2915 réponses à ce sujet

[Sabbatine]

Chris Priestly wrote...

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

I am also disappointed.  When I read that Shepard would be put on trial in ME3 I had great expectations.  I just knew deep down inside Bioware was planning to add in a Phoenix Wright styled courtroom trial minigame.  Shepard could yell "Objection!" any time he felt he was being treated unfairly.  

[Ginkasa]

Meh, I guess it would have been cool to have a trial, but its not like that was the whole reason I wanted the game. Or, in fact, a reason at all for me wanting the game. Like I said, it would have been cool, but I won't miss it.

Personally, I think its works well for both people who played Arrival and people who didn't. I remember a bunch of complaints about Arrival stating it was [internet derogatory remark here] that such an important set up for ME3 was a piece of DLC that not everyone would play. The way the demo presents it, Shepard could have been grounded because of the events of Arrival or simply for chilling with Cerberus. Maybe those complaints were even why the trial was taken out (if it was ever really going to be part of the game at all)?

Anyway, not a big deal IMO. Don't see why people get so upset over what was only ever thought to be a small part of the game, anyway.

[Il Divo]

AlanC9 wrote...

Were you being kept in the darK? Excuse me, the f***ing dark. It's pretty obvious what happened to Shepard from the demo. What is it, exactly, that's unclear ?

I'd say so. Compare it to say ME2's intro. Yes, there is about a time gap during which Shepard could have learned any number of things the player isn't aware of, but ME2's opening crawl lets the player know the most pertinent points. ME3's intro moves way too fast and gives Shepard too much knowledge which the player did not have access to. And while I can't say whether the amount of auto dialogue will remain the same, at least letting players choose their responses at that juncture would go a long way to understanding the current situation.

[Il Divo]

txgoldrush wrote...

And what is the harm in not having a trial, since there isn't one? Your question is just hypothetical, mine is reality.

And you really ought to understand why things are cut and changed. Like I said, they did not think the trial, THE WAY THEY HAD IT, worked.

And the entire intro sequence failed, as a consequence with no proper build up. Cut the crap about "reality". Reality seems to be you can't handle that people dislike what you like.

Modifié par Il Divo, 20 février 2012 - 11:50 .

[string3r]

ALIENS

[Skyblade012]

Atakuma wrote...

Skyblade012 wrote...
The purpose of your demo is to get people playing, and enjoying your game.  To get it to stand out as something people might actually want to buy.  You failed at that purpose.  But, you did an excellent job at what you tried to do.  You took an excellent RPG series and dumbed it down to the point that it fits nicely among the thousands of other shooters.  It fits so well that it offers nothing new to the genre or experience as a whole, and doesn't stand out enough that any of your target demographic will even consider buying it.  Congratulations.

First, the reaction to the demo has been generally positive, to call it a failure because you didn't like it is silly.

How are you rating this positive reaction?  What aspects of the demo have been received positively, and by what demographics?  Are you looking at the forum response?  The response from game critics?

Since the demo's release, this forum has been filled with unhappy gamers (and disappointing your core audience of fans is something that shooters, y'know, the genre this game is trying to mimic now, learned not to do a long time ago).  While the graphics are nice, the plot, poor mechanics setup, and lack of RPG elements in the demo have been criticized all up and down this forum.

And the demo certainly wasn't good enough that we are going to have millions of COD fans suddenly decide that Mass Effect is THE new shooter game, which is what everyone seems to think the point of butchering the demo and game were for.

Secondly, Me3 is inarguably more complex than ME2, I don't see how it can be considered dumbed down.

How so?  In terms of mechanics, the demo demonstrated two differences.  A Heavy Melee attack, and the ability to roll from cover to cover.  Other than that, I didn't really notice anything I hadn't seen before.  And, while those may have been improvements for the ME series, they are nothing new for gaming as a whole at all.

Most of the highly publicized "improvements" to the system aren't in the demo.  No weapon customization, or ability to choose loadouts.  The multiple power evolutions may be in the demo, but even on Sur'kesh, you only have enough skill points to choose one of them, so you don't really get to try them out.



Oh yes, one other thing, BioWare.  Why the heck does the multiplayer component of your demo have more RPG options than your single player setup?  By which I mean, the ability to customize what weapons you're carrying, the ability to modify them, and the ability to use Heavy Weapons.  Seriously, you were worried about the RPG systems overwhelming the shooter fans, so you cut them from the demo, but leave them in the multiplayer system, which a lot of the shooter fans are going to be using a lot more?

Also, the whole "it's already gone to publishers, so they can't change anything anymore" argument I've seen on here is bull.  To quote the developers:

Technology, the world, even the way we play games and communicate, have changed significantly since the days where a box on a videogame store shelf was the only way to get games.

There is nothing at all preventing them from patching a decent intro into the game, no matter what the game discs have on them.

Modifié par Skyblade012, 20 février 2012 - 12:24 .

[Il Divo]

Skyblade012 wrote...

Since the demo's release, this forum has been filled with unhappy gamers (and disappointing your core audience of fans is something that shooters, y'know, the genre this game is trying to mimic now, learned not to do a long time ago).  While the graphics are nice, the plot, poor mechanics setup, and lack of RPG elements in the demo have been criticized all up and down this forum.

Honestly, much as I have issues with the demo, I've yet to find any kind of forum which is not prone to exaggeration and melodrama. To be clear, when are the Bioware forums ever happy? This forum is always filled with unhappy gamers, not to mention that we represent less than 1% of the Bioware fanbase.

Modifié par Il Divo, 20 février 2012 - 12:25 .

[Skyblade012]

Il Divo wrote...

Skyblade012 wrote...

Since the demo's release, this forum has been filled with unhappy gamers (and disappointing your core audience of fans is something that shooters, y'know, the genre this game is trying to mimic now, learned not to do a long time ago).  While the graphics are nice, the plot, poor mechanics setup, and lack of RPG elements in the demo have been criticized all up and down this forum.

Honestly, much as I have issues with the demo, I've yet to find any kind of forum which is not prone to exaggeration and melodrama. This forum is always filled with unhappy gamers, not to mention that we represent less than 1% of the Bioware fanbase.

This is true, but do you mind telling me where the general "positive reception" of the demo comment came from?  If it's not these forums, which have been, as I have said, reacting negatively on the whole, where is it?  There's not been a major statistical poll, or news coverage about it.

[Il Divo]

Skyblade012 wrote...

This is true, but do you mind telling me where the general "positive reception" of the demo comment came from?  If it's not these forums, which have been, as I have said, reacting negatively on the whole, where is it?  There's not been a major statistical poll, or news coverage about it.

Oh, I have absolutely no idea. I thought the demo looked pretty weak myself. Positive reception could easily be an overexaggeration.

[Wulfram]

Skyblade012 wrote...

Most of the highly publicized "improvements" to the system aren't in the demo.  No weapon customization, or ability to choose loadouts.  The multiple power evolutions may be in the demo, but even on Sur'kesh, you only have enough skill points to choose one of them, so you don't really get to try them out.

They're in the multiplayer demo, at least.

edit:  Changing the intro would be expensive.  They'd need to bring back all the necessary Voice Actors.
edit2:  Though I suppose they could just have Mark Meer play all the minor characters in the trial.

Modifié par Wulfram, 20 février 2012 - 12:50 .

[TMA LIVE]

Skyblade012 wrote...

No one wants to buy a Gears of War clone, or some other generic shooter.  There are thousands of generic shooters out there, the market is literally packed with them.  If you want to pull them over, you'll have to introduce something more than the average shooter, and you definitely did not do that in this demo.  What Mass Effect has, that the other shooters on the market do not, is it's status as an RPG.  It is more than a shooter, and that is what the demo should have been showing off.

This isn't just in the intro scenes, this is in the mechanics all the way down the line.  Frankly, the average shooter player has played this demo a thousand times already.  There is nothing new here at all.  Do you want to pique their interest?  Offer them something unique that might draw them in?  Then show off what is unique about the series.

The other classes were basically unplayable in the demo.  The weight penalty for your moronically enforced four-gun loadout meant that every class was forced to play as a Soldier, and meant that customization and abilities were useless.  There went something that might have appealed to your precious shooter market, a varied, but still strong and well designed play style.

I agree. If you remove everything that makes ME unique, then all you have is a Gears clone that as a shooter is still behind all the other shooters. It doesn't even have something as basic as quick-turn.

What makes ME stand out is it's dialogue trees, classes, and making your own character. And guess what, Action Mode kills all three. You can only play a soldier. You don't have dialogue trees. And you're stuck with the default Shepard, and his default past. And this is the default.

[Uezurii]

Skyblade012 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Skyblade012 wrote...

Since the demo's release, this forum has been filled with unhappy gamers (and disappointing your core audience of fans is something that shooters, y'know, the genre this game is trying to mimic now, learned not to do a long time ago).  While the graphics are nice, the plot, poor mechanics setup, and lack of RPG elements in the demo have been criticized all up and down this forum.

Honestly, much as I have issues with the demo, I've yet to find any kind of forum which is not prone to exaggeration and melodrama. This forum is always filled with unhappy gamers, not to mention that we represent less than 1% of the Bioware fanbase.

This is true, but do you mind telling me where the general "positive reception" of the demo comment came from?  If it's not these forums, which have been, as I have said, reacting negatively on the whole, where is it?  There's not been a major statistical poll, or news coverage about it.

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/323/index/9324966 Probably from there.

[Il Divo]

TMA LIVE wrote...

Skyblade012 wrote...

No one wants to buy a Gears of War clone, or some other generic shooter.  There are thousands of generic shooters out there, the market is literally packed with them.  If you want to pull them over, you'll have to introduce something more than the average shooter, and you definitely did not do that in this demo.  What Mass Effect has, that the other shooters on the market do not, is it's status as an RPG.  It is more than a shooter, and that is what the demo should have been showing off.

This isn't just in the intro scenes, this is in the mechanics all the way down the line.  Frankly, the average shooter player has played this demo a thousand times already.  There is nothing new here at all.  Do you want to pique their interest?  Offer them something unique that might draw them in?  Then show off what is unique about the series.

The other classes were basically unplayable in the demo.  The weight penalty for your moronically enforced four-gun loadout meant that every class was forced to play as a Soldier, and meant that customization and abilities were useless.  There went something that might have appealed to your precious shooter market, a varied, but still strong and well designed play style.

I agree. If you remove everything that makes ME unique, then all you have is a Gears clone that as a shooter is still behind all the other shooters. It doesn't even have something as basic as quick-turn.

What makes ME stand out is it's dialogue trees, classes, and making your own character. And guess what, Action Mode kills all three. You can only play a soldier. You don't have dialogue trees. And you're stuck with the default Shepard, and his default past. And this is the default.

Wait, does action mode really limit Shepard to the soldier class? I thought it just guarantees the game to have full autodialogue.

[Uezurii]

TMA LIVE wrote...

Skyblade012 wrote...

No one wants to buy a Gears of War clone, or some other generic shooter.  There are thousands of generic shooters out there, the market is literally packed with them.  If you want to pull them over, you'll have to introduce something more than the average shooter, and you definitely did not do that in this demo.  What Mass Effect has, that the other shooters on the market do not, is it's status as an RPG.  It is more than a shooter, and that is what the demo should have been showing off.

This isn't just in the intro scenes, this is in the mechanics all the way down the line.  Frankly, the average shooter player has played this demo a thousand times already.  There is nothing new here at all.  Do you want to pique their interest?  Offer them something unique that might draw them in?  Then show off what is unique about the series.

The other classes were basically unplayable in the demo.  The weight penalty for your moronically enforced four-gun loadout meant that every class was forced to play as a Soldier, and meant that customization and abilities were useless.  There went something that might have appealed to your precious shooter market, a varied, but still strong and well designed play style.

I agree. If you remove everything that makes ME unique, then all you have is a Gears clone that as a shooter is still behind all the other shooters. It doesn't even have something as basic as quick-turn.

What makes ME stand out is it's dialogue trees, classes, and making your own character. And guess what, Action Mode kills all three. You can only play a soldier. You don't have dialogue trees. And you're stuck with the default Shepard, and his default past. And this is the default.

then aren't we all lucky that that is just an option and we can pick RPG mode.

[Rudy Lis]

txgoldrush wrote...

And really Mass Effect 2's introduction really wasn't that good. Yes, the Normandy attack was spectucular but when it comes to it, the intro had very bad follow through. Why is no one really emotionally suprised, outside of Tali, of Shepard's revival? Its like there was no joy in the hero's return. The intro of ME2 lacks follow through.

Excuse me for disagreement, but Tali was first who saw Shepard "firsthand" from old crew. Even "reunion" with Joker and Chakwas (both of whom were happy, at least by my point of view) occured after meeting with Tali.

Garrus was emotionally and physically exhausted, plus, under circumstances of their meeting, it was barely adequate to throw "welcome back" party. Well, "deflecting missile (or it was rocket?) with face" was barely adequate too, from former hockey goalie PoV (and I stop pucks, not missiles), but I digress.

Wrex was obviously glad to see Shepard, at least I cannot "decypher" Wrex's emotions in any other way.

Liara was happy too, restrained, yes, but with her then current occupation it was normal and expected (same true for Parasini, by the way, she couldn't run to Shepard with that "weeeee" scream).

One and only emotionally numb person is VS, but VS was "placeholder" enough character in ME2 to judge his actions. Plus, IIRC, VS was "tipped off" about Shepard's return, so we could count that as "spoiler effect".

Rest of the NPC crowd were either 17th row pikemen (Fist, Blake) with badly written meeting scenes, or never met in person (crapload of e-mail personalitites or those you never met previously), or "suspect" (Anderson, in my playthroughs he is councilor, so he should have some knowledge on situation or Bailey, whose job is to keep good situational awareness (to some extent that goes to Khalissa "punch-my-face" ben-Jilani)). Some newly met NPCs were happy to saw Shepard, yes, those two were traders, but anyway.

txgoldrush wrote...

And really, is it logical to have or continue a trial AFTER the military command finds their colonies going dark, which is what happens in the demo intro? Or, is it more logical to question the guy who may know something about the threat.

Reapers pace anyone? Apparently you read leaks, were there any info on that? You can PM me, if there was info, to prevent spoilers in this thread. But I bet there were none. Bioware doesn't seems consider gaming public adult enough to do some calculations and "do not want to overload us with details". "Details".

How fast actually Reapers move and severe communications between Earth and outlying outposts? What special breed of complete imbeciles serving in HQ, if they not raise the alarm after 3 consequitive ouposts went dark from same direction? IIRC military bandwidth is second after Council one, what, Earth HQ couldn't sent anyone to investigate blackout and in case of losing contact with recon party sound the alarm, gather all nearby active "watch-duty" elements and send rather large group of them to investigate WTF is going on there? Yes, sending large group is risk losing them all in ambush, but large group has bigger chances to transmit emergency signal, even with cost of their lifes. And if that group is lost too - "wake-up, wake-up, enemy!" If even grunts from Halo new that, maybe we should recruit HQ personnel from Covenant?
When that Hackett-Anderson intro conversation is happening? Obviously before Shepard's "summoning", but what time gap is there? Month, week, day, hour, minute? How long?
Why those "killed by table specialists" didn't call Shepard earlier, just to let us see that "awesome" cutscene when those "table-specialists" are killed and Reapers are actually landing? Why not move that "summoning" scene earlier and let Shepard to actually run to Normandy and, since Bioware obviously long to exploit "OMG they are here" scene, script Reapers arrival during Shepard's run to Normandy? Master Chief did that on Pillar of Autumn, why not Shepard to "follow his footsteps", so to speak? And, unlike all that "blah-blah" about time, it was Master Chief who had time limit, not Shepard.
Nothing is clear, thus - vitriol.

Shortstuff820 wrote...

However, it has been confirmed that more dialogue/options will be available in the full game and some of it changes depending on your import.

Ahmm... How would I put this. We obviously will have more dialogues in full game - 50 is more than 10. Maybe we even have more options - 3-5 more than 2. But will those choices really be diffirent? Not just detecting where those +2 points to go - to paragon scale or to renegade scale, really different, pronounced with different tone and different words. Yes, ME1/2 suffered from that disease too, but I hoped they cure it, not multiply it. Given demo or Bioware personnel asnwers havent' clarified this position yet.

Shortstuff820 wrote...

The game probably starts out more action-oriented to introduce fans of shooters to one of the best game series in the industry. We will most likely start to see more traditional Mass Effect elements at some point after the intro or first few hours of the game.

Problem is - it's excessively too long (also empty and meaningless) for action-oriented intro. I already listed ArmA2: PMC beginning. And that's not "adrenalin-visceral action", yet it looks and feels better. Right from the start you are under heavy shelling, yet first minutes no one directly attacking you. You have just marker and can learn moves, if you new to the series, or refresh them, if you switched from faster game. Only after you reunite with one of teammates (you being subordinate), you start actual fighting in close quarters. And that's ArmA - with family sluggish and slow moves, swaying sights, especially if you are injured no and sticky cover. And that's from first person view.
And after you solve first mission, game moves you into past, explaining WTF is going on. If you played ArmA2 BAF and OA, you will have better understanding. If not - nothing really serious is missed, you may not know why protagonist is so angry with teammember loss, who is protagonist, something knew about country's past, but everything campaign-wise is explained. It's like Witcher - should you read books, you will know certain names and characters, if you haven't read those books - well, Geralt with amnesia, so you both will learn that on the go.
And mind you - I never liked Bohemia Interactive campaigns for their storytelling. Yet, funny enough, third addon for ArmA 2 surprisingly have better story-wise beginning than supposedly RPG Mass Effect 3.

Shortstuff820 wrote...

Drawing in shooter fans is pretty much the point to the demo and the rushed/underdone intro and is not meant to impress veterans of the series.. We have only seen about 2% of the whole game and I have no doubt the rest of it will turn out to be much better and more traditional. With that said, despite the disappointing first few minutes, I am looking forward to an awesome ME3.

Irony is that all my "Shooter fans" company was displeased with ME3 demo and after about hour or two in ME3 demo they return to BF3 or MW2-3. All of them. And I'm talking about people with hundreds, if not thousands of hours in those games. None of them found anything new or interesting in ME3. Especially they critisized single player and gibe me on "strong RPG element".

[Whereto]

The one thing my friend said to me after playing the demo "well now, that was confusing" that sums up that whole intro sadly.

[roy.willemsen]

Skyblade012 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Skyblade012 wrote...

Since the demo's release, this forum has been filled with unhappy gamers (and disappointing your core audience of fans is something that shooters, y'know, the genre this game is trying to mimic now, learned not to do a long time ago).  While the graphics are nice, the plot, poor mechanics setup, and lack of RPG elements in the demo have been criticized all up and down this forum.

Honestly, much as I have issues with the demo, I've yet to find any kind of forum which is not prone to exaggeration and melodrama. This forum is always filled with unhappy gamers, not to mention that we represent less than 1% of the Bioware fanbase.

This is true, but do you mind telling me where the general "positive reception" of the demo comment came from?  If it's not these forums, which have been, as I have said, reacting negatively on the whole, where is it?  There's not been a major statistical poll, or news coverage about it.

Phaedon held a survey and that showed that the overall reception to this demo was indeed positive.

[wright1978]

roy.willemsen wrote...

Skyblade012 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Skyblade012 wrote...

Since the demo's release, this forum has been filled with unhappy gamers (and disappointing your core audience of fans is something that shooters, y'know, the genre this game is trying to mimic now, learned not to do a long time ago).  While the graphics are nice, the plot, poor mechanics setup, and lack of RPG elements in the demo have been criticized all up and down this forum.

Honestly, much as I have issues with the demo, I've yet to find any kind of forum which is not prone to exaggeration and melodrama. This forum is always filled with unhappy gamers, not to mention that we represent less than 1% of the Bioware fanbase.

This is true, but do you mind telling me where the general "positive reception" of the demo comment came from?  If it's not these forums, which have been, as I have said, reacting negatively on the whole, where is it?  There's not been a major statistical poll, or news coverage about it.

Phaedon held a survey and that showed that the overall reception to this demo was indeed positive.

But his survey was only based on Gameplay. There was no section to detail impressions of the story aspects.

[TMA LIVE]

Uezurii wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...

Skyblade012 wrote...

No one wants to buy a Gears of War clone, or some other generic shooter.  There are thousands of generic shooters out there, the market is literally packed with them.  If you want to pull them over, you'll have to introduce something more than the average shooter, and you definitely did not do that in this demo.  What Mass Effect has, that the other shooters on the market do not, is it's status as an RPG.  It is more than a shooter, and that is what the demo should have been showing off.

This isn't just in the intro scenes, this is in the mechanics all the way down the line.  Frankly, the average shooter player has played this demo a thousand times already.  There is nothing new here at all.  Do you want to pique their interest?  Offer them something unique that might draw them in?  Then show off what is unique about the series.

The other classes were basically unplayable in the demo.  The weight penalty for your moronically enforced four-gun loadout meant that every class was forced to play as a Soldier, and meant that customization and abilities were useless.  There went something that might have appealed to your precious shooter market, a varied, but still strong and well designed play style.

I agree. If you remove everything that makes ME unique, then all you have is a Gears clone that as a shooter is still behind all the other shooters. It doesn't even have something as basic as quick-turn.

What makes ME stand out is it's dialogue trees, classes, and making your own character. And guess what, Action Mode kills all three. You can only play a soldier. You don't have dialogue trees. And you're stuck with the default Shepard, and his default past. And this is the default.

then aren't we all lucky that that is just an option and we can pick RPG mode.

Except most new players probably aren't going to pick that first.

And aren't we unlucky that in order to make action mode, it's probably had an effect on RPG mode. Since the more you try to do everything or please everyone, the more other things suffer.

Your average person who never played ME is probably going to click it without giving the options a full read. Or clicking it to avoid being too complicated with a level up systems and states (which word RPG alone suggests), while still being a fun shooter (which Story mode suggests it lacks). It's just another example of trying to direct the new Gears or COD players.

When it comes to choices, they might think they're really sacrificing infamous style choices. Where you made a choice at the beginning or end of a mission.

Then we got the other issue of the making of action mode. In order to make Action mode work the cutscenes must work as non-stop cutscenes, with no interruptions, and well paced. Meaning those scenes need to be written that way. Which could be the reason why we're seeing a lot of lack of choices, or long scenes of Shepard doing his own thing, without our control.

They've already said they designed it for a movie experience. A mix of Renegade and Paragon choice. You can't just program random choices, and expect the new player to like it. You have to program a specific directed experience to make it work for the action mode player. Otherwise, the character is inconstant.

Thus, time was spent making it work, and what choices would be picked through a 40 hour game.

Action-wise, since players want to keep fighting, combat must happen more frequently. Meaning the game is more designed to have more combat moments occur. Like instead of a long trial, we're cut straight to the point of escaping Earth.

And that's just Action mode. I imagine making the Kinect work involved making less dialogue choices, since every single one must work on voice command.

Modifié par TMA LIVE, 20 février 2012 - 01:12 .

[TMA LIVE]

Il Divo wrote...

Wait, does action mode really limit Shepard to the soldier class? I thought it just guarantees the game to have full autodialogue.

In the demo it does. Also, it auto levels up.

Modifié par TMA LIVE, 20 février 2012 - 01:40 .

[KnightOfTwo]

My two cents:

I am upset that the trial will not be a part of the game. It was not the ultimate reason I would play the game, nor is it even a minor part. To think that I am not going to get the game because the trial isn't there would be silly. The reason why it upsets me is because without it, the framework for the intro is woefully lacking.

We see the textcrawl part about the Reapers and what they are, but that doesn't tie back to why Shepard is on Earth. Anderson claims that it's the **** we've done, but there is no elaboration on what that exactly is. For example, what if you skipped playing ME2 and only played ME1 (not likely, but it is possible)? What would be the context for the narrative? At the end of 1 you are hailed as a hero and the Council/Udina/Anderson are completely behind you regarding fighting the Reapers (or at least, they were in the presentation of 1, which seemed to instantly disappear in 2). The narrative changes completely going from 1 to 3 without giving any indication as to why, it lacks context for how you got there.

The context just isn't there. Yes, people could read about what happened but why should they have to? Why doesn't the game provide you with all the necessary pieces to say "this is who you are, this is why you are here and this is what is happening".

Something else to consider, what if ME3 is the first ME game that someone is playing? Yes yes, the arguement of "why start with the end of a trilogy? that's stupid." exists, so I shall get to my point. Bioware members have said quite a few times, that they want to make ME3 a good starting point for those who are new to the series. Now, I was skeptical of this statement myself, I mean, why would someone start with the end of the trilogy when they could play the first two when they are available (and cheaper)? Let's assume that they haven't played the first two and know almost, if not absolutely, nothing about the game.

Shepard is in a situation with no explanation for why any of it is happening. Why exactly is Shepard on Earth? What happened? Yes, the Reapers are coming but what does that have to do with Shepard? By that I mean how does that tie back to Shepard being in the state he/she is in? There is no narrative sense, no context as to why Shepard is in the position we see him/her.

The trial was the means of bridging the gap from 2 to 3 and explaining to people who didn't play 2 (and possibly to a lesser extent 1, explaining a bit more about the reapers and all that) what exactly is the context for Shepard and the Mass Effect universe. There is no indication whatsoever what Shepard has done to put him/her in this state to those who know nothing of what happened previously.

Even for those that DO know, the narrative isn't there. We're just plopped into a situation and told that "oh yeah, the ramifications for what you did last game, the stuff that you were told you would have to answer for, yeah we did that off screen." It takes away from the connection we the players have with our Shepards. The lack of a trial doesn't completely ruin the rest of the game, but the way the game starts off now is with a lack of context for those who didn't play 2 (or 1, really) and for those that did, it lacks the narrative to show us the consequences of our actions in the previous games.

ME3 without a trial isn't a gamebreaker, that would be silly, but it weakens the start of the story by not setting the stage. It doesn't address what has come before and launching from there into what will happen.

[wright1978]

TMA LIVE wrote...

Then we got the other issue of the making of action mode. In order to make Action mode work the cutscenes must work as non-stop cutscenes, with no interruptions, and well paced. Meaning those scenes need to be written that way. Which could be the reason why we're seeing a lot of lack of choices, or long scenes of Shepard doing his own thing, without our control.

They've already said they designed it for a movie experience. A mix of Renegade and Paragon choice. You can't just program random choices, and expect the new player to like it. You have to program a specific directed experience to make it work for the action mode player. Otherwise, the character is inconstant.

Thus, time was spent making it work, and what choices would be picked through a 40 hour game.

Yeah that's defintely my worry. Autoshep destroys my character immersion and if it is as prevalent in the final game as it appears to be based on the demo i'll struggle to even finish one playthrough.

[Rudy Lis]

AlanC9 wrote...

Were you being kept in the darK? Excuse me, the f***ing dark. It's pretty obvious what happened to Shepard from the demo. What is it, exactly, that's unclear ?

Yes sir, complete and ****ing darkness. It's like WWII shooter - generally you know it's WWII, but what time period specifically is not clear.
Same in ME3 demo - generally we know what's going on, but not specifically. And if in WWII game you generally can pinpoint yourself to proper time period because you know WWII history and have some basis - here you cannot do that.

Wulfram wrote...

They're in the multiplayer demo, at least.

Not all of us are interested in multiplayer. I don't give a **** about that, even if they made multiplayer mandatory for single-player success. I'd better resort to cheating, or editing, or borrow saves from someone who played multiplayer. And it's not my form of protest - I never been multiplayer guy.

Wulfram wrote...

edit: Changing the intro would be expensive. They'd need to bring back all the necessary Voice Actors.

Nope. All you need is love... ahem, all we need is text, a-la Star Wars or that crappy "in 2157 blah-blah wal at the beginning". Add time-event scale, to fill us in. For example:
2185, marchober 57, 67 hours 78 minutes: Shepard destroys Alpha Relay, wiping out batarian system of life.
2185, marchober 58, 17 hours 53 minutes. Shepard turn himself in to nearby alliance patrol. Board&seizure party peacefully taken control over ship. List of onboard personnel: "blah-Joker-blah-blah-Chakwas-blah-blah-Shepard-blah-blah-Omnipresent Blue Talking thingy"
2185, marchober 59-apragust 12. Under escort of patrol group, under leadership of "Willworkforfood" dreadnaught, Normandy arrived to Sol system.
2185, apragust 28, 6 hours, 07 minites. Normandy with escort entered Earth atmosphere.
2185, apragust 28, 6 hours, 12 minites. Normandy docked at Vanceattle spaceport. Shepard and rest of the crew taken into custody by Military Police team under Lt Vega command.
2185, apragust 29 - 2186, februne 89. Hearings on ME2 events commander Shepard's action since his demise. Normandy being retrofitted to alliance spec.
2186, februne 90, 11 hours, 74 minutes. Present time. Could ever add seconds count and shift minutes to add "it's now, bro" feeling.

Wulfram wrote...

edit2: Though I suppose they could just have Mark Meer play all the minor characters in the trial.

Ah, yes, Mark "Honorary Spacebar" Meer.
Don't get me wrong, before I played ME I had no idea who is he, now I respect this guy greatly. And not because you can witness "Mark Meer speaking with Mark Meer" and have no ****ing idea about that.

[Gexora]

Rudy Lis
Can I marry this post please?

[Rudy Lis]

Gexora wrote...

Rudy Lis
Can I marry this post please?

Foreigner is lost here, until this is some form of "I agree with it", in this case my answer is "yeah, sure, why not".