2915 réponses à ce sujet

[phimseto]

Wraith 02 wrote...

Well Bioware has made the third game a good place to begin playing the series because new players have no ****ing idea what is going on and neither do players from the previous 2 games

Gotta admit that this line gave me a good laugh!

[Rudy Lis]

phimseto wrote...

Gotta admit that this line gave me a good laugh!

Same here. "Who are those people, what's going on, where we going, danger may be that way, let's go other way".

[SliPaladin]

I don't feel like reading 69 pages and I'm afraid I'll find some spoilers so can anyone confirm with a yes or no if the trial has been removed?

[devil_foetus]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Mass Effect 3 starts (roughly) 6 months after the end of Mass Effect 2. It starts with the end of the trial of Commander Shepard during which the Reapers first arrive on earth.



[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/devil.png[/smilie]

Yeah thats nice, except where does it actually state that in-game, or was it cut from the demo?

[Rudy Lis]

SliPaladin wrote...

I don't feel like reading 69 pages and I'm afraid I'll find some spoilers so can anyone confirm with a yes or no if the trial has been removed?

There are no spoilers, just some lemon chicken recipies. According to some quotes from Chris Priestley - they never intended to add any trial, game starts soon after trial ends.

[AxisEvolve]

SliPaladin wrote...

I don't feel like reading 69 pages and I'm afraid I'll find some spoilers so can anyone confirm with a yes or no if the trial has been removed?

A vague nod towards removal.

[Yakko77]

The scene whee the attack takes place is held in a "Courtroom" oddly enough. It's written in big letters on the walls.

[Cosmar]

I really don't understand why they took the trial out. Why would they do that? It could only have been a good, powerful thing.

Do they *really* think the current way is better? I mean, seriously, now. There's no reason at all to think the current intro is better than a trial would have been. And the excuse of "time and money" doesn't fly. They had a long time to do this, and they already pushed the deadline back. I don't see why they couldn't have pushed it back a month or two again to get the intro right.

[kalle90]

Cosmar wrote...

I really don't understand why they took the trial out. Why would they do that? It could only have been a good, powerful thing.

Do they *really* think the current way is better? I mean, seriously, now. There's no reason at all to think the current intro is better than a trial would have been. And the excuse of "time and money" doesn't fly. They had a long time to do this, and they already pushed the deadline back. I don't see why they couldn't have pushed it back a month or two again to get the intro right.

Would have been too much to add, what, 10-20 characters who might live or not, might have been helped or assaulted by Shepard to talk for or against Shepard.

Would have been really fun to hear reporter Khalisah Al-Jihani testify against Shepard stating 2 assaults to which you can reply that everyone hits that reporter.

Would have been epic intro though and really makes me doubt about the thousand variables being more than emails. If they won't prepare for an epic intro I doubt they do much mid-game.

[someguy1231]

I don't buy the argument that the trial was cut to cater to new players. Actually, I've always thought the trial was to help new players get acquainted with the ME universe to begin with. As other posters have said, the intro is incomprehensible to both old players and new players. Let's not jump to conclusions here. Not everything Bioware does in ME3 is for the benefit of new players. In fact, some of my gripes are about how Bioware is catering too much to certain types of old-school fans.

I also don't buy the argument that it was cut for CoD/Halo/GoW players who just want to get to the shooting. If you've ever played those games, you'll find that those too have several cutscenes and breaks in combat. Fans of those games aren't as impatient as many people here seem to believe.

Modifié par someguy1231, 15 février 2012 - 09:48 .

[bluewolv1970]

Cosmar wrote...

I really don't understand why they took the trial out. Why would they do that? It could only have been a good, powerful thing.

Do they *really* think the current way is better? I mean, seriously, now. There's no reason at all to think the current intro is better than a trial would have been. And the excuse of "time and money" doesn't fly. They had a long time to do this, and they already pushed the deadline back. I don't see why they couldn't have pushed it back a month or two again to get the intro right.

Guess so - which probably speaks to what they think works in the finished product

[kalle90]

bluewolv1970 wrote...

Cosmar wrote...

I really don't understand why they took the trial out. Why would they do that? It could only have been a good, powerful thing.

Do they *really* think the current way is better? I mean, seriously, now. There's no reason at all to think the current intro is better than a trial would have been. And the excuse of "time and money" doesn't fly. They had a long time to do this, and they already pushed the deadline back. I don't see why they couldn't have pushed it back a month or two again to get the intro right.

Guess so - which probably speaks to what they think works in the finished product

The novels and comics need more advertising. Too bad the demo doesn't even mention novels and comics.

I guess the devs/writers just can't unsee the story without the novels and comics, not to mention their very own background info, so they don't realize how confusing the beginning is now. It has happened with Halo, Gears and others. Developers say the game is aimed at people who haven't read the novels, but in reality much of the game can be understood only by reading them.

[Maj.Pain007]

Cosmar wrote...

I really don't understand why they took the trial out. Why would they do that? It could only have been a good, powerful thing.

Do they *really* think the current way is better? I mean, seriously, now. There's no reason at all to think the current intro is better than a trial would have been. And the excuse of "time and money" doesn't fly. They had a long time to do this, and they already pushed the deadline back. I don't see why they couldn't have pushed it back a month or two again to get the intro right.

I just hate how they pulled this bait and switch with Arrival. Arrival is pretty much pointless DLC.

[Agamo45]

Cosmar wrote...

I really don't understand why they took the trial out. Why would they do that? It could only have been a good, powerful thing.

Do they *really* think the current way is better? I mean, seriously, now. There's no reason at all to think the current intro is better than a trial would have been. And the excuse of "time and money" doesn't fly. They had a long time to do this, and they already pushed the deadline back. I don't see why they couldn't have pushed it back a month or two again to get the intro right.

Given how action-oriented the game apparently is now, I wouldn't be surprised if they took it out because they thought that the COD/DA2 crowd would get bored after a few minutes of dialogue and backstory without any shooting. It's my gut feeling.

[Ihatebadgames]

Agamo45 wrote...

Cosmar wrote...

I really don't understand why they took the trial out. Why would they do that? It could only have been a good, powerful thing.

Do they *really* think the current way is better? I mean, seriously, now. There's no reason at all to think the current intro is better than a trial would have been. And the excuse of "time and money" doesn't fly. They had a long time to do this, and they already pushed the deadline back. I don't see why they couldn't have pushed it back a month or two again to get the intro right.

Given how action-oriented the game apparently is now, I wouldn't be surprised if they took it out because they thought that the COD/DA2 crowd would get bored after a few minutes of dialogue and backstory without any shooting. It's my gut feeling.

I think you are correct good sir,look at how the demo is aimed at the shooter crowed.With the "action packed"level description in between the Normady rescue and the Salarian homeworld rescue.I was all ready to dig up Raymond Burr and defend Shepard.It would have been epic.

[Loup Blanc]

Ihatebadgames wrote...

Agamo45 wrote...

Cosmar wrote...

I really don't understand why they took the trial out. Why would they do that? It could only have been a good, powerful thing.

Do they *really* think the current way is better? I mean, seriously, now. There's no reason at all to think the current intro is better than a trial would have been. And the excuse of "time and money" doesn't fly. They had a long time to do this, and they already pushed the deadline back. I don't see why they couldn't have pushed it back a month or two again to get the intro right.

Given how action-oriented the game apparently is now, I wouldn't be surprised if they took it out because they thought that the COD/DA2 crowd would get bored after a few minutes of dialogue and backstory without any shooting. It's my gut feeling.

I think you are correct good sir,look at how the demo is aimed at the shooter crowed.With the "action packed"level description in between the Normady rescue and the Salarian homeworld rescu

e.I was all ready to dig up Raymond Burr and defend Shepard.It would have been epic.

Absolutely. They took it off because it was too much of a slow start for action junkies. Then they will go on and say that neither multiplayer nor the action mode took away from the whole experience. What a bunch of liars.

[DJBare]

"And you will see, there is no spoon"

[CannonO]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Gemini1179 wrote...

Then you're the kind of customer EA wants. No sense bogging players down with plot and character development when there are things to kill!

(Sorry I couldn't help it, I'm disappoineted at the opening- it's another bit of railroading and cut corners)

Ok, I know I'm a tool of the Man and all, but how so?

If you are a new player (haven't played ME1 or ME2) you learn who Shepard is, why he's on earth, what the Reaper threat is, and then the story begins.

If you are a continuing player (have played either or both of the previous games) you already know the plot and character development because you helped form it with your previous play throughs and the story picks up after ME2.

I'm sorry you're disappointed, but I'm not completely sure why?

But we shouldn't want plenty more? We should be satisfied?

[AlanC9]

Cosmar wrote...

I really don't understand why they took the trial out. Why would they do that? It could only have been a good, powerful thing.

Only good? Really? I was betting that the trial would be a lame recap, with the Reapers showing up at a really improbable moment just to give us a Big Dramatic Scene.

I guess that puts me in a minority for the thread, but I never much liked the trial idea in the first place.

But if Bio wasn't going to do a trial scene, they probably shouldn't have used the courtroom set. At least cover up the sign, guys!

Modifié par AlanC9, 15 février 2012 - 10:36 .

[Klijpope]

Whilst speculating over what the final ME2 DLC, one of the ideas was ending up under arrest for working with terrorists and that a trial would be a cool way of starting ME3.

But then I thought about it. A long trial sequence is absolutely no way to start a story centred on action. Does a Bond film start with a lot of talking? Nope - we have an action scene that often has no relevance to the plot before we get to the talky stuff.

If there was a long trial, no one but players of 1 and 2 would continue. ME isn't Heavy Rain - they can't get away with having a shower and cleaning your teeth. And this isn't pandering to the mythical CoDder-base, it is just basic story telling.

However, replaying the demo, I'm getting a vague impression the dialogue might be a bit out of context, and that's why it feels weird, like we're not getting all the lines. So there may well be a stronger reference to any kind of hearing in the actual game. I'm reserving judgement.

Modifié par Klijpope, 15 février 2012 - 10:50 .

[Klijpope]

repost

Modifié par Klijpope, 15 février 2012 - 10:50 .

[Ghurshog]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Gemini1179 wrote...

Then you're the kind of customer EA wants. No sense bogging players down with plot and character development when there are things to kill!

(Sorry I couldn't help it, I'm disappoineted at the opening- it's another bit of railroading and cut corners)

Ok, I know I'm a tool of the Man and all, but how so?

If you are a new player (haven't played ME1 or ME2) you learn who Shepard is, why he's on earth, what the Reaper threat is, and then the story begins.

If you are a continuing player (have played either or both of the previous games) you already know the plot and character development because you helped form it with your previous play throughs and the story picks up after ME2.

I'm sorry you're disappointed, but I'm not completely sure why?

I am a little to this party but put simply by not showing the trial and given the beginning the story for ME3 it is implied that you simply get railroaded in the Trial. Nothing you could have said or done 'could' have, regardless of previous ME1 or 2 choices prevented your dismissal. 

That sir is getting rail roaded.

[TheRevanchist]

Honestly...having read every book but Deception...every comic but Invasion. Playing ME1 over 40 times...ME2 over 20 times...and after having a total mental encyclopidia of ME knowledge....i can safely say...the more you know the less this intro makes sense. Because you see just how many MORE errors there are.

[kalle90]

CannonLars wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

Gemini1179 wrote...

Then you're the kind of customer EA wants. No sense bogging players down with plot and character development when there are things to kill!

(Sorry I couldn't help it, I'm disappoineted at the opening- it's another bit of railroading and cut corners)

Ok, I know I'm a tool of the Man and all, but how so?

If you are a new player (haven't played ME1 or ME2) you learn who Shepard is, why he's on earth, what the Reaper threat is, and then the story begins.

If you are a continuing player (have played either or both of the previous games) you already know the plot and character development because you helped form it with your previous play throughs and the story picks up after ME2.

I'm sorry you're disappointed, but I'm not completely sure why?

But we shouldn't want plenty more? We should be satisfied?

Who is James Vega? Nowhere in ME1 or 2 I heard of him.
In Arrival I was told that I'm going to be asked in a trial. I saw no trial or even mention that it was already held. So how are people who haven't followed online are supposed to know the trial was held already? This intro certainly doesn't pick up after ME2 (well it kinda does but not immediately or even close)

Oh and derp derp new players only need to know "You are Shepard", "You are the only hope", "Reapers are evil gods". Gosh that "introduction" is even simpler than in COD, Halo or any other simple shooter.

I'm sorry but you devs have seen too much info about the gaps and can't put yourselves into gamer's shoes.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, it all makes sense. You mention "have played either game". Actually why couldn't ME3 be direct continuation from ME1? You have just killed the council or doomed most of the Alliance fleet, which means you're sent on Earth at a trial and then Reapers attack. Sure, you won't know why people on Illium or Tuchanka reconize you, but then again you don't know who is James Vega either.

Got to say pretty smart design right there. Efficiently making second act unnecessary.

[TheRevanchist]

Actually they basicly made -everything- before this unecessary. It's pretty much Episode VI designed to ignore IV and V.