and lesser budgets have usually produced games with less polish, less famous voice actors, and more bugs.

Just saying. Balances.

Gears of War, Metal Gear Solid 3 and Red Dead Redemption were made by large developers with equally large budgets and have more C&C.

Hold it. Gears of War has no dialogue choices and neither does Metal Gear Solid 3. Both of those games are not even rpgs. Great job on bringing up an apples and oranges comment. Your comment is neither productive or relevant at all. The only thing even remotely worth anything in that comment is RDR and that is even pushing it. Mass Effect franchise is a hybrid shooter/rpg while Gears of War has always been a pure third person shooter and Metal Gear Solid has always been a third person/stealth shooter.

Gears of War: In the "road to ruin" mission I can choose to go stealth or go guns blazing. Each of these two paths have unique gameplay and areas exclusive to each other unlike in ME where it's the same popamole shooting gallery each and every time.

Metal Gear Solid 3: I can choose to bomb a parked attack helicopter to prevent it from appearing later on(the enemy uses hovering platforms instead) or ammunition/food stores to weaken enemy troops but at the cost of alerting them due to the explosion. Once again, unlike in ME where it's the same popamole shooting gallery each time.

Red Dead Redemption:  A balanced karma meter that has pros and cons and a real impact on the gameplay unlike ME's space jesus/space troll system that amounts to nothing.

But in the end you still get to the same ending with no changes in Characters and story. We weren't talking about varied choices in gameplay, we're talking about varied choices in the story. 

[Genshie]

squee365 wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Genshie wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Of course, those smaller developers and lesser budgets have usually produced games with less polish, less famous voice actors, and more bugs.

Just saying. Balances.

Gears of War, Metal Gear Solid 3 and Red Dead Redemption were made by large developers with equally large budgets and have more C&C.

Hold it. Gears of War has no dialogue choices and neither does Metal Gear Solid 3. Both of those games are not even rpgs. Great job on bringing up an apples and oranges comment. Your comment is neither productive or relevant at all. The only thing even remotely worth anything in that comment is RDR and that is even pushing it. Mass Effect franchise is a hybrid shooter/rpg while Gears of War has always been a pure third person shooter and Metal Gear Solid has always been a third person/stealth shooter.

Gears of War: In the "road to ruin" mission I can choose to go stealth or go guns blazing. Each of these two paths have unique gameplay and areas exclusive to each other unlike in ME where it's the same popamole shooting gallery each and every time.

Metal Gear Solid 3: I can choose to bomb a parked attack helicopter to prevent it from appearing later on(the enemy uses hovering platforms instead) or ammunition/food stores to weaken enemy troops but at the cost of alerting them due to the explosion. Once again, unlike in ME where it's the same popamole shooting gallery each time.

Red Dead Redemption:  A balanced karma meter that has pros and cons and a real impact on the gameplay unlike ME's space jesus/space troll system that amounts to nothing.

But in the end you still get to the same ending with no changes in Characters and story. We weren't talking about varied choices in gameplay, we're talking about varied choices in the story. 

Gears of War is not an RPG period and neither is Metal Gear Solid. Nice try but they are not. Just because you have a very SMALL portion where you can choose how you go about a mission with the SAME result REGARDLESS of what you do doesn't make them similar, the same, or even related to Mass Effect's choice in how the story begins and ends at all.

[Uhh.. Jonah]

moneycashgeorge wrote...

I read the script.

Choices from the first 2 games are largely irrelevant. The only changes are a few different characters. All of the major "Story" decisions (i.e. Council, Collector Base, Geth Virus, Rachni) end up making no difference at all. They are all quickly explained to lead to the same thing. The only difference is some change in the exposition.

It's not a "crazy idea". It is a FACT that Bioware oversold the importance of the choices. The ability to "shape the galaxy" was a major selling point of ME1. You will not get a significantly personalized experience in ME3 because you played ME and ME2. Your VS choice is the ONLY one that will give a large difference. Everything else results i little more than a few lines of dialog.

ME3 has 3 endings, with a few variations on each. They are all decided just by what you do at the end of the game, not by what you've done in the series up to that point.

That is extremely hard to hear. But I'll believe it when I play the game. 

[Genshie]

Uhh.. Jonah wrote...

moneycashgeorge wrote...

I read the script.

Choices from the first 2 games are largely irrelevant. The only changes are a few different characters. All of the major "Story" decisions (i.e. Council, Collector Base, Geth Virus, Rachni) end up making no difference at all. They are all quickly explained to lead to the same thing. The only difference is some change in the exposition.

It's not a "crazy idea". It is a FACT that Bioware oversold the importance of the choices. The ability to "shape the galaxy" was a major selling point of ME1. You will not get a significantly personalized experience in ME3 because you played ME and ME2. Your VS choice is the ONLY one that will give a large difference. Everything else results i little more than a few lines of dialog.

ME3 has 3 endings, with a few variations on each. They are all decided just by what you do at the end of the game, not by what you've done in the series up to that point.

That is extremely hard to hear. But I'll believe it when I play the game. 

 All these types of people are assuming alot from only one form of context which is just plain text. They have absolutely no context beyond what is typed. NO PICTUREs, NO VOICES, NO BACKGROUND. They are reading the leaked script as if it were a book, a play script, and as a finished product which is wrong and taking it way out of context.

[GodWood]

Lol fanboys.

If it's a good thing in the script: Yay, look how awesome this is! See? You guys were totally wrong!

If it's a bad thing in the script: The script is old and lacks context and stuff.

[Chuvvy]

Spoilers

The script. Most of your choices and both of the end game choices have no impact whatsoever. It's basically you did this so this happens, and you didn't do this so the same thing happened but for a slightly different reason.

[Genshie]

GodWood wrote...

Lol fanboys.

If it's a good thing in the script: Yay, look how awesome this is! See? You guys were totally wrong!

If it's a bad thing in the script: The script is old and lacks context and stuff.

Because the lacking of context is basically the only true arguement that there is. You only have text which isn't written in any form except as a means of showing what they have done so far. Its like reading a movie script and assuming its going to be bad without seeing the movie itself.

[Uhh.. Jonah]

Slidell505 wrote...

Spoilers

The script. Most of your choices and both of the end game choices have no impact whatsoever. It's basically you did this so this happens, and you didn't do this so the same thing happened but for a slightly different reason.

^all I gotta say to that.