59 réponses à ce sujet

[Chewin]

Interviewer: What was up with the Rachni story? Why did we get railroded?

Patrick Weekes: Welcome to game development. In some games (Alpha Protocol) they make a bold choice where some decisions can knock entire missions out of the story. At BioWare, we never want people to be locked out of content due to a decision several games ago. We just didn't have the resources to do an alternate for the Rachni mission, so we decided that the Rachni mission could occur whether or not players saved the Queen.

Source. NOTE: NOT a direct quote, nor an official statement.

This was what interested me the most in the 'interview' a fan had with Patrick Weekes during Pax East. As stated above, Weekes says that BW doesn't want to restrict players -- in this case, a certain mission -- no matter what choice you made in the previous instalment(s). It should be noted however, that Weekes also states that they didn't have the "resources to do an alternate for the Rachni mission", but either way, it still shows the construction on how BW views choices and consequences in their games, and ultimately on how they interpret them, if you take Weekes statement for granted.

But whether that statement is true or not, I ask simply, do you favour these kinds of occurrences? E.g. Should X missions be restricted if option Y was not chosen during Z event(s)? Or is it better that players shouldn't be restricted, from a personal / social point of view?

Modifié par Chewin3, 10 avril 2012 - 06:24 .

[Legion_Geth]

Personally, decisions made by BW like these pisses me of a little. They are actually called choices and consequences for a reason, decisions that has to have a different impact. Because seriously, what's the point in having them if they matter so little?

[Fenris_13]

Chewin3 wrote...
But whether that statement is true or not, I ask simply, do you favour these kinds of occurrences? E.g. Should X missions be restricted if option Y was not chosen during Z event(s)? Or is it better that players shouldn't be restricted, from a personal / social point of view?

Well I think choices shoul matter, but looking from a social viewpoint, I can see why BW has a "policy" like this one. They simply don't want to restrict people from missions, missions they spend time and money doing. Can't really blame them, but personally, I would like to have them matter significantly.

[EHondaMashButton]

Whether or not you believe the quote, its obvious this is how Bioware develops its games. Part of it is resource constraints, part of it is our standards don't demand more, and part of it is coddling us.

They design ME first and foremost for the 360. There's simply not enough space on a xbox 360 disk to create entirely different set of missions. There's not enough space for 2 main VA's, plus the voices for 6-8 other VA's. Plus the extra work/time/$ it takes to create the art, storyboard, record, and program that stuff, when they could just ship the game in 2 years and we'll buy it as DLC anyway.

Look at how people rage when Renegade/Paragon don't get "equal" treatment. If Renegades didn't have a Rachni Queen or Genophage mission, they'd whine. If Paragons didn't have indoctrinated Kai Leng/Cerberus troops/ Dr. EVA because they destroyed the base, they'd whine. The funny thing is, the game would have much more replay value if it had real consequences and branching like alpha protocol or the witcher instead of plot "skin swaps."  Bioware would have to add alternate missions if that were the general expectation.

Modifié par EHondaMashButton, 10 avril 2012 - 06:45 .

[Aargh12]

And that's why I prefer Alpha Protocol to Mass Effect - choices really do matter there. And that's why AP has a bigger replay value than most Bioware games released recently.
Same goes for Deus Ex: HR.

[Dave of Canada]

Dismissing one's choice as irrelevant for the sake of content is about as insulting as not mentioning their decisions at all (ME2), however they certainly rubbed salt into the wound when they continued to advertise how great and important our decisions were and how they'd impact a lot of things including scenes from the ending.

[zeypher]

there is a reason many people liked witcher 2. A choice gives you a complete different act. Meaning a person has to replay it to see the other side

[Fiery Knight]

I can understand BW viewpoint (I believe) but I still think they should have more meaning a pay more to the plot, instead of simply ending up with extra war assets = XP.

[Chewin]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Dismissing one's choice as irrelevant for the sake of content is about as insulting as not mentioning their decisions at all (ME2), however they certainly rubbed salt into the wound when they continued to advertise how great and important our decisions were and how they'd impact a lot of things including scenes from the ending.

Truth be told, 'promises' made by the devs had the most impact on me which made me loathe the choices and its consequences.

Simply increasing my expectations with hollow words.

[ZombifiedJake]

They should have seen this coming from the very start by taking on a choice driven series like this.

[Csec_2]

EHondaMashButton wrote...

Whether or not you believe the quote, its obvious this is how Bioware develops its games. Part of it is resource constraints, part of it is our standards don't demand more, and part of it is coddling us.

They design ME first and foremost for the 360. There's simply not enough space on a xbox 360 disk to create entirely different set of missions. There's not enough space for 2 main VA's, plus the voices for 6-8 other VA's. Plus the extra work/time/$ it takes to create the art, storyboard, record, and program that stuff, when they could just ship the game in 2 years and we'll buy it as DLC anyway.

Look at how people rage when Renegade/Paragon don't get "equal" treatment. If Renegades didn't have a Rachni Queen or Genophage mission, they'd whine. If Paragons didn't have indoctrinated Kai Leng/Cerberus troops/ Dr. EVA because they destroyed the base, they'd whine. The funny thing is, the game would have much more replay value if it had real consequences and branching like alpha protocol or the witcher instead of plot "skin swaps."  Bioware would have to add alternate missions if that were the general expectation.

Yeah, it is a bit more complicated than simply said, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's not possible by BW to achieve something like real consequences in their games.

[xsdob]

I like the fact that a mission won't get cut off just because I didn't pick that choice, it still played out differently than if I had picked the other choice. Character's died in mass effect 3 if they weren't loyal to you and survived the collector base, or weren't there at all if they had died, and it was actually really rare to get a character filling in for the other characters role, usually only for main plot quest.

I played the games for the choices, but also for shaping the character I played. Really, I didn't expect nearly as much of the choices I made to actually carry over and change the narrative, but it did, even if in tiny ways those changes were more than any other game did. Besides, alpha protocol sucks in terms of the imbalance in the gamplay aspect of the game, it sacrifices fun and enjoyability for the sake of consequences and choices.

But that's my opinion as someone who has always viewed biowares games as innovating the mixed genre game type, showing that you can have a good rpg or a great story and still have good gameplay to back it up.

Modifié par xsdob, 10 avril 2012 - 07:34 .

[Dave of Canada]

xsdob wrote...

Besides, alpha protocol sucks in terms of the imbalance in the gamplay aspect of the game, it sacrifices fun and enjoyability for the sake of consequences and choices.

Alpha Protocol's gameplay has little to do with it's choices and consequences. Writing and gameplay are two entirely different beasts.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 10 avril 2012 - 07:35 .

[InvincibleHero]

On one hand it would be great for a person like me that would replay multiple times to see the new content if the game was good enough. On the other it can make for sparse gameplay as the default game might have way less content and you don't make a good impression on new users.

[Veovim]

It is entirely plausible that some Rachni survived the events of ME1 even if they queen didn't, and ME2 established via the Collectors that the Reapers have experience with genetic re-purposing shenanigans, so I don't have a problem with the way the story plays out. What I do have a problem with is that the paragon option (saving the queen twice) is clearly better than the renegade option (killing both the queen and the breeder). An obvious solution would be to not get the Aralakh Company asset at all if you sacrifice them, rather than reducing it by a fixed number. That way, you get 100 assets for paragon or up to 75 assets for renegade (assuming you have a loyal Grunt), rather than 150 assets for paragon vs 75 for renegade. Yes, it's still slightly less, but a smaller difference. To make it completely even, Grunt's survival could also be made dependent on sacrificing the queen/breeder, rather than just on loyalty.

[xsdob]

Dave of Canada wrote...

xsdob wrote...

Besides, alpha protocol sucks in terms of the imbalance in the gamplay aspect of the game, it sacrifices fun and enjoyability for the sake of consequences and choices.

Alpha Protocol's gameplay has little to do with it's choices and consequences. Writing and gameplay are two entirely different beasts.

But you need to strike an even ballance between the two forces to reach some kind of equilibrium.

They put a lot of resources into the story and the narrative, that's awesome, but than they sorta half assed the parts in between those story sequences, which is a bad idea since you need to get through those segments in order to actually reach the next great story sequence.

Alpha protocol's really bad gameplay did the same thing mass effect did for me, turned me off from wanting to play ti anymore because it wasn't fun, it was a indurance test to get to the next part of the game. Made me avoid mass effect for 3 years, all the way till I needed a new xbox 360, I had some extra cash, and my brother wanted to give the game a shot just for the heck of it. So maybe since it's been almost 2 years, maybe I'll pick alpha protocol up for a rental and try and get through the game again.

Modifié par xsdob, 10 avril 2012 - 07:50 .

[Lady Amell]

InvincibleHero wrote...

On one hand it would be great for a person like me that would replay multiple times to see the new content if the game was good enough. On the other it can make for sparse gameplay as the default game might have way less content and you don't make a good impression on new users.

I agree on this.

It's not easy to get a decent balance on both accounts, and there are lots of people who only plays games once.

[Swordfishtrombone]

I for one would rather have the content cut out for one choise, if there isn't the time and resources to do more than one quest. I would have preferred there to be no mention of the Rachni, if you killed the queen, rather than have the rachni quest akwardly excused into being, when you killed the queen.

It's not optimal, but it's better than not having your earlier choises matter.

BG2 did this, as I remember - you had two ways of getting to the underdark, and one choise led to an intervening quest, while the other skipped right over that.

Of course, the best thing would be to have an alternate quest, and wasn't the reason why Bioware is in the arms of EA these days that they had the promise of the resources of a big company? That's why the "not possible" excuse doesn't quite hold water.

I would have liked to see, for example, if the rachni queen was killed, the reapers use the Yagh the same way - a quest involving them, and a reapified version of the species introduced into future battles instead of the rachni derived reaper forms.

That WOULD have taken more resources, but isn't that why Bioware is married to a big company like EA? If Bioware isn't getting the promised benefit from EA, they should leave EA. And if they contractually cannot do so, the employees should quit, and found another company that carries on the legacy of Bioware.

[AkiKishi]

I kind of get where he is coming from you want people to see most of what you do on the first run. On the other hand for hardcore gamers relish the likes of AP where you do have to measure your choices and replay the game to get the alternatives.

Bioware wants to be mass market. That's something you should keep in mind.

[AlanC9]

Of course, the best thing would be to have an alternate quest, and wasn't the reason why Bioware is in the arms of EA these days that they had the promise of the resources of a big company? That's why the "not possible" excuse doesn't quite hold water.

That doesn't quite follow. However many resources you have, you still have to make the decision whether to trade off game length for breadth. I suppose at some very large level of resources the game might be "long enough" and so change the calculation, though. Was ME3 at that point?

I would have liked to see, for example, if the rachni queen was killed, the reapers use the Yagh the same way - a quest involving them, and a reapified version of the species introduced into future battles instead of the rachni derived reaper forms.

That WOULD have taken more resources, but isn't that why Bioware is married to a big company like EA? If Bioware isn't getting the promised benefit from EA, they should leave EA. And if they contractually cannot do so, the employees should quit, and found another company that carries on the legacy of Bioware.

This is.....a bit silly. Having access to EA's resources doesn't give Bio a license to spend money without regard to ROI. A Bioware without EA's resources would have made an even cheaper version of ME3.

Which doesn't necessarily mean shorter. More likely they'd cut corners in other areas. Worse voice acting, worse cinematics, worse graphics, less balanced gameplay.

Modifié par AlanC9, 10 avril 2012 - 08:20 .

[blmlozz]

Weeks direct statement on this issue highlighted ME’s general problem; that they went in promising direct change and inferred consequences for actions taken. What we received instead surmounted to different dialog choices and paragon/renegade actions for the same event which leads to the same thing essentially; war assets. War assets have ruined this series imo. The theory is on the surface a good one, that all the ‘tiny’ mistakes or ‘good’ choices add up for the greater good or bad. The reality is however, that the real world doesn’t work that way.

When you lose 1/3 of the third fleet because you saved the council and that ‘effect’ boils down to a reduced numerical value in a game where there’s more ‘assets’ than are required anyway(or you could play MP.. that’s a whole different ****storm), it renders the matter pointless.

In other words, when choice is reduced to a points system and that points system itself is flawd, all the 'choices' become irrelevent for the sake of making sure everyone can play the same game. It shouldn't have been that way.

The entire game and their 'consequences' are boarderline Linear. That's is problem.

I'm unsure if I'm willing to call BioWare completly at fault here. Content in games is a fraction of what it once was, and I'm unsure how you handle condensing 100+ hours of previous content and choices into a single 40hour RPG/shooter with the culmination of that condensing into a 5minuite cutscene *and* try to still make it playable for new-comers to the series.

That last part is what killed it imo, if ME3 were a game that absolutely HAD to have imported content, and not one that say, could also stand on it's own I bet it would have been everything we wanted it to be.

Modifié par blmlozz, 10 avril 2012 - 08:29 .

[SalsaDMA]

Appearantly their philosophy changed since ME1. Who would have thought... (note the hint of sarcasm)

I remember being thrilled in ME1 when I suddenly was asked by Hacket to do a mission on my Renegade playthrough I hadn't gotten on my paragon playthrough. It made the world seem a tad more responsive.

Rather than cut out that kind of thing completely, I had hoped they would eventually expand on it, in the series, with the final part being the logical area to do these kind of thigns. But alas. It seemed ME3 ended up being just another game during development, rather than the unique endeavour they had told us they wanted to try with the series.

And no, just being able to import saves from a previous title isn't very unique. I've been able to do that since my c64.

[Frailstrength]

It's interesting that people want to immediately attack the motives of a company that has built some very powerful experiences over the last fifteen years. Personally, the genetic manipulation explanation works perfectly fine in a universe where the main character can literally be resurrected after burning up in the atmosphere of a planet. I mean, isn't is double minded to be annoyed with the Rachni solution and not Commander Shepard's "miraculous" rebuilding?

Secondly, while the genetic repurposing works, I must admit I didn't like it as much as if the rachni were simply not in the game at all. However, the flipside is that then there would be no ravagers, and replacing them in game with brutes or something that already exists is a possible solution but in the end I think would hurt the great feel of variety. People are so cynical these days it's kind of depressing. Perhaps you should give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they really thought this is the best solution to their problem.

[SalsaDMA]

Frailstrength wrote...

It's interesting that people want to immediately attack the motives of a company that has built some very powerful experiences over the last fifteen years.

Because the company changed?

It's pretty clear the design philosophy of their games have changed when you look at it objectively from a distance.

Give it a few more years, and they're producing generic action games.

[fealhach]

I expected big things from the Rachni after meeting the human liaison on the Citadel in ME2.

I was less than impressed meeting what was left of them in ME3: the Reapers got deadly weapon platforms, we got a few lousy EMS points. This was one of the more glaring examples that we were being presented with the illusion of free choice.

I would have preferred losing some missions based on previous decisions to promote replay.