23455 réponses à ce sujet

[M2S SOLID JOSH]

i just thought of something. they said they were listening....they never said anything about reading.....son of a *****

[Iakus]

Rajalia wrote...

True listening involves so much more. If true care went into fans of any of their titles, they would not only actively "listen" but also have active feedback and interaction. The ultimately is the only real means of showing you really care.

Too often it's usually just a poll here or there or a post is made requesting constructive feedback, but there is no feedback in return with their own views on a particular topic. I'd be interesting to see them being more interactive in forums, leaving more comments or highlighting good points in topics or asking for more clarification or going further indepth.

It'd certainly help go a long way and provide more constructive and rich discussion rather than having people go stir crazy with speculation and baited breath waiting to either be disappointed further or satisfied.

True this means those who would be more active, like the moderators, might come a little more face to face with some flamers, but so long as people can display their dissatisfaction without bringing personal attacks or going against terms of use policies... they still have a right to their opinions and if they're not laid out in a constructive manner... then simply let them rant, most are likely to ignore them anyway. it's the ones that can be constructive that could better a product.

This.
Listening=/=understanding.  And right now we have no idea if the powers That Be understand our concerns. We're told that Something is Being Done, but we have no idea what was taken into account with that "Something"  We have to take it on faith that they were clear on what "clarity" was needed.  We talk, but it's never clear what was gained from the talking. 

I have a bad feeling about this...

[BlueStorm83]

--- Mm hm. Just read the past two pages. I agree.

And nice new picture, 3D. You had me confused for a while there.

[Archonsg]

BlueStorm83 wrote...

--- Mm hm. Just read the past two pages. I agree.

And nice new picture, 3D. You had me confused for a while there.

I rather liked the one that she used Shiala as her Avatar.
Was alays disappointed that Shiala wasn't a recruitable (and thus a possible "we bang okay?" joke in the making) squadmate.

[3DandBeyond]

Archonsg wrote...

BlueStorm83 wrote...

--- Mm hm. Just read the past two pages. I agree.

And nice new picture, 3D. You had me confused for a while there.

I rather liked the one that she used Shiala as her Avatar.
Was alays disappointed that Shiala wasn't a recruitable (and thus a possible "we bang okay?" joke in the making) squadmate.

Confusion is my permanent state of mind.

Shiala was a really fascinating person--kind of saw her as tortured.  She actually did try to flirt with my female Shepard on Illium.  And also discussed her greenness.

Might have to go back to her-I was debating it before.

Ok now I have another question to ask...when I originally played ME1 and 2, I'd get kind of mixed up between Shiala and Rana (I think that's her name from Virmire and then where you find Grunt)-so discussing Shiala reminded me of this.  What was all that stuff about Grunt for-that he was created partly from Collector stuff and all of his perfection?  It led me to believe that Grunt would play a major role in curing the Genophage or something-but he really has nothing to do with anything, especially not the cure.  I mean, he had that great scene in ME3, and his loyalty mission was great in ME2, but beyond that all of that stuff was for nothing, really. 


Ok, Shiala it is.....

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 19 juin 2012 - 04:02 .

[Andy the Black]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Archonsg wrote...

BlueStorm83 wrote...

--- Mm hm. Just read the past two pages. I agree.

And nice new picture, 3D. You had me confused for a while there.

I rather liked the one that she used Shiala as her Avatar.
Was alays disappointed that Shiala wasn't a recruitable (and thus a possible "we bang okay?" joke in the making) squadmate.

Confusion is my permanent state of mind.

Shiala was a really fascinating person--kind of saw her as tortured.  She actually did try to flirt with my female Shepard on Illium.  And also discussed her greenness.

Might have to go back to her-I was debating it before.

Ok now I have another question to ask...when I originally played ME1 and 2, I'd get kind of mixed up between Shiala and Rana (I think that's her name from Virmire and then where you find Grunt)-so discussing Shiala reminded me of this.  What was all that stuff about Grunt for-that he was created partly from Collector stuff and all of his perfection?  It led me to believe that Grunt would play a major role in curing the Genophage or something-but he really has nothing to do with anything, especially not the cure.  I mean, he had that great scene in ME3, and his loyalty mission was great in ME2, but beyond that all of that stuff was for nothing, really. 


Ok, Shiala it is.....

I think that might be a case of Bio painting themselves into corner with Grunt being able to bite the big one in Mass 2. As much as I love the that you can get an 'everybody dies' ending in Mass 2, Bio probably felt that the big issues in Mass 3 had to be solvable without any of the characters who may be suffering from mortality problems. Which is a shame as, like I have said, I realy wanted a 'you loss. The Reapers are now turning in to everone into yogurt, go back and play the whole trilogy again till you get it right' ending.

[Archonsg]

sonicchaos wrote...

Finally back home!
And that is a great video, more a plea out to Bioware, which I think the Ray and Greg should at least watch once, doubt they ever will as they have "filters" between them and this kind of stuff, stuff that speak of things past and in a way to help them remember the who, why and what makes Bioware, Bioware.

3DandBeyond wrote...

Archonsg wrote...

BlueStorm83 wrote...

--- Mm hm. Just read the past two pages. I agree.

And nice new picture, 3D. You had me confused for a while there.

I rather liked the one that she used Shiala as her Avatar.
Was alays disappointed that Shiala wasn't a recruitable (and thus a possible "we bang okay?" joke in the making) squadmate.

Confusion is my permanent state of mind.

Shiala was a really fascinating person--kind of saw her as tortured. She actually did try to flirt with my female Shepard on Illium. And also discussed her greenness.

Might have to go back to her-I was debating it before.

Ok now I have another question to ask...when I originally played ME1 and 2, I'd get kind of mixed up between Shiala and Rana (I think that's her name from Virmire and then where you find Grunt)-so discussing Shiala reminded me of this. What was all that stuff about Grunt for-that he was created partly from Collector stuff and all of his perfection? It led me to believe that Grunt would play a major role in curing the Genophage or something-but he really has nothing to do with anything, especially not the cure. I mean, he had that great scene in ME3, and his loyalty mission was great in ME2, but beyond that all of that stuff was for nothing, really.


Ok, Shiala it is.....

You know if we all sat down and think about it, Shiala and the events that happened on Feros would have been a great foreshadowing of Shepard being the first to able to fight and break an indoctrination attempt.

It all goes back to the Thorian, since if you remember, Shiala was indoctrinated but that conditioning was broken when the Thorian took control over her.
That implies that the Thorian had means to not only break indoctrination, it had over arching control over an indoctrinated subject and the subject once released from the Thorian's control is "cured" of indoctrination.

Then we have the Cipher which many seem to think are "Protean memories" but is actually not the case. Its the Thorian's. To be more precise its the Thorian's memory and mental process that allows it and because it now exists within Shepard's mind, understanding of the Protean langauge.

To take this a step further, had Bioware writers chose to, they could have back reference the Thorian, the Cipher and it won't be such a stretch for Shepard's mind to have the unique ability to fight indoctrination, ability gained from Thorian knowledge and mental processes.


Now as for Shiala, I would have loved to have her in that last run, bring her and the people from, Zhu's Hope back (that is if you saved them in both games) and have them HELP Shepard. Shiala might be sacrificed, finally repaying the debt of her life for Shepard, or because, this is THE MAIN THEME OF THE GAME, you have a choice to save her ...again. But her contribution would have to had you prepared mentally against indoctrination.

So many possibities to have made it possible for Shepard to win at the end, but nooooooo "Suicide and Betrayal, suicide and stupidity, Suicide and (ironically) Removal of Choice were the "artistic vision" forced upon us. 

[BlueStorm83]

--- Guys guys! You're forgetting what Grunt's purpose was! He wasn't there to CURE the Genophage, and return to the old Status Quo. Grunt was Okeer's big Middle Finger. Grunt's perfect DNA was there to say, "**** YOU, Genophage, we can survive even with the 1 in 1000 fertility rate!"

The logic was that if individual Krogan are stronger, faster, smarter, more resilient, then they won't be killed AFTER birth, and survive onward to eventually have more children. You have to remember, on Tuchanka, the leading cause of death has always either been "Eaten by wild animals" or "gunshot wounds." Krogan don't die of old age. But if they're strong enough to outfight any of the wildlife on the planet, and smart enough to not kill each other over inconsequential arguments, they'll pass those traits onward. While any lesser Krogan die off the old fashioned way. Over time, the Genophage wouldn't matter, since the Krogan species as a whole would be stronger and more viable for survival.

Honestly, if you consider it THAT way, well, THAT is the Krogan that I'd rather have survive. No offense to my bro Wrex, but if he's not smart, strong, fast, and resilient enough to have children without the Genophage cured, then he doesn't DESERVE to. And let's be honest: in two years he went from a Mercenary on the Citadel to the GREAT HIGH KING OF WHATEVER THE **** HE WANTS, on Tuchanka. He's PLENTY viable as it is. I'd rather have had the Tuchanka series there get us all to the top of the Shroud Tower, me and Wrex and Eve and Mordin, and we all have one final conversation, and I can have the very very VERY difficult and contingent on what I've done in the past chance to convince them to not CURE the Genophage, but to just ALTER it. It would let Krogan birth rates fall in line with every other viable species out there, giving Krogan a shot at survival, but not letting them have 40 kids at a time that can, in 6 years, overthrow a small town without any support. Of course, to do so, I'd have to had done all kinds of stuff for Eve throughout the Tuchanka arc, have always been Wrex's best friend, and not have ****** Wreave there, and to have talked to Mordin in ME2 and convinced him to spare Maelon, that the Genophage might have been a mistake, and all kinds of other things.

And then I want to have an actual Gameplay section that determines the viability of doing this. I dislike effects being based entirely on picking THIS or THAT, but would rather have a "Now you put your cards on the table!" moment where if I can't protect the Computers or shield the Scientists or kill the Tankers or whatever, it all falls apart and I get NOTHING that I wanted.

[3DandBeyond]

Archonsg wrote...


You know if we all sat down and think about it, Shiala and the events that happened on Feros would have been a great foreshadowing of Shepard being the first to able to fight and break an indoctrination attempt.

It all goes back to the Thorian, since if you remember, Shiala was indoctrinated but that conditioning was broken when the Thorian took control over her.
That implies that the Thorian had means to not only break indoctrination, it had over arching control over an indoctrinated subject and the subject once released from the Thorian's control is "cured" of indoctrination.

Then we have the Cipher which many seem to think are "Protean memories" but is actually not the case. Its the Thorian's. To be more precise its the Thorian's memory and mental process that allows it and because it now exists within Shepard's mind, understanding of the Protean langauge.

To take this a step further, had Bioware writers chose to, they could have back reference the Thorian, the Cipher and it won't be such a stretch for Shepard's mind to have the unique ability to fight indoctrination, ability gained from Thorian knowledge and mental processes.


Now as for Shiala, I would have loved to have her in that last run, bring her and the people from, Zhu's Hope back (that is if you saved them in both games) and have them HELP Shepard. Shiala might be sacrificed, finally repaying the debt of her life for Shepard, or because, this is THE MAIN THEME OF THE GAME, you have a choice to save her ...again. But her contribution would have to had you prepared mentally against indoctrination.

So many possibities to have made it possible for Shepard to win at the end, but nooooooo "Suicide and Betrayal, suicide and stupidity, Suicide and (ironically) Removal of Choice were the "artistic vision" forced upon us. 

This is it exactly.  I read somewhere that it was said that ME3 sprung off of the PS3 version of the game-they couldn't take into account everything from ME1 because of PS3 players who could not get ME1.  I don't know how true the premise of that is, because it is more like they didn't take into account anything from ME3, let alone ME1 or 2.

At the very least I do wish there had been more of an impact as to the things that happened, especially deaths in ME2 and the Collector's Base.  Conrad Verner and Dark Energy.  The Collectors and their search for genetic aberrations/mutants.  Thorian research.

The problem is, if you don't play ME1 and create an ME1 imported character then Shiala doesn't exist in the game-same for others.  But, that whole Thorian thing is never referenced.

I mean if you take just Conrad Verner-ok, he's not in the PS3 version so he never shows up, and he's bugged in the other versions.  He says you pointed a gun at him, no matter whether you did or not.  In ME3, he corrects it.  Why not have certain things default to "on"- Conrad Verner, Giana Parsini, Shiala, and so on, based upon the type of Shepard you start with?  If you only start with ME2 and make the more Paragon choices for the few things in the Genesis comic, and create a Paragon Shepard (Spacer) and War Hero, then default all those other choices to Paragons.  If Renegade (Earthborn), Ruthless, then default to Renegade.  If a combination, then just mix it up randomly, but only for those with no ME1 imports.  And choices made with these issues later on could still lead to a good ending.

I think they ultimately just dropped some things in order to try to be all things to all people.  Well, then I think they should have created beginning choice checklists for ME2 and 3, where people could make pertinent choices that had consequences in the game.  More choices than the comic-that way all characters and all story lines could have carried over and had meaning.  As it is, if someone died in ME2, there's a replacement in ME3.  So, for ME3 if you didn't play 1 or 2, it really does not matter.  This makes no sense.  It's why the story line is so compartmentalized at the end.  They didn't have a good plan in place to carry over the stories they started.

They very easily could have back referenced these things and could have taken everything into account, instead of trying to make a standalone 3rd game.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 19 juin 2012 - 12:15 .

[darkway1]

Time and time again I read peoples idea's about how cool it would have been if "this or that" has been included,the problem is anyone new to the franchise doesn't know what your talking about or such content does not apply to your passed game choices........for example,how do you incorporate the collector base into Mass3,some kept it,some destroyed it and some have no idea what your talking about?


This ultimately means that Bioware is forever producing content that many will never see,from any developers point of view this process is not cost effective.This kinda puts Bioware in a position where they can't effectively deal with player choices as the work load is to great........simply dealing with "LI's" from Mass2 in Mass3 must have been a nightmare to figure out......keeping in mind that unless you have played Mass2 and they survived you won't actually see many of them.......so again it's all exclusive content created for only those who made the relevant choices.


In many way's Mass2 was a fresh start and didn't actually deal with choices made in Mass1,a few characters made cameo appearances and persistent characters showed their face but even the relationship with Liara from Mass1 wasn't continued (not until Shadowbroker DLC came along),Mass3 makes a brilliant attempt to deal with players choices imported from previous games but I think even Bioware will admit that the task presented more work than they could possibly handle.it wasn't cost effective and it would be impossible to keep everyone happy.


The ending to Mass3 (I feel) abandons "player choice" in order to create a unified ending (a bolt-on ending),otherwise you end up with the chaos of producing huge amounts of content that is player specific....team mates,war assets,etc are all element that could be shown but they need to be tailored to each player,a massive amount of work.


Having choice with in the constraints of a singe game works fine but exporting/importing individual choices from game to game is just creating more work for any game developer and I don't think we'll be seeing this method again.I assume that this same "choice" mechanic is one of the reasons why the DA2 expansion was cancelled,after all regardless what characters lived,died or have been downloaded,they all need to be voiced,developed and all for a limited audience depending of the choices players made,again it's just not a cost effective way to work.


So at the end of the day,maybe the Mass Effect franchise just fell victim to the very mechanic that made it unique "players choice".

[sonicchaos]

@3DandBeyond
I just finished reading your marvelous fan fiction there. If you don't mind my humble criticism, I found it mostly cheesy, but not as a bad thing. It's a good take on the ending and beyond, it's a great story and it's a great inspiration for the "artists" at BioWare. As a male video game player, I wish for a more action oriented aproach, obviously. Like most Mass Effect players even, I wish for an awesome boss fight, a space fighter chase or even commanding directly on the Normandy would be a great change of pace, although writing canons don't encourage major changes at the end of the story, like it happened before. But I'm just saying. It's a great story, nevertheless, with great dramatic feel and immersive dialogue. The best thing is that it can be improved on and alowes for changes based on player decisions. Stuff that BioWare's writers failed to do in the end.

In another train of thoughts, how about the catalyst to be any reaper, more precisely Harbinger? Just to trick him into merging with the Crucible on the Citadel, it would take a great amount of thought out strategic maneuvers, a space battle in which all the fleet you gathered could participate. Also, there could even be a fight on the citadel between a really messed up Illusive Man husk, as a real boss fight. Who the hell knows, maybe there's Anderson up there too, held by the Illusive Man as a lure for Shepard, and the three of them could remember the "dream".
I don't know, thoughts out of the top of my had, my braincells are having a party right now. Just pointing out ideas, thought for the masses, doors for new interpretations.

As you can see, I'm taking into consideration a whole amount of the indoctrination theory, because it seems so damn plausible so far. One of the best proofs to the indoctrination theory has to be that
"dream foliage" file for the last cutscene, when the Normandy crashes. Trying to explain how and what happened if all that happened for real, is next to lunacy, because it just doesn't make sense.

[Archonsg]

BlueStorm83 wrote...

--- Guys guys! You're forgetting what Grunt's purpose was! He wasn't there to CURE the Genophage, and return to the old Status Quo. Grunt was Okeer's big Middle Finger. Grunt's perfect DNA was there to say, "**** YOU, Genophage, we can survive even with the 1 in 1000 fertility rate!"

The logic was that if individual Krogan are stronger, faster, smarter, more resilient, then they won't be killed AFTER birth, and survive onward to eventually have more children. You have to remember, on Tuchanka, the leading cause of death has always either been "Eaten by wild animals" or "gunshot wounds." Krogan don't die of old age. But if they're strong enough to outfight any of the wildlife on the planet, and smart enough to not kill each other over inconsequential arguments, they'll pass those traits onward. While any lesser Krogan die off the old fashioned way. Over time, the Genophage wouldn't matter, since the Krogan species as a whole would be stronger and more viable for survival.

Honestly, if you consider it THAT way, well, THAT is the Krogan that I'd rather have survive. No offense to my bro Wrex, but if he's not smart, strong, fast, and resilient enough to have children without the Genophage cured, then he doesn't DESERVE to. And let's be honest: in two years he went from a Mercenary on the Citadel to the GREAT HIGH KING OF WHATEVER THE **** HE WANTS, on Tuchanka. He's PLENTY viable as it is. I'd rather have had the Tuchanka series there get us all to the top of the Shroud Tower, me and Wrex and Eve and Mordin, and we all have one final conversation, and I can have the very very VERY difficult and contingent on what I've done in the past chance to convince them to not CURE the Genophage, but to just ALTER it. It would let Krogan birth rates fall in line with every other viable species out there, giving Krogan a shot at survival, but not letting them have 40 kids at a time that can, in 6 years, overthrow a small town without any support. Of course, to do so, I'd have to had done all kinds of stuff for Eve throughout the Tuchanka arc, have always been Wrex's best friend, and not have ****** Wreave there, and to have talked to Mordin in ME2 and convinced him to spare Maelon, that the Genophage might have been a mistake, and all kinds of other things.

And then I want to have an actual Gameplay section that determines the viability of doing this. I dislike effects being based entirely on picking THIS or THAT, but would rather have a "Now you put your cards on the table!" moment where if I can't protect the Computers or shield the Scientists or kill the Tankers or whatever, it all falls apart and I get NOTHING that I wanted.

That is a great idea.
It could have been part of the "compromise" for Wrex, he gets part of a cure and he is smart enough to know that if the krogan race isn't seen as a breeding threat, the other races won't immediately set off on a "war footing" where Krogans are involved.

[Tonymac]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Archonsg wrote...


You know if we all sat down and think about it, Shiala and the events that happened on Feros would have been a great foreshadowing of Shepard being the first to able to fight and break an indoctrination attempt.

It all goes back to the Thorian, since if you remember, Shiala was indoctrinated but that conditioning was broken when the Thorian took control over her.
That implies that the Thorian had means to not only break indoctrination, it had over arching control over an indoctrinated subject and the subject once released from the Thorian's control is "cured" of indoctrination.

Then we have the Cipher which many seem to think are "Protean memories" but is actually not the case. Its the Thorian's. To be more precise its the Thorian's memory and mental process that allows it and because it now exists within Shepard's mind, understanding of the Protean langauge.

To take this a step further, had Bioware writers chose to, they could have back reference the Thorian, the Cipher and it won't be such a stretch for Shepard's mind to have the unique ability to fight indoctrination, ability gained from Thorian knowledge and mental processes.


Now as for Shiala, I would have loved to have her in that last run, bring her and the people from, Zhu's Hope back (that is if you saved them in both games) and have them HELP Shepard. Shiala might be sacrificed, finally repaying the debt of her life for Shepard, or because, this is THE MAIN THEME OF THE GAME, you have a choice to save her ...again. But her contribution would have to had you prepared mentally against indoctrination.

So many possibities to have made it possible for Shepard to win at the end, but nooooooo "Suicide and Betrayal, suicide and stupidity, Suicide and (ironically) Removal of Choice were the "artistic vision" forced upon us. 

This is it exactly.  I read somewhere that it was said that ME3 sprung off of the PS3 version of the game-they couldn't take into account everything from ME1 because of PS3 players who could not get ME1.  I don't know how true the premise of that is, because it is more like they didn't take into account anything from ME3, let alone ME1 or 2.

At the very least I do wish there had been more of an impact as to the things that happened, especially deaths in ME2 and the Collector's Base.  Conrad Verner and Dark Energy.  The Collectors and their search for genetic aberrations/mutants.  Thorian research.

The problem is, if you don't play ME1 and create an ME1 imported character then Shiala doesn't exist in the game-same for others.  But, that whole Thorian thing is never referenced.

I mean if you take just Conrad Verner-ok, he's not in the PS3 version so he never shows up, and he's bugged in the other versions.  He says you pointed a gun at him, no matter whether you did or not.  In ME3, he corrects it.  Why not have certain things default to "on"- Conrad Verner, Giana Parsini, Shiala, and so on, based upon the type of Shepard you start with?  If you only start with ME2 and make the more Paragon choices for the few things in the Genesis comic, and create a Paragon Shepard (Spacer) and War Hero, then default all those other choices to Paragons.  If Renegade (Earthborn), Ruthless, then default to Renegade.  If a combination, then just mix it up randomly, but only for those with no ME1 imports.  And choices made with these issues later on could still lead to a good ending.

I think they ultimately just dropped some things in order to try to be all things to all people.  Well, then I think they should have created beginning choice checklists for ME2 and 3, where people could make pertinent choices that had consequences in the game.  More choices than the comic-that way all characters and all story lines could have carried over and had meaning.  As it is, if someone died in ME2, there's a replacement in ME3.  So, for ME3 if you didn't play 1 or 2, it really does not matter.  This makes no sense.  It's why the story line is so compartmentalized at the end.  They didn't have a good plan in place to carry over the stories they started.

They very easily could have back referenced these things and could have taken everything into account, instead of trying to make a standalone 3rd game.

They cheesed ME3 by making it stand alone, as well as trying to get the MP crowd on board.  I like the MP, with the exception of the nerfs and smurfs, so this is more of an observation than a complaint. 

By trying to appeal to all crowds you end up with wishy-washy and auto-made choices for you.  You also end up with your choices not mattering - like making Anderson Councillor. 

I wanted my choices to matter.  I wanted them to have impact.  That made ME2 a lot of fun - I could see what my choices did.  Fist, Shiala, Conrad, Giana, Helen Blake, Rana Thanoptis - and many others played a part.  My crew played  apart - and they all mattered to me.

All of that is gone in ME3 except for a few token appearances.  The new people we met and spared (If we spared them) have no appearances.  Sometimes you get a note or e-mail.  Wow - whoopty.

What bothers me most is that no  how matter I do in 1 and 2, no matter how much effort I put into 3 - the endings are the same.  None of what I did matters. 

This is the case of the worst writing and continuity in a trilogy I have ever seen.

[sdinc009]

“Of course you don’t have to play multiplayer, you can choose to play
all the side-quests in single-player and do all that stuff you’ll
still get all the same endings and same information, it’s just a
totally different way of playing” – Mike Gamble
... “Yeah, and I’d say much more so, because we have the ability to
build the endings out in a way that we don’t have to worry about
eventually tying them back together somewhere. This story arc is
coming to an end with this game. That means the endings can be a lot
more different. At this point we’re taking into account so many
decisions that you’ve made as a player and reflecting a lot of that
stuff. It’s not even in any way like the traditional game endings,
where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got
ending A, B, or C…..The endings have a lot more sophistication and
variety in them.” – Casey Hudson
“There are many different endings. We wouldn’t do it any other way. How
could you go through all three campaigns playing as your Shepard and
then be forced into a bespoke ending that everyone gets? But I can’t
say any more than that…” – Mike Gamble

http://social.biowar...06/polls/28989/
It states,"If the Crucible were completed, the challenge would become tuning the weapon to kill a Reaper halfway across the galaxy without inflicting unthinkable levels of collateral damage." So I guess Bioware didn't want to address this.
Watched all 5 parts of this analysis and though I don't share all of his opinions the literary analyis is extremely top-notch. I would urge everyone to watch all 5 parts of this.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qa81mq3744&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZytHg7THYPk&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW2ZxnkUHCY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MlatxLP-xs

[Archonsg]

darkway1 wrote...


Time and time again I read peoples idea's about how cool it would have been if "this or that" has been included,the problem is anyone new to the franchise doesn't know what your talking about or such content does not apply to your passed game choices........for example,how do you incorporate the collector base into Mass3,some kept it,some destroyed it and some have no idea what your talking about?


This ultimately means that Bioware is forever producing content that many will never see,from any developers point of view this process is not cost effective.This kinda puts Bioware in a position where they can't effectively deal with player choices as the work load is to great........simply dealing with "LI's" from Mass2 in Mass3 must have been a nightmare to figure out......keeping in mind that unless you have played Mass2 and they survived you won't actually see many of them.......so again it's all exclusive content created for only those who made the relevant choices.


In many way's Mass2 was a fresh start and didn't actually deal with choices made in Mass1,a few characters made cameo appearances and persistent characters showed their face but even the relationship with Liara from Mass1 wasn't continued (not until Shadowbroker DLC came along),Mass3 makes a brilliant attempt to deal with players choices imported from previous games but I think even Bioware will admit that the task presented more work than they could possibly handle.it wasn't cost effective and it would be impossible to keep everyone happy.


The ending to Mass3 (I feel) abandons "player choice" in order to create a unified ending (a bolt-on ending),otherwise you end up with the chaos of producing huge amounts of content that is player specific....team mates,war assets,etc are all element that could be shown but they need to be tailored to each player,a massive amount of work.


Having choice with in the constraints of a singe game works fine but exporting/importing individual choices from game to game is just creating more work for any game developer and I don't think we'll be seeing this method again.I assume that this same "choice" mechanic is one of the reasons why the DA2 expansion was cancelled,after all regardless what characters lived,died or have been downloaded,they all need to be voiced,developed and all for a limited audience depending of the choices players made,again it's just not a cost effective way to work.


So at the end of the day,maybe the Mass Effect franchise just fell victim to the very mechanic that made it unique "players choice".

That is true.
But then again, they (Bioware) DID from the very start, more then 5 years ago, said that they will do this and this series was BASED on that premise, that if you played all three games in the series, your game WILL BE different because you have references from ME1 through 3. 

So to just go "ahhh frack it... we aren't going to follow up on this and lets just give them the "middle bad renegade ending", is just a crappy thing to do to your customer base. 

If you were to read what Stanley Woo said about those of us "complaining" about the games they made, you would think we are the jerks and this time round we have gone too far.
But, those comments were based on comments on games and issues that weren't even close to being heniously wrong as the ending in Mass Effect 3.

Bottom line, Bioware makes games, and we buy them.
We fans loves their games and thus we stay on as loyal customers and buy yet more games as they become available.
However, with the latest stunt, they are essentially saying "Frack you guys, *middle finger* this we don't have to please you fans / customers! Don't like it, too bad!"

Its like a craftsman who used to take months to make hand polished necklaces  because that was his love and passion which made him a comfortable living, but then someone comes along and goes "I can help you make "more money", you just have to do what I tell you to do and no more of this "But my customers love this style of work". It doesn't sell to the masses. Make glass beads instead. Those sell well. 
And the craftsman goes along and make glass beads churning out stuff that in the end does not have the same quality as its past works nor is any differnt then any other "mass market craftsman". 

[BlueStorm83]

--- The very simple reason that they dropped so very very many of the choices and decisions and end results from previous games is because... they're previous games. I mean, I know, they wanted this big "import your character" thing, to keep YOUR story going, but they made the huge mistake of letting you import your character to keep your story going.

To make different scenes, include different dialogue, and do all these other things that take into account the entirety of our pasts would take ENORMOUS amounts of time and money. Problem is, that's what they pretty much said they'd do. In part, it's Mass Effect's own fault, for having a story that's so huge in the game universe. For instance: The Thorian, as you've mentioned. That could have been a small factor in the game, and never re-visited. Nobody would have minded. Even the Rachni Queen. If she'd gone into hiding and never been found, like she damn PROMISED, then we could have had sequels that happened regardless to what we picked: since nobody would know either way. A Hero doesn't have to save the entire galaxy to make a spectacular game. Even if he does save the galaxy, his choices along the way don't absolutely HAVE to come up again. Curing the Genophage: Mordin Alive, Mordin Dead: is he really the ONLY Salarian scientist? If he lived, he could just not be involved. There's BILLIONS of Salarians out there. Maybe even trillions. What are the chances of running into him again? And on the same day as running into Captain Kirrahe? Right after a reunion with Wrex? AND GARRUS???

I loved those guys, I'm glad that they're in Mass Effect 3. But if we just didn't run into them again, that would be completely understandable given the size of the entire galaxy. Every single Mass Effect game could have just given us new squad members, new locations, and dealt with the big things that are the same in every game. No matter what you pick in Mass Effect 1, we save the Citadel and kill Sovereign. Concentrate on THAT. No matter what you do in Mass Effect 2, we kill the Human Reaper and then abandon Cerberus. Concentrate on THAT. And if you're going to give us choices that seem like the kind of big Story changing things, FOR SANITY'S SAKE, FOLLOW UP ON THEM! Like what?

The Citadel Council. Saving them should have had a bigger effect than "Slightly different looking guys on the council in ME2." The Collector Base. Should have had a mission in ME3 to destroy it NOW, if we gave it to TIM. Conrad: What he said to me in ME2 made little sense, as if he seemed to remember Renegade choices that I didn't make, and then he was invisible in ME3 and jumped OUT OF NOWHERE, said goodbye to me, and I was like, "Wait, what? Conrad? Where the hell did he come from?" Is Conrad a "big decision?" No, but he's always following us, as that's kinda his whole schtick. So if he's there, GET HIM RIGHT. If you're not going to follow through on a big choice or a constant storyline, DON'T INCLUDE IT.

As far as "We had to make ME3 not refer to ME1 because the PS3 crowd wouldn't get it-" uhh, I call bull **** on that. Mass Effect 2 had a big GD TWO on the box. CLEARLY the PS3 Crowd was alright with getting a truncated version of the game's backstory. Otherwise they'd have gotten a 360.

Getting emails from old friends; I hate to say it, but this is probably the most realistic way to handle people from past games. Love Interests leaving Shepard for undisclosed reasons between games is BS. Love Interests sticking around if you romanced them but leaving if you didn't would be nice, but that's a bit of a stretch. I had no problem with hearing in an Email about Kal'Reegar's death, because just HAPPENING to run into him again and SEEING it would be a little unbelievable. I mean, what, are there only 20 Quarrians in existence, and is the Galaxy a 3 mile cube in space? Just HAPPENING to run into Tali on Freedom's Progress was stretchy in two. Archangel being Garrus was a stretch too. If they wanted me to recruit Garrus, well, the Illusive Man should have just said, "Your old buddy Garrus is on Omega, too, taking out the trash. He's good, we have proof of that, and we already know he works well with you. Go get HIM." Same for Tali! Hell, they could have done that in ME3: when we're approaching Palaven, Traynor could have said something like, "Commander, I contacted Turian Command and found out that Garrus Vakarian is stationed at base WHATEVER on the moon there. You should land us there and see if he wants to help out." BANG, DONE!

Did we NEED to run into Grunt with Aralakh Squad? No, that could have been any Krogan. It SHOULD have been any Krogan. The fact that if Grunt dies in ME2 and the story progresses exactly the same means that it didn't matter. Because then it IS any Krogan.

--- And then, after they show us one by one that our decisions and the people we saved and the relationships we cultivated and the technology we scavenged doesn't matter in the slightest, THEN they destroy what COULD have been left as an open universe where we take on the role of other characters, visit other planets, and follow other stories that totally IGNORE what we've done before. Because there really is NO reason why all out little choices have to come back and bite us in the ass every time we try to go to the bathroom.

[sdinc009]

[/quote]

They cheesed ME3 by making it stand alone, as well as trying to get the MP crowd on board.  I like the MP, with the exception of the nerfs and smurfs, so this is more of an observation than a complaint. 

By trying to appeal to all crowds you end up with wishy-washy and auto-made choices for you.  You also end up with your choices not mattering - like making Anderson Councillor. 

I wanted my choices to matter.  I wanted them to have impact.  That made ME2 a lot of fun - I could see what my choices did.  Fist, Shiala, Conrad, Giana, Helen Blake, Rana Thanoptis - and many others played a part.  My crew played  apart - and they all mattered to me.

All of that is gone in ME3 except for a few token appearances.  The new people we met and spared (If we spared them) have no appearances.  Sometimes you get a note or e-mail.  Wow - whoopty.

What bothers me most is that no  how matter I do in 1 and 2, no matter how much effort I put into 3 - the endings are the same.  None of what I did matters. 

This is the case of the worst writing and continuity in a trilogy I have ever seen.
[/quote]

Great point. They tried to broaden their base instead of focusing on it. ME 1 was an awesome masterpiece of a game and in my opinion so was ME 2, but instead of focusing on improving the elements of ME 1, such as better RPG elements or improving planetary navigation, they altered the games fundimetal dynamic by making it a RPG FPS game. I'm not saying this was a bad move, only that this is the first step taken to over reach to cater to an newer audience instead of catering to the audience they already had. Take for example The Witcher 2, now this is a great game. It is great because it is not trying to be something it is not and it is not a game that is for everyone nor is it trying to be. Would I recommend it for everyone, No. If you're a casual gamer this is not a game for you. If you're an amateur RPG player this is not a game for you. This is a game designed for experienced gamers and it shows. Anyone else will die frequently and get fed up and think, "this game sucks" and they would be wrong. It is complex and mature because it is cater to a very specific audience. It focuses on that audience and gives them exactly what they want. ME 1 had a brilliant base design and then they tried to broaden it. The Witcher had the same, but CDProject Red focused in on what they did right. That's the difference. If you do something right keep doing it! Bioware, if you're listening, go back to doing things right.

[BlueStorm83]

Archonsg wrote...

*Mad SNIPPED, yo*

Bottom line, Bioware makes games, and we buy them.

Not anymore... 

[BlueStorm83]

--- And hey, here's a question: WHY did Mass Effect 3 have to be the end of Shepard's Story? Couldn't we have just had the Crucible do some THING to the Reapers to make them easier to kill? Like, maybe it disables their Indoctrination and long range communication, to put us on a better footing, and then Mass Effect 4 could have focused on us going to destroy wherever the hell they make new reapers out in Dark Space? I mean, they DO live there all the time. There's at least one Mass Relay there to send them to the Citadel.

They could have built the game like the Suicide Mission style from ME2, recruiting guys, doing loyalty missions, and then going through for the biggest damn fight EVER, in the cold black beyond the edge of the galaxy.

They could have even (Don't hate me, dammit!) released DLC to recruit characters who may or may not have died in previous games. By default we'd go with James, EDI, either Ashley or Kaiden, and Liara, (as well as any new characters that a Theoretical ME4 would have introduced,) but then there could be 10 dollar DLC packs for recruiting and gaining the loyalty of any and all of the guys from ME1 or ME2 who may have died. It would be fine by me to pay 10 bucks to get Wrex back as a DLC character, with 2 missions for him (one recruiting, one Loyalty.) Same for Garrus, Grunt, Jack, Zaeed, Kasumi, Samara, Miranda, Jacob, Tali, and Javik. Aw, and Mordin... That way those of us who had characters die in the past can have the option to not pay for their part in the story, since it won't apply to us anyway, while others who saved those characters can shell out if they want to add them to their Roster. Javik's a DLC character because, well, he just kinda has to be, what with the way they made him.

Who cares if that means that the Normandy would be PACKED TO THE GILLS with around 30 Squad Members?  They could have used that opportunity to give us truly gigantic fights, like those scenes from the M3 commercials where Shepard was rolling with all the dudes and the Makos.  Imagine charging at, well, anything, with all your surviving buddies from past games, who you had painstakingly combed the galaxy to recruit again for one HELL of a party, and blowing the living **** out of all opposition?  And let's get a third Krogan squadmate.  Just for the hell of it.

That would be 12 DLCs, at 10 dollars each, released AFTER LAUNCH over the course of maybe two years (one every two months) and if it were done that way, I can truthfully say that I'd have bought every single one. Well, besides Mordin. Good guy that I am, there's no way for me to save him. Le'sigh. But hey, this way works out better, right? Since BioWare didn't just go for the money, and instead insisted that "art" that drives a huge wedge into your customer base is a better decision. Because it really is, right?

Starboy: "That's right, BioWare! You need to drive your customers away now, because in the future they might stop buying your games!  Now, let me whip out my Starboy wand and paint your offices either Red, Blue, or Green!  :wizard:"

Modifié par BlueStorm83, 19 juin 2012 - 03:34 .

[darkway1]

Archong....I agree and yet disagree,lol......every project has a budget and that budget will only go so far......as I pointed out "choice" was only really tackled in Mass3 and I think it was more of a task than first imagined.....so thing's had to change.

To address the dark energy plot (original story) I think it would take at least another game to do it right and if Bioware had issues with player choice now then taking all that luggage one game further would in effect create 3 or 4 versions of the same game,never going to happen.

Everything that everyone wants to see in Mass Effect CAN BE DONE,but only if you have unlimited time and money,that's the reality of gaming.

My stance on the ending will never change however,it's a mess,if the aim is to end an epic story then that's exactly what you do,END IT.....you don't destroy the universe or did they?,have Shepard breathing or did he?...and have crew members crash on some planet who 5 minutes ago were part of your endgame party......as it all conflicts with the term "the end".

Naturally this is all speculation but it's plain to see the issues raised by player choice....it's never been done before,until now.

[sonicchaos]

sdinc009 wrote...

They cheesed ME3 by making it stand alone, as well as trying to get the MP crowd on board.  I like the MP, with the exception of the nerfs and smurfs, so this is more of an observation than a complaint. 

By trying to appeal to all crowds you end up with wishy-washy and auto-made choices for you.  You also end up with your choices not mattering - like making Anderson Councillor. 

I wanted my choices to matter.  I wanted them to have impact.  That made ME2 a lot of fun - I could see what my choices did.  Fist, Shiala, Conrad, Giana, Helen Blake, Rana Thanoptis - and many others played a part.  My crew played  apart - and they all mattered to me.

All of that is gone in ME3 except for a few token appearances.  The new people we met and spared (If we spared them) have no appearances.  Sometimes you get a note or e-mail.  Wow - whoopty.

What bothers me most is that no  how matter I do in 1 and 2, no matter how much effort I put into 3 - the endings are the same.  None of what I did matters. 

This is the case of the worst writing and continuity in a trilogy I have ever seen.

Great point. They tried to broaden their base instead of focusing on it. ME 1 was an awesome masterpiece of a game and in my opinion so was ME 2, but instead of focusing on improving the elements of ME 1, such as better RPG elements or improving planetary navigation, they altered the games fundimetal dynamic by making it a RPG FPS game. I'm not saying this was a bad move, only that this is the first step taken to over reach to cater to an newer audience instead of catering to the audience they already had. Take for example The Witcher 2, now this is a great game. It is great because it is not trying to be something it is not and it is not a game that is for everyone nor is it trying to be. Would I recommend it for everyone, No. If you're a casual gamer this is not a game for you. If you're an amateur RPG player this is not a game for you. This is a game designed for experienced gamers and it shows. Anyone else will die frequently and get fed up and think, "this game sucks" and they would be wrong. It is complex and mature because it is cater to a very specific audience. It focuses on that audience and gives them exactly what they want. ME 1 had a brilliant base design and then they tried to broaden it. The Witcher had the same, but CDProject Red focused in on what they did right. That's the difference. If you do something right keep doing it! Bioware, if you're listening, go back to doing things right.

You know, I'm really starting to wonder who in the right minds would play Mass Effect in Action Mode or even in Story Mode? I don't think the most active CoD fan wouldn't have choosed to play Mass Effect without the need of direct invervention (see what I did there?). But the sad part is that even the RPG Mode was filled with automatic dialogue like in no other BioWare game. What were they thinking? Do they know how many time I wanted to slap Shepards' face for talking without my cue? And in the end, it didn't even matter. It was like BioWare wraped things up and said "let's go home, guys, these foos will buy this game anyway". Oh, this one's on us, BioWare, this one's on us. We'll see...

Modifié par sonicchaos, 19 juin 2012 - 04:25 .

[3DandBeyond]

sonicchaos wrote...

@3DandBeyond
I just finished reading your marvelous fan fiction there. If you don't mind my humble criticism, I found it mostly cheesy, but not as a bad thing. It's a good take on the ending and beyond, it's a great story and it's a great inspiration for the "artists" at BioWare. As a male video game player, I wish for a more action oriented aproach, obviously. Like most Mass Effect players even, I wish for an awesome boss fight, a space fighter chase or even commanding directly on the Normandy would be a great change of pace, although writing canons don't encourage major changes at the end of the story, like it happened before. But I'm just saying. It's a great story, nevertheless, with great dramatic feel and immersive dialogue. The best thing is that it can be improved on and alowes for changes based on player decisions. Stuff that BioWare's writers failed to do in the end.

In another train of thoughts, how about the catalyst to be any reaper, more precisely Harbinger? Just to trick him into merging with the Crucible on the Citadel, it would take a great amount of thought out strategic maneuvers, a space battle in which all the fleet you gathered could participate. Also, there could even be a fight on the citadel between a really messed up Illusive Man husk, as a real boss fight. Who the hell knows, maybe there's Anderson up there too, held by the Illusive Man as a lure for Shepard, and the three of them could remember the "dream".
I don't know, thoughts out of the top of my had, my braincells are having a party right now. Just pointing out ideas, thought for the masses, doors for new interpretations.

As you can see, I'm taking into consideration a whole amount of the indoctrination theory, because it seems so damn plausible so far. One of the best proofs to the indoctrination theory has to be that
"dream foliage" file for the last cutscene, when the Normandy crashes. Trying to explain how and what happened if all that happened for real, is next to lunacy, because it just doesn't make sense.

You are very kind even in saying it's cheesy.  I know it is, because it was more based on things I might have wanted to see happen to characters if we were stuck with the ending we had.  I more approached the star kid as something that was and wasn't real.  And I only did this because I felt certain we were just going to be left with mostly the ending we have now.

A big part of the story for me was about these characters, so what happened to them was my real focus.  But, I have alternate ideas (as does everyone) running around through my brain as to what I wish the ending would have been.  Hard to convey in written form, but so much easier to visualize as a game of choices where decisions lead to outcomes.

I too so much wanted that big bad battle to end all battles.  I love a good story with a great big bad guy that must be defeated.  And the most satisfying endings to such stories are those where the good guy wipes that smile off the bad guy's face.  It's that moment of truth where the bad guy knows the hero just destroyed him.  We've all seen it-there are some movies that do this really well.  You see 2 guys locked in a fight to the death and it becomes clear that one guy just took a knife or shot to the gut and will die, but the moment is dramatic because you don't quite know which guy.  Then, the bad guy looks at the hero and he knows and in that moment you know too.  Bad guy drops dead.

Of course with foes as big as reapers and with much less facial expression, this moment is more difficult.  But, we had the voice of the reapers right there.  He'd seen defeat before and always sneered and said they'd be back and would win.  How cool would it have been to have fought some tremendous battles with the war assets engaged and then at some final moment, when Harbinger thinks they've won, the Crucible fires up and Harbinger has that, "Oh crap" moment while Shepard stares him down.

This I saw as a possibility.  As well as all the other iterations of victory or doom and gloom.  For a satisfying ending, I wanted that look-me-in-the-eye as you die moment.  And then Shepard lives and gets drunk with Garrus, sees or knows about Tali's home on Rannoch, has blue children (or gets together with whoever the LI is), and so on.

But, the alternate should have been possible as well.

My "ending" such as it is is just mainly based on wanting to see all these characters happy.  And it of course focuses mainly on one view of Shepard.  Cheesy, yep.  Corny, yep. 

[Tonymac]

darkway1 wrote...

Archong....I agree and yet disagree,lol......every project has a budget and that budget will only go so far......as I pointed out "choice" was only really tackled in Mass3 and I think it was more of a task than first imagined.....so thing's had to change.

To address the dark energy plot (original story) I think it would take at least another game to do it right and if Bioware had issues with player choice now then taking all that luggage one game further would in effect create 3 or 4 versions of the same game,never going to happen.

Everything that everyone wants to see in Mass Effect CAN BE DONE,but only if you have unlimited time and money,that's the reality of gaming.

My stance on the ending will never change however,it's a mess,if the aim is to end an epic story then that's exactly what you do,END IT.....you don't destroy the universe or did they?,have Shepard breathing or did he?...and have crew members crash on some planet who 5 minutes ago were part of your endgame party......as it all conflicts with the term "the end".

Naturally this is all speculation but it's plain to see the issues raised by player choice....it's never been done before,until now.

And its still not done - your choices do not matter.

What they call "the end" is just them getting out of the door - thats why it makes no sense and has no flow. 

Worse, is the manner in which they did it.  Shepard is not only snuffed out, but he is raped and snuffed.  Bioware did it with gusto.  Why flip someone off when you can flip them off AND yell it in their face - and then say it again with multi-colored galactic explosions?  Its like the Kurgan in Highlander laughing about how he killed Ramirez (Sean Connery) and raped his woman (Heather) before his body was even cold.

How is Bioware listening if they are so busy boning Shepard?  Why the hate and the vehemence?  Why did they even write this trash in the first place?

Do they really think that its ok to do this to their fans?

[3DandBeyond]

sonicchaos wrote...

sdinc009 wrote...

They cheesed ME3 by making it stand alone, as well as trying to get the MP crowd on board.  I like the MP, with the exception of the nerfs and smurfs, so this is more of an observation than a complaint. 

By trying to appeal to all crowds you end up with wishy-washy and auto-made choices for you.  You also end up with your choices not mattering - like making Anderson Councillor. 

I wanted my choices to matter.  I wanted them to have impact.  That made ME2 a lot of fun - I could see what my choices did.  Fist, Shiala, Conrad, Giana, Helen Blake, Rana Thanoptis - and many others played a part.  My crew played  apart - and they all mattered to me.

All of that is gone in ME3 except for a few token appearances.  The new people we met and spared (If we spared them) have no appearances.  Sometimes you get a note or e-mail.  Wow - whoopty.

What bothers me most is that no  how matter I do in 1 and 2, no matter how much effort I put into 3 - the endings are the same.  None of what I did matters. 

This is the case of the worst writing and continuity in a trilogy I have ever seen.

Great point. They tried to broaden their base instead of focusing on it. ME 1 was an awesome masterpiece of a game and in my opinion so was ME 2, but instead of focusing on improving the elements of ME 1, such as better RPG elements or improving planetary navigation, they altered the games fundimetal dynamic by making it a RPG FPS game. I'm not saying this was a bad move, only that this is the first step taken to over reach to cater to an newer audience instead of catering to the audience they already had. Take for example The Witcher 2, now this is a great game. It is great because it is not trying to be something it is not and it is not a game that is for everyone nor is it trying to be. Would I recommend it for everyone, No. If you're a casual gamer this is not a game for you. If you're an amateur RPG player this is not a game for you. This is a game designed for experienced gamers and it shows. Anyone else will die frequently and get fed up and think, "this game sucks" and they would be wrong. It is complex and mature because it is cater to a very specific audience. It focuses on that audience and gives them exactly what they want. ME 1 had a brilliant base design and then they tried to broaden it. The Witcher had the same, but CDProject Red focused in on what they did right. That's the difference. If you do something right keep doing it! Bioware, if you're listening, go back to doing things right.

You know, I'm really starting to wonder who in the right minds would play Mass Effect in Action Mode or even in Story Mode? I don't think the most active CoD fan wouldn't have choosed to play Mass Effect without the need of direct invervention (see what I did there?). But the sad part is that even the RPG Mode was filled with automatic dialogue like in no other BioWare game. What were they thinking? Do they know how many time I wanted to slap Shepards' face for talking without my cue? And in the end, it didn't even matter. It was like BioWare wraped things up and said "let's go home, guys, these foos will buy this game anyway". Oh, this one's on us, BioWare, this one's on us. We'll see...

Well, this is the point of course-they seemed to try to be broadening their base, but in doing that they narrowed it.  It never could appeal to hardcore FPS fans.  They might like a story, but not all the decision-making.  Consider the difference between this and the Uncharted series-still not something hardcore FPS fans like.  UC has a great storyline-it's linear.  You go from checkpoint to checkpoint.  But, what an FPS fan asks about it is how is the MP.  I know because I got asked about it.  And my answer was it was fun.  The reply to that was that that meant it would be a great rental game.  Hardcore FPS fans, just want heavier action.  Nothing wrong with that-I've played plenty of the COD games from 4 on up.  But, there's no comparison.  ME3 MP is not COD.  And, ME3 SP is not just about the story-it's not Skyrim or Fallout.  The decisions have more of an actual decision feeling.  Skyrim and Fallout and the like are fantastic games, but they do get bogged down in the minutiae.  The stories sometimes tend to get lost with all the sidequests, but even that's not it.  They are similar in that they have stories to tell, but ME is more character driven.  You end up having (or thinking you have) an idea of who your character is and a real sense of the other characters as real people.  That's why turning Shepard into some weasel at the end hits so hard.

I've played Skyrim, Oblivion, F3 and F:New Vegas and never had this same feel for characters within those games.  ME is a niche type of game, but very important in that it could (could have?) forged the real path for adult themed video games going forward.  With new consoles on the horizon, the possibilities were right there, but you have to be true to the story and to the genre.  Don't change concepts mid-stream, and don't forget who your fans are. 

[sdinc009]

3DandBeyond wrote...

sonicchaos wrote...

sdinc009 wrote...

They cheesed ME3 by making it stand alone, as well as trying to get the MP crowd on board.  I like the MP, with the exception of the nerfs and smurfs, so this is more of an observation than a complaint. 

By trying to appeal to all crowds you end up with wishy-washy and auto-made choices for you.  You also end up with your choices not mattering - like making Anderson Councillor. 

I wanted my choices to matter.  I wanted them to have impact.  That made ME2 a lot of fun - I could see what my choices did.  Fist, Shiala, Conrad, Giana, Helen Blake, Rana Thanoptis - and many others played a part.  My crew played  apart - and they all mattered to me.

All of that is gone in ME3 except for a few token appearances.  The new people we met and spared (If we spared them) have no appearances.  Sometimes you get a note or e-mail.  Wow - whoopty.

What bothers me most is that no  how matter I do in 1 and 2, no matter how much effort I put into 3 - the endings are the same.  None of what I did matters. 

This is the case of the worst writing and continuity in a trilogy I have ever seen.

Great point. They tried to broaden their base instead of focusing on it. ME 1 was an awesome masterpiece of a game and in my opinion so was ME 2, but instead of focusing on improving the elements of ME 1, such as better RPG elements or improving planetary navigation, they altered the games fundimetal dynamic by making it a RPG FPS game. I'm not saying this was a bad move, only that this is the first step taken to over reach to cater to an newer audience instead of catering to the audience they already had. Take for example The Witcher 2, now this is a great game. It is great because it is not trying to be something it is not and it is not a game that is for everyone nor is it trying to be. Would I recommend it for everyone, No. If you're a casual gamer this is not a game for you. If you're an amateur RPG player this is not a game for you. This is a game designed for experienced gamers and it shows. Anyone else will die frequently and get fed up and think, "this game sucks" and they would be wrong. It is complex and mature because it is cater to a very specific audience. It focuses on that audience and gives them exactly what they want. ME 1 had a brilliant base design and then they tried to broaden it. The Witcher had the same, but CDProject Red focused in on what they did right. That's the difference. If you do something right keep doing it! Bioware, if you're listening, go back to doing things right.

You know, I'm really starting to wonder who in the right minds would play Mass Effect in Action Mode or even in Story Mode? I don't think the most active CoD fan wouldn't have choosed to play Mass Effect without the need of direct invervention (see what I did there?). But the sad part is that even the RPG Mode was filled with automatic dialogue like in no other BioWare game. What were they thinking? Do they know how many time I wanted to slap Shepards' face for talking without my cue? And in the end, it didn't even matter. It was like BioWare wraped things up and said "let's go home, guys, these foos will buy this game anyway". Oh, this one's on us, BioWare, this one's on us. We'll see...

Well, this is the point of course-they seemed to try to be broadening their base, but in doing that they narrowed it.  It never could appeal to hardcore FPS fans.  They might like a story, but not all the decision-making.  Consider the difference between this and the Uncharted series-still not something hardcore FPS fans like.  UC has a great storyline-it's linear.  You go from checkpoint to checkpoint.  But, what an FPS fan asks about it is how is the MP.  I know because I got asked about it.  And my answer was it was fun.  The reply to that was that that meant it would be a great rental game.  Hardcore FPS fans, just want heavier action.  Nothing wrong with that-I've played plenty of the COD games from 4 on up.  But, there's no comparison.  ME3 MP is not COD.  And, ME3 SP is not just about the story-it's not Skyrim or Fallout.  The decisions have more of an actual decision feeling.  Skyrim and Fallout and the like are fantastic games, but they do get bogged down in the minutiae.  The stories sometimes tend to get lost with all the sidequests, but even that's not it.  They are similar in that they have stories to tell, but ME is more character driven.  You end up having (or thinking you have) an idea of who your character is and a real sense of the other characters as real people.  That's why turning Shepard into some weasel at the end hits so hard.

I've played Skyrim, Oblivion, F3 and F:New Vegas and never had this same feel for characters within those games.  ME is a niche type of game, but very important in that it could (could have?) forged the real path for adult themed video games going forward.  With new consoles on the horizon, the possibilities were right there, but you have to be true to the story and to the genre.  Don't change concepts mid-stream, and don't forget who your fans are. 

I believe, what we're getting at here is that there is a break from what is the heart of the series. Take the Elder Scrolls games for example, regardless of what kind of genre it is or the kind of gameplay, the heart of the Elder Scrolls game is that it is a giant free roaming environment. The player can choose to play through the storyline or can choose to do whatever they want. THAT is what is always pivotal for those games and that 1 rule cannot and should not EVER be broken. Now think about the first Mass Effect. Do you remember the TV commercial for it? Shephard isstanding in the cockpit and a distress signal is heard over the radio pleading for help as the Normandy is seen approaching the planet. Joker asks Shepard what they should do and the Normandy veers away from the planet. That's what Mass Effect is about. You can choose to help or choose not to and that choice is reflected in the story.