80 réponses à ce sujet

[BatmanPWNS]

They weren't pointless. They just didn't have enough effect in ME3.

Modifié par BatmanPWNS, 22 mars 2012 - 08:23 .

[OoKORKYoO]

Jeremy Winston wrote...

OoKORKYoO wrote..
No not really cause you can do it in reverse too... For example saving the council might mean getting funding from them, removing that mission but somewhere else they could add another mission. What he was saying is there could be a total of 25 goals but you only need say 10 to win (bad ending) and maybe 20 to win (good ending), for both paragon or renegade Shepards.

But, again... you're expecting them actually code up those missions.. 25 instead of the 10 they need.

They didn't have the time/budget, or so I'm assuming. A slightly bigger problem is that you completely hide up to 1/2 the game for people without imports. In order to gain access to those missions you'd need to purchase ME1/2.

Now.. what would have been really cool (and still would be, IMO), would be a NG+ option where you can customize your decisions. I'd love to see some of the content I'm missing, but don't have the time to replay ME1/2 to get there.

You kinda just contradicted yourself there, all you would need is a setup at the start of ME3 for people that didn't play the first 2. Just like they did for the PS3 version of ME2. Or like you said have it as a reward for finishing the game which would add even more replay value.
My OP is that what they have done with this game now, is all your decisions mean a few numbers changing on a terminal and whether or not you see Shepard take a gasp of air... Bioware implied and I expected alot more impact from the decisions I made from the  first 2 games.

[AnttiV]

@Jeremy Winston:

I usually don't curse and I try to be civil, but what the hell? Take your eyes outta your... and read. Sorry. I must cool down before I reply much more. But.

1. In no way did I ever mention timelines or game development. I merely pointed out that I can come up with the stories that fast and that several people here even faster, so it is not a question of time spend coming up with the story (but on other things, as you pointed out.) I'm merely voicing my opinion that coming up with the story is not a problem, so it must be something else.

2. "completely hide 1/2 of the game for people without imports"... what? Where did I (or anyone else) say that? All the examples I pointed out just added help into the SAME quest you'd do. Also, please don't confuse "renegade" as a "bad" option or "paragon" as a "good" option. There are multiple places in the ME universe where renegade actually has is easier or makes more progress. (well, even generally renegade has is easier). Okay, the Council-example can be understood as skipping content, but what I meant is that it should be a part of a quest and even then the one who would skip the content would be the one WITH the import and the one who didn't would have "more content".

Okay, quick example on the council/fund mission: If you saved Council and have the funding, you need to deliver it to X and Cerberus tries to stop you, you fight Cerberus once at the citadel where C-Sec helps you and once on route by yourself. IF you didn't save the council, you need to secure the funding by helping an outpost that is overrun by Reaper forces. You fight reapers on the outpost and on the route once you've helped the outpost, you bump into Cerberus (the same as with the import.) Import fights cerberus twice, first with help, non-import fights reapers and cerberus, both time alone. No really "missed content" and quests are similar lenghts, but the import has it easier.

[Jeremy Winston]

AnttiV wrote...

@Jeremy Winston:

I usually don't curse and I try to be civil, but what the hell? Take your eyes outta your... and read. Sorry. I must cool down before I reply much more. But.

1. In no way did I ever mention timelines or game development. I merely pointed out that I can come up with the stories that fast and that several people here even faster, so it is not a question of time spend coming up with the story (but on other things, as you pointed out.) I'm merely voicing my opinion that coming up with the story is not a problem, so it must be something else.

2. "completely hide 1/2 of the game for people without imports"... what? Where did I (or anyone else) say that? All the examples I pointed out just added help into the SAME quest you'd do. Also, please don't confuse "renegade" as a "bad" option or "paragon" as a "good" option. There are multiple places in the ME universe where renegade actually has is easier or makes more progress. (well, even generally renegade has is easier). Okay, the Council-example can be understood as skipping content, but what I meant is that it should be a part of a quest and even then the one who would skip the content would be the one WITH the import and the one who didn't would have "more content".

Okay, quick example on the council/fund mission: If you saved Council and have the funding, you need to deliver it to X and Cerberus tries to stop you, you fight Cerberus once at the citadel where C-Sec helps you and once on route by yourself. IF you didn't save the council, you need to secure the funding by helping an outpost that is overrun by Reaper forces. You fight reapers on the outpost and on the route once you've helped the outpost, you bump into Cerberus (the same as with the import.) Import fights cerberus twice, first with help, non-import fights reapers and cerberus, both time alone. No really "missed content" and quests are similar lenghts, but the import has it easier.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding.  Apologies if so.

To you're #1. Yes... of course.  Scenarios abound.  You only had to read all the zillions of posts after ME2 to get lots of ideas on things to do for ME3.  Coming up with different missions is no big deal.  My point, which I might not have made clear, is that for every additional mission you want to include in the game, it requires a mass of resources to actually produce that mission.  I'm suggesting that time/budget was a serious issue.

In your quick example, if I read that correctly, you actually have three missions in the game, but you may only play two of them depending on your import.  I appears that you're suggesting that if I let the council die, I will need to obtain additional funding by saving another outpost.  Is that right?  In another words, if I saved the council, I don't get to save that overrun outpost?  Or that I just don't get additional funding for doing it?

Your comment reads as if that overrun outpost is only played under certain circumstances.  Did I misunderstand?

[Jeremy Winston]

OoKORKYoO wrote...

Jeremy Winston wrote...

OoKORKYoO wrote..
No not really cause you can do it in reverse too... For example saving the council might mean getting funding from them, removing that mission but somewhere else they could add another mission. What he was saying is there could be a total of 25 goals but you only need say 10 to win (bad ending) and maybe 20 to win (good ending), for both paragon or renegade Shepards.

But, again... you're expecting them actually code up those missions.. 25 instead of the 10 they need.

They didn't have the time/budget, or so I'm assuming. A slightly bigger problem is that you completely hide up to 1/2 the game for people without imports. In order to gain access to those missions you'd need to purchase ME1/2.

Now.. what would have been really cool (and still would be, IMO), would be a NG+ option where you can customize your decisions. I'd love to see some of the content I'm missing, but don't have the time to replay ME1/2 to get there.

You kinda just contradicted yourself there, all you would need is a setup at the start of ME3 for people that didn't play the first 2. Just like they did for the PS3 version of ME2. Or like you said have it as a reward for finishing the game which would add even more replay value.
My OP is that what they have done with this game now, is all your decisions mean a few numbers changing on a terminal and whether or not you see Shepard take a gasp of air... Bioware implied and I expected alot more impact from the decisions I made from the  first 2 games.

Sorry?  What contradiction?

If there are missions that only come into play due to certain decisions made in ME 1/2, then the default ME3 setup will include some, but not others.  And, without purchasing ME 1/2 to create specific imports, the unincluded missions would be unavailable.  Sounds like I'm not quite getting my money's worth, if I need to purchase additional content (ME 1/2) to get the full experience.  (Day 0 DLC, anyone?)

So, I suggested, as an aside, that a nice NG+ feature to help alleviate that would be the ability to determine your own ME3 setup without having to import.

Modifié par Jeremy Winston, 22 mars 2012 - 08:58 .

[idspisp0pd]

Jeremy Winston wrote...
You're going to point at marketing materials?  In your very next post you describe yourself as being cynical, but you believed what they had to say about this?

Again, if your defense is "you shouldn't have believed what Bioware said about their game," that's a pretty weak defense. If you're aware of everything the developers said in interviews, etc. (and I assume you are), you're just arguing for the sake of arguing on this point.

And, yes... as someone coughing up $50 to purchase a game, I would expect to be able to get a perfect ending.  Since I might not even have an import, I have to be able to do that with the neutral/renegade defaults that are set up.  Likewise, if a particularly bad import has no chance of said perfect ending, then I should know before I buy that this is a possible issue.  Don't make me spend 40 hours with my import and THEN realize that there was never any chance of the ending I wanted.

ME2 let's you get the perfect ending, even though, in reality, your personality choices should have driven away any loyalty you might have garnered.  They simply ignored your ability to be a total and complete jerk.

Why should I expect they might make it truly important to the end of ME3?

Now you're just being obtuse. These have always been games about how your choices matter. You're conflating "it's possible to get the best ending" with "get the best ending regardless of choices." Nobody is talking about forcing you to make specific choices or import a specific character.

Presumably if you start a clean ME3 playthough w/o importing, they'd make it so you could get the perfect ending, but it's not guaranteed. You make choices throughout ME3, just like you make the choice to import a particular character into ME3. How is the latter somehow sacrosanct compared to the former? Either way, you might not get the ending you want, even if it's possible to do so. And if so, you'd try again by making different choices, either by going back to your character's previous saves, importing a different character, or starting a new one, possibly using a Genesis-type system where you can make major decisions without importing.

This whole argument is silly.

[AnttiV]

Jeremy Winston wrote...
Perhaps I am misunderstanding.  Apologies if so.

To you're #1. Yes... of course.  Scenarios abound.  You only had to read all the zillions of posts after ME2 to get lots of ideas on things to do for ME3.  Coming up with different missions is no big deal.  My point, which I might not have made clear, is that for every additional mission you want to include in the game, it requires a mass of resources to actually produce that mission.  I'm suggesting that time/budget was a serious issue.

In your quick example, if I read that correctly, you actually have three missions in the game, but you may only play two of them depending on your import.  I appears that you're suggesting that if I let the council die, I will need to obtain additional funding by saving another outpost.  Is that right?  In another words, if I saved the council, I don't get to save that overrun outpost?  Or that I just don't get additional funding for doing it?

Your comment reads as if that overrun outpost is only played under certain circumstances.  Did I misunderstand?

#1: Yes, exactly my point. There is NO reason, other than laziness and/or time (which essentially translates as money) to have come up with the assets -mechanic rather than individual missions. (Personally, I'm voting "EA" on that one.) 

#2: Yes. With choices "A" you'd play they missions one way and with choices "B" you'd play the mission the other way. This need not be a Renegade/Paragon differentiation. (One can probably easily come up with an idea that incorporates both sides in a single quest, or that either extreme decision is the "harder" one and the mid-way has it easiest.) Btw, you don't need to import anything to ME2 to get the largest decisions, you only need the play "comic-introduction" to select the choices. One of those could be easily incorporated into ME3 also. On that outpost, the story would explain that the original council was able to secure the outpost by themselves and thus you don't need to do it yourself. So yes, that outpost sequence only plays under certain circumstances, as would the "opposite" part of the quest, where you fight Cerberus at the Citadel (not part of the fight that is already in the game). so 1/2 of the quest would be the same regardless of choices but the other half would be chosen from two possible backgrounds. Add to that, it would be deadly simple to have those exact same sequences act as a secondary quest to receive additional resources (money, weapons, tech, armor, etc) outside of the "goal quest". If you saved the council and they in turn saved the outpost (and you didn't get to play it), it would be dead simple to present that quest as ANOTHER outpost the player can save, but this time not acquire funding but collect other equipment. Same with the other sequence. Help C-Sec to defend the citadel against Cerberus and they offer you a reward. (similar to ME1 non-essential planetside missions.)

My point is, the story should be coherent and reflect your choices in the gameplay and story, not only as an arbitrary number on one screen that ultimately don't even have that much of a difference. And without the Space Kid at the end, I just detest Deus Ex Machinas. To me, they speak of nothing else than bad storytelling (I couldn't figure this one out, so *poof* I asspull this solution). I would never do that to any story I'm responsible for. I've had my fair share of fanfiction and being a GM (for a table-top RPG) for MANY years. My players would've beaten my up should I ever resorted to a Deus Ex Machina RIGHT at the end of a story. It's just.. I'm sorry, English is not my native language, so I sometimes lack the words to express.. It just does "disservice" to the story to asspull a Deus Ex Machina to wrap up a story. It's lame. It's lazy. It essentially says to the rest of the story "you don't matter, I don't care for you.". I hate that.

I don't even want it "for free". I would've waited another 18 monts for it. I still could. I would even pay good amount of money for such a story. And I will.

[OoKORKYoO]

Jeremy Winston wrote...

OoKORKYoO wrote...

Jeremy Winston wrote...

OoKORKYoO wrote..
No not really cause you can do it in reverse too... For example saving the council might mean getting funding from them, removing that mission but somewhere else they could add another mission. What he was saying is there could be a total of 25 goals but you only need say 10 to win (bad ending) and maybe 20 to win (good ending), for both paragon or renegade Shepards.

But, again... you're expecting them actually code up those missions.. 25 instead of the 10 they need.

They didn't have the time/budget, or so I'm assuming. A slightly bigger problem is that you completely hide up to 1/2 the game for people without imports. In order to gain access to those missions you'd need to purchase ME1/2.

Now.. what would have been really cool (and still would be, IMO), would be a NG+ option where you can customize your decisions. I'd love to see some of the content I'm missing, but don't have the time to replay ME1/2 to get there.

You kinda just contradicted yourself there, all you would need is a setup at the start of ME3 for people that didn't play the first 2. Just like they did for the PS3 version of ME2. Or like you said have it as a reward for finishing the game which would add even more replay value.
My OP is that what they have done with this game now, is all your decisions mean a few numbers changing on a terminal and whether or not you see Shepard take a gasp of air... Bioware implied and I expected alot more impact from the decisions I made from the  first 2 games.

Sorry?  What contradiction?

If there are missions that only come into play due to certain decisions made in ME 1/2, then the default ME3 setup will include some, but not others.  And, without purchasing ME 1/2 to create specific imports, the unincluded missions would be unavailable.  Sounds like I'm not quite getting my money's worth, if I need to purchase additional content (ME 1/2) to get the full experience.  (Day 0 DLC, anyone?)

So, I suggested, as an aside, that a nice NG+ feature to help alleviate that would be the ability to determine your own ME3 setup without having to import.

Did you read my post right? I said all you have to do is have a little questionaire at the start of the game about all the decisions from the first 2 games. So you can still make those decisions even if you have not played the first 2 games. They did it for ME2 on the PS3 because ME1 was never released on the PS3. Or you could have that questionaire after completing the game as a reward so if you wanted to you could see all the possible outcomes from those decisions. Both long term and new players would not miss out on anything! 

[Jeremy Winston]

Sorry... Perhaps I wasn't clear, again.

I'm not suggesting that the perfect ending should be achievable regardless of my choices. Only that it should be achievable regardless of my choices prior to ME3.

Now, I understand you point, and if BioWare wanted to prevent certain imports from having even the capability of achieving the perfect ending, then I feel that the possibility of that should have been known.

Yes, 'dire consequences' have been thrown about. And the game has that, with old squad mates being killed left and right depending on current and previous choices. I'm not talking about that. The community has picked the 'Breath' ending as the 'perfect' ending, and, yes, I would expect that, for my $50, BioWare should make any import be capable of achieving that ending, provided that proper choices were made in ME3.

Tempers seem to be getting a little raw, and insults are working their way in, so.. I've had my say.

Feel free to have the last word.

[Jeremy Winston]

OoKORKYoO wrote..Did you read my post right? I said all you have to do is have a little questionaire at the start of the game about all the decisions from the first 2 games. So you can still make those decisions even if you have not played the first 2 games. They did it for ME2 on the PS3 because ME1 was never released on the PS3. Or you could have that questionaire after completing the game as a reward so if you wanted to you could see all the possible outcomes from those decisions. Both long term and new players would not miss out on anything! 

Sorry.  I did, in fact, completely miss that.

[Jeremy Winston]

AnttiV wrote...
#1: Yes, exactly my point. There is NO reason, other than laziness and/or time (which essentially translates as money) to have come up with the assets -mechanic rather than individual missions. (Personally, I'm voting "EA" on that one.) 

#2: Yes. With choices "A" you'd play they missions one way and with choices "B" you'd play the mission the other way. This need not be a Renegade/Paragon differentiation. (One can probably easily come up with an idea that incorporates both sides in a single quest, or that either extreme decision is the "harder" one and the mid-way has it easiest.) Btw, you don't need to import anything to ME2 to get the largest decisions, you only need the play "comic-introduction" to select the choices. One of those could be easily incorporated into ME3 also. On that outpost, the story would explain that the original council was able to secure the outpost by themselves and thus you don't need to do it yourself. So yes, that outpost sequence only plays under certain circumstances, as would the "opposite" part of the quest, where you fight Cerberus at the Citadel (not part of the fight that is already in the game). so 1/2 of the quest would be the same regardless of choices but the other half would be chosen from two possible backgrounds. Add to that, it would be deadly simple to have those exact same sequences act as a secondary quest to receive additional resources (money, weapons, tech, armor, etc) outside of the "goal quest". If you saved the council and they in turn saved the outpost (and you didn't get to play it), it would be dead simple to present that quest as ANOTHER outpost the player can save, but this time not acquire funding but collect other equipment. Same with the other sequence. Help C-Sec to defend the citadel against Cerberus and they offer you a reward. (similar to ME1 non-essential planetside missions.)

My point is, the story should be coherent and reflect your choices in the gameplay and story, not only as an arbitrary number on one screen that ultimately don't even have that much of a difference. And without the Space Kid at the end, I just detest Deus Ex Machinas. To me, they speak of nothing else than bad storytelling (I couldn't figure this one out, so *poof* I asspull this solution). I would never do that to any story I'm responsible for. I've had my fair share of fanfiction and being a GM (for a table-top RPG) for MANY years. My players would've beaten my up should I ever resorted to a Deus Ex Machina RIGHT at the end of a story. It's just.. I'm sorry, English is not my native language, so I sometimes lack the words to express.. It just does "disservice" to the story to asspull a Deus Ex Machina to wrap up a story. It's lame. It's lazy. It essentially says to the rest of the story "you don't matter, I don't care for you.". I hate that.

I don't even want it "for free". I would've waited another 18 monts for it. I still could. I would even pay good amount of money for such a story. And I will.

Ok.. our opinions may not be that far off.  Maybe.

I refuse to include the ending in this discussion, as it's so abysmally bad that including it overshadows anything else that might be good about the game.  I'll just say that it completely made every choice I made a complete waste of time and move on.

I'd like to think that if BioWare had the time and resources, they would have made X missions where you only play X/2 or X/3 of them based on choices.  That would certainly provide the customized story.  I would have waited another  year as well.  I would have paid more money (but not much more).

If the universe didn't end up in such garbage at the end, I would have even accepted a DA:O type of ending where they summarize certain choices and future results past the end of the story.

I don't happen to think it was laziness on BioWare's part, but budget/time constraints.  And if the choice is what we got (ignoring that ending) vs. not getting anything because EA would have just cancelled, then I'll take what we have and give BioWare a break.

[OoKORKYoO]

Jeremy Winston wrote...

OoKORKYoO wrote..Did you read my post right? I said all you have to do is have a little questionaire at the start of the game about all the decisions from the first 2 games. So you can still make those decisions even if you have not played the first 2 games. They did it for ME2 on the PS3 because ME1 was never released on the PS3. Or you could have that questionaire after completing the game as a reward so if you wanted to you could see all the possible outcomes from those decisions. Both long term and new players would not miss out on anything! 

Sorry.  I did, in fact, completely miss that.

No worries... I hope you don't I'm throwing insults your way. I sometimes think having discussions via text can easily get misunderstood.

[Jeremy Winston]

OoKORKYoO wrote...

Jeremy Winston wrote...

OoKORKYoO wrote..Did you read my post right? I said all you have to do is have a little questionaire at the start of the game about all the decisions from the first 2 games. So you can still make those decisions even if you have not played the first 2 games. They did it for ME2 on the PS3 because ME1 was never released on the PS3. Or you could have that questionaire after completing the game as a reward so if you wanted to you could see all the possible outcomes from those decisions. Both long term and new players would not miss out on anything! 

Sorry.  I did, in fact, completely miss that.

No worries... I hope you don't I'm throwing insults your way. I sometimes think having discussions via text can easily get misunderstood.

No worries.

[OoKORKYoO]

Jeremy Winston wrote...

AnttiV wrote...
#1: Yes, exactly my point. There is NO reason, other than laziness and/or time (which essentially translates as money) to have come up with the assets -mechanic rather than individual missions. (Personally, I'm voting "EA" on that one.) 

#2: Yes. With choices "A" you'd play they missions one way and with choices "B" you'd play the mission the other way. This need not be a Renegade/Paragon differentiation. (One can probably easily come up with an idea that incorporates both sides in a single quest, or that either extreme decision is the "harder" one and the mid-way has it easiest.) Btw, you don't need to import anything to ME2 to get the largest decisions, you only need the play "comic-introduction" to select the choices. One of those could be easily incorporated into ME3 also. On that outpost, the story would explain that the original council was able to secure the outpost by themselves and thus you don't need to do it yourself. So yes, that outpost sequence only plays under certain circumstances, as would the "opposite" part of the quest, where you fight Cerberus at the Citadel (not part of the fight that is already in the game). so 1/2 of the quest would be the same regardless of choices but the other half would be chosen from two possible backgrounds. Add to that, it would be deadly simple to have those exact same sequences act as a secondary quest to receive additional resources (money, weapons, tech, armor, etc) outside of the "goal quest". If you saved the council and they in turn saved the outpost (and you didn't get to play it), it would be dead simple to present that quest as ANOTHER outpost the player can save, but this time not acquire funding but collect other equipment. Same with the other sequence. Help C-Sec to defend the citadel against Cerberus and they offer you a reward. (similar to ME1 non-essential planetside missions.)

My point is, the story should be coherent and reflect your choices in the gameplay and story, not only as an arbitrary number on one screen that ultimately don't even have that much of a difference. And without the Space Kid at the end, I just detest Deus Ex Machinas. To me, they speak of nothing else than bad storytelling (I couldn't figure this one out, so *poof* I asspull this solution). I would never do that to any story I'm responsible for. I've had my fair share of fanfiction and being a GM (for a table-top RPG) for MANY years. My players would've beaten my up should I ever resorted to a Deus Ex Machina RIGHT at the end of a story. It's just.. I'm sorry, English is not my native language, so I sometimes lack the words to express.. It just does "disservice" to the story to asspull a Deus Ex Machina to wrap up a story. It's lame. It's lazy. It essentially says to the rest of the story "you don't matter, I don't care for you.". I hate that.

I don't even want it "for free". I would've waited another 18 monts for it. I still could. I would even pay good amount of money for such a story. And I will.

Ok.. our opinions may not be that far off.  Maybe.

I refuse to include the ending in this discussion, as it's so abysmally bad that including it overshadows anything else that might be good about the game.  I'll just say that it completely made every choice I made a complete waste of time and move on.

I'd like to think that if BioWare had the time and resources, they would have made X missions where you only play X/2 or X/3 of them based on choices.  That would certainly provide the customized story.  I would have waited another  year as well.  I would have paid more money (but not much more).

If the universe didn't end up in such garbage at the end, I would have even accepted a DA:O type of ending where they summarize certain choices and future results past the end of the story.

I don't happen to think it was laziness on BioWare's part, but budget/time constraints.  And if the choice is what we got (ignoring that ending) vs. not getting anything because EA would have just cancelled, then I'll take what we have and give BioWare a break.

You do have a valid point there about time/budget restrictions... But it was Bioware that almost consistently stated that your decisions hade dire consequences... If they knew that they couldn't commit to that, they should've kept quiet about it.

[Jeremy Winston]

OoKORKYoO wrote...
You do have a valid point there about time/budget restrictions... But it was Bioware that almost consistently stated that your decisions hade dire consequences... If they knew that they couldn't commit to that, they should've kept quiet about it.

"Dire" unfortunately, is rather ambiguous.

Having the Quarians completely eradicated?  Ending/failing to end the genophage?  Having squad members die that you've become attached to?  I'd say these are generally 'dire' to the Shepard in question.  Especially if your romantic interest is a Tali who kills herself.

Ok... ignoring the ending, and ignoring the war asset/more mission choice they made, what are examples of 'dire results' that would have made you happy? 

Or does it just kinda bother you that it was a zero-sum game regardless of pre ME3 choices? (That is, your final strength against the Reapers was about the same.)

(Just asking, not challenging.)

Modifié par Jeremy Winston, 22 mars 2012 - 10:10 .

[Jeremy Winston]

Or, maybe ignoring the more mission choices *is* really the issue. We befriended the Rachni, we wanted to fight with them. We let the council die, we wanted a more human-centric political environment. We saved the Collector base and we want some new weapons!

[AnttiV]

Jeremy Winston wrote...

Ok.. our opinions may not be that far off.  Maybe.

I refuse to include the ending in this discussion, as it's so abysmally bad that including it overshadows anything else that might be good about the game.  I'll just say that it completely made every choice I made a complete waste of time and move on.

I'd like to think that if BioWare had the time and resources, they would have made X missions where you only play X/2 or X/3 of them based on choices.  That would certainly provide the customized story.  I would have waited another  year as well.  I would have paid more money (but not much more).

If the universe didn't end up in such garbage at the end, I would have even accepted a DA:O type of ending where they summarize certain choices and future results past the end of the story.

I don't happen to think it was laziness on BioWare's part, but budget/time constraints.  And if the choice is what we got (ignoring that ending) vs. not getting anything because EA would have just cancelled, then I'll take what we have and give BioWare a break.

Reading that, I think our opinions are quite closer than was initially apparent There seems to have been some misunderstanding somewhere there. But, that's overall my opinion too (well, as far as the ending is concerned, spot on. It was terrible).

I'm "blaming" EA myself. But on the other hand, I can't give BioWare a perfect free break because all of those interviews with Walters and Hudson. This clearly isn't what was "sold" to us. The reason why that is, may very well be EA ultimately but if it is so, they should've known it way before, or there must be bits and pieces of unfinished content somewhere that was cancelled afterwards. (see KotOR2.)

I think I'm so in love with the ME universe and my Shep (+ Liara!) that if they came up with a perfect Expansion (not just ending/explanation) that completely erased the Space Kid and had that much more customized story... I'd probably pay another full game's worth of money for it. I realize that might be stupid and playing straight to EA's pockets, but I do love the ME games that much. I'd **** and moan about it, but I *would* pay (and play!). I don't think I've ever fallen that hard on any other game than the original ME and via that, the whole ME universe. Baldur's Gate was *good*, NWN was marvellous, WarCraft (not WoW!) was terrific.. but still, if asked "What is the best game (series) ever?" I'd probably spit out "Mass Effect (series, if that was the question)" without thinking that much.

[OoKORKYoO]

Jeremy Winston wrote...

OoKORKYoO wrote...
You do have a valid point there about time/budget restrictions... But it was Bioware that almost consistently stated that your decisions hade dire consequences... If they knew that they couldn't commit to that, they should've kept quiet about it.

"Dire" unfortunately, is rather ambiguous.

Having the Quarians completely eradicated?  Ending/failing to end the genophage?  Having squad members die that you've become attached to?  I'd say these are generally 'dire' to the Shepard in question.  Especially if your romantic interest is a Tali who kills herself.

Ok... ignoring the ending, and ignoring the war asset/more mission choice they made, what are examples of 'dire results' that would have made you happy? 

Or does it just kinda bother you that it was a zero-sum game regardless of pre ME3 choices? (That is, your final strength against the Reapers was about the same.)

EDIT: Or, maybe ignoring the more mission choices *is* really the issue.  We befriended the Rachni, we wanted to fight with them.  We let the council die, we wanted a more human-centric political environment.  We saved the Collector base and we want some new weapons!

(Just asking, not challenging.)

Yeah, just more impact really, anything more than just a number of a terminal...

Giving the collector base to cerburus could've made them slightly more harder to kill, extra weapons or extra shields... Destroying the base would take those things away making them slightly more easier to kill.
Not only that, the whole plothole that is they were able to go to THE CENTRE OF THE GALAXY to get the human reaper that was blown to bits and probably would've ended up being sucked into black holes.

Having the Rachni helping you out (not on all missions, just 1 or 2) would've been good. If you killed the queen, the mission would be a little harder. Again I feel the plothole about reapers cloning Rachni to make a queen was a cop-out.

Just even a little gameplay difference would've made me happy. I know you can say that if you went renegade the game would be harder, but that'd be the consequence of you bieng a douchebag to everyone. And I'm sure Bioware could've managed to change it up a little but still kepp it balenced.

And yes it does bother me slightly that I've been able to play both renegade and paragone with about the same EMS at the end. Both times the difference betwwen the EMS was very small. I was able to see the Shepard gasp for both.

A few of us here have been arguing about extra missions or mission taken away by decisions. But thats not necessarily the answer. Just a little gameplay difference would have been good.

[AnttiV]

Jeremy Winston wrote...

Ok... ignoring the ending, and ignoring the war asset/more mission choice they made, what are examples of 'dire results' that would have made you happy? 

I expected all the consequences mostly play only at the ending, so not really applicable. But let's take one of my biggest gripes in current ME3 non-ending: Mordin. If Mordin dies in ME2, it doesn't actually change anything, short of a few dialogues. The guy that replaces Mordin is so similar and has similar strenghts that is doesn't really matter if Mordin survived ME2 or not. For F's sake, Joker even calls the guy "Not-Mordin"... I haven't played that far with any character that destroyed Mordin's data on ME2, but I read that it too matters little, and the outcome is relatively same. 

What I expected after first playthrough (Mordin survived) was that that mission would either entirely be dropped or at least drastically altered and that the cure couldn't be manufactured (or that it would fail afterwards no matter what you did). Same with Mordin's data really, I think that without it the mission should have drastically different outcome, no cure, or only affects x people (thus Krogan not happy). Or that one or two missions would be required before the cure could be made.

Mostly I thought any dire results to play in the end, with those saved helping you in battles you'd take, or providing other support like more direct routes through enemy lines by clearing up rubble (Rachni workers could've done this). Or missing enemies/reinforcements/technology. (Collector base could've easily played into this. With it give to TIM, there could've been more Cerberus and/or equipped with better weaponry.) Or at random you'd be surrounded by a defensive biotic field if you saved the students and so on. 

[ahandsomeshark]

Jeremy Winston wrote...

AnttiV wrote...

Jeremy Winston wrote...

[*]The minimal win will not fly.  Any Shepard import.. ANY import, even if you made every possible bad decision and lost every possible squad mate, had to be a best possible winnable import.

Excuse me, I don't think I understand this correctly. "the minimal win will not fly"?.. err.. excuse me that is the EXACT ending currently IN THE GAME. THAT really is a BioWare ending, currently incorporated. If you have <1700~<2000 effective assets (depending on criteria), Earth really does get destroyed and it IS counted as a win.

Also, Every import IS winnable if done as I said. Okay, let me explain a bit better. Say, there are a number of goals (like I said) that are needed to "win". Say there are 25 goals (or obstacles needed to overcome.) You need 10 to have that "minimal win ending". Decision carrying over from earlier games either outright grant a few automatic wins and/or affect the quest you undertake to achieve these goals (like I explained.) There are 25 possible goals to achieve in ME3. So you CAN achieve the highest ending solely by playing ME3, but it is that much harder, because you get no help and no automatic wins from earlier decisions. Say one of the goals is to secure funding for plan X. If you saved council in ME1, you automatically "win" that one and get that funding. Killed council? Yeah, do mission Y to secure their trust in you and you'll get that funding.

Can you now see what I'm talking about? Kind of similar to what ME2 had with the loyalty missions. You COULD do without them, but risk dying in the last mission. No need for arbitrary point pool.


EDIT: And you could combine the decisions. Another example: Take down one Reaper Assault thingy (similar to what you already do on Rannoch.) You have two missile launcher bases that take x amount of time to reload a missile. Without help you need to avoid the beam and fire the missiles manually, running form base to base. If you saved X in ME1 and did Y in ME2, the other base would be occupied and you'd only have to worry about one base. Re-programmed Geth in ME2? Saved BOTH races in ME3? There's a third, mobile base to help you fight the Reaper. Also, the Geth (now more powerful) have loaded themselves into the bases' mainframes, so the targeting thing is 25% faster (or targets as fast as always, even if you move).

There's literally hundreds or thousands of things that could be done instead of the "war assets" -mechanic, which just seems like a lazy way out if you ask me.

If there would be any point in it, I could probably come up with 30 of these "goal missions" in a week and have them polished in a month. There are multiple persons on these forums that could probably do that in day/week schedule. And come up with 500 more goals/guests.

There simply is NO other reason (than laziness/time constraints) for the War Assets mechanic.

Then you'd have a zillion people complaining that the extreme 'Renegade' import got more game out of ME3.  They'd have more missions.  More game.

[*]Then couldn't they just import more than one Shepard? As it stands now there's almost no reason for me to finish the game with my Renegade Shepard because I realized the story/dialogue plays out nearly exactly the same.

[Atrumitos]

Adding missions wouldn't be bad by any means but the game is pretty big as is. I suppose they just wanted to use your choices on what was already there.

Call it lazy if you will. I say the game offers so many hours of gameplay that it's ok. Sure it would be nice to have more, but it's currently fine as well. Way better than the emails of ME2 at least ;P

[EvilCow090]

OoKORKYoO wrote...

2. Rachni Queen
If you let the Queen live, she gets captured by the Reapers and forced to make an army for them.
If you kill the Rachni Queen (the very last one in existence), The Reapers somehow clone another one from a Rachni and they force her to make an army for them.
Decision is pointless

No. If you kill the Rachni queen in ME1, they somehow get a clone. If you save that clone in ME3, than they backstab you (I've been told).

If you saved the Rachni queen in ME1, and save it again in ME3, they help you.

[PsychoWARD23]

um, are you surprised? When has the series ever shown your choices had an impact? Ever?

[AnttiV]

PsychoWARD23 wrote...

um, are you surprised? When has the series ever shown your choices had an impact? Ever?

Well, almost the whole of ME2 after the Collector Invasion? And all loyalty missions? Take your time - crew dies. Haven't researched this and that technology? Squad mates may die.

[OoKORKYoO]

EvilCow090 wrote...

OoKORKYoO wrote...

2. Rachni Queen
If you let the Queen live, she gets captured by the Reapers and forced to make an army for them.
If you kill the Rachni Queen (the very last one in existence), The Reapers somehow clone another one from a Rachni and they force her to make an army for them.
Decision is pointless

No. If you kill the Rachni queen in ME1, they somehow get a clone. If you save that clone in ME3, than they backstab you (I've been told).

If you saved the Rachni queen in ME1, and save it again in ME3, they help you.

But they only help you build the Crucible... Your only told this by your War Asset terminal. They don't give you any actual gameplay help, not just a number on a terminal on the Normandy. Read the other posts in this thread... I've already explained this. What I meant was there is hardly any gameplay impact from the decisions that were made in the first 2 games.