54 réponses à ce sujet

[BatmanPWNS]

The only true difference is that Wreav has taken over Australia now. So sad.

[stormhit]

I found all the variation in characters to be impressive and exactly what I was expecting.

[Torrible]

Bleachrude wrote...

Fenrisfil wrote...

To do the game properly with all the choices causing major differences you would have to make the equivelent of 4 or 5 games when they made ME2 and about 40 full games by the time they did ME3. We're a long way from being able to have something like that.

In some cases I think they did well and dialogue/cosmetic changes are acceptably well done. But there are a few instances where they certainly could have done better. I can forgive Legion Mk2 because you can only get that from a "bad" ending from ME2. That's a result of past failure, not a indeterminate decision. The decisions such as the Rachni queen, saving the council and making Anderson councillor are big let downs. Sure the Rachni Queen and saving the council affects your potential war resources, but that's just a number.

This.

I think Bioware simply bit off more than it could chew...If you look at ME1 for example, the game plays out the exact same way no matter you're background except for one character specific questline...

For example, why couldn't we try to save the workd one by Saren at Virmire and thus not need the showdown with Wrex?

The Witcher2 has one choice that directly affects the 2nd act (yet even here, the two different 2nd acts come together at the beginning of act 3) but the smaller choices don't change the act the following act either way (it's interesting that CDProjet has been rather cagey as to whether or not save game is going to be important for Witcher 3)

But thats having just one choice but having 3 affect the game simultaneously?

That literally is 6 different possibilites you have to write for already...Throw in Wrex and the VS and now you're ALREADY at 10 permutations...and if you want it to be more "important" to the plot , that is, more than just dialogue differences, how exactly do you write this storyline?

This. The first RPG I played was VTMB. After getting my hopes up while playing the game, I was disappointed with how little my choices mattered in the end. Many RPGs later, including DAO, VTMB is still one of the best games I've experienced in terms of "how choices matter within the game". I can be disappointed and surprised at each and every RPG I come across or I can just accept that the developers are not yet ready to develop multi-branching storylines like those 'choose your own adventure' books. The Mass Effect trilogy fairs amazingly well (in this aspect) compared to games like DE:HR and KOA. Haven't played TW2 but apparently it isn't much better. Heard the ending sucks as well.

Modifié par Torrible, 01 avril 2012 - 09:45 .

[Cant Planet]

Siansonea II wrote...

a bunch of good stuff

Well, I envy you, because you were able play through the game 2.75 times and get a first-hand perspective of the player-choice issues throughout the whole game, and not just the ending problems.

I haven't been able to bring myself to even start a second playthrough. (And I was going to end that last sentence with "yet", but unless the PAX announcement is pretty bloody spectacular, I suspect it'll stay that way.)

Modifié par Cant Planet, 01 avril 2012 - 10:28 .

[Jaron Oberyn]

Torrible wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Well said. Now go look at DX:HR, a game with real choice and character control.

-Polite

You must have played a different game from the one I did. How exactly do the choices differ from ME3? 

-Nickname

DX: HR? That game takes choices and consequences to a whole new level. I don't know what you're talking about.  Apparently we did play two different games. You must have been playing the leak. 

-Polite

[FlyingCow371]

There is definitely a strong illusion of choice. And, it would have been much more successful if they implemented the consequences in a meaningful way (i.e. don't just shove our choices into a number of galactic readiness that doesn't matter for anything, other than which of the sucky ending colors we can pick). If they had a decent ending, with a basic epilogue, they'd have been great.

An epilogue could show the difference between real genophage cure and fake, wrex +/- eve, vs. other people; rachni on your side vs. not, geth/quarians saved. Unfortunately, they decided to make the relays and galaxy explode at the end. So even if you did care about the slight character differences that had some implications for the futures of planets/races/people...bioware chose to destroy those futures and rape our choices so much harder than any of the earlier blow-offs, like anderson quitting or the fake rachni/legion.

[pharsti]

Siansonea II wrote...

Honestly, with all the flap about the ending, I'm shocked that more people aren't talking about all the shortcomings of the game BEFORE the ending. As great as many of the sequences are in ME3, the fact that they play out virtually the same regardless of your player decisions really takes away from the experience.

I guess its because the ending is so bad it negates everything else (i mean, it even negates any enjoyment to be had on the other 2 MEs), and because if the ending actually had proper epilogues, all those choices would have had different outcomes.

As it stands now, it does not, having Wreav or Wrex as you said, is all the same in the end, thou i must disagree that it all "feels" the same in the "middle" nonetheless..... with the mighty exception of the Rachni Queen and the Collector Base segments, those were truly disappointing "choices"

[Torrible]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Torrible wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Well said. Now go look at DX:HR, a game with real choice and character control.

-Polite

You must have played a different game from the one I did. How exactly do the choices differ from ME3? 

-Nickname

DX: HR? That game takes choices and consequences to a whole new level. I don't know what you're talking about.  Apparently we did play two different games. You must have been playing the leak. 

-Polite

IIRC, the choices are mainly to do with gameplay (for e.g, instead of persuading the guard, you can sneak in through the vent or blast your way in). In that aspect, it IS a novelty. But storywise, the "who to kill, who to spare" choices are pretty much on par (I'd say even less so) with ME3. Hardly groundbreaking.

[OoKORKYoO]

I completely agree with you!!
I raised this issue last week

http://social.biowar.../index/10443436

And all people could say was "those decisions affected the EMS".
And true they did but not alot, I was still able to get the "gasp ending" with all the paragon and renegade Sheps I have(I have about 8, all with different choices made).
I was hoping for more gameplay impact!!

[Kilshrek]

BatmanPWNS wrote...

The only true difference is that Wreav has taken over Australia now. So sad.

Just imagine the salties evolving to walk on two feet and speech, you won't be far off.

[K_Tabris]

jlb524 wrote...
Choices never mattered...ME2 taught us that.

 
I assumed from fan feedback, that Bioware would have worked more on carryover in ME3.  I thought the scarcity of differences in ME2 was insignificant, mainly because they were detouring the whole main plot of the series to do the suicide mission and highlighting the darker, grittier parts of the galaxy.  

Siansonea II wrote...
Honestly, with all the flap about the ending, I'm shocked that more people aren't talking about all the shortcomings of the game BEFORE the ending. As great as many of the sequences are in ME3, the fact that they play out virtually the same regardless of your player decisions really takes away from the experience.

 
Yes, the upset over the endings is excessive, on a personal level as well as on the comunity level, but the endings also reflect how little choice ultimately mattered.

Your OP makes an excellent point, however. I was going to replay ME3, since I have a playthrough in which every choice my Renegade Shepard made is the opposite of my Paragon Shepard.  THen I deleted and uninstalled all of my saves and games instead.  Who cares if Tali and Garrus are dead?  What did it matter if my Shepard gave David and Legion to Cerberus?  Did it even matter if I freed or destroyed the Rachni Queen?  Etc., etc. 

I understand the desire to appeal to players new to the series.  But for those of us who have invested hundreds of hours finalizing our Shepards, sweating over decisions, wondering and speculating how different the galaxy would be if Shepard helped Liara take down the Shadow Broker, or decided not to recruit Thane...it all ends up the same galaxy in the end. No choice mattered.  Our decisions were illusions provided to make the player beleive we were in control of our Shepards and their destinies.

I'm upset about the endings mainly because I worked my proverbial gaming butt off to achieve a completionist PT in both ME1 and 2.  The end reflected none of my Shepard's decisions.  I looked at 2/3 endings, and the only difference was the survival of EDI and the color of the explosions of the relays. In ME3, the entire journey leading up to the end, was no different than a renegade who made entirely different choices, or even my friends' PT who romanced/made different choices, etc. than my own Shepard.

Bioware initially drew me into gaming because of being able to choose within an epic-like story. So, yeah, I am a little upset, because there really was no point in me buying an xbox if they weren't going to make quality games after JE, ME1 and DA:O.  Other games are fun, but none will ever live up to the standard that got me into gaming in the first place.  What a waste of money.

[Siansonea]

Bleachrude wrote...

Fenrisfil wrote...

To do the game properly with all the choices causing major differences you would have to make the equivelent of 4 or 5 games when they made ME2 and about 40 full games by the time they did ME3. We're a long way from being able to have something like that.

In some cases I think they did well and dialogue/cosmetic changes are acceptably well done. But there are a few instances where they certainly could have done better. I can forgive Legion Mk2 because you can only get that from a "bad" ending from ME2. That's a result of past failure, not a indeterminate decision. The decisions such as the Rachni queen, saving the council and making Anderson councillor are big let downs. Sure the Rachni Queen and saving the council affects your potential war resources, but that's just a number.

This.

I think Bioware simply bit off more than it could chew...If you look at ME1 for example, the game plays out the exact same way no matter you're background except for one character specific questline...

For example, why couldn't we try to save the workd one by Saren at Virmire and thus not need the showdown with Wrex?

The Witcher2 has one choice that directly affects the 2nd act (yet even here, the two different 2nd acts come together at the beginning of act 3) but the smaller choices don't change the act the following act either way (it's interesting that CDProjet has been rather cagey as to whether or not save game is going to be important for Witcher 3)

But thats having just one choice but having 3 affect the game simultaneously?

That literally is 6 different possibilites you have to write for already...Throw in Wrex and the VS and now you're ALREADY at 10 permutations...and if you want it to be more "important" to the plot , that is, more than just dialogue differences, how exactly do you write this storyline?

How do you write it? How should I know? But if it's not possible to do, then don't promise something you can't deliver. If the game is going to be on rails, then just give the characters plot armor, like Liara and the VS, and they shouldn't trumpet player choice in their marketing.

Modifié par Siansonea II, 02 avril 2012 - 02:47 .

[kegNeggs]

Ah now thats a nice read, OP

sadly enough, all of it is true and its a real bummer. my guess once again is ( as ive stated many times) that the game tried to hard to be a standalone to really care for the choices.

a goddarn shame

[Fuzzfro]

I played mass effect 2 multiple times to get the perfect start to mass effect 3. I am disappointed that none of my decisions had any real impact.

Destroying the Genophage data combined with mordins death should of made the genophage impossible to cure.

Killing the Rachni Queen should have made her not appear at all

and how come even if you destroy the collector base they manage to still recover the wreckage of the human reaper.

[AmaraDark]

I think the main reason (and several people have brought this up) there's not more outcry about the lack of real impact for the major, major decisions your Shepard made, is because very few people have been able to stomach a second playthrough. I sure haven't - and I've got four more full complete ME1/ME2 Shepards I'd been wanting to port in. I just can't do it though.

So as a result, most people haven't really seen two or more play throughs for comparison.

I can understand not wanting/being able to or just being too lazy to give us really divergent paths and impact. However it would have been easily fixed (and I personally would have been satisfied) if there'd been a DA:O style epilogue at the end, that lays out or shows us the effects of your choices over the course of the saga on the major races and the galaxy.

BUT this ties back into why the ending feels like such a kick in the gut - besides the sheer plot holes, and questions it raises rather then answers, it in no way wraps up our saga.

Writing 101: Don't introduce radical new elements and a brand-new, never before seen antagonist in the last five minutes of your story.

But, back to the issue with the middle bit. So many little failings and shortcuts they took in the rest of the game could have been addressed by giving us a proper wrap up that showed us what happened to the major races/friends/galaxy as a result of our actions. For example:

"Wreav, with the genophage cured by Shepard and the Reaper war closing down, is already demanding expanded space for the Krogans and inciting anger between the different tribes of Krogan through his rule. He is viewed as a volatile element as leader of the Krogan and the tension generated by him means that the peace between them and the Taurian/Salarians/Asari is delicate, and many fear a new war might be brewing that no one can afford."

"With Urdnot Wrex surviving the campaign with Shepard, and the support of the shaman Eve and Urdnot Grunt, this brash leader has brought the entire Krogan race under his banner. To rebuild Tuchanka, and establish a better permanent relationship for the Krogan with the rest of the galaxy. Though not a diplomat by any stretch and often willing to butt heads agressively in negotations - whatever race they maybe -  his actions alongside Shepard to defend all life have earned him and the Krogan respect from the rest of the galaxy. The Krogan now have a future, and they do not wish to squander it."

TADA - very slapdash, I basically wrote this on the fly without editing. It's just one example of what could have been done. Even if I had achieved less then 100% and Shepard died as a result, if I had seen something like this play, maybe with some fotage from the game, I'd have been much happier because I know I -did- something.

Bioware knows how to do this, they did it in DA:O. They also gave us real multiple endings based on our actions in that game sooooo yeah - maybe it's been all Invasion of the Body Snatchers at Bioware?

This photo I've seen a few times visually sums up the problem as well.

[GiarcYekrub]

NOT Legion is one of my favorite characters

[res27772]

The first indicator to me that choices were ignored was actually right at the start of ME3 when you're forced back with the Alliance. The Shepard I'd used (for my first playthrough of ME3) had deliberately made 'choices' throughout ME1 & 2 that should've put her firmly in camp Cerberus for ME3, so imagine my disappointment when I find out that's not even an option.

After that I started looking at all the other choices I'd made, and like the OP says, most of the follow on consequences are pretty superficial, if they exist at all. So yeah, 'choice is an illusion' is a good destcription, and the last few mintues of the game prove it if nothing else does.

[Bleachrude]

Amaradark, that's simply a slideshow at the END of the game...That doesn't actually affect the plot in the game itself...which is what the OP is talking about..

For example, you list DA:O, so we'll use that...

Let's go with Orzammar first (good luck there on Nightmare difficulty) The choice of who to support for king in the storyline has absolutely NO effect on either the final battle or indeed, the rest of the game itself.

What we get is various slides AFTER the game itself but the actual ramifications of that decision don't affect the plotline of the game itself.

[varel1]

Rather like the OP, I had two Sheps, Paragon and Renegade, who had made different choices in the first two games, and I was extremely disappointed at lack of impact my choices had on the entire game.

My renegade Shep embraced Cerebrus and would never have turned the Normandy over to the Alliance, he would have gone pirate first. The OP has efficiently itemised my grievances, and I agree that "choice is an illusion" is an excellent description of the trilogy.

What a shame, as ME2 seemed to set the scene for ME3 to be a true classic.

[Siansonea]

I really do think that Wreav, Padok Wiks, Not Legion™, Imitation Rachni Queen™, and The Ghost Of Tali Who Speaks Through Daro'Xen™ very much cheapen the familiar characters. I mean, in retrospect, did any of Garrus' attempts to get the turians prepared for the Reaper invasion make a difference? Well, we now know that no, they didn't. I think that if Garrus was dead in your playthrough, it should have been a LOT harder to find out who the new Primarch was, because the communications infrastructure wasn't overhauled by Garrus' task force, and it should have been a lot harder to track down Victus. Also, with Garrus gone, it should have had an impact on Victus Jr.'s mission too, with the communication problem resulting in them failing completely, and Shepard finding Victus Jr. as the sole survivor of the mission and Shepard pretty much taking over the "Cerberus Bomb" mission alone, and that mission being harder to complete, again because the communications relays were unreliable. That would make Garrus' absence very much felt in a Garrus-free playthrough.

And I think that if Mordin was dead, then no matter what Padok Wiks did, the genophage couldn't be cured UNLESS you kept Maelon alive. And to cure the genophage, you would have to get Padok Wiks to work WITH Maelon, who sacrifices himself at the Shroud to atone for his work on Tuchanka. And in this scenario, you would also have to prevent Maelon from being killed outright by Eve and Wrex, but perhaps you couldn't stop Wreav from killing him, and to cure the genophage in this scenario you would have to kill Wreav, allowing Eve to become the new leader of the krogan, and perhaps Grunt's presence or absence could play a role too. Perhaps Grunt would be the only one who could keep Wreav from killing Maelon. Or something, these are just examples. In essence, the whole scenario should play out differently, and maybe in some scenarios you can sneak into the Shroud facility from another point, and avoid the Reaper entirely. After all, the Reaper was only on ONE SIDE of the Shroud tower. We couldn't go in the back way? What if Maelon knew a secret way in? That's what I mean by having things play out differently if people are deceased in your game.

With Tali, I think that the mission should be a lot harder than it is if she's out of the picture. I think Daro'Xen's advice should be a lot more reckless, putting your squad in a lot more danger and maybe resulting in the death or serious injury of one of your squadmates, picked at random. Maybe Daro'Xen's unwavering desire to re-enslave the geth causes her to take such foolish risks that she almost gets herself killed, but James throws himself in the way if he's on your squad, and gets seriously injured. Or if it's Ashley, she takes out the attacker, but Daro'Xen is seriously injured. Or if Kaidan or Liara is on your squad, they successfully defend Daro'Xen without her or themselves becoming injured. And if EDI is on your squad, I think the whole mission should play out a LOT differently, I think EDI should help Tali or Daro'Xen produce a better tactical plan, based on local access to the terminals, and maybe EDI could slow down the reaction time of all the geth you face.

With Legion, if you gave him to Cerberus or got him killed, then there should be a random geth in the Reaper signal booster. And that geth should not in any way be friendly toward Shepard, it should simply have to be killed. And siding with the geth shouldn't be an option, UNLESS you rewrote the heretics in ME2, and in that scenario, it should play out very differently. Perhaps there is another whole sequence you have to complete, as the armadas of the geth and the quarians are deadlocked because the Heretics managed to maintain the Reaper signal from another location, that Shepard then has to disable, and perhaps it is the same facility as the Geth Fighter Squadrons mission, but you don't have to go into the virtual world, you have to do something else, or if you do go into the virtual world, you interact with the geth in a different way, and the Reaper code has a different effect on the proceedings.

Basically, these are all rudimentary ideas, but I feel like BioWare saw through their telemetry that "most people saved Legion, Tali, etc." and decided to just do a cosmetic makeover of the existing characters for those few players who wanted to see the impact of their choices. I think that's lazy and cheap. Maybe my ideas aren't the answer, but the spirit of them is what's important, that if key people aren't around, then key events don't play out in the same way, the same sequence, and with the same basic animations. Some locations should be closed to you, based on who the players are, and others should open up.

As the game stands now, it really neuters Garrus, Tali, Legion and Mordin. If they are dead, you can still accomplish your goals, you just have to jump through a few more hoops. And in the case of Legion, you don't even have to do that. It really cheapens the characters in my opinion, even if in your playthrough you never allow them to die.

[ed87]

Our choices were overruled by bad writing. Did you kill the Rachni or save them?? Doesnt matter because they come back regardless!

Modifié par ed87, 02 avril 2012 - 04:10 .

[rvgifford]

I agree with you on all of it, OP. However, I was happy with the illusion if it hadn't been shattered by a crap ending that made the illusion so . . . obvious.

The first place the illusion shattered was the ending. Then, without the rose tinted glasses I wore when playing the ME series, I saw ME3 for what it was, nowhere near as good as its predecessors and more importantly, it made ME1 and ME2 lesser because it, in effect, was the culmination of those choices. ME3 was what decided your choices in ME1 and ME2 didn't matter and were just illusion.

Anyway, ignorance is bliss, and I wish I could go back and never complete ME3. I wish I still has the illusion. Bioware killed Santa Claus and Christmas . . . err . . Shepherd and Mass Effect.

[Siansonea]

I find Grunt and Miranda especially galling, now that I've finished my psycho soldier playthrough and played some more of my Boy Scout Vanguard playthrough. Miranda's presence means NOTHING in the game. You can still save Oriana and you can still kill Henry Lawson if Miranda's out of the picture. And miraculously, all those messages on the terminals, all the attempts to get the word out about Sanctuary are done in the exact same way by Oriana Lawson. It's like Miranda is speaking through her from the grave.

And Grunt? Still gets assigned to Aralakh company, whether by Wrex or by Wreav. Tell me that's not absurd.

[Lyrandori]

If ME3 fully covered and fleshed out in great details all the possible and feasible variables coming from our ME1 and ME2's decisions then they would have needed months just to complete a few of them. It might have taken them more than five or six years to perhaps manage to do half of them. I remember when they said that there was a total of around a thousand variables in ME3, as results of ME1 + ME2 decisions. If that was true on paper, it certainly did not end up in the game. How many variables were "covered" (as little as it was) in ME3? Maybe 100? 200? The whole genophage sub-plot might have needed almost a full game on its own to cover all possible details.

The trilogy is very figurative overall, and players have to rely on a lot of head-canon, assumptions, conjuncture, speculation and a great dose of suspension of disbelief to connect the dots and fill up the holes, and the canyons in some cases. Simply put, ME3's real potential in scale was too much for anyone out there even if BioWare had been granted a decade to complete it, it still wouldn't have been enough. They had to compress everything they could and only cover the "essential" parts, even if what they did cover ended up mostly as cosmetic changes.

In the end, however, no one else in the video gaming industry has ever managed to do a trilogy like Mass Effect, and arguably enough once DA3 will be released the same will be said about that trilogy despite the shortcomings and mishaps.

Modifié par Lyrandori, 03 avril 2012 - 06:57 .